Why Palin must not be elected... [Archive]

usmc1

09-09-2008, 02:31 PM

By all rights I should be dead, and so should John McCain. Each of us has lived at least a decade longer than the actuarial tables projected for our sex, race, and years of birth as projected at our time of birth. He’s older than I, by some time, but those tables were there, for both of us. And both of us have lived fairly hard—his prison camp experience and bouts with cancer, and my multiple high-speed car crashes, motorcycle lay downs, bar fights, Marine Corps years, and just general ability and propensity to raise hell since I hit fourteen have taken a toll.

My point with all that is this: neither of us, McCain nor I, have any business investing in any long term projects requiring our continued presence and direct involvement. If we don’t die, at some point we’re going to have to take off our packs and blow a bit. Now, don’t get me wrong, I do think that healthy guys our ages (me more than him, since I'm younger) need to take on what we feel we can take on. But, by the same token, the reality is that our minds, and bodies, could go south on us a lot quicker than when we were fifty-something. And, again, neither of us are poster boys for good clean living. Oh yeah...the point! Right. In my case, life would go on, and with the exception of my absence, things would be as they were all along—not so with McCain, Palin would be handed the proverbial "football."

That is the point, very specifically. Do we want Sarah Palin taking the 2:00 AM phone call with her hand on the switch? Not me. I really don't, and for good reason, which I'll come to shortly.

Please let’s just put aside the fact that she is a flippant, smartass, nitwit that reminds me of the lady who insists on checking my ID at the Quickee Mart (OK, I made that up). Really, she just reminds me of the lady that ran the school office in Junior High. Let’s put that aside—anyway, that woman got her payback when coach ran off with the librarian.

And let’s put aside the fact that she kited her expense reports. Hell, who hasn’t done that, at least to the extent of rounding up? Or maybe taken a pencil home, or some printing paper for a “work project”? And we can overlook her using the power of her office to sack some slob that wouldn’t get with the program in getting rid of her churlish brother-in-law. I mean after all, what good is power if you don’t flex out and use it from time-to-time?

And, really, we need to overlook her hard-shell, holy-roller approach to religion. Isn’t the ocean deep, and aren’t there many tributaries leading to it? If she thinks praying will “remove gayness”, that’s fine. It’s just stupidity on her part, and it’s not as though we never had stupidity in high office before. Some would tell you it is a prerequisite.

No, none of that, while sort of eye-raising, scares me about her having her hands on that proverbial football. What does give my heart a bit of a flutter, and causes my sphincter to tighten, are her utterances to the effect that the invasion and interminable occupation of Iraq is God’s work. And, even here, I’m putting aside the Christian view of what constitutes a “just war”. Again, ignorance accounts for her not knowing that.

But, the notion, that any sane person would think that what has happened in Iraq is part of a “mission from God” really should be sufficient to give one considerable pause. And, if you can, I can't. put aside the effect that will have on our moderate Arab allies, already struggling to keep a lid on restive populations concerned with our presence in the region.

That is a pretty significant signal that it just might not be the world’s best interest to hand-off the proverbial "football" to such a lunatic. And face it, that would be more likely to happen than not, if McCain were to be elected. I just don’t care to take the risk, the actuarial odds aren’t good on that one.

And having gotten this far, I'm really not expecting to cash in anytime soon. I just need to some time, in the next 5-years or so, to take off my pack, unsling my rifle and sit and blow a bit. So, I don't want some smartass, flippant, nitwit, expense account abusing, power-mad person that reminds of my Junior High School office lady getting my butt blown up before that happens.

brazhunter

09-09-2008, 04:29 PM

Is your head going to explode like on that movie Scanners when McCain gets elected? :-)

usmc1

09-09-2008, 04:55 PM

Is your head going to explode like on that movie Scanners when McCain gets elected? :-)

In case of that unlikely event, I'll buy some duct tape.

Journeyman

09-09-2008, 05:18 PM

Bravo.

...And the YouTube video of the church where she was speaking did it for me. I hope the media exposes her ultra right religious leanings to the fullest extent: shouldn't that scare the daylights out of the bulk of sane Americans, regardless of political affiliation?

(snip) But, the notion, that any sane person would think that what has happened in Iraq is part of a “mission from God” really should be sufficient to give one considerable pause. And, if you can, I can't. put aside the effect that will have on our moderate Arab allies, already struggling to keep a lid on restive populations concerned with our presence in the region.

That is a pretty significant signal that it just might not be the world’s best interest to hand-off the proverbial "football" to such a lunatic. And face it, that would be more likely to happen than not, if McCain were to be elected. I just don’t care to take the risk, the actuarial odds aren’t good on that one.

(snip)

Boreas

09-09-2008, 07:03 PM

Naturist Mark

09-09-2008, 07:30 PM

Sanslines

09-09-2008, 07:58 PM

"I didn't run because I was a woman but I was very conscious of the fact that my campaign meant a lot to so many, and I appreciate that," she said yesterday.

When she was running she certainly capitalized on the fact that she was a woman. Many women supported her just because she was a woman and wanted to see a woman in the White House. If she plays the 'woman' card it will backfire and create even bigger support for Palin. If she is smart, she will stay away from the gender issue and stick to policy differences.

Sanslines

09-09-2008, 08:03 PM

</EMBED>
Is anyone keeping a list of Palin lies?
-Mark

No, the moderates and independents are too busy focusing upon the real issues to be bothered with allegations and biased accusations against any politician. All politicians will do whatever they need to in order to get elected. Why should Palin be singled out or be any different.

As for per diem, anyone who will bother to read the entire story behind the per diem issue to get all of the facts will realize that Palin's expenses were actually much less then her predecessor and were considered to be overall within reason. It's a non issue that was dredged up by the opposition party political die hards.

Sanslines

09-09-2008, 08:20 PM

</EMBED>

5) She has fought against high taxes. - in fact she raised taxes. Alaska has the highest per capita taxes of any state in the USA - but most of them are derived from the oil industry and are thus paid indirectly by the rest of us.

-Mark

COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY FALSE STATEMENT! Alaska does NOT have the highest total per capita tax burden. New York has that distinction. However, Alaska has the highest per capita EXPENDITURE which means that Alaska spends more per person that any other state. Such blatently false information is just another clear example of how low the opposition die hards will sink to smear a candidate. In this case it is (oh heaven forbid!) the dems. It just goes to show that dems are no better then repubs when it comes to spreading smears and false information. Thanks to Mark for indirectly pointing this out.

ANALYSIS FINDS NEW YORK'S PER-CAPITA TAX BURDEN HIGHEST IN THE NATION

ALBANY—New York State’s per capita state and local tax burden in 2005 was the highest in the nation, according to a new analysis by the Public Policy Institute.
The Institute analyzed state and local finance data provided by the Census Bureau. The numbers, which covered the 2004-2005 fiscal year, showed that New York’s per-capita state and local tax burden was the highest in the nation at $5,770 – 56 percent above the national average of $3,699 and 7 percent above the next highest per capita burden in Connecticut.
The state’s per-capita property tax burden was the fourth highest in the nation at $1,774 – 57 percent above the national average. The highest per-capita property tax burden belonged to New Jersey.
New York’s per-capita debt burden was third highest in the nation at $12,107, an increase of 6 percent over the 2003-2004 per-capita total and 74 percent above the 2004-2005 national average.
The Institute also found that New York’s per-capita spending was the second highest in the nation at $11,841. That amount was 48 percent above the national average of $8,003.
The Census data analyzed by the Institute are available at www.census.gov/govs/www/estimate05.html (http://www.census.gov/govs/www/estimate05.html).
<TABLE cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=1 align=center border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width=62 height=55>
Rank
</TD><TD width=99>
State
</TD><TD width=70>
Total per-capita tax burden
</TD><TD width=65>
Rank, property tax burden
</TD><TD width=67>
Per-capita property tax burden
</TD><TD width=49>
Rank, debt
</TD><TD width=59>
Per-capita debt
</TD><TD width=96>
Rank, total per-capita expenditures
</TD><TD width=97>
Total per-capita expenditures
</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#ffffcc><TD>
1
</TD><TD>
NEW YORK
</TD><TD>
$5,770
</TD><TD>
4
</TD><TD>
$1,774
</TD><TD>
3
</TD><TD>
$12,107
</TD><TD>
2
</TD><TD>
$11,841
</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#cccccc><TD>
2
</TD><TD>
Connecticut
</TD><TD>
$5,383
</TD><TD>
2
</TD><TD>
$2,038
</TD><TD>
4
</TD><TD>
$8,845
</TD><TD>
10
</TD><TD>
$8,526
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
3
</TD><TD>
Wyoming
</TD><TD>
$5,246
</TD><TD>
5
</TD><TD>
$1,749
</TD><TD>
48
</TD><TD>
$3,729
</TD><TD>
3
</TD><TD>
$11,078
</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#cccccc><TD>
4
</TD><TD>
New Jersey
</TD><TD>
$4,882
</TD><TD>
1
</TD><TD>
$2,202
</TD><TD>
7
</TD><TD>
$8,361
</TD><TD>
8
</TD><TD>
$8,885
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
5
</TD><TD>
Massachusetts
</TD><TD>
$4,494
</TD><TD>
9
</TD><TD>
$1,616
</TD><TD>
2
</TD><TD>
$12,188
</TD><TD>
5
</TD><TD>
$9,227
</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#cccccc><TD>
6
</TD><TD>
Alaska
</TD><TD>
$4,441
</TD><TD>
12
</TD><TD>
$1,345
</TD><TD>
1
</TD><TD>
$13,197
</TD><TD>
1
</TD><TD>
$15,108
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
7
</TD><TD>
Hawaii
</TD><TD>
$4,332
</TD><TD>
42
</TD><TD>
$642
</TD><TD>
14
</TD><TD>
$7,287
</TD><TD>
13
</TD><TD>
$8,261
</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#cccccc><TD>
8
</TD><TD>
Maryland
</TD><TD>
$4,267
</TD><TD>
27
</TD><TD>
$999
</TD><TD>
36
</TD><TD>
$4,992
</TD><TD>
26
</TD><TD>
$7,370
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
9
</TD><TD>
Rhode Island
</TD><TD>
$4,181
</TD><TD>
7
</TD><TD>
$1,691
</TD><TD>
10
</TD><TD>
$8,083
</TD><TD>
9
</TD><TD>
$8,716
</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#cccccc><TD>
10
</TD><TD>
Vermont
</TD><TD>
$4,133
</TD><TD>
6
</TD><TD>
$1,695
</TD><TD>
27
</TD><TD>
$5,843
</TD><TD>
12
</TD><TD>
$8,313
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
11
</TD><TD>
Minnesota
</TD><TD>
$4,083
</TD><TD>
26
</TD><TD>
$1,023
</TD><TD>
18
</TD><TD>
$7,065
</TD><TD>
11
</TD><TD>
$8,484
</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#cccccc><TD>
12
</TD><TD>
California
</TD><TD>
$4,058
</TD><TD>
31
</TD><TD>
$943
</TD><TD>
11
</TD><TD>
$7,852
</TD><TD>
4
</TD><TD>
$9,507
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
13
</TD><TD>
Maine
</TD><TD>
$3,950
</TD><TD>
8
</TD><TD>
$1,628
</TD><TD>
34
</TD><TD>
$5,268
</TD><TD>
21
</TD><TD>
$7,735
</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#cccccc><TD>
14
</TD><TD>
Delaware
</TD><TD>
$3,885
</TD><TD>
43
</TD><TD>
$576
</TD><TD>
13
</TD><TD>
$7,382
</TD><TD>
6
</TD><TD>
$8,978
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
15
</TD><TD>
Wisconsin
</TD><TD>
$3,866
</TD><TD>
11
</TD><TD>
$1,408
</TD><TD>
21
</TD><TD>
$6,670
</TD><TD>
19
</TD><TD>
$7,794
</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#cccccc><TD>
16
</TD><TD>
Illinois
</TD><TD>
$3,850
</TD><TD>
10
</TD><TD>
$1,464
</TD><TD>
8
</TD><TD>
$8,124
</TD><TD>
22
</TD><TD>
$7,679
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
17
</TD><TD>
Nevada
</TD><TD>
$3,745
</TD><TD>
30
</TD><TD>
$961
</TD><TD>
12
</TD><TD>
$7,659
</TD><TD>
30
</TD><TD>
$7,207
</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#cccccc><TD>
18
</TD><TD>
Nebraska
</TD><TD>
$3,745
</TD><TD>
16
</TD><TD>
$1,195
</TD><TD>
40
</TD><TD>
$4,865
</TD><TD>
14
</TD><TD>
$8,112
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
19
</TD><TD>
Pennsylvania
</TD><TD>
$3,702
</TD><TD>
21
</TD><TD>
$1,077
</TD><TD>
9
</TD><TD>
$8,093
</TD><TD>
15
</TD><TD>
$8,080
</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#cccccc><TD>
20
</TD><TD>
Virginia
</TD><TD>
$3,655
</TD><TD>
20
</TD><TD>
$1,109
</TD><TD>
26
</TD><TD>
$5,885
</TD><TD>
38
</TD><TD>
$6,818
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
21
</TD><TD>
Washington
</TD><TD>
$3,654
</TD><TD>
24
</TD><TD>
$1,056
</TD><TD>
5
</TD><TD>
$8,437
</TD><TD>
7
</TD><TD>
$8,940
</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#cccccc><TD>
22
</TD><TD>
Ohio
</TD><TD>
$3,639
</TD><TD>
25
</TD><TD>
$1,044
</TD><TD>
33
</TD><TD>
$5,290
</TD><TD>
17
</TD><TD>
$8,019
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
23
</TD><TD>
Michigan
</TD><TD>
$3,487
</TD><TD>
14
</TD><TD>
$1,276
</TD><TD>
20
</TD><TD>
$6,800
</TD><TD>
23
</TD><TD>
$7,562
</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#cccccc><TD>
24
</TD><TD>
Kansas
</TD><TD>
$3,420
</TD><TD>
18
</TD><TD>
$1,126
</TD><TD>
23
</TD><TD>
$6,395
</TD><TD>
35
</TD><TD>
$6,885
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
25
</TD><TD>
Indiana
</TD><TD>
$3,402
</TD><TD>
15
</TD><TD>
$1,218
</TD><TD>
39
</TD><TD>
$4,867
</TD><TD>
40
</TD><TD>
$6,712
</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#cccccc><TD>
26
</TD><TD>
Florida
</TD><TD>
$3,365
</TD><TD>
17
</TD><TD>
$1,146
</TD><TD>
24
</TD><TD>
$6,223
</TD><TD>
27
</TD><TD>
$7,328
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
27
</TD><TD>
Colorado
</TD><TD>
$3,361
</TD><TD>
23
</TD><TD>
$1,059
</TD><TD>
6
</TD><TD>
$8,383
</TD><TD>
25
</TD><TD>
$7,523
</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#cccccc><TD>
28
</TD><TD>
North Dakota
</TD><TD>
$3,332
</TD><TD>
29
</TD><TD>
$974
</TD><TD>
35
</TD><TD>
$5,205
</TD><TD>
24
</TD><TD>
$7,533
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
29
</TD><TD>
New Hampshire
</TD><TD>
$3,298
</TD><TD>
3
</TD><TD>
$2,023
</TD><TD>
17
</TD><TD>
$7,094
</TD><TD>
42
</TD><TD>
$6,612
</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#cccccc><TD>
30
</TD><TD>
Iowa
</TD><TD>
$3,272
</TD><TD>
19
</TD><TD>
$1,113
</TD><TD>
47
</TD><TD>
$3,927
</TD><TD>
28
</TD><TD>
$7,326
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
31
</TD><TD>
Louisiana
</TD><TD>
$3,162
</TD><TD>
46
</TD><TD>
$537
</TD><TD>
29
</TD><TD>
$5,472
</TD><TD>
31
</TD><TD>
$7,200
</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#cccccc><TD>
32
</TD><TD>
New Mexico
</TD><TD>
$3,147
</TD><TD>
48
</TD><TD>
$448
</TD><TD>
31
</TD><TD>
$5,416
</TD><TD>
16
</TD><TD>
$8,075
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
33
</TD><TD>
North Carolina
</TD><TD>
$3,145
</TD><TD>
38
</TD><TD>
$743
</TD><TD>
41
</TD><TD>
$4,711
</TD><TD>
33
</TD><TD>
$6,997
</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#cccccc><TD>
34
</TD><TD>
Arizona
</TD><TD>
$3,086
</TD><TD>
35
</TD><TD>
$863
</TD><TD>
28
</TD><TD>
$5,528
</TD><TD>
43
</TD><TD>
$6,610
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
35
</TD><TD>
West Virginia
</TD><TD>
$3,055
</TD><TD>
44
</TD><TD>
$555
</TD><TD>
42
</TD><TD>
$4,642
</TD><TD>
39
</TD><TD>
$6,752
</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#cccccc><TD>
36
</TD><TD>
Oregon
</TD><TD>
$3,050
</TD><TD>
28
</TD><TD>
$979
</TD><TD>
16
</TD><TD>
$7,101
</TD><TD>
18
</TD><TD>
$7,988
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
37
</TD><TD>
Georgia
</TD><TD>
$3,030
</TD><TD>
33
</TD><TD>
$905
</TD><TD>
44
</TD><TD>
$4,179
</TD><TD>
44
</TD><TD>
$6,492
</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#cccccc><TD>
38
</TD><TD>
Texas
</TD><TD>
$3,024
</TD><TD>
13
</TD><TD>
$1,324
</TD><TD>
22
</TD><TD>
$6,588
</TD><TD>
41
</TD><TD>
$6,647
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
39
</TD><TD>
Missouri
</TD><TD>
$2,995
</TD><TD>
36
</TD><TD>
$810
</TD><TD>
32
</TD><TD>
$5,402
</TD><TD>
46
</TD><TD>
$6,411
</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#cccccc><TD>
40
</TD><TD>
Utah
</TD><TD>
$2,958
</TD><TD>
39
</TD><TD>
$726
</TD><TD>
25
</TD><TD>
$6,005
</TD><TD>
34
</TD><TD>
$6,993
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
41
</TD><TD>
Kentucky
</TD><TD>
$2,938
</TD><TD>
45
</TD><TD>
$538
</TD><TD>
15
</TD><TD>
$7,236
</TD><TD>
45
</TD><TD>
$6,461
</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#cccccc><TD>
42
</TD><TD>
Idaho
</TD><TD>
$2,927
</TD><TD>
37
</TD><TD>
$807
</TD><TD>
50
</TD><TD>
$2,784
</TD><TD>
48
</TD><TD>
$6,234
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
43
</TD><TD>
Montana
</TD><TD>
$2,910
</TD><TD>
22
</TD><TD>
$1,066
</TD><TD>
30
</TD><TD>
$5,448
</TD><TD>
37
</TD><TD>
$6,848
</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#cccccc><TD>
44
</TD><TD>
Arkansas
</TD><TD>
$2,898
</TD><TD>
49
</TD><TD>
$422
</TD><TD>
46
</TD><TD>
$4,031
</TD><TD>
49
</TD><TD>
$6,208
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
45
</TD><TD>
Oklahoma
</TD><TD>
$2,839
</TD><TD>
47
</TD><TD>
$484
</TD><TD>
45
</TD><TD>
$4,062
</TD><TD>
50
</TD><TD>
$6,202
</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#cccccc><TD>
46
</TD><TD>
South Carolina
</TD><TD>
$2,773
</TD><TD>
34
</TD><TD>
$879
</TD><TD>
19
</TD><TD>
$7,031
</TD><TD>
20
</TD><TD>
$7,758
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
47
</TD><TD>
South Dakota
</TD><TD>
$2,711
</TD><TD>
32
</TD><TD>
$941
</TD><TD>
37
</TD><TD>
$4,949
</TD><TD>
47
</TD><TD>
$6,383
</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#cccccc><TD>
48
</TD><TD>
Tennessee
</TD><TD>
$2,682
</TD><TD>
41
</TD><TD>
$653
</TD><TD>
43
</TD><TD>
$4,289
</TD><TD>
32
</TD><TD>
$7,196
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
49
</TD><TD>
Mississippi
</TD><TD>
$2,564
</TD><TD>
40
</TD><TD>
$674
</TD><TD>
49
</TD><TD>
$3,488
</TD><TD>
36
</TD><TD>
$6,861
</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#cccccc><TD>
50
</TD><TD>
Alabama
</TD><TD>
$2,564
</TD><TD>
50
</TD><TD>
$393
</TD><TD>
38
</TD><TD>
$4,944
</TD><TD>
29
</TD><TD>
$7,289
</TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=2>
U.S. Average

</TD><TD>
$3,699
</TD><TD>

</TD><TD>
$1,132
</TD><TD>

</TD><TD>
$6,973
</TD><TD>

</TD><TD>
$8,003
</TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=2>

NYS % +/- U.S. Average
</TD><TD>
56%
</TD><TD>

</TD><TD>
57%
</TD><TD>

</TD><TD>
74%
</TD><TD>

</TD><TD>
48%
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Naturist Mark

09-09-2008, 09:21 PM

COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY FALSE STATEMENT! Alaska does NOT have the highest total per capita tax burden. New York has that distinction. However, Alaska has the highest per capita EXPENDITURE which means that Alaska spends more per person that any other state. Such blatently false information is just another clear example of how low the opposition die hards will sink to smear a candidate.

Nice try.

As I stated Alaska has the highest per capita taxes in the nation - most of which are derived from the oil industry - and ultimately paid by the rest of us, as I stated. The census data quoted for the tax burden doesn't include the resource depletion tax and other oil taxes that are the source of 89% of Alaska's unrestricted revenue. The trick is that most of Alaska's taxes are not levied directly on Alaskan's, they are levied on the rest of us - they account for 75% of the cost per barrel of Alaskan oil.

If you dive into the census data and include all Revenue, including the state's "own sources" you'll find that Alaska's tax revenue is over $19,000 per person - more than 50% higher than New York's.

So according to the census bureau and Time Magazine (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1839724,00.html) I made a COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY TRUE STATEMENT!

Croydon

09-09-2008, 09:48 PM

Boreas

09-09-2008, 10:08 PM

damn you're good

Isn't he though! :adoration:

That is interesting, and it is hard to wrap my head around it. I live in the part of BC that is oil and gas country. We have much the same characteristics here I would imagine, as Alaska. We bring in just about all the revenue for the province, yet we do not see as much benefit from it as we ought. Alberta is the richest province in Canada because of oil and gas, and I believe, has the lowest taxes. Apparently they do things differently in Washington than in Ottawa/Victoria/Edmonton.

Can't wait for the next installment of this discussion.

Popcorn anyone? :eatpopcorn:

Skinview

09-09-2008, 11:54 PM

4) To the dismay of her kids she fired the state provided chef that cooked for them. - in fact she merely reassigned the chef to a different position, a change of title, but she continued to cook for the Palin's.
I heard on the news tonight that the chef is cooking for the legislature, not the Palins.

Skinview

09-10-2008, 12:11 AM

alfredr

09-10-2008, 05:08 AM

It is the religious fanatacism that concerns me. More of G. W. Bush's view of the world. Religious fanatics ought to be barred from holding high public office. This is one of the reasons for the separation of church from state and state from church. Like one of the bumper stickers I posted says, "The last time we mixed politics and religion, people got burned at the stake."

Although it certainly got McCain the support of the far religious right and goes to show what a big factor that can be.

McCain's age and health are a concern, but he has been checked out and even after two terms, he would still be younger than my parents are now and they are both healthy and active.

And now I will throw out my suggestion for a running mate for McCain that I think would have been an interesting choice, but was never talked about. At least I never heard his name mentioned, Colin Powell. How old is he?

usmc1

09-10-2008, 05:22 AM

usmc1, when are you going to write your novel? That was hysterical and bang on! Thank you for adding levity to my day.

I sure hope you do not need the duct tape.

Frankly, it scares me that the radical religious right has such a say in US politics.

Two "under progress", three shorts being edited and rewritten, blog goes well, full time job, and working as "gasp" community organizer/operative, and playing Whack-A-Mole here, keeps me busy...I'll be glad when the election is over...but, back to your question, I'll advise you of pub date when and if.

But, thanks to John McCain's Hail Mary Veep selection, the cultural wars have been reignited and are blazing away full-blast. Any hope Obama had of being a unifier has been destroyed.

The social conservatives and radical religious right are little more than tools of the monied powers and vwested interests on the national scene, but Palin's emergence is evidence we of what they've been doing for three decades--infiltrating school broads, municipal, county and state governments and building a corps of youthful followers.

Yes, the war is engaged. I've recognized it for some time, and now others do also.

tinhfwv

09-10-2008, 05:34 AM

It is the religious fanatacism that concerns me. More of G. W. Bush's view of the world. Religious fanatics ought to be barred from holding high public office.

In your view, what's the difference between a religious person and a religious fanatic?

usmc1

09-10-2008, 05:45 AM

In your view, what's the difference between a religious person and a religious fanatic?
I want to answer too, please, please. My hand was up too, please.

You might be a religious fanatic if you tell folks that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was a mission to our leaders from God.

Sorry Alfred, I just had to blurt that out, I'll sit down and hush now.

nuovonudo

09-10-2008, 05:46 AM

Frankly, it scares me that the radical religious right has such a say in US politics.

my dear boreas,

what then? are you in favor of censorship? why should the so-called religious right NOT have their say? are they any less american than, say, joe biden? or hillary clinton? or our friend uzmick?

a follow-up question: do you hear people on the so-called "right" clamoring to silence lefties? frankly, i listen to a fair amount of conservative talk radio and i hear no one (not rush, not hannity, not mark levin, not dominick brascia) calling for left-wingers to be silenced. since when is "silencing the opposition" okay?

just asking.

by the way, i've read several pages now of the naomi klein book, "the shock doctrine"; what is it going to take to get you to read my friend rush? if your mind is indeed open, and i hope it is, then ... ? it strikes me as ludicrous that so many on the left presume to know everything this man says, yet almost none of them have ever listened to so much as sixty seconds of his radio programme or read any of his (hugely best-selling) written work.

again, just asking. this inquiring (and open) mind wants to know.

if there is such a thing as "psychological nudity" to me it would be honest intellectual openness, something that i often find lacking in my liberal friends and acquaintances.

nuovonudo

09-10-2008, 05:51 AM

I'll sit down and hush now.

uzmick,
i'm a person of deep faith, but that statement fills me with doubt ....

hahahahahahahahaha

p.s. i have truly enjoyed the widespread panic and consternation on the left that governor palin's nomination has provoked. what exactly are y'all so afraid of? could it be that -- too late -- you've discovered what a couple of turkeys you have nominated?

Sanslines

09-10-2008, 06:03 AM

Nice try.

As I stated Alaska has the highest per capita taxes in the nation - most of which are derived from the oil industry - and ultimately paid by the rest of us, as I stated. The census data quoted for the tax burden doesn't include the resource depletion tax and other oil taxes that are the source of 89% of Alaska's unrestricted revenue. The trick is that most of Alaska's taxes are not levied directly on Alaskan's, they are levied on the rest of us - they account for 75% of the cost per barrel of Alaskan oil.

If you dive into the census data and include all Revenue, including the state's "own sources" you'll find that Alaska's tax revenue is over $19,000 per person - more than 50% higher than New York's.

So according to the census bureau and Time Magazine (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1839724,00.html) I made a COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY TRUE STATEMENT!

The chart that I posted is completely true. The chart that I posted is from the census bureau and clearly states that " New York State’s per capita state and local tax burden in 2005 was the highest in the nation, according to a new analysis by the Public Policy Institute." You are using an entirely different interpretation of 'per capita' by coming up with an argument that 'per capita' taxes in Alaska are actually much higher but are levied against the oil companies and it is the rest of us who pay this tax. This is NOT the standard definition of 'per capita' taxes as per my above chart. Per Capita tax definition is what each resident of a state overall pays for tax. Of course those politicians and journalists with ulterior motives can and will play fast and loose with this standard definition by resorting to 'dirty' tricks such as renaming what are traditionally considered taxes as 'fees' and then excluding them from the overall tax burden ( to make the state tax situation look better then it actually is) or claiming that corporations (such as oil companies) are paying taxes and these corporate taxes are part of 'per capita' tax (to make a state look worse then it actually is). Games!

Trying to take a corporate tax levied against oil companies and redefining and including this tax as a 'per capita' tax is misleading and it is wrong. New York, along with other states, also have corporate taxes and these taxes are clearly not part of the standard and universally accepted definition of 'per capita' tax which is what my chart is based upon.

Sanslines

09-10-2008, 06:15 AM

Isn't he though! :adoration:

Do you understand what the standard definition of a 'per capita' tax is and how some resort to all kinds of 'techniques' to either redefine 'taxes' as 'fees' in an attempt to claim a lower state per capita tax or resort to including corporate taxes as a 'form of per capita tax' in an attempt to claim a higher state 'per capita' tax? These are nothing but games and tricks that are used to mislead an unimformed pubic.

The chart that I posted is correct and uses as a definition of 'per capita' tax what is the actual and overall tax burden that each and every state resident pays. New York is well know as the most heavily taxed state in the USA. Other states have come up with other 'per capita' taxes which are basically flat 'head' taxes which are not based upon income and are actually a part of the total tax burden that a person pays to their state and hence should be referred to as a 'sub per capita tax'. Corporate taxes are taxes that are levied against corporations.

In the case of Alaska, taxes are levied against oil companies. If these taxes are paid by everyone in the USA (and anyone anywhere in the world who purchases Alaska Oil - UNLESS they are specifically exempted from paying tax), then they are NOT part of Alaska 'per capita' tax which is what each and every resident in Alaska pays in tax.

It is an entirely different matter to state and compare states 'overall' tax burdens lodged against resident and corporations combined but this comparison is not a (standard) 'per capita' state resident tax burden comparison.

Can you see how 'extreme' politics drives politicians and journalists to make all sorts of misleading and wild claims all in an attempt to win votes by playing upon the gullible and uninformed? I suggest reading the book "How to Lie With Statistics". This is an old and classic book that will open your eyes as to how advertisers mislead and lie to a gullible public.

tinhfwv

09-10-2008, 06:26 AM

Yes, they do. They do all the time with their hell-fire and damnation rhetoric on and off TV. Just listen to them and what they say about those in the middle or to the left. It is what they say, what they stand far. It's the same thing as "silencing".

That's a personal interpretation. I'm not aware of any factual basis for asserting that any of those named have called for the silencing of the left. In addition, it's my guess is that they would like the left to talk more.

tinhfwv

09-10-2008, 06:46 AM

Just listen to them. There is/are your fact(s)

As you may have guessed from my earlier comment, I do.

ki4kxq

09-10-2008, 06:50 AM

Seems to me that the consensus from some of these folks is, if you don't agree with our leftist ideology, then you should be silenced. This of course is from the same folks that have tried to push the so called "fairness doctrine" to silence those on the right who disagree with them.

As far as keeping the religious right out of politics. How about the nut jobs that have turned the psuedo-science known as "global warming" into a religion? Well known and respected scientists, including the one that created the Weather Channel, have shown that man made global warming is nothing but junk science. Yet, we have people treating it like an absolute religion. Who do you suggest Boreas decide who gets to speak and who doesn't? For people who are so open-minded and open to all views, most of you cannot stand what the other side has so say. I admit, I really can't stand what ya'll have to say either, but I nor my other conservative cohorts here have said that anyone on the left should be silenced.

Frankly, I hated to see ol Keith get booted from election coverage. The more he speaks, the nuttier he sounds.

Naturist Mark

09-10-2008, 06:57 AM

Do you understand what the standard definition of a 'per capita' tax is and how some resort to all kinds of 'techniques' to either redefine 'taxes' as 'fees' in an attempt to claim a lower state per capita tax or resort to including corporate taxes as a 'form of per capita tax' in an attempt to claim a higher state 'per capita' tax? These are nothing but games and tricks that are used to mislead an unimformed pubic.Do you understand what the standard definition of a 'per capita' tax is and how some resort to all kinds of 'techniques' to either redefine 'taxes' as 'fees' in an attempt to claim a lower state per capita tax or resort to including corporate taxes as a 'form of per capita tax' in an attempt to claim a higher state 'per capita' tax? These are nothing but games and tricks that are used to mislead an unimformed pubic.

Do you understand that in my original statement I explicitly INCLUDED the oil taxes. I plainly said so, and immediately explained it. Yet my statement was called a COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY FALSE STATEMENT!

I was pointing out that Alaska is a high tax state - almost entirely due to oil taxes.

You can't change the parameters of my statement to make yours correct.

-Mark

Sanslines

09-10-2008, 07:12 AM

Do you understand that in my original statement I explicitly INCLUDED the oil taxes. I plainly said so, and immediately explained it. Yet my statement was called a COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY FALSE STATEMENT!

I was pointing out that Alaska is a high tax state - almost entirely due to oil taxes.

You can't change the parameters of my statement to make yours correct.

-Mark

No, in your haste to discredit a politician, you said this: "5) She has fought against high taxes. - in fact she raised taxes. Alaska has the highest per capita taxes of any state in the USA - but most of them are derived from the oil industry and are thus paid indirectly by the rest of us."

I then posted a chart based upon the standard and universally accepted definition of 'per capita' taxes which is know by the majority of people to be what each and every person pays in overal taxes to their states. It is their individual or 'per capita' tax liablity to their state. My chart showed that based upon this definition of 'per capita' tax, Alaska is NOT number one but is number six. Oil industry taxes are NOT 'per capita' taxes unless someone is playing fast and loose with the standard definition of 'per capita' tax and is including corporate taxes in the calculation. Alaska clearly does NOT have the highest per capita taxes of any state in the USA. I think that the party die hards and journalists have you confused as to what 'per capita' taxes really are.

The parameters of your statement are not correct or are phrased in a way to mislead others into believing that which is not true. Per capita taxes are highest in New York State and not Alaska. My chart proves that based upon their clear and standard definition of 'per capita' tax.

"I was pointing out that Alaska is a high tax state - almost entirely due to oil taxes."

This is a true statement but is is not what you initially said. There is a huge difference between this statement and claiming that the per capita taxes in Alaska are the highest of all USA states.

We all make mistakes and get confused and misled by party die hards and journalists who are spreading false and highly misleading information about BOTH sides. Both sides are also doing a fine job of spreading their own biased, misleading, and false information. This nonsense that is being used to spread misinformation will only get worse until the election.

ki4kxq

09-10-2008, 08:19 AM

Don't believe in global warming? Well, it is happening and we, the homo-sapien species, are contributing to it to a high degree. There are as many scientists who agree with it as those who don't. This is how the scientific community works. You have those who are discovering and determining that it is occurring and will further do research to prove while others are theorizing that it can't be happening. Science requires extensive research and then research on the research. There is no way, just being logical, that humans are not having a significant impact on the warming and polluting of this marvelous planet.

Where is your proof? Even your global warming high priest Al Gore cannot when pushed, produce any proof that global warming is man made. Shoot, they can't even prove that we have true global warming and not a normal warming cycle. In the past couple of years, the planet has actually cooled some degrees.

The same cycles of warming and cooling within the same temp ranges have been happening since way before cars, factories, airplanes, or anything else. One noted scientist has been saying for the last couple of years that the temporary warming was in part due to increased solar flares. Seems his theory may have merit. This year, solar flares have decreased, as has the temps.

The problem most of us have with this very flaky science is some folks are hell bent on turning the world's economies upside down for something they can not prove. Not only can they not prove it, other well respected scientists say it is nothing more than unaduterated bs. Keep studying, that's fine. But until you have actual proof, we should not be so irresponsible as to cut our nation and economy off at the knees.

Btw, Al Gore could not possible believe in global warming. How can I say that? Well, he goes everywhere via private jet, owns several suv's, has a huge home that takes loads of energy to heat and cool among other things. That begs the question. If he is living like that, he either does not believe the crap he is shoveling, or, even worse, he believes it and doesn't give a rat's behind. Either way, doesn't say much for him. Just a way to sell those infamous carbon credits. Buying carbon credits brings new life to the saying "there's a sucker born every minute".

Did you know that Al and his fake science were kicked out of schools in England by order of a judge. Yep. Because he presents no proof whatsoever and the judge decreed that the other side must also be represented.

brazhunter

09-10-2008, 09:10 AM

Don't believe in global warming?
Whether on not one believes in global warming... and that global warming is indeed man-made and can be stopped... exactly how has it been determined that the global climate through the 20th century is the RIGHT one? How do we know it isn't supposed to be 10 deg warmer, or colder?

Amazingly, it seems that so many people hollering about CHANGE and putting CHANGE bumper stickers on their cars are the ones least willing to accept it and are completely unwilling to prepare for it when it involves the climate.

Sanslines

09-10-2008, 09:52 AM

Gauging the Palin pull in Michigan

Will she boost the GOP vote in battlegrounds such as Oakland County?

By Tom Curry
National affairs writer
MSNBC
updated 6:33 p.m. ET, Tues., Sept. 9, 2008

WASHINGTON - At first glance, there’s no resemblance between Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who is Sen. John McCain’s running mate, and Lyndon Johnson, the Senate Majority Leader who was John Kennedy’s vice presidential running mate in 1960.

When Kennedy put Johnson on the 1960 ticket, the Texan was “The Master of the Senate,” a domineering legislative wizard who could manipulate the rules (and his colleagues) as no one else could.
Palin is a governor and former mayor, not a career legislator.

But here is one similarity: Johnson probably was the last vice presidential candidate to help elect a president.

As Robert Kennedy explained to one Texas Democratic activist during the 1960 campaign, “We put that son of a ***** on the ticket to carry Texas and if you can’t carry Texas, that’s your problem.”

Texas had gone for Republican Dwight Eisenhower in 1956 and in 1952.
But with Johnson on the ticket, the Democrats were able to win Texas in 1960 by two percentage points.

Without the electoral votes of Texas, and those of Illinois, which Kennedy won by a whisker, he would have lost the White House.

VP candidates do not matter — or do they?
The conventional wisdom, repeated by pundits in the hours after McCain revealed his choice of Palin, was that in the end voters' decisions are not influenced by the vice presidential candidate.

But Palin is unprecedented. She is the first woman on a Republican ticket and the first Alaskan on either party’s ticket. And she is a candidate who has as much mass media visibility at the supermarket checkout counter as Angelina Jolie.

When Kennedy put Johnson on the ticket in 1960, he was practicing old-fashioned geographical ticket-balancing to help carry the South. But Palin appears to be a new phenomenon: a vice presidential candidate who at least temporarily overshadows her running mate and who may have more than regional appeal.

While Republicans are excited by Palin, the unknown is whether or not her role as vice presidential candidate will increase GOP voter turnout.
Let's focus on the one state Sen. John Kerry won in 2004 which McCain has a shot at winning this time around: Michigan.

The crucial question is whether or not Palin can lift the Republican share of the vote in such battlegrounds as Oakland County, which casts the second highest number of votes in the state. Wayne County, in which Detroit is located, casts the highest number of votes in Michigan but is a Democratic stronghold.

Why Obama needs Michigan
It is possible to come up with a scenario in which Democratic candidate Sen. Barack Obama can win the White House if he fails to carry Michigan. But it would surely be a tough assignment.

If he were to carry all of the states that Kerry won in 2004, but were to lose Michigan, then Obama would have to add to his column five closely watched states that President Bush won in 2004: Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Iowa, and Virginia.

Veteran Michigan political analyst Bill Ballenger, editor of the Inside Michigan Politics newsletter, said that Palin “is still a work in progress,” but said it was noteworthy that “they took her into Sterling Heights the first day.”

Sterling Heights is in Macomb County, north of Detroit. The county cast the third-highest number of votes in Michigan and is a place Bush carried with 50 percent and a margin of 6,000 votes in 2004. The McCain-Palin team campaigned there the day after the GOP convention ended.

Macomb County has a lot of conservative blue-collar voters and “starter homes with young people, particularly in the northern part of the county,” Ballenger said.

Ballenger said Palin’s appeal might be somewhat less of a good fit for Oakland County, which is one of the wealthiest counties in the nation. Republicans there tend to be affluent, economic conservative “Eisenhower Republicans,” the type you might might have found in the 1950s. But these are not the social conservatives who’d be highly motivated by abortion, gay marriage, and other similar issues.

In 2004, Kerry barely won Oakland County; his margin was 2,754 votes, or one-half of one percent. If McCain, with Palin’s assistance, can boost the Republican vote in the county by a few percentage points, it would give him a good chance of carrying the state.

Ballenger said Palin’s hunting-fishing persona should have appeal to the parts of Michigan north of the line formed by Muskegon on the west and Bay City on the east: a vast rural region, but with relatively few voters at stake.

First polling data: favorable
In a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released Tuesday, 47 percent of respondents had a favorable view of Palin, compared with 40 percent who voiced a favorable view of Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden.

But running mates sometimes fail to pull in the region or demographic group that their party’s strategists hoped they would.

Texan Lloyd Bentsen as vice presidential candidate on the Democratic ticket in 1988 did not help carry any Southern states for his party.
And when Palin’s precedent-shattering predecessor, Democrat Geraldine Ferraro, ran with Walter Mondale in 1984, the Democratic ticket won only an estimated 38 percent of white women voters, according to exit poll interviews.

<SCRIPT></SCRIPT><TABLE class=boxH_brl cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD class=boxHC_brl noWrap width=*>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=boxB_brl cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR vAlign=top><TD class=boxBI_brl>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

This performance among white women voters was slightly worse than the Jimmy Carter-Walter Mondale ticket had done among white women voters in the 1980 election.

In the last nine presidential elections, the majority of white women voters have voted for the winning candidate eight out of nine times.

The majority of white women are flocking to McCain / Palin as a result of Palin joining the ticket.

Sanslines

09-10-2008, 09:58 AM

NBC/WSJ Poll: '08 race turns into a dead heat

Barack Obama holds a narrow one-point lead over John McCain

By Mark Murray
Deputy political director
NBC News
updated 7:15 p.m. ET, Tues., Sept. 9, 2008

WASHINGTON - Republican John McCain has nearly erased Democrat Barack Obama’s national lead and turned the presidential contest into a dead heat, according to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. In that poll, Obama holds a narrow one-point lead over McCain (47-46 percent), which is down from his three-point advantage in August (45-42 percent) and six-point edge in July (47-41 percent).

The findings from this survey — which was conducted of 860 registered voters from Sept. 6-8, and which has a margin of error of plus-minus 3.3 percentage points — are consistent with other recent national polls showing the race to essentially be tied after the conventions and vice presidential selections.

Looking inside the numbers, McCain’s pick of Sarah Palin as his running mate appears to have not only attracted female voters, but boosted McCain’s association with changing the country’s direction, and energized members of the Republican Party.

Excited Republicans

In fact, the number of GOP respondents who say they're excited about McCain’s candidacy is nearly three times higher than it was last month.

The poll also shows that Obama has improved his standing on some key issues, including several publically-perceived shortcomings. They include whether he would be a risky choice for president and whether he shares certain voters' values and backgrounds.

It's more evidence that this presidential contest keeps getting tighter.
“This is kind of the political equivalent of the tortoise and the hare,” said Republican pollster Neil Newhouse, who conducted this survey with Democrat Peter D. Hart. “McCain continues to gain as we get closer to Election Day.”

One significant shift in the poll is among women. Back in August, Obama was leading McCain by 14 points. Now his lead is just four points.
And just a month ago, McCain trailed Obama by 20 points among women ages 18 to 49. Now the Arizona Republican leads by three points.

'The Palin factor'

The pollsters attribute these shifts primarily to McCain's pick of the Alaska governor.

“The Palin factor is remarkable,” said Newhouse. “She has clearly added an excitement factor. There is no question about that.”
Indeed, 34 percent of McCain voters say they’re excited about his candidacy, which is up from 12 percent in August.
But Republicans still face a significant enthusiasm gap in their contest with Democrats. The percentage of Obama voters who say they’re excited about his candidacy is now at 55, up nine points from last month.

Overall, 34 percent say the Palin selection makes them more likely to vote for McCain, versus 25 percent who say the opposite. Forty percent believe it doesn’t make a difference.

By comparison, 24 percent say that Obama’s selection of Joe Biden to be his running mate makes them more likely to vote for the Illinois Democrat in the fall, compared to 16 percent who say the pick makes them less likely to vote for him.

“Clearly, Sarah Palin has hit a gusher,” said Hart. “All of these things say that her initial introduction to American has been a very solid and positive introduction.”

But Hart cautioned that her boost could be fleeting.

He recalled a similar bounce after Walter Mondale unveiled Geraldine Ferraro as his running mate in 1984. “The faster they rise, the steeper they descend.”

White House connections <TABLE style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 15px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 5px" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD><SCRIPT>getCSS("3053751")</SCRIPT><SCRIPT></SCRIPT><TABLE class=boxH_3053751 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=300><TBODY><TR><TD class=boxHC_3053751 noWrap width=*>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

While McCain has narrowed Obama's poll lead, he continues to face difficulty distancing himself from President Bush.
Seventy-four percent believe McCain would closely follow Bush’s programs and policies. That's virtually unchanged from August, when 77 percent believed that about the GOP nominee.

“He hasn’t shaken the perception that his programs and policies would be closely aligned with President Bush’s,” explained Newhouse, the GOP pollster.

McCain, however, has made some progress in portraying himself as an agent of change.

According to the poll, 35 percent say that the Arizona senator is very likely or somewhat likely to bring real change to the country. That’s up considerably from June, when just 21 percent said that about McCain.
By comparison, 52 percent believe that Obama would bring change to the country, which is up four points since June.

Indeed, if it weren’t for the bounce that McCain appears to have received after the Palin pick, the attention would be on much of the progress Obama has made in this poll.

His favorability-unfavorability rating stands at 53-32 percent, which is up from 50-36 percent in August; 53 percent say they identify with Obama’s values and background, up three points since August and six points since July; and 48 percent believe that Obama would be the riskier choice for president, which is down three points from last month.

“This is a person who is doing exactly what he needs to do to put himself in a position to win this election,” Hart says.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

The 'lies' are working. McCain needs to tell more 'lies' to boost his ratings and win! Whan an election! An election won by telling a bunch of lies!

usmc1

09-10-2008, 10:01 AM

Boreas

09-10-2008, 10:07 AM

Two "under progress", three shorts being edited and rewritten, blog goes well, full time job, and working as "gasp" community organizer/operative, and playing Whack-A-Mole here, keeps me busy...I'll be glad when the election is over...but, back to your question, I'll advise you of pub date when and if.

Thanks

But, thanks to John McCain's Hail Mary Veep selection, the cultural wars have been reignited and are blazing away full-blast. Any hope Obama had of being a unifier has been destroyed.

The social conservatives and radical religious right are little more than tools of the monied powers and vwested interests on the national scene, but Palin's emergence is evidence we of what they've been doing for three decades--infiltrating school broads, municipal, county and state governments and building a corps of youthful followers.

Yes, the war is engaged. I've recognized it for some time, and now others do also.

Alas. :disappointed:

Boreas

09-10-2008, 10:59 AM

my dear boreas,

what then? are you in favor of censorship? why should the so-called religious right NOT have their say? are they any less american than, say, joe biden? or hillary clinton? or our friend uzmick?

a follow-up question: do you hear people on the so-called "right" clamoring to silence lefties? frankly, i listen to a fair amount of conservative talk radio and i hear no one (not rush, not hannity, not mark levin, not dominick brascia) calling for left-wingers to be silenced. since when is "silencing the opposition" okay?

just asking.

Good question. I replied very eloquently before, and the gremlins ate my post. :mad: So here goes again. I am only puzzled by the impact of religion in American politics. Clearly, it is very important and should not be silenced. It does not fly at all on this side of the border. Stephen Harper tried it and it went over like a lead balloon. We just don't accept religion being so centre stage. Of course, religious groups of all faiths, should have something to say. They can actually be a moral compass. I would prefer to see more moderate views, but you are right, silencing people is not usually acceptable.

Pierre Elliott Trudeau was a man of deep faith. He used his faith to inform his life, not to hammer on others. He also had a great respect for diversity, and possibly helped to shape the Canada we have now. He was a cheerleader for Canada and had to address separatist issues, and French/English issues. He was a love him or hate him PM, and did create some pretty profound policies related to culture and human rights I think. I did not know how deeply religious he was until I watched some of his funeral.

by the way, i've read several pages now of the naomi klein book, "the shock doctrine"; what is it going to take to get you to read my friend rush? if your mind is indeed open, and i hope it is, then ... ? it strikes me as ludicrous that so many on the left presume to know everything this man says, yet almost none of them have ever listened to so much as sixty seconds of his radio programme or read any of his (hugely best-selling) written work.

again, just asking. this inquiring (and open) mind wants to know.

if there is such a thing as "psychological nudity" to me it would be honest intellectual openness, something that i often find lacking in my liberal friends and acquaintances.

Another good question. I did look for the book when I was in a bookstore recently. It was not available. All the books would probably be considered left leaning by your (American?) standards. I will check online, both at Chapters.ca (our Amazon) and on his website.

I was also thinking that since Milton Friedman is the guru for many on the right these days that I ought to read something of his. :anxious: (pray for me ;))

What do you think?

Right now I am reading an excellent book about addictions called "In The Realm of Hungry Ghosts" by Gabor Mate.

Boreas

09-10-2008, 11:04 AM

Boreas

09-10-2008, 11:10 AM

As far as keeping the religious right out of politics. How about the nut jobs that have turned the psuedo-science known as "global warming" into a religion? Well known and respected scientists, including the one that created the Weather Channel, have shown that man made global warming is nothing but junk science. Yet, we have people treating it like an absolute religion. Who do you suggest Boreas decide who gets to speak and who doesn't? For people who are so open-minded and open to all views, most of you cannot stand what the other side has so say. I admit, I really can't stand what ya'll have to say either, but I nor my other conservative cohorts here have said that anyone on the left should be silenced.

Please read my post to nuovonudo. I do not believe I ever said the religious right ought to be silenced. I was merely saying I was amazed that they have SO MUCH power in US politics. Do you not have anyone of any other faith down there? Do Muslims get a say? Do Jewish people? You would think that the only values of worth are those of the religious right. As far as I am concerned, they are PART of the cultural landscape in the US, not the most important part. If they become the most important, there is a risk of censorship from that direction.

I have no problem with intelligent comments form the "other side". I do have problems with bigotry and uninformed comments.....from either side.

brazhunter

09-10-2008, 11:26 AM

Do Muslims get a say? Do Jewish people?
Within their communities they do. Their influence in national politics is probably proportional to their numbers and thus much smaller. This is one of the great shortcomings of a democracy, the majority decides policy. Tyranny of the majority is a large reason why we're a republic or representative democracy.

Qikdraw

09-10-2008, 11:26 AM

I find it funny that the right now says the left wants to silence them. Its the whole victim game they play to avoid talking about issues. Haven't you guys seen this before? It happens all the time, the right always pulls the victim card when they don't want to talk about the issues. Its retty pathetic actually. Don't let them do it, keep talking about the issues. The McCain campaign is saying that this election is not about issues, but about personalities, this is their plan. This election, more than any other is about issues, keep on the issues and ignore the victim card the right plays.

I just have one question though... When was the last time a democrat went into a church to kill people based on politics? (what books were on his shelf again??)

Naturist Mark

09-10-2008, 05:56 PM

No, in your haste to discredit a politician, you said this: "5) She has fought against high taxes. - in fact she raised taxes. Alaska has the highest per capita taxes of any state in the USA - but most of them are derived from the oil industry and are thus paid indirectly by the rest of us."

I then posted a chart based upon the standard and universally accepted definition of 'per capita' taxes which is know by the majority of people to be what each and every person pays in overal taxes to their states. It is their individual or 'per capita' tax liablity to their state. My chart showed that based upon this definition of 'per capita' tax, Alaska is NOT number one but is number six. Oil industry taxes are NOT 'per capita' taxes unless someone is playing fast and loose with the standard definition of 'per capita' tax and is including corporate taxes in the calculation. Alaska clearly does NOT have the highest per capita taxes of any state in the USA. I think that the party die hards and journalists have you confused as to what 'per capita' taxes really are.

The parameters of your statement are not correct or are phrased in a way to mislead others into believing that which is not true. Per capita taxes are highest in New York State and not Alaska. My chart proves that based upon their clear and standard definition of 'per capita' tax.

"I was pointing out that Alaska is a high tax state - almost entirely due to oil taxes."

This is a true statement but is is not what you initially said. There is a huge difference between this statement and claiming that the per capita taxes in Alaska are the highest of all USA states.

We all make mistakes and get confused and misled by party die hards and journalists who are spreading false and highly misleading information about BOTH sides. Both sides are also doing a fine job of spreading their own biased, misleading, and false information. This nonsense that is being used to spread misinformation will only get worse until the election.

Now that is just being silly. I carefully explained that I was including oil taxes when I made the statement.

The contention that by including the phrase "per capita" I've excluded oil taxes is obtuse.

Comparing tax revenue "per capita" is THE ONLY WAY to compare taxes between states. It would be meaningless to say that Texas is a high tax state compared to Wyoming because its tax revenues are so much higher. Texas has a population many times greater than Wyoming - the ONLY way to compare them is per capita. And that is what I did with respect to Alaska.

Alaska by far collects the highest level of taxes PER CAPITA of any state in the USA.

Now lest anyone has forgotten what the context of my statement was - I was refuting the McCain campaign claim that Gov. Palin was a fighter against high taxes. She RAISED taxes in a state which has the highest taxes PER CAPITA of any state. All the while I made it perfectly clear that those taxes are primarily on the state's oil industry, not directly on its citizens.

I was perfectly clear in my statement, and remain so, no matter how silly or obtuse anyone cares to become in trying to change that meaning.

You can put lipstick on a pig, but the pig won't appreciate it. Or something like that.

-Mark

Sanslines

09-10-2008, 06:32 PM

Now that is just being silly. I carefully explained that I was including oil taxes when I made the statement.

The contention that by including the phrase "per capita" I've excluded oil taxes is obtuse.

Comparing tax revenue "per capita" is THE ONLY WAY to compare taxes between states. It would be meaningless to say that Texas is a high tax state compared to Wyoming because its tax revenues are so much higher. Texas has a population many times greater than Wyoming - the ONLY way to compare them is per capita. And that is what I did with respect to Alaska.

Alaska by far collects the highest level of taxes PER CAPITA of any state in the USA.
Now lest anyone has forgotten what the context of my statement was - I was refuting the McCain campaign claim that Gov. Palin was a fighter against high taxes. She RAISED taxes in a state which has the highest taxes PER CAPITA of any state. All the while I made it perfectly clear that those taxes are primarily on the state's oil industry, not directly on its citizens.

I was perfectly clear in my statement, and remain so, no matter how silly or obtuse anyone cares to become in trying to change that meaning.

You can put lipstick on a pig, but the pig won't appreciate it. Or something like that.

-Mark

Mark,

You clearly said this: "Alaska has the highest per capita taxes of any state in the USA".

Based upon the definition of 'per capita' taxes and the chart that I posted, New York has the highest 'per capita' taxes in the nation. I was very specific in my explanations and stated that oil revenue can not be included in the 'per capita' taxes. They are NOT per capita taxes. They can NOT be arbitrarily included in per capita tax calculations. Per capita taxes are taxes that residents of Alaska owe to the state of Alaska (let's not get into the minutia of deductions,etc). Taxes that others pay, whether they be residents of other states or of foreign countries, are not per capita taxes. Taxes that other individuals or businesses pay (foreign or domestic) can not be arbitrarily reassigned to residents of a state who do not pay or owe these taxes. The chart that I supplied does compare per capita taxes and clearly shows that Alaska is number six.

You obviously are bothered by the fact that you made a mistake. Trust me we all make mistakes. It really is unecessary to continue to dispute an error or to refuse to admit to an error. The facts concerning what constitutes 'per capita' taxes along with a chart which clearly demonstrates on a state by state basis what the per capita taxes are has be posted. Regardless of the context, the statement "Alaska has the highest PER CAPITA TAXES of any state within the USA" is incorrect. Alaska is number six based upon the standard definition of what per capita taxes are. It's just that plain and simple. I am sorry that you can't admit that you made a mistake, accept it, and move forward. You expect the rest of us to accept when you point out our misunderstandings or mistakes. Why can't you accept when we reciprocate. No one likes to have their mistakes pointed out to them and yet doing such is the backbone of education. Without this process, we learn nothing. Trust me, I see this almost everyday. I believe that we can all learn from each other if we so chose.

Sanslines

09-10-2008, 06:51 PM

If this is what you are talking about:

Alaska Legislature passes 25 percent oil tax

November 16, 2007

Alaska's Legislature today approved a bill that imposes a 25% tax on the net profits of oil companies operating in the state.

HB 2001 raises the current tax from 22.5 percent to 25 percent.
From a Sarah Palin press release: Governor Sarah Palin today commended Alaska's legislators for passing House Bill 2001, which will change the state's oil valuation system.

"All Alaskans should applaud the hard work of our Legislature on this important issue," said Governor Palin.

"The bill strikes a careful balance. It assures a fair share of our oil's value for Alaska, while encouraging producers to invest in new fields. This legislation creates stability for Alaska and I know it is the right thing for the state."

The new plan, dubbed Alaska's Clear and Equitable Share, or ACES, includes a 25 percent tax on the net value of oil. It will also charge 0.4 percent for each dollar the price of oil rises above $52 per barrel.
ACES allows for tax credits to encourage new development and reinvestment in existing infrastructure. It restricts capital expense deductions to scheduled maintenance and implements strong audit and information sharing provisions. The legislation was developed following an extensive evaluation of the current Petroleum Profits Tax by the Department of Revenue. That evaluation showed the state is expected to receive $800 million less for the next fiscal year than would have been expected under the actual PPT documentation presented by the prior administration.

Governor Palin said passage of HB 2001 is a step forward in restoring the public's trust.

© AlaskaReport News

then this tax is clearly a tax on net oil company business profit tax and is NOT a per capita tax.

It can not and is not included in state resident per capita tax that is owed to the state anymore then a tax that French citiziens owe to France can be included in the Alaska state per capita tax.

To include Alaska Oil taxes in the Per Capita tax is clearly misleading, disingenuous, and just plain wrong! To do so out of spite for a politician of a certain political party is double wrong!

Sanslines

09-10-2008, 07:07 PM

In Search of Rational Voters

Do such creatures exist? How can we mint more of them?

By Alan Ehrenhalt | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Sep 10, 2008 | Updated: 12:28 p.m. ET Sep 10, 2008

"The people have spoken—the bastards!" It can be an effective line, especially when candidates employ it jokingly to lighten the somber mood of their supporters after a deflating loss at the polls. But it's also a dangerous thing to say: If there's one thing any aspirant for any office is reluctant to do, it's insult the electorate. He may need them again in two years.

Still, every once in a while a losing candidate has the guts and irreverence to try some variant of this jibe. The political gadfly Dick Tuck, defeated in a state Senate campaign in California in the 1950s, seems to have introduced it to modern campaigning. The equally witty Morris Udall used it on the night he lost the Wisconsin presidential primary to Jimmy Carter (http://www.newsweek.com/related.aspx?subject=Jimmy+Carter) in 1976.

I don't know where the line originated, and I don't particularly care. What interests me is that this is about as far as any losing candidate is ever willing to go in taking on the voters. It's barely acceptable, on rare occasions, to make a joking reference to them as hostile ingrates. What you can't do is question their mental capacity. No candidate has ever begun a concession speech by saying, "The voters have spoken—the fools!"

That's in large part because it would be received almost universally as a gesture of tasteless arrogance. But there's another reason politicians carefully avoid questioning the intelligence of the electorate. They avoid it because they want desperately to believe that the American voters, whatever mistakes they may make, are at bottom rational and competent.
It's not just candidates and office-holders who feel need to believe this. Scholars who study voting behavior feel it, too. V. O. Key Jr., perhaps the most eminent American political scientist of the mid-20th century, wrote a book in the early 1960s called "The Responsible Electorate" and stated in the very beginning that its purpose was to convince readers that "voters are not fools." Thirty years later, another respected scholar, Samuel Popkin (http://www.newsweek.com/related.aspx?subject=Samuel+Popkin), made similar arguments at greater length in a book he chose to call "The Reasoning Voter."

Journalists generally concur. Cynical as they tend to be about candidates and office-holders, they rarely blame the failures of American democracy on deficiencies in the electorate. I wish I had a dollar for every time I have read an op-ed column by a political analyst declaring that, on one important issue or another, "the people are way ahead of the politicians." Often, what this means is that the voters happen to agree with the writer on that issue.

In the end, though, the practice of closing ranks in defense of the electorate is far more than a case of journalistic vanity or political self-protection. The American democratic system is rooted in the assumption of sensible political choices made by reasonable and fair-minded citizens. Challenge this assumption, and many, if not most, of the logical pillars of the system begin to show serious cracks. I understand all this, and I don't feel any more comfortable than most writers do blaming "the people" for the flaws in American government.

But in the closing weeks of a tumultuous national election year, it's worth spending a bit of time trying to figure out what it means to say that "the voters are not fools." When Key wrote those words, he was not claiming that the typical American was deeply familiar with candidates for a wide range of offices and well versed on the positions each candidate espoused. He couldn't claim that, because by the 1960s it had been documented in study after study that the vast majority of voters go to the polls with only the haziest of notions about what the candidates plan to do, and that the further down the ballot one went, the less likely they were to know much of anything.

What Key meant was that voters cast rational votes "retrospectively"—that is, they make judgments about how well things seem to be going for them, and then either reward or punish the party in power based on their conclusions. So when Ronald Reagan asked his audience in the 1980 presidential debates whether they were better off under President Jimmy Carter than they had been four years earlier, he was asking for a judgment that Key would have considered entirely proper and appropriate to democratic politics (http://www.newsweek.com/related.aspx?subject=Politics). Most people decided they were worse off, and Carter lost the election.

In a similar way, Popkin doesn't base his theory of the "reasoning voter" on claims that we go to the polls primed with information about the choices on the ballot. He says we practice "low-information rationality," piecing together scraps of knowledge gleaned from personal experience, historical events, media coverage and other sources to pull the lever based on what amounts to gut reasoning. But he believes that it works most of the time.
An electorate, in other words, is something like a jury. It's a panel of ordinary people, limited in their knowledge and training, who combine to produce a judgment of greater wisdom than any of them could make alone. The crowd, in some mysterious way, is wiser than the individual. The average voter may be no genius, but the electorate as a group is no fool. So the theory goes. It is a theory that allows candidates, scholars and journalists to get through the day without having to question the fundamental tenets of American government.

I don't contend that the theory is groundless. There is something in the wisdom of crowds. What seems to me inescapable is that the past few years have not been kind to those who accept the rational voter idea as an article of faith.

I don't know how many millions of people have thought about this privately. But one writer has taken the leap of producing a book that challenges all the orthodoxies of rational voting. Indeed, he has taken every possible opportunity to poke holes in them.

"Just How Stupid Are We?," by Rick Shenkman (http://www.newsweek.com/related.aspx?subject=Rick+Shenkman), has been on the shelves for nearly six months now. It has sold a lot of copies. I didn't bother to look at it for a long time because the title made me think it was either a piece of frivolous fluff or an ideological screed of the sort that pop up like weeds in presidential election years.

But it's a serious book, by a history professor who treats politics as serious business and is more interested in repairing the flaws of the political system than in whining about voters or politicians. Before any real repairs can be made, he believes, the flaws in the conventional theory of rational voting behavior have to be exposed. In particular, he believes it is fantasy to think one can establish any kind of rationality on a foundation of factual ignorance. Below some threshold of basic knowledge, he says, intelligent voting is simply not possible, no matter how finely tuned one's gut instincts may be. Below that threshold, the voter is, in many cases, just a fool.

Shenkman talks a great deal about the Iraq (http://www.newsweek.com/related.aspx?subject=Iraq) War, and I will try briefly to summarize what he says--not because I relish rehashing the Iraq debate, but because I think he makes some points that are hard to dismiss.
The crucial ones have to do with perceptions of Saddam Hussein (http://www.newsweek.com/related.aspx?subject=Saddam+Hussein). Polls consistently have shown that for most of the past seven years, a majority of Americans believed Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks. A larger majority believed him to be in league with Al Qaeda somehow. And even more were ready to brand him as an international terrorist.

Shenkman believes, and I think he is right, that the war never would have achieved popular support in this country had most voters known that all of these assertions were false. The truth—that Saddam was a brutal thug, but not an international terrorist—was available to anyone who wished to learn it. The bipartisan 9/11 commission declared definitively in early 2004 that Saddam had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. The presidential election was held that fall with roughly half the country utterly mistaken on an issue of vital importance.

None of this is to say that anyone who voted for George Bush in 2004 was a fool. But anyone who voted for him on the grounds that he had dethroned an international terrorist was, if not exactly a fool, at least badly fooled. And Shenkman's book provides a long list of other cases in which the same conclusion might be drawn.

Virtually no one, Shenkman says, has "explored what the public's approval of the war on the basis of misinformation says about the maturity of our democracy." He explores it. He believes that for a combination of reasons, spot TV ads prominent among them, the American electorate harbors more misconceptions about public life than it did a generation ago, or at almost any period in American history.

I wish I had some evidence from the current presidential campaign that the voters are finally beginning to pay attention and judge what they hear on the basis of real knowledge. Sadly, I don't. The electorate seems all too ready to accept Democratic arguments that John McCain (http://www.newsweek.com/related.aspx?subject=John+McCain) wants the Iraq War to last 100 years, when McCain has said nothing of the sort. McCain keeps telling the electorate, and convincing a significant part of it, that Barack Obama's economic plan would raise taxes on the middle class, when every reputable analysis makes clear it wouldn't do that. This campaign provides Shenkman with almost as much ammunition as the last one.

Naturist Mark

09-10-2008, 08:34 PM

Mark,

You clearly said this: "Alaska has the highest per capita taxes of any state in the USA".
My full statement, in context is: "5) She has fought against high taxes. - in fact she raised taxes. Alaska has the highest per capita taxes of any state in the USA - but most of them are derived from the oil industry and are thus paid indirectly by the rest of us."

This mischaracterization of my statement, despite my patient and polite explanations, has moved passed obtuseness. It has become a deliberate prevarication.

Now we are not supposed to call each other liars on this forum. I suspect you are acutely aware of this, and hope to provoke such an accusation in order to be vindicated by having me sanctioned for stepping over the line.

Which presents a quandary. Do I let deliberate misrepresentations stand? Or do I acknowledge what is plainly true.

Well, consider it acknowledged. You are peddling a deliberate untruth about what I said, and we all know what that makes you. And a provocateur to boot.

You needn't bother reporting this post to moderators. I'll do so myself.

Mission accomplished?

-Mark

Added: To rehash, "per capita" means you divide by the number of people in the group, subdivision or political entity you are comparing. What the census chart previously posted here shows is the "average personal tax burden borne by individuals, exclusive of corporations", this is a good example of but one use of "per capita" but is by no means the only or "standard" use. Per capita is used for all sorts of economic comparisons - as I've previously stated the ONLY WAY to make economic comparisons between political subdivisions of disparate sizes is to divide the totals by population. My comparison EXPLICITLY included oil industry taxes, saying that it doesn't is disingenuous.

EricNY

09-11-2008, 01:50 AM

It would be nice to maybe move on, and quit the bickering....

Alaska has high taxes, no doubt...

....BUT you know what? The thousand dollars PER FAMILY MEMBER that they get EACH year in oil money, might help soften the blow

Naturist Mark

09-11-2008, 02:33 AM

Alaska has high taxes, no doubt...

....BUT you know what? The thousand dollars PER FAMILY MEMBER that they get EACH year in oil money, might help soften the blow

Actually it is $3,269 (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-09-05-alaska-dividend_N.htm) this year. Nice what those high oil taxes can provide.

-Mark

usmc1

09-11-2008, 09:00 AM

Ad Hawk: McCain's Fact-Free 'Fact Check'

Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:28 PM
By Andrew Romano

<EMBED src=http://www.youtube.com/v/LK4oWay1VbE width=425 height=350 type=application/x-shockwave-flash></EMBED>

Here on the Internets, there are a lot of rumors, charges, slanders, accusations, calumnies and lies circulating about this intriguing woman named Sarah Palin, who sources tell Stumper has been asked to join John McCain's presidential ticket in the No. 2 slot. I mean, who knew?

Some of these claims have been substantiated. It's true that Palin raised the sales tax as mayor of Wasilla (http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=:ePkh8BM9E8JpByvQDgMWTFuMBCzCDM9vdpbqWNp96fg_L5 dFAFFbDzk/0-0&fp=48c8c6e077f9de27&ei=XjrISNivAqT2ygSikIXlDA&url=http%3A//www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/08/cbsnews_investigates/main4427776.shtml%3Fsource%3Dmostpop_story&cid=1244870562&usg=AFQjCNF0RVPFxqGfTTA6IJ8zzf426IxKrw)(mostly to pay for a new hockey rink). It's true that she sought and obtained earmarks (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/MCCAIN?SITE=VASTR&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT) (about $27 million between 2000 and 2003 as mayor and more than $200 million last year as governor). And it's true that she worked with Sen. Ted Stevens and was for the "Bridge to Nowhere" before she was against it (http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/09/08/politics-of-the-bridge-to-nowhere.aspx).

That said, much of the information cycling through our beloved series of tubes is patently false (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html). Palin never belonged to the secessionist Alaska Independence Party (that would be her husband, Todd). She never supported Pat Buchanan for president. She never mandated the teaching of creationism in public schools (even if she didn't oppose it). She never banned any books from the Wasilla library (that list you received by e-mail--it's a hoax). She never slashed special-needs funding. She certainly never covered up her daughter Bristol's pregnancy by pretending the baby was hers. And those are among the milder smears.

Given all the lies, I can understand why the McCain campaign has just launched what they're calling the "Palin Truth Squad." It's kind of like when Barack Obama--who's also been besieged by false internet rumors--unveiled his "Fight the Smears (http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/fightthesmearshome/)" Web site earlier this summer. A campaign has the right to correct the record.

But here's what I don't understand: if the purpose of your truth squad is to spread the truth about Palin, why kick off your campaign with an ad that's full of falsehoods?

Earlier this afternoon, Team McCain released "Fact Check (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LK4oWay1VbE)" (video above). The title must be ironic. Over images of bloodthirsty wolves prowling a shadowy forest, a female announcer gravely intones that "The [Wall Street] Journal reports Obama 'air-dropped a mini-army of 30 lawyers, investigators and opposition researchers' into Alaska to dig dirt on Governor Palin." Meanwhile, a banner over Obama's grim visage claims that "the attacks" on Palin have been called "completely false" and "misleading" by the nonpartisan researchers at FactCheck.org. "As Obama drops in the polls, he'll try to destroy her," concludes the announcer. "Obama's 'politics of hope'? Empty words."

So what's the problem? Where to begin. First of all, there's no evidence that "Obama" sent anyone to Alaska to "dig dirt" on Palin. Originally aired by conservative writer John Fund in a Wall Street Journal opinion article (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122098190668515511.html?mod=opinion_journal_poli tical_diary)--not a "report," as the ad alleges--the charge, which Fund attributes to unnamed "sources," has been denied by both the Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee. "I sent no lawyers, no investigators and exactly zero researchers to Alaska to research Sarah Palin," said DNC research director Mike Gehrke, while Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor characterized the claim as "fiction," "made up” and “absolutely, unequivocally false.” What's more, the McCain campaign misquoted Fund, who actually wrote that "Democrats" (not "Obama," as the ad claims) have dispatched a "mini-army" to Alaska "dig into [Palin's] record and background"--not to "dig dirt." As FactCheck.org said this afternoon, "Maybe the McCain-Palin campaign knows something we don't about what's in Palin's record and background."

Which brings us to the ad's most insidious conflation. By flashing those quotes about the "completely false" and "misleading" attacks on Palin over an image of Obama's face--as the announcer warns that "they've just begun," no less--McCain is suggesting that FactCheck.org attributed the attacks to Obama himself. But as the organization noted earlier today (http://www.newsweek.com/id/158265), "there is no evidence that the Obama campaign is behind any of the wild accusations that we critiqued." They continue: "there is no more basis for attributing these viral attacks to the Obama campaign than there is for blaming the McCain campaign for chain e-mail attacks falsely claiming that Obama is a Muslim, or a "racist," (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_obama.html) or that he is proposing to tax water (http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/would_obama_tax_my_profits_if_i.html). The anti-Palin messages, like the anti-Obama messages, have every appearance of being home-grown." Earlier this year, McCain spoke out against the Obama rumors; recently, Obama has denounced the Palin smears, as well. For Crystal City to suddenly imply that Obama is behind this stuff is completely disingenuous.

It's clear what Team McCain is trying to achieve here. They want to portray Palin as the victim of a menacing Obama-media industrial complex that's "out to get her" just because she's a woman. They want to insulate their veep pick from any real opposition by equating valid journalistic inquiries and good hard politicking with the sort of anonymous smears that have spread online. They want to gin up sympathy for her among female swing voters who have faced improbable odds in their own lives. And they want Chris Matthews and Co. to deliver their message free of charge tonight on TV.

They'll probably succeed on all counts. But that doesn't mean that "truth" has anything to do with it.

alfredr

09-11-2008, 09:17 PM

I'm back.

Talk about gremlins stealing your post. I just lost what I was working on here. Try again.

To answer the question about the difference between a religious person and a religious fanatic.

It has to do with someone wanting to force their religious beliefs on someone else. If you can't persuade me of the worth or your beliefs with your actions and demeanor and words and feel you need me to agree with you, or else!!! and the or else includes force or coercion. then your religion or form of religion or your view of religion is too extreme to be allowed access to the means to force them on other people.

I think this covers the 'Islamists' as well as the extreme religious right here in America.

A quick hijack to my own post. There are two whole continents called America. What makes us think we have exclusive rights to the word?

All three major monotheistic religions have used extreme force in the past to spread their beliefs. ('Past history' is redundant.) Nobody's hands are clean, but most of us have settled down.

The Spanish Conquest of the Americas, with their 'Cross or Sword' policy, is an example. Incidentally, my wife is from the part of Guatemala that was never conquered militarily. A priest convinced the authorities to let him try to convert the natives peacefully. It worked. The area is called Upper and Lower (Alta y Baja) Verapaz. "True Peace."

I think it was Saint Francis of Asisi who told his followers to go out and convert others, "and if you have to, use words."

a

Qikdraw

09-11-2008, 10:20 PM

Talk about gremlins stealing your post. I just lost what I was working on here. Try again.

Yes, those nasty Gremlins, many a post have they eaten. :(

All three major monotheistic religions have used extreme force in the past to spread their beliefs. ('Past history' is redundant.) Nobody's hands are clean, but most of us have settled down.

Settled down? Sort of. A few years ago a guy went and searched for abortion clinics on the internet, crossed state lines, filled his car with cans of fuel, then drove into a clinic, set his car on fire and ran away. However it wasn't an abortion clinic he did this too, just a regular one. Some people, on these boards even, did not consider that terrorism. But it is.
Remember the whole Terry Schivio thing? How some guy was caught buying a gun because he was going to go in there and forcefully 'rescue' her?
Or just recently when a guy walked into a church and started shooting people because they were christian 'left'.

We do still have the same problems and the same violence as the middle east, I don't think it has settled down at all, in fact I believe it is heating up again.

However in the Middle East there are also other issues that get brought into the violence, and religion may only be a side issue of the violence, but because of our ignorance of culture or past history we just label it as religious violence. One of the truely sad things about the whole Iraq war is that before the war Iraqis were just Iraqis, Sunni, Shia, Christian, they all intermingled, they were neighbours, friends and relatives, now they are seperated and at each others throats. The city has segregated itself into religious views. Thats one of the sad things that has happened. How long before they are neighbours again?

alfredr

09-12-2008, 04:20 AM

I meant settled down in the sense of the majority of religious leaders, and their followers no longer endorse or encourage conversion by force of the 'infidels' and if they won't convert, kill them. Extremists, and violent ones, exist in small groups and individuals all over the world and can cause problems out of proportion to their numbers.

usmc1

09-12-2008, 05:29 AM

Croydon

09-12-2008, 05:44 AM

PALIN TALKS ABOUT INVADING RUSSIA
US-RUSSIA WAR OVER GEORGIA MAY BE NECESSARY...
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/11/sarah-palins-charlie-gibs_n_125772.html)DOESN'T KNOW WHAT BUSH DOCTRINE IS... (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/11/palins-abc-interview-stum_n_125818.html)

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/38355/thumbs/r-PPPP-huge.jpg (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/11/sarah-palins-charlie-gibs_n_125772.html)
ABC's Gibson: What Are Your National Security Credentials...?
My National Security Credentials Have To Do With Energy... (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/11/sarah-palins-charlie-gibs_n_125772.html)

I guarantee you, despite that shaky interview, people will love her more and not question whether she is qualified. Overall, I found that interview to be a free pass for Palin as Charlie didn't do his job. He didn't ask tough questions. He also let some lies pass and not question them. Someone didn't do his homework.

usmc1

09-12-2008, 05:54 AM

I guarantee you, despite that shaky interview, people will love her more and not question whether she is qualified. Overall, I found that interview to be a free pass for Palin as Charlie didn't do his job. He didn't ask tough questions. He also let some lies pass and not question them. Someone didn't do his homework.
Well maybe, but the people that "love" her are hard-wired to do so. And her "favorables" with that group are lower than her "unfavorables" with moderates.

Believe me, her moose in the headlamps, blase, clueless responses will be part of her undoing. People jsut will not buy that she has foreign policy expertise because Alaska has proximity to Russia--if that sort of osmosis worked, she'd could speak Japanese too.

And her and McCain's insistance that her sleeping with BP Oil every night makes her the most knowlegeable energy "expert" in America will become fodder for the gagsters. Dang, one has a horrible vision of how the transfer of that knowledge takes place. OUT-OUT-OUT! Yaaaaargh!

In one day these clowns have trashed the Bush Doctrine and dissed Cheney.

Croydon

09-12-2008, 06:35 AM

Well maybe, but the people that "love" her are hard-wired to do so. And her "favorables" with that group are lower than her "unfavorables" with moderates.

Believe me, her moose in the headlamps, blase, clueless responses will be part of her undoing. People jsut will not buy that she has foreign policy expertise because Alaska has proximity to Russia--if that sort of osmosis worked, she'd could speak Japanese too.

And her and McCain's insistance that her sleeping with BP Oil every night makes her the most knowlegeable energy "expert" in America will become fodder for the gagsters. Dang, one has a horrible vision of how the transfer of that knowledge takes place. OUT-OUT-OUT! Yaaaaargh!

In one day these clowns have trashed the Bush Doctrine and dissed Cheney.
UsMC1, I love ya but I am going to disagree.

I am convinced that people are not looking at the big picture and questioning Palin, her experience, her ethics etc etc.

Reports after reports have come out regarding her tenure in AK. Rather than pause and question, voters appear to be dismissing these reports as media bullying Palin.

I keep asking, why must we treat Palin any differently than other candidates. Because she is a woman media has to be soft on her and lay off? This is the message I am getting from the republicans and women.

You are right, the people that love her will love her even more. The people that dislike her will dislike her even more. Then there are the ones who are in the middle of the road. Personally, I actually like Palin. I don't agree with any of her beliefs but I think she is a cool woman but I recognize that she has very little qualifications to be VP.

I just feel that Palin can do no wrong. Voters are not looking at the issues or her stand on them. Quite frankly, I STILL do not know where she stands on many issues and I STILL do not know who the hell she is. People are not asking these questions or thinking this for themselves. I think many voters are treating this as a popularity contest. They can't get over Palin, the mother of 5 who loves moose meet and hockey. They love that but they don't seem all that interested on who Palin, the politician, is.

tinhfwv

09-12-2008, 06:46 AM

Palin arguably may not have had a complete understanding of the Bush Doctrine (if she didn't, it's a certainty she does now), but it was very interesting to see evidence that Charlie Gibson may not have had a full understanding of the NATO treaty (he seemed surprised that members are bound to assist each other when attacked).

The way people perceive political events such as the Palin interview will depend, as always, on where they stand. And as the level of passion behind their perceptions escalates, so too will the likelihood that they'll confuse their own perceptions with fact. This is a common human frailty frequently displayed on this forum. It would help the discourse if we were all more aware of this aspect of our nature.

tinhfwv

09-12-2008, 06:56 AM

I just feel that Palin can do no wrong. Voters are not looking at the issues or her stand on them. Quite frankly, I STILL do not know where she stands on many issues and I STILL do not know who the hell she is.

It may be hard for some Obama supporters to accept, but the fact is that many voters feel the same way about him. Palin's name could be replaced with Obama's in your statement and millions of heads would nod in agreement. Yes, I know he's made many policy statements, and talk can be reassuring, but many still wonder "who the hell (he) is". In uncertain times like this, two such newcomers running for high office can be unsettling to many.

NudeAl

09-12-2008, 09:15 AM

The Bush doctrine? Gosh Charlie what do you mean, his view of the world? Uhh, no.

Hey who could be better qualified to lead this country? And lets face it with McCain on the tickett there is more than a 50% chance that by the end of 4 years she will be the hockey mom in chief. God help Russia then.

Qikdraw

09-12-2008, 10:01 AM

Palin's name could be replaced with Obama's in your statement and millions of heads would nod in agreement.

Not really cause Obama never charged rape victims for their medical exams. So much so that the entire state of Alaska had to make a special law to stop one small town from doing that. That town? Wassila, mayored by none other than Palin.

Charging rape victims for medical exams? Thats pretty pathetic, and an indication of how Palin thinks. Which is pretty bad. So if you want to support the continued victimization of rape victims be my guest...

tinhfwv

09-12-2008, 10:36 AM

Not really cause Obama never charged rape victims for their medical exams. So much so that the entire state of Alaska had to make a special law to stop one small town from doing that. That town? Wassila, mayored by none other than Palin.

Your comment is a non sequitur to mine. That said, this 2000 law (not sure what you meant by "special") was to correct a statewide practice (Alaska wasn't the only state that allowed such charges). If there's any evidence (obviously partisan blogs and partisan hearsay don't count as evidence) that this state law specifically targeted Wasilla, please provide.

NudonyII

09-12-2008, 03:09 PM

Hehehehe!!!!!:laugh:

<object width="464" height="388" classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000"><param name="movie" value="http://www2.funnyordie.com/public/flash/fodplayer.swf" /><param name="flashvars" value="key=61410aa4ff" /><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><embed width="464" height="388" flashvars="key=61410aa4ff" allowfullscreen="true" quality="high" src="http://www2.funnyordie.com/public/flash/fodplayer.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"></embed></object><div style="text-align:center;width: 464px;">See more <a href="http://www.funnyordie.com/gina_gershon">Gina Gershon</a> videos at Funny or Die</div>

Qikdraw

09-12-2008, 03:44 PM

Your comment is a non sequitur to mine. That said, this 2000 law (not sure what you meant by "special") was to correct a statewide practice (Alaska wasn't the only state that allowed such charges). If there's any evidence (obviously partisan blogs and partisan hearsay don't count as evidence) that this state law specifically targeted Wasilla, please provide.

Knowles signs sexual assault bill (http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2000/05/23/news.txt)
Alaska pols: Wasilla charged victims for rape kits (http://www.bostonherald.com/news/2008/view/2008_09_11_Alaska_pols_hit_Palin_on_Wasilla_chargi ng_rape_victims_for_medical_tests/)

Wassila was the ONLY town in Alaska charging rape victims for medical exams, this was under Palin. So said the governor at the time.

So if you want to support a woman who wants to further victimise women, be my guest, but I think it really speaks to her character that she did this. Its no wonder that the vast majority of women's groups are against her.

alfredr

09-12-2008, 04:29 PM

Am I just being cynical, or should I actually be surprised if we don't find out that someone in the Palin family is a Nascar fan, and the GOP get three out of three: God, guns and Nascar!

Again the cynic. I gotta wonder about 'shotgun weddings.'

Naturist Mark

09-12-2008, 04:51 PM

Hehehehe!!!!!:laugh:

The Gina Gershon video is pretty good,

Did you see the Palin VP audition tape?

<object width="464" height="388" classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000"><param name="movie" value="http://www2.funnyordie.com/public/flash/fodplayer.swf" /><param name="flashvars" value="key=5a3afb2ea5" /><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><embed width="464" height="388" flashvars="key=5a3afb2ea5" allowfullscreen="true" quality="high" src="http://www2.funnyordie.com/public/flash/fodplayer.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"></embed></object><div style="text-align:center;width: 464px;">See more <a href="http://www.funnyordie.com/">funny videos</a> at Funny or Die</div>

-Mark

Qikdraw

09-12-2008, 08:57 PM

McCain: Mayors, Govs Don't Have Nat'l Security Experience

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CzhFDQIgGSg&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CzhFDQIgGSg&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

usmc1

09-13-2008, 06:56 AM

tinhfwv

09-13-2008, 07:12 AM

tinhfwv

09-13-2008, 07:32 AM

Knowles signs sexual assault bill (http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2000/05/23/news.txt)
Alaska pols: Wasilla charged victims for rape kits (http://www.bostonherald.com/news/2008/view/2008_09_11_Alaska_pols_hit_Palin_on_Wasilla_chargi ng_rape_victims_for_medical_tests/)

Wassila was the ONLY town in Alaska charging rape victims for medical exams, this was under Palin. So said the governor at the time.

So if you want to support a woman who wants to further victimise women, be my guest, but I think it really speaks to her character that she did this. Its no wonder that the vast majority of women's groups are against her.

Neither article clearly states that Wasilla was the only city charging for rape exams. And the Bostonherald article cites its sources as being two Democrats on a teleconference, which qualifies as partisan hearsay (aka campaigning).

Here's a better article on the issue, however, even it is far from objectively (repeat - objectively) conclusive that Palin "did this". But these days, and in this place, objectivity takes a back seat to political passions.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-10-rape-exams_N.htm

Qikdraw

09-13-2008, 11:30 AM

For those who think Palin made a gaff with the "Bush Doctrine", here's your opportunity to think more deeply.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091203324.html?hpid=topnews

Yes I've seen the republicans scrambling to try and make no big deal about this, but she is running for Vice President, she better know whats going on. Whats sad is that the media is scrambling to cover for her as well. This is pretty pathetic. If this were Biden or Obama you'd use this as an excuse to attack them, so this is rank hypocracy that the republicans are trying to play this down.

Her national security credentials are she knows the most about energy (which she doesn't) and you can see Russia from Alaska. WTF? How much coolaid do you consume to make this sound reasonable?

Qikdraw

09-13-2008, 11:32 AM

Neither article clearly states that Wasilla was the only city charging for rape exams. And the Bostonherald article cites its sources as being two Democrats on a teleconference, which qualifies as partisan hearsay (aka campaigning).

Here's a better article on the issue, however, even it is far from objectively (repeat - objectively) conclusive that Palin "did this". But these days, and in this place, objectivity takes a back seat to political passions.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-10-rape-exams_N.htm

This happened under her watch, she was mayor, she could have stopped it, but didn't. She supports charging rape victims for medical exams. This is pretty discusting behaviour on her part, and on her chief of police as well. No compassion at all.

tinhfwv

09-13-2008, 12:23 PM

Yes I've seen the republicans scrambling to try and make no big deal about this, but she is running for Vice President, she better know whats going on. Whats sad is that the media is scrambling to cover for her as well. This is pretty pathetic. If this were Biden or Obama you'd use this as an excuse to attack them, so this is rank hypocracy that the republicans are trying to play this down.

Her national security credentials are she knows the most about energy (which she doesn't) and you can see Russia from Alaska. WTF? How much coolaid do you consume to make this sound reasonable?

The article wasn't written by "the republicans". In fact, it was in a newspaper Republicans seldom read. Thanks for your opinion. Here's a conservative (don't know if he's a Republican) opinion on the subject:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

tinhfwv

09-13-2008, 12:24 PM

This happened under her watch, she was mayor, she could have stopped it, but didn't. She supports charging rape victims for medical exams. This is pretty discusting behaviour on her part, and on her chief of police as well. No compassion at all.

I feel your passion.

Qikdraw

09-13-2008, 03:13 PM

The article wasn't written by "the republicans". In fact, it was in a newspaper Republicans seldom read. Thanks for your opinion. Here's a conservative (don't know if he's a Republican) opinion on the subject:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Yes and its more backtracking. If you are running for VP you better know important policies. Lame excuses like 'there is more than one meaning' is just simply idiotic.

Also you seem to think that only republican opinions matter. Which is just silly.

Qikdraw

09-13-2008, 03:14 PM

I feel your passion.

You don't find it the least bit discusting she was charging rape victims for medical exams?

jon71

09-13-2008, 03:27 PM

Krauthammer was pretty desperately reaching. If you went throughout America and asked "what is the Bush doctrine" 99% of the public would either say "I don't know" or they'd cite Bush's policy of pre-emptive war. For Palin to not know this is has to be deeply embarrassing for her and moreso for McCain. Playing fast and loose with semantics doesn't change that.

tinhfwv

09-13-2008, 04:37 PM

Also you seem to think that only republican opinions matter. Which is just silly.

The fact that I participate in this conversation is strong evidence the the contrary. Given that you participate as well, can you not relate?

tinhfwv

09-13-2008, 04:45 PM

You don't find it the least bit discusting she was charging rape victims for medical exams?

I try to base my opinions on well established, unambiguous facts, not on political spin. However, I respect the choice of others to act differently.

jon71

09-13-2008, 05:00 PM

The FACT that as mayor Palin had a policy of charging rape victims for their kits is a well established unambiguous fact.

Qikdraw

09-13-2008, 05:05 PM

I try to base my opinions on well established, unambiguous facts, not on political spin. However, I respect the choice of others to act differently.

The facts are Palin was Mayor at the time the city was charging rape victims for medical exams. This is documented FACT, no spin at all. YOU are trying to avoid the FACTS because you know its not a valid position to take.

Qikdraw

09-13-2008, 05:07 PM

The fact that I participate in this conversation is strong evidence the the contrary. Given that you participate as well, can you not relate?

I can relate, but because you do not accept any opinion not republican says you do not. I debate the facts and policy, you apparently want to spin and avoid issues.

tinhfwv

09-13-2008, 05:52 PM

The facts are Palin was Mayor at the time the city was charging rape victims for medical exams. This is documented FACT, no spin at all. YOU are trying to avoid the FACTS because you know its not a valid position to take.

If the information available leads you to condemn her character, that is your choice. Yes, there are some facts in play here, but from my perspective not enough to fully understand the situation and her role in it. You however are satisfied with the few facts available most likely because they enable a conclusion that conforms to your political passions. I do not share those passions and so my threshhold for condemning this person is higher. Celebrate diversity.

usmc1

09-13-2008, 05:53 PM

tinhfwv

09-13-2008, 05:54 PM

I can relate, but because you do not accept any opinion not republican says you do not. I debate the facts and policy, you apparently want to spin and avoid issues.

I accept all opinions. Always question the apparent.

usmc1

09-13-2008, 05:58 PM

I accept all opinions. Always question the apparent.
Apparentlyone would be better advised to question all opinions.

Qikdraw

09-14-2008, 02:49 AM

If the information available leads you to condemn her character, that is your choice. Yes, there are some facts in play here, but from my perspective not enough to fully understand the situation and her role in it. You however are satisfied with the few facts available most likely because they enable a conclusion that conforms to your political passions. I do not share those passions and so my threshhold for condemning this person is higher. Celebrate diversity.

Lets take this a step at a time...

1) She was mayor of Wasilla. (FACT)
2) Wasilla was charging rape victims for medical exams. (FACT)
3) She was mayor of Wasilla while this was going on. (FACT)
4) She did nothing to stop this practice. (FACT)

Is there anything to dispute here? Do you dispute these facts? If so please provide links to back your position up.

Celebrate diversity, but bring proof.

tinhfwv

09-14-2008, 04:02 AM

Celebrate diversity, but bring proof.

Proof of what?

usmc1

09-14-2008, 06:18 AM

PALIN'S RECORD AS MAYOR OF WASILLA AND 2 YEARS AS GOVERNOR (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14palin.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1221343324-tGxa66AkDRYq1tsNYpjoIw&pagewanted=all)

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/38624/thumbs/r-PALIN-huge.jpg (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14palin.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1221343324-tGxa66AkDRYq1tsNYpjoIw&pagewanted=all)
Personal Vendettas... Censorship... Cronyism...
Secrecy And Lying... (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14palin.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1221343324-tGxa66AkDRYq1tsNYpjoIw&pagewanted=all)

tinhfwv

09-14-2008, 08:09 AM

Ed Koch on the election and Palin:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/09/12/am.ed.koch.obama.cnn

Dolby

09-14-2008, 08:41 AM

Interesting. I was recently having a discussion with my brother in law about how polarized politics has become in this country and this further illustrates the point.

At one time John McCain did seem to be someone who (more often than not) used reason in making decisions. Obviously Palin's selection was to pander to the far right and now there is an uproar. It is unfortunate because if McCain is elected and something happens we will have another person who is guided primarily by their religious beliefs. Not a problem? Nah! It has worked so well for us the past 8 years. *sarcasm alert!* I am suspect of anyone who feels they have the only direct line to God. No, Palin did not say that, but her actions seem to indicate it. As for our beloved pres. he did more or less say that, and his dismissal (on record) of some other religions proves it.

Yes, this all is my opinion, other than what Bush said, however, I'm just as entitled to it as anyone else is. You can reply but it won't change it. Actually one day I would love to see anyone change their positions as a result of some of these exchanges. I don't think it ever happens, so not so sure why people get so heated about it and put so much energy into trying to convince me I'm wrong. I realize I can't do that, so I don't try.

Naturist Mark

09-14-2008, 10:50 AM

Several people in various threads wanted to know what books Palin wanted removed from the Wasilla library. One has been identified (http://www.theledger.com/article/20080914/ZNYT02/809140343&title=Once_Elected__Palin_Hired_Friends_and_Lashed _Foes):

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/38648/thumbs/s-BOOK-large.jpg
<blockquote>Ms. Palin ordered city employees not to talk to the press. And she used city money to buy a white Suburban for the mayor’s use — employees sarcastically called it the mayor-mobile.

The new mayor also tended carefully to her evangelical base. She appointed a pastor to the town planning board. And she began to eye the library. For years, social conservatives had pressed the library director to remove books they considered immoral.

“People would bring books back censored,” recalled former Mayor John Stein, Ms. Palin’s predecessor. “Pages would get marked up or torn out.”

Witnesses and contemporary news accounts say Ms. Palin asked the librarian about removing books from the shelves. The McCain-Palin presidential campaign says Ms. Palin never advocated censorship.

But in 1995, Ms. Palin, then a city councilwoman, told colleagues that she had noticed the book “Daddy’s Roommate” on the shelves and that it did not belong there, according to Ms. Chase and Mr. Stein. Ms. Chase read the book, which helps children understand homosexuality, and said it was inoffensive; she suggested that Ms. Palin read it.

“Sarah said she didn’t need to read that stuff,” Ms. Chase said. “It was disturbing that someone would be willing to remove a book from the library and she didn’t even read it.”

“I’m still proud of Sarah,” she added, “but she scares the bejeebers out of me.”</blockquote>

The question remains whether Palin's attempts at censorship were limited to her tenure on the village council.

The author of the book Palin wanted removed, yet refused to read had his own choice comments (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/13/author-of-book-palin-targ_n_126236.html).
<blockquote>"I rather suspected one of my books might be the one she targeted," said Michael Willhoite, author of "Daddy's Roomate" and several other children's books. "I can tell you right now, Ms. Palin is a very good mother and everything. But she is my mortal enemy. She is one of the enemies of the First Amendment and I can hardly [organize] my thoughts here, I am so offended by this."

Reached by phone, Willhoite was ultimately not surprised he had once been Palin's target. In fact, he admitted to being "strangely flattered" that he was "on her list."

"I wasn't on Nixon's enemies list," he said, "I was too young for that."

"The fact is my book did very well in the first years of publication," he said, "and the lot of the reason it did as well as it did is because of the challenges from the right."

But Willhoite expressed a sense of shock that a vice presidential candidate could harbor such positions, even if he predicted that issues of books and censorship would no longer be on Palin's radar.

"To tell the truth I don't think it is something she will attend to," he said. "There will likely other more damaging things she will attend to. As a mayor of a small town she was attending a small town issue for small town minds. She has a small town mind, you see."</blockquote>

-Mark

lordshipmayhem

09-14-2008, 10:58 AM

I am reminded of the town (I believe it was in the States) where the library agreed to pull all the books with scenes inappropriate for children from the childrens' library.

To the Religious Right's outrage, such books included the Bible. The librarians retorted that it fit the criteria that the religious right itself had laid down for exclusion from the Childrens' Library: it included sexual scenes including incest and orgies, it included scenes of graphic violence, etc. etc.

Yet another headdesk moment for the Religious Right.

lordshipmayhem

09-14-2008, 11:10 AM

And here's (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/2008/06/the_dangers_of_1.html) yet another headdesk moment for the Religious Right, in their efforts to purify their followers' thoughts through censorship (in this case, by bowdlerizing objectionable words).

Qikdraw

09-14-2008, 11:20 AM

Proof of what?

Are you disputing the facts I laid before you? Quit avoiding the question.

Naturist Mark

09-14-2008, 12:10 PM

Are you disputing the facts I laid before you? Quit avoiding the question.

More corroboration (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-alperinsheriff/sarah-palin-instituted-ra_b_125833.html):

<blockquote>Palin, as mayor, fired police chief Irl Stambaugh and replaced him with Charlie Fannon, who with Palin's knowledge, slashed the budget for the exams and began charging the city's victims of sexual assault. The city budget documents (http://www.cityofwasilla.com/index.aspx?page=136) demonstrate Palin read and signed off on the new budget. A year later, alarmed Alaska lawmakers passed legislation outlawing the practice.

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2008-09-12-signature.jpg
</blockquote>

Now the only argument the McCain campaign can make is that Mayor Sarah Palin signed off on a policy she was unaware of and didn't read - thereby committing perjury.

-Mark

jon71

09-14-2008, 03:30 PM

Thanks for that lordshipmayhem. Those clowns deserve all the embarrassment they can get.

tinhfwv

09-15-2008, 03:02 AM

Are you disputing the facts I laid before you? Quit avoiding the question.

I'm not interested in disputing anything. My interest is in exploring how we draw conclusions about human beings we don't know, specifically when those human beings are politicians we oppose. We're actually quite transparent and fascinating in this regard.

usmc1

09-15-2008, 05:38 AM

Nice try, but back on target and topic:

"In what respect? Charlie", will become part of our lexicon in the same way as "What's the frequency Kenneth?" and "Sorry, Charlie", as this blond joke in a brunette wig fades back into the obscurity from hence she was summoned by the republican death-eaters.

<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Shane/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msoclip1/01/clip_filelist.xml"><style>  </style><object width="425" height="344">

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/iiEjJdRfEoA&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></object>

ki4kxq

09-15-2008, 08:42 AM

Actually, her answers were quite correct if you read the transcripts. Especially with regard to Russia and NATO agreements. Problem is, the answers were edited. The answer to the Russia/Georgia question was cut by nearly 80%. How the hell can you see 20% of an answer on something that complicated and know where the candidate stands. You can't.

Of course, that is par for the course for some of these left wing networks. As much hell as Bill O'Reilly takes, he does not edit answers. He lets the whole shooting match air, good, bad, or indifferent. That's a good thing. We found out that Obama, without a well planned speech, really doesn't know where he stands. When his feet are put to the fire, he hems and haws and doesn't really know what to say.

Again, I will take Palin any day. The job of President is to lead and have good judgement and decision making skills. I believe Palin has those 2 things and Obama does not. Foreign policy advisors are there to fill in the details for either one that wins the presidency. It's what that person does with the info they are given that matters.

jon71

09-15-2008, 10:00 AM

Considering that Obama has been right since day one on Iraq, loose nukes, national security, etc. and McCain has been nothing other than embarrassingly wrong it's pretty wild that a conservative would have the chutzpah to bring up good judgment.

Qikdraw

09-15-2008, 12:21 PM

Again, I will take Palin any day. The job of President is to lead and have good judgement and decision making skills. I believe Palin has those 2 things and Obama does not. Foreign policy advisors are there to fill in the details for either one that wins the presidency. It's what that person does with the info they are given that matters.

You do realise that Palin is not running for president right? McCain is.

Qikdraw

09-15-2008, 12:24 PM

I'm not interested in disputing anything. My interest is in exploring how we draw conclusions about human beings we don't know, specifically when those human beings are politicians we oppose. We're actually quite transparent and fascinating in this regard.

So you spout out right wing talking points, dispute anything not said by republicans, then claim you don't want to debate anything. Yeah quite conveinient when you have been proven completely wrong.

The transparency is what some republicans are doing is quite facinating to watch, if it wasn't that the fate of the US is at stake.

baregreg

09-15-2008, 01:01 PM

You do realise that Palin is not running for president right? McCain is.
How true.
Note to McCain - You better hire a food tester.

tinhfwv

09-15-2008, 01:26 PM

Yeah quite conveinient when you have been proven completely wrong.

Please explain.

Qikdraw

09-15-2008, 01:46 PM

Please explain.

No. You're being deliberately obtuse to drag an arguement on instead of focusing on issues. Just like the McCain campaign wants us to.

I am not going to participate in the lies and refusal to discuss issues.

Qikdraw

09-15-2008, 01:49 PM

Sarah Palin's pipeline (http://www.reportonbusiness.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080911.wdrohan0912/BNStory/robColumnsBlogs/home)

“I fought to bring about the largest private-sector infrastructure project in North American history and when that deal was struck, we began a nearly forty billion dollar natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence.”

-Sarah Palin in an address to Republican delegates, Sept. 3, 2008

Anyone listening to Alaska Governor Sarah Palin at the recent U.S. Republican convention would believe that TransCanada workers are poised, shovels at the ready, to start construction of a 2,760-kilometre pipeline bringing natural gas from Alaska through Canada to the lower 48 states. They would be wrong.

The companies who have won the licence from Alaska to build the pipeline, TransCanada Alaska and Foothills Pipe Lines (both wholly owned subsidiaries of TransCanada Corp.), must still cross numerous hurdles before actual construction can even be contemplated.

-snip-

The pipeline Ms. Palin bragged about may never happen. The beauty of this from her point of view as a politician on the campaign trail in 2008 is that it could be years before anyone knows for sure.

More distortion from Palin.

Boreas

09-15-2008, 03:51 PM

As for that pipeline, aren't they still fighting about whether it would be that one, or the MacKenzie pipeline?

It really ain't over until the fat lady sings, and the environmental groups stop singing. :p We are getting more environmentally wise around here and we tend to squawk when Americans try to infringe on our space. :rolleyes: Of course, it is a double edged sword, and we always want to be friends and suck up to the big eagle. :surprised:

Qikdraw

09-15-2008, 05:35 PM

Once Elected, Palin Hired Friends and Lashed Foes (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14palin.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3&hp)

WASILLA, Alaska — Gov. Sarah Palin lives by the maxim that all politics is local, not to mention personal.

So when there was a vacancy at the top of the State Division of Agriculture, she appointed a high school classmate, Franci Havemeister, to the $95,000-a-year directorship. A former real estate agent, Ms. Havemeister cited her childhood love of cows as a qualification for running the roughly $2 million agency.

Ms. Havemeister was one of at least five schoolmates Ms. Palin hired, often at salaries far exceeding their private sector wages.

Qikdraw

09-15-2008, 09:33 PM

Palin and the Teleprompter (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/palin-and-the-t.html)

September 15, 2008 8:42 PM

At a fundraiser in Canton, Ohio, this evening, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin had an interesting description of her speech to the Republican convention.

“There Ohio was right out in front, right in front of me," Palin said. "The teleprompter got messed up, I couldn’t follow it, and I just decided I’d just talk to the people in front of me. It was Ohio.”

This struck many of us -- who, as she spoke, followed along with her prepared remarks, and noted how closely she stuck to the script -- as an unusual claim. (Especially those of my colleagues on the convention floor at the time, reading along on the prompter with her, noticing her excellent and disciplined delivery, how she punched words that were underlined and paused where it said "pause," noting that "nuclear" was spelled out for her phonetically.)

-snip-

I should note that, after Palin's speech, some conservative bloggers reported that sources close to McCain had told them that the teleprompter had broken and Palin "winged it."

"The teleprompter did not break," wrote Politico's Jonathan Martin. "Sarah Palin delivered a powerful speech last night, but she did not 'wing it'..."

Says Martin, "Perhaps there were moments where it scrolled slightly past her exact point in the speech. But I was sitting in the press section next to the stage, within easy eyeshot of the teleprompter. I frequently looked up at the machine, and there was no serious malfunction. A top convention planner confirms this morning that there were no major problems."

More lies. Do they even care anymore? I mean its pretty apparent they are just saying whatever they want with no thought to the truth. I mean if you're going to lie, at least lie about something valid, 'I did not have sex with that woman', or something like that. This is just grade school idiocy.

Qikdraw

09-15-2008, 09:39 PM

Palin won't meet with 'Troopergate' investigator (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26727937/)

ANCHORAGE, Alaska - A campaign spokesman says Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin won't speak with an investigator hired by lawmakers to look into the firing of her public safety commissioner.

McCain campaign spokesman Ed O'Callaghan told a news conference Monday that the governor, the Republican nominee for vice president, will not cooperate as long as the investigation "remains tainted." He said he doesn't know whether Palin's husband would challenge a subpoena issued to compel his cooperation.

The campaign insists the investigation has been hijacked by Democrats. It says it can prove Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan was fired because of insubordination on budget issues -- not because he refused to fire a state trooper who had divorced Palin's sister.

This is funny, they can prove Palin did no wrong, but instead of proving it, they decide to not honour Palin's previous statement that she would be available and open with investigators. If she did no wrong, why is she not helping? If you can prove her innocence, provide proof to clear her name? Why keep suspicions high before an election?

This is just more of the secrecy of republicans, they think they can do whatever they want and get away with it.

Naturist Mark

09-15-2008, 09:55 PM

Palin won't meet with 'Troopergate' investigator (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26727937/)

This is funny, they can prove Palin did no wrong, but instead of proving it, they decide to not honour Palin's previous statement that she would be available and open with investigators. If she did no wrong, why is she not helping? If you can prove her innocence, provide proof to clear her name? Why keep suspicions high before an election?

This is just more of the secrecy of republicans, they think they can do whatever they want and get away with it.

Because the investigation is a Democratic plot. A Democratic plot authorized almost unanimously by the Republican majority legislature. Crafty bastards!

Besides, if you are truly innocent, you don't need to cooperate with investigations or even subpoenas, and no one can touch you. I think they call that the Bush Doctrine.

-Mark

tinhfwv

09-16-2008, 03:53 AM

No. You're being deliberately obtuse to drag an arguement on instead of focusing on issues. Just like the McCain campaign wants us to.

I am not going to participate in the lies and refusal to discuss issues.

All too often, the patterns of communication habitually used on this forum produce unsatisfactory results.

tinhfwv

09-16-2008, 04:00 AM

Because the investigation is a Democratic plot. A Democratic plot authorized almost unanimously by the Republican majority legislature.

-Mark

Politically, the world has changed since that authorization was given. Now the investigation is of significance to the fortunes of national partisans.

usmc1

09-16-2008, 05:20 AM

Politically, the world has changed since that authorization was given. Now the investigation is of significance to the fortunes of national partisans.
No. The investigation was always of national significance even though it operated below the awareness level of some.

Croydon

09-16-2008, 05:52 AM

No. The investigation was always of national significance even though it operated below the awareness level of some.

It all boils down to one thing. If Palin says she is innocent, then what is the harm in giving the emails? What do you have to hide if you are innocent.

Isn't she smart to know that by not cooperating, it calls into her question her so called innocence?

ki4kxq

09-16-2008, 06:59 AM

You do realise that Palin is not running for president right? McCain is.

Yes I do, however, the topic is "why Palin should not be elected". As to the Iraq war, how soon we all forget that everyone wanted to go into Iraq and get rid of Saddam. This is something that is on tape from just about everybody, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Harry Reid, other world leaders, the list goes on and on. Bush lied to them? Not hardly, they all had the same intelligence reports, so that brings me to believe one of two conclusions. He is so brilliant that he duped them all, (hard to believe since they tell everyone he is so stupid, or, they are even dumber than they say he is. Either way, doesn't look good for them either.

As far as Obama's judgement of not wanting to go to war with Iraq. Him being right on one issue is not enough for me to vote for him when he is wrong on everything else. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. And even though some say he was right to not want to go into Iraq, he certainly wasn't right about the surge or wanting to tuck tail and run.

NudeTopher

09-16-2008, 07:36 AM

.
...As far as Obama's judgement of not wanting to go to war with Iraq. Him being right on one issue is not enough for me to vote for him when he is wrong on everything else. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. And even though some say he was right to not want to go into Iraq, he certainly wasn't right about the surge or wanting to tuck tail and run.

Not so fast. Before you make that statement you might want to read a book that disputes that statement. "The War Within: A Secret White House History 2006-2008," by Bob Woodward contends that it was covert operations and not the surge that had an effect.

Please read this excerpt from Alex Koppelman:

Today, the Washington Post reports (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/04/AR2008090403160.html?hpid=topnews) that in Bob Woodward's new book, "The War Within: A Secret White House History 2006-2008," which will be released on Monday, the investigative journalist contends that the surge wasn't the primary reason that violence decreased in Iraq over the past 16 months. "Rather, Woodword reports 'groundbreaking' new covert techniques enabled U.S. military and intelligence officers to locate, target, and kill insurgent leaders and key individuals in extremist groups such as al-Qaeda in Iraq," the Post reports.
It was these covert operations, along with militant cleric Muqtada al-Sadr reining in his Mahdi Army and tens of thousands of Sunnis turning against al-Qaida in Iraq and allying with U.S. forces, in addition to the surge, that lessened the violence in the country, according to "The War Within."
Maybe the Obama campaign should send Sarah Palin a copy.

ki4kxq

09-16-2008, 07:47 AM

Not so fast. Before you make that statement you might want to read a book that disputes that statement. "The War Within: A Secret White House History 2006-2008," by Bob Woodward contends that it was covert operations and not the surge that had an effect.

Please read this excerpt from Alex Koppelman:

Today, the Washington Post reports (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/04/AR2008090403160.html?hpid=topnews) that in Bob Woodward's new book, "The War Within: A Secret White House History 2006-2008," which will be released on Monday, the investigative journalist contends that the surge wasn't the primary reason that violence decreased in Iraq over the past 16 months. "Rather, Woodword reports 'groundbreaking' new covert techniques enabled U.S. military and intelligence officers to locate, target, and kill insurgent leaders and key individuals in extremist groups such as al-Qaeda in Iraq," the Post reports.
It was these covert operations, along with militant cleric Muqtada al-Sadr reining in his Mahdi Army and tens of thousands of Sunnis turning against al-Qaida in Iraq and allying with U.S. forces, in addition to the surge, that lessened the violence in the country, according to "The War Within."
Maybe the Obama campaign should send Sarah Palin a copy.

There are a number of reasons why things are better in Iraq now. But, the surge of forces into the area, got things calmed down enough to be able to use the kind of tactics you are speaking of.

This is from several friends and relatives who are still in Iraq and are experiencing this first hand.

usmc1

09-16-2008, 09:32 AM

There are a number of reasons why things are better in Iraq now. But, the surge of forces into the area, got things calmed down enough to be able to use the kind of tactics you are speaking of.

This is from several friends and relatives who are still in Iraq and are experiencing this first hand.

First and foremost, there was no "surge". There was "stop-loss", "extended tours", and "delayed rotation", but there was no "surge".

Secondly, what you have in Iraq, at the moment, is waiting game of detente' where the factions are waiting a U.S, draw down in order to to achieve their aims.

jon71

09-16-2008, 11:06 AM

The vote to investigate Palin's involvement in trooper-gate was unanimous with 8 Republicans and 4 Democrats voting yes. Can anyone call that a "Democratic plot".

usmc1

09-16-2008, 11:45 AM

The vote to investigate Palin's involvement in trooper-gate was unanimous with 8 Republicans and 4 Democrats voting yes. Can anyone call that a "Democratic plot".

Yes! And, I think they already have!

Qikdraw

09-16-2008, 11:56 AM

Politically, the world has changed since that authorization was given. Now the investigation is of significance to the fortunes of national partisans.

Well it comes down to if she is innocent or not. It seems to me, following your statement, that it is the republicans that are politicizing this. If she has nothing to hide she needs to come forth and testify, and provide everything she already promised. This is the republican party getting too secretive. Palin said she was going to cooperate, now the McCain campaign is saying she isn't.

To me that just smacks of hiding something.

Qikdraw

09-16-2008, 12:09 PM

Yes I do, however, the topic is "why Palin should not be elected".

Right, but you keep comparing Palin to Obama, so I thought I would mention it. :D

As to the Iraq war, how soon we all forget that everyone wanted to go into Iraq and get rid of Saddam. This is something that is on tape from just about everybody, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Harry Reid, other world leaders, the list goes on and on. Bush lied to them? Not hardly, they all had the same intelligence reports, so that brings me to believe one of two conclusions. He is so brilliant that he duped them all, (hard to believe since they tell everyone he is so stupid, or, they are even dumber than they say he is. Either way, doesn't look good for them either.

They didn't all have the same information. The information from the CIA was given to a new 'intelligence' unit called 'The Office of Special Plans', which took information the CIA found questionable, and used that as the basis for war. They used worst case scenarios and said this was fact. While the information came from teh CIA it was then manipulated by OSP and then distributed. A lot of the people the Bush admin were gettign their 'inside' information the CIA had already dismissed as untrustworthy.

I find it interesting that all teh people who engineered the Iraq war wrote a letter to Bill Clinton in 1998 saying we shoudl attack Iraq, then in 2000 wrote a paper called 'Rebuilding America's Defences', which calls for an attack on Iraq, then immediately after 9/11 started calling for a war with Iraq. See the pattern here? Even McCain started calling for an attack on Iraq right after 9/11.

As far as Obama's judgement of not wanting to go to war with Iraq. Him being right on one issue is not enough for me to vote for him when he is wrong on everything else. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. And even though some say he was right to not want to go into Iraq, he certainly wasn't right about the surge or wanting to tuck tail and run.

Gen. Patreas said the gains with the 'surge' would have worked without the 'surge'. And as has been mentioned the gains with the 'surge' started hapening before the 'surge' even started. Helped by paying people not to attack us as well. Yes, the US is paying people not to attack us, that doesn't exactly sound like a valid 'gain' to me.

Cut and run? Odd because the Bush admin is now in discussions with Iraq on a timetable for US forces to leave. So is Bush 'cutting and running'? Isn't it amazing that when Obama said a phase down withdrawl of 16 months, met with approval of the Iraqi PM? Obama has always talked about a phased withdrawl, planned and worked around conditions on the ground and with Iraqi security forces. He's never talked about yanking all troops out within a month.

Naturist Mark

09-16-2008, 05:47 PM

Is Sarah Palin an American citizen?

Isn't it odd that she talks with a Canadian accent? And her kids play hockey instead of football?

And where was she born? Was it Sandpoint, Idaho ... or Sandpoint, Russia?

Did you know that Russia considers Alaska, one of its lost territories, to be part of Greater Russia, and that just like the Ossetians and Abkazians in Georgia, its residents can hold Russian passports? We know Sarah only received an American passport a few years ago ... what passport was she using before that? eh comrade?

Have you heard the hearsay that Sarah was born in Kamchatka, and that her mother only registered her birth in Idaho after flying back to the USA?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/48/D0807I14-HarbourTour.jpg/300px-D0807I14-HarbourTour.jpg
Kamchatka - land of volcanoes - birthplace of Sarah Palin?

Did you know that even if Sarah Palin subsequently gained US citizenship, it would be invalid unless she has renounced any Russian citizenship? Why hasn't Sarah Palin publicly renounced Russian citizenship?.

Why does the McCain/Palin campaign not answer these questions? What are they hiding?

-Mark

(a link for the irony impaired (http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp))

Boreas

09-16-2008, 07:04 PM

Isn't it odd that she talks with a Canadian accent? And her kids play hockey instead of football?

Canadian accent? Have you heard a Canadian speak lately??? None of us sounds like that! :eek: She does sound like an American.

As for the hockey, you would be right there......THAT is Canadian and therefore, reason to be suspicious! ;)

Naturist Mark

09-16-2008, 08:22 PM

Canadian accent? Have you heard a Canadian speak lately??? None of us sounds like that! :eek: She does sound like an American.To my ear she sounds like someone from the Minnesota/Manitoba border area - but not quite "Fargo". Actually she reminds me of one of Sue Scott's characters on A Prairie Home Companion.

<embed src= "http://www.odeo.com/flash/audio_player_standard_gray.swf" quality="high" width="300" height="52" allowScriptAccess="always" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" flashvars= "valid_sample_rate=true&external_url=http://www.prairiehomevoices.com/media/audio/suescott/CommunicationinMN.mp3" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer"> </embed>

Not that it matters ... we are reaching for truthiness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness) here, NOT mere facts which are contaminated with the bias of reality based reasoning.

As for the hockey, you would be right there......THAT is Canadian and therefore, reason to be suspicious! ;)Only one way to be sure - the Tim Hortons test! Let's see if she reaches for a Double Double or a Starbucks Frappacino ... or passes up both for a Timbit.

-Mark

RunningNude57

09-16-2008, 08:56 PM

Wow - did you folks write the same things for all the other Repub. VP candidates? If you think your candidate choices are "winners" then you should have very little care about who or what Palin is or is not. Apparently, you might think that the Republicans are onto something......Also, Whereas one of you folks mentioned McCain's age(71) -what about Biden's age (65)...not a mention of that! Face it, your party just got it wrong! Shoulda picked Hillary for your candidate or at least VP! Also, why is this forum so full of negativity? Can't you just find nice things to say about your own candidates? Guess not.

Qikdraw

09-16-2008, 09:32 PM

Boreas

09-16-2008, 09:48 PM

To my ear she sounds like someone from the Minnesota/Manitoba border area - but not quite "Fargo". Actually she reminds me of one of Sue Scott's characters on A Prairie Home Companion.

<EMBED pluginspage=http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer src=http://www.odeo.com/flash/audio_player_standard_gray.swf width=300 height=52 type=application/x-shockwave-flash flashvars="valid_sample_rate=true&external_url=http://www.prairiehomevoices.com/media/audio/suescott/CommunicationinMN.mp3" wmode="transparent" allowScriptAccess="always" quality="high"> </EMBED>

Not that it matters ... we are reaching for truthiness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness) here, NOT mere facts which are contaminated with the bias of reality based reasoning.

Only one way to be sure - the Tim Hortons test! Let's see if she reaches for a Double Double or a Starbucks Frappacino ... or passes up both for a Timbit.

-Mark

LOLOL! That clip is hysterical. Thanks. Garrison K is always good. And yes, I would know that is two Americans talking.

She'd have to have some Timbits AND call it Timmie's. THEN we'd know for sure. Also, she'd pass up the Starbucks for a Timmie's coffee. ;)

*humour alert......we are not totally serious here. :D

Boreas

09-16-2008, 09:50 PM

Posting facts about the candidates for the opposite side is not running scared. We are talking about policy and issues, and reasons why these people should not be elected. I thought this was a democracy where this was allowed. Am I wrong?

Well, it MIGHT be allowed, but it IS highly suspect in this almost post GWB era. ;)

David77

09-16-2008, 11:19 PM

16 September 2008

Palin linked electoral success to prayer of Kenyan witchhunter

http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/cid:image001.jpg@01C9182F.8DA79730 (http://timesonline.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/09/16/blog_hstrange_2.jpg)
The pastor whose prayer Sarah Palin says helped her to become governor of Alaska founded his ministry with a witchhunt against a Kenyan woman who he accused of causing car accidents through demonic spells.
At a speech at the Wasilla Assembly of God on June 8 this year, Mrs Palin described how Thomas Muthee had laid his hands on her when he visited the church as a guest preacher in late 2005, prior to her successful gubernatorial bid.
In video footage of the speech (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8twqZpUT2NQ), she is seen saying: “As I was mayor and Pastor Muthee was here and he was praying over me, and you know how he speaks and he’s so bold. And he was praying “Lord make a way, Lord make a way.”
“And I’m thinking, this guy’s really bold, he doesn’t even know what I’m going to do, he doesn’t know what my plans are. And he’s praying not “oh Lord if it be your will may she become governor,” no, he just prayed for it. He said “Lord make a way and let her do this next step. And that’s exactly what happened.”
She then adds: “So, again, very very powerful, coming from this church,” before the presiding pastor comments on the “prophetic power” of the event.
An African evangelist, Pastor Muthee has given guest sermons at the Wasilla Assembly of God (http://www.wasillaag.org/) on at least 10 occasions in his role as the founder of the Word of Faith Church, also known as the PrayerCave.
Pastor Muthee founded the PrayerCave in 1989 in Kiambu, Kenya after “God spoke” to him and his late wife Margaret and called him to the country, according to the church’s website. (http://www.wofchurchke.org/)
The pastor speaks of his offensive against a demonic presence in the town in a trailer for the evangelical video “Transformations” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBvxWl7jXr0&feature=related), made by Sentinel Group, a Christian research and information agency.
“We prayed, we fasted, the Lord showed us a spirit of witchcraft resting over the place,” Pastor Muthee says.
After the spirit was broken, the crime rate dropped to almost zero and there was “explosive church growth” while almost every bar in the town closed down, the video says.
The full Transformations video featuring Pastor Muthee’s story has recently been removed from YouTube but the rest of the story is detailed in a 1999 article in the Christian Science Monitor (http://www.csmonitor.com/1999/0923/p15s1.html), as well as on numerous evangelical websites.
According to the Christian Science Monitor, six months of fervent prayer and research identified the source of the witchcraft as a local woman called Mama Jane, who ran a “divination” centre called the Emmanuel Clinic.
Her alleged involvement in fortune-telling and the fact that she lived near the site of a number of fatal car accidents led Pastor Muthee to publicly declare her a witch responsible for the town’s ills, and order her to offer her up her soul for salvation or leave Kiambu.
Says the Monitor, “Muthee held a crusade that “brought about 200 people to Christ”.” They set up round-the-clock prayer intercession in the basement of a grocery store and eventually, says the pastor “the demonic influence – the ‘principality’ over Kiambu –was broken”, and Mama Jane fled the town.
According to accounts of the witchhunt circulated on evangelical websites such as Prayer Links Ministries (http://www.prayerlinksministries.com/), after Pastor Muthee declared Mama Jane a witch, the townspeople became suspicious and began to turn on her, demanding that she be stoned. Public outrage eventually led the police to raid her home, where they fired gunshots, killing a pet python which they believed to be a demon.
After Mama Jane was questioned by police – and released – she decided it was time to leave town, the account says.
Pastor Muthee has frequently referred to this witchhunt in his sermons as an example of the power of “spiritual warfare”. In October 2005, he delivered ten sermons at the Wasilla Assembly of God, the audio of which was available on the church’s website until it was removed around the time Mrs Palin’s candidacy was announced. The blog Irregular Times (http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2008/09/16/what-is-the-wasilla-assemblies-of-god-trying-to-hide-for-palin/) has listings and screen grabs of the sermons.
It was during that these sermons that Mrs Palin, who was then preparing for her gubernatorial run, was anointed by Pastor Muthee. His intercession, she says, was “awesome”.
Her June 8 speech was to mark the graduation of students from the Wasilla Assembly of God’s Masters’ Commission, which, as Pastor Ed Kalins explains (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8twqZpUT2NQ), believes Alaska will be the refuge for American evangelicals upon the coming “End of Days”. After her speech, Mrs Palin was presented with an honorary Masters’ Commission diploma.

tinhfwv

09-17-2008, 04:32 AM

No. The investigation was always of national significance even though it operated below the awareness level of some.

I said "of significance to the fortunes of national partisans".

tinhfwv

09-17-2008, 04:45 AM

Well it comes down to if she is innocent or not. It seems to me, following your statement, that it is the republicans that are politicizing this. If she has nothing to hide she needs to come forth and testify, and provide everything she already promised. This is the republican party getting too secretive. Palin said she was going to cooperate, now the McCain campaign is saying she isn't.

To me that just smacks of hiding something.

Or, of not wanting to be part of something that they think has been recently corrupted by national partisan politics. None of us on this forum know at this point which explanation, if either, is valid. But for some here, the temptation to allow their political passions to steer their conclusions on this matter will be literally irresistible.

usmc1

09-17-2008, 05:24 AM

I said "of significance to the fortunes of national partisans".
Regardless. The thing is, you don't get to frame the issue within the parameters of your biases.

That nitwit Palin's problem regarding the firing of Alaska's safety director for not canning her churlish brother-in-law was in the news well before that fool McCain thrust her on the national screen.

Partisan's didn't cause the issue. It had its own significance before the McCain/Bush loyalists began their apologia and attempts to stonewall the bipartisan investigation.

Most people were not aware of the brewing Klondike scandal until recently, but it was there, and it had significance! And national partisans had absolutely nothing to do with it!

Naturist Mark

09-17-2008, 06:58 AM

The full Transformations video featuring Pastor Muthee’s story has recently been removed from YouTube

How odd. There seems to be a pattern of authorized videos that chronicle Palin's Third Wave (ultra-charismatic/dominionist) religious roots being removed by YouTube:

YouTube censors viral video documentary on Palin's churches (http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/9/13/1538/09770)
<blockquote>by Bruce Wilson
Sarah Palin was baptized at Wasilla Assembly of God and attended the church for over two and a half decades, and she has been publicly blessed by a number of pastors and religious leaders employed by and associated with that church.

Last Sunday our research team released a video, a ten-minute mini-documentary, focusing on the Wasilla Assemblies of God and the video seemed on the verge of a massive "viral" breakthrough when YouTube pulled it down, citing "inappropriate content".

At the point the video was censored by YouTube it had been viewed by almost 160,000 people. The short of it is that YouTube has censored a video documentary that appeared to be close to having an effect on a hard fought and contentious American presidential election.
more (http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/9/13/1538/09770)<blockquote>

Now on Vimeo:

<object width="400" height="302"> <param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /> <param name="movie" value="http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=1679097&server=vimeo.com&sho w_title=1&show_byline=1&show_portrait=0&color=&ful lscreen=1" /> <embed src="http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=1679097&server=vimeo.com&sho w_title=1&show_byline=1&show_portrait=0&color=&ful lscreen=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="400" height="302"></embed></object><br /><a href="http://vimeo.com/1679097?pg=embed&sec=1679097">Sarah Palin's Churches and The Third Wave</a> from <a href="http://vimeo.com/user230390?pg=embed&sec=1679097">Bruce Wilson</a> on <a href="http://vimeo.com?pg=embed&sec=1679097">Vimeo</a>.

-Mark

NudeAl

09-17-2008, 07:32 AM

I don't get it? First they want her to be able to clear her name now they are saying no way this is just political infighting. Huh? It's all politics it is just a little too damning for their own side.

The state Senate Judiciary Committee voted Friday to issue subpoenas to 13 people, including Palin's husband, to compel cooperation with the investigation. The campaign said it didn't know if Todd Palin planned to challenge his subpoena.

The governor has not been subpoenaed, but the investigator hired by the legislature, Steve Branchflower, said Friday he is interested in speaking with her. Campaign spokesman Ed O'Callaghan said that was unlikely as long as the investigation "remains tainted."

Dems allege stalling
Though the governor initially said she'd cooperate, after she became McCain's running mate in late July, her lawyer sought to have the three-member state Personnel Board take over, alleging that public statements made by the Democratic chair of the Judiciary Committee, Sen. Hollis French, indicated the probe was politically motivated.

Now wait a minute, the investigation was initiated prior to her being nominated as VP. Hello? So because they did a lousy job vetting her we should let her off the hook? Uh, NO!

ki4kxq

09-17-2008, 07:53 AM

You dems will be soooo disappointed when you get the facts on trooper gate. It's not at all what you think and hope it is. After looking at the numerous emails sent from Governor Palin to and about the Commissioner of Public Safety, reporters from Fox News have said there were indeed legitimate reasons for the trooper to be fired and the Commissioner.

Seems the trooper had done all kinds of things including drinking in his patrol car for which he was given a 5 day suspension. The Commissioner serves at the pleasure of the Governor. However, he gave her more than enough reason to fire him. He was subordinate at every turn, held meetings behind her back, etc. I hope that she does testify, she should put this nonsense to rest.

Funny thing is, this story has never gotten any traction with the majority of the voting public. Only the really rabid dems care about it and when the truth does come out, it will be egg on the faces of all those who have been calling for her head without the facts first. HAPPY EATING of your crow boys.

Qikdraw

09-17-2008, 08:47 AM

You dems will be soooo disappointed when you get the facts on trooper gate. It's not at all what you think and hope it is. After looking at the numerous emails sent from Governor Palin to and about the Commissioner of Public Safety, reporters from Fox News have said there were indeed legitimate reasons for the trooper to be fired and the Commissioner.

I won't be disappointed, I want answers that the McCain campaign is hiding. Tell me that if this was Obama you would not be screaming for his head with what the McCain campaign is doing. You can't because you know the republicans would be non-stop with this story and it would be 24/7 news, when its basically a mention now and again in the media currently.

And FOX news? You mean the propoganda arm of the republican party? Forgive me if I question their judgement. Will this hit the news anytime soon? I mean with proof other than Fox saying its so?

Qikdraw

09-17-2008, 08:53 AM

Or, of not wanting to be part of something that they think has been recently corrupted by national partisan politics. None of us on this forum know at this point which explanation, if either, is valid. But for some here, the temptation to allow their political passions to steer their conclusions on this matter will be literally irresistible.

The corruption of national politics has been by the McCain campaign. Until they stepped in Palin was cooperating, and was going to cooperate more, there were no problems. As soon as she was picked the McCain campaign put a stop to any openness on her part.

I would like answers, whichever way they may go.

You are right though, political passions will curve opinion, and I readily admit it might be so with me. However if Obama was hit with this kind of thing, I would like the answers also. What is happening to those on the right is that their passions are blinding them to possible wrongdoing as well. Instead of saying they want the investigation over, they are saying its 'politicized' and 'corrupted'. But for some here, the temptation to allow their political passions to steer their conclusions on this matter will be literally irresistible.

ki4kxq

09-17-2008, 09:21 AM

I won't be disappointed, I want answers that the McCain campaign is hiding. Tell me that if this was Obama you would not be screaming for his head with what the McCain campaign is doing. You can't because you know the republicans would be non-stop with this story and it would be 24/7 news, when its basically a mention now and again in the media currently.

And FOX news? You mean the propoganda arm of the republican party? Forgive me if I question their judgement. Will this hit the news anytime soon? I mean with proof other than Fox saying its so?

What is my proof? Well, the emails are out there, the Fox reporters got them and were reading them. The democratic party dispatched 30 folks to Alaska to get the lowdown on this and other allegations. Ask yourself this, if Fox can read the emails, then so can the democratic operatives. If the emails do not read the way the Fox reporters say, wouldn't the other folks up there have them all over the news? I think they would. The fact that they don't tells me that what Fox said is correct or the Obama camp would be shouting the emails in question from the roof tops.

I want these questions answered too, I would like her to testify as she looks completely justified in her firing. Remember too, that this hearing is a political move by her enemies, the Commissioner serves at the pleasure of the Governor. That means she can fire him, period. No reason needed. Just like the crap they tried to pull with Bush and the attorneys, they served at his pleasure. Legally, he could fire the whole lot without cause or reason. However, listening to the democrats you wouldn't have thought so. They demanded to know why. I think he handled that completely wrong. He should have told them where to go, it wasn't their responsibility to question the reason. That is why certain positions are "At the pleasure" of the executive in charge.

jon71

09-17-2008, 12:19 PM

That's already fully known ki4kxq. The guy is a bit of a loser and was appropriately punisthed for his violations. That still doesn't change the fact that Gov. Palin tried to get him fired for PERSONAL reasons, not professional ones. His misconduct warrented a few days suspension, not dismissal. Palin way over stepped her bounds and knows it. One of her top advisers warned her that this was a really bad move and she did it anyway, demonstrationg abysmally poor judgment. This is what the investigation is about. At the least the national Republicans know that she will be found at fault for ethical violations and abuse of power. There's the possibility that there is more in play than just that but even if not there's still going to be a huge black eye on the McCain/Palin ticket.

usmc1

09-17-2008, 12:22 PM

It's not working! The lies. The smears. The distractions. The flip-flops! The nit-wit holy roller! The whole snake-bit McCain campaign is not working. Even conservative leadership is putting as much distance between themselves and McCain, as McCain is trying to with Bush.

It took a week, but the "bounce" is gone. It is the same old trend. McCain slanders, lies, smears, puts a geek up on the stage to bite the head off a couple of chickens, and gets a little attention, and then it fades.

PRINCETON, NJ -- The Sept. 14-16 Gallup Poll Daily tracking (http://www.gallup.com/tag/Gallup%2bDaily.aspx) update shows Barack Obama regaining a slight, although not statistically significant, edge over John McCain, 47% to 45%, among registered voters, marking the first time since the week of the Republican National Convention that McCain has not held at least a one percentage point margin over Obama.

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/wo0i6gjglukrrl2a8zdiza.gif

tinhfwv

09-17-2008, 02:30 PM

Where's the daily tracking pole been the last week and a half? Very funny indeed.

tinhfwv

09-17-2008, 02:32 PM

But for some here, the temptation to allow their political passions to steer their conclusions on this matter will be literally irresistible.

Very well said.

Qikdraw

09-17-2008, 02:34 PM

Very well said.

Thank you, it came to me via divine revelation. Clouds parting, beam of sunshine and everything. :D

tinhfwv

09-17-2008, 03:08 PM

Most people were not aware of the brewing Klondike scandal until recently, but it was there, and it had significance! And national partisans had absolutely nothing to do with it!

I'm not sure why this small sentence is causing such difficulty. Here it is again:

"Now the investigation is of significance to the fortunes of national partisans."

The sentence doesn't say that the investigation itself has, or had, no significance. However, your response suggests that this is what you think the sentence means. The sentence states that the investigation is now of significance to the fortunes of national partisans, which it obviously wasn't before, not that the investigation's inherent significance is because of national partisans.

usmc1

09-17-2008, 04:01 PM

Where's the daily tracking pole been the last week and a half? Very funny indeed.
Can't see you, but suspect you ain't got no anchors hanging from your butt impeding your ability to post daily tracking polls.

tinhfwv

09-17-2008, 04:26 PM

Can't see you, but suspect you ain't got no anchors hanging from your butt impeding your ability to post daily tracking polls.

Very correct. No anchors required.

Naturist Mark

09-17-2008, 06:46 PM

Round 2 Of McCain Troopergate Stall: Part Karl Rove, Part Laurel & Hardy (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/les-gara/round-2-of-mccain-trooper_b_127101.html)<blockquote>
by Les Gara Posted September 17, 2008 | 11:28 AM (EST)

Since Monday the McCain camp has stepped up its personal attacks against Alaskans. They've continued their D.C.-style tactics against neighbors in this small state. The game plan is to find an excuse to stop our Legislature's Troopergate investigation, and hide evidence McCain's folks really don't want to surface before November's election. It's been a little Karl Rove, and parts Laurel and Hardy. How else can you explain the following?

Friday the Attorney General's office promised state witnesses would comply with subpoenas the Legislature issued last week. Tuesday the Governor's Attorney General flip flopped, and announced that state witnesses wouldn't comply because, well, and I'm paraphrasing here - - he's changed his mind. And in what has to be an idea hatched after a 4th Martini at Chilkoot Charlies, Governor Palin's attorneys have filed a motion to dismiss the ethics claim she filed against herself two weeks ago. Yup. She really filed a complaint against herself. Tuesday she said she's discovered, after a thorough investigation of herself, that she's done nothing wrong. Does anyone know how to get a hold of Jon Stewart and Tina Fey?
Read the rest (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/les-gara/round-2-of-mccain-trooper_b_127101.html)
</blockquote>

jon71

09-18-2008, 12:49 AM

Nationwide Barack Obama is up by 1. Some interesting notes is that Florida is a flat tie. Earlier it was assumed that McCain would do pretty well there. Obama leads by a very small margin in Ohio. Some polls put N. Carolina within a hairs breadth for Obama others have McCain more ahead. Obama has a very active campaign in Indiana and has cut McCains lead to within the margin of error. Overall it's 233 Obama, 189 McCain, 116 too close to call. I saw one very interesting article today (I think originally the N.Y. Times but I'm not sure). It went over the strength of candidates support. For Obama 80% of his support was very solid, people who are certain to vote for him on election day. This is consistent with what it has been for a while now. McCain was at about 70% and that's down 5 points from a week ago. In addition to the people who are leaving McCain it looks like more are seriously thinking about it.

usmc1

09-18-2008, 05:46 AM

I posted something similar a week or so ago wherein Palin's unfavorables among moderates exceeded her favorables among conservatives. Now we're seeing more of that emerge. I guess she needs to change her brand of lipstick. Here from a recent CBS poll...

"The CBS-Times poll suggests that McCain will have an uphill struggle distancing himself from GOP orthodoxy: "57 percent of all voters said they viewed him as a typical Republican, compared with 40 percent who said he was a different kind of Republican." The poll found, in addition, that the Democratic Party retained a 50 percent favorable rating, while the Republican Party stood at 37 percent.

CBS, in its write-up of the poll (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/17/opinion/polls/main4456249.shtml), pointed to additional evidence suggesting that McCain's VP pick is not wearing well: "Palin's favorable rating stands at 40 percent, down 4 points from last week. Her unfavorable rating, which stands at 30 percent, has risen eight points in the same time period. Her favorable rating among women has fallen 11 points in the past week." Palin's favorability ratings have also dropped..."

09-18-2008, 10:42 AM

Why Palin must not be elected? May I point out she is running for Vice President not Presidant? Strange, very strange but interesting. I honestly thought Obama was a shoe in for the Presidential race.

He was young, intelligent, and said just the right words during his campaign. Change The country is tired of this administration and wants change. I never thought McCain had a snowballs chance in hell of getting elected. Then out of left field here comes Sarah Palin. :eek:

Oh my the tables have turned. Obama came out of left field and gave Hillary the run for her life. Everyone was sure it would be a Democratic administration for the next four years. Now we have Palin and McCain and boy have things Changed !!!!

I have a relative who lived in Wasilla during Palin's Mayor stint. She was and is well liked and respected in Alaska. She took on the "big boys" and really shook them up. When I asked my relative about Sarah this was said, "I have three words to describe Sarah Palin, BBB. Big Brass Balls !"
The residents of Alaska pay no State taxes. No, that was not Palins doing.

These next few weeks until the election should be interesting. I'm not so sure Obama is the best choice after reading this from Snopes.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/thesis.asp

David77

09-18-2008, 11:40 AM

I see nothing at all disgraceful in Michelle Obama's senior thesis, as sited above in Snopes.com.

Qikdraw

09-18-2008, 12:11 PM

I see nothing at all disgraceful in Michelle Oboma's senior thesis, as sited above in Snopes.com.

Me either, and if you want to compare to Cindy McCain, where are her tax records? Why aren't those out? Just like the republicans demanded Kerry's wife do? What is she hiding?

I mean if you want to be nonpartisian you have to ask questions of both potential first ladies past.

Qikdraw

09-18-2008, 12:14 PM

Palin flubs softball question (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/09/18/epic-fail-palin-cant-answer-softball-question-about-national-security-experience-at-first-town-hall-meeting/)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Governor Palin, there has been quite a bit of discussion about your perceived lack of foreign policy experience. And I want to give you your chance. If you could please respond to that criticism and give us specific skills that you think you have to bring to the White House to rebut that or mitigate that concern.

PALIN: Well, I think because I’m a Washington outsider that opponents are going to be looking for a whole lot of things that they can criticize and they can kind of try to beat the candidates here, who chose me as his partner, to kind of tear down the ticket. But as for foreign policy, you know, I think that I am prepared and I know that on January 20th, if we are so blessed as to be sworn into office as your president and vice president, certainly we’ll be ready. I’ll be ready. I have that confidence. I have that readiness.

And if you want specifics with specific policy or countries, go ahead and you can ask me. You can even play stump the candidate if you want to. But we are ready to serve.

Way to not answer a question.

usmc1

09-18-2008, 12:33 PM

"I have three words to describe Sarah Palin, BBB. Big Brass Balls !"

BBB ? BB Brained!

rone

09-18-2008, 03:25 PM

BBB ? BB Brained!

You are not contributing anything by comments like this, IMO.

Naturist Mark

09-18-2008, 05:10 PM

These next few weeks until the election should be interesting. I'm not so sure Obama is the best choice after reading this from Snopes.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/thesis.asp

I'm curious. Just what is it about Michelle's thesis that you find disturbing?

-Mark

Naturist Mark

09-18-2008, 05:19 PM

Why Palin must not be elected? May I point out she is running for Vice President not Presidant?

In fact she is running for president, and so is Joe Biden. The succession of a Vice-President is automatic, the public doesn't get a second chance to think it over.

And in McCain's particular case (http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=253B8DF9-18FE-70B2-A8961A86DC5B16C7), actuary tables say there is a 1 in 7 probability that he won't complete a single term, and a 1 in 3 probability of not finishing two. Obama is about 10 times as likely to survive his presidency.

So you have to ask - is Palin 10 times better than Biden?

-Mark

usmc1

09-18-2008, 05:44 PM

You are not contributing anything by comments like this, IMO.
And BBB. Big Brass Balls, that was a contribution?

usmc1

09-18-2008, 07:42 PM

Why Palin must not be elected? May I point out she is running for Vice President not Presidant?....

I respectfully suggest that you recheck your sources for this statement, or at least have Lieberman whisper in her ear that she is not the top of the ticket.

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 9"><meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 9"><link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Shane/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msoclip1/01/clip_filelist.xml"><style>  </style><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YZKQDyL5gzc&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YZKQDyL5gzc&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Qikdraw

09-18-2008, 08:29 PM

I respectfully suggest that you recheck your sources for this statement, or at least have Lieberman whisper in her ear that she is not the top of the ticket.

I'm been hearing that people are excited to hear Palin, but when McCain starts to speak, people start leaving.

Palin better get a food taster I think. lol

KirkOntario

09-18-2008, 09:08 PM

Bill Clinton seems to have praise for Palin and he calls McCain a 'great man.' . And not much to say about Obama.(well? What IS there to say about this man?)

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/bill-clinton-pr.html

"ABC News' Jennifer Parker reports: Former President Bill Clinton has largely kept himself out of the public eye since his wife lost the Democratic primary to Barack Obama.

However in a rare television interview tonight, the former president called Republican presidential candidate John McCain "a great man" and praised GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin as an "instinctively effective candidate."

On a day when Obama sought to convince voters that he's best able to handle the economic crisis, the former president said it was his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., who gave today "the most detailed position."

In an interview with CNBC's Maria Bartiromo, Clinton, who has tried to put to rest rumors of tensions between himself and Obama said, "I've never concealed my admiration and affection for Sen. McCain. I think he's a great man."

Boreas

09-19-2008, 09:18 AM

I listened to a program on CBC Radio yesterday that raised some valid concerns about Governor Palin. It can be found here: http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/2008/200809/20080918.html

This program raised concerns about her involvement with Pastor Muthee, the alledged witch hunter and about her involvement with the books at the Wasilla library. They also spoke about her religious views, and how they COULD affect her leadership.

She has apparently been raised in a church community that has a dualist view of the world. This is the view that sees the world in terms of good vs evil. They believe in the end of times, in a more dynamic manner than other church groups. They interpret the bible literally and therefore see the end times and second coming of Christ following a conflict in places like the middle East.

My concern after this relates to the power she could conceivably have IF she finds herself in the president's seat at the White House. The president has a lot of power to guide and influence world events. Someone who sees the world in terms of good and evil might want to fight the good fight. That is extremely scary considering the power and resources of the US. It could be a recipe for a war to end all wars........and other things.

I have no problem with a leader's faith guiding their actions. I do have a problem with them believing that they are fulfilling a divine plan.

I am not saying I believe that Palin DOES hold these beliefs, or that these beliefs WILL influence her negatively. I think she does need to speak to these concerns.

Oh, and the researcher on the program said that only something like 20% of Americans hold such views. Why do these people have so much inflence on US politics?

Boreas

09-19-2008, 09:53 AM

Perhaps this article has already been posted: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eve-ensler/drill-drill-drill_b_124829.html

A friend sent it to me and I think it is worth sharing. Eve Ensler (Vagina Monologues) has a strong opinion, and one worth discussing.

She says:

But everything Sarah Palin believes in and practices is antithetical to Feminism which for me is part of one story -- connected to saving the earth, ending racism, empowering women, giving young girls options, opening our minds, deepening tolerance, and ending violence and war.

I believe that the McCain/Palin ticket is one of the most dangerous choices of my lifetime, and should this country chose those candidates the fall-out may be so great, the destruction so vast in so many areas that America may never recover. But what is equally disturbing is the impact that duo would have on the rest of the world. Unfortunately, this is not a joke. In my lifetime I have seen the clownish, the inept, the bizarre be elected to the presidency with regularity.

Qikdraw

09-19-2008, 12:28 PM

Oh, and the researcher on the program said that only something like 20% of Americans hold such views. Why do these people have so much inflence on US politics?

It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds..
Samuel Adams

This is what it is, a small minority of people, with access to a lot of money and air time, yelling and screaming, and that is what has happened.

Qikdraw

09-20-2008, 07:35 PM

Strict debate format for Palin/Biden debate (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/us/politics/21debate.html?pagewanted=1&_r=7&hp&adxnnlx=1221944424-M80ol3HyyXHv4YOA0dtK0w)

The Obama and McCain campaigns have agreed to an unusual free-flowing format for the three televised presidential debates, which begin on Friday, but the McCain camp fought for and won a much more structured approach for the questioning at the vice-presidential debate, advisers to both campaigns said Saturday.

At the insistence of the McCain campaign, the Oct. 2 debate between the Republican nominee for vice president, Gov. Sarah Palin, and her Democratic rival, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., will have shorter question-and-answer segments than those for the presidential nominees, the advisers said. There will also be much less opportunity for free-wheeling, direct exchanges between the running mates.

McCain advisers said they had been concerned that a loose format could leave Ms. Palin, a relatively inexperienced debater, at a disadvantage and largely on the defensive.

The wrangling was chiefly between the McCain-Palin camp and the nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates, which is sponsoring the forums.

Commission members wanted a relaxed format that included time for unpredictable questioning and challenges between the two vice-presidential candidates. On Wednesday, the commission unanimously rejected a proposal sought by advisers to Ms. Palin and Senator John McCain of Arizona, the Republican presidential nominee, to have the moderator ask questions and the candidates answer, with no time for unfettered exchanges. Advisers to Mr. Biden say they were comfortable with either format.

Both campaigns see the four debates as pivotal moments in a presidential race that is not only extraordinarily close but also drawing intense interest from voters; roughly 40 million viewers watched the major speeches at the two parties’ conventions. The upheaval in the financial markets has recast the race in recent days, moreover, which both sides believe will only heighten attention for the debates.

A commission member said that the new agreement on the vice-presidential debate was reached late morning Saturday. It calls for shorter blocks of candidate statements and open discussion than at the presidential debates.

McCain advisers said they were only somewhat concerned about Ms. Palin’s debating skills compared with those of Mr. Biden, who has served six terms in the Senate, or about his chances of tripping her up. Instead, they say, they wanted Ms. Palin to have opportunities to present Mr. McCain’s positions, rather than spending time talking about her experience or playing defense.

Since Biden was named VP pick he has given 80 interviews, since Palin has been picked she has given two. How many more will she give in the next 5 weeks till the election? While she is out stumping, only once has she been asked questions from the crowd, and that was from a republican only event. Why are the republicans keeping her away from the media and questions? If she is the best choice for a VP pick the republicans could find why are they not pushing her into more interviews?

I'm actually surprised they are allowing her to do a deabte.

Boreas

09-20-2008, 07:49 PM

Since Biden was named VP pick he has given 80 interviews, since Palin has been picked she has given two. How many more will she give in the next 5 weeks till the election? While she is out stumping, only once has she been asked questions from the crowd, and that was from a republican only event. Why are the republicans keeping her away from the media and questions? If she is the best choice for a VP pick the republicans could find why are they not pushing her into more interviews?

Good questions. http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/sign/sign0191.gif (http://www.mysmiley.net/freesmiley.php?smiley=sign/sign0191.gif)

Fitz1980

09-21-2008, 10:50 AM

Well back in 2004 statistically speaking the less you know about Bush's platform the more likely you were to vote for him. McCain's platform isn't that different from Bush's.

usmc1

09-22-2008, 05:57 AM

OK, I think I've got it figured out. And, here's proof that I do pay attention to what the other side says.

Sarah Palin's qualifications are:

National Defense/Anti-terrorism......her son is in the National Guard (oooops) Army. Natural mistake, Army/National Guard, just ask McCain.

Foreign Affairs....Osmosis from Russia's proximity to Alaska. Plus, they're gonna fly her to Afghanistan for a photo-op handshake with Karzai. Be danged if that doesn't round her out, and all! Plus I'm betting she knows that Spain is closer to Europe than it is to Latin America--but, I'm getting some odds on that bet. Otherwise I would not undertake it.

Domestic Affairs...I'm deferring to National Inquirer on that one.

Leadership....She was point guard on her high-school b-ball team. The point guard on my high-school basketball team will be getting out of the joint any year now.

Adherence to party dogma...Fiercely committed to nepotism, cronyism,abuse of power, denigrating and disparagement of opponents, dedicated to denial, regards wildlife as prey, and mocks Alaskan native peoples, knows how to game the system, and regards dividing cells as "children".

Intangibles...Cleans up quite well, wears lipstick better than any pig, and there have not (yet) surfaced any recordings of her babbling in tongues or being healed. Yet! I'm sure National Inquirer is working on it.

brazhunter

09-22-2008, 06:17 AM

OK, I think I've got it figured out. And, here's proof that I do pay attention to what the other side says.

Sarah Palin's qualifications are:

And she still has more leadership experience than Obama, the dems presidential candidate. Imagine that!

usmc1

09-22-2008, 09:27 AM

And she still has more leadership experience than Obama, the dems presidential candidate. Imagine that!
No she does not! And, saying it will not make it so.

As before, you can't substantiate this falsehood. Therefore, it stands as another falsehood from the right.

In fact, as has been repeatedly demonstrated here and elsewhere, over-and-over, Palin comes up short in every category except when she stands next to McCain.

Skinview

09-22-2008, 12:28 PM

And she still has more leadership experience than Obama, the dems presidential candidate. Imagine that!

More than Obama and Biden put together.

jon71

09-22-2008, 12:57 PM

She has about 1/2 as much as Obama and 5% as much as Biden.

Skinview

09-22-2008, 01:20 PM

She has about 1/2 as much as Obama and 5% as much as Biden.

Palin is a state governor. Obama and Biden have been in charge of nothing.

usmc1

09-22-2008, 03:18 PM

More than Obama and Biden put together.

Nope saying it just does not make it so. Your foundless assertion and arrant falsehood has been disproven in these threads and elsewhere any number of times.

usmc1

09-22-2008, 03:24 PM

Palin is a state governor. Obama and Biden have been in charge of nothing.

A state of 600,000 if you count the sled dogs, moose and dwindling supply of polar bears. Charlotte NC has a larger population, even when they ain't racing.

She's been in charge of nepotism, cronyism, and abuse of power, hustling earmarks, and padding her expense account. Oh yeah, she was point guard on her high school b-ball team, and became a foreign policy maven by breathing the air blowing east out of Siberia into Alaska .

Dang, no wonder they put lip stick on her!

Qikdraw

09-22-2008, 03:40 PM

Palin is a state governor. Obama and Biden have been in charge of nothing.

If you use that marker, then she has more experience than McCain too.

But this 'yes she does', 'no she doesn't' arguement takes us away from issues. Regardless of 'experience' what are her positions? What are the issues she stands on? These are what is important, and a reason why I do not like a McCain/Palin ticket, or should I say Palin/McCain??

jon71

09-22-2008, 07:05 PM

There has been discussion about Wasilla being the only town in Alaska that consistently required rape victims to pay for their own kits. There are instances of it happening elsewhere in Alaska but not commonly, just a stray case here and there. Before Palin came along the Wasilla police dept. did pay for it. She cut the portoin of their budget in half that this was drawn from. She can claim she didn't make them charge victims, and technically that's true, but she crafted their budget in such a way that it was pretty much inevitable. Yes as mayor a lot of her duty was budgetary so no one can claim she wasn't responsible. People in the state govt. also reported that when the bill to outlaw this went before the state legislature that the Wasilla police dept was the only staunch opposition to it. A few others grumbled a little but Wasilla stood out in several people's minds. If you go to CNN all politics (I do every day) they have a full article on this (or they did at lunch time today). This is one of the more disturbing examples of how she approaches policies.

Skinview

09-23-2008, 01:25 PM

If you use that marker, then she has more experience than McCain too.
Perhaps! But McCain was commander of the largest squadron in the US Navy. Of the four of candidates, I would say that McCain is ahead of all of them in experience, and his military background is a big asset. Biden has a very respectable amount of foriegn policy experience, if no executive experience, so I'd put him second. Palen is an executive right now, but lacks foriegn policy experience, and places third. Obama comes in a distant fourth. He has no executive experience, and is a very green senator, really appalling for a presidential candidate. If the guy had a PhD background in foriegn affairs, or held a cabinet position, or did something in the State Department, that would be one thing, but this guy is a babe in the woods.

Qikdraw

09-23-2008, 02:19 PM

Perhaps! But McCain was commander of the largest squadron in the US Navy. Of the four of candidates, I would say that McCain is ahead of all of them in experience, and his military background is a big asset. Biden has a very respectable amount of foriegn policy experience, if no executive experience, so I'd put him second. Palen is an executive right now, but lacks foriegn policy experience, and places third. Obama comes in a distant fourth. He has no executive experience, and is a very green senator, really appalling for a presidential candidate. If the guy had a PhD background in foriegn affairs, or held a cabinet position, or did something in the State Department, that would be one thing, but this guy is a babe in the woods.

I don't disagree with your interpretations, but I view it differently. (of course) :D

However you may look at Obama's experience you have to look at his judgement calls in the past number of years and how often he has been right and McCain has been wrong.

McCain's judgement is severely questioned by the amount of wall street lobbyists he has behind him. Many of the same people who are responsible for our current crisis. Do you really want them anywhere near the White House?

Palin may have executie experience, but in reading accounts from Alaska, even from her friends, she is not a woman who takes lightly to people who disagree with her. She is also a big believer in deficit spending, which to me is a big no no. Her end time religious beliefs are also troublesome. There are some end timers who believe that the faster they can screw up the planet the faster Jesus will come back. Looking at what her policy stand is I think that is where she stands too.

Biden has some issues I don't like. He flys off at the handle a bit and makes some stupid remarks, he also voted for the bankruptcy bill with was a handout to CC companies.

Obama has not gone far enough with his healthcare reform. We are in dire straights, and it sgettign worse, and he still isn't taking a harder stand.

However overall the McCain/Palin ticket means more of the Bush policies, but worse. Obama may be an 'unknown', but I am willing to give him the chance to make things right. If he doesn't, then get rid of him and put someone else in 4 years down the road. I really do not want to see McCain in the White House, our economy is bad enough, we cannot afford him to make it worse.

*edit* To add some links I found today..

Palin blocks reporters fro meeting (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080923/ap_on_el_pr/palin_leaders)
Why the Media Silence over John McCain’s involvement in The Keating 5? (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/09/23/why-the-media-silence-over-john-mccains-involvement-in-the-keating-5/#more-33059)
The Lehrer Newshour: John McCain’s Decision-Making (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/09/23/the-lehrer-newshour-john-mccains-decision-making/#more-33061)
McCain’s 5 Stages of Grief over the Economy (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/09/23/mccains-5-stages-of-grief-over-the-economy/#more-33033)

These are also reasons why McCain/Palin is not a good idea. Palin has also been 4 weeks with no press conference, why is she beeing kept away from the media? This is not the mark on an experienced candidate.

usmc1

09-23-2008, 07:34 PM

brazhunter

09-24-2008, 05:21 AM

But isn't Obama the Harriet Miers of the democrats?

usmc1

09-24-2008, 05:51 AM

But isn't Obama the Harriet Miers of the democrats?
No. He's the future president of the United States of America. Old Harriet was one of Bush's cronies that came a cropper.

Skinview

09-24-2008, 08:20 AM

However you may look at Obama's experience you have to look at his judgement calls in the past number of years and how often he has been right and McCain has been wrong.Like the surge. He stuck his neck out on that one, and made the right call.

McCain's judgement is severely questioned by the amount of wall street lobbyists he has behind him. Many of the same people who are responsible for our current crisis. Do you really want them anywhere near the White House?I don't see this as a problem. Trotting out the words "Wall Street lobbyists" is populist spin. Those guys want the economy to grow. I am much more comfortable with them than anyone with the words "liberal Democrat" attached to them. They are more interested in redistributing wealth than creating it.

Palin may have executie experience, but in reading accounts from Alaska, even from her friends, she is not a woman who takes lightly to people who disagree with her. She is also a big believer in deficit spending, which to me is a big no no.I don't like deficit spending either, but last I heard, Alaska was floating on an ocean of oil tax revenue. Where is this deficit lover tag coming from?

Her end time religious beliefs are also troublesome. There are some end timers who believe that the faster they can screw up the planet the faster Jesus will come back. Looking at what her policy stand is I think that is where she stands too.I'm an atheist, and I have had to put up the religious right for a long time. They are annoying, but its small potatoes. The Endangered Species Act isn't going to be repealed.

Obama has not gone far enough with his healthcare reform. We are in dire straights, and it sgettign worse, and he still isn't taking a harder stand.As a Democrat, he is more likely to sign some left wing, big government legislation that will create a bunch of new problems. But I think we are more likely to see legislation passed with McCain as President, just like when Bush got prescription drug legislation passed. If it had come from a Democrat President, the Republicans would have blocked it. I may vote for Obama...

However overall the McCain/Palin ticket means more of the Bush policies, but worse. Obama may be an 'unknown', but I am willing to give him the chance to make things right. If he doesn't, then get rid of him and put someone else in 4 years down the road. I really do not want to see McCain in the White House, our economy is bad enough, we cannot afford him to make it worse.Whoever is president, the economy is going to do what its going to do. 95% of the time, when politicians talk about the economy, they are pandering to ignorant swing voters. They talk about it so much, they have actually convinced people that the President runs the economy. The economy was a disaster under Carter. It wasn't his fault. Two years after Reagan took office, the economy tanked again. Then it pulled out and took off. The Federal Reserve chairman has way more influence, and Reagan can take credit for appointing Alan Greenspan, but Clinton reappointed him too. Republicans and Democrats pointed their fingers at each other for years as the economy went up and down, but they both kept reappointing the same guy who actually had the most power. Its probably a good thing the guy kept a low profile, otherwise his post would become a revolving door spun by economic gusts. Don't worry about the freakin economy.

These are also reasons why McCain/Palin is not a good idea. Palin has also been 4 weeks with no press conference, why is she beeing kept away from the media? This is not the mark on an experienced candidate.Reagan stayed away from the press. He had all kinds of experience in politics.

usmc1

09-24-2008, 10:33 AM

Oh! Wait, it's not from Nigeria this time...

Dear American:

I need to ask you to support an urgent secret business relationship with a transfer of funds of great magnitude.

I am Ministry of the Treasury of the Republic of America.

My country has had crisis that has caused the need for large transfer of funds of 800 billion dollars US. If you would assist me in this transfer, it would be most profitable to you.

I am working with Mr. Phil Gram, lobbyist for UBS, who will be my replacement as Ministry of the Treasury in January. As a Senator, you may know him as the leader of the American banking deregulation movement in the 1990s. This transactin is 100% safe.

This is a matter of great urgency. We need a blank check. We need the funds as quickly as possible. We cannot directly transfer these funds in the names of our close friends because we are constantly under surveillance.

My family lawyer advised me that I should look for a reliable and trustworthy person who will act as a next of kin so the funds can be transferred.

Please reply with all of your bank account, IRA and college fund account numbers and those of your children and grandchildren to wallstreetbailout@treasury.gov so that we may transfer your commission for this transaction. After I receive that information, I will respond with detailed information about safeguards that will be used to protect the funds.

Yours Faithfully,
Minister of Treasury Paulson

Boreas

09-24-2008, 10:49 AM

LOL. I was wondering why you were posting this, and then I read it more thoroughly. :rolleyes: Scary actually. :(

Qikdraw

09-24-2008, 11:19 AM

Like the surge. He stuck his neck out on that one, and made the right call.

WHo McCain? The 'surge' was working before extra troops were on teh ground. We are paying groups not to attack us. Even the high commander over there, who for the life of me I cannot remember his name at the moment, the one that McCain keeps touting, has said the 'surge' effect would have been possible without the surge.

Not only that, but Obama said it nice the other day when the McCain campaign wants people to think that the Iraq war started with teh surge and 5 years of McCain being completely wrong on Iraq has no bearing.

I don't see this as a problem. Trotting out the words "Wall Street lobbyists" is populist spin. Those guys want the economy to grow. I am much more comfortable with them than anyone with the words "liberal Democrat" attached to them. They are more interested in redistributing wealth than creating it.

They are into redistributing wealth all right, just upwards. This whole financial crisis means nothing to you? The fact that taxpayers are being asked to float the bill for wall streets idiotic plans? The plans they bought and paid for, They got deregulation, and now because its all falling apart they want money. McCain's advisors are the people responsible behind a lot of this mess, and you're ok with allowing them more access?

I don't like deficit spending either, but last I heard, Alaska was floating on an ocean of oil tax revenue. Where is this deficit lover tag coming from?

As mayor of Wasilla she got 27 million in earmarks, and still left the town with a $20 million debt. As governor she added an extra $1200 to give to every citizen, yet she deficit sent to do that. Besides have you noticed what party has been in power these last eight years? Have you noticed the 5 TRILLION in debt the republicans have added? You want to talk about responsible spending and refuse to aknowldge that its the republicans who are the worst offenders.

I'm an atheist, and I have had to put up the religious right for a long time. They are annoying, but its small potatoes. The Endangered Species Act isn't going to be repealed.

Are you sure? Both McCain and Palin was 'conservative' judges added to the courts. Meaning judges who will not rule on the basis of law, but on political or idealogical grounds. This is not good.

As a Democrat, he is more likely to sign some left wing, big government legislation that will create a bunch of new problems. But I think we are more likely to see legislation passed with McCain as President, just like when Bush got prescription drug legislation passed. If it had come from a Democrat President, the Republicans would have blocked it. I may vote for Obama...

Ah yes... The prescription drug plan... The ne where the Bush admin had to lie abouot how much it ws going to cost, because even their own party would have voted against it if they had known. Remember that? It was like a day after is was signed and the Bush admin said, 'Oh yeah, we forgot to tell you its going to cost and extra 150 million.'.

Whoever is president, the economy is going to do what its going to do. 95% of the time, when politicians talk about the economy, they are pandering to ignorant swing voters. They talk about it so much, they have actually convinced people that the President runs the economy. The economy was a disaster under Carter. It wasn't his fault. Two years after Reagan took office, the economy tanked again. Then it pulled out and took off. The Federal Reserve chairman has way more influence, and Reagan can take credit for appointing Alan Greenspan, but Clinton reappointed him too. Republicans and Democrats pointed their fingers at each other for years as the economy went up and down, but they both kept reappointing the same guy who actually had the most power. Its probably a good thing the guy kept a low profile, otherwise his post would become a revolving door spun by economic gusts. Don't worry about the freakin economy.

The president does set the tone, the whole idea that the president does nothing is idiotic. The economy will follow his lead, along with Congress and the Senate. Yes Alan Greenspan screwed our country up, but he didn't do it alone.

Reagan stayed away from the press. He had all kinds of experience in politics.

The amount of time spent away from the press that Palin and McCain are doing is simply idiotic. They don't want to talk to the media. McCain finally had a press conference, his first in 41 days. DOn't you want to know how he is going to deal with issues? Instead he is hiding from the press. That does not sound like a good leader to me.

usmc1

09-24-2008, 12:15 PM

just like when Bush got prescription drug legislation passed. If it had come from a Democrat President, the Republicans would have blocked it. I may vote for Obama...

What a load. Bush handed tax-payer money over to HMOs, drug czars, and insurance oligarchs in a second step attempt to privatize Medicare. First attempt was support for the Advantage plans which costs taxpayers much more than standard Medicare. The second step was Part D, which privatized the prescription plan and which is literally killing older Americans.

Death by Donut Hole! Part D is a killer plan!

Two years ago, this September 6th, hundreds of older, grassroots, progressive activists traveled to Washington, D.C., to deliver donut holes to congressional and senate offices in protest of the Medicare drug plan’s (Part D) “donut hole”.

They knew, and warned then, that the drug and insurance company written plan, enacted by a republican congress, and signed by Bush, and blessed as “the best we can get” by AARP, was no more than a drug and insurance company boondoggle on seniors, and an unmitigated disaster waiting to happen.

September is an especially critical time for seniors because that is the month when millions of them slide into the “donut hole” or Part D coverage gap. Here’s how that works--or doesn't work, depending on your viewpoint. At last year’s rate, Medicare beneficiaries are on the hook for full payment of prescription drugs after they incur costs of $2,400 with a Part D, private insurer. That’s right, the insured senior continues to pay premiums, but has no coverage, until he or she has spent $3,850 out-of-pocket, then the coverage resumes.

The obvious disaster waiting to happen has happened. Older Americans, after falling into the gap, are giving up their medicines, and risking their fragile health and their lives.

Last month, the Kaiser Foundation released the results of a joint research project with the University of Chicago and Georgetown University, confirming that seniors entering the “donut hole” give up critical, life-supporting medications because of cost. Kaiser Report Online
(http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/7811.pdf)
About 3.4-million older Americans fell into that gap last year, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation’s report. Once there, they stay there. The average senior reaching the gap received less than one month of “catastrophic coverage” (when coverage kicks in again after the $3,850 out-of-pocket). What this very clearly means, is that more than a half-million older Americans did without critical medications last year due to higher costs after falling into the “donut hole”. Simply put: Fifteen percent of those falling into the gap stopped their treatment regimen due to high costs!

Alzheimer patients (8%) were the least likely to give up their medicines. But, a frightening 16% gave up their high blood pressure medicines, and 10% of diabetes patients stopped buying their medicines. Others with painful chronic, but not life-threatening, illnesses had much higher rates as 18% of patients with osteoporosis, and 20% of patients suffering from ulcers or acid reflux stopped buying their pain and condition palliative medicines.

The report does not project the number of deaths, impairments, and worsening of conditions from the discontinuance of those critical medications by seniors. But, it is not difficult to suppose that some occurred as a result. That tragedy belongs to congress, Bush, the drug and insurance companies, and AARP who rolled-over on “Part D”.

Nor does it tell the story of the Bush administration's insistance on prohibiting, by criminalizing, Medicare's ability to bid for lower drug costs.

Looking ahead, according to a report by the Associated Press, the averageMedicare Part D beneficiary will face a 12% monthly premium increase in 2009. Federal government projections show the cost of standard drug coverage rising $3 to $28 each month. The estimate was based on bids from the private insurance companies administering the plans, and the increase is due largely to higher drug costs and a larger number of prescriptions per person, according to Medicare officials.

The solution is quiet simple, very doable, and should become the first order of business for the next congress. Allow Medicare, already proven to be a cost-efficient administrator of health care, to take bids for drugs and buy in bulk as does the Veteran’s Administration. The savings from this would enable the closing of the “coverage gap” and save lives. Failure to do so will be a death sentence for many Older Americans as drug-price and coverage premium increases quicken their slide into a gap which is rapidely becoming a yawning grave!

Navigator

09-25-2008, 07:51 AM

The Ballad of Sarah Palin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-fOuyz6c9w

Skinview

09-25-2008, 04:39 PM

They are into redistributing wealth all right, just upwards. This whole financial crisis means nothing to you?
No, I didn't say that. The crisis is important, but it wasn't caused by something government did. Government is going to try to clean it up with a huge intervention, which might be another mess. The current problems were not on the radar screen during the last election, and any action the government takes will be done before the next president takes office.

Besides have you noticed what party has been in power these last eight years? Have you noticed the 5 TRILLION in debt the republicans have added? You want to talk about responsible spending and refuse to aknowldge that its the republicans who are the worst offenders.The debt is caused by the war, which Clinton and Kerry and a bunch of other Democrats authorised. This is a bipartisan national debt.

Are you sure? Both McCain and Palin was 'conservative' judges added to the courts. Meaning judges who will not rule on the basis of law, but on political or idealogical grounds.Having an idealology is a good thing. Not having an idealology and ruling willy nilly to create whatever society shaping outcome you want is a bad thing. I am especially voting for McCain to stop Obama from appointing judges.

Ah yes... The prescription drug plan... The ne where the Bush admin had to lie abouot how much it ws going to cost, because even their own party would have voted against it if they had known. Remember that? It was like a day after is was signed and the Bush admin said, 'Oh yeah, we forgot to tell you its going to cost and extra 150 million.'.And then compare that to Democrat big government programs that cost TRILLIONS more than they said.

The president does set the tone, the whole idea that the president does nothing is idiotic. The economy will follow his lead, along with Congress and the Senate.The economy doesn't follow anyone. The economy is hundreds of millions of people, each acting on his own self interest to maximize their own profit.

Yes Alan Greenspan screwed our country up, but he didn't do it alone.Hysterical!!! Ok, repeat after me: "President Clinton presided over a disasterous economy because he reappointed Alan Greenspan." Har har har...

The amount of time spent away from the press that Palin and McCain are doing is simply idiotic. They don't want to talk to the media. McCain finally had a press conference, his first in 41 days. DOn't you want to know how he is going to deal with issues? Instead he is hiding from the press. That does not sound like a good leader to me.Candidates have a press conference when they think its to their advantage to do so. McCain surely thinks he can better get his message across in his campaign speaches. The press is generally left wing, so it should be no surprise that Obama would be more inclined to use it.

Qikdraw

09-25-2008, 05:31 PM

No, I didn't say that. The crisis is important, but it wasn't caused by something government did. Government is going to try to clean it up with a huge intervention, which might be another mess. The current problems were not on the radar screen during the last election, and any action the government takes will be done before the next president takes office.

This was soemthing caused by government. How can you say it wasnt'?

The debt is caused by the war, which Clinton and Kerry and a bunch of other Democrats authorised. This is a bipartisan national debt.

I don't disagree with that in a general sense. But there is the debate on if the Bush admin lied us into war.

Having an idealology is a good thing. Not having an idealology and ruling willy nilly to create whatever society shaping outcome you want is a bad thing. I am especially voting for McCain to stop Obama from appointing judges.

What you say about 'ruling willy nilly to create whatever society shaping outcome you want' is exactly what McCain and Palin want. They want judges to rule based on religion NOT rule of law. What they want, and you advocate, is a theocracy, not a cemocracy.

And then compare that to Democrat big government programs that cost TRILLIONS more than they said.

Name one that has added trillions onto the national debt in such a short period of time. It took the United States 225 years to have 4 trillion in debt, Bush added 5 trillion in 8 years. You tell me who is irresponsible with the eoconomy?

The economy doesn't follow anyone. The economy is hundreds of millions of people, each acting on his own self interest to maximize their own profit.

You know this is an idiotic statement. If a president cuts tax cuts for small businesses that hurts the bottom line of millions of Americans. So the president can directly effect the economy.

Candidates have a press conference when they think its to their advantage to do so. McCain surely thinks he can better get his message across in his campaign speaches. The press is generally left wing, so it should be no surprise that Obama would be more inclined to use it.

LOL yeah right. There is the right wing media myth again. Palin has not had one press conference, and from viewing her 3 interviews she knows absolutely nothing. Be honest, if Obama dn Biden had hidden from the media the way the McCain capmaign is doing you'd be all over them. Quit making lame excuses when you know better.

jon71

09-26-2008, 12:33 AM

It should be noted that Clinton presided over the greatest economic boom in decades, if not ever. He did this in a time of peace and he did it while shrinking the national debt. We hadn't had an annual budget in the green in thirty years before Clinton. The stock market doubled, almost tripled. Home ownership reached an all time high and home ownership among African-Americans and Hispanics blew away the previous all time high. Unemployment and inflation were both close to all time lows and combined unemployment and inflation actually was at an all time low. Real wages (that's what people make without ignoring the impact of inflation) grew dramatically. To top it off the crime rate fell during this time. This was incredible and historic. This Bush inherited the best economy any American president has ever had. No once has someone stepped into the Oval office with the economy as dynamic and strong on day one as Bush did. Unfortunately it didn't take long for him to screw it up. The reverse Robin Hood policies and debtor spending he pushed through in spring of 2001 began a recession. For those who are interested a recession is officially two negative quarters in a row. Every Quarter in 2000 was very strong and the first quarter of 2001 was positive. The two negative quarters were the 2nd and 3rd of 2001 (and beyond). Half the time Republicans lie and say the economy started to go bad late in Clinton's time in office. That is simply not true. The other half of the time they say the economy was strong until 9-11 and that's also a lie. 9-11 certainly made things worse but the recession had already begun by then, that just made bad worse. Then when the Iraq war began of course the economy got even worst still. I for once rebuke the effort to rewrite history and to defame our greatest economic president of all time,and one of the top ten all around.

Skinview

09-26-2008, 12:13 PM

This was soemthing caused by government. How can you say it wasnt'?How can you say it was? What are you claiming it did?

I don't disagree with that in a general sense. But there is the debate on if the Bush admin lied us into war.Debate? Loud partisan spin is all I've heard.

What you say about 'ruling willy nilly to create whatever society shaping outcome you want' is exactly what McCain and Palin want. They want judges to rule based on religion NOT rule of law. What they want, and you advocate, is a theocracy, not a cemocracy.Palin maybe. I have seen nothing to suggest that is the case. McCain is certainly not as you describe. He called the religious right "Agents of intolerance." The guy is a party animal, not a Bible thumper. Don't lump all Republicans together in one stereotype.

Name one that has added trillions onto the national debt in such a short period of time. It took the United States 225 years to have 4 trillion in debt, Bush added 5 trillion in 8 years. You tell me who is irresponsible with the eoconomy?Roosevelt and Johnson. Their programs are running up the debt now.

You know this is an idiotic statement. If a president cuts tax cuts for small businesses that hurts the bottom line of millions of Americans. So the president can directly effect the economy.You need Congress to do that. Since when did Bush raise taxes on small buisnesses?

LOL yeah right. There is the right wing media myth again. Palin has not had one press conference, and from viewing her 3 interviews she knows absolutely nothing. Be honest, if Obama dn Biden had hidden from the media the way the McCain capmaign is doing you'd be all over them. Quit making lame excuses when you know better.
I am stunned that anyone would make an issue of how often someone has press conferences. Does this rank near the top of what is Democrats have to complain about? They must be pretty happy with Republicans.

Skinview

09-26-2008, 12:18 PM

usmc1

09-26-2008, 12:31 PM

John McCain parachutes into <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comhttp://www.clothesfreeforum.com/ /><ST1:place alt=</ST1:place>Washington to wreck a serious negotiation about a subject he knows nothing about. George Bush stages a fiasco meeting that was nothing more than a McCain campaign ad that failed. Sarah Palin sounds incoherent and ridiculous discussing <st1:country-region w:st="on"><ST1:place w:st="on">Russia</ST1:place></st1:country-region>. The national debt rises above $11 trillion and the budget deficit approaches $500 billion, destined to rise again because of an incompetently organized bailout of bankers.
<?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O /><O:p></O:p>
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/17471 (http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/17471)

<O:p></O:p>
It is time to confront an awkward but profound question: whether in picking Palin as his running mate, McCain has committed -- by his own professed standards of duty and honor -- a singularly unpatriotic act.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-bernstein/the-palin-pick----the-dev_b_129373.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-bernstein/the-palin-pick----the-dev_b_129373.html)

Conservative columnist Kathleen Parker, admitting that until recently she was a vocal supporter of Sarah Palin, now says the vice presidential nominee should bow out (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDZiMDhjYTU1NmI5Y2MwZjg2MWNiMWMyYTUxZDkwNTE=):
<O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/26/kathleen-parker-after-int_n_129535.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/26/kathleen-parker-after-int_n_129535.html)

Another cringe-inducing performance by Sarah Palin in part II of her interview with Katie Couric.
<O:p></O:p>
In the segment below, Couric presses Palin to explain why <st1:State w:st="on">Alaska</st1:State>'s proximity to <st1:country-region w:st="on"><ST1:place w:st="on">Russia</ST1:place></st1:country-region> gives her foreign policy experience. Palin doesn't seem to have improved her answer since she was asked the same question by Charlie Gibson.<O:p></O:p>
<EMBED src=http://www.youtube.com/v/LRpmC9GXa-I&hl=en&fs=1 width=425 height=344 type=application/x-shockwave-flash allowfullscreen="true">

</EMBED><O:p></O:p>
Lately, John McCain has been serving up some real howlers—claims ridiculously out of kilter with his record—all delivered with a straight face. Here’s three:
http://theparagraph.com/2008/09/three-quick-howlers-from-john-mccain/ (http://theparagraph.com/2008/09/three-quick-howlers-from-john-mccain/)

Qikdraw

09-26-2008, 12:37 PM

How can you say it was? What are you claiming it did?

How about deregulation and making sure regulators were not doing their job. Mark has a nice post about that, maybe you should read it.

Debate? Loud partisan spin is all I've heard.

I'm sure you've had.

Palin maybe. I have seen nothing to suggest that is the case. McCain is certainly not as you describe. He called the religious right "Agents of intolerance." The guy is a party animal, not a Bible thumper. Don't lump all Republicans together in one stereotype.

Yes, agents of intolerance, then flip flopped and went and spoke at the place of the very man he called an agent of intollerance. Nice try though.
Also I am not lumping all republicans together, I lump McCain and Palin together. No where did I say all republicans. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

Roosevelt and Johnson. Their programs are running up the debt now.

Name a program, not presidents. Name one democratic president that put 5 trillion onto the national debt and I will withdraw and say you are 100% right.

You need Congress to do that. Since when did Bush raise taxes on small buisnesses?

That was an example, and you know it. Please stop trolling. At least afford me the respect of a reasonable response.

I am stunned that anyone would make an issue of how often someone has press conferences. Does this rank near the top of what is Democrats have to complain about? They must be pretty happy with Republicans.

Oh I am very happy with republicans right now. McCain and Palin are proving every day how much of a bad choice they are. McCain gambled and lost, and now he has egg on his face, Palin does an interview that shows how little she knows, its a great thing.

So again you will not be honest with me and avoid the issue. If you are not willing to be honest in your responses, please stop replying to me. I'm not interested in people engaged in trolling. This is so below you. While I disagree with you I have always enjoyed debating with you, but now you aren't even trying. SO if you are not willing to debate honestly, then please stop replying.

jon71

09-26-2008, 12:49 PM

Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott opposed everything that Clinton did right. They, and those like them more currently, favor the kind of deregulation that has us in our mess right now. Alan Greenspan I'll say was a pretty good Fed. Chairman so he deserves a little bit of credit. He didn't fight hard to push through balanced budgets that benefit middle class America (and passed with few or no Republican votes) but he did his job well enough. Remember that Clinton's budget proposals were fought tooth and nail but Republicans. One of the first ones that really changed things from what they had been under Republican rule tied in the senate 50-50 and Al Gore had to break the tie and it was extremely close in the house too. History has clearly vindicated those who supported the Clinton budgets and condemned those who opposed it.

usmc1

09-27-2008, 02:44 PM

McCain Muzzles His Lip-Stick Wearing Pit Bull!

After Barack Obama and John McCain stop talking on the debate stage Friday night, their surrogates will start spinning. But one high-profile supporter of Mr. McCain will be missing: his running mate Sarah Palin.[...]

Ms. Palin is scheduled to be at a debate-viewing event in Philadelphia, covered by a limited group of reporters, and she is not listed by any networks as a post-debate guest. On NBC and CBS, the former Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani will be commenting on the debate performances.
As The New Republic's Michael Crowley noted (http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/09/26/sarah-palin-mia.aspx) during the post-debate coverage, Palin's absence looked particularly awkward given the fact that Joe Biden was appearing all over the place:
Amusing moment on CNN just now. Wolf Blitzer, coming out of a commercial:

"We've been getting some emails from views out there wondering why we spent some time interviewing Joe Biden, the Democratic vice presidential nominee and not Sarah Palin, the Republican vice presidential nominee. We would have loved to interview--we'd still love to interview Sarah Palin. Unfortunately we asked, we didn't get that interview...We're hoping that Sarah Palin will join us at some point down the road."

I'm told that Biden appeared on every major network tonight except ABC (which only turned him down because Palin wasn't available, on an equal-time sort of basis).

It's pretty strange when a candidate can't trust his own running mate to be out there spinning on his behalf.

Skinview

09-28-2008, 09:11 PM

How about deregulation and making sure regulators were not doing their job.Not preventing it is not the same thing as causing it. It was caused by people taking out loans that they couldn't pay back, and reckless lending practices. I have heard it argued that it was caused by liberals pushing institutions to give loans to low income people so they could buy homes that they really couldn't afford. I can't say how big a factor that was, but that would support your assertion that it was caused by government.

Yes, agents of intolerance, then flip flopped and went and spoke at the place of the very man he called an agent of intollerance. Nice try though.You can accuse him of pandering during an election, but its very unconvincing to suggest that who he courts during his presidential campaign is more representative of his feelings than what he said as a senator when he wasn't running for anything. Evangelicals are suspicious of him for a reason.
Saying McCain is part of the religious right because of where he spoke and who he is courting nowdays is like saying Guliani is pro gun because he spoke before the NRA, or that Obama and Biden are pro gun because they have lately started saying that we have a right to bear arms and they support it. Its all bull***t. Anyone who has been watching McCain, Obama and Biden long before this election know where their heads are really at. 95% of what any of these candidates say during the campaign is bull***t for ignorant swing voters. None of them will take a dump without taking a poll first to tell them where to squat.

Also I am not lumping all republicans together, I lump McCain and Palin together. No where did I say all republicans. Please stop putting words in my mouth.If you place McCain with the Religious Right, you are doing major lumping, and I can't see anything they have in common other than party membership. Ok, McCain is pro life, but nothing beyond that. I even wonder if he is pro life for political reasons.

Name a program, not presidents. Name one democratic president that put 5 trillion onto the national debt and I will withdraw and say you are 100% right.Oh. Ok, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. Those were programs put in by Roosevelt and Johnson, and they have piled on trillions of dollars of debt since they were created, and at an ever increasing rate. Then add on intrest paid on the debt created by these programs. They were not such huge budget busters when they were created, but they have turned into monsters. Right now the wars, and soon this financial meltdown, are huge contributors too.

That was an example, and you know it. Please stop trolling. At least afford me the respect of a reasonable response.I'm not trolling. I have never heard of Bush raising taxes on small buisineses, and its not something I would expect a Republican to do. Back up your claim.

Oh I am very happy with republicans right now. McCain and Palin are proving every day how much of a bad choice they are. McCain gambled and lost, and now he has egg on his face, Palin does an interview that shows how little she knows, its a great thing.Palin gave him a big boost. We have yet to see how that plays out in November.

So again you will not be honest with me and avoid the issue. If you are not willing to be honest in your responses, please stop replying to me. I'm not interested in people engaged in trolling. This is so below you. While I disagree with you I have always enjoyed debating with you, but now you aren't even trying. SO if you are not willing to debate honestly, then please stop replying.??????? I have no idea what you are talking about.

Skinview

09-28-2008, 09:27 PM

Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott opposed everything that Clinton did right. They, and those like them more currently, favor the kind of deregulation that has us in our mess right now. Alan Greenspan I'll say was a pretty good Fed. Chairman so he deserves a little bit of credit.Gingrich and Lott certainly didn't oppose Clinton reappointing Greenspan. And beyond that, "Clinton" didn't do anything. Congress "does", and Clinton either signed off on what they did or vetoed it. The veto is a very, very blunt instrument. The Presidency is a weak branch of the government in the short term. The real power is in Congress, and the President is a whipping boy for them. He gets all the credit and blame for what they do.

He didn't fight hard to push through balanced budgets that benefit middle class America...Greenspan?? The Federal Reserve Chairman has no part in making the budget.

Boreas

09-28-2008, 09:54 PM

Skinview

09-28-2008, 10:15 PM

I understand that something like 65% of the people who got subprime mortgages could afford the proper mortgage, and were convinced by the sellers to buy a subprime mortgage. I am not sure where I heard, read or saw that. Perhaps someone in here can confirm or discredit (nicely) that statement. If this is true, then the sellers need to be held accountable.
I don't know if that figure is true, but convincing someone to do something stupid is not a crime, unless there was fraud involved.

Qikdraw

09-28-2008, 10:46 PM

Not preventing it is not the same thing as causing it. It was caused by people taking out loans that they couldn't pay back, and reckless lending practices. I have heard it argued that it was caused by liberals pushing institutions to give loans to low income people so they could buy homes that they really couldn't afford. I can't say how big a factor that was, but that would support your assertion that it was caused by government.

Yes I have heard the same racist ranting by that one republican senator. I don't think that any other republican will back her up on this although the radio talking heads might. Yes the democrats pushed for more affordable loans for low income peole, however that did not mean preditory lending, nor did it mean a no interest payment for a few years then tripling the payment.

You can accuse him of pandering during an election, but its very unconvincing to suggest that who he courts during his presidential campaign is more representative of his feelings than what he said as a senator when he wasn't running for anything. Evangelicals are suspicious of him for a reason.
Saying McCain is part of the religious right because of where he spoke and who he is courting nowdays is like saying Guliani is pro gun because he spoke before the NRA, or that Obama and Biden are pro gun because they have lately started saying that we have a right to bear arms and they support it. Its all bull***t. Anyone who has been watching McCain, Obama and Biden long before this election know where their heads are really at. 95% of what any of these candidates say during the campaign is bull***t for ignorant swing voters. None of them will take a dump without taking a poll first to tell them where to squat.

McCain called them agents of intolerance during his 2000 replublican nominee race. Not while just a Senator.

Oh. Ok, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. Those were programs put in by Roosevelt and Johnson, and they have piled on trillions of dollars of debt since they were created, and at an ever increasing rate. Then add on intrest paid on the debt created by these programs. They were not such huge budget busters when they were created, but they have turned into monsters. Right now the wars, and soon this financial meltdown, are huge contributors too.

Really? That happened in 8 years? I asked for a program that added 5 trillion onto teh buget in 8 years, you cannot give me one example.

And you are completely wrong on SS. SS has run budget surpluses many time, its wehere Reagan, Bush sr, and CLinton got extra money from. In fact if it wasn't for SS surpluses Clinton would not have had a budget surplus, all three of those presidents took the extra money from SS for their own benifit instead of keeping that mnoney within SS.

I'm not trolling. I have never heard of Bush raising taxes on small buisineses, and its not something I would expect a Republican to do. Back up your claim.

Again you are trolling, I was using it as a hypothetical example. You know this, but again you are trolling.

Palin gave him a big boost. We have yet to see how that plays out in November.

Yeah Palin gave him a boost, but then she dropped 17 points since then. No more Palin boost. When people talk about Palin now its wondering where she is, why she isn't out on talk shows or doing more interviews, or they are wondering what the hell she is talking about when she does go on interviews. Her three interviews so far have been laughable. Did you see her response to the bailout question? She started talking about healthcare, job creation, all kinds of stuff completely unrelated to the question. Even conservative columnists are critisizing her.

I wonder what excuse they are going to come up with for her to avoid the VP debate on thursday... I'm gonna take a stab at it and say that she had to rush back to Alaska because her daughter has problems with the pregnancy. Thats just a guess, but considering how much they are shoving her daughter into the limelight its a distinct possibility.

I love the news about the shotgun wedding too. Yeah have her daughter's wedding before the election to bring some feelgood feelings towards republicans... Yeah way to politisize a wedding.

??????? I have no idea what you are talking about.

I'm sure that you don't...

Qikdraw

09-28-2008, 10:48 PM

I don't know if that figure is true, but convincing someone to do something stupid is not a crime, unless there was fraud involved.

In insurance if you misrepresent your policy it is illegal, I am not sure about the mortgage industry.

I also have heard that many people who qualified for regular loans were pushed into no interest loans. Thats the first time I have heard a 65% number, and that seems high to me, but it is possible.

Skinview

09-28-2008, 11:54 PM

Yes I have heard the same racist ranting by that one republican senator.Racist??? Who said anything about race???? Do you equate low income with a race? Is anything a Republican says automatically racist if it illuminates the error of a Democrat?

Yes the democrats pushed for more affordable loans for low income peole...
And if they are "low income", then how were they supposed to pay a mortgage on a house? Its like that order given in WWII: "Take the prisoner 30 miles back to the detention camp, and be back here in ten minutes." And we are supposed to be surprised that **** happened?

Really? That happened in 8 years? I asked for a program that added 5 trillion onto teh buget in 8 years, you cannot give me one example.I gave you three programs. I make no claim about specifically "five" trillion, but trillions nevertheless.

And you are completely wrong on SS. SS has run budget surpluses many time, its wehere Reagan, Bush sr, and CLinton got extra money from. In fact if it wasn't for SS surpluses Clinton would not have had a budget surplus, all three of those presidents took the extra money from SS for their own benifit instead of keeping that mnoney within SS.That is irrelevent. If the SS tax was in place without the SS program, the budget would be balanced. The SS tax is just a source of general revenue that has the label "Social Security" stuck on it. You could just as sensibly say that the gas tax funds the Department of the Interior, the SS tax funds the Defense Department, and the income tax funds SS. The idea the revenue from one tax is devoted to one program is pablum politicians feed to simple minded swing voters.

Again you are trolling, I was using it as a hypothetical example. You know this, but again you are trolling.Ohhhhhhh. You made it up. It sounded like nonsense to me, but I assumed you believed what you wrote. So who is trolling?

jon71

09-29-2008, 12:23 AM

Race was injected by ranting Republicans on capital hill, not from this forum. Quickdraw just pointed that out. "Liberals" here as well as Democrats in Washington favor AFFORDABLE loans to low income people. People who have jobs and can manage a modest monthly payments. People who are honest and hard working but not lawyers trained to catch fine print and loop holes written in legalese that is just this side of Latin. The problem is that some lenders thought they could be clever and created a system where things would be fine for a while and then, boom, the payments skyrocketed. They were greedy to start with but got so greedy they crashed the system. It demonstrates poor character to defend them now.
Also I've always thought that Greenspan was basically alright and I'll give him some credit. However it was Clinton working with congressional Democrats that created and passed the greatest economic boom in at least 50 years. These are budgets that almost no Republicans voted for. You can't possibly give any credit to Lott or Gingrich when they opposed Clinton's budget proposals, voted against them, and tried to lead anyone in their party to vote against them too. History has shown them to be fools.

Skinview

09-29-2008, 12:44 AM

Also I've always thought that Greenspan was basically alright and I'll give him some credit. However it was Clinton working with congressional Democrats that created and passed the greatest economic boom in at least 50 years.An economic boom isn't something that can be legislated. One might as well pass a law against recessions. The main reason we had an economic boom was Greenspan's steady hand on the interest rates, and the recession in the Bush administration. It wrung out the fat, inefficiencies, and dead wood in the private sector, giving Clinton lean and fit private enterprises that could make big profits. He landed on the high part of the buisness cycle, like Reagan enjoyed in his second term.

These are budgets that almost no Republicans voted for. You can't possibly give any credit to Lott or Gingrich when they opposed Clinton's budget proposals, voted against them, and tried to lead anyone in their party to vote against them too. History has shown them to be fools.Nonsense. Republicans had a majority in both houses. No budget passed without a lot of Republican votes.

usmc1

09-29-2008, 05:47 AM

I don't know if that figure is true, but convincing someone to do something stupid is not a crime, unless there was fraud involved.
Which takes us right back to your earlier denial of crimes involved which has been repudiated by FBI investigations causing your "unless there was fraud involved".

usmc1

09-29-2008, 05:55 AM

A bunch of flap-doodle and yammer-yammer and then...
Palin gave him a big boost. We have yet to see how that plays out in November.

Palin gave McCain no boost and merely excited the evangelicals for awhile:

Sarah Palin's fav/unfav are now -10 (40/50), and Obama is +27 (his improvement is via dropping his unfav to 32.) http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/426/kosfav3.jpg

Qikdraw

09-29-2008, 11:34 AM

Ohhhhhhh. You made it up. It sounded like nonsense to me, but I assumed you believed what you wrote. So who is trolling?

Since you continue to troll please stop responding to my posts, and I will just completely ignore you.

If you are unwilling to have an HONEST debate, I have no reason to talk with you.

baregreg

09-29-2008, 01:16 PM

Since you continue to troll please stop responding to my posts, and I will just completely ignore you.

If you are unwilling to have an HONEST debate, I have no reason to talk with you.
Just a note. You can do that through the Users Control Panel. Then go to Edit Ignore List.

Carry on folks. :eatpopcorn:

jon71

09-29-2008, 01:27 PM

Look it up Skinview. Budgets are generally crafted by Presidents and introduced by a legislator close to the President. They are then voted on my both houses of congress. The groundbreaking '93 budget passed the senate 50-50 with V.P. Al Gore breaking the tie. Remember that Republicans didn't get a majority until after the '94 election. I'm remembering no Republicans in the senate voted for it, a few Democrats voted against and that still allowed 50 yes votes. In the house it barely passed with almost all Democratic votes (there was a small handful of Republican's in favor of it). There was no Republican support in the senate and just a single digit number or R.i.n.o.s in the house.

Boreas

09-29-2008, 03:54 PM

It seems that Gov. Palin is now getting an education in foreign affairs.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/09/26/f-palin-education.html

While most U.S. lawmakers were grappling with a domestic crisis (http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2008/09/25/bailout.html) this week, at least one politician had more global matters on her mind.
In a case of shuttle diplomacy, New York-style, Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin held a series of meetings with foreign leaders and other experts at various locations around the city on Tuesday and Wednesday.
The conversations were in private but the pictures were quite public, designed to reassure American voters about Palin's credentials ahead of a debate with Democrat Joe Biden, a foreign policy veteran.
Palin, who aides say got her first passport in 2006 and who has travelled outside North America once, took no questions during several of the photo opportunities.
Her discussions behind closed doors, though, were reported to touch on some of the world's touchiest topics, from the Taliban insurgency to Pakistan-India relations.
Randy Scheunemann, a McCain senior foreign policy adviser, and Steve Biegun, a former staff member of President George W. Bush's National Security Council, accompanied Palin on her tour.
"Her primary purpose was to develop a relationship and to listen," the International Herald-Tribune quoted Biegun as saying. "I think she's already fully prepared to be vice-president," he quickly added.

Qikdraw

09-29-2008, 06:28 PM

It seems that Gov. Palin is now getting an education in foreign affairs.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/09/26/f-palin-education.html

Yes she got to meet leaders, but the press were not allowed to ask questions. It was a photo op and nothing more. Networks were actually going to pull out of covering it because they were not allowed to ask questions. I think it was a CNN producer who got in for 29 seconds, asked one question, got no answer, and was then ushered out. The whole thing is pretty pathetic.

I mean meeting a foriegn leader does not make you an expert on foriegn policy. Its good that she got to meat them, and I hope she got something out of it, but if the repubicans try and say that because she met with foriegn leaders she is now qualified is pretty silly.

Boreas

09-29-2008, 07:55 PM

Croydon

09-30-2008, 04:32 AM

Yes she got to meet leaders, but the press were not allowed to ask questions. It was a photo op and nothing more. Networks were actually going to pull out of covering it because they were not allowed to ask questions. I think it was a CNN producer who got in for 29 seconds, asked one question, got no answer, and was then ushered out. The whole thing is pretty pathetic.

I mean meeting a foriegn leader does not make you an expert on foriegn policy. Its good that she got to meat them, and I hope she got something out of it, but if the repubicans try and say that because she met with foriegn leaders she is now qualified is pretty silly.
To take your point further, John McCain and his campaign have successfully instilled fear onto reporters. Reporters and the media are absolutely petrified of criticizing and rightfully questioning Palin, her experience and her time as mayor and governor of AK. Any form of criticism made against Palin, McCain and his campaign are making the rounds on cable news and using the word sexism left and right.

The barrage of criticism they received from GOP during the Republican convention also scared them. Many women and voters bought into the Republican excuses and the media got scared.

This works for McCain camp because they can continue to hide Palin from the media. There is a reason why she isn't on the Sunday morning political shows, there is a reason why she doesn't take questions from reporters and attendees at her rally's, there is a reason why she was not on any news programs after the debate (Joe Biden was on every cable news network) and there is a reason why interviews aren't granted. The woman would make a fool out of herself and the campaign (if you haven't seen the Couric interview, please do)

Mark my words, after Thursday's debate, the media will be holding back on their analysis of Palin's performance. Assuming she doesn't do well, they will only give her performance a tepid review rather than accurately analyzing. In addition, McCain's aides will be on all major network and calling media out for being sexist towards Palin and how they are unfair and may even accuse the moderator of the debate of having a personal vendetta against Palin.

The campaign is portraying Palin as Little Red Riding Hood and the media and political pundits as the big bad sexist wolf out to get her

The question I ask is: Why should Palin be treated different than any other candidate? Because she is a woman we must be easy on her? Isn't that in itself sexist? After all, feminists have fought to be treated equally as men...so why must we treat Palin any differently? No one had problem will Hillary was being slammed by GOP, media, political pundits and even me.

usmc1

09-30-2008, 06:22 AM

At some point, someone is going to raise the issue of McCain's abuse of women by putting Palin through this. It borders on cruelty to expose her ignorance to the world in such a way.

"Today, the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz reported (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/29/cbs-theres-no-more-palin_n_130231.html) on potentially embarrassing clips of Sarah Palin being interviewed by Katie Couric that haven't yet been aired. The Politico has more information on one in particular (http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0908/In_reintroduction_Palin_to_do_more_interviews_and_ tell_her_story.html):

Of concern to McCain's campaign, however, is a remaining and still-undisclosed clip from Palin's interview with Couric last week that has the political world buzzing.
The Palin aide, after first noting how "infuriating" it was for CBS to purportedly leak word about the gaffe, revealed that it came in response to a question about Supreme Court decisions.
After noting Roe vs. Wade, Palin was apparently unable to discuss any major court cases.

There was no verbal fumbling with this particular question as there was with some others, the aide said, but rather silence."

Boreas

09-30-2008, 07:33 AM

The question I ask is: Why should Palin be treated different than any other candidate? Because she is a woman we must be easy on her? Isn't that in itself sexist? After all, feminists have fought to be treated equally as men...so why must we treat Palin any differently? No one had problem will Hillary was being slammed by GOP, media, political pundits and even me.

She should be treated just as any other candidate. Coddling her is sexist. It also suggests that she was picked merely because she was a woman. While there is arguably a place for a "token" female VP candidate to break that "glass ceiling", the candidate does need to be up to the job. I suspect there is at least one such woman in the US.

usmc1

10-01-2008, 06:31 AM

Someone wrote me asking if I was going to "go after" Joe Biden with the same fervor as I do Sarah Palin. My response was, "Of course not. Palin is a nitwit, and Biden is a much respected, accomplished senator who sometimes embarrassingly displays a talent for over speaking". Sharing that trait, I sympathize--we brilliant people sometimes do that!

A nitwit, you ask. A bit strong and rather uncavalier, you might suggest. Well, I reply, don't just take my word for it. Even conservatives such as George Will and Kathleen Parker are publicly attacking the hapless woman as being dismally unqualified for being the vice-president of a man whose actuarial odds are a bit bleaker than most.

But, nitwit? Surely not. After all she's the governor of more than 600,000 people and that should count for something.

So what, I reply, my congressional district has more people than that and our congressman is a noted nitwit as is our governor--and we've got several cities in Texas with larger populations than the entire state of Alaska.

But, here is a woman, who when asked, can't name a single Supreme Court case other than Rove v. Wade. Or when asked to name a specific newspaper or magazine or other news source, which she turns to for information, stammers around, can't name a single one, and finally issues a dismissive, "oh I read all of them-you know".

Perhaps, we could be generous and forgive her the ignorance which drove her to pronounce that dinosaurs and humans once shared the earth. Certainly we've all read Alley Oop. Even I could forgive her that, since I have my doubts about the educational achievements of her generation. Yep, I'd overlook it, if it were not tied to her creationist, evolution-denying, God did it in six days 6,000 years ago, world view. No damn it, not seven...remember he rested that last day.

And certainly, we all, by now, are aware that she bases her foreign policy expertise on her state's "trade missions" to Russia and Canada. After all, she says, "If that old Putin ever rears his head to invade America, he'll do it in Alaskan air space".

So, I ask you, who am I to argue with the likes of Kathleen Parker and George Will? She is a nitwit!

Tomorrow night she will attempt to debate Joe Biden, and right now the right-wing spinners are bombing the interview shows and "Letters to the Editors" that Sarah's merely showing up and not swallowing her tongue and collapsing on stage will be a tremendous victory over that "old gaffe prone" Biden. They are setting the bar so low for her that a flatworm could not slide under it. If she puts a noun and verb together successfully, they'll crown her a literary laureate!

These things I predict: The moderator will bend over backwards to appear "fair and unbiased" toward Palin--particularly since she is African-American and has a pro-Obama book due for release. (Can't you already hear the outcry from the right) Palin will come across as the head cheer-leader campaigning for the Student Council. She will be well-coached and superficially responsive (pat and vague answers) to complicated questions of great complexity, import and depth. And, finally, more people will watch this debate than watched the presidential debate, which proves my point about the failure of education for my younger bothers and sisters.

And, after the debate, she will still be a nitwit, but more people will now know and acknowledge it. And I won't be asked why I don't skewer Biden.

Navigator

10-01-2008, 07:44 AM

Or when asked to name a specific newspaper or magazine or other news source, which she turns to for information, stammers around, can't name a single one, and finally issues a dismissive, "oh I read all of them-you know".

To her credit...at least she was bright enough to know that cheerily saying she reads the "Wassila Weekly Weasel" each week wouldn't be the right answer. :D:D:D

brazhunter

10-01-2008, 08:14 AM

Sand Biden is a much respected, accomplished senator who sometimes embarrassingly displays a talent for over speaking".

You mean saying stupid #### that the dems and press would be all over had a Republican said it, right? Apparently the guy doesn't have either the smarts or self control to stop his mouth from spewing remarks Obama's campaign has to 'correct'.

usmc1

10-01-2008, 08:59 AM

Nugent

10-01-2008, 10:28 AM

[QUOTE=usmc1;210518]

These things I predict: The moderator will bend over backwards to appear "fair and unbiased" toward Palin--particularly since she is African-American and has a pro-Obama book due for release.

I did not know that she is African-American

Owen

usmc1

10-01-2008, 12:54 PM

Well, we should have seen it coming.

Racist republicans are being whipped into a frenzy by Matt Drudge, claiming African-America, Gwen Ifill can't be a fair moderator. McCain approved her full well knowing that she was soon to publish a book favorable of Obama. That information has been out there for weeks, and now they're concerned? An African-American can't be fair? Huh?

Just more of their giving the ref the business hoping she'll take it easy on their hapless nitwit of a candidate in order to go to extremes to appear fair and unbiased.

Maybe we should descend to their level and piss and moan that's it's not fair to Biden since he's a man and both Ifill and Palin are women.

Cancel the debate, CSI is on, right? Or is it next week. Nevermind.

What a bunch of dil-weeds.

brazhunter

10-01-2008, 04:19 PM

Racist republicans are being whipped into a frenzy by Matt Drudge, claiming African-America, Gwen Ifill can't be a fair moderator. McCain approved her full well knowing that she was soon to publish a book

Wow the race card. :eek:

Fitz1980

10-01-2008, 04:21 PM

You mean saying stupid #### that the dems and press would be all over had a Republican said it, right? Apparently the guy doesn't have either the smarts or self control to stop his mouth from spewing remarks Obama's campaign has to 'correct'.

"The dem press", HA HA HA I've heard much tell about this liberal media boogie man, but have seen about as much evidence of it existing as I have of Bigfoot. Even one guy on the right admitted that all of the constant whining from the right was mostly "working the ref" like a football coach who challenges or complains about every close call the ref makes, even if he knows his team was in the wrong, because he hopes that the ref with doubt himself and just automatically side with him in the next close call.

After the media spent 6 years repeating republican smears against Bill Clinton, after it repeated the whole "Al Gore said he invented the internet" lie, the swiftboat liers and Kerry, heck even Kerry's botched joke in 2006 (when he wasn't even running for anything) I don't see how anyone could possibly still believe that stuff? Heck I remember back in 2000 that the bar for Bush was so low in his first debate against Gore that as long as Bush didn't come out there and just fart into the microphone the media was saying how good he did.

Naturist Mark

10-01-2008, 07:44 PM

These things I predict: The moderator will bend over backwards to appear "fair and unbiased" toward Palin--particularly since she is African-American and has a pro-Obama book due for release. I did not know that she is African-American

Owen

How unfair is that?

The first presidential debate was moderated by an old white guy from the Southwest.

And the VP debate is being moderated by a woman!

The Debates are in the tank for McCain/Palin!

-Mark

Qikdraw

10-01-2008, 10:53 PM

"The dem press", HA HA HA I've heard much tell about this liberal media boogie man, but have seen about as much evidence of it existing as I have of Bigfoot.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KTkqosRiyYo&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KTkqosRiyYo&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

An example of the 'liberal' press in action.

usmc1

10-02-2008, 11:22 AM

today....on Kos

While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75 year old rancher, who's hand was caught in the gate while working cattle, the doctor struck up a conversation with the old man. Eventually the topic got around to Palin and her bid.

The old rancher said, "Well, ya know, Palin is a Post Turtle'".
Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a 'post turtle' was.

The old rancher said, "When you're driving down a country road you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a 'post turtle".

The old rancher saw the puzzled look on the doctor's face so he continued to explain. "You know she didn't get up there by herself, she doesn't belong up there, and she doesn't know what to do while she's up there, and you just wonder what kind of dummy put her up there to begin with".

It wasn't mentioned whether or not the turtle was wearing lipstick.

Qikdraw

10-02-2008, 11:42 AM

Do NOT underestimate Palin for the debate. She's been in debates in Alaska and she's won them. I read an article yesterday that was quoting a guy who debated her, an independant, who said that she doesn't answer questions when asked, she talks around the issues. So what we may see and think, 'what the hell is she talking about', she's avoiding the issue. Biden needs to confront her on that, get her to answer the question. We do not need another 4 years of an administration that refuses to be honest with us.

So do not underestimate her, I am going to watch this debate with an open mind to her abilities, so I am not surprised at what happens.

jon71

10-02-2008, 01:37 PM

If nothing else we have to be on guard for Republican's playing the "expectations game". They did that very effectively for Bush, less so for McCain. It seems that they've lowered the standard so far for Palin that as long as she mostly uses complete sentences some people are prepared to say she won.

Navigator

10-02-2008, 01:48 PM

....she doesn't answer questions when asked, she talks around the issues. So what we may see and think, 'what the hell is she talking about', she's avoiding the issue. Biden needs to confront her on that, get her to answer the question.

America knows she avoids the "hard" issues and doesn't answer questions and...if the McCain/Palin ratings are any indication...American's are very afraid this "cute" little quirk of hers means she doesn't know any answers.

Thinking Americans will be watching for her to avoid the issues and will chalk up a point against her each time she does it, if she does. It should be Gwen Ifill's job to bring Palin back on point by repeating her questions like Couric did...we'll see.

As to Biden "confronting" her...he needs to be careful to not be too aggressive and deliver any sympathy vote to her.

Biden would be better off, I think, to just answer all questions...his AND hers...with facts and detail. He should be very calm and deliberate and he shouldn't try to win the debate...he should let her lose it for herself. Also, he should NEVER interrupt her and he should wait a few thoughtful moments after she's done talking to let her answer hang in the air for a bit before he starts answering.

In interviews she appears to think that a silence means she hasn't answered adequately so she starts talking again. When she's started talking again to fill a silence in the few interviews we've seen, she sometimes ends up saying something that makes her first non-answer look even worse.

Some wag in the media said this V.P. debate will be historic...because America is actually going to watch it!

We have our pizza, popcorn and beer all ready. I wonder if there'll be a half-time show and cheerleaders?

nakedstudent

10-02-2008, 01:58 PM

Tonight's debate will decide my vote.

I've found out with McCain's vote for a pork laiden bailout bill that he is not willing to be the fiscal conservative he postured himself to be.

If Palin can prove to me that she still is, I'll vote for the ticket.

If not, I think I'm back to Bob Barr or another 3rd party.

This election year has made me think much more than in years past.

Qikdraw

10-02-2008, 02:19 PM

Thinking Americans will be watching for her to avoid the issues and will chalk up a point against her each time she does it, if she does.

There is the issue. A whole lot of Americans vote because they've always voted a certain way, so they still vote the same party, even if it that vote goes against their interests.

This election year has made me think much more than in years past.

Good! You should always think about your vote. People should always research the canididates, you are going to vote for the president of your country, you owe it to your country to vote for the person who will be best for the country.

I really do not care how people vote, as long as they research and pay attention.

Naturist Mark

10-03-2008, 10:04 PM

This is why politicians hate to release their tax returns ...

Remember that $60,000 in per diems Sarah Palin was paid for sleeping in her own home? Seems she didn't pay any taxes on that money. Oooops (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/03/palins-tax-return-mystery_n_131791.html)

-Mark

Skinview

10-05-2008, 02:03 AM

Look it up Skinview. Budgets are generally crafted by Presidents and introduced by a legislator close to the President. They are then voted on my both houses of congress. The groundbreaking '93 budget passed the senate 50-50 with V.P. Al Gore breaking the tie. Remember that Republicans didn't get a majority until after the '94 election.
Of course. And thats where the power lays, in Congress. When Clinton came into office, he proposed an economic stimulus bill, and it died. The President does not run the government, let alone the economy, and Clinton can't take any more credit for the 90's economy did than can George H. W. Bush, or Gingrich, or Lott.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE7DC1F38F931A15757C0A9659582 60

Skinview

10-05-2008, 02:46 AM

jon71

10-05-2008, 01:41 PM

Bill Clinton did not propose an economic stimulus bill that died. I have no idea where that claim even comes from. He proposed a budget that passed, narrowly.

nakedstudent

10-05-2008, 02:59 PM

Yeah, but Obama would be an unqualified President whether or not Biden dies.

Skinview, you are never going to convince a liberal that Obama is unqualified. I have thrown Ayers, Rezco, Wright, Phlaeger, Johnson, and Raines and they're all either "quotes taken out of context" or "conspiracy theories by paranoid neo-cons."

The fact is that you are correct. Barrack Obama couldn't even serve in the secret service as his own body guard. That says a lot about his connections and it's actually a really sad day that we've sunk that low as a society.

Somehow this argument is legitamete for Sarah Palin but Barrack Obama is somehow above criticism and I am either racist or stupid for pointing out these character flaws.

Qikdraw

10-05-2008, 04:30 PM

Skinview, you are never going to convince a liberal that Obama is unqualified. I have thrown Ayers, Rezco, Wright, Phlaeger, Johnson, and Raines and they're all either "quotes taken out of context" or "conspiracy theories by paranoid neo-cons."

See the problem is is that you have completely ignored the proof offered that refute many of these claims. You are not willing to be swayed in your opinion by facts. You also completely ignore associations of Palin and McCain.

If you want to look at churches, McCain and Hagee, Roberts, etc... Palin and being prayed over to protect her from witchcraft, by a pastor who hunts witches. You find this acceptable?
How about McCain and the Keating Five? Or his advisors who were intrumental in bringing this mortgage crisis around? And in fact still getting paid by mortgage companies. Or an advisor saying that America is a nation of 'whiners'.
Or Palin recently saying that as VP she wants more power, with no accountability.
McCain going silent on the gun show loophole that allows terrorists to buy guns here in the US.
McCain not willing to pay women the same, saying they need to 'get better educated'.
Palin not supporting abortion even in the case of incest.

How about McCain promising to run an honourable campaign, and then resorting to personal attacks. (wait till the end of the ad to see McCain speak on this himself)

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nHW-RO1_WN0&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nHW-RO1_WN0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

This is just the tip of the iceburg too. You claim liberals cannot be convinced yet all you have done is robotically recite republican talking points that have already been proven wrong, and are completely unwilling to listen to facts.

Fitz1980

10-05-2008, 09:04 PM

Bill Maher pointed out something good on his show last week. This last debate she's shown that she's memorized her campaigns talking points quite well. She kept talking about how Obama said that he would sit down with certain world leaders (ones who are classified as state sponsors of terrorism) without preconditions. First of all he said that he would be opened to the possibility depending on the circumstances, not that he for sure would do anything of the kind. Just like McCain she kept hammering "sit down across the table.....without preconditions." Biden or the moderator should have called her bluff and asked "name one precondition that the McCain administration would insist on before sitting down at the table with Iran." She would probably have no idea of one, and might not even know what a precondition is.

Skinview

10-05-2008, 10:26 PM

Bill Clinton did not propose an economic stimulus bill that died. I have no idea where that claim even comes from. He proposed a budget that passed, narrowly.Of course he did. I remember when it happened, and I have an NY Times article reporting it for you to read there. Click on the link, silly. The one trivial bit of legislation that he put forward that was connected to the economy was gutted and diced. Clinton floated through the 90s with roughly the same laws and the same Fed Chairman that Reagan and Bush had, and when the economy took off, (coincidentally when the Republicans took most of the power) Clinton gets worshiped as some kind of economic wizard. What a load of crap.

Qikdraw

10-05-2008, 10:48 PM

Skinview

10-05-2008, 11:12 PM

You also completely ignore associations of Palin and McCain.

If you want to look at churches, McCain and Hagee, Roberts, etc... Palin and being prayed over to protect her from witchcraft, by a pastor who hunts witches. You find this acceptable?Nearly every president worshiped a god that told his prophet to go out and commit genocide, and kill witches, and stone people to death who collect firewood on the sabbeth. What makes Palin so special?

How about McCain and the Keating Five?He was absolved of any wrongdoing. McCain sat in a meeting with a bunch of other senators and did nothing.

Or his advisors who were intrumental in bringing this mortgage crisis around? And in fact still getting paid by mortgage companies.Big frickin deal. Obama hangs with a guy who bombed Federal buildings, and you fuss about people who work for mortgage companies, as if the was something wrong with working for a mortgage company? Get real.

Or an advisor saying that America is a nation of 'whiners'.Yeah! Now we know he has at least one advisor who will tell it like it is.

Or Palin recently saying that as VP she wants more power, with no accountability.I recall no proposal to cancel the 2012 elections, or disband Congress.

McCain going silent on the gun show loophole that allows terrorists to buy guns here in the US.Thats a load of crap. Anyone can buy a gun privately without going to a gun show. I have never heard of a terrorist buying guns at a gun show, and its already illegal for someone with a crimminal record to buy a gun anywhere. If someone didn't have a criminal record, he could buy a gun anywhere anyway. Legislation that has been proposed to close the "loophole" would effectively end gun shows.

McCain not willing to pay women the same, saying they need to 'get better educated'.??????? What, you think he thinks his VP pick should get paid less than Cheney?

How about McCain promising to run an honourable campaign, and then resorting to personal attacks. (wait till the end of the ad to see McCain speak on this himself)See, it is a nation of whiners.

This is just the tip of the iceburg too. You claim liberals cannot be convinced yet all you have done is robotically recite republican talking points that have already been proven wrong, and are completely unwilling to listen to facts.Isn't this the pot calling the kettle black!