»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
The Presidential "Race"
| The Alley |
|
The Presidential "Race" |
|
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA 
|
Ok, you can all let me have it if you want but it's time for someone to call this what it is....the presidential race ia all about just that....race. How can a man with no experience be considered a viable presidential candidate? Race. How did Obama beat Hillary? Race. Obama got votes from 90% of blacks in certain states. 90%! Have the blacks in any one state EVER voted 90% for one candidate before? Have the WHITES in any state ever voted for any one candidate before? No. How could this happen? Easy...because Obama is a black man...period. Yes, of course, people will jump up and say "That's a racist remark!" No, it's not. It's simply a factual remark that no one will acknowledge. Black leader like Jess Jackson and Al Sharpeton will tell you that race had nothing to do with 90% of blacks voting for Obama. Who are they trying to kid? Recently some idiot at a republican rally shouted out some threatening remark about Obama and immediately the two black senators from New York jumped onto the headlines of the New York Times by claiming that the republican party is promoting racial hatred against Obama in their campaign. They are trying to incite the blacks by doing so. In Washing there are bumper stickers reading ABORT PALIN!. In Brooklyn there is a wall on a building where a graffiti artist has chalked a mural of a black man holding a gun to Palin's head. There is a porno movie coming out with a Sarah Palin look-alike in the starring role, complete with frameless glasses. Jackson and Sharpeton have nothing to say about that, neither does the New York Times, with the exception of the porno movie, for the tittilation factor. Can anyone imagine what would happen if bumper stickers reading ABORT OBAMA came out? If there were murals of a white man holding a gun to Obama's head? If a porno movie with an Obama look-alike was produced? Every newspaper would have a field day. Every black leader would be going berzerk. There would be demonstrations in the streets. True, these instances are not indicative of all Democrats who support Obama, the ones who will raise their hands and say, "Hey, we're not doing those things." No, they aren't - but they are not condemning them, either. Obama is playing to the poor and the blacks because he knows that is his ride to the White House. That's why he is giving thousand dollar checks to 45% of the people who did not even pay taxes. That's why he talks about "distribution of wealth" - right out of the Marxist playbook. The poor want those checks. The poor want that "distribution" headed their way. They want their own Robin Hood taking from the rich to give to them. I am neither a racist or a bigot but I can certainly see what's happening here and I'm sure many others can also. They just won't voice it. Want to hear from a few of the people who helped Obama defeat Hillary and who may propel him onto the White House? http://www.bpmdeejays.com/upload/hs_sal_in_Harlem_100108.mp3 These will be the people who will make the difference and may elect our new president. Yes, there are whites and non-poor blacks who support Obama based on his "calls for change" or whatever requirements they feel he has, but not enough to carry him on their own They need the poor vote. May God bless America. We're going to need it. |
||
| © Copyright 2008 Michael Mack - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
We're going to need some of that insightfulness, Mike. I've seen the same things you have, and that's by flipping on to all channels, listening to what I normally wouldn't listen [including those who think they know all] and I've been trying to come to my own conclusions. I see a whole lot of fish-flopping going on. I hope people DO think about this campaign; I hope that ALL of the facts come out [as I am hearing on the TV right now] because if they're going to name their past allegiances, then you know the media on both sides are going to investigate. You know what I fear? That should either man win, there's going to be such a repercussion that might even rival the Civil War. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Um, Jesse Jackson ran 20 years ago. Why didn't he win? To deny that Obama is black or to pretend that he's not or that it helps him in some places and with some people and hurts him in others and with others is insane. I'm trying to figure out how one can then argue that it is because he's black that he's doing pretty well right now. I guess you didn't watch the debate. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Gee, I wonder why no one else ever thought of doing that?  LOL. Mike, only a die-hard Republican would complain that the Democrats are winning because of . . . shudder . . . the traditional Democratic platform. As Brad implied, Obama's race is always going to be an issue to some people. And you can bet that McCain's race is an issue to others. That's pretty much the very definition of racism. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Black vote: presidential elections since 1964 1964: Johnson 94% 1968: Humphrey 94% 1972: ? 1976: Carter 82% 1980: Carter 82% 1984: ? 1988: ? 1992: Clinton 83% 1996: Clinton 84 % 2000: Gore 90% 2004: Kerry: 88% 2008: ? Sorry, ran out of time. I'll try to finish this tomorrow. Or if somebody has an easier way to get the breakdown, please do so. I was using Wikipedia. Added note: I can't find the rest of the numbers, but I hope it's clear by now that there's nothing startling about the black vote hitting 90% for Obama. |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Aw, c'mon Mike! You know we disagree on somethings and agree on others, but this post seems a little over the top. Is it that much different than saying the Kennedy election was all about playing to the Catholic vote, the largest single denomination in the country? And that was his ticket to the White House? Sure, the question of "race" confronts us in this election, but it's hardly the major determining factor. If every single registered African American voter in the country voted for Obama, Obama would lose. If every single registered voter who earns a poverty level, just above the poverty level, or nothing at all, Obama would lose. African Americans and marginal earners are often referred to as "minorities," because they are in the minority. Put both groups together and even assuming there is no overlapping, Obama would lose, because both groups together still constitute a minority. Here is, perhaps, the flip side of the post's contention: John McCain will lose the election because his positions don't appeal to the majority of registered voters. Some very "pale" Registered American Voters must be agreeing with Obama and disagreeing with McCain. They seem to see something in Obama which the post doesn't, and not see something in McCain which the post does. There's a flip side to all this, too. If every single registered racial bigot in America voted for McCain, McCain would lose, because race hating bigots are a minority too. Whether or not Obama wins the election, and most indications are that he will, it's a sign of amazing social progress that a black, or mixed race man was nominated by his party to be their Presidential candidate. This isn't whomping on you Mike, its womping on the basic premises of the post, that the election is race-based, and God will have to help America when he wins. A little divine intervention might be useful in helping us out of the plethora of pickles the current administration has gotten us into. Here's a potentially scary thought: By 2050 or so, the largest single ethnic group of legal citizens in the US will be of Hispanic heritage. Whatever will we do then? Move to Costa Rica? Obama will be elected because he is a populist, and populists tend to be popular. McCain will lose the election because he cannot pull together a large enough conservative coalition aligned with his views. I can't exactly say "you heard it here first," but apparently a lot of people don't like what they are hearing. The only suggestion I have is that they get over it, get on with it, and aid and encourage all who hold elective offices do the best jobs they possibly can. I think most citizens try to do that anyway, not that all politicians listen. Tactfully, I refrain from mentioning the disgraceful "B" word, but he's only got a few months left to do his usual worst. And phooey on ALL the pols who chose to give away 700 billion to a bunch of greedy scoundrels provided they could add a little pork for the folks back home. So there! Best, Jimbeaux  |
||
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: Uh, well Karilea you best reconcile yourself to Civil War then, because it seems reasonably certain that one or the other is gonna win! Wow Mike, a bit of the desperation of impending defeat creeping into that rant? |
||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
MB...it's not over yet, and anything can happen...even at the 11th hour. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Better pray for a tie then Karilea. |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi Brad -- One reason Jesse Jackson didn't win the election was because he ran as a "Third Party" candidate. Even though we occasionally elect Independent's to offices as high as the House and Senate, I don't think an Independent has ever been elected President. Didn't work for Ralph Nader, or, if memory serves, Teddy Roosevelt. Before Roosevelt ran on the Bull Moose ticket, he was President of US following the assasination of McKinley, was reelected to a second term, and picked up a Nobel Prize somewhere along the way. He was pretty mainstream. But, as a Bull Moose, his candidacy was dead in the water. When Jesse Jackson was running, a pollster came to my door and asked whom I thought I would vote for for President. I said Jesse Jackson. Her response was: "Who?" His name wasn't even on the list. I thought that was both funny and sad at the same time. Best, Jimbeaux |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
I’m with you Mike, I think it’s disgusting that people are allowed to vote for the candidate of their choice, allowing people to make their own decisions is a recipe for disaster if you ask me. Under such a system it’s not surprising that some people make the wrong choice. There’s one silver lining though, the majority always pick the winner in the end. |
||
|
Nan
Administrator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-05-20
Posts 21191Cape Cod Massachusetts USA |
Well, Grinch - that's why we have the Electoral College - to avoid those silly "popular vote" blunders. Didn't we bring that here from England? |
||
Mistletoe Angel 
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
In case you haven't noticed, with all due respect, those with lower incomes in all recent election cycles have been far more likely to vote Democratic than those with higher incomes. So it's no new development. The real story here is not which traditionally Democratic-leaning factions Obama is doing well among, it's which traditionally Republican-leaning factions are gravitating towards Obama. Libertarians have been abandoning the GOP in droves and most have become registered Independents. Many more Americans 65 years and older are pulling for Obama: a demographic historically heavily GOP-leaning. Those without a high school education are pulling more for Obama than for any other recent Democratic nominee. Obama is even making inroads among Christian evangelicals in some regions. Prominent conservative voices like Christopher Buckley are even announcing their endorsements of Obama, and it appears George Will is moving in that direction as well. This is the bigger story here I believe. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Not really - the closest thing to the American electoral college over here would be how the labour party selects it’s leader. Though we don’t have proportional representation either the two systems are fundamentally different. Oddly the American system is closer to the Roman Catholic church of Cardinals selecting a pope. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Ha. And I thought I was the only one in the world who thought our prez election was similar to the pope vote. Thanks, Grinch. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Great observation, Grinch! I would tend to agree with that! If only Joe The Plumber had a chance! hey everyone, let's write his name in on the ballots and make him president! Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Mike, Given that you don't really back up your claim, you argue against progressive policies, not blackness. This is a good thing because if Obama loses it could and would be used to explain losing: "Obama lost because he's black.". I don't think you would buy that either. quote: I condemn them. I condemn all of them. You know, I only hold back condemnation for humor, and none of the above is funny. Mike, The one other thing, I guess, is that Marxist playbook idea. The [re]distribution of wealth is not Karl. In fact, he called it 'the same old crap'! I admit, I do find it funny when people call Obama a socialist or a Marxist. It's like calling Bush a genius (I know, I know, cheap shot!). quote: On this, we can all agree--I hope. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Grinch, I'll believe that when I see smoke coming out of the White House chimney on November 4th!  Ron - and the rest of you - I don't fault Obama for courting the poor vote. In a country of "one person - one vote", a poor vote carries as much weight as a rich one, and everyone knows that are a heck of a lot more poor ones than other ones. That's how Chavez in Venezuela came into power. That's how Hitler came into power (no, I am not likening Obama to Hitler). Targeting the poor has always been a tactic in elections. Nor am I blaming the poor or the black race. He is speaking to them. He is telling them that he will take care of them. He's going to take money from those evil rich people and give it to them. He is also a hero to them - finally, one of their own steps away from the presidency. That brings out a lot of pride for sure. So what if many don't know what he stands for? So what if some don't even know who his vice-presidential candidate is (as evidenced by the provided link). He is one of them and he will take care of them... So who am I pointing a finger at then? YOU! (and when I say you, i'm saying it collectively, not to one specific person). You are watching the dog and pony show Obama is putting on for the poor and you are buying into it or at least pretending it isn't what it is. Those of you who know know that Obama's tax plan will affect the middle class. There's no way it cannot. You know that this "redistribution of wealth" he is advocating is a doctrine that America would never survive. You know that he is saying these things only to get the poor and some of the middle class votes and you still go along with it. You know that he has no experience which would qualify him and you disregard it. You know that Acorn is a piece of garbage organization which Obama has represented, worked for and given hundreds of thousands to..and you disregard it. Even many black educators have come out against him and you disregard it, also. The poor will vote for him because, in the wealth distribution plan he represents, they are all on the receiving end. What's your excuse? Your dislike or hatred of Bush? Your belief that McCain wouldn't be any better? Obama claims he will lower the cost of everyone's health care by $2,000.00. He can't and you know it. Not one of you will even acknowledge that the personal attacks on Sarah Palin are wrong. You just disregard them. Obama has a reason for making the race racial. The poor have a reason to go along with him. What's yours? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Just saw your comment, Brad. Thank you for the condemnation of the Palin tactics. At least there is one  ...and, if Obama loses, the cry WILL be that it's because he's black. You can count on that. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Mike You're wrong. It's not the black but the white guilt vote that is critical . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, Tax cuts for the wealthy and for the corporations are income redistribution as well, Mike. That's money that should have gone to running the government. The term for this is "corporate welfare." Over the past eight years money has been massively be reassigned upward. I don't believe that you actually have anything against the actual process, only against the possibility that the money might go to people who are in desperate need of it to keep from starving. The notion that Obama might be a Marxist is one that needs to be proven, and frankly, all you've done is called him the name. Is Bush a Marxist? He's certainly moved an enormous amount of wealth around, redistributing it into the hands of the already wealthy, who have not, insofar as I can tell, managed to share it with those less fortunate than they. That's what Republican economic theory says is supposed to happen, right? The Republicans may still win the election, Mike. Never underestimate the power of Democrats to self destruct at the last minute. But Obama isn't likely to win because he's black. The Bradly effect is working against him. Fewer whites will vote for him than say they will simply because they're embarrassed to say they're not going to vote for a black guy in public. If he wins, the margin will be slimmer than I, for one, hope. I think that Obama's a very good candidate. But I think that the reason he's likely to win is because of what the last eight years have done to the country. Just about everything that could have been done wrong, was done wrong. Almost every stupid governmental policy that could have been enacted was enacted and was not only enacted but crowed about by the party in power. Even the last two years, when the democrats had a majority (though not enough of a majority to govern on its own, not without being blocked by the republican minority) and screwed up their use of the majority, I think that the public had a fairly clear idea of what was going on. I'm curious now to see if I'm right, and if the democrats will get the presidency and a majority in both houses. I'd like to think so. We can't take another four years even remotely like the past eight. I'm not sure the world can. Best to you, Mike, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Well, Bob, democrats said give us the majority and watch our smoke. Now the excuse seems to be the majority wasn't big enough. That could fly if they had really tried but I've seen no evidence of that, either. You may wish to see a Democratic White House along with a Democratic congress but I don't, first of all because I don't trust the likes of Pelosi, Boxer, Mirtha, Reed, Frank, etc etc but also because it would throw the checks and balances out of the window. That's a different situation. As far as Bush channeling money to the rich, I have no idea what that means. To compare whatever you are referring to to taking money from the middle class, the people trying to better their lives, working to improve their lot in life, building small businesses, hiring people and giving that money to people who don't work, with their hands out, saying "Where's mine?" is not a good step. Punishing innovation and hard work is never a good policy. As far as people rebelling against the past eight years, we are in agreement. Is that fair to McCain? I don't know. Would McCain be a good president? I don't know. What I DO know, based on what I consider factual and what Obama has said, is that Obama would be a bad one. Give him a Democratic congress and the trouble is doubled. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
I advise everyone to look at the exit polls in the last twenty years. A simple glance at the income results shows that those who make less than $50,000 a year have regularly been more likely too back the Democratic nominee than those who make more than $200,000 a year. Thus, while I don't believe either party adequately addresses the needs of the poor earnestly, it appears more are convinced the Democratic Party speaks more to their interests than the GOP does. And what do you expect when your campaign's health care plan architect, John Goodman, says on August 28th that there are no uninsured Americans? What do you expect when the candidate of the rivaling party says repeatedly that our economic problems are "psychological" more than anything and your top economic advisor, Phil Gramm, who played a role himself in the subprime meltdown during his Senate career, adds that we're "a nation of whiners"? What do you expect when the candidate of the rivaling party admits himself, in his own words to the Boston Globe late last year, that the "issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should." What do you expect when the candidate of the rivaling party says out loud he is going to suspend his campaign during economic turmoil amidst a major presidential campaign? What do you expect when the candidate of the rivaling party said himself very recently that, if they kept talking about the economy, they lose, and instead resort to attacking their opponent incessantly and, when they do talk about the issues that matter to voters, much more time is still dedicated to attacks than the details of their proposals? Much the reason many voters with lower incomes are flocking to the Democrat this cycle is because they sense the GOP has no ideas right now. They see McCain and the Republican National Committee's interests are much more in attacking their opponents than offering ideas. They're flocking to the Democrat NOT because they really like the Democratic Party, but largely as a repudiation of the GOP's leadership and behavior, along with considerable fractions of constituencies they have relied on for the past thirty years. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
A word of helpful advice to GOP congressional/senatorial candidates in 2010 and the GOP presidential nominee in 2012: talk about issues that matter to everyday Americans more rather than obsessive-compulsively cling to a couple issues for the purpose of attacking your opinion. And watching less Fox News Channel will help as a start. A compilation of closed caption data reviewed since Sunday reveals that the Fox News Channel has mentioned "ACORN" or "Ayers" a total of 1,231 times, compared to 963 references to "economy" or "middle class". In comparison, CNN mentioned the economy and "middle-class" a combined 1117 times in that same time-frame, while mentioning "ACORN" and "Ayers" a combined 391 times, with MSNBC mentioning "economy" and "middle-class" 1202 times since Sunday, compared to a combined 417 times for "ACORN" and "Ayers". Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Thank you, Noah, for that report on the Clinton News Network and PMSNBC. Is there any wonder why FOX is the most watched news program in the country?? |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi Deer! No there isn't any wonder. It's not the most watched news. I'm not even sure it is the most watched news on cable. Either way, "Fox" is a channel, not a program. Amazing how many millions more people watch their news on ABC, NBC, or CBS. If you're talking about Fox's "Network" news, that comes in fourth out of four. Best, Jimbeaux  |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. “In late 2005 and early 2006, Fox saw a brief decline in ratings. One of the most notable decline in ratings came in the second quarter of 2006, when compared to the previous quarter, Fox News had a loss in viewership for every single prime time program. One of the most noteworthy losses of viewership was that of Special Report with Brit Hume. The show's total viewership was down 19 percent compared to the previous quarter. However, several weeks later, in the wake of the North Korean Missile Crisis and the 2006 Lebanon War, Fox saw a surge in viewership and remained the #1 rated cable news channel.[20][21] Fox still held eight of the ten most-watched nightly cable news shows, with The O'Reilly Factor and Hannity & Colmes coming in first and second places, respectively.[22] For the year 2007, Fox News was the number-one rated cable news network in the United States. It was down one percent in total daily viewers and down three percent in the 25-54 year old demographic, but it still boasted most of the top-rated shows on cable news led by The O’Reilly Factor. For primetime TV Fox News ranked #6 of all cable networks.“ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_and_balanced#Slogan . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, Since it is legal to quote from Wikipedia, I will quote here from their article of corporate welfare: quote: You will note that one of the references quoted is The Cato Institute. If you check out Google, you will see that the practice is not particularly favored by liberals or conservative, though for different reasons. One of these is that it takes money out of the hands of middle class people, who are the engines of the economy, and puts it into the hands of the larger corporations instead, at the expense of the country in general. The amount of the corporate welfare tab is enough to make anything given out to the poor look paltry, which, as you must understand, I believe it is. I urge you to check into this because it is something that, as a conservative, should upset you. If indeed there should be money paid out by the taxpayers to help folks out it should be to the middle class, whose small businesses do the majority of the hiring and production. I believe we are in agreement about this. I understand your objection about democrats holding all the power should the democrats take the presidency and the congress both. I must say it rings a bit hollow after your joy in the way the Republicans took advantage of the same situation for most of the past eight years, and managed to block much of the legislation in the last two years by threatening to talk the bills to death in the Senate. The majority is not philabuster proof, and it is democratic, which means that a wider range of views tends to be tolderated without major sanctions being imposed than on the other side of the aisle. Unless I have my understanding of Republican organizational skills sadly overestimated. LBJ was an iron handed majority leader, yes. If you know of any that powerful on the democratic side since, I'd like to know about them. I still don't think it's much of an excuse for the low-grade job the democrats have pulled off over the past two years, mind you. But if you think Obama's a marxist, I'd sure like to see your proof and your reasoning, because I don't think the man's much more than democratic Lite myself. Probably as much a Rockefeller Republican as anything approaching an actual fire-breathing democrat, in my opinion. That's probably as left-wing as the county is willing to handle at this point, given the propoganda about the left that the right-wing has been dishing out over the last thirty or forty years. We've even got a generation of folks who have managed to forget the christian message about the likelihood of a rich man entering heaven as being about the same as a camel walking through the eye of a needle. I am completely flummoxed. Sincerely yours, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Bob, I confess I do not know that much about corporate welfare. I can also see how one can technically state that federal money, derived from taxes, going to corporations in reality take money from taxpayers and delivers it to corporations. Fine but that is not what is the most vital in people's minds, I believe. The important thing is that Sam Smith takes home x amount of money each week , most of which is allocated to bills. Sam Smith is looking at the possibility that the figure, under Obama, will be x minus another percentage added on by Obama's tax increase, which will be even less money to pay bills with. That, more than corporate welfare, weighs more heavily on an individual's mind. Forget about the 250,000 figure Obama is claiming will be the minimum. It won't be. Right now Obama claims it is the right figure to declare people well enough off that they can pay more. Next year he could decide that 150,000 is enough. Besides, records show that over 70% of all small businesses with 10 or more employees gross over 250,000. That's what Obama's tax plan is based on - gross income. Speaking for myself in a service profession, if I hired 10 people that would mean I would have to buy and maintain 7-10 vehicles. I would need 10 times the supplies. I would be paying unemployment on all of them. When all is said and done, my personal income from the business would not be anywhere near being rich, or even very successful. Under Obama's plan, my taxes would go up. Calling Obama a Marxist is a mistake. I actually start getting confused when I try to understand Marism, Socialism or the other -isms that exist. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved. Perhaps that is the closest, which is socialism. Whatever it is, it's not American. It obliterates the "American dream". America has always been, and is, a country where people can rise as high as they want to, based on their desire and dedication to doing so by hard work. It is why millions of immigrants have flocked to America over the centuries. Miami has many of these people, Cubans who arrived here without a penny in their pockets and have become very successful thanks to the freedom for them to do so. There are many Asians who have done the same...and still are. Obama is now saying, "You can still be successful, but when you get to the point where we feel you have enough, we are going to take more away from you to give to people who have not worked as hard of you but need it." Whether that is Marxist, Socialist, Communism or whatever, it is NOT American. It is NOT what made this country what it is and it will be very detrimental if allowed to happen. I do not see where an excessive amount of philibustering has hampered the democratic congress. Perhaps you were thinking of the democratic philibustering every time Bush came up with a judge nominee. Speaking of that, at a time where up to three Supreme Court justices are headed for extinction, I hate to think what would happen to have a democratic president put up liberal judges for a democratic congress to pass through. I still find it absolutely astounding that, at a time that so many people are going through rough economic times, a presidential candidate would propose raising taxes. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: That's one way to look at it, Mike. Another might be to recognize that Mr. Smith has to also pay for those bills his elected officials have accrued in his name. TANSTAAFL quote: I don't much like socialism either, Mike. But then, I don't like social security, medicare, national health care, unemployment benefits, welfare, or any of the other dozen or so socialist programs based on taking from those who have and giving to those who have not. Whatever it is, Mike? It's very much American and has been for more than half a century now. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, The spending oiver the last eight years has been enormous. A very large portion of it has been in tax rebates to people who otherwise would have been paying a fair share of what it cost to run the country and pay for the war that you've been such a supporter of. In the meantime, large amounts of money have been given away to the president's friends. We looked at how some of those dollars were allocated when we discussed how the government was trying to deal with the aftermath of Katrina. If you review how the contracts were allocated for war spending, you will see the same folks getting the contracts, often no-bid contracts. Somebody has to pay these bills, Mike. I didn't hear you objecting to any of them while they were happening. Now we have an enormous amount of debt that we've run up over the past eight years and the responsibility of paying it off. The money that we could have been using to pay substantial parts of it off has been given away to folks who've moved their corporate headquarters to Qutar and Dubai to avoid paying their fair share of what they owe here, and the Republicans have done nothing to stop them. They still get the contracts that should go to U.S. companies who don't have a record of selling substandard stuff supplies to the Army at pumped up prices and putting U.S. forces's lives unnecessarily on the line in the process. Nobody likes to pay back debts, Mike. It's simply the kind of thing you have to bite the bullet and do. And teach your kids to do. That's what Republicans used to say, too, when they felt they could blame the Democrats for running all the debts up in the first place. I never bought that the democrats were all that profligate to start out with, frankly, but somebody's got to pay back the debt that the Republicans have run up. It wouldn't really matter who'd run it up in the first place, since we're Americans and our country's signed the markers and we need to pay back the bill. We're all family, more or less. We're supposed to take care of each other. Then we're supposed to make sure it doesn't happen again. Ron's right about the Free Lunch. Sincerely, Bob Kaven [This message has been edited by Ron (10-18-2008 01:11 PM).] |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi all: Some of the above comments make me want to go out and picket that old communist, Bill Gates and others of his Silicon Valley ilk! Not only did Gates redistribute the wealth -- his despicable stock option plans made millionaires out of some of his employes -- and hundred thousand-aires out of many more. Where does he get off? And, he had the nerve to donate hundreds of millions through his personal charitable fund to organizations that aren't even political! I mean, is this guy a Red or what? "Socialism" is WORD some people find distasteful. Socialism is a political system some people find distasteful. And, as Ron noted, "Socialism" is reflected in a significant parts of the government we've got, and have had for some time. Maybe we should just change the name so people wouldn't get as excited. How about "Humane Democracy?" That doesn't sound too threatening. I don't seriously think anyone sees a threat to Democracy or capitalism when farmers, for example, large and small, form cooperatives to more effectively brand, distribute, and market their products. It's socialistic capitalism for sure, though. On the $250,000 hypothetical business example with 10 employees, trucks, overhead, and all that comes with running small business it couldn't possibly work. It's an untenable model. First, if one had ten employees working at a currently modest wage of $7.00 an hour, the annual payroll would be $145,600, plus the business owner's mandatory "contribution" towards the worker's FICA. For the sake of this example, lets round labor costs out to $152,00. Through the owner's Federal and State taxes on $250,000 gross sales, I think we can realistically round the costs so far up to $165,000. And this assumes that the workers receive no company benefits at all. Throw in ten trucks, leased, or purchased at say, at $250 a month each. That's $30,000 a year just to have them sit on the lot you are buying or leasing for $1,000 a month -- the businessman shoulld be so lucky -- and not putting gas in the trucks. Now, the small business is up to $195,000 in costs. Add in a modest S2,4000 a month to insure the commercial vehicles (vans)and routine maintenance, call it $28,000 a year, bringing projected costs so far to $223,000, even if the trucks just sat on the lot and never delivered anything. Now whatever the type of hypothetical business, service, distribution, etc, there's that tacky problem of paying for inventory or materials and supplies. Every business dealing in real goods or services -- and the example doesn't seem to be talking about an information/computer based service business, otherwise, no trucks -- has to maintain at least a minimum operating inventory of something, parts or product. Say the business owner is truly savvy and frugal, and can keep his inventory down to a quick turn, quick replace $10,000. The operator still has to have the initial $10,000. The owner would also have to turn that inventory once every two or three days to hit the hypothetical gross. And we're now up to at least $233,000. If absolutely nothing goes wrong, an unlikely scenario, the small business owner stands to "gross" $17,000 in annual income -- profit doesn't even enter the picture -- minus taxes. And no benefits of any kind. This means the owner, at best, will likely earn less than one of his employees. Not much of an incentive to go into business. The Federal government acknowledges that the concept of "small business" is not what the populace generally thinks of as "small." Two true examples: 1. A goat farming business qualifies for an SBA loan by being small if it grosses less than $75 MILLION dollars. 2. A general contracting business may qualify as "small" if it has less than 1,000 employees. These are the maximums possible to stay "small" under Federal Guidelines. Of course, the SBA -- which guarantees loans obtained through banks and rarely makes even direct micro-loans -- works with much smaller entities. I think, though, if the post's business hypothetical were taken to a bank, the hypothetical owner would be laughed at, even in the best of times. Deer -- If a direct address might be permitted, I know you put out notions half in jest sometimes. I can't always tell when you're joking, so I rag on. It ain't personal. Best, Jimbeaux |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
John -- I stand cheerfully corrected. Seems the Fox cable news shows in aggregate attract more cable news watchers than the aggregate of any other individual cable news net work. There's another possible correllation to which I don't know the answer either: Does Fox cable news in aggregate attract more viewers than all other cable news channels combined? That would be a spectacular coup! Could be a loaded and entirely different question, though. As to Fox Network news coming in sixth out of six, well, I'm just stunned. Mainly because I can't think of who the fifth of the six networks is. I recall ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, and UPN, I think. Seriously can't recall who the sixth one is, but then, I only watch Animal Planet and football games. Best, Jimbeaux |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Jim, I would guess that in 1935, when Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law, the word socialism didn't seem threatening either. After all, it's a pretty innocuous root word? I think its subsequent connotations were probably not imbued, but rather earned. It just doesn't work real well, and I doubt it would work substantially better with a name change. Oh, and I don't think Gates redistributed the wealth at all -- his customers did, and in a direction very common in capitalism. He has, however, indeed donated beaucoup bucks to many worthwhile causes. That's not socialism, either, at least not in my book. It's voluntary philanthropy -- which I believe is the preferred answer to socialism. Making philanthropy attractive is the RIGHT way to redistribute the wealth. Unfortunately, it's not as easy as just passing a law or two. quote: That's not gross revenue, Jim, it's net. I think Mike's contention -- which I believe is wrong -- was that Obama's ceiling was to be based on gross revenue. Were that true, it wouldn't matter how much business expense was wracked up. The owner's $17K would be taxed in the higher bracket, ostensibly 39 percent. That wouldn't be logical, wouldn't be American, and wouldn't be found anywhere in Obama's literature. See my earlier post in a different thread. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, quote: This is an interesting statement, Mike. Obama says he will increase taxes for those earning more than $250,000 a year. So if Sam is in fact earning that amount of money, he will have to pay more. If you suggest that we're all earning that amount of money, and all of us are that wealthy, you'd be right. But not too many of us are in that bracket. And I suspect those who do have accountants who bring that tax bite down significantly. These are also many of the same folks who've had a lot of benefits sent their way over the last eight years, so if they've been on their toes, they've made a substantial amount of money off the tax cuts they've gotten during that time. Aren't these the people who pride themselves on being "nimble capitalists?" This has been a tax cut from money they should have paid already and they have been forgiven. They've had almost a decade's worth of extra use from that capital that they wouldn't otherwise have had. Other than those folks whose taxes will go up, those who earn over $250,000, most of the country will have taxes go down according to the Obama tax plan. That's more money rather than less. It's a tax cut for the middle class. That should be better off rather than worse. Depending on how well the economy stays together over the next few years, given the buffeting it's taken from the debts we've run up and must pay off. quote: The best information we have about what either candidate will do is what they say right now. The $250,000 figure may be right or not. If you have sources of information I don't have, please let me know so I can check them out. Next year he could decide that $150,000 is enough, yes. What did Bush say about nation-building in the 2000 campaign? I believe that $250,000 is what he intends. What he can get through the House is something else entirely and nobody knows what kind of opposition he's going to run into, should he win. Clinton ran into opposition that virtually prevented him from effective functioning as a President through much of his time in office. Bush had things pretty much entirely his way through much of his term in office. If Obama is elected, much depends on what sort of congress comes with him. Much also depends on the man's actual character, which we will need to see unfold. If he is elected. If your taxes go up under an Obama administration, I hope your income goes up enough to more than offset it. Things are difficult everywhere these days, and I wouldn't want them to be difficult for you; even if we don't have identical politics, you've always been a good guy. I have a different understanding of the American dream than you do, Mike. I think that wealth and power need to be resources that everybody can attain, and that the history of the country has been an effort to make sure that this was possible. You have perhaps forgotten that this country started out with the vote available only to white, male property owners on an individual basis. And that the constitution was only ratified after a compromise was reached to allow the southern states, which had many fewer white, male property owners, to count slaves as part of their voting population when figuring their number of representatives in Congress. Three fifths of one slave equaled one white male property owner. The American Dream is subject to revision. Renters were allowed to vote. People of color were allowed to vote. Women were allowed to vote. People of color were accorded actual equality — one man one vote, not three fifths of a vote. Periodically attempts to concentrate capital in the hands of only a few people were thwarted by reformers. Some of these reformers were called Republicans, and the enacted anti-trust laws and similar laws limiting the attempts of business to eliminate fair competition. It took the democrats to take the part of labor. The American Dream changed with each of these reforms. For you to talk about "the American dream" is misleading, because it means freedom from the rapacity of runaway Capitalism as much as it does freedom from authoritarian dictatorship from the left. quote: As I recall. after WWII and until JFK came to Office, the highest tax rate was not in the high 30's, but was 90%, including through the Eisenhower administration. Republicans frequently think of this time as a sort of Republican Golden Age, though I can understand if you might disagree. JFK brought the highest tax rates down, but there has been a responsibility in the western world to care for the poor and the underprivileged enshrined in the law for hundreds of years. This goes back, in England, to the Elizabethan poor laws in 1601, which established a distinction between the deserving and the undeserving poor. quote: The idea is to provide relief for those going through tough times (middle class incomes and below) by assessing a fair share of taxes on those who are more likely to be able to afford it, and who have derived the most benefit from the past eight years (those who net $250,000 and above). These were not people whom I heard voicing complaints about the redistribution of wealth upwards through tax cuts over the past eight years. I heard none of them say, this is un-American to redistribute wealth this way. The rest of the country needs this money as my contribution to making things run well. Had I heard such loud complaints at the time, I would probably be a bit more inclined to listen now. All I heard were comfortable moans of satisfaction and requests for more, which were met with occasional increases by the Republican administration and majority. Increases in tax cuts offered to oil companies that were showing record profits, for example. Were the government contracts for Halliburton terminated when they moved their home offices to the Gulf of Arabia and were able to stop paying many payroll taxes on their employees in the States? No. All we heard were comfortable moans of gratification. I'm sorry, Mike, but the outrage doesn't get much sympathy from me now. Not that I've actually heard any from Halliburton, mind you. They may be too well insulated to be affected at this point. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi Ron -- Wow! When the business owner gets taxed on the gross business income plus taxed on his personal income -- which I meant by "net," -- after reading your previous post in the other thread I see that as being outrageously onerous. The remarks about Gates were made in jest. I'll disagree with you a little bit about the distribution part, but it might be just a matter of semantics or viewpoint. I do want to point out that not even presumably radical I think all Capitalists or Capitalism is/are bad by a long shot. The only two current Social Democracies, or Socialist governments I have any particular knowledge of are the "cradle-to-grave" systems in Denmark and Sweden (and possibly the states of Hawaii and Alaska )The Danish and Swedish systems "work" to the extent that the governments are not on the verge of collapse. But the trade-off for subsidized housing, full medical care, free education through University, guaranteed employment, child care, and trains that run on time, doesn't seem to be worth it to me. Under their socialist system the average Danes and Swedes are taxed to within an inch of their lives, and there's not a whole lot of incentive to earn really big bucks, because their government takes it away from them. In one of the sillier, more publicized instances, the film director, Ingemar Bergman, was TAXED more than he EARNED. Bizarre. And we don't want a repressive socialist system like that here. You're right, and I've never disagreed, Socialism and Communism have "earned" pretty low marks. I think I'm advocating a compromise, which isn't odd. I think, though I can't really speak for anyone else, we'd all like to see the best of all posibble worlds. I can't think of any Utopian systems that have worked either, but we don't need to settle for a Dope-topian system, either, such as we have had recently. You know, the one that believes in rapacious no-bid contracts, that the office of the Vice President is not part of the Executive Branch, that threatens our individual freedoms under the guise of National Security, and stuff like that. This isn't nit-picking at particular mishaps. At least to my mind, these kinds of issues affecting governance and the maintainence of Democracy, are fundamental. I don't know if the next administration of either stripe can do much to reverse some of the uglier (IMO) recent government actions, but anyone who has the courage to say "Hey, enough! Stop that nonsense!" gets my support. Best, Jimbeaux |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Mike, Personally, I’m happy that Obama beat Hillary, but I don’t approve of Obama’s race card any more than I approved of Hillary’s gender card, whether or not they are necessarily the ones that are pulling such. I feel candidates should be in opposition of such practices instead of using them to get any votes. To me, it's illogical. It’s a tall order for such a short term of service. One woman can’t make life a dream for all other women no more than one black man can make life a dream for all other black men. Huh! It’s the same thing for the white man! But one term of presidential service from a misfit can surely make life hell on the majority. If candidates present their resumes to the people, highlighting true qualifications, such as integrity, knowledge and experience, dedication to service, intent and ability to act and uphold a presidential oath of office, and all people truly poured over that resume instead of allowing themselves to be oppressed and barraged with small-minded tactics, we might get bigger minds at work FOR US in our government. Voting for a candidate simply because they appear white or black or green or Baptist or republican or liberal or pro-life or photogenic…etc is certainly one’s choice, but a very historically limiting and careless one. “We the People” have been shooting ourselves in the foot for so long now that I don’t know when we’ll ever get a true leg up, but at least we’re still hobbling along. It takes years of effort and bravery to journey the waters of change. It’s the boat I’m concerned with. If Obama is, in fact, being elected to office solely because of his race by whatever power his ethnic peers possess, how would that be anything different from Bush’s election or any previous election? If Obama is elected and does not help us in any way to right our wrongs, then will we ALL see we are very much, still, in the same boat. And we’re sunk no matter what color one is. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The $250,000 figure may be right or not. If you have sources of information I don't have, please let me know so I can check them out. Next year he could decide that $150,000 is enough, yes. What did Bush say about nation-building in the 2000 campaign? Exactly, Bob. Your finger-point to Bush serves a purpose. The source I have is the fact that politicians will say anything to get elected, which may change drastically after they are in office. I don't care for paying higher taxes to support those who don't work to be one of those points. I have a different understanding of the American dream than you do, Mike. I think that wealth and power need to be resources that everybody can attain, and that the history of the country has been an effort to make sure that this was possible. You are right, Bob. Everyone CAN attain them...with dedication and hard work. Problem now is that there are many demanding the American Dream without bothering to consider either one of those traits. It appears that now they have a champion knocking on the White House door who wants to deliver that to them by taking it from the people who DID and DO what it took to make something of their lives. As I recall. after WWII and until JFK came to Office, the highest tax rate was not in the high 30's, but was 90%, including through the Eisenhower administration True enought, Bob, and JFK lowered taxes to help bring the country back on track. After the disasterous economic aftermath of Jimmy Carter, Reagen did the same. This has a policy of working. Obama would rather take the other road. I'm sorry, Mike, but the outrage doesn't get much sympathy from me now No problem, Bob. I'm not after your sympathy. Save it for the country if Obama gets in. It will need it much more than I. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
If candidates present their resumes to the people, highlighting true qualifications, such as integrity, knowledge and experience, dedication to service, intent and ability to act and uphold a presidential oath of office, and all people truly poured over that resume instead of allowing themselves to be oppressed and barraged with small-minded tactics, we might get bigger minds at work FOR US in our government. True enough, Regina. The problem for Obama was that that he could not tout his qualifications becase he has none and, based on his past associations and his work as being an ACORN trainer, his integrity is in question. His experience is being a one-term senator. The people he is targeting are not people who will pour over his resume. They are people who will either vote for him due to race or vote for him because they are fed up with Bush and republicans. He is making sure that the people who will vote for him in the first case will get a nice check for their support. As the saying goes, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with..." er, can't remember the last word |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
On This Week With George Stephanopolis this morning, it was brought out that the people being targeted by Obama's tax raise is 2% of the country. right now the upper 1% pays 38% of the taxes in the country. It was agreed by all that the tax increase would not even come close to funding the 150,000,000 (and Pelosi want 300 million) stimulus package Obama is proposing. George Will claimed that Obama will probably say, when faced with this dilemma, something like "I am a man of character and one of my character traits is flexibility." |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, Thanks for your reply. It's always nice to hear from you. You quoted my comment about Obama's $250,000 tax cutoff. Above this point, he says taxes will be raised; below, he says they won't. We both agree this is a campaign promise, and I even called attention to the fact by mentioning some of Bush's campaign promises from the 2000 campaign. Obama has been pretty consistent about his viewpoints, however. McCain has not. McCain has even flip back and forth on torture. You and I have discussed this several times, so you know how upset I was when he came out in favor. Now he has apparently forgotten he came out in favor of torture and is back to saying he's against it. He's voted with the President more than 90% of the time and claims to be a maverick. Obama says he's going to raise taxes, and the reason why is pretty clear. There's a massive debt. McCain says that Obama's trying to redistribute the wealth. If Obama wanted to, he couldn't redistribute the wealth as massively as the past administration has in the past eight years. There is an enormous and growing gap between rich and poor and the administration has been shoveling corporate welfare and tax benefits in the direction of the wealthy for the past eight years to encourage the process along. The money hasn't been particularly well handled from what I can see. Are you better off than you were eight years ago? Is the country better off than it was eight years ago? If the money were to go as you suggest to support those who don't work, I don't think I'd be as upset about it as you are, but I wouldn't be happy. Most of those people are children and single mothers and folks who are disabled in one way or another. I had to research it in social work school. The number of men who get money fluctuates with the state of the economy and the availability of jobs in the economy. When the economy goes well, almost all the men are working, When it's in the tank, the number of guys who get money from the government is higher, as is the crime rate and the number of men on the street. Most of the folks who get government money on a regular basis — kids, single mothers and disabled folks. It's the job of the government it help folks like this. They contribute to social insurance programs specifically for that purpose, as do we all. I regard it in much the same way as I regard manditory insurance for drivers. I understand many well meaning and well reasoned folks disagree with me, and that you probably do as well. About this, I'm not trying to convince you; I'm stating my opinion. What's not my opinion is the massive debt we must pay back. No matter who's President, that will have to be addressed. Obama has the courage to face it. What's McCain's plan for paying it back? Given what he suggests for health care, it sounds as though he wants to shift the cost onto the middle class, and give the wealthy more tax relief. It sounds as though he's trying to destroy the middle class. It sounds like what Republican's accuse Democrats of all the time: Class warfare. Perhaps you can tell me how it's not. One more point: If you are afraid of Obama changing his mind when he gets into office, and Obama's been pretty consistent, how much more frightening must you find McCain, who changes positions back and forth and gets furiously angry at those who question him about his inconsistencies? My fear is that McCain wouldn't have the courage or leadership to start repaying the debt. That seems an excellent reason to vote for Obama. quote: Actually, we have been through this discussion before. There is evidence to suggest that tax cuts are indeed helpful to the economy up to a point. Until that point, tax cuts, according to the Laffer curve will repay the treasury more than the amount they cost. If you will check the previous references from The Economist and other either neutral or right-of-center magazines I posted for your examination the time before last, when we had this discussion, we now loose money with our tax cuts, which only repay us about 70% of what they cost the treasury to make. What once made sense is now a loosing proposition and digs us into a deeper hole than before. Please do some research into this on your own. Try The Economist, in particular, which is a highly regarded right of center magazine, and famous for the quality of its research. Don't take my word for it. No matter who gets elected, I am very concerned about civil liberties. The Patriot Act and the cruel extention of government power into the private realm may be too much a temptation for anybody to set aside. That will be the real test of character, as far as I'm concerned. I have no idea if we can pass it as a country. I hope so, All my best, Mike, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: LOL. Not too many people would accuse me of being a strong Republican supporter, Bob, and I think there are a great many things about McCain I can find to question. His courage and leadership aren't anywhere on that list. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Ron, People can be wonderful leaders from one type of thing and not another; their courage may be fine for one thing and yet not work well elsewhere. I have yet to find somebody who is good across the board. McCain is no different than anybody else in this way. I had a somewhat higher opinion of the man's courage when I saw him as standing up against his party and the President on the matter of torture. He has now resumed this stance. But for a period of about a year he was running with the pack, and supporting the administration's position that there was nothing wrong with what the government was doing, that it wasn't torture, and that the policy was okay. If you check my posts, you will see that until he changed his opinion I was very much an admirer of the man. Now I do have questions about his courage and his sincerity and his ability to lead that I did not have before. He hasn't even mentioned his change of position, only speaks as thopugh he's always had the moral position against torture that he once held. I don't know that I can trust his courage or leadership to raise taxes to pay back the debt that he's helped vote into place. To me his courage and leadership around this issue are very much in question. It's not at all clear that he has the backing of his party, many of whom do not like him at all and who are not supporters. How is he to rally their support behind him if elected? It may be appealing to be a maverick as a member of a group; but as its leader, part of the job is setting standards and policies. Mavericks may have a much more difficult time mustering political support if they cannot offer support in return. How does a maverick do that? Curiously yours, Bob Kaven |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
quote: I'm sure your statement is partly true, but too general to cover Four-Star General, Colin Powell. Powell Endorsement Powell is an American Icon who helped lead people from all walks of life. I think it would be a great injustice to his duty and service to this country to call him a racist over his choice, but Limbaugh is already on the horn over it which is typical of his disgusting career. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Don't worry, Regina. If Obama gets in, you will be able to say goodbye to Limbaugh, Hannity and all conservative radio. The sad part is that some people will call that a good thing. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Bob, I don't think courage has a whole lot to do with whether someone agrees with you? I also don't think it comes on a rheostat, varying at the twist of an imaginary wrist. But then, that's just me. I think Senator McCain is a great American and an admirable man even when I vehemently disagree with his stance. We could do -- and frequently have done -- a lot worse. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Ron, Now you're putting words in my mouth, Ron. Or perhaps you thought that torture was my only disagreement with the man before he first flipped and then flopped back on that issue. And perhaps you're thinking that I have a black and white view of him now; I do not. General Powell and I have significant differences as well. I was very upset about him for his statements before the United Nations. I thought that his loyalty was misplaced at that time, but his courage was never in doubt to my mind, nor was his leadership in general. I wish that he had been a candidate, actually, for either party. I would have voted for the man and for his integrity and felt that he would do his best to do whatever he thought to be the right thing. Party be damned. I am glad you have such confidence in McCain. It says clearly that you should vote for the man; and so you should if those are your feelings. Unless you have reservations that make such a vote impossible, I guess; though I can't imagine what those would be given such an endorsement. Myself, I don't share your belief in the guy. I found myself admiring him in spite of his position on taxes, on women's rights, on the environment and many other things. So long as I felt he was willing to make a stand on human rights, I felt it was possible for him to see and take care of the national debt, and perhaps give women the respect they deserved. Maybe his supreme court folks would be good legal scholars and not ideologues. After his flip-flop on human rights and torture, I feel that his courage and leadership are much more vulnerable to political pressure than I had thought before. I don't say you shouldn't admire him for who he is. I am saying simply that I do not. And that I did not come to this position without some struggle and thought. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Really? Would it perhaps surprise you, Bob, to hear that I have similarly strong feelings about Senator Obama? I think he is a man of unusual intelligence and compassion, with no less loyalty to this country than his opponent. Though tested on a different battlefield, I think Obama has also shown courage, integrity, and consummate leadership. The country is lucky this time around. It's been a while, I think, since we could concentrate on issues instead of character. I'm beginning to suspect we may have forgotten how to do that? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Ron, Actually, no, I wouldn't be surprised at all. I know that you are serious about making your mind up about each thing the way it seems to you, and are not interested in taking party-line positions. I think that an election decided on positions and not on character assassination would be an interesting change of pace for the country. In the first election, I think Washington was busy turning down the position of King for eight years, and it may be difficult to use him as precident, but I don't believe there's been an election of the type that we'd both like to see in the history of the country. Nor do I see one approaching. The stakes have always felt too high to everybody involved. Still it would be nice. Obama, I think, feels he needs to defend himself against the sort of thing that cost Kerry the election the last time around (many democrats feel this way, and feel it about the election in 2000 as well) and I think McCain feels that this sort of pressure is his only hope. If he applies it directly, he isn't "Presidential." So Ms. Palin is in the unenviable position of being the ticket's doberman attack dog. This gets her points with the party faithful for plain talk, but it stirs the far right a bit too much for what seems to be comfortable for Senator McCain. This is to his credit. Unfortunately, he's in the position of riding the tiger. The dismount is the most difficult part. We can still hope. Always nice to hear from you. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
quote: No, that wouldn’t be good but I don’t see Rush being hushed. If pressed, though, he could always take his own advice: quote:Transcript So? He can switch. Rush’s got a “50-50 in there. Say, No, I’m [liberal.]” |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Rush has a 50-50? Hardly. I doubt you will find anywhere in his family tree where he has EVER been liberal! It's not a question of Rush hushing himself. Democrats have been trying, even introducing bills in congress to do away with conservative radio, which didn't fly. When it didn't, they tried to counter with Air America, which didn't fly (pun intended). Don't be surprised to see conservative talk radio go under fire in an Obama presidency. He has already said in a speech that, if it weren't for Hannity, he wold have at least a 5 point higher advantage in the polls. No, you won't see a direct attack against an individual. It will be more like "subversive talk radio is harmful to the country in this time of economic and military crisis and needs to be curtailed, temporarily." Think I'm wrong? Let's watch..... |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Oh, and Bob, This quote got my attention: quote: Please do research the Economist, particularly its owners. who are particularly in cahoots with our government involving theWorld Bank. The World Bank has a beautiful outline of duties and operations. But some are very tactical and scary when one digs deeper. I believe the World Bank secures land for collateral, which includes everything covered under a “protected, reservation, preservation, and wildlife” act, which also extends out and embraces the mega-farming industries. Perhaps that’s why subsides are a very integral hand-out to mega-agribusinesses which short the small farmer his due, but keep the economy afloat with corn production: Exports. quote: Corporate welfare has become a must or else someone else besides us might foreclose and claim the property. But who’s worrying? quote:wiki |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear RWood, I didn't know, but am not surprised. It is a right of center magazine and those are the type of circles many of those folks run in. Paul Wolfowitz, one of the archetects of the Iraq war, for example, and high in the Republican counsels of the current administration, on retirement from his active U.S. government service, went to the World Bank. As President, I believe, though I may have that wrong. I said that The Economist was a respected magazine; it is, and highly so. I said they have a respected research department, and they do. Highly respected. Their politics and their economics is probably Tory, in the Margaret Thatcher model. I try to make a point of trying to go for right of center sources whenever I can when I talk with folks with a right wing bias, as Baladeer does and as you often do, because when I quote folks from my own particular point of view, which is liberal and to the left of liberal, my own sources are often not even listen to. The Economist is not my choice in terms of political viewpoint, but they are careful about their facts. Do you have some source you believe is objective and careful with its facts that I might reference as well? These are often hard to find, because folks will often bend the facts to fit their ideology — left or right — and this makes political conversation difficult. Wikipedia is generally pretty good about its facts and they try to be clear about biases. At least they try to identify them. I've found that you have to watch them over a period of time, to make sure that nobody with an ax to grind has gotten in a poison pill of information for a little while before other people correct it, though. And I find The Christian Science Monitor pretty good. I like The Nation, but many PiP folks find it too liberal. so I try not to quote it. The Wall Street Journal used to have excellent straight news coverage and biased toward the right editorial coverage, but I'm not sure about the straight new coverage now that Murdoch has bought the thing. I'll have to wait and see. I don't trust i]The National Review[/i], I think their facts get bent to serve their viewpoint. Which journals do you trust to get the facts pretty much straight? Curiously, Bob Kaven |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Hello Bob. All sources of thought/input can be of value. No direct degradation of the Economist meant, just a heads-up for you in light of the controlling “Comp-Trolls” who are behind much of the warped ideology and bent reporting offered us. Sorry, I’m ranting. But I’m one that sees surface issues as the showy parts of plant matter. So I dig and I dig until I can see where the roots are. I guess that why I prefer independents. As for a source, I came across several Blackwell journals during my thousands of hours of JSTOR research in college. Blackwell is now Wiley-Blackwell, still an independent, but their journals and resources are vast. Vast! And they came to be a name I could “respect.” I say respect instead of trust because as one of my mentors told me: “Trust every word to be from a human who makes mistakes.” “1,400 scholarly peer-reviewed journals and an extensive collection of books, major reference works, databases, and laboratory manuals in the life and physical sciences, medicine and allied health, engineering, the humanities, and the social sciences. Through a backfile initiative completed in 2007, 8.2 million pages of journal content have been made available online, a collection dating back to 1799.” Wiley There’s a plethora of choices for you here. Wiley InterScience. Use their search engines by topic, then choose “summary” for review. There are millions of great articles and authors in reference who have their own sites, many times. Such as: Robert Higgs. You might enjoy some of his articles. He’s the Senior Fellow in Political Economy for the Independent Institute, a journal that’s not supposed to “lean” either way. You can judge for yourself. Wiley-Blackwell tends to publish the best they can. Paul Krugman holds the Nobel Prize for Economics, 2008. They published his “Will There Be a Dollar Crisis,” 2007 along with a few others. I mentioned his name because I think you may have in the past, not sure. He’s also a contributor of the Economist and New York Times. Not everyone agrees he’s a prize winner. I love the Wall Street Journal, though I read it with the same eyes I do everything else. Discernibly. Good day to you, Sir and happy journaling, always, reg |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
ATLANTA (Reuters) – Black Americans could vote in record numbers for Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, potentially giving him an edge in some states that are tightly contested with Republican rival John McCain. Blacks make up around 12 percent of the voting population and are the Democratic Party's most reliable ethnic constituency, although historically they have voted in lower numbers than other groups. This year, opinion polls show that more than 90 percent of blacks who vote could cast a ballot for Obama, in part because of racial solidarity with a candidate who would be the first black president in U.S. history. "There is every indication that black turnout in 2008 will surpass all existing records both nationally and in individual states," said a report this week by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081023/pl_nm/us_usa_politics_blacks_1 |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
And, from the same article Balladeer quoted above: "Craven described himself as a disgruntled Republican who voted for Bush but plans to vote for Obama in part because he thinks McCain would likely continue Bush's policies. Race played little or no role in his decision, he said." I've also read that there are many Republicans who won't be voting for McCain because of his choice of VP. They feel Palin just isn't qualified. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Palin isn't qualified, but Obama IS? I don't get it. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The thing is, Denise, that the press won't put Obama's inexperience under scrutiny but they will for Palin....simple enough. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I agree Michael. I guess unless someone watches Fox, they don't really get the whole story. Such a pity. I hope more people start watching the REAL news, where ALL sides are presented, when so much depends on being informed. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
DEAR MIKE, I read your post number 54 above, about the number of blacks likely to vote for Obama. Why is this an issue? I don't understand. It seems like a sort of a given to me. When Eisenhower ran, a very heavy proportion of WWII vets voted for him; they saw Eisenhower as one of them. When Kennedy ran, he got an extra large proportion of the Catholic vote, even in Ohio, where I lived and which was heavily Republican in my area. Kennedy was one of them, and they were pleased. Bush was a bible based literal word-of-God kind of guy and he brought those folks in for him. He was not only one of them and they wanted to support him on those grounds, but he went courting them as well. Is Obama supposed to be a more inept politician than these guys? or incapable of learning from them? or incapable of making his own decisions on these matters? As a former secretary of Defense might have said, "Jimminy Cricket, Mike, What do you expect?" Holy Cow! Balladeer! Yours, Bob Kaven Curiously, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Gingrich: CNN Misquote in Palin Interview Shows 'The Fix Is In' Thursday, October 23, 2008 This is a rush transcript from "On the Record ," October 22, 2008. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated. GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX NEWS HOST: Tonight, we have Governor Palin who's getting the hits. The hits on Governor Palin -- they just keep on coming. Thirteen days to the election, neck-and-neck horse race, and Senator McCain's running mate continues to be slammed, some of it grossly unfair. Yesterday, CNN was either incompetent or really dirty. Check this out. CNN reporter Drew Griffin asked Governor Palin this question, supposedly -- yes, supposedly quoting a "National Review" column. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DREW GRIFFIN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Governor, you've been mocked in the press. The press has been pretty hard on you. The Democrats have been pretty hard on you. But also, some conservatives have been pretty hard on you, as well. "The National Review" had a story saying that, you know, I can't tell if Sarah Palin is "incompetent, stupid, unqualified, corrupt, or all of the above." GOV. SARAH PALIN (R-AK), VICE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: Who wrote that one? GRIFFIN: That was in "The National Review." PALIN: Who wrote it? GRIFFIN: I don't have the author, but they were... PALIN: I'd like to talk to that person. (END VIDEO CLIP) VAN SUSTEREN: Here's the problem. The CNN reporter took the quote completely out of context. The column was actually an indictment of the media, not the governor, but of the media. Here's the quote in context. "Watching press coverage of the Republican candidate for vice president, sometimes hard to decide whether Sarah Palin's incompetent, stupid, unqualified, corrupt, backward or, well, all of the above."' http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,443712,00.html Right now CNN is working on damage control after being caught. Denise, you are absolutely right about the media...  |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: Dear Mike and Denise, Why not compare apples and apples, oranges and oranges? If you compare the two Presidential candidates on experience, the Republican candidate clearly has more of it, doesn't he? On the other hand, this for some reason doesn't seem to matter to the voters as much as you might think it would, given the poles. Apparently other factors come into play here. I don't want to try to stack the deck either way by offering a biased view. Obviously, you could stack for either McCain or Obama if you wanted to, but a clear explanation as to why things really stand the way they do right now is not one I can actually offer. There is a left wing eqivalent to the complaints about the press offered here, by the way. The left believes that McCain gets too much of a free pass on tough questions from the press because he's been courting them heavily for the past ten years or so. The other comparison would be Palin and Biden. That would be your more oranges to oranges comparison. If that was the experience comparison you were trying to make, I suspect that the Republicans would be wanting to change the point of comparison to something else. Biden is much more experienced and knowledgable about national and foreign affairs. The logic of a comparison between Obama and Palin is really interesting, though. It turns the campaign into an even more fruitless comparison of personalities than before, while avoiding any actual discussion of issues. I am certain there must be Republicans who want to talk about issues as well, rather than these more unprofitable comparisons. I don't even like fantasy football, though, so what do I know? Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Very interesting on the comparisons, isn't it, Bob? Here we have four nominees, two with a lot of government experience and two with a lot less. Problem is that of the two with less, one is a presidential candidate and one is the vice-presidential one. Actually, the Democrats have been the ones to compare Obama and Palin. Why? That's easy enough. If they were to compare the two presidential candidates, Obama would not even come close in the experience arena. That's why they can't do it. So, to counter Obama's lack of experience they attack Palin's, which isn't even the smartest thing to do, since she has been a mayor and a governor whereas Obama is a one-term senator. I grant you that a standard comparison between vice-presidential candidates would show Biden as much more experienced but that doesn't help Democrats, either. The presidential race is supposed to be between the presidential candidates, not the vice-presidential ones. Their comparisons between Obama and Palin are about the only option they have, with the exception of non-comparing, but they weren't smart enough to do that, apparently. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I thought this story was appropriate to this discussion. http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081017light.html |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
And I'll bet you won't see this in the New York Times. Complete with copy of news article & photo... http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78945 |
||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
Very much so, Denise. Thank you for bringing it to our attention. I also read up a little on the author - he's got what it takes to bring the truth to light. |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Denise, those are both very good links. They point out the disparity between truth and agendas. For the Left to claim there is no bias ignores the fact that 85%-90+% of journalists polled call themselves a 'Liberal.' Herein lies the rub: you will write an article based upon the point of view that you know the MOST ABOUT. Plain and simple. Most journalists stop digging anymore for facts that disagree with their preconceived notions or premises in their story headline. The CNN distortion is just another example of how a simple Google search can go terribly wrong if you don't do the research that goes along with the context of the story. Let me illuminate something here: I did my own google search on Mahoney and his s*x scandel, got 150,000 hits. The story is completely dead a week later by the way, and I TOLD YA SO!!!! (see my previous thread on Foley/Mahoney.) I then did a google search on Palin and the word makeover....got 1,500,000 hits, nearly 10 times the articles and blogs that the disastrous Florida Mahoney scandel did. Such is the power of the media: they can make even bigger, the smallest stories, and can minimize the ones they wish to shut down. And they are doing it with every Pro-Obama story that comes along. By the way: October 21st media results: “By a margin of 70%-90%, Americans say most JOURNALISTS want to see Obama, not John McCain, win on Nov. 4. Another 8% say journalists don't favor either candidate, and 13% say they don't know which candidate most reporters support.” That's 8 to 1 in favor of Obama, by our beloved media. APA-New York (USA) The director of the U.S Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ), Tom Rosensteil on Friday told 150 reporters that 70 percent of his compatriots believes the U.S media support Democrat presidential candidate, Barack Obama. Building on a survey conducted by his organization, Rosensteil revealed that 56 percent of articles by the U.S media are pro-Obama against 14 percent for Republican hopeful John Mc Cain. http://www.apanews.net/apa.php?page=show_article_eng&id_article=78671 How does this compare with 'past' Obama coverage? In early 2007, before he emerged as the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, Obama drew THREE times as many positive stories as negative ones. http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-media23-2008oct23,0,2992953.s tory |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Maybe the majority of journalists support one candidate over the other. Maybe the majority of media owners support one candidate over the other and the journalists are towing the corporate line. Maybe it’s a bit of both, but you can bet your bottom dollar that they only continue to do it because it’s financially practical - what they‘re pushing sells, it‘s popular. The media is a reflection of it’s market, the public gets what the public wants and arguing that it doesn’t reflect what you want is pointless, unless of course you’re willing to abandon the tenet of the free, and popular, press. Personally I get most of my news from the BBC, their funding and reporting policy ensures an almost totally unbiased service, I haven’t found an American media source that even comes close. Any suggestions? |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Hey, Grinch! Your premise is right: it's your conclusion that I don't agree with. I look at it this way: You have a very small amount of people (journalists, etc) presenting the complexion of an election, and its wrong coverage. You can't be that biased and have it NOT show up. The disparity in posVS.neg stories Obama/McCain can only do one thing: prove a bias that has existed in this election PRIOR to the nomination process. Read it how you wish, Grinch. We all see things from our own perspective. But from my seat, the election looks 'fixed.' |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Grinch, I like the BBC as well. I don't imagine you get American Public Radio or Public Broadcasting Service over there, but they're pretty careful to present a wide spectrum of views as well. The right over here has a tendency to confuse fairness and equal consideration. Thus many folks want our schools teaching about cavemen riding dinosaurs in science class because some folks don't believe in evolution. They consider this a fair use of school time, and get upset if their views don't get equal time on the news. Reporters who don't go along with their viewpoints are dangerous radicals. This constituency is well supported in the Republican Party. The current President even identifies with them. Almost anyone who is skeptical of their viewpoints about the way the world is put together is a dangerous radical. Folks who believe that the science around environmental degradation is wrong belong to the same constituency. Reporters who don't think their viewpoint is a valid as the more broadly accepted scientific opinion are also considered Liberals because the fringe views aren't given equal weight with the peer reviewed scientifically tested ones. They too are part of the Republican coalition. They've even managed to turn the word Liberal into a negative in this country. The word once meant open-minded and as near as I can tell it still does. So you can see why it would be an asset for people who are supposed to gather facts without making pre-judgements about them. But in the United States, in its current repressive climate, I guess being open minded probably is as close to an obscenity as many folks on the right might imagine. In the meantime, the BBC gives a pretty objective view of things from a world wide perspective. Most of the people you're trying to talk to, though, have their channel selectors welded to Fox News, which is occasionally entertaining as a part of a nutritionally balanced news diet. As is Rush Limbaugh. They simply don't substitute for the whole thing, though they'll make you think they do. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Oh, one more thing. I have worked in the media business in one way or another for 35 years. There is a myth I wish to dispel: MYTH: Stories get press because it is financially expediant to do so. The 'types' of stories are subject to that. (meaning that dog hero stories, murder, etc. ALWAYS show up as high interest items.) WHICH stories are totally at the whim of the editor, and journalist writing it. They don't go to the owner, or the advertisers, or sponsors and try to predict which story will sell the best. That's only done on the headliner stories or stories that show the sponsor in a bad light (prewarning them, ie.) The rest of the newspaper is largely accumulated by OTHER reporters, syndicated ones, and the choice then becomes, which story to print, and/or what page number to print it on, and how often will we run updates. All of these are subjective to the Editor/Program Director. Generally, space requirements play the biggest role on which story gets played. The newsroom manager (Program Dir.) also stacks the deck on TV, for instance: if they wish the slant to look more Republican, they get two Repub commentators and one Dem or Independent (and vice versa for a Dem slant.) Keith Olbermann, for instance, NEVER EVER has anyone who disagrees with him, and MSNBC never pushes him to do so. He has 100% syncophant followers that say: You're right Keith, yup. So, the bottom financial line for media may be : what makes money, but it doesn't break down individually to each news story, and seldom to politics. Politics, sorry to say, doesn't sell. Scandels sell. Politics, until this election anyways, seldom sells a newspaper on the headline alone. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Fixed by who? A bunch of journalists that support Obama? A group of normally competing media moguls? Obama? They can’t fix anything, unless you’re suggesting that the American people are a conglomeration of dullards who can’t think for themselves and can be swayed away from making up their own mind with regard to their choice of candidate. Media supporters of McCain are preaching to McCain supporters and media supporters of Obama are preaching to Obama supporters, they’re the converted, and the undecided are hopefully ignoring both of them and concentrating on making their own mind up. The public get what the public want. Even if the media could, as you suggest, sell a pig in a poke to the American people, how could you stop them? |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Put simply, the media is literally using a great propaganda technique to get their liberal or left-leaning or whatever you call it, agenda through: brainwashing. (and believe me, I am not using this term loosely.) ~~DEFINITION: Brainwashing (also known as thought reform or as re-education) consists of any effort aimed at instilling certain attitudes and beliefs in a person — beliefs sometimes unwelcome or in conflict with the person's prior beliefs and knowledge,[1] in order to affect that individual's value system and subsequent thought-patterns and behaviors.~~ ...and in my opinion, nothing does a better job of 'brainwashing' over time than the medium of video. If the term 'brainwashing' is distasteful to you, substitute the proper synonymic phrase for it: Marketing thru Subliminals. Those in the media figure, correctly, that if you show a person 70 times positively another person only 20 times positively... ...that viewers WILL change their opinion over time if exposed to the same bias. To be frank with you: I think most people ARE lazy when it comes to understanding politics. We must have had a dozen or so televisions in the lounge when I worked for a large corporation. They were tuned 24-7 to daytime soaps and game shows. The women ruled the roost! LOL You wouldn't believe how irate they were if you came in to watch the news. The LAST thing I could ever get my coworkers to watch on television was political news, and for some reason, I don't know why, women traditionally hate politics more than men, and don't seem as interested in knowing the specific platforms. I believe it has something to do with their 'exclusion from the good ol boy' political and job networks from the past. I've said this before and I'll say it more before I'm done: There are 2-3 well-studied voters for every 7-10 voters voting only their political party without knowing issues in any detail. They cancel out the 'good' votes of someone who took the time to know what the election is about. And, man, that bugs me to say that, too. Really bugs me. There's been whole episodes of talk-radio devoted to man on the street quizes about politics, and the average person barely knows anything beyond the VP's and Secretary of State. It's awful....but talking points have replaced knowledge in both parties. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Bob, Thanks for the heads up regarding PBS and I honestly mean that, at first glance it looks very similar in delivery to the BBC service - I was beginning to think that America didn‘t have an unbiased alternative to the likes of Fox. This was particularly interesting and apt: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/july-dec08/campaignmedia_10-23.html One last question, why the heck do people frequent the biased mainstream when an alternative is available? Is it because they want to be told what to believe, as threadbear suggests, that they don’t want to decide for themselves? Or is it more likely an affirmation of their allegiance? A case of I’m a Dodgers supporter because I go to Dodger games as opposed to I go to Dodgers games because I’m a Dodgers supporter. There’s a subtle, but important, difference. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Denise, The first article, written by Card, was very good. I enjoyed reading his view. He had many points and many great questions. The only thing that bothered me was the generalization of this quote: quote: I think many on both sides, as well as straight down the middle, partook and benefited all the way down the scale. The second link lost my respect, as it lacked the very fundamental message that Card was lamenting upon: Honesty. quote: As far as I’m aware, ACORN has never been convicted of voter fraud. In fact, the Justice Department has prosecuted 120 individual fraud cases over the last 5 years with 86 convictions, which includes all types of voter fraud and not just the registration kind. The numbers are minuscule in a country of 300 million people. 5 year effort A Pockmark Upon Both Houses the ACORN hype seems to be hyper-sensational reporting at its best, along with many other slam tactics being used by both parties. Now people are picking on Palin about her wardrobe expense. What’s next? Their kids? Maybe everyone oughta campaign in their underwear, in the dark, under a box, after they’ve managed to crawl outta of the hole they were in to not have a single mark against them. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
I want to take this moment to sojourn on an initial point made here, and that is how the Obama campaign is deliberately "playing to the poor". Of course I believe we can safely claim that politicians, no matter what, are going to work to play to all demographics, backgrounds and populaces as best they can, so besides the obvious point that politicians in GENERAL are going to be "playing" to the poor, along with every other key constituency, when you examine the long-term history of how poorer Americans vote, they have for the last thirty years leaned Democratic. Exit Polls: 2004 Election Exit Polls: 2000 Election Exit Polls: 1996 Election Exit Polls: 1992 Election Exit Polls: 1988 Election Exit Polls: 1984 Election Exit Polls: 1980 Election It is easy to claim plainly that they "play" to the poor, but when you consider a history as extensively as this, I think it would be irresponsible to assume that's all there is to this pattern, and there are surely well-ingrained reasons and motivators to why those with low incomes regularly tend to favor the Democratic candidate, regardless of how sincere or insincere the Democrat is. And with this cycle, the mindset appears to be the same. Here's one new poll statistic that suggests it: CBS News Poll: October 23, 2008  And I believe many Americans are right to feel this way. I already explained many reasons before in this thread on why McCain's campaign shouldn't be surprised their economic agenda is falling on deaf ears, behaving as though our problems are "psychological" and there aren't any uninsured Americans and if they talked about the economy they'd lose, etc. Does that make Obama any more right on economic policy? That's up for debate. But what's clear is, there are historical factors that lead many Americans to believe the GOP doesn't appear to be sympathetic to their needs and issues that affect people like them, and so I believe simply calling it "playing to the poor" would be irresponsible. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
Noah, I've missed reading your poetry. But on to the topic: I believe I heard repeated today that Obama does not "listen to the polls, they mean nothing." I found that quite interesting. It's like the cat is in the bag, tied up, and nearly near the water's end. I am having a problem with that kind of attitude. To me, it's not positive. It's egotistic. And yes, I've voted early, because it became an option that I could use in my discretion. BUT, as I have told a friend, "I voted a split ticket" because it's not all about the White House. There has to be a even balance; there has to be voice on "all" sides. As most of elder PiP members might know, I dislike discordance. So you may all dismiss this note, that's just fine with me. But for those of you who might believe in a tolerant nation with rules, regs and order: we must come together to weather not only the economy, but certain ruin if we cannot work together to be one Nation again. America is a belief that so many of our younger people take as granted; and we of "my" generation have allowed them to do just that. Be ready to prepare gardens and raise your own food, people. Bartering could soon become the master of the US economy. I do not mean to place a dire notion into what might be; but I listened well to the woman who said a year before she died, "we're going to see another depression." We tried to tell her she was wrong; but it seems we were wrong; I mean, after all, with a mere 99 years under her skirts, she truly knew her history! So many of our children won't even know how to bake, let alone break, bread. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Threadbear, About your comments about Mahoney and Foley in your posting in #66 of this thread, I have already posted a reply to your thread about Mahoney and Foley, #12 in that thread. Should you have a comment to make, I'd be interested to hear it. I believe there is a substantial difference between the two situations, and I go into that difference there. I suspect you missed it the first time around. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Sunshine, About the economy, you may be right. There's a scarey thought for you. About listening to surveys, I heard McCain say the same thing the other day. Are you about to draw the same conclusion about him, or were you just looking to get another shot in at Obama? Bush said the same when he was down in the poles about the Iraq war. It's a disingenuous thing that almost all politicians say becaquse poles matter to all of them and yet they know that poles do change. I'll try not to go out of my way to bad-mouth McCain; I'll just focus on his policies and the way his statements reflect them. I really will try for all the reasons that you seemed so sensibly to advocate in your last entry. I found it moving and sincere. Thanks for writing it. Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
After all of the rhetoric, Bob, which you present in fine fashion, the difference between foley and Mahoney is that one is republican and one is a democrat. This fuzzy logic is nothing new. Hillary made millions writing her book while in office BUT Gingrich got chastised and fined for it. Byrd was a member of the KKK BUT Lott made an off-the-cuff racial joke. Bye bye, Lott. Clinton lied under oath BUT it was over a personal issue. Amazing how many defenses can come up for Democrats when caught with their hand in the cookie jar. Even when democrats are unarguably guilty, somehow it's never quite as bad as a Republican's similar actions. Mahoney carried on affairs BUT Foley send e-mails to young boys BUT Mahoney actually carried out these liasons while there was no evidence that Foley did BUT Foley disgraced his party.....etc, etc. etc. Foley was drummed out of office in disgrace. Mahoney stated in the papers the other day he is undecided about running for re-election. The main point, though, that Threadbear made was that Foley was butchered in the press daily for weeks and weeks on end while Mahoney received very little notice at all and has already all but disappeared. I suppose the Democrats and the liberal press simply must have bigger BUTS than republicans. |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Hi, Bob. I didn't ignore it. I couldn't edit my own post after submitting it. My cyber filter is tuned to filter out words such as 's*x scandel'. It will let me write them, but I can't edit a pre-existing post with those words in them. I thought it was pretty ironic, myself! I just haven't asked my McAfee guys to adjust my filter. I'll try to find some time later and post my response to your comments in this thread, ok? Gotta laugh at my dilemma, though, huh? I did! I'm just sick up and fed with getting splattered with false links, viruses, etc, and after my UTube virus hit me on a normal political video, I tightened everything up. I backed out my register one day and my computer went back to normal after installing McAfee filter. Laughing at Mike's 'kicker line' about Dem's having 'bigger but's.' : Jeff |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Regina, I think Acorn has quite a history of arrests, indictments and convictions nationwide. http://www.rottenacorn.com/activityMap.html |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Wow! Nice link, denise.. I can see why Obama's almost million dollar donation to them to get the vote out would be considered money well spent. Wonder how much he donated to charity this year? just curious..... |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Really? Are you saying ACORN itself has been found guilty of registration fraud or are you simply listing cases where people who ripped off ACORN have been arrested and convicted? http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/22/voter.fraud/?imw=Y&iref=mpstoryemail Using your logic the American postal service is guilty of killing people based on the fact that a couple of their employees have been found guilty of “going postal“. |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
I do...I am ready to throw a rock thru my television screen again. 8 million hits on Palin Shopping spree on Google. A woman and her wardrobe, from middle income to running as 2nd most important person in the country and people are screaming about her replacing her wardrobe with a more suitable outfit befitting her role. STILL think the media isn't blowing smoke at the Republicans? Mahoney vs. Palin story is now running at a ratio of 53 shopping stories to 1 for Mahoney. Never ever have I seen a Presidential candidate more savaged than Palin. Simply disgraceful. There is simply NO explanation other than outright bias for this discrepency about coverage. One story is an outright scandel of huge proportions, the other is simply a shrug. The shrug is getting ALL the coverage, even more than the economy. People: you are being manipulated. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Good grief, the RNC spent $150,000 on Palin's wardrobe and $22,000 for her sytlist? And they dare call Obama an elitist. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Kari? I've never really understood the money system. But I can barter me arse off!  |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
LOL - Karen, too funny! How ya doin'? |
||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
Serenity, bartering is still a system used by a lot of folk in the midwest. It's going to become even more necessary, I think, and it's not an art that's easily learned. As you well know, one must have a great idea of the value of what is to be bartered. And you watch: more and more people are going to have to be NICE to one another. BobK, I truly do not think I took a dig at Obama; in fact, it was just the reverse. I was appalled to learn about the "B" on the face story by the woman who fabricated it. I believe I said that did not do McCain any good. I pretty much did take a dig at both the government and our people in that we've let the government take "care" of us. Maybe not in so many words, but that's where my thinking lies at the moment. It's time we started taking care of ourselves. Denise? You're really coming up with some fine links. Keep up the good work!!  |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Maybe Caribou Barbie could start bartering for her outfits and stylist service. Perhaps a stuffed moosehead and wolf paw might seal the bargain? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
And I wonder what the "value" was for Oprah's makeup artists and hair stylists to makeover Michelle Obama? I wonder if they were donated services, even though Michelle and Barack are millionaires and could certainly pay for the services themselves. It would be interesting to find out if Michelle actually opened up her own wallet, or if the services she received were a gift from Oprah. Palin is the only non-millionaire on either ticket. All the other candidates can afford to buy their own appropriate campaign clothes and can afford to pay their own stylists. If I recall correctly, someone here derided Palin earlier for her hair style and for wearing fleece, the ususal clothing worn in Alaska. I guess there is no pleasing some folks. And the clothes are not Palin's "property". And she didn't do the shopping. A campaign aide did and after the election they will be given to charity or auctioned off for charity (something I'm sure you wouldn't know without watching Fox News). That's a good "spreading of the wealth", don'tcha think? Obama should approve. But, at least in this case it will be voluntary, and not stolen out of our paychecks, as it would with Obama.Tax cuts from Obama for 95% of working Americans? How does that happen when he will abolish Bush's tax cuts? Please. Clinton promised tax cuts too. And as soon as he was elected he raised taxes. Obama doesn't have a very good track record of being a man of his word. Just ask Joe Biden, whom Obama promised that he wouldn't vote against the troop funding when Biden told him he would be putting the troops lives at risk if he did vote against it, but then "changed his mind" and voted against it, and John McCain, whom Obama promised to avail himself of the public election financing if McCain did, and then after McCain signed onto it, Obama "changed his mind", so why believe him on this? Grinch, ACORN has been promising for years to clean up their act. How long can they continue to use the excuse of "it's not us, it's the people we hired"? I'd say that boat can't float too much longer. Thanks Karilea! [This message has been edited by Ron (10-25-2008 04:43 PM).] |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
quote: huh? Surely you're not saying that NICE will become a necessity of manipulation? I'm shocked! and um, newsflash--some people pay more for abuse.  *chuckle* Let's not play the ambiguity game though. It ain't nice. But the best rule of bartering is "FAIR DEAL." (google lagniappe, too.) A little local business custom of incentive in N'awlins--we like to keep 'em comin'. (oh, I'm killin' me over here...) (and Jenn? How nice of you to ask--as you can probably tell, I'm still me. Sometimes nice, sometimes not, but ever striving for peace.) Now. Excuse me while I go get ready. I've been feeling so much better I actually started going outside, and I accidentally made friends with the neighbors. (They LIKE me--they really LIKE me!!!)  <--The Sally Field smilie.We'll be on the porch to the left of my door if anyone cares to join us. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
"Palin is the only non-millionaire on either ticket." Since her assets top a million, why do you say she isn't a millionaire? And since she is a millionaire, surely she can afford a few good outfits. If the Gap is good enough for Michelle Obama, why isn't is good enough for Palin? For $150,000 Palin could clothe nearly the whole town of Wasilla. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
So glad to hear you're feeling better, Karen. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Denise, Is that what ACORN were convicted of, employing the wrong people? I agree ACORN would be better off taking a little more time selecting who they employ to collect registrations, for one thing it’d save them some money but that isn‘t what you accused them of. quote: I think you’re wrong. If you’re looking for real registration fraud I think you need to check out Nathan Sproul - so does Republican Congressman Chris Cannon: "The difference between ACORN and Sproul is that ACORN doesn't throw away or change registration documents after they have been filled out." |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Count the number of people who are listed on the new link you posted, Denise. Again. The Justice Department has the record of convictions, which is still under 100. Less than 100 people in 5 years have been convicted of voter fraud, out of 300 million. And it's not just from ACORN. quote:A Pockmark Upon Both Houses I'm sorry, but to say that ACORN, as a company, has been convicted of voter fraud is a lie. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Palin's favorite store is "Out of the Closet" in Anchorage. I believe it is a consignment shop. And as I said previously, the $150,000 of clothes are not her property to keep, and she didn't shop for the clothes. The RNC paid for them and will give them to charity or auction them off for charity after the campaign is over. My house has an estimated assessed value too. I wouldn't include that in my net worth unless the mortgage were paid off and it were mine free and clear, and if I actually sold it for that assessed value. And, well, we've seen what can happen in the real estate and the stock markets. I'm sure they've been hit as hard as anyone else with money in the market. So I wouldn't add them in either just to try to push up the value of their "assets" to a million. I also wouldn't add into her salary the reimbursed travel expenses that she put out on commercial flights for approved "first family" functions. And Todd's plane is over 25+ years old, I believe, that has been in his family for years. It's probably not worth much. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Can I venture a guess here? It's just a hunch on my part--but I suspect that the outrage is more that McCain spoke out against such expenditures prior to this campaign. This is more distraction too. Personally? I don't care that much, but I did love the red leather jacket. Even with free showtime, I had little to watch on tv last night, so I amused me by watching MSNBC for part of the evening, then FOX, and a bit of CNN. After doing that it occurred to me that watching only one source of election coverage was a bit like watching a ballgame only when your team has the ball.  |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
McCain spoke out against the pork that the legislators tack on to every bill in the House and Senate, money that ends up costing the taxpayer. The expenditures for Palin's campaign wardrobe are not going to come out of our pockets. I think that's the difference. I'm glad you're feeling better Karen! |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Grinch and Regina, ACORN has a disgraceful record of employing people at all levels of the organization that have been found guilty of fraud. When they were investigated in past years they promised to clean up their act. It doesn't seem they have been too successful, whether by design or ineptitude. Perhaps they should get out of the business. |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Hi, Serenity: Aren't you amazed at how different the coverages are? They still beat up on Palin whenever possible, but I think you have something there. I watch all three networks, every or close to every night to see the disparity. It really does take watching all three to get the news the other networks conviently forgot to put in. I'm kind of bummed that CNN sacked Glen Beck, their only conversative. But then, I've always called CNN the Communist News Network. Their 'world government' takes really bore me anymore. Just an FYI: i read Drudge, Huffington Post, NY Times, LA Times, Chicago Trib, and even at times KOS. I like to know what my adversaries' takes on news items are. Seems people are great anymore at making 'excuses' for their candidates, and thus writing off their errors and foibles. Jeff |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Nearly $200,000 from GOP donor contributions was spent to put lipstick on the Alaskan pitbull. Doesn't that seem a little insensitive when people are struggling just to survive in these tough economic times? I know I struggled and did without (a lot!)in order to make contributions to the Obama campaign. Had Michelle used that money to buy a fake Louis Vuitton bag for one of her girls, or up her own wardrobe when she could afford to do it herself, I'd be just as upset as the GOP donors who are complaining now about Palin. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Thanks Denise!  (The weather helps a lot.) I'm working on my memory too--but until then I have only my word that I specifically heard the words, "clothing" come out of McCain's mouth as he talked about proper spending of campaign funds. I can't even tell you what station aired that because I was hitting the "flash" button on the remote. But like I said, I am shrugging here. I thought John Kerry's haircut was silly too. I think perhaps after a lifetime of watching Louisiana politics, I'm a bit inured, maybe? nod Now I need to go put on some make-up. And nodding at that one too. I happen to think McCain's make up allowance was worth every penny. There was a noticeable improvement after he hired the best. (And no, I'm not kidding--I had told others privately that he was far too pale for television previously.) I'm totally serious. If I were Republican and had made a campaign contribution, I would expect the guy to utilize the monies wisely, and looking healthy on television is a wise decision. So...shrug. I'm off to "hair and make-up"!  Be well. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Have a good time, Karen! Then I guess you're really upset about the $400,000 plus (or should I say nearly 1/2 a million?) that Obama is spending on his Chicago victoy (he hopes!) party on election night, Jen. As a donor, did you receive your invitation to that blow-out bash? At least with Palin's campaign wardrobe the funds will be recovered, and probably then some, and donated to charity. And that's fine with me. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Sorry Denise, I was a little confused there for a moment, I thought you were trying to insinuate that ACORN were guilty of voter fraud or voter registration fraud. It seems that what you really meant was that some people who were employed by ACORN committed registration fraud while at the same time defrauding ACORN. I agree. Did you check out Nathan Sproul, what do you think of him? |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
How much is McCain spending on his election night party? His will be at the Biltmore in Phoenix with limited access (and you know what that means $$$$$$) and Obama's in Grant Park in Chicago and will be free and open to all. No invitation necessary. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Hey threadbear! Didn't mean to ignore anybody there... and speaking of sports, this is getting to be like raquetball.  Seriously, I'd just like to say that after the election is done--we need to stop all the bickering, as amusing as some of it is--I think we all agree that we've really got to get it together. Me? I'm not allowed to vote. After a series of mishaps--I was, um, purged. (I'm all about the irony, I am...)  Don't get upset now. I wasn't going to be able to vote anyhow, since the government can't agree on who the heck I am. I have no Id. I.D., I mean...heh! But they like me, whomever I am... |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
quote: Indeed, there have been several workers. And I'm happy the system caught and convicted them. If ACORN were convicted as an organization, they would cease to exist, as with any organization. The type of wrong info being spammed and spread around makes many voters lose faith in the systems and they won't vote. How does that help anyone? I think putting fear into people and reducing their power to make their vote count undermines a democracy. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I don't have a problem with what any of them are spending for their campaigns, Jen. It seemed that you were the one who was having a problem with it. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Actually it was Jeff who brought up the topic of Palin's $150,000 wardrobe. I just joined in for a free ride on the finger pointing rollercoaster. |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
I don't see what's wrong with 150000 wardrobe. She didn't have anything to wear. Besides it cost less then a million dollar hair cut -Juju |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I read somewhere above someone complain about extravagant spending at this time when so many people are struggling to survive. According to Michelle Obama, “The truth is, in order to get things like Universal Health Care and a revamped Education System, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of the pie so that someone else can have more.” Oh, really? Who is the someone who gives up a piece of the pie? On October, 15,2008, Michelle Obama spent $447.39 on room service (for 2) at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel for an afternoon snack of Lobster Hors D’Oeuvres ($50.00), Whole Steamed Lobsters (100.00), Iranian Osetra Caviar ($150.00), and Bollinger Champagne ($44.00) You mean like that???? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
My view is that if she used her own money Mike it’s a good thing - she’s redistributing her wealth and stimulating the economy. If she’s spending someone else’s money however she’s extracting the urine from some poor sucker - in the same way Palin is. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
"On October, 15,2008, Michelle Obama spent $447.39 on room service (for 2) at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel for an afternoon snack of Lobster Hors D’Oeuvres ($50.00), Whole Steamed Lobsters (100.00), Iranian Osetra Caviar ($150.00), and Bollinger Champagne ($44.00)" Actually, Balladeer, that never happened. I just don't understand why the right continues to try and smear Obama (and his wife) by posting stories like that which have already been proven to be false. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
agreed, grinch..for the rich to spend money on themselves, like Edward's $400.00 haircut, does invigorate the economy. Of course, when I mentioned this point once before concerning Brad Pitt's 5 million dollar wedding and how it helped a variety of companies like caterers, bakers, waitresses, set-up people, florists and a long list of others, I was met with derision from our left standers on how that was a lot of bull. Interesting, no? If the rich spending lavishly is good for the economy, they why tax them even further to have less money in which to continue this invigoration? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Interesting, Jennifer. I saw it on the news and then in an e-mail. I checked it out on Snopes, which is always on top of things like that and there is no mention of it one way or another. Grinch is under the impression that, if indeed it did occur, there is no problem beacuse it is her money. Is it?...or, since she is officially on the campaign trail, are hotel expenses and food taken out of the Democratic campaign money? It would be interesting to know. You continue with meaningless insults like "putting lipstick on the pitbull", which seems to be lacking in even the most insignificant cleverness, and yet refer to "insensitivities" of the right as if there exists none among the left. I'm sure you are as aware as anyone else that is not the case....and so it goes. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I'm considering those examples, Mike. Seems to me that supports the idea of elitism not supporting the theory of trickle down economics... Doesn't there have to be a larger number of people with money for the trickle down theory to work? What was Alan Greenspan apologizing for last week? not a poke, no weapons, just questions... I am Karen, the self-confessed burnt out stoner chick, so I'm thinking of trickle down economics as a shower head. The smaller the head and fewer the holes, the less likely you'll get that full, invigorating effect when you shower, right? Maybe it's time to update the plumbing... *smile* If I could, I'd vote for Obama. But you already know that. I don't agree with everything I've heard, nor do I pretend to understand it. But the witch in me (and thanks to a buddy for the following line) just wants to throw a virgin on the fire. McCain's camp looks like they are going to be squabbling for a few years anyhow. So shrug... |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/roomservice.asp It was listed under Obama instead of Michele. My apologies...the story has indeed been declared false and I share disdain for anyone from either party who engages in such deceptions. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: I think the stock answer would be that the rich are rich because they aren’t spending the money, the idea is that if you redistribute it to the poor they’re guaranteed to spend it. That’s not actually what’s going to happen though, Obama plans to redistribute some but not all of the money raised, the rest will go to fund the changes he’s laid out like funding health care and reducing the $53 trillion shortfall America is facing. Hopefully he can drag back more revenue by reducing government spending but the recession, if it continues, is likely to partially scupper both his tax and spending plans. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
ah...and it looks like the porch party has begun. I have been summoned forthwith! I'll be back though. ta for now everyone |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Karen, that's true. There does indeed need to be money at the top to have an effective trickle down effect, although democrats scoff at such a theory, even though it has been proven to be true by Reagen. Another thing people don't think about. First, the economic prognostcators are already warning that unemployment is going to soar. Does it make sense to increase the taxes on the people who provide jobs to others? Does that make sense to you? Due to that, there will be even MORE layoffs and unemployment. Also, for companies that have a product, don't you think that, if their taxes rise, they will pass that increase along to the consumer, those people who Obama claims will not be affected by tax increases? No one speaks of these effects on Obama's plan to redistribute the wealth.... |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi Denise, Sorry to pop in again, but your post's link to the Rotten Acorn, confirms what others here are posting about ACORN. Count up the number of Rotten Acorn contract employees who were convicted or plead guilty to voter fraud. Unless I missed one, it comes out to EIGHT workers in the past five years, as I think I mentioned casually way earlier in this thread, with a link. Allegations, suspicions, investigations and rumours are not indictments, trials, or convictions. And no matter how much ACORN hysteria can be found on the internet, ACORN, THE ORGANIZATION, has NEVER been indicted, let alone tried or convicted of ANYTHING, EVER. How much simpler can this be? Mike: I wouldn't worry about Rush being kicked off the air unless there is a fundamental change in constitutional law -- has to do with that freedom of speech thing. If you're really worried, though, and think that where there is smoke there has to be fire, maybe someone should help this self- confessed drug addled looney-tune save himself by at least putting out his cigar. Best, Jimbeaux |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Yes, Grinch, in the last debate Obama addressed the fact that the recession might cause him to restructure some of his plans and goals. If elected, I trust him to do the right thing and the best he can with what little Bush will leave him to work with. I don't have the same feeling about McCain. Balladeer, the Post retracted the story. If you've been reading on some of the right wing sites, no doubt you've seen what the real intent of that fake story was, to trash Michelle by calling her "the Queen" and things so vile I won't repeat them. The pitbull reference started with Palin herself. If she doesn't have a problem with it, neither do I. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Mike: I wouldn't worry about Rush being kicked off the air unless there is a fundamental change in constitutional law -- has to do with that freedom of speech thing. Think I'll cut and paste this one on to wordpad so I can remind you of it in the future. If you're really worried, though, and think that where there is smoke there has to be fire, maybe someone should help this self- confessed drug addled looney-tune save himself by at least putting out his cigar. I'm going to take a wild guess that he may not be one of your favorite people, Jim. Just a hunch.... |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Waves to Jim. Nice to see you back. I think your facts about ACORN are correct, Jim. So what's all the fuss about? Maybe it's just a distraction to draw attention from the fact that the GOP's attempting to purge valid Dem voters from the registration lists? Ohio, Colorado and PA seem to be the areas they're focused on. You read about that? PS - I lost what little, and I mean very little respect I had for Limbaugh when he mocked a courageous man battling Parkinson's disease. Answered the question for me, how low can he go. Despicable! |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Why should Palin be off the rack while the men are in Armani? What the crap? Does everyone think those men are suited up from shoes to Rolex out of a Sears wish book? |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
I've heard about McCain's shoes but that's all. Who has the Rolex and wears Armani? Oh, and the suit Obama wore at the convention was a Hartmax Corp label, made by union workers. Here's a fun piece about Palin's "Wardrobe Malfunction". http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-karel-bouley/palins-wardrobe-malfuncti_b_137235.html |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Politicians can wear whatever they like as far as I’m concerned as long as they pay for it out of their own pocket. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
I agree with Grinch. I'm not sure about the 150k (or whatever the figure is) on Palin. Many of the clothes are loaners. So I don't have a grasp on the true dollar amount. I do know this: Women are vicious and have a very persecuting eye on any woman in the spotlight. We'll rip her apart no matter what she wears or how she wears it. I think Palin looks great. If I had to pick anything to critique about her image I'd say her hairstyle is a bit of a throw-back to Ivana Trump. Still, she's attractive and poised with courage. She's holding a political position and becoming ready for nearly any office apart from VP. That's my opinion. She's not ready for VP. Period. I don't harbor anything cruel toward the woman because she's admirable in many lights. As far as my Armani and Rolex remark? Trust me. They own both. It's signature. As well as Italian leather shoes. And I don't care. Because they can afford them. Though they could pay more attention to "cut." McCain tends to choose cuts that wear him. How is this remotely important to choosing a Head of State? I don't know. The observations are a fascinating anomaly for most any country that affords entertainment. We can all have fun with it, but I sincerely hope the victor can put some rugged wear on so we can all get through the mess our gov has become. |
||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
Amen, Regina, on your last line. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
grinch, your comment is out of touch with reality, I'm afraid. Politicians in major functions and even on the campaign trail seldom wear their own clothes. This is not limited to politicians. Not sure how it is there but here, after the news has been broadcast, there will follow credits..Dan Rather's wardrobe by Armani's,Ms. Couric's dress by Versache,hair styling by Lloyd's....and on and on. Movie stars at the Oscars or public awards or other functions do not wear their own clothes. They are given those 100,000 dollar gowns to advertise the creators. After the functions are over, the clothes go back. In your small rush to get a dig in, I think you have overlooked all of these things and the logic behind all these things. Palin wore clothes that were returned and given to charities days later. Big deal. To me it shows, not only the prejudice of the media to even make that an issue, but pettiness on those who jump on the bandwagon for such a non-topic that they know is simply a wide-spread practice among those required to be in the public eye. It also goes to show how petty the press is in their orchestrated smear campaign against Palin. When they have to come up with things like that, they must really be running out of material. |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think the Palin wardrobe coverage was payback for the Edwards haircut coverage. The issue for him, at the time, was that he was an elite rich guy out of touch with mainstream middle-class folks. Palin is middle-class according to Obama's definition of $125k or less a year. She's never claimed to be an elitist, as a matter of fact, she's been just the opposite, and got knocked for it. This story was created as payback -tit for tat for Edwards. By the way, Edwards is ANOTHER story that died just a week after the scandel. How many more examples do you need on which stories the media chooses to OVERCOVER? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: The reality in the UK is that politicians buy their own clothes - any deviation from that reality would result in a swift exit from British politics, not to mention the risk of being hounded by the taxpaying population. We don’t take kindly to people utilizing our hard earned cash to fund their extravagant lifestyles and Americans don‘t deserve anything less. Politicians, both American and British, are supposed to be the representatives of the people, it’s an honour that we bestow on them and for which they receive adequate financial reward. If hey want to live like movie stars or kings they’re in the wrong job. Accepting gifts is a gnats breath away from accepting bribes as far as I’m concerned, if you practice one it‘s easy to slip into the other. That covers all politicians from whatever party and giving the clothes away to charity if you get caught with your hand in the wardrobe doesn’t make it OK. I’ve changed my mind about Palin, I quite liked her at first, I even thought she’d make a good VP but she’s gone down in my estimation. She’s shrugged too many Atlases. I stand by my jab - Politicians can wear whatever they like as far as I’m concerned as long as they pay for it out of their own pocket. That may not be the way it is but that doesn’t mean it’s not the way it should be. Whatever happened to “Ask not what your country can do for you”? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
As far as ACORN as an organization goes, where investigations of them are now being conducted in 12 States, and where Obama's lawyers are busy trying to impede those investigations, where there is smoke, there is usually fire. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? quote: How? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
That covers all politicians from whatever party and giving the clothes away to charity if you get caught with your hand in the wardrobe doesn’t make it OK.. Wow. Ok, Mr. Grinch. I'm not to to try to debate further with someone who would go to those lengths for some sort of justification for their opinions. Palin and others have been wearing supplied clothing forever, which then go to charity or back to the manufacturer. You insinuation that Palin does the same thing and only relinquishes them because she was caught is not only biased, it shows a prejucial side and level of twisting by you I haven't seen before. Normally I find your arguments reasonable but, to come up with some kind of statement like that, well....carry on, sir. |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
mmmmm As far as ACORN is concerned: why are Dem's so reluctant to hold the employer accountable for the actions of 100's? Wouldn't they normally scream for accountability on the part of CEO's? What was their initial solution to the bad pollsters? Hire former-convicts. Great strategy, ACORN. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Marc Ambinder at the Atlantic opined: "Republicans, RNC donors and at least one RNC staff member have e-mailed me tonight to share their utter (and not-for-attribution) disgust at the expenditures. ... The heat for this story will come from Republicans who cannot understand how their party would do something this stupid ... particularly (and, it must be said, viewed retroactively) during the collapse of the financial system and the probable beginning of a recession." |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Is there a link for that opinion? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Here's an interesting commentary, Grinch. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=78827 |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Wanna bid on 20 grands worth of used make-up Deer, how about a couple of hundred dollars for two reconstituted, eaten only once, lobster. You might think it’s ok but I for one ain’t buying it. Before you know where you are all your politicians will be on the take. Hmmm. Denise, It’s definitely an interesting story, I’ve been following it closely, did you research the background? Talk about wasting public money. I hope the investigations into the false claims and pressure for FBI involvement are thoroughly investigated as Obama has requested and, this time around, those responsible are prosecuted. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I'm hoping that the investigations go forward, unimpeded by Obama, and that most of the fraudulent registrations (and early fraudulent votes already cast) are thrown out, as they should be. Each fraudulent vote cast cancels out one legitimate vote cast, which undermines the entire process, and that is something that both parties should be concerned about, if they care about free and fair elections. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
I’m in total agreement Denise, the sooner they get those Republican vote riggers in the slammer the better. Do you think McCain will go through with it though if he wins, wouldn't that just be political suicide? |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Do you wanna know why this 'wardrobe' discussion is bogus? The men ALWAYS wear suits: the more expensive they look, the worse they're perceived. They can have 4-5 suits, change their ties and voila....instant election uniform. Women can't wear the same suit time after time in public. Also they can't dress down too much (see the Palin discussions about her previous clothing). Also, the money went to clothing her children who are with her on the trail. They didn't have any suitable clothing for national television either. It was the RNC's decision that they needed upgrading, across the board, and they were right. You're just not going to go on national television in a consignment center outfit. |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi Denise: RE: "As far as ACORN as an organization goes, where investigations of them are now being conducted in 12 States, and where Obama's lawyers are busy trying to impede those investigations, where there is smoke, there is usually fire." Once again I suggest that "investigations" are just that. Your posts have yet to offer ANY reference to ANY indictments etc, ever, of ACORN the Organization, let alone indictments or trials or convictions of any ACORN employees beyond the eight already granted. And I'm sorry, but the posts offer no FACTUAL EVIDENCE at all to support the notion that Obama's "lawyer's" are impeding anything. Show me data, FACTS, and I'll happily change my mind. Really! Anyone can accuse anyone of anything, though they best have their facts straight before they go to court. Makes life easier. Any legally entitled organization from our friendly local police forces, through any city's Animal Abuse Units to the FBI and the CIA and the Treasury Department and on and on, can investigate any complaint against possible illegal activity made against anybody or any organization if they choose to. An "investigation" does not presume or even imply guilt. Since ALL "investigations" of ACORN the organization have failed, so far to result in any court action in any arena, best one can say is "where there is smoke, there is smoke." And, truly not meaning to insult anyone personally, and you in particular, we all know where a lot of smoke gets blown. I don't expect anyone or everyone to agree with ACORN's positions or legal tactics. I do hope people will look at facts. MIKE: Aw, you caught me out, sort of, on Rush Limbaugh. I don't care about him personally one way or the other except as a fellow human being, and certainly don't wish him personal ill or harm. On the other hand, I think he's an obnoxious, hate spewing scoundrel who is entitled to be obnoxious and spew hatred. You can quote me back on the free speech whenever you want. Howard Cosell and Don Imus were kicked off the air after making inadvertent "racist" remarks. They were kicked off the air by their employers, not the government. It's not a trivial distinction. In the middle of the "Great Depression," Woody Guthrie wrote a patriotic folk song with the lines "There's a-better times a'comin, can't you see, see, see! There's a-better times a'comin', can't you see?" Of course, he wrote it in 1933 and was off by about ten years. I don't expect the Democrats will turn the economy around in 90 days, but hey, it's all historically cyclical. Let's hope for a shorter cycle than the last time! Best, Jimbeaux |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Howard Cosell and Don Imus were kicked off the air after making inadvertent "racist" remarks. They were kicked off the air by their employers, not the government. It's not a trivial distinction. Not trivial at all, Jim. It is a big distinction. Neither Howard Cosell or Imus were brought up on the floor of the senate and discussed as possibly being bad for the country. Rush may be a lot of things for sure. He is a clown, a performer, an egoist and other things but a hate monger or hate spewer??? I've never heard that one at all and would have to see some evidence of that happening. Hate mongering is very strong and sounds more like a phrase someone would use out of a strong personal dislike instead of having a basis in reality. Whether one agrees with his thoughts or not, no one can deny that his programs, along with Hannity's and other like-minded individuals, contain a love for America and support for our troops. The programs are filled with what they feel is RIGHT about America, not what's wrong. They dwell on positives, not negatives, and that's what makes them the most listened to talk shows in the country. That's why Air America, the liberal wannabe that tried to counter them, failed. They dwelled on pessimism, what was WRONG with America and all negatives and thus went down in flames. Rush doesn't need my defense and, actually, I laugh at him as much as anyone else and take him with a large grain of salt much of the time. But a hate monger, spewing hatred?? It's hard to imagine anyone saying that although I respect your right to do so. Guess we see, and hear, whatever we want to.. |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi Mike -- OK, you've convinced me about Rush Limbaugh. I shall temper my language and adopt yours. He's a clown. I don't know where the notion, and I'm not saying it is your notion, i.e., not putting words in your mouth, that Conservatives support out troops and Liberals don't. There's a difference, I think. between supporting our troops and supporting dubious military adventures. When I was a "troop" in Viet Nam, Nixon for example (hee hee) was elected in part on his promise that he had had a plan to end the war. His "plan" did indeed involve a drawdown in troop strength. Unfortunately, his plan involved keeping the war going for two additional years, resulting in a few thousand more dead American "troopers," multiple thousands more wounded American "troopers," and an unknown but probably much larger number of dead and wounded North and South Vietnamese "troopers" and civilians. This, while Vietnamese and US diplomats argued over who got to sit where and at what shape table. Some plan! Some "support." I don't think we can end our involvement in Iraq overnight. Logistical considerations alone suggest it might take many months to a a year just to pull out and blow up everything we're forced to leave behind. But hey, the sooner our government under any administration begins showing THAT kind of support for the troops, the sooner it will be over, and the Iraqi's can get back to the serious business of killing each other. The best I can tell -- and we do, of course, form our opinions from what we read and how we read what we read -- the Afghan/Pakistan situation is a different ball game. All wars suck, but this conflict seems to "about" something, the supression of a terrorist element which not only threatens to, but, as I understand it, has already attacked our country with devastating results. "Supporting our troops" and protecting American citizens, in this instance, might well mean sending more troopers in, enough to accomplish the job and then go home. Here's a truly nasty thought: While we're at it, why not spray the poppy fields with Agent Orange? Sounds like a perfect job for Blackwater or any of the other mercenary outfits the government currently employs. I'm kidding, of course, about this particular notion. I'm not kidding about the disgusting practice of using private contract killers to avoid little things like responsibility under the Geneva Convention. Both Democrats and Republicans allow this to continue. Shame on all of us for that! I'm not a knee-jerk Liberal. The Sixty Minutes interview with T. Boone Pickens convinced me that he had some really decent ideas for a Republican oil billionaire, or anyone else, for that matter. Maybe I'll cast a write in ballot for Pickens and Ron Paul. Best, Jimbeaux |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The notion that Conservatives support out troops and Liberals don't. Easy enough to reach that conclusion, Jim. Look at Murtha's comments in congress. Look at Kerry's comments about our troops over there "indiscrimately killing a raping civilians". Look at Obama's comments about how we are over the "bombing innocent civilians". Look at how the liberals went wild about Abu Ghrab and how they tried to use it for political purposes. Were the actions there wrong? Of course they were but liberals tried to indict Bush and the entire military over it and you know it wasn't like that, just as I'm sure you saw things in Nam that were not indicative of the military as a whole. Look at how they tried to paint the worst possible picture of Gitmo, accusing the soldiers there of torture and atrocities, once again for purely political reasons. How could the public have those notions? The question is - how could they NOT have those notions. I understand what you are saying about Viet Nam and I share the thoughts. One thing that is different, though, between Iraq and Nam is that, in Iraq, the dictator was disposed and actual good IS being done in the country. In Nam it was just the same treadmill every day, with no attempt to defeat the North by taking the fight to them and no progress made at all with regard to the safety or reconstruction of the South. Pickens? I think he would have my vote in a minute! |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Mike, Did the troops indiscriminately kill and rape civilians or bomb innocent civilians? It’s kinda important, I mean if the Liberals were just making it all up then your comment is valid. If the troops actually did all that stuff how much support do they deserve? Would you support troops who did that sort of thing? I wouldn’t. BTW Pickens may just want to steal water. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70HFEHB6dag&feature=related |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
quote: Ahhhhhh, so you can see now why Obama's campaign is faring better than McCain's campaign, can you? Because regardless of how "right" or "wrong" each candidate is or may be, the upshoot of it all is that, when you look closely at the debates, when you look closely at the rallies, there's a stark difference rhetorically, where Obama has a more optimistic tone that our best days are ahead of us and though there will be challenges and we'll have to make sacrifices that we will ultimately prevail, while McCain's message is heavily past-looking and aimed more at antagonizing his opponent. You saw that with how he always invoked Reagan, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, all these historical names which ultimately drifted nowhere and lacked coherence. You saw that with how he couldn't even look at his opponent in the first debate, and by the last debate he was rather staring at his opponent and you could see him roll his eyes on camera after one of Obama's answers, and calling Obama "that one" during the second debate. So by your above logic, it should be clear as day to you supposedly why the public finds the Obama campaign more appealing than the McCain campaign. Because the latter is "dwelling on pessimism" and ultimately voters want someone who they believe can lift the morale of the country up in times of grave turmoil and chaos, regardless of how imperfect all candidates are. Is it all just "playing" with the voters? Is it all dishonest reporting? Could very well be. In fact it often is. But style and temperament is just as important, perhaps even more so, in a campaign than rhetoric and substance, and the former is something the McCain campaign hasn't understood well, just as Kerry didn't understand well enough in 2004 and what Gore didn't fathom in 2000. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
quote: We've talked about this time and time again for the past five years, so actually bothering taking the time reiterating all I've said before is exasperating, but I will say this. Given that you have served yourself in the military, and indeed had to put up with prejudices along with your fellow comrades coming home decades ago, I can understand how those wounds cut right to the bone, and perhaps never heal, still sting to the touch. I wholeheartedly regret ANY of that took place then, and such spitting in the faces and other offensive gestures are to be condemned. Having said that, I READ all the same stories as you do. I scrutinize the whole transcripts of what Durbin and Kerry and Obama and others have said, and I simply believe it is hyperbolic that what they say is anti-military and simply biting criticisms of the Bush Administration and the government. And for someone so concerned in honest reporting all of a sudden, I would expect more from you than contributing to the outright blanket accusations, strawmans and ad hominems against an entire populace, an entire political positioning, that you so eloquently do. Meanwhile, again and again I have pointed out how neoconservatives in the Pentagon and Washington continue to shamelessly exploit our young men and women in uniform in carrying out their regime in modernizing the Middle East and treating our troops like a regional geopolitical police force, and eschewing all ethics and responsibilities in the process, even if it means they get outdated Cold War-era military technology on the field, even if their affiliates like Halliburton offer contaminated water and force them to pay for their meals, even if it means failing to discourage waterboarding and suspending habeas corpus rights, etc. And while you direct the entirety of your outrage against several poignant individuals whose critiques were blatantly taken out of context, you allow their degradation of our military to go without protest. Essentially, I believe the demeanor and ideology of the likes of Richard Perle and Norman Podhoretz and their colleagues is far more disrespectful to our military than about anything I've heard from anyone in either side of the aisle in Congress. Because actions speak louder than words, and it's the neocons that are taking action. And it's also the GOP establishment that is far more likely to be apologetic toward their ideology. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Once again, direct comments from democrats have been taken "out of context". That excuse is getting very, very old. And, no Noah, you don't understand. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Did the troops indiscriminately kill and rape civilians or bomb innocent civilians? Good question, Grinch. First, let's determine who "the troops" are. Who are they? I don't know. Murtha doesn't know. Kerry doesn't know. They don't specify anyone. They just say "the troops" and they use that phrase to throw a bad light on the military in general. Was there ever indiscriminate killing and raping of civilians? I would like to think not but I can't be sure. If there were, would it be "the troops" or would it be a few demented soldiers clearly in the wrong? If a worker at MacDonald's got mad at a customer and punched him, can I they say "Workers at MacDonald's punch out customers?" There are thousands and thousands of good, decent men out there, fighting for their country and doing what they feel is right. To throw around comments like so much garbage about "the troops" committing murder and atrocities is not only an insult to them, it is wrong....and to do it for purely political purposes is not only wrong, it is immoral. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
