| This is an archived forum, so it is here for read-only purposes only. We are not accepting new members and members cannot post any longer. Members can, however, access their old private messages. Strawberry Fields was open from 2006 until 2011. There is a Strawberry Fields Beatles Forum on Facebook. If you are registered with Facebook, join us at the group there! |
| 2008 U.S. Presidential Election | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Feb 22 2007, 05:49 AM (37,422 Views) | |
| maccascruff | Sep 28 2008, 02:39 AM Post #2401 |
|
Sing the Changes
|
Good question, Mia. Two polls say that Obama won the debate, which is my opinion. McCain seemed ready to explode. I am visiting my parents and two of their neighbors said this also. I have no idea of who they are voting for. It was just their comment. And I fully grasp Obama's vision, but have no idea of what McCain's is. |
![]() |
|
| Bill | Sep 28 2008, 02:54 AM Post #2402 |
|
Well, those who were already Obama supporters think Obama won the debate and those who were already McCain supports think McCain won. No surprises there. I thought the debates were to present and discuss ideas, not to be adversarial. Competitive debating is where two sides argue either for or against a single proposition or premise. Political debates don't operate that way, nor should they. Of course, if eloquent argument and rational thought won elections, recent history would be pretty different. |
| Put a puppet on it. | |
![]() |
|
| Mia Culpa | Sep 28 2008, 09:19 AM Post #2403 |
|
This space intentionally left blank.
|
It's all about who you like. I don't care who wins the election and I didn't think either won the debate. I'm just disapointed nobody got their ass handed to them on a platter like Bentsen's smackdown of Quayle or that Admiral guy's hearing aid line. Now those were debates. |
| If you read my posts backward there's evidence that Paul is dead. | |
![]() |
|
| JeffLynnesBeard | Sep 28 2008, 11:17 AM Post #2404 |
|
Administrator & Moderator
|
I think you must have watched a different interview from me, Jon, because I think she was very poor and her lack of answers on key questions would have been worrying to all but the most blinded Republicans. |
| ...and in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make. | |
![]() |
|
| JeffLynnesBeard | Sep 28 2008, 11:29 AM Post #2405 |
|
Administrator & Moderator
|
I agree with you, Barb. I also noticed that McCain attempted to blindside the 'audience' by saying a couple of things that were true but using them out of context for example, he claimed that Obama had voted against an increase of spending for Iraq. Obama countered that he had only done so on the grounds that there was no timetable for withdrawal on that particular proposal and that McCain had also voted against a similar proposal for more funds which had a timetable. Although McCain appeared assured and confident when talking about foreign policy - which is most certainly his strong point - I believe that Obama won both a moral victory (because he didn't stoop as low as McCain and attempt to disort the truth) and a victory of reasoning, the latter especially when he was speaking about his tax and energy policies. McCain's stance on diplomacy with countries such as Iran and North Korea was worrying and seems to be desperately holding on to Reagan's "tactics" even though the largely intransigent Bush administration have realised that they don't work. There was no 'knockout punch' as our UK pundit, Jon Snow, said, but I think that Barack won comfortably on points this round and looked much more assured and "Presidential" throughout the whole debate with McCain. |
| ...and in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make. | |
![]() |
|
| Bill | Sep 28 2008, 11:52 AM Post #2406 |
|
Obama's great skill is being able to remain cool when his opponent is talking rubbish. He doesn't interrupt, he doesn't roll his eyes, he just calmly raises his hand and nods to the moderator to indicate he wants to reply. He's done that a lot in the primary debates too. McCain needs to cut down on the melodrama. He kept getting more and more florid in his attempt to paint the idea of talking to Iran as legitimising Ahmadinejad, but he has to realise that it doesn't matter how dramatically you say it, it doesn't make it true. |
| Put a puppet on it. | |
![]() |
|
| beatlechick | Sep 28 2008, 06:01 PM Post #2407 |
|
In Paul's Arms!
|
I don't recall McCain rolling his eyes just that he would not address Obama directly. If I am talking directly to somebody, I want them to look at me. I want to see that they are listening and not just pretending that I wasn't there. As for him, and pretty much the prevailing idea by a lot of people in both parties, saying that talking to people like Ahmadinejad or Chavez is legitimising their views it is my belief that by talking to them (hoping like hell all sides really listen) you are not only NOT legitimising them but maybe all sides will learn how to be rid of the hatred and actually start understanding. Perhaps then we could find why we got to this point and how to solve our anger towards each other. But then again, we could not talk to each other (thereby legitimising their views as they grow stronger in them) and allow the anger and hatred to grow. Tough choice! |
| |
![]() |
|
| beatlechick | Sep 28 2008, 06:25 PM Post #2408 |
|
In Paul's Arms!
|
Okay, parts of this article is a little bit nitpicky but some of it is worth looking into: Palin got zoning aid, gifts AP Investigation: Palin got zoning aid, gifts By BRETT J. BLACKLEDGE, Associated Press Writer Though Sarah Palin depicts herself as a pit bull fighting good-old-boy politics, in her years as mayor she and her friends received special benefits more typical of small-town politics as usual, an Associated Press investigation shows. When Palin needed to sell her house during her last year as Wasilla mayor, she got the city to sign off on a special zoning exception — and did so without keeping a promise to remove a potential fire hazard. She gladly accepted gifts from merchants: A free "awesome facial" she raved about in a thank-you note to a spa. The "absolutely gorgeous flowers" she received from a welding supply store. Even fresh salmon to take home. She also stepped in to help friends or neighbors with City Hall dealings. She asked the City Council to add a friend to the list of speakers at a 2002 meeting — and then the friend got up and asked them to give his radio station advertising business. That year, records show, she tried to help a neighbor and political contributor fighting City Hall over his small lakeside development. Palin wanted the city to refund some of the man's fees, but the city attorney told the mayor she didn't have the authority. Palin claims she has more executive experience than her opponent and the two presidential candidates, but most of those years were spent running a city with a population of less than 7,000. Some of her first actions after being elected mayor in 1996 raised possible ethical red flags: She cast the tie-breaking vote to propose a tax exemption on aircraft when her father-in-law owned one, and backed the city's repeal of all taxes a year later on planes, snow machines and other personal property. She also asked the council to consider looser rules for snow machine races. Palin and her husband, Todd, a champion racer, co-owned a snow machine store at the time. Palin often told the City Council of her personal involvement in such issues, but that didn't stop her from pressing them, according to minutes of council meetings. She sometimes followed a cautious path in the face of real or potential conflicts — for example, stepping away from the table in 1997 when the council considered a grant for the Iron Dog snow machine race in which her husband competes. But mostly, like other Wasilla elected officials at the time, she took an active role on issues that directly affected and sometimes benefited her. Her efforts to clear the way for the $327,000 sale of the Palin family home on Lake Wasilla is an example. Two months before Palin's tenure as mayor ended in 2002, she asked city planning officials to forgive zoning violations so she could sell her house. Palin had a buyer, but he wouldn't close the deal unless she persuaded the city to waive the violations with a code variance. The Palins, who were finishing work on a new waterfront house on Lake Lucille about two miles away, asked the city for the variance. The request was opposed by one planning official and some neighbors. "I would ask that the Wasilla Planning Commission apply the exact same rules in this situation that it would apply to other similar requests so that our community can see that being a public figure does not give anyone special benefits," urged neighbor Clyde Boyer Jr. in a 2002 note to the city. The Palins' house was built by the original owner too close to the shoreline and too close to adjacent properties on each side, including a carport that stretched so far over it nearly connected the two houses. The Palins didn't create the zoning problems, but they should have known about them when they bought the house, wrote Susan Lee, a code compliance officer with the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, in response to the Palins' request. The borough, similar to a county government, makes recommendations to the city, which has final say. Lee, in recommending the city reject the request, noted that the exception was needed to resolve an "inconvenience" the Palins experienced while trying to sell their house. In 1989, another borough planner told a previous owner that a variance for the carport couldn't be approved because it didn't meet required conditions and was a potential fire hazard. But in August 2002, Wasilla Planner Tim Krug approved a "shoreline setback exception" for the Palins' house being built too closely to the water. He sent an e-mail to the mayor saying he was drafting another variance for the side of the house built too close to the property line, but that he understood from her that the other side "will be corrected and the carport will be removed." Krug asked Palin to let him know if he was wrong in his impression that the carport would be removed. A few minutes later, the mayor e-mailed back: "Sounds good." On Sept. 10, 2002, the seven-member Wasilla Planning Commission unanimously approved a variance for both sides of the property, with language covering "all existing structures." Less than a week later, the Palins signed a deed to sell the house to Henry Nosek. The carport was never removed. Nosek said Sarah Palin didn't do anything more than any other citizen would have done. "I sincerely don't feel that Sarah used her position as mayor at the time to get that accomplished," said Nosek, who no longer lives in the home. James Svara, professor of public affairs at Arizona State University and author of "The Ethics Primer for Public Administrators in Government and Nonprofit Organizations," suggested such behavior is part of small-town politics. "Small towns are first-person politics, and if people are close, it's hard to separate one's own personal interest and one's own personal property from the work of the city," Svara said. The key questions from an ethics standpoint include whether the politician makes a potential conflict of interest known and removes himself or herself from actions related to it, he added. "I think in a small town there is a greater likelihood that people will accept that you will pay careful attention to friends and neighbors," he said, adding that there may be some local gossip about it, but not a lot of public scrutiny. "At the national level, there will be far more people watching, there will be far more pressures to come forward to try to influence the outcome." |
| |
![]() |
|
| beatlechick | Sep 28 2008, 06:28 PM Post #2409 |
|
In Paul's Arms!
|
This is the house in question, very nice!![]() It is quite close to the shoreline and probably would not have passed inspection where I live. |
| |
![]() |
|
| beatlechick | Sep 28 2008, 07:37 PM Post #2410 |
|
In Paul's Arms!
|
While looking through some AP pictures I stumbled across this group that had a rally on Sept. 27th, 2008. They're called Alaskans For Truth. Here is their website blog: Alaskans for Truth Here is another Alaskans for truth website: Alaskans for truth in politics |
| |
![]() |
|
| Bill | Sep 29 2008, 01:47 AM Post #2411 |
|
I never said he did. I was only referring to Obama's composure in the face of bullsh*t. I had another look at Couric's interview with Palin. At first, I marvelled at how dumb you had to be if even Katie Couric could make a fool out of you but on second viewing, I realised something. Palin claims that her foreign policy experience comes from the fact that Putin flies over Alaska to get to the US - even though considering the locations of Moscow, Washington and New York, it would make more sense to fly across the Atlantic. Be that as it may, read between the lines here. She has effectively stated that foreign policy is over her head. Literally! |
| Put a puppet on it. | |
![]() |
|
| JeffLynnesBeard | Sep 29 2008, 10:32 AM Post #2412 |
|
Administrator & Moderator
|
I received this from Michael Moore this morning and present it without commentary. Make of it what you will. --- Friends, Let me cut to the chase. The biggest robbery in the history of this country is taking place as you read this. Though no guns are being used, 300 million hostages are being taken. Make no mistake about it: After stealing a half trillion dollars to line the pockets of their war-profiteering backers for the past five years, after lining the pockets of their fellow oilmen to the tune of over a hundred billion dollars in just the last two years, Bush and his cronies -- who must soon vacate the White House -- are looting the U.S. Treasury of every dollar they can grab. They are swiping as much of the silverware as they can on their way out the door. No matter what they say, no matter how many scare words they use, they are up to their old tricks of creating fear and confusion in order to make and keep themselves and the upper one percent filthy rich. Just read the first four paragraphs of the lead story in last Monday's New York Times and you can see what the real deal is: "Even as policy makers worked on details of a $700 billion bailout of the financial industry, Wall Street began looking for ways to profit from it. "Financial firms were lobbying to have all manner of troubled investments covered, not just those related to mortgages. "At the same time, investment firms were jockeying to oversee all the assets that Treasury plans to take off the books of financial institutions, a role that could earn them hundreds of millions of dollars a year in fees. "Nobody wants to be left out of Treasury's proposal to buy up bad assets of financial institutions." Unbelievable. Wall Street and its backers created this mess and now they are going to clean up like bandits. Even Rudy Giuliani is lobbying for his firm to be hired (and paid) to "consult" in the bailout. The problem is, nobody truly knows what this "collapse" is all about. Even Treasury Secretary Paulson admitted he doesn't know the exact amount that is needed (he just picked the $700 billion number out of his head!). The head of the congressional budget office said he can't figure it out nor can he explain it to anyone. And yet, they are screeching about how the end is near! Panic! Recession! The Great Depression! Y2K! Bird flu! Killer bees! We must pass the bailout bill today!! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Falling for whom? NOTHING in this "bailout" package will lower the price of the gas you have to put in your car to get to work. NOTHING in this bill will protect you from losing your home. NOTHING in this bill will give you health insurance. Health insurance? Mike, why are you bringing this up? What's this got to do with the Wall Street collapse? It has everything to do with it. This so-called "collapse" was triggered by the massive defaulting and foreclosures going on with people's home mortgages. Do you know why so many Americans are losing their homes? To hear the Republicans describe it, it's because too many working class idiots were given mortgages that they really couldn't afford. Here's the truth: The number one cause of people declaring bankruptcy is because of medical bills. Let me state this simply: If we had had universal health coverage, this mortgage "crisis" may never have happened. This bailout's mission is to protect the obscene amount of wealth that has been accumulated in the last eight years. It's to protect the top shareholders who own and control corporate America. It's to make sure their yachts and mansions and "way of life" go uninterrupted while the rest of America suffers and struggles to pay the bills. Let the rich suffer for once. Let them pay for the bailout. We are spending 400 million dollars a day on the war in Iraq. Let them end the war immediately and save us all another half-trillion dollars! I have to stop writing this and you have to stop reading it. They are staging a financial coup this morning in our country. They are hoping Congress will act fast before they stop to think, before we have a chance to stop them ourselves. So stop reading this and do something -- NOW! Here's what you can do immediately: 1. Call or e-mail Senator Obama. Tell him he does not need to be sitting there trying to help prop up Bush and Cheney and the mess they've made. Tell him we know he has the smarts to slow this thing down and figure out what's the best route to take. Tell him the rich have to pay for whatever help is offered. Use the leverage we have now to insist on a moratorium on home foreclosures, to insist on a move to universal health coverage, and tell him that we the people need to be in charge of the economic decisions that affect our lives, not the barons of Wall Street. 2. Take to the streets. Participate in one of the hundreds of quickly-called demonstrations that are taking place all over the country (especially those near Wall Street and DC). 3. Call your Representative in Congress and your Senators. (click here to find their phone numbers). Tell them what you told Senator Obama. When you screw up in life, there is hell to pay. Each and every one of you reading this knows that basic lesson and has paid the consequences of your actions at some point. In this great democracy, we cannot let there be one set of rules for the vast majority of hard-working citizens, and another set of rules for the elite, who, when they screw up, are handed one more gift on a silver platter. No more! Not again! Yours, Michael Moore MMFlint@aol.com MichaelMoore.com P.S. Having read further the details of this bailout bill, you need to know you are being lied to. They talk about how they will prevent golden parachutes. It says NOTHING about what these executives and fat cats will make in SALARY. According to Rep. Brad Sherman of California, these top managers will continue to receive million-dollar-a-month paychecks under this new bill. There is no direct ownership given to the American people for the money being handed over. Foreign banks and investors will be allowed to receive billion-dollar handouts. A large chunk of this $700 billion is going to be given directly to Chinese and Middle Eastern banks. There is NO guarantee of ever seeing that money again. P.P.S. From talking to people I know in DC, they say the reason so many Dems are behind this is because Wall Street this weekend put a gun to their heads and said either turn over the $700 billion or the first thing we'll start blowing up are the pension funds and 401(k)s of your middle class constituents. The Dems are scared they may make good on their threat. But this is not the time to back down or act like the typical Democrat we have witnessed for the last eight years. The Dems handed a stolen election over to Bush. The Dems gave Bush the votes he needed to invade a sovereign country. Once they took over Congress in 2007, they refused to pull the plug on the war. And now they have been cowered into being accomplices in the crime of the century. You have to call them now and say "NO!" If we let them do this, just imagine how hard it will be to get anything good done when President Obama is in the White House. THESE DEMOCRATS ARE ONLY AS STRONG AS THE BACKBONE WE GIVE THEM. CALL CONGRESS NOW. |
| ...and in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make. | |
![]() |
|
| Bill | Sep 29 2008, 11:06 AM Post #2413 |
|
Another perspective on the meltdown: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2375624.htm Highlights: .
Any thoughts? |
| Put a puppet on it. | |
![]() |
|
| JeffLynnesBeard | Sep 29 2008, 11:12 AM Post #2414 |
|
Administrator & Moderator
|
I agree with author - that has been my line of thinking for a very long time. I'm also not convinced that this 'bail out' is going to be helping the right people, but - incidentally - I had that stance a few days before I received that e-mail from Michael Moore. |
| ...and in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make. | |
![]() |
|
| otlset | Sep 29 2008, 06:50 PM Post #2415 |
|
In this election the issue of the candidate's experience and ability to thus do the job is playing a large role, primarily with respect to the Democrat's nominee for President -- Barack Obama, and the Republican's nominee for Vice President -- Sarah Palin. To me there are only two ways of getting a handle on what each candidate may do once elected: 1) Records and accounts of success in past public service, and 2) What they say they'll do once in office. Both Obama and Palin have rather short public-service resumes so far. Obama a liberal/activist community organizer, state senator, and about two years as US Senator for Illinois. And Palin as small-town councilwoman, then mayor, then governor of Alaska for a similar period as Obama in the US Senate. Obama's senatorial career has been unremarkable, except for his consistent dodging or opting out of over a hundred bills he voted "present" on. However, despite this obvious sidestepping of his senatorial responsibility in such "present" votes, he still managed the time to pen two biographical memoirs, no doubt with an eye on a future presidential run. Palin's stint as councilwoman then Mayor of Wasilla was by most accounts successful as she brought much-needed business and resultant revenue to the city, and she became very popular with her constituents as they realized she really was working for their good. Her record as governor was also popular as she rooted out corruption among those of her own party, cut the size of government spending, put a bit more tax-bite to oil company windfall taxes, which she then refunded directly to the citizens of the state. These actions combined with her pleasant down-home personal style again resulted in widespread popularity with Alaska's citizens, with many polls showing an unheard-of 80%+ approval ratings. Her main goal in each level of public service has been to her constituents, first to the citizens of Wasilla, then to the citizens of the entire state. Her faithfulness and advocacy to her constituency was evident as she first thought the "bridge to nowhere" early on was good for the citizens she served, until after gaining the governorship and learning more about the details of cost-overruns and waste involved with the project, she then abandonded its advocacy and killed it. So on the basis of past experience, Palin's resume of service to her constituents has been very good, and is backed-up by her public acceptance in opinion polls in the state. To me Obama's public service record just can't measure up to the proven results Palin has produced for her constituents during her time of public service. The second indicator of what and how well each may do once elected is that of what they have stated they will do, and how earnestly they believe in their positions. Already Obama has backtracked and changed course on a number of positions, including public campaign financing, his position on the Iraq "war" and the success of the surge (early on he was for pulling out of Iraq immediately and cutting our losses, until violence began to decrease and the "surge" was successful causing him to, uh, wait for what the commanders on the ground in Iraq recommend). I don't think I need mention his throwing his longtime pastor and "spiritual mentor" along with members of his family "under the bus" for nothing more than political gain. As Rev. Wright, his former spiritual advisor, explained, " He (Obama) speaks to HIS audience, and as pastor I speak to MINE (inferring they both say different things to different audiences, rather than just the simple truth). These and other examples, based on what he said and subsequent contradictions of what was said do not inspire confidence in me that once in office, he'll follow through on any of his other campaign promises (in particular, his tax-cut promises for the middle class). Sarah Palin on the other hand did not seek the office of Vice President, and indeed seems caught off-guard by McCain's choosing her for the position. As in her responsibilities as mayor then governor (as well as a large family), she has worked hard for her constituents, and with all that responsibility I would imagine not much time for much else. Which is why other than her promise to be a reformer, energy activist, and advocate for special-needs children as Vice President, she has mentioned little else as goals once in office. It should be no secret that she has little experience with foreign policy when seeing her life's activities to this point. So we are then left with her record of accomplishments as mayor and governor. And as for her still-forming goals for Vice President, her record of reformer, energy activist, and special-needs kids activist, speaks for itself, and gives creedence to those goals as Vice President. As I understand it from interviews from those who served with her is that her style of governance is ideal for an executive (and for me the basis for governing as Vice President). That is, as each issue was confronted, she sought as much information and advice as possible from those expert in their respective fields, then made decisions based on what was best for the people, her constituents. Despite the gaps in her foreign policy knowledge, her executive style stated above gives me confidence that she can ably handle any issue that comes her way, in the interest of her constituents, in this case the citizens of the entire country. To me the track record of accomplishments is of primary importance as an indicator of future accomplishments in public office. Both on their respective records in office, as well as steadfastness in holding to ideals and subsequent public-policy decision-making, Sarah Palin is far more deserving of representing the American people than Barack Obama. And finally, I can think of no one better at being an effective ambassador for our country, as this charming woman will no doubt have the same effect on foreign leaders and diplomats as she has had on our country since bursting on the national scene this past month. I'm otlset and I approve of this post. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| Queenbee | Sep 29 2008, 07:09 PM Post #2416 |
|
Moderator
|
There will be more fallout from the Katie Couric interview this Wednesday and Thursday. I'm hearing they saved the best for last. Will be interesting to watch. I'm NOT a Sarah Palin supporter, at least not for vice president let alone the President of the United States. I'm also not for the bail out. Not enough information.......yeah the sky is falling!!!! |
|
PEACE and love to my friends, Judy When the Power of Love over comes the Love of Power, the world will know Peace. -Sri Chinmnoy Ghose Till me meet again ~ I Love you Mike! You were one of a kind. | |
![]() |
|
| JeffLynnesBeard | Sep 29 2008, 10:36 PM Post #2417 |
|
Administrator & Moderator
|
All I can say to your post, otlset, is that you and I see Sarah Palin in a very different light. Charming is not a word I would use to describe her. Apart from your very one-sided assessment of both candidates, it has to be remembered that your future President, Barack Obama, is running against John McCain and not Sarah Palin. I stand by my initial assessment of Palin's candidacy that she will eventually do the Presidential bid of McCain more harm than good. |
| ...and in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make. | |
![]() |
|
| beatlechick | Sep 29 2008, 11:13 PM Post #2418 |
|
In Paul's Arms!
|
I have to add to this that McCain is being urged by his own party to allow her to be herself and not be fed what to say. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/29/conservatives.palin/index.html
My thoughts is that if she is so damned smart, as otlset is trying to point out, than why have we gone a month and not really heard from her without it being a scheduled interview? The little one-on-ones in front of a photo op don't count. She always ducks out when it comes to certain issues in Alaska. She was not allowed to talk to the press at the UN but had a nice photo op that showed bored diplomats sitting near her. I still have to ask, why was she not there to support McCain at the Presidential Debate? Most of us know how Joe Biden can talk, we know he can be a jerk and also know he can be very good. We need to see Sarah talk on her own. Edited by beatlechick, Sep 29 2008, 11:28 PM.
|
| |
![]() |
|
| Bill | Sep 30 2008, 12:21 AM Post #2419 |
|
Otlset, while that was a well-written post, you are cherry-picking facts to fit your case. You imply that having written two books, Obama has been derelict in his duties as senator, but only one of those books has been written while he was a member of the US senate. John McCain has also written several books while a member of the US senate, so what's your point? Palin's securing of income for Wasila was largely due to her hiring lobbyists to secure earmarks from Washington. In all, she secured $27 million in earmarks (which she now says are a bad thing) yet she still left the town $20 million in debt. As far as crazy preachers go, Obama wasn't even there when his pastor made his most outlandish (yet intellectually defensible) statements, while when Palin's pastor prayed that she she be protected from "witchcraft," she was right there under his hand. It's a question of judgement. Is it better the "throw someone under a bus" when they become a liability, or remain loyal to them while they do more and more damage? If only Bush had divested himself of people when their incompetence was first revealed, instead of staying loyal to them for years while they made an even bigger mess, things might just be better right now. Finally, you take into account the fact that Palin has said nothing about her vision for the future, yet you don't hold that against her even though it makes her a completely unknown quantity. Following that logic, the less we know about a candidate, the more suitable they are. Edited by Bill, Sep 30 2008, 12:25 AM.
|
| Put a puppet on it. | |
![]() |
|
| JeffLynnesBeard | Sep 30 2008, 10:29 AM Post #2420 |
|
Administrator & Moderator
|
Good points, Bill. Again, I present an e-mail sent out by Michael Moore without editorial; --- Friends, Everyone said the bill would pass. The masters of the universe were already making celebratory dinner reservations at Manhattan's finest restaurants. Personal shoppers in Dallas and Atlanta were dispatched to do the early Christmas gifting. Mad Men of Chicago and Miami were popping corks and toasting each other long before the morning latte run. But what they didn't know was that hundreds of thousands of Americans woke up yesterday morning and decided it was time for revolt. The politicians never saw it coming. Millions of phone calls and emails hit Congress so hard it was as if Marshall Dillon, Elliot Ness and Dog the Bounty Hunter had descended on D.C. to stop the looting and arrest the thieves. The Corporate Crime of the Century was halted by a vote of 228 to 205. It was rare and historic; no one could remember a time when a bill supported by the president and the leadership of both parties went down in defeat. That just never happens. A lot of people are wondering why the right wing of the Republican Party joined with the left wing of the Democratic Party in voting down the thievery. Forty percent of Democrats and two-thirds of Republicans voted against the bill. Here's what happened: The presidential race may still be close in the polls, but the Congressional races are pointing toward a landslide for the Democrats. Few dispute the prediction that the Republicans are in for a whoopin' on November 4th. Up to 30 Republican House seats could be lost in what would be a stunning repudiation of their agenda. The Republican reps are so scared of losing their seats, when this "financial crisis" reared its head two weeks ago, they realized they had just been handed their one and only chance to separate themselves from Bush before the election, while doing something that would make them look like they were on the side of "the people." Watching C-Span yesterday morning was one of the best comedy shows I'd seen in ages. There they were, one Republican after another who had backed the war and sunk the country into record debt, who had voted to kill every regulation that would have kept Wall Street in check -- there they were, now crying foul and standing up for the little guy! One after another, they stood at the microphone on the House floor and threw Bush under the bus, under the train (even though they had voted to kill off our nation's trains, too), heck, they would've thrown him under the rising waters of the Lower Ninth Ward if they could've conjured up another hurricane. You know how your dog acts when sprayed by a skunk? He howls and runs around trying to shake it off, rubbing and rolling himself on every piece of your carpet, trying to get rid of the stench. That's what it looked like on the Republican side of the aisle yesterday, and it was a sight to behold. The 95 brave Dems who broke with Barney Frank and Chris Dodd were the real heroes, just like those few who stood up and voted against the war in October of 2002. Watch the remarks from yesterday of Reps. Marcy Kaptur, Sheila Jackson Lee, and Dennis Kucinich. They spoke the truth. The Dems who voted for the giveaway did so mostly because they were scared by the threats of Wall Street, that if the rich didn't get their handout, the market would go nuts and then it's bye-bye stock-based pension and retirement funds. And guess what? That's exactly what Wall Street did! The largest, single-day drop in the Dow in the history of the New York Stock exchange. The news anchors last night screamed it out: Americans just lost 1.2 trillion dollars in the stock market!! It's a financial Pearl Harbor! The sky is falling! Bird flu! Killer Bees! Of course, sane people know that nobody "lost" anything yesterday, that stocks go up and down and this too shall pass because the rich will now buy low, hold, then sell off, then buy low again. But for now, Wall Street and its propaganda arm (the networks and media it owns) will continue to try and scare the bejesus out of you. It will be harder to get a loan. Some people will lose their jobs. A weak nation of wimps won't last long under this torture. Or will we? Is this our line in the sand? Here's my guess: The Democratic leadership in the House secretly hoped all along that this lousy bill would go down. With Bush's proposals shredded, the Dems knew they could then write their own bill that favors the average American, not the upper 10% who were hoping for another kegger of gold. So the ball is in the Democrats' hands. The gun from Wall Street remains at their head. Before they make their next move, let me tell you what the media kept silent about while this bill was being debated: 1. The bailout bill had NO enforcement provisions for the so-called oversight group that was going to monitor Wall Street's spending of the $700 billion; 2. It had NO penalties, fines or imprisonment for any executive who might steal any of the people's money; 3. It did NOTHING to force banks and lenders to rewrite people's mortgages to avoid foreclosures -- this bill would not have stopped ONE foreclosure!; 4. It had NO teeth anywhere in the entire piece of legislation, using words like "suggested" when referring to the government being paid back for the bailout; 5. Over 200 economists wrote to Congress and said this bill might actually WORSEN the "financial crisis" and cause even MORE of a meltdown. Put a fork in this slab of pork. It's over. Now it is time for our side to state very clearly the laws WE want passed. I will send you my proposals later today. We've bought ourselves less than 72 hours. Yours, Michael Moore MMFlint@aol.com MichaelMoore.com |
| ...and in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make. | |
![]() |
|
| otlset | Sep 30 2008, 08:05 PM Post #2421 |
|
I realize that Obama is running against McCain for president, not Palin. I brought up the contrast and comparison of Obama and Palin because they are both saddled with criticisms of lack of experience for their respective office nominations. Based on that, I stick with my statements for the reasons given in the above post. I must say here that I agree with the concern of many now that Palin may be suffocating under what I suppose must be directions from Republican campaign strategists to stick to certain talking points, no matter what. She looked quite foolish I admit when she answered Couric's questions about whether she had ever had any negotiations with foreign leaders, in particular from Russia. Certainly I was disappointed that she again brought up Alaska's proximity to Russia as an example of her foreign policy "experience". Huh? She should have replied truthfully that she didn't have experience with foreign policy or negotiations with foreign leaders per se, but that she was looking forward to doing so and will use all of her abilities to learn and understand such situations once in office (which is, after all, what Obama must do as well), and then make decisions accordingly for the benefit of the American people. That would have been more than sufficient for me, as I am backing her on her accomplishments, and what they portend for future accomplishments in higher office, not speculating future performance based upon open-ended interview questions. In that interview, she was asked for an example of one of John McCain's legislative attempts, I believe in regard to the current financial crisis, if I recall. Her answer, to me anyway, was the proper one (something to the effect of...) "You know Katie, I'll have to look them up and send them to you" (from memory here, not word-for-word), despite admitting ignorance about the subject. I would like her to be more honest and forthcoming like that in all her answers. Trying to skirt the issue of admitting she didn't know (which is no crime, especially considering her background in government thus far) makes things worse for her in the long run. It really does give the impression that she's dumber than she seems. I am not convinced she is however, like I said, I suspect Republican campaign operatives have severely restricted what she ought to say. Then of course there is likely a bit of rookie nervousness as the TV camera "red light" comes on with knowledge of being watched by millions of people worldwide, wondering if Couric's "pop-quiz" will have questions she has some knowledge about. To me Palin is all about future promise, based upon tangible accomplishments already achieved, and the overwhelming admiration of who she works for -- her constituents. Even the time and effort by Obama to pen even one book while in the Senate, can not be justified as over a hundred votes deserving of his attention and judgment were cavalierly side-stepped with the non-committal "present" vote. That is classic irresponsibility. Perhaps he had a deadline for publication, which he decided was more important than studying and then deciding on a course of action for the various bills he effectively shined on. Or worse, perhaps he looked at the bills, and knew some would require controversial stands, which of course may come back to haunt him in the future, so why stick his neck out? There's a presidency to be won in the future. Either way it was repeated attempts by him to dodge his legislative duties he was elected to perform. This does not bode well for his possible future duties as President. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Sep 30 2008, 09:29 PM Post #2422 |
|
Deleted User
|
Astute analysis of the bailout bill failure by Michael Moore. I agree. |
|
|
| beatlechick | Sep 30 2008, 11:19 PM Post #2423 |
|
In Paul's Arms!
|
Sorry, otlset. I am just not sold on her. Her views on certain issues are just to regressive for me and I loathe hunting but loathe even more when hunting from any aircraft. Just not a sport and something that I have to revile. IMHO there are to many skeletons starting to hang in her closet. When you have conservative journalists asking that she step down from the campaign, I think that says a lot. The debate on Thursday will be one to see. |
| |
![]() |
|
| JeffLynnesBeard | Sep 30 2008, 11:26 PM Post #2424 |
|
Administrator & Moderator
|
Criticism of Obama to write a book while serving in the Senate is one of the most bizarre and irrelevant criticisms I have ever heard. There are plenty of people who work full-time jobs out there and write books in their spare time. I write a lot in my spare time - probably enough over the last few years to fill a book - and yet it doesn't affect the quality of or my commitment to my work. Senators must have spare time and Obama chose to write a book (primarily about his work) in his. It's a mighty fine book as well and the writing of which probably aided his thinking and reasoning processes, inevitably aiding his position. I'd call this criticism the proverbial scraping of the barrel. As for Palin, I'm much more against her becoming VP because of her 19th Century views, not because of her lack of experience. |
| ...and in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make. | |
![]() |
|
| Bill | Oct 1 2008, 12:47 AM Post #2425 |
|
What say you then, Otlset, about all the books McCain has written while a sitting senator? If it's a bad thing for Obama to waste all that precious time writing books (well, ONE book) then you must think McCain is a complete cad for writing all these: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?_encoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=John%20McCain * I accept that "John McCain" is a common name and that he probably didn't write ALL those books but I'm sure you're smart enough to guess which is which. Following your logic, that might explain what we see here: http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=53270 Make sure you "show all" and check out all the times it says "no vote." Your thoughts? I think I detect some double standards here. I find it very interesting that people blame the McCain campaign machine for Palin's coming across like such a ditz. Two things: 1: What kind of "feminist," what kind of "maverick" allows the part machine to control them to the point if idiocy? 2: What evidence do we have the party is controlling her so much? Is it not just as possible and likely that she is just naturally ignorant? Who's to say they aren't already letting Palin be Palin and that's the problem? This is typical Republican thinking - it's always someone else's fault when their person comes across as an idiot. I mean honestly, she can't even name which newspapers she reads! She just says "all of them" but can't name a single one! Now I ask you, assuming she really does read, if she doesn't pay attention to the masthead, what chance has she got of absorbing the hard stuff inside? Edited by Bill, Oct 1 2008, 12:51 AM.
|
| Put a puppet on it. | |
![]() |
|
| maccascruff | Oct 1 2008, 05:19 AM Post #2426 |
|
Sing the Changes
|
I have just returned from visiting my family in Iowa. My 74 year old aunt said that she has never voted for a Democrat in her life. I knew when I visited in the summer that she was not fond of McCain. Her opinion is that Sarah Palin is an "airhead" and if John McCain wants an airhead as a vice president and with his age and previous bouts with cancer, she will vote Democrat for the first time in her life. She said that McCain shows a serious lack of good decision making when he made his choice of vice president. |
![]() |
|
| Bill | Oct 1 2008, 01:37 PM Post #2427 |
|
There is just the slightest chance (I'd say 1.2%, tops) that Palin has been hustling Biden all this time and will actually turn out to be a strong debater. Yeah, okay, maybe not! I mean, how reckless do you have to be to do government business on a Yahoo webmail address? Being tech-savvy doesn't mean being able to use the internet. Being tech-savvy means being able to use the internet without being hacked. If she becomes vice president, she will have access to all kinds of top secret, eye-only information. Can she be trusted not to upload it all to Flickr? What about national security? Even so, Biden is not going to have an easy time during the debate. He's going to have to rebut Palin's position without looking like he's making fun of the intellectually challenged. I don't envy him. |
| Put a puppet on it. | |
![]() |
|
| Rose | Oct 1 2008, 02:27 PM Post #2428 |
![]()
Well, here's another clue for you all, the Walrus was Paul...
|
I'd rather vote for Tina Fey... |
![]() "I'm in awe of McCartney. He's about the only one that I am in awe of. He can do it all. And he's never let up... He's just so damn effortless." ~ Bob Dylan | |
![]() |
|
| maccascruff | Oct 1 2008, 05:53 PM Post #2429 |
|
Sing the Changes
|
|
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Oct 1 2008, 07:43 PM Post #2430 |
|
Deleted User
|
|
|
|
| Monkey Chow | Oct 1 2008, 07:57 PM Post #2431 |
|
beep beep m beep beep yeah
|
This was published in the New York Times, September 30, 1999 By STEVEN A. HOLMES Published: September 30, 1999 In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders. The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring. Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits. ''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.'' |
| Everybody's got something to hide 'cept for me and my monkey. | |
![]() |
|
| otlset | Oct 1 2008, 08:39 PM Post #2432 |
|
Heh heh, I'm beginning to suspect I'm becoming very unpopular here already because of my views. However, I remain cordial and respectful of others' opinions. And I'd like to add, now that I'm thinking about it, that should Obama win the election next month, as a patriot I will accept the decision of the majority and pull together with the rest of the country (which I hope does also) in support of him. He will be my president too and without sacrificing my hard-won and hard-learned conservative principles (I was actually very liberal earlier in my life), I would look forward to doing what I can with him to bring the country back to greatness. As I say, he will be my president then, and I will support him as such as all Americans need to come together. Now then, as to Obama writing a book while in office -- I have no objection to it at all, as long as it doesn't detract from the official duties he was elected to perform. And this brings up the way too many times he voted "present" on issues, showing, to me at least, his careless attitude to the work at hand. To me those bills required some thought and effort leading to some sort of definite decision, not taking a pass on it and a non-committal easy way out. The voters who supported him deserve no less. I agree with Bill that it doesn't make sense for Palin, as a feminist (pro-life variety, as she explains), to let the party machinery straightjacket what she can say to the point of her looking like a ditz. And there is no evidence that party operatives are muzzling her as well. It's just my suspicion, because I can't understand why she would try to do the usual political dodges, doubletalk, and other tricks of obfuscation politicians, especially long-term politicians, routinely use in answers to questions. Much of her appeal so far is the image she has as one of the common folk, not a typical politician. It looks like it will be make or break time at the debate tomorrow. And unfortunately the entire election could possibly be won or lost depending on Palin's performance. Such pressure! Welcome to the big time Sarah! |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| Mia Culpa | Oct 2 2008, 03:41 AM Post #2433 |
|
This space intentionally left blank.
|
You may disagree with everything she stands for politically but she's actually very charming in person. |
| If you read my posts backward there's evidence that Paul is dead. | |
![]() |
|
| Mia Culpa | Oct 2 2008, 03:43 AM Post #2434 |
|
This space intentionally left blank.
|
Just as both sides always do and have done a lot this election. Unfortunately both sides are not always well-written. Also unfortunately there are only 2 sides. |
| If you read my posts backward there's evidence that Paul is dead. | |
![]() |
|
| Mia Culpa | Oct 2 2008, 03:44 AM Post #2435 |
|
This space intentionally left blank.
|
You get used to it. I like respectful people who I disagree with more than disrespectful people I agree with. |
| If you read my posts backward there's evidence that Paul is dead. | |
![]() |
|
| Bill | Oct 2 2008, 04:01 AM Post #2436 |
|
I agree that there's no evidence that the Republican party really is muzzling Palin. If they aren't, that only leaves the option that she really is a natural ditz. I suspect the notion that she's being controlled is a convenient cover story. Same as Bush - he's just "misunderstood" don't you know. Otlset, it's honourable of you to pledge your loyalty to Obama should he win. I've never subscribed to the idea of "my president, right or wrong." If he's a dick, there's nothing wrong with saying so - and I often do. I'm just waiting for all the Bushies who say people should support the president purely because he's the president to reverse that viewpoint come January. They've flip-flopped on enough other issues.
|
| Put a puppet on it. | |
![]() |
|
| Mia Culpa | Oct 2 2008, 04:44 AM Post #2437 |
|
This space intentionally left blank.
|
Why wait? How many of them supported Clinton when he was president? |
| If you read my posts backward there's evidence that Paul is dead. | |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Oct 2 2008, 04:56 AM Post #2438 |
|
Deleted User
|
Palin is not a ditz! I guess you could name a newspaper that you had read recently if asked, huh, Mr. Smarty Pants? Sarah Palin Can't Name a Newspaper She Reads (0:45) |
|
|
| maccascruff | Oct 2 2008, 05:03 PM Post #2439 |
|
Sing the Changes
|
Guess that I'm not as honorable as our newest member. I don't consider Dubya as my present. He never should have been in office in the first place and the world might be entirely different if the rightful winner of the 2000 election had held office. |
![]() |
|
| Monkey Chow | Oct 2 2008, 05:05 PM Post #2440 |
|
beep beep m beep beep yeah
|
You'd be wearing a burkha. |
| Everybody's got something to hide 'cept for me and my monkey. | |
![]() |
|
| maccascruff | Oct 2 2008, 10:41 PM Post #2441 |
|
Sing the Changes
|
I would not be wearing a burkha and there would be no war in Iraq. For a little humor, go here: http://palinbingo.com |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Oct 2 2008, 11:39 PM Post #2442 |
|
Deleted User
|
I can't wait for Palin to kick Biden's butt with her vast knowledge of countries you can see from Alaska and the names of foreign leaders she has met in the past week. I just hope that 'Names of Newspapers for $500' Alex doesn't come up...
|
|
|
| BeatleBarb | Oct 3 2008, 12:47 AM Post #2443 |
![]()
|
nyuk, nyuk, nyuk
|
![]() |
|
| Bill | Oct 3 2008, 01:17 AM Post #2444 |
|
All due respect Ron, but don't talk sh*t. |
| Put a puppet on it. | |
![]() |
|
| maccascruff | Oct 3 2008, 02:19 AM Post #2445 |
|
Sing the Changes
|
Darn right, aw shucks. This from a vice president. Yikes. |
![]() |
|
| Bill | Oct 3 2008, 02:47 AM Post #2446 |
|
I wish Biden had called her out on a few things. She made a point of Obama not bucking his party like way McCain allegedly has but the main reason for that is that Obama's party's policies have not been as stupid as the Republicans'. Biden should also have called her out for trying to wipe the slate clean. Both McCain and Palin are trying to wash their hands of the failed policies of the party that THEY have supported and they are running for, and then having the gall to talk about personal responsibility. Palin did a good job of appearing to straight-talk but all she did was deflect. In the end, the greatest victory was for Palin simply because she didn't completely embarrass herself. |
| Put a puppet on it. | |
![]() |
|
| scottycatt | Oct 3 2008, 03:02 AM Post #2447 |
|
Enjoying that K**l-A*d, are you, Ron?
Edited by scottycatt, Oct 3 2008, 03:03 AM.
|
|
Why? | |
![]() |
|
| BeatleBarb | Oct 3 2008, 03:04 AM Post #2448 |
![]()
|
I agree with you Bill - Biden fell short of going after Palin when he could. He really missed a golden opportunity when she answered it didn't matter what caused global warming, but wanted to eradicate it. How do you implement a plan of action when you don't know the cause? I suspect he went into this thing not knowing how to approach it all. He even referred to her as Governor Palin while she called him Joe. I know this is style over substance, but I think it all counts. I was conflicted in that I felt for her and wanted her to be able to do well as the perceived underdog, but to me she evaded more of the questions that Biden did. Guess she felt it was within her right to not answer as she practically told the moderator she would respond as she saw fit! But wasn't the idea of a debate to actually answer questions? Sounded like another nomination acceptance speech to me. She certainly felt comfortable talking about energy and mavericks which is getting a bit old. But I have to admit, she did better than I thought she did and I was disappointed in Biden's missed opportunities. |
![]() |
|
| scottycatt | Oct 3 2008, 03:05 AM Post #2449 |
|
Since when is K - o - o - l - A - i - d an auto-edited term?
|
|
Why? | |
![]() |
|
| Rose | Oct 3 2008, 03:09 AM Post #2450 |
![]()
Well, here's another clue for you all, the Walrus was Paul...
|
Wow...what a maverick that maverick is. I'm a maverick...she's a maverick...wouldn't you like to be a maverick, too? Be a maverick...Let's all be a maverick! Doggone it...if I never hear that dang word again, you can betcha it will be too soon <wink>
|
![]() "I'm in awe of McCartney. He's about the only one that I am in awe of. He can do it all. And he's never let up... He's just so damn effortless." ~ Bob Dylan | |
![]() |
|
| Bill | Oct 3 2008, 03:11 AM Post #2451 |
|
In fairness to Palin, she did say at the start, "Can I call you Joe?" and he said Sure. Rose, surely "a team of mavericks" is a contradiction in terms, right? Now she's leading a chant of U-S-A! Kind of ironic for someone who wanted to leave the union. Edited by Bill, Oct 3 2008, 03:12 AM.
|
| Put a puppet on it. | |
![]() |
|
| BeatleBarb | Oct 3 2008, 03:23 AM Post #2452 |
![]()
|
I think her wanting to call Biden, Joe , was a continuation of her folksy approach. We get it - you're a hockey mom, dog gone it! |
![]() |
|
| Bill | Oct 3 2008, 03:25 AM Post #2453 |
|
I can't wait to hear the new Fireman album. |
| Put a puppet on it. | |
![]() |
|
| Bill | Oct 3 2008, 03:25 AM Post #2454 |
|
I'm thinking about eggs on toast. |
| Put a puppet on it. | |
![]() |
|
| scottycatt | Oct 3 2008, 03:25 AM Post #2455 |
|
I have to say that I was extremely disappointed in Gwen Ifill's handling of this so-called debate. There really was very little actual debating taking place. I felt she should've redirected the discussion back to the actual questions that were asked rather than allowing each candidate to spew forth with their coached, canned, rehearsed and memorized answers. I have to say that persons here at SF do a better job of actually discussing and debating issues than either candidate did. Not that anything any of you say will make any difference in the grand scheme of things . . . except for that lever you pull on November 4th.
|
|
Why? | |
![]() |
|
| Bill | Oct 3 2008, 03:26 AM Post #2456 |
|
I'm not off-topic. I'm a MAVERICK!
|
| Put a puppet on it. | |
![]() |
|
| scottycatt | Oct 3 2008, 03:28 AM Post #2457 |
|
Look! There's a puppy!
|
|
Why? | |
![]() |
|
| retrollama | Oct 3 2008, 03:28 AM Post #2458 |
![]()
|
RoseMy husband and I were talking about starting a Sarah Palin drinking game while watching the debate tonight: Take a drink every time Palin mentioned "Energy" or "Maverick." But we soon realized that we would have been passed out on the couch within a matter of minutes.
|
| What a long, strange trip it's been.... | |
![]() |
|
| Bill | Oct 3 2008, 03:28 AM Post #2459 |
|
I don't have a problem with first names. I also thought Gwen Ifill was right to just ask the questions. If a candidate isn't answering the question, it's up to the other candidate to point that out. I think Biden went soft on her. I think his strategy might have been to stand back and wait for her to hang herself, but when she didn't, he should have pushed her more. |
| Put a puppet on it. | |
![]() |
|
| Mindy | Oct 3 2008, 03:31 AM Post #2460 |
|
|
![]() |
|
| retrollama | Oct 3 2008, 03:31 AM Post #2461 |
![]()
|
Don't forget, she's also the governor of Alaska!
|
| What a long, strange trip it's been.... | |
![]() |
|
| BeatleBarb | Oct 3 2008, 03:32 AM Post #2462 |
![]()
|
Rose - I played it safe and just drank throughout the whole thing, but I like your style
|
![]() |
|
| BeatleBarb | Oct 3 2008, 03:33 AM Post #2463 |
![]()
|
Correction: You mean that "energy producing state"! |
![]() |
|
| scottycatt | Oct 3 2008, 03:35 AM Post #2464 |
|
So did I and I still am!
|
|
Why? | |
![]() |
|
| scottycatt | Oct 3 2008, 03:38 AM Post #2465 |
|
Comment of the night on CNN from somewhere in the "heartland" . . . . "Sarah Palin may not stick to the facts but she expresses herself in a way that most of us can understand and I think she did a good job" God forbid the facts should count for anything!
|
|
Why? | |
![]() |
|
| Bill | Oct 3 2008, 03:45 AM Post #2466 |
|
And how is that a "change" from the last eight years? |
| Put a puppet on it. | |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Oct 3 2008, 03:57 AM Post #2467 |
|
Deleted User
|
I thought Biden won decisively, especially on foreign affairs, but I don't think Palin embarrassed herself as much as I thought she would. In my opinion she is now a non-factor in the rest of the election unless McCain has a health issue. She won't win any votes for him among undecideds in battleground states, but she also won't hurt him any more than she already has. McCain needs to step up his own game if he wants to staunch the bleeding in states like Michigan, where he has pulled all staffers and stopped campaigning completely, Virginia, where he now trails Obama by 9 points in a traditionally Republican state and especially in Florida where his political maneuverings and lack of leadership on the economic crisis is costing him points every time a new poll is taken. He is running dead even in Missouri, which has voted for the winner in the last eight elections. His margin of error is getting slimmer and slimmer unless there is a game-changer or an October surprise. |
|
|
| scottycatt | Oct 3 2008, 03:58 AM Post #2468 |
|
I attended the CNN-moderated Clinton-Obama debate earlier this year. Wolf Blitzer did a fantastic job of redirecting the candidates back to the question at hand, rather than to allow either of them to spew out the pre-fab candidate speak. Questions actually got answered and I walked away with a greater understanding of what each candidate actually stood for. I can't say the same for tonight. My lasting impressions? Maverick. Maverick. Maverick.
|
|
Why? | |
![]() |
|
| scottycatt | Oct 3 2008, 04:04 AM Post #2469 |
|
CNN is now replaying the debate. Think I'll turn on the "maverick" calculator.
|
|
Why? | |
![]() |
|
| Bill | Oct 3 2008, 04:07 AM Post #2470 |
|
The count is 79. I didn't count. I just decided that's the number. That's because I'm a decisive maverick with a six-pack*. *not the good kind |
| Put a puppet on it. | |
![]() |
|
| fab4fan | Oct 3 2008, 04:08 AM Post #2471 |
![]()
Caretaker
|
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/23/an-electoral-college-doomsday/ 269 tie: An electoral college 'doomsday'? Scholars speculate on scenario Joseph Curl (Contact) Tuesday, September 23, 2008 President Obama, with Vice President Palin? President Biden? President Pelosi? Call them the "Doomsday" scenarios -- On Nov. 5, the presidential election winds up in a electoral-college tie, 269-269, the Democrat-controlled House picks Sen. Barack Obama as president, but the Senate, with former Democrat Joe Lieberman voting with Republicans, deadlocks at 50-50, so Vice President Dick Cheney steps in to break the tie to make Republican Sarah Palin his successor. "Wow," said longtime presidential historian Stephen Hess. "Wow, that would be amazing, wouldn't it?" "If this scenario ever happened, it would be like a scene from the movie 'Scream' for Democrats," said Democratic strategist Mary Anne Marsh. "The only thing worse for the Democrats than losing the White House, again, when it had the best chance to win in a generation, but to do so at the hands of Cheney and Lieberman. That would be cruel." Sound impossible? It's not. There are at least a half-dozen plausible ways the election can end in a tie, and at least one very plausible possibility - giving each candidate the states in which they now lead in the polls, only New Hampshire - which went Republican in 2000 and Democratic in 2004, each time by just 1.5 percent - needs to swap to the Republican column to wind up with a 269-269 tie. There are currently 10 tossup states, according to RealClearPol-itics.com, which keeps a running average of all state polls. If Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain wins Ohio, Virginia, New Hampshire and Indiana - not at all far-fetched - and Mr. Obama takes reliably Democratic states Pennsylvania and Michigan, and flips Colorado (in which he holds a slight poll lead), with the two splitting New Mexico and Nevada, the electoral vote would be tied at 269. Absurd? Possibly, and there is not complete agreement among constitutional experts on whether a newly elected Congress or the currently sitting House and Senate would make the decision. So try this scenario: The newly elected House, seated in January, is unable to muster a majority to choose a president after a 269-269 tie, but the Senate, which is expected to be controlled by Democrats, picks Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. from the Democratic ticket. If the House is still deadlocked at noon on Inauguration Day, Jan. 20, Mr. Biden becomes acting president. Or try this one on for size: Neither the House nor the Senate fulfills its constitutional duty to select the president and the vice president by Jan. 20, so House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, becomes acting president until the whole mess is sorted out. "That would cause all kinds of lawsuits: We would have 50 Floridas, and we might not know who the president is for two years," said Judith Best, a political science and Electoral College specialist at the State University of New York in Cortland. The archaic system in the Constitution was set up in the days of oil lamps and horse-drawn carriages. After the presidential vote on the first Tuesday in November, electors have until the Monday after the second Wednesday in December, this year Dec. 15, to reach the state capital, where they cast their ballots for president. The electoral vote is then transmitted "sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the president of the Senate," according to the 12th Amendment. If there's a tie, the 1804 amendment says, the House of Representatives "shall choose immediately, by ballot, the president." "The Constitution says 'immediately,'" Mr. Hess said. "It's that word 'immediately' that makes me believe it's got to be the outgoing Congress that makes the decision, because we know that the Electoral College ballots are counted in December." But despite the delicious possibility that Mr. Cheney would break a Senate tie to create a Obama-Palin White House, several other constitutional scholars say, forget the Constitution. They say the operative - and decisive - verbiage was set out in U.S. Code Title 3, Chapter 1, Section 15, in 1934. "Congress shall be in session on the sixth day of January succeeding every meeting of the electors. The Senate and House of Representatives shall meet in the Hall of the House of Representatives at the hour of 1 o'clock in the afternoon on that day," the section says. That, they say, means the new Congress would decide the president and vice president in the event of an Electoral College tie. Here's where things get dicey, though. Back to the Constitution, the 12th Amendment: " ... in choosing the president, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote." That means that a state's entire House delegation gets just one vote each - California, with 53 House members, would get one vote; Alaska, with its one representative, would get one vote. Florida, for instance, has 16 Republicans and nine Democrats. That means the delegation would (almost certainly) vote 16-9 for Mr. McCain, while Colorado, with four Democrats and three Republicans, would vote 4-3 for Mr. Obama. In the current House, Mr. Obama would win - 27 delegations have a majority of Democrats, 21 have a majority of Republicans, and two states, Kansas and Mr. McCain's home state of Arizona, are evenly split. But those numbers will change Nov. 4, and Paul Sracic, associate professor in the department of political science Youngstown State University in Ohio, said they could change dramatically. Of the 27 state congressional delegations with a majority of Democrats, 25 of them would switch to deadlocked or Republican control if two or more seats change to Republican. At least 26 state delegations in the House must agree before the next president can be chosen. But even if Democrats maintain a majority, there would be pressure on Democratic delegations to vote Republican in states where voters chose Mr. McCain. It took 36 ballots in the House to select Thomas Jefferson as the third president after the 1800 election ended in a 73-73 tie. There was so much animosity after that election that Aaron Burr, elected vice president, faced off in a duel with Alexander Hamilton, who had thrown his support behind Jefferson. Burr shot Hamilton dead in a duel. The number of electors, 538, is equal to the number of senators - 100 - and representatives - 435 - in the Congress, plus the three electors added in 1961 when the 23rd Amendment gave the District a say in U.S. presidential elections. Thus, there have been 10 presidential elections in which a 269-269 tie was possibly, but it has never occurred. "The probability of a tie in 2008 is about 1.5 percent, which is slightly higher than we calculated at about the same time back in 2004," said Mr. Sracic, who enlisted the help of the university's math department to come up with a possible 1,024 combinations with the current 10 states now considered tossups. "What really strikes you is how easy it would be for a tie to occur. Take the 2004 map and switch Iowa, New Mexico and Colorado into the Blue column, which is what the poll numbers indicate. Then, take New Hampshire and give it to McCain, which is what two recent polls suggest is going to happen. There is your tie." |
| Mnisthiti mou Kurie! | |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Oct 3 2008, 04:09 AM Post #2472 |
|
Deleted User
|
I wasn't thrilled with the moderator either, but I think she knew she had to throw softballs and I think Biden knew that he would lose the women's vote if he came off too harsh on Palin personally, like asking her to name which newspaper she had read this morning...
|
|
|
| Bill | Oct 3 2008, 04:11 AM Post #2473 |
|
For those keeping score, check out how many times Palin says the surge has worked. Then count how many times she explains how it worked. It worked because the Pentagon is paying insurgents to shoot at someone else. Why doesn't any candidate have the guts to admit that? |
| Put a puppet on it. | |
![]() |
|
| scottycatt | Oct 3 2008, 05:37 AM Post #2474 |
|
For those who missed it on TV, here's the complete transcript. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/02/debate.transcript/index.html |
|
Why? | |
![]() |
|
| scottycatt | Oct 3 2008, 05:39 AM Post #2475 |
|
What others are saying about the debate. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2008/10/the_vp_debate_she_won_fersure.html |
|
Why? | |
![]() |
|
| scottycatt | Oct 3 2008, 05:42 AM Post #2476 |
|
Here's the word count from the debate. I haven't yet verified this. I think Bill's count of 79 regarding the use of "maverick" might be a wee bit on the high side. This is from NPR's website. Veep Debate Word Count Palin: Winked: 3 Maverick: 5 Team of Mavericks: 2 Hockey: 1 Heck: 2 Joe Six-Pack: 1 Darn Right: 2 East Coast Politicians: 1 Senator Obiden: 1 "Say it ain't so, Joe": 1 References to Joe's wife: 1 Gladys Wood Elementary School: 1 Shining City on a Hill: 1 "I quasi-caved in.": 1 Reagan: 2 McClellan: 2 Biden: Wall Street Run Wild: 2 Middle class: 12 Bridge to Nowhere: 1 Scranton: 2 Joe Biden: 3 Dead Wrong: 2 I haven't heard: 5 JoeBiden.com: 1 Aisle: 5 Amtrak: 0 "Maverick he is not.": 1 controversious: 1 "This is the most important election you've ever voted in in your entire life.": 2 Bosniaks: 1 Dick Lugar: 3 |
|
Why? | |
![]() |
|
| Bill | Oct 3 2008, 06:33 AM Post #2477 |
|
|
| Put a puppet on it. | |
![]() |
|
| scottycatt | Oct 3 2008, 06:36 AM Post #2478 |
|
I'm almost embarrassed to post this, but here goes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiPQdU64Adk |
|
Why? | |
![]() |
|
| Bill | Oct 3 2008, 06:39 AM Post #2479 |
|
There's a very telling line in there about the Vietnam war. And it's appropriate in the context of Palin's assertion that John McCain knows how to win wars. With nothing but the utmost respect for John McCain's service.... what wars has he won? |
| Put a puppet on it. | |
![]() |
|
| Monkey Chow | Oct 3 2008, 01:42 PM Post #2480 |
|
beep beep m beep beep yeah
|
Just my personal opinion, one of the reasons I voted for Bush in 1980 was my belief that Gore lacked intestinal fortitude that would have been required when planes started hitting large objects in 2001. Unless your theory, of course, is that had Gore been President we would not have been attacked. Anyway, I though Sarah Palin was awesome and Biden was ok. Enjoyed the debate immensely. I'm sure most of you will spin it another way. |
| Everybody's got something to hide 'cept for me and my monkey. | |
![]() |
|
| Bill | Oct 3 2008, 02:01 PM Post #2481 |
|
Okay, for a start you're 20 years adrift with your elections. Secondly, you talk as if you knew in 2000 that there was going to be an attack in 2001. If so, then why the f*ck didn't you tell anyone. Thirdly, you don't get a pass by saying "just my opinion." If that's your opinion, then back it up. Explain to me how if it weren't for junior in the White House, Linda would be wearing a burkha. Lay out the cause and effect. FACT: The Bush administration was warned by the outgoing Clinton administration that they would be spending a lot of their time on al Qaeda. Not only did Bush ignore those warnings, they deliberately took counter-terrorism OFF the agenda. Is that the behaviour of people who want to protect Americans? I submit not. |
| Put a puppet on it. | |
![]() |
|
| Monkey Chow | Oct 3 2008, 02:34 PM Post #2482 |
|
beep beep m beep beep yeah
|
Sorry, yes, 2000, typo. I simply had a feeling at the time there would be some serious world events in the form of warfare over time that would require someone with intestinal fortitude to respond to. Maybe I got it from booking the odds that, among all the crazies in the world, one of them was bound to require military action. Maybe from reading Revelations or watching stuff on Nostradamus, who knows. Anyway, as everyone has heard, we got attacked Sept. 11, 2001 and I didn't then and don't now trust Al Gore to defend my family in a military action and I fear we could have lost under his leadership. Simply my opinion. Let's face it, Al Qaeda was looking to destroy the US completely that day and came much closer than I would like to think about. And they like women in burkhas. Fact, Clinton did little to nothing about Al Qaeda and also advised Bush Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. And, back to the debates, Sara Palin rocked. |
| Everybody's got something to hide 'cept for me and my monkey. | |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Oct 3 2008, 02:42 PM Post #2483 |
|
Deleted User
|
"In the year of the new century and nine months, from the sky will come a great king of terror. The sky will burn at 45 degrees... fire approaches the great new city... there will be thunder... The third big war will begin when the city is burning." - Nostradamus. |
|
|
| Bill | Oct 3 2008, 02:44 PM Post #2484 |
|
Not a fact. Anything but a fact. Clinton didn't do enough on al Qaeda but did do a lot quietly. Now who was it who said you shouldn't tell your enemy your plans? In all likelihood, a Gore administration would NOT have thrown the baby out with the Clinton bathwater, would NOT have ignored terrorist threats and therefore would NOT have missed the warnings about Sept 11. You're assuming the attacks would have happened anyway. The reality was the Bush administration was asleep at the wheel. Um.... soccer, six-pack, maverick. Yeah, she rocked alright. If you didn't care about substance. PS: How can writing 1980 instead of 2000 be a typo?
|
| Put a puppet on it. | |
![]() |
|
| Bill | Oct 3 2008, 03:00 PM Post #2485 |
|
PPS: Did I miss the bit where Bush caught bin Laden? |
| Put a puppet on it. | |
![]() |
|
| Monkey Chow | Oct 3 2008, 03:17 PM Post #2486 |
|
beep beep m beep beep yeah
|
We're saving it for November. |
| Everybody's got something to hide 'cept for me and my monkey. | |
![]() |
|
| Bill | Oct 3 2008, 03:24 PM Post #2487 |
|
Ah, so you're saying that Republicans put political timing above above what's good for the country? I might have guessed. Are you a betting man? |
| Put a puppet on it. | |
![]() |
|
| Monkey Chow | Oct 3 2008, 03:36 PM Post #2488 |
|
beep beep m beep beep yeah
|
That was a joke. I have no idea where Bin Laden is but he may already be dead. Typo was a euphemism for brain fart. I was simultaneously working and looking at some reunion info. And, yes, I have made a wager or two but I am not much of a gambler because it is too hard to earn money to go p*ssing it away. I prefer games and sports I can control. Why do you ask? |
| Everybody's got something to hide 'cept for me and my monkey. | |
![]() |
|
| Bill | Oct 3 2008, 03:43 PM Post #2489 |
|
I just wanted to see how confident you really were of Bush actually finishing something he started before he leaves office. And nothing personal, but I find it rather typical of a lot of Bushies that when you spoil their fun with a few realities, they end up replying with some smug, glib remark about October surprises or something similar. If you're confident of such an outcome, then my money is on the table. For the record, my mind is still open. If anyone can help me to see the emperor's beautiful suit, then please do. Edited by Bill, Oct 3 2008, 03:45 PM.
|
| Put a puppet on it. | |
![]() |
|
| Monkey Chow | Oct 3 2008, 03:47 PM Post #2490 |
|
beep beep m beep beep yeah
|
I need to go but I don't know what facts you are referring to or your source of information to be able to research, argue, and refute. I did think it would be a good time for some humor. I guess not. |
| Everybody's got something to hide 'cept for me and my monkey. | |
![]() |
|
| Bill | Oct 3 2008, 04:05 PM Post #2491 |
|
Okay, let me throw a fact out there: Bush has comprehensively failed to catch bin Laden. What kind of confirming source for that statement would be acceptable? Since allowing bin Laden to get away and neglecting Afghanistan in favour of Iraq, al Qeada has had time to regroup, spread its tentacles far and wide to places like.... um..... it'll come to me..... oh yes, IRAQ, and generally become far more unknowable than they were in 2002. If I'm wrong about any of that - and I say this in all sincerity - then please show me where I am wrong. Educate me. Correct me. Enlighten me. I don't want to seem completely humourless but what I find funny is how the time for humour is when Bush supporters are confronted with some uncomfortable home truths about their man. If I'm also wrong about that, then I stand to be corrected.
|
| Put a puppet on it. | |
![]() |
|
| Monkey Chow | Oct 3 2008, 04:16 PM Post #2492 |
|
beep beep m beep beep yeah
|
I'm not going to dog Bush, I'll leave that for you all. However, I don't support him anywhere near 100%. Nevertheless, I'm sure I support him more than you do. Having said that, no, bin Laden has not been "caught". He may have been killed. If he is alive, he and al Qaeda have been greatly contained. Terrorism is on the run in Iraq, fortunately is not prevalent in Europe and North America, and needs continued vigilance in Afghanistan. It's like fighting cancer. I think your statement that al Qaeda spread to places like Iraq interestingly argues for the necessity of continuing the war on terror in Iraq regardless of how we got there in the first place. |
| Everybody's got something to hide 'cept for me and my monkey. | |
![]() |
|
| Bill | Oct 3 2008, 04:29 PM Post #2493 |
|
Check your timelines. Al Qaeda were not in Iraq before 2003. What changed? Terrorism is not on the run in Iraq. It has either finished its job or been paid off. That's after the fact that it was only an idiotic war that let it in in the first place. You don't get extra credit for going half way to cleaning up a mess that you made. That's not victory, that's the least you could do. When it comes to something like fighting terrorism, "might" (as in "maybe" not "strength") is not enough. Terrorism was never prevalent in North America. Connecting the absence of attacks in the US with the occupation of Iraq is like connecting the Viking mission with the fact that we haven't been attacked by Martians. As for Europe, they have known terrorism for a lot longer than America has. Remember the IRA? England has lived with a far more clear and present threat of terrorism for a lot longer than America ever has and they've managed to deal with it all without feeling the need to destroy Ireland. How has the war on terror benefitted that situation? (by the way, I know the answer, I just want to see if anyone else does. )
|
| Put a puppet on it. | |
![]() |
|
| ogoble | Oct 3 2008, 04:59 PM Post #2494 |
![]()
|
|
Beatles/Paul McCartney & Wings Fan
| |
![]() |
|
| Monkey Chow | Oct 3 2008, 05:20 PM Post #2495 |
|
beep beep m beep beep yeah
|
So the surge that Obama admitted worked didn't work? Come on, Bill. Anyway, what is your solution to anything? Anyway, after this you get the last word because, for the time being, this is my last word. |
| Everybody's got something to hide 'cept for me and my monkey. | |
![]() |
|
| Bill | Oct 3 2008, 05:47 PM Post #2496 |
|
Ah, there's another cliche - the old "what would you do?" trick? I'm not the president. It's not for me to have all the answers. But if a shitkicker like me could see this mess coming, then you know something is really wrong with the leadership. As I've already said several times on this thread, the reduction in violence in Iraq is not just down to the troop surge. It's also down the fact that the US is paying the insurgents not to shoot at them (your taxes at work) and many of the ethnic cleansers have run out of people to kill. I've also stated before, and will again, that it was gutless of Obama and Biden not to point these things out and to play the "wow, the surge really did work" game. The surge worked so well that McCain only needed 100 troops to protect him in Baghdad. |
| Put a puppet on it. | |
![]() |
|
| Bill | Oct 3 2008, 06:01 PM Post #2497 |
|
By the way, I'm sorry for being such a terrier on this thread. It's just that I find it really hard not to answer points if I can answer them. Just because I support Obama doesn't mean he's above criticism. He was wrong to accept the conventional wisdom that the surge has worked. I can see why it was politically expedient to do so, but that doesn't make it right. Gee, I'm such a maverick!
|
| Put a puppet on it. | |
![]() |
|
| maccascruff | Oct 4 2008, 01:50 AM Post #2498 |
|
Sing the Changes
|
Darn right, you are.
|
![]() |
|
| Mia Culpa | Oct 4 2008, 02:38 AM Post #2499 |
|
This space intentionally left blank.
|
When this election began 100 years ago both sides said they'd stick to the issues and not get into personal attacks. When is this going to start? While Obama and McCain sometimes talk about issues their supporters are talking about children's names, fathers' religions, wives' medications, his racist preacher, her witch-hunting preacher, he's an elitst, she's a redneck, Jesus was a community organiser and Pontius Pilate was a governor, Jesus was a maverick and Pontius Pilate was an elitist, Nobama, McSame. Mocking Alaska is petty at best. What's really sad in the personal attacks against Obama, McCain and Palin is nobody's talking about Biden. Poor guy. Each side complains about the hypocrisy of the other but they're blind to their own hypocrisy. McCainers complained that Obama doesn't have enough experience and now they support Palin. Obamites said experience doesn't matter and now they complain about Palin. Obamites complain that Palin called Biden Joe but had no problem with Obama calling McCain John. McCainers called Obama a rock star and now they've gotten their own. McCain's an idiot for saying Iraq borders Pakistan but Obama was just tired when he said America has 60 states. Both sides criticise what the other does and rationalise it when they do the exact same thing. That's not change, that's more of the same. I think American elections last too long. People have too much time to rant and rave about meaningless things. Our elections last less than a month. We don't have time to attack a candidate's choice of wristwatch. |
| If you read my posts backward there's evidence that Paul is dead. | |
![]() |
|
| Mia Culpa | Oct 4 2008, 02:41 AM Post #2500 |
|
This space intentionally left blank.
|
Point the second: If Obama's half the demigod his supporters claim and McCain's just going to perpetuate a failed administration why do the so-called experts think this election will be so close? After Bush's 8 years of spectacular failure Obama should win in a landslide. With the American economy in collapse Obama should win in a landslide. After 5 years of unpopular war Obama should win in a landslide. If it were Reagan or Roosevelt they'd get 99% of the vote. So why will Obama be lucky to get 54%? |
| If you read my posts backward there's evidence that Paul is dead. | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Things We Said Today · Next Topic » |














2:01 PM Jul 11