View Full Version : Obama Thread (Merged x6)
Tag279
08-02-2008, 10:12 AM
If a man was not convicted of terrorist activity and has not been an active member of a group deemed a terrorist group since Obama was 8-years old hundreds of miles from where he was when he was they arrested him for being part of a terrorist organization.
1. Ayers was never convicted.
2. Obama was 8-years old when Ayers was arrested.
3. Ayers and Obama served on a board together almost 40-years after Ayers was part of the weather underground.
4. Ayers donated $200.00 to Obama's campaign.
So due to guilt by association Obama is an anti-American terrorist or terrorist sympathizer...
NOT LIKELY!!!
The Senator
08-02-2008, 11:09 AM
In this election of "damned if you do, damned if you don't," I do not care at all who Obama accepted money from. I don't. Because Barack Hussein Obama is not standing up at a podium in San Francisco, telling Americans that when he becomes he president he will attack this country and/ or give those with "shady" connections a position in his government. The likelihood that either scenario will occur is minuscule at best.
More importantly, his connections are not what I'm worried about. I'm worried about someone who will work to fix the problems in this country that need to be fixed now. Not tomorrow, not four years from now-- today. And while there is no way to know if Obama will lay a hand on any one of those issues, the fact that he supports getting us out of Iraq, negotiating with leaders who have hostile capabilities, and will not work to dismantle social rights such as abortion and gay marriage means that he is the candidate I will vote for in November. When it comes out that Obama funded terrorist activities, or supports those activities, then I will rescind my support.
If a man was not convicted of terrorist activity and has not been an active member of a group deemed a terrorist group since Obama was 8-years old hundreds of miles from where he was when he was they arrested him for being part of a terrorist organization.
1. Ayers was never convicted.
That argument is kind of moot being as Ayers confessed to taking part in terrorist activities.
2. Obama was 8-years old when Ayers was arrested.
And how old was he when he launched his campaign from Ayers' house?
3. Ayers and Obama served on a board together almost 40-years after Ayers was part of the weather underground.
And yet only last year Ayers claimed he "wished he did more (terrorism)."
4. Ayers donated $200.00 to Obama's campaign.
So due to guilt by association Obama is an anti-American terrorist or terrorist sympathizer...
NOT LIKELY!!!
Not saying that, I'm simply saying it shows very very bad judgement on his part.
In this election of "damned if you do, damned if you don't," I do not care at all who Obama accepted money from. I don't. Because Barack Hussein Obama is not standing up at a podium in San Francisco, telling Americans that when he becomes he president he will attack this country and/ or give those with "shady" connections a position in his government. The likelihood that either scenario will occur is minuscule at best.
I dunno, he gave Jerimiah Wright an official advisory position on his campaign. That is concerning to me. If he will let that man advise his campaign, who is to say what kind of people will advise him as President? And being as any time Obama's inexperience is brought up, I hear "Well he will have advisors!" it does concern me quite a bit.
In this election of "damned if you do, damned if you don't," I do not care at all who Obama accepted money from. I don't. Because Barack Hussein Obama is not standing up at a podium in San Francisco, telling Americans that when he becomes he president he will attack this country and/ or give those with "shady" connections a position in his government. The likelihood that either scenario will occur is minuscule at best.
I dunno, he gave Jerimiah Wright an official advisory position on his campaign. That is concerning to me. If he will let that man advise his campaign, who is to say what kind of people will advise him as President? And being as any time Obama's inexperience is brought up, I hear "Well he will have advisors!" it does concern me quite a bit.
StorminNorman
08-02-2008, 11:23 AM
If a man was not convicted of terrorist activity and has not been an active member of a group deemed a terrorist group since Obama was 8-years old hundreds of miles from where he was when he was they arrested him for being part of a terrorist organization.
1. Ayers was never convicted.
2. Obama was 8-years old when Ayers was arrested.
3. Ayers and Obama served on a board together almost 40-years after Ayers was part of the weather underground.
4. Ayers donated $200.00 to Obama's campaign.
So due to guilt by association Obama is an anti-American terrorist or terrorist sympathizer...
NOT LIKELY!!!
Obama should never of accepted a contribution from a former terrorist. If nothing else that displays a preference for money over intergrity.
Tag279
08-02-2008, 11:31 AM
I dunno, he gave Jerimiah Wright an official advisory position on his campaign. That is concerning to me. If he will let that man advise his campaign, who is to say what kind of people will advise him as President? And being as any time Obama's inexperience is brought up, I hear "Well he will have advisors!" it does concern me quite a bit.
Jerimiah Wright WAS one of Obama's advisors but why are you so sure that he was advising him to hate whitey?
The sermon talking about chickens coming home to roost was quoting a white US ambassador and to tell his congregation to not seek revenge and fall into anger after 911.
Hillary Clinton does not understand what it is like to be a black man in America and she has never been called a N****. Wright was not wrong about that.
The Overlord
08-02-2008, 12:05 PM
Obama should never of accepted a contribution from a former terrorist. If nothing else that displays a preference for money over intergrity.
First former means he paid his debt to society, so why should he be punished for past crimes and second its 200 dollars, do you really think Obama's in this guy's pocket because of 200 dollars?
This more making hay over nothing, the GOP knows they can't win by sticking to the issues, so they are going negative.
Überlibran
08-02-2008, 12:11 PM
Obama should never of accepted a contribution from a former terrorist. If nothing else that displays a preference for money over intergrity. Lol, because we know that McCain is chock full of integrity! :hehe::hehe::oldrazz:
The Senator
08-02-2008, 12:24 PM
Integrity is only a matter of opinion... I expect StorminNorman will own that response...
StorminNorman
08-02-2008, 12:27 PM
First former means he paid his debt to society, so why should he be punished for past crimes and second its 200 dollars, do you really think Obama's in this guy's pocket because of 200 dollars?
This more making hay over nothing, the GOP knows they can't win by sticking to the issues, so they are going negative.
The man hasn't repented his crimes, though - as recent as 2001 he has stated he wished he would of caused more destruction. This isn't a reformed man here, simply one that is no longer active.
I don't think Obama's in this guy's pocket at all - I simply believe Obama should have the decency to refuse to accept his money, just as I would hope McCain would do if some like John Hinckley Jr. tried to contribute.
I disagree the GOP can't win with the issues when the biggest issue (energy) is an issue the GOP is in the overwelming majority with.
StorminNorman
08-02-2008, 12:32 PM
Lol, because we know that McCain is chock full of integrity! :hehe::hehe::oldrazz:
Want a history lesson, sir?
McCain is the son and grandson of respected American four star Admirals. He is shot down in the Vietnam war and taken POW. The Vietnamese know who McCain is, they know who his father is and they know who his grandfather is - they respect him and call him Prince. They still tortue him and his fellow POW's though, he spends year in solitary confinement.
McCain's father is promoted to Commander of the US Pacific Fleet and the Vietnamese agree to release McCain (to show their greaty benelevence for propaganda purposes), but not all of the POW's. McCain refuses. He states he will not leave his fellow soliders behind. He puts himself through hell for those men.
Thats integrity, sir.
Now you can criticize McCain for the way he is running this election - fine, but its politics and both sides have their hands dirty. If you are trying to paint either side as a white hat you are a fool. Don't, however, try to make the case that McCain likes integrity.
Want a history lesson, sir?
McCain is the son and grandson of respected American four star Admirals. He is shot down in the Vietnam war and taken POW. The Vietnamese know who McCain is, they know who his father is and they know who his grandfather is - they respect him and call him Prince. They still tortue him and his fellow POW's though, he spends year in solitary confinement.
McCain's father is promoted to Commander of the US Pacific Fleet and the Vietnamese agree to release McCain (to show their greaty benelevence for propaganda purposes), but not all of the POW's. McCain refuses. He states he will not leave his fellow soliders behind. He puts himself through hell for those men.
Thats integrity, sir.
Now you can criticize McCain for the way he is running this election - fine, but its politics and both sides have their hands dirty. If you are trying to paint either side as a white hat you are a fool. Don't, however, try to make the case that McCain likes integrity.
Integrity is only a matter of opinion... I expect StorminNorman will own that response...
Ain't that the truth. :hehe:
Überlibran
08-02-2008, 12:56 PM
Want a history lesson, sir?
McCain is the son and grandson of respected American four star Admirals. He is shot down in the Vietnam war and taken POW. The Vietnamese know who McCain is, they know who his father is and they know who his grandfather is - they respect him and call him Prince. They still tortue him and his fellow POW's though, he spends year in solitary confinement.
McCain's father is promoted to Commander of the US Pacific Fleet and the Vietnamese agree to release McCain (to show their greaty benelevence for propaganda purposes), but not all of the POW's. McCain refuses. He states he will not leave his fellow soliders behind. He puts himself through hell for those men.
Thats integrity, sir.
Now you can criticize McCain for the way he is running this election - fine, but its politics and both sides have their hands dirty. If you are trying to paint either side as a white hat you are a fool. Don't, however, try to make the case that McCain likes integrity. What once was, no longer is, kind sir.
Überlibran
08-02-2008, 12:57 PM
Ain't that the truth. :hehe: I respect StorminNorman greatly, but in no manner was I owned.
StorminNorman
08-02-2008, 01:01 PM
What once was, no longer is, kind sir.
Neither side has shown a great amount of integrity - which is exactly the sentimate I have been holding this entire election.
Is McCain a great and noble candidate who is running his campaign saintly? No.
Is Obama a great and noble candidate who is running his campaign saintly? No.
The difference is McCain is painted as the only one who is develving into the depths where both candidates are equally at fault.
What once was, no longer is, kind sir.
You were on many levels.
Überlibran
08-02-2008, 01:09 PM
Neither side has shown a great amount of integrity - which is exactly the sentimate I have been holding this entire election.
Is McCain a great and noble candidate who is running his campaign saintly? No.
Is Obama a great and noble candidate who is running his campaign saintly? No.
The difference is McCain is painted as the only one who is develving into the depths where both candidates are equally at fault. Well, of course I believe differently there, but that would be an argument over opinion and pretty much futile.
Überlibran
08-02-2008, 01:09 PM
You were on many levels.
I was what?
kainedamo
08-02-2008, 01:31 PM
When has Fox news ever claimed he was a Muslim? I think certain posters overexaggerate the biases of Fox News. They are biased, no doubt, but they don't slander people. As for the RNC trying to say he has terrorist friends, it is because he DOES have a terrorist friend. An admitted, nonrepentant, terrorist is his friend and held the meeting that launched Obama's political career. It has nothing to do with him being black. Its the truth.
Fox News has done plenty to imply that Obama is a Muslim.
The whole report about Obama attending a "muslim medrassa".
Completely and utterly misquoting Obama's brother, changing the quote to make it look like Obama's brother believes Obama is a Muslim.
Etc.
They've done plenty.
So that says one of two things about Obama.
1) Either he will completely change what he believes in, no matter how wrong it is, to get elected.
or
2) He is lying and therefore will lie to get elected.
Either way, not exactly a flattering picture.
They're the only two options? :whatever:
Lightning Strykez!
08-02-2008, 01:50 PM
Good afternoon peeps.
Looks like McCain's camp already put Obama's face on the dollar bill a month go. Question: I wonder if Barry was alluding to this specifically when he made those comments this week? Surely it can't be coincidence!
http://bagnewsnotes.typepad.com/bagnews/images/McCain-Dollar-Bill-43-tm.jpg
http://bagnewsnotes.typepad.com/bagnews/images/McCain-Dollar-Bill-44-tm.jpg
http://bagnewsnotes.typepad.com/bagnews/images/McCain-Dollar-Bill-46-tm.jpg
http://bagnewsnotes.typepad.com/bagnews/images/McCain-Dollar-Bill-47-tm.jpg
http://bagnewsnotes.typepad.com/bagnews/images/McCain-Dollar-Bill-48-tm.jpg
http://bagnewsnotes.typepad.com/bagnews/images/McCain-Dollar-Bill-48-tm.jpg
http://bagnewsnotes.typepad.com/bagnews/images/McCain-Dollar-Bill-49.jpg
Dollar Bill McCain
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-shaw/reading-the-pictures-emdo_b_116451.html
The article above is a definite must-read. Lots of um...interesting pictures. And the talk-back from posters is quite energetic as well.
EDIT: By the way, I'm loooving the pansy yella color too. :roll eyes:
kainedamo
08-02-2008, 01:50 PM
Obama should never of accepted a contribution from a former terrorist. If nothing else that displays a preference for money over intergrity.
We could go around and around in circles about this all day.
Do you think Ayers should be fired from his current job as Professor at a university?
Do you know what? Forget it. You guys refuse to listen to simple logic or common sense concerning the "Ayers link". I've pointed out an example of a world wide respected politician in Tony Blair who has worked far more closely with terrorists than Obama ever has. To slam Obama over Ayers is nuts. I've explained my reasoning why, and thats it.
Lightning Strykez!
08-02-2008, 02:06 PM
Want a history lesson, sir?
McCain is the son and grandson of respected American four star Admirals. He is shot down in the Vietnam war and taken POW. The Vietnamese know who McCain is, they know who his father is and they know who his grandfather is - they respect him and call him Prince. They still tortue him and his fellow POW's though, he spends year in solitary confinement.
McCain's father is promoted to Commander of the US Pacific Fleet and the Vietnamese agree to release McCain (to show their greaty benelevence for propaganda purposes), but not all of the POW's. McCain refuses. He states he will not leave his fellow soliders behind. He puts himself through hell for those men.
Thats integrity, sir.
Annnd? McCain is not the only solider to go to war and ever become a prisoner of war, nor is he the only one who has ever received a purple heart. What he did is but one way of showing said integrity. Obama has equally shown the same quality via the great works he's performed for the community--especially for minorities and the working class. Not to mention the fact that he raised himself out of divisive, negative circumstances, a single-parent household and became a self-made Harvard graduate and professor.
To be frank, neither examples really qualify these men for POTUS--they simply give us snapshots of their character, that's all.
Lightning Strykez!
08-02-2008, 02:09 PM
McCain attacks rake in dough for Obama
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0808/Plouffe_McCain_attacks_helped_our_campaign_moneywi se.html
Knew that would backfire. :cool:
Lightning Strykez!
08-02-2008, 02:20 PM
DEMOCRATIC VIDEO CONVENTION 2008
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/h0F9sZeESus&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/h0F9sZeESus&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
I guess this is the ad?
jaguarr
08-02-2008, 02:25 PM
<disclaimer>So, this is purely for my own amusement and no other reason. I prefer that the Obama campaign keep things on a positive note, focused on the issues as much as possible in their tactics, rather than going negative like McCain has.</disclaimer>
Okay, disclaimer made, I was thinking that there are some pretty brutal yet amusing (to me at least) things the Obama camp could do with their ads if they went negative. The one that makes me laugh (keep in mind I am a sick f**k) is just a shot of a plane going down and crashing with voiceovers lifted from McCain and company playing like they're being broadcast over the radio of the plane: "The problems with the economy are just in people's minds", etc. The plane crashes and explodes and these words flash on the screen:
McCain. He'll crash this country just like he crashes planes.
:hehe:
jag
Lightning Strykez!
08-02-2008, 02:28 PM
:lmao:
Yeah, you are sick Jag. But funny.
Superman
08-02-2008, 02:36 PM
You guys still going on about Ayers? http://smilies.vidahost.com/otn/angry/frusty.gif:whatever:
Superman
08-02-2008, 02:38 PM
<disclaimer>So, this is purely for my own amusement and no other reason. I prefer that the Obama campaign keep things on a positive note, focused on the issues as much as possible in their tactics, rather than going negative like McCain has.</disclaimer>
Okay, disclaimer made, I was thinking that there are some pretty brutal yet amusing (to me at least) things the Obama camp could do with their ads if they went negative. The one that makes me laugh (keep in mind I am a sick f**k) is just a shot of a plane going down and crashing with voiceovers lifted from McCain and company playing like they're being broadcast over the radio of the plane: "The problems with the economy are just in people's minds", etc. The plane crashes and explodes and these words flash on the screen:
McCain. He'll crash this country just like he crashes planes.
:hehe:
jag:pal::lmao::applaud
jaguarr
08-02-2008, 02:43 PM
:lmao:
Yeah, you are sick Jag. But funny.
:pal::lmao::applaud
You guys are only going to encourage me, you know. Here's another one:
McCain: How can he pull this country up when he can't even raise his arms above his head?
Oh no I di'in't!!!! :wow:
jag
hippie_hunter
08-02-2008, 02:50 PM
I respect StorminNorman greatly, but in no manner was I owned.
Yes you were :o
hippie_hunter
08-02-2008, 02:50 PM
<disclaimer>So, this is purely for my own amusement and no other reason. I prefer that the Obama campaign keep things on a positive note, focused on the issues as much as possible in their tactics, rather than going negative like McCain has.</disclaimer>
Okay, disclaimer made, I was thinking that there are some pretty brutal yet amusing (to me at least) things the Obama camp could do with their ads if they went negative. The one that makes me laugh (keep in mind I am a sick f**k) is just a shot of a plane going down and crashing with voiceovers lifted from McCain and company playing like they're being broadcast over the radio of the plane: "The problems with the economy are just in people's minds", etc. The plane crashes and explodes and these words flash on the screen:
McCain. He'll crash this country just like he crashes planes.
:hehe:
jag
Now that was funny :woot:
Lightning Strykez!
08-02-2008, 02:50 PM
You guys are only going to encourage me, you know. Here's another one:
McCain: How can he pull this country up when he can't even raise his arms above his head?
Oh no I di'in't!!!! :wow:
jag
LOL
Do one involving Depends or a dooky bag of some sort. :D
hippie_hunter
08-02-2008, 02:51 PM
You guys are only going to encourage me, you know. Here's another one:
McCain: How can he pull this country up when he can't even raise his arms above his head?
Oh no I di'in't!!!! :wow:
jag
Now that was even better :lmao:
jaguarr
08-02-2008, 02:52 PM
LOL
Do one involving Depends or a dooky bag of some sort. :D
John McCain: He's not full of it (but his diapers are)!
jag
Überlibran
08-02-2008, 02:55 PM
Yes you were :o
How so?
Superman
08-02-2008, 03:01 PM
You guys are only going to encourage me, you know. Here's another one:
McCain: How can he pull this country up when he can't even raise his arms above his head?
Oh no I di'in't!!!! :wow:
jag
http://home.comcast.net/~wizardofwhimsy/dementiaexpress.jpg
John McCain: He's not full of it (but his diapers are)!
jaghttp://home.comcast.net/~wizardofwhimsy/mccainewsweek.jpg
Superman
08-02-2008, 03:01 PM
Dp :(
Lightning Strykez!
08-02-2008, 03:07 PM
I declare we need a satire thread of our own. A place where we can have some comedic relief and pounce on the more hilarious features of the candidates. Anyone else interested?
jaguarr
08-02-2008, 03:11 PM
Dp :(
Double penetration? :huh:
jag
jaguarr
08-02-2008, 03:11 PM
I declare we need a satire thread of our own. A place where we can have some comedic relief and pounce on the more hilarious features of the candidates. Anyone else interested?
:up:
jag
The Senator
08-02-2008, 03:11 PM
We had one, started by Slim.
Excel
08-02-2008, 03:31 PM
<disclaimer>So, this is purely for my own amusement and no other reason. I prefer that the Obama campaign keep things on a positive note, focused on the issues as much as possible in their tactics, rather than going negative like McCain has.</disclaimer>
Okay, disclaimer made, I was thinking that there are some pretty brutal yet amusing (to me at least) things the Obama camp could do with their ads if they went negative. The one that makes me laugh (keep in mind I am a sick f**k) is just a shot of a plane going down and crashing with voiceovers lifted from McCain and company playing like they're being broadcast over the radio of the plane: "The problems with the economy are just in people's minds", etc. The plane crashes and explodes and these words flash on the screen:
McCain. He'll crash this country just like he crashes planes.
:hehe:
jag
YES
kainedamo
08-02-2008, 03:37 PM
David Plouffe Thanks Donors
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFMUfjUI5Ro
nFMUfjUI5Ro
The Senator
08-02-2008, 03:48 PM
AD:
When John McCain was in Vietnam, he let himself get tortured when he could have fought the Vietnamese and saved his colleagues. If John McCain didn't know what was best for his fellow soldiers, how can he know what's best for the soldiers in Iraq and our families at home?
John McCain. Honorable service. Dishonorable judgment.
kainedamo
08-02-2008, 04:10 PM
Initially, I defended the decision for Obama to decide that it may be okay to drill domestically. But after thinking about it, I have to agree with this guy.
Bad News: Obama Caves On Something Else
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFekP6S6KrI
ZFekP6S6KrI
Guy makes an excellent point. Makes several excellent points. Obama could have used many strong arguments to defend his position to NOT drill domestically.
rdh007
08-02-2008, 04:12 PM
AD:
When John McCain was in Vietnam, he let himself get tortured when he could have fought the Vietnamese and saved his colleagues. If John McCain didn't know what was best for his fellow soldiers, how can he know what's best for the soldiers in Iraq and our families at home?
John McCain. Honorable service. Dishonorable judgment.
"While the rest of our boys were fighting for their lives, John McCain was hanging out with known communists."
rdh007
08-02-2008, 04:17 PM
Initially, I defended the decision for Obama to decide that it may be okay to drill domestically. But after thinking about it, I have to agree with this guy.
Bad News: Obama Caves On Something Else
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFekP6S6KrI
ZFekP6S6KrI
Guy makes an excellent point. Makes several excellent points. Obama could have used many strong arguments to defend his position to NOT drill domestically.
I look at Obama in much the same way I look at Romney and his "evolving" positions. You can either say they flip-flop (something McCain knows about all too well) or are "poll-driven" or you could say they're simply trying to represent what their constituents (in this case the whole country) want. It's why I felt Romney was the best choice among the Republicans--he seemed smarter and more sane than McCain and more poll driven, which (since I don't agree with most of his ideology) made him a better choice in my mind. McCain will constantly be trying to prove he's a Republican and Romney would've moved to the middle.
jaguarr
08-02-2008, 04:23 PM
"While the rest of our boys were fighting for their lives, John McCain was hanging out with known communists."
:lmao:
jag
souvlaki
08-02-2008, 04:34 PM
I declare we need a satire thread of our own.
http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=296374
Tron5000
08-02-2008, 05:10 PM
AD:
When John McCain was in Vietnam, he let himself get tortured when he could have fought the Vietnamese and saved his colleagues. If John McCain didn't know what was best for his fellow soldiers, how can he know what's best for the soldiers in Iraq and our families at home?
John McCain. Honorable service. Dishonorable judgment.
That's pretty f'ed up right there. Blaming the man for being tortured. Interesting tactic.
StorminNorman
08-02-2008, 05:27 PM
Annnd? McCain is not the only solider to go to war and ever become a prisoner of war, nor is he the only one who has ever received a purple heart. What he did is but one way of showing said integrity. Obama has equally shown the same quality via the great works he's performed for the community--especially for minorities and the working class. Not to mention the fact that he raised himself out of divisive, negative circumstances, a single-parent household and became a self-made Harvard graduate and professor.
To be frank, neither examples really qualify these men for POTUS--they simply give us snapshots of their character, that's all.
And if I said Obama had no integrity all that would be relevant. My comments were directed at someone who stated McCain had no integrity.
StorminNorman
08-02-2008, 05:30 PM
I look at Obama in much the same way I look at Romney and his "evolving" positions. You can either say they flip-flop (something McCain knows about all too well) or are "poll-driven" or you could say they're simply trying to represent what their constituents (in this case the whole country) want. It's why I felt Romney was the best choice among the Republicans--he seemed smarter and more sane than McCain and more poll driven, which (since I don't agree with most of his ideology) made him a better choice in my mind. McCain will constantly be trying to prove he's a Republican and Romney would've moved to the middle.
:up:
Thats why I want Romney as McCain's VP - I figure that way Romney will be President by 2010. :o
Tag279
08-02-2008, 06:16 PM
Initially, I defended the decision for Obama to decide that it may be okay to drill domestically. But after thinking about it, I have to agree with this guy.
Bad News: Obama Caves On Something Else
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFekP6S6KrI
ZFekP6S6KrI
Guy makes an excellent point. Makes several excellent points. Obama could have used many strong arguments to defend his position to NOT drill domestically.
Kainedamo, Obama did not fold he essentially said that he would not be so ridgid as to consider it.
Aug. 2 (Bloomberg) -- Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama said he's willing to support an expansion of offshore oil drilling that's part of an $84 billion Senate plan aimed at increasing domestic energy production.
Obama, who has opposed more drilling off the nation's coastlines, said that while he ``remains skeptical'' about the idea, he would compromise because the proposal offers a ``careful and responsible'' drilling agenda. It also calls for other measures to wean the country off its dependence on imported oil.
``What I don't want to do is for the best to be the enemy of the good,'' Obama, a senator from Illinois, said at a news conference today in Cape Canaveral, Florida. ``If we can come up with a general bipartisan compromise in which I have to accept some things I don't like'' I'm open to it.
Along with the drilling provision, the preliminary plan offers incentives for cleaner cars and electricity.
The measure, announced yesterday by five Republican and five Democratic senators, would allow Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia to open waters beyond 50 miles (80 kilometers) to drilling.
It would repeal tax breaks for oil companies and devote $20 billion to converting cars and trucks to run on alternative fuels.
McCain's Response
Obama and his Republican rival, Arizona Senator John McCain, 71, have sparred over the drilling issue in recent weeks. McCain reversed his opposition to offshore drilling and is pushing it as a way to lower gas prices and increase U.S. energy independence.
``We can keep drilling all we want but the long-term trend is for flat or decreasing oil supply and increased consumption,'' Obama, 46, said today. ``We can't drill our way out of this problem.''
McCain's campaign today praised Obama and the other senators for ``following John McCain's leadership toward an `all of the above' approach on energy that includes, alternative energy and offshore drilling.'' McCain, though, hasn't said yet whether he supports the Senate plan.
The McCain camp also noted that Obama hasn't changed his general opposition to offshore drilling.
Tron5000
08-02-2008, 06:20 PM
Kainedamo, Obama did not fold he essentially said that he would not be so ridgid as to consider it.
Aug. 2 (Bloomberg) -- Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama said he's willing to support an expansion of offshore oil drilling that's part of an $84 billion Senate plan aimed at increasing domestic energy production.
Obama, who has opposed more drilling off the nation's coastlines, said that while he ``remains skeptical'' about the idea, he would compromise because the proposal offers a ``careful and responsible'' drilling agenda. It also calls for other measures to wean the country off its dependence on imported oil.
``What I don't want to do is for the best to be the enemy of the good,'' Obama, a senator from Illinois, said at a news conference today in Cape Canaveral, Florida. ``If we can come up with a general bipartisan compromise in which I have to accept some things I don't like'' I'm open to it.
Along with the drilling provision, the preliminary plan offers incentives for cleaner cars and electricity.
The measure, announced yesterday by five Republican and five Democratic senators, would allow Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia to open waters beyond 50 miles (80 kilometers) to drilling.
It would repeal tax breaks for oil companies and devote $20 billion to converting cars and trucks to run on alternative fuels.
McCain's Response
Obama and his Republican rival, Arizona Senator John McCain, 71, have sparred over the drilling issue in recent weeks. McCain reversed his opposition to offshore drilling and is pushing it as a way to lower gas prices and increase U.S. energy independence.
``We can keep drilling all we want but the long-term trend is for flat or decreasing oil supply and increased consumption,'' Obama, 46, said today. ``We can't drill our way out of this problem.''
McCain's campaign today praised Obama and the other senators for ``following John McCain's leadership toward an `all of the above' approach on energy that includes, alternative energy and offshore drilling.'' McCain, though, hasn't said yet whether he supports the Senate plan.
The McCain camp also noted that Obama hasn't changed his general opposition to offshore drilling.
Why do we need to drill for oil? I inflated my tires this morning, and I'm getting a tune up next week. That will actually save me just as much money as a larger supply of gas would, if Obama is correct.
Tag279
08-02-2008, 07:40 PM
Why do we need to drill for oil? I inflated my tires this morning, and I'm getting a tune up next week. That will actually save me just as much money as a larger supply of gas would, if Obama is correct.
Tron we all know that regardless of what Obama says you will find fault with it.
He is not a proponent of Off-shore drilling; weaning us from our dependence on oil period is the answer, not domestic drilling.
And BTW your right slanted sarcasm is duely noted.:woot:
Well hasn't this thread just been hoppin! Looks like I have missed some interesting conversations! :oldrazz:
Tron5000
08-02-2008, 08:20 PM
Tron we all know that regardless of what Obama says you will find fault with it.
He is not a proponent of Off-shore drilling; weaning us from our dependence on oil period is the answer, not domestic drilling.
And BTW your right slanted sarcasm is duely noted.:woot:
Then why did he yesterday reverse his position (yet again) and offer to consider offshore drilling? Man, this guy makes my head spin just trying to keep up with his backtracks, excuses and flip flops.
And do you know of an alternative fuel source that can be produced and delivered to the American public in as large a quantity and low a price (relatively) as oil? I'd love to hear about it.
Tron5000
08-02-2008, 08:21 PM
Well hasn't this thread just been hoppin! Looks like I have missed some interesting conversations! :oldrazz:
I was gone for a whole day. I'm sure I missed some good stuff. But the guy;s providing us with so much material. Obama sets 'em up, we'll knock 'em down.
The Senator
08-02-2008, 09:34 PM
That's pretty f'ed up right there. Blaming the man for being tortured. Interesting tactic.
Done out of humor, and only that. :up:
The Senator
08-02-2008, 09:36 PM
Why do we need to drill for oil? I inflated my tires this morning, and I'm getting a tune up next week. That will actually save me just as much money as a larger supply of gas would, if Obama is correct.
He didn't say that it was going to boost your gas mileage by 20 mpg. He said it would help-- which, in fact, it does. It isn't going to save you hundreds of dollars, but taking care of your vehicle will help increase your fuel efficiency.
Tron5000
08-02-2008, 09:44 PM
Done out of humor, and only that. :up:
Right on. :up:
Tron5000
08-02-2008, 09:49 PM
He didn't say that it was going to boost your gas mileage by 20 mpg. He said it would help-- which, in fact, it does. It isn't going to save you hundreds of dollars, but taking care of your vehicle will help increase your fuel efficiency.
Not what he said. I expect more from Obama's soaring oratorial skills.
Not what he said. I expect more from Obama's soaring oratorial skills.
I think the whole "just put air in your tires and that will end the high gas prices" line is nothing more than McCain's spin on what Obama actually said.
Tron5000
08-02-2008, 10:30 PM
I think the whole "just put air in your tires and that will end the high gas prices" line is nothing more than McCain's spin on what Obama actually said.
I disagree. The instant I heard his statement, and then when I read it, I thought, "You've got to be kidding me."
I think the whole "just put air in your tires and that will end the high gas prices" line is nothing more than McCain's spin on what Obama actually said.
Not really. Its exactly what he said.
I disagree. The instant I heard his statement, and then when I read it, I thought, "You've got to be kidding me."
Not really. Its exactly what he said.
Maintenance on your vehicle does help gas mileage. That's just common sense guys.
Does anyone have a clip of this statement? Maybe I missed something. :huh:
But it is hardly a valid solution to our oil crisis. The fact is, Obama does not have one. All of his solutions involve "25 years down the road," or "In 50 years," scenarios. And its great that he is thinking long term, but we need some relief for the here and now and the best Obama has to offer is "get a tune up." Its a bit absurd.
But it is hardly a valid solution to our oil crisis. The fact is, Obama does not have one. All of his solutions involve "25 years down the road," or "In 50 years," scenarios. And its great that he is thinking long term, but we need some relief for the here and now and the best Obama has to offer is "get a tune up." Its a bit absurd.
I never said that it is a valid solution to the oil crisis. I still maintain that Obama wasn't suggesting it was either. But basic vehicle maintenance does help your gas mileage.
Who does have a valid solution? John McCain? Give me a break man. Neither one of these guys know what to do. The point is that offshore drilling will not help lower gas prices but for some reason people would like to believe the garbage that is being fed to them.
Offshore drilling will help break our dependence on foreign oil. It will not lower gas prices.
Neither has a valid solution. Hell, if anyone wants to offer a valid solution they would suggest opening the oil reserves.
And its not entirely true that drilling off the shore will not drop oil prices. The second we make progress, oil prices will plummet. It is the simple philosophy of a competitive market. If the Saudis and Venezuelans see that we will no longer NEED their oil, they will lower the prices in order to stay relevant and competitive. They will have no other choice.
The Senator
08-02-2008, 11:07 PM
I'd rather have a president who is looking fifty years down the road, in terms of our energy needs, than one who is willing to pursue a grand delusion of us being energy independent solely based on offshore drilling. While I support offshore drilling in the gulf, I do not believe it is the only way for us to cut ties with Middle East nations who are given more and more reasons to hijack our wallets every single day. We need to pursue hydrogen, natural gas, and hybrid technology now, or else in twenty years we will find ourselves in an even greater energy crisis once we realize that the Middle East won't need us anymore.
That doesn't get into the whole "what if McCain wins" scenario, where he may very well beat the war drums and send us into Iran, pissing off OPEC so much that they raise the price on oil for the American consumer. When you consider OPEC could easily turn around and sell solely to India and China without needing the United States, I think that makes the situation far more frightening to me. Offshore oil drilling is a fair solution, but it cannot be a permanent solution, and we cannot have a president who is unwilling to invest the time or the resources into a long term solution.
And its not entirely true that drilling off the shore will not drop oil prices. The second we make progress, oil prices will plummet. It is the simple philosophy of a competitive market. If the Saudis and Venezuelans see that we will no longer NEED their oil, they will lower the prices in order to stay relevant and competitive. They will have no other choice.
The problem is that is won't be instantaneous. As some would like for us to believe. It's going to take time before the rigs would even be operational.
As for opening the reserves, it would only help in the very short term. And by cents only, I believe.
We also cannot have a president who is unwilling to focus on the plight of Americans in the here and now. We need a middle ground and unfortunately we don't have it.
I'd rather have a president who is looking fifty years down the road, in terms of our energy needs, than one who is willing to pursue a grand delusion of us being energy independent solely based on offshore drilling. While I support offshore drilling in the gulf, I do not believe it is the only way for us to cut ties with Middle East nations who are given more and more reasons to hijack our wallets every single day. We need to pursue hydrogen, natural gas, and hybrid technology now, or else in twenty years we will find ourselves in an even greater energy crisis once we realize that the Middle East won't need us anymore.
That doesn't get into the whole "what if McCain wins" scenario, where he may very well beat the war drums and send us into Iran, pissing off OPEC so much that they raise the price on oil for the American consumer. When you consider OPEC could easily turn around and sell solely to India and China without needing the United States, I think that makes the situation far more frightening to me. Offshore oil drilling is a fair solution, but it cannot be a permanent solution, and we cannot have a president who is unwilling to invest the time or the resources into a long term solution.
I completely agree.
The Senator
08-02-2008, 11:13 PM
We also cannot have a president who is unwilling to focus on the plight of Americans in the here and now. We need a middle ground and unfortunately we don't have it.
The problem is, it will take years if we start drilling today for the oil drilled off shore to reach gas pumps. If gas prices continue to rise, then the affect it will have on lowering gas prices will be nothing more than a blip in the radar.
The problem is that is won't be instantaneous. As some would like for us to believe. It's going to take time before the rigs would even be operational.
As for opening the reserves, it would only help in the very short term. And by cents only, I believe.
The reserves could buy us the time we need for off shore drilling to take effect. At any rate, it is certainly more practical than Obama's solution of tuning up your car, putting air in your tires, and nothing.
The problem is, it will take years if we start drilling today for the oil drilled off shore to reach gas pumps. If gas prices continue to rise, then the affect it will have on lowering gas prices will be nothing more than a blip in the radar.
Which is why we open the reserves in the mean time.
We also cannot have a president who is unwilling to focus on the plight of Americans in the here and now. We need a middle ground and unfortunately we don't have it.
I fear we may never have it.
And of course we look into alternative energies and other more long term solutions in the mean time. Neither of these candidates are offering either kind of solution that is up to scratch.
I fear we may never have it.
Oh, we have a middle ground.
http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dc/docs/images/markwarner.jpg
Unfortunately he had the good sense to know the media creation of rockstar candidates made any presidential campaign of his dead before it began.
The Senator
08-02-2008, 11:26 PM
I also didn't run because I didn't want my homosexuality to become a non-issue. :cwink:
Oh, we have a middle ground.
http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dc/docs/images/markwarner.jpg
Unfortunately he had the good sense to know the media creation of rockstar candidates made any presidential campaign of his dead before it began.
We can only hope that the country will vote for someone OTHER THAN a liberal for the party's nomination. Only then, will people like Mark Warner have a chance.
It doesn't even have to be Warner. Think of our candidate pool for the 2012. Both Clinton and Obama's political careers will be destroyed by a McCain win. Neither will run again (and it will be an embarrassment for them if they try). So where will that leave us?
Mark Warner
Sherrod Brown
Wesley Clark
Ted Strickland
Ed Rendell
Al Gore
John Edwards
Kathleen Sebelius
Jim Webb
Evan Bayh
The list goes on of qualified, strong, moderate, populist candidates who would be excellent choices for this election. The one reason I am seriously humoring the thought of voting McCain instead of third party is because we will have the most amazing pool of Democratic candidates our country has seen, well...ever, in 2012. I'll gladly endure 4 years of McCain in exchange for one of these choices in 2012 then take the risk of Jimmy Carter 2.0 followed by another 20 years of Neo-Con control under the flag of Bobby Jindal, much like Carter's reign led to 20 years of Reagan Republican control.
The Senator
08-03-2008, 12:30 AM
On that list, I think Warner and Sebelius have the best shot at becoming the Democratic nominee in four years, assuming McCain wins. Warner will have made a name for himself by then as a consensus maker, and even though he'll only have as much senate experience as Obama does now, he will have had four years under his belt as governor of Virginia to add to that. Sebelius has a shot because she is an independent woman who ascended to the governorship as a liberal in a conservative state-- quite a hard feat, if you ask me. Women will still be looking for their shot at victory in 2012, and if Hillary doesn't run, Sebelius may be their answer. Not to mention, if Obama makes Sebelius his running mate, she will have national name recognition at that point.
I don't disagree with any of that and would be fine with either. Though I do think with his common man appeal Rendell could be a dark horse. Same with Strickland whose conservative leanings on some issues could resonate among southern Democrats, or even Webb. All could come out of nowhere to take the nomination.
Webb would be interesting, because he is essentially the Democratic version of John McCain.
Excel
08-03-2008, 01:10 AM
Ok, McCain just got owned on showbiz tonight of all shows:
"He's comparing Obama, the man currently beating him in just about every poll fot nationally and in states, to 2 airheads that are 14 McCains age. He comes off like a grandfather referencing Coldplay; and even worse is Obama beat him at his own game with the "Oops he did it again" response"
Oh John, atleast if you somehow win, itll be funny watching you :hehe:
Tag279
08-03-2008, 05:03 AM
Neither has a valid solution. Hell, if anyone wants to offer a valid solution they would suggest opening the oil reserves.
This morning [Saturday] on CNN at a press conference in Florida Obama did make mention of opening the Oil reserves as part of an overall strategy.
One of the members of the press asked him about it and he asserted that he would consider it as part of an overall strategy.
I look at Obama in much the same way I look at Romney and his "evolving" positions. You can either say they flip-flop (something McCain knows about all too well) or are "poll-driven" or you could say they're simply trying to represent what their constituents (in this case the whole country) want. It's why I felt Romney was the best choice among the Republicans--he seemed smarter and more sane than McCain and more poll driven, which (since I don't agree with most of his ideology) made him a better choice in my mind. McCain will constantly be trying to prove he's a Republican and Romney would've moved to the middle.
I think the difference between Romney's "flip flops" and Obama's are, that Romney's policies evolved over eight years in office based on situation in his state at the time as well as the outcome of his current policies which he was implementing, and yes, public opinion of them. Where as Obama is changing his positions at the drop of a dime based on what is more likely to get him elected. It is a pretty damn big difference.
rdh007
08-03-2008, 03:17 PM
I think the difference between Romney's "flip flops" and Obama's are, that Romney's policies evolved over eight years in office based on situation in his state at the time as well as the outcome of his current policies which he was implementing, and yes, public opinion of them. Where as Obama is changing his positions at the drop of a dime based on what is more likely to get him elected. It is a pretty damn big difference.
Maybe. Methinks if this were a Democrat you could stand and Romney were a Republican you truly disliked, you'd see it more my way. Though, again, that's why Romney was my choice for the Republicans.
Maybe I would be more forgiving if it were Warner, but I don't think Warner would ever be in such a situation where he is so radical that he has to flip flop on a daily basis to win the middle. And you're right, I do like Romney. He seems fair-minded and willing to put what is best for his constituents ahead of what is best for himself or party. I don't get that vibe with Obama. Maybe it is personal biases, but I don't think so. What I see is a border-line socialist trying to manipulate his way to the middle so he can win and then he will flip flop right back to the socialist he was.
fifthfiend
08-03-2008, 03:35 PM
The reserves could buy us the time we need for off shore drilling to take effect. At any rate, it is certainly more practical than Obama's solution of tuning up your car, putting air in your tires, and nothing.
Actually it's exactly as practical, which is to say not practical, which is exactly the point of Obama's statement.
I do have to say that I love how many free-market fetishists start clamoring for socialized solutions as soon as the market says they might have to drive a bit less or buy a smaller SUV.
I recently bought a Prius, so it really has nothing to do with my SUV. It has to do with me firmly believing that socialism is the wrong move for our country and will result as poorly as neo-conservatism has for the past eight years.
rdh007
08-03-2008, 03:39 PM
Maybe I would be more forgiving if it were Warner, but I don't think Warner would ever be in such a situation where he is so radical that he has to flip flop on a daily basis to win the middle. And you're right, I do like Romney. He seems fair-minded and willing to put what is best for his constituents ahead of what is best for himself or party. I don't get that vibe with Obama. Maybe it is personal biases, but I don't think so. What I see is a border-line socialist trying to manipulate his way to the middle so he can win and then he will flip flop right back to the socialist he was.
Mentioning Obama and socialist in the same breath takes away from the considerable amount of credibility you have.
I disagree. While he may not be a hardcore socialist, he is at the very least a socialist-lite and the closest thing we have seen to a modern westernized socialist (of any kind of prominence) in US politics.
This morning [Saturday] on CNN at a press conference in Florida Obama did make mention of opening the Oil reserves as part of an overall strategy.
One of the members of the press asked him about it and he asserted that he would consider it as part of an overall strategy.
Welcome to the conversation Tag! :oldrazz:
Tag279
08-03-2008, 04:35 PM
I disagree. While he may not be a hardcore socialist, he is at the very least a socialist-lite and the closest thing we have seen to a modern westernized socialist (of any kind of prominence) in US politics.
Do you think Socialism is worse than Facism?
Cutting taxes for small business owners is not socialist.
Cutting taxes for middle-income Americans is not socialist.
Ending tax breaks for companies that send jobs overseas. is not socialist.
Pelosi offers veep support for house darkhorse
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/03/pelosi-offers-veep-support-for-house-darkhorse/
(She's really getting on my nerves.)
Excel
08-03-2008, 05:00 PM
Is McCain picking Ronmey? My liveral parents loved him when he was their governor.
Do you think Socialism is worse than Facism?
Cutting taxes for small business owners is not socialist.
Cutting taxes for middle-income Americans is not socialist.
Ending tax breaks for companies that send jobs overseas. is not socialist.
I'm not even going to bother addressing this entirely skewed, biased, portrayl of Obama's views.
Is McCain picking Ronmey? My liveral parents loved him when he was their governor.
Hard to say. Right now though, I'd say safe money is on Pawlenty, though it is more likely than not between him and Romney (though all of that could change tomorrow, who knows?).
Tag279
08-03-2008, 05:11 PM
I'm not even going to bother addressing this entirely skewed, biased, portrayl of Obama's views.
How is it skewed or biased I pulled it from his website. I suppose he is lying.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/
kainedamo
08-03-2008, 05:15 PM
Well in what way is Obama too socialist? I've seen someone say "he's gonna bring over here a European brand of socialism". Wow, you guys must really hate Europe :huh:
Obama ain't socialist enough. He oughta be speaking out more about offshore drilling.
Well in what way is Obama too socialist? I've seen someone say "he's gonna bring over here a European brand of socialism". Wow, you guys must really hate Europe :huh:
Obama ain't socialist enough. He oughta be speaking out more about offshore drilling.
I'm quite fond of Europe. I hope to travel there one day! :yay:
kainedamo
08-03-2008, 05:18 PM
You should, Marx! Interrail around! Great experience.
You should, Marx! Interrail around! Great experience.
I hope to! :yay:
DACrowe
08-03-2008, 06:57 PM
I just want to know how people feel they "cannot trust Obama" when McCain since beginning his bid for the presidency has sold off everything he ever claimed to believe in. He has become a Born Again Baptist who preaches at the churches of those he called agents of intolerant, takes their accolades, changes his stance on every controversial issue to align himself with the party that has been incredibly wrong and damaging for this country over the last 20 years including his stance on tax cuts (.e. breaks) for the wealthy, protecting the environment, drilling off-shore (oh yes, originally he was against this), handling illegal immigration, etc, etc.
In fact the only thing in the last decade he has stayed consistent about is his support for the Iraqi War as he repeatedly draws it as a necessity for our civilization to win and likens it to Vietnam. Not exactly his strongest issue, IMO. This is a man so rooted in the 20th Century and so stuck in the Cold War he forgets what the Czech Republic is and still is struggling to figure out how to "google things."
Is this really a man you feel comfortable with leading you into the 21st century? A guy who "flip-flopped" on almost every important issue he claims to have believed in over the last decade, has admitted and demonstrated to having a failed comprehension of the economy, cannot get over the Cold War and when the chips are down resorts to accepting the dirty tricks of Karl Rove, the man who caused him to almost leave the Republican Party.
As I said this isn't the Straight Talk Express it is the Desperate Double Talk Express. And when I see people still complaining about Rev. Wright in making their choice for president is scares me.
You're voting on the man and what they stand for at this point the only thing McCain stands for is he wants to be president.
Überlibran
08-03-2008, 07:35 PM
I just want to know how people feel they "cannot trust Obama" when McCain since beginning his bid for the presidency has sold off everything he ever claimed to believe in. He has become a Born Again Baptist who preaches at the churches of those he called agents of intolerant, takes their accolades, changes his stance on every controversial issue to align himself with the party that has been incredibly wrong and damaging for this country over the last 20 years including his stance on tax cuts (.e. breaks) for the wealthy, protecting the environment, drilling off-shore (oh yes, originally he was against this), handling illegal immigration, etc, etc.
In fact the only thing in the last decade he has stayed consistent about is his support for the Iraqi War as he repeatedly draws it as a necessity for our civilization to win and likens it to Vietnam. Not exactly his strongest issue, IMO. This is a man so rooted in the 20th Century and so stuck in the Cold War he forgets what the Czech Republic is and still is struggling to figure out how to "google things."
Is this really a man you feel comfortable with leading you into the 21st century? A guy who "flip-flopped" on almost every important issue he claims to have believed in over the last decade, has admitted and demonstrated to having a failed comprehension of the economy, cannot get over the Cold War and when the chips are down resorts to accepting the dirty tricks of Karl Rove, the man who caused him to almost leave the Republican Party.
As I said this isn't the Straight Talk Express it is the Desperate Double Talk Express. And when I see people still complaining about Rev. Wright in making their choice for president is scares me.
You're voting on the man and what they stand for at this point the only thing McCain stands for is he wants to be president. This.
Lightning Strykez!
08-03-2008, 09:16 PM
Pelosi offers veep support for house darkhorse
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/03/pelosi-offers-veep-support-for-house-darkhorse/
She needs to shut up. He's not picking Chet.
And he's not picking Hillary either. And the fact that he won't I believe will truly handicap his shot--even for all the many negatives she'd bring to the ticket.
I think Hillary's refusal to "die" during the primaries is becoming clearer now. She wanted to piss off the female base so hard that now they can't even move on. They will stay home on Nov. 4th, or vote McCain, which will ensure her a 2012 run.
*sigh*
I am officially sick of all of these people.
Troop cuts seen as foiling Obama
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/03/troop-cuts-seen-as-foiling-obama/
charl_huntress
08-03-2008, 11:28 PM
Hildog is the best bet for Obama to win in areas where he is struggling. If he is serious about winning this campaign then he will reconcile his party and pick Hiliary Clinton.
charl_huntress
08-03-2008, 11:28 PM
edit.
Docker2.0
08-03-2008, 11:32 PM
I just want to know how people feel they "cannot trust Obama" when McCain since beginning his bid for the presidency has sold off everything he ever claimed to believe in. He has become a Born Again Baptist who preaches at the churches of those he called agents of intolerant, takes their accolades, changes his stance on every controversial issue to align himself with the party that has been incredibly wrong and damaging for this country over the last 20 years including his stance on tax cuts (.e. breaks) for the wealthy, protecting the environment, drilling off-shore (oh yes, originally he was against this), handling illegal immigration, etc, etc.
In fact the only thing in the last decade he has stayed consistent about is his support for the Iraqi War as he repeatedly draws it as a necessity for our civilization to win and likens it to Vietnam. Not exactly his strongest issue, IMO. This is a man so rooted in the 20th Century and so stuck in the Cold War he forgets what the Czech Republic is and still is struggling to figure out how to "google things."
Is this really a man you feel comfortable with leading you into the 21st century? A guy who "flip-flopped" on almost every important issue he claims to have believed in over the last decade, has admitted and demonstrated to having a failed comprehension of the economy, cannot get over the Cold War and when the chips are down resorts to accepting the dirty tricks of Karl Rove, the man who caused him to almost leave the Republican Party.
As I said this isn't the Straight Talk Express it is the Desperate Double Talk Express. And when I see people still complaining about Rev. Wright in making their choice for president is scares me.
You're voting on the man and what they stand for at this point the only thing McCain stands for is he wants to be president.
:up: The only thing Mccain is really certain on is war in Iraq and attacking Iran..........meaning the draft for a war with Iran won't be to far behind.
Docker2.0
08-03-2008, 11:32 PM
I feel Hilary is Obama's only hope for VP. If he doesn't pick her...I'm not sure he can win.
Varient
08-04-2008, 07:22 AM
(((shudder)))
I'm certain that if he picks her as VP and wins,... A "Clinton-ese" situation will put Hilliary in charge.
No thanks.
kainedamo
08-04-2008, 07:59 AM
Hildog is the best bet for Obama to win in areas where he is struggling. If he is serious about winning this campaign then he will reconcile his party and pick Hiliary Clinton.
That's funny, I think picking Hillary would have the opposite effect.
If I were American I'd certainly consider NOT voting Obama if he picked Hillary as VP.
fifthfiend
08-04-2008, 08:34 AM
I recently bought a Prius, so it really has nothing to do with my SUV. It has to do with me firmly believing that socialism is the wrong move for our country and will result as poorly as neo-conservatism has for the past eight years.
Yet you're the one saying how the government needs to open wildlife reserves for drilling and open up the strategic oil reserves, both of which are socialized, big-government solutions to a market-driven situation.
kainedamo
08-04-2008, 09:08 AM
New Obama ad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJPo5IGTd0A
QJPo5IGTd0A
Tron5000
08-04-2008, 09:55 AM
That's funny, I think picking Hillary would have the opposite effect.
If I were American I'd certainly consider NOT voting Obama if he picked Hillary as VP.
I thought you had a vote. Isn't BO running for president of the world or something?
Tron5000
08-04-2008, 09:57 AM
Yet you're the one saying how the government needs to open wildlife reserves for drilling and open up the strategic oil reserves, both of which are socialized, big-government solutions to a market-driven situation.
How does allowing stockholder-owned corporations (oil companies) to do business in search of lowering prices and turning a profit equate to "socialized, big-government solutions"?
jaguarr
08-04-2008, 10:01 AM
(((shudder)))
I'm certain that if he picks her as VP and wins,... A "Clinton-ese" situation will put Hilliary in charge.
No thanks.
I agree with your prediction. I also think she'd constantly be undermining his policy and he'd have to contend with Bill running his mouth all the time, too. Personally, I'd think long and hard about voting for Obama if Clinton were his running mate. I'd never vote for McCain, but her on the ticket might be enough to make me stay away from the polls.
Yet you're the one saying how the government needs to open wildlife reserves for drilling and open up the strategic oil reserves, both of which are socialized, big-government solutions to a market-driven situation.
:eek: Matt's a socialist!!!!!! :cmad:
jag
StorminNorman
08-04-2008, 10:02 AM
Hildog is the best bet for Obama to win in areas where he is struggling. If he is serious about winning this campaign then he will reconcile his party and pick Hiliary Clinton.
Hillary Clinton is a political cancer as a VP. She has enough skeletons (some possibly litterally) to fill many closets. I would love to see Obama pick Clinton.
Yet you're the one saying how the government needs to open wildlife reserves for drilling and open up the strategic oil reserves, both of which are socialized, big-government solutions to a market-driven situation.
...
...
:dry:
Tron5000
08-04-2008, 10:03 AM
Mentioning Obama and socialist in the same breath takes away from the considerable amount of credibility you have.
From Wikipedia:
"In a Marxist or labor-movement definition of the term, socialism is a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done with the goal of creating a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community."
From BO:
"Take the excess profits of oil companies to help working families deal with energy costs with new $1,000 rebate checks.”
New Obama ad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJPo5IGTd0A
QJPo5IGTd0A
This is the wrong fight for Obama to be picking. If McCain can prepare the right rebuttal he can really do damage to Obama with this. He needs to get three points across:
1) Obama took donations from "big oil," too. The same way John McCain does, as private citizens. After all, taking money from a corporation is illegal.
2) He needs to almost make fun of the whole $1,000 dollar rebate. "Obama's rebate will help you tune up your car and put air in the tires."
3) Give an alternative. "John McCain wants to permenantly drop oil prices by suspending the gas tax and drilling off shores." Something along those lines.
Make a rebuttal ad with those three points and Obama's numbers will drop. Energy prices will decide this election and it may very well be the one edge McCain has in public opinion. He really needs to run with it. Of course, he won't. He'll end up creating an ad that makes fun of Obama's celebrity some more.
Yet you're the one saying how the government needs to open wildlife reserves for drilling and open up the strategic oil reserves, both of which are socialized, big-government solutions to a market-driven situation.
Where did I say anything about the Alaskan reserve? :huh:
Tron5000
08-04-2008, 10:33 AM
OK, seriously, how full of himself (and other stuff) is this guy? From BO:
"A light will shine down from somewhere. It will light upon you. You will experience an epiphany and you will say to yourself, I have to vote for Barack."
mopkn0lPzM8
So God is going to tell us to vote for Obama?
Oh my great goodness...
NOOO! HE'S NOT ARROGANT! HE'S JUST CONFIDENT! YOU GOTTA BE CONFIDENT TO BE PRESIDENT!
But yeah, those quotes are ridiciulous. I ask again, is anyone really suprised that people can see him as arrogant with quotes like that?
And on a side note, Democrats have been tearing Bush a new one for the past eight years for quotes like "I never doubt myself," (hell, many on the Hype have criticized him for quotes like that)...but apparently its okay for the new messiah to say it.
Überlibran
08-04-2008, 10:40 AM
Barack Apologist: NOOO! HE'S NOT ARROGANT! HE'S JUST CONFIDENT! YOU GOTTA BE CONFIDENT TO BE PRESIDENT!
But yeah, those quotes are ridiciulous. I ask again, is anyone really suprised that people can see him as arrogant with quotes like that? Does anyone not see that was a joke?
The shining light quote seemed to be, but comeon, the rest of those quotes reaked of arrogance.
Überlibran
08-04-2008, 10:48 AM
The shining light quote seemed to be, but comeon, the rest of those quotes reaked of arrogance. Naw, man, it was a joke, look at the dude standing next to him either laughing or smiling.
Tron5000
08-04-2008, 10:52 AM
Naw, man, it was a joke, look at the dude standing next to him either laughing or smiling.
That's Michael Moore. He's probably smiling because he just expelled the remnants of those 15 chalupas he had for lunch.
Naw, man, it was a joke, look at the dude standing next to him either laughing or smiling.
Which is what I said, the shining beacon quote was a joke. The rest weren't. You know that video wasn't made from one speech, right?
That's Michael Moore. He's probably smiling because he just expelled the remnants of those 15 chalupas he had for lunch.
Michael Moore looks odd clean shaven. I honestly thought that was the Star Wars kid. :o
Überlibran
08-04-2008, 11:12 AM
Which is what I said, the shining beacon quote was a joke. The rest weren't. You know that video wasn't made from one speech, right? Oh come on, Matt. Of course I know the ad wasn't made from one speech, I mistakenly thought you were just referring to that. And that 'never' comment, who knows what line of questioning preceded that? And besides, I take him to be a wise-ass, much like myself, and thought it was kind of self-deprecating. You think this man really never has any doubt?
I think at the very least he is just as arrogant as Bush if not more so and quotes like the ones in that video prove it. Arrogant people do not tend to doubt themselves.
Tron5000
08-04-2008, 11:22 AM
Mentioning Obama and socialist in the same breath takes away from the considerable amount of credibility you have.
Already posted something from Barack, but this from the Future First Lady of the World:
"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 their pie so that someone else can have more."
Does that sound like Socialism, anyone? These people are assuming that the economy and US wealth are static; that in order for someone else to have a bigger piece of the pie, someone has to give up some of theirs. There is no "pie," however. The economy and wealth of the US are in constant flux, as are the personal wealth and economies of American families.
No, I don't have to "give up" anything "so that someone else can have more." "Someone else" needs to work harder and earn more, and I'll keep my "piece of [the] pie," thank you very much.
kainedamo
08-04-2008, 12:38 PM
Obama's speech on energy today was awesome.
Varient
08-04-2008, 12:41 PM
That's funny, I think picking Hillary would have the opposite effect.
If I were American I'd certainly consider NOT voting Obama if he picked Hillary as VP.
Most who have read up on Hilliarys past would rather lose a toenail than let her get even five steps from President,.. let alone one.
I agree with your prediction. I also think she'd constantly be undermining his policy and he'd have to contend with Bill running his mouth all the time, too. Personally, I'd think long and hard about voting for Obama if Clinton were his running mate. I'd never vote for McCain, but her on the ticket might be enough to make me stay away from the polls.
jag
I can easily see her backstabbing him / undermining his authority. After all,.. she has experience at being awakened @ 3am to handle a rising concern of her husband.
(Yes,.. I'm sneering)
Hillary Clinton is a political cancer as a VP. She has enough skeletons (some possibly litterally) to fill many closets. I would love to see Obama pick Clinton.
:dry:
No doubt this would kill his presidency.
StorminNorman
08-04-2008, 12:52 PM
Obama's speech on energy today was awesome.
Kaine, your man crush on the man makes your comment irrelevant. :csad:
I did not see his speech today.
kainedamo
08-04-2008, 02:40 PM
It seriously was awesome. It was all about energy. He laid out comprehensive plans for both short term and long term solutions to the oil issues. Solutions that don't revolve around drilling. It was a very detailed speech and hit a lot of key notes, and he also pointed out that McCain has a long history of opposing different alternative energy measures.
It seriously was awesome. It was all about energy. He laid out comprehensive plans for both short term and long term solutions to the oil issues. Solutions that don't revolve around drilling. It was a very detailed speech and hit a lot of key notes, and he also pointed out that McCain has a long history of opposing different alternative energy measures.
In all seriousness, was the plan reasonable, logical, and do-able? Or was it a bunch of fluff?
rdh007
08-04-2008, 02:49 PM
Kaine, your man crush on the man makes your comment irrelevant. :csad:
Does this make Matt's hatred irrelevant to what he posts? Always? Case by case? I don't think so.
kainedamo
08-04-2008, 02:50 PM
Well, he did make a bold claim that he could completely get rid of America's reliance on oil within ten years. But the details of the plan are reasonable. There is no reason why the short term stuff wouldn't be do-able. And if he's serious about it and people worked hard for it, the long term stuff he was talking about would be do-able too. A lot better than anything I've heard McCain say about energy.
Well, he did make a bold claim that he could completely get rid of America's reliance on oil within ten years. But the details of the plan are reasonable. There is no reason why the short term stuff wouldn't be do-able. And if he's serious about it and people worked hard for it, the long term stuff he was talking about would be do-able too. A lot better than anything I've heard McCain say about energy.
I'll have to look into it. I am curious to see what he had to say.
rdh007
08-04-2008, 02:55 PM
Already posted something from Barack, but this from the Future First Lady of the World:
"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 their pie so that someone else can have more."
Does that sound like Socialism, anyone? These people are assuming that the economy and US wealth are static; that in order for someone else to have a bigger piece of the pie, someone has to give up some of theirs. There is no "pie," however. The economy and wealth of the US are in constant flux, as are the personal wealth and economies of American families.
No, I don't have to "give up" anything "so that someone else can have more." "Someone else" needs to work harder and earn more, and I'll keep my "piece of [the] pie," thank you very much.
My wife says all sorts of stuff I don't agree with. And I don't see what socialistic about having a tax code that doesn't hurt the middle class disproportionately. The strongest times this country has seen have been because of the middle class.
I'd also have to believe she's talking about the people in my signature that benefited from Bush-nomics as well as some others who are somewhere between middle class and that.
Lastly, it might be fair to say that people should earn more, that is certain. However, I defy you to tell the cat across the street from me that works two jobs while his wife works one to live in a decent house. He doesn't need to work harder, the "haves" need to learn to share and play nice.
rdh007
08-04-2008, 03:03 PM
Michael Moore looks odd clean shaven. I honestly thought that was the Star Wars kid. :o
I'm pretty sure you're right. That didn't look like Moore.
kainedamo
08-04-2008, 03:06 PM
You know, in the old days it used to be that only the very rich got to give their kids an education. This didn't mean that the lower classes weren't working hard enough. On the contrary, its always the lower classes that do the backbreaking work. Throughout history its always been like that.
It's only in fairly recent history that it changed, and that education was seen more like a right rather than a privilage to be enjoyed by the few.
I think health is the same way. It's a right, not a privilage. A better educated people makes for a better country. A healthier people makes for a better country.
But that's a moral argument you may disagree with. So I'd appeal to the fact that your current system is broken. To say that people aren't working hard enough to get their healthcare is false. There are many people that work full time (some working several jobs) that don't get health insurance, that end up in debt because of healthcare costs for themselves or for a relative. And this isn't a one off case. There are millions in America that go without healthcare.
kainedamo
08-04-2008, 03:37 PM
EDIT: Full speech below.
DorkyFresh
08-04-2008, 03:48 PM
i'm surprised no one's wished Obama Happy Birthday yet.
kainedamo
08-04-2008, 04:04 PM
EDIT: Full speech below.
kainedamo
08-04-2008, 04:51 PM
Here is the full speech on energy by Obama.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bC1A8dLkRWM
bC1A8dLkRWM
when i heard about obama's "Flip floppin" about drilling on talk radio over the past couple days...
i was honestly getting frustrated. even after finding what he said directly.... i was still getting annoyed, because energy policy deal breaker for me.
after seeing the video i feel a lot better about his energy policy... and what he meant by drilling.
Tron5000
08-05-2008, 08:29 AM
My wife says all sorts of stuff I don't agree with. And I don't see what socialistic about having a tax code that doesn't hurt the middle class disproportionately. The strongest times this country has seen have been because of the middle class.
I'd also have to believe she's talking about the people in my signature that benefited from Bush-nomics as well as some others who are somewhere between middle class and that.
Lastly, it might be fair to say that people should earn more, that is certain. However, I defy you to tell the cat across the street from me that works two jobs while his wife works one to live in a decent house. He doesn't need to work harder, the "haves" need to learn to share and play nice.
What do I need to "share"? I work two jobs, I bust my butt, I don't have health care, and these are all my choices. My parents had me when they were 17 and 18, and they busted their humps to give me all they could. At age 18, my dad had a full-time job, a son, a wife, and a full schedule at Georgia Tech.
What I "share" is the money that I give to charitable or religious groups. I'm not going to give up anything so that someone who doesn't work as hard as I can gain from my efforts. You want more than you currently have? Then put down the video game controller and go to freakin' work. To the victor goes the spoils.
You know who benefited from "Bush-nomics"? Everyone. The people that got the tax breaks were in large part small-business owners. They save money, they expand their business, invest more capital and hire more employees. Guess who wins there? The owner, as well as the employees. See, they would not have been hired had the owner not been allowed to keep more of his (hard-earned) income and invest it back in his business.
Interestingly, the jobless rate for teenagers last month was the highest it has been since 1992. Know why? Minimum wage went up 70%, so the low wage earners were laid off, and businesses starting freezing or lowering their hiring activities. Teenagers go jobless, thanks to our government and its insistence on forcing themselves into the hiring practices of private American businesses.
zenile
08-05-2008, 09:35 AM
What do I need to "share"? I work two jobs, I bust my butt, I don't have health care, and these are all my choices. My parents had me when they were 17 and 18, and they busted their humps to give me all they could. At age 18, my dad had a full-time job, a son, a wife, and a full schedule at Georgia Tech.
What I "share" is the money that I give to charitable or religious groups. I'm not going to give up anything so that someone who doesn't work as hard as I can gain from my efforts. You want more than you currently have? Then put down the video game controller and go to freakin' work. To the victor goes the spoils.
You know who benefited from "Bush-nomics"? Everyone. The people that got the tax breaks were in large part small-business owners. They save money, they expand their business, invest more capital and hire more employees. Guess who wins there? The owner, as well as the employees. See, they would not have been hired had the owner not been allowed to keep more of his (hard-earned) income and invest it back in his business.
Interestingly, the jobless rate for teenagers last month was the highest it has been since 1992. Know why? Minimum wage went up 70%, so the low wage earners were laid off, and businesses starting freezing or lowering their hiring activities. Teenagers go jobless, thanks to our government and its insistence on forcing themselves into the hiring practices of private American businesses.
You need to stop mis-representing facts, or start getting new sources for your information.
The minimum wage in 2007 increased only 13.59% from 2006 to 2007. In order to have increased 70%, the minimum wage would have had to have been $3.44, which it has not been that low since 1981.
http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/chart.htm
As for the reason for the low unemployment rate of teenagers, I would think the overall weakening economy, high costs of fuel, freezing of the capital markets, etc. have much more to due with the low unemployment rate than an increase in the minimum wage.
BlackLantern
08-05-2008, 09:36 AM
What do I need to "share"? I work two jobs, I bust my butt, I don't have health care, and these are all my choices. My parents had me when they were 17 and 18, and they busted their humps to give me all they could. At age 18, my dad had a full-time job, a son, a wife, and a full schedule at Georgia Tech.
What I "share" is the money that I give to charitable or religious groups. I'm not going to give up anything so that someone who doesn't work as hard as I can gain from my efforts. You want more than you currently have? Then put down the video game controller and go to freakin' work. To the victor goes the spoils.
You know who benefited from "Bush-nomics"? Everyone. The people that got the tax breaks were in large part small-business owners. They save money, they expand their business, invest more capital and hire more employees. Guess who wins there? The owner, as well as the employees. See, they would not have been hired had the owner not been allowed to keep more of his (hard-earned) income and invest it back in his business.
Interestingly, the jobless rate for teenagers last month was the highest it has been since 1992. Know why? Minimum wage went up 70%, so the low wage earners were laid off, and businesses starting freezing or lowering their hiring activities. Teenagers go jobless, thanks to our government and its insistence on forcing themselves into the hiring practices of private American businesses.
I agree with Tron....the place I work at is a small company that is steadily growing and some of the people that have been there are not adjusting well to change....my view of the American workplace is this...if you don't want to do the job, there are plenty of people waiting in line who will be happy to do your job.....no one is irreplaceable.....
the Jobless rate is up across the board. this pushes out the most disposeable worker... and thats the teenager.
the problem with jobless rates is not the minimum wage... its gas prices, a devalued dollar, and a failed economic policy.
you know who didnt benefit from "bush-nomics"? our country... which is now in so much debt one wonders if we will ever have a strong dollar again...
people would be alarmed if our economy wasnt artificially propped up by the forced demand of the world buying oil in American Dollars. i theorize that its half of the reason we dont ever seem to take any energy iniatives seriously is because our dollar would collapse to its real value, which would seriously shock most people... and then suddenly, the debt of america would matter and republican economic policy would finally return to the sanity it once had before reagan.
Tron5000
08-05-2008, 09:48 AM
You need to stop mis-representing facts, or start getting new sources for your information.
The minimum wage in 2007 increased only 13.59% from 2006 to 2007. In order to have increased 70%, the minimum wage would have had to have been $3.44, which it has not been that low since 1981.
http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/chart.htm
As for the reason for the low unemployment rate of teenagers, I would think the overall weakening economy, high costs of fuel, freezing of the capital markets, etc. have much more to due with the low unemployment rate than an increase in the minimum wage.
70 cents, not %. My bad. Still kills jobs.
Varient
08-05-2008, 09:56 AM
What do I need to "share"? I work two jobs, I bust my butt, I don't have health care, and these are all my choices. My parents had me when they were 17 and 18, and they busted their humps to give me all they could. At age 18, my dad had a full-time job, a son, a wife, and a full schedule at Georgia Tech.
What I "share" is the money that I give to charitable or religious groups. I'm not going to give up anything so that someone who doesn't work as hard as I can gain from my efforts. You want more than you currently have? Then put down the video game controller and go to freakin' work. To the victor goes the spoils.
You know who benefited from "Bush-nomics"? Everyone. The people that got the tax breaks were in large part small-business owners. They save money, they expand their business, invest more capital and hire more employees. Guess who wins there? The owner, as well as the employees. See, they would not have been hired had the owner not been allowed to keep more of his (hard-earned) income and invest it back in his business.
Interestingly, the jobless rate for teenagers last month was the highest it has been since 1992. Know why? Minimum wage went up 70%, so the low wage earners were laid off, and businesses starting freezing or lowering their hiring activities. Teenagers go jobless, thanks to our government and its insistence on forcing themselves into the hiring practices of private American businesses.
I agree with Tron....the place I work at is a small company that is steadily growing and some of the people that have been there are not adjusting well to change....my view of the American workplace is this...if you don't want to do the job, there are plenty of people waiting in line who will be happy to do your job.....no one is irreplaceable.....
Scary.
1. For exagerating percentages to make a case.
2. For dismmissing reality because you'd rather put the problems on People instead of the issues.
No wonder the stuff continues to hit the fan (geez,.. 70% increase on Min Wage?? I WISH!!)
BlackLantern
08-05-2008, 10:03 AM
we have 2 serious issues at my workplace.....one is punctuality...I work within the customer service department of our company and every day people are consistently late for their assigned shift. We constantly express that 1 minute late is still late...that is a people issue...
another problem is attendance, mainly on weekends because we are open from 9-6 on saturdays and 9-5 on sundays...the people that are scheduled to work those days both display constant tardiness or just calling out or not showing up period......
and these are the same people that complain that the company doesn't appreciate them enough when they aren't doing what's asked....
If that isn't a PEOPLE issue, I don't know what is
jaguarr
08-05-2008, 10:09 AM
the Jobless rate is up across the board. this pushes out the most disposeable worker... and thats the teenager.
the problem with jobless rates is not the minimum wage... its gas prices, a devalued dollar, and a failed economic policy.
you know who didnt benefit from "bush-nomics"? our country... which is now in so much debt one wonders if we will ever have a strong dollar again...
people would be alarmed if our economy wasnt artificially propped up by the forced demand of the world buying oil in American Dollars. i theorize that its half of the reason we dont ever seem to take any energy iniatives seriously is because our dollar would collapse to its real value, which would seriously shock most people... and then suddenly, the debt of america would matter and republican economic policy would finally return to the sanity it once had before reagan.
Voodoo Economics left us with a Zombie Economy. :o
jag
jaguarr
08-05-2008, 10:13 AM
we have 2 serious issues at my workplace.....one is punctuality...I work within the customer service department of our company and every day people are consistently late for their assigned shift. We constantly express that 1 minute late is still late...that is a people issue...
another problem is attendance, mainly on weekends because we are open from 9-6 on saturdays and 9-5 on sundays...the people that are scheduled to work those days both display constant tardiness or just calling out or not showing up period......
and these are the same people that complain that the company doesn't appreciate them enough when they aren't doing what's asked....
If that isn't a PEOPLE issue, I don't know what is
That, my friend, is a MANAGEMENT issue. ;)
jag
BlackLantern
08-05-2008, 10:17 AM
That, my friend, is a MANAGEMENT issue. ;)
jag
How so? how difficult is it to show up to your job on time or be there when you are supposed to be there?
People today, in general, are getting lazier and think they can get away with whatever at the workplace because a lot of ******** legislation that makes it near impossible to fire people unless you kill someone in front of your boss' office.....
it's a management issue because management has failed to kick out some of these wastrels....
kainedamo
08-05-2008, 10:22 AM
God, you sound like a real jobsworth :whatever:
I'm guessing that a lot of students work where you work?
What kind of job is it? Are there bonuses? I just feel you're not telling the full story here. If an unusual amount of workers just don't turn up for work, then it seems like its a place they just don't want to be. Is it a depressing office job? Call centre? What incentives to the management give?
You're one of these "even a minute late is still late" kind of guys. Which I tell you, a young person absolutely can't stand hearing that. What does 30 seconds or a minute matter? Sometimes your bus is a little late, or traffic was bad. The last thing you wanna hear when you're one whole minute late is a stern boss telling you off for it. No wonder nobody even wants to turn up :whatever:
jaguarr
08-05-2008, 10:23 AM
How so? how difficult is it to show up to your job on time or be there when you are supposed to be there?
People today, in general, are getting lazier and think they can get away with whatever at the workplace because a lot of ******** legislation that makes it near impossible to fire people unless you kill someone in front of your boss' office.....
it's a management issue because management has failed to kick out some of these wastrels....
You answered your own question with your last sentence. People pull that kind of crap because they know they can get away with it. There are no repercussions. And any manager worth their salt knows how to document an employee that doesn't abide by the rules, issue formal warnings and basically create a document trail that will enable them to get rid of someone no matter what laws are in place to protect workers. If your management staff treated the problems seriously and did the right things to show their employees that there would be repercussions for their actions and positive incentives for doing the job they were hired to do, I think you'd be surprised how quickly they would fall in line. It's a management issue; workers will ALWAYS look for ways to take advantage. It's been that way since the beginning of time.
jag
BlackLantern
08-05-2008, 10:28 AM
well half of the office is a call center, the other half is the help desk (where i work) and the correspondence department...about 145 employees total
there are monthly incentives for each shift....its up to the supervisors to determine how to award it...
the main issue is that in the past 2 years the company has grown a lot....things are changing and the people who have been there a while are having issues adjusting and keeping up with the changes...
BlackLantern
08-05-2008, 10:30 AM
God, you sound like a real jobsworth :whatever:
I'm guessing that a lot of students work where you work?
What kind of job is it? Are there bonuses? I just feel you're not telling the full story here. If an unusual amount of workers just don't turn up for work, then it seems like its a place they just don't want to be. Is it a depressing office job? Call centre? What incentives to the management give?
You're one of these "even a minute late is still late" kind of guys. Which I tell you, a young person absolutely can't stand hearing that. What does 30 seconds or a minute matter? Sometimes your bus is a little late, or traffic was bad. The last thing you wanna hear when you're one whole minute late is a stern boss telling you off for it. No wonder nobody even wants to turn up :whatever:
That is actually from the manager in our office and the VP of customer service....for my part, my father ingrained in me the importance of being punctual...the reason being how can you expect your job to take you seriously and trust you with bigger tasks when you can't even show up on time??
jaguarr
08-05-2008, 10:33 AM
well half of the office is a call center, the other half is the help desk (where i work) and the correspondence department...about 145 employees total
there are monthly incentives for each shift....its up to the supervisors to determine how to award it...
the main issue is that in the past 2 years the company has grown a lot....things are changing and the people who have been there a while are having issues adjusting and keeping up with the changes...
Management has a responsibility to help their employees cope with changes due to growth and help paint a clear picture of what is changing in the way of expectations. Doesn't sound like that is happening where you work.
jag
BlackLantern
08-05-2008, 10:40 AM
I think the growth is too fast....most are handling the adjustment, but the ones who aren't are also the loudest dissenters
as a small company, management doesn't want to put across a climate of people fearing for their job, but maybe a little fear is what the place needs...
kainedamo
08-05-2008, 10:44 AM
Yeah. My last job was at a call centre. I hated it. What ya gotta understand is that jobs like this attract young people looking for some cash and students. For a lot of people, call centre work is not their career. I ended up getting promoted to a much more technical job in the company. The new job involved a lot of new programs for dealing with telephone exchanges, etc. If I screwed up, I could literally stop broadband in a whole area. I was promised training. It took about 3 weeks into my new job to get the promised training. In the meantime, I was stuck watching other people do the job, and hearing EVERYONE talk about how the training was utterly inadequite.
When the training finally came, obviously there was a lot of info to take in, so I got out a pen and paper and started writting stuff down. The trainer: "What are you doing??" Me: Writing stuff down :huh: Trainer: You're not allowed pen and paper on the floor. Me: We're not on the floor, we're upstairs, in a training room. And so, I couldn't even write crap down, for security reasons, even though we were not only in a seperate room from all the computers and telephones but we were a floor above it, in a closed room, with no equipment turned on. The training lasted four hours. Needless to say, when I started I was completely lost and had to learn the job by asking employees (some of whom were there longer than me but knew less) and trial and error. I ended up making a lot more problems than I was fixing.
The point is, call centre work - half the time, you're just working for a corporation. A corporation that just wants to cut corners any way they can, that includes cutting back on training. A corporation that wants quantity over quality so therefore you're on call after call, with no space in between, trying to end each call as quick as possible to meet targets - therefore completely failing to actually help the people you're talking to.
I was dealing with customers whose problems were literally impossible to fix. For example, the area they are in, their telephone exchange office just hasn't been upgraded, or their home is too far away from it, so they CAN'T have high speed internet - and yet these people are talked out of just cancelling altogether by our cancelation team. Sometimes, your job is to make excuses for the company you work for. The previous call centre I worked in before this one, I was calling people who were not expecting the call trying to sell people broadband. Call centre work can be a dirty, dirty job.
The only people that consider call centre work a real job is people that want to climb a ladder. You can make supervisor within a year if you really wanted to. For the rest of us, its a dirty, depressing little job that is a gateway to other things, or just money at the end of the week.
My advise to anyone entering such a job is to abuse it. Abuse the system while you're there. Especially if its a multi-national company. They don't care about you. Screw them.
Is that highly off-topic or what?
jaguarr
08-05-2008, 10:49 AM
That is actually from the manager in our office and the VP of customer service....for my part, my father ingrained in me the importance of being punctual...the reason being how can you expect your job to take you seriously and trust you with bigger tasks when you can't even show up on time??
I'm the same way about being punctual and having a strong work ethic (also thanks to my father). It took me a loooooong time to get over what everyone else was doing around me and just focus on doing my thing. In the end, it all tends to sort itself out and I come out none the worse for the wear (and usually ahead of the game because I'm focused and hitting my deliverables where others are not). You can't fix other people's issues, so quit worrying about them. Let them swing by their own necks or succeed on their own. Worry about your own s**t. :up:
jag
BlackLantern
08-05-2008, 10:51 AM
you haven't been listening Kaine.....I work for a small company with about 300 employees total...a third of which work in the customer service department, we don't time our calls or have any quotas....the only thing we time is when the customer hangs up and how long it takes for the employee to be ready for the next call....as for training, there is about 10-14 days worth and we have certain employees that serve as mentors if someone needs extra help....
all that is asked is show up on time and do your job....its not rocket surgery
Just to follow up on the vague topic that was brought up on the last page...
Why do some people believe the most successful citizens have an obligation to share their money that they earned? What is with this whole Robin Hood-esque "Tax the rich and give it to the poor?" It contradicts everything America was founded on.
kainedamo
08-05-2008, 10:55 AM
Okay. Well thats a bit different, it seems. I've worked for two call centres, and they were both nightmares. The first, as I said, involved calling people that weren't expecting calls from us, trying to sell them broadband. You had ridiculous targets to meet at the end of the day, and no space to breath between calls. One of my calls was played back to me, where I clearly wasn't trying my very, very best to sell broadband to a very sweet old lady. The supervisor said my attitude was age-ist :whatever: Excuse me for thinking the woman has no use for broadband when she's saying she has no clue about computers. The second call centre, I've already went into, and haven't even described the worst of it.
kainedamo
08-05-2008, 10:58 AM
Just to follow up on the vague topic that was brought up on the last page...
Why do some people believe the most successful citizens have an obligation to share their money that they earned? What is with this whole Robin Hood-esque "Tax the rich and give it to the poor?" It contradicts everything America was founded on.
If you want to take this attitude in the face of the very serious economic problems your country is facing, go right ahead. No argument I can make can change your attitude. All I can say is, look at your economy. Look at how many are on the line of poverty, how many are out of work, how many don't have health insurance, how many hard working people can't afford their health bills, etc etc etc.
Maybe you support McCain wanting to give Exxon tax breaks?
Do you actually believe America's problems can be solved without raising taxes?
Darthphere
08-05-2008, 10:58 AM
Just to follow up on the vague topic that was brought up on the last page...
Why do some people believe the most successful citizens have an obligation to share their money that they earned? What is with this whole Robin Hood-esque "Tax the rich and give it to the poor?" It contradicts everything America was founded on.
Jealousy.
BlackLantern
08-05-2008, 11:04 AM
Just to follow up on the vague topic that was brought up on the last page...
Why do some people believe the most successful citizens have an obligation to share their money that they earned? What is with this whole Robin Hood-esque "Tax the rich and give it to the poor?" It contradicts everything America was founded on.
I don't get it either.....before I went on my vacation, one of the people in my office told me I should take the money I was going to spend on my vacation and donate it.....she tried to sound all self-righteous about it
If you want to take this attitude in the face of the very serious economic problems your country is facing, go right ahead. No argument I can make can change your attitude. All I can say is, look at your economy. Look at how many are on the line of poverty, how many are out of work, how many don't have health insurance, how many hard working people can't afford their health bills, etc etc etc.
Maybe you support McCain wanting to give Exxon tax breaks?
Do you actually believe America's problems can be solved without raising taxes?
I do believe a tax raise is necessary. My point is, why should we raise taxes 15 percent for one group and only 5 percent for another group, or even drop them for another group? This notion is essentially punishing people for being successful. Its wrong. Especially when the group you want to raise 15 % for already puts in more than entire cities combined simply on the grounds that their income is so much larger. Not to mention their companies create jobs, they give more to charity than anyone else, etc.
You want to raise their taxes more than everyone elses' on the grounds that they make more money? Fine. Just don't be suprised when the unemployment rate goes through the roof as the wealthy citizens decide to cut jobs to make up for the extra taxes on their profits.
Darthphere
08-05-2008, 11:06 AM
I don't get it either.....before I went on my vacation, one of the people in my office told me I should take the money I was going to spend on my vacation and donate it.....she tried to sound all self-righteous about it
Your response should've been:
"Why don't I take my money and slap you across the face with it *****. Ain't no one but me getting my money! ***** you better get out of my mother****ing face before I put my fist in it."
kainedamo
08-05-2008, 11:09 AM
I think your attitude is too simplistic, Matt. Taxes aren't "punishment", except to those that can't afford to pay.
If you want taxes to be the same level for everyone, what percentage would be fair? Let's say, 5% tax for everybody. Is that going to be enough? Don't think so.
So if that's not enough... we'll say 15%. Oh wait, hold on, all of a sudden millions of people are in a worse position than they were before.
Taxing the rich (not necasserily individuals, but taxing the likes of oil companies making record profits) a higher percentage makes sense.
Is a government in place to look out for the best interests of the rich? No. It's in place to look out for the best interests of the country as a whole. And what the country needs is a better economy.
Addendum
08-05-2008, 11:10 AM
A friend of mine worked on a barge for a few years. His shift was 30 days on board, with a 2 week break in between. Not counting safety, which was the top priority, the next highest was being punctual. When it was time to leave port at a specific time, he left at that time. If you weren't on the boat when it left, you were left behind, even if you were a minute late.
souvlaki
08-05-2008, 11:10 AM
So... various different reports coming out of the Obama campaign, as well as a few canceled events, changed plans, trips to Indiana, etc. are making it look as if Evan Bayh will probably end up being the VP pick, and it will be announced Wednesday. Thoughts?
BlackLantern
08-05-2008, 11:14 AM
Your response should've been:
"Why don't I take my money and slap you across the face with it *****. Ain't no one but me getting my money! ***** you better get out of my mother****ing face before I put my fist in it."
or perhaps..."Get yo' hand out my pocket!"
zenile
08-05-2008, 11:19 AM
Just to follow up on the vague topic that was brought up on the last page...
Why do some people believe the most successful citizens have an obligation to share their money that they earned? What is with this whole Robin Hood-esque "Tax the rich and give it to the poor?" It contradicts everything America was founded on.
I think that America was founded on Christian principles. Mark 10, verses 17-31, Jesus said "Go, sell whatever you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me, taking up the cross." By this, Jesus was teaching us that we should not let material objects stand in our way of following Jesus.
And in Matthew 25, verses 31-46:
31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.' 46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
jaguarr
08-05-2008, 11:23 AM
So... various different reports coming out of the Obama campaign, as well as a few canceled events, changed plans, trips to Indiana, etc. are making it look as if Evan Bayh will probably end up being the VP pick, and it will be announced Wednesday. Thoughts?
Bayh would be a good choice, to be honest. It'll be interesting to see if that's what's getting ready to transpire. I just wish the candidates would announce their VP's and get it overwith. Whoever does it first at this point is going to make the other candidate look like they're asleep at the wheel and/or can't make up their mind. Could wind up being a boost for them
I think that America was founded on Christian principles. Mark 10, verses 17-31, Jesus said "Go, sell whatever you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me, taking up the cross." By this, Jesus was teaching us that we should not let material objects stand in our way of following Jesus.
And in Matthew 25, verses 31-46:
Can we please keep the bible quotes out of here? I like church and state separated.....WAYYYY separated. Not all of us are Christians. Thanks.
jag
So... various different reports coming out of the Obama campaign, as well as a few canceled events, changed plans, trips to Indiana, etc. are making it look as if Evan Bayh will probably end up being the VP pick, and it will be announced Wednesday. Thoughts?
Hmm, I'm not sure its a wise move. Bayh is probably the safe choice but he also doesn't really help him all that much. Indiana hardly balances the ticket from a geographical stand point. Bayh is a bit more moderate, but not enough so that it will make a difference or effect policy all that much and he really doesn't bring much to the ticket in way of votes. Kaine would've probably delivered Virginia, which would lock the election for Obama (provided he doesn't lose Michigan). Sure, Bayh brings experience to the ticket, but at the end of the day...I think its proven at this point no one gives a damn about Obama's lack of experience, so I'm not all that sure what he gains by bringing Bayh on.
kainedamo
08-05-2008, 11:28 AM
Government is not in place to look out for the interests of the rich.
Matt, watch this interview with Tony Benn.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3HyK5rB9jY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWxjReQZuTI&feature=related
Ignore the fact that its Michael Moore interviewing him. Tony Benn's a very cool guy.
Power shouldn't lie with the rich. Power comes with the vote. By NOT taxing the rich, you're allowing the rich to hold more power than they should have.
Bayh would be a good choice, to be honest. It'll be interesting to see if that's what's getting ready to transpire. I just wish the candidates would announce their VP's and get it overwith. Whoever does it first at this point is going to make the other candidate look like they're asleep at the wheel and/or can't make up their mind. Could wind up being a boost for them
McCain plans on announcing after the Democratic convention to limit Obama's acceptance speech boost (maybe one of the few smart moves his campaign is making). As for Bayh as a good choice, I don't think so. I think he is a safe choice, but not a good choice. He just doesn't bring all that much to the ticket.
souvlaki
08-05-2008, 11:30 AM
Hmm, I'm not sure its a wise move. Bayh is probably the safe choice but he also doesn't really help him all that much. Indiana hardly balances the ticket from a geographical stand point. Bayh is a bit more moderate, but not enough so that it will make a difference or effect policy all that much and he really doesn't bring much to the ticket in way of votes. Kaine would've probably delivered Virginia, which would lock the election for Obama (provided he doesn't lose Michigan). Sure, Bayh brings experience to the ticket, but at the end of the day...I think its proven at this point no one gives a damn about Obama's lack of experience, so I'm not all that sure what he gains by bringing Bayh on.
I'm still not completely convinced any VP choice is going to guarantee a state anyhow. It seems like every election we obsess so much over the VP choice, and in the end noone really cares, and it doesn't change anything. I mean, Edwards really should have delivered something for Kerry, and he didn't. Bayh is a great choice.
Addendum
08-05-2008, 11:31 AM
I think that America was founded on Christian principles. Mark 10, verses 17-31, Jesus said "Go, sell whatever you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me, taking up the cross." By this, Jesus was teaching us that we should not let material objects stand in our way of following Jesus.
Wealth should not be one's primary focus in life, that's something churches teach. Even the ones that have built massive buildings to "worship" in. However, that doesn't mean that one has to be dirt poor to serve any deity.
The next set of verses you quoted read more as encouraging giving to charity and helping the needy.
And then there's this little item from your "holy book"- For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat."
Government is not in place to look out for the interests of the rich.
Matt, watch this interview with Tony Benn.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3HyK5rB9jY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWxjReQZuTI&feature=related
Ignore the fact that its Michael Moore interviewing him. Tony Benn's a very cool guy.
Thats not the point I am making. Keeping a standard, universal tax rate is not about "looking out for the interests of the rich." It is about being fair. The government is not in a position to take the money of people who are more successful and force charity either. The government is not a charitable foundation. They have no right to take money that people have earned to distribute it to people who have done nothing to earn it.
Government is not in place to look out for the interests of the rich.
Matt, watch this interview with Tony Benn.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3HyK5rB9jY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWxjReQZuTI&feature=related
Ignore the fact that its Michael Moore interviewing him. Tony Benn's a very cool guy.
Thats not the point I am making. Keeping a standard, universal tax rate is not about "looking out for the interests of the rich." It is about being fair. The government is not in a position to take the money of people who are more successful and force charity either. The government is not a charitable foundation. They have no right to take money that people have earned to distribute it to people who have done nothing to earn it.
I'm still not completely convinced any VP choice is going to guarantee a state anyhow. It seems like every election we obsess so much over the VP choice, and in the end noone really cares, and it doesn't change anything. I mean, Edwards really should have delivered something for Kerry, and he didn't. Bayh is a great choice.
Thats not true. You can't use one election to prove that point. Edwards was unpopular in his home state. Thats why he didn't deliver it. Kaine is very popular in Virginia, he would've made sure it went blue.
I do believe a tax raise is necessary. My point is, why should we raise taxes 15 percent for one group and only 5 percent for another group, or even drop them for another group? This notion is essentially punishing people for being successful. Its wrong. Especially when the group you want to raise 15 % for already puts in more than entire cities combined simply on the grounds that their income is so much larger. Not to mention their companies create jobs, they give more to charity than anyone else, etc.
You want to raise their taxes more than everyone elses' on the grounds that they make more money? Fine. Just don't be suprised when the unemployment rate goes through the roof as the wealthy citizens decide to cut jobs to make up for the extra taxes on their profits.
just out of curiosity... what were taxes like under clinton? before the bush tax cuts...
cause unemployment under him wasn't bad
The Unemployment Rate Was 4.2 Percent in 1999 -- the Lowest Since 1969. The unemployment rate was 4.1 percent in December bringing the average unemployment rate for 1999 to 4.2 percent -- the lowest since 1969. The unemployment rate has fallen for seven years in a row. It has remained below 5 percent for 30 months in a row. For women the unemployment rate was 4.1 percent -- the lowest since 1953.
just out of curiosity... what were taxes like under clinton? before the bush tax cuts...
cause unemployment under him wasn't bad
The Unemployment Rate Was 4.2 Percent in 1999 -- the Lowest Since 1969. The unemployment rate was 4.1 percent in December bringing the average unemployment rate for 1999 to 4.2 percent -- the lowest since 1969. The unemployment rate has fallen for seven years in a row. It has remained below 5 percent for 30 months in a row. For women the unemployment rate was 4.1 percent -- the lowest since 1953.
I honestly don't believe that is Bush's fault but the long term effects of NAFTA at play. It takes time to outsource labor. It wasn't going to happen over night, but now the American workers have began to suffer for it. That is why it is a bad idea to pursue a policy of forced charity. There are already enough reasons to outsource labor. There is no reason to give them one more.
jaguarr
08-05-2008, 11:51 AM
McCain plans on announcing after the Democratic convention to limit Obama's acceptance speech boost (maybe one of the few smart moves his campaign is making). As for Bayh as a good choice, I don't think so. I think he is a safe choice, but not a good choice. He just doesn't bring all that much to the ticket.
Safe might be a very good thing for a candidate that many have beat up for being relatively unknown or inexperienced, to be honest. And I tend to agree with souvlaki; for the most part the majority of voters don't give a crap about the VP and it historically has not been something that's brought a lot of undecided voters into the fold. At any rate, who knows what Obama's up to or who he's really going to choose as his VP running mate. We won't know until we know.
As for McCain limiting Obama's acceptance speech with is own VP running mate annoucement, I don't know how far it will go to achieving that goal. Especially if he picks someone that's perceived as just more of the same; a problem he's already fighting (and the short lists of candidates I've seen so far don't really do anything to help him on that front much, either).
jag
I honestly don't believe that is Bush's fault but the long term effects of NAFTA at play. It takes time to outsource labor. It wasn't going to happen over night, but now the American workers have began to suffer for it. That is why it is a bad idea to pursue a policy of forced charity. There are already enough reasons to outsource labor. There is no reason to give them one more.
well then you give bush more credit than i do.
i think the iraq war has more to do with the economic problems we face now, and will face than taxs on the rich.
if its a problem with NAFTA then lets focus on that, but i think the effect of taxes on jobs is absolutely resolved when you look at the clinton years, the facts that i can find do not support such concerns.
souvlaki
08-05-2008, 11:55 AM
Thats not true. You can't use one election to prove that point. Edwards was unpopular in his home state. Thats why he didn't deliver it. Kaine is very popular in Virginia, he would've made sure it went blue.
But seriously, hasn't poll after poll proven that people simply do not vote for the VP choice, and that 9 out of 10 times they have absolutely no impact on the voter? I'm not just talking the last two elections, I'm speaking from a historical context. The VP choice generally does not matter. So if it doesn't matter, and I'm given the option between Kaine and Bayh, I'd rather have Bayh personally. If he had run in the primaries, I probably would have voted for him.
Safe might be a very good thing for a candidate that many have beat up for being relatively unknown or inexperienced, to be honest. And I tend to agree with souvlaki; for the most part the majority of voters don't give a crap about the VP and it historically has not been something that's brought a lot of undecided voters into the fold. At any rate, who knows what Obama's up to or who he's really going to choose as his VP running mate. We won't know until we know.
This election, like the 2 before it, could very well come down to one state. Winning Virginia would guarantee Obama this election so long as McCain doesn't take Michigan. Kaine would give Virginia without alienating any of Obama's bases. Bayh doesn't deliver that. The only thing Bayh really gives is a guarantee to Wall Street and the other powers-that-be that things are going to be the same and they have nothing to fear.
As for McCain limiting Obama's acceptance speech with is own VP running mate annoucement, I don't know how far it will go to achieving that goal. Especially if he picks someone that's perceived as just more of the same; a problem he's already fighting (and the short lists of candidates I've seen so far don't really do anything to help him on that front much, either).
jag
If he picks Pawlenty, it makes sense. Pawlenty is such a no-name that the media will stop focusing on Obama's speech and spend all their time getting the country acquainted with who Tim Pawlenty is.
moraldeficiency
08-05-2008, 11:56 AM
I agree, unless his choice is really unique and provacative, no one will really care.
But seriously, hasn't poll after poll proven that people simply do not vote for the VP choice, and that 9 out of 10 times they have absolutely no impact on the voter? I'm not just talking the last two elections, I'm speaking from a historical context. The VP choice generally does not matter. So if it doesn't matter, and I'm given the option between Kaine and Bayh, I'd rather have Bayh personally. If he had run in the primaries, I probably would have voted for him.
Historically the VP has proven to be able to deliver a state or two or even three. That is all it takes to win an election.
BlackLantern
08-05-2008, 11:58 AM
McCain should choose Denny Crane as his VP....
well then you give bush more credit than i do.
i think the iraq war has more to do with the economic problems we face now, and will face than taxs on the rich.
if its a problem with NAFTA then lets focus on that, but i think the effect of taxes on jobs is absolutely resolved when you look at the clinton years, the facts that i can find do not support such concerns.
Clinton never implemented any kind of Robin Hood strategy of robbing from the rich and giving to the poor.
Safe might be a very good thing for a candidate that many have beat up for being relatively unknown or inexperienced, to be honest. And I tend to agree with souvlaki; for the most part the majority of voters don't give a crap about the VP and it historically has not been something that's brought a lot of undecided voters into the fold. At any rate, who knows what Obama's up to or who he's really going to choose as his VP running mate. We won't know until we know.
As for McCain limiting Obama's acceptance speech with is own VP running mate annoucement, I don't know how far it will go to achieving that goal. Especially if he picks someone that's perceived as just more of the same; a problem he's already fighting (and the short lists of candidates I've seen so far don't really do anything to help him on that front much, either).
jag
i think McCain has miscalculated if he announces during Obama's acceptance speech, all that would do is take away from McCains VP pick anouncement... Obama's speech is going to be historic any way you slice it. if McCain does this then his campaign advisors deserve to feel the crush of a loss in this election.
It all depends on the choice. If he chooses Romeny, then yeah, no one will care at that point in time. If he chooses Pawlenty, then the media will spend the time vetting him instead of focusing on Obama. If he chooses Palin, the media will not only vet her but also focus on the historical importance (though at this point it is unlikely, but that can change if there is enough of a backlash from female voters for Hillary being snubbed).
At any rate, the only reason I can see for not having picked Kaine is that he isn't needed. There is a chance, Warner's senate campaign may give Obama the needed boost in Virginia. Though Kaine would've definitely locked it down. I dunno, I think in an election where one big state could've given Obama the Oval Office, not picking Kaine in favor of someone who delivers absolutely nothing to your ticket, could've been a mistake.
The Senator
08-05-2008, 12:14 PM
It all depends on the choice. If he chooses Romeny, then yeah, no one will care at that point in time. If he chooses Pawlenty, then the media will spend the time vetting him instead of focusing on Obama. If he chooses Palin, the media will not only vet her but also focus on the historical importance (though at this point it is unlikely, but that can change if there is enough of a backlash from female voters for Hillary being snubbed).
Considering Palin is caught up in her own Alaskan corruption scandal, I don't think she's going to be picked. Especially when you add her inexperience and the irrelevance of her state to the equation.
jaguarr
08-05-2008, 12:14 PM
At any rate, the only reason I can see for not having picked Kaine is that he isn't needed. There is a chance, Warner's senate campaign may give Obama the needed boost in Virginia. Though Kaine would've definitely locked it down. I dunno, I think in an election where one big state could've given Obama the Oval Office, not picking Kaine in favor of someone who delivers absolutely nothing to your ticket, could've been a mistake.
He hasn't announced anything yet, so maybe speaking to the subject as if he has isn't very prudent. :)
jag
jaguarr
08-05-2008, 12:15 PM
Considering Palin is caught up in her own Alaskan corruption scandal, I don't think she's going to be picked. Especially when you add her inexperience and the irrelevance of her state to the equation.
But she would have historical importance as a VP running mate, J! :hehe:
jag
Although on a side note, my chances of voting Obama will go up if he selects Bayh, just because Bayh is a true crusader for the middle, working class. He has fought against CAFTA and other free trade agreements and is an all around great guy. I have no doubt that he would make a great Vice-President and an even better President if God forbid, something untimely happens and the day comes when he is forced to step in...but, I just don't see how picking him was the smart choice.
Considering Palin is caught up in her own Alaskan corruption scandal, I don't think she's going to be picked. Especially when you add her inexperience and the irrelevance of her state to the equation.
Her scandal is nothing major and can easily be swept under the rug. But yeah, McCain seems to have no interest in her, so I doubt she'll be the choice. I think it is between Pawlenty and Romney. McCain's advisors want Romney because he delivers a lot to the ticket, where as McCain, being the stubborn old goat that he is, wants his friend, Pawlenty.
But she would have historical importance as a VP running mate, J! :hehe:
jag
First Republican female running mate has a bit of relevance. Plus VPILF.
The Senator
08-05-2008, 12:18 PM
Indiana is a swing state this election cycle, plus his youth and experience will be considered positives. I don't know if Bayh can deliver his homestate, but he is the safest choice at this point. He won't bring any scandals to the ticket, as the only thing he can be accused of is being a "Washington insider" (because apparently, that's a bad thing these days :huh:). I don't see a backlash or extreme excitement over the pick, which is why I think he's the most probable choice at the moment. We'll find out tomorrow, I'm sure...
Indiana may be a swing state, but it won't decide the election. Its not a crucial one like Virginia. You are right that Bayh is the safe choice (and maybe the best qualified for VP out of the names we are hearing). But the safe choice is not always the best choice.
Though you are right that Bayh is a Washington insider and that kind of takes that card (which has been used against McCain) out of Obama's deck.
The Senator
08-05-2008, 12:23 PM
Her scandal is nothing major and can easily be swept under the rug. But yeah, McCain seems to have no interest in her, so I doubt she'll be the choice. I think it is between Pawlenty and Romney. McCain's advisors want Romney because he delivers a lot to the ticket, where as McCain, being the stubborn old goat that he is, wants his friend, Pawlenty.
Meh. I think Eric Cantor will most likely get the position. He's young, Jewish, and he's a senior member in the House. Plus, he's from Virginia, which might help McCain in the state. To me, Romney seems unlikely... Pawlenty is likely, but he'd be a huge mistake. Neither of those two prospects will add a state to McCain's column, nor will they really make him competitive anywhere else. Even though the Romneys are big in Michigan, I just don't see how Mitt Romney will help McCain in that state.
jaguarr
08-05-2008, 12:23 PM
Although on a side note, my chances of voting Obama will go up if he selects Bayh, just because Bayh is a true crusader for the middle, working class. He has fought against CAFTA and other free trade agreements and is an all around great guy. I have no doubt that he would make a great Vice-President and an even better President if God forbid, something untimely happens and the day comes when he is forced to step in...but, I just don't see how picking him was the smart choice.
Let's see. The presence of Bayh on the ticket would potentially bring you, a devoted Obama hater, back into the fold with a vote for the ticket. But picking him wouldn't be a smart choice. I see. :hehe:
First Republican female running mate has a bit of relevance. Plus VPILF.
She's got scandal on her. Bad idea for McCain to touch anyone like that and attach them to his ticket. He'd take a drumming for it, regardless of how bad you want to ball her. :hehe:
jag
Varient
08-05-2008, 12:23 PM
Meh.
In ref to Work and taxes:
A flat tax would probably be best for the ;people but worse for government.
I don't believe in taxing someone "more" because they make "more".
A large part of our issues in this area are caused by greed - not work ethic. A LOT of things which would work in a perfect world can't in ours because of the folk who are selfish beyond the normal level that allows you to take care of you or yours.
Once again this is not Rocket science,.. but folk want to take it down to the LCD like it really could be put on the individual.
Facts are Facts, we have an UNEMPLOYMENT rate because there is a portion of our population who can't get a job.
The jobs that are available are NOT enough for any one person to live on below a set social level IE for the most part Junior college trained and below.
The People who can't see this almost always come from backgrounds where they never had to scramble to support themselves or family.
It is not "Socialism" to put an infrastructure in place to support the populace,... That's Civilization. I really wish people would not slap a label on stuff they think they don't want.
Minimum wage is needed - Period. Prior to the current Fiasco involving our borders our current med systems could deal with OUR CITIZENS who could not pay.
I think that the Majority of folk who complain about providing for the country may not have the big picture of what it takes to be a functioning prosperous country.
Just like Greed has devalued the dollar,.... and greed has removed our jobs to other countries, and greed has allowed the stupid to sell the US off in large chunks,... Greed is preventing us from taking care of our own.
V.
The Senator
08-05-2008, 12:25 PM
Indiana may be a swing state, but it won't decide the election. Its not a crucial one like Virginia. You are right that Bayh is the safe choice (and maybe the best qualified for VP out of the names we are hearing). But the safe choice is not always the best choice.
Though you are right that Bayh is a Washington insider and that kind of takes that card (which has been used against McCain) out of Obama's deck.
Indiana only has two electoral votes less than Virginia, so I'm not so sure if Indiana wouldn't decide the election.
Meh. I think Eric Cantor will most likely get the position. He's young, Jewish, and he's a senior member in the House. Plus, he's from Virginia, which might help McCain in the state. To me, Romney seems unlikely... Pawlenty is likely, but he'd be a huge mistake. Neither of those two prospects will add a state to McCain's column, nor will they really make him competitive anywhere else. Even though the Romneys are big in Michigan, I just don't see how Mitt Romney will help McCain in that state.
Everyone discounts the biggest advantage of Romney...$$$
The Senator
08-05-2008, 12:27 PM
First Republican female running mate has a bit of relevance. Plus VPILF.
Well, you'd better wear a condom, or else your kid will end up named Mort Phyllx Von Keplar Palin...
jaguarr
08-05-2008, 12:27 PM
Everyone discounts the biggest advantage of Romney...$$$
Mitt: Hey, who wants to go to dinner!?
McCain: Nahhhh. You're kind of a dick.
Mitt: I'm buyin'!
McCain: I'll get my coat!
jag
The Senator
08-05-2008, 12:30 PM
Everyone discounts the biggest advantage of Romney...$$$
Romney does have money, but if McCain is seeking public financing, that will be irrelevant.
Well, you'd better wear a condom, or else your kid will end up named Mort Phyllx Von Keplar Palin...
Mitt: Hey, who wants to go to dinner!?
McCain: Nahhhh. You're kind of a dick.
Mitt: I'm buyin'!
McCain: I'll get my coat!
jag
:lmao:
Romney does have money, but if McCain is seeking public financing, that will be irrelevant.
By withdrawling from public financing himself, Obama has given McCain an out from his promise.
IrishFightin
08-05-2008, 12:38 PM
Romney does have money, but if McCain is seeking public financing, that will be irrelevant.
:wow::wow::wow:
Money is never irrelevant.
Romney could create a PAC, give it some coin, and fund ads against Obama.
Romney would only spend money if he got something out of it. I know his history doesnt neccesarily prove that, but its close enough.
Romney being one rich mormon freak would help.
souvlaki
08-05-2008, 12:41 PM
Mitt: Hey, who wants to go to dinner!?
McCain: Nahhhh. You're kind of a dick.
Mitt: I'm buyin'!
McCain: I'll get my coat!
jag
:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:
The Senator
08-05-2008, 12:49 PM
:wow::wow::wow:
Money is never irrelevant.
Romney could create a PAC, give it some coin, and fund ads against Obama.
Romney would only spend money if he got something out of it. I know his history doesnt neccesarily prove that, but its close enough.
Romney being one rich mormon freak would help.
Romney is not allowed to head a PAC if he's the VP nominee, and his money is not allowed to be spent on the PAC's activities.
kainedamo
08-05-2008, 12:53 PM
Meh.
In ref to Work and taxes:
A flat tax would probably be best for the ;people but worse for government.
I don't believe in taxing someone "more" because they make "more".
A large part of our issues in this area are caused by greed - not work ethic. A LOT of things which would work in a perfect world can't in ours because of the folk who are selfish beyond the normal level that allows you to take care of you or yours.
Once again this is not Rocket science,.. but folk want to take it down to the LCD like it really could be put on the individual.
Facts are Facts, we have an UNEMPLOYMENT rate because there is a portion of our population who can't get a job.
The jobs that are available are NOT enough for any one person to live on below a set social level IE for the most part Junior college trained and below.
The People who can't see this almost always come from backgrounds where they never had to scramble to support themselves or family.
It is not "Socialism" to put an infrastructure in place to support the populace,... That's Civilization. I really wish people would not slap a label on stuff they think they don't want.
Minimum wage is needed - Period. Prior to the current Fiasco involving our borders our current med systems could deal with OUR CITIZENS who could not pay.
I think that the Majority of folk who complain about providing for the country may not have the big picture of what it takes to be a functioning prosperous country.
Just like Greed has devalued the dollar,.... and greed has removed our jobs to other countries, and greed has allowed the stupid to sell the US off in large chunks,... Greed is preventing us from taking care of our own.
V.
Very well said.
BlackLantern
08-05-2008, 01:29 PM
V makes a good point but he also leaves out that there are just as many people who are abusing the system and living off of my tax dollars....
kainedamo
08-05-2008, 01:40 PM
:whatever:
So out of the millions of people in trouble, half of them are just lazy a-holes stealing your tax dollars?
BlackLantern
08-05-2008, 01:46 PM
Probably not half, but a good percentage......are you saying lazy a-holes that live off the system don't exist?
Varient
08-05-2008, 01:49 PM
Very well said.
Thank you. IMHO Greed is the major cause. Capitalism works best when it makes the effort to set a baseline for all FIRST.
We have forgotten this as a country. I read about the great depression where those who were extremely wealthy recognized this and provided jobs out of their own pockets to support the infrastructure of this country and protect the budding middle class.
Once that baseline is set I say go for your search for Bill Gates goodness, but right now our base is below poverty level where in MOST STATES you can't live on your own w/o education or a needed service or occupation.
V makes a good point but he also leaves out that there are just as many people who are abusing the system and living off of my tax dollars....
I believe the first would take care of the second.
I'm saying that we raise the baseline in this country where you are certain to survive through hard work and stop kicking folk in the shins by both punishing them for doing well or for not having access to education - and alot of the slackers become citizens in good standing.
V.
BlackLantern
08-05-2008, 01:51 PM
^^^would you at least acknowledge that some people just can't or won't be helped...that they will do whatever they can to avoid a hard days' work....
kainedamo
08-05-2008, 01:57 PM
Probably not half, but a good percentage......are you saying lazy a-holes that live off the system don't exist?
Of course they exist. They'll always exist.
Why does this mean practical action shouldn't be taken though, with tax dollars?
moraldeficiency
08-05-2008, 01:58 PM
^^^would you at least acknowledge that some people just can't or won't be helped...that they will do whatever they can to avoid a hard days' work....
Yeah but that's everywhere, in every country with every type of system. Hell look at france, how their economy stays afloat has to be one of the great mysteries of the modern day. Also this isn't a new phenom, there have been and will always be lazy *******s that hold society down. Some make their living sucking up gov. funds, others sue randomly for settlements, some just mooch of their parents or friends, and some are too "high society" to actually take work and unless you're going to send them all on board the ghost with Wolf Larsen to straighten them up, they're not changing.
So if you're going to have these types around no matter what you do, it's best to deal with them in the most appropriate way at the time but otherwise disregard them. They're the cousin you hate that still shows up at the family reunion to eat the last piece of pie. That said you can't let your resentment of these types influence your treatment of everyone down on their luck.
Addendum
08-05-2008, 02:01 PM
The people that are physically unable to work, specifically severely disabled people, should be taken care of.
Those that are able-bodied and can work, but choose not to, I refuse to take care of.
Varient
08-05-2008, 02:08 PM
^^^would you at least acknowledge that some people just can't or won't be helped...that they will do whatever they can to avoid a hard days' work....
Easily.
It is the nature of the beast for some to believe they are more clever or intelligent simply because in a fair system they can get away with doing less.
They kick back and sneer at folk willing to work hard while they hardly work because the current nature of our country is to not let them come to harm for their doing little or nothing to support themselves.
But if you LOOK at the numbers,.. these folk are very small in relation to our total population.
V.
BlackLantern
08-05-2008, 02:08 PM
Yeah but that's everywhere, in every country with every type of system. Hell look at france, how their economy stays afloat has to be one of the great mysteries of the modern day. Also this isn't a new phenom, there have been and will always be lazy *******s that hold society down. Some make their living sucking up gov. funds, others sue randomly for settlements, some just mooch of their parents or friends, and some are too "high society" to actually take work and unless you're going to send them all on board the ghost with Wolf Larsen to straighten them up, they're not changing.
So if you're going to have these types around no matter what you do, it's best to deal with them in the most appropriate way at the time but otherwise disregard them. They're the cousin you hate that still shows up at the family reunion to eat the last piece of pie. That said you can't let your resentment of these types influence your treatment of everyone down on their luck.
Can I just ignore them?
moraldeficiency
08-05-2008, 02:15 PM
Can I just ignore them?
Sure, but I just hope if god forbid something happens to your situation, that someone is slightly more compassionate than you or you're ****ed. I've been homeless for a small amount of time (when I was much younger), and I can say it sucks ass, I got some help and now I'm doing fine.
Compassion, even misplaced compassion, is a strength not a weakness for both an individual and a country. While I don't like the idea of being duped, I'd rather err on that side then completely turn my back on someone deserving and needing of real help.
Addendum
08-05-2008, 02:22 PM
Um, you do know the "them" he was referring to wasn't those deserving and needing of real help.
moraldeficiency
08-05-2008, 02:34 PM
Um, you do know the "them" he was referring to wasn't those deserving and needing of real help.
No, I didn't (I guess I don't have your mental powers), them could have been either group, but regardless since they can't be seperated or sorted you get the one with the other and that's the point.
I know you already stated your lack of support for those not physically disabled but and I don't want to shock you, so grab a seat, if you pay taxes you already are, regardless. The problem is you can't fix this, and you can't determine who really needs assistance and who's a mooch. I mean you can weed out the obvious ones, but that's about it so why bother? Complaining and getting pissed is only troubling you, not the people profitting off your tax dollars.
moraldeficiency
08-05-2008, 02:39 PM
stupid double post.
I like puppies, they're delicious and low in fat.
Addendum
08-05-2008, 03:14 PM
Stating that I will not help certain people isn't complaining or getting pissy. Especially since I think it's a waste of time and brain power to get worked up over anything typed on an internet forum.
It doesn't take mental powers to know whom Black Lantern was referring to. All it took was reading over his previous posts in the thread, noticing which group he's not fond of (it's not the ones that actually deserve help, it's the ones that take advantage of that help when they can sustain themselves). What it does take is simple reading comprehension
Varient
08-05-2008, 03:31 PM
The people that are physically unable to work, specifically severely disabled people, should be taken care of.
Those that are able-bodied and can work, but choose not to, I refuse to take care of.
So,..(Based on the above) You have no problem with supporting able-bodied WILLING to work until they can get on their feet?
We C I 2 I on this.
The Senator
08-05-2008, 03:36 PM
Laziness is not a disease. I think the government should turn its back on those who are perfectly capable of working, but won't get off their ass and search for a job.
Addendum
08-05-2008, 03:40 PM
So,..(Based on the above) You have no problem with supporting able-bodied WILLING to work until they can get on their feet?
We C I 2 I on this.
Depends on the individual and situation.
Varient
08-05-2008, 03:48 PM
Depends on the individual and situation.
Of course.
There are many life choices I would rather not support,.. no matter how hard someone may work at it to get where they can support themselves.
But I'm talking "situation" only. I can't see denying someone who is willing to work for who they are.
those who cant work should be given something to do. either comunity building jobs and projects or just cleaning up the highways and rivers. sweep the god damn street. if your busy raising kids then get certified to watch someone elses children while they work other parents can take 2 hours out of there day twice a week to surprise inspect these daycares. of course theres problems and solutions intermingled out there...
but the point is i also do not advocate free money dispersal.
if you want assistance, then do something within your means for it.
Tron5000
08-05-2008, 08:30 PM
My fiancee's roommate is an able-bodied, ex-bartender, Georgia Tech grad. She was laid off from her previous job, and rather than taking a job at a restaurant, she collected unemployment and played tennis. She thought the government owed her something, but one day I asked her if she enjoyed the oranges I was providing for her (via my tax dollars), and she got the point. She got a job the next week. Why is my money going to people who simply choose not to actively seek employment?
Arkady Rossovich
08-05-2008, 08:41 PM
I guess it's the fact that they can. Before such laws existed and in other countries,if you don't work..you die. Because there is no money for you to eat,sleep or provide. That's how it is,this is how people take advantage of the American Dream. By leeching off others,some apply for aid..and deserve it. Others don't.
I hate the fact that McCain is trying everything and anything to topple Obama,and..it's not working. It only shows how useless it is.
Mr Sparkle
08-05-2008, 08:48 PM
hahahaha, Tron is a complete a-hole. because technically he provided something like 1 cent worth of oranges, at best.
a lot of ignored e-vites are in his future.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.