The Obama Thread (Merged x6)

[Tag279]

The only thing which should matter in a presidential race is political experience. A candidate's college record says very little about what kind of leader they will be.

I would have to agree with you to some extent. Having extensive political experience is not required for one to be a good President. Consider Abraham Lincoln.

Abraham Lincoln (February 12 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_12), 1809 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1809)–April 15 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_15), 1865 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1865)), the sixteenth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States) President of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States), successfully led his country through its greatest internal crisis, the Civil War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War), only to be assassinated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination) less than a week after the war's end[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln#cite_note-0). Before his election as President, Lincoln was a lawyer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawyer), a member of the United States House of Representatives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives), and an unsuccessful candidate for election to the Senate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate). As an outspoken opponent of the expansion of slavery in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States), Lincoln won the Republican Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29) nomination in 1860 and was elected president later that year. During his term, he helped preserve the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) by leading the defeat of the secessionist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States) Confederate States of America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America) in the American Civil War. He introduced measures that resulted in the abolition of slavery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery), issuing his Emancipation Proclamation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation) in 1863 and promoting the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion) to the Constitution, which passed Congress before Lincoln's death and was ratified by the states later in 1865.

Lincoln closely supervised the victorious war effort, especially the selection of top generals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_rank), including Ulysses S. Grant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_S._Grant). Historians have concluded that he handled the factions of the Republican Party well, bringing leaders of each faction into his cabinet and forcing them to cooperate.

Lincoln successfully defused a war scare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trent_Affair) with the United Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom) in 1861. Under his leadership, the Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_%28American_Civil_War%29) took control of the border slave states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_states_%28Civil_War%29) at the start of the war. Additionally, he managed his own reelection in the 1864 presidential election (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election%2C_1864).

Opponents of the war (also known as "Copperheads (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copperheads_%28politics%29)") criticized him for refusing to compromise on the slavery issue. Conversely, the Radical Republicans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Republican_%28USA%29), an abolitionist faction of the Republican Party, criticized him for moving too slowly in abolishing slavery.

Even with these road blocks, Lincoln successfully rallied public opinion through his rhetoric and speeches; his Gettysburg Address (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettysburg_Address) is but one example of this. At the close of the war, Lincoln held a moderate view of Reconstruction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_era_of_the_United_States), seeking to speedily reunite the nation through a policy of generous reconciliation. His assassination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_assassination) in 1865 was the first presidential assassination in U.S. history and made him a martyr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyr) for the ideal of national unity.

[The Senator]

Tag, Abraham Lincoln became President in the 1860s, when the country was still small, had little international influence, and the President was purely a figurehead. The United States was not the number one superpower in the world, and its reputation was not on the line internationally. But, if I have to play into your game, then I would definitely say that Lincoln was inexperienced, and that luck was on his side during most of his presidency. That was quite obvious when he suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus during the Civil War.

[Tag279]

With all the experience that Bush-I and Bush-II had they were not great Presidents.

The things that make Presidents good or great are the political climate, confluence of events, Discision making during events, and attitude.

Just becasue thats the way it always has been done does not mean that the way it has been done is the best way to do it.

Obama does not have a whole lot of Washington DC political experience. But it is apparent IMV that he is neither inept or stupid. And IMV he has the ability and the potential to be a good President and benefit our nation.

[The Senator]

The debate that you started, Tag, was on college education.

Which, I don't think defines a candidate's judgment. I consider experience crucial. Sadly, both Obama and McCain's tenures in Washington cannot convince me that either is experienced enough for the job. So now, I have to make a choice clearly on the issues which affect my life. And the two go back and forth so much on some key issues, I don't know who to support, in all honesty. The only thing keeping me in Obama's camp is his stance on social issues, because that's all that separates him from McCain. And, when you consider that McCain will have an uphill battle in Congress to get anything accomplished, I am still forced to blur the line.

The fact is, we got stuck with two crummy candidates this election, like always. Once again, it's a shot in the dark.

[The Senator]

Also, that doesn't void my previous claim that Obama is running the best campaign since Bill Clinton in 1992. He is raising money and competing in states where no Democrat has been competitive on the national front since then.

[Matt]

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]

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.

[Matt]

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]

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.

[Matt]

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]

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.

[Marx]

Also, that doesn't void my previous claim that Obama is running the best campaign since Bill Clinton in 1992. He is raising money and competing in states where no Democrat has been competitive on the national front since then.

That said, we all know that money cannot buy an election.

[Matt]

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.

[Marx]

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:

[Matt]

That said, we all know that money cannot buy an election.

http://desedo.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/bush-cheney.jpg

http://x62.xanga.com/b3cd35e660730108274623/w76803901.jpg

[Marx]

I concede the point Matt. I was moreso referring to this election cycle. :oldrazz:

[Tag279]

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.

[Marx]

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]

Is McCain picking Ronmey? My liveral parents loved him when he was their governor.

[Matt]

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.

[Matt]

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]

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]

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.

[Marx]

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]

You should, Marx! Interrail around! Great experience.

[Marx]

You should, Marx! Interrail around! Great experience.

I hope to! :yay:

[DACrowe]

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]

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!]

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.

[Marx]

Troop cuts seen as foiling Obama
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/03/troop-cuts-seen-as-foiling-obama/

[charl_huntress]

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]

edit.

[Docker2.0]

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]

I feel Hilary is Obama's only hope for VP. If he doesn't pick her...I'm not sure he can win.

[Varient]

(((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]

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]

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]

New Obama ad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJPo5IGTd0A

QJPo5IGTd0A

[Tron5000]

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]

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]

(((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]

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]

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.”

[Matt]

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.

[Matt]

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]

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...

[Matt]

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]

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?

[Matt]

The shining light quote seemed to be, but comeon, the rest of those quotes reaked of arrogance.

[Überlibran]

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]

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.

[Matt]

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?

[Matt]

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]

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?

[Matt]

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]

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]

Obama's speech on energy today was awesome.

[Varient]

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]

Obama's speech on energy today was awesome.

Kaine, your man crush on the man makes your comment irrelevant. :csad:

[Marx]

I did not see his speech today.

[kainedamo]

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.

[Marx]

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]

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]

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.

[Marx]

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]

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]

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]

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]

EDIT: Full speech below.

[DorkyFresh]

i'm surprised no one's wished Obama Happy Birthday yet.

[kainedamo]

EDIT: Full speech below.

[kainedamo]

Here is the full speech on energy by Obama.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bC1A8dLkRWM

bC1A8dLkRWM

[Zen]

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]

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]

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]

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.....

[Zen]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Matt]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Matt]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Matt]

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]

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.

[Matt]

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]

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]

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."

[Matt]

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.

[Matt]

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.

[Matt]

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.

[Zen]

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.

[Matt]

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]

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

[Zen]

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]

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.

[Matt]

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]

I agree, unless his choice is really unique and provacative, no one will really care.

[Matt]

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]

McCain should choose Denny Crane as his VP....

[Matt]

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.

[Zen]

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.

[Matt]

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).

[Matt]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Matt]

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.

[Matt]

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.

[Matt]

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]

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...

[Matt]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Matt]

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]

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]

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]

Everyone discounts the biggest advantage of Romney...$$$

Romney does have money, but if McCain is seeking public financing, that will be irrelevant.

[Matt]

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]

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]

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]

: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]

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]

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]

:whatever:

So out of the millions of people in trouble, half of them are just lazy a-holes stealing your tax dollars?

[BlackLantern]

Probably not half, but a good percentage......are you saying lazy a-holes that live off the system don't exist?

[Varient]

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]

^^^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]

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]

^^^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]

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]

^^^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]

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]

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]

Um, you do know the "them" he was referring to wasn't those deserving and needing of real help.

[moraldeficiency]

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]

stupid double post.


I like puppies, they're delicious and low in fat.

[Addendum]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Zen]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[BlackestNight]

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?

I may be worng but isn't unemployment your own tax money that you bulid up from working a certian amount of time. So its not realy your tax dollars but her own.



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.

Nope its working its just not very effective. Obama's poll numbers start to trend downward at the begining of the week then they bounce back before the weeks over.

[rdh007]

I may be worng but isn't unemployment your own tax money that you bulid up from working a certian amount of time. So its not realy your tax dollars but her own.

Not really. But, her employer had to "put in" on some of that money that she was getting. If she gets laid off but not fired, her employer has to pay the state government (in Michigan anyway) a certain percentage of her former wage.

[Tron5000]

I may be worng but isn't unemployment your own tax money that you bulid up from working a certian amount of time. So its not realy your tax dollars but her own.



Nope its working its just not very effective. Obama's poll numbers start to trend downward at the begining of the week then they bounce back before the weeks over.

You don't have an unemployment account. The money you take (like SS) is not guaranteed to you. If you are ooof sound mind and body, and you take money from me (rather than working), you are wrong for doing so.

[Excel]

Tron, you have a point. However, you need to be realistic.

Its only a small fraction of the people who collect welfare and unnemployment. And just because some people cheat it doesnt mean we should get rid of it all together, therefore leaving the people who actually do need it out to dry. You cant just forget about them.

[kainedamo]

McCain Uses Racist Code Words To Attack Obama As "Uppity" (aka - where does the elitist argument really come from?)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQ_v3T0HVXY

OQ_v3T0HVXY

[Tron5000]

McCain Uses Racist Code Words To Attack Obama As "Uppity" (aka - where does the elitist argument really come from?)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQ_v3T0HVXY

OQ_v3T0HVXY

"Uppity" = the N word? Don't think so. You know, there are online dictionaries where you can actually learn the meaning of a word. It's awesome.

[terry78]

Well, uppity usually means that you think you're too good for something, or above it all. That can be viewed as a definite insult if you're referring to a presidential candidate rival.

[Matt]

Well, uppity usually means that you think you're too good for something, or above it all. That can be viewed as a definite insult if you're referring to a presidential candidate rival.

And Obama has claimed to be above the system, so the term fits.

[Matt]

"Uppity" = the N word? Don't think so. You know, there are online dictionaries where you can actually learn the meaning of a word. It's awesome.

I read this in the Post-Gazette the other day, and it sums up the Obama campaign's actions really well. They are playing the "racist card"

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08217/901661-152.stm

[moraldeficiency]

Uppity does have a racial overtone, IMO. I've never heard the word used without the N word right behind it (mainly movies).

[Matt]

I have. And of course McCain will use a word like uppity. His entire "The One," ad is trying to play off of Obama's arrogance. Not because Obama is black, but because Obama has acted arrogant as hell on numerous occassions. The fact that Obama cannot come up with a better defense than "THEY'RE RACIST!" shows that he is no different than any other politican.

[moraldeficiency]

Hey I don't mind those ads, but the word uppity just isn't used generally anymore. Arrogant is. I can't think of ever hearing the word without it being meant in a racist way. "That uppity Nword doesn't know his place", that kind of thing. You must hang out with some seriously old people matt if they use uppity as just part of conversational language. I'm not saying McCain is a racist or anything like that, but when I hear the word uppity there's only one occasion that comes to my mind, and that's putting blacks in their place.

[Matt]

Here is a pretty good article:


Obama's Eloquence Fatigue
By George Will

WASHINGTON -- As the presidential candidates enter the three-month sprint to November, Barack Obama must be wondering: If that did not do it, what will? The antecedent of the pronoun "that" is his Berlin speech. The antecedent of the pronoun "it" is assuage anxieties about his understanding of the need to supplement soft power (diplomacy) with hard power (military force).

He spoke in Berlin at the bullet-scarred base -- it was in the crossfire 63 years ago as Russian troops neared Hitler's bunker about a mile away -- of an 1873 monument to German militarism. To be precise, the monument celebrates the Franco-Prussian War and lesser triumphs of the militarism that would help ruin the next century.

Anyway, at that monument Obama exhorted Germans -- does the candidate of "change" appreciate how much beneficent change made this exhortation necessary? -- to be more willing to wage war, in Afghanistan. He was right to do so.

But polls taken since his trip abroad do not indicate that Obama succeeded in altering the oddest aspect of this presidential campaign: Measured against his party's surging strength in every region and at every level, he is dramatically underperforming. Surely this fact is related to anxieties about his thin resume regarding national security matters, the thinnest of any major party nominee since Wendell Wilkie's in 1940. But the fact also might be related to fatigue from too much of Obama's eloquence, which is beginning to sound formulaic and perfunctory.

Even an eloquent politician can become, as Benjamin Disraeli described William Gladstone, "a sophistical rhetorician inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity." John Kennedy said in Berlin, "Freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free." That half-baked and badly written thought was either trivial because it was tautological (when one man is enslaved, not every man is free) or it was absurd (when one man is not free, no man is free). That absurdity is dangerous because it makes a grandiose mission seem imperative, as in President George W. Bush's second inaugural address: "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands."

Does Obama have the sort of adviser a candidate most needs -- someone sufficiently unenthralled to tell him when he has worked one pedal on the organ too much? If so, Obama should be told: Enough, already, with the we-are-who-we-have-been-waiting-for rhetorical cotton candy that elevates narcissism to a political philosophy.

And no more locutions such as "citizen of the world" and "global citizenship." If they meant anything in Berlin, they meant that Obama wanted Berliners to know that he is proudly cosmopolitan. Cosmopolitanism is not, however, a political asset for American presidential candidates. Least of all is it an asset for Obama, one of whose urgent needs is to seem comfortable with America's vibrant and very un-European patriotism, which is grounded in a sense of virtuous exceptionalism.

Otherwise, "citizen of the world" and "global citizenship" are, strictly speaking, nonsense. Citizenship is defined by legal and loyalty attachments to a particular political entity with a distinctive regime and culture. Neither the world nor the globe is such an entity.

In Berlin, Obama neared self-parody with a rhetoric of Leave No Metaphor Behind. "Walls"? Down with them. "Bridges"? Build new ones between this and that. "A new dawn"? The Middle East deserves one. And Berlin was the wrong place to vow to "remake the world once again." Modern Berlin rose from rubble that was the result of the last attempt at remaking "the world."

Of course, from Obama, such tropes, although silly, are not menacing, any more than they were from Ronald Reagan, who was incorrigibly fond of perhaps the least conservative, and therefore the most absurd, proposition ever penned by a political philosopher, Thomas Paine's "we have it in our power to begin the world over again." No. We. Don't.

The world is a fact, and facts are indeed stubborn things. After eight years, if such there are, of an Obama presidency, if such there is, the world will look much as it does today -- if we are lucky.

Swift and sweeping changes are almost always calamitous consequences of calamities -- often of wars, sometimes of people determined to "remake the world." Wise voters -- polls might be telling us that there are more of them than Obama imagines -- hanker for candidates whose principal promise is that they will do their best to muddle through without breaking too much crockery.


I bolded the particularly true parts.

[Matt]

Hey I don't mind those ads, but the word uppity just isn't used generally anymore. Arrogant is. I can't think of ever hearing the word without it being meant in a racist way. "That uppity Nword doesn't know his place", that kind of thing. You must hang out with some seriously old people matt if they use uppity as just part of conversational language. I'm not saying McCain is a racist or anything like that, but when I hear the word uppity there's only one occasion that comes to my mind, and that's putting blacks in their place.

But there it is, McCain IS old. His vocabulary may reflect that. To claim he had racist intent when he clearly did not is jjust a cheap ploy of Obama.

[Varient]

I guess I expect MORE from my political leaders to KNOW what words DO have negative overtones.

ONLY IN AMERICA can "Uppity" be used in reference to Blacks who go further than whites would want FOR FOUR HUNDRED YEARS and have whites claim that it's not in any way racist when used on a black canidate in a race for President.


amazing.

V.

[Darthphere]

Jesus you guys are ****ing nuts. "Uppity"? Seriously? That's what got you guys up in arms? Talk about a cigar being a cigar.

[Matt]

How the **** is UPPITY racist? My mother, who does not have a racist bone in her body uses the word all the time? If McCain said arrogant people would be playing the racist card too.

[terry78]

http://www.penguin.com.au/covers-jpg/9781846462979.jpg

I always wondered, when reading this books...why was Mr. Uppity brown? You saying he's a house negro? Con-spir-a-cy, brother. :cmad:

[Darthphere]

How the **** is UPPITY racist? My mother, who does not have a racist bone in her body uses the word all the time? If McCain said arrogant people would be playing the racist card too.

It's not.

uppity-affecting an attitude of inflated self-esteem; haughty; snobbish.

Yes, that's racist.:huh:

[moraldeficiency]

Isn't that entire article speculation and conjecture though? Will's smart but he is only giving his personal opinion of what the US needs and wants, and there is a long line of very intelligent advisors put out to pasture because they thought they understood the full dynamics of politics and what would win elections. Who's to say US citizens don't think a cosmopolitian politican that would mend ties with other countries. Will seems to be saying the America First vote is the only one out there, I would have to disagree respectively. I know there are many people that are tired of everyone hating on the US, some for legit reasons many out of jealously and spite, and someone that could mend ties and maybe, possibly help with some of the defunct trade proportions could possibly be an asset. Now I'm not saying this is true, I'm willing to accept I could be wrong and Will might be 100% on this, but the problem with Will is he never seems to consider the possiblity of faulty or inaccurate reasonings and insights on his part (a flaw most journalists share) and that skews his logic away from true reason and into subjective reason.

Also Will atributes all of Obama's "underperformance" to one thing and we all know that's faulty. There are wide and diverse reasonings why some do not like Obama. You, Matt, have some very logical and thoughout reasonings for your distaste, but you ultimately share the same opinion as some racist moron. I'm not saying you're like that person in any way, but that's the point two people with vastly different idealogies that have the same end result where it matters (the vote). So to attribute all Obama's underperformance to one point negates the million of other reasons why he is in this state. I mean he's running against a war hero (and I do NOT throw that term around lightly) that millions respect, a charasmatic man that has convinced many he's a change agent as well and has blasted by the primaries in his party with few scrapes and is now in the lead of a well organized party with a singular purpose.

Contrast that with Obama who has little experience, isn't nearly the known figure (until recently) in many circles that count and has had to run the most contested drawn out and divisive primaries in recent history. Add to that the insane attacks making him a militant white hating muslim which are actually being believed by more people than I'm comfortable admitting and maybe we can agree that it isn't just one factor that has him underperforming. Though I'm not sure we can really say anything about underperformance as this is a canidate (sorry the black thing does come into play) that the US has never seen before, so it's hard to label facts when the experiment has no constant to compare it to (political analysists would probably benefit from some remedial science).

Will talks of facts and the dangers of sweeping changes, but he offers no facts only opinions. After 8 years of being lied to about facts and sweeping changes being made without congressional approval I could do with less of that. Will, looking back so far, is forgetting recent history. If obama makes the sweeping changes that undo the sweeping changes the W has made which are killing our troops, weakening our economy and isolating us in a digital age where strength is found in pooling of resources, I would be cool with that.

[moraldeficiency]

It's not.

uppity-affecting an attitude of inflated self-esteem; haughty; snobbish.

Yes, that's racist.:huh:

I'm glad everyone feels that way. I hope we can take out overtones in all words, I look forward to the day. It still doesn't change the fact that I've never heard the term uppity refer to anyone white, hispanic or asian. I'm not saying the term is racist in itself, just a term racists really seem found of. Lynching isn't paticular to one race either, but it does conjure up only one image in my mind. Is this making too big a deal about something? Sure is, and I'm not raving that this racist filth must be expunged, just stating my personal feelings in that there is a twinge there of something under the surface which I do think resonates with a paticular group.

[Darthphere]

If I find a picture of Obama eating a slice of watermelon and say "Wow, Obama really likes his watermelon!" Does that make me racist?

[Varient]

How the **** is UPPITY racist? My mother, who does not have a racist bone in her body uses the word all the time? If McCain said arrogant people would be playing the racist card too.

Sad Sigh.
I'll say it again:
"I guess I expect MORE from my political leaders to KNOW what words DO have negative overtones."

Pure and simple.

I think that if McCain had obviously not been living under a rock that he would know better.

No Heat,... having failed in standard "smear" McCains folk are now trying to get a rise out of the Obama campaign by less than subtle digs,... Sort of like Rush Limbaugh trying to get Obama to call in by calling him a dope and a dunce repeatedly.

Meh.

transparent.

[Darthphere]

Sad Sigh.
I'll say it again:
"I guess I expect MORE from my political leaders to KNOW what words DO have negative overtones."

Pure and simple.

I think that if McCain had obviously not been living under a rock that he would know better.

No Heat,... having failed in standard "smear" McCains folk are now trying to get a rise out of the Obama campaign by less than subtle digs,... Sort of like Rush Limbaugh trying to get Obama to call in by calling him a dope and a dunce repeatedly.

Meh.

transparent.

How do you know that?

[moraldeficiency]

If I find a picture of Obama eating a slice of watermelon and say "Wow, Obama really likes his watermelon!" Does that make me racist?

No, in this group apparently nothing can be racist if the original meaning wasn't. Matter of fact since the Nword was created by blacks as a term for other blacks, it's not racist either. I can't wait to explain to my black family members how I can use it freely cause it's not inherently racist and they just need to chill.

I think we're going overboard, in how we're acting above the double meaning of certian words and phrases here. One, Matt, McCain isn't writing his own stuff, it's been carefully composed and prepared to elicit emotions and feelings very specific to suggest otherwise is just narrow. Two since there are a billion other words which convey the exact same meaning with no racial overtone I have to conclude that it was a purposeful statement meant for a purposeful reason or at least admit the possibility it was. As uppity isn't nearly as recognizable as arrogant or condesending it was used (possibly) for a reason. Maybe it's dissecting this too much, but any speech writer will tell you there's always something beneath the surface. Let's be honest, if McCain can get away with painting Obama as arrogant while at the same time tapping in buried fears and prejudices which will help him secure the nomination, he'll do it. Was he doing it here? I'm not sure, but I won't rule it out just because it's possible it wasn't.

[Matt]

Isn't that entire article speculation and conjecture though? Will's smart but he is only giving his personal opinion of what the US needs and wants, and there is a long line of very intelligent advisors put out to pasture because they thought they understood the full dynamics of politics and what would win elections. Who's to say US citizens don't think a cosmopolitian politican that would mend ties with other countries. Will seems to be saying the America First vote is the only one out there, I would have to disagree respectively. I know there are many people that are tired of everyone hating on the US, some for legit reasons many out of jealously and spite, and someone that could mend ties and maybe, possibly help with some of the defunct trade proportions could possibly be an asset. Now I'm not saying this is true, I'm willing to accept I could be wrong and Will might be 100% on this, but the problem with Will is he never seems to consider the possiblity of faulty or inaccurate reasonings and insights on his part (a flaw most journalists share) and that skews his logic away from true reason and into subjective reason.

I don't think he is saying that the America First vote is the only one out there, but a very small minority will base their vote on who Europeans like.


Also Will atributes all of Obama's "underperformance" to one thing and we all know that's faulty. There are wide and diverse reasonings why some do not like Obama. You, Matt, have some very logical and thoughout reasonings for your distaste, but you ultimately share the same opinion as some racist moron. I'm not saying you're like that person in any way, but that's the point two people with vastly different idealogies that have the same end result where it matters (the vote). So to attribute all Obama's underperformance to one point negates the million of other reasons why he is in this state. I mean he's running against a war hero (and I do NOT throw that term around lightly) that millions respect, a charasmatic man that has convinced many he's a change agent as well and has blasted by the primaries in his party with few scrapes and is now in the lead of a well organized party with a singular purpose.

Contrast that with Obama who has little experience, isn't nearly the known figure (until recently) in many circles that count and has had to run the most contested drawn out and divisive primaries in recent history. Add to that the insane attacks making him a militant white hating muslim which are actually being believed by more people than I'm comfortable admitting and maybe we can agree that it isn't just one factor that has him underperforming. Though I'm not sure we can really say anything about underperformance as this is a canidate (sorry the black thing does come into play) that the US has never seen before, so it's hard to label facts when the experiment has no constant to compare it to (political analysists would probably benefit from some remedial science).

Never the less, one cannot deny that compared to the rest of the party, he is struggling. I'm sure there is a multitude of reasons, but I think Will may be onto something. Obama has been singing this whole "We're the ones we've been waiting for" song this whole election. It is not working to the demograhichs he is not appealing to (seniors and blue collar middle class male voters). He does need an advisor who is brave enough to tell him "its time to drop the arrogance and pander."


Will talks of facts and the dangers of sweeping changes, but he offers no facts only opinions. After 8 years of being lied to about facts and sweeping changes being made without congressional approval I could do with less of that. Will, looking back so far, is forgetting recent history. If obama makes the sweeping changes that undo the sweeping changes the W has made which are killing our troops, weakening our economy and isolating us in a digital age where strength is found in pooling of resources, I would be cool with that.

Any change from Bush will be a good thing. But I also think people are weary of a change that brings us close to European socialism and I think that is what Will is talking about.

I'm glad everyone feels that way. I hope we can take out overtones in all words, I look forward to the day. It still doesn't change the fact that I've never heard the term uppity refer to anyone white, hispanic or asian. I'm not saying the term is racist in itself, just a term racists really seem found of. Lynching isn't paticular to one race either, but it does conjure up only one image in my mind. Is this making too big a deal about something? Sure is, and I'm not raving that this racist filth must be expunged, just stating my personal feelings in that there is a twinge there of something under the surface which I do think resonates with a paticular group.

But in all fairness you're comparing lynching to the word "Uppity."

[Darthphere]

Matt used lynching, he's a racist!

[Darthphere]

No, in this group apparently nothing can be racist if the original meaning wasn't.

Isn't that the way it should be. In the example I used, how is stating that Obama likes watermelon racist, if he indeed likes watermelon?:huh:

[BlackLantern]

Isn't that the way it should be. In the example I used, how is stating that Obama likes watermelon racist, if he indeed likes watermelon?:huh:

Rascist!!!! I bet you're going to say he likes fried chicken next huh?

[Darthphere]

Rascist!!!! I bet you're going to say he likes fried chicken next huh?

But what if Obama did like fried chicken?!:csad:


By the way, he doesn't. He eats healthy unlike McCain, who ate a cow for a breakfast.

[moraldeficiency]

I don't think he is saying that the America First vote is the only one out there, but a very small minority will base their vote on who Europeans like.

based only on his personal feelings and some extremely early polls. He's also disregarding every other aspect with this laser like precision but talking about an outcome that can only be determined by a wide range of factors.

Never the less, one cannot deny that compared to the rest of the party, he is struggling. I'm sure there is a multitude of reasons, but I think Will may be onto something. Obama has been singing this whole "We're the ones we've been waiting for" song this whole election. It is not working to the demograhichs he is not appealing to (seniors and blue collar middle class male voters). He does need an advisor who is brave enough to tell him "its time to drop the arrogance and pander."

But he is the one running for president, the first black president at that. And he's just gone through such a divisive primary that you have many ardent party supports swearing they won't vote for him and activing trying to make his campaign suffer. The republicans have nothing like that going on. So yes the rest of the party is doing better, but a large group within his own party are still angry or out right hateful towards him and that's a factor no other democrat is going through. I'd believe, and unlike Will I state this as simply my opinion not fact, that the rumors circulating and being believed have hurt him as much if not more with the seniors and blue collar middle class males than his "arrogance".

Any change from Bush will be a good thing. But I also think people are weary of a change that brings us close to European socialism and I think that is what Will is talking about.

Yes, and no. Will was talking about any drastic changes, but in a country that has had nothing but drastic changes towards a National Socialist government, I can't see a moderate turn the other way being a bad thing. In fact considering the positions we've been put in status quo will not cut it. Gas, the war effort, the economy, private rights cannot continue in this course and only drastic change will undo the drastic changes already given. Will's argument can only lead to insipient decline, IMO.

But in all fairness you're comparing lynching to the word "Uppity."

I know, and it was an exaggeration just to show a point. I couldn't think of a closer word. All I'm saying is given the spectrum of choices, and the underlying connation (to some) the word brings it would be narrow of us to assume it was intended only as the arrogant meaning without any other intention. Little jabs, small fears, buried racism..... this is the type of feeling that will win McCain the election amognst those groups we're talking about.

[BlackLantern]

But what if Obama did like fried chicken?!:csad:


By the way, he doesn't. He eats healthy unlike McCain, who ate a cow for a breakfast.

You say that like there is something wrong with it

[The Senator]

Uppity does have a racial overtone, IMO. I've never heard the word used without the N word right behind it (mainly movies).

I say uppity all the time, and I never say the N-word :huh:

As in, "why are you so uppity?" or "I don't know, he was just uppity for some reason."

I had no idea I was a closet racist :whatever:

[BlackLantern]

I say uppity all the time, and I never say the N-word :huh:

As in, "why are you so uppity?" or "I don't know, he was just uppity for some reason."

I had no idea I was a closet racist :whatever:

Wow...you're a closet racist and homosexual....the conflict within you must be raging...

:yay:

[kainedamo]

You guys are focusing too much on the word itself.

[Varient]

How do you know that?

?
McCain openly complains about Obama doing THE SAME THINGS he had done earlier.
McCain demands "town hall" type debates with Obama at times and places of his choosing - inferring that Obama is "afraid" to do so because he's doing other stuff instead.
McCain puts the campaign funding issue on Obama - saying he went back on his word - when the "word" wasn't anything about Obama agreeing to use it.

That was the smearing - That Obama is wasting time when he does as McCain does and Obama must be a coward because he doesn't come when McCain calls, And because McCain is inconvienced at having to continue to dig into his own pockets LIKE OBAMA, Obama is not playing fair.


So,... How do I know what? That McCain has been trying to smear Obama by way of what Obama does regardless of whether McCain has done or is doing the same things?

or perhaps on failing to get that mess validated his election engine is now working toward trying to get obama to "act out"?

V.

[Tron5000]

I say uppity all the time, and I never say the N-word :huh:

As in, "why are you so uppity?" or "I don't know, he was just uppity for some reason."

I had no idea I was a closet racist :whatever:

You're a gay racist? Life must be tough for you. :woot:

[The Senator]

You guys are focusing too much on the word itself.

There's nothing to focus on.

McCain used the word "uppity."

McCain is seven hundred thousand years old, he probably uses words like "conflabbit" and "jiminy" on a regular basis. Therefore, I'm not surprised this odd word is a part of his vocabulary.

While "uppity," to some people, has a racial overtone, it is not universally accepted as a racist word, because it is not. In fact, this is the FIRST time I heard such a theory.

It's silly, and yet another attempt to paint McCain as a big old racist.

[moraldeficiency]

I say uppity all the time, and I never say the N-word :huh:

As in, "why are you so uppity?" or "I don't know, he was just uppity for some reason."

I had no idea I was a closet racist :whatever:

Good for you, I was saying that I had never heard the term used without the nword following it. I'm glad you're volcabulary is so diverse, super. But I wasn't calling you a racist and you're just being childish to suggest otherwise. Have you never in your life heard the word used as negative specifically to black people that try and intergrate to white society? If so, super, you live in the only nonracist part of the country. Though you've also argued the confederate flag shouldn't bother blacks so I don't think you're the best judge of these things. Gay rights, sure, but anything else and you seem to take this disaffected attitude of "so what, get over it".

[Tron5000]

Good for you, I was saying that I had never heard the term used without the nword following it. I'm glad you're volcabulary is so diverse, super. But I wasn't calling you a racist and you're just being childish to suggest otherwise. Have you never in your life heard the word used as negative specifically to black people that try and intergrate to white society? If so, super, you live in the only nonracist part of the country. Though you've also argued the confederate flag shouldn't bother blacks so I don't think you're the best judge of these things. Gay rights, sure, but anything else and you seem to take this disaffected attitude of "so what, get over it".

Um, yeah, I've heard the word "uppity" used several times in reference to people of all races. Perhaps you just hang out with too many racists, and that's why you've only heard it used in that context.

[The Senator]

Good for you, I was saying that I had never heard the term used without the nword following it. I'm glad you're volcabulary is so diverse, super. But I wasn't calling you a racist and you're just being childish to suggest otherwise. Have you never in your life heard the word used as negative specifically to black people that try and intergrate to white society? If so, super, you live in the only nonracist part of the country. Though you've also argued the confederate flag shouldn't bother blacks so I don't think you're the best judge of these things. Gay rights, sure, but anything else and you seem to take this disaffected attitude of "so what, get over it".

I never said that the Confederate Flag shouldn't bother blacks.

I said that it is ridiculous to assume that everyone who displays the flag is a big ol' racist who hates black people and wants to see the country separate from the union and re-instate slavery. And since I live where the North meets the South, I've known people who have Confederate Flag bumper stickers on their cars who are not racist at all. They are displaying their Southern heritage. I would know, because I most certainly would not have friends who are ignorant, racist morons.

Uppity is an adjective-- it is not a word solely designed for racist purposes, if it even is considered racist in the world off these boards. Uppity means presumptuous... as in, my friend Bob is very uppity (presumptuous) to assume that I like Denis Kucinich because I have a picture with him...

This is almost as bad as the moron in Wisconsin who claimed the Milwaukee city council was racist because it used the term "black hole" to describe the city's economic problems. That's like if you said the word "campy" and I jumped on you for being discriminatory towards gays... some words have been used in an obscure racial context, BUT that doesn't mean that everyone who uses those words is a big honkin' racist...

[moraldeficiency]

Um, yeah, I've heard the word "uppity" used several times in reference to people of all races. Perhaps you just hang out with too many racists, and that's why you've only heard it used in that context.

Yep, that must be it.
*Puts on hood and goes to klan rally.*
*returns from lynching uppity nword*
god that was theraputic.


When I heard the word used the most was after I had immigrated and joined the service. Paris Island, South Carolina. Along with the confederate flag hanging proudly over the capital, there were plenty of fun activites I got to embark on. Doubly so because my best friend (currently in Iraq) was black and I was a new immigrant. We really fit in, and those fine people, both townies and people in the service had no problem with seeing us go out and act like humans towards each other. Chris (my friend) was in no way ever called an "uppity nword" for hitting on a white chick at a bar by some *******s (who promptly got there fat asses kicked in) and I never had issues from those fellow rebel flag wavers for having the audicity to date a black girl. You're right, I'm just a racist lover.

[Tron5000]

I never said that the Confederate Flag shouldn't bother blacks.

I said that it is ridiculous to assume that everyone who displays the flag is a big ol' racist who hates black people and wants to see the country separate from the union and re-instate slavery. And since I live where the North meets the South, I've known people who have Confederate Flag bumper stickers on their cars who are not racist at all. They are displaying their Southern heritage. I would know, because I most certainly would not have friends who are ignorant, racist morons.

Uppity is an adjective-- it is not a word solely designed for racist purposes, if it even is considered racist in the world off these boards. Uppity means presumptuous... as in, my friend Bob is very uppity (presumptuous) to assume that I like Denis Kucinich because I have a picture with him...

This is almost as bad as the moron in Wisconsin who claimed the Milwaukee city council was racist because it used the term "black hole" to describe the city's economic problems. That's like if you said the word "campy" and I jumped on you for being discriminatory towards gays... some words have been used in an obscure racial context, BUT that doesn't mean that everyone who uses those words is a big honkin' racist...

That was awesome. Especially when he was calling other people racists, then he turns around and calls it a "white hole." Now just who was the real racist here?

[moraldeficiency]

I never said that the Confederate Flag shouldn't bother blacks.

I said that it is ridiculous to assume that everyone who displays the flag is a big ol' racist who hates black people and wants to see the country separate from the union and re-instate slavery. And since I live where the North meets the South, I've known people who have Confederate Flag bumper stickers on their cars who are not racist at all. They are displaying their Southern heritage. I would know, because I most certainly would not have friends who are ignorant, racist morons.

Uppity is an adjective-- it is not a word solely designed for racist purposes, if it even is considered racist in the world off these boards. Uppity means presumptuous... as in, my friend Bob is very uppity (presumptuous) to assume that I like Denis Kucinich because I have a picture with him...

This is almost as bad as the moron in Wisconsin who claimed the Milwaukee city council was racist because it used the term "black hole" to describe the city's economic problems. That's like if you said the word "campy" and I jumped on you for being discriminatory towards gays... some words have been used in an obscure racial context, BUT that doesn't mean that everyone who uses those words is a big honkin' racist...

Yes, you're right I was overly dramatic with attributing the flag thing the way I did, I apologize.

I know the defination of the word, now you're being condescending along with dramatic and narrow. The idea that a word can also have a paticular meaning in the minds of certian people I guess cannot even be a possiblity to you. I wish I knew what everyone thought, that must be cool.

black hole has never been used by racists in that way, so the comparison is moot. Uppity, and I can't believe so many people here use that word constantly, especially since I've never seen it used here until this very day, does have some overtones to some people such as myself. Sorry, but that's a personal opinion and all the definations of how the word is only one thing can't help what I've seen, heard and experienced in my life.

I did say it could be innocent, but I was making the point to assume it was only innocent and had no alterior motive is to have no idea of political workings, speech writing, or campaigning at all. With your experience I would hope you would at least allow for the possiblity of a double meaning for a politican. And that's what I'm hearing, that it's impossible for the word to have been crafted to insite certian feelings, because it's not the direct meaning. If I can allow for the possiblity that the word meant nothing more than face value defination (even though it immediately turns my mind to race) can you not admit that it might possibly be crafted as something more?

[The Senator]

Well, since McCain didn't call Obama an "uppity n-word," then I have no reason to believe that he used the word to mean more than "presumptuous"...

[kainedamo]

Yeah Obama's rising above his position alright.

[BlackLantern]

Since I am black, can I refer to myself as an uppity ******???

[StorminNorman]

I never said that the Confederate Flag shouldn't bother blacks.

I said that it is ridiculous to assume that everyone who displays the flag is a big ol' racist who hates black people and wants to see the country separate from the union and re-instate slavery. And since I live where the North meets the South, I've known people who have Confederate Flag bumper stickers on their cars who are not racist at all. They are displaying their Southern heritage. I would know, because I most certainly would not have friends who are ignorant, racist morons.

Uppity is an adjective-- it is not a word solely designed for racist purposes, if it even is considered racist in the world off these boards. Uppity means presumptuous... as in, my friend Bob is very uppity (presumptuous) to assume that I like Denis Kucinich because I have a picture with him...

This is almost as bad as the moron in Wisconsin who claimed the Milwaukee city council was racist because it used the term "black hole" to describe the city's economic problems. That's like if you said the word "campy" and I jumped on you for being discriminatory towards gays... some words have been used in an obscure racial context, BUT that doesn't mean that everyone who uses those words is a big honkin' racist...

I live in the south and absolutely despise the Confederate Battle Flag. I honestly have never met someone who has displayed THAT symbol without some racist overtones.

If you want to display pride of your southern heritage, thats fine - thats great. I am all for that. Use one of the alternative Confederate Flags, not the one that has been abused by the same southern heritage you are trying to take pride that has become a symbol of racism and intolerance. The rebel flag should be an EMBARASSEMENT for South.

[The Senator]

I live in the south and absolutely despise the Confederate Battle Flag. I honestly have never met someone who has displayed THAT symbol without some racist overtones.

If you want to display pride of your southern heritage, thats fine - thats great. I am all for that. Use one of the alternative Confederate Flags, not the one that has been abused by the same southern heritage you are trying to take pride that has become a symbol of racism and intolerance. The rebel flag should be an EMBARASSEMENT for South.

I agree that the Confederate Flag should be an embarrassment for the South. Then again, you live in the deeper South, so you probably have more racists than I do in the DC metro area. Jim Webb, for example, displays the Confederate Flag in his office and he's not a racist in the least bit.

I do think the Confederate Flag should be retired as the symbol of Southern heritage... but there is nothing we can do to prevent people from displaying it...

[StorminNorman]

I agree that the Confederate Flag should be an embarrassment for the South. Then again, you live in the deeper South, so you probably have more racists than I do in the DC metro area. Jim Webb, for example, displays the Confederate Flag in his office and he's not a racist in the least bit.

If he's not racist than at the very least he is being stupid. Again - anyone that takes any real pride in their southern heritage would of done the minute amount of research it takes to see all the various other flags used by the Confederate States: the stars and bars, the bonnie blue, the first confederate Navy Jack flag. When you purposely decide to use the one that became a symbol of racism, oppression and ignorance - you are being either racist or at most innocent, daft.

I do think the Confederate Flag should be retired as the symbol of Southern heritage... but there is nothing we can do to prevent people from displaying it...

True - but there is something we can do about it being flown at certain government buildings in the south.

[BlackLantern]

I never got the expression "The South will rise again"....the South hadn't really risen anywhere significant to start with so I never got what they were trying to say....

[The Senator]

True - but there is something we can do about it being flown at certain government buildings in the south.

I don't think it should be flown over government buildings.

[The Senator]

I never got the expression "The South will rise again"....the South hadn't really risen anywhere significant to start with so I never got what they were trying to say....

Ah, but the South gave us Garth Brooks and Kenny Chesney, so that must mean something...

[Tron5000]

In Georgia, we changed our flag a few years ago because it contained the Southern Cross (the actual name for the flag of the Confederate States of America). I still fly the old flag, because it was the flag of my state while I was growing up, and I have great pride in it. My neighbors did not like it at first, but when I explained to them that it was a part of my heritage and vocalized the reasons for my reverence for the flag, they understood and were OK with my display of it. But I did move it to the back yard, so as to avoid any unnecessary conflicts.

[Tron5000]

Ah, but the South gave us Garth Brooks and Kenny Chesney, so that must mean something...

And Julia Roberts, Michael Jordan, Charles Barkley, Ty Cobb, Hank Aaron, Brett Favre, Peyton Manning, Morgan Freeman, moonshine, peanuts and NASCAR. God Bless The South.

[The Senator]

And Julia Roberts, Ty Cobb, Brett Favre, Peyton Manning, Morgan Freeman, moonshine, peanuts and NASCAR. God Bless The South.

The only good thing on that list is 'Morgan Freeman.' Everything else = :down


(or, at least I don't care about the other things)

[BlackLantern]

I like peanuts and Peyton Manning

[Tron5000]

And don't forget BBQ, the blues and jazz. Word, son.

[StorminNorman]

In Georgia, we changed our flag a few years ago because it contained the Souther Cross (the actual name for the flag of the Confederate States of America). I still fly the old flag, because it was the flag of my state while I was growing up, and I have great pride in it. My neighbors did not like it at first, but when I explained to them that it was a part of my heritage and vocalized the reasons for my reverence for the flag, they understood and were OK with my display of it. But I did move it to the back yard, so as to avoid any unnecessary conflicts.

I believe there is a difference in flying a state flag - like the old Georgia flag - and flying a rebel flag.

[Tron5000]

I edited my earlier post. More good stuff from The South.

[The Senator]

Morgan Freeman is still the only good thing on that list...

[Addendum]

I take pride in my actions, not from what plot of land I happen to reside on

[Tron5000]

Morgan Freeman is still the only good thing on that list...

What you got against Michael Jordan?

Hey, The South also has Midtown Atlanta. Gay capital of America. That counts for something, right?

[Tron5000]

I take pride in my actions, not from what plot of land I reside on

I'm proud of my state and my country. I Thank God I was born in both of them.

[The Senator]

What you got against Michael Jordan?

I don't really care for basketball or sports in general.


Hey, The South also has Midtown Atlanta. Gay capital of America. That counts for something, right?

I always thought San Francisco was the gay capital of America, but Atlanta in itself counts for something.

[StorminNorman]

The South also has Dsney World.

And the studio Golden Girls was filmed at!

[Addendum]

I didn't have a choice in it, so I'm indifferent

[Tron5000]

I don't really care for basketball or sports in general.



I always thought San Francisco was the gay capital of America, but Atlanta in itself counts for something.

Atlanta has taken over. Trust me. I lived in Midtown for 7 years, and I knew many homosexuals who emigrated from San Fran.

[The Senator]

The South also has Dsney World.

And the studio Golden Girls was filmed at!

Does it make me a bad homosexual in the sense that I think Disney World is tacky and find Golden Girls disturbing?

[BlackLantern]

I'm proud of my state and my country. I Thank God I was born in both of them.

To be honest, the only people I know that have "state pride" are from the South...it's very quaint....

You don't see people saying they are proud of Idaho, South Dakota, or Connecticut

[Tron5000]

Don't forget about Home Depot, CNN and Miami Vice. Damn, I love The South.

[jaguarr]

Does it make me a bad homosexual in the sense that I think Disney World is tacky and find Golden Girls disturbing?

Do you like show tunes?

jag

[StorminNorman]

Does it make me a bad homosexual in the sense that I think Disney World is tacky and find Golden Girls disturbing?

You know what...

Yes, yes it does. :csad:

[The Senator]

To be honest, the only people I know that have "state pride" are from the South...it's very quaint....

You don't see people saying they are proud of Idaho, South Dakota, or Connecticut

Well, why would they? There is nothing in Idaho. I could see being proud of SD, because it has Mount Rushmore and Native American ties. I could see being proud of CT, because it was one of the original colonies and played a role in shaping this country. But Idaho? All it has are potatoes and a tap-happy Senator...

[Tron5000]

To be honest, the only people I know that have "state pride" are from the South...it's very quaint....

You don't see people saying they are proud of Idaho, South Dakota, or Connecticut

Well, my family is 4th generation Georgians, and I grew up watching, listening to and going to Braves, Falcons, Hawks, Georgia Tech, and Thrashers games. I've also seen metro Atlanta explode from pasture to condos. I love my city, my state and my country. They've been good to me and my family.

[jaguarr]

Atlanta has taken over. Trust me. I lived in Midtown for 7 years, and I knew many homosexuals who emigrated from San Fran.

Ehhhh....Midtown has a pretty big gay scene, but it's no San Francisco (or even a New York).

jag

[The Senator]

Do you like show tunes?

jag

To an extent.

You know what...

Yes, yes it does. :csad:

Well, I guess it doesn't really matter what I like, as long as I like putting co-- er, "Queer as Folk." :o

[BlackLantern]

Does it make me a bad homosexual in the sense that I think Disney World is tacky and Golden Girls disturbing?

No..but I never considered Florida "the South" anyway.....

[Addendum]

They've ben berry berry good to me

http://www.geocities.com/sgb34/garrett-morris.jpg

[jaguarr]

To an extent.


What about Judy Garland? :exploringstereotypes:

jag