The Presidential Debates

[Darthphere]

Can I just ask that John McCain keep all his jokes for the Apollo? Because everytime he throws a zinger, I cringe about how bad it is, and he's the only one laughing.

[Malice]

I thought McCain did well on that one...the previous two he did a little less than needed.
Basically it was this or he looses the election basically

[Malice]

I thought in the beginning, McCain came out swinging, and I saw for a few minutes, Obama was a little rattled....not to long, he regrouped and defended himself. He seemed more on the defensive on this debate, versus McCain a little more in the other two.

I thought Obama won the first two....and McCain won the third.

[lazur]

I found that very disturbing. He has only stopped the woman who called Obama an arab. Neither he nor Palin have stopped or condemned ANYTHING ELSE. Instead, they have defended these people. Truly sickening.

Another lie. McCain said AT a rally that Obama is a good man and that people should not be that hostile. He was even booed by quite a few people in the audience for saying it!

During the debate, McCain also pointed out there that vial things have been yelled at Obama's own rallies, and all I saw from Obama was a smile and a nod in agreement. Of course, you don't see the mainstream media reporting on it, though, so it MUST not be true, right?

What's really sickening is that ANYONE would sit here and claim that John McCain is somehow behind it, or that he did not do anything to stop it when he clearly did.

Just more grasping at straws by the left since Obama is dead wrong on ALL of the core issues.

[CaptainClown]

Another lie. McCain said AT a rally that Obama is a good man and that people should not be that hostile.

McCain also pointed out that some things have been yelled at Obama's own rallies, and all I saw from Obama was a smile and a nod in agreement. Of course, you don't see the mainstream media reporting on it, though, so it MUST not be true, right?

What's really sickening is that ANYONE would sit here and claim that John McCain somehow behind it, or that he did not do anything to stop it when he clearly did.
:dry: It's too early for me I will respond when I have got some z's. I will say this though. McCain was playing on people's fears of Obama. He is a radically different person running for president ( physically) and that kind of change can be easily be exploited. Young and new to the government McCain implied many things without really saying it. It is through that he stirred up his ralley. He played on their fear to whip them into a frenzy..

As Yoda said "fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering" And right about now is when I would post the link of the youtube video of the old man with a monkey and obama on it.

[Excel]

It's not. Here's a couple more:

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20081016/i/r796921493.jpg


http://i37.tinypic.com/s6qir4.jpg



:hehe::hehe::hehe::hehe:

bwahahahahahahaha

[lazur]

I thought in the beginning, McCain came out swinging, and I saw for a few minutes, Obama was a little rattled....not to long, he regrouped and defended himself. He seemed more on the defensive on this debate, versus McCain a little more in the other two.

I thought Obama won the first two....and McCain won the third.

Obama appeared more Presidential if I were casting a character in a movie. On the issues, Obama lost every debate.

America will only realize that after he's elected, unfortunately.

[ShadowBoxing]

Seriously, though, what the f***.

[Darthphere]

Another lie. McCain said AT a rally that Obama is a good man and that people should not be that hostile. He was even booed by quite a few people in the audience for saying it!

During the debate, McCain also pointed out that are things have been yelled at Obama's own rallies, and all I saw from Obama was a smile and a nod in agreement. Of course, you don't see the mainstream media reporting on it, though, so it MUST not be true, right?

What's really sickening is that ANYONE would sit here and claim that John McCain is somehow behind it, or that he did not do anything to stop it when he clearly did.

Just more grasping at straws by the left since Obama is dead wrong on ALL of the core issues.

Lazur, in the age of Youtube and cellphone cameras, you're telling me that if someone yelled, or did something that was demeaning and/or outright callous, that someone would not have captured that? You think the McCain campaign doesn't have people at Obama rallies looking for this type of stuff? I'm not naive enough to think that nobody at an Obama rally has ever said something terrible about McCain/Palin, but you don't need to spout this "Mainstream Media" garbage. If it's happening as much as it's happening at McCain/Palin rallies, it will get out there. Fact is, nobody is calling McCain/Palin a terrorist or dressing up Curious George dolls with McCain bumper stickers.

John McCain spoke out about it, twice. That is a fact, there is no denying it. That's more than I can say about Sarah Palin. It was a good move by John McCain, but it was frankly, too little, too late.

[Darthphere]

I thought in the beginning, McCain came out swinging, and I saw for a few minutes, Obama was a little rattled....not to long, he regrouped and defended himself. He seemed more on the defensive on this debate, versus McCain a little more in the other two.

I thought Obama won the first two....and McCain won the third.

Of course Obama was defensive, everything McCain replied to was coupled with a personal attack. I mean, Obama would call out his policies, and the most personal thing he did was compare him to Bush but McCain would bring up random $3 million projectors and Bill Ayers out at random.

[lazur]

:dry: It's too early for me I will respond when I have got some z's. I will say this though. McCain was playing on people's fears of Obama. He is a radically different person running for president ( physically) and that kind of change can be easily be exploited. Young and new to the government McCain implied many things without really saying it. It is through that he stirred up his ralley. He played on their fear to whip them into a frenzy..

More BS. Obama's race has NEVER been referred to by anyone in the McCain camp, nor has it ever been 'implied' in any way, shape or form. Your saying it further deepens my sorrow for a once great party that has stooped to new lows just to win an election that they could not win based on merit alone.

Obama has had enough of HIS OWN radical associations that people needn't make things up. However, as unfortunate as it is, people like you believe the man has been around long enough to have earned your trust in the most powerful seat in the world (for now). I just can't fathom how someone we know absolutely nothing about, and who is deliberately secretive about his past and his associations, could garner the trust of the American people.

As Yoda said "fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering" And right about now is when I would post the link of the youtube video of the old man with a monkey and obama on it.

Fear is precisely what people should be feeling right now. Our economy is about to tank and your guy Obama is going to make sure it happens with his higher taxes on EVERYONE and his healthcare entitlement program. The 'American Dream' is not having a politician reach into your pockets, steal your cash, and 'spread it around.'

But when it happens, don't say I didn't tell you so.

[redfirebird2008]

It's such a load of crap to suggest that the media isn't paying attention to Obama's rallies. These things that were/are being yelled at McCain/Palin rallies are right in the middle of their speeches. Don't blame the media for covering the speeches. It's their job to cover the speeches. They cover Obama/Biden speeches just the same and you don't hear people yelling that kind of crap at the mere mention of McCain's name.

[Darthphere]

Also Lazur, answer me this. Why was the McCain campaign so insistent in keeping the media from interviewing people after Sarah Palin's rallies? You don't think there's something there that needs to be questioned?

[redfirebird2008]

Lazur, do you trust Sarah Palin? You can't have your cake and eat it too on this "experience"/"unknown quantity" issue. The Palins have directly participated in an extremist Alaska organization. They are just as much of an unknown quantity as Obama. No, scratch that. They are MORE of an unknown at this point. So do you trust her?

[lazur]

Also Lazur, answer me this. Why was the McCain campaign so insistent in keeping the media from interviewing people after Sarah Palin's rallies? You don't think there's something there that needs to be questioned?

Unlike you, I don't jump to conclusions about anything. That's why I'm not voting for Obama. I cannot give someone the benefit of the doubt who isn't *completely* honest with the American people about the concerns we have.

But please do link me to whatever story it is that you must be referring to. I'll give all things consideration. Let's see if there's two sides to it even if Obama's supporters only support one.

[Darthphere]

Unlike you, I don't jump to conclusions about anything. That's why I'm not voting for Obama. I cannot give someone the benefit of the doubt who isn't *completely* honest with the American people about the concerns we have.

But please do link me to whatever story it is that you must be referring to. I'll give all things consideration. Let's see if there's two sides to it even if Obama's supporters only support one.

I'll get you that link, I'm curious to your response on my other post however, if you have the time.

[lazur]

Lazur, do you trust Sarah Palin? You can't have your cake and eat it too on this "experience"/"unknown quantity" issue. The Palins have directly participated in an extremist Alaska organization. They are just as much of an unknown quantity as Obama. No, scratch that. They are MORE of an unknown at this point. So do you trust her?

I trust that she won't raise taxes and destroy our economy. I trust that she won't reach into my pocket and 'spread the wealth around.' I trust that she believes in *smaller* government and that she'll root out the corruption in Washington (starting with ACORN, Fannie/Freddie and the politicians who intentionally protected them in the face of this disaster). I also trust that she has the capacity to make decisions.

And Sarah Palin did not 'directly' participate in an extremist organization. Her husband did. Still, that extremist organization didn't go out and set bombs off, and then say it didn't regret doing so.

Besides, this race is between Obama and McCain - not Obama and Palin. But if you want to talk about the VPs, do I trust Palin more than I trust Biden to get government off our backs and reform Washington politics as usual? Absolutely.

[redfirebird2008]

I trust that she won't raise taxes and destroy our economy. I trust that she won't reach into my pocket and 'spread the wealth around.' I trust that she believes in *smaller* government and that she'll root out the corruption in Washington (starting with ACORN, Fannie/Freddie and the politicians who intentionally protected them in the face of this disaster). I also trust that she has the capacity to make decisions.

And Sarah Palin did not 'directly' participate in an extremist organization. Her husband did. Still, that extremist organization didn't go out and set bombs off, and then say it didn't regret doing so.

Besides, this race is between Obama and McCain - not Obama and Palin. But if you want to talk about the VPs, do I trust Palin more than I trust Biden to get government off our backs and reform Washington politics as usual? Absolutely.

Dude. She spoke to their 2008 convention. That is direct participation. And I can find the YouTube video if you want.

As for her capacity to make decisions, I'd say she's pretty frickin' clueless from what I've seen.

Here's that video:

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

You claim to be middle of the road, but I've got news for you. Your support for Palin is completely out of the mainstream. A vast majority of the people in this country think she's incapable of stepping in to replace McCain if, God forbid, something were to happen to him.

[lazur]

Of course Obama was defensive, everything McCain replied to was coupled with a personal attack. I mean, Obama would call out his policies, and the most personal thing he did was compare him to Bush but McCain would bring up random $3 million projectors and Bill Ayers out at random.

I assume this is the question you wanted me to answer.

I don't consider raising a candidate's professional history of associations as a 'personal' attack, just as I don't consider it a 'personal' attack for Obama to bring up the Keating Five, even though it carries absolutely no weight whatsoever since McCain was absolved of any wrong-doing.

Obama compared McCain to Bush. Fine. But McCain also compared Obama to Bush in his spending policies. But I don't see anyone expressing any concern about it. We simply CAN'T AFFORD Obama economically or otherwise.

[Darthphere]

I assume this is the question you wanted me to answer.

I don't consider raising a candidate's professional history of associations as a 'personal' attack, just as I don't consider it a 'personal' attack for Obama to bring up the Keating Five, even though it carries absolutely no weight whatsoever since McCain was absolved of any wrong-doing.

Obama compared McCain to Bush. Fine. But McCain also compared Obama to Bush in his spending policies. But I don't see anyone expressing any concern about it. We simply CAN'T AFFORD Obama economically or otherwise.

Well only McCain seems to get offended by being compared to Bush. Just saying.

I actually wanted you to answer the one about Youtube videos and cellphone cameras at Obama rallies.

Oh and here you go, here is one article I found, I'll try to find one from a less "bias" source for you though. http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/06/palin-press-lockdown/

[Malice]

Well only McCain seems to get offended by being compared to Bush. Just saying.

I actually wanted you to answer the one about Youtube videos and cellphone cameras at Obama rallies.

Oh and here you go, here is one article I found, I'll try to find one from a less "bias" source for you though. http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/06/palin-press-lockdown/

Its not an issue of being offended.

Frankly, its a tactic of Obama....Bush is hated by most...Hell I would compare McCain to Bush also...That is a tactic

Now on McCain's side, its an issue of saying, "I may have supported some of my presidents policies, but I am not the President." He said, I am not President Bush. I thought it was a good reply on McCains part, but unfortunately, the hatred for Bush on most peoples minds, will lead them away from Obama.

[redfirebird2008]

Its not an issue of being offended.

Frankly, its a tactic of Obama....Bush is hated by most...Hell I would compare McCain to Bush also...That is a tactic

Now on McCain's side, its an issue of saying, "I may have supported some of my presidents policies, but I am not the President." He said, I am not President Bush. I thought it was a good reply on McCains part, but unfortunately, the hatred for Bush on most peoples minds, will lead them away from Obama.

Your last sentence doesn't make any sense. Hatred for Bush will lead people away from Obama? I would think it'd be the exact opposite effect. By the way, the Obama campaign has already released an ad on this where it says, "Yes, he's not Bush, but..." and then shows his voting record as well as him bragging about the fact that he's been a stronger supporter of Bush than other members of the Republican party.

[Malice]

Oops...I meant from McCain...sorry...doing 5 things at once

[redfirebird2008]

Oops...I meant from McCain...sorry...doing 5 things at once

Heh, understandable. :yay:

[Darthphere]

Its not an issue of being offended.

Frankly, its a tactic of Obama....Bush is hated by most...Hell I would compare McCain to Bush also...That is a tactic

Now on McCain's side, its an issue of saying, "I may have supported some of my presidents policies, but I am not the President." He said, I am not President Bush. I thought it was a good reply on McCains part, but unfortunately, the hatred for Bush on most peoples minds, will lead them away from Obama.

Some of my president's policies? More like most. But really, we're going into the area of semantics here.

Yeah, he clearly isn't President Bush. There's no body switching here going on.:o

Fact is, McCain has voted with Bush 95% of the time, a fact he has never tried to deny or deflect.

[ShadowBoxing]

Lazur, stop this incessant racist and blatantly stupid rant about how Obama "came from nowhere", like somehow I didn't hear about this man five years ago. Also, before you say it isn't race related, it is. It's a purely political talking point meant to stir up fear about a man we've known for five years to anyone who has cared to look. He's authored two memoirs, he's been vetted in the public forum for about two years now, and he has given many, many more interviews than most candidates ever have. To say this guy is an unknown is basically a code word for saying "he's not like us - he looks different". If you really wanted to know Obama, you could, you could walk down to Barnes and Noble, buy all three of his books, like I did, and read them. Then you wouldn't be able to claim this bullsh**.

For someone who claims Obama to be a man of mystery, Lazur, I've seen you schooled, more than once, and by myself, about McCain's record. Are you sure you know him too? I read his book, I looked up his record, and I didn't agree with it. I did the same for Obama, having been a reverent Hillary supporter, and decided, yes I liked most of his stances. I wasn't brainwashed by the Anti-Christ, I'm sorry. Your boy is losing, and it's not because 'life isn't fair'. There is no rule that the guy with 26 years must trump the guy with 4 years. In fact, some of our worst Presidents have had many more years of experience than McCain. George H.W. Bush, for example, was vilified in his own party, despite probably being the most qualified person to run. On the other hand, Abe Lincoln, Jack Kennedy, and George Washington are considered among the most successful, and had sparse resumes at best.

So guess what Lazur, you have a right to your opinion, but just because the vast majority of the electorate disagrees with you doesn't mean their wrong and your right. Get off your damn high horse.

[Darthphere]

To add on to my earlier point, what is one thing that John McCain constantly says? Look at his record. Well we have, and his record is consistent....consitently with President Bush and his policies. It's not fear mongering, it's not a tactic, it's straight up facts.

[redfirebird2008]

To add on to my earlier point, what is one thing that John McCain constantly says? Look at his record. Well we have, and his record is consistent....consitently with President Bush and his policies. It's not fear mongering, it's not a tactic, it's straight up facts.

The thing I wonder is, why would he try to claim otherwise when he himself was BRAGGING about his support of Bush in 2004? It's all a game to him from what I can tell. He lost a bitter fight in 2000 to Bush and realized that the only way he could gain Bush's support or the support of the Bush wing of the party is if he helped get Bush re-elected and attached himself as much as possible to Bush. But then, 4 years later, when it's clear that the country is sick and frickin' tired of Bush, he's trying to run away from his own words and actions.

[Darthphere]

The thing I wonder is, why would he try to claim otherwise when he himself was BRAGGING about his support of Bush in 2004? It's all a game to him from what I can tell. He lost a bitter fight in 2000 to Bush and realized that the only way he could gain Bush's support or the support of the Bush wing of the party is if he helped get Bush re-elected and attached himself as much as possible to Bush. But then, 4 years later, when it's clear that the country is sick and frickin' tired of Bush, he's trying to run away from his own words and actions.

Well up until last night, I don't recall him ever acknowledging the whole "More of the Same" campaigning. He got his sound bite in,the line the debate will remembered for and that's that. I doubt he ever brings it up again.

[redfirebird2008]

Well up until last night, I don't recall him ever acknowledging the whole "More of the Same" campaigning. He got his sound bite in,the line the debate will remembered for and that's that. I doubt he ever brings it up again.

Too bad for him Obama's already got an ad disputing his claims with video of him bragging about how he's supported Bush more than other Republicans.

[Darthphere]

Too bad for him Obama's already got an ad disputing his claims with video of him bragging about how he's supported Bush more than other Republicans.

Lets not forget the pic of Bush and McCain hugging. :dry:

[danoyse]

The last Great Depression was world wide. What makes you think another one would be any different?

Exactly. I just spent a week in the UK, and they're also going through a bank bailout, a credit crunch, and an economic crisis. When I saw headlines about the bailout, at first I thought they were talking about us. Nope, they've got the same problems there.

And I spent a day in Paris, and their gas prices are far worse than ours.

Not sure what anyone is going to make better by leaving the country if Obama wins.

[Darthphere]

Exactly. I just spent a week in the UK, and they're also going through a bank bailout, a credit crunch, and an economic crisis. When I saw headlines about the bailout, at first I thought they were talking about us. Nope, they've got the same problems there.

And I spent a day in Paris, and their gas prices are far worse than ours.

Not sure what anyone is going to make better by leaving the country if Obama wins.

You travel a lot?

[danoyse]

You travel a lot?

I did last week. :yay:

I also went to Disneyland this year. And drove back to NJ from California.

[lazur]

Lazur, stop this incessant racist and blatantly stupid rant about how Obama "came from nowhere", like somehow I didn't hear about this man five years ago. Also, before you say it isn't race related, it is.

Obama is an unknown and 'race' has nothing to do with it. Your bitterness and hatred toward me will not change that.

As to being 'schooled,' you're entitled to your own opinion, but that's ALL it is. You have not 'schooled' me or any other conservative on anything, and certainly NOT on the core issues of importance in this race - economics, tax policy and foreign policy.

That you would even equate my saying Obama is an unknown to racism demonstrates to me that you're no longer even worth discussing this with. I will not sit here and be accused of racism when no such reference has *ever* been made in any of my posts. Thus, since you've decided to take this political discussion to a new low and PERSONALLY ATTACK ME and PERSONALLY ACCUSE ME OF BEING RACIST, I will no longer read or respond to any of your posts.

Further, I really hope the mods take notice of your infantile and insulting behavior.

[squeekness]

I trust that she won't raise taxes and destroy our economy. I trust that she won't reach into my pocket and 'spread the wealth around.' I trust that she believes in *smaller* government and that she'll root out the corruption in Washington (starting with ACORN, Fannie/Freddie and the politicians who intentionally protected them in the face of this disaster). I also trust that she has the capacity to make decisions.

I can only guess that you must be a rare thing - a wealthy Hypster. Most folks I know are really hurting right now, and wondering if they can ever retire. And yet you've got windfall profits to the oil companies that are certainly not going to "trickle down" to us peons and Wall Street CEOs having a grand time right after the bailout. Is it time to spread some of the wealth around? Damn right it us. Many of us got rooked by these guys and it's high time we got some of that back.

[Darthphere]

I did last week. :yay:

I also went to Disneyland this year. And drove back to NJ from California.

Hmmm. Interesting. I just realized I know little about you, join me for coffee some time?:huh:

[lazur]

To add on to my earlier point, what is one thing that John McCain constantly says? Look at his record. Well we have, and his record is consistent....consitently with President Bush and his policies. It's not fear mongering, it's not a tactic, it's straight up facts.

You're also coming from the position that 90% of what Bush has done has been bad, when in reality Congress has only a 10% approval rating despite being primarily Democrat.

But McCain did a good job of also pointing out that Obama himself voted for two of Bush's budgets, or the only ones Obama could have voted on given his short three year stint in the Senate.

So sure, if we're going to look at the 'record,' it's better for everyone if we look at the records of BOTH candidates...

[lazur]

I can only guess that you must be a rare thing - a wealthy Hypster. Most folks I know are really hurting right now, and wondering if they can ever retire. And yet you've got windfall profits to the oil companies that are certainly not going to "trickle down" to us peons and Wall Street CEOs having a grand time right after the bailout. Is it time to spread some of the wealth around? Damn right it us. Many of us got rooked by these guys and it's high time we got some of that back.

Since when did making 250k a year become 'wealthy'?

Am I 'wealthy'? No. But you're also not looking at the big picture. EVERYONE'S taxes will go up - not just the 5% Obama keeps talking about. Who do you think PAYS corporate, payroll and capital gains taxes, the CEO? No, those are passed along to you and me. WRONG strategy during an economical crisis, and one that the Democrats started.

That's not partisan BS. That's fact.

[Darthphere]

You're also coming from the position that 90% of what Bush has done has been bad, when in reality Congress has only a 10% approval rating despite being primarily Democrat.

But McCain did a good job of also pointing out that Obama himself voted for two of Bush's budgets, or the only ones Obama could have voted on given his short three year stint in the Senate.

So sure, if we're going to look at the 'record,' it's better for everyone if we look at the records of BOTH candidates...

Nobody ever said otherwise Lazur. I'm just pointing out, that as a candidate you can't say "Look at my record on....." one one thing, and expect us to ignore everything else. Obama has voted on some things I disagree with, and for the record, I'm not an Obama supporter, my record shows that.:oldrazz:

[redfirebird2008]

You're also coming from the position that 90% of what Bush has done has been bad, when in reality Congress has only a 10% approval rating despite being primarily Democrat.

But McCain did a good job of also pointing out that Obama himself voted for two of Bush's budgets, or the only ones Obama could have voted on given his short three year stint in the Senate.

So sure, if we're going to look at the 'record,' it's better for everyone if we look at the records of BOTH candidates...

Congress had a horrible approval rating before the Democrats took over. Congress' approval rating has been lower than Bush's the entire time he's been in office. Once the Democrats took over, however, the feeling of "stalemate" and "idiocy from both sides" became way too clear to pretty much the entire country and thus the approval rating took an even deeper plunge. If I'm not mistaken, it might be below 10% by now. Reid and Pelosi are downright awful "leaders."

[Darthphere]

Yeah, as a Democrat, I'm utterly disgusted by the ineptitude of Congress right now.

[redfirebird2008]

Lazur, it depends on the situation, but I would consider $250,000 per year to be pretty damn good money. Now, if you live in New York with a wife who doesn't work and 5 kids or something, then it's a different story. But if you make that kind of money and have a smaller family or no family at all, that is a lot of money.

[lazur]

Exactly. I just spent a week in the UK, and they're also going through a bank bailout, a credit crunch, and an economic crisis. When I saw headlines about the bailout, at first I thought they were talking about us. Nope, they've got the same problems there.

The rampant abuse by ACORN and Fannie/Freddie started this landslide. The other countries know it. This isn't going to just be a 'Depression' in my opinion - it's going to be a CURRENCY collapse.

Imagine what our country will become when we no longer have a currency to exchange for goods and services.

Why? Because we cannot sustain a 60 trillion dollar debt and a President who wants to add to the 60 trillion debt even MORE ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS. Do you realize that of our 60 trillion dollar debt, FIFTY TRILLION is the direct result of entitlement programs such as social security, medicare and medicaid? We need a HANDS OFF government to get through this.

And I spent a day in Paris, and their gas prices are far worse than ours.

Not sure what anyone is going to make better by leaving the country if Obama wins.

I already explained this in my original response. The Euro will survive, as will Russia and its allies. Asia will have major problems when the U.S. dollar collapses because we're China's biggest consumer and Japan's biggest financier.

So while the rest of the world is having the same economic problems, people need to understand that WE caused this with our housing crisis, and the rest of the world is getting tired of a) carrying our SIXTY TRILLION DOLLAR debt and b) our pretending it doesn't exist by pumping EVEN MORE money we don't have into a credit-based society. Our rampant consumerism combined with our insignificant production will be our downfall. The only thing we export now are services...

We don't need MORE expenses right now. We need LESS. We don't need MORE government involvement and 'social engineering' - we need LESS.

The writing is on the wall. When this all goes down, Obama will be powerless to do anything about it, which is why it's KEY to avoid it. But his policies of tax, tax, tax and spend, spend, spend will NOT allow us to avoid it.

[Darthphere]

Lazur, it depends on the situation, but I would consider $250,000 per year to be pretty damn good money. Now, if you live in New York with a wife who doesn't work and 5 kids or something, then it's a different story. But if you make that kind of money and have a smaller family or no family at all, that is a lot of money.

I could live off of $250,000 for 10 years, comfortably so. Internet, cable included.:hehe:

[danoyse]

Obama is an unknown and 'race' has nothing to do with it. Your bitterness and hatred toward me will not change that.

As to being 'schooled,' you're entitled to your own opinion, but that's ALL it is. You have not 'schooled' me or any other conservative on anything, and certainly NOT on the core issues of importance in this race - economics, tax policy and foreign policy.

That you would even equate my saying Obama is an unknown to racism demonstrates to me that you're no longer even worth discussing this with. I will not sit here and be accused of racism when no such reference has *ever* been made in any of my posts. Thus, since you've decided to take this political discussion to a new low and PERSONALLY ATTACK ME and PERSONALLY ACCUSE ME OF BEING RACIST, I will no longer read or respond to any of your posts.

Further, I really hope the mods take notice of your infantile and insulting behavior.

The mods are watching lazur, and while I don't agree that your rants have been racist, I don't think it's any more worse than you referring to posters you don't agree with as liars. You've constantly responded to anything you don't agree on as "Another lie." or "Next lie, please" or making a generalizations about everyone on the forum blindly supporting Obama. You are just as guilty of making blatantly false statements about everyone else.

ShadowBoxing wasn't calling you a racist, he was calling your rants racist. I didn't agree with that. However, I think he stated his case why the public supports Obama and he and nearly everyone else has responded to your constant accusations about his associations and why they don't like McCain, which was far more fair the generalizations and accusations you've made about nearly everyone else on this forum. If you are getting beat up on (which I do not encourage, and which has been dealt with as it's occured) it's because you've been nasty to them.

Enough already. Show some respect for your fellow posters and I guarantee you'll get respect in return.

[Darthphere]

The writing is on the wall. When this all goes down, Obama will be powerless to do anything about it, which is why it's KEY to avoid it. But his policies of tax, tax, tax and spend, spend, spend will NOT allow us to avoid it.

I actually agree somewhat on this. I think Obama needs to look to reform more and spend less. Some of his plans require some big money, so he needs to look at reforming some things, cutting costs and all that to balance everything out.

[Lightning Strykez!]

I think that by far this was John McCain's BEST debate performance of the trio. He really put Obama on the defensive and during the first 40 minutes I was thinking "Hmmmm...this might really flip this time." But he started to crumble over various issues and I'm sorry--but the personal stuff about Ayers, etc. just came across so petty and childish. No one cares about it and if you watched CNN's tracking during that moment, the graph monitoring totally went south--waaaaaaaaaaay south. Critical mistake there. Also...he had some strange mannerisms and his demeanor has not improved.

I thought the "Joe Plumber" concept was brilliant--he connected there. Unfortunately, he used it to death a la Palin's "I'm the Queen Of Energy" stance during her debate vs. Biden. Sometimes, less is more.

LMAO at "Tonguegate." :lmao:

Regarding Obama...this wasn't his best showing IMO. I am suprised that he still had nothing to say after being asked THREE times which government programs he'd suspend or delay in lieu of the this bailout problem. One would think his advisors have had enough time to come up with SOMETHING. His first 40 minutes I think were kinda shaky...and that's because John was kicking his ass. However, Obama once again returned to form and dominated the rest of the program, remaining cool under fire, and I thought the way he addressed the Ayers situation was spot-on. If he hadn't recovered, I'd name this a draw, but I'm going to give the edge to him for three reasons:

1.) He was measured, articulate and smooth in his delivery.

2.) Even during McCain's worst personal attacks he did not show kinks in his mettle.

3.) McCain fell apart during 60% of the program.

[Darthphere]

No one cares about it and if you watched CNN's tracking during that moment, the graph monitoring totally went south--waaaaaaaaaaay south.

I'd like to know more about that tracking because just observing it, it always seems higher when Obama is speaking. But when they go back and ask the folks there, some of them are "Well I don't know....":huh:

[Lightning Strykez!]

What ever happened to freedom of speech! I posted a thread stating obama is a pawn of satan and it's down! Wtf!!! That just drives home my point even more that obama is a pwan of satan.

Even Satan appreciates a dictionary. He'd want you to use one when spelling the word "pawn".

:whatever:

[lazur]

The mods are watching lazur, and while I don't agree that your rants have been racist, I don't think it's any more worse than you referring to posters you don't agree with as liars. You've constantly responded to anything you don't agree on as "Another lie." or "Next lie, please" or making a generalizations about everyone on the forum blindly supporting Obama. You are just as guilty of making blatantly false statements about everyone else.

ShadowBoxing wasn't calling you a racist, he was calling your rants racist. I didn't agree with that. However, I think he stated his case why the public supports Obama and he and nearly everyone else has responded to your constant accusations about his associations and why they don't like McCain, which was far more fair the generalizations and accusations you've made about nearly everyone else on this forum. If you are getting beat up on (which I do not encourage, and which has been dealt with as it's occured) it's because you've been nasty to them.

Enough already. Show some respect for your fellow posters and I guarantee you'll get respect in return.

Ah okay, then please let me know what the acceptable 'mod' term is for lying, so as not to appear to be 'attacking' people. I'm not familiar with how to sugar-coat telling someone that what they just said was a lie.

And I completely disagree that I've made a greater number of 'generalizations' than others have. It happens *all* the time on these boards.

[Darthphere]

Ah okay, then please let me know what the acceptable 'mod' term is for lying, so as not to appear to be 'attacking' people. I'm not familiar with how to sugar-coat telling someone that what they just said was a lie.

And I completely disagree that I've made a greater number of 'generalizations' than others have. It happens *all* the time on these boards.

This part was a joke right?:huh:

[lazur]

This part was a joke right?:huh:

Why would it be a joke? I've seen posters on here refer to conservatives who post on this forum as 'neocons' on a regular basis. Tell me that's not a generalization?

It goes both ways.

[Darthphere]

Why would it be a joke? I've seen posters on here refer to conservatives who post on this forum as 'neocons' on a regular basis. Tell me that's not a generalization?

It goes both ways.

No, it's more of the fact that you followed a statement about disagreeing with making a lot of generalizations with a generalization.:huh:

[Darthphere]

thank you for correcting me... obama is a pawn of satan

Well lets put it this way, even if he was, nothing is going to stop him from getting to the White House then.:o

[lazur]

No, it's more of the fact that you followed a statement about disagreeing with making a lot of generalizations with a generalization.:huh:

You know, I'd love to discuss the actual issues with the posters on this forum. However, very few actually want to talk about the issues.

Now, is that a 'generalization' or is that the truth? No one except for you so far has cared to talk OBJECTIVELY about Obama's tax and spend philosophy following the debate, no matter how many times I've raised the issue. One would prefer to just call me racist ...

[Stikmann]

thank you for correcting me... obama is a pawn of satan

If you actually believe that (And I’m pretty sure you don’t), you may want to seek therapy.

[Darthphere]

You know, I'd love to discuss the actual issues with the posters on this forum. However, very few actually want to talk about the issues.

Now, is that a 'generalization' or is that the truth? No one except for you so far has cared to talk OBJECTIVELY about Obama's tax and spend philosophy following the debate, no matter how many times I've raised the issue. Some would prefer to just call me racist...

Well part of the problem is your attitude Lazur. I mean, you gotta be more open to opposing point of views. For example, if someone brings up something that you think is untruthful, just say "I disagree and here's why" or "That's not entirely true..." instead of "Oh, another lie". You're saying the same thing but you're not coming off like a douchebag.

[Darthphere]

Yeah what this country was built on like killing Indians and ****.

[Lightning Strykez!]

thank you for correcting me... obama is a pawn of satan

It's too late though. :(

You lose a turn. No posting for you until we get to the next page.

[Stikmann]

No I am very sure I do KNOW THAT IT IS A FACT and America need therapy more than anything we have strayed so far from what this country was built on it's scary

Can you provide any specific proof or evidence to that “fact”? Perhaps you have some video of yourself having a chat with God where he tells you this information? I mean, it’s possible you wouldn’t be looked at with skepticism if you could provide some solid proof of your claim. Something more solid than just speculation. Anything? I’m genuinely curious about that. Any evidence at all other than your own words or speculations?

[Darthphere]

I was not referring to that. Yes we all make mistakes. I was talking about this country needs to go back to God and not a non believing society where it is Wrong to bring up God or Jesus Christ who died for our sins (this is not a knock on Jews either) what ever happened to following the words of Christ and not the word of man.

What does it matter if someone is a good person if they believe in God or not.

[Darkly Dexter]

I was not referring to that. Yes we all make mistakes. I was talking about this country needs to go back to God and not a non believing society where it is Wrong to bring up God or Jesus Christ who died for our sins (this is not a knock on Jews either) what ever happened to following the words of Christ and not the word of man.


go back to the middle ages

[Lightning Strykez!]

You know, I'd love to discuss the actual issues with the posters on this forum. However, very few actually want to talk about the issues.

Now, is that a 'generalization' or is that the truth? No one except for you so far has cared to talk OBJECTIVELY about Obama's tax and spend philosophy following the debate, no matter how many times I've raised the issue. One would prefer to just call me racist ...

I agree with Danoyse: the "racist" call was stretching things a bit.

But Lazur, your issue here is your approach. You lack tact in dealing with others. There's a certain level of graciousness you need to afford your fellow posters and you dispense with that important trait. As far as you're concerned, EVERYONE here is wrong and is "a liar" and that's just simply not the case--especially when you have a consensus among the majority on certain issues. That's unreasonable, and it doesn't recommend your line of thinking to other readers.

I think if you developed the art of disagreeing without being disagreeable you'd go a long way in our discussions. Learn to live and let live.

[Darthphere]

He stinks of Satan's stench... I will give you exact quotes when I get back home later

So when was the last time you smelled Satan?

[Lightning Strykez!]

He stinks of Satan's stench... I will give you exact quotes when I get back home later

*raises hand*

Um...may I ask a question? How do you know what Satan's stench smells like? Have you been sniffing his ass? :dry:

[Corey]

I was not referring to that. Yes we all make mistakes. I was talking about this country needs to go back to God and not a non believing society where it is Wrong to bring up God or Jesus Christ who died for our sins (this is not a knock on Jews either) what ever happened to following the words of Christ and not the word of man.

It is what it is. You can't force people to put faith in God if they don't believe in it. Ironically, it was God Himself who wants us to choose one way or the other, anyway. Forcing everyone in America to be a "Godly" nation isn't going to make it so.

So, what exactly are you proposing to do, and how is it that Obama is encouraging a falling away from God to the point where you call him a "pawn of Satan"?

[Lightning Strykez!]

So when was the last time you smelled Satan?

I was thinking the exact same thing.

Perhaps he can smell Satan from his house. :dry:

[Darthphere]

I imagine Satan smelling like Febreze.

[Darthphere]

Every time I sin

:facepalm:

[Lightning Strykez!]

Every time I sin

Okay, already it's starting to get thick. :whatever:

Knykolous--let's get back on topic please. Religious beliefs have nothing to do with last night's debate. Thanks.

[Corey]

In the interest of a swift and constructive resolution:

It is what it is. You can't force people to put faith in God if they don't believe in it. Ironically, it was God Himself who wants us to choose one way or the other, anyway. Forcing everyone in America to be a "Godly" nation isn't going to make it so.

So, what exactly are you proposing to do, and how is it that Obama is encouraging a falling away from God to the point where you call him a "pawn of Satan"?




Okay, already it's starting to get thick.

Knykolous--let's get back on topic please. Religious beliefs have nothing to do with last night's debate. Thanks.

Agreed.

[Stikmann]

He stinks of Satan's stench... I will give you exact quotes when I get back home later

So you’ve got nothing. You’ll provide me with quotes later though. I see. Are they quotes from Obama where he claims to be a “pawn”? Because no offense but I’m really not going to take your interpretation of his words as evidence that he’s a pawn of Satan. That’s just a little to vague for me. Can you offer something a little more concrete? Some photographic evidence maybe? Again, speculation just doesn’t cut it.

Don’t you think that implying (or directly stating) that someone is “evil” simply because they differ from you can be considered irrational or sometimes dangerous? Just because Obama may be different from you or have different views, does not make him a pawn of Satan. There are other possible reasons, you know. Is there any way for you to use religion in a more positive way rather than a futile attempt to scare people into voting the way you think they should?

[sinewave]

ok, so after three debates, it's pretty clear that obama really is the better debater of the two, despite what matt had to say about it.

[Darthphere]

ok, so after three debates, it's pretty clear that obama really is the better debater of the two, despite what matt had to say about it.

Also, its clear he is filthy in the stench of SATAN!!!!:cmad:

[Lightning Strykez!]

As I said I will post the evidence later when I can but right now I am on a mobile internet device that doesn't copy and paste too well

And that's fine. But when you do bring it up again, you might want to discuss in the official Obama thread.

That's where we discuss Barack Obama's radical connections to people like Satan and other matters that are really important to the American populace. :rolleyes:

ok, so after three debates, it's pretty clear that obama really is the better debater of the two, despite what matt had to say about it.

I'm willing to bet my friend Matt is crying a little inside right now. LOL :p

[Corey]

Ah excellent question. No you can not force anyone into anything that is true. All you can do is speak the truth and hope that they hear and believe it. Obama desecrates humanity by his views on life and his complete lack of moral strength or knowledge in what is right for humanity. He has a snakes tongue which can deceive even the best of us. One example is his hesitance to prove where he was born or where he has been even.

So...you don't agree with his views on abortion? Okay. Understandable. In last night's debate, Obama stated that he was against partial birth abortion, but that his voting record showed that he didn't vote in favor of a ban because there were no inherent exceptions for a mother's health. (Not saying I agree with that, or that everyone else here does, but there you go).

That issue alone does not automatically make someone a pawn of Satan, and if you look into your own life and choices deep enough, you'll find that we all get used/blinded many many times over in the course of our lifetimes. There is a line you crossed by saying what you said, and you're living in a very fragile glass house, my friend.


As far as the birth certificate faux debacle goes, that has been discussed ad nauseam. It's a total lie, and was never true. You really need to get your facts straight, sir.

[Stikmann]

Because he has a snakes tongue

Because you disagree with him, he’s got a snake’s tongue? Do you think that of anyone who you disagree with? Or just people who may end up in a position of power? Where’s the cut-off? Like, if you disagree with me over who won the debate last night and I say Obama won, do I have a snake’s tongue too? Or do I have to get someone to agree with me before I get that special designation?

[sinewave]

You know, I'd love to discuss the actual issues with the posters on this forum. However, very few actually want to talk about the issues.

Now, is that a 'generalization' or is that the truth? No one except for you so far has cared to talk OBJECTIVELY about Obama's tax and spend philosophy following the debate, no matter how many times I've raised the issue. One would prefer to just call me racist ...

:huh: this from the guy who posts long rants about bill ayers and michelle obama's supposed hatred of this country.

[Superman]

Oh good lord, Can somebody get rid of this troll Knykolous already? :whatever:

[lazur]

I agree with Danoyse: the "racist" call was stretching things a bit.

But Lazur, your issue here is your approach. You lack tact in dealing with others. There's a certain level of graciousness you need to afford your fellow posters and you dispense with that important trait. As far as you're concerned, EVERYONE here is wrong and is "a liar" and that's just simply not the case--especially when you have a consensus among the majority on certain issues. That's unreasonable, and it doesn't recommend your line of thinking to other readers.

I think if you developed the art of disagreeing without being disagreeable you'd go a long way in our discussions. Learn to live and let live.

I'm sorry, but I disagree. You must understand that being a 'conservative' on this board is very challenging. It's enjoyable to be able to debate the issues, but that's not what happens on this forum for the *most* part. For the *most* part, when I express that I don't trust Obama, or I'm critical of his philosophies, which I believe will be more harmful than good for this country, I'm usually met with 'oh, you're just partisan' or 'you're in the pockets of the GOP' or 'way to be a centrist, Lazur.'

Are there people here who are actually interested in discussing why they believe a 'tax and spend' policy is a good thing for America? Sure, but they are few and far between in my experience.

Also, the ratio of conservatives to liberals on this board is staggeringly skewed. Thus, when someone like me has to respond to 10 different posters, it's difficult not to mistake some posters' positions for others. Which is why you will see me from time to time asking people to stop spamming me with responses, most of which aren't even in response to the actual issue, but are instead attacks on MY position.

[sinewave]

Because he has a snakes tongue

i must have missed that. do you have any photos? i've also heard he's got a horse's dong, but i haven't seen proof of that either.

[Darthphere]

Oh good lord, Can somebody get rid of this troll Knykolous already? :whatever:

No, he's far too entertaining.

[Lightning Strykez!]

Oh good lord, Can somebody get rid of this troll Knykolous already? :whatever:

Kinda makes ya wish we were red again Supes. If only for like...5 minutes.

:(

[jaguarr]

I found that very disturbing. He has only stopped the woman who called Obama an arab. Neither he nor Palin have stopped or condemned ANYTHING ELSE. Instead, they have defended these people. Truly sickening.

Basically, the message I got from McCain's response was "it's perfectly acceptable for my supporters to call Sen. Obama a terrorist, or to demand his murder."

Exactly. I'm even more disgusted by how McCain addressed that topic this morning than I was last night. Despicable.

http://www.zweg.com/dump/photo/McCainEyes.jpg

LOL, what the hell is wrong with this man?

LOL! I am going to use this gif every time someone says something stupid. :D

jag

[Darthphere]

Ok I will bring it over to the official Obama thread anyone who would like to join me is more than welcome :)
FIGHT SATAN VOTE CHRISTIAN (OR JEWISH)

What about Muslim?

[sinewave]

Because he has a snakes tongue

i must have missed that. do you have any photos? i've also heard he's got a horse's dong, but i haven't seen proof of that either.

Also, its clear he is filthy in the stench of SATAN!!!!:cmad:

they sell that at wal-mart right? it's right next to tim mcgraw's cologne, i think.


I'm willing to bet my friend Matt is crying a little inside right now. LOL :p

poor, poor matt. :cwink:

[jaguarr]

To add on to my earlier point, what is one thing that John McCain constantly says? Look at his record. Well we have, and his record is consistent....consitently with President Bush and his policies. It's not fear mongering, it's not a tactic, it's straight up facts.

"My friends"? :huh:

jag

[Lightning Strykez!]

Are you afraid of the word of God?

...........

For all the time you've been a Hype Member, you barely have 80 posts. That means you've been posting very infrequently.

Can't you go back to that habit? Like...now? :(

[Stikmann]

I know Obama won the debate last night but it wasn't through his own hand it was because of the will of Satan

Are you saying that McCain lost the debate because it was the will of God?

[Superman]

McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time.

PluoMotgl2w

[jaguarr]

Ok I will bring it over to the official Obama thread anyone who would like to join me is more than welcome :)
FIGHT SATAN VOTE CHRISTIAN (OR JEWISH)

http://www.zweg.com/dump/photo/McCainEyes.jpg

jag

[The Incredible Hulk]

I know Obama won the debate last night but it wasn't through his own hand it was because of the will of Satan

typical far-right religous toolbox. Blame all of the things that go your way on God, and all of the things that go against you on Satan. Yes, we are all merely pawns on the chessboard getting moved around by the two great invisible beings trying to one up one another....of course.

[Superman]

Kinda makes ya wish we were red again Supes. If only for like...5 minutes.

:(You got that right. :up:

[Morg]

Are you afraid of the word of God?

should be afraid of the word of the mods...

Your trolling and baiting and beliefs are going a bit over the line

[Superman]

How am I a troll? I am just defending the word and will of GodGo away, This is not the place for that crap. :whatever:

[Morg]

People please stop quoting Knykolous, makes it harder to remove all his posts, thanks

[lazur]

Exactly. I'm even more disgusted by how McCain addressed that topic this morning than I was last night. Despicable.



LOL! I am going to use this gif every time someone says something stupid. :D

jag

How did he address it this morning? I haven't been watching.

Last night, McCain said, "Let me just say categorically I'm proud of the people that come to our rallies. Whenever you get a large rally of 10,000, 15,000, 20,000 people, you're going to have some fringe peoples. You know that. And I've -- and we've always said that that's not appropriate."

I don't find a problem in what he said. What would you have LIKED for him to have said?

[Raiden]

I know Obama won the debate last night but it wasn't through his own hand it was because of the will of Satan

I don't know whether to use :lmao: or :whatever: on this post.

[Lightning Strykez!]

You got that right. :up:

Connections go a long way...even in a blue state. :cool:

[Superman]

I like this ad too.

wlrf32JI708

:up:

[The Senator]

They are a lost cause and need to turn to God right away!

The ignorance of this statement is deafening :dry:

[Lightning Strykez!]

I'm sorry, but I disagree. You must understand that being a 'conservative' on this board is very challenging. It's enjoyable to be able to debate the issues, but that's not what happens on this forum for the *most* part. For the *most* part, when I express that I don't trust Obama, or I'm critical of his philosophies, which I believe will be more harmful than good for this country, I'm usually met with 'oh, you're just partisan' or 'you're in the pockets of the GOP' or 'way to be a centrist, Lazur.'

Are there people here who are actually interested in discussing why they believe a 'tax and spend' policy is a good thing for America? Sure, but they are few and far between in my experience.

Also, the ratio of conservatives to liberals on this board is staggeringly skewed. Thus, when someone like me has to respond to 10 different posters, it's difficult not to mistake some posters' positions for others. Which is why you will see me from time to time asking people to stop spamming me with responses, most of which aren't even in response to the actual issue, but are instead attacks on MY position.

Sorry I missed your response here (I was temporarily overcome by the methane gas cloud pooted by Satan :whatever: )

Again, it's not the conservative content of your posts that puts people at odds with you Lazur. It's the packaging of the content.

[Morg]

They are a lost cause and need to turn to God right away!

*boots*

You be the lost cause

[Lightning Strykez!]

The ignorance of this statement is deafening :dry:

Dare we imagine what he thinks gays and bisexuals smell like? LOL Gotta love the far-leaning Christian right. :whatever:

[The Senator]

I know Obama won the debate last night but it wasn't through his own hand it was because of the will of Satan

Wait a minute.

Miroslav may be a decent hockey player, but I don't think he has THAT MUCH influence in the world. You'd better provide a source to back up your claims.

[jaguarr]

How did he address it this morning? I haven't been watching.

Last night, McCain said, "Let me just say categorically I'm proud of the people that come to our rallies. Whenever you get a large rally of 10,000, 15,000, 20,000 people, you're going to have some fringe peoples. You know that. And I've -- and we've always said that that's not appropriate."

I don't find a problem in what he said. What would you have LIKED for him to have said?

He didn't address it this morning. I'm more disgusted this morning with his answer than I was last night. Maybe if he'd said something to the effect that threatening Obama's life or shouting racial epithets is in no way acceptable and that he expects better from his supporters, I'd respect him more. But he didn't. He acted offended that some of the things his supporters have been saying at these rallies is being called into question and even threw a tizzy fit over Lewis' comments on it. He is tacitly approving these kinds of comments by not adamantly and completely denouncing them. Very dangerous ground.

jag

[The Senator]

You know, I'd love to discuss the actual issues with the posters on this forum. However, very few actually want to talk about the issues.

Now, is that a 'generalization' or is that the truth? No one except for you so far has cared to talk OBJECTIVELY about Obama's tax and spend philosophy following the debate, no matter how many times I've raised the issue. One would prefer to just call me racist ...

Really? You want to discuss issues?
Really? :huh:

Many of us have wanted to talk about the issues, but you keep throwing non-issues such as Bill Ayers and Rev. Wright into the "debate." Plus, blaming every problem in the world on the Democratic Party isn't debating the issues, it's pointing fingers as a result of blind partisan rage.

The issues? We'd all be glad to talk about them. But that would require you to stop using phrases such as "your precious democrats" and "your beloved Obama," which I honestly don't think you are capable of.

[Lightning Strykez!]

He didn't address it this morning. I'm more disgusted this morning with his answer than I was last night. Maybe if he'd said something to the effect that threatening Obama's life or shouting racial epithets is in no way acceptable and that he expects better from his supporters, I'd respect him more. But he didn't. He acted offended that some of the things his supporters have been saying at these rallies is being called into question and even threw a tizzy fit over Lewis' comments on it. He is tacitly approving these kinds of comments by not adamantly and completely denouncing them. Very dangerous ground.

jag

You're right on with this Jag.

It's amazing to me how McCain wants Obama to somehow do more to denounce Ayer's actions from 40 years ago, yet he cannot denounce heinous statements made last week. :confused:

[Excel]

I find it funny McCain is still upset over the lack of town halls given how horribly he did in the only one they had.

[kane9321]

Obama appeared more Presidential if I were casting a character in a movie. On the issues, Obama lost every debate.

America will only realize that after he's elected, unfortunately.


huh wtf

[Gilpesh]

I don't find a problem in what he said. What would you have LIKED for him to have said?

He attacked Lewis who had actually experienced racism himself...

Then tried to make himself the victim of crowd attacks... when Obama didn't even let his crowd boo McCain the other day...

Then he demanded that Obama condemn Lewis' comments and that he was proud of people that went to his rallies....

Then said that it is a shame for Obama to attack the good people that went to his rallies...

[The Senator]

HAHAHAHAHA!

Gee, if McCain doesn't want to be compared to George Wallace, why, maybe he should stop all the hate mongering which is occurring at his rallies?

Just a thought...

[RAMORE]

Really? You want to discuss issues?
Really? :huh:

Many of us have wanted to talk about the issues, but you keep throwing non-issues such as Bill Ayers and Rev. Wright into the "debate." Plus, blaming every problem in the world on the Democratic Party isn't debating the issues, it's pointing fingers as a result of blind partisan rage.

The issues? We'd all be glad to talk about them. But that would require you to stop using phrases such as "your precious democrats" and "your beloved Obama," which I honestly don't think you are capable of.

Ayers Acorn thing is a HUGE deal to the majority of this country that's why it keeps being brought up.

One or two of these incidents can be overlooked but every other week it's some new thing about how Obama made a bad decision or association.

[The Senator]

Ayers Acorn thing is a HUGE deal to the majority of this country that's why it keeps being brought up.

Which is why a CNN poll last night showed that 51% of debate viewers don't care about the Ayers issue :huh:

[Gilpesh]

Ayers Acorn thing is a HUGE deal to the majority of this country that's why it keeps being brought up.

Um... Ayers 'thing' debunked. Obama doesn't have Ayers on speed dial for advice and won't. He just served on a board (and also showed how it was a 'radical' board)

And the ACORN 'thing' is just people who are hired by the smaller branches of ACORN who want more money for registrations or just are lazy and wrote in fake names... if you think Obama had a hand in that, I have some quality air to sell you.

One or two of these incidents can be overlooked but every other week it's some new thing about how Obama made a bad decision or association.

Name another 'bad decision' or 'bad association' that has come out after Ayers or ACORN...

[Superman]

McCain LIED when he said...

"I have repudiated every time someone has been out of line whether they've been part of my campaign or not"

That is a LIE, He has NOT "Repudiated" or done anything else but supported Palin when she said Obama was "Paling around with terrorists".

[Malice]

McCain LIED when he said...

"I have repudiated every time someone has been out of line whether they've been part of my campaign or not"

That is a LIE, He has NOT "Repudiated" or done anything else but supported Palin when she said Obama was "Paling around with terrorists".

I don't support McCain on this ....entirely..
Paling around is a rough statement.

But Obama did have friendly relations with Ayers...
This is a concern to alot a people...its not a lie...
Its not a complete truth...

its a grey area..

[Superman]

Ayers Acorn thing is a HUGE deal to the majority of this country that's why it keeps being brought up.

One or two of these incidents can be overlooked but every other week it's some new thing about how Obama made a bad decision or association.It's only "HUGE" to neo-cons who are trying to find something, Anything to go after Obama with because they don't want to talk about the real issues facing the US because when they do they lose.

The rest of America don't give a crap about Ayers or Acorn. :whatever:

[Gilpesh]

But Obama did have friendly relations with Ayers...

He had to work with him. Are you friendly with your co-workers?

TERRORIST!

[RAMORE]

Which is why a CNN poll last night showed that 51% of debate viewers don't care about the Ayers issue :huh:

Biased poll and if your calling 49% not a lot that's silly

[RAMORE]

Um... Ayers 'thing' debunked. Obama doesn't have Ayers on speed dial for advice and won't. He just served on a board (and also showed how it was a 'radical' board)

And the ACORN 'thing' is just people who are hired by the smaller branches of ACORN who want more money for registrations or just are lazy and wrote in fake names... if you think Obama had a hand in that, I have some quality air to sell you.



Name another 'bad decision' or 'bad association' that has come out after Ayers or ACORN...

Ayers was not debunked. I don't mind the boards they sat on but launching his senate campaign from his house is cozy to me.

The Acorn thing what you say is somewhat true but he gave them a whole heap of money which means hes involved and supports them.

Ayers and Acorn are just the most recent in a long string of them. But there will be more we still have a few days.:hehe:

[Gilpesh]

Ayers was not debunked. I don't mind the boards they sat on but launching his senate campaign from his house is cozy to me.

Ayers was debunked.... when Ayers is brought up it is to make people think Obama goes to him for advice... he doesn't.

And that 'launch' wasn't a launch. It was a party for someone else and Obama was a guest of his friends who knew Ayers... And, it was before his STATE senate campaign.

The Acorn thing what you say is somewhat true but he gave them a whole heap of money which means hes involved and supports them.

He gave them money.... IN THE PRIMARIES. Which isn't now... and it was for a get out the vote program... FOR THE PRIMARIES.

Ayers and Acorn are just the most recent in a long string of them. But there will be more we still have a few days.:hehe:

It's alright, you can say 'no'.

Now, debunk Keating, Phil Gramm, that guy who lobbied for Saddam, and etc... on McCain's side. Go.

[Marx]

Another lie. McCain said AT a rally that Obama is a good man and that people should not be that hostile. He was even booed by quite a few people in the audience for saying it!

I don't know why I'm even bothering to reason with you. You have proven time and again that you believe your line of thinking is the ONLY correct way of thinking. I'm still trying to figure out why you're allowed to post here...but here it goes...

You, yet again, are twisting facts and leaving out things. I specifically said that John McCain stopped a woman who was calling Obama an arab. This was AT THE RALLY YOU JUST USED AS A DEFENSE. He was booed by people. This came about one week after all of the hatred at these rallies began. This was THE ONLY time that he has stopped someone or corrected someone perpetrating these ignorant statements. People at the McCain-Palin rallies have called Obama a 'traitor' and a 'terrorist'. They have also shouted 'treason' and 'kill him'. NEITHER JOHN MCCAIN NOR SARAH PALIN HAVE STOPPED THESE ATTACKS. THEY HAVE NOT SAID 'NOW WAIT A MINUTE, THAT'S NOT TRUE.' INSTEAD, THEY LAUGH THEIR WAY THROUGH THESE COMMENTS LIKE THEY ARE SOMEHOW AMUSING. As I have said, I give credit to John McCain for correcting the woman who called Obama an arab. But that, in no way, wipes the slate clean from all of the other comments that he is blatantly ignored.


During the debate, McCain also pointed out there that vial things have been yelled at Obama's own rallies, and all I saw from Obama was a smile and a nod in agreement. Of course, you don't see the mainstream media reporting on it, though, so it MUST not be true, right?

What's really sickening is that ANYONE would sit here and claim that John McCain is somehow behind it, or that he did not do anything to stop it when he clearly did.

Just more grasping at straws by the left since Obama is dead wrong on ALL of the core issues.

What I have said, along with many others, is that we have never stated that John McCain was behind all of this. WHAT WE HAVE SAID is that he and Sarah Palin are contributing to it and taking advantage of it. You do not ask a veiled question like 'Who is the real Barack Obama' and say that he 'pals around with terrorists' without knowing what kind of response it would bring out. He is capitalizing, and catering to, the very ignorance of this country. And in my view, that it not only unforgivable, but despicable.

You know, I'd love to discuss the actual issues with the posters on this forum. However, very few actually want to talk about the issues.

:dry:

I have no words for this nonsense. The majority of everyone here wants to discuss the issues. It is posters like you who come in here and throw insults and stereotypes out as a means to bait people into an argument THAT IS A DISTRACTION FROM THE ISSUES.

[Paradoxium]

McCain LIED when he said...

"I have repudiated every time someone has been out of line whether they've been part of my campaign or not"

That is a LIE, He has NOT "Repudiated" or done anything else but supported Palin when she said Obama was "Paling around with terrorists".

My pet theory is McCain barely understands economics (and Failin' Palin is not helping the case), hence his his propensity to skim on the issue. He was more emotionally charged over the goddamn Ayers and ACORN thing then the economy. Nevermind, ACORN, which gets government funding has been strong arming banks into giving loans to unqualified applicants, who then proceeds to default and contribute to the gigantic mess we are in now.

There is only one solution, Batman:brucebat:

[Darthphere]

This thread has everything, Lazur wanting to debate the issues, a religious nut job, and Morg actually doing his job. What the ****?!!

[Paradoxium]

This thread has everything, Lazur wanting to debate the issues, a religious nut job, and Morg actually doing his job. What the ****?!!

All we need is some announcement of Judd Winnick and Rob Liefield doing a post-OMD comic :wow:

[ManofmyWord]

Jesus, I'm watching a McCain rally right now and he can bearly talk over "Nobama" and "Traitor!"

[Superman]

I don't support McCain on this ....entirely..
Paling around is a rough statement.

But Obama did have friendly relations with Ayers...
This is a concern to alot a people...its not a lie...
Its not a complete truth...

its a grey area..Watch the debate again. The issue was Palin saying that Obama was "Paling around with terrorists". That's when McCain started defending the crowds and then, After saying that Obama was putting down those people and that there have been people at Obama's rallies saying bad things , McCain said that he's repudiated everyone who said anything out of line whether they've been part of his campaign or not.

It's right here at the 3:00 mark in this video....

zk3nkaGXcFw

He lied, He has not repudiated Palin and Palin is definitely a part of his campaign. Obama does not "Pal around with terrorists". McCain knows this but he let his running mate say it anyway. That's not a "gray area" it's a fact and it's definitely not repudiating in my book.

[The Senator]

Biased poll and if your calling 49% not a lot that's silly

Actually, only 23% of respondents said that it mattered a great deal:


Obama's connection to William Ayers matters to you...

Great Deal 23
Somewhat 14
Not Much 11
Not At All 51


Additionally, it is biased because you do not agree with the result of the poll. Show me a poll where the majority of Americans say they care about the Ayers issue and I'll let you win this one. If you don't have one, then stop debating while we are ahead :yay:

[The Senator]

Ayers was not debunked. I don't mind the boards they sat on but launching his senate campaign from his house is cozy to me.

The Acorn thing what you say is somewhat true but he gave them a whole heap of money which means hes involved and supports them.

Ayers and Acorn are just the most recent in a long string of them. But there will be more we still have a few days.:hehe:

You really are ignorant of this issue.

Ayers DID NOT launch Obama's state Senate campaign. That party at Ayers's house took place before Obama launched his campaign for the state senate, but the party was for ANOTHER politician who was running for Congress. Ayers did NOT introduce Obama to prominent party leaders or recommend him as a Senate candidate. Besides, Obama has BETTER connections at the time which helped him jumpstart his political career-- including Rep. Bobby Rush and Jesse Jackson, Jr., both of whom were POWERFUL in the Chicago community and had much more power than Ayers could ever dream of.

The ONLY reason why the McCain campaign is using this is because they want to imply that Obama has been influenced by terrorists. That is NOT the case, Ayers wrote a book CONDEMNING terrorism years ago and has since reformed. Not only that, but Ayers DID NOT launch Obama's career.

Stop spewing the same ridiculous talking points, and start debating REAL, LEGITIMATE issues. Otherwise we can talk about McCain's presidential transition leader being a former lobbyist with connections to Saddam Hussein.

[Mikelus]

I have no words for this nonsense. The majority of everyone here wants to discuss the issues. It is posters like you who come in here and throw insults and stereotypes out as a means to bait people into an argument THAT IS A DISTRACTION FROM THE ISSUES.

There's one simple solution, ignore the guy, he's not going to talk to himself! :word:

[The Senator]

I don't support McCain on this ....entirely..
Paling around is a rough statement.

But Obama did have friendly relations with Ayers...
This is a concern to alot a people...its not a lie...
Its not a complete truth...

its a grey area..

And McCain had a friendly relationship with Larry Craig in the Senate.

I guess that means John McCain has solicited sex in airport bathrooms? Or that he may be influenced to do the same when he becomes president?

:huh:

[Superman]

And McCain had a friendly relationship with Larry Craig in the Senate.

I guess that means John McCain has solicited sex in airport bathrooms? Or that he may be influenced to do the same when he becomes president?

:huh:And lets not forget McCain's VERY friendly relationship with Bush. By their own reasoning that makes McCain responsible for what Bush has done.:whatever:

[Marx]

There's one simple solution, ignore the guy, he's not going to talk to himself! :word:

For the most part, I do ignore him. Except for on the off chance that I think maybe this time will be different and try to debate with him. I've grown tired of threads being hijacked for the next five pages because of pointless nonsense stirred up by this certain poster. All I was doing, in this case, was try to keep everyone on topic. I left, only to come back into the thread to find that it had been hijacked. Yet again.

So...I've said what I had to say on the matter, and now I'm done.

Back to regular programming! :cwink:

[danoyse]

And lets not forget McCain's VERY friendly relationship with Bush. By their own reasoning that makes McCain responsible for what Bush has done.:whatever:

Wasn't Bush attending McCain's birthday party as Hurricane Katrina was destroying the Gulf Coast?

Seriously, everyone I talked to today about the debate couldn't care less about Ayers. He's really a non-issue and Obama was very upfront in the debate as to who he was and what the relationship was.

[lazur]

I don't know why I'm even bothering to reason with you. You have proven time and again that you believe your line of thinking is the ONLY correct way of thinking. I'm still trying to figure out why you're allowed to post here...but here it goes...

I understand. You don't want people posting who oppose your views. Gotcha.

You, yet again, are twisting facts and leaving out things. I specifically said that John McCain stopped a woman who was calling Obama an arab. This was AT THE RALLY YOU JUST USED AS A DEFENSE. He was booed by people. This came about one week after all of the hatred at these rallies began. This was THE ONLY time that he has stopped someone or corrected someone perpetrating these ignorant statements.

How do you know? Were you in attendance at every rally? Was every rally McCain held covered by CNN?

People at the McCain-Palin rallies have called Obama a 'traitor' and a 'terrorist'. They have also shouted 'treason' and 'kill him'. NEITHER JOHN MCCAIN NOR SARAH PALIN HAVE STOPPED THESE ATTACKS. THEY HAVE NOT SAID 'NOW WAIT A MINUTE, THAT'S NOT TRUE.' INSTEAD, THEY LAUGH THEIR WAY THROUGH THESE COMMENTS LIKE THEY ARE SOMEHOW AMUSING.

Again, how do you know? McCain just stated last night his position, just as Obama stated his position on Ayers. Why is it okay for one candidate to state during a debate that he doesn't agree with what Ayers did or said, but it's not okay for another one to do the same thing?

As I have said, I give credit to John McCain for correcting the woman who called Obama an arab. But that, in no way, wipes the slate clean from all of the other comments that he is blatantly ignored.

Ignored or chose not to respond to? And again, have you been at every one of McCain's rallies? Have you seen every one of them covered on TV? No, you haven't, so you have no idea what has or has not been said by McCain at *all* of his rallies. Your basing your opinion on what the media reports, and nothing more.

What I have said, along with many others, is that we have never stated that John McCain was behind all of this. WHAT WE HAVE SAID is that he and Sarah Palin are contributing to it and taking advantage of it. You do not ask a veiled question like 'Who is the real Barack Obama' and say that he 'pals around with terrorists' without knowing what kind of response it would bring out. He is capitalizing, and catering to, the very ignorance of this country. And in my view, that it not only unforgivable, but despicable.

I disagree that they're 'contributing' to it. One the one hand, you say that McCain wasn't behind it, but on the other you're accusing him of 'contributing' to it.

As to 'ignorance of this country,' I can't believe you'd use two people who shouted insults as a measurement of 'ignorance' in this country. Generalize much, do we?

But hey, why didn't Obama tell the people with the t-shirts on to turn them around? I guess that's acceptable, though, right?

:dry:

I have no words for this nonsense. The majority of everyone here wants to discuss the issues. It is posters like you who come in here and throw insults and stereotypes out as a means to bait people into an argument THAT IS A DISTRACTION FROM THE ISSUES.

Nonsense? Hey, I'm just one of the 'ignorant' since I oppose Obama. There's not much I can say to THAT nonsense.

[Gilpesh]

Nonsense? Hey, I'm just one of the 'ignorant' since I oppose Obama. There's not much I can say to THAT nonsense.

Would you just f**king stop already? Really.

[danoyse]

Nonsense? Hey, I'm just one of the 'ignorant' since I oppose Obama. There's not much I can say to THAT nonsense.

No one here has said that you are ignorant because you oppose Obama, lazur. No one.

[lazur]

Wasn't Bush attending McCain's birthday party as Hurricane Katrina was destroying the Gulf Coast?

Seriously, everyone I talked to today about the debate couldn't care less about Ayers. He's really a non-issue and Obama was very upfront in the debate as to who he was and what the relationship was.

I didn't observe what you observed:

Bill Ayers is a professor of education in Chicago.

Forty years ago, when I was 8 years old, he engaged in despicable acts with a radical domestic group. I have roundly condemned those acts. Ten years ago he served and I served on a school reform board that was funded by one of Ronald Reagan's former ambassadors and close friends, Mr. Annenberg.

Other members on that board were the presidents of the University of Illinois, the president of Northwestern University, who happens to be a Republican, the president of The Chicago Tribune, a Republican- leaning newspaper.

Mr. Ayers is not involved in my campaign. He has never been involved in this campaign. And he will not advise me in the White House. So that's Mr. Ayers.

Obama did not address why he was sitting in Ayers' living room and kicking off his political career.

Obama did not explain the 50 million he spent on behalf of Ayers to radicalize Chicago's schools.

Obama did not explain why he exercised such poor judgment in dealing with this guy in the first place, and especially AFTER Ayers stated that he did not regret doing what he did and he wished he did more.

All Obama did was repeat everything he's already said in the past. All he did was state that Ayers has no involvement in his campaign. (I don't recall anyone suggesting otherwise...)

So no, he was not 'upfront' in my opinion. He was masterful at dodging the core concerns that people have with this and he was dismissive of his association with this guy despite that it DOES INDEED concern half of the voters.

As to McCain and Bush, Bush is a sitting President. Since when was it a crime for a member of Congress to associate with the President of the United States?

[The Senator]

Seriously lazur, get it through your thick skull that people here do not consider you ignorant because you are opposed to Obama.

Again, posters like StorminNorman, Hippie Hunter, and SupermanBeyond-- who are fairly conservative-- can actually debate the issues without wildly pointing fingers because they have been consumed by blind partisan rage.

You, however, seem incapable of that trait. Accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being "in love" with Barack Obama and the Democratic Party, making outlandish statements such as Obama will destroy the U.S. military, and going as far as to justify the hatespeech being spewed at some of McCain's rallies by saying "anger is merited right now."

I mean, do you not see that? Do you not understand that it has NOTHING to do with your views, and EVERYTHING to do with the way you present yourself?

Blaming all the nation's problems on Democrats? That is baseless and highly partisan.
Saying phrases such as "your beloved Obama" or "your precious Democrats" to posters who disagree with you? That is baseless and downright insulting.
Interjecting Obama or Ayers into threads which have nothing to do with that topic? That is just childish.
Implying that I care more about gay marriage than the economy, when neither subjects were up for discussion? That's pointed and the stuff I'd expect out of eighth graders.

Seriously, change the way you present yourself, and maybe some of us here won't have anything against you. Hey, you're the one who wants to talk about the issues, maybe we should do that. But like I said, I don't think you are capable of doing so because it involves being somewhat cool and collected, which you have demonstrated that you're anything BUT these past few weeks.

Oh well, only three weeks left to put up with this sort of crap. Thankfully, you'll be moving out of the country if Obama wins, so hopefully we can all resume a normal, collected debate once the "country first" guy packs up and moves abroad because his candidate lost.

[Superman]

I didn't observe what you observed:



Obama did not address why he was sitting in Ayers' living room and kicking off his political career.

Obama did not explain the 50 million he spent on behalf of Ayers to radicalize Chicago's schools.

Obama did not explain why he exercised such poor judgment in dealing with this guy in the first place, and especially AFTER Ayers stated that he did not regret doing what he did and he wished he did more.

All Obama did was repeat everything he's already said in the past. All he did was state that Ayers has involvement in his campaign. (I don't recall anyone suggesting otherwise...)

So no, he was not 'upfront' in my opinion. He was masterful at dodging the core concerns that people have with this and he was dismissive of his association with this guy despite that it DOES INDEED concern half of the voters.

As to McCain and Bush, Bush is a sitting President. Since when was it a crime for a member of Congress to associate with the President of the United States?:whatever:...and it goes on and on and on. :facepalm

[danoyse]

I didn't observe what you observed:



Obama did not address why he was sitting in Ayers' living room and kicking off his political career.

Obama did not explain the 50 million he spent on behalf of Ayers to radicalize Chicago's schools.

Obama did not explain why he exercised such poor judgment in dealing with this guy in the first place, and especially AFTER Ayers stated that he did not regret doing what he did and he wished he did more.

All Obama did was repeat everything he's already said in the past. All he did was deny that Ayers has involvement in his campaign.

So no, he did not 'upfront' in my opinion. He was masterful at dodging the core concerns that people have with this and he was dismissive of his association with this guy despite that it DOES INDEED concern half of the voters.

As to McCain and Bush, Bush is a sitting President. Since when was it a crime for a member of Congress to associate with the President of the United States?

I didn't need him to tell me. I've read about Bill Ayers. I know who he is. He's not Osama bin Laden. Hell, the man received a Citizen of the Year Award from the city of Chicago in 1997 and has been a distinguished professor at the University of Illinois. That's a dangerous terrorist?

Why aren't we questioning everyone who's worked with or been a student of his about their shady associations?

He did terrible things back in the 1960s. However, when he did them Obama was a third grader. I doubt they conspired at the time.

I didn't need to hear about Bill Ayers at the debate at all. I've read about the subject and I really think it's a non-issue once I learned the facts. Everyone I've spoken to has said the same.

As far as Bush and McCain...sure they can get together whenever they want. But during a crisis when an American city is drowning and the emergency response is hopeless hardly seems the time for a birthday party, don't you think? So much for country first.

[Gilpesh]

Obama did not address why he was sitting in Ayers' living room and kicking off his political career.

Because McCain was foaming at the mouth and interrupting him and not letting him get to it... and it is also because he didn't sit in Ayers' living room to kick off his political career...

Obama did not explain the 50 million he spent on behalf of Ayers to radicalize Chicago's schools.

:facepalm

Yes... radical board... that Obama explained wasn't radical...

Obama did not explain why he exercised such poor judgment in dealing with this guy in the first place, and especially AFTER Ayers stated that he did not regret doing what he did and he wished he did more.

Did Ayers state that to Obama's face? "Hey Barrack! I'M A TERRORIST THAT BLEW S**T UP! I AIN'T SORRY!"

Would you quit your good job if you found out that someone else that works there did something bad in his life?

All Obama did was repeat everything he's already said in the past. All he did was state that Ayers has no involvement in his campaign. (I don't recall anyone suggesting otherwise...)

:facepalm

Yes.... you bring up guilt by association... then say no one suggested that Ayers had anything to do with Obama's campaign...

[Marx]

I value differing opinions when they intelligent and well-informed. I have nothing but the utmost respect and regard for StorminNorman, Hippie Hunter, and SupermanBeyond. I agreed to run with Norm on the REPUBLICAN TICKET OF THE HYPE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION because of my enormous respect for what he represents. And anyone who has paid attention since my arrival here knows that I have been a very harsh critic of Barack Obama and John McCain over the course of this election. I even praised the nomination of John McCain because I saw it as a much needed in the right direction for the GOP. (My opinion of him, of course, has changed because of his deplorable actions.)

[Bathead]

Seems to me Obama et al has answered ALL those questions. You just don't want to believe it. In that case, your intractability and paranoia will brook no debate, anything you say about the subject contributes nothing to the conversation.

[lazur]

Seriously lazur, get it through your thick skull that people here do not consider you ignorant because you are opposed to Obama.

Again, posters like StorminNorman, Hippie Hunter, and SupermanBeyond-- who are fairly conservative-- can actually debate the issues without wildly pointing fingers because they have been consumed by blind partisan rage.

You, however, seem incapable of that trait. Accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being "in love" with Barack Obama and the Democratic Party, making outlandish statements such as Obama will destroy the U.S. military, and going as far as to justify the hatespeech being spewed at some of McCain's rallies by saying "anger is merited right now."

I mean, do you not see that? Do you not understand that it has NOTHING to do with your views, and EVERYTHING to do with the way you present yourself?

Blaming all the nation's problems on Democrats? That is baseless and highly partisan.
Saying phrases such as "your beloved Obama" or "your precious Democrats" to posters who disagree with you? That is baseless and downright insulting.
Interjecting Obama or Ayers into threads which have nothing to do with that topic? That is just childish.
Implying that I care more about gay marriage than the economy, when neither subjects were up for discussion? That's pointed and the stuff I'd expect out of eighth graders.

Seriously, change the way you present yourself, and maybe some of us here won't have anything against you. Hey, you're the one who wants to talk about the issues, maybe we should do that. But like I said, I don't think you are capable of doing so because it involves being somewhat cool and collected, which you have demonstrated that you're anything BUT these past few weeks.

Oh well, only three weeks left to put up with this sort of crap. Thankfully, you'll be moving out of the country if Obama wins, so hopefully we can all resume a normal, collected debate once the "country first" guy packs up and moves abroad because his candidate lost.

There's nothing wrong with my presentation. I have made PLENTY of efforts in the past to have a pleasant and intelligent discourse on this board only to be greeted by 'you're partisan, just stop' or 'way to be a centrist, Lazur' even when nothing I've said was partisan, but was instead simply questioning Obama's motives, qualifications and experience, as well as his policy points.

I will not apologize for questioning the motives of a man who has a epic-sized history of associating with bad people - people who HATE this country. You state that Ayers isn't a big deal and that no one cares about Ayers. Fine. Then what about ACORN. What about Obama's campaign payoff of 800k to them? What about his payment from Fannie Mae? What about his association to people like Tony Resko, a slumlord he bought land from who's being investigated for extortion, money laundering, and fraud? What about Che Guevara's flag flying in Obama's HQ office? What about Sam Graham-Felsen, a self-admitted Communist? What about Rashid Khalidi, a former PLO operative opposed to Israel?

The list goes on and on and on. Sure, if you take any ONE of these associations by themselves, each can be fairly benign. But I won't apologize for my concern of the PATTERN of anti-American associations Obama has been a significant part of for the last half of his life.

[lazur]

Because McCain was foaming at the mouth and interrupting him and not letting him get to it... and it is also because he didn't sit in Ayers' living room to kick off his political career...

Actually, it was McCain's turn to speak when Obama interrupted McCain to say 'that's not true.'

But please do reveal how YOU know that it's not true, other than Obama saying so, since, well, Obama's been soooo honest with the American people so far.

i:facepalm

Yes... radical board... that Obama explained wasn't radical...



Did Ayers state that to Obama's face? "Hey Barrack! I'M A TERRORIST THAT BLEW S**T UP! I AIN'T SORRY!"

Would you quit your good job if you found out that someone else that works there did something bad in his life?

No, I wouldn't quit, but I certainly wouldn't take the guy's money and spend it for one of his radical agendas...

:facepalm

Yes.... you bring up guilt by association... then say no one suggested that Ayers had anything to do with Obama's campaign...

No, it's not 'guilt by association.' I don't think Obama is a terrorist. But I do think that a man CAN and SHOULD be measured by the company he keeps.

[Gilpesh]

Actually, it was McCain's turn to speak when Obama interrupted McCain to say 'that's not true.'

Shame... Obama interrupting McCain to call out a lie... He should have more respect and just interrupt McCain whenever he felt like it, aka the McCain plan of debating.

But please do reveal how YOU know that it's not true, other than Obama saying so, since, well, Obama's been soooo honest with the American people so far.

FACTCHECKING.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/he_lied_about_bill_ayers.html

Voters may differ in how they see Ayers, or how they see Obama’s interactions with him. We’re making no judgment calls on those matters. What we object to are the McCain-Palin campaign’s attempts to sway voters – in ads and on the stump – with false and misleading statements about the relationship, which was never very close. Obama never “lied” about this, just as he never bragged about it. The foundation they both worked with was hardly “radical.” And Ayers is more than a former "terrorist," he’s also a well-known figure in the field of education.

No, I wouldn't quit, but I certainly wouldn't take the guy's money and spend it for one of his radical agendas...

You wouldn't quit? That's the company you keep and we'll judge you by it... how's it feel?

No, it's not 'guilt by association.' I don't think Obama is a terrorist. But I do think that a man CAN and SHOULD be measured by the company he keeps.

Then you should be afraid that McCain is going to cause a depression also... PHIL GRAMM and KEATING.




Oh and sidenote... stop saying that Obama's word can't be trusted when you take Palin and McCain's word on everything... just stop.

[The Senator]

Well lazur, you sort of damned yourself by going on partisan rants and generalizing every single one of us as blind partisans. And your consistent blaming of Democrats for all the problems in the world have proven that you are not the centrist you once claimed to be. You are no worse than the posters who have butted heads with you.

So, while I'm sorry you feel as though we have been too harsh in our analysis of your posts, you really have had it coming.

Also, I'd like to add that you don't seem to mind the confederate flag flying in McCain's South Carolina office. Double standard?

[Carcharodon]

I think the fact that all the right has as a defense is "AYERS! ACORN! AYERS!" [/Tourette's] says a lot of good things about Obama as a candidate on the whole. :up:

[jaguarr]

To the recent discussion in this thread:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v287/jaguarr/shh/McCainEyes.gif

jag

[jaguarr]

To the recent discussion in this thread:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v287/jaguarr/shh/McCainEyes.gif

jag

[Gilpesh]

To Jag:

http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/3305/obamaie6.jpg

[jaguarr]

^^
:funny:

jag

[The Senator]

I think the fact that the vast majority of voters could care LESS about Ayers shows what kind of a cluster **** the Republicans are facing right now. Ever since this "issue" was brought up by McCain, his performance in national and swing state polls has gone down. Further proves how out of touch the McCain campaign and RNC are :up:

[Goddessreicho]

I didn't think I would ever say this, but I think I hate McCain. His embarrassing and utter complete dismissal of Equal pay and the way he laughed at the statue of limitations made me hate him. I think he hates women.

His brush off of the health of a mother (which is where the second largest amounts of abortions come from and is far more prevelant than Lifers like to admit) was also very disturbing.

I mean seriously, America now has the highest infant mortality rate (http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-07-29-infant-mortality_N.htm) for an industrialized nation. The next higher mortality rate to go up will be pregnant women. This is DIRECTLY related to the lack of specialized healthcare for women.

Of course, if John McCain does get elected, that means that these problems will only get exponetially worse. We get to regress back to the olden days where these items
http://www.doll-hospital.com/tlcimag/odd/o4101.jpg
or even older times when these
http://www.mikesrustics.com/leg_wood_pile_tn_500x375.jpg were used and it was all encouraged but hushed up and no questions were asked and people could still be sanctimonious.

No! This man, his scary and painful misogynistic tendencies, need to stay as far away from executive powers as human possible, oh and so does his ridiculous puppet who STILL doesn't know what the 14th amendment is and how it was the cornerstone of Roe.

I'll stick with the That Guy and The Other Guy who penned the violence against Women Act PERIOD

[Fading]

He didn't address it this morning. I'm more disgusted this morning with his answer than I was last night. Maybe if he'd said something to the effect that threatening Obama's life or shouting racial epithets is in no way acceptable and that he expects better from his supporters, I'd respect him more. But he didn't. He acted offended that some of the things his supporters have been saying at these rallies is being called into question and even threw a tizzy fit over Lewis' comments on it. He is tacitly approving these kinds of comments by not adamantly and completely denouncing them. Very dangerous ground.

jag

Agreed. McCain should be leading now, but instead he's fanning the flames. McCain/Palin raised the topic with all the, "Who is Barack Obama?", "palin' around with terrorists" stuff. If McCain would come out and say he doesn't condone the death threats, mock funerals, and racial slurs...they might stop. Instead he ignores them, and takes offense when ppl question it.

[Showtime]

http://www.worthalaugh.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/bush-mccain-love-child.jpg

"I'm not George Bush. If you wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago."

[Fading]

I didn't think I would ever say this, but I think I hate McCain. His embarrassing and utter complete dismissal of Equal pay and the way he laughed at the statue of limitations made me hate him. I think he hates women....

Now that I've had more time to think about it, I do think McCain shot himself in the foot with his statements towards women last night. I mentioned thinking his, "health of the mother" ironic finger quoting was disgusting, but now that you mention it his brushing off of the equal pay question did him no favors either. Probably didn't help by mocking 'extreme environmentalists' last night, or at the last debate saying a projector for a planetarium is a waste of money.

Palin was atleast partially brought on board to get McCain more female votes. However last night I wonder how many he turned off with comments like that? Not that his overexaggerated facial expressions, heavy breathing, and constant attacking helped either.

[Paradoxium]

I didn't think I would ever say this, but I think I hate McCain. His embarrassing and utter complete dismissal of Equal pay and the way he laughed at the statue of limitations made me hate him. I think he hates women.

His brush off of the health of a mother (which is where the second largest amounts of abortions come from and is far more prevelant than Lifers like to admit) was also very disturbing.

I mean seriously, America now has the highest infant mortality rate (http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-07-29-infant-mortality_N.htm) for an industrialized nation. The next higher mortality rate to go up will be pregnant women. This is DIRECTLY related to the lack of specialized healthcare for women.

Of course, if John McCain does get elected, that means that these problems will only get exponetially worse. We get to regress back to the olden days where these items
http://www.doll-hospital.com/tlcimag/odd/o4101.jpg
or even older times when these
http://www.mikesrustics.com/leg_wood_pile_tn_500x375.jpg were used and it was all encouraged but hushed up and no questions were asked and people could still be sanctimonious.

No! This man, his scary and painful misogynistic tendencies, need to stay as far away from executive powers as human possible, oh and so does his ridiculous puppet who STILL doesn't know what the 14th amendment is and how it was the cornerstone of Roe.

I'll stick with the That Guy and The Other Guy who penned the violence against Women Act PERIOD

I think you hate men. :o

[Fading]

http://www.worthalaugh.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/bush-mccain-love-child.jpg

"I'm not George Bush. If you wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago."

Lol....creepy. Yet sadly it's still not as creepy as the zombie McCain GIF last night, which was an actual facial expression. I think I had a dream about McCain rising from my floor boards with that expression chasing me shouting, "I'm going to eat your brains and destroy your healthcare!"

[jaguarr]

Now that I've had more time to think about it, I do think McCain shot himself in the foot with his statements towards women last night. I mentioned thinking his, "health of the mother" ironic finger quoting was disgustin, but now that you mention it his brushing off of the equal pay question did him no favors either. Probably didn't help by mocking 'extreme environmentalists' last night, or at the last debate saying a projector for a planetarium is a waste of money.

Palin was atleast partially brought on board to get McCain more female votes. However last night I wonder how many he turned off with comments like that? Not that his overexaggerated facial expressions, heavy breathing, and constant attacking helped either.

We watched the debate on CNN where they had the meter for male and female undecided voters in Ohio going and every time McCain spoke, the women's meter would drop to the basement (it also spiked to the top a lot when Obama was speaking). I found that interesting, particularly regarding some of the things McCain was saying on women's issues. The mens' meter was up and down for both candidates on various things but tended to stay more towards the median most of the evening.

jag

[jaguarr]

I think you hate men. :o

I think she just hates John. :o

jag

[The Guard]

Oh, no! Nancy Regan broke her hip. Let's bring the country together over it.

I'm sorry, I couldn't resist.

This was a much better debate than the other two. Bob Schieffer was a much better moderator than either of the others have been.

Now...

This stupid Joe The Plumber thing is absurd. I understand what McCain and his campaign are trying to do, but is that the BEST he and his campaign can do? Finding some guy named "Joe" and creating such an absurd tactic? But hey, it'll play great in the sticks, won't it?

McCain went on the attack on the economy. His ideas sucked for the most part, but he was still on the offensive. Granted, he was just repeating what the original bailout proposal was, which he didn't come up with. Regardless, John McCain was winning this debate for the first 20 minutes or so. He had Obama on defense, despite the validity of his statements. Then he turned himself right back into a child, essentially whining about how it's Obama's fault that McCain's campaign has been negative, and dwelling on both Acorn and Ayers, neither of which he himself seemed to know much about beyond the broadest implications. And then when Obama defended this intial salvo adequately, McCain appeared to have nothing to fall back on. Nothing. No proof, no further explanation for his campaign's broad accusations, nothing. And he made himself look like an idiot. Obama said what he needed to say about Ayers and Acorn, and McCain had nowhere to go from there. And then, instead of LETTING IT GO, he went the "Lewis" route, and Obama NAILED him on the "hurt feelings" line. Nailed him. I think, right there, that John McCain shot himself in the foot. Obama kept his cool. McCain did not.

Neither of them have the answers right now for the Economy, nor would I expect them to. But McCain repeats someone else's ideas, and Obama goes a bit more depth into the problems we face.

They're about even on Energy.

McCain still can't defend his health care plan. In the meantime, he's relying on attacks against Obama's (the "fine" thing) that have already been nationally disproven.

Obama gave a much more involved and appropriate answer about Roe V Wade, and his stance on abortion. And he successfully defended voting for the "Refusal provide medical care" bill McCain used against him by pointing out that the law was already on the books.

Obama nailed the VP question. McCain, not so much.

My main issue at this point is that besides being stuck in the past, vague, parrotive and relatively shallow in his answers to key questions, and obsessed over non issues, John McCain just comes across as rude. Sneering, laughing at inappropriate times Now yes, Barack Obama cracked a few smiles, but McCain was just acting like an ******* all night long. That will cost him. I think, in most respects, the debate was a draw, but McCain hurt himself last night, and Obama did not.

McCain's still stumbling over his words, getting visibly flustered...Obama's still a better debater. There's just no question about that.

And how come McCain can say "repudiated" but he can't pronounce far simpler words?

I can't wait for SNL. I hope they also do an SNL version of CNN's debate night coverage.

[The Guard]

Obama once again refuses to acknowledge the Ayers situation in its fullest. He neglected that the meeting which launched his campaign was at Ayers' house

He didn't neglect it at all. He definitively said "Those aren't the facts". And then, McCain was stupid enough not to push the issue. He essentially let Obama deny it and didn't press the attack at all.

One or two of these incidents can be overlooked but every other week it's some new thing about how Obama made a bad decision or association.

New? Try "old". Every other week it's some "old" association that McCain's campaign and Republicans have been using for months now that keeps getting brought back up. Ayers and Acorn. And that's about it, as far as I know.

Sort of strange coming from a guy who puts "Country First."

He never did say USA first, though. That's not a knock on him. Just saying.

Now on McCain's side, its an issue of saying, "I may have supported some of my presidents policies, but I am not the President." He said, I am not President Bush. I thought it was a good reply on McCains part, but unfortunately, the hatred for Bush on most peoples minds, will lead them away from Obama.

Problem is, Obama then pointed out why he made the comparisons to Bush. It was a valid argument. McCain didn't have an answer for it. And how could he? He has allied himself with his party on some major issues.

We don't need MORE expenses right now. We need LESS. We don't need MORE government involvement and 'social engineering' - we need LESS. The writing is on the wall. When this all goes down, Obama will be powerless to do anything about it, which is why it's KEY to avoid it. But his policies of tax, tax, tax and spend, spend, spend will NOT allow us to avoid it.

I'm curious. He's been pretty clear that he wants a net cut to spending overall. What makes you think he's dumb enough not to realize he won't be able to do everything he'd like to? He's said as much.

He is tacitly approving these kinds of comments by not adamantly and completely denouncing them. Very dangerous ground.

This is just an absurd statement. Simply because one doesn't denounce someone publicly (which I believe his administration DID), they are approving the comment? That's grade school thinking. Someone calls someone a name, so I have to defend that person? It's not Obama's job to defend McCain from absurd statements.

I agree with you 100% that Barack Obama has a much better Presidential image ... but I suspect that has more to do with his youth, his good looks, and his attorney like qualities when he communicates. He's definitely a good talker, but I don't give him a lot of credit on the 'communicator' scale. He, being an attorney, is a also a word-smith. He's able to craft well-rehearsed responses and look incredibly confident.

God forbid we have that in a President. :)

Still, he doesn't answer the important questions completely. When quizzed about Ayers, he maneuvered around giving any real answer by repeating that Ayers was never a part of his campaign and would have no effect on his Presidency.

Isn't that relevant to the issue at hand? Obama essentially said "Stop confusing non issues with issues". He made his point, and it made sense. It's not Obama's job to give McCain more fuel for the fire. It's McCains. And you'll notice, McCain didn't seem to dig any deeper.

And I'm thinking, so what? We're not concerned about you contacting Ayers while you're President. Do you really think the American people would stand for that? We're concerned about what effect your contact with him has had on you through the years.

He also addressed that pretty openly. It seemed to amount to "We served on a board together". Again, McCain didn't press the issue.

You know, maybe if Obama would come out and say something like, "Hey, I believe in positive change. That belief manifests itself in my personal and professional life. I believe that no matter someone's history, there's always a good and decent side to that person that maybe I can help to draw out. I don't agree with what Ayers did back then, but I don't have to in order to understand that maybe I can have a positive effect on this guy. What's the alternative? That we lock him up for good, despite that our justice system was unable to convict him? The guy's a college professor. He's harmless.

I tend to think Obama pretty much thinks most people are intelligent to figure out that he didn't pal around with terrorists, and that Ayers is no longer a terrorist.

Obama did not address why he was sitting in Ayers' living room and kicking off his political career.

He shouldn't need to. What bearing does it have on anything?

Obama did not explain the 50 million he spent on behalf of Ayers to radicalize Chicago's schools.

Radicalize them how? Again. He shouldn't need to. What bearing does it have on anything?

Obama did not explain why he exercised such poor judgment in dealing with this guy in the first place, and especially AFTER Ayers stated that he did not regret doing what he did and he wished he did more.

Careful. If Obama's not allowed to associate with someone of less than stellar character...no one is. That would point the finger at a LOT of people, politicians and otherwise.

Again. He shouldn't need to. What bearing does it have on anything?

All Obama did was repeat everything he's already said in the past. All he did was state that Ayers has no involvement in his campaign. (I don't recall anyone suggesting otherwise...)

He shouldn't need to go beyond that. All he needs to do is say that, and McCain's campaign clearly has nothing to stand on. What bearing does this "Ayers" nonsense have on anything?

Then what about ACORN. What about Obama's campaign payoff of 800k to them?

Elaborate.

What about his payment from Fannie Mae?

Elaborate.

What about his association to people like Tony Resko, a slumlord he bought land from who's being investigated for extortion, money laundering, and fraud?

Oh no...someone in this country being investigated for breaking the law?

What about Che Guevara's flag flying in Obama's HQ office?

?

What about Sam Graham-Felsen, a self-admitted Communist? What about Rashid Khalidi, a former PLO operative opposed to Israel?

Elaborate. Elaborate. Elaborate.

[hitmanyr2k]

McCain somehow shoots himself in the foot during debates and it's all in the facial expressions and body language. These debates are just as much about how you look as what you say. They show temperament and that's where McCain failed in every single debate. For all the experience he has he never once looked (or acted) presidential or someone that could be a true leader. These debates have glaringly shown McCain's character flaws. He's fidgety, has no patience, and seems to lack composure under pressure. To me he comes off as a spoiled brat on the verge of a temper tantrum at times.

[Paradoxium]

I think she just hates John. :o

jagLOL like Obama or that Biden clown will make a difference. It doesn't matter how smooth either are, or what they say... weak economy = less money = less benefits. Period.

Both candidates will tank it, but Obama will do it faster with his idiotic economic stimulus package, repeating Hoover all over again. McCain - he just doesn't know what the hell he is doing. He is a poor man's Democrat.

Women think they have it bad right?

Hahahah they haven't seen anything yet. :woot:

With a piss poor economy and a massive government deficit, wait till they start seeing employers not even hire young women anymore because they worry about maternal leave. This is a case of brutal pragmatism and cold efficiency, not sexism. Basically they end up hiring really old women beyond their fertility age to meet government numbers. This phenomenon is already happening in the UK. And what is the government going to do? Force them hire women who will have children? You end up tanking these already fragile companies and now everyone will have the equality of being unemployed.

My point is, if you are worried about women, start worrying about the economy first.

Besides if you control statistics for women who don't have children, you control the hours at work (ones who are equalized to men), the pay between such a women to men are equal. In some cases women even make significantly more (particularly in New York). I recall there was a huge NY Times article on this, it was something to the effect 18% higher than men. As for the overall picture, men do take on the most dangerous jobs, that's one of the other reasons why they get paid more; the danger premium. It's no coincidence men die 90% of the time on the job, and have a shorter lifespan by 5-10 years compared to women. Unless women think it's a conspiracy to oppress women from getting killed equally on the job :whatever:

[souvlaki]

Joe not a licensed plumber, McCain's enthusiasm not diminished

October 16, 2008
Categories: McCain

The Toledo Blade is reporting that Joe the Plumber is actually not licensed. But that, combined with his apparent tax lien, isn't lessening McCain's ardor.

He said in an interview with Fox's Carl Cameron today that he hoped to hook up with the instantly famous Ohioan soon.

“I'm probably going to call him this morning," McCain said. "I thought he would probably be up late. I heard that his — that his phone lines were pretty well flooded. But I think we're going to be spending some time together.”

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/1008/Joe_not_a_licensed_plumber_McCains_enthusiasm_not_ diminished.html#comments

[souvlaki]

Apparently Joe hasn't paid his back taxes either. Poor Joe the Plumber. :(

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aWDHvDjnDnTs&refer=home

[Paradoxium]

What are you going to do? Expose his whole god damn private life. Would you want the media to expose every single aspect of your life, especially its frailties? Some of you guys have no class at all.

[The Guard]

The issues in dispute are matters of public record, are they not? Regardless, it's classic. No one forced Joe to go on national television, or to give interviews, etc.

[Paradoxium]

I didn't know he went on national television to give interviews. That's a different story. Still I think it is petty.

[DorkyFresh]

What are you going to do? Expose his whole god damn private life. Would you want the media to expose every single aspect of your life, especially its frailties? Some of you guys have no class at all.
you act as if souvlaki hired a detective. all he did was post links to these things. besides, having class on SHH is kinda like having manners in a bar.

I didn't know he went on national television to give interviews.
i've seen him in 3 seperate interviews since the debate.

[Paradoxium]

It's directed more so to the media and not souvlaki, and yea it is still petty. You try putting yourself in those shoes.

[Paradoxium]

i've seen him in 3 seperate interviews since the debate.
I don't bother paying attention to the MSM, and like it matters to policy and economy if he gets interviewed. It's a stupid waste of time.

[Gilpesh]

Paradoxium.... it is McCain's fault. He brought the guy up... and brought the guy up.... AND BROUGHT THE GUY UP.... AND KEPT BRINGING HIM UP!

[souvlaki]

Paradoxium.... it is McCain's fault. He brought the guy up... and brought the guy up.... AND BROUGHT THE GUY UP.... AND KEPT BRINGING HIM UP!

And then the guy went and did a whole crapload of interviews yesterday. That's all people were talking about on the morning news.

[Paradoxium]

Paradoxium.... it is McCain's fault. He brought the guy up... and brought the guy up.... AND BROUGHT THE GUY UP.... AND KEPT BRINGING HIM UP!
While I am not going to excuse him for being stupid enough to take up those interviews (or his background). My question is why the hell were there interview requests in the first place? Just cause McCain said Joe the Plumber a couple of times? It's a stupid waste of time.

[Raiden]

It looks like McCain thinks Joe will be his ticket to the WH or something. I won't be surprised if he tries to invite Joe to campaign with him together.

[Gilpesh]

Paradoxium... McCain's entire night seemed based around this guy... so of course the media was going to go after him. A lot of McCain's argument seemed to depend on the guy... and surprise, the guy dodges taxes and his company doesn't make anywhere near that line Obama has...

[Paradoxium]

Paradoxium... McCain's entire night seemed based around this guy... so of course the media was going to go after him. A lot of McCain's argument seemed to depend on the guy... and surprise, the guy dodges taxes and his company doesn't make anywhere near that line Obama has...

That's not a justification. And McCain was trying to use Joe the Plumber as an analogy of the small business working class. Anyways this is going to blow over anyways, unless the media is dumb enough to keep dragging this dead horse when we have bigger problems right now

[The Incredible Hulk]

Joe not a licensed plumber, McCain's enthusiasm not diminished



http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/1008/Joe_not_a_licensed_plumber_McCains_enthusiasm_not_ diminished.html#comments


LMAO Epic Fail Joe

[Gilpesh]

That's not a justification.

Yes, yes it is. It seemed like McCain had found one of the 'victims' of Obama's plan. And he didn't...

And McCain was trying to use Joe the Plumber as an analogy of the small business working class.

Then... he should have actually said the small business and middle class... instead of a s**ty analogy that tries to make him 'in touch' with the working people but shows just how out of touch he is... because he knew nothing of that guy.

Anyways this is going to blow over anyways, unless the media is dumb enough to keep dragging this dead horse when we have bigger problems right now

Agreed.

[jaguarr]

LOL like Obama or that Biden clown will make a difference. It doesn't matter how smooth either are, or what they say... weak economy = less money = less benefits. Period.

Both candidates will tank it, but Obama will do it faster with his idiotic economic stimulus package, repeating Hoover all over again. McCain - he just doesn't know what the hell he is doing. He is a poor man's Democrat.

Women think they have it bad right?

Hahahah they haven't seen anything yet. :woot:

With a piss poor economy and a massive government deficit, wait till they start seeing employers not even hire young women anymore because they worry about maternal leave. This is a case of brutal pragmatism and cold efficiency, not sexism. Basically they end up hiring really old women beyond their fertility age to meet government numbers. This phenomenon is already happening in the UK. And what is the government going to do? Force them hire women who will have children? You end up tanking these already fragile companies and now everyone will have the equality of being unemployed.

My point is, if you are worried about women, start worrying about the economy first.

Besides if you control statistics for women who don't have children, you control the hours at work (ones who are equalized to men), the pay between such a women to men are equal. In some cases women even make significantly more (particularly in New York). I recall there was a huge NY Times article on this, it was something to the effect 18% higher than men. As for the overall picture, men do take on the most dangerous jobs, that's one of the other reasons why they get paid more; the danger premium. It's no coincidence men die 90% of the time on the job, and have a shorter lifespan by 5-10 years compared to women. Unless women think it's a conspiracy to oppress women from getting killed equally on the job :whatever:

Maybe, maybe not, but McCain has consistently voted against women's rights and equal pay.

jag

[Carcharodon]

I agree with Paradoxium. I don't give a **** whether or not he has or hasn't paid his backtaxes, or whether he's a licensed plumber. Are you guys kidding? WHO THE **** CARES?

It's as utterly stupid as when McCain/Palin bring up Ayers, if not moreso. At least Obama actually KNOWS Ayers and was somehow affiliated with him. Joe the Plumber is just some random guy that McCain latched onto somehow.

Stick with the issues. This is petty (and unnecessary) beyond all belief.

[lazur]

Some of my president's policies? More like most. But really, we're going into the area of semantics here.

Yeah, he clearly isn't President Bush. There's no body switching here going on.:o

Fact is, McCain has voted with Bush 95% of the time, a fact he has never tried to deny or deflect.

Your 95% figure is only true for the year 2007. So check your facts.

But if we're going to pull out percentage figures, it's important to note that Obama has voted with fellow Senate Democrats 96 - 97% of the time during his entire time in the Senate.

Neither looks to be a 'good' thing when the approval rating of Bush is 30% and the approval rating of Congress (led by Democrats) is 10 to 15%.

[Frodo]

IMO McCain probably lost the election last night.

*I get what he was trying to do with the whole Joe plummer thing, but you have to talk to the entire electorate , not just one voter.
*I think MCain really hurt himself with moderates in the abortion part of the debate with the whole dimissive, "mother's health" comment.
*McCain losing his temper while Obama look calm under fire also didn't help , especailly when your narrative is you have the expirence to handle pressure. *Yes, he didneed to go negative against Obama but you've got to do it in reference to the economy , not some old fart from the 60's .
* He didn't even say middle class, and when he started complaining about" Spreading the wealth" it showed me how tone deaf he is in this political climate.

[souvlaki]

I agree with Paradoxium. I don't give a **** whether or not he has or hasn't paid his backtaxes, or whether he's a licensed plumber. Are you guys kidding? WHO THE **** CARES?

It's as utterly stupid as when McCain/Palin bring up Ayers, if not moreso. At least Obama actually KNOWS Ayers and was somehow affiliated with him. Joe the Plumber is just some random guy that McCain latched onto somehow.

Stick with the issues. This is petty (and unnecessary) beyond all belief.

Dude, he held his own press conference this morning. If you are going to blame anyone, blame Joe the Plumber and John McCain.

[Superman]

Joe not a licensed plumber, McCain's enthusiasm not diminished



http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/1008/Joe_not_a_licensed_plumber_McCains_enthusiasm_not_ diminished.html#comments

Apparently Joe hasn't paid his back taxes either. Poor Joe the Plumber. :(

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aWDHvDjnDnTs&refer=homeSo this "Joe the plumber", Who McCain wanted to help so badly with his business and taxes, Isn't even a real plumber and he pays no taxes.

:lmao:

[jaguarr]

So this "Joe the plumber", Who McCain wanted to help so badly with his business and taxes, Isn't even a real plumber and he pay no taxes.

:lmao:

I think I read somewhere that he's also not registered to vote. :o

jag

[souvlaki]

I think I read somewhere that he's also not registered to vote. :o

jag

:lmao:

[Goddessreicho]

I think you hate men. :o

Why do you say that? Cause I didn't say that at all...:csad: I really don't like issues that will most likely directly effect me being laughed at and dismissed.

[Marx]

IMO McCain probably lost the election last night.

*I get what he was trying to do with the whole Joe plummer thing, but you have to talk to the entire electorate , not just one voter.
*I think MCain really hurt himself with moderates in the abortion part of the debate with the whole dimissive, "mother's health" comment.
*McCain losing his temper while Obama look calm under fire also didn't help , especailly when your narrative is you have the expirence to handle pressure. *Yes, he didneed to go negative against Obama but you've got to do it in reference to the economy , not some old fart from the 60's .
* He didn't even say middle class, and when he started complaining about" Spreading the wealth" it showed me how tone deaf he is in this political climate.

Personally, I could care less about 'Joe the plumber'. And most polling suggests the broader electorate felt the same way.

As for John McCain's performance, I think he turned off any moderate or undecided left out there. Once again, he seemed to be gearing everything toward the base. (Which tells me that he must be worried to some extent to continue to feel like he has to rally them.) He should be concerned about the independents and moderates out there that haven't made up their minds yet...but those people do not seem to be his concern. The John McCain of old is dead, as I've said many times. He has turned into everything that he condemned in 2000. His debate performances emphasize that. And you're absolutely right Frodo - in all three presidential debates, not one time did he mention 'middle class'.

[Marx]

So this "Joe the plumber", Who McCain wanted to help so badly with his business and taxes, Isn't even a real plumber and he pays no taxes.

:lmao:

I think I read somewhere that he's also not registered to vote. :o

jag

:facepalm

[The Guard]

I'm curious, what WOULD be justification for the press unveiling details about Joe the Plumber? McCain and his campaign made a stupid, very public, national move, and Joe put himself out there as well, near as I can tell. No one forced him to go on TV. And again, this stuff is a matter of public record.

[jaguarr]

Personally, I could care less about 'Joe the plumber'. And most polling suggests the broader electorate felt the same way.

As for John McCain's performance, I think he turned off any moderate or undecided left out there. Once again, he seemed to be gearing everything toward the base. (Which tells me that he must be worried to some extent to continue to feel like he has to rally them.) He should be concerned about the independents and moderates out there that haven't made up their minds yet...but those people do not seem to be his concern. The John McCain of old is dead, as I've said many times. He has turned into everything that he condemned in 2000. His debate performances emphasize that. And you're absolutely right Frodo - in all three presidential debates, not one time did he mention 'middle class'.

Yep. Totally agree. Joe the Plumber is just another distraction tactic (or is it a strategy? :hehe: ) away from the real issues. His entire campaign has been built around this trivial kind of crap. He obviously thought he had some sort of ace up his sleeve with the whole Joe the Plumber thing last night; the look on his face the first time he brought it up said that quite loudly. However it didn't really pan out well for him and he kept harping on it and it ultimately backfired on him. He is definitely trying to rally his base, but that's not going to be enough to get him elected. I think he did a lot in that debate last night to scare away undecided and/or independent voters, quite honestly.

jag

[That-Guy]

Lol....creepy. Yet sadly it's still not as creepy as the zombie McCain GIF last night, which was an actual facial expression. I think I had a dream about McCain rising from my floor boards with that expression chasing me shouting, "I'm going to eat your brains and destroy your healthcare!"

LOL, exactly. That look McCain got on his face every time Obama was talking reminded me of The Leprechaun.

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20081016/capt.cps.nxj79.161008052644.photo03.photo.default-437x512.jpg?x=294&y=345&q=85&sig=wSgXIft5sBF3ZN48v4RavA--

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g252/ssdigest/fcs_lt_0387.jpg

[Carcharodon]

Dude, he held his own press conference this morning. If you are going to blame anyone, blame Joe the Plumber and John McCain.You sound an AWFUL lot like John McCain right now.

"If he had just conceded to my request to have town hall meetings, none of that would ever have happened!"

Only instead, it's:

"If John McCain hadn't mentioned him repeatedly in the debate, I wouldn't HAVE to dig up completely irrelevant dirt on Joe the Plumber!"

Just tell me: what the hell difference does it make whether or not Joe is a licensed plumber? Are you ****ing kidding me?

You're really going to focus on THIS when you could be focusing on the tanking economy? Whatever.

By the way, Joe said in an interview this morning that he is, in fact, registered to vote.

[jaguarr]

By the way, Joe said in an interview this morning that he is, in fact, registered to vote.

Did he show his voter registration card? :suspicious: :twisted:

jag

[Paradoxium]

Maybe, maybe not, but McCain has consistently voted against women's rights and equal pay.

jag

My first point: Did you know in the UK, feminist lobbyist push to have a law installed that forced employers "not to ask" if a female applicant would have child soon? Sounds good on paper right? To protect the privacy of women. Except - as I mentioned before - all this did was now is cause UK businesses not to interview young women (or a lot less) to statistically avoid getting someone mat leave right after hiring them. Some women watchdogs realized this was actually hurting women then helping. Does going against something like this from the precept make you sexist? My entire point is, women can hurt other women with good intents.

Two: I am ignorant of McCain's record on women''s rights and equal pay. But the closest one to memory is the Ledbetter Act. I refer to Diana Furchtgott-Roth (http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=5757&pubType=HI_Opeds)

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act would create an extraordinary new set of rights for plaintiffs in employment disputes. For the first time, employers would typically face no time limits on when suits may be filed, a legal status generally reserved for crimes such as murder.

This would be a radical change from present law because employees could argue that their current compensation flows from discriminatory decisions made years back. An employee could even sue a previous employer whom she left many years ago. This would generate massive lawsuits against current and former employers.

Mr. Obama's statement that women are paid 77% of what men earn comes from outdated Census Bureau calculations that compare full-time median annual earnings of all women with those of all men. This is a spurious comparison. It does not take into account differences in education, job responsibility, years worked for an employer, occupation, hours worked in a year, and time in the workforce.

Lower pay can reflect decisions — by men and women — about field of study, occupation, and time in the workforce. Those who don't finish high school earn less. College graduates who major in humanities rather than the sciences typically have lower incomes, and more women than men choose humanities majors. Many women take time out of the workforce to stay home with children, or choose jobs with shorter hours.

An economics professor at Baruch College, June O'Neill, analyzed data for men and women on demographics, education, work experience, children, and scores on the Armed Forces Qualification Test. When such differences are accounted for, men and women earn about the same.

When Mrs. Palin became governor, she did not receive 77% of her predecessor Frank Murkowski's salary. She knows better than anyone that it takes skill and perseverance to get to the top of the career ladder. Ratcheting up litigation is no substitute.

Now you get tons of potential lawsuits, maybe some have merit, but quite a few won't. What do you think will happen now once business realizes this potential problem? They will stop hiring young women. Some of them will end up wasting their money on legal fees on false accusations (like we need that now in the current climate). Now the false accusers (women) are hurting the women with legitimate problems. You know "the boy who cried wolf?". Does this make me sexist for pointing this problem out? No - I am saying sometimes legislation like this could end up HURTING women.

[Carcharodon]

Did he show his voter registration card? :suspicious: :twisted:

jagLol well granted, he could be lying, but I somehow doubt he was. I have no proof, though. :up:

[Marx]

Yep. Totally agree. Joe the Plumber is just another distraction tactic (or is it a strategy? :hehe: ) away from the real issues. His entire campaign has been built around this trivial kind of crap. He obviously thought he had some sort of ace up his sleeve with the whole Joe the Plumber thing last night; the look on his face the first time he brought it up said that quite loudly. However it didn't really pan out well for him and he kept harping on it and it ultimately backfired on him. He is definitely trying to rally his base, but that's not going to be enough to get him elected. I think he did a lot in that debate last night to scare away undecided and/or independent voters, quite honestly.

jag

Maybe he has given up on trying to sway undecideds, moderates, and independents? I don't know. Maybe he thinks that there are still enough numbers within the Republican base to win the election? (Despite every trend and credible source of polling data to the contrary.) :huh:

You sound an AWFUL lot like John McCain right now.

"If he had just conceded to my request to have town hall meetings, none of that would ever have happened!"

Only instead, it's:

"If John McCain hadn't mentioned him repeatedly in the debate, I wouldn't HAVE to dig up completely irrelevant dirt on Joe the Plumber!"

Just tell me: what the hell difference does it make whether or not Joe is a licensed plumber? Are you ****ing kidding me?


I was so happy that John McCain made that ridiculous statement in front of a large audience. He couldn't have looked more foolish. Not to mention, it completely blew a gaping hole through his 'I'm not negative, HE IS!!' argument.

[The Senator]

Now you get tons of potential lawsuits, maybe some have merit, but quite a few won't. What do you think will happen now once business realizes this potential problem? They will stop hiring young women. Some of them will end up wasting their money on legal fees on false accusations (like we need that now in the current climate). Now the false accusers (women) are hurting the women with legitimate problems. You know "the boy who cried wolf?". Does this make me sexist for pointing this problem out? No - I am saying sometimes legislation like this could end up HURTING women.

Garbage. Utter garbage.

"let's not pass a bill which would make women equal as men in the workplace, because a few people may file false lawsuits!"

So, I take it you would be in favor of banning guns nationwide, because a few bad people use them as a device to kill people with? :huh:

[Carcharodon]

I was so happy that John McCain made that ridiculous statement in front of a large audience. He couldn't have looked more foolish. Not to mention, it completely blew a gaping hole through his 'I'm not negative, HE IS!!' argument.He's said it so many times, and every single time it sounds more and more childish. I mean what the hell, John?

"You didn't do what I wanted, so I HAD to resort to personal attacks." He's essentially admitting how desperate he is/was. That's not something I ever used to imagine John McCain would do. :csad:

[Paradoxium]

Garbage. Utter garbage.

"let's not pass a bill which would make women equal as men in the workplace, because a few people may file false lawsuits!"

So, I take it you would be in favor of banning guns nationwide, because a few bad people use them as a device to kill people with? :huh:Hey they did it in the UK? Why not here? You know what the statistics on false accusations are? You ever have a friend or relative a victim of false accusations? Come on man.

[Goddessreicho]

I am saying sometimes legislation like this could end up HURTING women.

So...then what? Instead of equalizing the pay/work load, nothing happens and the problem just magically disappears?

[jaguarr]

Garbage. Utter garbage.

"let's not pass a bill which would make women equal as men in the workplace, because a few people may file false lawsuits!"

So, I take it you would be in favor of banning guns nationwide, because a few bad people use them as a device to kill people with? :huh:

McCain's voting record on women's issues is absolutely abysmal.

http://www.johnmccainrecord.com/women/

http://www.barackoblogger.com/2008/06/john-mccains-record-on-womens-issues.html

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977465631

It goes on and on an on. Alternatively, Biden has one of the best records on women's issues, both in his voting and the legislation and clauses he has authored and championed, possibly in history.

jag

[Marx]

He's said it so many times, and every single time it sounds more and more childish. I mean what the hell, John?

"You didn't do what I wanted, so I HAD to resort to personal attacks." He's essentially admitting how desperate he is/was. That's not something I ever used to imagine John McCain would do. :csad:

Desperation is an ugly ugly thing.

[Paradoxium]

So...then what? Instead of equalizing the pay/work load, nothing happens and the problem just magically disappears?
It is equalized if you control the variables. Refer to Ms. Furchtgott-Roth's article. I am saying there are groups misleading other women into rallying these Acts to push another agenda across like that lawsuit issue. These little additions end up hurting women. That's my point, and my other contention is, why is it even exclusive to women anyways? There might actually be guys with legitimate concerns..

But hey, whether some of you disagree with me or not, it boils down to this: when the economy tanks they will cut down on the hiring of women in most private businesses. Mat leave is a huge issue, but it is politically incorrect to bring this up. That my point as of right now. This will hurt women MORE then anything, especially younger ones.

[Sentinel X]

I think McCain owned Obama for like the first 20-30 minutes particularily when he said "I am not President Bush. You want to run against president Bush you should've ran 4 years ago"....I was literally like: DAYYYYYUMMM!! haha

But then when the host started talking about negative campaigning, McCain got a little too caught up and Obama stole the 'ownageness' from him and won the rest of the debate. This was McCain's best debate yet but I think Obama won by a slight margin...however they both were very close to a draw, imo.


The one thing that pissed me off however is how McCain kept saying "You don't raise people's taxes during times of crisis blah blah blah"....no matter how many time Obama says he is only raising tax rates to 20% for singles earning MORE than 200K a year and families earning MORE than 250K a year.....if people are voting for McCain JUST because of a jump from a 15% tax rate to a 20% tax rate when they are earning over 250K a year than...wow!!!...you are VERY greedy bastard :o

[Addendum]

People that work in the justice system need their jawbs too.

[christhn]

I think McCain owned Obama for like the first 20-30 minutes particularily when he said "I am not President Bush. You want to run against president Bush you should've ran 4 years ago"....I was literally like: DAYYYYYUMMM!! haha

That's the best thing McCain has said to Obama all campaign long.

[Kurosawa]

I think McCain owned Obama for like the first 20-30 minutes particularily when he said "I am not President Bush. You want to run against president Bush you should've ran 4 years ago"....I was literally like: DAYYYYYUMMM!! haha

But then when the host started talking about negative campaigning, McCain got a little too caught up and Obama stole the 'ownageness' from him and won the rest of the debate. This was McCain's best debate yet but I think Obama won by a slight margin...however they both were very close to a draw, imo.


The one thing that pissed me off however is how McCain kept saying "You don't raise people's taxes during times of crisis blah blah blah"....no matter how many time Obama says he is only raising tax rates to 20% for singles earning MORE than 200K a year and families earning MORE than 250K a year.....if people are voting for McCain JUST because of a jump from a 15% tax rate to a 20% tax rate when they are earning over 250K a year than...wow!!!...you are VERY greedy bastard :o

They look at the hole in the doughnut as opposed to the doughnut as a whole.

[Marx]

That's the best thing McCain has said to Obama all campaign long.

But then it was ruined by his defense of the hate-filled comments at his rallies and the dismissive attitude he took towards the 'mother's health' argument to abortion. (His body language, tone, and overall demeanor, I believe, now goes without saying.)

[redfirebird2008]

So it turns out Joe the Plumber was likely a McCain campaign plant. He has no plumber's license and as of 2006 he was only making $40,000. So he's actually going to get a tax cut under Obama.

[Gilpesh]

That's the best thing McCain has said to Obama all campaign long.

The problem was... Obama then gave credible reasons for mistaking McCain for Bush.... Old and white. :hehe:

But seriously, he did give good reasons.

[jaguarr]

ATTENTION: I AM EDITING THIS POST BECAUSE APPARENTLY IT IS WORTH HANDING OUT INFRACTIONS TO PEOPLE FOR QUOTING POSTS CONTAINING JOKE GIFS THAT SHOW SENATOR MCCAIN "HUMPING" SENATOR OBAMA AT THE FINAL PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE BUT IT IS NOT WORTH THE TROUBLE OF ACTUALLY REMOVING THE OFFENDING PICTURES FROM THE BOARDS EVEN THOUGH YOU ARE HANDING OUT INFRACTIONS AND APPARENTLY PROBATIONARY BANS FOR POSTING OR EVEN QUOTING SAID OFFENDING PICTURE. IT IS MY ASSUMPTION THAT ANY SUCH IMAGE THAT IS SO OFFENSIVE THAT IT NECESSITATES THESE KINDS OF ACTIONS IS NOT WELCOME ON THESE BOARDS, SO I WILL GLADLY REMOVE MY QUOTE OF SAID OFFENSIVE IMAGE SINCE THE MOD WHO WAS OFFENDED BY SAID PICTURE DIDN'T DEEM IT WORTH THEIR TIME TO ACTUALLY REMOVE THE OFFENSIVE IMAGES THEY WERE HANDING OUT INFRACTIONS FOR IN THE FIRST PLACE. YOU ARE WELCOME.

jag

[The Senator]

You ever have a friend or relative a victim of false accusations? Come on man.

One of my friends' relatives was sued for what appeared to be a false accusation, but the case was dropped before it went to court. Other than that... no.

As for the businesses... the courts will decide which cases are worth looking at, and cases which may seem false will be dropped. It happens in a wide variety of cases, I don't see why it would be different here.

Every time we try to advance civil rights in this country, people always use the "what if they sue???/??!!1!1one!1!" line. Tough. Maybe if we achieved this fair pay system years ago (you know, when the Equal Rights Amendment was floating around), we wouldn't have this problem.

[The Guard]

So it turns out Joe the Plumber was likely a McCain campaign plant. He has no plumber's license and as of 2006 he was only making $40,000. So he's actually going to get a tax cut under Obama.

This is just getting better and better.

[redfirebird2008]

Also, apparently a close relative of Joe the Plumber is the son-in-law of Charles Keating. Talk about guilt by association. LOL.

[Marx]

Also, apparently a close relative of Joe the Plumber is the son-in-law of Charles Keating. Talk about guilt by association. LOL.

It's a small world afterall.

[redfirebird2008]

It's a small world afterall.

It's one of the most dubious plants I've seen yet the media is running with it. It's pathetic. They should do their jobs. This guy was in no way an unbiased "Joe Schmoe" asking Obama a question.

[Marx]

It's one of the most dubious plants I've seen yet the media is running with it. It's pathetic. They should do their jobs. This guy was in no way an unbiased "Joe Schmoe" asking Obama a question.

Yes, but the fact that John McCain was so visibly proud to mention this man at the debate (with everything NOW coming out) it makes him look like an idiot.

[redfirebird2008]

Yes, but the fact that John McCain was so visibly proud to mention this man at the debate (with everything NOW coming out) it makes him look like an idiot.

Yes. Just read another fun fact. There was a lien filed against him for $1200 in unpaid taxes from January of 2007.

[Marx]

Yes. Just read another fun fact. There was a lien filed against him for $1200 in unpaid taxes from January of 2007.

:facepalm

[jaguarr]

Yes. Just read another fun fact. There was a lien filed against him for $1200 in unpaid taxes from January of 2007.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v287/jaguarr/shh/McCainEyes.gif

jag

[Marx]

PALIN PRAISES MCCAIN'S DEBATE PERFORMANCE
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/16/palin-praises-mccains-debate-performance-in-democratic-maine/

[CaptainClown]

PALIN PRAISES MCCAIN'S DEBATE PERFORMANCE
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/16/palin-praises-mccains-debate-performance-in-democratic-maine/
course, what else is a dog going to do.

[Paradoxium]

One of my friends' relatives was sued for what appeared to be a false accusation, but the case was dropped before it went to court. Other than that... no.

As for the businesses... the courts will decide which cases are worth looking at, and cases which may seem false will be dropped. It happens in a wide variety of cases, I don't see why it would be different here.

Every time we try to advance civil rights in this country, people always use the "what if they sue???/??!!1!1one!1!" line. Tough. Maybe if we achieved this fair pay system years ago (you know, when the Equal Rights Amendment was floating around), we wouldn't have this problem.

The problem is not the issue of being able to sue. Women can. The problem is they can sue years on from the incident. This law has a retroactive quality. Although my law is rough, it would be nice if anyone can clarify on this. Does it mean all past cases after the act? Or ALL past cases including the ones BEFORE the act?

As I posted before:
Mr. Obama's statement that women are paid 77% of what men earn comes from outdated Census Bureau calculations that compare full-time median annual earnings of all women with those of all men. This is a spurious comparison. It does not take into account differences in education, job responsibility, years worked for an employer, occupation, hours worked in a year, and time in the workforce.

Lower pay can reflect decisions — by men and women — about field of study, occupation, and time in the workforce. Those who don't finish high school earn less. College graduates who major in humanities rather than the sciences typically have lower incomes, and more women than men choose humanities majors. Many women take time out of the workforce to stay home with children, or choose jobs with shorter hours.

An economics professor at Baruch College, June O'Neill, analyzed data for men and women on demographics, education, work experience, children, and scores on the Armed Forces Qualification Test. When such differences are accounted for, men and women earn about the same.

When you control these variable the gap is less.

Others not included is the pay that people get out of overtime. Women with children won't have the time to do as much overtime. And overtime also contributes to the chances of promotions. On top of that it does not account for mat leave gaps. If women want to cut the gap down even more, it's simple: DO NOT have babies or adopt children period.

But I am not blindingly stupid to ignore discrimination, the type of discrimination women face is very similar to short (and ugly) men. Short people do get paid less, the statistical cut off is 5'7 to be exact. This is of course ludicrous because it has no baring on intelligence and qualification. On top of that employers may not give the short man or woman enough time or "opportunities" to rake up the experience points. This type of discrimination is unpreventable; it is a human frailty. Neither market forces nor government intervention will ever resolve it, because it is impossible to micromanage this. I mean I don't see any "Ugly Midget Men for Equal Pay" act, how are they also not justified? I am not saying it is not a problem, but it's impossible to manage.

But mathematically there is no way in hell this statistical difference is the 77 cents to the dollar, maybe at most a couple cents when all variables are accounted for.

[Paradoxium]

They are, I think hitmanyr2k should edit his post :o

[christhn]

PALIN PRAISES MCCAIN'S DEBATE PERFORMANCEhttp://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/16/palin-praises-mccains-debate-performance-in-democratic-maine/course, what else is a dog going to do.

Hillary praised Obama's! :wow:

[Raiden]

course, what else is a dog going to do.

http://cagle.com/news/Mudslinging08/images/lowe.jpg

[Honey Vibe]

I think you hate men. :o
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/3749/xenank2.jpg

[christhn]

lol

[souvlaki]

You sound an AWFUL lot like John McCain right now.

"If he had just conceded to my request to have town hall meetings, none of that would ever have happened!"

Only instead, it's:

"If John McCain hadn't mentioned him repeatedly in the debate, I wouldn't HAVE to dig up completely irrelevant dirt on Joe the Plumber!"

Just tell me: what the hell difference does it make whether or not Joe is a licensed plumber? Are you ****ing kidding me?

You're really going to focus on THIS when you could be focusing on the tanking economy? Whatever.

By the way, Joe said in an interview this morning that he is, in fact, registered to vote.

Mellow out. The only reason I brought it up was because it was being discussed on CNN earlier. It's not like I went digging for dirt on the guy, it's something that is out there and people were already talking about. I dont get how people other people could be discussing and posting unflattering pictures of McCain, and his facial ticks throughout the night, but as soon as I post links about Joe the Plumber, from major news sources btw, suddenly a line has been crossed.

[Matt]

This SNL-thursday debate skit is lame as hell. There were such better ways to parody the debate than the "imaginary Joe the Plumber," angle. I mean, clearly there is a Joe the plumber. He's been interviewed like, 25 times today. It was just a lame way to go about it, IMO.

[bunk]

The SNL writers are apparently unable to come up with some decent material in a day.

[Matt]

The SNL writers are apparently unable to come up with some decent material in a day.

Clearly. So far the weekend update has had one funny joke ("Apparently they did not realize there already is a gay high school, :shows picture of High School Musical Poster:")

But yeah, the whole "Crazy McCain rally lady," was stale as hell. It was just kind of annoying and went on for too long. It was like one of the Family Guy jokes where a character keeps repeating the same thing for 5 minutes and just gets annoying after the first two.

[souvlaki]

This SNL-thursday debate skit is lame as hell. There were such better ways to parody the debate than the "imaginary Joe the Plumber," angle. I mean, clearly there is a Joe the plumber. He's been interviewed like, 25 times today. It was just a lame way to go about it, IMO.

That's a bit too predictable. When they kept bringing up Joe the Plumber the first thing I thought was it would be the major punchline used in SNL's sketch. I was kind of hoping they'd surprise me and go with a different angle.

[The Professor]

Yes, because nothings more lovable than an worthless, despicable, hatefilled obnoxious jackass. :heart:

Keith Olbermann is our generations Walter Conkrite. Or any Andy Warhol. I haven't quite decided.

The point is this; embrace the Olbermann or perish. For this, lovable fiend, is the way of the future.

[Honey Vibe]

Keith Olbermann is our generations Walter Conkrite. Or any Andy Warhol. I haven't quite decided.

The point is this; embrace the Olbermann or perish. For this, lovable fiend, is the way of the future.
I like Olbermann but I must admit, I only switch to MSNBC for "entertainment news". Put the bias in its place: it's not real news, and should not be treated as such. More balanced newsrooms like CNN gain more of my respect.

[Thinkton]

ive watched all of the debates now and one of mccains main points against the obama tax plan is that he is going to be raising taxes on small businesses. obama says that this is not the case because most small businesses dont make 250,000/yr. The definition varies per industry but it is generally accepted that it is a business with 100 or few employees. Now, I dont have any facts to back this up, but common sense will tell you that millions of businesses have less than 100 employees in the USA. If you own a company with 100 employees, Im pretty sure your company earns 250.000/yr. If your company only has 25 employees, there is still a good chance that you earn over 250,000/yr. It seems to me that McCains concerns over this tax plan are legit. if taxes are raised on small businesses, it means less jobs, or those higher prices are passed on to the customer.

[Fading]

Some of you mentioned McCain and Obama telling jokes earlier and I looked up and saw the footage of the Alfred E. Smith memorial dinner. McCain and Obama were both funny. McCain is actually pretty good at his delivery, and got a laugh out of me with the, "Oprah calls him the one, I call him that one" joke. Obama's superman, see the Russian tea room joke, and a few others were funny as well.

[Thinkton]

Obama's tax plan will increase taxes on business with gross profits in excess of 250K..

Think of it this way..

If you own a small business, have 10 employees and pay them almost poverty wages of 25K each per year...

If you make less than 250K you wont be in business long now will you?

His tax plan will impact business with as few as 2 or 3 employees...

It will also increase the base personal tax of a single individual making 42K or more per year...

Think before you vote

[Fading]

The only thing I'll say is that McCain asked the very same thing you are Thinkton, and Obama said a 0% tax increase to that 250k small buisness. I believe small buisnesses are going to be held to a different standard, and the 250k is more towards the individual. Otherwise he wouldn't have said the 0 line, or constantly said he's not going to tax small buisnesses in that bracket. What he considers a small buisness, I'll leave that up to someone else to figure out.

I'm as worried about McCain's healthcare system as much as you are about Obama's tax plan. 5k isn't enough for some ppl, some are going to find the hunt for healthcare to be a hassle, some buisnesses aren't going to be able to afford tossing around 5k checks and are going to start laying ppl off.

[souvlaki]

Obama's tax plan will increase taxes on business with gross profits in excess of 250K..

Think of it this way..

If you own a small business, have 10 employees and pay them almost poverty wages of 25K each per year...

If you make less than 250K you wont be in business long now will you?

His tax plan will impact business with as few as 2 or 3 employees...

It will also increase the base personal tax of a single individual making 42K or more per year...

Think before you vote

Are you just copying and pasting chain letters? You posted the same thing in the Obama thread.

[p4poetic]

I think that by far this was John McCain's BEST debate performance of the trio. He really put Obama on the defensive and during the first 40 minutes I was thinking "Hmmmm...this might really flip this time." But he started to crumble over various issues and I'm sorry--but the personal stuff about Ayers, etc. just came across so petty and childish.

Not really. He was cranky. Probably didn't get jello at lunch.

[The Senator]

Obama's tax plan will increase taxes on business with gross profits in excess of 250K..

Think of it this way..

If you own a small business, have 10 employees and pay them almost poverty wages of 25K each per year...

If you make less than 250K you wont be in business long now will you?

His tax plan will impact business with as few as 2 or 3 employees...

It will also increase the base personal tax of a single individual making 42K or more per year...

Think before you vote

How long until you post the email you received earlier today pointing out that Obama is Muslin and wants to replace the White House with a pyramid? :huh:

[Bathead]

And it's just as incorrect here as it was there.