Based on what I have heard and read, Obama congratulated Palin when she was first announced as the GOP VPILF.  Then the GOP campaign went on a rampage about how much Obama sucked.  That's when Obama made the comments you posted.

I'm sure it takes some level of experience to run an Alaska town, not to mention all of Alaska, but it's incongruous to say that she has more experience than Obama did in Illinois and DC...

City council of Wasilla, a bustling metropolis of almost 7,000 people.  Mayor of said town, during which she decided it would be cool to try and fire the police chief and the librarian because they didn's support her.  As for losing races, she lost her bid for Lt. Governor and was passed over for a seat in the US Senate.  She has only been a governor for ONE YEAR.


Karl Rove said she was mayor of the second largest city in Alaska...uh, which would be Fairbanks at 31,234 by 2005 figures.  Anchorage (municipality) is first, of course, at 279,671 and Juneau is third at 30,987.  Larger than Wasilla, but not by much are: Kenai, Sitka, and Ketchikan. Bethel is bigger with the Palin family leaves town, but I'll give Wasilla the benefit of the doubt.  Palin was mayor of the sixth largest municipality in Alaska.  Thank you Wikipedia.  

Some of these pundits think it's cute to say Palin is governor of the largest state in the union!
:D

Wasilla (pop. 5,469)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e1/Wasilla_cityhall.jpg

We've got bigger cafes in a little town like Amherst!

Ha. Gotta love how everyone else is allowed to say whatever the hell they please...but I call someone an ASS (oh, I know...how offensive)...and it gets deleted.  ::)

Ha. Gotta love how everyone else is allowed to say whatever the hell they please...but I call someone an ASS (oh, I know...how offensive)...and it gets deleted.  ::)


Oh c'mon, Quirk.  You should have seen some of MY posts that didn't make it past the censors!
;)

Yeah, its such a bonus that Obama feels the need to comment on it.

Yeah, and so is Obama. You cant have it both ways. If liberals don't want resume comparisons, don't bring up resumes. Looks like Obama is going to learn this lesson a bit too late.

Send a memo to Obama to end these "talking points" you hate.

Did I say he did? You liberals are the ones who turned this into an Obama-Palin race. Now that its not going as well as expected, you're pushing McCain back into it. At least you haven't forgot who's running for president.
Going by executive experience? Absolutely.
Tell that to all the senators who have lost elections in landslides to governors.
This line of thinking hasn't died yet? Maybe next week's poll numbers will cause liberals to drop that tactic. It doesn't work.
Means nothing. Get a bunch of the pro Hillary media off the air and you would probably hear similar things. That wouldn't mean anything either.

Palin was in a racist church for 20 years?
Obama or Palin? Both?
I'm not getting my "panties in a twist". I think its hilarious that when the dems were almost guaranteed the presidency, they shoot themselves in the foot as soon as Palin enters the national stage.
Why not? The dems fell into their own trap. Might as well take advantage.
No, it just shows that the american people are sick of this crap and want change and to veer away from politics as usual....something Obama advocated but is clearly against. Its the same old liberal tactics all over again, and once again will lead to a republican administration.

Shouldn't have run on a platform of change when its painfully obvious no one in his camp has any idea of what it is they want to really change. A spending program the size of the Andromeda galaxy isn't change. Its Bush III without the tax cuts.


honestly... don't know how to respond... just wow.  keep beating the dead horse there.  She has barely any experience at all.  McCain passed over 20 other GOP governors that have been in office longer than her and had more of this precious "executive experience".  Obama has the same exact political experience as Lincoln.  I think he turned out more than fine the last time I checked.  Until the talking points memo was circulated, no one ever mentioned "executive experience" as anything people looked for in a presidential candidate.  Find an interview with McCain citing it as something he wanted in his VP from more than two weeks ago.  It's Rove-speak. 

you think they've shot themselves in the foot, yet the polls show otherwise. No one outside the hardcore wing of the GOP thinks this was anything but a cheap ploy to court women and the religious folks.  Palin plays to the base, which is fine, it's just not going to win any votes outside of the GOP base, which at this point is much smaller than it was before GW made a big mess of things.

Her speech tonight was just a bunch of cheap shots at Obama, which is about all she's going to be good for.  It's Obama-Palin race for this newscycle.  It'll be full-tilt back on Obama-McCain once he gives his speech tomorrow and the Sunday news programs begin discussing the convention.  This is just a little bump in the road to help point out McCain's weakness.  Once he accepts the nomination he's the "maverick" no more, he's just the regular GOP politician we've all come to expect these past 8 years.

honestly... don't know how to respond... just wow.  keep beating the dead horse there. 

It was Wasilla, Deadhorse is all the way up on the North Slope!
http://www.dfanning.com/adventures/arctic/arctic_pics/deadhorse_air.jpg
Deadhorse, AK
:D

It was Wasilla, Deadhorse is all the way up on the North Slope!
http://www.dfanning.com/adventures/arctic/arctic_pics/deadhorse_air.jpg
Deadhorse, AK
:D


The best name I've heard from that state is Unalaska.  Seriously.  I'd kind of want to move there if all that damned snow weren't in the way. :D

McCain Camp Battles National Enquirer Over Alleged Palin Affair
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/03/mccain-camp-battles-natio_n_123696.html

geee... when it was Edwards, the neocons couldn't shut up about how the Enquirer is right alot of the time.  Wonder if the same people will still stick to that assessment.

personally I don't care either way.  I think her "executive experience" in firing anyone who doesn't vote for her, banning books, etc. is reason enough to fear her being a heartbeat away from the highest office in the land.

The best name I've heard from that state is Unalaska.  Seriously.  I'd kind of want to move there if all that damned snow weren't in the way. :D

It's not just snow, it's constant gale force winds over the Aleutian Islands.  Besides, a head of lettuce costs $5.00 there!  Miserable.

It's not just snow, it's constant gale force winds over the Aleutian Islands.  Besides, a head of lettuce costs $5.00 there!  Miserable.



My cousin is currently living in Alaska because her husband got stationed there.  It can't be fun after growing up in California. :D

McCain Camp Battles National Enquirer Over Alleged Palin Affair
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/03/mccain-camp-battles-natio_n_123696.html

geee... when it was Edwards, the neocons couldn't shut up about how the Enquirer is right alot of the time.  Wonder if the same people will still stick to that assessment.

personally I don't care either way.  I think her "executive experience" in firing anyone who doesn't vote for her, banning books, etc. is reason enough to fear her being a heartbeat away from the highest office in the land.



Well, Unca Karl was using the size of the Richmond (200,000) to cast doubt upon Kane's executive experience just a few weeks ago!
Now he's saying Palin's experience as Mayor of Wasilla (6,000) is a qualification.
::)

http://www.crosscut.com/politics-government/17341

a letter about Sarah from someone who knows her from her work as mayor

During her mayoral administration, most of the actual work of running this small city was turned over to an administrator. She had been pushed to hire this administrator by party power-brokers after she had gotten herself into some trouble over precipitous firings, which had given rise to a recall campaign.

wow... quite the executive.  she delegated her work to someone else.

Sarah campaigned in Wasilla as a "fiscal conservative." During her six years as mayor, she increased general government expenditures by more than 33 percent. During those same six years, the amount of taxes collected by the city increased by 38 percent. This was during a period of low inflation (1996-2002). She reduced progressive property taxes and increased a regressive sales tax, which taxed even food. The tax cuts that she promoted benefitted large corporate property owners way more than they benefited residents.

so she knows all about tax and spend.  sounds like she did plenty of it.

TALK ABOUT BONEHEADED???

On a BIG MARKET radio show heard on KLSX- FMTALK Los Angeles, Sub show hostess Sam Phillips stated she has her reservations about Palin because if she can't even manage her daughter to keep her legs closed, how can she manage a NATION if she was called to??


(Oh,BTW,  SAM was a former mens mag nudie model....) Figure someone would eventually play the 'teen daughter had sex card'!

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o283/Nerdprincess1980/7.jpg

It was Wasilla, Deadhorse is all the way up on the North Slope!
http://www.dfanning.com/adventures/arctic/arctic_pics/deadhorse_air.jpg
Deadhorse, AK
:D


  Looks good to me.  I'd like to retire to someplace cold like Alaska or Canada or somewhere...

TALK ABOUT BONEHEADED???

On a BIG MARKET radio show heard on KLSX- FMTALK Los Angeles, Sub show hostess Sam Phillips stated she has her reservations about Palin because if she can't even manage her daughter to keep her legs closed, how can she manage a NATION if she was called to??


(Oh,BTW,  SAM was a former mens mag nudie model....) Figure someone would eventually play the 'teen daughter had sex card'!






Where the hell have you been?  They've been playing that card all week.

And no, I don't agree with the constant dissing of her daughter and the dilemma she finds herself in.

you think they've shot themselves in the foot, yet the polls show otherwise. No one outside the hardcore wing of the GOP thinks this was anything but a cheap ploy to court women and the religious folks.  Palin plays to the base, which is fine, it's just not going to win any votes outside of the GOP base, which at this point is much smaller than it was before GW made a big mess of things.


Y'know, there is a certain method to this madness.

McCain's biggest political liabilities is that he was hated by the Republican base, primarily for his "soft on torture" stance (displayed disloyalty to his party bosses), as well as his support for the bipartisan immigration reform bill (which drove Tom Tancredo's "we hate Mexicans" followers absolutely berzerk), and for his less-than-fundamentalist views on religion.

When you've got the Reagan-era coalition in place, you can get away with that - you'll get more votes by being a moderate than by being an extremist. 

When you're polling at 30% because you've effectively purged your party of all its moderates, the base is all you have left.  A moderate candidate might prompt even the 30%ers to either stay home, or vote for one of the minor Christianist (Dominionist) parties.  At that point, the Electoral College is Obama's, no states are in any real contention, and all 300,000,000 of us are free to vote third party, no matter which third party it is.  If it's Jackasses 55%, Elephants 15%, and Jesus Party 1 at 6%, Jesus Party 2 at 6%, Greens at 6%, and Libertarians at 6%, and Other Nuts at 6%, you can parse that as "Demopublicans 70%, Opposition 30%".  Such a result isn't just the end of the Elephant Party, it might mean a challenge to Two-Party System, because with the Elephants out of the picture in 2012, their 15% of the vote is up for grabs, (plus the votes of any disillusioned Democrats after the first term), and it's anybody's ballgame.

So from the GOP's point of view (both in their own self-interest, and in their interest in preserving the "two-party system"'s monopoly on power), you do what you have to do to retain that 30%.  Something that'll make their core constituents hold their nose and vote for McCain, and that's Palin.  Just about everything in the Palin story is meat and potatoes for the religious right.  To the hardcore fundie, Palin did the right thing by bearing 5 kids, even knowing that (at her age) the risk of a Down's Syndrome child was getting pretty darn high.  She did an even better thing by raising a daughter who would bear and raise an unwanted pregnancy, and she did an even better job when she achieved the shotgun wedding.  If abortion is never an option, that's called "having the courage to make the best of a bad situation" (for the woman), and "taking responsibility" (for the man). 

For a freaky time, google "quiverfull movement".  Palin's family narrative resonates very closely with the Dominionist idea of what constitutes the good -- namely outbreeding the heathens.  To the quiverfuls, to "marry and reproduce" is the highest good; the more offspring you have, the more you can bring up in the way of the faith.  One is supposed to fill your quiver with arrows, so that you're not left unarmed.  Your home being the quiver, and your children being the arrows.  Uunder Dominionist philosophy, every deed is viewed an act of spiritual warfare, and every child born and raised into the faith is another weapon available for God's use.  (Any similarities between Dominionism and that other violent monotheistic religion are, of course, completely coincidental.)

I don't think the Palins are part of this movement (they can obviously afford to raise as many kids as they can sire, and there's nothing really wrong with a shotgun wedding :), but her speech hit the right notes to appeal to that crowd without terrifying the rest of Sane America.  I'm the nuts-and-bolts guy who just wants to hear the policy wonks lay out the damn platform and sell me on the reasons for it, and Palin's speech was going after the touchy-feely soccer-- oops, hockey-- mom crowd.  Most of what she said didn't resonate with me, but I wasn't her intended audience.  As far as the speech itself went, it was well-written and well-delivered.  If she can work a crowd during a debate the way she works a crowd with a speech, the Palin/Biden debates should be well worth watching.  Biden's got a sharp tongue, but Alaska's version of Peggy Hill can dish it out as well as take it.

Sarah Palin may not win the election for the GOP, but she just might keep the 30%ers from straying to fringe parties, and in so doing, preserve the GOP and the two-party system.  A result of Jackasses 60%, Elephants 30%, and Everyone Else 10% is a 90%/10% vote for the status quo, and even if McCain loses in 2008, his party survives to see a 2012 contest in which no third party is taken seriously, and everyone on either side of the aisle ends up thanking him for taking one for the team.

honestly... don't know how to respond... just wow.  keep beating the dead horse there.
Funny how your dead horse is alive and well but other dead horses are irrelevant.

She has barely any experience at all. Do we really need to go over this again? Maybe I should give more detail since my last post on that subject wasn't clear enough. If you say she "barely" has experience, then Obama has none. Like I said earlier, you cant have it both ways.

McCain passed over 20 other GOP governors that have been in office longer than her and had more of this precious "executive experience".Yeah, and Reagan passed over tons of governors to pick Bush as his VP. What's your point?

Obama has the same exact political experience as Lincoln.I love that line. You wanna talk about "talking points" memos, that's one of the best examples.

Until the talking points memo was circulated, no one ever mentioned "executive experience" as anything people looked for in a presidential candidate. Thank God I know what I'm talking about or you might have stumped me there. Executive experience has been mentioned for decades. Its one of the top qualities sought after in a president, which is why around 80% of the time a governor will destroy a senator in a general election.

Find an interview with McCain citing it as something he wanted in his VP from more than two weeks ago. It's Rove-speak.McCain was pretty low key regarding his VP, and I don't care what Karl Rove has to say.

you think they've shot themselves in the foot, yet the polls show otherwise.I love how people pick and choose their polls. The least you could do is wait until a week after the Palin VP choice/republican convention to start holding poll results in your hands.

No one outside the hardcore wing of the GOP thinks this was anything but a cheap ploy to court women and the religious folks.You mean that's what the liberal media is saying. She just entered the national scene and you've already fully judged her?

Palin plays to the baseWow. We agree on something. I agree that she mainly caters to the party faithful, and that makes it a slightly unusual pick by McCain. He would have had the base anyways. However, two factors bring the huge possibility of her bringing in other voters:

1. The "Reagan Democrats". These people are not dead. They've been hibernating. The neo-con bloc hijacked the republican party and pushed them away, and Palin is more conservative than those people will ever be. The potential for scooping up those voters is high.

2. The "Obama-Palin side show". This backfired on liberals, and we have to wait to see the real consequences of it. Its only been a few days, yet its starting to look like Obama is running against Palin. He's doing ads dealing with it, having to do resume comparisons on national TV(he can thank his own brigade for that), and McCain has struck back with an Obama-Palin ad of his own. Notice a pattern starting to develop already? So just keep up with the "backwoods, no experience, corrupt,etc." line of thinking because its playing into the hands of the opposition. The liberal bloggers and other talking heads forced Obama into this trap and now he is having to devote precious resources(including time) into defending this. This could be the first election where a candidate's own base destroyed his chances. They got him way off message and its not gonna be easy jumping back on the change bandwagon when your own base has abandoned it. Obama's advisers need to dump this attack Palin strategy, and they need to send that memo out to their internet base.


Her speech tonight was just a bunch of cheap shots at Obama,It was a bit more than that, and even if it was, what do you expect? She's running for vice president. Its her job to prop up the guy running at the top of the ticket. I hope you were scrutinizing the Edwards speech like this in 2004.


which is about all she's going to be good for.Wrong. All you liberals guaranteed that she's good for more than that. Had the Obama brigade held their tongues for a week, she would have faded in the background and most likely been deemed irrelevant by McCain and his advisers. You guys made her a relevant and huge factor in this race. Congratulations.

It's Obama-Palin race for this newscycle. It'll be full-tilt back on Obama-McCain once he gives his speech tomorrow and the Sunday news programs begin discussing the convention.Nope. You guys made her more than that. Nice wishful thinking though.


This is just a little bump in the road to help point out McCain's weakness.What could have been a weakness was turned into a strength by the Obama camp. Once again, congratulations.




Once he accepts the nomination he's the "maverick" no more, he's just the regular GOP politician we've all come to expect these past 8 years.I didn't know "mavericks" lost that status when accepting a nomination. I guess someone forgot to send out that memo.


I gotta give you kudos for having some class while discussing such heated topics. I don't discuss politics at many sites because it always turns into insults and other crap. For how big this site is, I'm amazed you are able to keep it clean.


Ha. Gotta love how everyone else is allowed to say whatever the hell they please...but I call someone an ASS (oh, I know...how offensive)...and it gets deleted. You're a moderator here. As long as someone isn't breaking any rules in this thread, there's no reason to be calling people names.

Kudos to whichever moderator/administrator deletes that sort of drivel.

Palin delivers star-turning performance for GOP


http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/4465/palinconventionpu2.jpg


ST. PAUL, Minn. - Sarah Palin delivered. An embattled vice presidential candidate, a novice on the national stage, the head of a family suffering its "ups and downs," the first-term Alaska governor rocked the GOP convention with a star-turning performance.

Wielding a stiletto and a smile, Palin belittled Democrat Barack Obama and praised her new boss, John McCain, jolting the crowd of GOP partisans.

"Don't you think we made the right choice for the next vice president of the United States!" McCain said, hinting the controversy surrounding his pick. "And what a beautiful family."

Indeed, the family was on display for the TV cameras — five children, including a 17-year-old unmarried daughter who is pregnant. Their mother lacked the soaring oratory skills of Obama — a man she attacked as a tax-raising, terrorist-coddling, self-indulgent liberal. But the former TV sportscaster spoke in calm, TV-friendly tones reminiscent of Ronald Reagan. Like the former GOP president, Palin warmed the crowd with quips and jokes.

"What's the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull," she said, pausing for a beat and a smirk. "Lipstick."

She left the crowd smiling.

"For too many times, we've brought knives to gun fights," said Chuck Gast, a delegate from Maryland,

When asked if Palin brought a gun to the fight, Gast said: "Yes, I think she brings a big gun, like a moose gun."

It was the crowning moment of a roller-coaster week in which the first woman ever on a Republican presidential ticket has faced questions about how closely the McCain campaign scrutinized her. She also has heard a wide range of inquiries about family issues, her policy positions and her record of public service.

"Our family," she said, "has the same ups and downs as any other."

Facing down her critics with smiling resolve, Palin took crowd-delighting swipes at Obama and what she called the Washington elite. "Here's a little news flash for all those reporters and commentators: I'm not going to Washington to seek their good opinion. I'm going to Washington to serve the people of this country," she said.

A new celebrity herself, Palin cast Obama as a little more than a fancy speaker with a compelling biography.

"The American presidency is not supposed to be a journey of 'personal discovery.' This world of threats and dangers is not just a community, and it doesn't just need an organizer," Palin said, a clear reference to Obama's time as a community organizer in Chicago.

The Obama campaign had less than a warm greeting, saying Palin's speech was "written by George Bush's speechwriter and sounds exactly like the same divisive, partisan attacks we've heard from George Bush for the last eight years." The speech was written by Matthew Scully, who met Palin for the first time last week.

Selected by McCain only last Friday, Palin addressed the convention amid questions about her qualifications and relative lack of experience.

The first-term governor had top billing at the convention on a night delegates also lined up for a noisy roll call of the states to deliver their presidential nomination to McCain.

Watching her speech were her husband Todd and their children, including daughter Bristol Palin, whom the Palins disclosed earlier in the week was five months pregnant. Bristol's 18-year-old boyfriend and apparent fiance, Levi Johnston, was seated with them.

McCain shook up the presidential race by picking Palin, a little-known governor less than two years in office. Since then, a bright spotlight has been trained on the life and record of the Republican governor who has bucked the state's political establishment.

Days after Palin made her debut on the national stage with McCain, the campaign announced her unmarried daughter's pregnancy. Other disclosures followed, including that a private attorney is authorized to spend $95,000 of state money to defend her against accusations of abuse of power and that Palin sought pork-barrel projects for her city and state, contrary to her reformist image.

"Our family has the same ups and downs as any other ... the same challenges and the same joys," she said.

Noting that the couple's oldest son, Track, 19, was shipping out to Iraq in eight days with the Army infantry, Palin praised McCain as "a true profile in courage, and people like that are hard to come by."

"He's a man who wore the uniform of this country for 22 years, and refused to break faith with those troops in Iraq who have now brought victory within sight. And as the mother of one of those troops, that is exactly the kind of man I want as commander in chief," she said.

Largely unknown outside her home state, Palin told the convention: "I had the privilege of living most of my life in a small town. I was just your average hockey mom, and signed up for the PTA because I wanted to make my kids' public education better," she said, speaking of her home town of Wasilla, Alaska, with a population of about 6,500.

"When I ran for city council, I didn't need focus groups and voter profiles because I knew those voters, and knew their families, too," she said.

Before becoming governor, Palin served as mayor of Wasilla, she recounted, adding: "And since our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down on that experience, let me explain to them what the job involves. I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a 'community organizer,' except that you have actual responsibilities."

Palin delivered her speech in a firm, cheerful voice. It was her first chance to introduce and define herself to the American public and to explain to fellow Republicans how her experiences as Alaska governor would help galvanize the GOP ticket.

She strongly endorsed more oil exploration and drilling. "Our opponents say, again and again, that drilling will not solve all of America's energy problems — as if we all didn't know that already. But the fact that drilling won't solve every problem is no excuse to do nothing at all," she said.

Palin has been an aggressive advocate for drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, while McCain opposes drilling there. That difference was not touched on in the speech.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080904/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin_76

More like Sarah STALIN! ;D

City council of Wasilla, a bustling metropolis of almost 7,000 people.  Mayor of said town, during which she decided it would be cool to try and fire the police chief and the librarian because they didn's support her.  As for losing races, she lost her bid for Lt. Governor and was passed over for a seat in the US Senate.  She has only been a governor for ONE YEAR.


edited because I suck.


Note that Obama is in his first term as a US Senator, and the only reason that he was elected is because the vastly-favored Republican nominee was found to have urged his wife to go to swinger's clubs worldwide and left the campaign in mid stream.  If it were not for that twist of fate, Obama would still be in the Illinois legislature, passing bills on where you can place your septic tanks.

Obama was an organizer, Palin was a mayor... elected to her job.  Obama was an elected state legislator, Palin was elected as Governor AND managed to bake a bun in the oven at the same time.  It is true, however, that Obama has been on the National stage and that certainly is an advantage.

People get all upset that Palin fired the local dog catcher in Wassila?  Every new executive cleans house, that's part of the job, and where the laws allow it, patronage is common and expected.

Reagan, Carter, Clinton... all are former governors who made it to the big house in the past 35 years, and who had not held federal office.

"change we can believe in" = "this could be your year, charlie brown!"

http://www.myninjaplease.com/politricks/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/charlie_brown_lucy_football.jpg

believing the same party that has been beating up the country for the last two terms when they tell us they're different now -- particularly when they've nominated a far-right ideologue for VP -- is gullibility in extremis. it also reminds me of the girlfriend who keeps going back to the abusive boyfriend because he tells her he's really changed this time.

"change we can believe in" = "this could be your year, charlie brown!"

http://www.myninjaplease.com/politricks/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/charlie_brown_lucy_football.jpg

believing the same party that has been beating up the country for the last two terms when they tell us they're different now -- particularly when they've nominated a far-right ideologue for VP -- is gullibility in extremis. it also reminds me of the girlfriend who keeps going back to the abusive boyfriend because he tells her he's really changed this time.
The Obama candidacy guaranteed at least another four years of republican rule. I'll never understand why the dems picked him as their nominee. He offers nothing of substance, and as more time passes, more people see that. Yelling change every nanosecond while foaming at the mouth thinking of huge spending bills isn't change. We've seen that before. Its not a picnic. While McCain isn't offering up any huge changes either, at least he's honest about his candidacy and isn't trying to fool people into voting for him. He also has a rising star under his wing(who is now being compared to Reagan, which I will admit is laughable), and Obama just has the word change.

Like I said a few pages back, the Obama candidacy is a house of cards on the verge of being destroyed, and his base is destroying it themselves without any need for republican intervention.

Palin: Iraq War is "a task that is from God".

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080903/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin_iraq_war

"Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God," she said. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan."

You've gotta be kidding me.

Do Republicans have a patent on smear campaigns? 

As I see it, what comes around goes around.

The liberals have hardly done anything that will blow up in their faces.  The campaign has just begun.  Let the games begin. 



If comments like that help McCain reach the White House, then Americans really are stupider than I thought. 







I like you.  You see thing my way.  May you always see the campaign season as a typical battle.  BTW . . . pass the popcorn please. :)

Palin: Iraq War is "a task that is from God".

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080903/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin_iraq_war

"Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God," she said. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan."

You've gotta be kidding me.
The strategy works, so why not use it? I don't agree with her assessment(I'm not into the hardcore religious aspects), but I can see why certain people would consider the war an act of God. I do know one thing....Obama and his army of bloggers better stay about a light year away from the comment. Religious beliefs are not something to play around with. People hold such beliefs strongly, and people of all parties and faiths have family in that war zone.

Blah, who am I kidding. Smears regarding the comment will be all over cyberspace by the time I get home from work.

The Obama candidacy guaranteed at least another four years of republican rule. I'll never understand why the dems picked him as their nominee. He offers nothing of substance, and as more time passes, more people see that. Yelling change every nanosecond while foaming at the mouth thinking of huge spending bills isn't change. We've seen that before. Its not a picnic. While McCain isn't offering up any huge changes either, at least he's honest about his candidacy and isn't trying to fool people into voting for him. He also has a rising star under his wing(who is now being compared to Reagan, which I will admit is laughable), and Obama just has the word change.

Like I said a few pages back, the Obama candidacy is a house of cards on the verge of being destroyed, and his base is destroying it themselves without any need for republican intervention.
wait. obama has a plan for a $150 billion investment in alternative energies. what's mccain's plan? "drill drill drill"? obama has a plan for withdrawal from iraq. what's mccain's plan? stay there until a losing strategy suddenly magically turns around or the country goes bankrupt? obama has a specific plan for moving over to a universal health care system. what's mccain's plan? tax kickbacks that won't even pay for a fraction of the typical family's healthcare costs?

obama has plenty of substance, and see, here's the thing: the mainstream media don't report on policy, it's boring and it doesn't get ratings. they report on reverend wright and pregnant 17-year-olds. so obama makes substantive policy announcements, the media ignore them, and then people get to keep saying he has no substance, when in fact his substance is just being ignored. it's a complete snowjob.

The strategy works, so why not use it? I don't agree with her assessment(I'm not into the hardcore religious aspects), but I can see why certain people would consider the war an act of God. I do know one thing....Obama and his army of bloggers better stay about a light year away from the comment. Religious beliefs are not something to play around with. People hold such beliefs strongly, and people of all parties and faiths have family in that war zone.

Blah, who am I kidding. Smears regarding the comment will be all over cyberspace by the time I get home from work.
the thing is, it's scary to think there are people with the potential of getting into office who view this as a religious war. for one thing, religious wars tend to be endless, bloody and extremely brutal, for another you don't want the person with their finger on the button to think the rapture is imminent and that they and all their close buddies will be saved and to hell with everybody else. that used to worry me a lot about reagan, particularly as he got older and more potentially delirious, that he would get fascinated with the idea that he could personally bring about the rapture. this palin chick sounds like she might be cut out of the same cloth. at least mccain doesn't seem to be religiously extreme.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/republican_race/2008/09/03/2008-09-03_cindy_mccain_i_differ_with_sarah_palins_.html

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Conventions/story?id=5718292&page=1

Me thinks all is not well in the kingdom. :-\\

the thing is, it's scary to think there are people with the potential of getting into office who view this as a religious war. for one thing, religious wars tend to be endless, bloody and extremely brutal, for another you don't want the person with their finger on the button to think the rapture is imminent and that they and all their close buddies will be saved and to hell with everybody else. that used to worry me a lot about reagan, particularly as he got older and more potentially delirious, that he would get fascinated with the idea that he could personally bring about the rapture. this palin chick sounds like she might be cut out of the same cloth. at least mccain doesn't seem to be religiously extreme.


I agree basically what I was thinking the fact that someone that thinks like this could become president if something happens to McCain is just damn scary. I can see her starting a war with Iran using "God told me to" or something along those lines as the reasoning.

I agree basically what I was thinking the fact that someone that thinks like this could become president if something happens to McCain is just damn scary. I can see her starting a war with Iran using "God told me to" or something along those lines as the reasoning.


I agree and at his age we should be very afraid of something happening to him. What would she do launch an American Jihad?

I agree basically what I was thinking the fact that someone that thinks like this could become president if something happens to McCain is just damn scary. I can see her starting a war with Iran using "God told me to" or something along those lines as the reasoning.
you know, i used to be politically apathetic. i kinda miss those days.  :(

reynolds: no big surprises, i don't think, with cindy mccain, laura bush is also pro choice, i believe. and accusing the coverage of being sexist is a blatant attempt to woo the disaffected hillary voters. it might work, i dunno, a lot of those people seem pretty pissed.

Funny how your dead horse is alive and well but other dead horses are irrelevant.
Do we really need to go over this again? Maybe I should give more detail since my last post on that subject wasn't clear enough. If you say she "barely" has experience, then Obama has none. Like I said earlier, you cant have it both ways.


no I read it the first time and had a good chuckle.. no need to make me roll on the floor.  Governor of one of the smallest states population wise, in statewide office less time than almost every other Republican governor.  Still accounts for next to nothing.  Obama's been in office longer, and held more statewide posts.  How her lack of experience somehow translates into Obama's supposed lack of experience I have no idea.


Yeah, and Reagan passed over tons of governors to pick Bush as his VP. What's your point?


mr one term no new taxes is your best response?  c'mon.  His presidency isn't going to be remembered as hugely successful.  He won, but only based on the huge popularity of Reagan.  As a VP, no one even knows what he did.


Thank God I know what I'm talking about or you might have stumped me there. Executive experience has been mentioned for decades. Its one of the top qualities sought after in a president, which is why around 80% of the time a governor will destroy a senator in a general election.

fine... give me a quote from someone from over two weeks ago...  Almost none of McCain's "short list" of potential VPs were governors.  


McCain was pretty low key regarding his VP, and I don't care what Karl Rove has to say.
I love how people pick and choose their polls. The least you could do is wait until a week after the Palin VP choice/republican convention to start holding poll results in your hands.


the week directly following the convention will give a bump.  wait two or three weeks.  The poll I cited was explicitly asking questions about Palin's pick.  


You mean that's what the liberal media is saying. She just entered the national scene and you've already fully judged her?

nope, just going by her HUGE EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE... wow she's got so much...
/sarcasm off

I've posted a few other articles.  She ran her office like a personal fiefdom and with huge influence from the state party.  There's plenty of dirt to be found from when she ran for governor.  She's pissed off everyone, and backstabbed who she needed to get into office.  I should give the GOP credit for sticking up for her, she's like a meaner version of Hillary or a tamer version of Ann Coulter.


Wow. We agree on something. I agree that she mainly caters to the party faithful, and that makes it a slightly unusual pick by McCain. He would have had the base anyways. However, two factors bring the huge possibility of her bringing in other voters:

1. The "Reagan Democrats". These people are not dead. They've been hibernating. The neo-con bloc hijacked the republican party and pushed them away, and Palin is more conservative than those people will ever be. The potential for scooping up those voters is high.

Reagan was a moderate.  Palin is no moderate.  She's hardcore fundie.  McCain didn't have the base on board until he made this pick.  It does cement his base, but it won't pick up anyone outside of the party.  So he wins more solidly in the South where Obama had no chance. Following his party leaders once again shows him to be no maverick.


I didn't know "mavericks" lost that status when accepting a nomination. I guess someone forgot to send out that memo.


The nomination isn't the reason he lost it. He lost it after he was nominated because he stopped accepting interviews and began following the same attack strategy as W followed.  How many times has he begun crying about the media now?  That favorable press (and it's been HUGELY favorable towards him, no matter what anyone on the right thinks) isn't going to stay favorable for long with that kind of backlash.

Palin is from the "family values" party.  They run on it, they preach it, they'll stand up and use a down syndrome baby as a talking point in their speech, but the second you mention their family is pretty screwed up looking they begin crying "their" family is off limits.  They have no problems telling us how to live our lives, but mention her unwed pregnant teenage daughter and that's "too far".  It's hypocrisy that kills me.

no I read it the first time and had a good chuckle.. no need to make me roll on the floor.  Governor of one of the smallest states population wise, in statewide office less time than almost every other Republican governor.  Still accounts for next to nothing.  Obama's been in office longer, and held more statewide posts.  How her lack of experience somehow translates into Obama's supposed lack of experience I have no idea.

mr one term no new taxes is your best response?  c'mon.  His presidency isn't going to be remembered as hugely successful.  He won, but only based on the huge popularity of Reagan.  As a VP, no one even knows what he did.
fine... give me a quote from someone from over two weeks ago...  Almost none of McCain's "short list" of potential VPs were governors.  

the week directly following the convention will give a bump.  wait two or three weeks.  The poll I cited was explicitly asking questions about Palin's pick.  
nope, just going by her HUGE EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE... wow she's got so much...
/sarcasm off

I've posted a few other articles.  She ran her office like a personal fiefdom and with huge influence from the state party.  There's plenty of dirt to be found from when she ran for governor.  She's pissed off everyone, and backstabbed who she needed to get into office.  I should give the GOP credit for sticking up for her, she's like a meaner version of Hillary or a tamer version of Ann Coulter.
Reagan was a moderate.  Palin is no moderate.  She's hardcore fundie.  McCain didn't have the base on board until he made this pick.  It does cement his base, but it won't pick up anyone outside of the party.  So he wins more solidly in the South where Obama had no chance. Following his party leaders once again shows him to be no maverick.

The nomination isn't the reason he lost it. He lost it after he was nominated because he stopped accepting interviews and began following the same attack strategy as W followed.  How many times has he begun crying about the media now?  That favorable press (and it's been HUGELY favorable towards him, no matter what anyone on the right thinks) isn't going to stay favorable for long with that kind of backlash.

Palin is from the "family values" party.  They run on it, they preach it, they'll stand up and use a down syndrome baby as a talking point in their speech, but the second you mention their family is pretty screwed up looking they begin crying "their" family is off limits.  They have no problems telling us how to live our lives, but mention her unwed pregnant teenage daughter and that's "too far".  It's hypocrisy that kills me.
chucky, on a serious note, mccain didn't have the luxury of vetting vice-presidential picks during his five and a half years in a POW camp.

chucky, on a serious note, mccain didn't have the luxury of vetting vice-presidential picks during his five and a half years in a POW camp.


oh wow... I totally didn't know he was a POW... it's been five minutes since I last heard, and I totally forgot.

http://scienceblogs.com/neurotopia/worst%20mccain%20photo.jpg

oh wow... I totally didn't know he was a POW... it's been five minutes since I last heard, and I totally forgot.
that's okay, we can all have memory lapses. for instance, mccain had a memory lapse and forgot he liked abba after that missile hit his plane and he spent five and a half years in a POW camp.

okay, okay, i'll stop. which is more than i can say for the mccain campaign.  ;D

http://scienceblogs.com/neurotopia/worst%20mccain%20photo.jpg


how much you wanna bet she's telling that kid all about birth control through abstinence. meanwhile mccain looks like he's trying to pick which sexy librarian in the audience to invite to his hotel room later.

wait. obama has a plan for a $150 billion investment in alternative energies.
Where's the money coming from to pay for that? His infamous "windfall" tax? You wanna know what happens if those oil revenues aren't a "windfall"(and you can bet your last dollar they wont be)? Higher deficits. What are these "alternative energies"? Ethanol? That's a laugh. I laugh, you and Obama are happy, the price of food goes up, our energy supply is still the same, we're paying 7 bucks a gallon for gas, and third world countries starve. I have no interest in that sort of leftist utopia.

what's mccain's plan? "drill drill drill"?Considering the fact I have no desire to pay 10 bucks for a gallon of gas, I hope the answer to that question is a yes.


obama has a plan for withdrawal from iraq.What a great plan it is. Retreat, and then go back if it gets worse. Jimmy Carter probably has a grin a light year across envisioning such a plan.

what's mccain's plan?I would hope its staying there until the war is over. Retreat isn't an option. You'll have Russia or China walk in there and fill the power vacuum and then we'd have to go back and fight WWIII just to enter an area we've occupied for most of the decade.

obama has a specific plan for moving over to a universal health care system.How does he plan on paying for that pie in the sky program? What's he going to do about all the jobs lost in such a scheme?


When you take the word change out of the equation, this stuff doesn't sound so good does it? Imagine Bush enacting these policies. Would you praise him?

obama has plenty of substance, and see, here's the thing: the mainstream media don't report on policy, it's boring and it doesn't get ratings. they report on reverend wright and pregnant 17-year-olds. so obama makes substantive policy announcements, the media ignore themThe media ignores these liberal fantasies because if they reported them his candidacy never would have made it this far.

How her lack of experience somehow translates into Obama's supposed lack of experience I have no idea.You need to become one of Obama's campaign advisers because he's getting neck deep in that train of thought.

Still cant believe we're riding this merry go round of who is more experienced when facts have been presented. When Obama has to go on TV saying the fact he is running for president adds to his experience as a way to try and downplay Palin is all anyone needs to know regarding the matter. Actions speak louder than words, and he's now speaking quite clearly.

mr one term no new taxes is your best response?  c'mon.  His presidency isn't going to be remembered as hugely successful.  He won, but only based on the huge popularity of Reagan.  As a VP, no one even knows what he did.You took that out of context. Only used Bush I as an example. Was in no way insinuating he was a good VP or president. I know he rode Reagan's coattails, and without Reagan never would have come remotely close to the White House.

fine... give me a quote from someone from over two weeks ago...  Almost none of McCain's "short list" of potential VPs were governors.

Mitt Romney
Tim Pawlenty
Mike Huckabee
Charlie Crist
Bobby Jindal

Even though executive experience is a major plus, I'm actually a bit surprised he went with one this time considering the dem ticket is comprised of senators. Out of the governors, Palin was the only legitimate choice. If I was McCain, I would have picked her out of that group as well.

Surprised he didn't go after Powell.

the week directly following the convention will give a bump.  wait two or three weeks.  The poll I cited was explicitly asking questions about Palin's pick.I don't have a poll fetish. Only polls that matter are the exit polls on election day. All other polls are just assumptions. Having said that, a poll is more accurate with some distance from the event and not one taken in the immediate aftermath. That's why I said a week is a good amount of time if using a poll to rank how effective this pick was. Do you think a poll is more accurate an hour after Obama picked Biden, or a week? Whatever your answer is, you should use that standard for all parties.


There's plenty of dirt to be found from when she ran for governor. Yeah, and I'm sure the liberals will waste the next two months trying to dig it up.

Reagan was a moderate.  Palin is no moderate.  She's hardcore fundie.  McCain didn't have the base on board until he made this pick.  It does cement his base, but it won't pick up anyone outside of the party.  So he wins more solidly in the South where Obama had no chance. Following his party leaders once again shows him to be no maverick.Oh, I'm not trying to compare her to Reagan. I'm not that crazy. :P My point was that specific voting bloc has been ignored for years and she has the chance to exploit that. Obama cant exploit it. She can.

McCain had the base. Not hardcore support, but they would have voted for him. Palin is an enigma in this race, and you would probably admit that even though you don't like her. Does she serve a purpose to only rally the base while McCain goes after those independents/undecided democrats? Or does McCain let Palin ride the wave of celebrity and attempt to pull in a wide array of voters? Do they attempt both and ignore the base knowing they have their vote?

That strategy depends on what happens in the coming weeks. If Obama starts to slide, then Palin will probably deliver a knock out blow if the McCain camp can keep this whole Obama vs Palin sideshow going that the dems created. The more they keep Palin out there, the longer Obama will stay off message.


The nomination isn't the reason he lost it. He lost it after he was nominated because he stopped accepting interviews and began following the same attack strategy as W followed.  How many times has he begun crying about the media now?  That favorable press (and it's been HUGELY favorable towards him, no matter what anyone on the right thinks) isn't going to stay favorable for long with that kind of backlash.I agree with most of that. Never really understood McCain's whole "the media is out to get me" thing. The media has loved McCain for years.

they'll stand up and use a down syndrome baby as a talking point in their speechIf she hadn't mentioned it, you would have complained about that as well. She cant win with the liberals. Its just "attack attack attack", and it will play a role in Obama's defeat. Hopefully we can revisit this thread in November and discuss how these issues regarding Palin had an effect on the election.

the second you mention their family is pretty screwed up looking they begin crying "their" family is off limits.  They have no problems telling us how to live our lives, but mention her unwed pregnant teenage daughter and that's "too far".  It's hypocrisy that kills me.Wasn't Obama also spewing the "no family" line? Just another example of how him and his base are using the same playbook, but are on entirely different pages.

That doesn't work too well in the 4th quarter.

While McCain isn't offering up any huge changes either, at least he's honest about his candidacy and isn't trying to fool people into voting for him.


Honest? Oh please. He can't even keep what he says straight.  I guess that is McCain's idea of Change. He constantly changes his stance on something if he thinks it will get some votes. What he says and what he does do not seem to be compatible.

If you want to vote for McCain, that is your right. However, I would serious look into his record instead of just listening to this talking points.


Cat

Where's the money coming from to pay for that? His infamous "windfall" tax? You wanna know what happens if those oil revenues aren't a "windfall"(and you can bet your last dollar they wont be)? Higher deficits. What are these "alternative energies"? Ethanol? That's a laugh. I laugh, you and Obama are happy, the price of food goes up, our energy supply is still the same, we're paying 7 bucks a gallon for gas, and third world countries starve. I have no interest in that sort of leftist utopia.i'll just take this one because i look at this post and my eyes cross.

well, first of all, ending the iraq war will easily save enough money to pay for this. plus, ever hear of the addage you have to spend money to make money? the $150 billion will go toward incentives and subsidies for the private sector to conduct R&D in alternative energies. i've got news for you, it's going to take some rampup to make alternative energies profitable and right now the private sector's incentive is to continue to focus on oil, coal and nuclear till they run out, there's no reason for them to think in the long term if it's going to hurt their profits. before right-wing extremist reagan-era trickle down kleptonomics came along, everyone from left to right understood that public funding plays a role in public life, and often can serve to motivate the private sector to realign itself to future priorities rather than draining every last drop out of old sources of profit, which is how the private sector is motivated on its own. public-private partnerships involving public funds to help redirect industry to address future priorities was a common practice before things got weird in the 80s. it's how we got out of the depression, how we won world war ii, and how we created the biggest public project in history -- under eisenhower, a republican! -- in the form of the interstate highway system, which did and continues to do wonders in this country facilitating business and industry and helping families have a higher standard of living. if you're gonna call obama a "leftist utopian," you need to call eisenhower one, too, and basically every other president after the robber baron/gilded age but before reagan, by that perspective, was a socialist.

there's no reason for the private sector to provide the initial investment in wind, geothermal, solar, until economies of scale make them profitable, which is where public incentives come in. in the end we'll get return on our investment, in divestment from middle east dictatorships, new profitable markets in manufacturing and running infrastructure related to alternative energy technology, which means jobs, contracts, new domestic business and tax revenue. right now what are we doing with the money? turning it into bombs and dropping them on kids.

health care reform is a similar example. right now we spend more on health care than any other industrialized country and get less. and why? because of radical privatization. this crippling of the public purse by labelling all investment of tax funds in US infrastructure "leftist utopia" is ill-informed and it also damages the country. this kind of extremist resistance to investing in one's own country strikes me as -- well, un-american, frankly.

Honest? Oh please. He can't even keep what he says straight.  I guess that is McCain's idea of Change. He constantly changes his stance on something if he thinks it will get some votes. What he says and what he does do not seem to be compatible.

If you want to vote for McCain, that is your right. However, I would serious look into his record instead of just listening to this talking points.


Cat
If you need a reference, I'll post a list of McCain flip flops. I'll also post a list of Obama flip flops, and you MIGHT be surprised at which list is longer. Although deep down you know which list is longer without having to look, so I wont post them.

Since you're the forum's expert on change, care to enlighten us all on what Obama has changed during his illustrious Senate career?

I don't need "talking points". I love it when liberals who use talking points whine about talking points. Its like you think people cant think for themselves.

Still cant believe we're riding this merry go round of who is more experienced when facts have been presented. When Obama has to go on TV saying the fact he is running for president adds to his experience as a way to try and downplay Palin is all anyone needs to know regarding the matter. Actions speak louder than words, and he's now speaking quite clearly.

yeah, and McCain is now running Palin's more experienced ads too.. so what.  Who outside of the base is going to believe it? Even the right wing pundits thought it was a joke.  Sure they're singing her praises now, but that's only because they know their base will stop buying their books if they don't fall in lockstep with the rest of the party.

Obama's campaign has more people to manage than Palin has ever managed.  Obama had to win primary elections in most of the 50 states. Palin hasn't even seen half of the states.  Managing his campaign and winning state elections is certainly credible experience.


Yeah, and I'm sure the liberals will waste the next two months trying to dig it up.

They've dug up plenty in less than a week.  The National Enquirer and the rest of the muckrakers will do that on their own from here on in.  I doubt they even need to.  It's obvious from her short time in office what her views are.


McCain had the base. Not hardcore support, but they would have voted for him. Palin is an enigma in this race, and you would probably admit that even though you don't like her. Does she serve a purpose to only rally the base while McCain goes after those independents/undecided democrats? Or does McCain let Palin ride the wave of celebrity and attempt to pull in a wide array of voters? Do they attempt both and ignore the base knowing they have their vote?

That strategy depends on what happens in the coming weeks. If Obama starts to slide, then Palin will probably deliver a knock out blow if the McCain camp can keep this whole Obama vs Palin sideshow going that the dems created. The more they keep Palin out there, the longer Obama will stay off message.

Have to totally disagree there.  She's not of any use outside of the base.  You even state he had the base already, whether they wanted McCain or not.  The whole point of showing what a hardcore conservative she is, is to make sure the independents don't think it's somehow great that McCain picked a woman.  The best she does, is make sure the base evangelicals turns out to vote, which won't help outside of the south, which Obama never stood a chance of winning.


I agree with most of that. Never really understood McCain's whole "the media is out to get me" thing. The media has loved McCain for years.
If she hadn't mentioned it, you would have complained about that as well. She cant win with the liberals. Its just "attack attack attack", and it will play a role in Obama's defeat. Hopefully we can revisit this thread in November and discuss how these issues regarding Palin had an effect on the election.
Wasn't Obama also spewing the "no family" line? Just another example of how him and his base are using the same playbook, but are on entirely different pages.


I really doubt anyone would have said a thing if she didn't discuss her baby. Obama isn't running on family values.  That's what you seem to gloss over each time.  Palin gushes about how her daughter "chose" to keep her baby, but is totally oblivious to the fact that she wants to prevent anyone else from making that choice.

well, first of all, ending the iraq war will easily save enough money to pay for this.
Really? How so? That money has to go right back into the military. Or are we gonna disarm?

the addage you have to spend money to make money?Where's the money to spend? I don't see it. We're running massive deficits. Spending has to be cut, not increased.

the $150 billion will go toward incentives and subsidies ;D Oh man. Subsidies? "Incentives"? No wonder the house of cards is falling. I'm shocked its taken this long.

it's going to take some rampup to make alternative energies profitable and right now the private sector's incentive is to continue to focus on oil, coal and nuclear till they run out, there's no reason for them to think in the long term if it's going to hurt their profits.They aren't profitable under the current conditions period. Even when the conditions are right, you(not YOU but Obama's "plan") offers them no incentives. Subsidies are going nowhere.

before right-wing extremist reagan-era trickle down kleptonomics came alongYeah, a robust economy, cheap gas prices, and the dollar at its peak was just so terrible. How did we make it through that crisis?

and often can serve to motivate the private sector to realign itself to future priorities rather than draining every last drop out of old sources of profit, which is how the private sector is motivated on its own. there's no reason for the private sector to provide the initial investment in wind, geothermal, solar, until economies of scale make them profitable, which is where public incentives come in.What are these incentives that Obama offers?

we'll get return on our investment, in divestment from middle east dictatorships, new profitable markets in manufacturing and running infrastructure related to alternative energy technology, which means jobs, contracts, new domestic business and tax revenue.Sounds fabulous, but I still don't see any plans for this.

Really? How so? That money has to go right back into the military. Or are we gonna disarm?
Where's the money to spend? I don't see it. We're running massive deficits. Spending has to be cut, not increased.
;D Oh man. Subsidies? "Incentives"? No wonder the house of cards is falling. I'm shocked its taken this long.
They aren't profitable under the current conditions period. Even when the conditions are right, you(not YOU but Obama's "plan") offers them no incentives. Subsidies are going nowhere.
Yeah, a robust economy, cheap gas prices, and the dollar at its peak was just so terrible. How did we make it through that crisis?
What are these incentives that Obama offers?
Sounds fabulous, but I still don't see any plans for this.
sounds like all you can do is just say no to everything but the status quo. no wonder the "change" in your signature line is in quotes, you just insist on giving us more of the same until the country finally chokes.

look, here's how it works. you want to create a wind farm? you put out a fixed-price contract providing tax money to a company willing to design, engineer and build the wind farm, and then another IDIQ contract (i think that's how it works) to another company or the same company to maintain that wind farm. initial costs have to be covered by tax money because there's no way to make it profitable right out of the gate. as the wind farm continues to operate and begins to turn a profit, you direct some of the profit back to the government to recover its costs, and then over to the company maintaining the wind farm, eventually turning it into an independent, privately owned asset. that part of the money the government initially lost investing in the ramp up contract is recompensed over time in tax revenue from the wind farm as it continues to operate under private ownership.

now imagine that model operating nationwide in a variety of different energy markets. THAT's obama's model, and if that description isn't specific enough for you, it's obvious nothing is going to be. it's not big government, it's not "socialist," it's the effective deployment of public funds to incentivize private enterprise to help make new and emerging markets profitable with an eye toward the needs of the public. 

i dunno, like i said, you really don't seem to have any answers other than say four more years of republicans has to be better than obama because he has no substance. but obama obviously DOES have substance so really you just look like you're digging in and holding your breath, insisting that the last eight years is the best we can do and the best we can hope for. that's kinda sad.

http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/political-pictures-sarah-palin-mccain-drilling-alaska.jpg

I just thought this was funny.

Carry on.

Really? How so? That money has to go right back into the military. Or are we gonna disarm?oh, and p.s. all the money going into iraq (and afghanistan, i believe) are emergency appropriations, not part of the (bloated) pentagon budget. please explain how reclaiming this money, which wasn't directed toward the military anyway, is "disarming"? and how is it that the pentagon can't account for literally hundreds of billions of dollars over the years and yet cutting and streamlining the pentagon is totally unthinkable when we spend more than the next 15 countries combined? are you saying we need to just keep wasting all that money that the pentagon isn't even disputing the fact it cant account for? your answer is, waste and lose billions and billions of dollars or disarm?

how about this: reform the oversight of the pentagon we used to have before rumsfeld, cheney and lot of other defense industry executives got into the government in the 80s and created a revolving door of cushy no-bid contracts and lifted oversight on the pre-cept that the pentagon could oversee itself? (although here's the thing: they didn't REALLY think the pentagon could oversee itself, they just thought it would be good for the industry, and it was. they get lots and lots of contracts with huge overruns, don't have to account for the public funds they receive, and basically get cash without expenditures. works great for them, crappy for us.)

going back to a system where the pentagon pays contractors for actual products and services received and holds contractors accountable for overruns and breaches of contracts would save billions upon billions. and that's the problem with deregulation under the supposed reagan and post-reagan "free market" -- it creates revolving doors, not partnerships, between government and industry and encourages corruption and waste because the people in government allegedly regulating industry actually represent the industry they're supposed to regulate. going back to a pre-reagan-era encouraging more accountability and a greater enforcement and regulatory role in government would generate public revenue and, in my opinion, would also in the long run generate private revenue because in the long run nobody except a very exclusive few benefits from a country where everything from the military to the health care system to the bridges and sewers are falling apart.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1A0ts88LXE

Daily Show highlighting the hypocrisy of the Republicans on the Sarah Palin issues.

Rove stating that Kaine had no relevant political experience from running Richmond, 105th largest city in America which is about 10 times larger than Wasila

Lots of double standards about gender from the GOP and Hillary

Ha. Gotta love how everyone else is allowed to say whatever the hell they please...but I call someone an ASS (oh, I know...how offensive)...and it gets deleted.  ::)


should we redirect you to read the rules of the politics forum?  name calling is not tolerated in the politics forum. 

c'mon... you've been here long enough to know that.  even minor insults quickly turn nasty

If you need a reference, I'll post a list of McCain flip flops. I'll also post a list of Obama flip flops, and you MIGHT be surprised at which list is longer. Although deep down you know which list is longer without having to look, so I wont post them.

Since you're the forum's expert on change, care to enlighten us all on what Obama has changed during his illustrious Senate career?

I don't need "talking points". I love it when liberals who use talking points whine about talking points. Its like you think people cant think for themselves.



First of all, I am not the forum expert. However, you want to know the changes he has made?  He pass welfare reform that allowed people to move from welfare to work-rather than punishing welfare recipients from working so they are forced to remain on welfare and then called "welfare queens". He also was key to passing an ethic bill that curbs influence of lobbyists-I'm sure if you look at who is contributing to McCain's campaign, I'm sure you will find a lot of lobbyist-and probably from the oil industry-which is why Palin is now on the ticket-and it has nothing to do with her credentials-or lack of. There are many more changes Obama has made but I'm not going to list every single one of them.

It is obvious that you are just going to believe everything the Republicans throw at you and no matter what I say will not change your mind. So, you live in your delusion that McCain has your best interests at heart when he does not. And if he gets in, unless you are a billionaire, you will be worse off in 4 years then you are now. As Barbara Bush once said to Al Frankin, I'm through with you.


Cat   

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/04/obama-raises-8-million-af_n_124023.html

one day after Sarah Palin gave her speech, and Obama's campaign picked up an additional $10 million in donations.  Guess it's not just the GOP she's energizing.  The GOP raised an additional $1 million, on top of the $10 million since last week.  Guess money talks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBXeVvoQA9M

Obama talking about Sarah Palin's "speech".  Basically just brushing the reporters off on Palin, keeps redirecting the talk to McCain.

I wonder what he'll do once McCain's done talking tonight. 

I like you.  You see thing my way.  May you always see the campaign season as a typical battle.  BTW . . . pass the popcorn please. :)


Thank you.  :)

I like people who see things my way.  I also like people who don't.  Keeps stuff interesting :D

Still waiting for that transcript of McCain's speech...I hope it'll at least be as good as his appearance on SNL :D

Excuse me, but am I the only one that notices this entire GOP convention is a grinning fascist ralley?
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/05/greenchainsaw.gif

The bloodiest tyrants in history talked of God and country, home and hearth, military valor, and love thy neighbor!  This...this is a bunch of crap!  Neither Palin nor McCain has one lick of substance, just a lot of strut. 

In his closing statement, do note, McCain used the word "fight" about ten times!
:o

Fascists!  They're bloody fascists that's what they are!  If we elect them, America is truly finished I mean that from the bottom of my heart!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080904/ap_en_tv/cvn_palin_s_audience

40M for Palin's speech...I wonder how much McCain will draw.  Still waiting for that transcript :P

Ah...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/04/mccain.transcript/

I saw a few parts where he lost his train of thought, because some sentences had no cause-and-effect.  I also saw the obligatory "I was a POW" section.  But for the most part, I thought it was a well-written speech and he did highlight some policy ideas without slamming Obama the person, but rather Obama's policies.  I honestly don't know whose policies will be better, but I do hope Obama wins and maybe gives McCain a cabinet spot or something.

Reading some of the analysis now.  Seems some protestors disrupted the speech, and there were some that were gassed :o  I wonder if they were really so disruptive that they needed to be subdued like that.

Cut taxes + cut spending = Reaganomics...I'd like to see if a President Obama really lives up to his claim to go through the budget line-by-line, no matter who gets into office it's going to take a while for the country to recover :P

sounds like all you can do is just say no to everything but the status quo. no wonder the "change" in your signature line is in quotes, you just insist on giving us more of the same until the country finally chokes.
Whats funny about that is Obama offers nothing but the status quo. Like you(and several others here), I voted for Obama in the CA primary. Was the most moronic choice I have ever made at the polls. I started doing some digging and actually read the crap all the Obama brigade worships like the Bible, and I realized that he's nothing more than Bush III without the tax cuts. If I could go back, I would have voted for Hillary.


look, here's how it works. you want to create a wind farm? you put out a fixed-price contract providing tax money to a company willing to design, engineer and build the wind farm, and then another IDIQ contract (i think that's how it works) to another company or the same company to maintain that wind farm. initial costs have to be covered by tax money because there's no way to make it profitable right out of the gate. as the wind farm continues to operate and begins to turn a profit, you direct some of the profit back to the government to recover its costs, and then over to the company maintaining the wind farm, eventually turning it into an independent, privately owned asset. that part of the money the government initially lost investing in the ramp up contract is recompensed over time in tax revenue from the wind farm as it continues to operate under private ownership.

now imagine that model operating nationwide in a variety of different energy markets. THAT's obama's model, and if that description isn't specific enough for you, it's obvious nothing is going to be. it's not big government, it's not "socialist," it's the effective deployment of public funds to incentivize private enterprise to help make new and emerging markets profitable with an eye toward the needs of the public. That plan doesn't work under Obama, unless you are willing to admit that he's all about massive spending programs and huge tax increases.

You willing to admit that?

I agree there has to be some progressive thinking on these types of issues, but this economy is in shambles at the moment and we don't need a tax and spend president at the controls. If the economy was in good condition, I would be willing to give Obama at least 4 years to see what he can do. However, we cant have an experiment where some liberal gets to play around with our lives while we're already going under.


oh, and p.s. all the money going into iraq (and afghanistan, i believe) are emergency appropriations, not part of the (bloated) pentagon budget. please explain how reclaiming this money, which wasn't directed toward the military anyway, is "disarming"? and how is it that the pentagon can't account for literally hundreds of billions of dollars over the years and yet cutting and streamlining the pentagon is totally unthinkable when we spend more than the next 15 countries combined? are you saying we need to just keep wasting all that money that the pentagon isn't even disputing the fact it cant account for? your answer is, waste and lose billions and billions of dollars or disarm?

how about this: reform the oversight of the pentagon we used to have before rumsfeld, cheney and lot of other defense industry executives got into the government in the 80s and created a revolving door of cushy no-bid contracts and lifted oversight on the pre-cept that the pentagon could oversee itself? (although here's the thing: they didn't REALLY think the pentagon could oversee itself, they just thought it would be good for the industry, and it was. they get lots and lots of contracts with huge overruns, don't have to account for the public funds they receive, and basically get cash without expenditures. works great for them, crappy for us.)

going back to a system where the pentagon pays contractors for actual products and services received and holds contractors accountable for overruns and breaches of contracts would save billions upon billions. and that's the problem with deregulation under the supposed reagan and post-reagan "free market" -- it creates revolving doors, not partnerships, between government and industry and encourages corruption and waste because the people in government allegedly regulating industry actually represent the industry they're supposed to regulate. going back to a pre-reagan-era encouraging more accountability and a greater enforcement and regulatory role in government would generate public revenue and, in my opinion, would also in the long run generate private revenue because in the long run nobody except a very exclusive few benefits from a country where everything from the military to the health care system to the bridges and sewers are falling apart.We're not decreasing military funding. We're not changing the status quo regarding it either. We live in a dangerous world, and just the thought of decreasing military spending by a penny probably makes terrorists(and certain countries) foam at the mouth.

First of all, I am not the forum expert. However, you want to know the changes he has made?  He pass welfare reform that allowed people to move from welfare to work-rather than punishing welfare recipients from working so they are forced to remain on welfare and then called "welfare queens". He also was key to passing an ethic bill that curbs influence of lobbyistsYou call that change? ;D Thats someone else doing the change and him voting for it. Big deal. Maybe we should have every other politician who voted yes on that run for president.

I'm sure if you look at who is contributing to McCain's campaign, I'm sure you will find a lot of lobbyist-and probably from the oil industry-which is why Palin is now on the ticket-and it has nothing to do with her credentials-or lack ofThanks for posting that. Just proved you are one of the people on the Obama brigade who are voting for him blindly without doing a drop of research.

Chew on these links for awhile....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/25/obamas-lobbyists-connecti_n_103474.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-04-15-obama_n.htm

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/09/23/in_illinois_obama_dealt_with_lobbyists/

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/07/despite-rhetori.html

there's plenty more....

There are many more changes Obama has made but I'm not going to list every single one of them. Of course you're not going to. You cant.

It is obvious that you are just going to believe everything the Republicans throw at you and no matter what I say will not change your mind.That's hilarious. I'm an independent that has and will vote for either side. I guess because I'm able to think for myself makes you think I'm a republican. Funny.

As Barbara Bush once said to Al Frankin, I'm through with you.I knew you were gonna say something like that. You're incapable of debating these topics so issue a cop out when someone arrives on the scene who actually knows what they're talking about. Says much more about you than it does about me.

People like Chucky and Tia(and others) I respect. While I may disagree with most of what they say, at least they use intelligence while debating and actually believe in what they are saying. I hope you follow through on being "through" with me, because I'm certainly not gonna continue debating someone who doesn't even comprehend the basic issues at hand.

Whoooooyaaaah! Heard the news???

Associated Press News reports 40 MILLION watched Palin speak.....to Obamas 38 MILLION!
:o

In his closing statement, do note, McCain used the word "fight" about ten times!
:o

Fascists!  They're bloody fascists that's what they are!  If we elect them, America is truly finished I mean that from the bottom of my heart!


Actually, I kinda liked his finish.  If you want to fight for pre-9/11 America, take it over.  Rather than just (with apologies to the protestor in the hall) just getting your ass dragged out to be beaten, gassed, tazed, and/or disappeared without any real effect, the way to fight for a country is to hijack your party of choice.  The fundies did it and although I don't like the results, I have to admit that it worked.

Infiltrate your local party organization, schmooze your way up the ranks, and run for office.  Volunteer for a charitable organization.  Enlist.  To borrow a phrase from Jello Biafra (and I apologize to Jello), McCain was suggesting that if you think the system sucks, "don't hate the system, become the system".  Obama could have given the same ending to his own and used the same words.  Hell, that Biafra quote is a one-line description of Obama's career -- from hating the system as a rabble-rouser, to becoming the system as a Presidential candidate.

As to whether McCain wants you to do that, as opposed to a group of supporters that he can more easily control, well, that's another story.  But to take his speech on his own words, I've got no problem with it.

McCain's credibility gap comes from the fact that I found myself saying "And how effective were you at stopping it while the rest of your party was doing it, sir?" about half a dozen times.  I give him credit for admiiting his party screwed the pooch, but I noticed that that most of the audience took a bit longer to cheer on those lines.  It was a good attempt at disavowing the ancien regime, but will it be enough to turn this from a rout into a race?  That's for the pollsters to decide in the next 24 hours. 

My beef with McCain's speech was that it was light on substance.  But then, so were Biden's, Obama's, and Palin's speeches.  I suppose there'll be time for that in the debates.

Onwards and downwards!

I got back to basics and played count the Negro.  Didn't run out of fingers. 

I got back to basics and played count the Negro.  Didn't run out of fingers. 
Sounds like a fun game. Never played it. Since I missed it, I'll play it on election day so I can reach the same results as you.

yeah, and McCain is now running Palin's more experienced ads too.. so what.
Uh, didn't I already tell you that both Obama and Mccain were running Palin ads? Looks like the liberals send their memos out a day late.

Face it, you liberals fell into your own Obama vs Palin trap, and now you guys are like chickens with your heads cut off trying to figure out what to do. For some reason you're not comprehending that the more you attack her and keep up the "lets compare pres candidate Obama's resume to VP candidate Palin's resume" game, you fall even deeper into your own trap. Its comical.

Next week's polls will reflect your mistake, and you'll still be wondering what to do. I'm willing to bet the next move will be...


*drum roll please*




Attack Palin.

Who outside of the base is going to believe it?Uh, lots of people. Her speech had more viewers than Obama's. She is also the number one search on yahoo(been that way all week). She is turning into a massive cash cow for the GOP.

Lets all keep talking about her(good, bad, or both) so all those stats keep increasing.


Obama's campaign has more people to manage than Palin has ever managed.  Obama had to win primary elections in most of the 50 states. Palin hasn't even seen half of the states.  Managing his campaign and winning state elections is certainly credible experience.More resume comparisons and nothing about change or issues facing americans?

Sweeeeeeeeet.

They've dug up plenty in less than a week.  The National Enquirer and the rest of the muckrakers will do that on their own from here on in.  I doubt they even need to.  It's obvious from her short time in office what her views are.And I hope they keep digging. In fact, I hope they dig until a nanosecond before the polls open.

She's not of any use outside of the base.  You even state he had the base already, whether they wanted McCain or not.  The whole point of showing what a hardcore conservative she is, is to make sure the independents don't think it's somehow great that McCain picked a woman.  The best she does, is make sure the base evangelicals turns out to vote, which won't help outside of the south, which Obama never stood a chance of winning.While I would have agreed with that sentiment right before the pick, I strongly disagree now because the liberals turned her into a dangerous weapon by their constant attacks on her.

You stirred up a hornet's nest and your solution is to try and stir it up even more.


I really doubt anyone would have said a thing if she didn't discuss her baby. Obama isn't running on family values.  That's what you seem to gloss over each time.I haven't glossed over anything. I respond to each post you direct towards me. I never said Obama was running on family values. He's running on false hope, and even if that hope was at some point real, the abandonment of change in an effort to smear Palin and constantly talk about her proves that they never truly had hope.

You don't abandon a serious message so you can play in the gutter.

Whats funny about that is Obama offers nothing but the status quo. Like you(and several others here), I voted for Obama in the CA primary. Was the most moronic choice I have ever made at the polls. I started doing some digging and actually read the crap all the Obama brigade worships like the Bible, and I realized that he's nothing more than Bush III without the tax cuts. If I could go back, I would have voted for Hillary.
sigh. this is getting so old, because you keep repeating yourself even after you've been refuted. so first, let's actually have a scrap of evidence for the above claim. otherwise i'll ignore it as a baseless accusation made but not demonstrated. i mean yes, he could also be a secret muslim or a green lizard but saying it doesn't make it so.
That plan doesn't work under Obama, unless you are willing to admit that he's all about massive spending programs and huge tax increases.

You willing to admit that?no, because it isn't true. his plan is to lower taxes for the middle class and raise taxes on the uber-rich, which would serve to correct the tax inequalities created over the last eight years of tax cuts for the rich and would actually generate more revenue because the middle class actually spends money on goods and services, whereas the rich tend to hoard wealth (by definition, hence they're rich) or invest in speculative ventures or financial bubbles of various kinds that pay dividends to them but produce nothing of value and in fact damage the economy by undermining the reliability of america's financial fundamentals, leading to things like the california energy crisis and the real estate collapse. keep rewarding that with tax cuts, get more of the same. bolster the middle class, we start shifting to an economy where real money is paid for real goods, which is where we need to be.

plus you've ignored what i've said about wasteful spending at the pentagon. clamp down on that, we'll save quite a few tax dollars. and wasting money doesn't make us any safer.

I agree there has to be some progressive thinking on these types of issues, but this economy is in shambles at the moment and we don't need a tax and spend president at the controls. If the economy was in good condition, I would be willing to give Obama at least 4 years to see what he can do. However, we cant have an experiment where some liberal gets to play around with our lives while we're already going under. when someone has to fall back on "tax and spend" and using "liberal" as an epithet, i stop listening. i've been hearing those catchphrases for years as a reactionary substitute for thinking and look where that attitude has gotten us.

look, you're just going to have to get better at this or i'm going to stop playing with you.

We're not decreasing military funding. We're not changing the status quo regarding it either. We live in a dangerous world, and just the thought of decreasing military spending by a penny probably makes terrorists(and certain countries) foam at the mouth.see what i said above about wasting money not making us any safer. just pouring money into the military and thinking that's protecting america is naive. what's a missile defense system do to stop terrorists? an incredibly expensive F-22 strike fighter? these are boondoggle projects designed to subsidize defense contractors and give them busy work. the thing to do wouldn't be to just keep throwing money at old problems but really rethink the military in a way designed to fight a counterinsurgency. the way i see it, this would probably involve counterintelligence, small squad and special forces tactics, things like that that are more street level. right now we're pouring money into cold-war style projects and that's making the contractors rich but it's not making us any safer. in fact it's probably endangering us because if troops get attacked in iraq right now, theyre likely to call in an air strike that levels a city block, because that's what they have available to them. and that creates ten terrorists for every one it kills.

smarter, not bigger and more expensive. that's the idea. as long as you're big government borrow-and-spender on outdated cold-war military hardware and starve-america on spending at home, it's just going to get worse because that's the kind of thinking that's gotten us where we are in the first place.

Of course its getting old to you. I'm one of the few people here who don't blindly agree with this liberal mantra. Since my words apparently aren't good enough for discussion with you, I'll let some links do the talking instead.

By the way, you never "refuted" me.
so first, let's actually have a scrap of evidence for the above claim. otherwise i'll ignore it as a baseless accusation made but not demonstrated. i mean yes, he could also be a secret muslim or a green lizard but saying it doesn't make it so.no, because it isn't true. his plan is to lower taxes for the middle class and raise taxes on the uber-rich, which would serve to correct the tax inequalities created over the last eight years of tax cuts for the rich and would actually generate more revenue because the middle class actually spends money on goods and services, whereas the rich tend to hoard wealth (by definition, hence they're rich) or invest in speculative ventures or financial bubbles of various kinds that pay dividends to them but produce nothing of value and in fact damage the economy by undermining the reliability of america's financial fundamentals, leading to things like the california energy crisis and the real estate collapse. keep rewarding that with tax cuts, get more of the same. bolster the middle class, we start shifting to an economy where real money is paid for real goods, which is where we need to be.


http://www.wsj.com/article/SB121910303529751345.html?mod=most_emailed_day

http://www.heritage.org/research/Taxes/wm1973.cfm

http://www.american.com/archive/2008/august-08-08/the-folly-of-obama2019s-tax-plan

http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/26133279.html

http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/election08/articles/2008/08/28/20080828demcon0828promises.html

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56405

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/obamas_gloomy_biggovernment_vi.html

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/clinton-obama-vs.-pay-go-2008-01-15.html



plus you've ignored what i've said about wasteful spending at the pentagonI didn't intentionally ignore it. As you can tell by my posts, I try and go line by line quoting posts. It gets a bit tedious, and I may forget a certain section to break down. I guess this is what Chucky meant by my "glossing over" certain points.




when someone has to fall back on "tax and spend" and using "liberal" as an epithet, i stop listening. i've been hearing those catchphrases for years as a reactionary substitute for thinking and look where that attitude has gotten us.How is it any different from your anti Reagan rhetoric? I forgot, its ok for you to use such terms but not ok for others to do so.


look, you're just going to have to get better at this or i'm going to stop playing with you. At least you admit its a game.


see what i said above about wasting money not making us any safer. just pouring money into the military and thinking that's protecting america is naive. what's a missile defense system do to stop terrorists? an incredibly expensive F-22 strike fighter? these are boondoggle projects designed to subsidize defense contractors and give them busy work. the thing to do wouldn't be to just keep throwing money at old problems but really rethink the military in a way designed to fight a counterinsurgency. the way i see it, this would probably involve counterintelligence, small squad and special forces tactics, things like that that are more street level. right now we're pouring money into cold-war style projects and that's making the contractors rich but it's not making us any safer. in fact it's probably endangering us because if troops get attacked in iraq right now, theyre likely to call in an air strike that levels a city block, because that's what they have available to them. and that creates ten terrorists for every one it kills.

smarter, not bigger and more expensive. that's the idea. as long as you're big government borrow-and-spender on outdated cold-war military hardware and starve-america on spending at home, it's just going to get worse because that's the kind of thinking that's gotten us where we are in the first place.Who said a missile defense system is meant to stop terrorists? Its meant to stop ICBMs. Last time I checked, terrorists didn't have an army with such missile technology. I have no idea where you live, but I'm assuming if Russia or China launched a missile at your city, you might have a slight interest in a missile defense system being close enough to you for a possible shoot down.

How is protecting cities a "boondoggle"?

You advocating killing the F-22? That's interesting. What do you propose using as an Air Force? F-15s and F-16s are being retired at a rapid pace. You do realize that the F-22's role is to replace out of date aircraft?

Would you also consider the B-2 bomber a "boondoggle"?


I do agree with your assessment of the need to revamp our army and marines. While we do need large amounts of ground troops in the event of a major war(Russia, China, a wider mideast conflict,etc.), we need to move towards lighter forces that can easily be dropped in war zones without turning each conflict into a quagmire. In this fashion, urban or jungle warfare can be fought with less casualties on us and less casualties on innocent civilians in the conflict. What do you propose doing with a massive standing army? Throwing them into the reserves? Not necessarily that bad of an idea, but you are then forced to retrain all these people. This of course requires government loans, grants, relocation,etc. Then take a look at the current job market.

These sorts of drastic changes just aren't feasible at this time.

interesting all those links are either far right (wsj) or radical reactionary right (worldnetdaily) publications, of the sample i've clicked on so far.

i can't find anything on the $1000 income tax credit on obama's website, but if the wsj is right in that it would only go to people who pay very little in taxes now, that's probably good. the $600 payoff the bush people gave us has given us the biggest budget deficit in history this year. our kids are gonna be paying that back with interest, and it only paid off in a very short-term boost to the economy, sorta like a hit off a crack pipe. the line about the rich being america's "most productive citizens" in that article shows a snobbish disdain for the working class and an esteem for the elite and privileged that i simply do not share. i think the people in the super-high income brackets have not been doing their fair share the last eight years while the rest of us suffer.

the line about the $250,000-and-up income earners getting a hike in their social security taxes is kinda amusing to me. do these people really need social security? wasn't that originally intended as a safety net?

i have to skim over a bunch of this stuff because it's accounting claptrap but at the end he says

"Overall, the bottom 60% of income earners pay less than 1% of federal income taxes on net."

i rather suspect this figure. first of all, what's the meaning of this term "on net"? and also, it's totally disingenuous to lay this figure out as "federal income." most high-income earners make their money on dividends and capital gains, not income. that's for people who work, not people who invest. so really what this misleading figure is meant to convey is that inferior working people are parasitic to the superior ruling classes, not doing their fair share and sucking up public programs without giving back to society the way rich people do. it's claptrap, but that whole attitude of elitist assumption of the superiority of the rich is all through this entire article.

so i guess i ask you, then: if it's true that the working people of this country DON'T pay their fair share of taxes, exactly how much would YOU increase taxes on the working and middle classes in order to make it fair? because taking this article to its logical conclusion, that's what the government has to do to alleviate the put-upon rich in america of their onerous burden.

and they call obama elitist. it's amazing they get away with that stuff.

as for the rest of it, i dunno, if you think we need F-22s to fight people using suicide bombs, i don't know what to tell you. we can replace the F-15s and etc. but we don't have to spend $200 billion to do it. it's ridiculous, who else is spending $200 billion on next-generation fighter planes? the aerospace people are laughing all the way to the bank. i dunno, it's just silly on its face to defend that stuff unless you actually work for one of these companies, man. if you're one of the ones paying the bill, like me, it's just dumb to defend this stuff. you might as well throw your money away.

oh, and p.s.: drastic changes aren't just feasible, they're absolutely essential. the status quo is killing us, that's the point. until we man up and realize we really need to turn this around, things are just gonna get worse.

it's probably like alcoholism, america's gonna have to hit rock bottom before we realize the true extent of the changes necessary. till then i think i'll just follow the football season.

How is it any different from your anti Reagan rhetoric? I forgot, its ok for you to use such terms but not ok for others to do so.
reagan is a person, and a very specific brand of economic and foreign policy based on trickle-down economics, flambouyant deficit spending and foreign policy based on brinksmanship. "liberal" is a broad term encompassing a kaleidoscope of often conflicting political ideologies. it's also approximately half the country. so i don't think the comparison is valid. i try very hard not to use the word "conservative" as an epithet, and when i do i deserve to be called on it. both are silly generalizations. but criticizing a specific former president and a specific ideology is completely different.

Todd Palin was apparently once a member of a radical Alaska secessionist party.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/todd_palin_was_registered_memb.php

So much for "Country First". We're gonna elect a woman whose husband advocates treason as Vice President? Apparently he left the party in 2002, the same year Sarah first ran for statewide office. I wonder what Sarah has to say about her husband's traitorous activities, did she ever share those beliefs? This is very disturbing.

Face it, you liberals fell into your own Obama vs Palin trap, and now you guys are like chickens with your heads cut off trying to figure out what to do. For some reason you're not comprehending that the more you attack her and keep up the "lets compare pres candidate Obama's resume to VP candidate Palin's resume" game, you fall even deeper into your own trap. Its comical.

Next week's polls will reflect your mistake, and you'll still be wondering what to do. I'm willing to bet the next move will be...

*drum roll please*
Attack Palin.


you can continue to think that, but I'll wait for the polls..  we'll see the typical post convention bounce and then the numbers will settle back where they were.  Not that you follow polls of course



Uh, lots of people. Her speech had more viewers than Obama's. She is also the number one search on yahoo(been that way all week). She is turning into a massive cash cow for the GOP.

Lets all keep talking about her(good, bad, or both) so all those stats keep increasing.


yeah.. bad news never hurts right?  I changed my mind, I have to agree, keep her name out there.  Right now there's still a lot of "I'll vote for the woman because I'm a woman" dimwits out there.  The more they discuss her, the more of those people will finally realize she's not much of a pick.


More resume comparisons and nothing about change or issues facing americans?

Obama's not in charge of the "liberal media".  He can't direct the reporters to ask better questions.


Sweeeeeeeeet.
And I hope they keep digging. In fact, I hope they dig until a nanosecond before the polls open.
While I would have agreed with that sentiment right before the pick, I strongly disagree now because the liberals turned her into a dangerous weapon by their constant attacks on her.

You stirred up a hornet's nest and your solution is to try and stir it up even more.


I honestly doubt it's going to play out how you think.  It's pretty sad to see her and McCain playing the gender card within two days of her being picked.  "Oh they wouldn't treat a man this way".  It might fool a few people, but you can't fool them all.

http://www.poynter.org//resource/public/20080904_115837_29014.jpg

look, he wanted Sarah even back in 2004!

http://www.poynter.org//resource/public/20080904_115837_29014.jpg

look, he wanted Sarah even back in 2004!
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/04/18/30-rock-mccain-fundraisers-and-cool-republican-celebrities/

"what's the committee to re-invade vietnam?"

interesting all those links are either far right (wsj) or radical reactionary right (worldnetdaily) publications, of the sample i've clicked on so far.
Also interesting that every other link here is from a far left website. Let me guess...we aren't allowed to have it both ways?

I don't have the time at the moment to go line by line on the economic aspect of your post, but if I "gloss over" something, I'll elaborate later tonight.
so i guess i ask you, then: if it's true that the working people of this country DON'T pay their fair share of taxes, exactly how much would YOU increase taxes on the working and middle classes in order to make it fair?Did I ever say I wanted the taxes increased on the working class? The current tax rate is about as fair as its gonna get. Bush's spending policies(which are actually liberal in nature and why the dem congress loves it) is whats played a huge role in our economic stagnation, NOT his tax policy. You are obviously intelligent, and its amazing that you think increasing spending is gonna lead us to salvation.

I'll comment on the military aspect and also Chucky's post later this evening.

Did I ever say I wanted the taxes increased on the working class? no, but the attitudes espoused in the WSJ article lead inevitably to it. read what i wrote again. if you take it as a given that the rich pay too much in taxes, but we're also running a deficit, it follows that the working class and middle class need to pay more to make up for it. so i ask again: how much?

You are obviously intelligent, and its amazing that you think increasing spending is gonna lead us to salvation.i'm not advocating increased spending. i'm advocating shifting the tax burden to alleviate the lopsided pro-wealthy tax policies set up under bush 43, reducing wasteful spending on boondoogle and poorly managed military projects that don't help us, and directing more money to domestic spending that will end up benefiting the country financially in the long run by stabilizing our infrastructure, bringing manufacturing and jobs back to america, and transitioning to alternative energies. i'm saying if we're gonna pay taxes, let's see something for it. let's quit pouring it into contracts with substandard accountability, where it just disappears, or turning it into 2000-pound terrorist-making bombs and blowing it up halfway around the world. our public funds could benefit most of us, not just the top 1% of the top 1%.

i should probably just cut and paste from previous posts. you keep repeating yourself, which is forcing me to repeat myself.

Cut taxes + cut spending = Reaganomics...not really, although they do in fact say that a lot. reaganomics is founded on cutting taxes and cutting domestic spending but devising faux military crises in order to borrow money and drive up military spending. that's the pattern we saw during the cold war and it's the pattern we're seeing now. the line always is, "well, if it weren't for the russians/iranians/iraqis/qaddafi/noriega or whoever the enemy du jour is, we'd cut military spending and balance the budget." but under reaganomics that day will never come, because then they'd have to cut defense spending and actually admit that there's a "peace dividend" and getting their hands on those massive defense expenditures are a core part of their strategy.

Whoooooyaaaah! Heard the news???

Associated Press News reports 40 MILLION watched Palin speak.....to Obamas 38 MILLION!
:o



I watch Palin speak.  I also like horror flicks too. :)

^ Ah.

Obama actually generated more audience overall, because his 38M viewers were counted before the estimates for the PBS and random other channels were counted into the total...Palin's 40M is pretty much counting everything.

They should debate like crazy now so we see which candidate cracks first :D

I watch Palin speak.  I also like horror flicks too. :)
whenever someone cites fox news' ratings, i always say, "yes, professional wrestling is popular too. that doesn't mean the people who watch it think it's real."

Whats funny about that is Obama offers nothing but the status quo. Like you(and several others here), I voted for Obama in the CA primary. Was the most moronic choice I have ever made at the polls. I started doing some digging and actually read the crap all the Obama brigade worships like the Bible, and I realized that he's nothing more than Bush III without the tax cuts. If I could go back, I would have voted for Hillary.

That plan doesn't work under Obama, unless you are willing to admit that he's all about massive spending programs and huge tax increases.

You willing to admit that?

I agree there has to be some progressive thinking on these types of issues, but this economy is in shambles at the moment and we don't need a tax and spend president at the controls. If the economy was in good condition, I would be willing to give Obama at least 4 years to see what he can do. However, we cant have an experiment where some liberal gets to play around with our lives while we're already going under.

We're not decreasing military funding. We're not changing the status quo regarding it either. We live in a dangerous world, and just the thought of decreasing military spending by a penny probably makes terrorists(and certain countries) foam at the mouth.
You call that change? ;D Thats someone else doing the change and him voting for it. Big deal. Maybe we should have every other politician who voted yes on that run for president.
Thanks for posting that. Just proved you are one of the people on the Obama brigade who are voting for him blindly without doing a drop of research.

Chew on these links for awhile....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/25/obamas-lobbyists-connecti_n_103474.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-04-15-obama_n.htm

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/09/23/in_illinois_obama_dealt_with_lobbyists/

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/07/despite-rhetori.html

there's plenty more....
Of course you're not going to. You cant.
That's hilarious. I'm an independent that has and will vote for either side. I guess because I'm able to think for myself makes you think I'm a republican. Funny.
I knew you were gonna say something like that. You're incapable of debating these topics so issue a cop out when someone arrives on the scene who actually knows what they're talking about. Says much more about you than it does about me.

People like Chucky and Tia(and others) I respect. While I may disagree with most of what they say, at least they use intelligence while debating and actually believe in what they are saying. I hope you follow through on being "through" with me, because I'm certainly not gonna continue debating someone who doesn't even comprehend the basic issues at hand.





HOW DARE YOU QUESTION MY INTELLIGENCE!!!! You don't know anything about me. You don't know what I am capable of and what I am Not. For your information, I happen to be an Independent. I see through the B.S. that BOTH parties try to shove down our throats. It just so happen that during this campaign there is MORE B.S. coming from the Repubs than from the Dems.

I understand the issues all right. I understand that the issues are NOT going to get fixed by someone's personality, or someone's ability to pander to their party. They are going to get fixed by someone with intelligence. They are going to get fixed by someone who realizes WHAT actually needs to be fixed rather than what is best for themselves.

No, I wasn't going to respond to you because like I said, no matter what I say, your mind is already made up so why should I waste my time trying to convince you otherwise. Then you attack me personally, I have to say something. And that seems to go in line with the Repubs these days. Attack personally to distract from the issues. And BTW, there is a rule on this board about personal attacks.



Cat

http://news.yahoo.com/s/rasmussen/20080905/pl_rasmussen/palinpower20080905

In the short term, this would appear to have been a very brilliant choice :o

I bet most of the "very favorable" vote comes from horny men though :D

http://news.yahoo.com/s/rasmussen/20080905/pl_rasmussen/palinpower20080905

In the short term, this would appear to have been a very brilliant choice :o

I bet most of the "very favorable" vote comes from horny men though :D
funny, out of the four biden would still probably make the best president, and he's polling the lowest. i think americans in general are like that guy who likes to wear diapers and hire women to call him nasty names and torture his balls. if you follow me.

I think Biden doesn't have the inspirational ability of Obama though. 

I think Biden doesn't have the inspirational ability of Obama though. 
that's true, but neither does mccain have the inspirational value of what'sherface bikini moosedresser. i'd like to see the demo ticket flipped, so obama would still bring the inspirational thing without being liable to the lack-of-experience charge.

Nothing wrong with a young dude in office, maybe he hasn't gotten jaded by life yet and actually believes he can change the world :D

that's true, but neither does mccain have the inspirational value of what'sherface bikini moosedresser. i'd like to see the demo ticket flipped, so obama would still bring the inspirational thing without being liable to the lack-of-experience charge.



Pull a fast one, flip the ticket when it comes time to vote.  Doubt people would notice the difference.  LoL.

A fact check about candidates from yahoo.  Kind of interesting. 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080905/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_fact_check;_ylt=Auqe_7HFXuSZcPmaZKjFcY.pg9IF

I watch Palin speak.  I also like horror flicks too. :)

That about sums it up.  The more I learn about this woman the more horror show it becomes.  She's a fanatical funnymentalist who doesn't even want human biology, let alone sex ed., taugth in schools.  She's into the oxymoronic "creation sciences."  She's a "pro-life" militant yet she loves to fire guns at wolves and bears from aircraft.  She used the line-item veto to excise from a bill fil funding for a home for indigent pregnant teens/women.  Yet her own daughter is Juno Alaska, but it's OK because her family is loaded. 

Good-looking?  Hot? That's utterly superficial and I don't give a rip.  Eva Braun was a pretty face too.  As I've said of Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, and the other swastika girls, cosmetic beauty is skin deep.  True ugliness comes from deep within.  Palin makes my stomach churn!
8-P

http://content.cartoonbox.slate.com/?feature=419fcf1268d2945b4ceb02409fe3f675

oh dear.

http://content.cartoonbox.slate.com/?feature=419fcf1268d2945b4ceb02409fe3f675

oh dear.

I figgered I wasn't the first to pick up on the pun!
;)

Also interesting that every other link here is from a far left website. Let me guess...we aren't allowed to have it both ways?


um, you're claiming to be an independent but posting strictly right wing sources.  If all you read are right wing pundits, you're not really evaluating both sides.

 Eva Braun was a pretty face too. 

Eva Braun?  Eewww....  8-P

Not even with yours, Max...  ;)

Eva Braun?  Eewww....  8-P

Not even with yours, Max...  ;)
http://img.imageloop.com/slideshow/470e8d5c-ab7e-1143-ab0d-0015c5fcf7da/content/016201bc-8e14-199b-aa24-0015c5fcf7da_1193413403102,rh750/eva-braun-1.jpg

and i bet she knew how to skin a moose!

and i bet she knew how to skin a moose!


If by "skin" you mean "fry", and if by "moose" you mean something that rhymes with "shoe"...

If by "skin" you mean "fry", and if by "moose" you mean something that rhymes with "shoe"...
well, practice makes perfect.

where's agoraphobic wacko? i miss him already.  :\'(