I haven't heard anything from Obama saying he's committed to ending the Iraq War
Try listening more. He's for a withdrawal over a year and a half, two brigades a month. Which the Iraqi government, such as it is, thinks is a good idea.
Remember, the Vietnam War was prolonged by a Democratic president, LBJ.
And remember that it was escalated by Nixon.
Democrats have historically been the ones most interested in military interventionism overseas.
Baseless assertion.
Furthermore, Obama has said he'll consider using nuclear weapons against Iran.
That's probably all true. It's also a little obnoxious that Obama has gone to the same black-power racist church for 20 years, but somehow missed all the racist sermons there every week. Either he's a Black Panthers sympathizer, or completely incompetent to do anything but clean toilets for a living.
Or maybe you're just searching for false equivalency. Try actually watching the sermons in question - there isn't an iota of racism in them.
All I did was point out that you threw out baseless insults.
Too bad you're wrong...
Calling him senile due to not knowing how many houses he owns is an insult. In fact, senile is an incredibly insensitive word -- certainly more full of bigotry than the Celebrity ad you seem so hellbent on bringing up (for the record, I never once saw that as racist... and I still have a hard time connecting the dots as you did..
Maybe you should try harder. On half a dozen occasions McCain said that Sunni Al Queda was going to Shiite Iran for training, which is completely false. Once could be a slip of the tongue. Twice is a serious gaffe for the "experience" candidate. Three or more times and you're either lying through your teeth (like the Administrations claims of ties between Iraq and Al Queda) or you've got real mental problems. Calling him senile is actually being charitable since it assumes that McCain isn't lying.
As for ads, McCain has run that says McCain is the "American president America has been waiting for." Funny that, since you have to be born an American citizen to run for president. Or "The One" ad with it's subtext of false prophets...aka the anti-Christ. And of course the ad the parent mentioned, where images of pretty white girls are juxtoposed by pictures of Obama and the Washington Monument and the Leaning Tower of Pizza...big phallic symbols. No, I'm not kidding, just watchthem.
Even if they high profile guy in question has specifically said that he doesn't think Obama is ready to be president?
Yawn. If we're going by statements made in the primary, how about we take some comments from McCain's former rivals, who were far more vicious than Hillary ever was. Or from his Republican colleagues in the Senate who said McCain was too hot tempered or a RINO. Or some of Limbaugh's comments trashing McCain.
But then if you didn't have absurd double standards, your wingnut merit badge would be revoked on the spot.
How many autoworkers will vote for Obama, when he wants the government to make them cars not everyone wants to buy?
You're Very Concerned today, stork. Detroit is in the crapper because they're making the exact same mistakes they made in the 70's: they kept focusing on big, gas guzzling vehicles as the price of oil went through the roof. And they had the same result: the Japanese (and now the Koreans) came in and at their lunch. If Congress had mandated great fuel efficiency, it would have saved Detroit from itself and GM wouldn't have lost almost $70 billion in the last few years.
I didn't dodge anything, other than to challenge your reading comprehension skills.
Is that so, Mr. Pot. Try re-reading, and this time pay attention to the fact that America's top income earners pay a lower tax rate than their secretaries.
The Poor people don't pay taxes. In fact, they often get more back then they ever thought of paying in.
Liar. Those who don't make enough money to pay income tax still have payroll taxes. Those who don't have a job still pay sales and property taxes. Which is why idiot wingnuts focus on the income tax: so you can ignore much of the taxes the middle and lower classes pay.
How is the government "giving even more money to the rich?"
By taxing them at a much lower rate, obviously. Warren Buffet bet Fortune 400 CEO's a million dollars if they could prove they paid a higher tax rate than their secretaries. None of them has been able to collect.
George Sorros and Move On are a prime example of one person doing much more than he should be able to in influencing our public policy.
Nice of you to mention the token liberal providing funding to a grass roots group, as opposed to lobbyists or Richard Mellon Scaife, who's thrown billions at conservative rags and think tanks since before George Soros was in proverbial diapers. Hack.
For a family of 4 making $60,000 a year, that would be an extra $4000 a year in tax liability.
Rather convenient that you ignore Obama's middle class tax cut which will be 4 times larger than McCain's.
You simply don't fix anything by tearing down the successful people.
Spare us the elitism. Warren Buffet bet Fortune 400 CEO's a million dollars if they could prove they paid a higher tax rate than their secretaries. No one has collected.
It never ceases to amaze how uninformed people can be about the role of Government as depicted in the U.S. Constitution.
Is that so, Mr. Pot? The Constitution explicitly states as one of the responsibilities of our government is to "promote the general welfare." It's so important it's mentioned twice - in the preamble, and in Article I, Section 8.
Last time I checked, a democratic government's responsibility was to provide safety and protection for its people
Keeping some semblence of income equality is providing safety and protection for it's people, so you don't have food riots or revolutions. In the Great Depression, we could have swung to either fascism or communism so it's a good thing we had the New Deal to save capitalism.
Nice how you didn't mention the income disparity - it's at the highest rate since just before the great depression - along with tax rates. The top.1% of Americans earned almost as much as the bottom 150 million Americans. And focusing only on income taxes is a classic dodge that ignores the taxes that make a significant percentage of the middle classes tax burden.
Speaking of tax burdens, those who make their income through investments rather than a wage pay a much lower tax rate - 15%. Warren Buttet bet Fortune 400 CEO's a million dollars if they proved they paid a higher tax rate than their secretaries. So far no one has collected.
Because it's at the highest rate since the late 1920's. What happened then, stork? Something really Great.
Seriously. If you want a billion dollars, start a company that can make a billion dollars. If you don't, then don't bitch about your laziness, stupidity, or lack of luck.
Spare us the elitism. Worker productivity has increased dramatically while wages have stagnated. Giant companies like IBM lay off thousands of American workers at a time while continuing to import H1-B workers. Investment firms take crazy risks and get bailed out by the government when they crash and burn, yet the middle class is SOL on credit card debt and ARMs. Billionaire CEO's and hedge fund managers pay a lower tax rate than the janitors that clean their office bathrooms. Warren Buffet bet Forture 400 CEO's a million dollars if they could prove they paid a higher tax rate than their secretaries. Guess how many have collected so far? Zero.
I can't believe you honestly believe there's a difference between Republicans and Democrats despite all evidence to the contrary.
Nader said one of the dumbest things in the history of the human race when he claimed there would be no difference between Bush and Gore in the White House - and that was 8 years ago. Now it's exponentially more idiotic to make such a claim given what's happened since Bush took office.
Sure, enough rotten Dems join with the GOP to get horrible legislation passed - but a partly rotten party is infinitely more preferable to a 100% rotten party.
Sure, half of the Democratic party is rotten, but 100% of the Republic Party is rotten. Look at just about any issue - telecom immunity, Kyl-Lieberman: half the Demcratic party votes the wrong way, but 100% of the Republic party votes the wrong way.
When? Gun control disappeared as a big issue along with violent crime rates - and I doubt the GOP controlled Senate brought many gun control bills to the floor.
The problem with NRA type voters is that they are full of shit. Like the ones in 2004 who said they couldn't vote for Kerry because he supported gun control and then went ahead and voted for Bush - who said he supported existing gun control laws and would re-sign the assault weapons ban. Or when they spew the tired old "soap box, ballot box, ammo box" line yet don't lift a finger when someone actually uses a firearm on law enforcement in self-defense. If the NRA walked the walk, they would have breaking down the doors of Randy Weaver and Cory Maye with $10,000 an hour lawyers after they shot LEOs in self defense. But when someone actually uses their 2nd amendment rights against oppressive government the NRA is nowhere to be found.
The immunity amendment was a red herring, a fig leaf meant to give cover to cowardly Dems (like Obama) to make a show of opposing immunity while voting for the bill with immunity in it. Much like with the Alito nomination, the important vote was the cloture vote. Joe Lieberman voted against Alito's nomination, but he voted for cloture knowing full well there were 50 votes to confirm the nomination.
And as far as "not wanting to appear weak on national security", Dems cave (thus showing weakness) and will get attacked by the GOP regardless. Just ask Tom Dashle, who bent over backwards to accommodate the GOP's every military demand and they drove him out of office anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
I haven't heard anything from Obama saying he's committed to ending the Iraq War
Try listening more. He's for a withdrawal over a year and a half, two brigades a month. Which the Iraqi government, such as it is, thinks is a good idea.
Remember, the Vietnam War was prolonged by a Democratic president, LBJ.
And remember that it was escalated by Nixon.
Democrats have historically been the ones most interested in military interventionism overseas.
Baseless assertion.
Furthermore, Obama has said he'll consider using nuclear weapons against Iran.
When, and given what provocation.
That's probably all true. It's also a little obnoxious that Obama has gone to the same black-power racist church for 20 years, but somehow missed all the racist sermons there every week. Either he's a Black Panthers sympathizer, or completely incompetent to do anything but clean toilets for a living.
Or maybe you're just searching for false equivalency. Try actually watching the sermons in question - there isn't an iota of racism in them.
All I did was point out that you threw out baseless insults.
Too bad you're wrong...
Calling him senile due to not knowing how many houses he owns is an insult. In fact, senile is an incredibly insensitive word -- certainly more full of bigotry than the Celebrity ad you seem so hellbent on bringing up (for the record, I never once saw that as racist... and I still have a hard time connecting the dots as you did..
Maybe you should try harder. On half a dozen occasions McCain said that Sunni Al Queda was going to Shiite Iran for training, which is completely false. Once could be a slip of the tongue. Twice is a serious gaffe for the "experience" candidate. Three or more times and you're either lying through your teeth (like the Administrations claims of ties between Iraq and Al Queda) or you've got real mental problems. Calling him senile is actually being charitable since it assumes that McCain isn't lying.
As for ads, McCain has run that says McCain is the "American president America has been waiting for." Funny that, since you have to be born an American citizen to run for president. Or "The One" ad with it's subtext of false prophets...aka the anti-Christ. And of course the ad the parent mentioned, where images of pretty white girls are juxtoposed by pictures of Obama and the Washington Monument and the Leaning Tower of Pizza...big phallic symbols. No, I'm not kidding, just watch them.
I guess I need to read more Kos).
Yes, you should, you'll learn stuff.
Apparently it is catching, and age isn't a factor. Obama thinks we have 57 states you know.
Apples to oranges, but you knew that already. One is a slip of the tongue. The other is genuinely not being able to remember how many homes you own.
*cough* Kosovo *cough*.
*cough* WWI *cough*. No reason Europe would want to end a civil war in it's backyard. No reason at all.
Even if they high profile guy in question has specifically said that he doesn't think Obama is ready to be president?
Yawn. If we're going by statements made in the primary, how about we take some comments from McCain's former rivals, who were far more vicious than Hillary ever was. Or from his Republican colleagues in the Senate who said McCain was too hot tempered or a RINO. Or some of Limbaugh's comments trashing McCain.
But then if you didn't have absurd double standards, your wingnut merit badge would be revoked on the spot.
How many autoworkers will vote for Obama, when he wants the government to make them cars not everyone wants to buy?
You're Very Concerned today, stork. Detroit is in the crapper because they're making the exact same mistakes they made in the 70's: they kept focusing on big, gas guzzling vehicles as the price of oil went through the roof. And they had the same result: the Japanese (and now the Koreans) came in and at their lunch. If Congress had mandated great fuel efficiency, it would have saved Detroit from itself and GM wouldn't have lost almost $70 billion in the last few years.
Translation: you wingnuts are completely incapable of making an argument that isn't 100% based on bullshit, and have no response when called on it.
[Citation needed]
I did, dumbass.
I didn't dodge anything, other than to challenge your reading comprehension skills.
Is that so, Mr. Pot. Try re-reading, and this time pay attention to the fact that America's top income earners pay a lower tax rate than their secretaries.
Bullshit. Bullshit, bullshit.
Yes, you are quite full of bullshit.
The Poor people don't pay taxes. In fact, they often get more back then they ever thought of paying in.
Liar. Those who don't make enough money to pay income tax still have payroll taxes. Those who don't have a job still pay sales and property taxes. Which is why idiot wingnuts focus on the income tax: so you can ignore much of the taxes the middle and lower classes pay.
How is the government "giving even more money to the rich?"
By taxing them at a much lower rate, obviously. Warren Buffet bet Fortune 400 CEO's a million dollars if they could prove they paid a higher tax rate than their secretaries. None of them has been able to collect.
George Sorros and Move On are a prime example of one person doing much more than he should be able to in influencing our public policy.
Nice of you to mention the token liberal providing funding to a grass roots group, as opposed to lobbyists or Richard Mellon Scaife, who's thrown billions at conservative rags and think tanks since before George Soros was in proverbial diapers. Hack.
For a family of 4 making $60,000 a year, that would be an extra $4000 a year in tax liability.
Rather convenient that you ignore Obama's middle class tax cut which will be 4 times larger than McCain's.
You simply don't fix anything by tearing down the successful people.
Spare us the elitism. Warren Buffet bet Fortune 400 CEO's a million dollars if they could prove they paid a higher tax rate than their secretaries. No one has collected.
It never ceases to amaze how uninformed people can be about the role of Government as depicted in the U.S. Constitution.
Is that so, Mr. Pot? The Constitution explicitly states as one of the responsibilities of our government is to "promote the general welfare." It's so important it's mentioned twice - in the preamble, and in Article I, Section 8.
Promote the general welfare, not provide the general welfare.
And how do you do the former without an iota of the latter?
Last time I checked, a democratic government's responsibility was to provide safety and protection for its people
Keeping some semblence of income equality is providing safety and protection for it's people, so you don't have food riots or revolutions. In the Great Depression, we could have swung to either fascism or communism so it's a good thing we had the New Deal to save capitalism.
Nice how you didn't mention the income disparity - it's at the highest rate since just before the great depression - along with tax rates. The top .1% of Americans earned almost as much as the bottom 150 million Americans. And focusing only on income taxes is a classic dodge that ignores the taxes that make a significant percentage of the middle classes tax burden.
Speaking of tax burdens, those who make their income through investments rather than a wage pay a much lower tax rate - 15%. Warren Buttet bet Fortune 400 CEO's a million dollars if they proved they paid a higher tax rate than their secretaries. So far no one has collected.
Why this obsession with income inequality?
Because it's at the highest rate since the late 1920's. What happened then, stork? Something really Great.
Seriously. If you want a billion dollars, start a company that can make a billion dollars. If you don't, then don't bitch about your laziness, stupidity, or lack of luck.
Spare us the elitism. Worker productivity has increased dramatically while wages have stagnated. Giant companies like IBM lay off thousands of American workers at a time while continuing to import H1-B workers. Investment firms take crazy risks and get bailed out by the government when they crash and burn, yet the middle class is SOL on credit card debt and ARMs. Billionaire CEO's and hedge fund managers pay a lower tax rate than the janitors that clean their office bathrooms. Warren Buffet bet Forture 400 CEO's a million dollars if they could prove they paid a higher tax rate than their secretaries. Guess how many have collected so far? Zero.
I can't believe you honestly believe there's a difference between Republicans and Democrats despite all evidence to the contrary.
Nader said one of the dumbest things in the history of the human race when he claimed there would be no difference between Bush and Gore in the White House - and that was 8 years ago. Now it's exponentially more idiotic to make such a claim given what's happened since Bush took office.
Sure, enough rotten Dems join with the GOP to get horrible legislation passed - but a partly rotten party is infinitely more preferable to a 100% rotten party.
Sure, half of the Democratic party is rotten, but 100% of the Republic Party is rotten. Look at just about any issue - telecom immunity, Kyl-Lieberman: half the Demcratic party votes the wrong way, but 100% of the Republic party votes the wrong way.
Actually, Obama lost in many traditionally large democrat hold out states.
So did Hillary. Yawn.
Obama's insecure people with guns getting religion comment pissed quite a few people off.
Only media pundits and Republican concern trolls.
But Obama repeatedly voted for gun control laws
When? Gun control disappeared as a big issue along with violent crime rates - and I doubt the GOP controlled Senate brought many gun control bills to the floor.
Obama has a real problem with NRA type voters.
The problem with NRA type voters is that they are full of shit. Like the ones in 2004 who said they couldn't vote for Kerry because he supported gun control and then went ahead and voted for Bush - who said he supported existing gun control laws and would re-sign the assault weapons ban. Or when they spew the tired old "soap box, ballot box, ammo box" line yet don't lift a finger when someone actually uses a firearm on law enforcement in self-defense. If the NRA walked the walk, they would have breaking down the doors of Randy Weaver and Cory Maye with $10,000 an hour lawyers after they shot LEOs in self defense. But when someone actually uses their 2nd amendment rights against oppressive government the NRA is nowhere to be found.
Biden is a tactical choice to try to win the election; not a choice of "who would actually make the best VP once we win".
He could be good on that front as well. His decades in the Senate will help Obama to get his legislation passed - think LBJ.
The immunity amendment was a red herring, a fig leaf meant to give cover to cowardly Dems (like Obama) to make a show of opposing immunity while voting for the bill with immunity in it. Much like with the Alito nomination, the important vote was the cloture vote. Joe Lieberman voted against Alito's nomination, but he voted for cloture knowing full well there were 50 votes to confirm the nomination.
And as far as "not wanting to appear weak on national security", Dems cave (thus showing weakness) and will get attacked by the GOP regardless. Just ask Tom Dashle, who bent over backwards to accommodate the GOP's every military demand and they drove him out of office anyway.