But I have always liked this idea of a community service requirement. I think countries with mandatory military service have a better sense of community, shared purpose, citizenship. I mean, come on people, compared to being held upside down and shaken every year for endless taxes, this isn't much to ask.
But of course, not everyone is cut out for the military, especially the US military. So I've always thought that the military could be but one of the types of service. I only hope President Obama remembers to include military service as one type of way to serve your country.
It is funny coming from Obama though, since his campaign themes seemed to be more about what your country can do for you. But I'll give the guy a chance in his first 100 days and not be a petulant baby, as the left did to Bush, right out the gate.
Once, just once in my life, I'd like to find an intellectually honest liberal who didn't reflexively jump to ad hominem attacks when their precious little worldviews are challenged. You lefties claim to like dissent, but I guess it is only when it is you doing it. Otherwise, said dissenters are "small minded."
No, I think the "small minded" were the people who said before the election that only racism could explain an Obama loss. As opposed to the fact that a guy who is an empty suit with no resume to speak of, and *zero* legislative accomplishments as a senator might not be qualified to be leader of the free world. POTUS is not supposed to be an entry-level job. I'd like to see some experience first, and his backers actually point to some accomplishments other than "wow, he's so cool!" It's scary, like some fucking cult, seeing these glassy-eyed Obamites looking at him like he is the messiah. And why? What exactly has the guy done, other than be an (admittedly) articulate black man?
So please excuse my "small mind" if I suspect, after hearing so many people talking about the "historic election of a black man as president," that said historic nature of his candidacy might have factored in to some of the Obama voters' minds. Please.
I'm sorry if your scientific sample of your circle friends (who say that raising taxes is good for the economy and bending over and doing what other countries want us to do is best for our foreign policy) tells you otherwise, but IMO, this was the ultimate affirmative action hire, the ultimate leap of faith, about a guy we know nothing about, who has no accomplishments to speak of other than running for office, and hasn't run so much as a taco stand, let alone a city or a state.
Wow, "well-spoken, articulate, extremely intelligent, calm facing the most nasty lies about him, and a genuinely good human being." Sounds like my grandma. Maybe we should make her president!
LOL, I guess you have seen his IQ test and SATs, and have known him personally for years to know all of these things about his character. But wait, I thought character was off limits! We can't talk about the fact that he launched his career at the house of a terrorist, sat in the pew of a racist, America-hating lunatic preacher (his spiritual mentor) for 20 years, and had financial dealings and a personal friendship with a corrupt slumlord. But he's so cool!
Now, go back to your personality cult worship until January 20th, when we will all see how this magical "change" occurs
Him being elected will not fix racism but it is a big step in the right direction.
America just elected a black man as president with the largest popular vote in history (63M+). Seems to me the US has just proven that perhaps Democrats (like Bill Clinton, who called Obama "unelectable," a veiled reference to his race) are simply wrong about how racist America is.
I am so sick of hearing how the US is so racist. The US is the most racially sensitive country on earth, but we can't stop beating ourselves up about slavery and segregation, so we look for racism under every rock. We can't even discuss race honestly without people tiptoeing around things, afraid of being branded the worst thing an American can be called - a racist (it's even worse than child molester or rapist, if Michael Jackson and Roman Polanski tell us anything). Obama was shielded from so much criticism because of this hyper-sensitivity, it made both Hillary's and McCain's jobs impossible. Every criticism was "racist," even things Obama had freely admitted to, like drug use.
You want racial progress? Let's all exhale and say that honest discussions of race - like examining the pathologies of inner city blacks, instead of just dropping money out of helicopters to them - are not racist. Then and only then will we see some racial progress.
Show me some other western democracies who have had black presidents or even SecStates, or have governors and mayors who are black all around the country - in a county with roughly 11% of the population being black. But most Americans do not travel enough, so they don't see who the real racial progressives are.
That doesn't mean I will use the color of his skin to judge his abilities as his president
Well if you voted for Obama, you are one of the few. A white, 47-year-old noobie senator with no resume wouldn't have had a chance in this election. And awful lot of people voted for Barack Obama because he is black, or that was a huge part of their reasoning, and you know it.
Quit being so damned bitter and actually start helping your fellow countrymen instead of being an asshole because your guy didn't win.
Funny you should say this, as this reminds me of something my friend's dad said recently. He's the kind of rich, Orange Country CA, Christian conservative who will be eviscerated by the upcoming Democrat-dominated government. However, he told his son recently, "I of course hope Obama doesn't win, but if he does, I'm going to give him a chance, unlike the left did with Bush."
I think conservatives have a right to be smarting this morning, especially after that coronation by the US media (you can look at this elections coverage by the mainstream media and FOX News is the problem? Really? The other media was fair and balanced? You have got to be kidding), and the fact that McCain was negatively affected by the housing disaster when he was one of the few people in government who tried to do something about it (other than "send a letter").
But unlike the left, conservatives do believe that there is more than one world view and in majority rule, so they will be the loyal opposition to their president (and Congress), instead of whining about this election for 4 (or 8) years. There will be no Obama Derangement Syndrome.
Every time I go into Blockbuster (to return my via-mail DVDs or redeem an in-store coupon), they are blaring the TVs with some gawdawful movie trailer, usually for a movie that would be playing on a 24/7 loop in hell. Now, I am a paying customer ($19.99/mo), so yes, I should dictate what my ears are bombarded with. And I have never met anyone who likes those blaring trailers either.
There seems to be an increasing roar in the public space that is annoying the crap out of me. Advertisements via overhead page in supermarkets, little spam LCD monitors at gas pumps and checkout lines, even urinals are getting into the act. Personally, I think such guerrilla tactics are called for until the ad industry gets the clue that pestering your customers to death does more harm than good.
I'm actually going to get one of these devices to try at Blockbuster for when I have the misfortune of actually walking into one the stores.
Ironic that you think turning off a telescreen is being a dictator. I'm not sure who would be more vindicated, Orwell or Huxley.
I know this concept has been theorized, but I wasn't aware that current tech actually allows fitting 12,000 people on a USB flash drive! Most impressive compression technology.
I don't think "it doesn't suck" is reason to roll out an upgrade to a perfectly good OS (which, after SP2, XP is), or for end users already using XP to buy it.
The reality is, Microsoft is no longer a growth company due to its market share (what a problem to have!), so the boys in Redmond have to force "upgrades" on their pre-existing installed base. There simply aren't enough new computers being bought with pre-existing products (XP, Office) for MS to make its needed financial goals. So it rolls out a forced upgrade.
In sum, Vista is an operating system that MS needs you to buy, not one that you need to buy. Again, why upgrade?
And who has Netflix's instant streaming (which offers Dr. Who episodes), where should I start? This series has been going for so long, it's almost overwhelming to catch up.
Where should one start with the modern series so he won't be lost?
As a lawyer, I can say that there is dispute on whether law school attracts assholes, or produces them. I'd say it's a combination of both.
All kidding aside, unlike other grad schools which encourage teamwork, law school pits students against each other in many ways. This isn't necessarily a bad thing for advocates, but it does help explain why lawyers tend to be such dicks.
The way American campaigns are financed it's a wonder we have any freedom at all.
John McCain asked Barack Obama to take a pledge to take public funds, which would limit private contributions. Obama agreed, then broke the pledge once he realized how much more money he could raise from lobbyists.
Well I'm assuming you are not a journalist and you learned these things through the media which disproves your argument.
Uh, no, I am referring to mainstream media bias, like ABC CBS NBC/MSNBC Newsweek Time AP Reuters Wash Post LA Times NY Times USA Today NPR, get it? None of them are reporting this stuff, and unfortunately, most people still get their news from these sources.. I get it from alternative sources like blogs, and yes, the dreaded Fox News (can we get away from this nonsenseical idea that anything Fox says is somehow illegitimate? The question should be why other "journalists" are not asking these things). But on its best night, FNC gets 4M viewers in a country of roughly 100M voters. You do the math as to why this is a problem.
why haven't they smeared McCain's character as being a spoiled brat who had to pull strings to get into the naval academy, an then barely managed to pass (5th from the bottom of his class of 900 students)? Why haven't we heard about how he crashed several of our planes? Why haven't we heard all about his confessions?
Actually, McCain wrote about his being a bad student in his biography. But he finished and served his country with distinction. Apparently serving your country as a cadet while not graduating at the top of your class as a young person 40+ years ago is newsworthy, but doing cocaine as a young person is not newsworthy. Right, McCain is the one with the misspent youth. Obama partying with coke, that's the real good character guy. Unbelievable.
But I think even the MSM liberal reporters know you can't attack McCain's character. Nobody has ever alleged he has been a dirty politician (except by the guilty-by-association attacks that you say are unfair to do to Obama). Yet the LA Times just did a cheap hit piece on McCain's plane accidents (again, a soldier serving his country in wartime gets in an accident, he's bad, but some guy not serving his country does coke on purpose, he's the good guy). Talk about a cheap shot. How can you be such a heartless SOB to a serviceman who, in one of those "crashes" caused by a SAM, ended up in Haiphong Harbor with broken arms and a leg and spend 4+ years in a prison camp being beaten? And he spent an extra two years as a POW because the "spoiled" McCain turned down early release that was offered precisely because he was the son of the CINC. This is the vaunted liberal compassion? You sound like a vicious, heartless person to talk like this.
If only Obama and other liberals were as honest about their contempt for military service as you are.
That said, he's still a privileged piece of shit.
McCain spoiled? The guy lived on military bases and communities in modest homes. He did not come from money. His family lived on a paltry naval salary. He saw his father very rarely, since his dad was in the Navy. Everyone has to pull strings to get into the US Naval Academy. You need to be recommended by a senator to get in. So McCain married a hot rich chick when he was middle-aged. Don't be a hater. Kerry (you know, the guy who had three draft deferments before he went to Vietnam, and split after four months by getting some chickenshit purple heart because some rice exploded on him) married an ugly rich chick, and it worked for him.
How is being a Navy brat who served his country in wartime as a soldier and POW a "spoiled" upbringing, as opposed to Obama partying and not serving his country? If McCain was so "spoiled," why didn't he avoid the rigors of Annapolis and Vietnam and go to Harvard, like his party-like-a-rockstar opponent did? How does a brain think like this?
As far as criticizing someone who breaks under years of torture, that is so beyond the pale I am not even going to address it, especially to the type of liberal who likely criticizes the Bush administration for doing brief waterboarding as cruel and unreliable. Not to mention, liberals like yourself were so brave they ran to Canada when they faced being drafted. Yes, you, anyone who would say anything like that is an absolute coward, and a disgrace for someone of a the political persuasion that claims to have a monopoly on compassion.
You really don't even know what the words "fair" or "objective" mean do you?
Exposure to Fox News can be hazardous to your intelligence.
As opposed to your deep-thinking response.
I guess you oh-so-smart libs can just make ad hominem attacks instead of actually debating. How exactly are those 9 points not relevant? Or is it that only Republicans deserve media scrutiny?
This is bullshit. Thousands of man-hours are spent investigating the lives and pasts of those who seek the Presidency. Not only the media but also the political opposition. The truth is there is nothing glaringly negative in Obama's past.
Say what? Here's a guy with a very brief resume, so we have to look into his past (less so that with McCain or Biden, since they have extensive record in public). So let's see the things the mainstream media has not dug into:
1) Obama rose to prominence through the Chicago Machine, a system so notoriously dirty it's a cliche. Where is the Palin-like digging into that?
2) Obama wears this community organizer thing on his sleeve as if it really means something other than partisan rabble-rouser. WTF did he accomplish?
3) What were and are his ties to ACORN, the wildly partisan and corrupt get-out-the-dead-vote organization?
4) What about his ties to William Ayers, in whose living room he essentially launched his political career. The Ayers who tried to blow up the Pentagon and only didn't get life in prison due to a botched investigation that got evidence thrown out. Rather than deny it, Ayers said on 9/11 his only regret was "not doing more."
5) Tony Rezko, slumlord, Obama buddy, and general scumbag. Where is the story investigating their ties?
6) Reverend Wright. Where is the penetrating investigation as to why Obama had his children going to this nutty racist's church. The guy he called his "spiritual mentor" who called 9/11 "the chickens coming home to roost." Already covered? Not quite. Obama gives one speech lecturing us on race, and the media nods in approval and drops it. Meanwhile, 25 years later we are still hearing about the "Keating Five" about McCain, something McCain has long since explained away as non-criminal error in judgment. That's fair?
7) Obama's advocacy for the CRA in pressuring and suing banks to make bad home loans. Relevant?
8) Obama's "I sent a letter" nonsense about the mortgage mess, while opposing McCain's reform bill in 2005. Sent a letter? My grandma could have done that. Where's the media scrutiny?
9) Obama's admitted drug use, likely a felony. Apparently off-limits, unlike Bush's supposed DUI two weeks before the election.
I could go on, but it doesn't matter. if you can't see that the media is so far in the tank for Obama for it's scandalous, I can't help you. Never before have I had lower respect for the media. To me, journalism is now up there with phrenology and astrology, a total, absolute scam. They are partisan hacks. 85% of the reporters cover Gore-Bush 2000 voted for Gore. I'll bet this year it's closer to 95%.
Hate to break it to you, but that's not redistributing wealth. That's basically known as paying one's fair share, The wealthy pay more in taxes yes, but they also get more benefit as well. They stand to lose far more than I do were civil disorder to break out and all possessions be smashed.
Silly argument. Yes, this is the reason government was formed - to protect one's shit. But obviously the role of government has evolved into much different role - an opposite role, to be exact - actually taking your shit away and giving it to someone else. This would be called stealing, but not when the government does it. This is now the government's chief function, considering that of its $3T budget, 60% of its expenditures are on entitlements. So the US government's chief role is now redistribution of wealth. Obama just wants to make it worse.
So while hypothetically government "protects" the wealthy, I'd imagine they'd lose a lot less money by taking their chances with no government stealing from them and building a moat. Meanwhile, the "working poor" take $8 in services for every dollar paid (Heritage Foundation - you want a source, you Google it). So no, the wealthy do not get more for their tax dollar. They get a lot less.
"Fair share" is everyone paying the same flat rate (the poor and middle class would still pay less, but the same proportion). But when the bottom 50% of wage earners only pay 3.6% of the taxes, there is something very unfair about that. At some point, people in the bottom third not only pay no taxes, but get net checks from the government. Is this still fair by your world view? At what point does it get unfair?
At some point, a huge portion of the country doesn't pay taxes, and becomes a "gimme" class instead of a "do something for your country class." Too many in the wagon, not enough pulling. I think all citizens, unless *temporarily* out of work, need to be invested enough in the country that they are outside if the wagon, pulling, and being contributing citizens to the state. Otherwise, they are not fully participating in being citizens.
If you've got more wealth, property etc., you're getting more for your tax dollars and as such should be paying more.
You're getting more because you earned it, not because the government took it from someone else and gave it to you. That's like saying rapists get more sex than married guys. Yeah, technically true, but...
And it would be nice if you didn't go mischaracterizing mr. Buffett's comment. He's well known to oppose the sort of careless tax policies you're advocating. He has definitively stated that he doesn't believe he should be paying a lower tax rate than his employees do.
Buffett might be a good investor, but he is being foolish for his clients and being dishonest about his income. First off, doubling the capital gains rate, as Obama wants to do, would dramatically hurt his clients (both by stifling economic growth, and thus hurting BH's share price, and personally for his clients on tax day). If I owned Berkshire Hathaway at $30K+ per share, I'd be furious Buffett said this.
Secondly, Buffett is rich because he holds stock in his own investment fund. In other words, he doesn't even pay himself a salary. So while it is unlikely, it is possible he could pay less income taxes than his secretary - even while he likely paid tens or hundreds of millions in capital gains taxes. And his income tax rate is higher than his secretary. He just doesn't earn income - he earns capital gains. Nice subterfuge though.
The reality is that businesses are flocking to Ireland, which has a corporate tax rate one half that as the US. Now that's a careless tax policy.
"Joe" was a plant. I have little sympathy for him. He was brought up by McCain to try to be the example he couldn't actually find for some 'small guy' being screwed over by Obama's plan.
He was not a plant. Obama showed up at his house for crissakes. How dare Joe walk outside to see what all the fuss is about, and ask questions about Obama's tax plans, that the media should, but isn't asking. Like, how can you give a tax cut to 95% of Americans when nowhere near 95% of Americans actually pay net taxes?
Don't you think it's just a tiny bit strange that the one person McCain uses as an example in the last presidential campaign, someone he brings up over and over, lied about everything about his situation?
I think it's strange that the media has done more digging on a plumber (oh my, he doesn't have a permit to be a plumber - oh noes!) than on the presidential candidate the plumber asked a question of. Every fucking story reporting this - other than Fox News, of course - was attacking Joe for not having a permit/license (a revenue-raising device by greedy cities), for owing taxes, rather than actually addressing the merits of the question Joe had the temerity to ask. Real journalism there, don't ask Obama, "yeah, what about your tax plan hurting small businesses?" Instead, the media defends Obama and shoots the messenger!
Obama has been running for president for two years, and some plumber asks a more digging question than any mainstream media reporter has asked the whole time. No wonder you got suspicious. After all, this is supposed to be a coronation, not an actual election.
Slashdot Mirror
But that was a link to a video of an Obama supporter, so make all the ad hominem attacks you want.
But I have always liked this idea of a community service requirement. I think countries with mandatory military service have a better sense of community, shared purpose, citizenship. I mean, come on people, compared to being held upside down and shaken every year for endless taxes, this isn't much to ask.
But of course, not everyone is cut out for the military, especially the US military. So I've always thought that the military could be but one of the types of service. I only hope President Obama remembers to include military service as one type of way to serve your country.
It is funny coming from Obama though, since his campaign themes seemed to be more about what your country can do for you. But I'll give the guy a chance in his first 100 days and not be a petulant baby, as the left did to Bush, right out the gate.
Once, just once in my life, I'd like to find an intellectually honest liberal who didn't reflexively jump to ad hominem attacks when their precious little worldviews are challenged. You lefties claim to like dissent, but I guess it is only when it is you doing it. Otherwise, said dissenters are "small minded."
No, I think the "small minded" were the people who said before the election that only racism could explain an Obama loss. As opposed to the fact that a guy who is an empty suit with no resume to speak of, and *zero* legislative accomplishments as a senator might not be qualified to be leader of the free world. POTUS is not supposed to be an entry-level job. I'd like to see some experience first, and his backers actually point to some accomplishments other than "wow, he's so cool!" It's scary, like some fucking cult, seeing these glassy-eyed Obamites looking at him like he is the messiah. And why? What exactly has the guy done, other than be an (admittedly) articulate black man?
So please excuse my "small mind" if I suspect, after hearing so many people talking about the "historic election of a black man as president," that said historic nature of his candidacy might have factored in to some of the Obama voters' minds. Please.
I'm sorry if your scientific sample of your circle friends (who say that raising taxes is good for the economy and bending over and doing what other countries want us to do is best for our foreign policy) tells you otherwise, but IMO, this was the ultimate affirmative action hire, the ultimate leap of faith, about a guy we know nothing about, who has no accomplishments to speak of other than running for office, and hasn't run so much as a taco stand, let alone a city or a state.
Wow, "well-spoken, articulate, extremely intelligent, calm facing the most nasty lies about him, and a genuinely good human being." Sounds like my grandma. Maybe we should make her president!
LOL, I guess you have seen his IQ test and SATs, and have known him personally for years to know all of these things about his character. But wait, I thought character was off limits! We can't talk about the fact that he launched his career at the house of a terrorist, sat in the pew of a racist, America-hating lunatic preacher (his spiritual mentor) for 20 years, and had financial dealings and a personal friendship with a corrupt slumlord. But he's so cool!
Now, go back to your personality cult worship until January 20th, when we will all see how this magical "change" occurs
Sorry for being an asshole, but someone had to say it.
You are all such bad influences on me. I used to be nice.
From people who can't spell it.
As a member since law school, show me where FS claims as an official position that America should be a non-secular, Christian nation.
Or STFU.
Many justices think their role - as un-elected, serve-for-life judges - is to make law and policy.
Scalia thinks otherwise. He thinks his role is to follow the Constitution. So much so, that the Federalist Society considers him a hero.
If that makes him insane, I want more crazies on SCOTUS.
They consider them a shil for the 'neo-Republicans' like Bush and pals, and are no better than CNN, MSNBC, etc.
Especially on illegal immigration amnesty.
Him being elected will not fix racism but it is a big step in the right direction.
America just elected a black man as president with the largest popular vote in history (63M+). Seems to me the US has just proven that perhaps Democrats (like Bill Clinton, who called Obama "unelectable," a veiled reference to his race) are simply wrong about how racist America is.
I am so sick of hearing how the US is so racist. The US is the most racially sensitive country on earth, but we can't stop beating ourselves up about slavery and segregation, so we look for racism under every rock. We can't even discuss race honestly without people tiptoeing around things, afraid of being branded the worst thing an American can be called - a racist (it's even worse than child molester or rapist, if Michael Jackson and Roman Polanski tell us anything). Obama was shielded from so much criticism because of this hyper-sensitivity, it made both Hillary's and McCain's jobs impossible. Every criticism was "racist," even things Obama had freely admitted to, like drug use.
You want racial progress? Let's all exhale and say that honest discussions of race - like examining the pathologies of inner city blacks, instead of just dropping money out of helicopters to them - are not racist. Then and only then will we see some racial progress.
Show me some other western democracies who have had black presidents or even SecStates, or have governors and mayors who are black all around the country - in a county with roughly 11% of the population being black. But most Americans do not travel enough, so they don't see who the real racial progressives are.
That doesn't mean I will use the color of his skin to judge his abilities as his president
Well if you voted for Obama, you are one of the few. A white, 47-year-old noobie senator with no resume wouldn't have had a chance in this election. And awful lot of people voted for Barack Obama because he is black, or that was a huge part of their reasoning, and you know it.
Quit being so damned bitter and actually start helping your fellow countrymen instead of being an asshole because your guy didn't win.
Funny you should say this, as this reminds me of something my friend's dad said recently. He's the kind of rich, Orange Country CA, Christian conservative who will be eviscerated by the upcoming Democrat-dominated government. However, he told his son recently, "I of course hope Obama doesn't win, but if he does, I'm going to give him a chance, unlike the left did with Bush."
I think conservatives have a right to be smarting this morning, especially after that coronation by the US media (you can look at this elections coverage by the mainstream media and FOX News is the problem? Really? The other media was fair and balanced? You have got to be kidding), and the fact that McCain was negatively affected by the housing disaster when he was one of the few people in government who tried to do something about it (other than "send a letter").
But unlike the left, conservatives do believe that there is more than one world view and in majority rule, so they will be the loyal opposition to their president (and Congress), instead of whining about this election for 4 (or 8) years. There will be no Obama Derangement Syndrome.
Every time I go into Blockbuster (to return my via-mail DVDs or redeem an in-store coupon), they are blaring the TVs with some gawdawful movie trailer, usually for a movie that would be playing on a 24/7 loop in hell. Now, I am a paying customer ($19.99/mo), so yes, I should dictate what my ears are bombarded with. And I have never met anyone who likes those blaring trailers either.
There seems to be an increasing roar in the public space that is annoying the crap out of me. Advertisements via overhead page in supermarkets, little spam LCD monitors at gas pumps and checkout lines, even urinals are getting into the act. Personally, I think such guerrilla tactics are called for until the ad industry gets the clue that pestering your customers to death does more harm than good.
I'm actually going to get one of these devices to try at Blockbuster for when I have the misfortune of actually walking into one the stores.
Ironic that you think turning off a telescreen is being a dictator. I'm not sure who would be more vindicated, Orwell or Huxley.
12M Taxpayers Lost With USB Stick
I know this concept has been theorized, but I wasn't aware that current tech actually allows fitting 12,000 people on a USB flash drive! Most impressive compression technology.
I don't think "it doesn't suck" is reason to roll out an upgrade to a perfectly good OS (which, after SP2, XP is), or for end users already using XP to buy it.
The reality is, Microsoft is no longer a growth company due to its market share (what a problem to have!), so the boys in Redmond have to force "upgrades" on their pre-existing installed base. There simply aren't enough new computers being bought with pre-existing products (XP, Office) for MS to make its needed financial goals. So it rolls out a forced upgrade.
In sum, Vista is an operating system that MS needs you to buy, not one that you need to buy. Again, why upgrade?
The pulsar, which formed in a supernova explosion about 10,000 years ago, emits 1,000 times the energy of our sun.
1. ??
2. Capture energy with solar panels
3. Profit
And who has Netflix's instant streaming (which offers Dr. Who episodes), where should I start? This series has been going for so long, it's almost overwhelming to catch up.
Where should one start with the modern series so he won't be lost?
As a lawyer, I can say that there is dispute on whether law school attracts assholes, or produces them. I'd say it's a combination of both.
All kidding aside, unlike other grad schools which encourage teamwork, law school pits students against each other in many ways. This isn't necessarily a bad thing for advocates, but it does help explain why lawyers tend to be such dicks.
Supposedly a better bittorrent implimentation on that release.
The way American campaigns are financed it's a wonder we have any freedom at all.
John McCain asked Barack Obama to take a pledge to take public funds, which would limit private contributions. Obama agreed, then broke the pledge once he realized how much more money he could raise from lobbyists.
And guess which lobbyists really, really like Obama?
Well I'm assuming you are not a journalist and you learned these things through the media which disproves your argument.
Uh, no, I am referring to mainstream media bias , like ABC CBS NBC/MSNBC Newsweek Time AP Reuters Wash Post LA Times NY Times USA Today NPR, get it? None of them are reporting this stuff, and unfortunately, most people still get their news from these sources.. I get it from alternative sources like blogs, and yes, the dreaded Fox News (can we get away from this nonsenseical idea that anything Fox says is somehow illegitimate? The question should be why other "journalists" are not asking these things). But on its best night, FNC gets 4M viewers in a country of roughly 100M voters. You do the math as to why this is a problem.
9 points worth of insinuations and no substance. Try again.
I'm sorry, I thought it was the media's jobs to dig. Frankly, I don't have the resources to investigate Barack Obama. The point is, this shit hasn't even been looked at. It's gotten so bad, some journalists are too embarrassed to even tell people they work in the press. As James Taranto has pointed out, even the liberal SNL is asking tougher questions than the media.
why haven't they smeared McCain's character as being a spoiled brat who had to pull strings to get into the naval academy, an then barely managed to pass (5th from the bottom of his class of 900 students)? Why haven't we heard about how he crashed several of our planes? Why haven't we heard all about his confessions?
Actually, McCain wrote about his being a bad student in his biography. But he finished and served his country with distinction. Apparently serving your country as a cadet while not graduating at the top of your class as a young person 40+ years ago is newsworthy, but doing cocaine as a young person is not newsworthy. Right, McCain is the one with the misspent youth. Obama partying with coke, that's the real good character guy. Unbelievable.
But I think even the MSM liberal reporters know you can't attack McCain's character. Nobody has ever alleged he has been a dirty politician (except by the guilty-by-association attacks that you say are unfair to do to Obama). Yet the LA Times just did a cheap hit piece on McCain's plane accidents (again, a soldier serving his country in wartime gets in an accident, he's bad, but some guy not serving his country does coke on purpose, he's the good guy). Talk about a cheap shot. How can you be such a heartless SOB to a serviceman who, in one of those "crashes" caused by a SAM, ended up in Haiphong Harbor with broken arms and a leg and spend 4+ years in a prison camp being beaten? And he spent an extra two years as a POW because the "spoiled" McCain turned down early release that was offered precisely because he was the son of the CINC. This is the vaunted liberal compassion? You sound like a vicious, heartless person to talk like this.
If only Obama and other liberals were as honest about their contempt for military service as you are.
That said, he's still a privileged piece of shit.
McCain spoiled? The guy lived on military bases and communities in modest homes. He did not come from money. His family lived on a paltry naval salary. He saw his father very rarely, since his dad was in the Navy. Everyone has to pull strings to get into the US Naval Academy. You need to be recommended by a senator to get in. So McCain married a hot rich chick when he was middle-aged. Don't be a hater. Kerry (you know, the guy who had three draft deferments before he went to Vietnam, and split after four months by getting some chickenshit purple heart because some rice exploded on him) married an ugly rich chick, and it worked for him.
How is being a Navy brat who served his country in wartime as a soldier and POW a "spoiled" upbringing, as opposed to Obama partying and not serving his country? If McCain was so "spoiled," why didn't he avoid the rigors of Annapolis and Vietnam and go to Harvard, like his party-like-a-rockstar opponent did? How does a brain think like this?
As far as criticizing someone who breaks under years of torture, that is so beyond the pale I am not even going to address it, especially to the type of liberal who likely criticizes the Bush administration for doing brief waterboarding as cruel and unreliable. Not to mention, liberals like yourself were so brave they ran to Canada when they faced being drafted. Yes, you, anyone who would say anything like that is an absolute coward, and a disgrace for someone of a the political persuasion that claims to have a monopoly on compassion.
You really don't even know what the words "fair" or "objective" mean do you?
Exposure to Fox News can be hazardous to your intelligence.
As opposed to your deep-thinking response.
I guess you oh-so-smart libs can just make ad hominem attacks instead of actually debating. How exactly are those 9 points not relevant? Or is it that only Republicans deserve media scrutiny?
This is bullshit. Thousands of man-hours are spent investigating the lives and pasts of those who seek the Presidency. Not only the media but also the political opposition. The truth is there is nothing glaringly negative in Obama's past.
Say what? Here's a guy with a very brief resume, so we have to look into his past (less so that with McCain or Biden, since they have extensive record in public). So let's see the things the mainstream media has not dug into:
1) Obama rose to prominence through the Chicago Machine, a system so notoriously dirty it's a cliche. Where is the Palin-like digging into that?
2) Obama wears this community organizer thing on his sleeve as if it really means something other than partisan rabble-rouser. WTF did he accomplish?
3) What were and are his ties to ACORN, the wildly partisan and corrupt get-out-the-dead-vote organization?
4) What about his ties to William Ayers, in whose living room he essentially launched his political career. The Ayers who tried to blow up the Pentagon and only didn't get life in prison due to a botched investigation that got evidence thrown out. Rather than deny it, Ayers said on 9/11 his only regret was "not doing more."
5) Tony Rezko, slumlord, Obama buddy, and general scumbag. Where is the story investigating their ties?
6) Reverend Wright. Where is the penetrating investigation as to why Obama had his children going to this nutty racist's church. The guy he called his "spiritual mentor" who called 9/11 "the chickens coming home to roost." Already covered? Not quite. Obama gives one speech lecturing us on race, and the media nods in approval and drops it. Meanwhile, 25 years later we are still hearing about the "Keating Five" about McCain, something McCain has long since explained away as non-criminal error in judgment. That's fair?
7) Obama's advocacy for the CRA in pressuring and suing banks to make bad home loans. Relevant?
8) Obama's "I sent a letter" nonsense about the mortgage mess, while opposing McCain's reform bill in 2005. Sent a letter? My grandma could have done that. Where's the media scrutiny?
9) Obama's admitted drug use, likely a felony. Apparently off-limits, unlike Bush's supposed DUI two weeks before the election.
I could go on, but it doesn't matter. if you can't see that the media is so far in the tank for Obama for it's scandalous, I can't help you. Never before have I had lower respect for the media. To me, journalism is now up there with phrenology and astrology, a total, absolute scam. They are partisan hacks. 85% of the reporters cover Gore-Bush 2000 voted for Gore. I'll bet this year it's closer to 95%.
Hate to break it to you, but that's not redistributing wealth. That's basically known as paying one's fair share, The wealthy pay more in taxes yes, but they also get more benefit as well. They stand to lose far more than I do were civil disorder to break out and all possessions be smashed.
Silly argument. Yes, this is the reason government was formed - to protect one's shit. But obviously the role of government has evolved into much different role - an opposite role, to be exact - actually taking your shit away and giving it to someone else. This would be called stealing, but not when the government does it. This is now the government's chief function, considering that of its $3T budget, 60% of its expenditures are on entitlements. So the US government's chief role is now redistribution of wealth. Obama just wants to make it worse.
So while hypothetically government "protects" the wealthy, I'd imagine they'd lose a lot less money by taking their chances with no government stealing from them and building a moat. Meanwhile, the "working poor" take $8 in services for every dollar paid (Heritage Foundation - you want a source, you Google it). So no, the wealthy do not get more for their tax dollar. They get a lot less.
"Fair share" is everyone paying the same flat rate (the poor and middle class would still pay less, but the same proportion). But when the bottom 50% of wage earners only pay 3.6% of the taxes, there is something very unfair about that. At some point, people in the bottom third not only pay no taxes, but get net checks from the government. Is this still fair by your world view? At what point does it get unfair?
At some point, a huge portion of the country doesn't pay taxes, and becomes a "gimme" class instead of a "do something for your country class." Too many in the wagon, not enough pulling. I think all citizens, unless *temporarily* out of work, need to be invested enough in the country that they are outside if the wagon, pulling, and being contributing citizens to the state. Otherwise, they are not fully participating in being citizens.
If you've got more wealth, property etc., you're getting more for your tax dollars and as such should be paying more.
You're getting more because you earned it, not because the government took it from someone else and gave it to you. That's like saying rapists get more sex than married guys. Yeah, technically true, but...
And it would be nice if you didn't go mischaracterizing mr. Buffett's comment. He's well known to oppose the sort of careless tax policies you're advocating. He has definitively stated that he doesn't believe he should be paying a lower tax rate than his employees do.
Buffett might be a good investor, but he is being foolish for his clients and being dishonest about his income. First off, doubling the capital gains rate, as Obama wants to do, would dramatically hurt his clients (both by stifling economic growth, and thus hurting BH's share price, and personally for his clients on tax day). If I owned Berkshire Hathaway at $30K+ per share, I'd be furious Buffett said this.
Secondly, Buffett is rich because he holds stock in his own investment fund. In other words, he doesn't even pay himself a salary. So while it is unlikely, it is possible he could pay less income taxes than his secretary - even while he likely paid tens or hundreds of millions in capital gains taxes. And his income tax rate is higher than his secretary. He just doesn't earn income - he earns capital gains. Nice subterfuge though.
The reality is that businesses are flocking to Ireland, which has a corporate tax rate one half that as the US. Now that's a careless tax policy.
Call names and hide behind anonymity. So typical.
Why can't the left just debate instead of call people names (and mod them down) when someone disagrees with them?
"Joe" was a plant. I have little sympathy for him. He was brought up by McCain to try to be the example he couldn't actually find for some 'small guy' being screwed over by Obama's plan.
He was not a plant. Obama showed up at his house for crissakes. How dare Joe walk outside to see what all the fuss is about, and ask questions about Obama's tax plans, that the media should, but isn't asking. Like, how can you give a tax cut to 95% of Americans when nowhere near 95% of Americans actually pay net taxes?
Don't you think it's just a tiny bit strange that the one person McCain uses as an example in the last presidential campaign, someone he brings up over and over, lied about everything about his situation?
I think it's strange that the media has done more digging on a plumber (oh my, he doesn't have a permit to be a plumber - oh noes!) than on the presidential candidate the plumber asked a question of. Every fucking story reporting this - other than Fox News, of course - was attacking Joe for not having a permit/license (a revenue-raising device by greedy cities), for owing taxes, rather than actually addressing the merits of the question Joe had the temerity to ask. Real journalism there, don't ask Obama, "yeah, what about your tax plan hurting small businesses?" Instead, the media defends Obama and shoots the messenger!
Obama has been running for president for two years, and some plumber asks a more digging question than any mainstream media reporter has asked the whole time. No wonder you got suspicious. After all, this is supposed to be a coronation, not an actual election.