Besides technology has very little to do with the Presidency. It's not like Obama is going to text message the world leaders and say "OMG Did you see the invasion on Youtube? We PWNED them, LOL!"
I don't know about that. After some of the other dumbass naive things he has said about international politics (We'll invade Pakistan to get Bin Laden, being the foremost). I could see him doing that.
McCain started off without doing it, but at the extremely poor advice of his advisors decided to start doing it late in the campaign, with the result that he actually turned voters away who are sick of it. This "mindless droning" may turn you off, but that's what the polls show.
Which polls would that be? Last I saw, it was still a very tight race, and has closed once McCain finally started showing people who Obama really is.
I get the distinct feeling that McCain could have won the election if he hadn't been pandering so much to the NeoCon side all of a sudden.
You should disabuse yourself of that feeling. Look back at his poll numbers right before the Republican Convention. Just before he nominated Palin as a running mate, vs right after.
Regardless of all the talk about independants hate McCain...independants want someone in the center...people are tired of republicanism...blah...blah, the race is nearly a dead heat. Well, it was this morning when I last checked.
McCain would have been dead in the water if he stuck with his wishy-washy, half-Democrat mantle.
Insurance policies are not socialism. I voluntarily pay you to voluntarily assume some risk that I am unable or unwilling to assume. I may choose to keep my money (and my risk). You may choose not to sell me a policy. That is a free market.
Socialism would be Obama deciding that I should pay for others to have a $1000 tax credit.
The question is, "Is this the reason that we continue to see elections that hinge on 49% to 50% results?"
If your the campaigners, you want to agree to battle it out, but not get to far ahead. You have to keep the people thinking that their vote would be wasted.
The biggest problem I have with the Republicans and the Social Right, is that they are certain that everything they do is perfect, and everyone who disagrees is not only wrong, but also a bad, evil person.
Sheesh!? And the Social Left is any different? Want to be proven wrong? Watch the gnashing of teeth from the left if anyone claims that global warming is not a man-made phenomena.
So you're saying that socialism would work in the UK if the government would just keep supplying the services, even though they can't afford to pay for them?
Denmark, Norway and Sweden are stunning examples of what socialism really means. Some of the highest tax rates in the world, yet everybody is looked after so well.
Yeah. Get back to us with that once all the oil has run out.
It leads to people acquiring wealth, which goes to acquiring power. With that power, they manipulate laws and regulations to acquire more wealth (and thus more power). Eventually they become king.
Communism leads to someone having to decide who has need and who has ability, which translates directly to power. Basically, they start out as king.
The proper role of democratic government of a free economy is to insure that no one is able to manipulate the system to their own benefit. Would all those investors have made such poor choices if their riskiness was evident? Remember, sub-prime mortgages were bundled and then given an A rating? A properly operating check would make sure that both parties in these trades would be on a level playing field.
What I find hilarious are the online calculators that will tell you how much you will save/lose depending on whose tax plan is implemented. We have finally devolved to the point where robbing the treasury to buy votes is laid out in the open and no one even pauses to openly question it.
What Greenspan missed was the power of the looters. Rand laid it all out. The biggest villains in the book were the type of people that brought our markets to its knees. If Greenspan missed this part of "the human factor", then he either hasn't read Atlas Shrugged closely, or he just ignored the parts that would implicate his friends.
Using Wright as your the basis of your campaign platform makes as much sense as Obama using the video of Sarah Palin having witches cast out of her by the African minister in her church in Alaska.
Granted. IF Palin had sat under the African's teachings for 20yrs, had the African perform her wedding ceremony, and written an autobiography proclaiming that the African was her mentor. Other than those small things, the two are exactly the same.
The actual Swift Boat ads that attacked John Kerry were from a 527 also. Did the republican candidate have anything to do with them? Likely not, but there are many examples of 527s pulling their ads when the candidate they are supporting requests it. McCain could have and should have prevented the Jeremiah Wright ads or had them pulled after they began. He didn't, and hasn't. He shares culpability.
So that make Obama responsible for prank phone calls and email crackers?
And McCain DID ask the 527 groups not to air those adds. They chose to do it anyway.
I think this quote provides great insight on how the media has warped your mind. Is it that hard for you to believe that Obama has associates who don't match these categories contrived by the media?
It would be easy for us to believe if you actually listed one. From what I've seen, the media has done everything in their power to bury anything negative about Obama. Even Saturday Night Live has made fun of the so-called 'reporters' lavishing verbal fellatio on the man every chance they got.
So they did try to Swift boat Obama it just didn't gain any traction because people are sick of the tactics and recognize them for what they are, fear mongering for power. The country and the media are also sick of Republicans. Bush has one great accomplishment in eight years, something I predicted when he won in 2004, that by the end of this second term we would completely turn the country against the New Republican party, an intolerant, far right party, dominated by evangelicals. A party pandering to the rich and manipulating a bunch of not so bright middle class supporters in to voting for them using abortion, homophobia and fear, manipulating not to bright middle class people in to voting for a party that is completely screwing them economically. Let's hope its finally over. Now we just have to worry about all the stupidity the Democrats will perpetrate when they are in control.
Wow, you've got those Democratic talking points down pat. You've been watching Olberman again, haven't you?
Just a question to confuse you: If Americans are so "sick of Republicans", why is the race so close?
Good troll, but you're missing one little point. Those oil companies don't own the oil that is under Alaska. Alaskans do. That "windfall profits tax"? How about the Alaskans got paid for selling their stuff?
Joe being related to Keating. So what? The question isn't about Joe. The question is about Obama's answer to a question. Obama went to Joe's neighborhood so people could ask him questions, and he answered in a way that he should have known that many in America would not like. So much for how intelligent and eloquent he is.
Palin's use of "spread the wealth". The wealth she was talking about was the wealth derived from the sale of Alaska's natural resources. The Alaskan constitution says that those resources belong to the people of Alaska, not big oil companies. Palin fought for the profits of those resources and gave them to their rightful owners. She distributed the wealth. Obama wants to "RE"distribute other people's wealth, take it by government fiat with no constitutional mandate, and give it to people of his choosing. Not even close to the same thing.
Bill Clinton had a plan to hand out $1000 tax credits to 95% of the working population? How the hell do I retro-actively get mine!?
McCain claims that Obama plans to handout money, because Obama claims that he is going to give a $1000 tax credit to 95% of working Americans. Well, less than 50% of working Amercians actually pay federal incomes taxes. How is it an extreme stretch of logic to say, "If you get $1000 back, but you haven't paid anything in, you're getting a handout?"
I wouldn't expect an answer, since the question isn't listed on the Democratic talking points.
If you believe that those three weren't actually investigated, you match the description of a conspiracy nut. Regarding Ayers/Rezco, there are plenty of people who are interested in those stories and plenty of people who go around claiming they have those stories. The problem is that their sources of information are pretty shaky, and much of what they "uncover" is totally contrived and usually irrelevant.
As for Wright, I think a fair comparison would be Palin's church, and I generally hear much less about that one than I do Wright.
They were investigated, sure enough. And when confronted with the question of why did he sit for such nonsense, Obama said he never heard such talk.
AND THE PRESS ACCEPTED THAT!!!
20yrs. In his autobiography, claimed the racist was a mentor that he worked closely with. The radical sermons were distributed on a "best-of" DVD that the church sold. The racist gets a chance to be in the public light, and he goes on-and-on with his bile, even though he has to know that it will harm Obama.
And Obama never heard him say such things? It can just be dismissed with, "I never heard that"? And that is investigation?
Slashdot Mirror
Ummm..? We used a PEN! Why the hell would anyone have you vote with a pencil?
Besides technology has very little to do with the Presidency. It's not like Obama is going to text message the world leaders and say "OMG Did you see the invasion on Youtube? We PWNED them, LOL!"
I don't know about that. After some of the other dumbass naive things he has said about international politics (We'll invade Pakistan to get Bin Laden, being the foremost). I could see him doing that.
"Religious fruitcake"?
You dare to use that after both Obama and Biden fighting so hard to proclaim they're Christians?
Or are you arguing that they're just claiming to be Christians, without actually putting any credence in what Christ taught?
McCain started off without doing it, but at the extremely poor advice of his advisors decided to start doing it late in the campaign, with the result that he actually turned voters away who are sick of it. This "mindless droning" may turn you off, but that's what the polls show.
Which polls would that be? Last I saw, it was still a very tight race, and has closed once McCain finally started showing people who Obama really is.
I get the distinct feeling that McCain could have won the election if he hadn't been pandering so much to the NeoCon side all of a sudden.
You should disabuse yourself of that feeling. Look back at his poll numbers right before the Republican Convention. Just before he nominated Palin as a running mate, vs right after.
Regardless of all the talk about independants hate McCain...independants want someone in the center...people are tired of republicanism...blah...blah, the race is nearly a dead heat. Well, it was this morning when I last checked.
McCain would have been dead in the water if he stuck with his wishy-washy, half-Democrat mantle.
Insurance policies are not socialism. I voluntarily pay you to voluntarily assume some risk that I am unable or unwilling to assume. I may choose to keep my money (and my risk). You may choose not to sell me a policy. That is a free market.
Socialism would be Obama deciding that I should pay for others to have a $1000 tax credit.
Get on an airplane without having to take my shoes off?
The question is, "Is this the reason that we continue to see elections that hinge on 49% to 50% results?"
If your the campaigners, you want to agree to battle it out, but not get to far ahead. You have to keep the people thinking that their vote would be wasted.
That's not socialism. That's facism.
The biggest problem I have with the Republicans and the Social Right, is that they are certain that everything they do is perfect, and everyone who disagrees is not only wrong, but also a bad, evil person.
Sheesh!? And the Social Left is any different? Want to be proven wrong? Watch the gnashing of teeth from the left if anyone claims that global warming is not a man-made phenomena.
That was not socialism.
That was highway robbery. Thievery, plain and simple.
Don't sully the name of socialism like that. Socialism is wrong and misguided, but at least it is TRYING to do what it thinks is the right thing.
So you're saying that socialism would work in the UK if the government would just keep supplying the services, even though they can't afford to pay for them?
Denmark, Norway and Sweden are stunning examples of what socialism really means. Some of the highest tax rates in the world, yet everybody is looked after so well.
Yeah. Get back to us with that once all the oil has run out.
It leads to people acquiring wealth, which goes to acquiring power. With that power, they manipulate laws and regulations to acquire more wealth (and thus more power). Eventually they become king.
Communism leads to someone having to decide who has need and who has ability, which translates directly to power. Basically, they start out as king.
The proper role of democratic government of a free economy is to insure that no one is able to manipulate the system to their own benefit. Would all those investors have made such poor choices if their riskiness was evident? Remember, sub-prime mortgages were bundled and then given an A rating? A properly operating check would make sure that both parties in these trades would be on a level playing field.
What I find hilarious are the online calculators that will tell you how much you will save/lose depending on whose tax plan is implemented. We have finally devolved to the point where robbing the treasury to buy votes is laid out in the open and no one even pauses to openly question it.
What Greenspan missed was the power of the looters. Rand laid it all out. The biggest villains in the book were the type of people that brought our markets to its knees. If Greenspan missed this part of "the human factor", then he either hasn't read Atlas Shrugged closely, or he just ignored the parts that would implicate his friends.
Yep. That's fine. I haven't started a political career in any of their houses, and I didn't call any of them my mentor. You go right ahead.
Using Wright as your the basis of your campaign platform makes as much sense as Obama using the video of Sarah Palin having witches cast out of her by the African minister in her church in Alaska.
Granted. IF Palin had sat under the African's teachings for 20yrs, had the African perform her wedding ceremony, and written an autobiography proclaiming that the African was her mentor. Other than those small things, the two are exactly the same.
The actual Swift Boat ads that attacked John Kerry were from a 527 also. Did the republican candidate have anything to do with them? Likely not, but there are many examples of 527s pulling their ads when the candidate they are supporting requests it. McCain could have and should have prevented the Jeremiah Wright ads or had them pulled after they began. He didn't, and hasn't. He shares culpability.
So that make Obama responsible for prank phone calls and email crackers?
And McCain DID ask the 527 groups not to air those adds. They chose to do it anyway.
I think this quote provides great insight on how the media has warped your mind. Is it that hard for you to believe that Obama has associates who don't match these categories contrived by the media?
It would be easy for us to believe if you actually listed one. From what I've seen, the media has done everything in their power to bury anything negative about Obama. Even Saturday Night Live has made fun of the so-called 'reporters' lavishing verbal fellatio on the man every chance they got.
So they did try to Swift boat Obama it just didn't gain any traction because people are sick of the tactics and recognize them for what they are, fear mongering for power. The country and the media are also sick of Republicans. Bush has one great accomplishment in eight years, something I predicted when he won in 2004, that by the end of this second term we would completely turn the country against the New Republican party, an intolerant, far right party, dominated by evangelicals. A party pandering to the rich and manipulating a bunch of not so bright middle class supporters in to voting for them using abortion, homophobia and fear, manipulating not to bright middle class people in to voting for a party that is completely screwing them economically. Let's hope its finally over. Now we just have to worry about all the stupidity the Democrats will perpetrate when they are in control.
Wow, you've got those Democratic talking points down pat. You've been watching Olberman again, haven't you?
Just a question to confuse you: If Americans are so "sick of Republicans", why is the race so close?
Sorry, didn't mean to hurt your brain like that.
literally taking profits away from oil companies
Good troll, but you're missing one little point. Those oil companies don't own the oil that is under Alaska. Alaskans do. That "windfall profits tax"? How about the Alaskans got paid for selling their stuff?
Because it is illogical flamebait?
Joe being related to Keating. So what? The question isn't about Joe. The question is about Obama's answer to a question. Obama went to Joe's neighborhood so people could ask him questions, and he answered in a way that he should have known that many in America would not like. So much for how intelligent and eloquent he is.
Palin's use of "spread the wealth". The wealth she was talking about was the wealth derived from the sale of Alaska's natural resources. The Alaskan constitution says that those resources belong to the people of Alaska, not big oil companies. Palin fought for the profits of those resources and gave them to their rightful owners. She distributed the wealth. Obama wants to "RE"distribute other people's wealth, take it by government fiat with no constitutional mandate, and give it to people of his choosing. Not even close to the same thing.
etc.
Why would it logically ever get modded up?
Bill Clinton had a plan to hand out $1000 tax credits to 95% of the working population? How the hell do I retro-actively get mine!?
McCain claims that Obama plans to handout money, because Obama claims that he is going to give a $1000 tax credit to 95% of working Americans. Well, less than 50% of working Amercians actually pay federal incomes taxes. How is it an extreme stretch of logic to say, "If you get $1000 back, but you haven't paid anything in, you're getting a handout?"
I wouldn't expect an answer, since the question isn't listed on the Democratic talking points.
If you believe that those three weren't actually investigated, you match the description of a conspiracy nut. Regarding Ayers/Rezco, there are plenty of people who are interested in those stories and plenty of people who go around claiming they have those stories. The problem is that their sources of information are pretty shaky, and much of what they "uncover" is totally contrived and usually irrelevant.
As for Wright, I think a fair comparison would be Palin's church, and I generally hear much less about that one than I do Wright.
They were investigated, sure enough. And when confronted with the question of why did he sit for such nonsense, Obama said he never heard such talk.
AND THE PRESS ACCEPTED THAT!!!
20yrs. In his autobiography, claimed the racist was a mentor that he worked closely with. The radical sermons were distributed on a "best-of" DVD that the church sold. The racist gets a chance to be in the public light, and he goes on-and-on with his bile, even though he has to know that it will harm Obama.
And Obama never heard him say such things? It can just be dismissed with, "I never heard that"? And that is investigation?
Ok. Whatever.