New Politics thread 9-05
by gossamer on Sep 5, 2008 2:12 PM CDT
Email
Printthe old palin thread is really full. and it's become a general presidential thread instead of just palin.
obama/biden (Dem)
vs
mccain/palin (repub)
vs
barr/root (libertarian)
vs
nader/gonzalez (independent)
vs
mcKinney / celemnte (green)
discusions to follow...
election day = november 4, 2008
new president sworn in = january 20, 2009
go!
//////////////////
There's no such thing as white-collar crime. And there's definitely no such thing as black-on-black crime. Crime is crime. Let me explain something to you. I don't care if you have a white collar or a tank top. If you rob me, I'm gonna whup your ass.
/////////////////
America is the richest, most powerful country on earth. If America was a woman, she would be a big-tittied woman. Everybody loves a big-tittied woman!
650 comments
|
6 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
i think most of us can agree
that the republican convention was a big success for mccain. a bigger impact than the dnc was for obama.
i think we can also agree that cynthia mckinney is a pyscho and we can all be thankful the green party won’t win.
currently obama has about a 3 point lead on mccain in the polls.
currently obama is projected to win the electoral college, 311 to 227 OR 301 to 224 when you don’t count virginia.
those numbers change weekly though, and i’d expect mccain to get another boost monday in the polls and maybe even gain a few projected electoral votes.
http://www.buchanan4pres2008.org/
NIXON: NOW MORE THAN EVER
Does Not Compute
You argue, rightly, that McKinney is a pyscho, yet it seems you support Pat Buchanan for president. That does not compute as he is just as crazy as she is.
mckinney fighting
security on the steps?
pat buchanan isn’t psycho buster. lay off.
http://www.buchanan4pres2008.org/
NIXON: NOW MORE THAN EVER
Buchanan has more hair
in his ears than thedirkatron has on his head.
by robert_d_wilfong on Sep 5, 2008 7:11 PM CDT up reply actions
McCain
I was disappointed in McCain’s speech last night. There was not a lot of substance there. Not really any detailed plan on making the country better. He mentioned Bush, which could come back and haunt him, and thanked him. He basically just reiterated Reaganomics with a few tweaks. He ended it with a “Fight” chat and I’m just not sure Americans are going to get in line to fight right now.
As for Palin, her attacks on Obama apparently have inspired Obama’s supporters to donate more money. She definitely made quite the impression. Oh and here is a letter from a resident of Wasilla. The website claims to have talked to the lady in question and that the letter is legitimate and printed with her consent. Unfortunately, you can’t really verify her numbers so take that with a grain of salt.
Signature! I don't need no stinking signature!!
palin is raising $$ for mccain too though
she’s definitely rallying mccain’s base and obama’s base. question is how much in the middle will she bring in for mccain or turn off of obama. as of right now it was a bold and apparently genius move for mccain. that could change though and end up a big mistake. find out in about 60 days
http://www.buchanan4pres2008.org/
NIXON: NOW MORE THAN EVER
I actually liked his speech
from the beginning in which he thanked the gov for the efforts it has done to protect the company, to the part where he was praising Palin, while for a short while focusing on criticizing Obama. The best part, however, imo, was when he was distanced himself from the Bush Administration. He needed to do that, and he did that almost perfectly.
"Well, the Dallas Mavericks got beat by the New Orleans Hornets last night ending their season. Word is that someone on the team is dating Jessica Simpson." - Jay Leno
LSB facebook group ---->>> http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=33345329288
I agree
He did a good job at criticizing both Bush and the Republican leadership in Congress. It was somewhat subtle, and it wasn’t received very warmly by the audience, who weren’t in the mood for any blame thrown their way. But it was a good calling out of people who need to be called out.
Its not fair to compare his style to Obama or Palin – he’s not a charismatic speaker like they are. No matter what the speech was, it was going to be a little bit of an emotional dud
we will see
i think the republicans are complaining with the with way the media is “treating” her but they gotta ask questions and look into her. they know nothing. she’s not like other other guys that have been in the spotlight and looked over. i think lots of things will come out. lots of garbage that hopefully goes away, and probably some bad things that are real, hopefully they are brought into the spotlight. she’s looking more and more like the “bitch” that hillary is, the “bitch” that republicans and half democrats hate.
http://www.buchanan4pres2008.org/
NIXON: NOW MORE THAN EVER
I must have missed that distancing part.
The things he talked about sounded like the same old empty promises we’ve heard for the last 8 years.
I agree
She’s basically established herself as the most divisive figure in politics today. I think this will end up being a good gamble for McCain.
Signature! I don't need no stinking signature!!
Shocking
Another Borrow and Spend Republican, who begs for money from the Federal Government. Also a fan of Censorship.
Basicly, a model Republican.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
"I just hope enough dumb oversexed over self-esteemed American public educated female liberals (yeah, you know the type) vote for a woman because she has a vagina, to swing some things."- Sharky.
"JD is a great GM if you ignore the giving away pitching and handing out horrible contract stuff."-Tricer
i saw a chart one time
that showed how much return on the dollar states got from their money paid in federal dollars. states that returned the least were new york and california type states. and states that got returns of like about $1.34 for each dollar are the mississippi and alabamas. basically the red states are the welfare states and the blue states are screwed over. but it’s not like red’s to complain about taxes or anything.
http://www.buchanan4pres2008.org/
NIXON: NOW MORE THAN EVER
well, to an extent that is reasonable
states like Wyoming with low population yet high infrastructure costs are going to get a disproportionate amount of money. I’m sure Wyomingites would be fine if there were no highways other than between Casper and Cheyenne, but the people driving trucks between Montana, South Dakota and Colorado wouldn’t be so happy.
If you ask me, the federal government should spend money on 3 things, and 3 things only: Military, Infrastructure (basically hwys), and foreign affairs. Basically, if the cost affects multiple states, then it should be federal, if it affects a state’s individually, it should be state. Red States tend to be physically bigger, requiring more interstate infrastructure, so they should get a l. But if blue states don’t think they benefit from money for a highway through Nevada, then they’ll be surprised when their Napa wine shipments take longer to get to them
Government funding
One more thing the government IMO should spend it’s money is protecting citizens from getting screwed by big money interests. This means trust busting but also means organizations like EPA, OSHA, FDA, and the FCC. Most private citizens don’t have the capital to sue an organization that is acting inappropriately. The federal government does have the resources and can sue them (whether they do or not is another story).
Signature! I don't need no stinking signature!!
You are possibly referring to information compiled in this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Great-Divide-Retro-Metro-America/dp/0976062100
It is an interesting study on that subject among others. To your point, essentially Texas was one of the only red states that gave alot more than it got back.
Last week I took a pleasure trip. I drove my wife to the airport.
fwiw
This comes from FoxNews so some of you will automatically discount it.
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/05/top-7-myths-lies-and-untruths-about-sarah-palin/
Nolan Ryan should be the Rangers president, GM, manager and pitching coach.
I don't discount it
I think because she was such new political figure, the internet and by extension the media got ahead of themselves a bit. There’s enough stuff to not like about Palin that doesn’t require salacious rumor mongering (yes Daily Kos I’m looking at you).
Signature! I don't need no stinking signature!!
Look for McCain to start moving to the center
In one fell swoop, Palin has satisfied all of McCain’s critics from the right – both religious and fiscal. I doubt any other pick could have done that as well. While it did not really create a strong message for moderates, the convention did a good job of showing McCain’s base that he is enough of one of them. With Palin, he won’t have to worry about that 40% of the vote anymore.
Now it is time to move towards that middle 20%. Right now, I’d say it looks pretty much 50/50 between McCain/Obama, though Obama has some built in advantages (economy, Bush, etc).
I bet we see McCain start making some policy proposals that have broader appeal – specifically with some things he teased in his talk yesterday (change unemployment structure, education, energy). He didn’t want these to be too revealed at the convention, as the base probably wont’ be too happy with them, and he wants to see where he stands after things settle down (to know how far left he has to go).
I think McCain’s secret advantage over Obama is that all of Obama’s policies are already well defined and people know them. He’s benefiting from that now, but it gives McCain an opportunity to target the specifics of his proposals accordingly. With the base solidified, McCain has a lot more freedom to do what he needs to do to win the election.
mccain and others
have attacked obama for not giving specifics while they themselves do
http://www.buchanan4pres2008.org/
NIXON: NOW MORE THAN EVER
obama needs to keep
reminding people that mccain votes with bush 90% of the time. and then ask if they are happy about the war, our standing with the world, and the economy.
and he then needs to remind them (and he has) that when mccain keeps attacking congress, it’s silly because mccain has been there a while (so has biden, however) BUT that the dems have only been in control for less than 2 years now in the house and senate. and for 12 years the republicans controlled the house and senate (other than a brief 2 year time a few years ago in the senate).
http://www.buchanan4pres2008.org/
NIXON: NOW MORE THAN EVER
Yeah. Exactly.
Obama’s line will be something like “Don’t be fooled. Only one candidate represents an actual change from the damaging Bush policies”. The Dems strategy all along has been to cast McCain as the third term of Bush, and I haven’t heard anything yet that would stop that strategy cold in its steps.
That could change. I am surprised with how well the Maverick rhetoric went over with the Republican base. I was so confused by the many talks about reforming Washington, since the Republicans have been in charge of Washington for the past 5 years. Somehow, it seems McCain has convinced the base they need to reform themselves, or maybe they don’t understand it that way.
Go Rangers!
Well
McCain is the only candidate that can get away with that, because it is pretty well known that most hard-core Republicans despise McCain. Which is also why I think the “he’s the same as Bush” argument won’t work either.
It may not be true anymore, but Bush and McCain are well-known to the average American as enemies. Most people know McCain only as “that guy who ran a bitter primary against Bush in 2000.” It makes the “McCain = Bush” argument more difficult to make and sound a little hollow. It may stick, but Obama will need something more than a 90% voting record (which is probably one of the lowest agreements of Republicans in the Senate)
Completely implausible hypothetical, but if in 4 years, suppose Obama’s been an utter disaster and Hillary is running for the Democratic nomination, she’ll be able to run as a “change” candidate, even if she votes with Obama 90% of the time going forward. She and Obama are going down in history as not liking each other.
obama is a change
from bush. and the country is leaning toward a change from republicans. this can be seen in governor’s races, house and senate races too.
it’s his version of gingrich’s contract with america. (i realize that dems won back control in 2006, but 2008 could be bigger assuming obama wins)
http://www.buchanan4pres2008.org/
NIXON: NOW MORE THAN EVER
I get that
my point is that McCain is also a change in many people’s minds. Which is why the Dems are going to win tons of seats no matter what, but McCain may still beat Obama.
Its possible that the Dems pick up 6 or 7 senate seats, who knows how many house seats, and McCain beats Obama.
Maybe you're right that the McCain = Bush argument won't stick.
I’ve been thinking the Dems would need to change tactics after the positive response from conservatives to McCain’s speech. It appears that McCain will make the argument that Obama’s idea of change is the wrong way and, besides, Obama’s inexperience makes him impotent anyway.
So, then the Dems need to decide if they’re going to continue to align McCain with Bush no matter how unnatural that may be or change tactics and argue Obama’s ideas of how to change are somehow better than McCain’s new direction. The second tactic is a lot harder approach to strategize. It is a lot more fluid.
Go Rangers!
There is one more problem with the McCain = Bush argument
The issue is why do people hate Bush so much? Is it his policies, or is it his style/intellect/capability? Obviously those on the left hate him for both, but what about the middle voter?
Now, if it is the Bush policies, then yeah, effectively equating McCain with Bush will be a strong strategy.
But if the problem with Bush is Bush himself and not his politics, then saying McCain = Bush can backfire. Because everyone can look at McCain and know he’s more capable and prepared to lead the country than GWB. Has anyone asked if they would vote for a qualified version of GWB?
Honestly, I don’t know which is the case, but I don’t think it is as obvious as people make it out to be (from both the left and right wings, it is just too easy to lump it all together). Heck, many of Bush’s proposed domestic policies were either popular or very moderate, but failed because he wasn’t capable of getting them through or administrating them well (social security reform, immigration, prescription drugs, education (with Kennedy…)). It is possible Bush is just incredibly unpopular because he is goofy, doesn’t look serious, and got a bad reputation…
I don't think anyone dislikes Bush personally
He seems like a pretty affable guy. The only problem I have with his personality is that it’s so laid back that he’s not always the ideal statesman.
The reason his approval numbers are so low are his policies. Most importantly, he seems indifferent about the economy in terms of the shrinking middle class. And of course there’s the war. It’s going better nowadays, but the question of whether we should even be there or not is still a valid one. AND I think there’s another argument that could be made about why the war is going better and it has only a little bit to do with the surge. Along with the surge, the Administration finally re-evaluated their diplomatic approach (on the advice of Petreaus) and that has probably helped quell violence more than anything else. So if McCain wants to keep going with the “surge” strategy, there’s going to be a legitimate counter.
NCLB is getting more and more unpopular by the day, as people are slowly realizing that it forces schools to “teach to the test”. Even smart kids who are now entering college are having to take remedial classes because they have no liberal arts background. The medicare prescription plan is becoming more unpopular with both parties. I actually agree with Bush and McCain on immigration more often than not, but their party doesn’t and a lot of the public doesn’t. Most people do not want social security reformed in the way that Bush wants it reformed.
It’s definitely his policy. Now a lot of people don’t keep up with the news and maybe they can’t point to more than two or three specific Bush policies they don’t like, but what they do know is that they’re not doing nearly as well as they used to be.
Then you add on the fact that he’s so laid back and sometimes a little arrogant while the American people are struggling, and it’s not really hard to see why his approval ratings are low. But I don’t think it starts with him personally. If things were going better I think he’d be very popular.
by Black Francis on Sep 6, 2008 2:17 PM CDT up reply actions
your perception
I think your post is mainly your perception of how things are.
shrinking middle class
http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews+articleid_2553754.html
Even smart kids who are now entering college are having to take remedial classes because they have no liberal arts background
If a high school graduate passes TAKS (or equivalent test), gets their diploma and still needs a remedial course before taking freshman comp, then that is a problem. But I don’t think that is what you are implying.
Bush’s problem is that the backlash from thee Iraq war and a Dem controlled congress has effectively neutered him. He has done virtually nothing in his second term.
Nolan Ryan should be the Rangers president, GM, manager and pitching coach.
Depends on how you define things
I view the middle class as shrinking because real incomes have not risen while consumer debt has, putting a lot of people in a perilous financial situation. The cost of everything has gone up. Everything. Home values have fallen, and that represents a very large share of the family’s wealth.
And yes that’s exactly what I’m saying. Kids are going to college unprepared because high schools are teaching to a test rather than getting them ready to continue their education.
by Black Francis on Sep 6, 2008 3:12 PM CDT up reply actions
understand
I see what you are saying about the middle class. What I don’t understand is how falling home values hurt the home owner in the shortterm.
About remedial classes. I would guess that 1/2 of classes at your local community college are remedial/prerequisite in nature. It has been that way for years.
Nolan Ryan should be the Rangers president, GM, manager and pitching coach.
I'm not talking about only the short term
I’m talking about how the wealth of the middle class, if not the middle class itself, has shrunk in recent years. The home is almost always their biggest asset, and when its value plummets so does their wealth. I suppose it could hurt them in the short term, too. What if a family of three had a medical crisis, and the only way to pay the bill would be to sell their home? It’s far less liquid now, and not worth as much. There are millions of people who are one step away from financial ruin right now.
by Black Francis on Sep 6, 2008 5:59 PM CDT up reply actions
some problems
will never be solved. There are losers in the game of life(not necessarily of their own volition).
This is definitely a nation of whiners…..
Its a shame everyone cant be rich……although our “poor” live like Kings relative to many other nations.
"You’re the worst poster here I think."--- brettgardner
by red shoe ranger on Sep 6, 2008 9:08 PM CDT up reply actions
You're missing the point entirely
Completely and totally over your head.
THE POINT:
We are the wealthiest country in the world NOT because of the number of rich people we have. Not because our poor aren’t as poor as those in Africa. It’s because of the wealth of our middle class. It’s the true engine of our economy.
by Black Francis on Sep 8, 2008 6:26 AM CDT up reply actions
liberal arts
Liberal arts usually mean things like reading a novel or work and writing a paper on it. This is not tested by the TAKS, so the schools to teach as much, because they are judged solely on how their students pass the TAKS, not how they ready them for college.
Signature! I don't need no stinking signature!!
Democratic Congress and Bush
As rwh so astutely pointed out on this thread, the Democrats didn’t control Congress until 2007, so he had two years of the ability to play his partisan politics during his second term (of which he did take advantage). Unfortunately, rwh didn’t actually understand the point I was making and then made a partisan attack without actually trying to think things through.
I think Bush’s problems are manifold.
1) Includes the lack of a plan to get us out of Iraq and overextension of our many armed forces.
2) His attack on civil liberties and curtailing of individual freedoms
3) His partisan politics WHILE IN THE WHITE HOUSE. You’re supposed to be doing the best for AMERICANS not REPUBLICANS when you’re President. And this despite his promises to “reach across party lines.” He’s made it blatantly clear that if you’re not with him, you’re an enemy. rwh is a perfect example.
4) The economy going into the tank (though this probably isn’t mainly his fault).
5) The handling of some criseses like Katrina, housing market.
etc.
There’s probably more, but those are some of the reasons for Bush’s unpopularity off the top of my head.
R
I disagree
Conseratives/Liberals/Repubs/Libs will always support their party/base. But if the middle is fed up with the recent administration than it’s important for McCain to move from that image (And Obama’s to continue tying McCain to it) else many people are going to believe that a vote for McCain is truly a third term for Bush.
Bush jumped all over Ann Richards back in 94 for being tied to Clinton and it succeeded, can’t see why Obama wouldn’t do the same here (Especially with Bush’s approval numbers)
Not trying to be combative here w/ multiple dissents, but I don't think this is accurate
"It may not be true anymore, but Bush and McCain are well-known to the average American as enemies. Most people know McCain only as "that guy who ran a bitter primary against Bush in 2000."
I don’t really believe that to be the case. Among the average, somewhat disinterested voter, I don’t think that fact is common knowledge at all. I wonder how many far right wingers here are aware of the Bush-Rove shennanigans pulled on Mac in 2000.
This is anecdotal, of course, but 95% of my family, 50% of my friends, and 80% of my co-workers vote Republican 100 % of the time. And I don’t exactly work with, nor am I related to, uneducated hoi polloi. From experience, I can count on one hand the ones that know any details of the South Carolina slander. 2000 is ancient history for people that only take a passing interest in this stuff.
I also see few if any reminders of how those two used to hate each other in cable or print media. You have to check the internet for reminders of that.
Last week I took a pleasure trip. I drove my wife to the airport.
"Call off your dogs"
Remember McCain saying that to Bush about Rove and his swiftboaters, really disappointed me when Bush wouldn’t do so and it made me like McCain a lot more and I liked it when he kicked Graham off as his attitude reminded me too much of Bush’s cronies…
…now if McCain would get rid of Fiorina the I’d really like him
Graham
He and McCain are pretty tight and they threw him off the campaign because it was politically necessary. Next Treasury Secretary? Front runner is Phil Graham.
by Black Francis on Sep 6, 2008 2:20 PM CDT up reply actions
Gramm as Treas. Sec.
that makes me a bit uncomfortable. He may be partly to blame for both Enron and the current banking/mortgage situation. Much more of a problem for me than his “whiner” and “mental recession” comments.
O Freunde, nicht diese Töne!
Sondern laßt uns angenehmere anstimmen,
und freudenvollere.
Absolutely
The guy is bought and paid for. He and McCain are close, though. Hopefully if he wins he’ll have the good sense not appoint him to anything.
by Black Francis on Sep 6, 2008 2:54 PM CDT up reply actions
you may be right.
Most people probably don’t know the details about why McCain hates Bush, but I think that McCain definitely has a reputation that is distinct from Bush’s and the Republicans. Mostly because for years the Democrats were constantly saying that McCain was the only Republican they could work with. Heck, he was almost John Kerry’s running mate – and lots of people know that.
McCain has gone right since then, but I would argue that only those paying a lot of attention are aware of that.
That's pretty accurate, IMO
And that’s why I don’t think this Presidential election will be a cakewalk that the Democrats seem to be wishcasting….
Of course, there ARE still 2 months left.
We’ll see.
R
R
Wed, Nov 5th is election day. Right? ;)
Nolan Ryan should be the Rangers president, GM, manager and pitching coach.
lol
a republican campaign in some town or state was telling black people (i think, at least traditional demoratric voters) , “don’t forget to vote wednesday!”
http://www.buchanan4pres2008.org/
NIXON: NOW MORE THAN EVER
Hmmm,
Not sure I see anything that funny.
Especially considering this:
And the current mess that we’re in.
Excerpts:
By a co-incidence state officials in Texas had been compiling a list of ex-felons who lived in Florida. There were about 8,000 of these – none of them actually happened to be ex-felons – but by another co-incidence many of them were black or poor whites. Coincidentally polls showed that 90% of black voters intended to vote for Gore and that the majority of poor whites would as well (Observer 10 Dec 2000 and Mojo Wire 8 Nov 2000).
When county officials queried the list Harris got a new, supposedly more accurate list , of 94,000 names , to add to the first. Around 15% of the people on this new list of ex-felons weren’t actually ex-felons and should have been allowed to vote , but Choicepoint point out that that means they were 85% right – so only 7,000 more people would be illegally denied the right to vote. (Observer 10 Dec 2000 and Mojo Wire 8 Nov 2000).
In many parts of Florida policemen were sent to tell black voters that polling booths were closed in some counties , and refuse them entry to polling stations. By another co-incidence poor and black areas had the least staff and most outdated polling systems in their polling stations , and the polling stations in those areas tended to open later and close earlier than in richer areas. As a result less poor and black voters – who tend to vote Democrat – could vote than in affluent and white areas. Black voters were also allegedly turned away from some polling stations(Independent 15 Dec 2000 ; Washington Post 3 Dec 2000; Guardian 10 Nov 2000; Guardian 4 Dec 2000).
So, you’re joking about essentially a tactic which helped steal an election which led to the current mess we’re in.
Not sure that’s all that funny unless you like laughing at tragedies.
R
are you talking about
the registered voter purges in ohio, new mexico, colorado and ohio as you pretty must talked about immediately above?
or are you talking about the guys telling people to vote on the wrong day?
those are 2 different things.
1 is illegal and reprehensible.
the other is just jackassery and wasn’t quite as bad.
http://www.buchanan4pres2008.org/
NIXON: NOW MORE THAN EVER
Happened in Ohio
And sadly, happens voter suppression happens much more often that it should.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_United_States_election_voting_controversies#cite_note-16
The term “voter suppression” is used to describe methods of discouraging or impeding people from voting. The government agency or private entity doing so believes that the would-be voters thus turned away would have been more likely to vote for an opponent. For example, Representative Dennis Kucinich described voter suppression in his state, Ohio:
Dirty tricks occurred across the state, including phony letters from Boards of Elections telling people that their registration through some Democratic activist groups were invalid and that Kerry voters were to report on Wednesday because of massive voter turnout. Phone calls to voters giving them erroneous polling information were also common.
re:"In one fell swoop, Palin has satisfied all of McCain’s critics from the right – both religious and fiscal"
Peggy Noonan begs to vehemently differ…
Last week I took a pleasure trip. I drove my wife to the airport.
Did you read her explanation?
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
Just asking if you'd read it.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
You played the "I know people" card above
so I’ll play it here. I know many people who are lifetime Republicans who were not at all pleased by John McCain – several of which were constantly saying that they were very likely not going to vote for him. The Palin pick not only moved them to the “I will vote for McCain-Palin” group, but actually got them fired up and energized. They went from people who possibly would not have voted to possibly giving money. Big shift.
I don’t know any Republicans that were annoyed by the pick. I know plenty of Democrats who were upset about Palin, but they would have been annoyed at anyone with an® after their name, and probably annyoed with Lieberman as well.
Here is what Obama and McCain gained from their conventions.
McCain won back the base. The conservative leaders, such as Newt and Rush, had largely disowned him but now Newt is singing the praises of McCain.
Obama had the appearance of a large movement and used the stage to appeal to the Democratic base as well as independents. The convention kept the Hillary-ites that were on the fence in the fold.
This is the matchup I wanted since the early days of Iowa. I think it will result in the least partisan rhetoric since long before I was born.
What I find interesting about McCain is that his speech last night sounded like it was an appeal to independents, but I think it really was an appeal to Republicans that they need to be more willing to do bi-partisan work, which implies they need to stop shoving their policies down the throats of Americans. Apparently, Newt was convinced, which is good news for McCain.
The bottom line for McCain is that the Republican party is smaller than 8 years ago and the Democratic party is larger than 8 years ago. He needs every vote from the base plus a healthy margin over Obama from independents. If he can appeal to both groups, it will be an impressive feat.
Obama on the other hand has the advantage that many independents more naturally align with Democratic party planks. I think it’s still his game to lose.
Go Rangers!
good take
I agree that Obama has the advantage. He’s already been defined as a guy who the middle 20% can accept or even like. McCain is probably the only Republican who would be tolerable to that crowd right now.
While Obama defintely has the advantage right now, I would say that McCain is in as good of a position as he could have hoped for at this point. Obama may have policy advantages with moderates, but McCain knows how to play the “Independent/Moderate” territory as well as anyone in politics today. Obama’s political skills are an unknown – he’s never won a general election remotely this close before where the fine line between moderate and partisan is so important. He’s done a good job so far, but this is McCain’s turf. It’ll be interesting…
applies to both parties
they need to be more willing to do bi-partisan work, which implies they need to stop shoving their policies down the throats of Americans
This applies to the Dems also.
Nolan Ryan should be the Rangers president, GM, manager and pitching coach.
I don't know if either will actually be more bi-partisan.
I think Obama has the image of someone who can inspire large groups to work together. The Republicans have an image of “my way or they highway” after the past few years that McCain has apparently convinced them they need to change.
Go Rangers!
See
that’s the problem.
I don’t see it.
I only see McCain changing in getting more conservative.
I haven’t seen one ounce of the Republicans moving toward the center.
R
I see McCain
being the one that would actually bring change to Washington. He has a record of working with Dems and going against his own party. He is not a liberal but he is closer to the center than Obama is.
Nolan Ryan should be the Rangers president, GM, manager and pitching coach.
Change
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_5
"Jesus was a community organizer. Pontius Pilate was a governor"
ben
How many democrats have you voted for in your life? Did you vote for Dem’s in 06 to go for that divided gov’t?
"Jesus was a community organizer. Pontius Pilate was a governor"
I've voted for Dems...
with some frequency. In ’06, I did not vote.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
so
who?
"Jesus was a community organizer. Pontius Pilate was a governor"
i voted for kay baily hutchison one time
http://www.buchanan4pres2008.org/
NIXON: NOW MORE THAN EVER
Ummmm
when in the last 7 1/2 years have the Democrats been shoving their policies down the throats of Americans?
And ignoring the Constitution and been treating this country as if only their constituencies counted?
Please, do enlighten us.
R
Democratic Congress starting in 2007. Thanks for posting Mr. Pelosi.
by rwh on Sep 6, 2008 12:49 AM CDT up reply actions
Excuse me
Did you even read what I asked?
When have the DEMOCRATS shoved their policies down the throats of Americans in the last 7 1/2 years?
Last I checked Bush was still in office which would make it impossible for DEMOCRATS to shove their policies down the throats of American, since Bush would need to agree for those policies to be shoved down some throats.
But then, I guess it’s asking too much to ask a person to COMPREHEND a point for someone who doesn’t even post anything substantial in his argument and “thinks” that anyone pointing out anything wrong with Republicans is automatically a Democrat.
Have you ever thought anything that Democrats do might be right and Republicans might do is wrong?
Either way, next time you might want to actually read what the other person is talking about and TRY to comprehend what he/she is trying to say.
It might prevent you from looking more like an idiot.
R
shoving policies down throats
It has impossible for Democrats to do anything of the sort for years and years. They couldn’t get anything out of committee for most of the Bush Administration. He still has the veto and Republicans have enough seats to filibuster the Senate. Before Bush, it was a Republican Congress.
The only party who has been able to shove anything down anyone’s throat is the GOP. Control of the White House and Congress 2001 through 2006.
And that’s why Adam, Ben, and Cahill are for divided government. For all practical purposes I like divided government, too, simply because it’s a check on power. But this time around I think things got so damn screwed up that the pendulum has to swing all the way to the left for a few years. Then the GOP can take back the House of Reps. I’ll be happy with two out of three.
by Black Francis on Sep 6, 2008 6:06 PM CDT up reply actions
Palin's rhetoric
Palin is all partisan rhetoric. I was hoping that wasn’t going to be the case this election, but Palin ended that dream.
Signature! I don't need no stinking signature!!
One more point....
On how I was talking about McCain’s speech earlier and how he said that the government had done a good job protecting us after 9/11. You can say what you want about Bush’s presidency, but my US History teacher used to make this point all the time, that if you had said on Sept 11, 2001, that we would be sitting here almost 7 years later, and their would have been no other terrorist attack on the US, everyone would have been shocked. The Bush administration has been nowhere near the top of all time presidencies, but their ability to keep the US safe has to be one of the greatest achievements any President has been made.
"Well, the Dallas Mavericks got beat by the New Orleans Hornets last night ending their season. Word is that someone on the team is dating Jessica Simpson." - Jay Leno
LSB facebook group ---->>> http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=33345329288
That is true
Its a weird point to make, because Bush’s administration doesn’t reveal anything about what attacks (if any) they may have stopped along the way. The cynic in most of us would say that they would have leaked it if they had stopped anything major, as they’ll do most anything that is politically expedient. But who knows – say what you will about Bush, he’s deadly serious to a fault about the anti-terror stuff.
I think Bush will be judged better in 50 years than now (it would be hard to be judged worse). In many way, its been an awfully run administration. But you have a good point.
I think Bush will be judged better in 50 years than now (it would be hard to be judged worse).
+1 – history will judge him much much much better than people judge him today
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
uh
What are you basing this on?
A majority of Historians agree that the Bush Presidency will go down as one of the worst of all time.
"Jesus was a community organizer. Pontius Pilate was a governor"
the point is that is a silly proposition
There have been some really bad presidencies, where the country was screwed up far worse than Bush’s (everyone in the 1850s led the country more towrads Civil War, Grant allowed a screwed up Reconstruction that kept the South as a racist 3rd world country for 50 years, Harding was beyond corrupt, heck Kennedy and Johnson led the US into a much more devestating and worthless war in Vietnam)
Bush is extremely unpopular – yes – but that doesn’t mean he’s destroyed the country. Now, if your score is how far he advanced progressive movements, then he wouldn’t do very well. He’s not anywhere close to the worst president of all time. Its one we don’t really need to be repeating anytime soon, but if you step back a bit its not as bad as you think it is.
im basing this on history. history always judges presidencies better than they are at the time. look at hoover. i feel bad for the guy cuz FDR stole many of his ideas he began to implement, called it the “new deal” and played it into multiple presidencies…
also, show me info about the historians…
http://www.newsmax.com/us/bush_legacy/2008/02/06/70599.html
He is the ultimate cowboy diplomat. He is the essence of bravado and arrogance. Opponents called him a bully, and he only turned that into a joke.
He started a war with an easy opponent and made it look like a great victory. But he invaded for dubious reasons. The international community knew it and was outraged. America’s image plummeted in the world and his "reasons" for the invasion were soon utterly discredited.
His war destabilized the region and turned friends of America into bitter enemies who hated us.
He betrayed his conservative base by opening the spigots of government spending and actually increasing government regulation. Wall Street hated him.
He, self righteously, wrapped it all in his religion. At his last nominating convention, the delegates actually left the hall singing "Onward Christian Solders."
He was Theodore Roosevelt, the fourth face on Mt. Rushmore, and he is declared by most historians to be the third greatest president in American history, only topped by Lincoln and Washington.
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
http://hnn.us/articles/48916.html
The link tag isn’t working for me
"Jesus was a community organizer. Pontius Pilate was a governor"
you missed the point
that was just a link – i was ONLY showing that history judges oresidents differently
do you disgree with the info on teddy?
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
sry link info was for taylor
thanks for the info
but thats NOW not in 40/50 years
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
maybe, maybe not.
Historians are probably the best people to ask now about how somebody will be judged in the future.
"Jesus was a community organizer. Pontius Pilate was a governor"
you completely, 100% miss my point
in 50 years it can be seen as different.
your asking historians now, yes.
but im sayin in FIFTY years ask again and it will be seen as different. for example, above
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
You missed the point
So because of Teddy Roosevelt, you think George Bush will be beloved in 50 years? get real. Laughable dude.
"Jesus was a community organizer. Pontius Pilate was a governor"
no
i think that the view people take now will be different than the view people take in 50 years
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
I think that in 50 years
Bush will be judged even worse than he is now.
O Freunde, nicht diese Töne!
Sondern laßt uns angenehmere anstimmen,
und freudenvollere.
Concur...
I just don’t get the “history will judge him better” argument. That seems like the last defense of a failed presidency if you ask me. With all the mistakes he has made there is no way he could be judged better by historians in the future.
Perhaps he will be revered for a short time when he dies, as has been done with Reagan, but I can’t see it going much farther than that.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
I don't think Bush will ever be revered
Reagan’s reverence doesn’t have to do with his death, it has to do with the fact that he gave a movement their voice and was effective in pushing through their agenda (i.e., lower taxes, aggressive stance towards Communism). He’s revered for the same reason that FDR is revered. It won’t go away, despite it being as confusing to liberals as the love for FDR is for conservatives.
Bush is entirely different – he was elected to be the next Reagan for conservatives, but he has definitely antagonized many, if not most of them, in some way. Different ways than how he angered liberals, but he’s not loved by many in his party either. He’s much more like Clinton in that way – the conservatives and true liberals both hated Clinton, but for completely different reasons. When people see his 20-30% approval rating, they are all assuming that the 70% disapproval is for the same reason. It is not. I doubt Clinton will ever be revered, and Bush definitely won’t.
And my rationale for saying he’ll be judged better is solely based on the fact that he’s really considered the bottom of the barrel right now by most people, so saying that he’ll be judged worse is almost impossible. I’m not saying people will view him as a great president later – far, far from that. But there are guys who certainly will be viewed worse in the context of their eras.
Of course, as I point out below in response to Req, much of his legacy depends on where things go from here. Jimmy Carter is probably viewed worse now than when he left office, whereas Harry Truman is viewed far better. Which will be Bush? We can all have opinions to that effect, but no one knows for sure.
I guess you have a point...
if you are already viewed as the worst president it would be hard to go down from there. I think there is some doubt by some on that point though and I believe history will remove all that doubt.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
man
I’ll take my chances with what Historians think over a hand picked newsmax article that took 5 semi-truths to compare Bush to TR.
"Jesus was a community organizer. Pontius Pilate was a governor"
In the public eye
he’ll most likely be as the anger then fades away and people move on (Like with Johnson/Nixon w/Vietnam) and as I mentioned most people in 20 years would have forgotten the names I mentioned. It could also work against him as in the case with Nixon most guys who kept quiet then openly talk now about what happened and what they did.
Ummm, what are you talking about?
He was Theodore Roosevelt, the fourth face on Mt. Rushmore, and he is declared by most historians to be the third greatest president in American history, only topped by Lincoln and Washington.
Are you confusing Teddy Roosevelt with Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the REAL president that most historians place as the 3rd best president
R
its just a quote from tehe article
and i love how FDR stole a bunch of th enew deal from hoover and got away with it lol
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
what?
Hoover wanted to do nothing and let Laisez-Faire policies fix the economy eventually. FDR took a hands on approach that made people more confident, which led to more spending by the rich. “We only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” Name me one thing in the New Deal he stole from Hoover.
Signature! I don't need no stinking signature!!
selling municians to the allies?
and stuff? or actually joining the war? because the economy recovered by the time the us joined
http://www.buchanan4pres2008.org/
NIXON: NOW MORE THAN EVER
Not really
It had not fully recovered, though you could argue the worst was over. There was a recession in 1937-38 which sapped any progress that had been made. Unemployment leapt back up to over 19% (from 14%). The war meant huge government contracts that guaranteed profits (and I mean guaranteed, companies had zero risk) and put everyone to work.
O Freunde, nicht diese Töne!
Sondern laßt uns angenehmere anstimmen,
und freudenvollere.
Do you really think...
that Teddy comes even close to FDR as far as presidents go?
I understand how important Washington and Lincoln were, but I would argue that FDR is the best president this country has ever seen.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
Teddy was a pretty damn good president
It’s hard to compare him and FDR, and impossible to compare him to a modern Republican.
TR had some issues, yeah. The quagmire in the Philippines was a result of the Spanish-American War. The way the Panama Canal got built was…well, most of you know the history on that.
But on the other hand, the fact that the Panama Canal did get built was good for the world economy, not just for the USA. TR founded the National Park system and championed conversation. Most impressive to me is that he was not only willing but enthusiastic about taking on monopolies and oligopolies.
That guy was a different breed entirely.
FDR? The challenges he faced were far greater, and he showed great pragmatism in facing them.
by Black Francis on Sep 6, 2008 2:36 PM CDT up reply actions
TR
TR was a great President because he built America into an Empire. He also fought Tameny Hall in New York, the corrupt political establishment at the time. Truman is another President who left office unpopular but became more popular later in the Century.
Something like that COULD happen to Bush but I don’t think it will. I think Nixon is an apt example. He is still viewed negatively today.
Signature! I don't need no stinking signature!!
my point is that
it could happen
and no one knows what happens over 50 years
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
BTW
Nixon has not improved much if at all in these polls.
He got a short boost after the furor of his Watergate scandal died down, but he’s come back to the previous ranking of around ~30 behind such stalwarts as Van Buren, Gerald Ford, and Rutherford B Hayes.
One interesting note on Bush’s ranking:
Another presidential poll was conducted by The Wall Street Journal in 2005, with James Lindgren of Northwestern University Law School for the Federalist Society.6 As in the 2000 survey, the editors sought to balance the opinions of liberals and conservatives, adjusting the results “to give Democratic- and Republican-leaning scholars equal weight.” Franklin D. Roosevelt still ranked in the top-three, but editor James Taranto noted that Democratic-leaning scholars rated George W. Bush the sixth-worst president of all time, while Republican scholars rated him the sixth-best, giving him a split-decision rating of “average”.
I think in the future, a lot of this partisan bullcrap will be mitigated and I think he’ll come out much worse.
R
"a lot of this partisan bullcrap will be mitigated and I think he’ll come out much worse."
So it is “partisan bullcrap” when conservative scholars rank him highly? And not when liberal scholars rank him low?
Obviously Bush isn’t the 6th best president ever. But he isn’t the 6th worst either. He may be the 6th best for conservatives, and the 6th worst for liberals (being a zero-sum game, that sounds about right). He’s a controversial president, like Clinton before him, and as such was limited in what he could do. Both will take decades to reflect on, and much of their legacy depends on what future presidents do. I think both round out to be in the mid-20s – not good presidents by any stretch, but not among the worst either.
Finally, ranking presidents is a stupid, meaningless exercise and I’m annoyed with myself for responding to any of this.
Considering that
I don’t like Republicans AND Democrats, I’d say I’m more unbiased than registered Republicans and Democrats.
Also, considering that the country as a whole has given Bush really low ratings, but conservative historians label him as the 6th best president, I’d say that conservative historians are more apt to change their mind than more liberal historians.
I love this, coming from the person who thinks that Nixon is viewed better overall even though it’s been about the same. A person who started the whole “I think Bush will be viewed better in 50 years” thread.
R
"I love this" too
I don’t like Republicans AND Democrats, I’d say I’m more unbiased than registered Republicans and Democrats.
That means nothing. You cannot have an affiliation or preference for a major party and be intellectually unbiased at the same time, whereas hating both parties makes you qualified? So Ralph Nader is more qualified than George Will to judge GWB? Please.
I hate the self-righteousness of quote-independents-unquote. I hate everyone, so I must be intellectually superior to them all. Give me a break. I have no idea if you are a Ron Paul libertarian or a Bernie Sanders socialist or just a disillusioned moderate and frankly that doesn’t matter. You have your opinions, I have my opinions, everyone else has theirs, and none are less biased than anyone else’s. You’re view on Bush’s legacy is completely biased by your opinion of him. Just because you don’t agree with some opinions doesn’t mean that eventually they’ll come around to yours. I’ve never heard something so egotistical.
We get it – you hate George W. Bush. Lots of people do. I’m not exactly his biggest fan myself. He’s done a lot of stupid things in the White House, his administration has done a LOT of despicable things. But you know what – most presidents have scandals and mistakes, and most have good moments as well. Obviously the scandals and lies are fresh on everyone’s mind in the moment. It is impossible to know which aspects of the bad will live in infamy and which will be forgotten as just political acrimony. Who knows how history will judge Iraq – that has a lot to do with what happens there over the next five or ten years. Maybe Obama catches Osama in his first month as President, or maybe there are a string of major terrorist attacks starting in 2010. NO ONE KNOWS YET WHAT WILL HAPPEN. He’s not off to a good start – I’ll grant you that. But just assuming he will be one of the worst presidents of all time before we know what these years really meant is both foolish and naive.
First, let me start off
with an apology.
I think part of what riled you up was my statement:
I love this, coming from the person who thinks that Nixon is viewed better overall even though it’s been about the same. A person who started the whole "I think Bush will be viewed better in 50 years" thread.
Looking at it, I can see it being inflammatory.
I apologize.
It doesn’t add to the conservation and just encourages a flaming war.
I think it was brought about by what seemed to me an auto-defense of conservatives in general. After all, I was talking about HISTORIANS here. And I doubt very many people would consider Bush the 6th best president, while I think many people would seriously consider Bush the 6th worst president.
So, IMO, I think when HISTORIANS of the future look at the Bush presidency, they’ll judge it much harsher (mainly because the current conservative historians are so far from the norm that I think partisan bias plays a larger part in their ranking than liberal historians).
I think part of the problem is that we’re talking past each other. I’m mainly talking about historians here and you’re mainly talking about the general public (at least from what I can now perceive). That would lead to a lot of misunderstanding.
I don’t like Republicans AND Democrats, I’d say I’m more unbiased than registered Republicans and Democrats.
That means nothing. You cannot have an affiliation or preference for a major party and be intellectually unbiased at the same time, whereas hating both parties makes you qualified? So Ralph Nader is more qualified than George Will to judge GWB? Please.
That’s true, just hating both parties does not make you less unbiased. I perhaps should have elaborated.
I’m talking about the moderates who often find themselves agreeing with both parties about 1/2 the time, and have to THINK through their agreements and disagreements instead of simply taking the easy way out and just agreeing with party lines.
Because most people in the middle are forced to THINK about these things, they’re more likely to be open to different sides of different issues as opposed to typical Republicans or Democrats.
So, yes, I think that makes moderates/independents more unbiased than typical Republicans and Democrats when judging the parties since they ROUTINELY THINK THROUGH these problems when they vote while party-followers tend not to think as much.
Do you think that people who just follow party lines are less biased than people forced to make decisions every time they vote?
Finally, while it’s quite possible for Bush to be perceived as better in the future, I think the chances of a significant increase are really low.
His administration has done so many despicable things THAT WE KNOW OF, but there might be more despicable things that we might NOT KNOW OF, that I’d say that the odds of Bush being viewed more favorably by a significant margin are low.
Let’s put it this way, say you were to be magically transported 50 years in the future, and before you go, your ability to survive the transportation depended on how accurate your assessment of Bush’s popularity then vs. current popularity, and you were given the choices of :
1) Significantly improved
2) About the same or worse.
Which choice would you make?
R
Oh I see
you’re taking old data. And from the majority of surveys the top 3 tend to be Washington, Lincoln, and FDR. Sometimes, Jefferson is thrown up above Washington and occasionally Teddy shows up there.
OTOH, the top 5 is pretty consistent with Washington, Lincoln, FDR, Jefferson, and Teddy rounding out the top 5.
R
Both Teddy and FDR
should be in the top 5 of greatest presidents ever.
"Well, the Dallas Mavericks got beat by the New Orleans Hornets last night ending their season. Word is that someone on the team is dating Jessica Simpson." - Jay Leno
LSB facebook group ---->>> http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=33345329288
I think he'll be viewed as worse
because most of the controversies he had were protected, either by a loyal Republican base or a weak Democratic one. History has a way of exposing things that were previously swept under a rug.
Then again, who knows in 20 years if people will even remember the names Valerie Plume, Scooter Libby, Alberto Gonzales, Donald Rumsfeld and Tom Delay.
"if people will even remember the names"
that is kind of my point.
Nixon was far more corrupt, secretive, dirty, vulgar, etc. than Bush. Yet his reputation has improved, not decreased, over time. Because there was good with that bad – there always is. In the big scheme of things, Nixon visiting China was more important for the US and the world than his stupid decision to break into a Democrat office on the Potomac. Valerie Plame, Tom DeLay, Alberto Gonzalez, etc. are big deals, but they are big deals to Democrats and political junkies today. They aren’t giant issues that affect our daily lives. Bush will be forever tainted by scandals, but that anger will fade once he leaves office.
nixon was a great president
lay off buster
http://www.buchanan4pres2008.org/
NIXON: NOW MORE THAN EVER
I guess...but..
How many terrorist attacks occured on US soil before 9/11? 1? Nobody knows how serious a threat any attacks were after 9/11. What did Bush do that no other US President wouldn’t have done post 9/11 that made us safer?
"Jesus was a community organizer. Pontius Pilate was a governor"
well
The Oklahoma City bombing and the bombing against the WTC.
"Jesus was a community organizer. Pontius Pilate was a governor"
oops
3 then. 1 was islamic. my bad.
don’t forget the boston tea party ;)
http://www.buchanan4pres2008.org/
NIXON: NOW MORE THAN EVER
The boston tea party?
That was more of a riot than a terrorist attack.
"Jesus was a community organizer. Pontius Pilate was a governor"
it was sabatage
and i’m sure in the minds of the british it was terrifying.
and i’m not completely serious
http://www.buchanan4pres2008.org/
NIXON: NOW MORE THAN EVER
terrorism
The thing about the 9/11 attacks is that they took years to pull off. And while there have been no terrorist attacks on the US, there have been terrorist attacks on our allies, namely Spain and Britain. Remember, it took almost a full decade between attack on the Twin towers. In my view, Bush has done little on the war on Terror except move us closer to being a police state. Taking down the Taliban helped, but he still hasn’t found Osama Bin Laden yet. It would also be nice if he had handled Musharaff a little better so we could go into Pakistan where Bin Laden is probably hiding.
Signature! I don't need no stinking signature!!
i serously dont think hes in pakistan
and if he is, what are we going to do? invade? – we saw this week how pissed they got when we had a strike within their borders.
i dont think he is still alive…but thats just me. to me there is a big question as to if he has more value alive than dead or dead than alive…(to his followers)
obama wants to go into an ISLAMIC country with NUCLEAR weapons and UNSTABLE leadership…when that was essentially what started this entire thing in the first place…
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
So...
You don’t want to find Bin Laden because it might piss off Pakistan? I’ll take my chances with finding Bin Laden in Pakistan over invading Iran over the same BS that got us into Iraq.
"Jesus was a community organizer. Pontius Pilate was a governor"
and for the record, iran is a much bigger threat than pakistan.
iran is also potentially a much bigger threat than OBL (for ability to fuck with the world)
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
And so is North Korea
and Russia. Yet the difference between those three countries and OBL is one has already attacked us.
also said fuck with the world
not just us.
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
what?
Pakistan isn’t the threat, OBL is the threat who may or may not be hiding in the mountains which border Pakistan and Afghanistan. Iran is a weak paper tiger.
"Jesus was a community organizer. Pontius Pilate was a governor"
a pissed off pakistan with an anti-american leader/people could indeed be a fucking huge threat
what happens if pakistan becomes anti-american?
what happens when pakistan starts to get pissed about our “deal” with india regarding the NPT?
what happens when pakistan starts funding other elements in afghanistan (may be happening now?)
what happens with pakistan starts pulling a russia and plays mind games with india?
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
They already have
began messing around with India. If you look over by Kashmir, there is constant fighting going on between the Muslims who believe that it should belong to Paki and the Hindus who think that it should belong to India. Until India resolves their situation with Pakistan, its going to be tough for the US, which has favored India in the past, to do anything.
"Well, the Dallas Mavericks got beat by the New Orleans Hornets last night ending their season. Word is that someone on the team is dating Jessica Simpson." - Jay Leno
LSB facebook group ---->>> http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=33345329288
no i dont think hes in pakistan
i think if we had ANY info that he was we would have gone in when there was a leader who was somewhat sympathetic to the US as opposed to a situation where= who knows what gonna happen.
if hes there – go get him.
but if we had ANY information on where he was we would have already gone in and gotten him/killed him
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
he never said that
obama wants to go into an ISLAMIC country with NUCLEAR weapons and UNSTABLE leadership…when that was essentially what started this entire thing in the first place…
i believe he said that if terrorists are in pakistan yes we attack them. but he would speak to their leaders first of course. dimplomacy, blablabla. besides, republicans loved it when bush said, “with us or against us”. and obama said he wouldn’t take any options off the table. all politicians say that (except maybe kucinic and gravel and paul) because you weaken the us if you take that option off.
saying “all options are on the table” does not = i will nuke yo haji ass.
http://www.buchanan4pres2008.org/
NIXON: NOW MORE THAN EVER
i thought i read somewher/ehe said ti in his speech in denver that he woudl go into pakistan for OBL?
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
He has said it before
and kudos to him for doing so. I’d like to think that if Bush had specific knowledge about Bin Laden’s whereabouts he’d go get him anywhere – and that includes Russia or China, fwiw.
There are obviously details – you don’t go firing a missile over a country that has nukes pointing at their neighbor. But there are ways to get people if you know where they are…
most people support going after the bad guy
and getting that shithead. that’s the difference between iraq and afghanistan. one was justified.
http://www.buchanan4pres2008.org/
NIXON: NOW MORE THAN EVER
well
I said he’d try to go get him. I didn’t say he’d necessarily do it well enough to succeed. Sometimes things don’t work out, especially in the one country no Western nation has ever been able to subjugate….
Unless you are suggesting Bush let him go there?
Unfortunately
It’s not true.
2002
-United States, July 4: An Egyptian gunman opens fire at an El Al ticket counter in Los Angeles International Airport, killing two Israelis before being killed himself.
-United States, October: John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo conduct the Beltway Sniper Attacks, killing ten people in various locations throughout the Baltimore-Washington Metropolitan Area from October 2 until they are arrested on October 24.
2006
-United States, March 3: Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, an Iranian-born graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, drives an SUV onto a crowded part of campus, injuring nine.
-United States, August 30: An Afghani Muslim hit 19 pedestrians, killing one, with his SUV in the San Francisco Bay area.
And that’s from a short look through on Wikipedia.
I didn’t include ones which didn’t have at least a hint of ideological basing (e.g., Virginia Tech massacre).
And this DOESN’T include attacks on US embassies and citizens outside the US.
I was reffering to major Terrorist Attacks
Don’t get me wrong, the attacks you listed above are correct and it is saddening that all of them happened; however, we have not had anything as disastrous as what happened on 9/11, with thousands of people being injured, with many more killed, and that should be a testament to Bush and his administration for protecting the US.
"Well, the Dallas Mavericks got beat by the New Orleans Hornets last night ending their season. Word is that someone on the team is dating Jessica Simpson." - Jay Leno
LSB facebook group ---->>> http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=33345329288
Problem is
How many major terrorist attacks were there in US before?
Yes, only 1, the previous WTC attack which was in 1993, EIGHT YEARS BEFORE.
You’re assuming “Post hoc ergo propter hoc”, which is a fallacy, when you are “amazed” at the “great job” Bush has done.
The issue as someone else mentioned is that these type of major terrorist attacks take a lot of time to plan if they want to be successful. There’s not very much evidence that what Bush has done is beyond what a normal human being would do.
R
Ok
Imagine Al Gore had won the 2000 election. Can we honestly say there would have been have had no major attacks?
"Well, the Dallas Mavericks got beat by the New Orleans Hornets last night ending their season. Word is that someone on the team is dating Jessica Simpson." - Jay Leno
LSB facebook group ---->>> http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=33345329288
Huh?
Not sure what you’re trying to ask.
I think there’s a possibility that Gore wouldn’t have taken a vacation immediately after getting elected and then ignored security warnings about Bin Laden since he would have been more familiar with the process.
Do I think there would not have been 9/11? No, I still think there’s a pretty good chance that 9/11 would have still occurred.
Do I think that there would have been no major attacks AFTER a 9/11 occurred? No, not really.
Why do YOU think that American w/ Gore would have been any less secure than American w/ Bush would have been? Considering that prior to 1993, there really hasn’t been a terrorist attack in America before.
R
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree
I am by no means a Bush apologist. All, I am saying is that his presidency has been better than most people have said. In relation to the question about terrorist attacks, before 1993, you are correct, there were no major ones. However, before the early 1990’s, why would terrorists have attacked us? Unless you count the Soviets or the Japanese as terrorists, there would’ve been none. Until the early 1990’s, when the elder Bush decided to attack Iraq, and become major enemies with the Islamic countries, there had been nothing major going on, outside of the Iran Hostage Crisis in the 1970’s with Carter.
As for your question, about Gore, what makes you think that he would have protected. IMO, he was known more for his economic and environmental policies, i.e. global warming, then for his national defense or foreign policies. I’ll agree that maybe our economy would’ve been in a better place with him as President, but I highly doubt that we’d have been as safe or safer than we are today.
"Well, the Dallas Mavericks got beat by the New Orleans Hornets last night ending their season. Word is that someone on the team is dating Jessica Simpson." - Jay Leno
LSB facebook group ---->>> http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=33345329288
Gore
In relation to the question about terrorist attacks, before 1993, you are correct, there were no major ones. However, before the early 1990’s, why would terrorists have attacked us?
To clarify, my point was that even DURING THE Clinton administration, there were opportunities for terrorists to attack. They DID NOT. The problem is we don’t know whether it was because of by choice or by something Clinton did.
And I don’t see anyone praising Clinton for what a “great job” he did in defending us.
Frankly, I don’t think Clinton or Bush deserve a “great job” in defending us, because WE JUST DON’T KNOW IF THERE WERE SIGNIFICANT OPPORTUNITIES.
IOW, it’s hard to prove a negative.
As for your question, about Gore, what makes you think that he would have protected. IMO, he was known more for his economic and environmental policies, i.e. global warming, then for his national defense or foreign policies. I’ll agree that maybe our economy would’ve been in a better place with him as President, but I highly doubt that we’d have been as safe or safer than we are today.
I guess I don’t understand this line of thought. What makes you think that we would have been LESS protected under Gore?
As for why I think Gore had a possibility of thwarting 9/11 (albeit likely remote possibility), it’s because
1) he was from the previous administration, so it would have been easier for him to transition to the presidency,
2) I think it unlikely he would have taken a vacation in the summer of 2001 when the storm for the 9/11 attacks were being built up.
That’s pretty much it (which is why I think it’s a remote possibility).
I’m still waiting for you to tell me why you think Gore would have been significantly unsafer.
R
I'd say it is also more likely that he would actually study the daily NIEs
Last week I took a pleasure trip. I drove my wife to the airport.
Hinduplaya...
Thank you for making this point. I had the opportunity to listen to JC Watts speak at a TCU breakfast this past year, and while Mr. Watts (yes the former OU quarterback, congressman, and african-american republican) stated that while he disagreed with many of President Bush’s policies, he had no doubt whatsoever that the country was a safer place now than before Mr. Bush was the president. I am sure that some will say that this is more republican rhetoric, but I believe these were the personal (read not political) views of a man who has devoted much of his life to the service of others. Take it for what you will, but unlike some other posts I have seen, I will take the word of a man who has acted as a public servant and who followed up on his actions when he quit congress after his predetermined term limits over some historians who have never had to really “live” outside of their ivory towers of acedamia.
by rwh on Sep 6, 2008 1:01 AM CDT up reply actions
One of the things
That made my ears perk up was what he said about teacher’s union/lobbyists and bad teachers. We need to pay the good teachers better and help the bad teachers find another job. I’ve talked to our State Reps and Senators and the only reason teacher’s pay doesn’t get bumped each session is the union’s refusal to have merit based pay. Everyone is equal. I’m engaged to a teacher. And the deterioration of the school system in Texas is sickening. I think a great first step would be to create a competitive teacher job market and end, the thinking for some, that it is a fall-back job.
is it true
that the teacher’s union in texas can’t strike? what power does that union have?
http://www.buchanan4pres2008.org/
NIXON: NOW MORE THAN EVER
My friend tried to be a teacher
He’s a good guy, and really smart. Just the wrong career choice for him. He thought he’d eventually get better at it, but you know what? They didn’t renew his contract. So I guess it’s not impossible to get rid of bad teachers, after all.
by Black Francis on Sep 6, 2008 2:57 PM CDT up reply actions
It's not impossible...
but it is difficult. The real problem with teaching is that they can’t hire the real good poeple that want to be teachers because the salaries are too damn low. My intention coming out of college was to teach history. I went back to Cali and started working on my credentials before moving back to Utah for my wife. When I looked into salaries out here and found out they start teachers in the low 20K’s I said screw that and looked for a higher paying job. I think the education system suffers because they have lost a lot of valuable people due to lack of salary. You have to really love teaching to put up with the low pay. I’m sure once I’m financially able to afford to teach I will go back to it, but ’til then I just keep plugging away at my shitty finance job.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
question
What can McCain do about fixing public schools? nothing. These are state and local school district issues. That was some of the biggest BS in his speech last night.
"Jesus was a community organizer. Pontius Pilate was a governor"
correct
it is a state issue but can definately have federal guidlines implemented much like we have with highway funding.
No child left behind
According to your fiance, success or failure?
Last week I took a pleasure trip. I drove my wife to the airport.
I call it
no child left untested. I cannot understand the need to quantify something as amorphous as educating a child.
O Freunde, nicht diese Töne!
Sondern laßt uns angenehmere anstimmen,
und freudenvollere.
Better to
Play to the lowest common denominator than do nothing, though, right?
I’m not defending NCLB, but I understand the spirit behind it.
I saw your question yesterday
and asked her. She really isn’t affected by it since she teaches in Round Rock ISD and hasn’t heard any success stories either, since most of her interactions with other teachers are within her district. My opinion is that it was a noble cause/idea that lacked the infrastructure, from the start, to be successful.
I only wish McCain's position was strong enough
to take on the Teachers Unions. The education system is a disaster, and they are blocking many steps that will improve it. I’m not arguing that they should go away, rather I think that they should be a little more active in trying to fix things as opposed to blocking reform.
merits
I have no problem with merit based pay. Unfortunately, most people assume merit based pay with giving money to teacher’s whose students did better on the TAKS test. That is not a good metric to judge teachers on.
Signature! I don't need no stinking signature!!
+ one million
thats part of the problem w/ schools today is teachers teach to the TAKS (when i was in school it was the TAAS – but same principle)
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
just wondering
How many of you currently have children in public schools?
Nolan Ryan should be the Rangers president, GM, manager and pitching coach.
no children
but have a bro who is a senior this year + my other brother and i went through public school
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
I don't but..
I have a lot of friends and relatives who are teachers. From their viewpoint, parents are a big problem. They either care too much and helicopter over their kids, or they don’t care enough and schools have to bribe the parents with raffles to get them to attend PTA functions.
Signature! I don't need no stinking signature!!
+ a million
When I got in trouble in school my dad I was guilty until proven innocent. Now a days, parents rip teachers before they even hear their side. The parents have put the parenting on the teachers and every child now has some form of learning disability (excuse) that now, each school has to have 3 faculty members whose sole job is to go around all day checking on them.
by the way,
some of you know, I’m dyslexic. So in no way am I trying to down play true learning disabilities.
Parents
If parents would take responsibilty for their children’s education then the schools would be better. It is not that hard to do. Communicate with teachers, help with homework and take an interest in school activities. I don’t have a problem with TAKS or any other type of assessment test. It establishes goals and accountability. Also, I have heard that joining the PTA makes one qualified to be VP. :)
Nolan Ryan should be the Rangers president, GM, manager and pitching coach.
TAKS
The thing about the TAKS is that is being put in front of everything else. My wife is now a reading specialist and pulls low reading kids from their class rooms to reinforce their reading. This is done while the rest of the class learns Social Studies or whatever non-TAKS subject they are studying at the time.
Schools also pretty much shut down whenever one grade is testing. They don’t want the other grades to distract the test takers which might lower the scores. Also, when I was in High School, they would send all the 10th graders into TAAS boot camp to review for the TAAS test the following week. There is so much pressure to pass these tests that some administrators will bend the rules and try to get some kids labeled as special needs so that their scores won’t affect the schools ratings.
This is why the TAKS cannot be the ONLY way to judge schools performance. Everything else in that school becomes secondary.
Signature! I don't need no stinking signature!!
more
I went to 1st grade in Tenn. When my parents divorce I moved to Florida and went into 2nd grade. I was way behind. After 6 weeks I was put into 1st grade. I still had to go to special reading lessons during the day in order to catch up. The 3 Rs are more important in elementary school than anything else they may teach. If a student cannot read, write and do math by the time they enter middle school, they will not get caught up.
TAKS shouldn’t be the only way to judge a teacher’s and school’s performance. I do think school districts should have comparable goals so that a 1st grader in one state gets a comparable education in another state or school district.
Nolan Ryan should be the Rangers president, GM, manager and pitching coach.
Its more about
the policies and procedures that I get to hear about over dinner with my future wife who taught high school for 4 years and is now teaching middle school part time at 2 different schools (making her full-time).
I've been a teacher
in private schools and have a daughter who will be in kindergarten in 2 years. I would NEVER consider teaching in a public school. Too much red tape and emphasis on tests and trophies.
O Freunde, nicht diese Töne!
Sondern laßt uns angenehmere anstimmen,
und freudenvollere.
Anyone see this last night?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkaKwJ9eOUU
Nolan Ryan should be the Rangers president, GM, manager and pitching coach.
it's no longer on youtube
Whatever it was.
Nolan Ryan should be the Rangers president, GM, manager and pitching coach.
Can't find another link up
But it was from The Daily Show regarding Fox News’ hypocrisy in the Palin case…
Karl Rove supporting her, saying she was the mayor of “the second largest city in Alaska”, then blasting Tim Kaine because “Richmond is not a major city, and if he was chosen, he wouldn’t be ready to lead the country if something happened to Obama”… then Bill O’Reilly saying that Bristol Palin’s teen pregnancy is a family issue and as long as no government support is needed, that it isn’t a big deal, followed by him blasting Jamie Lynn Spears parents and calling them pinheads. Finally, there were statements by Greg Harris regarding the media being sexist to Palin, then saying HRC was just playing the gender card, followed by Palin herself making a statement to the same degree.
by vfn on Sep 5, 2008 8:32 PM CDT up reply actions
This?
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184086&title=sarah-palin-gender-card
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
"I just hope enough dumb oversexed over self-esteemed American public educated female liberals (yeah, you know the type) vote for a woman because she has a vagina, to swing some things."- Sharky.
"JD is a great GM if you ignore the giving away pitching and handing out horrible contract stuff."-Tricer
That's the one.
I thought it wasn’t going to load because I’m not in the US, but I guess the server’s just kind of slow.
by vfn on Sep 5, 2008 9:07 PM CDT up reply actions
That clip is so full of awesomeness
GOP = EPIC FAIL!!!
Signature! I don't need no stinking signature!!
by DerekSTheRed on Sep 6, 2008 12:32 AM CDT up reply actions
Obama/Biden
Should use those clips in their campaign ads when things get nasty. It would be pretty effective.
by Black Francis on Sep 6, 2008 6:10 PM CDT up reply actions
Newt is a joke...
not really someone for conservatives to hang their hat on imo. You can do much better than him.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
Here is my question to all posting on this subject..
Do you really want an Obama presidency with a Pelosi led house and democratic led senate? I will admit that I tend to staunchly support the republican party, but my views really tend to lean towards libertarian (I just tend to underweight the social issues). My problem is this – I think that the dual power of the presidency and the house/senate in republican hands prior to 2007 was a bad thing. Do you really want a democratic led legislative branch and executive branch? I would be less opposed to Obama as president if I felt that the legislature would be balanced out by republicans. But, and this is a big BUT, it scares me to no end to imagine Obama in the White House approving everything that the democrats pass when the democrats in the house are led by Pelosi. Remember, this is the woman who responded to Americans protesting her position to not do any off-shore drilling by saying “we should drill their brains.” Such an intelligent statement from such an “educated” woman. This is the same woman who said that the Roman Catholic Church did not have a strong position on abortion. Really? Do we really want to let our government be controlled by that?
On a seperate note, I really think that everyone overestimates the power of the POTUS. He/She is the last resort to reject a bill that the congress passes, but the congress creates the laws. Yes, the president can declare war, but funding must still be approved by congress. The real issue in this election, at least to me, should be whether or not we want ONE party to control every decision that is made. I do not think that has been a course that has provided exceptional results.
Also, one final thought, everyone wants to blame President Bush for the current economic situation, but do you really believe that the President has that much influence on the economy? The current situation was caused by greed and risky loans (read poor business decisions) (BTW, there is an interesting parallel to the Asian economic crisis of 1997/1998, risky loans, belief that real estate would continue to increase in value indefinately, etc. if you are interested in researching) not by the policies of the president. The President is an easy scapegoat, but realistically, he/she has little impact on the market.
Discuss…
by rwh on Sep 6, 2008 1:31 AM CDT reply actions
I'm not basing my vote on Congress majority
And I doubt many people ever have in the history or presidential elections. Would you bring up this point if the Republicans had a majority in Congress?
Who controls congress...
that’s now how I base my vote.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
Instead of
voting for who you think would be the better president? That’s silly.
O Freunde, nicht diese Töne!
Sondern laßt uns angenehmere anstimmen,
und freudenvollere.
Not silly.
I prefer the government that governs least.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
governs least
does not equal governs best.
O Freunde, nicht diese Töne!
Sondern laßt uns angenehmere anstimmen,
und freudenvollere.
Please do not base your vote solely on the congress majority
My point was that people often have a myopic view when it comes to the presidential election. Just look at all angles. And regarding your question on whether I would bring up this point if it was a republican congress, I do not know if I would have. But having seen some of the decisions that have come when one party controls congress and the presidency, I will say that it would make me think twice about wanting that again.
by rwh on Sep 6, 2008 10:31 AM CDT up reply actions
I believe a large problem with our economy
is the massed Debt we accumulated under Bush, as well as the debt piled up in the private sector. I think trying to base your economy on borrowed money, especially for current spending, is a bad, bad idea. Borrow and Spend appears to me to be worse economics than tax and spend, and after 30 years of watching politics, I have absolutely no reason to believe that Republicans do any more to restrain spending than democrats. Spending priorities are different, but the orgy of spending 2000-2006 quashes any concept that the Republicans are fiscally conservative.
I know you want people to fear the names Obama/Pelosi, but I’ve seen Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Delay, and after that, no names can scare me much.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
"I just hope enough dumb oversexed over self-esteemed American public educated female liberals (yeah, you know the type) vote for a woman because she has a vagina, to swing some things."- Sharky.
"JD is a great GM if you ignore the giving away pitching and handing out horrible contract stuff."-Tricer
plus
we just nationalized fannie and freddie, potentially adding another, oh $5 trillion to the national debt.
oh boy.
If you are republican...
of course the dems controling the house, senate, and having the presidency would scare you. Nothing wrong with that if you are conservative. However do you really think that dems are going to be scared if they win the presidency? Most dems feel that controling all 3 would be great, why wouldn’t they?
I also strongly disagree with how you view the presidents impact on the economy. Look at how many billions of dollars have been pumped into Iraq. His great tax cuts went to the wrong people, and I don’t think there is any way to defend Bush as a fiscal conservative the way he has spent money in other areas as well. I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I don’t think he should take as much of the blame for the economy as many want to give him, but to say he has little impact on the market is false.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
much of the money that "went into iraq"
went to american companies.
just sayin
http://www.buchanan4pres2008.org/
NIXON: NOW MORE THAN EVER
Yeah, under no bid contracts
and hidden away from the budget process. Having Halliburton make billions does not make me sanguine about all the money spent on Iraq. All that money could have been spent with American companies in countless other ways, like repairing infrastructure. Infrastructure is something not getting talked about enough. I’d much rather the next pres spend money and political capital on major infrastructure projects than budding their nose into local schools. Why people think the federal government should be telling states and municipalities how to run schools is beyond me.
O Freunde, nicht diese Töne!
Sondern laßt uns angenehmere anstimmen,
und freudenvollere.
infrastructure
Huckabee……..that was his economic solution during the primary season
"You’re the worst poster here I think."--- brettgardner
by red shoe ranger on Sep 6, 2008 8:55 PM CDT up reply actions
Well
I would believe what you said more, if you hadn’t called me Mr. Pelosi on no pretext.
I think you have a definite Republican bias, here.
Remember, this is the woman who responded to Americans protesting her position to not do any off-shore drilling by saying "we should drill their brains."
The problem is that she’s essentially right, because if we enacted the oil-drilling laws, it would take TEN YEARS to have that drilling affect the oil markets.
It’s basically a ploy to try to gain votes by acting like you’re doing something for common Americans, but really doing nothing.
I could also give you McCain sound bites that would scare you to no end, but that would just be fear-mongering.
Frankly, I don’t believe you would be saying the same things if there were a Republican majority in Congress.
BTW, the President can’t declare war. That’s solely Congress’s prerogative which they essentially gave to Bush as a blank check for Iraq.
R
And a full pardon for any war crimes
The way the “war” has been ran is absolutely fucking disgusting, and no one reasonable can disagree.
Requiem,
I admit, I was smarmy in my earlier comment in calling you Mr. Pelosi, and for that I do apologize. It was a poor attempt at humor (sarcasm does not come across to well in written words). Yes, I do have a republican bias, I admitted as much in my post. But, to me, it seems clear that you have a liberal/democratic bias based on your posts.
While what you say about drilling not having an actual impact may be true, I believe that the markets would react differently. Markets are forward looking and even the pretext of drilling has had an impact. Maybe Pelosi is right, but the comment that she made comes across as very elitest, a “I am smarter than you, so shut the f up.” Not a very savvy move in my opinion.
You are correct that only congress can declare war, but the president does have some leeway. I made that statement without checking all of my facts. But the president does have the right to initiate action prior to congressional approval (but for the action to continue it must be approved through the congress).
And, venturafearsnolan, while you may say that any reasonable person believes that the war has been run is “absolutely f-ing disgusting” I can say that I have talked to servicemen that would tell you that you are wrong. That does not mean everyone who has served the country feels that way, but there are many in the military that feel that we did the right thing by going into Iraq. I, unfortunately, have had the opportunity to see some real footage from a soldier that was in Iraq, and I saw some of the most disturbing things I have ever seen. These were acts commited by the Iraqi’s that did not want to see any sort of democracy in their sphere of influence. Acts that were committed not on US personnel but on their own people.
by rwh on Sep 7, 2008 12:58 AM CDT up reply actions
Mismanaged and ill-advised
They’ve condoned torture, went into Iraq under false pretenses, have done more to energize an young Anti-American base in the Islamic world than Osama Bin Laden (who is still on the loose, but the administration truly doesn’t give a shit) could’ve done in a thousand lifetimes… it has been a total failure.
And I say this as someone whose sister just returned from Iraq (I signed up to join the Navy out of high school myself, and if it wasn’t for a back condition I’m sure I would’ve seen time there too).
No more families should have to undergo what mine, or even worse, what the families of those who have lost children have gone through, not for this pointless war.
by vfn on Sep 7, 2008 1:44 AM CDT up reply actions
I respect your opinion
but, there are many who have been to Iraq that feel they did the right thing, made this country and Iraq safer, and do not feel it was a pointless war. This is coming from (soon to be) family. War is ugly, my family has served in wars, I have soon to be family that has served in this war. If I were to tell my future brother in-law that this war was pointless I do not think that he would even talk to me. And he was in Iraq. And I know that many of the men he served with feel the same way.
Again, I have seen and heard some of what happened to the people of Iraq and anything our servicemen have done pales in comparison. I do not know what your sister saw, I only know what I have been told. God bless your sister and all of our servicemen and women. War is ugly and I truly never want it.
by rwh on Sep 7, 2008 2:01 AM CDT up reply actions
War is ugly and I truly never want it?
Then why do you seem to be defending Bush, even though we went in on the flimsiest of charges?
I don’t know if I believe that you truly don’t want war.
People who truly don’t want war would realize that Bush did NOT do everything within his power to avoid war in Iraq, and in fact, LOOKED FOR REASONS TO INVADE. To deny that, well, I’m curious how can one deny that?
R
Okay,
Lets take a step back. If I seemed to politicize this war, that was not my intent. I only meant to say that people that have served are not 100% against the action. That does not mean that these people are pro war (and that includes me). You looked too much into what I said. I never really took a stance except to say that there were servicemen that felt the war was not all bad, that the US did a service for the Iraqi people and for the citizens of the US.
by rwh on Sep 7, 2008 3:03 AM CDT up reply actions
"even though we went in on the flimsiest of charges"
Chalk me up as someone who thinks that you can do the right thing for the wrong reasons. Entering WWII would not have been wrong if FDR made the case based on Hitler’s desire to corner the sausage market.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
The issue with that
Is usually the “right thing” has justifications in itself.
But it sounds like you want America to become a police nation for the world?
I thought you were anti-government and anti big-government, Ben?
How do you reconcile that with what seems to be your defense of Bush?
R
I don't think I'm defending Bush.
And I don’t necessarily think we should be the policeman of the world.
However, if we can agree that Saddam Hussein was a bad man, and removing him from power is a good thing, then I don’t think that the reasoning for removing him makes removing him less of a good thing. Likewise, if removing a tyrant from power in one place is a good thing, then not removing all tyrants does not negate the good of removing the one tyrant.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
Was it worth...
4000 American lives to overthrow Saddam Hussein?
12,000 injured?
Was it worth untold billions of dollars already spent and billions more to be spent?
Is it worth having an armed forces who is so bogged down with Iraq that we don’t have the presence to deter Russian aggression?
Is it worth the political divide it has caused in our own country?
What about our reputation overseas?
And in the end, has it been effective? I still think Iraq is fertile ground for civil war. The only way they’re going to stick together is with a dictator.
by Black Francis on Sep 7, 2008 8:24 AM CDT up reply actions
You forgot
Was it worth diminishing the resources and attention paid to Al Qaida and Afghanistan/Pakistan?
Saddam could have waited. He was even useful in an odd way where it concerns Iran. Or, at the very fucking least, Bush could have tried building more of a coalition — for both the general war on terrorism and Iraq — the way his father did. What incredible hubris and obstinacy.
O Freunde, nicht diese Töne!
Sondern laßt uns angenehmere anstimmen,
und freudenvollere.
"4000 American lives"
See, I don’t think 4000 American lives is that significant It’s certainly vanishingly small for a conflict of this scale historically.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
Come on now Ben...
I get your point that 4,000 people dying in a war isn’t much compared to other wars fought throughout history, but it’s still 4,000 people that didn’t have to die.
I guarantee you that the families of those 4,000 people think it’s significant. That post came off rather insensitive.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
He doesn't care.
He has the luxury of being a relatively wealthy ponderer, to whom actual realities cannot come within 100 feet. That’s why things like “I prefer the government that governs least” can spring so effortlessly from his sweaty fingers.
It’s easy to shrug off what you don’t need, and easier still to dismiss the plights of those whose struggles don’t touch you.
The tough part is caring when you don’t have to.
Well...
It’s not that I think that he doesn’t care. I just think he used a poor choice of words there.
Look, I’m not going to get in the middle of your guys’ arguments. I actually really enjoy reading both of your thoughts on things even when I don’t agree with what one of you have to say. I feel that you both bring an intelligent viewpoint to issues.
That said, you know you can come off rather crass at times as well Brett. It’s not a big deal, just sayin’. I do agree with your last two sentences though. It would be nice if people did care about the bigger issues even if they don’t directly effect you. I think some do, but unfortunately many don’t.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
I'm very crass
And arrogant, smarmy, douchy, and a host of other negatives at times.
But I do care about things that don’t affect me directly, and I have the capacity to care about the plights of others at least as much as I care about my own. I don’t get that impression from ben. Of course, I don’t actually know him, and I could be wrong. Doubt it, though.
by brettgardner on Sep 7, 2008 10:06 PM CDT up reply actions
BG, you forgot to mention that
you’re also insecure.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
And you forgot...
to mention you don’t know shit about baseball.
Rather than taking shots at BG perhaps you should just focus on yourself there big guy.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
"your guys' argument"?
Really?
You’ve spent too much time in Utah and Cali, broseph.
The correct way to say it is “y’all’s argument”.
The 40 Trumps All!!!
fail fali fial fila flai flia afil afli ailf aifl alfi alif iafl ialf ifla ifal ilaf ilfa lafi laif lifa liaf lfai lfia
Trade all good hitters for good pitchers. THEN IF the hitting is bad worry about it
fail fali fial fila flai flia afil afli ailf aifl alfi alif iafl ialf ifla ifal ilaf ilfa lafi laif lifa liaf lfai lfia
Trade all good hitters for good pitchers. THEN IF the hitting is bad worry about it
Jeez, stop ownershipping me so hard, Steal Home!
Your winning is just too much for me!
Never before has the world seen such an unstoppable winner!
The 40 Trumps All!!!
fail fali fial fila flai flia afil afli ailf aifl alfi alif iafl ialf ifla ifal ilaf ilfa lafi laif lifa liaf lfai lfia
Trade all good hitters for good pitchers. THEN IF the hitting is bad worry about it
4,000 people dying over a 5 year period...
I’d have to look it up, but prior to the Iraq war, something like 200 people a year die in the military because of training accidents. An average of 180 police officers die in the line of duty each year. Four or five times the number of people die in traffic accidents each year as have died in Iraq.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
I thought I recently read that there were more than
125 people shot & killed in Chicago this past summer (more than twice the number of Americans killed in Iraq this past summer).
Who is the new “community organizer”?
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
Yeah...
the point being, if you think removing Saddam is a good thing, 4000 lives is a relatively small price to pay, all things considered.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
It is?
Why’s that? Just because you think an end is just doesn’t mean you have to think that any means to facilitate that end are just.
by brettgardner on Sep 7, 2008 11:43 PM CDT up reply actions
Big eye roll.
You’ve never explained why you can’t engage in a conversation with me, other than saying that you don’t like me. To each his own, I suppose, but that seems rather immature.
by brettgardner on Sep 7, 2008 11:48 PM CDT up reply actions
I don't understand.
Does that mean that those Iraq deaths aren’t as important because they constitute a smaller number than some other randomly picked number?
by brettgardner on Sep 7, 2008 11:54 PM CDT up reply actions
That
Wasn’t even a reply to you. At least let Josey speak for himself.
by brettgardner on Sep 8, 2008 12:03 AM CDT up reply actions
Concur...
People will die everyday doing many things. That doesn’t mean you need to speed up the process with an unjust war.
I understand Saddam was a cruel dictator, but if we go invading every country with a cruel dictator (which we have tried before, after installing many of them there ourselves none the less) we will be at war with many nations for a very long time. We don’t always need to be the world’s police, fuck yeah!
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
Why...
is it an unjust war?
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
We went to war...
under false pretenses. Imo that’s an unjust war.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
I have a question
and I’m not trying to be smarmy or anything. But would you consider a military intervention into Darfur legitimate? Do you think that the US should have gone in there after the UN proved incompetent?
I’m curious whether you would consider that a “just” war? Obviously arguments can be made either way
Personally, given that the US’s argument for Iraq was “the UN is too inept to deal with him, so we’re going to get him out of there,” the same argument should have applied in Sudan. But logistically that would have been a far more costly war (probably more than 4000 troops would have died fighting a war in the middle of the Sahara 1000+ miles from friendly territory). But I also respect the “we aren’t the world’s police” argument.
I think something needs to be done...
about Darfur. Realistically, however, we’re the only country on the planet with an actual force projection capability, and we’re busy. But I don’t necessarily think Darfur should have taken precedence over Iraq.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
I wouldn't...
agree with US military intervention in Darfur, but as Ben states something needs to be done there. The UN should be much more involved in what is going on there for starters.
Very good question.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
4000 dead and counting
Plus those who have come back with severe injuries. In past wars many of them would have died; our battlefield medicine has improved tremendously and since we have total air superiority, we can medevac these guys more effectively than in past wars.
And when you consider that the vast majority of these deaths have not occurred in a war but rather during an OCCUPATION, it’s totally unacceptable.
30,000 injured. Do we have 34,000 casualties during training per year, Ben???
12 – 16,000 who have been injured to the point of disability.
You tell it to them and their families that it’s a small price to pay. Go ahead and do it. There’s a VA here in Dallas.
by Black Francis on Sep 8, 2008 6:10 AM CDT up reply actions
lives lost
Well, you’re correct if you’re only going to talk about actual lives lost. But I heard some soldiers and docs (radio interview sometime last year) say that the casualty list from this war would be much, much higher without the modern medical advances.
O Freunde, nicht diese Töne!
Sondern laßt uns angenehmere anstimmen,
und freudenvollere.
Good thing...
for those modern medical advances, then.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
hey...
Where you working these days?
taxi driver or still in the mailroom at ameritrade?
"Jesus was a community organizer. Pontius Pilate was a governor"
Good one...
ZING!
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
I think
you should not share those views if you’re ever in a room full of veterans.
O Freunde, nicht diese Töne!
Sondern laßt uns angenehmere anstimmen,
und freudenvollere.
I shouldn't say...
that it’s good that modern medical advances insure that fewer of them die on the battlefield? I don’t think veterans would object to that.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
But they might object
To your assertion that the deaths in their number don’t matter, both because more have died in other wars, and because you’re willing to toss as many to the fire as necessary for any end you deem just.
by brettgardner on Sep 8, 2008 10:21 AM CDT up reply actions
LOL
"The question of how we came to be is a philosophical one." - 4HIM
by inactive lsb user on Sep 8, 2008 12:04 PM CDT up reply actions
LOLLERSKATES, indeed...
I’m sure belittling the cause for which they’re risking their lives is a much better option.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
So
By that logic, any war is per se justified because people risk their lives.
The wisdom knows no ends.
by brettgardner on Sep 8, 2008 12:29 PM CDT up reply actions
Writing off their sacrifice
does what? It certainly doesn’t contextualize the war at all, if that’s what you’re aiming for.
"The question of how we came to be is a philosophical one." - 4HIM
by inactive lsb user on Sep 8, 2008 12:48 PM CDT up reply actions
Not what I was getting at
more that the number of deaths being lower is a result of people that would have died in the past are only alive because of the advances…and that those that are kept alive have serious, disabling injuries. In my view, the medical advances change how you calculate the cost. You cannot just count deaths and compare it to WWII or Korea or Vietnam.
O Freunde, nicht diese Töne!
Sondern laßt uns angenehmere anstimmen,
und freudenvollere.
My point...
is that if you believe that a cause is worth risking lives, you can’t turn around and say the cause is unjustified when those lives risked are lost.
If someone (like myself) thinks the war is justified, pointing out 4,000 combat deaths isn’t going to convince me otherwise. There would probably be a number that would convince me otherwise, but 4,000 isn’t it.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
But
If your justification stems from the removal of Hussein, then wouldn’t every death after that occurrence be too many?
by brettgardner on Sep 8, 2008 12:38 PM CDT up reply actions
It should be clear to you...
by this point that I’m not going to engage in any substantive conversation with you. If it isn’t yet clear to you, I can go back to responding to all of your posts with “banana” or “asphalt.”
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
Go ahead.
I get a giggle out of it.
I knew you’d get tired of it before I did.
by brettgardner on Sep 8, 2008 12:41 PM CDT up reply actions
That is a good point though Ben...
If your position is Saddam needed to be removed (which is what I have gathered from your posts) shouldn’t we have left once we captured and killed him?
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
It seems like you had an arbitrary figure in mind
what might that be?
Where do you draw the line?
"The question of how we came to be is a philosophical one." - 4HIM
by inactive lsb user on Sep 8, 2008 12:50 PM CDT up reply actions
If it were 5,000,000
dead American soldiers, that would be too many.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
So as long as
Nobody bombs Wisconsin, we’re home clear baby!
by brettgardner on Sep 8, 2008 12:54 PM CDT up reply actions
I'm not sure
I believe the cause was just. If the cause was just, we’d go around overthrowing N. Korea, China, Saudi Arabia, and a host of other nations.
Saddam Hussein wasn’t close to the worst dictator ever, and he certainly wasn’t the biggest threat to world stability. There’s not a lot of evidence that the status quo wouldn’t have worked out just as well for the American people.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
"I just hope enough dumb oversexed over self-esteemed American public educated female liberals (yeah, you know the type) vote for a woman because she has a vagina, to swing some things."- Sharky.
"JD is a great GM if you ignore the giving away pitching and handing out horrible contract stuff."-Tricer
Not overthrowing every dictator...
does not make overthrowing one dictator wrong, any more than not changing every stranded motorist’s tire makes changing one stranded motorist’s tire wrong.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
Doesn't
Make it right, either.
A little thin on the logic.
by brettgardner on Sep 8, 2008 12:59 PM CDT up reply actions
We should probably
overthrow those that are clear and present dangers to the United States. We should also have an executive branch we can count on not to fudge intelligence to make a sleeping dog look like a clear and present danger.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
"I just hope enough dumb oversexed over self-esteemed American public educated female liberals (yeah, you know the type) vote for a woman because she has a vagina, to swing some things."- Sharky.
"JD is a great GM if you ignore the giving away pitching and handing out horrible contract stuff."-Tricer
i think we all know that the 'cause'
wasn’t WMD and it wasn’t removing Hussein (although that was a nice benefit).
It was (to simplify) to create a democratic state in the Middle East so that neighboring countries’ dictators would see how we kicked Iraq’s ass and tossed their leaders out (and thus start ’behaving’) and so that neighboring countries’ civilians would see how great Iraqi people have it and would revolt/overthrow their own governments for democracies in the mold of Iraq.
It’s obviously been MUCH more difficult than anticipated. Bringing up WMD and Hussein (or God forbid, oil) though just makes me laugh, and I’m sure it would make Bush laugh as well. Sure…that’s what the administration said, but do you really think that Congress and the American media (and public) would have okayed the war if the “real reason” was known.
And for the record, you can call the Bush administration liars all you want if it makes you feel better. It was a ballsy decision that he made…one that could have forever changed the political fervor in the Middle East.
Sadly for the US, it won’t happen. Thus, he’ll be remembered as a liar and a horrible person rather than a visionary and a humanitarian. I personally feel that even though he lied, he was doing what he thought was best for America long-term…knowing that it wouldn’t be popular in the short-term.
We all know (or should know) that killing Bin Laden wouldn’t have “solved” anything long-term. The only way to win the War on Terror is by changing their way of thinking. Unfortunately, I’m not sure if it is capable of change.
Greatest Inventions Ever? 1. TiVO, 2. Boobs, 3. Baseball
Wow
Sadly for the US, it won’t happen. Thus, he’ll be remembered as a liar and a horrible person rather than a visionary and a humanitarian. I personally feel that even though he lied, he was doing what he thought was best for America long-term…knowing that it wouldn’t be popular in the short-term.
Sadly for a lot of people it won’t happen. Sadly for a lot of people, Bush and his PNAC friends were naive in thinking they could invade a country like Iraq and pacify it with such a small force. Sadly, democracy doesn’t usually develop at the end of a gun barrel.
by Black Francis on Sep 8, 2008 2:09 PM CDT up reply actions
It'll be interesting to see
how that all works out, when we pull out, and Iraq devolves into Civil war with the Shi’ites taking the oil in the South, which is fairly inevitable, regardless of who is our next President.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
"I just hope enough dumb oversexed over self-esteemed American public educated female liberals (yeah, you know the type) vote for a woman because she has a vagina, to swing some things."- Sharky.
"JD is a great GM if you ignore the giving away pitching and handing out horrible contract stuff."-Tricer
I think that view...
dramatically overstates what a “troop pullout” will entail. For instance, we’ve “handed over” Anbar to Iraqi troops.
“They are doing a very good job of this nation-building business,” in Anbar, but “25,000 Marines in the province are probably being in excess of the need, especially after Iraqi provincial control assumes responsibilities for security,” Conway added."
I think we’re looking at a troop presence in Iraq at the divisional level for probably several decades.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
I probably didn't make clear...
what that quote was supposed to point out, that being that we’ve handed over the province, but there’s still going to be a troop presence there.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
Obviously much more difficult than anticipated?
There were plenty saying at the time it would be difficult and many more troops were needed.
There is nothing that can justify the Iraq invasion at the time it occured. If you want to argue that Saddam should be removed, fine. But not when you’re neck deep in Afghanistan already and he’s not an immediate threat.
Creating a democracy? Give me a fucking break. The U.S. should NEVER be in the business of invading a country to “help” them become a democracy. That is not “ballsy”, it’s stupid and arrogant. How can a country founded on the principle of self-determination and self-governance be in the business of forcing democracy on another country?
O Freunde, nicht diese Töne!
Sondern laßt uns angenehmere anstimmen,
und freudenvollere.
it wasn't really to
“help” them become a democracy. That sounds like there was nothing in it for us.
Greatest Inventions Ever? 1. TiVO, 2. Boobs, 3. Baseball
Nothing in it for us
You’re proving my point. The U.S. should not be so arrogant as to expect, or force, other countries to always have our best interests foremost on their agenda. You cannot force people to become democratic at the point of a gun. You cannot assume that everyone wants to be just like us.
O Freunde, nicht diese Töne!
Sondern laßt uns angenehmere anstimmen,
und freudenvollere.
i didn't 'prove anything'
I just said that keeping it as we were “helping them become a democracy” seems like it’s only part of the story. Truth is we could give two shits about Iraqi people. We just want other countries that are more threatening to become less threatening and this seemed like a possible way (in the mind of the Bush administration) to accomplish that without having to attack each of those countries. Libya seemed to follow suit…Iran obviously has not and probably never will.
All I’m saying is that while, yes, we were there to help them build a democracy, it was for the self-serving purpose of our own safety. America supports democracy around the world only when we have a reason to.
Greatest Inventions Ever? 1. TiVO, 2. Boobs, 3. Baseball
You can't...
help another nation create or build a democracy. Look throughout history. The nations that have created successful democracies have done so because that is what they wanted. Not due to another nation invading their country and overthrowing their govenment and forcing it upon them. It doesn’t work that way.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
i didn't say it was
destined for success or anything. I’m just saying what i believe Bush’s motives to be.
10-20 years from now, we’ll know for sure who was right and who was wrong. And maybe Bush was wrong…I’m not arguing the outcome.
Greatest Inventions Ever? 1. TiVO, 2. Boobs, 3. Baseball
I don't feel
one bit safer since we invaded Iraq. I’d feel a lot safer it they had finished the job in Afghanistan first. We declared war on terrorism and then invaded a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with Sept. 11 and no connections to terrorists.
O Freunde, nicht diese Töne!
Sondern laßt uns angenehmere anstimmen,
und freudenvollere.
Oh but you see
He gave money to the families of suicide bombers.
You know, the ones who probably had nothing to do with the bombing but had their houses razed by the Israelis and were left homeless?
by Black Francis on Sep 9, 2008 9:44 AM CDT up reply actions
what a shocking post
if you’re okay with the president lieing us into an unnecessary war, there’s little that you wouldn’t justify in the name of fighting terror.
is it really a lie
when you know it’s a lie?
- Confucius
Greatest Inventions Ever? 1. TiVO, 2. Boobs, 3. Baseball
I've got one!
“Nothing exists. Even if something exists, nothing can be known about it; and even if something can be known about it, knowledge about it can’t be communicated to others.”
- Gorgias
"The question of how we came to be is a philosophical one." - 4HIM
by inactive lsb user on Sep 9, 2008 11:29 AM CDT up reply actions
Yes
And like I said above, that’s why there are so many who are injured to the point of disability. The Army field hospitals kept them alive, but it’s not like everyone just walks out of there smiling.
by Black Francis on Sep 8, 2008 6:12 AM CDT up reply actions
I think I'm only "liberal/democratic bias"
because I think everything to the left of you, you considered liberal.
I’m actually more libertarian than anything, but the continued mismanagement by the Bush administration, and the change in Republican government philosophy since the Reagan era from small government to borrow and spend government doesn’t really give me much choice right now.
I’ll admit an anti-Republican bias though ever since Bush invaded Iraq on as many pretexts that they could come up with, the Bush administrations started abusing executive powers, and the Bush administration turned this into the most polarizing government in at least the past 50 years.
After all, I’ve been told numerous times, “if you’re not with us, you’re against us.” Well, I was against certain Republican ideas, but since I was told the above, why shouldn’t I be against the Republicans?
I thought that Bush was really going to try to be non-partisan which is why I considered voting for him in 2000 (I would likely have voted for the 2000 McCain), but all I see now are the lines more starkly divided between the “You’re either with us or against us” crew and everyone else.
So, even if I wanted to, I don’t think the Republicans would welcome me in, anyways.
BTW, I’ve talked to servicemen who think we should have finished the job in Afghanistan before even thinking about going into Iraq. Of course, I don’t base my entire belief system on that small of a sample.
If you want a bigger sample, I would just take a look at the number of people donating to the different campaigns and currently more people are donating more total money to OBAMA than to MCCAIN. And this is in the conservative threshold that’s usually the military. It might give you reason to pause in thinking that the military supports the current policies.
R
I never said that the military supports the current policies
I only stated that to say that reasonalbe people, and this includes some military personnel, can not disagree that the situation has been run in an “absolutely f-ing disgusting” manor is misleading. Yes, I have a small sample size, but I have no reason to not believe what I have been told by someone that actually served in Iraq.
by rwh on Sep 7, 2008 2:29 AM CDT up reply actions
I agree
that that comment was a bit over the top.
But considering some other aspects, I can see why he is led to say it.
We went into an offensive war (the only one in American history where we were the aggressor), when we were in the middle of fighting another war, we had no endgame planned out, and it cost us well above the estimates that the Bush administration projected in money and troops and casualties.
You also should not believe that all troops believe that way, either. I certainly don’t believe that my friends’ interpretation is the only view throughout the troops.
R
Holy crap batman, we have an agreement.
Joking aside, I do not think that my future brother-in-laws word is gospel, but it is an opinion from someone that has served. There are actually servicemen that feel that the war was the right thing to do, Just trying to make all sides known.
by rwh on Sep 7, 2008 2:47 AM CDT up reply actions
I do agree, without pretext, that this is one of the most polarizing governments ever
At least in my lifetime. See, we don’t have to disagree on everything. But, hey that is what makes this presidential race interesting. And interesting politics is always a good time.
by rwh on Sep 7, 2008 2:33 AM CDT up reply actions
Oil
…even the pretext of drilling has had an impact.
Uh, no it hasn’t. Gasoline reserves are up, demand has dropped, and the dollar has strengthened. Obviously I can’t prove that talking about drilling offshore has affected the futures market, but I can logically deduce that there’s no way in hell it has. Likewise, you can’t prove your case or even make a logical argument. Why would talking about drilling that wouldn’t yield any oil for years have an effect on October futures??? That doesn’t even make any sense.
I’ll briefly explain something:
Even if we tapped all our our proven reserves and even made a few more discoveries, it will not have a significant effect on the price of a barrel of crude oil, which is set on an open market. US supply is a tiny, tiny fraction of world supply. However, we do represent a full quarter of world oil consumption. So if our demand drops, that affects price.
It’s pretty easy to understand.
by Black Francis on Sep 7, 2008 8:32 AM CDT up reply actions
I understand how supply and demand works
but there are psychological effects on the market as well.
by rwh on Sep 9, 2008 11:22 PM CDT up reply actions
It's not a stretch...
…to say there’s a psychological element to markets, but it’s a stretch to say that an event to take place years from now would affect futures in the next few months. Unless the people doing the trading are total idiots, that is.
by Black Francis on Sep 10, 2008 12:17 AM CDT up reply actions
Well...
After the bubble popping last month, even Russia invading Georgia (where the only pipeline into Europe not controlled by Russia or Iran lies) did not drive the price back up. So to say you know what’s going to have an effect on a market is silly.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
Not Silly
I’m not sure what your overall philosophy is, but it seems to be that the market’s going to do the right thing just about every time. And you’re even omitting lots of factors in this particular argument to make your case.
The fact is, world demand has slowed. Our demand, in particular, has fallen by quite a bit. We have larger than expected gasoline reserves. The world economy is pretty shaky right now, and I would think that is what drives the market price for crude oil, not talking about drilling.
by Black Francis on Sep 10, 2008 1:22 AM CDT up reply actions
So our demand...
falling would drive oil prices down, but our increasing production wouldn’t?
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
What production?
The production that’s only being talked about? The production that we won’t see for years? Your argument makes no sense. If it is correct anyway, I may just become a communists because it’s obvious that markets don’t function.
I do think they function, and that Saudia Arabia increased production a little while demand fell at the same time. I don’t see any possible way it has to do with this political rhetoric.
by Black Francis on Sep 10, 2008 9:01 AM CDT up reply actions
Do you think...
that bringing more oil sources online would have a depressive or supportive effect on oil prices?
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
Depressive
ceteris paribus.
Just talking about drilling wouldn’t or shouldn’t have any effects, because that doesn’t bring more oil to market. And it certainly shouldn’t have an effect on next month’s futures.
by Black Francis on Sep 10, 2008 4:03 PM CDT up reply actions
So...
let’s say that we discovered an alternative power source tomorrow. Do you think we can fully convert our infrastructure before the oil from these proposed drilling projects comes online?
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
Depends entirely on what it is.
If it’s electric, yes. Cellulose-based ethanol, easy. Compressed natural gas? I think it can be done. Hydrogen? Absolutely not.
I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Are you really asking me what would happen with the crude oil market if we found the perfect fuel tomorrow? That also depends on what the new fuel is. If it would require a lot of new infrastructure I don’t think it would affect crude prices much.
by Black Francis on Sep 10, 2008 4:31 PM CDT up reply actions
So...
if in just about any reasonable scenario, we’re going to have to have oil for the next 10 years or so, why not drill?
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
I never said not to drill
Let them drill all they want to (except ANWR). Have at the Gulf; I don’t care as long as they pay royalties and don’t spill.
Oil companies will make money, and so will their stockholders. I’m fine with that. Actually we may need productive fields for making pharmaceuticals and petrochemicals later on. Go for it.
But it’s not the answer in either the short or long term for transportation fuel, and when the oil companies are making record profits because the price of oil is so high, I don’t think they should get any incentives from the government.
“Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less” is bullshit.
by Black Francis on Sep 10, 2008 4:49 PM CDT up reply actions
You know I probably overstated
my original argument and really did not do a good job of writing what I was thinking. I went back and read the original post and I did not really say that I think the talk had a relatively minor impact. I do not think that the talk of drilling had a great impact on the price falling ~25-30% over the last few months. But, if I remember correctly, the price of oil did drop after this became a hot button issue. So if you think it is a stretch to say that the talk of drilling could cause a psychological effect and have an impact then you are free to have that position. I just did not agree with your position that there is no logical argument to say that the talk of offshore drilling lowering the futures price made no sense.
by rwh on Sep 10, 2008 7:43 PM CDT up reply actions
It doesn't make any sense
If that’s been a factor, the people on trading on these markets need to have their heads examined.
by Black Francis on Sep 10, 2008 10:14 PM CDT up reply actions
Well, lets agree to disagree
because I think a similar argument can be made about oil going up to 147 did not make sense from an economical view. I think that there were psychological factors in play there too. Supply and demand did not support that price. And the same people were trading then.
Yes, you can say that oil fell back to where it should be, but, the effects of the talk on drilling (my opinion) would have stabilized eventually. Like I said before, I did not do the best job stating my case, and that is partly due to attempting “argue” a point in written form.
by rwh on Sep 11, 2008 6:27 PM CDT up reply actions
TEN YEARS
patience is required. There is NO immediate energy solution and it is a problem that should be addressed from all angles. Stating that something wont benefit us for TEN YEARS seems a bit shortsighted.
"You’re the worst poster here I think."--- brettgardner
^^^^^^ reply to requiem
"You’re the worst poster here I think."--- brettgardner
by red shoe ranger on Sep 6, 2008 9:01 PM CDT up reply actions
But using that
as the main thrust of your energy bill is equally short-sighted.
If you really want a solution, you’re going to have to CHANGE the system (funny how that works).
Some people would rather be focused on reducing our dependency on oil rather than put on a band-aid of attempting drilling for more WHICH MAY NOT BE READILY ACCESSIBLE.
So on top of not being usable for many years, it’s only a band-aid and it might not even be significant or easily done.
But McCain AND Clinton have touted it over and over. Seems like an attempt at another political trick to try to make the “adopters” of this plan to gain political capital with very little real benefit to the populace.
It’s not offshore drilling that’s the problem, it’s the blowing it up as a solution when it’s not even close and using it as political rhetoric which is idiotic.
R
Correction
I take back the McCain AND Clinton.
McCain and Clinton supported the gas tax reduction which was another “political capital” issue that doesn’t actually do much but sounds nice if you support it.
And it’s likely that the oil drilling will change the price of gas in 10 years by a couple of cents/gallon.
I’d rather be focused on ways to actually solve the problem than focusing on bandaids.
Anyways, the point was that the people who were chanting “Drill now” to which Pelosi responded weren’t exactly worth responding to, and frankly, I think she should have ignored them.
But since she didn’t, people wave this around as if it’s a legitimate argument as to why we should be scared by a Obama/Democratic government.
I’d rather talk about issues, but it always seems to degenerate into short sound-bites of name calling which is idiotic, IMO.
Unfortunately, in the era of Rovian neverending campaigning tactics, that’s ALL we seem to get now a days.
R
how is
ethanol working out?
There is no magic bullet and most of what people think are solutions are actually just greater problems.
"You’re the worst poster here I think."--- brettgardner
by red shoe ranger on Sep 6, 2008 10:05 PM CDT up reply actions
Oh
so you just want to give up because ethanol, only one possible solution, is having some issues?
Doesn’t that seem…. short-sighted?
Sure, there’s no magic bullet, that’s why it takes CHANGE and WORK to get us to a place where we’re at least not as dependent on oil as we currently are.
Anyways, what would you propose as the alternative? Use up as much oil as possible and then having nothing to run our machines when the 50-70 years of oil left run out? And that’s assuming that current usage patterns stay the same (which is unlikely since India and China are ramping up their economies and will need oil more and more).
So, what do you think we should do?
R
R
Oil is still important to this country. It is currently our lifeblood. Do I like that? Hell no! But does that mean we should not tap into our resources that are available? There are other options that are coming into play but they are not there yet. Do you realize that there is talk of having paints that we can apply to our homes that will produce photovoltaic electricity? There has been research done on producing fabrics that provide electricity that our military could use to power their equipment. There are sources out there but they are not ready yet. Even if you get rid of oil and go to electric vehicles where is the power coming from? Natural gas or coal that supplies the fuel for turbines in the vast majority power plants in this country. I guess we could go to nuclear energy, but everyone seems to be scared of that prospect. Wind power, wave power, etc. are options, but the infrastructure is not yet there and putting it in place will cost billions of dollars.
The answer to our fuel concern comes from innovative thinking from the engineers and scientists in this country. The potential is there but it is not yet cost efficient. And regardless of your political position, changes will not be made unitl they are cost effective. Does anyone really believe that company’s are making any “green” changes because of their concerns for the enviornment? No, more energy efficient and “green” changes are made because there is a tangible benefit to these changes. There are paybacks with certain technologies, or there are benefits due to potential future issues, but businesses, governments are not going “green” to either appease people or for the environment. Money is still the key and I do not see that changing. So until we figure out a way to economically produce energy outside of fossil fuels, expect them to be a major player in our lives.
So whaft do we do? Anything that can help us at our current situation, which includes building refineries and drilling, and putting money into projects that can reduce our dependency on oil.
by rwh on Sep 7, 2008 1:30 AM CDT up reply actions
More funding for research in these areas would be preferred
And would lead to better and more effective technologies. It sounds like you’re suggesting that gasoline/oil should be used until it runs out. I feel that the use of gasoline/coal should be discontinued within the next 20 years. The technology is there and is working effectively, it just needs to be refined to where it will work economically.
Oil
So, how much of an improvement do you think removing the ban on offshore oil drilling in the cost of gasoline?
Or better yet how much more oil will the us produce a day percentage-wise from removing the ban on offshore oil drilling?
R
Since...
there’s a sizable speculative premium on oil, the likelihood of more hitting the market (even if it’s some time in the future) is likely to have a depressive effect on prices.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
So,
Ben, would you like to answer the question?
R
I don't know the answer to the question.
But I honestly don’t see the downside to drilling.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
agree with that
I think you drill now AND do all other things possible to explore long term energy solutions. Finding more oil gives you time to switch to other energy sources and technology. Getting any new tech online and/or making alternative energy sources viable is going to take a couple of decades. If the peak oil people are right, then any new oil sources coming online at about that time will help the transition even if it does nothing to lower present prices.
Not sure about your speculative premium bringing down prices much. Drilling and exploring in the places they want to do it is only cost effective at certain price levels. Not sure what those price levels are, but some talking (writing) heads have thrown out $70-75 plus. If oil dropped that far, it would be nice, but there are other pressures on speculation (Nigerian nuttiness, Iran, Russia, weakness of dollar, expect the world economy to recover eventually) that would mitigate the effect of drilling.
O Freunde, nicht diese Töne!
Sondern laßt uns angenehmere anstimmen,
und freudenvollere.
Not to mention...
oil rigs are great for sport fishermen.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
Actually, funny how that is.
I’ve read some environmentalists are cool with the way old rigs become artificial reefs.
O Freunde, nicht diese Töne!
Sondern laßt uns angenehmere anstimmen,
und freudenvollere.
As long as Oil is an asset that appreciates more than inflation
the country is better off keeping it in the ground.
If you think this is the peak price per barrel, or close to it, you are better off draining the ground.
The guys who were selling it for $10 a barrel 10 years ago would have been better off leaving it in the ground.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
"I just hope enough dumb oversexed over self-esteemed American public educated female liberals (yeah, you know the type) vote for a woman because she has a vagina, to swing some things."- Sharky.
"JD is a great GM if you ignore the giving away pitching and handing out horrible contract stuff."-Tricer
That's actually a very good argument
When the developing countries are the only ones who need oil for transportation purposes, we might be one of the only producers left at that point (if we save it).
We’ll also need that oil for producing plastics, pharmaceuticals, and other petrochemicals.
by Black Francis on Sep 7, 2008 8:47 AM CDT up reply actions
Since no one is willing to answer the question
I’ll tell you.
-If we set up the infrastructure now, by 2030, we’ll see a projected net increase in US oil production of 0.2 million barrels/day.
-Projected US oil production by 2030 would be 5.6 million barrels/day
-So, you’re precious offshore oil drilling will increase US production by 3.5% by 2030. And the US is not a top oil producer any more. The projected world oil production will be around 50 million barrels/day by 2030. So, that increase would be 0.4% increase in world oil production.
-Not only that the fuel reserves opened up by allowing “offshore drilling” will tend to have smaller pockets of oil making it lower in ROI and less likely to be drilled.
-So, you’re saying that POTENTIAL 0.4% increase of world oil production in 2030 is what’s causing oil prices to drop? Boy, I’ve seen you try to defend some whoppers, but this one takes the cake…..
Not to mention the negative impacts of more drilling:
Offshore oil production involves environmental risks, most notably oil spills from oil tankers transporting oil from the platform to onshore facilities, from pipelines doing the same, and from leaks and accidents on the platform. 1 There is also the impact of produced water, which is excess water from well drilling or production and which contain varying amounts of oil, drilling fluid or other chemicals used in or resulting from oil production. The platform is typically given an allowed quota of produced water that can be emptied in the ocean. According to the organization Culture Change, 2 a Gulf of Mexico rig dumps about 90.000 tons of drilling fluid and metal cuttings over its lifetime, with its wells also contributing with heavy metals. The platforms themselves also present a problem when discontinued, see ecological effects of oil platforms
As I said the only crap this “offshore drilling” is political capital. It will not significantly change much in the near term AND the long term.
So, it’s basically a bullcrap issue.
R
source
What are your sources?
Nolan Ryan should be the Rangers president, GM, manager and pitching coach.
There are a lot of sources for that stuff
I was embroiled in an argument one time and actually made a very similar case, but the numbers I came up with were .25 percent of world production.
The information’s out there on government websites, generally. There are a few trade websites. It’s not too hard to dig if you want to verify.
by Black Francis on Sep 8, 2008 6:21 AM CDT up reply actions
Sources
will be up and coming when I get home.
Though if you REALLY were interested, you could have looked them up yourself. It’s not hard.
The point is that we’re talking about pretty small amounts of change for a long time in the future.
But then, it seems like the people who are interested in the numbers aren’t the ones proposing the band-aid in the first place.
What I don’t get is how can you guys keep supporting a party which uses these tactics over and over again? Along with the violations of freedoms and executive power and the non-stop partisan politics, I don’t understand the appeal of Republican party.
Can you please explain it to me?
R
Sources
Not that you guys are really interested, but probably wanted to say “Sources” as a kind of gotcha.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html
http://dieoff.org/page224.htm
I’m curious to see if there’s any response at all.
I will be surprised if there is any.
As for “political capital,” American voters are stupid:
The Republicans again give us “solutions” which won’t solve anything but sound like they will do something, and the American public keeps getting suckered in.
R
I obviously agree
The only response you’ll get from me is this issue is going to be a major part of the McCain campaign, and I think that’s one of the biggest reasons he brought Palin onto the ticket. She’d let them drill in your driveway.
I think if the democrats put out a decent ad campaign and argue it well during the debates they can make it a non-issue. The numbers are what they are, and it’s pretty easy to shoot it down.
by Black Francis on Sep 9, 2008 9:41 AM CDT up reply actions
I don't have a problem
with some additional drilling as long as it’s part of a more comprehensive overall plan that strongly pushes other energy sources. My problem is that, like you, I think the Republicans will pay lip service to the other energy sources and in the end only drill drill drill. After the election I have no confidence that the GOP would take the necessary steps to encourage development of alternative energy. Except maybe more freakin’ ethanol, which is stupid as hell.
O Freunde, nicht diese Töne!
Sondern laßt uns angenehmere anstimmen,
und freudenvollere.
bipartisan
The only way a energy bill will get passed is if it has bipartisan support. That means the Republicans will have to agree to significant investment into alternative energy sources and the Dems would have to agree to more drilling. Which candidate do you think can pull it off?
Nolan Ryan should be the Rangers president, GM, manager and pitching coach.
I'm not terribly confident
that either can. I think the best chance of it happening is if Obama comes in with long coat tails in the Senate and House elections. A strong majority would get something through, but might suffer for lack of Republican enthusiasm and debate. If McCain wins I think it’s a little more difficult, but not impossible.
The will of the public would certainly be behind it. Either candidate has to feel like the voters are giving a mandate for change and action no matter who wins.
O Freunde, nicht diese Töne!
Sondern laßt uns angenehmere anstimmen,
und freudenvollere.
Both
Definitely.
And I don’t think there has been an election in the last 50 years where you could say that.
Last week I took a pleasure trip. I drove my wife to the airport.
by Brian Thomas on Sep 10, 2008 6:42 PM CDT up reply actions
Question about offshore and Arctic drilling
Obviously the arguments for drilling are very clear, so I won’t get into them.
From what I can see, there are three arguments against it. Fair or not, It has been shown to be a losing argument for the Dems, so I’m trying to figure out where their passion comes from.
1> Opening up drilling won’t change very much. May be true, but this doesn’t strike me as an argument against doing it, but rather a reason why it shouldn’t be an issue. If this was the only thing, then the Dems are just being contrarian at the expense of winning elections. Not likely the case.
2> Environmental concerns. This is what I suspect the main vocalized cause is, but it seems to be somewhat misleading. I’m not an expert, but Oil platforms are pretty safe and don’t leak everywhere, contrary to public perception (it is really in the interests of oil companies not to spill and (a) lose their goods and (b) aggravate everyone). Also, I’d argue that the risk of a spill is far higher for a barrel transported from the Middle East than drilled and transported from Alaska. ANWR isn’t going to going to become laced with oil, and the footprint required with modern technology is very low.
3> It deflects from the real need for alternative fuels/technology. This is the other classic argument, probably partially legitimate, but a real political loser – they can’t say “I want you to pay $5 a gallon so you buy a hybrid,” but that is really what they are arguing. Saying “you can’t use the temporary solution because you aren’t doing what I want you to do” is kind of a helpless whining (“if I don’t get my way, you shouldn’t get yours!”)- there has to be some sort of compromise solution to avoid this.
My solution – allow drilling to commence everywhere, but require companies to pay BIG royalties to the government / states similar to what Alaska does. But instead of just dumping it into a generic fund where it gets spent on who knows what, the revenues from the leases go towards building DOE-sponsored Alternative Energy Research facilities. These would be located in the states where the oil is coming out. Government spends billions on grants to scientists to develop solutions, out of the oil revenues.
A couple of counterpoints
To point #2:
I don’t think leaks are the biggest environmental concern. Rather, it’s the fact that even if everything goes right, the building of the necessary infrastructure to drill and transport does a lot of damage to the local environment. The other environmental factors bleed into point #3…
To point #3:
they can’t say "I want you to pay $5 a gallon so you buy a hybrid," but that is really what they are arguing.
Uh, no, that’s not what “they” are really saying. There are so many good reasons to aggressively seek alternative fuel sources I can’t believe you would chalk it all up to a few tree huggers or Toyota lobbyists loving their Prius MPG. And the sentence following that is equally ridiculous. To pretend that another viewpoint is not even valid but just whining is not going to solve anything. If you don’t agree with it, fine, but it is insulting, arrogant, and counterproductive to assume that your debate opponents are simple engaging in frivolous arguments or spiteful whining. Good God.
Anyway, to get on to an actual point…there are legitimate reasons to be concerned that the GOP, Detroit, and other vested interests would not follow through. Many, Democrats included, have consistenly dragged their feet on logical steps towards energy independence like increasing MPG, investing in public transportation, or anything else that actuall favors the big picture long term over short term political gains. Cheney mocked conservation openly. I can’t help but feel that McCain would talk the talk up to the election, but then move quickly to open up drilling while the other stuff moves at a snail’s pace.
Your idea has some merit, I think. Calling them royalties instead of windfall taxes makes them more politically palatable to the party that stabbed the elder Bush in the back for his sensible budget balancing move in the early 90s. And directly investing that money in alternative research would be a good start (though probably not enough by itself) on the necessary capital to get it done. I might favor using that money to pay for tax credits to private researchers over a DOE run facility, but those details can be figured out.
If this idea was enunciated by Palin, the GOP base would line up behind it. If Obama presented exactly the same idea, I fear the GOP will just say he wants to tax oil companies.
O Freunde, nicht diese Töne!
Sondern laßt uns angenehmere anstimmen,
und freudenvollere.
Hey, don't overreact
Uh, no, that’s not what "they" are really saying. There are so many good reasons to aggressively seek alternative fuel sources I can’t believe you would chalk it all up to a few tree huggers or Toyota lobbyists loving their Prius MPG. And the sentence following that is equally ridiculous. To pretend that another viewpoint is not even valid but just whining is not going to solve anything. If you don’t agree with it, fine, but it is insulting, arrogant, and counterproductive to assume that your debate opponents are simple engaging in frivolous arguments or spiteful whining. Good God.
I didn’t mean to be insulting at all. Note how I said “probably partially legitimate, but a real political loser.” Actually, I am a huge supporter of alternative fuel research (which is why I suggested that idea later). I’m more critiquing the political strategy of hoping high fuel prices force people towards alternative fuels, which comes across as exactly what I wrote to people who don’t have similar viewpoints.
From the Reps. I hear there is no problem if we drill for oil, and from the Dems I hear that any solution involving oil is bad. Both are silly to me, both seem to be pandering to a segment of their base, and neither is a politically viable strategy that can lead to real reform.
your last paragraph
wholeheartedly agree.
O Freunde, nicht diese Töne!
Sondern laßt uns angenehmere anstimmen,
und freudenvollere.
Also, Royalties vs windfall taxes
I think there is a fundamental difference between taxing a product that these countries buy/process/sell (oil→gasoline) and taking a royalty cut of everything that comes out of the ground. As the nation being drilled, the gov’t has every right to take royalties out of it, especially if it is under national parks/refuges/oceans.
That is the real reason that I am in favor of drilling – that oil belongs to the US Taxpayers. It may only be 0.2% or whatever, but that is a LOT of money going back to us instead of some Emir in the UAE or Hugo Chavez. That is a big chunk out of that $100 a barrel that can offset our deficit or pay for research.
The Government has a Legitimate Role to Play in This
Others will disagree, I’m sure.
Someday crude will be trading at $200-300 a barrel. When that day comes, the country which has developed an infrastructure and transportation system that uses little to no oil will have an enormous economic advantage over countries who haven’t. This is the new space race, but this time the benefits are going to be a lot more tangible.
If you want to drill, that’s fine. It will create some jobs and the oil companies will make some money from it. Nothing wrong with that. But don’t expect it to lower the price of oil or make us more competitive in the world economy. Government should not subsidize these activities in ANY way.
What government should subsidize is almost any viable alternative. We’re only at the beginning right now. There are lots of different technologies around. Some will never be cost-effective, but others will. It won’t be long before the viable alternatives begin to become apparent, and at that point the federal government should step in and facilitate the changeover. It would be very, very expensive, I know. But it would have real benefits as well.
by Black Francis on Sep 7, 2008 8:43 AM CDT up reply actions
Why should the government subsidize it?
If you think people should be researching those technologies, you should invest in companies that do so. Quit asking other people to do it for you.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
People will not
…because it will take a while for many of these ventures to be profitable. And most aren’t publicly traded. You know the answer to that.
by Black Francis on Sep 8, 2008 6:15 AM CDT up reply actions
I didn't say people...
I said you.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
Unfortuantly, Ben
….I don’t make quite enough money to invest in such risky ventures. And that’s the way everyone else will see it.
by Black Francis on Sep 9, 2008 4:59 PM CDT up reply actions
If it's so risky...
I don’t think the government should be investing in it, either.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
It may be risky not to.
DARPA funds all kinds of crazy shit and spends billions doing it. I don’t have a problem with that and I wouldn’t have a problem with the government investing in promising technologies that would help us move away from fossil fuel.
by Black Francis on Sep 9, 2008 5:14 PM CDT up reply actions
If it's too risky not to invest in...
then private industry needs to do it.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
Well, opinions vary
I see this type of venture as something of a public good, and well within the government’s purview.
To me it’s pretty clear that the markets aren’t very good for fixing long term problems. If they were we’d be way ahead of the curve by now.
by Black Francis on Sep 10, 2008 12:20 AM CDT up reply actions
The government...
has done a bang up job managing space travel.
The reason that nothing has been done on it to this point is because people don’t really want anything done. If they did, there would be a market for alternatives, and people would be madly researching them.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
Space Travel???
Things have been done, but it’s not enough and it’s too late. There’s plenty of market for it, but there are significant technical problems, and just as importantly, there’s a bit of an infrastructure problem.
I’m not sure where space travel comes into this. I haven’t seen a private rocket take a person into space yet even though there’s plenty of rich people who’d pay for that luxury. Some of them have paid the Russians, but they paid a government run space program.
Anyway, the price of oil may be down right now but it’s only going to go up again. That’s where investors will put their money. You of all people should know that.
by Black Francis on Sep 10, 2008 1:29 AM CDT up reply actions
Virgin Galactic...
I understand they’re going to be starting flights within the next couple of years… at a significant discount to NASA and the Russians.
As for where investors are putting their money, a lot of them are putting it in alternative energy stocks. So a lot of them are doing what you decline to do.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
More people would buy in
…if the government gave tax breaks or subsidized more research.
by Black Francis on Sep 10, 2008 4:05 PM CDT up reply actions
They do give tax breaks...
that’s the primary reason wind power is a going concern right now. But it it’s not economically viable without massive tax breaks (I’m looking at you, ethanol), why should we keep doing it?
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
At one time...
…I did think ethanol was worth the tax incentives. I no longer think that based on what happened. It was worth a try, though, in my opinion. And ethanol shouldn’t be dead in terms of something that could help out until a better fuel comes along. Corn based ethanol should be dead, though. It just turned out wrong.
The thing is, when things do go wrong then we need to evolve quickly. That’s the key. Revise ethanol tax breaks so that they only cover ethanol derived from something else, like waste or switch grass.
Once a technology like that takes hold and facilities are producing it, you can then roll back the tax benefits and it should succeed on its own.
by Black Francis on Sep 10, 2008 4:39 PM CDT up reply actions
Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac
Things like them should either be government run or public – not this vague in between world where the government is implicitly subsidizing independent companies.
If the gov’t needs to be involved in FNM type ventures – and I can see valid arguments for that – then they should be non-profit government run entities entirely (no publicly-traded stock ownership). Heck, make them for-profit where the profits go directly back into the financial security of the company – I don’t care.
Or make them fully independent, which means that if they fail, they fail and we’re all screwed, but whatever. Don’t regulate them at all. But this would have allowed competitors to form, which would have distributed the risk across multiple companies, whereas the real situation would never have allowed competition, since only FNM and FRE were implicitly guaranteed.
Its the same as the Enron/California energy crisis (I’m quite familiar with that). The problem with energy deregulation was that the government went only halfway, which created opportunities for less scrupulous companies to take advantage. Had Cali either deregulated entirely, or stayed regulated, it never would have happened. You can’t do both at the same time. The same is true for FNM and FRE, as well as probably everything in finance. Free markets are good, but they are really bad with just a bit of interference.
who controlled
the house and Senate during Clinton’s 8 years?
"You’re the worst poster here I think."--- brettgardner
Gallup/USA Today
poll released a few hours ago shows McCain/Palin up 54-44 among likely voters.
OH SNAP!!
"You can't reason with your heart; it has its own laws, and thumps about things which the intellect scorns." - from A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, by Mark Twain
Now that's a convention bounce!!!.
Liberals are currently pawing at the ground looking for their collective mouthguards.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
Yep...
It’s over. This is the end.
Hey, when you two are done creaming in your boxers over some poll that really means nothing then let us liberals know.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
Oh No!
A poll using 900rv 3 days after the RNC shows McCain with the lead? game over. This is gonna be quite the upset when mccain gets 54% of the vote and only 240 EC votes.
"Jesus was a community organizer. Pontius Pilate was a governor"
Enut...
there’s no need to treat politics like a sporting event. We know, we know… the Dems are awesome, Barrack is awesome.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
still waiting...
to hear about all of these democrats you voted for.
Are you really this Independent thinking-“divided government”-above the fray type?… or just another far right conservative who doesn’t want to admit you are a staunch republican. The only thing that seperates you from agreen, longhorn, and dstar is a couple witty lines and about 20 points an IQ test.
"Jesus was a community organizer. Pontius Pilate was a governor"
I don't really feel...
any need to enumerate the candidates I’ve voted for. I’ve voted for Democrats in the past.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
heh
So you can’t name any?
ok, can you at least tell me what parts of the GOP platform you disagree with? If my memory serves me right you agree with them on Iraq, WOT, torture, patriot act/NSA spying program, Judges, abortion, taxes, economy, global warming.
"Jesus was a community organizer. Pontius Pilate was a governor"
"So you can't name any?"
No, I said that I choose not to.
As for individual parts of the GOP platform that I disagree with, I fail to see the point. This isn’t a contest… I have no desire to convince you or anyone else that I have “true maverick” bona fides. I’ll say that I’m not satisfied with any political party and that’s why I support divided government.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
For one
He’s not doing anything that your homeboy Josey and his sidekick dstar didn’t just do on a much more annoying scale a few posts above. If you’re going to be hitting knuckles, at least be consistent.
Also, why is it so hard to spell the guy’s name right?
In today's world
treating Politics like a sporting event is just the way it is.
Look at the Pundits on TV and Radio. Something bad happens to “their” guy, and all of a sudden, it’s “thats not a big deal, everyone does it”. The exact same thing happens to the other side, and “We need investigations, and this person isn’t fit to serve”. Look at the Jon Stewart Clip with O’Reilly, Rove and others if you don’t believe it.
It’s true of Rush, O’REilly, Clift, Coulter, etc. All they do is cheer for the laundry and carry the water for their side. None of them have any core principles.
Why should folks expect others not to start cheering for the laundry.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
"I just hope enough dumb oversexed over self-esteemed American public educated female liberals (yeah, you know the type) vote for a woman because she has a vagina, to swing some things."- Sharky.
"JD is a great GM if you ignore the giving away pitching and handing out horrible contract stuff."-Tricer
Reminds me
Of you, actually.
Mr "The Iraq war is bad, but I love the Democrats even though they clearly and openly enable it!
Your right,
the Bush administration never shoved that war down folks throats by selectively releasing intelligence.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
"I just hope enough dumb oversexed over self-esteemed American public educated female liberals (yeah, you know the type) vote for a woman because she has a vagina, to swing some things."- Sharky.
"JD is a great GM if you ignore the giving away pitching and handing out horrible contract stuff."-Tricer
That's the only poll who has McCain that far out in front
Gallup Tracking has McCain +3 and Rasmussen has them tied.
More interesting will be to see where they are at the end of the week.
by Black Francis on Sep 8, 2008 6:19 AM CDT up reply actions
you think the palin honeymoon will end?
like people will ask, “where’s the beef?” like they do with obama. only with palin there’s less beef.
http://www.buchanan4pres2008.org/
NIXON: NOW MORE THAN EVER
Palin interview
Palin will finally be interviewed this week on ABC News. Interestingly enough, the interview will take place over 3 days or so. That way if she screws up, she can come back the next day and try to get it right. It’s not the live interview that would officially “vet” her, but it’s a step in the right direction. I think once the mystery of who she is goes away, so will some of her popularity.
Signature! I don't need no stinking signature!!
AP story
The AP story mentions nothing about the interview taking place over several days. Where did you get that info?
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/07/palin-to-do-first-television-interview-on-abc/
Nolan Ryan should be the Rangers president, GM, manager and pitching coach.
I got that info from electoral-vote.com but it appears down at the moment so I can’t check their source.
Signature! I don't need no stinking signature!!
Not over three days...
over two.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/08/politics/animal/main4424853.shtml
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
AK
Why is the author hammering Palin about the interview taking place in Alaska? I hope he realizes that her son is due to leave for Iraq on Sept. 11 which is Thurday. And I really doubt she would come back during the second interview and try to make a correction to what she said the day before. That would only make things worse.
Nolan Ryan should be the Rangers president, GM, manager and pitching coach.
Odd to focus on that
Although, the first thing I thought when I found out it was Charles Gibson was softball questions. Gibson has spent too much time in wake up and smile mode on Good Morning America. I wouldn’t be too interested in him interviewing any politician in matters of substance.
O Freunde, nicht diese Töne!
Sondern laßt uns angenehmere anstimmen,
und freudenvollere.
2 days
According to yahoo news’ version of the AP story, it’s over 2 days.
Signature! I don't need no stinking signature!!
obama did 1 interview with oreilly
that was chopped into 3 parts
http://www.buchanan4pres2008.org/
NIXON: NOW MORE THAN EVER
For those who believe
the Republicans are the bastions of Free Enterprise, and the Dems are socialists, I give you, the nationalizion of our Mortgage markets. Republicans believe in markets, except when they don’t.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
"I just hope enough dumb oversexed over self-esteemed American public educated female liberals (yeah, you know the type) vote for a woman because she has a vagina, to swing some things."- Sharky.
"JD is a great GM if you ignore the giving away pitching and handing out horrible contract stuff."-Tricer
More like
Many Republican politicians are liberal these days.
Blaming the other guy when he follows the liberal policies you approve of, yeah thats pretty stupid Cahill.
Like “oh look, we have all these huge deficits because the Republicans tax and spend and create huge entitlement programs just like we wanted, now lets bitch at them for it”
Nothing new of course, the Democrats create many problems and blame Repubs, such as the entire energy crisis, $4 gas etc, 100% Democrats fault.
Or, I guess you’re saying you’re NOT in favor of taxing more, spending more, and enlarging government more, Cahill? And THATS why you’re voting for Obama, right? Never mind that he supports all those things, right, Cahill?
And hows that Iraq war going, Cahill? The one the politicians you support (the Democrats) created, and the one the liberal politicians (Democrats) you support will make sure doesnt die?
Also Cahill
I read a blurb in the paper that both campaigns (Obama, McCain) stated they support the bailout.
So besides confirming we have two leftward choices, why are you voting for Obama again?
Maybe because
McCain’s economic advisor Phil Gramm helped cause the banking mess in the first place.
O Freunde, nicht diese Töne!
Sondern laßt uns angenehmere anstimmen,
und freudenvollere.
And
This has to do with Obama supporting the move too why again?
Also, Gramm didnt cause the banking mess, Bill Clinton did.
I was responding
to your question about why Cahill is supporting Obama. And Obama supporting the bailout to help solve a crisis (Obama and McCain) is a lot different than being part of the cause of the crisis (Gramm).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act
O Freunde, nicht diese Töne!
Sondern laßt uns angenehmere anstimmen,
und freudenvollere.
banking mess?
I thought the mortgage industry was in a mess.
Nolan Ryan should be the Rangers president, GM, manager and pitching coach.
You do know
that banks have been failing left and right, right? This is the biggest crisis to hit our banking system since the depression.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
Um, don't banks
do mortgages? Ok, mortgage industry mess if you prefer. And, as Dan says below, banks are failing and merging left and right.
O Freunde, nicht diese Töne!
Sondern laßt uns angenehmere anstimmen,
und freudenvollere.
So
All the polls show McCain way ahead now.
Pretty funny.
I wonder if Ab will pay up or welch again..
The funniest part of course, will be watching the frothing, angry liberals turn on Obama once he inevitably loses..Suddenly he’ll be “gutless” and thrown out like yesterdays bathwater..
I dont think we’ll ever see a Democrat pres again, McCain will make 12 years of Republicans, Palin will probably win 2012, or McCain again, etc. This is the worst Republican enviroment of all time, and the Dems arent going to get it done. It’s over.
In 2010 there’ll be a census readjustment, all the fastest growing states are Red states, (GEE, I WONDR WHY). Maybe because liberal rule kills, and more than just babies. Ask California. Or Massachusetts. Anyways, the states that will gain electoral votes and congressional seats are for example Texas, Georgia, Utah. The ones that will lose are New York, Massachusetts etc. Florida will have as many EV’s as New York. Texas is projected to gain 4 EV’s. Etc.
Anyways, the razor tight McCain Obama race for example, wouldnt be so tight if it were held in two years. 14-18 EV’s or more would go to McCAin just in the solid red states he has. And subtract from Obama. That’s like taking a large state and giving it to McCain before we started.
All these states will gain house seats too. Republicans control both houses and the governership in the fastest growing states, they will redistrict as they please, so Reps will gain a lot of house seats also.
States
I think you are forgetting that traditional red states are turning blue, like Virginia, Colorado, and Nevada. You do have a point that a lot of poorer states are run by Democrats, there are profitable ones as well (like Virginia). But if you look at the history of the economy during Democratic Presidents versus Republican Presidents, the national economy has been better off with a Democratic President over the past 50 years and it’s not even close.
Signature! I don't need no stinking signature!!
right
and if new yorkers and mass peeps are moving to red states, are the automatically gonna vote red? or will they vote the way they always have and actually turn those states more blue.
http://www.buchanan4pres2008.org/
NIXON: NOW MORE THAN EVER
"But if you look at the history of the economy during Democratic Presidents versus Republican Presidents"
And if you look at my history of being attacked by tigers while I’ve been carrying my magical tiger attack preventing amulet…
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
by benmor78 on Sep 8, 2008 1:27 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
If you think the President's party...
has that strong of an effect on the economy, I have a book I want to sell you that deals with predicting hot stocks from the patterns of birds in flight and the entrails of sacrificial beasts.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
Okay
If you’re position is the President doesn’t have much control over the economy, then fine. That’s a defensible position. You should have said that instead of your snarky attempt at humor.
Having said that, the President and his party does have control over 2 things. Who pays for the government budget (the upper or middle class), and what to spend the budget on (which infrastructure to spend on). IMO the President does have some control over the economy, although it’s still tenuous since we’re not a socialized country.
Signature! I don't need no stinking signature!!
"Who pays for the government budget (the upper or middle class)"
Really? How does he do that?
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
Taxes
Which tax brackets produce more of the federal budget’s money.
Signature! I don't need no stinking signature!!
I suppose...
the President also leaves you a quarter if you put a tooth under your pillow.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
The president doesn't determine which tax brackets are going to pay most of the taxes.
Hell, even if he had the power to do so, it wouldn’t change anything, because the wealthy are going to continue to bear the majority of the tax burden.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
Came across this today...
while I was writing puts and watching the FNM and FRE chaos…
http://economicsofcontempt.blogspot.com/2008/09/is-there-liberal-media-bias.html
So what do you think?
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
Very interesting, and
a great example of confirmation bias.
But my main contention with this blogpost and most other talk about media bias is it fails to distinguish which media? A survey of newspaper journalists shows democrat party leanings. But then, later in the post, he says:
So given that (1) journalists are overwhelmingly Democrats, and (2) party affiliation dramatically affects the way our brains interpret political news, is it really possible that there isn’t a liberal media bias?
The survey showed that newspaper journalists lean democratic, not all journalists of all media.
What that post does show pretty convincingly, though, is that all of us enter into reading, watching, or hearing, any political commentary with our own inherent and learned biases. I think all of our blog posts here over the last couple weeks, if examined, would reinforce that point. In fact, I think that if presented with an identical rumor, most everyone here would react differently depending on which candidate’s name was inserted.
O Freunde, nicht diese Töne!
Sondern laßt uns angenehmere anstimmen,
und freudenvollere.
In a way
You have to admire the purity of somebody who would vote based solely upon the race or gender of a candidate, because at least that person is invulnerable to bias. Unless there were two going against each other, of course.
None of that is surprising
However, I don’t think that the fact that
A) More reporters are democrats, coupled with
B) people are sometimes unaware of the lens through which they look (Ruth Benedict), concludes that
C) Almost all news reporting has a “liberal bias.”
To come to that conclusion, you must assume that most reporters are either unethical or stupid.
If I am a police officer, and a big ol liberal to boot, and I answer a robbery call to a house with 2 Bush-Cheney bumper stickers, am I gonna do my best to stick it to them? If the answer is yes, it’s because I have no professional integrity and very little scruples. Period. I either take no pride in doing my job right, or I sneer at the cognitive dissonance with heaping doses of rationalization.
Are there journalists who let their political biases influence their work? Of course. But to argue that there is this persistent and pervasive conspiracy to distort the truth, or even that it is commonplace for individuals in the business to play loose with the facts for “their guy,” assumes an entire profession of dishonest quacks with no personal committment to the one core principle of their profession.
It doesn’t hold water.
Last week I took a pleasure trip. I drove my wife to the airport.
Persistent and pervasive conspiracy...
the whole point of the post I linked is that there’s no conspiracy, it’s just human nature.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
I read the link
I was answering the larger allegation that has become the battle cry for so, so many.
Last week I took a pleasure trip. I drove my wife to the airport.
I agree to a point
Most reporters are educated people, and educated people have opinions. One can’t fault them for having them. Many, if not most, reporters are professional enough not to allow those opinions to influence their work (indeed, most people’s jobs require a degree of suppressing biases and emotions for professional reasons).
That said, there are certainly biases out there, and everyone can see them. Talk radio is overtly conservative, newspapers are equally liberal. Television is more mixed and depends on format. Fox’s news coverage and CNN’s news coverages each may have a slight political tilt (different ways, obviously), but neither is painfully so. Fox goes ultra-conservative on their evening editorial shows, like OReilly and Hannity and Colmes. CNN’s talk shows are more balanced, to offset Larry King they have Glenn Beck (on Headline News, but still CNN).
That is why MSNBC’s behavior this year is so appalling. They allowed their very liberal editorial side (which in and of itself isn’t bad – its just the equivalent of Fox’s editorial) actually run their “news” side, which is dumb from a legitimacy perspective. Having Keith Olberman and Chris Matthews lead the political coverage would be like having Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity lead the Fox political coverage.
But whatever, at this point there are enough options available that people can find a voice they prefer. If you are liberal, you can listen to NPR and watch PBS and MSNBC and read the NY Times, if you are conservative, listen to Limbaugh, watch Fox, and read the WSJ. I don’t see what the big deal is anymore.
MSNBC going liberal
has helped their ratings.
I think its just giving the people what they want. Folks really don’t want balanced news coverage, they seem to prefer the partisan nonsense of Fox and MSNBC. I think MSNBC saw what Fox did, and decided to grab the Liberal side of partisan news.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
"I just hope enough dumb oversexed over self-esteemed American public educated female liberals (yeah, you know the type) vote for a woman because she has a vagina, to swing some things."- Sharky.
"JD is a great GM if you ignore the giving away pitching and handing out horrible contract stuff."-Tricer
MSNBC
My point is that I understand why MSNBC has a strong liberal editorial angle. There was obviously a void and they filled it, as Olberman’s and Matthew’s ratings have saved the network. The problem is more the legitimate news side, which I suppose is ideally supposed to be “unbiased,” is not anymore. MSNBC has allowed their liberal commentary affect their once legit news coverage. (the “How many houses does Palin add to the ticket” headline was a little much.)
You can say a lot about Fox, but their strict news coverage, while kind of tabloidish, isn’t that conservative. Its really only when their analysts come out that they show their bias.
Maybe its because Fox has been mixing both news and analysis a long time (and thus has been able to find a better balance). Or maybe you’re right – it was a strategic decision to go that way even with the newsroom, since they couldn’t compete with CNN or Fox’s ratings otherwise.
I think
MSNBC is just playing with the Fox formula. I also don’t think the wall between news and analysis at Fox is as high as you seem to think it is.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
"I just hope enough dumb oversexed over self-esteemed American public educated female liberals (yeah, you know the type) vote for a woman because she has a vagina, to swing some things."- Sharky.
"JD is a great GM if you ignore the giving away pitching and handing out horrible contract stuff."-Tricer
Oh I know that wall isn't very high
but Bill O’Reilly isn’t leading their coverage of anything. At least not on the screen – heck, he’s probably running the whole shibang behind the scenes.
Roger Ailes call all the shots at FNC
Compared to his Ailesness, Bill is Jane Fonda.
For your edification:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6737097743434902428
Last week I took a pleasure trip. I drove my wife to the airport.
Problem from my view
Is Fox is alone, where MSNBC exists in a sea of already left-leaning networks (everybody except fox). Just most of them arent open about it, (well, besides the obvious slants to their reporting).
You know what's funny?
The far left complains just as bitterly about the press being biased to the right.
by Black Francis on Sep 9, 2008 4:43 PM CDT up reply actions
because to them
everything is to the right and the are in the center
Nolan Ryan should be the Rangers president, GM, manager and pitching coach.
Yep, there they are
Sharky, Rush, O’Reilly, and Hitler, sitting in the center
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
FNC ultra conservative?
I don’t think so. There are plenty of liberal analyst on their shows that actually do analysis. I do agree with you about Hannity. The guy has to preface evety question he asks with his own agenda.
Nolan Ryan should be the Rangers president, GM, manager and pitching coach.
Anyone who doesn't think
Fox has a conservative bias, has no business commenting on media bias of any network.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
"I just hope enough dumb oversexed over self-esteemed American public educated female liberals (yeah, you know the type) vote for a woman because she has a vagina, to swing some things."- Sharky.
"JD is a great GM if you ignore the giving away pitching and handing out horrible contract stuff."-Tricer
Anyone who thinks
FNC is ultra conservative has no business commenting on media bias of any network.
Nolan Ryan should be the Rangers president, GM, manager and pitching coach.
OK so question...
Is FNC more conservative or MSNBC more liberal?
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
MSNBC is more liberal
On a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is Ann Coulter conservative, 10 is Michael Moore liberal, then Fox is about a 3 (-2 from mean), and MSNBC is about an 8 (+3 from mean). CNN is probably a 6 – not overly biased, but periodically it slips through.
Keith Olbermann leading the news coverage of the Republican convention? Come on – that’d be like having the equivalent of Sean Hannity leading the news coverage of the Democrat convention. There is a time and place for the Olbermann’s and O’Reilly’s, adn Fox gets it right, and MSNBC didn’t for a while there (now they have pretty much admitted as much)
This of course is my opinion, and mostly focused on my watching of their news coverage. For the individual editorialists, Olbermann = 9 and Hannity = 1 on that scale, O’Reilly = 3 (his ego is bigger than his conservatism) and Matthews = 6.5, though gets a solid 8 for Obama-specific love.
Fair enough...
I think they’re about even, but that’s just my opinion as well.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
Looking at those scales
There is almost no way I’m right. There is no way that MSNBC’s news coverage is closer to Moore than middle even with Olberman, and there is no way Fox News news coverage is that close to Coulter (heck, Hannity isn’t even that close to Coulter – she’s like a -5).
Move MSNBC to 7 (+2) and FNC to 3.5 (-1.5), and CNN is still around a 6.
On my scale National Review gets a 1.5, New Republic gets a 8 (though they are angling to go up this election year), and the more rabid people get 1’s (i.e., Limbaugh) and 9’s (i.e., Kos)
fair enough
though neil cavuto doesn’t really count for political coverage, but he’s close.
and hannity and colmes are not “equal”. they don’t balance each other out.
http://www.buchanan4pres2008.org/
NIXON: NOW MORE THAN EVER
it's obvious that FoxNews is conservative and overly so
they saw a liberal bias (albeit slight) in the mainstream news and overcompensated by going hard to the right yet still claiming to be “fair and balanced”. If you locked Ailes in a room with a gun to his head, I think even he would come clean.
Still, I think Fox News would gladly change their motto to “strongly conservative” if the other stations would label themselves as “leaning left”.
Fox News has really let the “media bias” argument go by the wayside by being so right of center, but it still has some merit since Fox News is in far fewer households than the mainstream channels.
Greatest Inventions Ever? 1. TiVO, 2. Boobs, 3. Baseball
wow
abc news just showed that from august until now mccain has gained 10% in the white woman vote.
that’s sad. hopefully they’ll realize that palin is anit-woman
http://www.buchanan4pres2008.org/
NIXON: NOW MORE THAN EVER
Must be...
a lot of soccer/hockey moms and PTA moms in that poll.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
Remember when "Soccer mom" was the key demographic?
What was it, 1996 that they were the ones deciding the election? In 2004 it was “NASCAR dads” (like they ever vote Democrat, whatever… ) Who is it this year?
elitist.
"You can't reason with your heart; it has its own laws, and thumps about things which the intellect scorns." - from A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, by Mark Twain
And all the single whores
Vote Obama 10-1.
I saw on Lohans myspace she’s supporting Obama. There’s a huge surprise, Obama, the choice of brain dead crack whores everywhere.
Somebody should do a study
If your IQ is below a 100, how much more likely are you to support Obama?
I’d bet at least, 3-1.
Then
why are you supporting the GOP? Traitor.
O Freunde, nicht diese Töne!
Sondern laßt uns angenehmere anstimmen,
und freudenvollere.
Not smart enough...
to know what category he fits in.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
wow
Palin on lending giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac “they have gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers.”
are you kidding me?
The companies aren’t taxpayer funded but operate as private companies. The takeover will result in a taxpayer bailout during reorganization. She didn’t even understand that Freddie and Fannie were private companies.
"Jesus was a community organizer. Pontius Pilate was a governor"
she's just mad
because the top 5 recipients of fannie/freddie donations are democrats
http://www.buchanan4pres2008.org/
NIXON: NOW MORE THAN EVER
Huh.... that's an interesting list
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/07/top-senate-recipients-of-fanni.html
No wonder Obama is such an expert…
Come On
The same thing would’ve happened a few years ago. Read what’s at the top of that page you linked to. When the GOP chaired a bunch of committees, they were the ones getting the money.
by Black Francis on Sep 9, 2008 9:32 AM CDT up reply actions
Yeah it is kind of a low blow
but I just said it because if people are going to critique Palin for saying that they were tax-payer funded, when it is a very fuzzy issue in that technically they weren’t but in reality people believed they were implicitly government guaranteed, then they should realize first that Obama was receiving money from those very people. There is enough FNM and FRE smear to go around.
The ill-advised growth and ultimate collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is essentially the same as that of Enron, but will cost the tax payers far, far more and has far bleaker ramifications for the economy. I don’t think the critique of people receiving money from Enron was fair, so I don’t really hold this against Obama/Dodd/Clinton, etc. All politicians are corrupt and in bed with lobbyists.
eh
The fact that Fannie and Freddie bonds were really backed by the federal government was the worst kept secret in world finance. Its just official now that the government “bailed them out”. In actually, the government essentially unilaterally liquidated the stock of those companies – the people screwed were the shareholders, not the taxpayers (we were already screwed to begin with – the govt had already guaranteed those bonds)
except the prospectus
for every GSE states very clearly that it is not backed by the US government. and if it was such a poorly kept secret, then how would you explain the significant yield premium over treasuries?
Since...
they were the primary market makers for CMO’s and stuff, not doing anything would have been pretty detrimental to debt markets. It had to be done.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
Hey Ben
Who’d you vote for in the 2004 Presidential election?
I didn't vote in 2004.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
Inconsistencies
lead to ASPHALT!
"The question of how we came to be is a philosophical one." - 4HIM
by inactive lsb user on Sep 9, 2008 7:01 PM CDT up reply actions
Not inconsistent.
I didn’t vote in 2004 for personal reasons.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
Fair enough
who’d you vote for in the 2000 election?
"The question of how we came to be is a philosophical one." - 4HIM
by inactive lsb user on Sep 9, 2008 7:43 PM CDT up reply actions
George Bush.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
BANANA!
"The question of how we came to be is a philosophical one." - 4HIM
by inactive lsb user on Sep 9, 2008 8:53 PM CDT up reply actions
I think
We can now safely assume that his “I vote for divided government” line is total bullshit.
I can’t take the credit for this one, though. You get the assist Chase, but the sweaty wonder himself nailed the shot.
I never
Said I vote for divided government.
I just challenged your knowledge of how I would vote in the future, when you oddly claimed to have some sort of clairvoyance based on nothing but my one previous presidential election, when I admitted that I’ve changed a lot since then (18).
Put that cliche back in the box, please.
Obviously...
I have formed my opinion about voting for divided government since 2000 election. Nice try, though.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
Asphalt!!!
And yes, how obvious. You mean you’ve formed this opinion after voting against it in 2000 and not applying it in ’04?
You must be soaking in your pants waiting to try it out.
by brettgardner on Sep 9, 2008 10:01 PM CDT up reply actions
nope
“you are failing to understand” (as you always seem to say).
You acted self-righteous when confronted with the fact that your posts show you to be a predictable liberal.
Then you continued to blatantly lie about it (when I said you voted for Kerry…your response? “News to me.”). Of course, you had posted on this very board before how you had voted for Kerry, so either way, you’re a liar.
I don’t care what reasons you give for your political spiritualization. You’ve voted Democrat and you’re obviously still a Democrat.
Quit acting like you are mainstream and unbiased and then hypocritically focusing on Ben like he’s doing something despicable.
Greatest Inventions Ever? 1. TiVO, 2. Boobs, 3. Baseball
He's an assclown.
It’s what he does.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
x
Says the guy with no retort witty enough to inflate his sagging big-brain balloon.
You get a hearty eye-roll from me.
by brettgardner on Sep 9, 2008 10:15 PM CDT up reply actions
How do I
“Act like I’m mainstream and unbiased”?
What does that even mean?
Show me where I’m sucking Obama’s balls. I’m not enamored by any means. I dig McCain on a lot of issues. Iraq, not so much. Palin, definitely not.
I don’t think that because I have criticisms of a candidate you endorse, I’m necessarily “against” you.
Also, I never lied about anything. I challenged your claim.
I’d LOVE to hear willamos2’s definition of “a predictable liberal”, by the way.
by brettgardner on Sep 9, 2008 10:12 PM CDT up reply actions
act like you're not really a Democrat...it's what you do
you have hundreds, if not thousands of posts, in these political threads. They are all either slanting to the left, arguing with somebody about something completely irrelevant, or being hypocritical of others (see this case).
Show me some of your posts where it could be insinuated that you “dig McCain”.
I never said you were “against me”, and I don’t care if you are. You seem to be against just about everyone from what I can tell.
You lied. Me saying that you voted for Kerry, and you responding with “I did? News to me.”..that’s a lie. It was not news to you because you DID vote for him.
“Predictable liberal”…probably should have just used the term “Democrat”, but they are fairly interchangeable.
Predictable liberal/Democrat – one who votes for liberals/Democrats
Greatest Inventions Ever? 1. TiVO, 2. Boobs, 3. Baseball
Read my sig...
he doesn’t have a problem with lying.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
wow
you like free trade, competent jurists, and tax cuts (only in certain situations).
I changed my mind…those 3 things DEFINITELY prove you aren’t a Democrat. After all, Democrats hate free trade, they love incompetent jurists, and they hate tax cuts of any sort.
Greatest Inventions Ever? 1. TiVO, 2. Boobs, 3. Baseball
Yeah, Republicans love competent jurists
like Clarence Thomas. I seem to recall Bill Clinton doing a bit to push NAFTA through.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
Whatever.
I’m done defending myself to you. You can think whatever you like.
The most incredibly hard-hitting CPA in the world has undone me. Let me cry.
by brettgardner on Sep 10, 2008 10:10 AM CDT up reply actions
don't defend yourself
you are who you are…embrace it. It’s nothing to be ashamed of.
I would say the same thing to Ben in fact.
Greatest Inventions Ever? 1. TiVO, 2. Boobs, 3. Baseball
I absolutely
Embrace who I am.
That’s easy for me to do because I actually know who I am.
You don’t, no matter how much you’d love to.
I don’t claim to be above anything, but I also don’t claim allegiance to any one party. I’ve voted for exactly one Democrat in my life, and a handful of Republicans.
You can draw whatever inferences you’d like, and I won’t protest anymore.
You’ve beaten me. Congrats.
(Gives the jerk-off motion).
by brettgardner on Sep 10, 2008 10:54 AM CDT up reply actions
yeah
i really don’t want to know you…some 21 yo kid who tries to act like the resident intellectual. That’s not someone I typically try to surround myself with.
Just…whatever. Enjoy being a mainstream independent while working on Democratic campaigns and posting on LSB about the Democratic party.
I’m sure you’ve got the jerk-off motion down well. I’m through.
Greatest Inventions Ever? 1. TiVO, 2. Boobs, 3. Baseball
Eye roll.
You’re the superstar here, I know. Sorry I tried to get a taste of your greatness.
Please don’t let my pathetic, completely useless 21 year old life distract you from a full day of mind-numbing uselessness.
I could make a Palin-esque joke about the difference between a pig and a CPA, but I’d fall asleep before I finished the sentence.
But you’ve got me pegged. I’m as pinko as they get, obviously. And God knows a REAL intellectual like yourself, not some phony like me, would never associate himself with anybody who’s so liberal.
(More jerk-off motion)
by brettgardner on Sep 10, 2008 1:40 PM CDT up reply actions
yawn
i’m a CPA and you bore the shit out of me.
Greatest Inventions Ever? 1. TiVO, 2. Boobs, 3. Baseball
You never lied about anything.
Wow. That’s a whopper.
O Freunde, nicht diese Töne!
Sondern laßt uns angenehmere anstimmen,
und freudenvollere.
Hmm?
I was talking about the specific conversation.
Obviously I’ve lied before.
by brettgardner on Sep 9, 2008 11:04 PM CDT up reply actions
Most of the time, sure
but in this case that would be so messy it might cause unimaginable problems. On a certain level, I’d be fine with seeing those that made their be lie in it, but it would hurt too many people who were behaving well in the process.
O Freunde, nicht diese Töne!
Sondern laßt uns angenehmere anstimmen,
und freudenvollere.
MSNBC finally pulls it's clown act..
Pulls Olbermann/Mathews from live politics coverage.
http://www.miamiherald.com/entertainment/people/story/677938.html
Good, I dont care what your politics, those two were an embarrassment during the conventions. Talk about behaving like spioled children.
heh
“Obama, choice of brain dead crack heads everywhere”
“If your IQ is lower than 100, how much more likely are you to support Obama”.
I don’t think you’re one to complain about childish remarks, you dumbass.
by Black Francis on Sep 9, 2008 9:35 AM CDT up reply actions
Rasmussen poll
These trends have to be concerning to Obama.
A number of themes emerge from the data that are consistent across all five states:
McCain is trusted more than Obama in all five states.
McCain is viewed more favorably than Obama in all five states.
Also, in all five states, Sarah Palin draws higher "very favorable" ratings than any other candidate.
In all states except Colorado, McCain enjoys a bigger margin among Republicans than Obama does among Democrats. In Colorado, they are even.
Economic issues are the top issue in all five states with national security matters a distant second.
The number who would not be comfortable with Obama as president is higher in every state than the number saying the same about McCain. This is consistent with national polling data showing that McCain voters are more likely than Obama supporters to be primarily voting against the other candidate.
Nolan Ryan should be the Rangers president, GM, manager and pitching coach.
i have to admit
i’m really surprised McCain/Palin have hung around (or taken the lead depending on which poll you look at). I really thought Obama would steamroll McCain a few months ago.
I can’t imagine how defeated the Democrats would feel if they lost this election…after 8 years of Bush, after 2004 in which they were so confident about getting Bush out of office, after the fervor that Obama generated across the nation, and after a war that has been highly controversial and unpopular. This was really the perfect storm for a Democratic thrashing, and it seems like it “might” be all for naught again.
I guess it’s just a case of red states vs. blue states, but then maybe the only solution is for more Democrats to move to red states and stop conglomerating in California and New York.
Greatest Inventions Ever? 1. TiVO, 2. Boobs, 3. Baseball
The problem Obama has
is that I think his support is capped at probably about 53-55%. There is a large number of people in the country – many of them who should be Democrats – who simply will not vote for him. Many of these are people will go against him for unfair reasons (race, religion misconceptions, etc), but that is the way it is.
That means that in order to win, Obama really needs to win about 90% of the people who would consider voting for him. He’s capable of doing that, and he’s been polling as if he’s going to for a long time now. But I don’t see a clear path for him to gain new voters – his previous hope was that many Republicans would stay home because of McCain, which is looking less likely.
I think the election is really close, but Obama has to be near perfect to carry nearly all of the people who he can possibly carry, or he needs a major gaffe from Palin or McCain (and by gaffe, I don’t mean something like the “Fannie Mae-taxpayer” confusion…)
Personally, the last thing I want is for McCain to win by a little bit that can be attributed to race or something else like that. If McCain wins or if Obama wins, it should be because of their politics, which are very different and people can intelligently disagree over.
I think the last Democrat to get 50%+ of the popular vote was
Carter.
I have a hard time believing Obama can win this election without a 3rd candidate mucking things up.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
Bill Clinton...1996?
Without looking it up.
by Black Francis on Sep 9, 2008 4:53 PM CDT up reply actions
Clinton received less than 50% in '96 (actually 49.23%)
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/
And I will take McCain’s narrative over “the community organizer.”
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
Ross Perot
had something to do with that. He took votes from both parties.
O Freunde, nicht diese Töne!
Sondern laßt uns angenehmere anstimmen,
und freudenvollere.
When Palin's star begins to dim
…so will McCain and his favorable ratings. Also, if he beats people to death with the POW thing, they’ll get tired of it. It’s a good narrative for him but it seems like he’s pushing it a little hard.
by Black Francis on Sep 9, 2008 4:52 PM CDT up reply actions
The world wants Obama
Drudge’s headline right now links to the following.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/09/09/2360240.htm?section=world
All 22 countries covered in the poll would prefer to see Senator Obama elected US president ahead of Republican John McCain.
Not the most surprising finding, though I suspect the majority of people out there don’t know who John McCain is, but Obama I’m sure is much more famous. Obama doesn’t really have a “world” problem like John Kerry did, and I’m sure he’ll be smart enough not to cite this as a reason to be elected.
if I were Obama, I'd bring it up
it can’t hurt in the when discussing foreign relations and diplomacy.
I wouldn’t point to it like “see America, the rest of the world likes me…you should vote for me too” though.
Greatest Inventions Ever? 1. TiVO, 2. Boobs, 3. Baseball
Imagine this exchange in the debate
Brian Williams: “Sen. Obama – why do you think you are qualified to deal with foreign leaders?”
Obama: <after a few points brought up, mentioning he’s met world leaders> “And I’d like to point out that polling has suggested that citizens of 30 countries prefer me over my distinguished opponent, who they have good to believe will continue the policies of the Bush Administration.”
…
McCain: “First, let me point out in response to Obama being more popular with Europeans than me. My friends… I’m running to be the leader of you Americans, not the people of France or Canada or Kenya. Obviously I will fight for my allies, but my priority is you.”
Just not a smart direction for Obama to go…
Why is this
not something to cite as a reason to be elected? Is it not important to have the rest of the world have a favorable opinion of the U.S. and its leaders?
O Freunde, nicht diese Töne!
Sondern laßt uns angenehmere anstimmen,
und freudenvollere.
Obviously that is a good thing in reality
hopefully both candidates can improve our standing over Bush.
But I’m speaking from a political point of view here. Bringing up that citizens of Australia favor him over McCain comes across as too global in your outlook – it just doesn’t fly well with the American electorate. Kerry already tried that approach and it backfired.
I agree that improving the world opinion of the US is a good thing. And I’m sure it works wonders for Obama’s base. But telling some laid-off steel-worker in Ohio that “The French favor me 2-1!” isn’t going to do him any good at all…
Obama campaign and outmaneuvered
I’ve been saying all along, watch the Obama campaign get outmaneuvered from the start (because he’s not very bright).
I think a couple more things have shown that recently, one,his VP choice..with all the waves Palin is making, and gains in women voters according to polls, it seems like a great move now. Dont you suspect Obama is wishing he had a do over about now? I’m thinking if he did, Sebelius would definitely be his VP choice if Obama had it to do over.
Second, there are reports out in the last days that Obama’s money supply is really drying up, and his move to ditch public financing is now looking like a possible major strategic mistake. Even besides the money of course, public money allows McCain to spend all his time campaigning while Obama must fundraise constantly as well.
Lastly, I think a major weakness of Obama is that he seems too “nice” or laid back (for a guy who strongly supports partial birth abortion, “nice”, anyway). It’s hard to imagine any hard hitting attack ads coming from the guy, they just wouldn’t seem right.
I’ve posted many times about the fun I will have observing the Dems turn on Obama once he loses, like they did to Kerry, I think thats an obvious place they’ll be able to criticize him.
I think you are right
Obama is too nice for attack ads. Which is a big problem, because Attack ads work. They are much more effective than ads about your positions or policies. You need to paint Kerry as a flip-flopper, the elder Bush as a wimp, Dukakis in a Tank, Willie Horton, etc.
Going negative works.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
The Liberal Pukes have air dropped
30 different reporters and attorneys in Anchorage looking for dirt on Palin.
Don’t give me this Obama nice guy routine.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
Not tough to find dirt on Palin
another Borrow and Spend conservative looking for handouts from the federal government. Her record is fairly clear.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
What's fairly clear is that she scares
the living crap out of liberals.
That girl is a potential superstar.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
Annoy the hell out of people
like yourself.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
Yeah, another Republican
who can jack up the debt to 15 Trillion from 10 trillion does annoy me.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
+1
"The question of how we came to be is a philosophical one." - 4HIM
by inactive lsb user on Sep 9, 2008 7:02 PM CDT up reply actions
Sure
All hand in hand with the Democratic legislature.
Cahill, to cut the deficit, you either have to raise taxes or cut spending. Which do you propose?
What do you think about the fact your boy Obama support the Fannie/Freddie bailout you, apparently, oppose, just as you, apparently, oppose the Iraq war?
taxes vs. spending
You need to do both, or more specifically:
1. reform tax code, make it simpler with fewer credits, deductions, and lower rates
2. appoint a bipartisan commision to go through the budget with a fine toothed comb. Audit the Pentagon’s procurement and contracting procedures to look for more savings there.
3. Raise the gas tax, invest the proceeds in infrastructure.
That’s a start.
O Freunde, nicht diese Töne!
Sondern laßt uns angenehmere anstimmen,
und freudenvollere.
Why not?
Reducing consumption is our best approach to the energy situation. You can save more energy than you can drill domestically.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
Thing is
I have doubts whether it would have much more influence than the market on regulating demand.
by brettgardner on Sep 10, 2008 1:43 PM CDT up reply actions
If it regulates demand,
that’s nice, I suppose. I just want more money to repair highways, bridges, etc. and build new ones. Investments in infrastructure have a way of paying for themselves over time, like the interstate highway system.
O Freunde, nicht diese Töne!
Sondern laßt uns angenehmere anstimmen,
und freudenvollere.
I'm fine with that
My problem is that certain taxes have a strong emotional effect, which can often overwhelm the actual benefit they provide.
I say divert some other revenue source that’s already being used.
by brettgardner on Sep 10, 2008 2:03 PM CDT up reply actions
Someone here
proposed oil royalties, which is one idea that might work. Problem is, if you’re tying oil royalties to new drilling, the oil (and therefore, the money) might be not enough and many years away.
As emotional as the gax tax is, if it’s part of a long term comprehensive energy independence plan it might garner support. Lowering demand a bit is also good. I think a gas tax that graduated year by year would provide strong incentive (and time) for people to move towards alternative energy sources.
O Freunde, nicht diese Töne!
Sondern laßt uns angenehmere anstimmen,
und freudenvollere.
I think...
that taxes are an extremely inefficient way to alter people’s behavior, have distortive effects, and are regressive, besides.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
As much as I hate it...
I agree with ben.
by brettgardner on Sep 10, 2008 2:50 PM CDT up reply actions
As I said above
My main motivation is not to alter behavior, but to raise money for infrastructure. You are taxing people for driving on the roads, and then using the money to fix them.
O Freunde, nicht diese Töne!
Sondern laßt uns angenehmere anstimmen,
und freudenvollere.
That's already...
what the gas tax is used for. I was just responding to the bit about decreased demand and encouraging alternatives.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
Ancillary benefits
again, as I said above, those are nice possible side effects, not the main point. And I’m aware that’s what the gas tax is already used for, I just don’t think it’s high enough. I don’t want every road to be a toll road (I’m exaggerating, I know).
O Freunde, nicht diese Töne!
Sondern laßt uns angenehmere anstimmen,
und freudenvollere.
Toll Roads
I’d prefer them to raising gasoline taxes. That would hurt business too much, and individuals even more. It’s extremely regressive.
It’s effective, though. If you look at the cars Europeans drive, they are very fuel efficient. I think you can just raise CAFE to get that.
Independent truckers are already going out of business. If you exempt diesel from the fuel tax, then prepare to see a bunch of fuel efficient but carbon belching diesel cars on the roads.
Toll roads are regressive, too. I advocate only on new construction. For example, don’t make IH45 a tollway. If people want to commute to and from distant suburbs, let them pay for their own damn road. Dallas North Tollway, 121 in N. Dallas and soon to be in S. Fort Worth. The new ones down in Austin. No problem whatsoever with those.
by Black Francis on Sep 10, 2008 4:14 PM CDT up reply actions
The point is moot
Raising the gas tax would be political suicide and would never, ever happen.
by robert_d_wilfong on Sep 11, 2008 7:43 PM CDT up reply actions
Any good approach to cut the deficit
would require spending cuts as well as tax increases.
I believe that the current deficit is around $400 Billion, so you probably aren’t going to close it with one or the other. Personally, I think they need to contemplate the wholesale removal of programs, like NASA, at around $20 billion, if they want to get serious about these things.
I’d really like to see someone propose $400 billion in detailed cuts, and try to get them passed into law. I don’t see a snowball’s chance of it happening.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
It's pretty much
Impossible to do such a thing.
by brettgardner on Sep 10, 2008 2:04 PM CDT up reply actions
Yep
I don’t believe its politically possible to cut, or grow, our way out of these deficits. The only way to make cuts that big would probably require axing SS, Medicare/Medicaid or Defense, because you are stuck with interest on the debt.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
The
Iceberg has been staring down SS for quite some time.
It’ll be interesting to see how it goes. My guess is slowly and painfully.
by brettgardner on Sep 10, 2008 2:15 PM CDT up reply actions
SS really isn't tough to fix
Raise retirement age a couple years. Raise the Caps.
It’s not what folks want to hear, but folks want to hear there is something for nothing.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
That's
Not a fix, really. That’s a punt.
It’s gotta go at some point, or at least be significantly altered.
by brettgardner on Sep 10, 2008 2:41 PM CDT up reply actions
Why?
If you raise the age and get rid of that stupid $90k limit on paying taxes (or whatever it is) the deficit pretty much disappears. Or at least you’ve bought yourself many more years of solvency.
O Freunde, nicht diese Töne!
Sondern laßt uns angenehmere anstimmen,
und freudenvollere.
Your
Last sentence is absolutely true. That’s why I call it a punt. It just puts the problem off for a different generation.
by brettgardner on Sep 10, 2008 2:53 PM CDT up reply actions
I haven't looked into this
seriously in a long while, but I remember estimates that doing those two things would essentially put off the problem for at least 75 years. I don’t consider this punting, because by that time demographics and many other things about the country, the world, and life in general will be so different the issue may need reexamining anyway.
O Freunde, nicht diese Töne!
Sondern laßt uns angenehmere anstimmen,
und freudenvollere.
Well
For me, the problem isn’t that when it goes into the negative, it’s that it will.
It was a divinely-inspired solution to a problem, but it’s inherently flawed as an entitlement.
If you want to keep it, you really need to make it dependent upon qualification, in my opinion.
by brettgardner on Sep 10, 2008 3:17 PM CDT up reply actions
Honestly,
it only makes sense as an old age welfare program.
Its absolutely silly as a retirement program. It’s just marketed as a retirement program to keep it alive.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
As much...
as it would please me to nuke the whole program and use mendicant old people as fiber supplement for wealthy old people, I recognize that, like it or not, as a relatively wealthy society we have to do something for those people that are too dumb or short-sighted to provide for their own declining years.
I think, however, a lot of the problem would be solved if we quit the accounting shell-games that treat it as a trust fund or somehow separate from general revenue. People my age, in polls, already recognize that Social Security in its current form is unlikely to be around for them. So it’s time to start making changes to the program that have a time horizon 20 – 30 years out… younger people have a hazy notion of the future anyway, and old people, who vote with a fervency akin to their passion for Matlock, won’t be terrified into unelecting whoever pushes it through.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
“and old people, who vote with a fervency akin to their passion for Matlock”
You know, that made me laugh a little.
by rwh on Sep 10, 2008 7:51 PM CDT up reply actions
i'd rather them just tell me that they
are doing away with it altogether now and that all the money I’ve put in will just go to the old people now who need benefits.
It would suck for sure, but at least I wouldn’t have to keep pumping money into something that I know won’t be around when I hit retirement.
I’d rather just cut my losses now.
Greatest Inventions Ever? 1. TiVO, 2. Boobs, 3. Baseball
Unfortunately,
while I personally wouldn’t have a big problem watching old folks living under bridges and eating cat food, I suspect America as a whole would never muster up the will to cut the program.
As it is, 20 years from now, I suspect we are gonna have a serious old age crisis on our hands. As the same shortsighted fools who borrow to their last nickels on mortgages they will never be able to pay off, and have no savings, and have no retirement program at their work hit retirement, its gonna get ugly.
As I said, I personally could care less, but I’ve seen the Fed Government bail out other fools before, like the idiots in the recent mortgage crisis.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
She hasn't done
Anything to annoy me, politically speaking.
She hasn’t done anything at all, actually.
Other than become the "game-changer"
in the election, deliver one of the most memorable speeches in convention history, galvanize a party and make liberal pukes crap in their pants, she hasn’t done a whole lot.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
Wow...
Now that post is filled with the accomplishments of Palin. Great job.
A “game-changer”, a “memorable speech”, liberals puking and crapping. Don’t forget she’s a great mom.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
What is it...
that Obama has accomplished, aside from being a gifted speaker?
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
to quote the Daily Show parody Obama bio video
every time he speaks, an angel has an orgasm.
O Freunde, nicht diese Töne!
Sondern laßt uns angenehmere anstimmen,
und freudenvollere.
"Community organizer" ?
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
Well
I’m curious as to the difference in “accomplishments” between McCain and Obama. Both are senators with no executive experience. I suppose the defining difference is that one has sponsored several bills that run contrary to his party’s platform.
Thing is, I love McCain’s earlier stance on immigration. I loathe McCain-Feingold in practice, but the idea behind it was noble enough. His earlier commitments to actually address global climate change are equally appealing.
All those things make him a fantastic Senator.
Obama hasn’t sponsored or co-sponsored many controversial bills, though I think he often gets a too-negative gloss on his legislative record.
I’m just asking, since everybody’s framing the election in terms of “accomplishments”, what is the big difference between the two?
by brettgardner on Sep 9, 2008 11:33 PM CDT up reply actions
Who was it that said the only one of the
candidates on this ticket that has truly fought for you is John McCain?
What a memorable and important speech!!
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
"Fought for you"...
So I assume you voted for Kerry over Bush in ’04 then right?
You’re as rich in political knowledge as you are in baseball knowledge.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
No, each election is different. Kerry pissed his pants
over the whole Swiftboat thing plus he didn’t show real good judgment in choosing a VP not to mention letting himself be photographed in spandex while windsurfing. That picture was almost as bad as seeing Dukakis in a tank.
Carter served in the mliltary but Reagan didn’t…Reagan was the far better choice for Prez- each election is different.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
So, basically what you are saying is ...
whatever characteristics the Republican candidate has in a given election, those are the characteristics the winning candidate should have. Gotcha.
I love hypocrisy.
That's...
pretty much what I took from it too.
"Each election is different? No shit. You change your views and qualifications based off of what the party member represents rather than letting your views decide which person to vote for. Real smart way to go about things there.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
Looks like Biden is now
questioning his own selection as vp…
FOUR MORE YEARS!!
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
by Josey Wales on Sep 10, 2008 11:43 PM CDT up reply actions
McCain
What makes you think McCain is any smarter than Obama?
by Black Francis on Sep 9, 2008 5:02 PM CDT up reply actions
Obama's pretty smart
He’s what – 47 years old and extremely close to being President of the United States? Idiots don’t get that far, especially if you aren’t a son of a former president. He’s gone from being a lower-middle class kid to top of his law school to Senator to probably President. He’s a smart guy.
If you are going to accuse them of anything, it is that his campaign has been arrogant. They thought because all his supporters love him so much that just putting him out there will get the rest of the country to love him equally as much. They should have gone negative early on, they should have allowed the 527s, he should have taken public money. Basically, they failed to realize that while he’s special, he’s not so special that he doesn’t need to play by the same playbook that works for everyone else.
You’re right about what’ll happen if he goes negative now. He’s sold himself as a guy who is above going negative – it sounds weird when he says Republicans think people are stupid, for example. So he’ll have to get more aggressive, and it’ll look desperate. He’s got to walk a fine line. But he’s definitely smart enough to pull it off.
On second thought
This is the type of quote that doesn’t help
Obama: ‘Lipstick on a pig’
Amie Parnes reports from Lebanon, VA:
Obama poked fun of McCain and Palin’s new “change” mantra.
“You can put lipstick on a pig,” he said as the crowd cheered. “It’s still a pig.”
“You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It’s still gonna stink.”
“We’ve had enough of the same old thing.”
The crowd apparently took the “lipstick” line as a reference to Palin, who described the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull in a single word: “lipstick.”
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Obama_Lipstick_on_a_pig.html
Innocent words taken to mean something else… It wouldn’t surprise me to see this blow up.
Poor Obama
He’s been not attacking. McCain has been killing him, so naturally the left is getting antsy and demand he become more aggressive.
Yet when he does it blows up like this.
Proof he’s going to lose.
That's as sexist
As the whole JWP “blackhole” situation was racist.
Old war wound. Acts up around morons.
Of course it isn't sexist
You read the following about the story
Obama followed up by saying Palin is an interesting story, drawing boos at the mention of her name that he tried to cut off.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080910/D933S9QG0.html
and it tells you all you need to know.
Poor Obama – he’s a nice guy who means well whose rabid fans are hurting him more than helping him – it was a normal quote used by both campaigns that HIS PEOPLE took as a reference to Palin, which caused it to blow up. He probably really is a new type of politician who wants to campaign on issues instead of hate – but those people in his audience (and Palin’s audiences as well) aren’t ready for that. And the problem with Obama’s image is that people realize when you elect him, you’re essentially giving power to those psycho hateful people. The ironic thing is that Obama, more than anyone else, is probably so above that nonsense that he won’t cater to them later.
He probably means
she stinks like old fish because she isn’t clean down there. So, she’s basicly a big with bad hygeine. He might be right.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
Oh, McCain and company are already distorting that comment.
Hello Swift boat 2008. Classy stuff.
In case you neede more proof
That the enviromental movement worldwide is nothing more than a strategy to kill every American, look at this
Basically the gist is, Canada, a country that is left of America, but yet drills oil and pollutes in ways that would shame us, is now opposed to even mild CO2 emissions reductions. The Canadian public is against according to surveys now.
Better link
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=760750
These types of targets, are way below what draconian reductions America is proposing, btw.
Yet they are rejected in ultra leftist Canada.
Drill more oil, is what they will do, The liberal politically correct Canadians. When it counts, they know what the purpose of global warming myth is, to kill America.
Sharky
You have come a long way, my friend. You’ve expanded your vocabulary to include words like “draconian” and your grammar has improved quite a bit. However, you’re still insane.
by Black Francis on Sep 9, 2008 7:44 PM CDT up reply actions
Come a long way...
perhaps, but still only knows how to reply to himself and won’t have a rational conversation with anyone.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
maybe he thinks he is?
Multiple personalities that all agree?
by Black Francis on Sep 9, 2008 10:19 PM CDT up reply actions
Funny vid of Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qPZvnPlgew
Maybe Cahill can tell us how smart Obama is again lol
regarding "lipstick on a pig"
turns out mccain used the exact same phrase when talking about hillary clinton’s healthcare plan. i saw it on an abc dian alvear package.
so mccain’s cronies really should drop this. and hopefully the media will play the clip just as much as the obama thing.
http://www.buchanan4pres2008.org/
NIXON: NOW MORE THAN EVER
It's just the typical political kabuki.
It’s ridiculous. He was riffing on the “pit-bull lipstick” thing, it was likely meant to summon that image in the listener’s mind, and Republican surrogates (or the media generally) are making too big of a deal about it. If the campaign theme is to portray her as a strong woman, she should have just responded with a jab of her own and moved on.
However… my questions:
1) Why is Obama having to do all the heavy lifting vis a vis Palin? Where the f is Biden? It does nothing to help their campaign if he has to get his hands dirty slugging it out in the trenches with his opponent’s running mate.
2) I was struck by how poor Obama performs when not going from prepared material. In addition, I found the folksy and forced down-home affectation pretty grating.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
Grating to me
is Palin’s voice. Can’t she hire someone to do voiceovers?
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
Couldn't
Agree more.
I do agree with ben’s point that Biden should be shouldering some of this load. Obama doubtless feels it’s necessary to not be seen as a question-dodger and a coward, though.
by brettgardner on Sep 10, 2008 2:42 PM CDT up reply actions
i think biden has gone after mccain
but he just doesn’t get covered. at least biden does interviews and answers questions though. i have seen him do that. palin is still being tutored i guess.
http://www.buchanan4pres2008.org/
NIXON: NOW MORE THAN EVER
Palin's voice...
just sounds like a middle aged woman’s to me.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
Just have her lip sync
to Kathleen Turner or something. Turner’s too old and fat to actually be seen, but her voice is probably still fine to be heard.
Palin really does sound like something out of Fargo or something.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
not to stand up for her
but bush sounds like a dimwit southerner. raegan? foget it. and kennedy…
jimmy carter and my boy nixon were the best.
http://www.buchanan4pres2008.org/
NIXON: NOW MORE THAN EVER
Bush the elder
was OK as far as speaking voice. A little prissy easterner, but not too horrible. Clinton sounded like something off Hee-haw.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
way i see it
is that she brought lipstick into it, he can use it against her. but it’s sexist if obama says it, not when mccain says it?
it’s no more sexist than republicans saying, “community organizers” in a derrogatory manner is racist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMPYkNQlJMM
mccain using “lipstick on a pig” about hilldog
http://www.buchanan4pres2008.org/
NIXON: NOW MORE THAN EVER
See...
I’m not saying it’s sexist. I said that it’s political kabuki, which is what it is.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
it's been a bad 2 weeks for obama
i’m sure (i hope so at least) the “honeymoon” will die down. politcal analysts say that such big swings this early typically don’t last. i don’t know if that’s liberal media talking, or if that’s true. fact remains that in the course of a week, obama went from probably a 70% chance of winning, to it being 50/50
http://www.buchanan4pres2008.org/
NIXON: NOW MORE THAN EVER
he should have just stayed away from it altogether
i agree that it was innocent, taken out of contex,t and much ado about nothing, but he knew the Republicans picked Palin to get the sympathy vote from women who might feel she gets picked on. They really need to focus their attacks on her in a way that would not even allow for the slightest assumption that they are being sexist…and frankly, bringing up a new twist to the lipstick line doesn’t really do that.
Greatest Inventions Ever? 1. TiVO, 2. Boobs, 3. Baseball
mccain picked palin because of her conservative credentials
hello!! an online foxnews poll asked viewers why mccain picked her. conservative credentials was the winner. being a woman was a distand 2nd.
http://www.buchanan4pres2008.org/
NIXON: NOW MORE THAN EVER
Pray for that pipeline kids, it's God's will
Last week I took a pleasure trip. I drove my wife to the airport.
by Brian Thomas on Sep 10, 2008 7:10 PM CDT up reply actions
FYI
There is an entire book written on the subject by Torie Clarke. Guess who she used to work for?
http://www.amazon.com/Lipstick-Pig-Winning-No-Spin-Someone/dp/0743271165
“Clarke is a former communications director with the Pentagon in the early years of the Bush administration and a former advisor to Senator John McCain.”
Last week I took a pleasure trip. I drove my wife to the airport.
by Brian Thomas on Sep 10, 2008 7:09 PM CDT up reply actions
Speaking of books
what are folks in your circle saying about the Woodward stuff this week?
O Freunde, nicht diese Töne!
Sondern laßt uns angenehmere anstimmen,
und freudenvollere.
how about this for an ad?
i want obama to come out with a national security ad. something that includes these elements in the same ad:
obama knew the iraq war was wrong and had the wisdom to speak out against it insert cip of him speaking against it. john mccain supported it from the start, and still believes it was the right choice. joe biden supported the war too but realizes it was a mistake, that george bush mislead the nation. barrack obama believes we should seek diplomacy and direct talks first with countries like iran with ALL OPTIONS ON THE TABLE. mccain play clip of him singing bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb iran thinks it’s something to make jokes about. obama/biden know that our soldiers are one of our precious resources and believe in an all volunteer army. joe biden’s son is serving our country. john mccain insert cilp of him not disagreeing that we probably need a draft. barrack obama has the wisdom to make the right choice. i’m barrack obama and i support this message.
####
or something along those lines. i truly believe that could be a great ad, tweek it a little bit and it’s golden.
if i still had internet connection at home where i have my video editor, i’d make that ad myself.
another ad could show mccain using that lipstick on a pig thing and then video of him condemning obama and then video of palin saying that spiel at the RNC, “mccain doesn’t tell one group one thing, and turn around tell others something else” .
straight talk express?
http://www.buchanan4pres2008.org/
NIXON: NOW MORE THAN EVER
i think Obama is trying
to be careful when discussing all issues dealing with the military, as its evident that McCain has a much more prominent history there.
That’s not to say that he could or should ignore Iraq altogether, but I think he should be focusing on McCain’s weakness (economy) first and foremost.
Greatest Inventions Ever? 1. TiVO, 2. Boobs, 3. Baseball
those examples i gave
would be a good way to weaken mccain on national security/foreign affairs/diplomacy. obama won’t beat him in any poll about military, but i think those are good points he can make. obama has better judgement. mccain right about the surge? i don’t know. but he was wrong about the war to begin with, so that moot isn’t it?
people don’t want anymore warmongering, and this clearly shows mccain as being a warmonger.
http://www.buchanan4pres2008.org/
NIXON: NOW MORE THAN EVER
When is this woman going to answer questions?
I heard some McCain spokesman on the radio say she will only do it when and if the campaign decides. I mean she’s the #2 on a presidential ticket. And no, Charlie Gibson doesn’t count. Might as well put her on Larry King.
Don't discount
Gibson. There will be enormous pressure on him to ask some serious questions and not softball her. He can start with “the bridge to nowhere” and what are her qualifications to be President. I think she also has to do one of the Sunday shows this weekend. If she doesn’t, McCain is going to get hammered by Obama and the press.
Nolan Ryan should be the Rangers president, GM, manager and pitching coach.
i believe she cited going to ireland one time
as adding to her foreign policy experience(either her, or the mccain camp). turned out it was just a layover in ireland.
ha. maybe that could be a question.
http://www.buchanan4pres2008.org/
NIXON: NOW MORE THAN EVER
The Sunday Shows
I’ve been working a lot (except for this afternoon obviously) so I may have missed it, but I’ve heard nothing about her on Meet the Press or whatever. In fact, that quote from the McCain campaign spokesman I referenced earlier seems to suggest exactly the opposite. I believe that remark was made either today or yesterday.
Was it today her son went to Iraq? I don’t blame her for not dealing with the press before that happened, but yeah, this weekend she really needs to do it. Regardless of party affiliation, people with a brain will really start to wonder why they’re hiding her away if that’s what they’re doing.
by Black Francis on Sep 10, 2008 4:57 PM CDT up reply actions
This is an important point
The GOP is whining about the press picking on her. Should we not expect the VP to be able to handle the media and answer questions? This is getting ridiculous. I understand why they’re doing it. It’s smart to hide a politician who is not experienced enough to handle the national media attention (and yet, somehow we’re supposed to believe she could step into the presidency at a moment’s notice).
Ok, GOP, explain why someone who can’t handle talking to the press should be trusted to talk with world leaders, deal with congress, etc. Are we going to have some sort of regency?
O Freunde, nicht diese Töne!
Sondern laßt uns angenehmere anstimmen,
und freudenvollere.
I agree, or, at least, I think we are on the same page.
Disclaimer – I support McCain in this election: But, I think that Palin’s performance over the next two months will play a roll in how this all turns out. If she is able to hold her own in any debates and do a good job with her interviews (assuming she is made available), I think Palin, at least, puts the McCain/Palin ticket on pretty equal ground with the Obama/Biden ticket. If she falls flat on her face/never answers any questions, I think the McCain ticket is done.
Not trying to answer your question, really I am just saying that if she is not made available or she makes a major gaffe the GOP is in trouble. If the GOP is going to make Palin a major point in this election, she MUST perform.
At the very least, the whole political process should be interesting to watch over the next few months.
by rwh on Sep 10, 2008 8:20 PM CDT up reply actions
The media overreacted big time
The initial liberal media rush to slaughter Palin in the first couple days was really too bold, there was a backlash. They overplayed their hand. The comrades at the liberal media should rethink their strategies to kill America, at least, next time.
Saw a poll from Rasmussen I think, the only place that would even run a poll like this, something like 69% of people thought the media was out to get Palin (and since people are split presumably 50/50 on GOP/DEM, that means a good deal of Democrats recognized the facts too).
Just as surveys show most people thinks the media favors Obama (which they obviously do).
Biden doubts he was best choice for VP
"She’s a truly close personal friend and she is qualified to be President of the United States of America, she’s easily qualified to be Vice President of the United States of America and quite frankly it might have been a better pick than me," he continued.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/
Nolan Ryan should be the Rangers president, GM, manager and pitching coach.
Makes sense when viewing the Palin pick in hindsight
McCain chose her to get the Hillary cast-off voters who don’t care about the issues or Democratic views. I wonder if the VP picks would have changed if McCain was to choose his first. Palin v. Clinton? Would McCain still choose Palin?
Only problem with Clinton
Is that putting her on the ticket would be great for the election, but after that you bring into the White House two very big personalities with huge egos (and I like both the Clintons), which could make it more difficult to govern.
So I think it was a wise choice. Obama didn’t pick the easiest route to winning the election. Biden is more than qualified to fulfill any VP duties that Obama may give him, and without the distractions.
by Black Francis on Sep 10, 2008 7:32 PM CDT up reply actions
i like biden
the only reason why i didn’t support his choice is that he has a history of gaffes. he speaks his mind. unlike mccain (or obama for that matter), he is a straight talker.
http://www.buchanan4pres2008.org/
NIXON: NOW MORE THAN EVER
There's no problem with selecting Clinton as VP
as long as you tell her to drink a big cup of STFU after the inauguration. Talk about bad judgment.
(I know I f’d up the spelling of inauguration but who cares?)
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
by Josey Wales on Sep 10, 2008 11:48 PM CDT up reply actions
All
the models and websites have it leaning McCain now. They’ve all caught up with the bump.
Intrade is pretty interesting site I found, it’s where you can bet real money on things like politics. It’s a prediction market. Anyways since real money is at stake and a bunch of Obama frothers cant just go in there and rig it (at least without losing $), anyways, Intrade has been very reasonable, the last couple months they’ve held steady at 60-40 Obama, but as of today they are at 50-50 (actually tiny edge to McCain).
Well, we will see.
Lol
Joe Biden tells a guy in a wheelchair to stand up
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2mzbuRgnI4
I’m sorry thats not even funny but it’s still funny.
john mccain on why sarah palin isn't qualified to be presiden
I am prepared. I need no on-the-job training. I wasn’t a mayor for a short period of time. I wasn’t a governor for a short period of time.
(a little bit more than halfway down)
actually, he’s probably just talking about rudy and romney, but should it matter?
and sarah palin on why mccain doesn’t represent change
Charlie, again, we’ve got to remember what the desire is in this nation at this time. It is for no more politics as usual and somebody’s big, fat resume maybe that shows decades and decades in that Washington establishment, where, yes, they’ve had opportunities to meet heads of state.
http://www.buchanan4pres2008.org/
NIXON: NOW MORE THAN EVER
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
