1) Even the most grizzled cynic would be hard-pressed not to be deeply touched by a particular scene the video tribute to Michael Monsoor. The site of his Navy Seal brethren, in full dress uniform, pressing their own gold trident pins into his coffin in salute to their fallen comrade until the pins covered its simple wooden exterior was...my God...moving beyond words.
2) That statistic cited by Laura Bush of the increase in the number of Africans receiving AIDS treatment thanks to President Bush's work on the issue is simply amazing (rising from 5,000 to 250,000?...not sure on that exact stat...am checking now [see update below]). An under-discussed and under-appreciated legacy.
3) Heh. President Bush takes aim at the "angry left." No doubt they'll object and wonder why.
Uh, have they looked at their own blogs talking about Sarah Palin?
4) Many a Fredhead is no doubt thinking at this hour: where the hell was this guy on the campaign trail?
5) Fred Thompson's recounting of McCain's POW experience is something unique in our politics. Dead silence in the convention hall.
I think people have a vague notion of McCain's POW experience, his heroism, and his service to his country. The recounting of his sufferings, however, is something to behold.
I read it for myself during the primary season. It didn't change my preference for the nominee, but my God, what guts.
Who among us could have endured likewise?
Not many I suspect.
6) I think Thompson's speech tonight is but another step in the process, rapidly accelerated by Sarah Palin, of the conservative base rallying around John McCain at the top of the ticket.
Even mere weeks ago that would not have been believed. Believe it now.
UPDATE: per the AIDS statistic question above, I couldn't yet find the text of the First Lady's remarks in full, but Google yields this citation:
PEPFAR is the largest commitment by any nation to combat a single disease in human history. When the President launched this initiative in 2003, about 50,000 people in all of Sub-Saharan Africa were receiving anti-retroviral treatment. Today, PEPFAR supports lifesaving anti-retroviral treatment for nearly 1.7 million people in the region - and tens of thousands more around the world, from Asia to Eastern Europe.
I don't think that was the exact statistic Laura Bush cited, but nonetheless conveys the magnitude of what this effort has wrought.
UPDATE II: Per Susan K at comment #4, here's the Michael Monsoor video noted above:
Posted by Eric Earling at September 02, 2008 07:37 PM | Email ThisHopefully, Joe Lieberman's prescence will have same good luck that Zel Miller's brought back in '04 and we can send the Chicago signature gatherer and the Delaware Drunkard back to their respective senate seats.
Posted by: Rick D. on September 2, 2008 08:30 PMIf snoring is a sign of good luck, I think that good luck was spread all throughout the country.
And why don't you get some proof before spreading dirty lies? Or are you trying to do your party proud?
Posted by: demo kid on September 2, 2008 09:03 PMBush increased general financial aid to Africa threefold during his Presidency...doing as much or more than the Gates Foundation to bring those nations into prosperity.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/30/AR2006123000941.html
"President Bush's legacy is sure to be defined by his wielding of U.S. military power in Afghanistan and Iraq, but there is another, much softer and less-noticed effort by his administration in foreign affairs: a dramatic increase in U.S. aid to Africa.
The president has tripled direct humanitarian and development aid to the world's most impoverished continent since taking office and recently vowed to double that increased amount by 2010 -- to nearly $9 billion."
Posted by: John Bailo on September 2, 2008 09:19 PMThere is proof you pinhead, if you learned reading comprehension- are you talking about yourself ? We are still waiting to see any credible proof from ad-hominem pablum, so where do you get off making stupid statements like the one above ? Don't go away mad, just go away...
Posted by: KS on September 2, 2008 09:22 PM
Ron who??
Well perhaps if Ron Paul and his whining paulbearers considered playing nice instead of issuing self-serving ultimatums he could have made a good adjunct to Lieberman. In as much as he took his ball and went to have a tantrum in his own sandbox, we'll never know.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 2, 2008 09:43 PMIndividualism, freedom, fiscal responsibility, country first, responsibility, values, etc. You know, it's the boring stuff that actually creates the success that allows the legions of lefty parasites to survive.
Posted by: Jeff B. on September 2, 2008 10:35 PMOlberman: "She may not be as smart as Michelle Obama, but she sure delivered a decent speech."
Matthews: "I started to feel a tingle in my leg... you know when she mentioned Obama's name."
Olberman: "Well, Chris, anytime a Republican invokes the name of Barack, you know it has to be a good speech."
Matthews: "Now you did it Keith, both my legs are tingling."
Olberman: "Palin's speech was delivered in such a remarkable eloquent way, kind of like a lumberjack yelling 'timber' when he makes that last cut."
Matthews: "I'd have to say that she stood up to bat with the bases loaded there in Williamsport, and with the 12-year old flame thrower tossing her a fat one, she must have hit a good solid double, wouldn't you say?"
Olberman: "Technically (consults his notes), the official scorer will rule it a single and an error, but it almost tied the game up nonetheless."
Matthews: "All the same, it will go down as an emotional victory to conservative women everywhere."
Olberman: "Yes, I think she got Lorena Bobbit's vote with that one."
Posted by: Doug on September 2, 2008 10:50 PMPaul is throwing a tantrum? No. He is throwing a convention attended by thousands training a new generation of grassroots activists and future local politicians. Something the GOP should be grateful for. Instead they are rejecting the only thing that will keep the party relevant.
Posted by: Lysander on September 2, 2008 11:31 PMThen I think about Barack Obama and the fact that he reeks of anti-americanism, in that he hangs with people who hate the country: an anti-american church that preaches racial strife, people who say "This is just a mean country (his own wife), or say "G.D. America!" (Mr. Wright) or just plain step all over the American flag with glee for the cameras (Ayers). Why would anyone want this guy for president, knowing all that? Obama does not deserve the presidency, not when we have an honorable choice like John McCain. No, Obama belongs nowhere near the office. He has not earned the right---too much evidence of disturbing anti-american inclinations. He would be terrible for this country.
Posted by: Michele on September 2, 2008 11:52 PMConsider it done, mate. Better yet, I'll give you 100 proof as a tribute to your party's VP nominee.
Hillary Clinton thinks it takes a village, and every village has its idiot...well, here is Joe Biden's audition tape for that role singing a show tune while 3 sheets to the wind. A little less obvious but nevertheless inebriated Biden introduced the Obama's just this past weekend at a rally.
The dirty little secret that the Dems can't keep secluded for too much longer, especially when Biden keeps hitting the wet bar as the stress of the race for the next two months on the campaign trail begins to take its toll on the D.C. Dinosaur.
As for the Convention, I'm glad they were able to kick it up a notch last night and should get better by the day. Where indeed was this Fred Thompson 6 months ago?
Posted by: Rick D. on September 3, 2008 06:23 AMInebriated Biden introducing the Obama's.
I didn't catch much of last nights events. I did catch parts of Thompson's speech. He was down home as usual. I am sure his line about Palin dressing up a moose will be repeated ad nauseum. He also repeated the McCain talking point from last Friday about Palin being against the Bridge to Nowhere and fighting pork. To bad he didn't have the news that she was for the bridge before she was against it and negotiated pork for her town when she was mayor. To bad he also didn't get the memo that she ran Ted Steven's 527 organization.
What I saw of Lieberman made me think it was a waste for the convention. Lieberman was frankly boring and the convention members didn't show much if any reaction.
Posted by: tc on September 3, 2008 06:51 AMI have no doubt McCain loves his country. I do agree with Rove, for once, however, that his pick of Palin at the last minute was a political move and not necessarily made in the best interests of the country.
As far as GW and cocaine, I never gave one thought about this and whenever I discussed the elections in 2000 and 2004 with others, this was not an issue with me. We are reaching the generations where the likelihood of candidates having partaken in drugs during their lifetime is higher than 50%. As far as I know, GW's abuse of alchohol and (potentially) other drugs was in the past. So, by the way, is Obama's and it was unconscionable that Hillary's NH campaign manager even tried to make it an issue prior to the NH primary. Sarah Palin has admitted to Pot use in the past, also. Youthful adolescent mistakes are in the past and should stay in the past. Obama's, McCain's, Biden's, and Palin's personal pasts should not be an issue. Public stances and positions and speeches can be issues, but private pasts should be kept out.
When I mention the pork issue, I mention it because it is a public position issue. McCain has made it a bread-and-butter issue for him. He made it a talking point on Friday when introducing Palin. His "thorough" vetting however provided to turn up the fact, which only took days to uncover, that Palin was a full support of Ted Steven's project in the past and that she lobbied for earmarks for her city when she was mayor. In fact, John McCain's own list of wasteful pork projects that he has put out for many years, lists Palin's requests as mayor as wasteful pork spending. Now, here is a classic blunder due to rushed vetting. The campaign still could have used the talking point, but it should have highlighted a change in position for Palin, not that she has been a life-long champion against pork, which is still the line Thompson was feeding last night.
Posted by: tc on September 3, 2008 08:07 AMNo way and no how could Fred keep up that intensity (for him) over a couple of days. That is why he looked uninterested in primaries- he didn't have the fire within.
I wasn't looking for excitement, tc. My word- it was a Republican convention not a coronation ceremony.
I particularly noticed the contrasts with the Dems. The Dems had all glitz and glitter, including movie stars. It was a happening. Speeches were fluffy and fitting for the environment.
The Republicans were more subdued and conservative (hooboy, who woulda thunk). It drew a sharp contrast with the feel good Dems. Speeches were low key and catered to the Independents and not the emotional types.
So, there you have it- Obama all glitz and no substance and McCain- dull and boring with a lifetime of experience. Who do you want leading the country? McCain is appealing to our subconscious. Think about it.
Posted by: swatter on September 3, 2008 08:11 AMtc~ care to compare and contrast the lifetime pork requests from both sides of the ticket? Right, I didn't think so.
Posted by: Rick D. on September 3, 2008 08:36 AMYes, I do question Obama's patriotism. If he was such a patriot, why did he marry someone who was never proud of this country until this year? How come she says "this is just a mean country" What first lady talks like that? Her bad attitude is not first lady material. Why did Obama hang around that anti-american church that preaches racial strife and reveres Louis Farrakhan for 20 years? Why does he call Ayers "mainstream" when he clearly is not? Most americans recognize that Ayers' attitude is clearly NOT mainstream. These are signs of a disturbing attitude toward this country that are red flags. You have to admit that if the republican candidate sported these types of very close associations that it would be beyond strange.
Posted by: Michele on September 3, 2008 09:12 AMBut, I was wrong. She was speaking as a US citizen. She was saying (and I never thought she was that deep into political discourse) that the United States doesn't and isn't ready for a president representing the black culture. By that, I mean someone steeped in the Jerimiah Wright theology and the black victimhood thing. That made sense, too.
Posted by: swatter on September 3, 2008 09:28 AMRick D @25
I would be glad to compare pork. Remember, I grew up in a state that had Bill Proxmire as Senator. Proxmire (a Democrat) was notorious in his campaign against pork (look up Golden Fleece Award for reference). It also meant that Wisconsin received a lot less Federal funds than the others states around it (i.e., thus the higher state taxes to make up for the lack of federal funds). Its a choice. OBTW, I believe Russ Feingold has taken on the Proxmire mantel and also fights, along with McCain against pork. Pork is not a partisan issue. Both sides have been handing it out for years. What gets me is when it is contrary to agencies desire, like when Trent Lott had the Navy put back on their build list a boat they didn't want or need, just so he could deliver "pork" for his state's Shipyards.
Michele @26
I do not go to HA and won't until it cleans up its act (profanity). I also don't visit KOS. So to tie me to them, without facts indicating I do so, is stereotyping. Should I call you a racist to counter? I have no indication that you may be, but it uses the same stereotyping you are employing. It is not best to label someone. People are unique individuals with a multitude of varying attitudes on subjects. Its not a neat nice little box like you want to put people in.
In your second paragraph, you go on with the stereotyping without any sort of facts. In fact, you are going further employing McCarthism. Let's smear people by association without any facts that they ascribe to the views of the individuals you are associating them with.
You smear Michelle Obama because of a mispoken comment. Do you also smear Sarah Palin's husband because he was a registered member of a fringe seperatists movement that GD America more than Rev. Wright ever did. If you read Wrights full sermon context, Wright was attributing the words to someone else. If you read the AIW leader's words on America, they are directly by them. Do I think that Palin's husband believes this? I have no idea and withhold judgment. You, on the other hand, want to jump full feet first into water where you have no idea the depth.
You talk about Obama hanging around a church for years. Do you want to go there? Have you heard what Palin's former pastor has stated? Have you heard what Palin herself stated in church regarding God and Iraq? Why did Palin go to her church all those years with a Pastor that believes what her former Pastor has stated? In essence it is the same reason Obama hung around all those years. In both cases, it was the Pastor that brought them to Christ and they overlooked the idiosyncrasies because of the other benefits the church provided.
On Ayers, Obama has denounced and rejected on numerous occasions what Ayers did back in the 60's. What evidence to you have that Ayers is not a respective member of the Chicago community today? Are you referring to his Sept. 11 comments? Did you know that they have no correlation to Sept. 11? They were taped days before Sept. 11th, not after as many right-wing nut jobs have continued to bring up.
Obama also rejects Farrakhan's radical Islamic talk. He does praise Farrakhan's call for black father's to take responsibility and be fathers to their children, but this has been universally praised, not just in the black community.
Posted by: tc on September 3, 2008 11:11 AMYou replied with "I'll be glad to compare pork" and went on to rattle off Proxmire, Feingold and Trent Lott, none of which are on the current RNC or DNC ticket last time I checked. You had a problem with Palin's pork but neglected 36 years of Joe Biden's feeding at the trough nor Obama's hefty little sum in his 3 years as a U.S. Senator. Like the experience caterwauling before it, I seriously don't think you progressives really want to venture down that dark alley of comparing the 4 candidates comparative pork spending...you'd lose in a landslide.
That said, I too would like both parties to start being better stewards of the tax payers money. Now, between the two presidential candidates, which has proven to be better suited to take on that reform? The one who's never had a pork project in his 20+ years in the senate or the the one that has racked up nearly a Billion in a relatively short 3 years?
Real change, for a change.
Posted by: Rick D. on September 3, 2008 12:24 PMI stand by my comments. You are mistaken---a smear is "So-and-so's kid got pregnant and is therefore unfit for office, so-and-so's mother got pregnant at 17 (I haven't even heard any Rs saying that about Obama, though his mother as he tells it gave birth to him when she was 18) etc".
But observing Obama's choice of friends and associates indicates many red flags that I am extremely uncomfortable with. It is my right to observe what he RIGHT NOW considerS 'normal' and be uncomfortable with it: the theology that Wright preached (reading further about black theology and what its proponents say was extremely disturbing & I will not ever try to feel comfortable with that worldview. Many agree with me). Why was Michelle Obama caught being "friends" on a website of an Islamic terrorist fundraiser (until she got caught, that is---guess what? Then they scrubbed her name off when word got out some months back. Another red flag). William Ayers still isn't sorry for what he did and says he wishes he'd done even more bombing. Obama calls THAT mainstream. Nobody else does. RED. FLAG. I don't think Obama has the necessary instincts to protect this country. His worldview is too radical left. Everyone knows he is the most far-Left senator in DC. I can't believe I'm saying this, but I actually would prefer Hillary Clinton to him. she may be treacherous, but at least she didn't go to Wright's church for 20 years and boost Farakahn.
Btw, you want to call me racist? Go ahead--it won't make you
Posted by: Michele on September 3, 2008 01:28 PMWhat I will say is based on your comments, you do jump to conclusions and opinions prior to considering the facts. For example, I have not once brought up the Palin family matter. Any comments I have directed with regards to Palin have been directed at her public duties, stances, and statements, as they come out.
You further demonstrate your "jumping to opinion" in your statement of Obama's choice of friends. You are casting people he has come in contact with or as have had dealings with as being friends. You forget for a moment his day-to-day life as a Senator. You forget for a moment that he is "friends" with Tom Colburn of OK, even though they are political opposites. You forget for a moment that Reagan and Tip O'Neill fought tooth and nail during the day, but in the evening enjoyed a friendship.
Further, you have bought hook-line-and-sinker what Fox News and other right-wing organizations have fed you with regards to Reverend Wright. Let me ask you this, did you even read (or listen) to the whole questionable sermons? Did you read Wright's sermon entitled "Audacity of Hope?" You are judging a man's life work by three controversial sermons. Wright in the end did become power/publicity crazy as demonstrated by his Washington Press corps antics, which is why Obama was left with no choice but to denounce him and later resign from the church. If you would have read however, Wrights comments a few days ago, you will see someone who realizes that he was in error on how he handled the spotlight when shone on him. He was conciliatory and humble in his comments. You demean a sojourner's life's work, yet probably know little about his entire history. You take what Fox News feeds you as the gospel truth. You want the gospel truth, then look in Matthew at Jesus Sermon on the Mount. That is the gospel, not what some ratings-driven network feeds you. Rabbi Shmuley had an excellent post today with regards to God and the election. Feel free to go read it.
G-d's Thoughts on the Presidential Election
Posted by: tc on September 3, 2008 01:49 PMHave you heard that several black leaders are intimating that if the DalaiBama loses they and other blacks are going to throw fits and riot?
Posted by: swatter on September 3, 2008 02:17 PMOBAMA: 28% on profit from ALL home sales. (How does this affect you? If you sell your home and make a profit, you will pay 28% of your gain on taxes. If you are heading toward retirement and would like to down-size your home or move into a retirement community, 28% of the money you make from your home will go to taxes. This proposal will adversely affect the elderly who are counting on the income from their homes as part of their retirement income.)
DIVIDEND TAX
MCCAIN: 15% (no change)
OBAMA: 39.6% - (How will this affect you? If you have any money invested in stock market, IRA, mutual funds, college funds, life insurance, retirement accounts, or anything that pays or reinvests dividends, you will now be paying nearly 40% of the money earned on taxes if Obama becomes president. The experts predict that 'Higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains would crash the stock market, yet do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit.')
INCOME TAX
MCCAIN: (no changes) Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $31,250
OBAMA: (reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts) Single making 30K - tax $8,400
Single making 50K - tax $14,000
Single making 75K - tax $23,250
Married making 60K - tax $16,800
Married making 75K - tax $21,000
Married making 125K - tax $38,750
Under Obama, your taxes could almost double!
INHERITANCE TAX
MCCAIN: 0% (No change, Bush repealed this tax)
OBAMA: Restore the inheritance tax
Many families have lost businesses, farms, ranches, and homes that have been in their families for generations because they could not afford the inheritance tax. Those willing their assets to loved ones will only lose them to these taxes.
NEW TAXES PROPOSED BY OBAMA
New government taxes proposed on homes that are more than 2400 square feet. New gasoline taxes (as if gas weren't high enough already) New taxes on natural resources consumption (heating gas, water, electricity) New taxes on retirement accounts, and last but not least....New taxes to pay for socialized medicine so we can receive the same level of medical care as other third-world countries!!!
You can verify the above at the following web sites:
http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/election/2008/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.taxes.html
http://elections.foxnews.com/?s=proposed+taxes
http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourworld/politics/articles/mccain_obama_offer_different_visions_on_taxes.html
http://blog..washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/candidates/barack_obama/
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/candidates/john_mccain/
First, Compare and contrast the individual DNC and RNC tickets re: ordering pork during their elective service.
Next, explain how Barack Obama's is better suited to reform such pork barrel spending (3 billion in pork accrued over 3 yrs as senator) as President than John McCain (0 dollars spent in 25 years as senator) would be? Your illogic on this matter is astounding.
Horrifying. And repugnant to most christians everywhere.
Posted by: Michele on September 3, 2008 03:57 PM1. Favors off-shore drilling: (1) McCain was against this before he was for it (very Kerry-like), (2) Obama's position isn't 100% against. Obama is for limited off-shore drilling (provided the individual states desire drilling -- CA doesn't), but there has to be resolution to a long term energy policy. Drilling will not solve today's problem and is only a stop-gap. Listen to the T.Boone Pickens add, he states as much and he is in the oil business.
2. Judges: Barack has not state any "litmus" test with regards to judges. Therefore, you can't state as fact that Barack won't appoint one that turns out to be a strict interpretor of the law. Look at Reagon and Bush Senior appointees, they didn't turn out the way people expected. Further, remember that strict interpretation applies to more than just abortion and second amendment. There is that pesky little issue of privacy, or the issue of copyrights (e.g., Record and movie industry), where the strict interpretation judges want to hand away citizens rights to the executive branch and in the case of copyright cases to the movie industries. Enjoy the free Internet while you can. Strict interpretists are no friend of the Internet.
3. Served in Armed Forces: Wasn't necessary or required when Barack graduated in 1979. The military was cutting back. Even if he had, there wasn't major conflicts during his service period, unless you want to call Grenada a major conflict.
4. Amount of time in Senate also equals amount of time in Washington. It is a double-edged sword. McCain has been there 25 plus years, why hasn't he addressed the energy issue in those 25 years? It has been talked about since the oil crisis in the 70's.
5. Institutionalize socialized health plan. (1) This is incorrect. Obama has not proposed a "socialized" health plan. What he proposed is the same thing MA and WA has, which is a national plan, like the Federal Employees have, that people without their own health care can purchase. Let me tell you this, these plans pale in comparison to full health benefits, just look at the State's Uniform Medical Plan. (2) You fail to mention that McCain wants to tax our health care premiums and FSA contributions that are currently not taxes (i.e., BIG TAX INCREASE for middle class).
6. Abortion. You misquote his stand. He has no problem with late term abortions, that provide a medical exception.
7. Iraq. Obama's plan is 16 months, not immediately. Iraq agrees there should be a timetable. Bush Adminstration has also agreed to a timetable. Only John McCain is out on a windy corner and out of step with what is actually happening in Iraq. John McCain doesn't want to pull out of Iraq and won't define what is victory. Further, John McCain was for invading Iraq just weeks after 9/11, even though Iraq didn't attack us on 9/11.
8. Gun ownership. Barack also supports this. He also supports the cops in inner cities that have to deal with gun violence and believes we can abide by the Second Amendment and keep guns, especially assault-styled rifles, out of criminals hands.
More to follow later. I will say in prelude, your tax facts on Obama's plan is totally way off base.
Posted by: tc on September 3, 2008 05:28 PM1. Obama is a liar. We have dozens of years of PROVEN reserves offshore, and nearly 3 CENTURIES of proven reserves onshore, and they're all locked out by the Congress. McCain has changed his position on offshore, and has been consistent about onshore. Obama opposes both with his ridiculous rhetoric and lies about "68 million unused acres", forcing oil companies to waste money on dry wells and OVERdrilling fields. And that's the fact.
2. McCain promises NO litmus test for judges. Barack Obama chose a VP who uses Roe v. Wade as a litmus test for judges. Obama has a litmus test, McCain does not.
3. Obama has zero experience as a military commander. Even Sarah Palin, with the National Guard and USAF interface, has more military experience than Obama AND Joe Biden COMBINED. How can we trust a candidate without any experience in the use of the military? We'll end up like we did under Clinton - lobbing cruise missles at embassies and aspirin factories.
4. Energy wasn't a problem 8 years ago, and it wouldn't be a problem today if the Slavery Party wasn't so insistent on "their way or the highway". Remember the whole "issue" with President Bush's energy policy back in 2001? The reason we have $110 a barrel oil is BECAUSE of the Slavers, not the Republicans.
5. Ask anyone in the insurance industry - WA and MA are essentially fascist. Twelve years ago, when I started my company, I had the choice from over two HUNDRED insurance providers. Last year - when I closed that same company - I had a choice of 7. This is COMPLETELY because of the Government requirements of mandatory coverage. No longer any choice. It's fascist - Government control of "private" industry by over-regulation, rather than overt ownership or control of companies. So I guess you can say Obama is a fascist when it comes to health care - all the better!
6. McCain would make an abortion exception in the case of protecting the life of the mother. Obama wants abortion to protect the lifestyle of the mother. That's a HUGE gulf.
7. Obama is on record as saying immediately. Then not. Then 16 months. Then not. He has no position - he lets the polls decide. This is a DIRECT reflection of his massive lack of experience in the military. ANY military time will tell you that no decision is worse than the wrong decision. Obama doesn't want to make a decision.
8. Obama is on-record as supporting the DC handgun ban right up to the minute AFTER that law was overturned. He's opposed to the 2nd amendment - how you Slavers pick and choose your amendments!
TC, you can spin as you want but the fact is that the Slavery Party is the party of fascism, socialism, and loss of all freedoms. Obama is an empty suit with the LEAST amount of experience of the four main names (McCain, Palin, Biden, Obama), and he's got zero track record of consistency other than kill a baby any time you want - even after it's born.
So how's it feel to be a supporter of the party that openly calls for the death of BORN babies - let alone viable ones in the womb - and calls for a complete fascist AND socialist takeover of the Government?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 3, 2008 06:54 PM1. You stated that Obama is a liar. Pretty blanket statement. I won't for one moment think that he has never told a lie in his life. I am sure none of us are that perfect. As to your second part of this item, it isn't Obama who states these facts. Your argument is based on an opinion of a minority of oil industry analysts, but it isn't in anyway a non-biased analysis. The facts are that we know current reserves and how much is easily extractable and reserves that take a lot more effort to extract. For the latter, the question is always does the price of extraction exceed the return the oil can fetch on the market. Therefore, your argument is meaningless unless you factor in exploration and extraction costs compared to competing energy sources. This argument also assumes static or slow growing demand, so that the time it takes to explore and extract is less than the time it is needed. If you look at China's demand pattern in the last decade, the model these figures assume is sorely lacking. Finally, this also doesn't address the emissions issue in both the emissions that would have to be generated to explore and extract and the emissions generated when used. I for one trust what T Boone Pickens is saying.
2. You are wrong about McCain. See the second to last paragraph on McCain's page regarding judicial philosophy. Obama's stand. He doesn't have one. He has talked about the judicial system plenty of times and as a constitutional law lecturer, he is well versed in the issues, including the gray areas. You see, everyone here wants to think black and white. This is the way Bush wanted it. As I stated earlier, many on the right are concerned about two or three main issues when it comes to the court (abortion, second amendment, and most likely, gay marriage). They fail to consider all the other areas that effect our lives. Take for instance the freedom of the Internet. The movie studios and media moguls want to control all content. If they had their way blogs like SP wouldn't exist. Why is it heading this way? It is because of the current "traditionalist" leaning of the court. When faced with legal matters regarding new technology, there is no precedent to fall back on. There is not interpreting the constitution as it was written. You need judges that can think and rule on matters based on sound legal jurisprudence that weighs the benefits and costs to both sides. Obama, since he taught the subject, understands this.
3. Sarah Palin's responsibility for the state's National Guard only relates to state matters and not to military operations. These are not my words. These are the words of the head of the Alaska National Guard. You can't use her head of National Guard to argue she has more military experience. It is a misunderstanding of the dual role of the National Guard. On the flip side, you give Obama zero credit, yet in the Senate, he has met regularly with military leaders and understand their needs. He was one of the first to raise the issue of this administration's neglect of the Iraq veterans and has quietly regularly visited Walter Reed. You neglect the fact that he has been right on military matters during this election, whereas McCain has been wrong. Obama called for strategic strikes in Pakistan if the Pakistani government was afraid to act. He got crucified, yet, in the end, this is what this administration exactly did. He opposed the Iraq war from the beginning. John McCain wanted to invade Iraq within weeks after 9/11, even though it was Al Quaeda that attacked us and not Iraq. Obama called for a withdrawal timetable that is doable, not because he wants to surrender, but because the army is overstretched and we need forces in Afghanistan, where they should have been in the first place. Well what do you know, the Iraq government agrees with Obama's general outline. Further, the Bush administration is now also on-board and has negotiated timetables for withdrawal. John McCain still can't define what winning means in Iraq and wants to stay for some indefinite time, but if feet held to the fire 2012 or 2013 would be the earliest. Obama has been consistent in calling for more troops in Afghanistan. You know what Petraus (sp?) agrees that we need more troops in Afghanistan. In military action judgment after military action judgment these past several months, Obama has been proven correct and McCain is still trying to live off the surge. The surge happened, is overwith, it is time to move on to what needs to happen next. Finally, it is Obama who calls out specifics in his Blueprint for Change, for strengthening the military, addressing veterans needs, and expanding and reshaping the military to face tomorrow's threats. John McCain wants to talk the past and when he doesn't know what to say, he repeats one of his POW stories. We have heard them time and time again. Yes, his POW time should be honored and never forgotten, but it isn't the answer to every question when you don't know what else to answer.
4. Energy has been a problem since the 70's. It has been all talk and little action through both Republican and Democratic administrations. Also, the reason we have $110 a barrel gas has nothing to do with the Democrats. It has to do with China's triple (or more) growth of demand in the last 8 years. It has to do with the exchange rate of the dollar, which relates to trade deficit, the outrageous budget deficit, and with how other country's currencies compare. As one can see, most of the recent drop has to do with the dollar's value rebounding. Finally, the cost of oil has to do with the futures market, which plays demand versus supply speculating. You are neglecting the third world's growth in demand for oil. We are in a global market now. We aren't in Kansas anymore.
5. MA is facist. It was Mitt Romney, the conservatives darling, that put MA plan in place. As far as the health insurance industry, too bad. The health insurance industry is a big part of the problem. I take it you don't have Aetna for your insurance company. Regence still has some good points, but is being pressured everyday to go to Aetna's model of denying services, increasing copayments, and decreasing payouts to doctors. Have you ever looked at what Insurance companies actually payout to doctors for regular services? We had a bill for an out-of-state emergency room visit. While the hospital's bill seemed outrageous, it was nothing to the piddence that Aetna actually paid out. Aetna won't pay for preventive, simple tests like cholesterol, if you are a woman under 50, unless you have an existing condition. Do you know how little the test costs and how beneficial it is to monitor? This is absolutely ridiculous. Doctors can't practice medicine. It is the insurance industry that dictates medical practice. As far as choice, have you looked at the FEHB (i.e., plan Obama wants to use as a model, and the plan government employees and congress is under). There is plenty of competition on it.
6. McCain may make an exception, but Palin won't. Your statement on Obama is blatantly false. McCain also is for stem cell, yet states life begins at conception, which is a contradiction. Further, in this case Palin is more correct. If your stance is life begins at conception, then there can be no exceptions. The choice between life of mother and life of child is covered by other law and is unnecessary to enter into the argument. Finally, here's one for you, one that I hadn't even seen until recently. Let's assume for a moment that we do define rights under our law as applying to the fetus at moment of conception. Given this, all rights of this Country have to apply. This includes the 14th amendment, which means fetus' conceived in the US are US citizens. You can't state they have rights under US law and in the same breadth state they only have limited rights. Either they are fully endowed human persons under the US Constitution or they are not. Hows that for immigration policy. Now not only do we need to police people entering the country, but also their private actions while in this country, even legally (e.g., just visiting).
7. You are incorrect. Obama's record on withdrawal has been consistent at 16 months. His only qualification is that he will listen to the commanders on the ground and if conditions change, he is not so inflexible to alter the timetable.
8. See this for Obama's statement on this matter. He doesn't oppose the 2nd amendment. Again, it is a case where you want to paint the world black and white. One can support the second amendment and also agree that certain regulations should be in place surrounding firearms for public safety.
You are off-based and ill-informed on what Obama's policies may or may not be. Why don't you go and read the policies yourself? I will definitely give kudos to Pudge on this one. He actually has read through Obama's Blueprint and while he doesn't agree with the interpretations, at least he has done his own work, instead of depending on others to tell him third-hand what Obama believes or doesn't believe.
Posted by: tc on September 3, 2008 09:53 PM1. Biden - half your ticket and the one with "gravitas" - opposes offshore drilling. Just today. Enough to make you eat your words? JOBAMA has no gravitas, no energy plan, and will switch statements at a moment's notice to gain political points.
2. So McCain is bad because he'll use the Constitutional role of a judge - to be an arbiter, NOT creator of law - as a litmus test? How is that an actual litmus test, unless ANY judgment of qualifications is a "litmus" test?
However we have Obama on paper as saying he'll use Roe v. Wade as a litmus test.
Give this one up, too...
3. Lots of weasel words, but the facts are this: the Commander In Chief is responsible for state matters and calling out the guard or military. The MILITARY is responsible for operations.
It's when leftist pinheads with zero military experience (looking your way Obama and Biden) try to micromanage a war that we get squat. Think Johnson micromanaging Vietnam. Clinton bombing embassies and aspirin factories.
Then look at Bush I with Desert Storm. Bush II with the surge. Turn the military leaders loose to run the war and guess what - WE WIN.
The CIC needs to know WHEN to deploy the troops, not how. JOBAMA (my knickname for Joe and Obama) have zero experience in this. Zero, none nada. Zilch. Undeniable.
4. Energy is the Slavery Party's fault, pure and simple. You might not have picked up on this - even though my handle is SHANGHAI Dan - but I live 1/3rd of my life in China (Shanghai, actually, 2 blocks north of the indoor skiing facility in the Minhang district, on Hualin Lu).
I guess you didn't read the fact that we have 2 TRILLION barrels of oil here. Enough to provide 100% of our oil needs for nearly 3 centuries. And it's all locked up - and continues to be locked up - because the Slavers, led by Queen Nancy and Insane Harry - refuse to allow us to develop our OWN resources.
We could have every barrel we need, and export over 7 MILLION barrels a DAY, at $40 per barrel if we wanted. Pure and simple the problem is supply NOT demand. Supply has not kept up with demand because of artificial political restrictions by the Slavery Party.
Just another way they seek to keep us in chains of economic oppression!
5. Romney was no Conservative. And in case you didn't know, he LOST the nomination. His healthcare plan - as fascist as you will find - is an abject failure. Woefully in the red, and only getting worse.
JOBAMA wants that for the nation. It's bizarro world - like working for dot-bombs back in 1999. Sure, we'll lose money on every transaction but we'll make it up with volume!
JOBAMA wants to bankrupt our nation. destroy our healthcare system, and effectively nationalize - via fascist policies - another 15% of our economy. And they are taking you down with them. Another shackle on you from the Slavery Party!
6. Palin won't make an exception. Good. It's up to each State, and I think Palin would be comfortable with that.
My statement about Obama is 100% TRUE. You are the liar here. Because Obama actually voted FOR live birth abortion. Undeniable, uncontestable, incontrovertible.
Simple fact: Obama supports abortion on demand, up to and including post-birth. The question now is just how long after the birth Obama is willing to kill the baby.
Spin as you want - the fact is that Obama is ON RECORD as supporting murder of a baby. Killing a child after it has been been born. How you can call it anything else is beyond belief.
7. Let's see... Last year Obama wanted an immediate withdrawal of all troops. This was in September of 2007, and the withdrawal was to be completed by December 2008.
Read there too that in January 2007 he introduced a bill to start a withdrawal in May 2007, to be completed by March 2008.
Now, I know that logic - and hence, math - are not the strong suits of Slavers, but September to December is 15 months, and May to March is 10 months. Both of which are different from his now claimed "always 16 months".
Which of course has now morphed to be "16 months after the commanders say it's OK".
So which is it? Is it the unconditional 10 month withdrawal? The unconditional 15 month withdrawal? The unconditional 16 month withdrawal? Or the new conditional 16 month withdrawal? And when you're done telling us which one it was, can you explain the LIES from his mouth about how his plan was always consistent?
8. Caught on "tape" in his own lies so to speak. Calling the DC ban constitutional and an example of common-sense law. When in fact it was found to be unconstitutional.
And what's amazing is that you Slavers hold up the Obamassiah as a CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYER! He got this basic simple position wrong, and tried to slime and LIE his way out of it. Sorry pal even ABC News called him on his lie.
I've read Obama's positions, and I see them as the fascist, socialist manifesto that they are. And I'm sure Pudge would agree.
But I also see the continual pattern of lies and ever-shifting positions of this charlatan. And how you Marxist Slavers are willing to throw your own honesty and integrity to the winds to cover for him. His own record speaks the OPPOSITE of your - and your messiah's - claimed "consistency".
Slavers rattle your chains; you're Marxists and fascists through and through, willing to create alternate facts and history to fit your own agenda.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 3, 2008 11:08 PMHere is the official Obama page on his tax plan.
Here is the Tax Policy center's analysis of both candidates tax plan.
Just some basic points:
1. Capital Gains: This is outlined on page 5 of Obama's plan. It states:
"Capital Gains: Families with incomes below $250,000 will continue to pay the capital gains rates
that they pay today. For those in the top two income tax brackets – likewise adjusted to affect only
families over $250,000 – Obama will create a new top capital gains rate of 20 percent. Obama’s 20%
rate is equal is the lowest rate that existed in the 1990s and the rate that President Bush proposed in 2001. It is almost a third lower than the rate that President Reagan signed into law in 1986."
OBTW, the statement you attributed to McCain on home sales is the current law. There is nothing in Obama's plan changing the capital gains on homes. Even the tax policy center's analysis doesn't include this amount. Also, you will note that the Tax Policy Center's statement on Obama and capital gains is based on earlier comments (I believe it was in a debate and wasn't state as fact but as an answer to what, if ever would be the maximum Obama would consider). Obama's final plan is lower than what the Tax Policy Center considered in its initial analysis. This will mean the overall projected budget shortfall for Obama's plan will be greater, but still not nearly as great as McCain's tax changes.
Dividend Tax: This is also covered on page 5 of Obama's plan and states:
"Dividends: The top dividends rate for people making over $250,000 would be set at 20 percent.
Dividends will not return to being taxed at ordinary income tax rates. Obama’s 20 percent rate on dividends will be 39 percent lower than the rate President Bush proposed in 2001, and would be lower than all but 5 of the last 92 years we have been taxing dividends."
Income Tax: This is covered on page 5. You repeat the same lie that McCain has been telling. Obama is on record and it states it in his plan, and the Tax Policy Center's analysis, that he will retain all the Bush tax cuts, except for the top two brackets. The top two brackets would return to their pre-Bush Tax Cut levels. The bottom line is this only affects singles making over $160K (see IRS 1040 instructions, p. 75), married couples making over $198K, married filing seperately making over $100K, and Head of Households making over $178K.
Estate Tax:
You are incorrect on your McCain quote and the fact that this was repealed. Per the Tax Policy Center's document, McCain would permanent the estate tax with a $5M exemption and 15% rate. Obama's Estate Tax proposal (as stated on page 5 of his plan) is:
"Estate Tax: The estate tax would be effectively repealed for 99.7 percent of estates. For the remaining 0.3% of estates over $7 million per couple, Obama will retain a rate of 45%. This policy would cut the number of estates covered by the tax by 84 percent relative to 2000."
Contrary to Palin's speech tonight, no small farmer in Minnesota needs to worry about their farm. I grew up in Wisconsin, which has similar sized farms and land values. No small farmer is going to have family farms worth $7M, even if you included the equipment. The only farms this rich are agri-corporations, some of which are family owned, but don't have to worry about estate laws, since they are corporations. Even in the area of Wisconsin I came from, the practice years ago was for families that owned multiple farms to incorporate. The reason being is the various State's Estate Laws impact, not the Federal Government Estate Law impact. Just for fact: My dad sold his 200 acre farm off in four chunks over a couple years around 2000 (a 40 acre parcel, and then the remaining 160 acres to three neighbors). The total value of the 200 acres was $150K. Farmland, even good farmland, is only at the max. $1000/acre. In Illinois, the rich flat corn land may go a bit higher. The same with Iowa. Minnesota, however, would be similar to Wisconsin, given the fact that its growing season is the same. This is one area where Palin being from Alaska didn't have a clue that what she was stating was totally false when applied to the local Minnesota farmer.
One other point on the Estate Tax: The Money magazine link, you yourself provided, also contradicts what you stated both candidates position on the Estate tax was. See this specific Money Magazine article. It also states "A 2005 report by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center found that in 2004, when the exemption was at $1.5 million, just 440 small businesses and farms were hit with the tax. That same year, a Congressional Budget Office study determined that in 2000, 485 estates that included a family-owned business were hit with the tax. (Another 1,659 estates of farmers incurred estate taxes.)"
New Taxes:
You stated: "New government taxes proposed on homes that are more than 2400 square feet. New gasoline taxes (as if gas weren't high enough already) New taxes on natural resources consumption (heating gas, water, electricity) New taxes on retirement accounts, and last but not least....New taxes to pay for socialized medicine so we can receive the same level of medical care as other third-world countries!!!"
I went to each of your supplied sources. The Fox Link didn't work and neither did the WA Post Obama link. I could not find in the others, in the Tax Policy Center, nor in Obama's published plan these items. What is your source for these new taxes?
You fail to cover McCain's new taxes, which the biggest impact will his taxing health care premiums. Since he doesn't provide details, the assumption here is what currently is not taxed will now be taxed. This includes premiums individuals pay pre-tax, employer portion of premiums, Health Saving Accounts contributions, and Health-related Flexible Spending Account contributions. This is a huge tax increase for middle class workers. McCain's proposal only exempts $2500 for individuals and $5000 for families. I know for myself, we pay around $250/mo in premiums, the employer portion is most likely around $250-400/mo, and we contribute $200/mo to FSA's. Even taking a conservative $700/mo, this is $8400 per year. Under McCain's plan, $5000 would be exempt, but $3400 would be taxable. Being in the 25% bracket, this would be an additional $850/year. Under Obama's plan, this would stay the same.
Finally, you failed to mention New Tax Cuts for each side. The Tax Policy Center outlines the cuts. Obama's plan outlines his new tax cuts.
The bottom line is McCain has been totally, flat out lying about Obama's plan. This lie was reiterated by Thompson last night and Palin tonight. They may think they can convince the convention of the lies, but the truth is another matter. You don't need to take my word for it. Obama's plan is posted, plain and simple on his website. The Tax Policy Center analysis provides a comprehensive review of both candidates plan and is often the definitive source that the other news agencies, like Money, use.
Posted by: tc on September 3, 2008 11:11 PMThe bottom line is McCain has been totally, flat out lying about Obama's plan.
Wait, are you talking about his plan this week, last week, or next week? Because we already have proof that he changes his stances all the time and denies any previous position.
Historical revisionism at it's best - it's enough to make Tovarishch Stalin green with envy!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 4, 2008 01:02 AMI personally look forward to America watching the GOP tripping over themselves to defend Palin's lifestyle while proclaiming to be the party of "family values" and "tax cuts".
Another shining example of hypocrisy from the "Do as we say not as we do" party. What a joke the Republican Party has become.