October 22, 2008
Nationwide, Police Begin Bracing For Obama's Defeat
The Hill notes that police departments across the country are preparing for post-election violence:
Police departments in cities across the country are beefing up their ranks for Election Day, preparing for possible civil unrest and riots after the historic presidential contest.Public safety officials said in interviews with The Hill that the election, which will end with either the nation’s first black president or its first female vice president, demanded a stronger police presence.
Some worry that if Barack Obama loses and there is suspicion of foul play in the election, violence could ensue in cities with large black populations. Others based the need for enhanced patrols on past riots in urban areas (following professional sports events) and also on Internet rumors.
The reference to Palin as the first female vice president is repeated later in the article, but as an obvious sop; does anyone really expect women or Republicans to riot if McCain and Palin aren't elected?
No, the concern is that urban Democrats may riot in the event that Barack Obama falls short in his bid for the White House, or that they may riot to a lesser extent if Obama wins and victory celebrations get out of hand.
A source of mine involved in homeland security, however, says that the government isn't terribly concerned with fears of overzealous celebrations, but with potential rioting linked to expectations being built of a "stolen election."
He intoned—but did not state directly—that internal polling from both the McCain and Obama campaigns see a much Presidential tighter race that is shown in most of the public polls (noted here, here, and here as well). This inaccurate and perhaps purposefully biased polling has created expectations in some quarters of an easy win for Barack Obama that the internal polling data in both campaigns does not support.
I suspect that the media-manipulated polls could lead to violence if Obama is not elected, including injuries to innocent citizens, rioters, and law enforcement officials.
I've made it clear in recent days that I suspect that John McCain and Sarah Palin will win this election, and that the outcome will shock many. If that shock leads to violence, however, I hope that the blame for those injured is properly placed at the feet of the mainstream media organizations that have abandoned objectivity in order to campaign and even cheat in favor of the Democratic candidate they so clearly prefer.
Show Comments »
The media has just started to "prefer" Obama.
When all this started, the only press about Obama was negative.
Do you expect mainstream media to lose it's watchers and readers?
If the majority of the people want Obama, why would they report on McCain?
I will take part in whatever I feel like doing if the election is stolen.
Also, nobody try to assassinate Obama, that will cause a Riot of all riots. Don't expect this riot to include only blacks either. There are plenty of us whites that won't stand for more Bushism.
posted by Sean Winter at October 22, 2008 11:47 AMI'm glad big city police departments are preparing for once.
US Whites, very diverse in views, historically don't riot. Should the election be stolen via Democratic voter fraud, and the media uncharacteristically report the news accurately, then there could be isolated incidents of rage. I don't see the potential for organized white riots, however.
Inner city/black rioting seems, historically, likely no matter who wins.
In my election predictions (http://www.kennelson.com/newblog/?p=286), I give McCain a win and expect bad riots in Chicago, LA and Miami. I didn't cover the case of an Obama victory, but given my own experience with Clinton's win while living in Washington, D.C. - it is hard to tell between a victory "celebration" and a defeat "riot".
I sure as hell hope you're right on the election outcome. And I have $20 riding on it!
posted by Son of a Pig and a Monkey at October 22, 2008 12:09 PMWin or Lose, the result will be the same from the Obama thugs. If they win, they will see it as justification to go after the only people in the world they consider evil.
posted by Paul Atreides at October 22, 2008 12:16 PMThe media has just started to "prefer" Obama.When all this started, the only press about Obama was negative.
They've been in love with him since his 2004 DNC speech, and they've refused to challenge him on almost anything substantive. Please share some of the negative press to which you refer.
Do you expect mainstream media to lose it's watchers and readers?
They already are, across the spectrum, and it is overwhelmingly because of their bias. Where have you been as the LA Times, NY Times, and other news organizations have been shedding employees?
If the majority of the people want Obama, why would they report on McCain?
Becuase it is called journalism, not cheerleading, and it's their job, genius.
I will take part in whatever I feel like doing if the election is stolen.
Ah, I see we have someone unwilling to believe that The One can lose. You do know he's never won a contested election in his life, right?
Also, nobody try to assassinate Obama, that will cause a Riot of all riots. Don't expect this riot to include only blacks either. There are plenty of us whites that won't stand for more Bushism.
As I reported months ago, the only people talking about Obama being assassinated are those on the political left. Most of that has been simply media-generated smears directed at non-supporters by the media, though some are of course concerned that their Messiah may actually be targeted. Perhaps as sadly, some on the left are almost hoping that he is assassinated, knowing he is incapable of living up to the hype, and feeling in dark places they don't want to admit he'd be more effective as a martyr, kinda like one of his heroes, cli-Che.
And if, Mr. Winter, you decide to riot and try to hurt others because Democrats blew what should have been an easy election because they picked an inexperienced, unvetted candidate with ties to the most extreme radicals in American politics, I hope you burn down your own home first.
That is, after all, where the blame lies.
posted by Confederate Yankee at October 22, 2008 12:22 PMWith all the hoopla that the MSM tries to slant that it is the McCain supporters who are fomenting violence which is utterly untrue, the only real violence occurring right now is from the Obama supporters, especially white ones. In NYC a man attacked and bruised a white woman with a McCain sign, a parade of McCain supporters were spit on and cursed at, and across the country people's cars and property are being vandalized by Obama supporters. It is insane and the MSM should take a large part of the responsibility for this by portraying Bush and others in an unduly harsh light.
posted by Krystal at October 22, 2008 12:31 PMSpot on CY, the polls are a lot closer than any of the MSM want or are willing to report. This guy's a joke. The only thing I really worry about are the orgs like ACORN with the help of the folks working the polling places pulling the lever for the Dallas Cowboys in all 50 states!
posted by Faithful Patriot at October 22, 2008 12:41 PMI hope that the blame for those injured is properly placed at the feet of the mainstream media organizations that have abandoned objectivity in order to campaign and even cheat in favor of the Democratic candidate they so clearly prefer.
CY, you slay me. You really do. Next you will be clicking your heels together and saying there is no place like home......
However, you are right regarding the likelihood of civil unrest if Obama loses. The left will somehow project the justification onto the rest of the country by claiming that the election was stolen by sneaky Republicans (probably by infiltrating Acorn). The Democrats will do this because they approve of stealing elections themselves through voter fraud and cannot conceive of their enemies (us, that is) thinking any other way than them.
In fact, maybe that is the new meme! To say: "Look, you racists. If you let McCain win, we will not only keep calling you racists, but we will burn your cities down". Stupid, but so was calling all criticisms of Obama racist.
posted by iconoclast at October 22, 2008 01:09 PMYou suggest Mr. Winter start with his own house. He sounds like the type that doesn't have a house. They are the type that sit in their parents' basement all day fantasizing, or they defaulted on a mortgage they couldn't afford and now they're bitter- and homeless. Obama's gonna get him the keys to a "rich guy's" house, dontcha know.
posted by deepsix at October 22, 2008 01:17 PMThere's already a suspicion of foul play in this election.
Acorn anyone?
posted by Conservative CBU at October 22, 2008 01:46 PMThe Dem/Press has prepared the ground for this. While blatantly stealing the election themselves they STILL whine that the attempted theft of the 2000 election by Al Gore was unsuccessful. In the intervening years certainly we have all heard that first person, possibly from the son-in-law or some such figure and let it go as a quaint phantasm. Big mistake. Anyone watching events in Fl knew it was the Democrats manufacturing fraudulent votes that had the nation in suspenders. Democrat vote fraud in Democrat districts... yet it's still Rove/Bush on the hook somehow. It is so stupid the instant response is to laugh. No more. These loons MUST be taken to task whenever possible. Slough off this responsibility and, as the old Jewish aphorism has it, your silence will indicate your agreement. DO NOT assume that ANYTHING is too stupid, insane or physically impossible to be believed by the gullible. This is our responsibility whether we like it or not. Would you let your town burn down because you would not instruct someone on the nature of fire? If there is some sort of violence after the election of whatever sort it will be short lived. Adults should already be prepared for the odd riot or mass strike. We will live through Obama, if we must. One thing is certain, socialism never succeeds. It may prosper briefly but it never succeeds. Our fellow citizens will see that, ultimately.
posted by megapotamus at October 22, 2008 02:08 PMIf media coverage was more balanced and so many disgusting people weren't putting forth - and buying into - the notion that Obama is some sort of saintly, blessed creature then I don't think there would be anything to worry about.
I actually talked to an ACORN girl some weeks ago. She was doing voter registration and I told her I was registered and who I was voting for. She followed me for two whole blocks to pester me about my voting for McCain. Finally I stopped, looked at this uneducated hoodrat and asked her if she understood that her life would not change AT ALL if Obama was elected. It didn't matter to her. This is all about unicorns, candy mountains, moonbeams and some sort of perverse religiosity but there is so much delusional hope invested in Obama that I can definitely forsee ugliness if he loses.
posted by Hector at October 22, 2008 02:18 PMI hope Al-Queda supportors jumping in the tank for McCain doesn't lead to a greater loss of life after he loses.
posted by AQ at October 22, 2008 02:26 PMMaybe Ayers will toss a few bombs to show his solidarity with his black brothers.
Because, god knows the Weather Underground and the Black Liberation/ Supremist movement weren't intimately connected.....
From LEO's (in Markham, Harvey and Hazelcrest) that I have had conversations in the last 3 months, the southern suburbs of Cook County will riot, either in celebration or in rage.
The police departments in this area are ill-equipped to handle looting, burning and shooting of a grand scale.
The LEO's suggest that you get a gun and plan an escape route.
posted by Purple Raider at October 22, 2008 03:00 PMIt is always good to have the "hunker down" plan and the "boogie out" plan set, and ready for implementation in 1 hour or less. There are a few homes that would suffice as impenetrable, but it is always good to have plan b. But also remember that the last time there were MAJOR riots I've ever heard of, the neighborhoods that remanied untouched were primarily the Asian sections. They were sitting on their roofs, armed, and obviously the rioters did NOT have martyrdom in mind.
posted by cmblake6 at October 22, 2008 03:13 PMYou know where the violence is gonna be? The first time some mealy-mouthed republican hack lawyer challenges the legitimate vote of some little old black lady in Florida.
America is fed up with vote suppression, and the gloves are off. We are taking democracy back, and step one is making sure everyone gets a chance to be counted. It's going to happen in the courts, it's going to happen in the polling places, but most of all it's going to happen in the streets. A train is coming, boy, and you'd best get off the tracks.
You are damned right there will be violence if this election gets stolen. There should have been violence in 2000, and 2004, but finally the people have woken up. They finally learned that 'elections have consequences', and the consequences of letting criminals steal the presidency of the USA are war, ruin, terror, and financial ruin.
You had your chance to play with the toys, now run along because the grownups have to clean up after you.
posted by charles at October 22, 2008 03:25 PMI usually go to RealClearPolitics for their listing of all of the polls. Today they have a list of 15 polls, tied for second place at the highest for Obama is the ABC?Wall Street Journal poll giving Obama a +9% lead. Do you consider the Wall Street Journal to be a "leftie" type paper ? Do you believe that the WSJ is seeking to elect Obama ?
posted by John Ryan at October 22, 2008 03:28 PMMcCain's up to 7-1 on intrade.com! $10K today is a brand new Corvette in November. Don't wait until the odds start falling.
Sean Winter,
Important safety tip: It's not smart to threaten violence against people who:
1. Have extensive military experience.
2. Own firearms.
3. Repeatedly qualified as an "Expert" on several types of individual and crew-served weapons.
As it happens, one of those "people" is me. You talk the talk, old boy, but do you walk the walk?
posted by MarkJ at October 22, 2008 03:37 PMwhy don't you try being nice or something. get a little love in your hearts. sheesh.
posted by you guys are so mean at October 22, 2008 03:46 PMI live on the border between an (somewhat upper) middle-class neighborhood and a predominantly lower-class one. My house is pretty much surrounded on 3 sides by homes with Obama signs in their front yards. I had a McCain sign in mine for about less than a week before I came out to work one morning to find my sign torn up and my mailbox pulled partway off its post. Since that time I do not park my truck in the street in front of my house at night for fear someone will vandalize it. I have another McCain sign, but I keep this one on the inside of my front window facing the street. I have strong (and I feel justified) fears that a McCain victory will make my home the target of further vandalism. For this reason, on election night I will cling to my (loaded) shotgun. But I still hope for a McCain victory.
posted by Eric at October 22, 2008 03:47 PMOakland CA and a lot of the East Bay: Richmond, San Leandro, Hayward - will riot, win-or-lose. It's a "Political Happening" that will happen, like side-shows and all the rest. The Media will be there to televise it. In the suburbs it will be quiet and the Obama-heads will sip chardonnay in self-satisfaction.
posted by DirtCrashr at October 22, 2008 03:53 PMMarkJ:
Yah know what's not smart? Threatening people when you are drastically outnumbered. Fact is, there are a whole lot more people on Sean's side than there are on yours. Not only that, but stats show we are just as well armed, just as likely to serve, and most important smarter and better educated.
You really need to get the picture here: You guys are going to lose. Not only that, but while you are losing, your entire party is going up in smoke. So now would be a really smart time to pull in your horns, go to the polling station, vote, and then try and get on with your life.
You see, it's our turn now. The right had a good long try, and all they did was make a huge mess. From record budget surplus, to record deficit. From peace, to the largest act of terrorism ever committed on American soil. From a guy messing with an intern, to a president who approved TORTURE of POWs. Every single case study you can imagine, is a republican party epic fail.
America gets it, they understand, you need to ask yourself why you don't.
You know where the violence is gonna be? The first time some mealy-mouthed republican hack lawyer challenges the legitimate vote of some little old black lady in Florida.
It isn't the little old black lady in Florida we're worried about (so long as she is still above ground and properly registered), so much as it is the attempt of Democrats and ACORN to queer elections with fake voter registrations, voters registering and voting illegally in battleground states, etc.
I know it is difficult to handle, but we really are quite serious about having just one vote per person.
If you do intend to take it to the streets, Charles--and I suspect you're just another Internet tough guy, so I doubt you'll even do that--by all means, protest to your little heart's content.
If you attempt to hurt someone, however, I hope you're caught and go to jail for your crimes.
posted by Confederate Yankee at October 22, 2008 03:57 PMHere is a post from RedState. Shocking stuff here. Imagine if the "artist" had used a cardboard cutout of Obama instead? The entire Industrial Media Complex would be braying for an FBI investigation into the "racism".
http://www.redstate.com/diaries/redstate/2008/oct/22/lets-pretend-to-kill-sarah-palin/
posted by Sparky at October 22, 2008 04:11 PMI realize treason is hard to get out of the blood, CY, but when your party sets out to purposely challenge a vote on grounds they KNOW are spurious, they are subverting the constitution. It's treason, CY, and you know it is.
As far as the streets go, I say look back in time to a certain tea party in Boston: One mans criminal is another man's national hero.
Charles, the grounds here are so serious that there are investigations going on in at least 14 states, along with rumors of a federal RICO case being developed. None of these investigations are directed at Republicans, though both Democrats and Republicans are leading the investigations. We also have video of ACORN officials illegally promoting Obama and violating their non-profit status. There seems to be plenty of illegality going on, but the fact of the matter is that everything thus far is coming from your side.
And just for the record, it is your candidate Obama that has spent at least 21 years palling around with a pair of terrorists that formally declared war on the United States, so I'd be careful about the treason charge, bub.
posted by Confederate Yankee at October 22, 2008 04:25 PMIf Obama loses, it won't be because it was stolen, after all, Micky and Minny mouse are voting for him, dead goldfish, 7 year old children, people who can vote 76 times, dogs, cats and all the other honest voters.
posted by Brooke at October 22, 2008 04:35 PMSean Winter,
Do you realize that you've become exactly what you think you're fighting against?
posted by trax at October 22, 2008 04:41 PMI'm going to get very rowdy if McCain wins. GIT ER DUN. YEE HAW GO REPUBLICANS
posted by TNHillybilly at October 22, 2008 04:52 PMBack in 2006 in Mexico, when Calderon & the conservatives won a tight election victory, the leftists raise h3ll with riots and looting for weeks. The gangster Lopez Obrador fueled the violence with his refusal to recognize the legitimate conservative victory.
Those events flashed in my mind as I watched the unrest perpetrated by the rabble in St. Paul against the conservatives, and wondered how more vile, vicious, and violent they will be if their messiah does not accomplish his purchase of the Oval Office.
And given the loon toon leftist's litany of larceny, looting, vandalism and assault against those who dare to disagree (which the msm conveniently drops down the memory hole), I fear the tribulation of an Obama defeat will be terrible, as it will be great.
Mob rule, indeed. It's speaks volumes about the people on the left when the subject of intolerance & violence almost exclusively is their domain.
The Hill's failure to see it's own complicity in this narrative only serves to exacerbate this potentially violent outcome.
The CY was correct to chastise the Hill's article with it's foolish fumbling that included conservatives.
posted by locomotivebreath1901 at October 22, 2008 05:10 PM"Not only that, but stats show we are just as well armed, just as likely to serve, and most important smarter and better educated."
HAHA! Yeah right!
posted by Jack Klompus at October 22, 2008 05:40 PMHas it occurred to anyone that maybe the U.S. is being set up by monied Islamists who, failing to ruin America by paying off suicide pilots on 9/11 to bomb buildings, figured out that by setting up an unelectable sock puppett like Barry O. for president would finish the job?
posted by jul at October 22, 2008 06:02 PMWow. All the murder that the Liberals have vowed on this thread is off-the-charts insane. I don't mean that as a metaphor, either.
Can you even hear yourself?
posted by brando at October 22, 2008 06:19 PM...the grounds here are so serious that there are investigations going on in at least 14 states, along with rumors of a federal RICO case being developed. None of these investigations are directed at Republicans...
Wrong, CY.
In fact, criminal charges appear to have already been filed this cycle against one GOP vote suppressor, with more undoubtedly to follow.
Hell, Dude, even the British Press is up on this. So what is it you do all day, exactly?
posted by Dolf Fenster at October 22, 2008 06:47 PMDolf, two of those three links are about the same guy, and they don't constitute much of anything, as claims against him have never resulted in any sort of legal investigation (and no, a politically-biased John Conyers witchhunt doesn't count).
Congrats on the second one, however. While they didn't bring charges for doing anything other than forging his own home address, that is something.
posted by Confederate Yankee at October 22, 2008 07:16 PMOh, CY, it must be hard to keep justifying this stuff in the face of reality. It's republicans who are trying to disenfranchise blacks, it's republicans who are challenging the registrations of new voters for even the vaguest pretexts, and it's republican strategists who, time and again have been heard to explain that lower turnout favours the republican cause.
face up to it: the majority of americans are anti-bush, anti-war, anti-fascist, anti-racist, and anti-plutocrat. Since the modern republican party is founded on those ideals, it means the american people are anti-you.
The only way you guys have been able to win, since the pathetic showing of Bush the elder, has been by cheating. Now that your offences have become so egregious that even the media can't ignore it anymore, your goose is cooked.
By the way, how are you dealing with the fact tat al quaida just endorsed McCain?
posted by charles at October 22, 2008 07:35 PMBe aware too that these people in the inner city who are rioting most probably will be in majority Obama voting districts, therefore *anything* that McCain/Bush do to keep the rioters from (insert mayhem here) will be viewed as voter intimidation ex post facto. Its a no-win proposition for the LEOs, let it burn and you are a racist for allowing violence in a minority neighborhood, enforce the law and you are oppressing the poor misunderstood protesters who never intended to hurt a fly (with that bottle of gas in their hand).
posted by Georg Felis at October 22, 2008 07:37 PM"does anyone really expect women or Republicans to riot if McCain and Palin aren't elected?"
No, they'll just retreat into their blogs and start spreading nasty rumors. You know, kinda like they do now.
posted by Len at October 22, 2008 08:37 PMwell, Charlie the retarded one does do everyone a service by reminding that leftards still think they 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen.
Which means if Obama loses, they will believe it this time as well.
I will guess the mob of Charlies will rant and rave and threaten violence. They won't actually BE rioting. Just cheering on bigger fools than themselves (hard to imagine, I know). Hoping for a real Days of Rage experience, at least vicarously.
But only for a little while. We already know how long libtards can support real violence and how ready they are to surrender.
posted by iconoclast at October 22, 2008 08:48 PMCharles -
Pres. Bush isn't running in 2008. How difficult is that for you to understand?
If the righteous and morality driven majority that you claim to represent are anti-war, why are you trolling the internet with threats of armed insurrection?
If the righteous and morality driven majority that you claim to represent are anti-fascist, why are you supporting the one candidate who has threatened legal intimidation of opponents and used getting names tossed off of signature ballads to move ahead in the polls?
If the righteous and morality driven majority that you claim to represent are anti-racists, why are you supporting the one candidate who states radical, anti-American, and violent beliefs are the only authentic black identity available to him as a 1/2 white and 1/2 Arab American?
You aren't making much sense.
posted by Adriane at October 22, 2008 08:57 PM""Not only that, but stats show we are just as well armed, just as likely to serve, and most important smarter and better educated."
You forgot the part about your smarter children and more attractive spouses.
You go ahead and bring your STATS along when you join in the riots. But, I'd suggest not bringing a gun. If you do that you might get hurt.
posted by ThomasD at October 22, 2008 09:49 PMJust remember, "Charles", the military is going for McCain 7:1 over The Chosen One.
And it's John Murtha's "racist rednecks" who are bitterly clinging to their guns, no?
If your boyz in the 'hood think they can bring out a POS .380 Taurus against a scoped Browning autoloader in .300 Winchester Mag, let 'em....
posted by Bill at October 22, 2008 10:13 PMHey Mr. Winter,
I'm one of those cops going on extended shifts because of who might riot if The One doesn't win. Come on down to SC if you want to throw a few pissbombs. I have a 40mm crowd pleaser just waiting for you, Douche.
posted by PoPo at October 22, 2008 11:32 PMCharles-
Since when are libs armed? I think you need to reconsider voting for Obama if you're a firearm owner.
I got tired of this racial crap a few years ago. I sold my house in town, moved to the (semi) country with 16 AC of trees and jungle between me and the rest of you igits. I built this place for a Y2K scenario and we are pretty self sufficient. Only UPS and FEDEX know where I live. We need to add a few more food staples and we are ready to go.
I have enough firearms and ammo to ward off any intruders. I have a 12 GA riot gun by the front door and my loaded AR-15 will join it before Nov 4. My .45 ACP sleeps by me. The rest of my guns will be loaded and easily accessible. Bring it on Chuck. I DO need more target practice!
I am voting early tomorrow, so I will be able to keep an eye on things later. It will be interesting to see how things unfold.
I predict a win for McCain. Obama just doesn't cut it as Commander in Chief. Baraq is a Social psychopath at minimum, a communist most probably. I don't think that is what we need.
posted by Marc Boyd at October 23, 2008 12:26 AM
"No, the concern is that urban Democrats may riot in the event that Barack Obama falls short in his bid for the White House, or that they may riot to a lesser extent if Obama wins and victory celebrations get out of hand."
The reference to "urban Democrats" by Confederate Yankee is a joke; does anyone really think Confederate Yankee is referring to anyone other than black Democrats? Come on! Say what you really think. Don't be politically correct.
posted by zftsg at October 23, 2008 12:40 AMSo, I must vote for Obama to appease the blacks.
Forgetaboutit.
I am voting for McCain/Palin, because I want LEADERS
If the blacks want to riot, go for it.
Rioters burn down their own neighborhoods,
and now there is no money to rebuild them.
posted by Marvin at October 23, 2008 12:56 AM
zftsg: Judging from all the light-skinned "anarchists" running around in various protests inside cities, assuming "urban Democrats" will be dark-skinned is rather presumptive.
Maybe you shouldn't project so much...
posted by Patrick Chester at October 23, 2008 01:54 AM« Hide Comments
Ayers in 2002 While Working With Obama: "I'm as Much An Anarchist As I Am A Marxist"
Bill Ayers has never made his Marxism a secret, as can be attested in this radio interview that was taped in 2002, as Ayers and his protégé Barack Obama were working together on the board of directors at the ultra-liberal Woods Fund.
"I considered myself partially an anarchist then and consider myself partially an anarchist now. I mean, I'm as much an anarchist as I am a Marxist, which is to say that I find a lot of the ideas of anarchism appealing..."
And it's not that Barack Obama wants to punish our success. He just wants to spread our wealth around.
Hope. Change. Marxism. Anarachism.
Isn't that what we all want for America?
Show Comments »
Fundamentally, Marxism, Anarchism, Secularism, and Islamism are all the same. No serious political candidate should tolerate any of these depraved doctrines. Thanks to the Ayers-Obama-Wright triune of tumult, real Americans should be able to see this even easier now.
posted by Objective Scrutator at October 22, 2008 10:57 AMHow anarchism, a trope against any and all government, can coexist within a single skull with totalitarian Marxism is mysterious. Could it be as simple as that Ayers is a dummy and is ignorant of the contradictions? Whatever, this piece of shite's every utterance needs to be exposed. If every citizen heard this claptrap and knew the extent it parallels Barry's views McCain could walk it home.
Secularism OS? Really?
posted by megapotamus at October 22, 2008 02:13 PMObama Bohica.
posted by DirtCrashr at October 22, 2008 03:57 PMTo be fair, Obama was only 44 years old when Ayers made those statements.
posted by jana at October 22, 2008 09:18 PM« Hide Comments
Summing Up The Race For The Presidency in Two Headlines
Obama to Ellen: I'm a Better Dancer Than McCain
Show Comments »
As a disabled person, I find Sen. Obama's attitude discriminatory and offensive.
posted by Roberta at October 22, 2008 07:39 AMBarack would rather parade around with Ellen Degenerate and her entourage of useless sheep instead of helping America pound the Islamists into rubble and get us out of the recession. I have no doubts that B. Hussein is a better dancer than John McCain, but I also know that his superiority doesn't extend any farther than that.
posted by Objective Scrutator at October 22, 2008 10:54 AM« Hide Comments
I'm Joe
That's the theme of this new McCain ad.
Hot Air has the transcript and Ed dubs this the "I am Spartacus" ad, for good reason:
The Spartacus theme resonates on a couple of different levels. First, we have everyone identifying with a beleaguered hero as a way of supporting him, but let’s also recall the circumstances of Spartacus. Spartacus led a rebellion of slaves against the government that oppressed them. Joe the Plumber has led a rebellion against an oppressive governing philosophy that erodes the notion of private property and would make taxpayers into serfs to the lords of Washington DC.That kind of message resonates. People may want services from the federal government, but they don’t want outright redistributionism, where the government transfers cash from those who pay taxes to those who don’t. Barack Obama’s tax plan does just that.
Why should I work hard just so that Barack Obama can tax me more and "spread the wealth around?"
Show Comments »
Because it is your patriotic duty.
Now go and put this saddle on your back. Lord Obama is all booted and spurred and is looking for a good ride.
posted by Mikey NTH at October 22, 2008 09:21 AM
There never was a horse that couldn't be rode;
Never was a cowboy who couldn't be throwed.
If that's not on tv, why the heck not? EXCELLENT!!
posted by cmblake6 at October 22, 2008 03:15 PMWell just how hard are you working now CF ? Are you making more than 250K ? Do you have a real concern that during the next four or 8 years your income might go above that number ? Or is this just a hypothetical like Joe the Plumber ? I for one never play the lottery, just to much risk of jumping into a bad tax placing
posted by John Ryan at October 22, 2008 04:07 PMHey, John Ryan... 250K is so last week... even Paul Krugman, in the pages of The New York Times says that people making less than that will be hit with a tax increase:
What about the claim, based on Joe the Plumber’s complaint, that ordinary working Americans would face higher taxes under Mr. Obama? Well, Mr. Obama proposes raising rates on only the top two income tax brackets — and the second-highest bracket for a head of household starts at an income, after deductions, of $182,400 a year.
So, from 250,000 to 182,400, a reduction of 67,600... and that's before the election. How much lower is it gonna go when Obama does like Bill Clinton did and say that he really can't make it work by just taxing those who make over 182,400, so he needs to make it lower.
And that's not even talking about how higher taxes will impact businesses... you know, those evil entities that actually employ people. And we're also not talking about what happens when those millionaires stop buying Cadillacs and yachts and such... what happens to the middle-class people who work making the Cadillacs and yachts?
You cannot, I say again, you cannot encourage prosperity by taking money away from people.
posted by C-C-G at October 22, 2008 05:09 PMBy the way, if I may expound a bit on the "spreading the wealth around" bit, may I point out that Joe the Plumber already does that himself?
Joe goes to Joe's Gas Station and spreads some of his wealth there. He goes to Joe's Grocery and spreads some of his wealth there. He goes to Joe's Shoes and spreads some of his wealth there. And so on and so forth.
This is the capitalist system in a nutshell: those that provide a good or service that people want or desire get paid for it.
By the way, if Obama is really dedicated to absolute equality, why doesn't he share some of his campaign funds with McCain, in the name of "fairness"? Let's see Obama spread some of his own wealth around for a change!
posted by C-C-G at October 22, 2008 06:54 PMBut, but, but... Obama needs our money so he can buy enough votes to repeal the 22nd Amendment.
posted by OCBill at October 22, 2008 07:16 PMI can't believe that the average "Joe the Plumbers" continue to get suckered in to supporting the republican notion of frictionless wealth. No Taxes on dividends and huge inheritances. Low taxes on high incomes. They have the working middle defending their wealth on the "hope" that they someday will climb through the highly taxed arena of the common man and arrive at the top.
It actually makes economic sense that every dollar a millionaire investor makes is more dependent on the government services our taxes support than the dollars that an average "joe" makes in his neighborhood working locally. Many of the huge costs of government such as regulating the economy and enforcing laws benefit the rich to a greater degree than the middle class. How much would the oil companies have to spend to defend their oil supply lines if the US Military were not there to keep the prices low? How much more money would be lost to greed and corruption if there were no SEC? To me higher taxes on incomes above middle class subsistence make economic sense. It might even be a good deal but it certainly is not socialist thievery. Theivery is getting something for nothing like the huge tax reaks on the rich started by George Bush and continued by John McCain if he gets his way.
posted by Terry at October 22, 2008 07:30 PMTerry, quit regurgitating DailyKos talking points and look at the facts.
In 2005 (the latest year I could find data on), the top 10% of earners already pay nearly 55% of the total tax revenues! And that number has been on an upward trend since 2002 when it was "only" a little over 49%. And that's total taxes, if we look only at individual taxes, it's even worse, in 2005 the top 10% paid nearly 73% of the individual tax revenues. And that number has been rising steadily at least since 1979 (the oldest year I can find data for). (Source)
Now, tell me again that "the rich" don't pay enough taxes, and I'll laugh in your face.
posted by C-C-G at October 22, 2008 07:44 PM« Hide Comments
October 21, 2008
The Comprehensive Argument Against Barack Obama
A very well-done bit of research, pointing out the facts about Barack Obama, and supporting those facts with video of Obama in his own words.
Show Comments »
What amazes me is how the Mainstream Media will attack John McCain for appealing to Joe the Plumber just because Joe's relative was involved in the Keating Five scandal (which is, itself, over hyped and not really wrong), yet they refuse to acknowledge how Barack Obama has direct connections with a self-admitted terrorist and Islamist sympathizer, Bill Ayers, and isn't denying any campaign assistance from him. Apparently, the actions of a supporter's relative are more important then the actions of a political mentor. The Democrats and the Old Media will pay for their diatribes on Election Day, however, with the Venus Fly Trap manifestation of Leftism being smothered with the excess nitrogen it steals from the Right wing. The Left has filled themselves with hot air, and watching them deflate shall be an enjoyable prospect.
posted by Objective Scrutator at October 22, 2008 12:58 AM« Hide Comments
Kossacks Target Mormons for Harassment, "Opposition Research"
Kinda like what they pulled on Joe the Plumber, but with a more specific policy goal in mind, crushing a proposition against gay marriage by targeting those who have contributed to the campaign.
So what am I asking you to do?Some distributed research.
There is a list of a bunch of Mormon donors to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign (in case that one goes down, here's a mirror with slightly worse formatting.
Here's what I'm asking for:
This list contains information about those who are big donors to the Yes on 8 campaign--donors to the tune of at least $1,000 dollars. And, as you can see, there are a lot of them. It also indicates if they're Mormon or not.
If you're interested in defeating the religious right and preserving marriage equality, here's how you can help:
Find us some ammo.
Use any LEGAL tool at your disposal. Use OpenSecrets to see if these donors have contributed to...shall we say...less than honorable causes, or if any one of these big donors has done something otherwise egregious. If so, we have a legitimate case to make the Yes on 8 campaign return their contributions, or face a bunch of negative publicity.
There are a crapload of donors on this list--so please focus on the larger ones first. $5,000 or more is a good threshold to start with.
Feel free to use Lexis-Nexis searches as well for anything useful, especially given that these people are using "morality" as their primary motivation to support Prop 8...if you find anything that belies that in any way...well, you know what to do.
If you find anything good, please email it to:
equalityresearch at gmail dot com.Here's the bottom line for me: if someone is willing to contribute thousands of dollars to a campaign to take away legal rights from some very dear friends of mine, they had damn well make sure their lives are beyond scrutiny--because I, for one, won't take it lying down.
You of course understand the basic message being touted by this thug. He's all for the freedom of speech, just not for those who hold different beliefs. He firmly believes his opinion is more valid than that of others, and he wants ammunition to blackmail those with dissenting opinions into silence.
I think Jonah Goldberg had a word for folks like this, didn't he?
Show Comments »
Don't forget, this is no garden-variety thug; he's also, and I quote:
CA DSCC elected delegate, AD-42
Member, CDP Platform Committee
Vice-President, Los Angeles County Young Democrats
And, as it appears, he's been going door to door in Nevada, telling a state full of religious people how Comrade Obama respects their beliefs and faith and right to express themselves.
While of course calling for jihad against them once he gets home.
posted by North Dallas Thirty at October 21, 2008 12:28 PMApparently the Constitution protects only me and not thee.
posted by Penfold at October 21, 2008 02:02 PMIt's sort of weird: aren't Democrats supposed to be tolerant, at least a little more tolerant in general? They are acting just like Christian political action committees. Come on, is there no different between an illuminati activist and a neocon activist anymore?
posted by A.B. at October 21, 2008 04:32 PMMaybe they can do us a favor and dig up some dirt on Harry Reid while they're at it...after all, he's a Mormon. (At least he claims to be a Mormon...probably is, to the same extent that Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi are Catholics, which isn't very much.)
posted by salfter at October 21, 2008 05:21 PMCy, what I do not understand is why is it we cannot find out who these thugs are, publish their addresses so that maybe public minded individuals could arrange visits to possibly convince them of the error of their ways. Or get the flock out of town.
posted by Zelsdorf Ragshaft III at October 21, 2008 05:38 PMIf you don't belong to the Church of Obama, then the Kossacks are coming for you!
posted by C-C-G at October 21, 2008 05:47 PMaren't Democrats supposed to be tolerant, at least a little more tolerant in general?
Dude, that's so 1970's.
posted by PA at October 21, 2008 06:56 PM"Dude, that's so 1970's. "
Heh.
(Although I remember the 70's, and progressives weren't so tolerant and respectful back then either.)
posted by pst314 at October 21, 2008 08:15 PMI remember the 70's, and progressives weren't so tolerant and respectful back then either.
Lefties are only tolerant of other lefties... anyone else is not worthy of tolerance.
posted by C-C-G at October 21, 2008 08:26 PMYou people don't get it. We don't care how you live your life, just don't constantly put your alternative lifestyles in our face and demand that we accept it. I have never heard of a school taking a group of students out of school for any normal wedding of a teacher, but they feel it's okay for a gay marriage, thats pure crap.
The schools don't hand out pamplets stating that marriage between a man and a woman should be accepted, yet they are handing out pamplets for gay marriages to the young kids. Whats next porn videos during recess and alcoholic beverages for lunch? Get real people if you want the normal people to shut up about there opinions on gay marriages then you shut up on your side about making everyone accept your opinion. Free speech is free speech for everyone not just those who want to corrupt the minds of the innocent youth. The world is becomming a screwed up confusing place as it is,lets let the parents teach their children at home about what they feel is appropriate behavior for marriage. At what point did we decide that the schools and the government should tell teach our children things we don't want taught without our knowledge or approval.You don't want Mormonism taught in the schools, if any teacher had you child bring home Mormon literatue and you found out that the missionarys came and taught your child during an assembly you would all freak out and yet you feel it's okay for you to teach about gay marriages and we should take it sitting down. Talk about double standards free speech is for everyone unless you don't agree with the radicals that want to corrupt everything good and decent in the world.
I've always known that the homosexual lobby is full of thugs that is just waiting to force our children to accept that depraved, psuedo-cannibalistic doctrine. Hopefully, we can eventually recriminalize it, for the sake of our families. I think that lisa hansen is just one example of the stupidities and unfounded accusations against Christians that comprises the homosexual lobby.
These people have GOT to be on welfare. They spend WAY too much time proselytizing their doctrine to be able to afford some time to do anything else.
posted by Objective Scrutator at October 22, 2008 05:02 PM« Hide Comments
Are You Going To Vote With Him?
Via Five Feet of Fury, and inspired by this post.
Show Comments »
My only question is: Why has no one ripped this guy's heart out yet? He sure has it coming.
posted by Tonto (USA) at October 21, 2008 05:11 PMCall me Lone Ranger because I stand with Tonto. Ayers and Dohrn have never answered for their crimes. Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden have never answered for their treason. Now these people are rich and respectable and part of the liberal/left establishment, with influence and status. When will justice be done?
posted by Zhombre at October 21, 2008 05:59 PMI'm certainly not going to vote with Ayers. I make up my own mind, although Al Qaida's endorsement of McCain makes me think he isn't the right person.
posted by funkydoowopper at October 22, 2008 11:59 AMAl Queda has endorsed McCain? Interesting. I look forward to a source and quote. In related news, Hamas has reiterated their support for Barry and explicitly added that they endorse Biden. Seems his view of matters in the ME are music to their ears.
posted by megapotamus at October 22, 2008 02:15 PMOh, and Farrakhan does not merely endorse Barry but declares him to be the messiah. No joke. THE messiah. Gee, I wonder what Louie is expecting from Barry to justify this revelation.
posted by megapotamus at October 22, 2008 02:18 PM« Hide Comments
October 20, 2008
Orson Scott Card Rips the MSM
Orson Scott Card eviscerates those Democratic Party flacks that call themselves journalists.
A taste of The Last Honest Reporter:
If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth — even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's what honesty means . That's how trust is earned.
Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time — and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.
Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter — while you ignored the story of John Edwards's own adultery for many months.
So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?
Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?
You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.
That's where you are right now.
It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.
If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.
Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.
You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.
This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.
There's much more at the link.
Card, by the way, is a Democrat.
Show Comments »
I think most in the MSM have sunk so far into advocacy that they do believe they are acting with integrity. One thing missing from most journalists is an understanding of people not like them - that's why they think attacking Joe Wurzelbacher is a good idea. Likewise, they can't see why anyone would object to Bill Ayers, who did some things nearly 40 years ago, water under the bridge, model citizen today. Hey, some of us smoked pot and wore tie-dye, some of us blew up buildings and killed cops. Po-tay-toe, po-tah-toe.
Witness the bemused articles about that strange mystic land Alaska from the metrosexual media - or think about their shock the first time they went to Crawford, TX. Or consider the regular as clockwork stories that show up around Christmas and Easter along the lines of "Who was this Jesus guy, anyway, and does he still matter today?"
The fact is, most major journalists are not writing for flyover country, and would probably smile indulgently if one suggested they might be making themselves irrelevant. They would counter that it's flyover country that's irrelevant. So why be concerned with what those Wal-Mart shopping rubes think of them?
posted by Steve Skubinna at October 20, 2008 11:58 PMAlso from the column --
Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension — so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.) [emph added]
Stupid Americans.
posted by Grace Nearing at October 21, 2008 01:13 AM"they do believe they are acting with integrity"
Steve, you are absolutely right. One of the reasons for this is that although they (the MSM) see themselves as members of "the elite" they are not in fact very smart. I actually went to high school with Pinch Sulzberger. Trust me, if he hadn't inherited his job he wouldn't have gotten as far in journalism as Jimmy Olsen.
posted by Gary Rosen at October 21, 2008 03:22 AMI love this! Speaking of honest reporters - read this that a dissenting voice at the Denver Post wrote. The Post endorsed Obama . . this guy didn't
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_10741575
posted by Nina at October 21, 2008 06:58 AM
The problem isn't what the MSM prints, the problem is that Americans after having been given many choices, choose MSM as their source of news.
posted by John Ryan at October 21, 2008 07:05 AMI admire Orson Scott Card and had been a proponent locally of journalistic ethical reform. Every time I would discuss the need for self-regulation and the structuring of a professional accreditation body for journalists when working with someone from the field, I'd realize again why reform would never happen: they don't have the intellectual capacity to recognize the need, let alone the method to get there.
J-schools have been recruiting advocacy-oriented "world changers" since the very early 1970s when the Ayers types shifted into universities and found J-schools to be both the most attractive and possessing the lowest entry standards. For nearly 40 years, the overwhelming majority of their product has been incapable of correctly interpreting ethics. As a Fortune 500 governance, risk & compliance professional, I'm consistently fascinated with alternate ethical models (a discovery method we employ in assessing executive behavior to identify factors that affect risk taking dynamics and related governance and compliance issues). I'm used to encountering numerous forms of rationalization, like the "we just have to gun it this one time (again) to make our numbers... our unit is down in numbers and we'll lose our jobs, so yea, we have to cut some corners and ignore a few rules - it's for the greater good. We’ll go back to following the rules *after* we get back on track and hit our numbers."
Journalists, on the other hand, are a serious mess. Whether it's an underlying problem with never living your own life and always reporting another's or simply the fact that the field attracts mindless advocates and causes students with a clue about ethics to change to a different major, so many I've encountered are so seriously messed up that they've developed an unbalanced need to please an ideological cause they associate with. More importantly, the lack any internal reference point to assess their presentation to evaluate for objectivity (I could digress further on how many j-schools now preach that objectivity is an elusive myth but won't).
That their product is advocacy and marketing for the political machine they seek to be recognized and accepted by is no surprise and we will never reform the current lot. Alternate collaborative media, where the exchange and clashing of ideas is actually welcome and programmed thought found distasteful, is where we need to continue to focus our efforts. Try this today: show 2-3 coworkers every day some of the top blogs where ideas are truly explored and objectivity found through the clashing process. Read the Wiki on Milton's Areopagita: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Areopagitica
posted by redherkey at October 21, 2008 08:59 AMThe Society of Professional Journalists has a code of ethics found at
http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
Obviously, few journalists have read it and fewer still follow it. The first block is entitled, "Seek Truth and Report It."
posted by arch at October 21, 2008 09:21 AMThere's one other thing you can do that makes a significant difference: volunteer and work in your local school districts. I understand we all here it said and it seems like a lot of work for little gain, but it truly has a significant impact in opening young minds and starving the Marxist university beast of unprepared minds to feed upon.
In my case, I got back into high school debate coaching which I juggle with a hectic professional career and have found it to be a great path to instilling critical thinking in otherwise under-developed minds. Too little in our K-12 programs teaches applied learning and ignores any development and awareness of the learning process itself. In policy debate for instance, we teach a concept called clash - where the opposing debaters must get past their canned speeches and prepared briefs and attack the other debater's arguments. Clash discovers truth, as it goes (something Milton advocated in Areopagitica). Clash, skeptical analysis of cited evidence (useful for destroying an opponent's argument when they refer to global warming junk from Newsweek), attacking argument links (which the MSM constantly fumbles over) and other argumentation theories are powerful foundations for fighting progressivism's mindless paradigm.
In the day-to-day coaching of these students, I've had several who blindly supported Obama profess shock and surprise that their critical-thinking coach doesn't love the Great One. When I challenge them to critically explain why they support him using what we've learned in debate, they often have a shocking realization: they don't have a factual, evidence-supported foundation. Each pro-Obama issue taken to its root is found to be unanchored, resting solely on faith in the Great One as preached by the Church of the MSM.
So get engaged in your school district. If you know debate, I can guarantee your help is always welcome - debate has seen huge hits in funding since the 1990s and money shifted to speech (persuading and aspiring to be Hollywood like and even has pro-MSM activities like “radio news delivery” and government-admiring student congress events, not developing critical reasoning ability). Many large districts have saddled the new english teacher with debate duty (to which they have no qualification), so volunteers are readily able to come in and rescue the ailing programs. If you know business or another profession, get out there and help protect a few young minds from being consumed!
posted by redherkey at October 21, 2008 09:41 AMMy intel out the newsrooms is that there is not anything that could really be called "liberal bias", but instead there is a clear "Democrat bias"
posted by Neo at October 21, 2008 09:53 AMIn respected occupations, violating the code of conduct of that profession results in the loss of license to perform that work. Only in politics and journalism is pissing on ethics a secure path to success. Leeches, sucking our life's blood and injecting sickness into America's body politic. Do they have room at Gitmo for some of these enemies-of-the-people?
posted by twolaneflash at October 21, 2008 10:06 AMThere is so much supposition and BS in this piece that it's difficult to know where to start.
But let's begin with the John Edwards canard. People on the right cite this over and over as an example of the media's leftward bias. It's true that reports of Edwards' infidelity were out months before Edwards finally admitted it publicly. And it's true that none of the mainstream media outlets covered the story.
But it had nothing to do with Edwards being a Democrat. It had to do with the source - The National Enquirer. Do you really think the NYT or WaPo should have used the Enquirer as a source for a charge about marital infidelity? Really?
Because if you do, then we have to ask why those same papers aren't printing stories about Sarah Palin's alleged affair with her husband's business partner, as is currently being reported in the Enquirer. Is it some rightward bias that makes the Times reluctant to print stories of the affair? Is the Post protecting a GOP politician because they're trying to cover something up?
Come on, people. Use your heads.
Card writes about savage attacks on Palin's daughter? Where? Someone please point me to a savage attack made in the MSM against Palin's daughter. I read left-leaning media every day and not once have I seen any attack, not even a mild rebuke, against this young girl. Please, one source, that's all I ask.
Questions have been raised about how the GOP would have responded had this been an Obama daughter. You don't have to look any farther than Fox referring to Michelle Obama as Barack's "baby mama," a term implying unwed motherhood, to guess how that would go.
And it's true that Orson Scott Card is a Democrat, but he is hardly a liberal. He loves George Bush and describes himself as a Tony Blair Democrat because he doesn't agree with anyone to the left of Zell Miller.
From Card's column: Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time — and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.
This, my friends, is an opinion. Notice, Card offers nothing to support his argument. He just puts it out there and because you agree with his opinion, you take it as fact. And then you ask why the MSM doesn't print this fact.
I support Card's right to make his case, but this doesn't do it any more than me saying George Bush is illiterate (which I don't believe, by the way) without offering any evidence. It would be just an opinion.
I know I won't change any minds here. You will continue to sccream about liberal bias in the media. But don't read something like this piece by Card as proof, because it ain't there.
Read critically and keep an open mind and don't swallow bushwa just because it fits your preconceptions. It does your cause no favors.
posted by David Terrenoire at October 21, 2008 01:32 PMDavid, if there is any fair reading of the coverage of Fannie/Freddie which was government OF the Democrats, BY the Democrats and FOR the Democrats that doesn't demonstrate a collusive relationship between Dem and Press I would love to hear it. If there is any other explanation for the ignoring of ACORN's efforts at vote fraud than that it hurts ACORN council Barack Obama I am all ears. If there is any reasonable explanation of a reporter fabricating death threats at McCain rallies that doesn't make that hullabaloo over an obvious lie an inkind campaign contribution from the Pressies to Obama, please, let's hear it. Simple fact is the press is going to lie while the Obots do the cheating and The One does the stealing. This election is being stolen right in front of our eyes the same way Young Barry stole the caucuses. One would think it was an army of invisible men threatening grannies in Texas for there bold support of Hillary Clinton as they were and remain invisible to the press. The press is not in the tank, there is no tank. There is no division; no barrier. There is ONE unitary operation that supports the Potemkin village that is Barry's campaign of malicious slander, thuggery and deceit. There is no separation of press and party. They will tell any lie and suppress any fact necessary or even marginally helpful to the annointment of this racist, fascist, witless example of the noisome fruit of Affirmative Action as experienced through the Chicago Daley Machine. As the geniuses of journalism like to say, they have only their credibility for sale. Business is not good. One might say there is no market price for that product which only means that they do not like that price. Perhaps they could get a bailout.
posted by megapotamus at October 21, 2008 02:37 PMThe article is well worth a full read.
I had to go back to it,however, when reading David's comment, because I thought the bulk of the article was on the media being activist by not reporting on the obvious Fanniemac connections to specific democrats (including Obama) and Dem party policy...
posted by usinkorea at October 21, 2008 02:45 PMI heard so many conflicting claims about the financial crisis that I read a lot of different reports and found this to be the most even-handed and credible:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/700_billion_blame_game.html
But I'm open to honest debate. I just don't think anyone, and I mean anyone, who blames this all on one party and one effort, is being honest. That's the problem I had with Card's piece. He conveniently leaves out some facts that make the GOP equally culpable.
Check it out.
As for megapotamus's conviction that there are no honest brokers in this, I disagree. For every reporter who made up a "kill him," I can point to a dozen others who spin things another way - like Sue Schmidt at the Post; Judith Miller, formerly at the NYT and now with Fox; Fred Hiatt, editorial page editor of the Post; and Nedra Pickler of the AP. Every one of them have had numerous incidents of being blatantly in the tank for the right.
Is there bias? I can't say it doesn't exist. But this column of Card's had about as much fact in it as one of Olbermann's Special Comments.
No one is pure. That's why I encourage everyone to read widely and keep an open mind. For instance, I thought Phil Gramm was responsible for this mess, but I read and found out he's not. So, I had to change my mind.
I still think he's an opportunistic weasel, but for Enron and the S&Ls;, not this debacle.
Again, read a lot and read widely. Be skeptical and read critically. If you do, you'll see that Card is being a political hack here, no more and no less.
And usinkorea, I appreciate the open-minded response. Thanks.
posted by David Terrenoire at October 21, 2008 03:28 PMDavid:
What qualifies Barack Hussein Obama to be President of the United States? What has he done to prove he can handle the job? Why haven't the media asked him the questions about his past? He has no public record of consequence. How can a voter make an informed decision to vote for Obama without factual information about the man?
If you believe he should be the commander in chief of the most powerful military on the planet, the leader of the free world, the CEO of the world's largest enterprise - the US government with a budget of $2.6 trillion, what evidence can you cite that makes you believe it.
I know he has no military experience and he has never run a real company. He used drugs and admitted it - a fact that would keep him from a commission in the military. He squandered $110 M of public & private on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge with no success. Until Emil Jones, Jr. took over the Illinois Senate, Obama had done zero in six years as a state senator.
I was a plebe at the Naval Academy when the Soviets decided to "test" JFK - a US Naval officer with combat experience, representative and two term senator. It was frightening. Who will test Obama? Can we afford to have this inexperienced young man in the Oval Office. What do you know that I do not?
I know John McCain and he has my vote.
posted by arch at October 21, 2008 04:18 PMIt's not too late.
Yea it is. Media credibility numbers have sunk to unrecoverable lows.
posted by PA at October 21, 2008 04:29 PMIt boils down to one question: If I knew as much about Obama as I now know about Palin, would I vote for Obama? What is Barry hiding and why? Until those questions are answered, Obama has no standing whatsoever. Besides, I really LIKE Sarah.
posted by Tonto (USA) at October 21, 2008 05:48 PMTonto,
What do you really know about Palin? She's given variations of one speech that other people wrote for her. She won't hold a press conference or sit for an interview with anyone who is not on her side. What is she trying to hide?
I'm not dismissing her, I just don't know what she's accomplished. The things I do know, don't make me feel very comfortable with her as McCain's VP.
On the other hand, you know that Obama worked his backside off, taking student loans, graduated from Harvard (he didn't tell them he was a minority until after he'd been accepted, which speaks volumes about his character) and instead of opting for a clerk position with a Federal judge, or a high-paying job on Wall Street, he committed himself to helping unemployed steel workers for 12 grand a year.
And in the past year he's run a successful, multi-million dollar enterprise with discipline and vision. My God, his name is Barack Hussein Obama and he's black and he's still close to winning an election against a bona fide war hero. You don't do that just be being a media darling. He's done a whole lot of somethings right to get to this point, like him or hate him.
We know these things.
We also know that people, especially politicians, often find themselves working with less-than-savory characters. I was once in the same room with Ann Coulter, but please don't hold that against me.
What is Barry hiding? I don't know that he's hiding anything, but you obviously know better.
And yes, Sarah is hot and would probably be a hoot to go hunting with, I'll give you that. But CINC material?
As someone is famous for saying, Thanks but no thanks.
posted by David Terrenoire at October 21, 2008 06:13 PMYou don't know what Sarah's accomplished, David? Tell me, what rock have you been living under the past few months?
She went from city council member of Wasilla to mayor--defeating a 3-term incumbent, by the way--and then ran for Lt. Gov, and lost. However, she caught the eye of the victorious candidate, Frank Murkowski, who offered her several positions, including appearing on a short list of people to take Murkowski's vacated US Senate seat. She finally accepted a position on Alaska's Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, as chairwoman.
She later resigned that position in protest over the Murkowski administration's lack of action regarding ethics complaints about another commissioner--and that commissioner later pled guilty and paid a $12,000 fine.
She then ran for governor of Alaska against the very man who put her on the Oil and Gas Commission, Frank Murkowski, and won.
Now, here's the interesting part. Murkowski, who she disagreed with over the ethics complaint, and whom she defeated, is a Republican. And the commissioner who was the focus of the ethics complaint (who admitted he had broken the law, as I said before), Randy Ruedrich, is also a Republican... in fact, he'd been state Republican Party chairman before joining the Oil and Gas Commission.
Therefore, Palin has a long history of fighting for what's right, both against Democrats and Republicans. Can you show me even ONE time when Barack Obama has bucked the Democratic party?
posted by C-C-G at October 21, 2008 06:51 PMOh, by the way, here's my sources for that backgrounder on Sarah:
http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/background/story/510447.html (Part 1)
http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/background/story/217384.html (Part 2)
posted by C-C-G at October 21, 2008 06:52 PMCCG,
Those are fine bona fides and impressive, but hardly what I would call a long history of fighting for what's right. But I'll give her credit where it's due.
As for Obama fighting against his party, he voted for the FISA bill against a lot of us in his party. I didn't like it and I called his office to tell him so.
His change on public financing, while smart and practical, wasn't something I agreed with.
I think Hillary's health care plan was better than his and her resume was certainly more impressive.
But I'm still voting for him because I believe he's a better leader and more capable of leading us out of this ditch we're in than McCain.
I'm OK if you don't agree. That's fine. But saying he has no accomplishments just isn't true. He's done more with his life than I've done with mine and some people would say I've done all right.
You know, it's all right if you support your guy without tearing down the other guy. That's what I've chosen to do with McCain. I don't have to say terrible things about him to make my decision look better. I just wish others here would grant your neighbors who disagree, good Americans all, the same respect.
posted by David Terrenoire at October 21, 2008 07:08 PMWhat do you really know about Palin? She's given variations of one speech that other people wrote for her. She won't hold a press conference or sit for an interview with anyone who is not on her side. What is she trying to hide?
What community-based reality are you hiding in? As the campaign enters the home stretch, Palin has had more press availability than the other three candidates.
As for your claims about Obama... David I'm sorry to say this, but your flaly being dishonest, though it pains me to call you out as a liar.
On the other hand, you know that Obama worked his backside off, taking student loans, graduated from Harvard (he didn't tell them he was a minority until after he'd been accepted, which speaks volumes about his character) and instead of opting for a clerk position with a Federal judge, or a high-paying job on Wall Street, he committed himself to helping unemployed steel workers for 12 grand a year.
Barack Obama has does his level best to obscure his entire undergraduate career at both Occidental and Columbia. He won't reveal his transcripts, reveal the names of his roommates and friends, or even confirm the names of his college friends when they've been found. what is he trying to hide? As Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn were "just people in in that neighborhood" in Manhattan--and Dohrn did 7 months in prison for refusing to testify to a grand jury about the Brinks armored car robery that left two police officers and a Brinks guard dead just 22 miles way--at that same time, that is very relevant. Did Barack meet his mentor Ayers when his wife was still an active terrorist? We don't know, and your Messiah won't answer any questions about those entire years of his life.
Healso left a minimal footprint at Harvard, other than single tedious bit of scholarship at the law review that does not appear to come from the same author as that man who wrote both his books, those books, that once again, have a style, reading level, and use of language that matches that of Ayers, not Obama.
As for his time working with the poor, we all know that is where he first attempted to apply the radicalism he learned in college, and where he first ingratiated himself with ACORN. Yes, he's been that dirty, for that long.
And in the past year he's run a successful, multi-million dollar enterprise with discipline and vision.
No, he hasn't. David Axelrod is his campaign manager. Obama does not have any idea of how his campaign money is spent on a day-to-day basis, or how it is allocated. You're simply making this up.
My God, his name is Barack Hussein Obama and he's black and he's still close to winning an election against a bona fide war hero. You don't do that just be being a media darling. He's done a whole lot of somethings right to get to this point, like him or hate him.
Fair or foul, Bush is a two-term incumbent and an unpopular one at that, presiding over a faltering economy. Obama has captured the imagination and devotion of millions, some simply because of his skin color, some because of his rhetoric, and some because he's simply something new. Obama also has more than a half trillion--$500,000,000--spending advantage over McCain. A block of wood should have a 20-point lead with these tremendous advantages, and yet Barack's lead is slipping, and in some polls, is already at a statistical dead heat.
Only a complete neophyte could squander all these advantages, but Obama certainly has, and he now seems to be fading with two weeks to go.
We also know that people, especially politicians, often find themselves working with less-than-savory characters. I was once in the same room with Ann Coulter, but please don't hold that against me.
You have got to be kidding me.
Obama was in Wright's racist cult over 20 years, and considered him his mentor.. He also called lynching advocate and Farrakhan fan Pfleger his mentor and "moral compass" of 22 years. his most direct poltical influence and the "guy who sent him" in the corrupt underworld of Chicago politics is terrorist Bill Ayers, which he has known and worked with for a minimum of 21 years, and perhaps as long as 27 years if they knew each other at Columbia. Then there is Rezko, and the PLO supporter what's-his-name, etc, etc, etc.
Obama has spent decades surrounding himself with those who hate all those things most American's hold dear. Unless you shacked up with Coulter for 20 years because of a shared ideology, your comparison is a false one.
But then, everything about Obama is based on lies and spin, so why should your tale about the man be any different?
posted by Confederate Yankee at October 21, 2008 07:20 PMExcuse me, David, where did I say he has no accomplishments?
Accusing me of saying something someone else said is hardly intelligent or mature debate.
While you're talking about showing others respect, perhaps you could respect others enough to at least pay attention to whom says what?
posted by C-C-G at October 21, 2008 07:21 PMOK,
When I start being attacked and being called a liar instead of just wrong, or misguided or ill-informed, that's when I say good night, gentlemen.
posted by David Terrenoire at October 21, 2008 07:26 PMDavid's arguments just don't hold water in any scenario where the media is expected to fulfill an oversight role (ala the Fourth Estate). In any governance oversight role, we are less concerned about the assessor issuing false positives (bogus claims of findings) than we are with them having false negatives (overlooking real findings that should be reported).
That's where Card is dead on. The media is committing its most egregious crimes through what it is not reporting. It'd be like your external accountants looking at the books, seeing evidence of crime after crime, smiling and reporting they saw nothing (Worldcom anyone? Should we send Pinch to share a cell with Ebbers?). Who cares if in their massive effort to overlook crimes, they made a few false claims and smear some innocent people in a manner of misdirection. That's the side show that only idiots get wrapped up into.
The journalism industry is dead. Card is dead on. Now we need to pee on their grave and move on to making their replacement more effective.
posted by redherkey at October 21, 2008 07:29 PMWhen did I use the word liar, David? I said that you needed to pay attention to whom says what. That would seem to be closer to "ill-informed" or "mistaken" than "liar."
Methinks someone is being a bit sensitive tonight. Could it be that you're upset about being shown that you're wrong about something?
posted by C-C-G at October 21, 2008 07:31 PMPlease excuse David. He's blinded by the melanin, like so many others.
Deep down the 0bama supporters know their man would have accomplished nothing in a strict meritocracy, and it drives them insane. Hence the constant misdirection whenever someone scrutinizes the him. They NEED to keep their quasi-mythological portrait of 0bama intact. 0bama support is akin to a religious experience, not politics, and its disciples don't take kindly to blasphemy about their prophet.
posted by Nine-of-Diamonds at October 21, 2008 09:46 PMDavid is, at least, a man out of time. If he objects to falsities pointed out in his assertions on tone, complaining that he is called a liar (when no one has done so) he should go to the video tape on any Rep administration. His list of horribles is, as always, unilluminated. I am familiar with the supposed rap on Judith Miller. It is bunkum. We await details on the remainder. But if he appeals to us on the basis that even our most noxious opponenents are "good Americans all" he's just out to lunch. Anti-Americans are NOT good Americans. If there had ever been the merest nod towards civility from the Dems in the last thirty years I might be hesitant to say that.
posted by megapotamus at October 22, 2008 07:39 AMWhat do you really know about Palin? She's given variations of one speech that other people wrote for her. She won't hold a press conference or sit for an interview with anyone who is not on her side. What is she trying to hide?
Are you just not paying attention, David?
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/10/20/politics/fromtheroad/entry4531447.shtml
http://tinyurl.com/5hudyb
posted by Pablo at October 22, 2008 09:07 AMOrson Scott Card is a great writer. I wish our journalists had half his integrity.
posted by Brian Ganek at October 22, 2008 11:42 AMDavid came on this blog and said things that most of the people on this blog disagree with, he did not deserve to be attacked, he made soem very poingant arguments and did not try to hide his identity when posting....respect...Card is a nut by the way....have you read Ender's Game?, one of the greatest Science Fiction Novel's ever, and I mean ever, but you'd have to be a little crazy and a lot brilliant to write it. As far as Obama and his supporters, I agree, the guy obviously has some gifts that were bestowed upon him to lead people, convince people, inspire poeple and organize people into doing great things. otherwise, he would have lost to Hilary. Things for CY's post that are inappropriate: and save it CY, I know for a fact you are going to accuse me of being a communist, or anti-american or dissect my post to get back at me, save it....
*"Wright's racist cult", there is no cult, there is an all-black church congregation in Illinois, and many members don't like white people, probably for good reason....as many of them, especially older ones have been victims of racism in thier lifetimes. Wright is a twice decorated Marine, yeah he is a nut, but this is not a racist cult. I think their a plenty of Black people who do not white people, I strongly disagree that Obama is one of them.
*The half a billion dollar advantage is out of context and simply not true, please post better and more factual research. Obama has 164 cash on hand, McCain has 132, those are the numbers, lets not get into it....this also does not take into account the extra Money Obama had to spend to beat Hillary.
*So David Axelrod is brilliant and Obama is nitwit? Karl Rove was brilliant and Bush was stupid? Where are we going with this? Who signs Axelrod's checks, sorry, Obama has been incredible leading organization, if just by recognizing who the man to do it was.
*McCain's trancripts have not been released either, it is uncommon for Presidents to release undergraduate grades. We know he worked in NYC for a year after Columbia before moving to Chicago, and really who cares? McCain was in the bottom 5 in class of almost 900, Bush was mediocre at best, non-issue not buying it...
*Your assertion about Palin is ludicrous. No Press conferences, NONE!!! People world about her capacity to take tough questions. Sorry man, but she is pretty bad....If the running mates were reversed what would you think.....
Can you say 5 things bad about McCain and 5 good about Obama? I can. I can say 5 things I like about McCain, and an addition 5 things I don't like about Obama, then another 5 comparisons where I pick McCain over Obama.....still going with Obama, becasue I am objective and honest and not a person with Neocon blinders on
posted by Paul Cunningham at October 22, 2008 01:38 PMPaul, here's your reality check.
Trinity United Church, pastored by Jeremiah Wright, preached Black Liberation Theology, created by James Cone in the 1960s by applying the philosophies espoused by the Black Panthers and Malcolm X to go up against what he called "the white mans' religion," Christianity.
It is based upon black supremacy and Marxist liberation theology that was prevalent in South America. How cultish is it? They believe if God isn't "black" then he must be killed. That's a cult in any Christian's book, and not just mine. A Catholic Cardinal some years ago thought liberation theology was such a heresy that he excommunicated those priests who practiced it. That Cardinal, Joseph Ratzinger, is now Pope Benedict XVI.
The half billion advantage is of course true; Obama's campaign has raised more than $600 million directly, including $150 million last month. McCain, by accepting public financing, is limited to $84 million for the entire campaign, though the RNC has some cash that it spreads around as well. Apples-to-apples, the more-than half-trillion Obama advantage is accurate.
Signing Axelrod's checks is just about all Obama has done, other than read a teleprompter. Other than that, I fail to see how interviewing for a job is proof of competency for that job, which is at the core of your inane argument.
McCain was well known as a crappy student, and he hasn't built up his campaign based upon his academic success. His transcripts don't matter. Barack Obama, however, has played the Ivy League education to the hilt as a significant part of his qualifications since he has no leadership experience, and when you don't have the experience, and boast of your educational background, you owe us your transcripts.
As for Palin's recent press availability compared to Biden, Obama, and McCain, is is an absolute fact:
But the candidate who has been criticized for having a bunker mentality when it came to the national media can now lay legitimate claim to being more accessible than either Joe Biden or Barack Obama.posted by Confederate Yankee at October 22, 2008 02:29 PMIn the past two days alone, Palin has answered questions from her national press corps on three separate occasions. On Saturday, she held another plane availability, and on Sunday, she offered an impromptu press conference on the tarmac upon landing in Colorado Springs. A few minutes later, she answered even more questions from reporters during an off-the-record stop at a local ice cream shop.
By contrast, Biden hasn't held a press conference in more than a month, and Obama hasn't taken questions from his full traveling press corps since the end of September. John McCain—who spent most of the primary season holding what seemed like one, never-ending media availability—hasn't done one since Sept. 23.
We are unlikely to hear from Paul again, the driveby is the prefered assault technique here. His bald assertions of Barry's yumminess are de riguer and old news to anyone older than 12 but Paul, no one "attacked" David. There is no foundation to his views as there is none for yours. The infantile among us cannot stand to have that said. To take just the first instance, CYs foundation for calling Trinity a racist cult is the many racist and anti-American public declarations by Wright and others (let's not forget Farrakhan) who speak in and run that church and other racist outfits. The foundation for Barry being a racist is his twenty year devotion to this parrish and this man in particular. The counter argument is, no, Barry is not a racist although he practiced a racist religion for twenty years only giving it up when it was exposed. And he never heard any of that "whitey" stuff anyhow. That is no counterfactual argument. It is no argument at all just a declaration of intentional ignorance. Let it all be exposed and decent people will decide for themselves but if you are white you must know that Barry and the Obots hate you and want to take your money and put it in their pockets. Barry hates you, Paul, if you are white. And if you are black but NOT an Obot he REALLY hates you and his minions will visit violence upon you. Don't believe it? Wait.
Oh, and if you want to see a REAL attack, check any instance of a lefty blog sighting anyone to the right of Walter Mondale and get back to us.
posted by megapotamus at October 22, 2008 02:32 PM« Hide Comments
Good News! Biden Promises an International Incident to Test Obama if He's Elected, and Also Promises Obama Will Screw It Up
Joe Biden's greatest gift/curse is an apparent inability to censor himself, and he admitted yesterday that Obama's utter inexperience and lack of leadership will cause anti-American regimes to target us as a result:
"Mark my words," the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."
How will Obama respond to this crisis? Biden is convinced that Obama is going to screw it up, and he's asking supporters to bear with him anyway before getting immediate buyer's remorse.
"I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate," Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. "And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."
Good grief.
Has any Vice President in U.S. electoral history ever made it more clear that his running mate is completely unfit for the office that he seeks?
And if Biden dosn't have faith in Obama, why should the rest of us?
Update: Perfunction has partial audio.
Show Comments »
Did we get that one on tape?
posted by edh at October 20, 2008 12:13 PMChristmas in October. The gift that just keeps on giving and no batteries are required. Yippeee!
posted by Jack is Back! at October 20, 2008 12:17 PMI do remember the Cuban missile crisis. Particularly since I was an Army dependent in Italy at the time. For an adolescent it was very scary, since we were preparing to evacuate to Genoa for a slow boat to the USA.
It was touch and go there for awhile, I am told. A false step could have ended us into a nuclear war.
Does anyone in their right mind want Obama at the helm when (according to Biden) this situation comes down? Will Obama have a single clue about "when to hold them and when to fold them"? Will Obama overcompensate (e.g. invade Pakistan)? Will Obama appease (e.g. allow the РФ to break up Ukraine or allow Iran nuclear weapons)?
Obama won't be able to vote present on this one. And Slow Joe Biden will advise him? Ayers? Wright? Farrakhan? Powers? Bernie Sanders (the Socialist in the Senate that was to the right of Obama)?
Being under the rule of the stupid and the insane is a frightening thought....
posted by iconoclast at October 20, 2008 12:25 PM"it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."
News to you Joe, that's never going to be apparent. But don't you worry yourself, the media will cover for you. Being a Democrat, after all, is never having to admit culpability.
posted by Hogarth at October 20, 2008 12:29 PMIt is too bad the media will not report these stories. That is the 10 point swing they still carry. If Palin made a derogatory remark about McCain that is all the airwaves would carry for a week.
posted by Tom at October 20, 2008 12:29 PMOK, so as soon as Al Qaeda gets the word from the new administration, they'll launch the attacks they've been planning. It will not be initially apparent that appeasing them by giving them half of Israel is the right thing to do, but Obama supporters will stand by him because they have faith that he knows all.
Biden is giving hints early so his people will be prepared when the opportunity appears.
These guys are so smart! They think so far ahead! Can there be any doubt that He Who May Not Be Questioned is truly the One?
I'm in Awe.
posted by guess'd at October 20, 2008 12:34 PM1) typo: "how ill" should be "how will"
2) std operating practice, btw.
at the height of the clinton/lewinsky scandal I went for a checkup. my doctor spent a lot of time repeating Dem talking points. I was shocked and offended. but he was a liberal Democrat and the word had gone out to use their influence in the community.
Along with "John McCain is defending a plumber" this should be an ad all on its own, with appropriate commentary.
You know they called Quayle a moron for less
posted by Hawkins at October 20, 2008 01:14 PMWhat Biden's probably launching a trial balloon for, is Iran and Israel.
He's predicting an event, like Israel bombing Iran's nuclear facilities during the first 6 months.
Then, when Iran retaliates, the Obama administration will not come to Israel's aid.
That choice, will not be "apparent that we're right".
That's my bet.
posted by gman at October 20, 2008 01:18 PMAlong with "John McCain is defending a plumber" this should be an ad all on its own, with appropriate commentary.You know they called Quayle a moron for less
Posted by Hawkins at October 20, 2008 01:14 PM
I think Dan Quayle at least could count to 4, something Slow Joe Biden seems to be unable to do.
But Joe probably knows how many states there are in the Union.
posted by iconoclast at October 20, 2008 01:33 PMAfter a summit with Kruschev, in which he got bullied around, JFK came home and said, "It's time to project American power and Vietnam is the place."
From Stanley Karnow's "Vietnam: A History"
gman has it right. it's about the only scenario that fits the bill! As a matter of fact it's almost so blatently obvious based on Obama's foreign policy advisors, don't be surprised to see Israel attack shortly after Obama's election but before he takes office. At least then Bush is likely to offer at least passive support. What's the arabic word for Messiah?
posted by L.Jay at October 20, 2008 01:36 PMI wasn't apparent, initially, that the West Germans were right to stage a hi-jacking for the purpse of releasing the Munich terrorists either, but in 2001, when the Hamburg terror cells attacked the US, and not Germany, the wisdom of the policy became apparent.
posted by moptop at October 20, 2008 01:47 PM"What's the arabic word for Messiah?"
L.Jay -- It's Mahdi. The "Mad Mullah of Sudan", who killed General Gordon at Khartoum, claimed to be the Mahdi.
Sunnis and Shia have different views of the Mahdi. Sunnis have a number of diverging views and not all express a belief in a Madhi, others tie the Madhi to the second coming of Jesus, while still others view the Madhi as separate from Jesus.
The Shia believe that the Madhi is the 12th of "Hidden" Iman, who as a child disappeared in the 9th Century during an Moslem civil war.
In any event, the Iranian president has made some statements that indicate he believes the Madhi is about to return.
posted by Room 237 at October 20, 2008 01:51 PMStupid to say it out loud, but absolutely correct. That is one of the top reasons I am voting for the other ticket.
posted by Bart at October 20, 2008 01:54 PMFirst of all -- duh! Biden, some kind of foreign affairs genius (according to Obama??), is saying this. Well, duh, I've been saying this to my friends for months -- Obama gets into office and all hell breaks loose (perhaps Biden has plagiarized one of my emails). I personally think it will be WWIII starting with Iran/Israel and nukes. But there are a number of things it could be.
And I love how it's some big secret how they are going to handle it: It won't be popular, but you are going to have to trust us. That sounds promising. And isn't during the campaign supposed to be he time when candidates are supposed to tell us how they would handle hypothetical (and likely) international situations, so that we can be informed voters. What is this? Election 'Let's make a Deal?' I'll take what's behind curtain #1.
Let me guess it's something like this. Let's say for example, the crisis is Russia invades Georgia -- Obama will respond like this: "Um, uh, let's disucss this with uh Russia...I mean uh we will defend Georgia, um I mean uh we won't?... I mean we will...we won't..we will...we won't...?" Oh, right, we should defnitely trust that. Am I in the Twilight Zone, because this guy is ahead in the polls, right?
posted by smc at October 20, 2008 01:55 PMI agree with gman. The Iran/Israel scenerio fits in with Jesse Jackson's talking points memo to Israel the other day. BO will basically tell Iran to call him if they need him...and Israel to go to hell.
posted by m at October 20, 2008 02:05 PMI love yappity yapp Biden. He says the darndest things. Unfortunately for our country, many of the things he says are comical, but not intended to be so. Jeeesh. I want experience and sanity in the White House, not a couple of would-be Saturday Night Live television characters by the name of Obama and Biden making the all important decisions that will keep America safe.
I'm a Democrat for McCain/Palin!
posted by nomobama at October 20, 2008 02:25 PMIt's either that SNL doesn't have anyone who could imitate Biden, or that he never says anything that could be remotely the target of humor, that I've never seen his 'gaffes' on SNL or even the Daily Show, or the Letterman Show.
But if Palin had said this all hell would break loose.
I wonder how Colonic Powell is feeling now that the day after his supposed imprimatur of the Obamanation, the running mate is telling everyone that he's not one who could handle a crisis intelligently and everyone will hate him for it?
I was shocked and offended. but he was a liberal Democrat and the word had gone out to use their influence in the community.
That Vast Left Wing Conspiracy - first the dentists, then the dog walkers and the guy who cleans the pool.
They're all around us! Aaaaaaaagh!
It won't be six months. It will be six weeks. And it may be within six hours of President Obama taking office. I'm sure the various parties adverse to the West have already made plans in the event of an Obama Presidency.
posted by zhombre at October 20, 2008 04:23 PMObama is the Looter's President among others. As long as there is booty for his supporters, there will be no objections to any decison he makes, no matter what happens in the long run to US interests abroad. Clinton Redux. His sole focus will be on rebuilding the domestic economy since his power will come from that alone. Public spending will be large since no politician ever lost an election by creating a deficit but rather by trying to control one at the expense of his supporters. Military spending will suffer mightily, taxes will rise. As for Biden, who knows what he was actually refering to. Since he was talking to a partisan crowd, he might have been preparing them for Obama doing something right, ie against their ideologic principles, like bombing Iran or staying in Iraq or some other anti left position. Obama lies continuously so maybe Joe was preparing his troops for their own castor oil.
posted by mytralman at October 20, 2008 04:44 PMBO will basically tell Iran to call him if they need him...and Israel to go to hell.
Maybe, but Zero had better bone up on "The Samson Option":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option
Israel already has enough nukes in its arsenal to ensure Islam will be exterminated in the Middle East. Hell, with nothing to lose, Israel might also lob some nukes at Europe and Russia as a final payback for 1000 years of oppression and murder.
posted by MarkJ at October 20, 2008 05:41 PMI think gman is very close. It's not that Isreal will hit Iran and we decline to help them. I believe Obama will order a shoot down of the Isreali attack wave.
posted by Kurt Preston at October 20, 2008 08:05 PM
I have this vision, An IED set off in times Square and Obama sitting on
the floor in the oval office drooling and mumbling Wha-tiz Wha-tiz and
then they take him away to the Home!! Never to be seen again…
A little FYI, Pakistan is now considered a far more dangerous country than
Iran. Simple they have Nukes and they are ripe for a revolt into the wrong hands…
Ah good ol' Joe, the gaffe that keeps on giving.
posted by Conservative CBU at October 20, 2008 09:48 PMThe “Troofers” will have a field day with this Biden stuff.
I can see it now ..
Biden predicted 2nd 9/11 .. was definitely an inside job
I haven’t yet figured out if Biden is courting or shunning the “Troofer” vote.
posted by Neo at October 21, 2008 09:57 AM“In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.” Barack Obama
The FBI can forget looking for muslim terrorists in America under Obama. Obama will stand with the muslims, period. He has spent a thousand Sundays in praise of Jew-hate, America-hate, God-hate. Obama will have every available government agency from the FBI to the IRS doing criminal investigations on political enemies. Michelle Obama will make Hillary's White House stack of FBI files on enemies look like a comic book collection.
Dark days ahead, and it's probably racist these days to even use the phrase. Jesus, please!
Can anyone doubt that Barry will take a far sterner line with those who traffic in "hard stares" than those who behead infidels? Do we REALLY have to go through this whole thing so the Democrat morons who drove the economy into the ditch can do the same thing with modernity itself?
posted by megapotamus at October 21, 2008 02:53 PMAn interesting point came up on Hannity today (I think it was Mayor Rudy who said it, but I could be wrong):
Did anyone feel the need to "test" Eisenhower after he was elected? Or Reagan?
Nope; they were known quantities, and America's enemies didn't wanna mess with them.
Obama is no Ike, nor Gipper. Heck, he's not even JFK (JFK's tax cut was a true tax cut, and he was a defense hawk).
posted by C-C-G at October 21, 2008 05:23 PMAt least ole "Slow Joe" has a handle on this one. I gotta agree with Joe on that.
posted by Tonto (USA) at October 21, 2008 05:50 PMThe Reagan example is important to remember. At the time all the elites, even the alleged conservatives stood in opposition to Reagan's anti-Commie policies. Even his own staffers were always trying to get him to tone things down. Wrong-o. We win. They lose. THAT is the only policy to have in a war and the Cold War was a real war no matter what the closet Commies of today tell you. There is chatter today of Al-Queda's "endorsement" of McCain supposedly teased from a jihadi website with the idea that he will continue the GWOT that has been so terrible for us and so beneficial to them. Can anyone take that seriously? Yet we have a series of public endorsements of Hamas for Barry and we easily see the policies on Iran, Israel and diplomacy generally that they want. Air it all out, I say and let the peeps decide. Can anyone doubt that the aspirations of the jihadis will be easier to achieve under Obama? Anyone? Bueller?
posted by megapotamus at October 22, 2008 02:47 PMMega, there's also a true JFK-Obama parallel that's worth looking at.
JFK met with Nikita Khrushchev very soon after taking office, and without any sort of preconditions. Khrushchev took that to be a sign of weakness, a view strengthened by the failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion, and many historians today believe that led directly to the Cuban Missile Crisis.
One can only wonder what BHO's desire to meet with Ahmadinnerjacket, again, without preconditions, will lead to. It's pretty much certain that the Iranians will see it as a sign of weakness.
Biden has this one at least partially right... Obama will face an international test. But I doubt that he'll do the right thing, especially with Biden advising him, since Biden's been wrong on just about every foreign affairs issue for years.
It doesn't show strength to meet with your enemies without preconditions... it shows that you don't think you're strong enough to demand preconditions. And everyone except BHO seems to understand that.
posted by C-C-G at October 22, 2008 07:59 PM« Hide Comments
More Totalitarian Than You
For the longest time, "Politics" and "Media" were two distinct categories that I had to organize posts on this blog. I can't precisely recall when it occurred, but at some point during this Presidential campaign the dividing line that existed between the two categories became so blurred as to become meaningless, as media bias has become overtly political in nature.
Nowhere has this been more apparent than in the political hatchet job being carried out against Joe Wurzelbacher in the past week. Wurzelbacher was playing football with his son in his front yard when Barack Obama made an unscheduled stop in Toledo, Ohio to stump door-to-door for votes. Obama came up to Joe, and Joe told Obama that his tax plan was going to charge him more.
Obama infamously answered, "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
His classic socialist answer revealed that Obama's vision of America's future is directly at odds with the capitalism that has made the United States the superpower that it is today. How did the media respond to this too-real revelation?
They couldn't justify Obama's answer, and realizing the damage that could result from this admission, they decided to instead attack Joe Wurzelbacher. They published his voter registration, divorce record, tax records, and other information in an attempt to discredit him and direct attention away from Obama's answer.
Americans, generally being good people, are disgusted with how the Obama-supporting media, bloggers, and the Obama campaign have sought to attack Joe the Plumber instead of justify Obama's socialist answer.
As if the attacks on Joe weren't bad enough, Obama surrogate Jodi Kantor at the New York Times sunk so low as to contact the teen-aged friends of 16-year-old Bridget McCain in hopes of digging up dirt for a hit piece on Cindy McCain, John McCain's wife.
Fro some, the line of what they can tolerate without retribution has been crossed. Several of my friends in the blogosphere have had enough, and have decided to try to destroy the biased media, one reporter at a time, by organizing and then deeply investigating the lives of those reporters who go beyond the pale in their biased support of Barack Obama.
I'm all for exposing the biases of reporters as this post about James V. Grimaldi of the Washington Post and his dishonest hit piece will attest, but where do you draw the line?
Is it sufficient to expose their biased work and lack of professional ethics so that it shows up prominently in a blog search, or do you engage in destroying the entire person? Do you go after their failed marriages and tax records? Do you research and then publish their sexual perversions and closely-held racial prejudices? What about their kids, their spouses, and their friends?
And if we're willing to stoop to that level to attack their personalities, are we too distantly removed from escalating to attacks their persons? We saw an Obama supporter attack and beat up a middle-aged woman holding a McCain sign in Manhattan last week.
Do we want physical intimidation and violence to be the new political discourse?
I cannot speak for others, but I'm not willing to stoop to the level of the totalitarian left. I'm not going to destroy the private lives of private citizensmdash;even those bent on perverting public discourse—because they've lost all professional integrity.
Let's focus instead on exposing their lack of professional ethics instead of destroying them for personal imperfections.
If we can't, then we're no better than they are.
Show Comments »
Well put. We can--we must--show ourselves different than the opposition in one key regard: we respect and encourage individual freedom, including those with whom we disagree.
posted by Michael at October 20, 2008 11:21 AMThere's nothing wrong with a response in kind. If you were present when the McCain supporter was physically attacked, would you have stood by and chastised the attacker? Rushed home to make sure the attack showed up prominently in a blog search? I think physical force is warranted there.
That doesn't mean beating up Olbermann. But trumpeting news of his tax problems, looking for dissatisfied ex-girlfriends, staff at ESPN he treated poorly - why not? The guy who announced "Americans are tired of seeing us shouting at each other" is down 6 to the guy whose fundraiser was shouting at the time. He won't stoop to attacking his opponent's character, relationships, or policies, so he'll get the same moral victory you're after. That and eight dollars will get you a gallon of gasoline under the Obama regime. I'd rather avoid that fate.
"We're no better than they are" - and Roosevelt was no better than Tojo.
Sorry, but the hackneyed old cautionary adage that "we're no better than they are" is not only untrue; it has never been true -- not in any circumstance in which it has ever been used.
Someone punches you in the face; but, if you punch back: "you're no better than they are".
This kind of moral equivalence is usually reserved for leftists who make no distinction between agressor and defender. It's crap, and has always been crap!
posted by Eyas at October 20, 2008 01:25 PMThat's like going to a fistfight where everyone has agree to play by the Queensbury Rules, and your opponent brings out a knife, then a gun. Your nobility will leave you bleeding. There is a difference between destroying a private citizen who dared to ask a question, and exposing the character assassins for what they are by employing some - not all - of their tactics. There is a difference between belting a middle-aged McCain supporter, and chasing down and if necessary restraining her assailant. Actions have context.
posted by Kelly at October 20, 2008 01:51 PMThe Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 10/20/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.
posted by David M at October 20, 2008 01:56 PMNot to offend anyone but it has come down to either fighting back or just sitting back and letting this kind of thing happen to us. If we don't fight back it is only going to get worse.
Growing up there were two kids who picked on me in school. It started out as just verbal harrassment, but over time it developed into full blown beatings.
Long story short I made a point to find each of them when they were by themselves and returned the favor with interest (I kicked them in the head a few times after I had them on the floor)after that we never had a problem with each other again.
I'm sorry if that isn't nice but it is what we need to do.
I am Joe...
I am your neighbor that lives across the street
I am a hockey mom, or the coach of your son's Little League team
I serve our country in uniform, leaving my family behind to protect our freedoms
I am a police officer, fireman or paramedic, putting my life on the line to protect you
I work at the local hospital, caring for your family in times of need
I am the builder, plumber, shopkeeper or the owner of the small store down the street
I am the cowboy and farmer, providing food for not just your table but for those around the world
I am the teacher who gives long hours to educating your children
I am the veteran that answered my nation's call to duty
I am the stranger that comes to your aid when disaster strikes, and you need a hand
I work hard to provide for my family, pay my taxes and do my duty as a citizen and vote
I am proud of what my country stands for, and all of the good it does throughout the world
I want to be successful, to enjoy the freedoms granted to me and to give to others in need on my own accord, not have it taken from me
I am Joe the Plumber
posted by fmfnavydoc at October 20, 2008 02:13 PM"extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!" It has come down to that. We could have an all out Civil War, but lets not, lets use the Smart Bomb of the Internet to target those who actively use their positions of trust and power to destroy freedom. Joe the Plumber was a warning, don't question us or we will do this to you, that cannot be allowed to stand. These people need to be taken down, one at a time if need be.
posted by DBA at October 20, 2008 02:31 PM"I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
The middle class used to be able to support a family on one income but no longer can. What's wrong with policy that moves us back in this direction? You think our children should be raised in daycare? You all have used the term "wealth redistribution" many times lately, but as a matter of fact any non-flat tax policy is wealth redistribution. The rich have seen falling tax rates over the last decades. Cap gains used to be normal income, not they are 20% and that goes disproportionately to the wealthy. You could just as easily complain about policy-driven wealth redistribution towards the rich over the last 30 years. Perhaps the ugliest facet of this is that it hurts US competitiveness by keeping wealth in the hands of idiots and disallowing the able from the lower classes to rise to the limit of their abilities.
Interestingly, both McCain and Bush were born to wealthy and influential families, whereas Clinton and Obama pulled themselves up from modest circumstances. Obama was the standout in his Harvard Law class. Further, Bush's capital injection into the big banks is the most socialist event in recent US history, and a big chunk of that seems to be earmarked for executive bonuses. You could make a strong argument that the GOP is more socialist these days than are the Democrats.
posted by Luther Tines at October 20, 2008 02:50 PM"We saw an Obama supporter attack and beat up a middle-aged woman holding a McCain sign in Manhattan last week... Do we want physical intimidation and violence to be the new political discourse?"
Someone slit the tires of 30 cars outside an Obama rally:
http://www.fayobserver.com/article?id=307949
and someone else hanged Obama in effigy:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=obama+effigy&search;_type=&aq;=f
and there are lots of clips of boorish behavior outside of Palin rallies with things such as a Curious George stuffed animal with an Obama sticker on it.
Anecdotes are not a reasonable basis for sweeping generalizations. To do so shows ignorance or dishonesty.
posted by Luther Tines at October 20, 2008 04:03 PMLuther, once Barry has been burned in effigy, including monkey effigy a few hundred times we'll be approaching par with Bush. Frankly I look forward to using my giant puppet making skills in furtherance of liberty's cause. I see a second life for the "F the President" stickers.
posted by megapotamus at October 20, 2008 04:42 PM"once Barry has been burned in effigy, including monkey effigy a few hundred times we'll be approaching par with Bush. Frankly I look forward to using my giant puppet making skills in furtherance of liberty's cause."
I can't tell you how refreshing to listen to someone who speaks his mind, unadorned. For every one of you I see 100 tedious "I'm not a racist, but..." remarks.
I ought not to advise my political adversaries, but the Youtube clip involves a hanging in effigy, not burning. I think you will find you get much more bang for your buck this way. Your name may end up in a Secret Service database, but surely that is a small price for glory.
I honestly think it will help - help those interested (pro or con) in the proposed effort to bring the media back into a democratic society - if we start talking about hypothetical specifics - and not just one or two to trying point to some over-arching principle ---- when that principle isn't clear (yet).
I'll throw out some:
Investigation the kids: No. Off limits. Whether the son or daughter is under 18 or not.
Investigating the wife? Well, that depends on specifics.
Barney Franks significant other was running a male brothel out of an apartment they shared in DC back in the late 1980s. That was definetly something that a conservative watchdog group would have been legitimate in jumping on.
If a big media person or media executive has the same thing going on with their lover/spouse, it should now be fair game for a media watchdog group designed to expose them the way they expose other people.
Next - a partner of a media figure is a raging alcoholic. Out of bounds.
If the media figure is a raging alcoholic -- I'll have to get back to you on that one as I think it over some more.
If the media figure or spouse is found to do frequent business with a drug dealer and bring illegal drugs into the house? Fair game.
If the media figure's household is hiring illegal immigrant maids, gardeners or other household staff? Fair game.
If the media figure is cheating on their taxes? Probably fair game, but I'll get back to you after more thought.
If the media figure comes out of a bar or restaurant drunk and abusive - or just abusive - to people inside or outside? Fair game.
If a news orgs staff is overwhelmingly registered Democrat --- overwhelmingly donates to the Dem party ---- has membership overwhelmingly supporting Dem or liberal groups with time and money ---- fair game. Fair for watchdog groups to hound the leaders of the org about the ideological lack of diversity (same as it would be if they only hired white males).
These are the kinds of hypotheticals we should be kicking around to clearly define this issue - rather than just trying to sum it all up instantly.
posted by usinkorea at October 20, 2008 05:26 PM"You could just as easily complain about policy-driven wealth redistribution towards the rich over the last 30 years. "
Again, the same old broken record.
Since 1978, the rich have gotten richer and the poor have gotten poorer.
It just doesn't wash. The standard of living in the society has risen since the 1970s. You guys keep trying to tell us that our lives are getting more and more and more miserable, and it just does not match reality. Some of us can remember back to the 1970s and even longer (though not me).
posted by usinkorea at October 20, 2008 05:33 PMI do agree with you on the recent bank bailout.
I would not care whose policies let to the event, but Congress, led by the Bush administration, has just took one of the biggest socialization steps in our nations history. The government has just stepped into the banking sector and the housing sector in a major way, and I'm not thrilled about it.
And again, I honestly believe I would be saying that regardless of how that situation came about.
But, the facts are, the banks and housing sector fell apart, because of the kind of liberalism that we will see a President Obama give a massive boost if elected:
The Dems in Congress used the power of the government to tilt the housing market and credit market to favor people whose incomes could not afford the loans to buy the houses they wanted.
It is a type of socialist thinking --- everyone should be able to buy a house --- that led to one of the greatest socialization efforts by our government - the Bush administration bailout of the financial sector.
The problem with the Obama presidency, if it comes, is that it will not take the worst financial crisis since The Great Depression for further socialization to take place. It will become routine policy initiated by the White House.
posted by usinkorea at October 20, 2008 05:40 PMusinkorea: How about supporting that instead of asserting it? In particular please address these two simple questions:
First the middle class household used to have one wage earner on average, now they can't afford that. Why? Is this desirable?
Second, over the last 30 years the rich have gotten cap gains down to 20% and slashed inheritance taxes. As a result of these changes, Warren Buffet's tax rat is lower than his secretary's. Why is this fair?
Please answer those specific questions instead of introducing some related generalities. In particular please don't tell me your life story again. As I mentioned above, anecdotes aren't generally very useful. If you don't address these simple questions directly I will be forced to conclude that you are a blowhard or worse.
posted by Luther Tines at October 20, 2008 05:48 PM"the rich have gotten richer and the poor have gotten poorer."
That's the standard leftist line, but in America, it is also a demonstrable and momentous lie. As the rich get richer, they do what? Buy stuff.
Companies hire more poor people to make more stuff, and the company owners sell the stuff, make more money, which they use to but more stuff and hire more people.
This "vicious cycle" is what assures that America's poor have a standard of living equivalent of the middle class to rich of most of the rest of the world. The overwhelming majority of America's poor live in air-conditioned/heated homes and apartments where they watch television or listen to their radios or play Playstations. The poor in other countries? They die of exposure and malnutrition as a matter of course.
In America, the wealthy and resourceful continually drag the bell curve to the right, making everyone richer, and there literally is no upper limit to how high we as a society can go.
Obama, however, is an idiot, like most socialists, and wants to take from the upper end of the curve, dragging the bell curve--and society in general--in the opposite direction, making us all poorer with his wealth redistribution.
The stupid and lazy will never keep their money, and the intelligent and hard-working will always acquire more. That is a simple fact.
If the rich are allowed to keep innovating, we all benefit, even the poor, as the curve pulls us all higher. If the socialists have their way, innovators are punished for succeeding, growth stagnates or stops or ever reverses, and you want to know who gets hurt the most, and the hardest?
The poor.
If Democrats really cared about the poor, they'd do everything they can to help grow the businesses that help everyone, including the poor.
But it isn't about the disposable poor. It's about the naked pursuit of political power, something that the son of a communist mentored by a succession of socialists and marxists knows well.
posted by Confederate Yankee at October 20, 2008 05:51 PMThat is a terrific sentiment...perfect for a more civilized time. Against an enemy willing to do anything to win you will be defeated each and every time.
Perhaps we don't adopt all of their tactics but just as we adopted some of the Germans tactics to defeat them we can also do the same with the left.
Do we delve into reporters personal lives to destroy them...absolutely. No other single class of people in this country deserves it more. What a vile and disgusting bunch of creatures they are.
Do we delve into the personal lives of the left...my gosh why not? Why is Wright off limits?
One can adopt a lot of the enemies tactics to win the strategic battle without becoming the enemy.
PATTON on using the enemies tactics.
Rommel, you magnificent bastard! I read your book!
Confederate Yankee: I feel that was long on generalities and short on particulars. Can you address the two questions I posed to usainkorea?
"The stupid and lazy will never keep their money, and the intelligent and hard-working will always acquire more. That is a simple fact."
That is becoming less and less true in this country, because of the tax policy your party espouses. Your party is dead set against the so-called "death tax", ensuring that every Mars, Walton, and Hilton is fabulously wealthy no matter how competent he or she is. Anyone who lives off investments has an advantage over any wage earner in the form of lesser taxes, thanks to cuts on capital gains. You call ending this state of fairs "wealth redistribution", whereas it's just as accurate to call the GOP tax policy of the last three decades wealth redistribution.
“These people need to be taken down, one at a time if need be.”
Ooh! I know! Maybe we could set up a web site of some kind, with a list of reporters who don't behave, and then we could draw lines through their names, as they're "taken down" - or, we could put up their pictures, then draw big red X's through them, after the deed is done. That'll keep the rest in line.
I think there's precedent for this, so we'd be in good company.
Nobody will dare call us "fascist".
posted by Nuremburg Files, Redux at October 20, 2008 08:59 PM"Obama, however, is an idiot, like most socialists, and wants to take from the upper end of the curve, dragging the bell curve--and society in general--in the opposite direction, making us all poorer with his wealth redistribution."
Oh noes! He'll return us to the tax levels of the horrible mid-90's!! Remember the bread lines and the soup kitchens? All those poor people in the streets? What an evil man he must be.
posted by Terms at October 20, 2008 09:02 PMAll you have proven is that David Horowitz was absolutely correct when he said that Republicans are too polite.
posted by Kathryn at October 21, 2008 09:01 AMwhat is truly scary about the obama supporter who bear up the mccain supporter in NYC is that if the situation had been reversed, if a mccain supporter had beaten an obama supporter (especially if it occurred in a conservative area, as this occurred in liberal NYC), the media would not rest until it was front page and top story all over the country, their "righteous outrage" would be insatiable. yet, here i have heard nothing of this story other than from this blog (and the link provided therein). if obama is elected, will any dissent be met with violence, condoned by his media in the form of silence and non-coverage? the media smeared joe the plumber, but at least no one physically assaulted him (yet).
posted by Eric at October 21, 2008 01:31 PM"First the middle class household used to have one wage earner on average, now they can't afford that. Why? Is this desirable?"
I lived it. I'm not going to go out looking for statistics for what I learned living.
In my opinion, you have two people working in a household, because they want to buy the luxuries that are the American way right now.
That is part of the standard of living having gone up. There were more jobs and more opportunities for women to get work like a man. And families wanted more comfort and more gadgets and better TVs and better cars ---- families were consumers - so they worked to get money to buy things they wanted.
Now, there are also a lot of single family households out there. And they manage to survive in your "poor and poorer and poorer America." Many of these single parent households do better than just get by as well.
And then there are the many households, not middle class, who are two or single parent supported - but also supported by the federal government. They are not middle class, but they are not starving to death in some nation-wide dustbowl - as America has gotten "poor and poorer and poorer" "the last 30 years" as the rich have squeezed the life-blood out of the people...
"Second, over the last 30 years the rich have gotten cap gains down to 20% and slashed inheritance taxes. As a result of these changes, Warren Buffet's tax rat is lower than his secretary's. Why is this fair?"
I don't care if its fair or not. Honestly.
I just hope Warren Buffet keeps being smart on economics and advising people to invest in corporations that are going to keep growing and supplying jobs for the masses.
And if Warren Buffet wants to give away all his money to charity (which he does), good for him.
You can conclude anything you want.
I already stated I believe you are a typical liberal type you find especially among the younger variety who fell in love with statistics that have proven in real life to be meaningless.
My life story is the same as many, many in the communities I've lived in. You can quote until you turn blue statistics on how much the Buffets and Gates have gotten so much richer and outpaced the middle class as our economy has grown and cry that that means America is overall getting more and more poor ---- I don't care.
It isn't the life I've seen in the three different states I've lived in.
And it isn't what most people have seen in their daily lives year to year for the last 30 years.
You can continue to swat down visible reality with your Microsoft-expansion stats for yourself if you like. I'll stick with the reality.
posted by usinkorea at October 21, 2008 03:01 PMThis conversation boils down to some simple things, I think, and CY hit on one of them too.
If the rich are getting richer as the economy grows and the standard of living for the whole society grows, then so be it.
The Bill Gates and Warren Buffets (and wildly successful smaller business people) are charging out ahead of the pack faster than before --- as the economy grows --- then we should cheer them rather than scoff at their wealth and tax it away from them.
The rich are getting richer.
That does not mean the poor are getting poorer.
Bill Gates' stock options are not taking money out of my working class pockets.
But, if taxing business in order to redistribute wealth cripples the economy, it will take money out of my pocket.
And the government can try to cover this by putting money directly into my pocket in the form of a check or free health care card....
...but in every society where socialism has been tried, it has led to worse chronic poverty and economic stagnation.
The more it has been tried, the worse the standard of living has been.
The rich getting richer and poor getting poorer is a false correlation...
posted by usinkorea at October 21, 2008 04:35 PM"I lived it. I'm not going to go out looking for statistics for what I learned living... In my opinion,..."
Your life story approaches zero significance in a country of 300 million. We already discussed that. Similarly of what value are your opinions if you are unwilling or unable to find evidence to support them?
I'll provide some more facts, however tedious these are to you. The middle class has a zero savings rate and at or near record credit card debt and personal bankruptcy. You presumably don't believe this because it has not been a part of your life story, but if you do decide to pick up a newspaper you could verify this for yourself.
LT: "Second, over the last 30 years the rich have gotten cap gains down to 20% and slashed inheritance taxes. As a result of these changes, Warren Buffet's tax rat is lower than his secretary's. Why is this fair?"
usainkorea: "I don't care if its fair or not. Honestly." But your premise is that Obama's tax plan to raise income on the top 5% is socialist. In other words, any plan that does not advantage the rich is socialist. Please explain why the rich ought to have lower tax rates. I'm all ears.
If you took the time to learn about statistics you will find that there's something called a sampling error. Basically, because of your particular situation and biases, you are guaranteed not to encounter a random subset of Americans. That is one reason why your fixation on your life story is a shortcoming.
"You can quote until you turn blue statistics on how much the Buffets and Gates have gotten so much richer and outpaced the middle class as our economy has grown and cry that that means America is overall getting more and more poor"
Once again I have no problem with Buffet and Gates, what I have a problem with is the capital retained by idiots through a tax code that guarantees misallocation of capital. To be fair and competitive we need a fair tax code which allows capital to flow into the hands of young Gateses and Buffets, rather than having it passed from one meritless Walton or Mars to the next.
"My life story..." "the life I've seen in the three different states I've lived in..." What is your obsession with your life story? More important, why do you expect anyone to care? I've never seen anything like it.
"You can continue to swat down visible reality with your Microsoft-expansion stats for yourself if you like. I'll stick with the reality."
Your reality seems confined to your "life story". You will find that if you consider outside sources of information you can achieve a broader understanding. You have the same allergy to facts and knowledge as a certain president who believed he could manufacture his own reality:
"The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' ... 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'"
--As recorded by Ron Suskind
"Your reality seems confined to your "life story"."
Why can't you understand this?
I am repeating what I've seen in part because it is the same many, many readers will have seen around them and in the nation during their life times.
But, you counter this with book quoted statistics - statistics that don't match up to our shared experience - and by insisting that my one life story is so bleeping isolated it means nothing....
How about this: You keep putting out your statistics and I'll keep putting out my thoughts using what I have seen in this nation and we'll let the readers decide?
(so you can drop the condescending bullshit...)
"The middle class has a zero savings rate and at or near record credit card debt and personal bankruptcy."
And this proves the poor are getting more poor - because the rich are getting richer?
It proves people are spending beyond their means. Period.
Then you offer more of your elitist condescending snipes...
"But your premise is that Obama's tax plan to raise income on the top 5% is socialist. In other words, any plan that does not advantage the rich is socialist."
Wrong. Strawman.
I'm saying Obama talks like a socialist. His life-time associations are with people who are openly socialist. I am saying talk about wealth-distribution through taxation on the one hand and giving the money to others on the other is the same as the socialist playbook.
Then you go back to your typical condescending BS.
Your whole "a sampling error" paragraph is a hoot.
I'm sure most readers will be able to see the snot coming out your nose there....
We do get somewhere with "Once again I have no problem with Buffet and Gates, what I have a problem with is the capital retained by idiots through a tax code that guarantees misallocation of capital."
So, yes, you do have a problem with Buffet and Gates.
You believe their earnings are a "misallocation of capital" and you want a system that does not allow them to "retain" that capital.
You want a system that removes the capital from them and gives it to others who have earned it by simply living in the country and not having the same amount of wealth as others, because to you, spreading that wealth around will cause more Gates and Buffets to sprout up, at which point you can take their money and give it to others and a whole fresh crop of Gates and Buffets will grow....
...and we have historical evidence to suggest that the reality out in the real world which you don't want to look at proves ---- it doesn't work that way!!!
The reason I'm citing life experience is that it came from living in the real world, not swallowing the load of bullshit people like you have tried to sell me.
You haven't seen the likes of it? Maybe you should.
You have obviously had your nose buried in too many New York Times columns and in typical, liberal intellectual books to realize there are a whole bunch of people out there living in the real world.
For decades, the liberals controlling education and getting their mostly unread books churned out by the publishing houses --- have been telling us for decades the US economic system was doomed - that the rich were getting richer and the poor were getting poorer - that the inherent contradictions in the fascist capitalist system were soon to bring it crashing down.
And it never happened.
But, this same group constantly preached to us that the socialist utopias were the way to go. Like the Soviet Union. And each time those great socialist utopias turned out not just more despotic than America society - but also much more full of poverty and economic misery, the intellectuals have simply chosen to ignore it.
They liked the version of reality they'd filled their pages with so much, they decided to ignore their previous false predictions, bury them as if they never existed, but maintain the same line about how wealth redistribution was the way to go.
But to you...examples and concrete history are like this: "You have the same allergy to facts and knowledge"
History isn't factual - what you read in a book is, right?
Concrete history doesn't match up to the statistics you want to believe in, so you run around insulting people, belittling their intelligence, calling them ignorant, and saying they need to read.
I'm perfectly fine with the amount of schooling I've had and the amount of reading I do and have done in my lifetime.
And I believe readers will sift through both our points and see what I see --- you don't have much of a leg to stand on. You try to cloud issues with insults and smoke screens.
You can't hide from history, however.
Objective history proves socialism cripples economies and creates worse standards of living for societies as a whole.
But, if you blinded yourself by only looking at the mountain of books written by intellectual types, the same types like you who ridicule and insult (and avoid like the plague) the very same common man they say they want to give a leg up, like perhaps a Joe the Plumber, you would have to conclude the Soviet Union should currently be the richest nation on earth with a sparkling economy and no poverty.
Over these last 30 years, one by one, the nations who tried to follow the lead of those books, the ones you like to take your defining life experience from, have collapsed into the dust heaps of history, but you and some of those intellectuals still refuse to learn from them....
posted by usinkorea at October 21, 2008 07:14 PMusinkorea:
Me: "Your reality seems confined to your
'life story'"
You: "Why can't you understand this?"
Me: I'll give you an admittedly simplistic comparison. Suppose I have always lived in Kansas. I might say to you that there are more wheat farms than there are strip malls. You might point out to me that this simply is not the case. I reply that I don't care about what your statistics or books say, I've seen it myself.
You're using the same argument, except you've lived in not one but three states. Go to any economist of your choosing and give them the "what I've seen" spiel. Academics and professionals who work in the hard sciences all have a higher standard of evidence from what you present.
You: "... Insisting that my one life story is so bleeping isolated it means nothing."
Me: If you are talking about tax policy your situation is one 300 millionth of the picture, as is mine. I said nothing about how isolated an example you are.
Me: "The middle class has a zero savings rate and at or near record credit card debt and personal bankruptcy."
You: "And this proves the poor are getting more poor - because the rich are getting richer? It proves people are spending beyond their means. Period."
Me: I said middle class, not poor, and that's an important distinction. You believe that current tax policy is more desirable than what Obama proposes, yet the rich are thriving and the middle class struggling. The rich have lower tax rates, yet you assert nevertheless that middle class profligacy is at fault. Presumably this is what you have seen during the course of your life so it must be true, unlike what egghead economists would have us believe.
You: "I'm saying Obama talks like a socialist."
Me: That's weaker even than your "what I've personally seen" argument.
You: "I am saying talk about wealth-distribution through taxation on the one hand and giving the money to others on the other is the same as the socialist playbook."
Tax rates are lower on the wealthy, this is clear-cut wealth redistribution. Obama wants to raise taxes specifically on the wealthy, so really it makes more sense to say he's halting wealth redistribution that is underway.
You: "Then you go back to your typical condescending BS... I'm sure most readers will be able to see the snot coming out your nose there...."
Me: Yet you call me condescending.
You: "We do get somewhere with 'Once again I have no problem with Buffet and Gates, what I have a problem with is the capital retained by idiots through a tax code that guarantees misallocation of capital.' So, yes, you do have a problem with Buffet and Gates."
Me: Not at all, you misunderstand me. My problem with the tax code is twofold. First, it allows the progeny of the wealthy to be always rich no matter what their merit. Second, I believe the rich should pay at least as high a tax rate as the middle class.
I'm ignoring the part where you rant about liberals.
You: "History isn't factual - what you read in a book is, right?"
Me: How many times are you going to tell me that what you personally have observed is true whereas everything else is suspect? I don't know any field of endeavor where this would impress. Just the opposite actually.
You: "I'm perfectly fine with the amount of schooling I've had and the amount of reading I do and have done in my lifetime."
Me: You shouldn't be.
posted by Luther Tines at October 21, 2008 10:59 PMYou have done nothing but try to blow smoke in this discussion by attacking and mangling my use of my personal history.
You have very telling refused altogether to address the larger historical facts I've pointed to a number of times --- the fact that in nation after nation, the more socialism has been practiced, the more economic misery it has created.
Here, you finally pause a nanosecond to speak on that by labeling it a rant against liberals. Yes, it was a rant, but your refusal to face the facts of history is what liberals like you have done for decades.
You can insult me all you want. I don't care.
I feel just fine and confident leaving future readers to judge based on what has been written and what they will have witnessed in their own lives (both in books and out in the real world).
But, this discussion has become too unless to continue. Readers can get everything from what has been written already (and what has been left unsaid).
My last input, since I've been encouraged to read at least something, I'd recommend one of the books I'm currently reading --- it is one I recommended over at Ace's blog on a different topic a couple of days ago:
Breaking Ranks - by Norman Podhoretz.
The first section, a letter to his son written in 1979, is the best short review of radicalism from the 1930s to 1950s you could hope to find.
The rest of the book is the personal memoir of a man who was part of the inner circles of the intellectual community based in New York from the 1950s thru the writing in 1979. He goes into a lot of details about the shifting thoughts and people involved primarily in the intellectual community composed of liberals and radicals and others on the left.
I think the book is a good read for anyone wanting a good refresher on the ideological and pseudo-ideological history in the intellectual community of the last 60+ years in American society.
This is the backdrop in which Obama has emerged.
Given all his clear radical associations and the affinity he shared with many for radical thought in his reading as a teen and in college, this book is well worth reading....
posted by usinkorea at October 22, 2008 04:05 AM"You have done nothing but try to blow smoke in this discussion by attacking and mangling my use of my personal history."
I have offered far more specifics than you. You haven't even tried to rebut these, other than by saying facts which don't happen to support what you've personally encountered are wrong. I can't honestly describe that position without sounding really, really condescending so I'll again refrain.
"You have very telling refused altogether to address the larger historical facts I've pointed to a number of times --- the fact that in nation after nation, the more socialism has been practiced, the more economic misery it has created."
I deny that Obama and most of his supporters are socialists in the first place. I've asserted a couple of times at least that the rich pay lower tax rates, so raising their tax rates is nowhere near socialist. You haven't denied this.
Your other argument that Obama is a socialist is "he talks like a socialist." I can play that game. McCain talks like a one-legged artichoke picker. How about them apples? You might try and deny this with facts, but I've lived in three states and I've seen many things along the way. Is it not aggravating and unfair to be put in the position I just put you in?
There's nothing to sink my teeth into in the rest of your post. If you like I can tell you about a book by a leading liberal about McCain.
posted by Luther Tines at October 22, 2008 03:12 PM« Hide Comments
ACORN, Ayers, and Obama
The revealing video Barack Obama doesn't want you to see.
Update: Trying to hide the evidence of the Obama-Ayers connection.
Show Comments »
Neither Relaxed Nor Worried
In the last few days we've seen the polls, heard Pelosi's promise, and Powell's endorsement.
We've watched the American media drop the illusion of impartiality to nakedly campaign for Barack Obama, and we've seen them attempt to destroy a blue collar guy for merely asking a question.
We've watched Hollywood's pop culture erupt in fevered celebration of Obama's radical far Left orthodoxy (though most aren't bright enough to understand it), even as they lash out with unbridled anger against Sarah Palin's congenial conservatism. We've watched the creepy enthusiasm of indoctrinated youth surround and uplift him with near religious support.
And yet—somehow—we're not worried.
America is a wonderful country and a tolerant country, but their are certain minimum standards that even in the worst of times that we aren't willing to accept.
We will never elect a candidate who was friends with a racist like David Duke, or who belonged to a White Power cult. Likewise, we aren't going to elect President a man who spent more than 20 years in a racist cult that believes God must either be "black" or killed as Barack Obama has attended under the twisted tutelage of Jeremiah "Goddamn America!" Wright.
We will never elect a candidate who was friends with a Timothy McVeigh, a Mohamed Atta, or Ted Kaczynski. Likewise, we will never elect a candidate who started his political life campaigning in the home of two known terrorists (Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers) made infamous by their murderous war against our nation. Nor will we accept that he did indeed "pal around" with these terrorists and other communist/socialist radicals for at least 21 years, funneling them grant money and sharing office space with them, and having them babysit his children as they seek to undermine our way of life and indoctrinate our kids.
Barack Obama is the perfect Left Wing radical candidate, and they are certainly enthusiastic about ushering in his brand of socialism. I rather doubt, however, that the rest of our country is willing to give up on America just yet.
John McCain will not be a great President, but he will be our next President.
We're tolerant of a lot of things, but terrorist-befriending, cult-attending racism, and naked socialism isn't on the list.
Show Comments »
We're tolerant of a lot of things, but terrorist-befriending, cult-attending racism, and naked socialism isn't on the list.
You hope.
So do I, for that matter, but I don't actually believe it. In twenty-plus years of watching politics, I've rarely seen reason to believe the best of the electorate. OTOH, I've often seen reason to believe the worst. Remember, Congress already contains examples of racists, terrorist sympathizers, and socialists ... not to mention actual traitors as defined by the Constitution. Giving aid and comfort to the enemy, observed by not just two witnesses but thousands.
posted by wolfwalker at October 20, 2008 09:26 AMI hope to God you're right, Bob. I really do.
posted by the pistolero at October 20, 2008 09:40 AMFrom your fingertips to God's ears.
posted by OCBill at October 20, 2008 09:43 AMI wish I shared your optimism, I really do. The media, ACORN, Ohio vote ruling, McCain's lame suspend campaign stunt, global economic slowdown, govt bailout-a-palooza, are just some of the reasons I am not smiling this morning. Obama's tax plan is a sure-fire recipe for 10+% unemployment. It will ALL be blamed on Bush, more govt dependence than ever, more Democrats will be created. Ugh, I am in a bad mood.
posted by GlassHalfEmpty at October 20, 2008 10:01 AMI hope you are right. But I fear you are wrong.
posted by Eric at October 20, 2008 10:21 AMI'll stop back and hear your confident victory speech on November 4th...
posted by Texan at October 20, 2008 10:57 AMI wish I had your optimism. But I really think we're screwed and Obama will win.
The economy will get worse (and be blamed on Bush), Obama will wimp out on Afghanistan (which will be blamed on Bush), and Iran will blow Israel off the map (which somehow, will be Bush's fault) and all I can hope for is a Republican Congress in two years.
That said, I would never be more happy to be wrong than on this subject.
posted by Silvera at October 20, 2008 11:02 AMFWIW William Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn did not "murder" anyone. You might make a stronger case for John McCain if you worked with fact rather than fiction.
posted by Matisse Picard at October 20, 2008 12:49 PMYes, they did.
Bernadine Dohrn placed the bomb that killed San Francisco Police Officer Brian V. MacDonnell. The bomb went off Feb 16, 1970; MacDonnell died suffering from his injuries two days later. Another officer was permanently injured in the blast. Bill Ayers himself was the source of the information, providing the information unknowingly to FBI informant Larry Grathwohl.
Grathwohl later saved an unknown number of police lives in Detroit when he foiled two bombs comprised of 44 sticks of dynamite that Ayers wanted detonated when the station was busiest.
Ayers and Dohrn can only be directly be named in one murder, but were behind attempts to kill hundreds more, and their incompetence is not a valid defense.
posted by Confederate Yankee at October 20, 2008 01:07 PMI guess using Matisse Picard's 'logic', Osama Bin Laden didn't murder anyone, either. I mean, he wasn't on one of the planes or anything.
posted by Tim at October 20, 2008 01:54 PMIf we all vote and stay on others to do what is right, I think John McCain can pull this out. Afterall - even the democrats have said that Obama would have to be leading by 13% going into election day! God save us all........please! I truly think that some folks are giving false readings. Let's all pray for the Bradley affect.
posted by Karen at October 20, 2008 02:13 PMEasy money for you believers.
You can get 6 to 1 odds on McCain at intrade.
My 2 cents. You've lost your mind.
posted by jharp at October 20, 2008 02:20 PMHow many people in your neighborhood are experienced, practiced, and proven IED manufacturers? Remember, BO is comfortable with the Ayers as neighbors of his.
I wouldn't be.
posted by torabora at October 20, 2008 02:36 PMSocialism maybe but NAKED socialism nyet? I think that is about right. I've been surprised at the voracious response to Barry's brief flirtation with the truth. I mean, who could believe that "spread the wealth" is NOT the fundament of Barry's philosophy given what we know? But even plenty hard Democrats are shocked to hear Marxism spouted by there own candidate. It is a tribute, I guess, to the obfuscation campaign the Dems have waged these many decades to hide the "from each" clause in their every policy. Well, I hope, and frankly do believe, that the Yank is correct. Those with memories of the last few election cycles know that the Reps always outperform their polling. Kerry was up 13% in the exist polls, remember? Another instance of liberal media bias actually blowing up in their precious little faces. But if Barry is crowned the socialism will be naked indeed and that is a Good Thing. It is saddening to learn in mid-life that the most obvious lessons of politics must be relearned by each generation and there AIN'T no easy way. Experience is the schoolmaster of the electorate and it will learn from no other. And while socialism is the worst blight known to man, bringing deprivation, malaise, murder and all specie of depravity, there is one thing you may never fear from socialism. That is success. Socialism NEVER outruns liberty much less delivers on its mad promises. Barry's promises have been more mad than Mussolini's. He declares that he will usher in an end to human conflict; an end to acrimony in politics at home and abroad. Barry will heal the sick and lame while farting out The Internationale. Barry is the shmoo; all things to everyone. Does the electorate at large really see that? I think so but, like CY, it is more an act of faith than rationality. We shall see shortly.
posted by megapotamus at October 20, 2008 03:41 PMIt's very easy to get confused with all of the Big Medias constant drum beat electioneering of Obama.
Using faulty poll weighting generated from fraudulent registrations then topping it off with trick poll framing and questioning of Republicans and Undecided "likely" voters.
Journalistic Malpractice when collusion and collaberration with one party's campaign is so blatantly obvious should be a felony.
Do NOT be confused by this fraud. Obama should be up by 20 points right now with all of this deception and manipulation.
Allegedly he's currently up by 5-7 points and I believe that to be well engineered "puffing"!
posted by Scott D at October 20, 2008 04:15 PMI pray everyday that you are right about this. I wish I was as certain.
posted by AmericanElephant at October 20, 2008 04:58 PMPicard, among the bombs Ayers regrets not planting were the ones destined for the Ft. Dix NCO club dance, that would have killed dozens, if not hundreds of American soldiers and their dates. Or do they not count, being soldiers and thus, "asking for it?"
Those guys Ayers and Dorhn targeted were my brothers in arms, and I take it very personally. So screw you and your mushy "well, they didn't actually..." crap. Conspiracy to commit multiple murders. Not to mention the actual, you know, murders they did commit. It's ossible tha Ayers planted the SF bomb. For all his pride in his bombs, he's been somewhat reticent regarding the ones with a death toll. At best, he "only" did planning and logistics.
posted by Steve Skubinna at October 20, 2008 05:07 PMScott, here's a blast from the past: a news story from 17 Oct 2004.
And a Washington Post poll shows Kerry with a significant lead in important states that could decide the outcome of the election. The poll found Kerry held a 53 per cent to 43 per cent lead among likely voters in 13 such states.
We remember how well President Kerry handled the Wall Street meltdown of 2008, right?
posted by C-C-G at October 20, 2008 06:49 PMI want to begin by saying that I am undecided as to how I will vote on Nov. 4. I may vote for McCain. I may vote for Baldwin. I may vote for Barr.
In any event, my guess is that this is our last free election. If you think we have voting fraud now, just wait four years.
We are destined to be ruled by the leftists who run the media and the universities.
I could say more, but why bother?
posted by Don, the Rebel without a Blog at October 20, 2008 10:38 PMI don't share your optimistic view.
I think McCain will win, but I worry greatly about voter fraud, particularly in Ohio.
The socialists/marxists/anarchists will keep on pushing and cheating until they win. If not this time, the perhaps after President McCain gives them 10 million new illegals to vote for them.
Once in power, they will take away fair elections requiring us ultimately to use arms to get them back.
I wish it weren't that way because it is my kids who will do the fighting.
What would give me hope is if McCain did one term, or a partial term, and then Palin came in and fought back hard.
« Hide Comments
October 18, 2008
Obama's Stolen Tax Cuts
Barack Obama keeps telling us that he's going to cut taxes for 95-percent of Americans... but did you ever notice he never says where that cut is going to come from, and the media never asks?
One thing: the 95% number is fundamentally dishonest because I'm pretty sure it measures against the CBO baseline – which assumes all of the '01 and '03 tax cuts expire in 2010. Politically, that's nonsense. But it allows Obama to count extending the politically popular Bush tax laws as an "Obama tax cut." Compared to what people actually pay (what Republicans at the House Ways and Means Committee call the "reality baseline"), there isn't actually a tax cut. Put it this way: currently families get a $1,000 per child tax credit. Now, the CBO baseline assumes that credit drops to $500 per child in 2011. So if the Obama Administration keeps the credit at $1,000 – which means the family pays the same as they always have – it counts as a "tax cut." I know you understand all this, but it drives me batty how intellectually dishonest the mainstream media has been in covering the tax issue in this election.
Did you get all that?
Senator Government is trying to steal credit for the Bush tax cuts that he voted against in the Senate.
It turn out we do have a candidate running his campaign based on George W. Bush's legacy.
Barack Obama just doesn't have the integrity to admit it.
Show Comments »
The O spinners claim that SocSec tax is "income" tax, and claim that his credits are (in essence) deleting the SS tax paid on the first $8100.00 of income.
posted by dad29 at October 18, 2008 08:54 AMI suppose it wouldn't do for Obama to extend "Bush's tax cuts for the rich". Would some truly rich person even notice they received a $500 break?
posted by RicardoVerde at October 18, 2008 10:38 AMIf you become truly rich on your own money (as opposed to freebies, bailouts, other gimmees from government, you worry about 5 cents, five dollars and five hundred dollars.
posted by Larry Sheldon at October 18, 2008 10:47 AMThe Big-Money Media, as John McCain said, is really an "independent, civic-minded, and non-partisan group.....like ACORN." The BMM is not only intellectually dishonest, they are fundamentally dishonest. They believe. That is their fundamental flaw. Dispassionate observers cannot allow themselves to hold a belief system with which all external observations must be rectified. It is the very definition of prejudice. Seeing The Media stripped naked in public in broad daylight, as their financial fortunes plummet like respect for them, has been the delight of the presidential campaign.
posted by twolaneflash at October 18, 2008 01:14 PMObama says he wants to cut taxes for 95% of Americans. About 33% of filers pay no taxes now and file for benefits like the earned income credit. Obama proposes to cut their taxes. In other words, it's not a tax proposal but a gigantic new welfare scheme.
posted by Ken Hahn at October 18, 2008 03:46 PMEven better for BO; he simply lets W's tax breaks expire, then 'cuts' taxes to half of what W cut them.
He gets a raise that he can technically call a cut.
posted by Lord Nazh at October 19, 2008 04:54 PMKen Hahn said: "Obama says he wants to cut taxes for 95% of Americans. About 33% of filers pay no taxes now and file for benefits like the earned income credit. Obama proposes to cut their taxes. In other words, it's not a tax proposal but a gigantic new welfare scheme."
Exactly my thoughts! Obama truly is going to spread the wealth by taking money from productive citizens and giving it to those whom George Bernard Shaw referred to as "the undeserving poor."
You might be interested in reading this post: http://grandrants.wordpress.com/2008/10/14/share-the-wealth-our-wealth-not-his/
check it out and spread the word
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVS3F-4TB9c
posted by titor at October 20, 2008 08:28 AM« Hide Comments
October 17, 2008
The Racism They Teach
She's only 12 years old but Ashleigh Jones is feeling the heat of this election year.That’s because the seventh grader at New Smyrna Beach Middle School was called a racist by classmates for wearing a pro-Sarah Palin t-shirt.
The thought of it getting continually worse for the next 4-8 years ought to motivate everyone who still believes in free speech to get to the polls and make sure Senator Government and his Truth Squads are relegated to being an Illinois Nazi problem, and not a national one.
The polls are tightening, and Barack Obama has still never won a contested election. Let's keep it that way, shall we?
Show Comments »
For whiteys who over the years have seen bigotry paraded and celebrated through the black community and meekly assented to being denounced as racist by, um, proud and vitriolic racists like Farrakan, Jackson, Sharpton and Wright for the temerity of being born white this had better be a wake-up call for it is the last one you shall receive that doesn't have a boot behind it.
posted by megapotamus at October 17, 2008 09:35 AMThis has been happing for years. Children are indoctrined into pro liberal agenda in schools. I'm a young guy I remember being taught about global warming in elementry school. We got to evolution in Middle School and in High school they poured on so much white guilt I almost drowned. They make Abe Lincoln God. They treat the "white men" as savages compared to the calm peaceful indians that we massacred. Every student reads at least one book about the holocaust every year like it happened here in America and not across the Atlantic.We celebrated black and latino history month even though the school was 97% white. Every book in the library talks about some negro who lived in the pre-civil rights era south, and all the hardships they faced. We had various clubs but two clubs sounded liberal think-tanks. Amnesty International which supported giving all illegal immigrants amnesty. The other group was the gay-straight alliance. I think you already know that this group supported everything that wasn't straight.
posted by Red, White, and Blue Patriot at October 17, 2008 10:32 AMIllinois Nazis? I hate Illinois Nazis.
posted by Jake Blues at October 17, 2008 11:42 AMACORN is there to insure he doesn't have to contest this one either...
posted by DirtCrashr at October 17, 2008 12:08 PMI'm from the Detroit area and have been subjected to racism for years. It's ugly, it's pevasive, and it's all around. Blacks are the worst racists in the country, and have been for such a long time that, in the north, when they snap their fingers, they expect all the whiteys in the area to be "in the air" before asking "How high?" There's only a few of us that have the guts to tell them to "f*** off". Try to buy a "Dixie Tag" for your car anywhere in the north. Intimidation and terror are attempted by blacks often in the north for their advantage. Race card playing is common and actually pretty mild. That sure doesn't play here in the south.
posted by Tonto (USA) at October 17, 2008 12:10 PMIt dosen't make a difference if he was "Joe the Plumber", "Joe the Baker" or "Joe the candlestick maker." the premise of his question was spot on. What BO and company want is to live off the backs of others. Now SCOTUS just help the left win Ohio!
posted by Faithful Patriot at October 17, 2008 01:36 PMI couldn't agree more with Megapotamus - this is a wake up call we'd better heed and realize that our safety is in numbers. Also, let's stop prefacing everything with "...I don't want to sound rascist, but..." It plays right into their hands and instantly loses the argument.
posted by alby at October 17, 2008 07:16 PMLet's not paint this as white-vs-black racism: Farrakhan, Sharpton and company also hate Chinese, Japanese, Indians, Jews...basically anyone who isn't black. It isn't called afro-fascism for nothing.
posted by pst314 at October 17, 2008 07:29 PMMy RPG-playing, science-fiction-watching teenaged son makes a good point: it isn't racism, it's colorism. We're all part of the same human race.
posted by Trish at October 17, 2008 09:28 PMFalse accusations of racism have been used effectively to protect any number of scumbags: Kwame Kirkpatrick, OJ, Alcee Hastings, Marion Berry, and now Obama.
Time for it to end.
posted by iconoclast at October 18, 2008 12:29 AMAs much as I agree that it was completely wrong for those kids to do that, it's because they indoctrinate their kids into politics that this happens. I wouldn't put a political shirt on my child, until they express interest in politics of their own accord. I usually criticize those who send their kids to school with an Obama shirt or button (to myself or my wife, not overtly), so I'd be a hypocrite to send my kid with a McCain/Palin shirt. Lets do our best to let our kids just be kids, even if they won't.
posted by douglas at October 18, 2008 03:15 AMObama's supporters and the media (but I repeat myself), in their zeal to smear Joe Wurzelbacher, have no idea of the damage they are doing to Obama's campaign. I'd be surprised if the Obama campaign's own internal polling hasn't alerted them to how the attack on Joe offends Americans. Most Americans, I'd say, not just aspiring entrepreneurs like Joe, because while not all of us share the dream of owning our own business, all of us treasure the right to ask a politician whatever we damn well please without recrimination. I expect the Obama campaign, at least officially, to start walking back from attacking Joe though right now it hasn't happened. It depends if Axelrod & company want to win this election or stick to the Alinsky playbook.
Even though the outrage on the right over the treatment of Joe was something I sensed immediately, I had no idea of how deeply the attack on Joe affected people until I found myself doing something I purposely avoid: messing with somebody's job over something political. I've been online since before the web and one of the fundamental early rules of netiquette was that however the debate raged and flamed, messing with someone's job for something said online was out of the pale. It's the kind of intimidation that is symptomatic of the left and I don't like to do it myself. Also, back when I had a day job at DuPont paint lab, I was once leaving for lunch and someone from one of our customers was getting out of her minivan and I noticed her anti animal experiment PETA bumper sticker. I suppose it was a mistake asking her if she'd let one of her kids die rather than use a drug developed with animal experiments because when I got back from lunch I got called on the carpet, finding out that she tried to get me fired. So I have a personal distaste for messing with someone's job over political matters.
That's probably one reason why Joe resonates so well with me and maybe it's ironically why I broke one of my own rules. I was at a bank cashing a customer's check. I'm a voluble kind of guy and this particular bank specializes in servicing small businesses. I mentioned to my teller something about Joe the Plumber and how dangerous he is to the Obama campaign. That even many Obama supporters aren't comfortable with the idea of going after someone just because they asked a politician a question who gave a self-damaging answer. I then said that in any case, we'll have a new president next January and that their won't be troops in the streets keeping order, referring to our centuries old behavior of peaceful transitions of power. The bank wasn't busy, so the other teller, a black woman, who wasn't immediately attending to a customer, sort of challenged what I said about troops in the street, using the affect that only disgruntled black women can, a different ethnic style, perhaps, than the way my Jewish mother and her peers express their own disgruntlement, but there was an expression of disgruntlement, nonetheless. So I told her that the only people threatening riots are Obama supporters. At that point, she tried to cut me off and said she didn't want to talk about it. By then my ire was raised so I told her that she was the one who intruded and now that someone said something about Obama, the Messiah, she didn't want to hear it. My own teller was looking like she'd rather be someplace else and quickly handed me my cash with the smallest number of bills possible and I started to leave.
As I walked toward the door, I noticed that one of the managers was at his desk as I passed and that's when the rage took over me. I poked my hood in his door, said that I never like to mess with someone's job. Well, actually I said that I never like to fuck with someone's job but that now I'm fucking with someone's job and that the teller was rude to me over something political. I told him that if they were going to fuck with Joe the Plumber, screw it, I'll fuck with their jobs too, and stormed out with his mouth wide open.
Screw it. Sign me up with the guy who said he's going to use the left's own tactics during the next 4 years if Obama wins. The left cannot suppress it's own authoritarianism, so screw 'em.
Obama is a smart man and was right when he just said that the Dems can blow this race and shouldn't be overconfident. I think he's right. The Democratic base sees the video of McCain with that not very bright lady awkwardly calling Obama an Arab and they come away thinking what racists and bigots Republicans are. I think most Americans saw McCain's basic decency in how quickly he snatched the microphone away and said, no ma'am and defended Obama. I know that when McCain isn't always going for the jugular upsets the right wing, but I think McCain's strategy about setting clear lines and rebuking his supporters for excess zeal resonates with most Americans. I think the fact that McCain is riding with Joe the Plumber works well that strategy because in addition to keeping Joe's beautiful summation of Obama's tax plan and Obama's clumsy self-revealing response before the public, the treatment of Joe by the left and the media along with Obama's complicity (he and Biden have taken their shots at Joe) is a mirror image of McCain's decent campaigning behavior.
Obama's remark about sharing the wealth was clumsy and revealing, a self wound, but not fatal if handled properly. Obama may find that his attack dogs are gnawing on his own ankles.
When I was about ten years old, I realized that the purpose of "public" schooling was not to educate children, but to domesticate them.
Nothing has happened in the intervening forty-four years to change my mind.
When will someone stop those horrible 12 year olds in Florida? They're stealing our election and tied to Illinois Nazis.
« Hide Comments
Typhoid Barry
Hide your children, shutter your windows, and lock your doors, America.
Hope and change could be coming to a bitter and clingy neighborhood near you.
At any moment, Barack Obama could suddenly show up in your yard and put you on the spot where you feel compelled to ask him a question. If—God forbid—he offers up an answer that reveals a disturbing aspect of his political agenda, your life is over.
We've now seen this take place in the life of Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, known to the world as "Joe the Plumber." Joe has become a cautionary tale of what happens when you allow Barack Obama to reveal himself.
Joe was playing football at home with his son when Barack Obama suddenly appeared, and then ruined Joe's life by answering a simple question about taxes with an answer about how those who chase the American Dream should be required to "spread the wealth around."
Oh no, Joe!
Now obsessed leftwing bloggers and designated media hitmen have combed through Joe's public records and private details, and have done their best to air his dirty laundry and smear his name, and all because he asked an honest question that they didn't like the answer to.
Let the story of Joe the Plumber be a warning to the rest of you, America.
Don't cross Typhoid Barry.
Show Comments »
And this will be the MO of the Barack Administration when dealing with those who don't agree with his agenda. Wait and see, people. These tactics are about to become official US Government Policy.
posted by Jayne Cobb at October 17, 2008 08:13 AMGod help us all.
"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist."
- Sir Winston Churchill
"Every member of the society spies on the rest, and it is his duty to inform against them. All are slaves and equal in their slavery... The great thing about it is equality... Slaves are bound to be equal."
- Fyodor Dostoyevsky
"I know no class of my fellowmen, however just, enlightened, and humane, which can be wisely and safely trusted absolutely with the liberties of any other class."
- Frederick Douglass
"The mission of the Gestapo expanded steadily as, from 1933 onward, “political criminality” was given a much broader definition than ever before and most forms of dissent and criticism were gradually criminalized. The result was that more “laws” or lawlike measures were put on the books than ever."
- Shelia Fitzpatrick
“We enter parliament in order to supply ourselves, in the arsenal of democracy, with its own weapons. If democracy is so stupid as to give us free tickets and salaries for this bear's work, that is its affair. We do not come as friends, nor even as neutrals. We come as enemies. As the wolf bursts into the flock, so we come.”
- Paul Joseph Goebbels
"That which the Fascists hate above all else, is intelligence."
- Miguel de Unamuno
"Our movement took a grip on cowardly Marxism and from it extracted the meaning of Socialism. It also took from the cowardly middle-class parties their nationalism. Throwing both into the cauldron of our way of life there emerged, as clear as a crystal, the synthesis - German National Socialism."
- Hermann Goering
"Fascism is not defined by the number of its victims, but by the way it kills them."
- Jean-Paul Sartre
"If we don't continually evaluate and re-evaluate ourselves, we fall into patterns and believe that what we're doing is right. You fall into movements where no one questions the company line. That's how Fascism began. We have to constantly look at the ways we deal with each other."
- Neil LaBute
"Economically, as Globalization is pushed down our throats, people are fractured into tribal communal groups. The world is getting more and more fractured. Nationalism, nuclearism, communalism, fascism, these things are springing up."
- Arundhati Roy
"The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men."
- Samuel Adams
"From a “pragmatic” point of view, political philosophy is a monster, and whenever it has been taken seriously, the consequence, almost invariably, has been revolution, war, and eventually, the police state."
- Henry David Aiken
"Any power must be an enemy of mankind which enslaves the individual by power and by force, whether it arises under the Fascist or the Communist flag. All that is valuable in human society depends upon the opportunity for development accorded to the individual."
- Albert Einstein
"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would fully suffice."
- Albert Einstein
Barry is going down
posted by Neo at October 17, 2008 09:45 AMBarry actually came to Joe? I was under the impression that this was a rope-line and therefore initiated by Joe, this fits much better with the notion that the guy is a plant. Did you know his real name is Sam? Why the subterfuge? one might ask. Much is revealed by a middle name, dontcha know. Joe is obviously a Rove-esque henchman; Sam Wurzelfuehrer (note the militaristic haircut) is a neoconazi agent-provocateur assigned the most difficult mission of all; get ONE straight answer out of The One. And we all got it. Like staring into the Ark of the Covenant, grokking fully Hussein's brief, straightforward answer produces a quake through reality that melts the flesh and implodes the landscape. Our Joe was closest to it but a funny thing happened. Joe met up with the sharpest and bloodiest teeth in this media kennel and they proved to be nothing but gum. It is not, apparently, so tough to stand up to the moronic myrmidons as our betters would have us believe. They played gotcha and got gotted like a cat falling into an aquarium. The jig is up. If this nation is going to vote in Marxism, not to mention racism and fascism, they will not do it blindly. Thanks Joe. It may be too late but thanks. See you at the barricades.
posted by megapotamus at October 17, 2008 09:48 AMGreat post mega.
I'll see you at the barricades if I can stay out of "sensitivity Training" long enough...
Save our Country!
NObama '08
posted by Alan at October 17, 2008 10:04 AM"And this will be the MO of the Barack Administration when dealing with those who don't agree with his agenda. Wait and see, people."
No doubt about it. I'm not sure Obama himself is behind it, but we saw much the same sort of behavior from the Clinton administration when it was in power. Critics are treated like hostile witnesses at a trial, cross-examined and discredited in the court of public opinion.
I don't have to wait and see. I've already seen it.
posted by Yashmak at October 17, 2008 10:11 AMMegapotamus-
Good answer.
posted by Endangered in Mass at October 17, 2008 10:12 AMThe Bradley Effect should now be called the Joe The Plumber effect.
posted by BohicaTwentyTwo at October 17, 2008 10:25 AMThese acts by bloggers and their media brethren against Joe the Plumber are remiscent of what ar eknown as "acts of repudiation" in Cuba. Whenever someone has the gall to voice an opinion, government paid mobs attack that person physically and verbally.
posted by Val Prieto at October 17, 2008 10:31 AMObama is Richard Nixon reincarnated
posted by jeff at October 17, 2008 10:45 AMI'm still shocked Joe wasn't skirted away for re-education. Doesn't he like kool-aid?
posted by Hawkins at October 17, 2008 11:12 AMI agree with the person who said that an Obama MO will be to silence or intimidate critics. It's already happening and he hasn't even been sworn in yet. I am a columnist for a local paper, rarely write political articles, but felt compelled to write a critique of media not asking Obama tough questions. You wouldn't believe the backlash of letters trying to shame me for "demonizing" Obama. That's a preview of things to come. Think Fairness Doctrine and Hate Crime! This election is serious!
Mike
This is how Chavez and his gang in Venezuela treat those who oppose him. Coincidence?
posted by yorugua at October 17, 2008 11:38 AMRemember when the guy was attending White House press briefings on a visitor pass vs press credentials? The whole media world jumped on him because he wasn't using his own name, and somebody on a blog pointed out that Maureen Dowd and Larry King (among others) were made-up names. Wouldn't it be sweet if one of those mediaholes snarked on "Sam the Plumber." And I remember a quotation by somebody famous years ago that went something like this, "A society that gives more respect to a bad philosopher than to a good plumber will find itself with philosophy and plumbing that won't hold water."
posted by Billmax at October 17, 2008 11:54 AMIf Obama is elected, how long 'til Joe the Plumber gets audited by the IRS? Forget his outstanding back taxes, what if the IRS decides he owes another hundred thousand? He'll be wrecked, and so will his business plans, and then the people he was going to employ will have to look somewhere else.
I predict a JtP audit is part of the 'first 100 days' of Obama's presidential business.
Clinton used that weapon regularly in the 1990s against political enemies.
posted by Dave at October 17, 2008 11:57 AMAt least Nixon hired his own plumbers...
Folks here might like this. Ordinarily I wouldn't cutnpaste but at least I wrote it myself on myspace.
Alright "Joe", if that IS your name....
Friends, we are under assault. I have already celebrated our emancipation from the dreary fatigues of the "election" by virtue of geography but a New Threat has emerged. I am speaking as you Good People already know of the elevation of one Samuel Joeseph Stalin Hermann Goering Wurzelfuhrer of Aushwitz OH to prominence from his deserved previous state of oblivion. This character calls himself, mendaciously and insidiously; Joe the Plumber.
Now, this is not the first time our Dear Leader, The One, the Big O (if only) has been burdened with a bald, white, racist, fascist, splitist honky stevedore's malignant stupidity but we must make it the last. Must I reprise this abomination's heresy? This stooge actually left his domicile, the hut not the yard, and frolicked unhidden with his Christer spawn in FULL VIEW OF BARACK OBAMA! There is little question that this was a malicious act NOT an innocent mistake. Of course our Beloved Father, Barack the Wise Gracious and Mighty indulged his singular weakness; an excess of love, and (I could almost call this a "mistake" if that were possible) ministered to this troglodyte, actually entertaining, get this.... A QUESTION from the brute! Whoa, not since Dr Zeus let Taylor spin his fanciful yarns unlobotomized has there been such an exchange! And like Taylor, (played so ably by Charlton Heston) this Samuel Wurlitzerbreaker vented his rotten spleen of all the noxious hatred he had been storing up against his betters for 34 resentful years. The exact verbiage of The Impertinence is well lost to history but the teaching, healing response of Senator Goodstuf is another gem we must preserve and perhaps have tattoed on our privates; "When you spread the wealth around that's good for everybody."
Yeah.
Everybody as in... EVERYBODY!?!?! Man, cool. He says it. I believe it. That settles it. The great tragedy is that this wisp of genius was never known to man before. Why didn't someone think of that before and build a global movement on that principle? Seems like we could try it out in a few countries if that is necessary to convince the cynical, and, like, see the results and see if we like' em and want to reproduce them. Why didn't we do it a hundred years ago? It seems so simple now that we are shown the way. Like fire, TP and the internets, we owe it to... Democrats I guess but Barack especially.
Yes, we owe He Who Shites Peppermints a proper tribute for dispensing this greatest nugget and have a rare opportunity to show our love and devotion. I am sure it was all our Precious Mentor, the Great Crossing Guard, the Lamb of Hyde Park could do to refrain from turning the beast Weaselsniffer to a pillar of salt on the spot. But refrain he did. And rightly so. It is not for the hands of Bachman Hussein Overdrive to be muddied calling down lightning on the benighted. That is our job. I had in mind some sort of zombie-mob action since we know his address (thanks, Kos!) but that might, ya know, not look GREAT on the YouTubes. (And it ALWAYS gets on the YouTubes) What with the brain eating. Seems like the current program of thorough investigation and instant national exposure of all his public records, associations, professional actions, health records, school records, friends, relatives, enemies, neighbors, colleagues, store clerks, jokes, pokes and smokes should be a gentle enough prod for him and his rude ilk to take the lesson of shutyeruglyholevenwhenaskednomakethatespeciallywhenasked. Sterner measures can be taken once the election is over, necessary or not. Besides, it wouldn't look right to be TOO tough on this creep. It's not like he's running for President or anything.
posted by megapotamus at October 17, 2008 12:20 PMobama is a fraud...the majority of citizens in this country will not vote for a marxist....The polls are fake, pay no attention to them.
posted by Antonio at October 17, 2008 12:30 PMWatch and listen to the video again: "...I think that when you spread the wealth around its good for everybody". THAT is socialism pure and simple! That means that for everyone who wants to lay around, do nothing they should get a subsidy, hand out or dole from those who are working 24/7 at a job or successful business.
posted by Me ida Lies at October 17, 2008 01:23 PMWow. Joe the Plumber is on record saying he was sick of candidates not being asked the tough questions, so he made sure when his chance came he asked a tough one.
And you're blaming Obama for ANSWERING it?
You people are seriously off the deep end.
You want to criticize the media circus surrounding Joe, ask the McCain campaign why they didn't properly vet him before throwing his name out on national TV. Did they even check with him first?
And the best part is, Joe's actual income level gets a BIGGER TAX CUT from Obama than from McCain. Even Joe admits that he'll get a tax cut from Obama.
It is to laugh.
posted by Caro Hussein Cogitatus at October 17, 2008 01:24 PMJoe is proof that there no longer is a Silent Majority. We are now the Silenced Majority! NOT!
posted by Max at October 17, 2008 01:47 PMAfter Obama went to Europe and the media sent its biggest cheerleaders to cheer him, I wondered what it would take for the media to get my jaw to drop that hard again. I mean, how many times can they utterly stun you with such acts that are becoming merely routine???....
These immediate attacks on Joe the Plummer are jaw dropping.
What is amazing is that the media has come to this without government interference. The government is not legislating this bias -- the people who staff the big media are doing this gleefully.
And I'll cut through some of the cute hyperbole by giving some examples that aren't cute or too hyperbolic:
The media will champion implementation of The Fairness Doctrine. Any radio station and right wing talk show hosts who resists will be savaged and any police brought in to shut things down will be praised.
Keith Olbermann will continue to be a rabid, nutty attack dog and the Fairness Doctrine will be extended against Fox News.
Hate Crimes Law will be extended to include Hate Speech Law (as I believe has happened in a few European nations and maybe in parts of Canada???).
Mosques will not be targeted. Any words a spiritual guide there uses against homosexuality based on Islam will not be arrested and/or fined.
But, you will see pastors of the popular churches in the largest cities in the nation investigated for violating such Hate Speech Laws.
Just take a look around the Ivy League and top state universities for how the thought and speech control will work. Look at the places where those who are leftist liberals and radicals have already gained such a dominate power.
A student who hates his high school or middle school teacher will just need to use their cell phone to record their teacher using the phrase "radical Islam" in some discussion of current events or history --- to have the teacher hounded out of the profession by the local and state boards.
Burning of "hateful" books will become a community sponsored event supported by local government and supported by the media and national government.
Voter registrations laws will be altered to the point voting as an illegal alien will be simple and easy to do ---- until perhaps illegal aliens are found to overwhelming vote Republican....
Felons will be able to vote - until they are found to vote predominately Republican.
It will become easy for younger or just more motivated individuals in blue areas of the country, like the major urban areas and the Northwest - Northeast --- to organize and drive to red states to register and vote virtually unchecked.
ACORN is the future, if current polling numbers are to be believed....
....and there is a lot more like this coming down the pipe.....
posted by usinkorea at October 17, 2008 01:47 PMWhat's the problem?
It's obvious from the color of Joe's skin that he is a racist.
/snark
posted by myiq2xu at October 17, 2008 02:05 PMIt wasn't who asked the question, it was the answer that shows who obama really is. Attacking Joe is a rather hollow ploy, we need to keep repeating the answer that he was given, therin lies the problem with the chosen one's policies, pure socialism.
posted by WTC at October 17, 2008 02:17 PMI loved Rush's comment - Okay, so it's his middle name that is Joe. He is a guy who is proud of his middle name unlike our presidential candidate.
I look at Joe as our current Willie Horton. His little tete a tete with Obama and the way the msm and left wing blogs are trying to ruin Joe's life have done more to expose what life could be like under an Obama administration than anything else yet.
And did you notice how much Obama's answer to Joe sounded so much like Castro?
To me Joe is more qualified to be president than Obama. At least Joe has experience working hard in real life.
America, wake up. Vote for Joe and McCain/Palin
Please do not vote for Obama. This man will ruin the country.
posted by mjones at October 17, 2008 02:51 PMOh c'mon. Joe got exposed to the media after McCain decided to make him the posterboy for his latest stunt. Sure, there are bloggers seeking to discredit him after he took to the airwaves, but there hasn't been anything launched by the Obama campaign.
posted by ChenZhen at October 17, 2008 03:15 PMTo Megapotamus: You said, "Did you know his real name is Sam? Why the subterfuge?" Gee, nobody has ever met someone who uses their middle name instead of their first. Never. That is, if they live in a freaking hole in the ground. Or their moma's basement.
To Caro Hussein Cogitatus: You said, "And you're blaming Obama for ANSWERING it?" No, we are castigating Obama for the SOCIALIST POSITION that his answer clearly reveals! Sheesh.
posted by MoonbatBane at October 17, 2008 04:52 PMThe future is a darn scary place. The government already has access to all our private details and records, and what it could do to any one of us under Obama is far worse than what the media has done to Joe. The country will be run by left-wing illuminati and forget about free speech. If we know what's good for us, we'll see no evil, speak no evil.
posted by A.B. at October 17, 2008 04:59 PMThe problem isn't Joe the Plumber - the problem is Obama's answer.
posted by Steve Skubinna at October 17, 2008 05:03 PMPersonally, I hope the Obamamaniacs keep attacking Joe the Plumber.
Look at it this way... Adam Middleclass looks at Joe the Plumber and sees a guy that could be his next-door neighbor, the guy next to him at the ballgame or church, or even--gasp!--his plumber. Joe and Adam live the same kind of life, shop in the same stores (and don't order Iranian caviar and champagne from Waldorf-Astoria room service), and face the same problems with paying the mortgage, car payment, taxes, etc.
Therefore, every time the Obama camp attacks Joe, it's very easy for Adam to see himself in Joe's shoes... thus, at least subconsciously, Adam could easily himself as being attacked by every smear against Joe. And the more attacks, the higher the odds get better that Adam will perceive these attacks as aimed at him.
Please, Obamamaniacs, keep attacking. Drive the middle-class taxpayers further away from your secular savior.
posted by C-C-G at October 17, 2008 05:37 PMMoonbatBane:
Either you are extremely new here...or you don't get sarcasm. Of course you are right on with the other part of your comment.
Mega - you owe me a new keyboard - ROTFLMAO (and trying to wipe up what I just spewed)
posted by Mark at October 17, 2008 05:45 PMNot only did Obama seek out Joe the Plumber during his walkabout if his campaignBOTV team is half as knowledgeable as they claim to be THEY HAD TO KNOW JOE WAS REGISTERED AS REPUBLICAN when they picked Joe's middle class neighborhood as the one Obama would go door-knocking for OBAMA-CAN votes.
posted by crazy at October 17, 2008 06:47 PMThe problem isn't Joe the Plumber - the problem is Obama's answer.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at October 17, 2008 05:03 PM
Obama wants to steal your money and to send $845 billion to the UN to finance his Global Poverty Act. He also wants to use your money to fund abortion-on-demand. He'll also want to use a lot of federal funds to underwrite Acorn activities, school reform along the lines of his useless efforts with Ayers in Chicago Annenberg challenge, and his civilian national security force (2 July 2008 speech).
Vote for McCain and against Obama. Let's preserve and improve our American way of life.
posted by SAM at October 17, 2008 08:29 PMIt's clear to me that Obama's choice of that particular neighborhood, that particular time, that particular accompanying camera crew, that particular bald guy, that particularly scary quoting that escaped from the mouth of the The One were all Karl Rove plants. Mr. Rove is, in fact, a shape-shifting earwig who was able to crawl simultaneously inside the brains of Mr. Obama and nearly everyone else in the video as well as those who watched it. It's all a vast rightwing conspiracy, I tell you!
Caro and Chen,
Cute comments. I, for one, think McCain's going to come up with the Mother of All Unexpected Victories.
However, in the event His Majesty wins, do drop in this time next year. I'm sure you'll give us an entertaining whine about how shocked and disappointed you are that Obama lied about almost everything he promised.
In fact, guys, you can also tell us about how your job searches are going since you were both let go from "Burger World"...because "Don Obamleone" wanted to take a bigger piece of its action for his own crew.
posted by MarkJ at October 17, 2008 09:29 PMJoe has helped turn the tide by exposing Obama for what he is.
Keep the American Dream alive. Get out and vote Nov 4th. Ignore the polls. The election is not over yet.
N0-bam-uh/B-lie-den 08
YES McCain/Palin 08!
posted by Ken at October 17, 2008 10:41 PMI must say that Joe has been a strike of lightning at the just the right place and the right time. It has both nakedly exposed OBurkha in all of his rotting Marxist rhetoric, while giving a lot of people a good look at his Stalinist tactics.
Their going after Palin in such a revolting way opened up a lot of eyes. This latest North Korean-style terrorist tactic against Joe just puts the stake in The Moronchurian Candidate's ascension.
As mentioned above, McCain will win and big. And the stench of suicidal liberals will be overwhelmingly pleasant.
posted by NosferatusCoffin at October 17, 2008 10:43 PMMcCain's going to pull it off all right! He's going to win. I made a big bet on intrade.com and get this: my contract's going to pay 5-1! Get in while the odds are still good. You know the polls are sponsored by the MSM but heartland American will not be deceived, not this time.
posted by Luther Tines at October 17, 2008 11:56 PMDroll, Luther. We shall see....
posted by megapotamus at October 18, 2008 06:53 AMLuther, if you'd bother to look at the facts, instead of polls that oversample Democrats by 10 points (also known as a "skewed poll" or "pollaganda"), you'd note that the current polls are within the margin of error, in essence, a dead heat.
Then you might look back at Obama's performance in the primaries, where The One tended to underperform his polls by about 5 points.
Taking both of those facts into consideration, it's entirely plausible McCain will win by 4-5 points. Not a landslide, but a victory is a victory.
posted by C-C-G at October 18, 2008 08:19 AMYou know, I get up, work hard, and try to enjoy my life without imposing myself on others. I believe in the human spirit and that it yearns to be free of oppression and the spirit grows because nature provides competition.
I was fortunate enough when I was a teen during the Reagan years to visit some communist countries in eastern Europe. This was part of a student summer exchange program where we travelled around Europe for 6 weeks. None of my homestays were in communist countries, but we did visit them as part of the program.
While my visits to Hungary, Czechoslavakia, and Yugoslavia were brief, it left an mark on my life. I witnessed firsthand the oppression of forced equality under a totalitarian government. I saw the people, who refused to make eye contact with us for fear of the secret state police making a midnight house visit to them. I saw the invisible but noticeable weight of oppression they carried on their shoulders.
I returned with a true love for the USA and the freedoms it gives not only us, the Citizens, but the rest of the world.
I am fearful that the USA has embarked on a non-reversable path towards an oppressive socialist state. And I refuse to live under those conditions having witnessed how such governments squash the human spirit.
I have started buying ammunition and weapons and supplies. Have you?
When Injustice becomes Law, Rebellion becomes Duty.
posted by TheFightToCome at October 18, 2008 09:47 AMWell said, Fight to Come.
I'm glad you mentioned Communist-occupied Europe, because it's becoming ever more obvious that our opponents took a page from right out of the Stalinists' book.
The Orwellian media manipulation has been bad enough.
So has the reliance on failed economic policies in the name of fairness.
But now they're appropriating the tactics that were at the heart of Communist terror - personal destruction of ordinary citizens who "humiliate" the Great Leader. A man is minding his own business when 0bama APPROACHES HIM, with the intention of using him as a political prop. He has the audacity to ask the Great Leader a question that said leader cannot answer properly, because he's operated in a protective media cocoon for his entire political life. The resulting answer reveals just how totalitarian 0bama's "Hope" and "Change" really are. And for that, the man needs to be crushed. His name is dragged through the dirt, his personal information is posted on the web, and the State moves to run him out of business. All because he dared to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Does the Great Leader tell his goons to lay off? No. In fact, he and his VP continue to mock Joe in public, sneering at a working man who unlike them hasn't gorged at the public trough all his life.
And yet we're supposed to be comfortable giving this sociopath the keys to the White House? Where he'll have the full force of the Justice Department and other agencies at his power? These tactics are one step below using actual violence to enforce political conformity - perhaps that's what it's going to come to in the future if anyone goes against the will of 0bama.
Why do you advocate cowardice, Bob Owens? I'll be damned if I just roll over for the Cowardcratic Party.
posted by Ken at October 18, 2008 11:34 AMBarry 'the Marxist' has improved on the Clinton tactics. Remember the thousands of personal FBI files in Hillary's office. Crossing a democrat is exactly like crossing Saddam Hussein or Hugo Chavez. You or your family will disappear or go through a wood chipper, aka the Lame Stream Media slime machine. Facts are facts but then where is a democrat who can read. Liberal college don't teach the three R's or ethics.
posted by Scrapiron at October 18, 2008 11:57 AMI believe the tape of Joe the plumber was doctored. Obama did not say "spread the wealth", he said "bend over and spread'em". Seriously.... is there anyone out there that isn't brain dead or close to it that actually believes that a far left wing Chicago politician who has NEVER voted to decrease taxes, with an automatic rubber stamp of far left wing leaders in the House and Senate is actually going to give anybody (that actually pays taxes) a break? Come on!
posted by Dave B at October 19, 2008 12:35 AMJoe, by his own statement, sought out Obama to ask him that question. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that he was put up to it by McCain's handlers. That it has proved to be uncomfortable for him and for both candidates could have been predicted by anyone who pays attention to the news.
posted by Southingtonian at October 19, 2008 05:19 AMThat type of behaviour is so typical of how the socialist states treat anyone who disagrees with them, or, heaven forbid, tells the truth to the media.
Beware of Obama, he'll turn the USA into a socialist, totalitarian state, and spend half of the tax revenues to spy on ordinary citizens - like they've done in Britain, which spies on all it's citizens, and where even the dustmen can spy on people if they think they're throwing away too much garbage in their bins. Phone calls, emails and regular mail are intercepted by anyone in local government who wants to prove a point.
If Obama's elected it'll be the end of the USA as we know it.
posted by Nannette at October 19, 2008 05:42 AMIs there anyone else noticing that Obama supporters are pissed off that someone asked him a question and he answered the question in his own words? They are so f...ing spoiled. Hey people... the MSM should have been asking him those types of questions about 18 months ago! It would have been nice if Joe the plumber had a microphone and TV camera behind him but that hasn't happened. The McCain camp "planted" the guy in his own front yard to ask a question of a Presidential candidate? He should have answered like he always does... "Together We Can", "Hope you can believe in", "We need Change" and other clear, concise, to the point answers.
posted by Dave B at October 19, 2008 12:48 PMApparently Obama is trying to fool the voters now, if this report on NRO's Campaign Spot is accurate:
FYI—just a few moments ago I received an automated call at home from “Joe the Plumber” asking me to vote for O’Bama. He referred to the talk about Joe the Plumber in the debate—obviously trying to have me l_i_n_k* “Joe Sellers (I think that’s the name), a plumber from Falls Church, Virginia” with the Joe the Plumber everyone is talking about. Easy to think ‘Hey, Joe the Plumber wants us to vote for O’Bama.’Dishonest? Yes. But about what you’d expect out of Washington.
* Edited due to spam filter.
posted by C-C-G at October 19, 2008 03:59 PMC-C-G: "Luther, if you'd bother to look at the facts, instead of polls that oversample Democrats by 10 points (also known as a "skewed poll" or
'pollaganda'), you'd note that the current polls are within the margin of error, in essence, a dead heat."
All the more reason to go long on McCain. It's irrational not to take 5-1 against even odds! By all means do share with us the particulars of your contract. In fact if you don't we might begin to suspect that you don't actually believe what you say.
posted by Luther Tines at October 19, 2008 09:43 PMHey Dave B you still don't get it! EVEN if Joe was planted which is ridiculous....it's Obama's answer that has caused all the stir. Was the response coming out of his mouth planted as well? Do you really want your wealth spread around - if you have any wealth that is? See this is the Democrat way ... punish those who work hard and do good and pass it on over to the people who sit on their fat a**es. Gosh...you people are so lame. All I can say is God help America if this man gets in office. Go McCain/Palin 08.
posted by Beady Babe at October 20, 2008 07:49 PM« Hide Comments
October 16, 2008
WaPo's James V. Grimaldi's Dishonest "Hit" On Cindy McCain
I'm going to start doing something I should have done long ago. When I catch a journalist committing fraud or nakedly partisan political journalism, I'm join to make sure that I name them, and not just the organization they work for.
Today's poster child for journalistic corruption is James V. Grimaldi of the Washington Post.
What kind of dishonest, biased journalism is the Washington Post reporter James V. Grimaldi guilty of?
In Exclusive: Verizon and AT&T; Provided Cell Towers for McCain Ranch, corrupt reporter James V. Grimaldi tries to insinuate that Cindy McCain is guilty of some sort of ethical violation because Verizon Wireless and AT&T installed portable cell phone towers to provide coverage at McCain's home in Hidden Valley near Sedona, Arizona.
Unethical reporter James V. Grimaldi writes:
Ethics lawyers said Cindy McCain's dealings with the wireless companies stand out because her husband is a senior member of the Senate commerce committee, which oversees the Federal Communications Commission and the telecommunications industry. He has been a leading advocate for industry-backed legislation, fighting regulations and taxes on telecommunication services.
I have a few simple questions for morally bankrupt Washington Post reporter James V. Grimaldi:
- Other than Stanley Brand, a former House counsel for Democrats, what are the names of the ethics lawyers you spoke with, and what positions have they held within the Democrat Party?
- Are any of the ethics lawyers you spoke with currently active as paid consultants or volunteers for Barack Obama's presidential campaign?
- Did Democratic operative(s) in Obama campaign suggested this story to you?
- Did you ever had any intention of directly informing your readers that the Secret Service requested these cell towers as a security issue?
Yes, you heard that right. Ethics-challenged Washington Post reporter James V. Grimaldi did his level best to obscure the fact that it was the Secret Service that requested these portable cell towers, as stable communications are a vital part of protecting the lives of Presidential candidates.
This isn't journalism. This is partisan politics.
It's nice to know what kind of corrupt reporters the Washington Post is willing to hire in men such as James V. Grimaldi, and the kind of political hit pieces they're willing to run as legitimate news stories.
Update: Jonathan Martin at The Politico confirms the Secret Service request:
A representative for the Secret Service confirms Verizon's statement earlier tonight that the company only put in a temporary cell service facility near the McCain ranch in Arizona at the request of the agency."We made a request of Verizon in I believe May that was covered under our contract and they did address our immediate needs," said Secret Service spokesman Eric Zahren.
Show Comments »
Super point, CY. As a lifelong member of the media (and a Reagan Republican since age 14), you can imagine the rolling waves of garbage and garbled "intellect" and reasoning I've been privy to among my peers. Some of the saddest, most ill-informed rhetoric you can't believe.
Everyone who reads and appreciates CY, please help us make these points on Liberal supremacist sites like pandagon.net. We need to disabuse the real "wingnuts" of their infantile "wisdom."
posted by Sugar Ray Republican at October 16, 2008 10:13 AMAn American Socialist Party Hussein O supporting media wonk lie. Say it's not true.
Hundreds of media wonks (enabling crime and covering up crime is a crime) should be caught up in the coming RICO investigation and charges facing Hussein O's organizaton called ACORN. Hussein O will likely face RICO charges also, that is if there are any honest law enforcement agencies left in the country.
posted by Firefighter 16 at October 16, 2008 11:05 AMIt's almost a no-brainer to assume that a demonazi will lie to promote the socialist dem agenda. Certainly no suprise here, but GREAT WORK on the part of CY. Thanks!
posted by Tonto at October 16, 2008 12:44 PMGood job!
posted by ccoffer at October 16, 2008 05:00 PMYou ought to preface the reporter's name with Democratic Party spokesman or Democratic Party mole, CY, as in "James V. Grimaldi, Democratic Party spokesman employed by the Washington Post."
posted by Dusty at October 16, 2008 05:40 PMJames V. Grimaldi, Democratic Party spokesman employed by the Washington Post."
The one problem there is that "Democratic Party spokesman" and "Washington Post" are synonymous, thus making that appellation redundant.
posted by C-C-G at October 16, 2008 06:56 PMOops: no, they installed temporary towers Dan.
Try reading for comprehension.
posted by Dave in Texas at October 16, 2008 08:24 PMHeh, of course, it was probably a pretty good thing for the press corps follwing the McCain campaign around too. What an ingrate.
posted by douglas at October 16, 2008 08:48 PMWild, my comment magically disappeared. Anyway, my mistake in saying that the PERMANENT towers underway for TWO YEARS were abandoned by Verizon, um, why, again? Bad business sense?
Bad ethics, maybe.
posted by Dan at October 17, 2008 12:27 AMI've been reading blogs for a little while tonight, and, darned if I can remember who called the MSM "headlice".
(Ah, iowahawk:
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2008/10/i-am-joe.html#trackback )
Great piece.
posted by N. O'Brain at October 17, 2008 06:26 PMUh, from the article you mention:
"Instead, Verizon delivered a portable tower known as a "cell site on wheels" -- free of charge -- to the McCain property in June, after the Secret Service began inquiring about improving coverage in the area."
So, um, he did say that the Secret Service was involved.
posted by NutellaonToast at October 18, 2008 01:47 PM« Hide Comments
The Final Debate: The Morning After
So we had the final Presidential debate of 2008 last night, and folks on both sides are claiming victory... but what really "stuck" in people's minds?
It may be a bit early to see what is going to resonate up until the election (or even if anything does), but what stuck in my mind is just how revealing Barack Obama's answers on domestic and economic issues were. His answers made it all the more damning when John McCain labeled Obama as "Senator Government."
In a nutshell, Obama promises to cut taxes for 95% of taxpayers, while increasing various government programs. The freshman senator pitches an economic program that he claims will lower our taxes while increasing government spending.
Folks, you can't cut taxes, and raise spending during an economic downturn, without turning a recession into a depression and making the federal deficit even worse. It's common sense: you can't spend your way out of debt, but that is exactly what Barack Obama daftly suggests.
This begs the next question: If Barack Obama's cutting taxes for 95% of taxpayers, then where are we going to get federal tax dollars for the trillion dollars in spending increases he has proposed?
Obama's answer—as it has been for every liberal throughout history—is to raise taxes on the "rich."
Obama's populism plays well among those who don't earn much or know much, but the fact of the matter is that the people Obama wants to raise taxes on are the small businessmen that power our economy, and more importantly, provide so many of our jobs.
If you watched the debate last night, you can't have missed the roughly dozen references to "Joe the Plumber."
Here's the clip of Joe Wurzelbacher, who feels Barack Obama's economic policies are designed to punish him for chasing the American Dream.
Obama's answer—that he wants to spread Joe's wealth with those who haven't worked for it—may be the defining moment of the 2008 election.
Every small businessman, or person who dreams of owning a small business, has to be frightened at what Barack Obama is proposing to do to the American Dream. Obama's going to make it more difficult for workers like Joe the plumber to buy into small businesses. Obama's going to make small businessmen pay more taxes, meaning they will have less money to invest in their businesses. This means that small businessmen will not be able to hire as many workers under an Obama administration.
Worse, if Barack Obama is elected, small businessmen are going to have to lay people off. Fewer people will have jobs to pay taxes, and those that do have jobs will have to pay more. Barack Obama's "spread the wealth around" philosophy is the philosophy for a failed economy.
During last night's debate, Barack Obama rattled off all sorts of government programs he'd like to fund. He talked about how he would like government to play a bigger role in your lives. what he could not do is name a single government program he would cut. Not. One.
After last night's debate, they asked Joe the plumber—who almost overnight has become the Everyman of the 2008 election—what he thought of the candidate's proposals.
"Obama's proposal scares me because it's just one more step towards socialism."
That's the story of this debate, and perhaps, this election.
Show Comments »
Something tells me that like me, Joe has never been polled either because the pollsters know our opinion would not match their preset agenda..
He certainly speaks for me and just about everyone who I know, friends and family.
Here in Belgium, the public radio news (which is reliable leftist, to say the least) declared the third debate to be rather good for McCain, since he was able to depict Obama as "a standard left-wing politician", noting that Obama has so far always tried (and to a large extent succesfully so) to avoid that label by projecting a post-partisan image of himself.
Much attention was also spent on the "Ohio plumber", who almost single-handedly forced the real, wealth-redistributing Obama out in the open. The two journalists sounded a bit puzzled as to why Obama thought it to be a good idea to tell a working class guy that he would indeed take his hard-earned money and give it to other people. Being leftists, both gentlemen almost certainly agree with Obama's position, but they admitted that it is political poison to put it that bluntly, especially to someone who cannot possibly be depicted as a card-carrying member of the club of the filthy rich.
posted by Peter at October 16, 2008 08:43 AMThe big problem is there are too many people out there who just don't care. I've got a friend who doesn't see any problem with raising people's taxes, "if it helps people." Of course, he is on disability and doesn't actually pay much, if anything, in taxes. He also doesn't really see a problem with socialism, either, so he's going to vote for Obama even knowing many of the problems that'll lead to.
posted by Rick C at October 16, 2008 08:44 AMWith over 40% of the population not paying taxes and a proposal on the table to not only cut taxes but literally pay those non-taxpayers money taken from the joe the plumbers around the country, how could Obama not get elected? With only a few percent of the country actually paying the way for the rest, there is no way we can stop the looting of our most productive members of society.
Everyone should have to pay something. To buy in, as it were, to the country. To be more than just recipients of other people's efforts and completely uninvolved in paying for the never-ending cascade of benefits. To have created a class of nearly half the country that pays nothing--or worse, gets unearned money back--is a great indicator of how far we have fallen and how completely pathetic the Republicans have become.
posted by iconoclast at October 16, 2008 09:00 AMFirst of all, bravo for your hard, honest work in the name of a truly pro-American value system.
Rick C says right: Too many brainwashed, beaten-down, lazy types have simply given in. We lost the battle starting in the '60s; even Reagan's brilliant leadership couldn't keep us going in the right direction. The constant bashing from the Left (while they pathetically, hilariously cry foul at every GOP retort) has poisoned and infiltrated every sector of our society. Instead of a country in which Hollywood stars would drop their careers and go fight in WWII, we have a Hollywood of "do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do" elitists who are every bit as bad as or worse than the elitists on the right. I still believe in trickle down; we all want and need opportunity, and it's up to each of us to take personal responsibility and make the most of it. Trouble is, this country is enslaved by, held hostage by, a ceaseless reparations mentality: Some people just won't be satisfied until this country is disbanded, given back to hunter-gatherers, and white Europeans treated to a nice little genocidal purge. But then, where will all the creature comforts that these Leftist whiners love disappear to? Once this country's disbanded, who among the Left is going to take up arms/weapons/fists/whatever and forge a path? Or are they simply going to return to loinclothes and eating berries? That would be perfectly socialist: No more wealth, no more possessions, just little animal tribes like back in the "good old days." Pardon me, but fuck that ... I want the chance to make my own wealth and share it — or not — as I see fit. If we don't have a true separatist movement within the next 20 years, any of us with a shred of personal responsibility are going to be hard-pressed to find a land to live in ... unless we wake the hell up, speak the hell up and defend this country from within and without. Pull you kids out of these godawful, pathetic schools one and for all and home school them, as Michelle Malkin appropriately suggests (http://michellemalkin.com). Obama's socialist rant, his wife's newfound "pride" in her country (because "her people" seem to be on the verge of getting their revenge), and the rampant soft-brained idiocy of weak-kneed libs from sea to shining sea are imperiling this country to an unimaginable degree. We HAVE to MAKE THIS STOP.
posted by Sugar Ray Republican at October 16, 2008 10:11 AM>Folks, you can't cut taxes, and raise spending during an economic downturn,
No but you can raise taxes on the mega rich and use that income on spending.
That's Obama's plan and it's a good one and it worked for America when Clinton did it.
posted by salvage at October 16, 2008 11:39 AMActually, what Clinton did what cut military spending and use that money for his pet causes. Of course, that left us scrambling a bit when we got attacked and had to go on the offensive. But yeah, other than that it worked just swell.
posted by Tim at October 16, 2008 11:56 AMSalvage,
Exactly, 2% of the population owns 50% of the common stock in this country. Such a ratio hinders the meritocracy which has made this country great. Unfortunately these same people believe that it's wrong to tax trust fund babies, thereby creating a permanently wealthy class.
Interestingly Obama is the very picture of an American success story. Born to modest means, he rose through dedication and brains to be President of the Harvard Law Review, perhaps the highest honor among his class of lawyers. Instead of taking a salary well into six figures he worked with the poor.
What saddens me is how the Repubs have lost their way on the issue of personal initiative and rewarding merit and fiscal sanity. Since Reagan the Republican party platform is: "Cut taxes on the wealthy. Throw the religious right and values voters enough meat to keep them from voting Dem. Respond to international friction with war."
This has left the Democrats with double duty: their traditional concerns plus being the adults financially. Look at deficit spending under Reagan, Bush I, and worse of all Bush II, then consider that Clinton left a surplus. Bush II has smashed all records:
"The White House just asked the national debt ceiling be raised another $700 billion, for the proposed financial-sector bailout. If that happens, in 2008 alone, $1.5 trillion will have been added to the national debt: every penny borrowed from your children and their children. Stated in today's dollars, in 1979 the entire national debt was $1.5 trillion. George W. Bush and Congress have in a single year added an amount equal to the entire national debt one generation ago. And the year's not over!"
--Gregg Easterbrook
Fiscal conservatives should flock to Obama over McCain.
Incidentally every poll I've seen shows a solid win for Obama in last night's debate.
posted by Luther Tines at October 16, 2008 12:02 PMNew York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html):
The top 1 percent received 21.8 percent of all reported income in 2005, up significantly from 19.8 percent the year before and more than double their share of income in 1980. The peak was in 1928, when the top 1 percent reported 23.9 percent of all income.
So, the top 1% earned 21.8 of income, but paid 40% of income tax. Seems like they paid their share, and other shares, too.
posted by Jay in Ames at October 16, 2008 12:51 PMI agree that Obama's moment of honesty with Joe the Plumber about "spreading the wealth" could indeed make this a race. Joe the Plumber's plight is a simple narrative of a man trying to obtain the American Dream, yet it is Obama's tax and spend policies that may prevent him from achieving them, not to mention the disastrous consequences during an economic downturn. It's an opportunity that McCain has seized upon and can now put Obama on the defensive. He should continue to pound this relentlessly from now until Election Day.
posted by mindnumbrobot at October 16, 2008 01:14 PMI'm guessing because those programs all are under the Defense Department umbrella, and that wouldn't help feed the other "facts" he's pushing.
posted by Hawkins at October 16, 2008 01:38 PMeuro bookies are already paying off on the election according to Drudge. McCain is not going to win Americans are electing Obama
posted by John Ryan at October 16, 2008 01:54 PM"The White House Plumbers" were the undoing of Richard Nixon,wouldn't it be great if a real Plumber were the undoing of Barak "The One" 0bama??!! Dare to dream
posted by firefirefire at October 16, 2008 02:59 PM"I agree that Obama's moment of honesty with Joe the Plumber about 'spreading the wealth' could indeed make this a race. Joe the Plumber's plight is a simple narrative of a man trying to obtain the American Dream, yet it is Obama's tax and spend policies that may prevent him from achieving them, not to mention the disastrous consequences during an economic downturn"
First, a tax and spend policy is way better than Bush's spend and don't tax policy. GHW Bush at least had the stones to raise taxes when he saw a shortfall. Bush borrowed about 5 trillion so far, as much as all the other presidents combined. So put a sock in it.
Second, Joe turns out not to be a licensed plumber and he's not registered to vote anyway.
Third, Joe is complaining about Obama being a socialist when Bush just oversaw the most socialist program in living memory with the government taking equity positions in the banks.
Luther Tines,
Bush isn't running this term, is he? Cutting taxes and cutting spending as a policy works for Joe the Plumber. You can cut taxes and actually increase tax revenue in certain conditions. And don't disregard the current Congress' role in authorizing the deficit and expanding entitlements. Many of these fiscal libertines are coming back to rape taxpayers further. Bank on that.
posted by ReginaldL at October 16, 2008 03:42 PMIt must also be stressed that one of the primary tenets of Black Liberation Theology is spreading the wealth around. Making everyone pay their share. I guess a lot more of Wright is in Obama than he would be willing to admit.
posted by Roborob at October 16, 2008 03:59 PMLuther, you really should get your information from something more reliable than the crazy nest called the Democratic Underground. He is indeed registered to vote (Republican), and you don't need a license unless you do commercial/industrial work (he does residential).
But thanks for showing us your true colors by attempting to investigate and destroy a man who asked a legitimate question that your cult leader flubbed.
posted by Confederate Yankee at October 16, 2008 04:15 PMBut thanks for showing us your true colors by attempting to investigate and destroy a man who asked a legitimate question that your cult leader flubbed.
No surprise here. Anyone that dares speak against The Obamamessiah must be destroyed.
If ya think it's bad now, wait and see what happens if he's actually elected.
posted by C-C-G at October 16, 2008 08:52 PM"Exactly, 2% of the population owns 50% of the common stock in this country. Such a ratio hinders the meritocracy which has made this country great."
And how does that work?
Seriously. Explain yourself.
How does stock ownership, even massive stock ownership, by 2% prevent people from rising through their god-given and developed talents?
This age-old line about 5% of the nation owing 90% of the wealth in the country used to influence me, when I was a teen, but as I gained years and experience and maturity, I realized what hogwash I was being asked to swallow.
I grew up in a poor, working class family and could remember the 1970s and especially the way things were in Carter's economy.
Then in the 1980s, the media kept telling me about this "growing divide" between the "haves and have nots" and the 5% and so on....
...but what I saw was the nation getting richer and the standard of living rising overall.
Then in Clinton's era, you didn't hear nearly as much about this "growing divide" because of how much the media was trumpeting continued economic growth.
But, with Bush, it was back to the growing divide taking up the vast majority of the headlines......but I had long understood it was just propaganda.
When business in this nation grows and prospers, the nation prospers - all of it - the bottom as well as top.
Crippling business through taxation to provide a higher standard of living for the lowest economic strata of the society --- only ends up pushing more people into that strata.
I am not against Welfare. I believe if the government has the right to pass laws that impact on my life, has the right to police and jail me, and has the right - at times - to create a draft and send me off to war --- it has a minimal right to create a safety net for me as well.
But the key word is "minimal" in my believe in Welfare.
Trying to take away more and more of the 5%'s money will end up hurting business and will end up dragging the entire nation down.
Everywhere in the world --- the more wealth distribution has been tried - the lower the resulting overall standard of living.
That is a historical fact.
Why the bleeeeeeppppp can't well-educated intellectuals understand something so irrefutable?
On the silencing --- it predates Obama.
Look at Paula Jones as an example.
Look at the drive to restart The Fairness Doctrine.
The realization that they are being successful in putting in power such a weak-backgrounded candidate, with all those radical connections, who is also such a strong liberal --- has them extra giddy.
Which means we can expect a beefed up Fairness Doctrine - and God only knows what else if Obama wins and the Dems gain in Congress....
posted by usinkorea at October 16, 2008 09:28 PMReginaldL:
"Cutting taxes and cutting spending as a policy works for Joe the Plumber."
Sure, that's a coherent political position. No argument here.
"You can cut taxes and actually increase tax revenue in certain conditions."
I agree. For instance Britain had I believe a 95% tax bracket during the sixties and no doubt it discouraged entrepreneurship.
"And don't disregard the current Congress' role in authorizing the deficit and expanding entitlements."
True, but what I was getting at is that since at least Reagan's time, Repub presidents have spent like drunken sailors and Dems (well, Clinton) worked it off. The GOP is in critical need of reform. We're supposed to be able to look to the GOP for fiscal conservatism, but they've proven less responsible than dems over the thirty years.
CY: "He is indeed registered to vote (Republican)"
You're right, I got bad info. Turns out his name is spelled wrong in the registration role. However, "An official at Local 50 of the plumber’s union, based in Toledo, said Mr. Wurzelbacher does not hold a license. He also has never served an apprenticeship and does not belong to the union." He obviously does practice as a plumber so honestly I don't see what difference it makes anyway. I shouldn't have brought it up.
usinkorea: annyonghaseyo! thanks for the thoughtful reply.
'Exactly, 2% of the population owns 50% of the common stock in this country. Such a ratio hinders the meritocracy which has made this country great.'
And how does that work?
Seriously. Explain yourself.
How does stock ownership, even massive stock ownership, by 2% prevent people from rising through their god-given and developed talents?
This age-old line about 5% of the nation owing 90% of the wealth in the country used to influence me, when I was a teen, but as I gained years and experience and maturity, I realized what hogwash I was being asked to swallow.
First, I said 'hinder', not 'prevent'. Wealth concentration certainly affects opportunities for the populace. Think about Russia. They have a handful of billionaires and no one else has a chance of joining the club. Granted we're much freer in the US, but the principle remains the same: the more capital there is in the hands of the elite, the less there is for you and me to start businesses. For decades the rich have grown richer while middle class wages have fallen when you account for inflation. Social mobility has shriveled in this country, google for it if you don't believe me. That's probably the best barometer for the meritocracy.
If you look down the list of the 100 richest people, many of them are Waltons, Marses, etc, people who were born incredibly wealthy and aim to stay that way. Rewarding merit is what makes this or any other country great. What if the next Thomas Edison is stuck working on diesel engines right now because he can't put together enough money to pursue his dreams?
Then in Clinton's era, you didn't hear nearly as much about this "growing divide" because of how much the media was trumpeting continued economic growth.
Right. Social mobility fell under Clinton, too. This isn't a dem/repub thing so much as it is rich vs. middle class.
When business in this nation grows and prospers, the nation prospers - all of it - the bottom as well as top.
No, during the last years middle class wages have stagnated.
Trying to take away more and more of the 5%'s money will end up hurting business and will end up dragging the entire nation down.
Everywhere in the world --- the more wealth distribution has been tried - the lower the resulting overall standard of living.
That is a historical fact.
Why the bleeeeeeppppp can't well-educated intellectuals understand something so irrefutable?
I hope you can come to see that it's not that clear-cut.
posted by Luther Tines at October 16, 2008 11:21 PMIt certainly IS clear-cut that the feel-good redistribute-at-gunpoint ideologies have FAILED every single time in history. And many times left oceans of blood in their historical wake.
Further, simply repeating an untruth over and over does not make it so. While this would apply to so MANY things said by the self-styled 'progressives', in this case I refer to the ludicrous claim that Clinton 'lowered gov debt'.
No, HE did not. The shift in gov-revenue wasn't of his making. Multi-trillion dollar economies are like ocean-liners...they take time to stop, turn around, etc.. It doesn't take a rocket-scientist to understand that each president INHERITS an economic-situation that was YEARS in the making before they got into office.
In other words, Clinton 'rode' the wave/cycle that was already in progress.
The number-one reason for even 'liberals' to vote against Obama is how he's going to change SCOTUS; and the way he's going to SHRED the constitution.
So-called Liberals have been making a lot of noise lately about 'unconstitutional' actions by the fed-gov. Which is why I'm dumbfounded by their rapture over Obama. He's the very WORST in that regard of all the choices they had.
One appointment from Obama of an 'interpretive' justice, and we may never have a chance again to reverse course and begin returing some of that awful concentration of power in DC back to the citizens.
McCain is a terrible candidate, and socialist-lite; but he's likely to install the right type of "stick to the law" justice. And I'd FAR rather have 4 years of muddle and gridlock in DC than 4 years of a freaking JUGGERNAUT of 1-party radical madness passing bill after ill-conceived bill.
I'm libertarian, not dem or rep, and agnostic; but I'll be pulling the "Not Obama" lever this year; solely for the SCOTUS reason.
I urge every other libertarian and independent to do the same. Again, solely for the SCOTUS reason; it's that critical to us.
If we can save the court, we'll have a 2-yr breathing space to bust ass and get at least a few Constitution party reps into CONgress....and if the gods are willing, maybe even a senator.
THAT'S where our 3rd-party fight needs to be fought....in the mid-terms 2 yrs from now. Not in this prez-race; because of the VERY critical juncture we're at with SCOTUS. Think about 'Hiller', and how easily it could've been otherwise; and imagine a future where EVERY decision goes against the Constitution...
With the giant wake-up call about the major parties that the entire population got this year, when the criminals passed the Failout in the face of such outrcy, we finally have a real chance to build the Constitution party.
But NOT if Obama has a chance to appoint just ONE non-strict-constructionist judge in the next couple years. ALL the amendments are going to be ignored; not just the 2nd. He'll kill the 1st just as quickly (yes liberals, he will...look at the so-misnamed 'fairness doctrine' and THINK...EXTRAPOLATE)
So, no matter your party, when you get into the booth, and suddenly that very frightening wave of HUGE responsibility hits you right in the gut....choose wisely, please.
posted by rational-thought at October 17, 2008 01:17 AM"While this would apply to so MANY things said by the self-styled 'progressives', in this case I refer to the ludicrous claim that Clinton 'lowered gov debt'."
All right, he left office with a budget surplus. Reagan, BushI, and BushII all ran up debt far more quickly than Clinton...
Oh hell I'm going to bed. You're kind of a nut. Sorry.
posted by Luther Tines at October 17, 2008 01:42 AMLuther needs to go to bed and think about the facxt that it is th CONGRESS that writes the spending/budget bills. And who was it that controlled the Congress during the Reagan,
Bush and Clinton years? Oh my gosh, I believe it was the democrapic party.
And don't forget also that when the one lets the BUSH tax cuts expire, YOUR taxes(and everybody's - except for those who get EIC)are going to go up.
In the words of the immortal Bugs Bunny, "What a Maroon."
posted by emdfl at October 17, 2008 07:29 AMAgain, I've been told my whole life this "rich are getting richer and poor are getting poorer" --- that "the middle class is shrinking more and more and it is getting dangerous" and this quote of how much richer the Bill Gates have gotten while the rest of the nation has gotten poorer my whole life.
And what I have witnessed is --- during periods of economic growth, the standard of living for the nation as a whole has grown - not shrunk.
If making Bill Gates stock portfolio explode upward is what it takes to raise the standard of living --- Long Live Bill Gates.
And back to the stock point, I think you are confusing capital with stocks: Bill Gates, or even George Soros, pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into the stock market and businesses is not "taking away" from my potential or my own earnings.
If they are investing smartly --- meaning the companies they invest in are growing -- and the overall economy is growing --- gee golly --- they will indeed get richer.
And the economy will be creating more jobs and unemployment will be lower and the standard of living the nation will rise.
Before industrialization and the rise of international trade, you had serfs tied by birth to families who owned the land/wealth by birth.
The only other places on earth since the rise of industry and trade (capitalism) have been socialist hellholes like North Korea and the USSR and China.
When China has started over the last couple of decades to realize socialism is poverty and misery and started to move toward capitalism - and reap its rewards...
....are so many Americans willing to reverse history?
posted by usinkorea at October 17, 2008 02:02 PM"Luther needs to go to bed and think about the facxt that it is th CONGRESS that writes the spending/budget bills. And who was it that controlled the Congress during the Reagan,
Bush and Clinton years? Oh my gosh, I believe it was the democrapic party"
BushII had six years of one-party rule and doubled the indebtedness of this country. He has borrowed as much as all other presidents combined. You are depressingly ignorant.
usinkorea: You misunderstand. I have no problem with entrepreneurs. I worked for Gates and I appreciate his efforts more than you can know. Warren Buffet is a fine fellow. Ditto for Jobs, Ellison, Page and Brin, etc.
The problem I address is twofold. First, our tax system is regressive, thus the wealthy tend to pay proportionately less sales tax, have more vehicles such as 401K's to shelter funds from tax, and derive more of their income from capital gains, which are taxed lower than wages. Why on earth should the rich pay a LOWER tax rate than the poor? The folks on this forum call in "income redistribution", but really it's increased fairness. Buffet has complained that it's wrong for his tax rate to be lower than his secretaries, and he's right. You all are muddying the waters by calling a fix for this state of affairs "income redistribution". Similarly, the "death tax" is an imminently fair way to make those that enjoy the fruits of this country without contributing anything otherwise to pay their share.
I cited stock ownership only as a proxy for wealth. The more that wealth is concentrated in the hands of the elite, the less capital there is available for the lower classes. It's simple math. As you point out, a rising tide can lift all boats, but that's not what's happened over the last decades. The wealth of the rich has exploded while the middle class has stagnated. The middle class can no longer get by with a single wage earner. That's all the proof you need.
This study
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b;=1579981
shows that "By international standards, the United States has an unusually low level of intergenerational mobility: our parents’ income is highly predictive of our incomes as adults" (in the past the US was a leader in this area). In other words, the best and brightest in the US often end up stuck in jobs that are beneath them. He who could be the next Warren Buffet might be flipping burgers as we speak.
I think Luther has taken over Nunaim's position.
For those of you unfamiliar with Nunaim, see this thread where he tries to argue about the size of a standard-size door.
posted by C-C-G at October 17, 2008 05:45 PMYou may be right, CCG.
LT - you say:
The problem I address is twofold. First, our tax system is regressive, thus the wealthy tend to pay proportionately less sales tax, have more vehicles such as 401K's to shelter funds from tax, and derive more of their income from capital gains, which are taxed lower than wages. Why on earth should the rich pay a LOWER tax rate than the poor? The folks on this forum call in "income redistribution", but really it's increased fairness. Buffet has complained that it's wrong for his tax rate to be lower than his secretaries, and he's right.
I'm going to break your statement down into things I agree with and things I don't (with a statement or three).
1) I agree our tax system is regressive.
2) I disagree that the wealthy pay less SALES tax (though, proportionally I do agree).
3) I agree the rich have more vehicles to 'hide' their wealth from the tax man.
4) I agree the rich have more potential sources of income.
5) The rich currently pay higher income tax rates than poor people - so your 'why' question is moot.
6) You claim what we call 'income redistribution' is simply "increased fairness". Increased Fairness = Income Redistribution. What the bleep has any 'poor' person done to be given rights to any 'rich' person's wealth? Answer - NOTHING!
As for Mr. Buffet - perhaps if he didn't have a huge staff of accountants/lawyers to find all those nice little vehicles to hide his wealth he would actually 'pay his fair share'. The man complains that he isn't...why then does he not simply DONATE his money to Uncle Sam? Answer - because he's rich and employs a huge staff of accountants to help him hide his wealth. (gotta love circular logic sometimes)
posted by Mark at October 17, 2008 06:03 PMExcellent explanation, Mark.
Now, for all those who wish the tax system to be "fair," what's fairer than a flat tax, where there are either no or very few loopholes, and everyone pays exactly the same rate no matter what their income is?
What could be fairer than me paying, say (just for the sake of the argument), 20%, Joe the Plumber paying 20%, CY paying 20%, Mark paying 20%, and Bill Gates paying 20%?
posted by C-C-G at October 17, 2008 06:16 PMC-C-G-: I'm sorry if you're still sore from me pointing out that Thomas Paine is not what you had figured, and that you used an egregiously tautological argument. That's life, I'm merely the messenger. If you don't wish to hear things like that then, well, work harder. As for your latest: "I think Luther has taken over Nunaim's position", you're making a schoolyard taunt. You said you're a lay preacher? It's doubly unfortunate that you should fancy yourself worthy to lead others on moral issues.
Mark:
1) I agree our tax system is regressive.
2) I disagree that the wealthy pay less SALES tax (though, proportionally I do agree).
But I said proportionally, so you agree with me. Why not just say that?
3) I agree the rich have more vehicles to 'hide' their wealth from the tax man.
4) I agree the rich have more potential sources of income.
5) The rich currently pay higher income tax rates than poor people - so your 'why' question is moot.
No, they don't. You just said our tax system is regressive. You are contradicting yourself. Stocks pay almost no dividends now because cap gains are taxed at 20%. Basically it's rich people that take capital gains.
6) You claim what we call 'income redistribution' is simply "increased fairness". Increased Fairness = Income Redistribution. What the bleep has any 'poor' person done to be given rights to any 'rich' person's wealth? Answer - NOTHING!
You're confused. You said that we have a regressive tax system, yet the rich pay a higher proportion of tax. That's contradictory.
What right do the offspring of Mars and Walton, who have never worked a day in their lives, to be fabulously wealthy? If you're happy with that, fine, but I think it's rotten, and it prevents the cream from floating to the top. Since when is doing what's right for the US a bad thing?
Obama wants to tax the top 5% more. That's completely fair, they should pay at least as high a rate as everyone else. If you wish to keep subsidizing their lifestyle, fine, but call it what it is.
Buffet is a great guy and uncommonly charitable. He's giving almost all his wealth the the Gates Foundation. The importance of what he said is that there's a problem if his tax rate is lower than his secretary's.
No matter what tax policy you choose (except for a flat tax), you are "redistributing wealth". We have to put country first and make the fat cats pay their fair share.
C-C-G: "Excellent explanation, Mark." No, it was muddled. Again I can only encourage you to work harder to inform yourself.
Incidentally I'm not opposed to a flat tax.
posted by Luther Tines at October 18, 2008 12:27 AMLuther, as I've pointed out multiple times here and elsewhere, we on the right don't deify our leaders. I can easily say that McCain makes errors (campaign finance, immigration reform), Bush makes errors (Harriet Miers, immigration reform), Reagan made errors, Lincoln made errors, and even Paine may have made an error or two.
See, conservatism isn't built on the infallibility of its members... in fact, if anything, it understands better than any other political philosophy that people are fallible, and takes that into account when formulating its policies.
Lefism/liberalism, on the other hand, considers that its standard-bearers are always perfect and can never ever be wrong, even when they are demonstrably proven wrong... such as, say Obama's ties to ACORN, and Biden's numerous lies, including the one where he was "forced down" in Afghanistan.
Enjoy life in your little lefty bubble. It will be popped sooner or later, and, ironically, I believe that if the Obamamessiah is elected, it will be sooner rather than later.
posted by C-C-G at October 18, 2008 08:27 AMC-C-G: I will merely point out for the record that your response is to change the subject, again. You have an unreasonable expectation that I should engage you on a new front until you explain how I am mistaken in the numerous ways I claim you are wrong.
I can't resist clarifying one thing though. I'm far, far more fiscally conservative than Reagan or BushII, so I take exception to you calling me a liberal.
posted by Luther Tines at October 18, 2008 01:58 PMLuther, I was replying to this statement:
I'm sorry if you're still sore from me pointing out that Thomas Paine is not what you had figured
Might I recommend reading comprehension classes?
Oh, by the way, you're sounding more and more like Nunaim all the time. Is that you, under a different name after Bob banned you?
posted by C-C-G at October 18, 2008 04:01 PMThe majority of your post that you quoted was a simplistic rant, unrelated to any specific argument of mine except the remark about Paine. You seemed to be mentioning him peripherally.
You are trying to save face with your comments about Paine. He believed you and your kind to be charlatans and your religion to be a modernized sun worship. You are debasing yourself to call this "a couple of mistakes". Paine would have regarded you as an enemy of the State.
posted by Luther Tines at October 18, 2008 04:35 PMLuther,
For your elucidation:
Regressive: decreasing in rate as the base increases (a regressive tax)
Via Merriam-Webster online: 3rd definition
Your understanding of the word regressive is incorrect.
The current income tax system is basically a pyramid scheme wherin the top of the pyramid pays the highest rate and the bottom the lowest. The current lowest rate is less than ZERO thanks to EIC and such give-aways.
posted by Mark at October 18, 2008 06:08 PMOkay, Nunaim, drop the new moniker, I know it's you.
posted by C-C-G at October 18, 2008 08:49 PMMark,
No, regressive tax system is one that affects the poor disproportionately, and progressive tax system is one that affects the wealthy disproportionately. Those terms are common and have been around for as long as I can remember.
"The current income tax system is basically a pyramid scheme wherin the top of the pyramid pays the highest rate and the bottom the lowest."
Your have your terms wrong again. A pyramid scheme is something different. Again, overall Buffet pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. The wealthy are the least affected by income tax.
C-C-G: No, not Nunaim, I'm not familiar with that person. If it's important to you to verify this, I suggest you check with the proprietor. He might have a list of the IP addresses or geographical regions for his various contributors.
With that, so long fellas.
posted by Luther Tines at October 18, 2008 10:04 PM"Luther," as a certified computer tech, I am very familiar with IP address... quite possibly more familiar than you are.
I am also familiar with ways of changing or faking your IP address, in order to get around an IP address based ban, including proxy servers, or just changing your ISP.
With that, don't let the door hit ya on the way out.
posted by C-C-G at October 19, 2008 02:30 PMC-C-G: I'm a computer programmer retired from MS. You have likely used software I worked on. You don't seem to know what you are talking about.
"Faking your IP address" only makes sense when you do not need to get packets back. For instance, if I sent some TCP/IP packets with a forged source address to the server which hosts CY's blog, then I would of course not get any packets back, and thus could post here only with exceeding difficulty.
To be frank, "certified computer tech" would not impress anyone I know in the business. To apply for any technical or non-entry-level job at MS I suggest you leave it off your resume entirely.
I'm curious as to why you think I would go to such great lengths to post here. I'm not Nunaim, and don't know who that is. Anyway my identity doesn't make a difference. Either I'm right or you are, and you are unwilling to contest any particular point. You essentially start a new topic with each post.
"Don't let the door hit ya on the way out." Can you not even pretend to emulated Christ? You seem mean spirited in fact.
posted by Luther Tines at October 19, 2008 09:28 PMLuther, you just proved you know nothing about IP addresses, or how proxy servers work. Go do some research and learn not to make your idiocy apparent to those of us who really do know what we're talking about.
To put it in a nutshell, for your edification, what you do is surf to the proxy server, then tell the proxy server what URL to go to. It does so, thus giving the web server (for instance, this blog) its IP address instead of yours. You don't lose packets, because the web server (blog) sends packets to the proxy server's IP address, and the proxy server sends the packets to you at your own IP address. The web server (blog) never sees your IP address.
Also, you're far far too defensive about not being Nunaim. A truly innocent person wouldn't be that defensive. In short, methinks thou dost protest too much.
And, as for Christian, did you know that Christ called people hypocrites to their face, and described them as "whitewashed tombs" or "a pit of vipers"? He wasn't the pacifistic milquetoast you lefties wanna make Him out to be.
All in all, you've proven that you're a clueless blowhard who, like Joe Biden, wants to claim to be smarter than he really is. And I've just exposed that.
You said you were gone once, will you please leave now?
posted by C-C-G at October 20, 2008 06:21 PMC-C-G: "To put it in a nutshell, for your edification, what you do is surf to the proxy server, then tell the proxy server what URL to go to. It does so, thus giving the web server (for instance, this blog) its IP address instead of yours. You don't lose packets, because the web server (blog) sends packets to the proxy server's IP address, and the proxy server sends the packets to you at your own IP address. The web server (blog) never sees your IP address."
I was not talking about proxy servers. You have not yet understood what faking an IP address means. It means faking the source IP address in TCP/IP packets. Crackers have done this, but it is very complex as the cracker must figure out in advance the contents of the packets that the target computer will send out in response to your forged packets.
"To put it in a nutshell, for your edification, what you do is surf to the proxy server, then tell the proxy server what URL to go to. It does so, thus giving the web server (for instance, this blog) its IP address instead of yours. You don't lose packets, because the web server (blog) sends packets to the proxy server's IP address, and the proxy server sends the packets to you at your own IP address. The web server (blog) never sees your IP address."
You didn't understand my remark. With a "faked IP address", which I took to mean "IP packets with forged source addr," you never receive any information back from the target machine. The target machine tries to reply to the IP address which you faked.
You meant "anonymous proxy" I think. Proxy servers are common and not at all nefarious. For instance many institutions use them to cut down on bandwidth. For instance if a computer lab has 200 kids requesting the page http://www.google.com, each one can get a cached copy of the Google logo image from the proxy cache, with zero net bandwidth for the lab. Proxies also restrict users in various ways and sometimes log user actions.
Anonymous proxies are proxy servers set up to hide one's IP addresses, not "fake" it. Again, feel free to contact Bob for my IP and you'll see that it's a regular residential IP from CenturyTel, not an anonymous proxy server.
"Also, you're far far too defensive about not being Nunaim. A truly innocent person wouldn't be that defensive. In short, methinks thou dost protest too much."
Balderdash! You brought it up numerous times. I ignored it a couple of times and calmly denied it twice, and did what I could to demonstrate this to you. You still have not told me what is the significance of this person.
"And, as for Christian, did you know that Christ called people hypocrites to their face, and described them as 'whitewashed tombs' or 'a pit of vipers'? He wasn't the pacifistic milquetoast you lefties wanna make Him out to be."
If you believe Jesus was not a pacifist I despair of your understanding anything from the Bible ever. No one said He was a milquetoast.
It's ironic that you mentioned that 'whitewashed tomb' passage. I wonder who He would regard as a whitewashed tomb today? Perhaps someone who crows about being a lay preacher while supporting a war in which hundreds of thousands of innocents have died? Or who supports a president who enjoyed putting people to death in Texas?
« Hide Comments