PDA

View Full Version : No wonder Palin has such a high approval rating.......


stillers4me
09-06-2008, 08:18 AM
Also from the Wallstreet Journal........they've dumbed this all down so even I can understand it! :sofunny:

What Palin Really Did
To the Oil Industry
By JAMES P. LUCIER JR.
September 5, 2008; Page A15

Oil companies in Alaska are paying more money in taxes than ever before. The state's oil and gas tax revenues for its just-ended fiscal 2007 topped $10 billion. That's twice as much as fiscal 2006 and four times more than 2004.

Some supporters of Barack Obama see that money coming in and say that John McCain's running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, must have done what Sen. Obama wants to do -- sock those companies with a big fat windfall profit tax. This is a deeply misleading reading of her 2007 tax reform.

A few years ago, Alaska had a big problem. Despite high oil prices, the state's fiscal future was in peril because the state relies on only three aging oilfields for 80% of its oil and gas tax revenue.

In 2006, then Gov. Frank Murkowski, a Republican, proposed changing the state's tax on oil from a gross-revenue to a net-revenue basis. Instead of creaming 10% off the top -- which was how the mature oil fields were taxed -- Mr. Murkowski pushed to tax oil companies on their profits only, at a rate of 22.5%. The change in tax regime was meant to encourage investment in and development of new fields.

In effect, the state would become the oil companies' development partner. It would participate in the upside of oil and gas exploration, but only after the companies had recovered the enormous upfront costs of drilling new wells.

These costs are considerable. In Alaska, the locations are remote, the climate is extreme, the infrastructure mostly nonexistent, the environmental rules the strictest in the world, and there is only a short work season of three or four months a year. The costs make any project very risky.

Mr. Murkowski's plan turned into a disaster. It depended much on trust, but it lacked the transparency and predictability needed to win public confidence. One year after it went into effect, the Petroleum Profits Tax brought in far less revenue than expected and the state suffered a revenue crunch.

Somehow, the legislature had never properly defined accounting procedures and permissible deductions -- and the deductions came in much higher than expected. Meanwhile, as the shortfall appeared, a number of state legislators were on trial, under indictment, or under investigation for bribery by the FBI. These included some who should have done due diligence for the taxpayer on the proposal they enacted.

As a new governor in 2007, Mrs. Palin stepped in to address the fiscal crisis and restore accountability. Working with Democrats and Republicans alike, she chose a 25% profits tax. But in lean years the state reverts to a 10% gross revenue tax on legacy fields that do not require massive continuing inputs of new capital.

Relative to the old system, Mrs. Palin's plan -- called "Alaska's Clear and Equitable Share" (ACES) -- improves incentives for developing new resources. It ensures the state does well in boom times -- as it is doing now -- when oil prices are high. But it also hedges against low prices in the future by ensuring that oil companies exposed to commodity price swings don't face a crushing tax burden when commodity prices fall.

Her plan includes an escalator clause that gives the state a larger share of revenues when oil prices rise. This is common to production-sharing agreements all over the world.

Mr. Obama proposes to give each American a $1,000 check funded by windfall profit taxes to ease the pain of high energy prices. Some say Mrs. Palin's ACES is like that, because this year every Alaskan will receive a $1,200 check as a share of the oil bonanza. (The check comes in addition to the approximately $2,000 every Alaskan will receive this year as a dividend from the Permanent Fund, which was established by state constitutional amendment in 1976 as a way of sharing the state's mineral wealth with the people.)

A direct share in oil profits for every citizen is the ultimate incentive for more drilling. That's why in Alaska drilling for oil seems almost universally popular, while other states are drill-phobic.

The real comparison is not between Mr. Obama's windfall profit tax and Mrs. Palin's risk-and-profit-sharing plan. It is between Alaska's constitutional rule -- that the people must share directly in the state's mineral wealth -- and Mr. McCain's proposal that coastal states should share in federal offshore oil revenue. His plan is for the funds to be used for public purposes like roads, schools and conservation. A share of royalties dramatically improves the coastal states' incentive to support drilling. But if Mr. McCain offered every individual American a royalty check too, he might find it easier to sell his program.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122057543526201877.html?mod=loomia&loomia_si=t0:a16:g2:r1:c0.15932



Perhaps this is a sneek peek into what's ahead in the McCain/Palin strategy. Palin gave every Alaskan a stake in the states mineral wealth. That's one smart lady......who works FOR THE PEOPLE!

stillers4me
09-06-2008, 08:24 AM
And she did all this while Obama was writing his memoirs. :hunch:

ShutDown24
09-06-2008, 08:24 AM
But why would we want to elect these two when it's Obama's destiny to be president? :rolleyes:

McCain/Palin are moving in for the kill. I'm very confident if this election was held today the republicans would have it in the bag. These two are for real.

stillers4me
09-06-2008, 08:27 AM
But why would we want to elect these two when it's Obama's destiny to be president? :rolleyes:

McCain/Palin are moving in for the kill. I'm very confident if this election was held today the republicans would have it in the bag.

The problem is that most Americans have not taken the time to become to become familiar with her record.

The Dems are familiar with her accomplishments.............and that explains the vast smear campaign against her. They know that their voting base will remember inuendos and lies before they will bother with the facts.

Texasteel
09-06-2008, 09:16 AM
That why the debates are so important. Your right the Dems. have flooded the public with all sorts of garbage. Anything to keep the poor ignorant voters from finding out just what she has done in office. Its going to be her job to force people to look at her as she is, a tremendous public servant.

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
09-06-2008, 09:19 AM
So is anyone that is voting for Mccain upset that Palin is the vice?

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
09-06-2008, 09:20 AM
That why the debates are so important. Your right the Dems. have flooded the public with all sorts of garbage. Anything to keep the poor ignorant voters from finding out just what she has done in office. Its going to be her job to force people to look at her as she is, a tremendous public servant.

I love people who talk politics.......

Tell me 3 issues that you like about Palin...
Tell me 2 issues that you do not like about Palin
(Without looking online.........be honest.......can you do it)

Im not a big political person.........Point is......everyone talkes about these candidates and they listen to talk shows (NOT NEWS). and really dont know much about the person they are defending or promoting.

GBMelBlount
09-06-2008, 09:23 AM
Yes, so unless you are rich....vote for obama

I apologize BBFW, but I'm not sure I follow? What is it that you are saying? :noidea:

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
09-06-2008, 09:26 AM
I apologize BBFW, but I'm not sure I follow? What is it that you are saying? :noidea:

That was in response to another post.......about the poor ignorant voters voting for Obama........

GBMelBlount
09-06-2008, 09:45 AM
I love people who talk politics.......

Tell me 3 issues that you like about Palin...
Tell me 2 issues that you do not like about Palin
(Without looking online.........be honest.......can you do it)

Im not a big political person.........Point is......everyone talkes about these candidates and they listen to talk shows (NOT NEWS). and really dont know much about the person they are defending or promoting.

Sure.

I love the fact that they did not choose to abort their fifth child. ABORTION

I love the fact she did not take the Govt bridge to nowhere money - Anti Pork Barrel

She doesn't like her daughter getting pregnant, but she still unconditionally loves and supports her - love the sinner, hate the sin.

She went after corruption in her own party - non-partisan, do the right thing

She cut real estate taxes - pro economy

She believes in lower taxes for the middle class - pro working class

She believes in the government being accountable and living within its means, as its citizens are forced to.

She has strong convictions and doesn't test the political wind before every statement.

These are just a few....

Can't think of anything off hand I don't like. Can you think of anything BBFW?

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
09-06-2008, 09:52 AM
i admit.......that right now......i know nothing about her....(just began student teaching, havent had time to learn much about her)...I apologize for being ignorant for the moment.....
However:
I really believe though that many people support a party not the person.....and i think thats wrong...... if Palin was on the democratic ticket then you would be able to list several things that you dont like and would have a difficult time finding something you do like.......(not attacking you.......so i will say most people)
however........with your knowledge about Palin it is suprising that there was not one issue that you disagreed with....... She must be the perfect VP for the Reps?

GBMelBlount
09-06-2008, 09:55 AM
i admit.......that right now......i know nothing about her....(student teaching, havent had time to learn much about her).

I really believe though that many people support a party not the person.....and i think thats wrong...... if Palin was on the democratic ticket then you would be able to list several things that you dont like and would have a difficult time finding something you do like.......(not attacking you.......so i will say most people)
however........with your knowledge about Palin it is suprising that there was not one issue that you disagreed with....... She must be the perfect VP for the Reps?

I don't strongly support either party. I am simply very conservative. Her beliefs and actions are closely aligned with mine. That's all.

btw, good luck with your student teaching.

stillers4me
09-06-2008, 10:27 AM
Sure.

I love the fact that they did not choose to abort their fifth child. ABORTION

I love the fact she did not take the Govt bridge to nowhere money - Anti Pork Barrel

She doesn't like her daughter getting pregnant, but she still unconditionally loves and supports her - love the sinner, hate the sin.

She went after corruption in her own party - non-partisan, do the right thing

She cut real estate taxes - pro economy

She believes in lower taxes for the middle class - pro working class

She believes in the government being accountable and living within its means, as its citizens are forced to.

She has strong convictions and doesn't test the political wind before every statement.

These are just a few....

Can't think of anything off hand I don't like. Can you think of anything BBFW?

Excellent. :drink:

Now find someone on the street that can actually tell you why they like Obama besides the fact that he's not George Bush. Ask them to tell you what he has done for his constituents and what legislation he has had passed. Most of them can only quote bumper stickers. Because that's all he has and that's all most of them know.

Michael Keller
09-06-2008, 10:50 AM
I don't strongly support either party. I am simply very conservative. Her beliefs and actions are closely aligned with mine. That's all.

btw, good luck with your student teaching.

That was a class exchange on both sides . Nice going.

GB Mel There is something good happening here. Here we go Mcaine / Palin here we go".

I hope you live in PA. as you can enlighten people and help bring in those electoral votes from people other than those who cling to their religion and guns.

I am sorry I probably should not have said that but I live pretty close to Marin County
in Sacramento and I should be able to get away such a statement.

j-dawg
09-06-2008, 10:54 AM
i admit.......that right now......i know nothing about her....(just began student teaching, havent had time to learn much about her)...I apologize for being ignorant for the moment.....
However:
I really believe though that many people support a party not the person.....and i think thats wrong...... if Palin was on the democratic ticket then you would be able to list several things that you dont like and would have a difficult time finding something you do like.......(not attacking you.......so i will say most people)
however........with your knowledge about Palin it is suprising that there was not one issue that you disagreed with....... She must be the perfect VP for the Reps?

I totally agree with you on that...

Here's a case in point, Palin was FOR the "bridge to nowhere" before she was against it. Actually saying she was insulted by the term "bridge to nowhere" when she was running for govenor in 2006.
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN3125537020080901

Asked why she supported the bridge, Palin's communications director Bill McAlister said, "It was never at the top of her priority list, and in fact the project isn't necessarily dead … there's still the potential for improved ferry service or even a bridge of a less costly design."

She changed her mind, he said, when "she saw that Alaska was being perceived as taking from the country and not giving, and that impression bothered her and she wants to change it. … I think that Sarah Palin is someone who has the courage to reevaluate situations as they developed."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-31-palin-bridge_N.htm

It wasn't one of her top priorities, but it made it in her nationally televised speech? She's no different than the rest of these politicians.

stillers4me
09-06-2008, 11:01 AM
I think that Sarah Palin is someone who has the courage to reevaluate situations as they developed."

I think that is just one of the things that DOES make her different. Obama says now that the surge worked, but he still can't admit that he was wrong. Palin, by vetoing the bill, admitted that she was wrong in her intial assessment and did the right thing for Alaska and Americans. Obama has basically done the equivalent of voteing "present" on the surge after the fact.

j-dawg
09-06-2008, 11:09 AM
I think that is just one of the things that DOES make her different. Obama says now that the surge worked, but he still can't admit that he was wrong. Palin, by vetoing the bill, admitted that she was wrong in her intial assessment and did the right thing for Alaska and the Americans. Obama has basically done the equivalent of voteing "present" on the surge after the fact.

:coffee:

This is why I avoid these threads...

Yep, shift it to the other guy.

stillers4me
09-06-2008, 11:15 AM
:coffee:

This is why I avoid these threads...

Yep, shift it to the other guy.

It wasn't shifted. I said Palin is to be commended on her decision and I support her decision to say " I was wrong and I will do what is in the best interest of the people I serve."

I was making a comparison to another candidate.......which is what you are supposed to do when when choosing who you vote for.

El-Gonzo Jackson
09-06-2008, 11:29 AM
I really believe though that many people support a party not the person

Yeah, my coworker is very active in politics and sometimes working on campaigns of who he supports. He told me that studies have shown the heirarchy of allegiance for the majority of voters is 1.Party, 2.Leader, 3. local candidate.

lamberts-lost-tooth
09-06-2008, 11:30 AM
I totally agree with you on that...

Here's a case in point, Palin was FOR the "bridge to nowhere" before she was against it. Actually saying she was insulted by the term "bridge to nowhere" when she was running for govenor in 2006.
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN3125537020080901

Asked why she supported the bridge, Palin's communications director Bill McAlister said, "It was never at the top of her priority list, and in fact the project isn't necessarily dead … there's still the potential for improved ferry service or even a bridge of a less costly design."

She changed her mind, he said, when "she saw that Alaska was being perceived as taking from the country and not giving, and that impression bothered her and she wants to change it. … I think that Sarah Palin is someone who has the courage to reevaluate situations as they developed."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-31-palin-bridge_N.htm

It wasn't one of her top priorities, but it made it in her nationally televised speech? She's no different than the rest of these politicians.

I really dont get it....after looking at all the facts she decided that her initial assesment wasnt financially responsible and made the right choice.

If Obama and Biden had that kind of record...I could be persuaded that they have my best interests in mind.

Just more of the "same old" that drives the democratic party crazy this year...No matter what they try and come up with, turns into a mirror that shows them their own dirty faces.

Experience?...Obama has less that his own VP..and both the Rebulican Forerunner and his VP

Change? Both McCain & Palin have shown the ability and the history of going against the party line...and working with Dems. Obama #1 in liberal voting & Biden is exactly the "inside the beltway old school" polititcian that Obama keeps saying we dont need.

Ethics? McCain has the least amount of Pork barrel spending of anyone in congress & Palin refuses taxpayer funds to build a bridge ...First term Senator OBama comes in as #2 overall in pork barrel spending and is a product of the corrupt Chicago Democratic Machine...refusing to vote in the state senate for any bill that might hurt his chances in politics, thereby cowardly voting "present 128 times.

The proof is in the facts, but why let that get in the way of a good "spin":banging:

j-dawg
09-06-2008, 11:39 AM
It wasn't shifted. I said Palin is to be commended on her decision and I support her decision to say " I was wrong and I will do what is in the best interest of the people I serve."

I was making a comparison to another candidate.......which is what you are supposed to do when when choosing who you vote for.

Here's what THE PEOPLE she serves have to say..... "People are learning that she pandered to us by saying, I'm for this' ... and then when she found it was politically advantageous for her nationally, abruptly she starts using the very term that she said was insulting."

How is what she did any different then what any other politican does? She appeased a popular idea, and when it shifted, she dropped it like a hot potato. Somehow I guess she does it better? :noidea:

j-dawg
09-06-2008, 11:47 AM
I really dont get it....after looking at all the facts she decided that her initial assesment wasnt financially responsible and made the right choice.


The proof is in the facts, but why let that get in the way of a good "spin":banging:

Is that why the 200 million that was earmarked for the project never was returned?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/22/alaska.bridge.ap/

for me, this isn't about DEM/REPUB spin... i'm just sick of reading how she's different than all the other politicians... :doh:

lamberts-lost-tooth
09-06-2008, 11:57 AM
Here's what THE PEOPLE she serves have to say..... "People are learning that she pandered to us by saying, I'm for this' ... and then when she found it was politically advantageous for her nationally, abruptly she starts using the very term that she said was insulting."

How is what she did any different then what any other politican does? She appeased a popular idea, and when it shifted, she dropped it like a hot potato. Somehow I guess she does it better? :noidea:

Wow..for someone who is accusing others of a "shift"....

...that seems to be a pretty significant "shift" in facts.

Palin enjoyed the highest approval rating of any governer in the Unites States....With rates that got as high as 93%...and are still to this day in the mid 80% range

So....the question to you would be...is that REALLY what the "People" she serves have to say?....are would the facts dictate that this is what one of the very small (very possibly democratic?) MINORITY had to say.

Let me answer that for you....Based on REAL numbers...you picked a quote from the minority.

nuff said

lamberts-lost-tooth
09-06-2008, 12:07 PM
Is that why the 200 million that was earmarked for the project never was returned?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/22/alaska.bridge.ap/

for me, this isn't about DEM/REPUB spin... i'm just sick of reading how she's different than all the other politicians... :doh:

Probably needed to read your own link...

On Friday, Leo von Scheben, commissioner of the state Department of Transportation, said the bridge money could be used to build roads in Alaska.

"There is no question we desperately need to construct new roads in this state, including in southeast Alaska, where skyrocketing costs for the Alaska Marine Highway System present an impediment to the state's budget and the region's economy," von Scheben said in a statement.

Taking money from an irresponsible project and putting it towards much needed projects seems financially responsible....

As a resident of Illinois..I can say that I wish our Governer made such wise decisions...and wish that Obama's record while a State senator reflected that type of wisdom.

tony hipchest
09-06-2008, 01:39 PM
Is that why the 200 million that was earmarked for the project never was returned?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/22/alaska.bridge.ap/

for me, this isn't about DEM/REPUB spin... i'm just sick of reading how she's different than all the other politicians... :doh:

funny how the right keeps patting her on the back for shooting down and earmark that congress was already shooting down, and how the left is accused of not researching her accomplishments".

they dont wannt atalk about the $200,000,000 she stole, i mean put in alaskas, pockets, i mean kept, i mean used for a better project.

yep. shes a maverick alright. a modern day robin hood. steal from the poor and give to the rich. but her keeping that money is ok as long as she does good with it, right LLT? :coffee:

sorry, but that type of deceit in washington is exactly what we need to change. alaska already asks for more federal govt money than any other state per capita. all roads in all states need work. but i guess serving the 600,000 people there is more important than the 299,400,000 other people in the rest of the union.

lamberts-lost-tooth
09-06-2008, 01:56 PM
funny how the right keeps patting her on the back for shooting down and earmark that congress was already shooting down, and how the left is accused of not researching her accomplishments".

they dont wannt atalk about the $200,000,000 she stole, i mean put in alaskas, pockets, i mean kept, i mean used for a better project.

yep. shes a maverick alright. a modern day robin hood. steal from the poor and give to the rich. but her keeping that money is ok as long as she does good with it, right LLT? :coffee:

sorry, but that type of deceit in washington is exactly what we need to change. alaska already asks for more federal govt money than any other state per capita. all roads in all states need work. but i guess serving the 600,000 people there is more important than the 299,400,000 other people in the rest of the union.

Might want to read the whole article there Tony.

Under mounting political pressure over pork projects, Congress stripped the earmark -- or stipulation -- that the money be used for the airport, but still sent the money to the state for any use it deemed appropriate.
Since you made the remark that she "STOLE" the money...please explain your facts to back it up.

..and as usual we should all cover our eyes and ears and pretend being the #2 Pork Barrell abuser in the whole congress isnt stealing from the poor and giving to the rich.

With that type of hypocricy...I think we better pinch our noses also...:poop:

Obama would be such a better candidate if we didnt all tripped up with those silly....facts.:coffee:

tony hipchest
09-06-2008, 02:14 PM
Might want to read the whole article there Tony.


Since you made the remark that she "STOLE" the money...please explain your facts to back it up.

..and as usual we should all cover our eyes and ears and pretend being the #2 Pork Barrell abuser in the whole congress isnt stealing from the poor and giving to the rich.

With that type of hypocricy...I think we better pinch our noses also...:poop:

Obama would be such a better candidate if we didnt all tripped up with those silly....facts.:coffee:i meant using it for a "better project". or did that not come across in my post. :noidea:

i read this/these articles before they were brought to this board, just like i read the articles of her "bringing big oil to its knees, and it being God's will to build a $200,000,000 natural gas pipeline, and her affiliation with the AIP.

lamberts-lost-tooth
09-06-2008, 02:21 PM
i meant using it for a "better project". or did that not come across in my post. :noidea:

i read this/these articles before they were brought to this board, just like i read the articles of her "bringing big oil to its knees, and it being God's will to build a $200,000,000 natural gas pipeline, and her affiliation with the AIP.

I wont go so far as to say its "Gods will" to most things political...but on a personal note I do think it interesting how Palin's decision to have a downs syndrome child...and her daughters choice to have a baby at a young age...has put a face on the abortion issue.

One of my co-workers (Obama supporter) told a group of us..."I'm not touching the abortion issue this year...with her baby on the stage beside her, I'm not ABOUT to be the one accused of saying that baby should have been aborted"

That made me think how interesting it is that the whole abortion issue has taken a back seat and I asked myself if his mindset might be typical of a national thought process??? I dont know...but its interesting.:noidea:

tony hipchest
09-06-2008, 02:45 PM
I wont go so far as to say its "Gods will" to most things political...but on a personal note I do think it interesting how Palin's decision to have a downs syndrome child...and her daughters choice to have a baby at a young age...has put a face on the abortion issue.

One of my co-workers (Obama supporter) told a group of us..."I'm not touching the abortion issue this year...with her baby on the stage beside her, I'm not ABOUT to be the one accused of saying that baby should have been aborted"

That made me think how interesting it is that the whole abortion issue has taken a back seat and I asked myself if his mindset might be typical of a national thought process??? I dont know...but its interesting.:noidea: i am so sick of hearing about palins retarded child. well not really that, but her being given sainthood like she is mother teresa or something.

she is NOT the first person to ever carry a down syndrome child to term and it insinuates that ALL democrats would abort.

there are plenty of Down syndrome and handicapped babies born to democratic families. it knows no social class or party affiliation. (although poor families are more prone to have unhealthy children).

for the right to keep on acting like they have a monopoly on carrying these children to term is downright disgusting and sleazy. i feel for palins poor child being used as a political pawn. and i know, understand, and respect that those against abortion feel that it, in itself, is disgusting and sleazy. but so is rape and incest.

lamberts-lost-tooth
09-06-2008, 03:24 PM
i am so sick of hearing about palins retarded child. well not really that, but her being given sainthood like she is mother teresa or something.


C'mon tony...that was over the line....

Hey ....We have all been complaining about the sleazy press...good to hear that you are feeling our pain...unless you are somehow insinuating that its Palin that has made statements about her child for political purpose..and in that case would ask for the link.


she is NOT the first person to ever carry a down syndrome child to term and it insinuates that ALL democrats would abort.

How so...why is the Republican base having an opinion about ker keeping the child an indictment against anyone..Democrat or Republican? Republicans are traditionally anti-abortion...why does that surprise you?


i feel for palins poor child being used as a political pawn.
so much so as to call him retarted?

let me make sure I understand...Obama not only putting his kids on the stage but also putting his kids on 60 minutes is okay...but Palin having her baby on stage is political pandering...interesting take.:coffee:

and i know, understand, and respect that those against abortion feel that it, in itself, is disgusting and sleazy. but so is rape and incest

agreed...rape and incest are disgusting...but alot of conservatives, like me, dont think that its a baby that should be killed for it.

j-dawg
09-06-2008, 03:49 PM
Wow..for someone who is accusing others of a "shift"....

...that seems to be a pretty significant "shift" in facts.

Palin enjoyed the highest approval rating of any governer in the Unites States....With rates that got as high as 93%...and are still to this day in the mid 80% range

So....the question to you would be...is that REALLY what the "People" she serves have to say?....are would the facts dictate that this is what one of the very small (very possibly democratic?) MINORITY had to say.

Let me answer that for you....Based on REAL numbers...you picked a quote from the minority.

nuff said


no, this is about supporting something and then not supporting something...

I'll say it again...

How is what she did any different then what any other politican does? She appeased a popular idea, and when it shifted, she dropped it like a hot potato.

politics as usual.

stillers4me
09-06-2008, 03:51 PM
Gov. Plains approval rating.........80%

The Democrat Congress approval rating........15%

Politics as usual?

j-dawg
09-06-2008, 03:59 PM
Gov. Plains approval rating.........80%

The Democrat Congress approval rating........15%

Politics as usual?

here we go again... i give up.. like most folks in this country. You want to drink the Palin Kool-Aid, go for it. She's no different than any other politician.

stillers4me
09-06-2008, 04:12 PM
here we go again... i give up.. like most folks in this country. You want to drink the Palin Kool-Aid, go for it. She's no different than any other politician.

And we have to choose between those same politicians.

Nothing will change in Washington if Obama wins the Whitehouse. (there's some major kool aid drinking going on in that camp)

I say put McCain/Palin in the Whitehouse and start shaking things up in Washington. Then vote the do-nothing Dems out of Congress to finish the job.

Now that's "change you can believe in".

j-dawg
09-06-2008, 04:25 PM
And we have to choose between those same politicians.

Nothing will change in Washington if Obama wins the Whitehouse. (there's some major kool aid drinking going on in that camp)

I say put McCain/Palin in the Whitehouse and start shaking things up in Washington. Then vote the do-nothing Dems out of Congress to finish the job.

Now that's "change you can believe in".

I've read how McCain voted along Bush's policies 90% of the time and he's going to "change" things? You got in here how Palin has this high approval rating in Alaska, but that couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that the incumbant she beat was disliked, or that it was nice for the states constituents to recieve a $1200.00 rebate check. I read how she's a tax cutter even though Alaska has no state income or sales tax. I'm not sold on Obama, but I don't think McCain is going to shake anything up either... he's allied with the folks that perpetuated the crap that's going on right now.

millwalldavey
09-06-2008, 04:29 PM
Shaking things up? Try more business as usual... a lot more than with Obama.

McCain amounts to 4 more years. In a way, so does Obama.

Theyre all the same... only the names change.

stillers4me
09-06-2008, 04:31 PM
McCain has not bought one dime of "pork" home to his state of Arizona. He also is the most qualified person to be called commander in chief. I'll take his record over Obama's anyday (does he actually have one, because I haven't seen one yet.).....if I'm permitted to make comparisons.

The Patriot
09-06-2008, 04:47 PM
Sarah Palin has no legislative experience. How is she qualified to be President of Congress?

stillers4me
09-06-2008, 04:58 PM
Sarah Palin has no legislative experience. How is she qualified to be President of Congress?

I didn't know she was running for "President of Congress". :hunch:

stillers4me
09-06-2008, 05:07 PM
Numerous US presidents were governors first, perhaps representing the faith of the people in the office of governor. If a person can successfully lead a state in the US, then they may also be able to lead the country, since the state is a somewhat miniaturized version of the country. Several other presidents were governors first and then held many different political offices, including senate and house representative positions, and/or serving in the vice presidency.

In all, 16 presidents were governors first. A few of them were not governors in the modern sense of the term; that is, they governed territories rather than states. Andrew Jackson acted as military governor to the Florida Territory and as governor to the Northwest Territory in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. William Harrison governed the Indiana Territory for twelve years at the beginning of the 19th century. Lastly William Taft served as Governor-General in the Philippines at the beginning of the 20th century.

In the early years of the US, the following presidents were governors first:


Thomas Jefferson: the first president to hold the position of governor, served as Virginia’s governor from 1779-1781

James Monroe: served as Governor of Virginia from 1799-1802, and again served for a brief period as the 16th Governor of Virginia from January through April in 1811.

John Tyler: another Governor of Virginia, serving from 1825-1827

Following governors from Virginia, other presidents were governors first from a variety of other states:


Martin Van Buren: Governor of New York in 1829
James Polk: Governor of Tennessee, serving from 1839-1841
Andrew Johnson: Governor of Tennessee from 1853-1857 and then appointed by Lincoln to serve as military governor of Tennessee from 1862-1864
Rutherford Hayes: Governor of Ohio from 1868-1872 and again from 1876-1877 Grover Cleveland: Governor of New York from 1883-1885
William McKinley: Governor of Ohio from 1892-1896

Numerous presidents were governors first in the 20th century:

Theodore Roosevelt, first Governor of New York from 1899-1901.
Woodrow Wilson: Governor of New Jersey from 1911-1913
Calvin Coolidge: Governor of Massachusetts from 1919-1921
Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Governor of New York from 1929-1933
Ronald Reagan: Governor of California from 1967-1975
Jimmy Carter: Governor of Georgia from 1971-1975
Bill Clinton: Governor of Arkansas for two separate terms, from 1979-1981, and from 1983-1992
George W. Bush: Governor of Texas from 1995-2000.

http://www.wisegeek.com/how-many-united-states-presidents-were-governors-first.htm


How quickly we forget...........:chuckle:

tony hipchest
09-06-2008, 05:27 PM
I say put McCain/Palin in the Whitehouse and start shaking things up in Washington. Then vote the do-nothing Dems out of Congress to finish the job.

Now that's "change you can believe in".lol. i think you got it backwards.... or did you forget why those dems are in congress in the first place? im sure americans will finish the job. after all bush proved he couldnt.

The Patriot
09-06-2008, 05:33 PM
I didn't know she was running for "President of Congress". :hunch:

Sorry, I meant President of the Senate. The VP presides over the Senate meetings and I don't think Palin is qualified.

stillers4me
09-06-2008, 05:39 PM
lol. i think you got it backwards.... or did you forget why those dems are in congress in the first place? im sure americans will finish the job. after all bush proved he couldnt.

Well, they've had their chance to prove they can improve the country. And have failed miserably. Or are you one of the 15% who thinks they are doing just a bang up job?

xfl2001fan
09-06-2008, 05:46 PM
Sorry, I meant President of the Senate. The VP presides over the Senate meetings and I don't think Palin is qualified.

So you'd take someone who's led nothing (except the Democrat nomination) over someone who led a state?

You're more concerned with who has oversight of Congress than the entire Country?

Politics is about taking the lesser of two evils.

Super Pork versus Lack of Pork.
No solid stance vs takes a hard stand.
Promises change vs proven trendsetters

Seems pretty easy to me.

tony hipchest
09-06-2008, 05:53 PM
Well, they've had their chance to prove they can improve the country. And have failed miserably. Or are you one of the 15% who thinks they are doing just a bang up job?
executive, legislative and judicial branches. one is not stronger than the others. its called a system of checks and balances.

im one who said we'll start this change 2 years agao and then finish it up in '08. i've already given mccain a more than fair shot to win this dems vote. he failed. too bad. i really like the man. he woulda made an EXCELLENT vice president on obama's ticket, especiall now that he's all for the "change".

tony hipchest
09-06-2008, 05:59 PM
Super Pork versus Lack of Pork.
.war in iraq is the king of pork. so is protecting saudi arabia. obama had the foresight to see this and vote against it.
Palin was the leader of about 600.000 people.

xfl2001fan
09-06-2008, 06:10 PM
War is Pork? Whether or not you believe we were right in invading, you would be an idiot to refute the good we've done over there.

I honestly don't know how much money we're throwing Saudi's way, so I have no argument one way or another way.

How many people has Obama actually led? You want him to be the President...but want to throw away her minimal experience when her current goal is to be VP, not president.

She's running with a guy who's mom is still alive. He's got long-lived genes.

The Patriot
09-06-2008, 06:20 PM
So you'd take someone who's led nothing (except the Democrat nomination) over someone who led a state?

You're more concerned with who has oversight of Congress than the entire Country?

Politics is about taking the lesser of two evils.

Super Pork versus Lack of Pork.
No solid stance vs takes a hard stand.
Promises change vs proven trendsetters

Seems pretty easy to me.

Palin was the Governor of Alaska for less than 20 months. We're talking about a state with the population of 700,000 people. The metro population of Boston is 6 million alone. So going from 700 thousand to 300 million is quite a jump. Obama never led a state but neither has McCain. They are qualified because they've both been involved in Washington.

MACH1
09-06-2008, 06:25 PM
Obama's not qualified to lead a parade let alone be pres.

The Patriot
09-06-2008, 06:27 PM
War is Pork? Whether or not you believe we were right in invading, you would be an idiot to refute the good we've done over there.

I honestly don't know how much money we're throwing Saudi's way, so I have no argument one way or another way.

How many people has Obama actually led? You want him to be the President...but want to throw away her minimal experience when her current goal is to be VP, not president.

She's running with a guy who's mom is still alive. He's got long-lived genes.
First of all, Obama's grandmother is still alive.

Second of all, the statement that Obama can't lead is a ridiculous assertion. You are forgetting that McCain technically does not have a day of executive experience in his long political career. Do you believe Palin is more qualified then McCain? There are 49 other sitting Governors in this country and plenty of former ones and they all have more executive experience than Palin.

xfl2001fan
09-06-2008, 06:31 PM
And Obama has done so well with his "present" 128 times.

Congratulations, we know you're here. Take a stand.

Make a choice, right or wrong and face it like a man. But to do nothing is sheer cowardice. I have to make decisions on a daily basis in regards to 192 Million dollars worth of property and the personnel/systems required to run it. I have looked my Colonel in the eye and told him things he didn't want to hear. I have looked him in the eye and told him I'm going to do things a certain way...and am willing to take an ass chewing for it. I even put it in writing (though our higher headquarters had forbidden it) and sent it out to the field. I took an ass chewing about 6 months later, but even then, when I explained why I took the stance I took, it was understood that what I did expedited a lot of movement for our property and (ultimately) saved the government a lot of money.

I was wrong, knew I was wrong, made a hard decision and stand by it.

If Obama could do that, he'd get more votes. Instead, he's just a body collecting an extraordinary paycheck letting the taxpayers know that he's at his job doing nothing.

So the 6 million people in Boston mean nothing because he did nothing to lead anyone. I would love to have a job that would pay me to do nothing but smile for the camera, make an occasional pretty speech and allow me to interview for a new job on their time/dime. Then, if I don't get said job, I can go back to my cushy job where I have to do nothing but smile for the camera, give a pretty farewell speech that would indicate I'd be back in 4 years to use the taxpayers money to campaign for said job again and vote "present".

If my job performance was anything like his, I'd be lucky to find a new job, let alone keep the one I'm in.

***********************ADDITION TO AVOID DBL POST************************
First of all, Obama's grandmother is still alive.
My statement was an instant-rebuttal to any claim that may have been made against the Rep-Nom's age.

Second of all, the statement that Obama can't lead is a ridiculous assertion. You are forgetting that McCain technically does not have a day of executive experience in his long political career. Do you believe Palin is more qualified then McCain? There are 49 other sitting Governors in this country and plenty of former ones and they all have more executive experience than Palin.

I believe that McCain has a lot more political experience than Obama...and despite that, has asked for significantly less pork during his long and established career.

I believe that McCain has a thorough understanding of how the military works (you know, wants to be Commander-In-Chief, a prime responsibility of the President).

Yup, there are plenty of people that have more experience than Palin, but McCain chose her. I've seen some good and some bad about her. The best I've seen about her is that she'll make a decision. Again, something Obama seems either incapable of doing or unwilling. Either way, its a scary thought.

j-dawg
09-06-2008, 06:41 PM
And Obama has done so well with his "present" 128 times.

Congratulations, we know you're here. Take a stand.

Make a choice, right or wrong and face it like a man. But to do nothing is sheer cowardice. I have to make decisions on a daily basis in regards to 192 Million dollars worth of property and the personnel/systems required to run it. I have looked my Colonel in the eye and told him things he didn't want to hear. I have looked him in the eye and told him I'm going to do things a certain way...and am willing to take an ass chewing for it. I even put it in writing (though our higher headquarters had forbidden it) and sent it out to the field. I took an ass chewing about 6 months later, but even then, when I explained why I took the stance I took, it was understood that what I did expedited a lot of movement for our property and (ultimately) saved the government a lot of money.

I was wrong, knew I was wrong, made a hard decision and stand by it.

If Obama could do that, he'd get more votes. Instead, he's just a body collecting an extraordinary paycheck letting the taxpayers know that he's at his job doing nothing.

So the 6 million people in Boston mean nothing because he did nothing to lead anyone. I would love to have a job that would pay me to do nothing but smile for the camera, make an occasional pretty speech and allow me to interview for a new job on their time/dime. Then, if I don't get said job, I can go back to my cushy job where I have to do nothing but smile for the camera, give a pretty farewell speech that would indicate I'd be back in 4 years to use the taxpayers money to campaign for said job again and vote "present".

If my job performance was anything like his, I'd be lucky to find a new job, let alone keep the one I'm in.


You're not giving yourself enough credit XFL... politicians NEVER make a hard stand, there's always language to step out of whatever they do or don't do. You're aware of the word accountability... it's a shame no one in political office is.

xfl2001fan
09-06-2008, 06:45 PM
Better to take a soft stand than no stand at all.

The Fluffy One
09-06-2008, 07:41 PM
Hi, I'm new to posting here, I just signed up specifically to post to this thread first, lol I have been lurking here awhile and I always enjoy reading all the steelers posts! Can't wait for the game tomorrow :)

Anyways, I love reading and talkng about politics and although I don't hold allegiance to either party, I consider myself very conservative on most issues. Now, I've read I'm pretty sure every post in this thread, and while I've seen all the negatives for either side (Palin's earmarks, Obama's 'presents,' her supposed inexperience, McCain siding with Bush, etc), and I've heard many positive things about both her and McCain's track records, but not so much Obama's 'resume.' What I've read/heard from most Obama supporters is simply that he is going to institute change, that he is for the working class, etc., but not particular examples as to issues that he takes a stand on, or actual plans that he intends to put into motion in office.

I would ask any Obama supporter to please tell me what Obama has done in the past that has been an example of how he sticks to his guns and backs up issues he believes in (even if people do not necessarily agree with his convictions, whatever they may be), as I really am interested in learning your views and not just a regurgitation of what the talking heads say on TV discussion programs.

Cheers! :drink:

xfl2001fan
09-06-2008, 07:48 PM
Hi, I'm new to posting here, I just signed up specifically to post to this thread first, lol I have been lurking here awhile and I always enjoy reading all the steelers posts! Can't wait for the game tomorrow :)

As I'm sure you've guessed by now, I'm a Browns fan lurking on a Steelers site. However, welcome to the forums. It's a great site, run by a group of really awesome people.

I would ask any Obama supporter to please tell me what Obama has done in the past that has been an example of how he sticks to his guns and backs up issues he believes in (even if people do not necessarily agree with his convictions, whatever they may be), as I really am interested in learning your views and not just a regurgitation of what the talking heads say on TV discussion programs.

Cheers! :drink:

Good luck with that. The more politically savvy conservatives have been asking for that for a while. So far, nothing.

stillers4me
09-06-2008, 08:19 PM
There are 49 other sitting Governors in this country and plenty of former ones and they all have more executive experience than Palin.

But none of them seemed to have done a good enough job to be nominated for the second highest office in th land.

millwalldavey
09-06-2008, 08:25 PM
But none of them seemed to have done a good enough job to be nominated for the second highest office in th land.

Most of them did not have the swing vote qualifications she brings to the camp however.

cubanstogie
09-06-2008, 08:41 PM
Hi, I'm new to posting here, I just signed up specifically to post to this thread first, lol I have been lurking here awhile and I always enjoy reading all the steelers posts! Can't wait for the game tomorrow :)

Anyways, I love reading and talkng about politics and although I don't hold allegiance to either party, I consider myself very conservative on most issues. Now, I've read I'm pretty sure every post in this thread, and while I've seen all the negatives for either side (Palin's earmarks, Obama's 'presents,' her supposed inexperience, McCain siding with Bush, etc), and I've heard many positive things about both her and McCain's track records, but not so much Obama's 'resume.' What I've read/heard from most Obama supporters is simply that he is going to institute change, that he is for the working class, etc., but not particular examples as to issues that he takes a stand on, or actual plans that he intends to put into motion in office.

I would ask any Obama supporter to please tell me what Obama has done in the past that has been an example of how he sticks to his guns and backs up issues he believes in (even if people do not necessarily agree with his convictions, whatever they may be), as I really am interested in learning your views and not just a regurgitation of what the talking heads say on TV discussion programs.

Cheers! :drink:
welcome, very diplomatic way of asking your question. For that, you won't get called names, or get sarcasm in response. I just doubt you will get a response. I too can't wait for the game so we having something fun to talk about.

The Patriot
09-06-2008, 09:17 PM
I support Obama because I believe he is the type of President this country needs right now. His main focus has always been helping low-income workers and those are the people who are really getting screwed right now. They made fun of him at the RNC for being a Community Organizer but that's where he got his start and those are the types of politics he's based his career on.

We all know the economy is in the dumps right now with all the home foreclosures and the national banks going under. Bush thought that tax breaks for the wealthy would give the economy a jumpstart, which sometimes works, but this time it didn't. Obama wants to lower taxes for the majority of the middle class and put the burdan on the wealthy for awhile. McCain believes that this will result in the loss of jobs. I don't think it will. Corporate America did just as well under Clinton as it did under Bush.

I don't buy the fact that we have to win this war. Did the Surge work? Yes, but it also cost more money and to what end? We've occupied Iraq longer than we occupied Nazi Germany. I think its time to pullout and redirect taxpayers dollars to the economy.

If McCain is elected I won't be crushed. I would just rather have Obama. I think both men are trying to accomplish the same thing but I think McCain's focus will be on the military and Obama's will be on the lower class. Both of them want to fix the economy. I just agree with Obama's plan.

And yes, I think he can lead.

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
09-06-2008, 09:38 PM
I don't strongly support either party. I am simply very conservative. Her beliefs and actions are closely aligned with mine. That's all.

btw, good luck with your student teaching.

thanks:tt02:

Preacher
09-07-2008, 01:43 AM
First of all, Obama's grandmother is still alive.

Second of all, the statement that Obama can't lead is a ridiculous assertion. You are forgetting that McCain technically does not have a day of executive experience in his long political career. Do you believe Palin is more qualified then McCain? There are 49 other sitting Governors in this country and plenty of former ones and they all have more executive experience than Palin.

Actually, that isn't true.

McCain has had plenty of experience as the person in leadership when he was in the military.

There is a DISTINCT difference when you are THE PERSON make the decisions versus one of hundreds-- or one of three as he was when he led his famous community group.

On that score, I trust someone who has experience leading 15 people rather than someone who has experience working with billion dollar budgets and making laws... because there is no experience in being THE person.

lamberts-lost-tooth
09-07-2008, 05:08 AM
lol. i think you got it backwards.... or did you forget why those dems are in congress in the first place? im sure americans will finish the job. after all bush proved he couldnt.

pssstt...Obama is not running against Bush...quit listeneing to CNN..he is running against McCain...who by the way has shown more willingness to vote against his party than Obama has.

lamberts-lost-tooth
09-07-2008, 05:28 AM
Sorry, I meant President of the Senate. The VP presides over the Senate meetings and I don't think Palin is qualified.

...yea..but you also dont think Belicheat did anything wrong...so your track record isnt exactly exemplary:coffee:

lamberts-lost-tooth
09-07-2008, 05:36 AM
I've read how McCain voted along Bush's policies 90% of the time and he's going to "change" things? You got in here how Palin has this high approval rating in Alaska, but that couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that the incumbant she beat was disliked, or that it was nice for the states constituents to recieve a $1200.00 rebate check. I read how she's a tax cutter even though Alaska has no state income or sales tax. I'm not sold on Obama, but I don't think McCain is going to shake anything up either... he's allied with the folks that perpetuated the crap that's going on right now.



You might want to look at the Alaskan Department of Revenue site before you make statements insinuating that there was no room for her to cut taxes....here...let me do the work for you .

Here is a list of the Tax departments withing the state....



Alcoholic Beverages Tax

Commercial Passenger Vessel Excise Tax

Corporate Income Tax

Electric Cooperative Tax

Employment Security Tax

Estate Tax

Fisheries Related Taxes

Gaming

Large Passenger Vessel Gambling Tax

Mining License Tax

Motor Fuel Tax

Oil and Gas Production Tax

ACES Oil & Gas Production Tax

Petroleum Profits Tax (PPT)

Oil and Gas Property Tax

Personal Income Tax

Regulatory Cost Charges

Sales and Use Tax

Telephone Cooperative Tax

Tobacco Tax

Vehicle Rental Tax

Withholding Tax
http://www.tax.alaska.gov/programs/index.aspx

....also municipalities are allowed to add sales tax as they see fit.

lamberts-lost-tooth
09-07-2008, 05:42 AM
no, this is about supporting something and then not supporting something...

I'll say it again...

How is what she did any different then what any other politican does? She appeased a popular idea, and when it shifted, she dropped it like a hot potato.

politics as usual.

Obama has shifted ideas over and over again...yet I cant find ONE time you have accused him of the same....so why this obsession with Palin who isnt even the frontrunner on the ticket.

Hmmmmm....sounds like politics as usual.

GBMelBlount
09-07-2008, 07:56 AM
Patriot
And yes, I think he (Obama) can lead.

Please tell me why you "think" Obama can lead? Some have argued that he is one of the LEAST qualified candidates to run this country in a hundred years....

Patriot
I support Obama because I believe he is the type of President this country needs right now. His main focus has always been helping low-income workers and those are the people who are really getting screwed right now.

Why do you feel the low-income workers are getting screwed? Who do you feel is screwing them? Also, what specifically do you think Obama would do that would better the plight of the current low-income worker who is being screwed?

stillers4me
09-07-2008, 08:07 AM
eww.....eww.....eww..... I can answer all those questions! (stillers jumping up and down raising her hand!)

He can vote "present" and then go ask Joe Biden what to he thinks.

The Patriot
09-07-2008, 08:47 AM
Please tell me why you "think" Obama can lead? Some have argued that he is one of the LEAST qualified candidates to run this country in a hundred years....
Because this idea that he'll crumble in a leadership position is ridiculous and, in my view, a weak argument. The President's job is to enforce laws, veto bills, and direct the military. The president's power is restricted for a reason. I can't comprehend under what circumstances people think he wouldn't be able to lead.



Why do you feel the low-income workers are getting screwed? Who do you feel is screwing them? Also, what specifically do you think Obama would do that would better the plight of the current low-income worker who is being screwed?

Nobody is screwing them. It's the economy. We have been fighting a six year war while industry continues to go over seas. Banks are going under because of bad loans in real estate. People are losing their homes. For the first time in history the Canadian dollar was worth more than the American dollar. And gas prices are soaring. Obama wants to cut taxes for 95% of Americans to lower the middle class' burdan and he wants to give tax breaks to corporations who don't ship jobs over seas.

Michael Keller
09-07-2008, 09:24 AM
Because this idea that he'll crumble in a leadership position is ridiculous and, in my view, a weak argument. The President's job is to enforce laws, veto bills, and direct the military. The president's power is restricted for a reason. I can't comprehend under what circumstances people think he wouldn't be able to lead.




Nobody is screwing them. It's the economy. We have been fighting a six year war while industry continues to go over seas. Banks are going under because of bad loans in real estate. People are losing their homes. For the first time in history the Canadian dollar was worth more than the American dollar. And gas prices are soaring. Obama wants to cut taxes for 95% of Americans to lower the middle class' burdan and he wants to give tax breaks to corporations who don't ship jobs over seas.


What does Oboma propose to do stop job from going over seas other than provide tax breaks to corporations. In of itself this tax break will not be a major impact. Bring manufacutring jobs back to the USA is far more complicated then just providing a tax break. Jobs going over seas has been going on for over thirty years. I would love to see this reversed but do you think any president or congress could or would significantly reverse this reality?

Now new jobs in domestic energy production!! , thats a start in boosting our economy.

The Patriot
09-07-2008, 09:39 AM
What does Oboma propose to do stop job from going over seas other than provide tax breaks to corporations. In of itself this tax break will not be a major impact. Bring manufacutring jobs back to the USA is far more complicated then just providing a tax break. Jobs going over seas has been going on for over thirty years. I would love to see this reversed but do you think any president or congress could or would significantly reverse this reality?

Now new jobs in domestic energy production!! , thats a start in boosting our economy.

Yes, I agree with what McCain said. Some jobs can't be helped from going over seas but then there are others that can be helped.

Customer Service Operators comes to mind. You shouldn't have to call India to get technical support. That is taking away jobs from educated Americans. A company's job is to make money so they will choose a cheaper labor forced over Americans. Tax breaks will influence them. We're not talking about bringing the steel industry back but don't you think there are some jobs that should still belong in the US?

Preacher
09-07-2008, 09:40 AM
Because this idea that he'll crumble in a leadership position is ridiculous and, in my view, a weak argument. The President's job is to enforce laws, veto bills, and direct the military. The president's power is restricted for a reason. I can't comprehend under what circumstances people think he wouldn't be able to lead.

He has not shown any compacity to make decisions when he alone is responsible for those decisions. His 150+ present votes is the EXACT issue here. The question is, does he have the ABILITY to make UNPOPULAR decisions based on the intelligence given to him or the projected numbers given to him which are not assessable to the public? We have no idea what his ability to lead is.

Nobody is screwing them. It's the economy. We have been fighting a six year war while industry continues to go over seas. Banks are going under because of bad loans in real estate. People are losing their homes.
A six year war has nothing to do with industries going overseas. Furthermore, there are other jobs which are coming up to replace those going overseas. IT replacing steel industry for instance.


For the first time in history the Canadian dollar was worth more than the American dollar. And gas prices are soaring. Obama wants to cut taxes for 95% of Americans to lower the middle class' burdan and he wants to give tax breaks to corporations who don't ship jobs over seas.


I didn't know history began in 1975. Immediately following the government's announcement that it would allow the Canadian dollar to float, the currency appreciated sharply, rising roughly 5 per cent to about US$0.97. It continued to drift upwards through the autumn of 1970 and into 1971 to trade in a relatively narrow range between US$0.98 and US$0.99. By 1972, the Canadian dollar had traded through parity with its U.S. counterpart. It reached a high of US$1.0443 on 25 April 1974.
http://www.justiceplus.org/thedollar.htm

Furthermore, 95 percent of Americans means he will cut taxes on the rich as well. So that is not true. Matter of fact, I remember VERY well that the same rhetoric was used by Clinton... and what did he do? He RAISED taxes on the middle class.

And why punish corporations that are hamstrung by unions and the fed? By doing what he is doing... he isn't going to bring jobs back to america, he will drive white collar jobs overseas as well... and lose even MORE of his tax base.

That isn't "Change" that we need. Just look at California and you will understand EXACTLY what Obama's plans will do to a state or a nation.

GBMelBlount
09-07-2008, 09:54 AM
The Patriot
Because this idea that he'll crumble in a leadership position is ridiculous and, in my view, a weak argument. The President's job is to enforce laws, veto bills, and direct the military. The president's power is restricted for a reason. I can't comprehend under what circumstances people think he wouldn't be able to lead.

So are you saying that experience is not important when electing the president of the United States?

The Patriot
Nobody is screwing them. It's the economy. We have been fighting a six year war while industry continues to go over seas. Banks are going under because of bad loans in real estate. People are losing their homes. For the first time in history the Canadian dollar was worth more than the American dollar. And gas prices are soaring. Obama wants to cut taxes for 95% of Americans to lower the middle class' burdan and he wants to give tax breaks to corporations who don't ship jobs over seas.

So they can blame their situation on the economy. wow. I find it interesting that you believe that somebody is pigeon-holed into poverty because of the economy. That is the type of thinking that leads to the election of leaders who promise a chicken in the pot of every poor person, deserving or not. Do you really think that most of the poor couldn't significantly improve their financial situation if they made a strong effort to, REGARDLESS of the economy?

j-dawg
09-07-2008, 10:36 AM
You might want to look at the Alaskan Department of Revenue site before you make statements insinuating that there was no room for her to cut taxes....here...let me do the work for you .

Here is a list of the Tax departments withing the state....



Alcoholic Beverages Tax

Commercial Passenger Vessel Excise Tax

Corporate Income Tax

Electric Cooperative Tax

Employment Security Tax

Estate Tax

Fisheries Related Taxes

Gaming

Large Passenger Vessel Gambling Tax

Mining License Tax

Motor Fuel Tax

Oil and Gas Production Tax

ACES Oil & Gas Production Tax

Petroleum Profits Tax (PPT)

Oil and Gas Property Tax

Personal Income Tax

Regulatory Cost Charges

Sales and Use Tax

Telephone Cooperative Tax

Tobacco Tax

Vehicle Rental Tax

Withholding Tax
http://www.tax.alaska.gov/programs/index.aspx

....also municipalities are allowed to add sales tax as they see fit.

...and then Palin cuts them?

I'm not an Alaskan, but do you honestly believe she CUT taxes to ANYTHING on that list? Tabacco and alcohol :toofunny::drink: Did YOU read this list?

j-dawg
09-07-2008, 10:44 AM
Obama has shifted ideas over and over again...yet I cant find ONE time you have accused him of the same....so why this obsession with Palin who isnt even the frontrunner on the ticket.

Hmmmmm....sounds like politics as usual.

In case you didn't read the thread it says "no wonder palin has such a high approval rating...." :doh:

if you read my posts you'd have found out that I'm not sold on Obama, but I certainly ain't drinking the Palin Kool-Aid that's being served in here...

Preacher
09-07-2008, 10:45 AM
...and then Palin cuts them?

I'm not an Alaskan, but do you honestly believe she CUT taxes to ANYTHING on that list? Tabacco and alcohol :toofunny::drink: Did YOU read this list?

I guess Sales and use tax, tax on electricity, tax on motor fuel, PERSONAL INCOME TAX, etc. really isn't a big tax.

:rolleyes:

j-dawg
09-07-2008, 11:06 AM
That isn't "Change" that we need. Just look at California and you will understand EXACTLY what Obama's plans will do to a state or a nation.

:noidea: what?

I have a decent job in Los Angeles. As my brother and friends struggle in Ohio, I've been doing alright. You want to know what burns me up? The property I rent was sold by my land lord to an "investment" group in November of 2007. This group was flipping my place and the other two houses amongst each other, rasing the property value each time. When the housing bubble broke the loans went into default and my neighbors, friends, living in the single family homes were forced to move. These dudes were collecting rent when they no longer owned the properties! I was lucky 'cause the property I'm on is a duplex and there are more renters rights. Thing is, this is just one story of hundreds. These guys in the investment group will never have to pay back a dime of what they STOLEN, never serve a day in jail.

What do you think I feel about a guy who doesn't even know how many homes he owns and a woman who says she's against earmarks when this year alone she sent to Sen. Ted. Stevens, R-Alaska, a proposal for 31 earmarks totaling $197 million — more, per person, than any other state? Do I think Obama is any better, no, but I don't see anything different with McCain.

Preacher
09-07-2008, 11:20 AM
:noidea: what?

I have a decent job in Los Angeles. As my brother and friends struggle in Ohio, I've been doing alright. You want to know what burns me up? The property I rent was sold by my land lord to an "investment" group in November of 2007. This group was flipping my place and the other two houses amongst each other, rasing the property value each time. When the housing bubble broke the loans went into default and my neighbors, friends, living in the single family homes were forced to move. These dudes were collecting rent when they no longer owned the properties! I was lucky 'cause the property I'm on is a duplex and there are more renters rights. Thing is, this is just one story of hundreds. These guys in the investment group will never have to pay back a dime of what they STOLEN, never serve a day in jail.

What do you think I feel about a guy who doesn't even know how many homes he owns and a woman who says she's against earmarks when this year alone she sent to Sen. Ted. Stevens, R-Alaska, a proposal for 31 earmarks totaling $197 million — more, per person, than any other state? Do I think Obama is any better, no, but I don't see anything different with McCain.

Have you been following the budget crisis right now in California? Have you been following the problem for the last 15 years?

That is exactly what I mean. Calfornia is driving more and more companies OUT of here through taxes.

As far as homes are concerned... let me tell you a different story. When I moved back to California, I couldn't afford a thing. Then, after NOT buying because I took responsibility for MY OWN financial issues, my wife and I just bought a house that devalued 25% at a mortgage rate of 5.625%. We were able to do that because we didn't overextend ourselves in a bubble market.

That is not Bush's fault, and it is not Bush's good that we bought. That is simply MY responsibility.


All things said... why do I vote for McCain/Palin outside of the abortion issue... because I beleive that those two will do more to remove pork from the budget than the other two... and will push for a balanced budget better than the other two.

stillers4me
09-07-2008, 11:22 AM
If you don't see anything diffent about MCCain and Obama when it comes to taxes then I would base my decision on other factors. And with what that leaves , McCain beats Obama hands down. Experience, ability to make decisions ON HIS OWN, and the willingness to put the people he serves first, not a party. That is called a leader.

Obama is a creation, a puppet, for the Democrats. They saw a charismatic, articlulate man who, because of his birth, has the ability to get the minority vote. They created an image of a return to Camelot, even though this man has no leadership skills whatsoever. He is going to owe the party big time. And those favors will come in the form of cabinet positions and earmarks.

You can bet that Joe Lieberman will not find a cabinet position with Obama. Lieberman, like McCain, will put country first as a sure position as either Secretary of State or Defense. Other cabinet positions will also go across party lines with the best person for the job. JMO.......or a very strong gut feeling.

And when it comes to kool aid, that is about all Obama has to offer.

tony hipchest
09-07-2008, 11:38 AM
And when it comes to kool aid, that is about all Obama has to offer.

better than piss in a dixie cup from the other side> :chuckle:

:yummy: :monkey:

Michael Keller
09-07-2008, 11:38 AM
Yes, I agree with what McCain said. Some jobs can't be helped from going over seas but then there are others that can be helped.

Customer Service Operators comes to mind. You shouldn't have to call India to get technical support. That is taking away jobs from educated Americans. A company's job is to make money so they will choose a cheaper labor forced over Americans. Tax breaks will influence them. We're not talking about bringing the steel industry back but don't you think there are some jobs that should still belong in the US?

Patriot:

I absolutely agree with your last response. i think all of us need to remove ourselves from party loyalty and focus more on what the ISSUES are.

I want to hear specfics about bringin those customer service jobs being brought back to our country.. And more.

Why is there not a DEFINED PLAN to deal with drugs in our society. I have heard all the bullshit why we can not control drug trafficking. if we can go to iraq and fight a war most people think can never be won because of historical and cultural reasons (by the way i agree with this perspective) why can"t we fight a war against drugs with the billions of dollars and thousand of troops here in this country. We need to rise above ourselves and commit to this "war".

All we do is talk about ENERGY, for about 40 years now. This is astounding , 40 years and we do not have a viable comprehsensive energy program. Doesn't this amaze you.

Instead of the traditional state of the union address the president and the respective leaders of the house and the senate should be formally required to answer specfic questions from the American people every year. The State of the Union is ridiculous and out dated. We are so locked up in a box. With the internet and E Mail the chosen questions could be selected in a professional manner to keep the media bias from influenceing the list or manner of questions asked.

There is a bigger problem then the election and it is accountability and action of the governement. .

stillers4me
09-07-2008, 11:43 AM
better than piss in a dixie cup from the other side> :chuckle:

:yummy: :monkey:

Another typical.......oh never mind. :noidea:

Preacher
09-07-2008, 11:49 AM
Customer Service Operators comes to mind. You shouldn't have to call India to get technical support. That is taking away jobs from educated Americans. A company's job is to make money so they will choose a cheaper labor forced over Americans. Tax breaks will influence them. We're not talking about bringing the steel industry back but don't you think there are some jobs that should still belong in the US?

Let me explain this a bit.

Right now, my wife works on the phone making calls.to book a group in churches.

She makes, lets say 10 dollars a month.

Right now, my associate pastor is getting ready to move to Bulagaria (and I am ticked... he is also one of my best friends). Now, the fact of the matter is that in cost of living, my wife's business could move her to Bulgaria, pay her only a THIRD of what she is making now, and she would be in the top 20 percent or so of ALL INCOME in the nation WITHOUT me working.

Why is that company bad for doing that?

j-dawg
09-07-2008, 11:55 AM
Have you been following the budget crisis right now in California? Have you been following the problem for the last 15 years?

That is exactly what I mean. Calfornia is driving more and more companies OUT of here through taxes.

As far as homes are concerned... let me tell you a different story. When I moved back to California, I couldn't afford a thing. Then, after NOT buying because I took responsibility for MY OWN financial issues, my wife and I just bought a house that devalued 25% at a mortgage rate of 5.625%. We were able to do that because we didn't overextend ourselves in a bubble market.

That is not Bush's fault, and it is not Bush's good that we bought. That is simply MY responsibility.


All things said... why do I vote for McCain/Palin outside of the abortion issue... because I beleive that those two will do more to remove pork from the budget than the other two... and will push for a balanced budget better than the other two.

I'm aware of the situation in Sacramento... it's been a cluster F#$k up there since I moved here.

I've been saving for a home myself. One of my old neighbors is a television writer, she's doing the same. I take care of my financial responsibilities. Doesn't change the fact that the housing fiasco should have been reigned in a long time ago. All this crap wasn't exactly unknown. I don't overextend myself, yet I have to deal with b.s. from people who do, and foot the bill as well. There's these morons who got a home loan with 0 down.. how was that even allowed? I avoided that 'cause a monkey would know it was trouble.

The Patriot
09-07-2008, 12:16 PM
Let me explain this a bit.

Right now, my wife works on the phone making calls.to book a group in churches.

She makes, lets say 10 dollars a month.

Right now, my associate pastor is getting ready to move to Bulagaria (and I am ticked... he is also one of my best friends). Now, the fact of the matter is that in cost of living, my wife's business could move her to Bulgaria, pay her only a THIRD of what she is making now, and she would be in the top 20 percent or so of ALL INCOME in the nation WITHOUT me working.

Why is that company bad for doing that?
I'm not sure I understand you reasoning.

Are you suggesting that Americans leave the country to keep their jobs? I'm not talking about companies relocating workers, I'm talking about companies eliminating jobs in the US and sending them over seas.

GBMelBlount
09-07-2008, 12:24 PM
I'm not sure I understand you reasoning.

Are you suggesting that Americans leave the country to keep their jobs? I'm not talking about companies relocating workers, I'm talking about companies eliminating jobs in the US and sending them over seas.


Are you aware that strangling taxes and suffocating government regulations FORCE some companies to go overseas?

The Patriot
09-07-2008, 12:47 PM
Are you aware that strangling taxes and suffocating government regulations FORCE some companies to go overseas?

Yes, but I'm not talking about increasing taxes, I'm talking about deciding which companies get the tax breaks.

I'm an independent by the way so don't think I'm an Obama diehard. I just want these problems to be fixed and I'll vote for the guy I think will fix them.

fansince'76
09-07-2008, 12:52 PM
Ten minutes to gametime and you guys are still talking about this stuff? Priorities, people, priorities! :chuckle:

X-Terminator
09-07-2008, 12:53 PM
Yes, but I'm not talking about increasing taxes, I'm talking about deciding which companies get the tax breaks.

I'm an independent by the way so don't think I'm an Obama diehard. I just want these problems to be fixed and I'll vote for the guy I think will fix them.

Obama wants to raise corporate and business taxes, which will only force more of them to pack up and head overseas, not to mention force many small businesses out of business. IMO, there won't be enough companies getting tax breaks to offset those who will outsource. So how is that fixing the problem? We'd be right back to square one.

HometownGal
09-07-2008, 12:58 PM
If you don't see anything diffent about MCCain and Obama when it comes to taxes then I would base my decision on other factors. And with what that leaves , McCain beats Obama hands down. Experience, ability to make decisions ON HIS OWN, and the willingness to put the people he serves first, not a party. That is called a leader.

Obama is a creation, a puppet, for the Democrats. They saw a charismatic, articlulate man who, because of his birth, has the ability to get the minority vote. They created an image of a return to Camelot, even though this man has no leadership skills whatsoever. He is going to owe the party big time. And those favors will come in the form of cabinet positions and earmarks.

You can bet that Joe Lieberman will not find a cabinet position with Obama. Lieberman, like McCain, will put country first as a sure position as either Secretary of State or Defense. Other cabinet positions will also go across party lines with the best person for the job. JMO.......or a very strong gut feeling.

And when it comes to kool aid, that is about all Obama has to offer.

What a WOW of a post! :drink:

http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w262/gator_momma/Applause.gif

Preacher
09-07-2008, 01:02 PM
I'm aware of the situation in Sacramento... it's been a cluster F#$k up there since I moved here.

I've been saving for a home myself. One of my old neighbors is a television writer, she's doing the same. I take care of my financial responsibilities. Doesn't change the fact that the housing fiasco should have been reigned in a long time ago. All this crap wasn't exactly unknown. I don't overextend myself, yet I have to deal with b.s. from people who do, and foot the bill as well. There's these morons who got a home loan with 0 down.. how was that even allowed? I avoided that 'cause a monkey would know it was trouble.


Then if you are positioned properly, you can profit from the downturn of the market and buy a house.

I am sorry, I really don't think it is the responsibility of govt. to protect people from their own stupidity. It is only when they affect others (like Drunk driving) that they should be reigned in. If a company wants to make stupid loans, and then goes belly up, well, they too should face the consequences. In the same way, the directors of Fannie mac and mae should be held accountable. However, they won't be because they have patrons in congress--both rep. and dem.

That is why I want people with a rep. of ripping apart people WITHOUT care for party if they do wrong. McCain and Palin have that rep.

cubanstogie
09-07-2008, 09:28 PM
Then if you are positioned properly, you can profit from the downturn of the market and buy a house.

I am sorry, I really don't think it is the responsibility of govt. to protect people from their own stupidity. It is only when they affect others (like Drunk driving) that they should be reigned in. If a company wants to make stupid loans, and then goes belly up, well, they too should face the consequences. In the same way, the directors of Fannie mac and mae should be held accountable. However, they won't be because they have patrons in congress--both rep. and dem.

That is why I want people with a rep. of ripping apart people WITHOUT care for party if they do wrong. McCain and Palin have that rep.

I agree completely. People need to be held accountable. But that is not the lib way. Unwanted pregnancy-abortion, in over head over housing-assistance from government, don't want a job-welfare, can't get healthcare due to no job-socialized medicine, come in this country illegally-amnesty and job in the fields, murder someone-stay on death row for 25 years with appeals, don't make enough money-tax cut for me and increase tax on people earning more money, the list goes on.Those are the lib ways. Blame Bush for it all, vote Hussein Obama.

lamberts-lost-tooth
09-08-2008, 09:40 AM
...and then Palin cuts them?

I'm not an Alaskan, but do you honestly believe she CUT taxes to ANYTHING on that list? Tabacco and alcohol :toofunny::drink: Did YOU read this list?

FIRST you say that she couldnt cut taxes because there are no personal income tax in Alaska.:footinmou

Then when given a list of taxes...you changed arguements and said she DIDNT cut taxes.:footinmou

Its documented that Palin cut personal property tax and lowered the business inventory tax....and even the Democratic party isnt argueing that point....You really need to do some research....

By the way...since you "havnt made up your mind":jerkit:....and since taxes seem to be your area of concern....I'm sure that the fact that Obama raised taxes 94 times is enough to have you vote for the McCain/Palin ticket.

...welcome to our side!!!:thumbsup:

lamberts-lost-tooth
09-08-2008, 10:12 AM
If you don't see anything diffent about MCCain and Obama when it comes to taxes then I would base my decision on other factors. And with what that leaves , McCain beats Obama hands down. Experience, ability to make decisions ON HIS OWN, and the willingness to put the people he serves first, not a party. That is called a leader.

Obama is a creation, a puppet, for the Democrats. They saw a charismatic, articlulate man who, because of his birth, has the ability to get the minority vote. They created an image of a return to Camelot, even though this man has no leadership skills whatsoever. He is going to owe the party big time. And those favors will come in the form of cabinet positions and earmarks.

You can bet that Joe Lieberman will not find a cabinet position with Obama. Lieberman, like McCain, will put country first as a sure position as either Secretary of State or Defense. Other cabinet positions will also go across party lines with the best person for the job. JMO.......or a very strong gut feeling.

And when it comes to kool aid, that is about all Obama has to offer.

THUMBS UP!!!!!!!!:thumbsup:

Its well known here in Illinois that the Chicago Democratic Machine has been grooming Obama for this position....There are 9 influential (and pretty corrupt) democratic "Elite" in this state that live within 1/2 mile of each other and have ruined the Illinois economy...funnelling funds into the Chicago area with pretty hefty kickbacks.

It is these "gentlemen" who have made a candidate that represents a cosmetic shift in politics...NOT a fundamental change. It was they who suggested what church would help him politically .... It is they who have him publically denounce the press and say that "Family is off limits" while THEY do the dirty work and pull the strings behind the scenes to trash the opposition...meanwhile Obama walks away without the blood on his hands.

Obama is merely the product of an effective marketing campaign which has utilized media outlets ranging from the Chicago Tribune to MSNBC to sell this new version of a very old product.....the Democratic Party “friend of the people,” ....previously incarnated in the “insurgent” candidacy of Jimmy Carter in 1976..... then in the “man from Hope,” Bill Clinton in 1992. An Obama presidency would no more represent a fundamental change in American politics than the election of Carter and Clinton did,

Same 'ol..same 'ol....

revefsreleets
09-08-2008, 10:43 AM
I understand some of the frustration that is mounting from the left. The Dems have a candidate who doesn't stand up to scrutiny very well when you get past the slick marketing and nice oration. NO experience, no real track record, and the drastic "policy changes" in the last couple months don't help.

I defended him as much as I could, and I still don't think he's a bad person, but he lost me when he started pandering and taking giant leaps to the center. There's not much on his resume, but what's there doesn't at all jibe with the guy who's out there stumping right now.

TroysBadDawg
09-08-2008, 10:58 AM
The lady I asked why she is for Obama stated so we don't have 3 more years of the same. I told her to hear what she said, the President is elected for 4 years.

And they vote.

Hines0wnz
09-08-2008, 12:50 PM
executive, legislative and judicial branches. one is not stronger than the others. its called a system of checks and balances.

im one who said we'll start this change 2 years agao and then finish it up in '08. i've already given mccain a more than fair shot to win this dems vote. he failed. too bad. i really like the man. he woulda made an EXCELLENT vice president on obama's ticket, especiall now that he's all for the "change".


And that assumption failed miserably.

xfl2001fan
09-08-2008, 12:50 PM
In her defense, he'd spend 3 years getting paid to be the President and 1 year campaigning to be the President.

Politicians shouldn't campaign while they're in office. They're paid to do a job, not interview for a new one.

Hines0wnz
09-08-2008, 01:09 PM
war in iraq is the king of pork. so is protecting saudi arabia. obama had the foresight to see this and vote against it.
Palin was the leader of about 600.000 people.

If you are speaking of Congress' authorization that led to the eventual invasion of Iraq in March 2003, how could Obama vote against it if he wasnt elected to the Senate until November 2004? Yes, he has voted against the war funding since he has been in but he cannot say, as Hillary can, that he did or did not vote for the war. Although, technically he didnt since he wasnt a Senator yet. Which means I didnt vote for it either! :oops:

revefsreleets
09-08-2008, 03:55 PM
The democrats position on the war has largely simply been a reflection of what popular opinion at the time is. They were for it at the beginning, against it when things went south, and now they are starting to embrace the surge now that things are looking up.

That's not very solid or dependable leadership IMO...and Obama himself has dramatically changed his position (again) just in the last few months. McCain has him beat on the issue...he stood behind the surge when it was borderline political suicide to do so, and it has, and will continue to, pay him the dividents.

j-dawg
09-08-2008, 11:43 PM
FIRST you say that she couldnt cut taxes because there are no personal income tax in Alaska.:footinmou

Then when given a list of taxes...you changed arguements and said she DIDNT cut taxes.:footinmou

Its documented that Palin cut personal property tax and lowered the business inventory tax....and even the Democratic party isnt argueing that point....You really need to do some research....

By the way...since you "havnt made up your mind":jerkit:....and since taxes seem to be your area of concern....I'm sure that the fact that Obama raised taxes 94 times is enough to have you vote for the McCain/Palin ticket.

...welcome to our side!!!:thumbsup:

I haven't changed arguments lamberts... you really crack me up... the WHOLE point of my posts was that I don't find Palin to be any different then any other politician. Go back and read 'em.. 'cause a little research would have saved you a post.

tony hipchest
09-09-2008, 12:06 AM
The democrats position on the war has largely simply been a reflection of what popular opinion at the time is. They were for it at the beginning, against it when things went south, and now they are starting to embrace the surge now that things are looking up.

.are you speaking on behalf of ALL democrats or just those in washington? what you are actually doing is damning dems for having the presidents back in a time of supposed threat and war. :thumbsup: good job!

That's not very solid or dependable leadership IMO...and Obama himself has dramatically changed his position (again) just in the last few months. McCain has him beat on the issue...he stood behind the surge when it was borderline political suicide to do so, and it has, and will continue to, pay him the dividents great. another republican in office who is paid dividends because of war, and at the expense of american lives.

God bless America and God bless capitalism. :usa:

revefsreleets
09-09-2008, 09:06 AM
Edit: The Democratic LEADERSHIP'S position switching is in question. Then they strong-arm the rank and file to fall in line. Not sure why that would be better, but apparently it is for you. Again, it's not my party, and I criticize both parties when they eff up, not just the opposition.

Unfortunatly, until the planet becomes a perfect utopian paradise of peace, the REALITY is that war is a necessary evil. I'd much rather have a president who understands that than one who thinks everyone can be friends if we just love each other and hold flowers.

SteelCurtain
09-09-2008, 11:10 AM
The proof is in the facts, but why let that get in the way of a good "spin":banging:

The proof is in the facts? Then why don't you start with actual facts. Go to www.factcheck.org to get the real facts, because you are misinformed... You will see how both parties and their candidates mislead voters, but it is extremely concerning to me to see how the Republican party blatantly lies and the public is too blinded to question it..

As for the Democratic Congress that has done nothing....If you knew more about politics then you would understand why they have not been able to accomplish much. Here is an excerpt from a journal:
"The Democrats maintain a tenuous hold on the Congress. Democrats have 233 of the 435 seats in the new House, and a much narrower hold on the Senate: 51 of the 100 seats - there are 49 Democrats and 49 Republicans and two independents, who both vote with Democrats. The fragile Senate margin ensures that hardly any Democratic-sponsored legislation can pass without support from at least some Republicans. In real terms, therefore, Democratic control of both Congressional chambers would mean little change in the reality of foreign policy. The party is unlikely to have sufficient control to drive through controversial ideas. Members would be further constrained by a Republican Executive, including the president that already holds much of the necessary authority to conduct foreign policy. "

So basically if the democrats want to push something through legislation they can't, because they don't have a large enough majority and there is still a Republican president, which can veto whatever they get passed. Then they still don't have enough votes to overturn the veto. So there is why the Democratic Congress has not done much. So, when you speek about how Democratic Congress hasn't done much, behind the scenes what you are really saying is that the Republicans in the Legislative and Executive branches have held them back from making changes.

Go to your local community college or university and take intro to american national government or some poli sci class so you can understand how this country's government really works. Then you might want to take some finance and economic classes too so you can see that if you are middle class then there is no way in H3LL you should be voting for Republicans...Vote Republican if you are rich, but then again does anyone on these boards make more than 5 million a year, because that is what McCain considers to be above middle class...

Here is factchek.org's mission statement:

We are a nonpartisan, nonprofit, "consumer advocate" for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics. We monitor the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews, and news releases. Our goal is to apply the best practices of both journalism and scholarship, and to increase public knowledge and understanding.

The Annenberg Political Fact Check is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. The APPC was established by publisher and philanthropist Walter Annenberg in 1994 to create a community of scholars within the University of Pennsylvania that would address public policy issues at the local, state, and federal levels.

The APPC accepts NO funding from business corporations, labor unions, political parties, lobbying organizations or individuals. It is funded primarily by the Annenberg Foundation.

tony hipchest
09-09-2008, 06:05 PM
I haven't changed arguments lamberts... you really crack me up... the WHOLE point of my posts was that I don't find Palin to be any different then any other politician. Go back and read 'em.. 'cause a little research would have saved you a post.except shes gonna fight corruption in washington-

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080909/ap_on_el_pr/palin_travel_expenses;_ylt=ArT6A6oWQQwsSUTH..Ent8n 5R9AF

WASHINGTON - Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has charged her state a daily allowance, normally used for official travel, for more than 300 nights spent at her home, The Washington Post reported Tuesday.


An analysis of travel statements filed by the governor, now John McCain's Republican running mate, shows she claimed the per diem allowance on 312 occasions when she was home in Wasilla and that she billed taxpayers $43,490 for travel by her husband and children.

Per diem payments are meant for meals and incidental expenses while traveling on state business. State officials told The Post her claims — nearly $17,000 over 19 months — were permitted because her "duty station" is Juneau, the capital, and she was in Wasilla 600 miles away.

Palin spends little time at the governor's mansion in Juneau, especially when the Legislature if out of session, and instead prefers to live in Wasilla and commute to her office in Anchorage.

Palin's spending and record in office are coming under intense scrutiny as she is presented to the nation as a champion of ethics reform and frugal use of tax dollars — a leader who put the state jet on sale on eBay and drives herself to work.

The Post's analysis shows her husband Todd and their daughters were reimbursed by taxpayers for many trips between Wasilla and Juneau as well as for a variety of other travel that was also listed as state business. Palin's aides said travel by Alaska's first family is part of the job.

But it's not clear when children's travel expenses should be covered. State finance director Kim Garnero told the paper the government covers the travel costs of anyone conducting state business and, "I can't imagine kids could be doing that."

Palin took her daughter Bristol to New York in October for a conference on women and leadership, a tour of the New York Stock Exchange and various meetings, the analysis shows. Travel costs included three nights in a hotel room costing more than $700 a night.

Overall, Palin's travel spending pales in comparison with that of predecessor Frank Murkowski, who charged $463,000 for air fare in 2006. Palin charged $93,000 in 2007.

Palin spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt said Tuesday that the governor is expected to travel frequently. "This is part of her job and it's only reasonable her travel expenses — which were reduced dramatically from the previous administration — would be covered," Schmitt said.
so she cut down bilking the taxpayers by stealing (errr "charging") less than her predacessor? :toofunny:

SteelCurtain
09-10-2008, 01:55 PM
except shes gonna fight corruption in washington-

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080909/ap_on_el_pr/palin_travel_expenses;_ylt=ArT6A6oWQQwsSUTH..Ent8n 5R9AF

so she cut down bilking the taxpayers by stealing (errr "charging") less than her predacessor? :toofunny:

That is a valid point Tony. I agree to some extent. With the position that she was elected for there comes responsibilities and she may need to travel to take care of those responsibililites. So I have no problem with her expenses being paid if it involves official business. I am in the military and I take advantage of this myself. The tax payers pay for my travel and living expenses if I am to go to an exercise or training, but I believe these politicians should have to abide by the same rules as those in the military. We get a full fare economy ticket that can be refunded incase we need to change flights, miss a flight, etc. They shouldn't be flying first class or even business class. We are given a per diem rate that allows us to stay in a hotel and have food for each day. The same should be granted for them. They don't need to be staying in a $700/night hotel, when a Holliday Inn would suffice. They don't need to be eating at a 5 star resturant(if thats how the ratings for resturants go), when they could eat at a Hoss' or Pizza Hut. If I was married with dependents, I could not have the military foot the bill for them to go to my training. They should not be given that opportunity either....

Hawk Believer
09-10-2008, 02:43 PM
Link to a great piece on spin related to Palin by the Daily Show.

[http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184086&title=sarah-palin-gender-card (http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184086&title=sarah-palin-gender-card)

This skewers Republicans but I know it goes on on both sides. I just think this piece does a great job of showing how idiotic political operatives think we are.

(anyone know if I can embed a video that isn't from Youtube in my post? I couldn't figure out a way that works.)

lamberts-lost-tooth
09-10-2008, 03:14 PM
I haven't changed arguments lamberts... you really crack me up... the WHOLE point of my posts was that I don't find Palin to be any different then any other politician. Go back and read 'em.. 'cause a little research would have saved you a post.

Really...

Heres the "research"...

You said...

I read how she's a tax cutter even though Alaska has no state income or sales tax

I corrected the notion that a person CANNOT be a taxcutter (based on that arguement) by showing you a list of taxes in Alaska...

You then switched arguements and stated that she didnt cut taxes on ANYTHING on that list

You specificaly said....

I'm not an Alaskan, but do you honestly believe she CUT taxes to ANYTHING on that list?

I again corrected you, about her documented tax cuts on personal property tax and business inventory tax.

Research can be a bitch.:coffee:

lamberts-lost-tooth
09-10-2008, 03:21 PM
except shes gonna fight corruption in washington-

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080909/ap_on_el_pr/palin_travel_expenses;_ylt=ArT6A6oWQQwsSUTH..Ent8n 5R9AF

so she cut down bilking the taxpayers by stealing (errr "charging") less than her predacessor? :toofunny:

Unfortunatley...Illinois tried to sue our govenor for living in Chicago and commuting to Springfield (the state capitol)...The case was thrown out due to The Govenors right, need and ability to travel without political pressure.

Cant say that I agree with it but there is precedence that states that it is completely legal.

Our Govenor cost us $76,000 in commuting expenses in 6 months alone.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/22/politics/main2968669.shtml

lamberts-lost-tooth
09-10-2008, 03:32 PM
The proof is in the facts? Then why don't you start with actual facts. Go to www.factcheck.org to get the real facts, because you are misinformed... You will see how both parties and their candidates mislead voters, but it is extremely concerning to me to see how the Republican party blatantly lies and the public is too blinded to question it..

As for the Democratic Congress that has done nothing....If you knew more about politics then you would understand why they have not been able to accomplish much. Here is an excerpt from a journal:
"The Democrats maintain a tenuous hold on the Congress. Democrats have 233 of the 435 seats in the new House, and a much narrower hold on the Senate: 51 of the 100 seats - there are 49 Democrats and 49 Republicans and two independents, who both vote with Democrats. The fragile Senate margin ensures that hardly any Democratic-sponsored legislation can pass without support from at least some Republicans. In real terms, therefore, Democratic control of both Congressional chambers would mean little change in the reality of foreign policy. The party is unlikely to have sufficient control to drive through controversial ideas. Members would be further constrained by a Republican Executive, including the president that already holds much of the necessary authority to conduct foreign policy. "

So basically if the democrats want to push something through legislation they can't, because they don't have a large enough majority and there is still a Republican president, which can veto whatever they get passed. Then they still don't have enough votes to overturn the veto. So there is why the Democratic Congress has not done much. So, when you speek about how Democratic Congress hasn't done much, behind the scenes what you are really saying is that the Republicans in the Legislative and Executive branches have held them back from making changes.

Go to your local community college or university and take intro to american national government or some poli sci class so you can understand how this country's government really works. Then you might want to take some finance and economic classes too so you can see that if you are middle class then there is no way in H3LL you should be voting for Republicans...Vote Republican if you are rich, but then again does anyone on these boards make more than 5 million a year, because that is what McCain considers to be above middle class...

Here is factchek.org's mission statement:

We are a nonpartisan, nonprofit, "consumer advocate" for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics. We monitor the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews, and news releases. Our goal is to apply the best practices of both journalism and scholarship, and to increase public knowledge and understanding.

The Annenberg Political Fact Check is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. The APPC was established by publisher and philanthropist Walter Annenberg in 1994 to create a community of scholars within the University of Pennsylvania that would address public policy issues at the local, state, and federal levels.

The APPC accepts NO funding from business corporations, labor unions, political parties, lobbying organizations or individuals. It is funded primarily by the Annenberg Foundation.

Who are you...and when ,specifically did I say anything about a do-nothing Democratic congress? (Please dont be like some...and not answer this question..thank you)

NIce rant...but I think you sent it to the wrong poster...

:rofl:

tony hipchest
09-10-2008, 04:09 PM
Unfortunatley...Illinois tried to sue our govenor for living in Chicago and commuting to Springfield (the state capitol)...The case was thrown out due to The Govenors right, need and ability to travel without political pressure.

Cant say that I agree with it but there is precedence that states that it is completely legal.

Our Govenor cost us $76,000 in commuting expenses in 6 months alone.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/22/politics/main2968669.shtml
i read the article and your democratic gov looks like a crook and a snake. he should never get electd to another position again. with palins supposed tough stance on corruption and govt. waste you would think a bill would be proposed (if elected) to make this illegal. but unfortunately she seems to have a sense of entitlement. i bet she cant wait to put her kids on air force 2 every weekend for trips to disneyworld. :busted:

j-dawg
09-10-2008, 06:01 PM
Really...

Heres the "research"...

You said...



I corrected the notion that a person CANNOT be a taxcutter (based on that arguement) by showing you a list of taxes in Alaska...

You then switched arguements and stated that she didnt cut taxes on ANYTHING on that list

You specificaly said....



I again corrected you, about her documented tax cuts on personal property tax and business inventory tax.

Research can be a bitch.:coffee:

So is picking and choosing your arguments eh?

Here's my original post....

I've read how McCain voted along Bush's policies 90% of the time and he's going to "change" things? You got in here how Palin has this high approval rating in Alaska, but that couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that the incumbant she beat was disliked, or that it was nice for the states constituents to recieve a $1200.00 rebate check. I read how she's a tax cutter even though Alaska has no state income or sales tax. I'm not sold on Obama, but I don't think McCain is going to shake anything up either... he's allied with the folks that perpetuated the crap that's going on right now.

You got me there, she cut thoses taxes, as a mayor right?... she added some, one to build a $15 million multi-use indoor ice arena. The popular sports complex is not breaking even, as its advocates projected, but she cut some.... I bet you can find counter points to that, but don't bother you're right about the taxes :hatsoff:

How again is she any different then any other politician?

lamberts-lost-tooth
09-13-2008, 09:22 AM
So is picking and choosing your arguments eh?


If by "picking and choosing"...you mean ...answering misconceptions with linked rebuttals....sure.

you're right about the taxes :hatsoff:

Would have saved yourself SEVERAL posts by saying that in the beginning!!!:thumbsup:


How again is she any different then any other politician

Never said she was or wasnt...just pointing out the obvious non-facts..and trying to keep the debate above rumor and easily corrected slanted opinion.:wave:

j-dawg
09-13-2008, 11:04 AM
Never said she was or wasnt...just pointing out the obvious non-facts..and trying to keep the debate above rumor and easily corrected slanted opinion.:wave:



yep... she cut taxes... programs... when Sarah Palin was mayor of Wasilla, the city billed sexual assault victims and their insurance companies for the cost of rape kits and forensic examinations.

Palin had been in office for four years when the practice of charging rape victims got the attention of state lawmakers in 2000, who passed a bill to stop the practice.

sheessh... I'm sure there's an easily corrected opinion on that slanted policy..... of course there always is.... :popcorn:

GBMelBlount
09-13-2008, 11:43 AM
Great post j-dawg! This is exactly why Sarah Palin has my vote! She is one of only a very few in government, on any level, who is at least TRYING to find ways to save her constituents hard earned money. Our government is a lousy investment, yet as taxpayers, it is one we are FORCED to make.

lamberts-lost-tooth
09-13-2008, 11:51 AM
yep... she cut taxes... programs... when Sarah Palin was mayor of Wasilla, the city billed sexual assault victims and their insurance companies for the cost of rape kits and forensic examinations.

Palin had been in office for four years when the practice of charging rape victims got the attention of state lawmakers in 2000, who passed a bill to stop the practice.

sheessh... I'm sure there's an easily corrected opinion on that slanted policy..... of course there always is.... :popcorn:


As I have shown before...your intital argument was that she never cut taxes...you have conveniently changed that to...how the public is paying for her cutting taxes and therefore cutting programs.
I will be happy to continue this debate with you....as soon as you can figure out what you want to debate.:doh:

Reading your posts make me lose brain cells.....but not enough to not see through the liberal deceptive mindset of someone who "hasnt made up his mind":bs:

Seriously...you have done nothing but trash the McCain/Palin ticket...and then try and pass yourself off as undecided....a little honesty would make your posts a bit more palpable.

BUT....If you are truly so worried about the "fiscal responsibility" of these politicians....then why haven't you given us your informed take on the FACT that McCain was shown to be the senator with the least amount of pork spending...while freshman senator Obama, who has spent the majority of his tenure as senator on a presedential campaign, was #2 OVERALL....(only behind Clinton).

I am SO looking forward to your "unbiased" take on that....(betting you ignore it completely):coffee:

lamberts-lost-tooth
09-13-2008, 11:53 AM
Great post j-dawg! This is exactly why Sarah Palin has my vote! She is one of only a very few in government, on any level, who is at least TRYING to find ways to save her constituents hard earned money. Our government is a lousy investment, yet as taxpayers, it is one we are FORCED to make.

:rofl:

MACH1
09-13-2008, 12:27 PM
Gov. Sarah Palin wants the state's residents to have their checks as early as possible with the first winterlike temperatures and snowfall just a month away in some areas.

Nearly every man, woman and child received $1,654 each in last year's distribution. This year's payout is expected to be higher, but it hasn't been calculated yet.

But added to this year's check will be an extra $1,200 from the state's oil-rich treasury to help offset high energy prices, a factor driving the early distribution.

http://www.newsminer.com/news/2008/aug/18/alaska-permanent-fund-dividends-be-distributed-ear/

j-dawg
09-13-2008, 12:42 PM
Reading your posts make me lose brain cells.....but not enough to not see through the liberal deceptive mindset of someone who "hasnt made up his mind":bs:



yet you still respond to 'em.... I LOVE how you peg me a liberal when all I've been saying is how Palin is no different then all the other jerk offs.... glad McCain saddeled up with a politician who has one of the wost pork spending habits... keep fighting the good fight LLT... :toofunny:

lamberts-lost-tooth
09-13-2008, 12:59 PM
yet you still respond to 'em.... I LOVE how you peg me a liberal when all I've been saying is how Palin is no different then all the other jerk offs.... glad McCain saddeled up with a politician who has one of the wost pork spending habits... keep fighting the good fight LLT... :toofunny:

:rofl::rofl:
You want to talk about Palins spending habits? That is sooooooo remarkable when you look at my last post...

BUT....If you are truly so worried about the "fiscal responsibility" of these politicians....then why haven't you given us your informed take on the FACT that McCain was shown to be the senator with the least amount of pork spending...while freshman senator Obama, who has spent the majority of his tenure as senator on a presedential campaign, was #2 OVERALL....(only behind Clinton).

I am SO looking forward to your "unbiased" take on that....(betting you ignore it completely)


I'm so NOT surprised.

Thank you for proving my point ..."Mr. Unbiased".:wink02:

j-dawg
09-13-2008, 01:03 PM
:rofl::rofl:
You want to talk about Palins spending habits? That is sooooooo remarkable when you look at my last post...




I'm so NOT surprised.

Thank you for proving my point ..."Mr. Unbiased".:wink02:


yet you still respond to 'em....I LOVE how you peg me a liberal when all I've been saying is how Palin is no different then all the other jerk offs.... glad McCain saddeled up with a politician who has one of the wost pork spending habits... keep fighting the good fight LLT... :toofunny:

seems like a unbiased statement... guess you misssed it...

lamberts-lost-tooth
09-13-2008, 01:08 PM
seems like a unbiased statement... guess you misssed it...

Nope...just enjoying how you are ignoring the question about Obama being ranked #2 in pork spending.

Put you money on the table and tell me how appalled you are at the Obama/Biden ticket since they are so fiscally irresponsible....

...dont avoid the topic by saying they are ALL ALIKE...you have been willing to slam on McCain/Palin without bringing up Obama/Biden...

....so please show that you are being genuine and are truly "undecided"... give me a good slam on that "stealing" pork spending crook... Obama.


...I'm waiting.:popcorn:

lamberts-lost-tooth
09-13-2008, 01:17 PM
...still waiting
:popcorn:

lamberts-lost-tooth
09-13-2008, 01:31 PM
.....anyone got the time?

.....still waiting.....and a man can only eat so much popcorn.
:popcorn:

lamberts-lost-tooth
09-13-2008, 01:32 PM
I see you looking at the post.....:laughing:

...still waiting.

lamberts-lost-tooth
09-13-2008, 01:38 PM
Ladies and gentleman...J-dawg has left the building.
:applaudit:

GBMelBlount
09-13-2008, 01:49 PM
j-dawg
What do you think I feel about a guy who doesn't even know how many homes he owns..
I would imagine you’re jealous and envious. I would imagine that you feel that he does not deserve it and only became wealthy and prosperous by screwing the little guy. I would imagine you probably feel that for him to become rich, it took money and food from countless others who are much more deserving and are poor simply because they are more honest and ethical than McCain. You probably feel that increasing taxes is the right thing to do because the rich don’t deserve what they have, after all, they got there by screwing the little guy.

Unlike you, I would want to know how he became successful and figure out how, like him, I could be successful and own my own home too.

I would also imagine that you do not feel that this election will be determined as much by ignorance, class envy, and proposed redistribution of wealth, as anything else……..

But I can't really know what you "think" so I am just guessing. Forgive me if I'm wrong.

lamberts-lost-tooth
09-13-2008, 02:40 PM
I would imagine you’re jealous and envious. I would imagine that you feel that he does not deserve it and only became wealthy and prosperous by screwing the little guy. I would imagine you probably feel that for him to become rich, it took money and food from countless others who are much more deserving and are poor simply because they are more honest and ethical than McCain. You probably feel that increasing taxes is the right thing to do because the rich don’t deserve what they have, after all, they got there by screwing the little guy.

Unlike you, I would want to know how he became successful and figure out how, like him, I could be successful and own my own home too.

I would also imagine that you do not feel that this election will be determined as much by ignorance, class envy, and proposed redistribution of wealth, as anything else……..

But I can't really know what you "think" so I am just guessing. Forgive me if I'm wrong.

You may be psychic!!!

j-dawg
09-13-2008, 04:24 PM
I see you looking at the post.....:laughing:

...still waiting.

hey lambert, still waiting? :sofunny:

lamberts-lost-tooth
09-13-2008, 04:26 PM
hey lambert, still waiting? :sofunny:

Yep....but not surprised.

oops...look down...your hypocrisy is showing.:chuckle:

j-dawg
09-13-2008, 04:26 PM
I would imagine you’re jealous and envious. I would imagine that you feel that he does not deserve it and only became wealthy and prosperous by screwing the little guy. I would imagine you probably feel that for him to become rich, it took money and food from countless others who are much more deserving and are poor simply because they are more honest and ethical than McCain. You probably feel that increasing taxes is the right thing to do because the rich don’t deserve what they have, after all, they got there by screwing the little guy.

Unlike you, I would want to know how he became successful and figure out how, like him, I could be successful and own my own home too.

I would also imagine that you do not feel that this election will be determined as much by ignorance, class envy, and proposed redistribution of wealth, as anything else……..

But I can't really know what you "think" so I am just guessing. Forgive me if I'm wrong.


That's right dude, you don't know what I think.. but thank's for sharing your colorful and imaginitive thoughts.

lamberts-lost-tooth
09-13-2008, 04:28 PM
That's right dude, you don't know what I think.. but thank's for sharing your colorful and imaginitive thoughts.

We waited for this type of retort.....:noidea:


"I know you are but what am I?"

j-dawg
09-13-2008, 04:33 PM
Yep....but not surprised.

oops...look down...your hypocrisy is showing.:chuckle:

umm... what hypocrisy LLT.... where in any of my posts in this thread had I said there was a better person for the problems facing this nation?

There isn't. You think I'm the only guy who feels that way? :noidea:

lamberts-lost-tooth
09-13-2008, 04:49 PM
umm... what hypocrisy LLT.... where in any of my posts in this thread had I said there was a better person for the problems facing this nation?

There isn't. You think I'm the only guy who feels that way? :noidea:

Your hypocrisy lies in the fact that you make claims that Palin is not a tax-cutter...then slam her for cutting taxes and government programs.

Your hypocrisy lies in the fact that you call her a pork spender...but refuse to make the same claims OR acknowledge the fact that Obama is the #2 pork spender in congress.

Your hypocrisy lies in the fact that 100% of your posts are anti-MCCain/Palin and you claim to be undecided...,and refuse to hold the other party to the same standard..

Sooooo lets try again.... if you are the impartial undecided person you claim to be..... tell us that Obama is a lying stealing unqualified Pork Spender.

..and again....we will wait.

GBMelBlount
09-13-2008, 04:55 PM
That's right dude, you don't know what I think.. but thank's for sharing your colorful and imaginitive thoughts.

You specifically asked how I thought you felt about that. So I answered honestly. If you feel that I am wrong, this is your opportunity to set the record straight j-dawg......I have reread this thread and feel that you have contributed absolutely nothing. You mentioned earlier "this is why I stay away from these threads." If you can't contribute anything other than meaningless general statements intended solely to fan the flames, I would prefer you stay out as well. THAT is something we can both agree on. Just my two cents.

j-dawg
09-13-2008, 05:19 PM
You specifically asked how I thought you felt about that. So I answered honestly. If you feel that I am wrong, this is your opportunity to set the record straight j-dawg......I have reread this thread and feel that you have contributed absolutely nothing. You mentioned earlier "this is why I stay away from these threads." If you can't contribute anything other than meaningless general statements intended solely to fan the flames, I would prefer you stay out as well. THAT is something we can both agree on. Just my two cents.
:thumbsup::wave:

Leftoverhard
09-17-2008, 10:55 AM
I have to throw in my 2 cents on this thread no matter how much the little angel on my shoulder is telling ne not to.
I'm new here and I'm sure I'll be blasted for saying this but I have a few points to make.

1. Pork Barrel spending is a really tired talking point. And while I admire conservatives trying to explain why they want to vote for McCain, why don't you just say that it's because he's pro-life and get it over with? And while we're on that touchy subject...
2. Can someone please explain to me why you think a woman (or a girl) should have to give birth after being raped (incest is also rape)? And then tell me how you have any authority in that matter.
3. I'll quote this guy - xfl2001fan
"You would be an idiot to refute the good we've done over there." (he was talking about Iraq)
Call me an idiot because I have no idea what "good" means then.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/contribute/educate/counters/grey-128x128.png
Here's the problem I have with this. We can talk out of the sides of our mouths about abortion and we can talk about the war in Iraq but can we talk about them both in the same sentence? How can we dictate what women do with their bodies and give George Bush permission to exterminate our soldiers and innocent Iraqi civilians in this way? Or we could just talk about Pork barrel spending some more. Oh, and Palin has a high approval rating because she is, in fact, pretty hot. And that is very important.

cubanstogie
09-17-2008, 11:06 AM
I have to throw in my 2 cents on this thread no matter how much the little angel on my shoulder is telling ne not to.
I'm new here and I'm sure I'll be blasted for saying this but I have a few points to make.

1. Pork Barrel spending is a really tired talking point. And while I admire conservatives trying to explain why they want to vote for McCain, why don't you just say that it's because he's pro-life and get it over with? And while we're on that touchy subject...
2. Can someone please explain to me why you think a woman (or a girl) should have to give birth after being raped (incest is also rape)? And then tell me how you have any authority in that matter.
3. I'll quote this guy - xfl2001fan
"You would be an idiot to refute the good we've done over there." (he was talking about Iraq)
Call me an idiot because I have no idea what "good" means then.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/contribute/educate/counters/grey-128x128.png
Here's the problem I have with this. We can talk out of the sides of our mouths about abortion and we can talk about the war in Iraq but can we talk about them both in the same sentence? How can we dictate what women do with their bodies and give George Bush permission to exterminate our soldiers and innocent Iraqi civilians in this way? Or we could just talk about Pork barrel spending some more. Oh, and Palin has a high approval rating because she is, in fact, pretty hot. And that is very important.

I hope your first post on this board was better than your second. I am done arguing this political B.S. but your post was ignorant.

revefsreleets
09-17-2008, 12:53 PM
Hmmmm...I'm pro choice and voting for McCain, so much for that generalization.
What's up with the "George Bush is exterminating soldiers" bit? It's a litle over the top, I'd say.

Hammer67
09-17-2008, 05:40 PM
I have to throw in my 2 cents on this thread no matter how much the little angel on my shoulder is telling ne not to.
I'm new here and I'm sure I'll be blasted for saying this but I have a few points to make.

1. Pork Barrel spending is a really tired talking point. And while I admire conservatives trying to explain why they want to vote for McCain, why don't you just say that it's because he's pro-life and get it over with? And while we're on that touchy subject...
2. Can someone please explain to me why you think a woman (or a girl) should have to give birth after being raped (incest is also rape)? And then tell me how you have any authority in that matter.
3. I'll quote this guy - xfl2001fan
"You would be an idiot to refute the good we've done over there." (he was talking about Iraq)
Call me an idiot because I have no idea what "good" means then.

Here's the problem I have with this. We can talk out of the sides of our mouths about abortion and we can talk about the war in Iraq but can we talk about them both in the same sentence? How can we dictate what women do with their bodies and give George Bush permission to exterminate our soldiers and innocent Iraqi civilians in this way? Or we could just talk about Pork barrel spending some more. Oh, and Palin has a high approval rating because she is, in fact, pretty hot. And that is very important.

Well, this is where liberals, or, specifically, pro-choice, folks don't get it (notice I didn't say Republican or Democrat). This is a moral and religious issue. Basically, pro lifers believe it is murder...period, to abort. Pro-choice people don't believe it is murder. It's more a religious issue then anything. Personally, I am pro life as I don't see a valid reason to abort a child. It has nothing to do with a woman's choice of what to do with her body...if you view it as murder. Rape and incest are terrible things. And it is a terrible thing to deal with. But, that doesn't give the assaulted person the right to kill the child. That's my belief, anyway.

This is more a religious debate then a political one, in my opinion.

What scares me is abortion is all too often used as birth control by uninformed teenagers.

:coffee:

In my mind, Palin should be commended for condemming her daughter's actions but also supporting her...like any parent.

Hammer67
09-17-2008, 05:42 PM
And, to add to this..I find it interesting that the Press and Dems are focusing more on Palin...the VP CANDIDATE while the GOP is focusing on Obama...the actual presidential candidate.

Kind of tells me that McCain is gonna win this thing...

Hammer67
09-17-2008, 05:45 PM
Random thought....

Obama impresses me as a man who believes in what he is doing. He doesn't seem like a sneaky politician.

That being said, I still strongly disagree with him on most points! :wink02:

I am a moderate-conservative Libertarian, if it means anything...

revefsreleets
09-17-2008, 05:49 PM
I concur about Obama...I think he's an honorable man that is simply in way over his head.

This op/ed piece is interesting because it does a good job of illustrating how he lost his edge. My guess is that he buckled under pressure from Harry Reed and Nancy Pelosi.

http://www.ohio.com/editorial/commentary/28493699.html

Barack Obama, typical Democrat

By Michael Gerson

Published on Wednesday, Sep 17, 2008

WASHINGTON: Seldom has there been a larger contrast between the style of a candidate and the strategy of his campaign.

Barack Obama is cool, firm and permanently unruffled. It is precisely this quality of steadiness that has made him seem a credible prospective president with the thinnest of resumes.

But Obama's campaign is rootless, reactive and panicky. At every stage since securing the nomination, it has seemed fearful of missteps and unsure of its own organizing principle. So it has invariably adopted the Democratic conventional wisdom of the moment.

Obama's first major decision was his running mate. He could have reinforced a message of change and moderation with a Democratic governorwho wins in a Republican state, or reached for history by selecting Hillary Clinton. But his choice came soon after Russia invaded Georgia, and the conventional wisdom demanded an old hand who knew his way around Tbilisi.

When the Georgia crisis faded, Obama was left with a partisan, undisciplined, congressional liberal at his side. This has served to undermine Obama's message of change — and has allowed Sarah Palin to pilfer a portion of that appeal.

Obama's second decision concerned the tone and content of his convention. Here the Democratic conventional wisdom was nearly unanimous.Obama should shelve his highfalutin rhetoric and talk like a real Democrat. Go after McCain. Talk about ''bread and butter'' issues — really code words for class warfare attacks on consumers of blinis and caviar.

Obama took this advice to the letter — at the cost of his political identity. In his Denver speech, it seemed that every American home was on the auction block, every car stalled for lack of gasoline, every credit card bill past due, every worker treated like a Russian serf.

And McCain? He was out of touch, with flawed ''judgment.'' His life devoted to serving oil companies and big corporations. And, by the way, he didn't have the courage to follow Osama bin Laden ''to the cave where he lives.'' In obedience to the best Democratic advice, Obama managed to be conventional, bitter and graceless.

Now Obama has made his third major campaign decision — to finally get really tough on McCain.

In response to attacks and dropping polls, the Democratic wisdom is once again nearly uniform: Democrats lose because they are not vicious enough. And once again, the Obama campaign has taken this advice without hesitation. ''We will respond with speed and ferocity to John McCain's attacks and we will take the fight to him,'' says Obama's campaign manager.

Obama feels provoked — and he has been. There is no evidence that Obama supported explicit sex education in kindergarten, as a McCain ad implied. Having already accused McCain of being a cowardly corporate tool who is disconnected from reality, escalation is not an easy task for Obama.

But he has managed. In one recent commercial, McCain is clearly mocked for his age — compared to a disco ball and a 10-pound cell phone. Another ad uses the word ''dishonorable'' next to a photo of McCain — an attack from a candidate who has little practical familiarity with the cost of honor.

Who is hurt most by this race to the bottom? McCain, by the evidence of his own convention, wants to be a viewed as a fighter — which a fight does little to undermine. Obama was introduced to America as a different and better kind of politician — an image now in tatters.

Even worse for Obama, all these shifts to catch the prevailing winds confirm the most serious concerns about his political character. As a senator, he has almost never opposed the ideological consensus of his party. (The ethics reform he often cites as his profile in courage eventually passed the Senate 96-2.) And now as a presidential candidate, Obama has run his campaign with all the constancy of a skittish sailboat on an erratic ocean.

Here is a different strategy. Obama could attempt to ''beat back the politics of fear, and doubt and cynicism.'' He could try to build a coalition that ''stretches through red states and blue states.'' He could reject ''the politics where we tear each other down instead of lifting this country up.''

The candidate who said those words the night he won the Iowa caucuses did pretty well. But whatever the outcome of this presidential election, that candidate is no longer in the race.
Gerson is a Washington Post Writers Group columnist. He can be e-mailed at michaelgerson@cfr.org.

xfl2001fan
09-17-2008, 06:02 PM
I'm new here and I'm sure I'll be blasted for saying this but I have a few points to make.Only if you say something idiotic...

1. Pork Barrel spending is a really tired talking point. And while I admire conservatives trying to explain why they want to vote for McCain, why don't you just say that it's because he's pro-life and get it over with? And while we're on that touchy subject...Speaking of less than intelligent references, pork barrel spending and abortion are two very different issues...but big ones. Try to not confuse the two...and try even harder to not assume that others are confusing the two. You'll save yourself further "blasts" if you keep that advice in mind.


2. Can someone please explain to me why you think a woman (or a girl) should have to give birth after being raped (incest is also rape)? And then tell me how you have any authority in that matter. There are these laws against murdering. There's a right to live. At 6 weeks after gestation, there is a beating heart that is very recognizable. Hearts pump blood. Blood pretty much is a conduit for ensuring the good get's to where it's supposed to and the bad goes away. You stop the heart, you have killed whatever creature had it.

I personally don't have the authority. The ones who do have the authority have been pussified by smug lawyers and fancy word games (just like with all the Political Correctness).

3. I'll quote this guy - xfl2001fan
"You would be an idiot to refute the good we've done over there." (he was talking about Iraq)
Call me an idiot because I have no idea what "good" means then.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/contribute/educate/counters/grey-128x128.png Okay. You're an idiot. (Just following orders sir.)

You give me a body count, but how many of those bodies were killed by Islam Extremists born and raised in Iraq? What you are doing is spinning. That get's you blasted in here.

Here's the problem I have with this. We can talk out of the sides of our mouths about abortion and we can talk about the war in Iraq but can we talk about them both in the same sentence? How can we dictate what women do with their bodies and give George Bush permission to exterminate our soldiers and innocent Iraqi civilians in this way? Or we could just talk about Pork barrel spending some more. Oh, and Palin has a high approval rating because she is, in fact, pretty hot. And that is very important.

The price for freedom is paid in blood. Period. If you can't recognize that, it's your problem. Just understand that there are those of us who understand that we may have to stand in harms way to save someone who doesn't seem to care enough to understand. Despite your apparent lack of concern, we still stand ready.

I don't talk out of the side of my mouth when it comes to abortion. It's murder. Forget religion. I could care less about what religion you are...religion (or the lack there of) plays no part in it. You stop a beating heart, you murder someone. If it was just a woman's body, I'd be fine. But it's not her body that's being killed, expelled and then thrown away. It is something that purely 100% innocent, something no one on this board can claim.

I don't talk out of the side of my mouth when it comes to war. Whatever reason was given for our presence there, there is a lot of good that has come out of it. Schools that are being built in places where they didn't exist. Premier medical attention given to a nation who's standards are held back by "tribal wars". Sports/athletics brought to a nation for the youth to find better outlets for their lifestyles. Do bad things happen during war? Yup. Are there bad Soldiers? Yup. But if you're going to tell a story, try telling the whole story.

By the way, you were the first person I remember every trying to talk about abortion and war in the same sentence.

As for Palin, if you can't look past the fact that she is a beautiful woman, it shows just how shallow you are. Because I'm not Alaskan, I can't say why she has such a high approval rating. Undoubtedly some of her approval will come from shallow men and women who are going strictly on looks. Undoubtedly some of her approval came from shallow people who only saw the extra pay check she put in their pockets. But I have serious doubts that 500000 Alaskans approve strictly "Because she's hot".

You come in here to blast a bunch of people and you spout material that's spun so fine that you're making Spiders jealous.

******************************************
I'm XFL2001FAN and I approve this message!

HometownGal
09-17-2008, 06:04 PM
Well, this is where liberals, or, specifically, pro-choice, folks don't get it (notice I didn't say Republican or Democrat). This is a moral and religious issue. Basically, pro lifers believe it is murder...period, to abort. Pro-choice people don't believe it is murder. It's more a religious issue then anything. Personally, I am pro life as I don't see a valid reason to abort a child. It has nothing to do with a woman's choice of what to do with her body...if you view it as murder. Rape and incest are terrible things. And it is a terrible thing to deal with. But, that doesn't give the assaulted person the right to kill the child. That's my belief, anyway.

This is more a religious debate then a political one, in my opinion.

What scares me is abortion is all too often used as birth control by uninformed teenagers.

:coffee:

In my mind, Palin should be commended for condemming her daughter's actions but also supporting her...like any parent.

:applaudit::applaudit::applaudit::thumbsup:

Great post Hammer - couldn't agree more. Rape and incest are horrible crimes but killing an innocent child who had no choice in the conception is just as horrible, imho. There are thousands of couples across the country who have been on adoption waiting lists for a long time (unlike these celebs who can adopt a baby in less than 24 hours :mad:) who would give their eye tooth to adopt a child.

Hammer67
09-17-2008, 06:10 PM
:applaudit::applaudit::applaudit::thumbsup:

Great post Hammer - couldn't agree more. Rape and incest are horrible crimes but killing an innocent child who had no choice in the conception is just as horrible, imho. There are thousands of couples across the country who have been on adoption waiting lists for a long time (unlike these celebs who can adopt a baby in less than 24 hours :mad:) who would give their eye tooth to adopt a child.

I didn't even think of that...great point.

Hey Brangelina, how about adopting a child from one of our own unfortunate mothers here in the US before you go off and save the world...:hmmph:

tony hipchest
09-17-2008, 07:55 PM
........................ is it because of her beautiful tan? looks like the Indoor Tanning Association definitely approves. :thumbsup:

http://www.theita.com/news/sarahpalin.htm

Sarah Palin Said to Have a Tanning Bed in Alaska Governor’s Mansion

Tanning Beds Provide Much Needed Vitamin D in Northern Latitudes

WASHINGTON – Today the Indoor Tanning Association addressed rumors that Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, who was recently chosen as Presidential Nominee John McCain’s running-mate, had installed a tanning bed in the Governor’s mansion.

According to online reports, a Palin spokesman confirmed in 2007 that the Governor “did have a tanning bed put in the Governor’s Mansion,” Adding that, “It was done shortly after she took office [in early 2007] and moved into the mansion.”

In locations such as Alaska, tanning beds provide important health benefits as a source of UV light. In the bleak winter months, many Americans experience vitamin D deficiency and the best way to manufacture vitamin D is through exposure to UV light. But it is impossible to get the requisite amount of vitamin D from the sun in cities north of 37 degrees latitude for as many as 6 months out of the year; people living as far north as Juneau, Alaska, are deprived of vitamin D from sunlight for even longer.

In addition to increasing the risk of many types of cancer and heart disease, vitamin D deficiency is also linked to many common wintertime complaints such as fatigue, depression and aches and pains.

While partisan bloggers and the sun scare industry will use this as an opportunity to undermine Gov. Palin and demonize the indoor tanning industry, the fact is that Governor Palin’s decision to get UV light from a tanning bed positively impacts her health.

“Moderate amounts of indoor tanning allow Governor Palin to experience the many health benefits that come with exposure to UV light,” said Dan Humiston, President of the Indoor Tanning Association. “Especially in dreary northern locations like Alaska, indoor tanning can help guard against wintertime depression and ward off diseases associated with vitamin D deficiency.”

“Kudos to Governor Palin for standing up to dermatologists and other members of the sun scare industry who are trying to frighten Americans away from UV light.” :toofunny:
isnt mccain a champion for skin cancer prevention? i mean Lord knows palin needs a tan...

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q23/shortyshane_2006/2008-09-02-images-sarahpalinbikini.jpg


...but a tanning bed in the governors mansion??? what should we expect for the vice presidential quarters? a shooting range and plastic pink flamingos installed on the front lawn?

the rumor has been confirmed and its said palin purchased the machine with her own money. who foots the bill for the energy it consumes? who paid to gut the 96 year old governers mansion's electrical wiring to handle the capacity? wasnt she charging the taxpayers to stay at her own home in wasilla?

seriously... a freaking tanning bed?

MACH1
09-17-2008, 08:07 PM
........................ is it because of her beautiful tan? looks like the Indoor Tanning Association definitely approves. :thumbsup:

http://www.theita.com/news/sarahpalin.htm

isnt mccain a champion for skin cancer prevention? i mean Lord knows palin needs a tan...




...but a tanning bed in the governors mansion??? what should we expect for the vice presidential quarters? a shooting range and plastic pink flamingos installed on the front lawn?

the rumor has been confirmed and its said palin purchased the machine with her own money. who foots the bill for the energy it consumes? who paid to gut the 96 year old governers mansion's electrical wiring to handle the capacity? wasnt she charging the taxpayers to stay at her own home in wasilla?

seriously... a freaking tanning bed?

A tanning bed probably looks better than grow lights in the mansion. :chuckle:

My friend has those things hanging everywhere in their house that lives there. No, not for that.:smoker:

revefsreleets
09-17-2008, 08:15 PM
Hmmmm...I tan. Standing up. I like to keep a little color, and it definitely helps with my seasonal affective disorder.

Rock on, Sarah Palin...more and more MILF (soon to be GILF) material daily...

GBMelBlount
09-17-2008, 08:42 PM
revefsreleets
Hmmmm...I tan. Standing up. I like to keep a little color, and it definitely helps with my seasonal affective disorder.

Uh Oh, it's gonna be a looong winter.:chuckle:

revefsreleets
09-17-2008, 09:21 PM
Uh Oh, it's gonna be a looong winter.:chuckle:
The older I get, the longer the winters last...

HometownGal
09-17-2008, 09:46 PM
http://i19.ebayimg.com/05/i/08/93/b2/26_1_sbl.JPG

tony hipchest
09-17-2008, 10:57 PM
they say a picture is worth 1000 words. i can only imagine. anyways....

:chuckle:

Groupthink is a type of thought exhibited by group members who try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas. During groupthink, members of the group avoid promoting viewpoints outside the comfort zone of consensus thinking. A variety of motives for this may exist such as a desire to avoid being seen as foolish, or a desire to avoid embarrassing or angering other members of the group. Groupthink may cause groups to make hasty, irrational decisions, where individual doubts are set aside, for fear of upsetting the group’s balance. The term is frequently used pejoratively, with hindsight.

:tap: hmmmm....

one thing we can be sure of....

if obama/biden win the election, they wont be installing tanning beds in the white house.

:sofunny:

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q23/shortyshane_2006/kiddie.jpg

MACH1
09-17-2008, 11:55 PM
http://www.moonbattery.com/barack-obama-clown.jpg

Get your free money now!

No wait, I want to raise your tax's.

Leftoverhard
09-18-2008, 11:09 AM
The price for freedom is paid in blood. Period. If you can't recognize that, it's your problem. Just understand that there are those of us who understand that we may have to stand in harms way to save someone who doesn't seem to care enough to understand. Despite your apparent lack of concern, we still stand ready.QUOTE]

Who's freedom was at stake? Not mine, not yours. Who's? Someone who doesn't care enough to understand? Who's that? Why would you sacrifice your life for someone who doesn't care? You're right about my "apparent" lack of concern. I won't say what exactly I do but I'm a security professional for the U.S government and I work every day to protect our nation from harm.
Freedom does not have to be paid for in blood. It has, of course but it doesn't need to be.


[QUOTE]By the way, you were the first person I remember every trying to talk about abortion and war in the same sentence.

I was talking about abortion and war in the same sentence to try and make a point about the importance of life and death in the pro-life, pro-war stance:
How do pro-life people decide when murder is ok? There are major inconsistencies with these 3 things - Capital punishment, War, Abortion. - on both sides, I night add.

The price for freedom is paid in blood. Period.

Could the same thing be said for a woman who was raped and left to bear the child of her attacker?

But you know what, this just isn't a discussion I want to have every day and the points I have seem to get lost in translation. I'm not about changing anyone's mind but sometimes it's hard not to want to argue this.



You spout material that's spun so fine that you're making Spiders jealous.

Thanks, that's real sweet but I think you're being generous.

MACH1
09-18-2008, 12:08 PM
http://henryjenkins.org/obama%20spock%202.jpg

http://www.newsgroper.com/files/legacy/obama-the-rapper.jpg

:popcorn:

xfl2001fan
09-18-2008, 12:30 PM
Who's freedom was at stake? Not mine, not yours. Who's? Someone who doesn't care enough to understand? Who's that? Why would you sacrifice your life for someone who doesn't care? You're right about my "apparent" lack of concern. I won't say what exactly I do but I'm a security professional for the U.S government and I work every day to protect our nation from harm.

All of our freedom is at stake. So long as there are people out there (whether they wear the banner of Nazi, Islam Extremist, Christian Extremist, etc...) who are willing to do bodily harm (or worse) based on discriminatory circumstances (race, gender, nationality, religion etc...) freedom is at stake.

It may not feel like it's directly at stake, but who thought that pre-9-11. How did Pearl Harbor get bombed? We thought we were safe. We knew we were safe.

Freedom does not have to be paid for in blood. It has, of course but it doesn't need to be. Willingness to kill comes from willingness to die for a cause (however misguided.) So long as there are those who exist who are willing to die to prevent our freedom, there must be those willing to die to protect it. Yes, it really does need to be paid for in blood, because it it's not, it won't exist. Utopia's are nice, but they don't exist in today's world. To believe otherwise is beyond naive.

I was talking about abortion and war in the same sentence to try and make a point about the importance of life and death in the pro-life, pro-war stance:
How do pro-life people decide when murder is ok? There are major inconsistencies with these 3 things - Capital punishment, War, Abortion. - on both sides, I night add.
Define Murder. When it comes down to an Islam Extremist trying to kill me, or me trying to kill him, I view it as self defense. My standing somewhere (Iraq) does not necessarily constitute a reason to attack me. Especially when the Iraq government has given me permission to be there. To some Iraqi's (who refuse to recognize their own government) it may be viewed as different.

However, that unborn child is not a sinner (if you're religious) and so is completely blameless on every possible level. It's mere presence is not a provoking aggressive attack. The rape may be. But the child is not. It is completely incapable of conscience aggression. It merely is.

You are discussing two very different issues. Seems an odd habit you have to try and compare such contrasting issues. Apples and Oranges together may combine to make a fruit salad, but they're still just apples and oranges. When you take a bite, there is a distinct difference.

Could the same thing be said for a woman who was raped and left to bear the child of her attacker?

But you know what, this just isn't a discussion I want to have every day and the points I have seem to get lost in translation. I'm not about changing anyone's mind but sometimes it's hard not to want to argue this.

If it's not a discussion you want to have every day, then why bring it up at all? These are serious talking points.

Hammer67
09-18-2008, 02:23 PM
Define Murder. When it comes down to an Islam Extremist trying to kill me, or me trying to kill him, I view it as self defense. My standing somewhere (Iraq) does not necessarily constitute a reason to attack me. Especially when the Iraq government has given me permission to be there. To some Iraqi's (who refuse to recognize their own government) it may be viewed as different.

However, that unborn child is not a sinner (if you're religious) and so is completely blameless on every possible level. It's mere presence is not a provoking aggressive attack. The rape may be. But the child is not. It is completely incapable of conscience aggression. It merely is.

You are discussing two very different issues. Seems an odd habit you have to try and compare such contrasting issues. Apples and Oranges together may combine to make a fruit salad, but they're still just apples and oranges. When you take a bite, there is a distinct difference.


I have to agree with our resident Browns fan. (Did I just say that?) :thumbsup:

What Pro-Choice folks don't get is that capital punishment, war, and abortion are TOTALLY different.

How can one be pro-life and then be for capital punishment??? Well, the child is innocent. The criminal has made their choice and knew the consequences.

As he said, apples and oranges argument. Which is usually how Liberals argue anyway...bunching non-related items under one unbrella.

revefsreleets
09-18-2008, 02:25 PM
XL, just give up. It's clear you are dealing with a Utopian "Peace at any cost" true believer. These people live in a fantasy world and believe that terrorists and people like Kim Jong Il can be dealt with rationally with just some love and flowers.

HometownGal
09-18-2008, 03:59 PM
These people live in a fantasy world and believe that terrorists and people like Kim Jong Il can be dealt with rationally with just some love and flowers.

The defining description of a liberal, sadly.

xfl2001fan
09-18-2008, 07:53 PM
I have to agree with our resident Browns fan. (Did I just say that?) :thumbsup:

It's non-football related, so I believe it's authorized.

Leftoverhard
09-18-2008, 08:22 PM
Apples and Oranges? How about double standards? These issues are all related in more ways than one. Who "deserves" to die and who decides? Those are difficult questions and ones that deserve more thought than just flip replies.
As for this fantasy world you think I live in, check again. I fully understand the world we live in and my debate was on Iraq and how you think Iraq had anything to do with our freedom. You must know (and I'm talking to those of you who replied to my last post) that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 by now.

That said (and I trust you still don't get my point), I should probably go tend to my flower garden and go to the doctor to get my bleeding heart checked out.

Hammer67
09-18-2008, 08:53 PM
Apples and Oranges? How about double standards? These issues are all related in more ways than one. Who "deserves" to die and who decides? Those are difficult questions and ones that deserve more thought than just flip replies.
As for this fantasy world you think I live in, check again. I fully understand the world we live in and my debate was on Iraq and how you think Iraq had anything to do with our freedom. You must know (and I'm talking to those of you who replied to my last post) that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 by now.

That said (and I trust you still don't get my point), I should probably go tend to my flower garden and go to the doctor to get my bleeding heart checked out.

Thought we were discussing abortion??? I am so confused...

Anyway, it's easy. If you flip out and chop up your wife and kids with an axe, I am pretty sure I don't want to waste tax dollars on feeding you the rest of your life. I say "Off with his head!"

As for the child...fully innocent...that = murder, my friend.

xfl2001fan
09-18-2008, 09:20 PM
Apples and Oranges? How about double standards? These issues are all related in more ways than one. Who "deserves" to die and who decides? Those are difficult questions and ones that deserve more thought than just flip replies.

Well, Islam Extremists are the recent brand of people who have decided that it's up to them to decide. They don't care if they kill Americans (a preferred target) or Iraqi's of a similar religion in a different tribe (which equates to a Baptist killing a Lutheran in the Christian religion.) My government and the constitution I support believe that all men (and women) are created equally and have an equal right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Notice, it doesn't say all Americans. All people. If you (general, not specific) decide that it's up to you to take someone out because they don't share your ideology, I have been appointed the taskmaster of taking you out first. Appointed by a higher ideology of equality.

Funny thing is, you seem to be arguing Pro-Choice. However, what choice are you giving the child? That would be none. That child doesn't have a bomb strapped to it's back. It's not holding an AK-47. It's not putting poison in anyone's fluids. So apparently, it's the woman who decides that the child dies, without giving the child a choice. This isn't just a flip response. Pro-Choice negates choice more so than Pro-Life does. Pregnancy is temporary. Adoption is an option. Murder is FOREVER.

Yes. Apples and Oranges. They're both fruits, but about as dissimilar as fruits can be.

As for this fantasy world you think I live in, check again. I fully understand the world we live in and my debate was on Iraq and how you think Iraq had anything to do with our freedom. You must know (and I'm talking to those of you who replied to my last post) that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 by now.

Iraq helped fund much of the terrorists activities that were responsible for damage beyond just 9/11. We're also in Afghanistan. Fighting a similar fight. It is a "War on Terrorism". We're now fighting in Iraq to give all of their people freedom from the oppression of Tyranny (first by Sadaam Hussein and now by Islam Extremists.) It goes beyond retaliation from 9/11.

If most American's are sheep, then I'm the sheep dog/wolf hound. If I wait for the rabid dogs to come, they'll likely bloody my flock...and it'll be the wolfhound and his master that get's the blame. By taking the fight to the rabid wolves themselves, I keep them away from the flock. I may get bloodied in this battle, but it's one I willingly make knowing that most of the sheep merely see/smell canine and blood when they see/smell me.

That said (and I trust you still don't get my point), I should probably go tend to my flower garden and go to the doctor to get my bleeding heart checked out.

Whatever floats your boat.

revefsreleets
09-19-2008, 09:43 AM
Utopians who live in fantasy land ALL think that they really do live in the real world. It's all part of the beautiful delusion. Hitler just needed to be better understood, that's all. Stalin wasn't such a bad guy, he just needed a hug. Saddam was actually GOOD for Iraq, yadda, yadda, yadda...

The most awesome part is that people like XFL are out there fighting so you can dream your dreams and play make believe...

stlrtruck
09-19-2008, 10:37 AM
Utopians who live in fantasy land ALL think that they really do live in the real world. It's all part of the beautiful delusion. Hitler just needed to be better understood, that's all. Stalin wasn't such a bad guy, he just needed a hug. Saddam was actually GOOD for Iraq, yadda, yadda, yadda...

The most awesome part is that people like XFL are out there fighting so you can dream your dreams and play make believe...

you forgot play dress up too.

My neighbor yesterday was giving me the lashing about how I should vote for Obama. I had neither the time nor energy for a debate on why Obama had no chance in hell of getting my vote this November.

Truth be told Obama scares the hell out of me as President. While McCain may not be much better, IMHO, he is the better option of the two - and yes I would rather have Palin as President over Biden should anything happen to the President.

Leftoverhard
09-19-2008, 11:19 AM
Utopians who live in fantasy land ALL think that they really do live in the real world. It's all part of the beautiful delusion. Hitler just needed to be better understood, that's all. Stalin wasn't such a bad guy, he just needed a hug. Saddam was actually GOOD for Iraq, yadda, yadda, yadda...

I don't know and have never met anyone who believes any of what you just said. That's a very strange thing to say.

The most awesome part is that people like XFL are out there fighting so you can dream your dreams and play make believe...

Thanks XFL, of course all of our men and women in uniform deserve our gratitude.

But, revefsreleets, for you to condescend to me like that is uncalled for and reeks of naivete and your assumptions about me playing make-believe and hugging dictators are offensive. I'm not worried about defending my views against this sea of conservative thinkers but you're starting to wade into the personal attack zone - it's not nessecary, I'm sure you can make your points without that.

revefsreleets
09-19-2008, 01:44 PM
I don't know and have never met anyone who believes any of what you just said. That's a very strange thing to say.



Thanks XFL, of course all of our men and women in uniform deserve our gratitude.

But, revefsreleets, for you to condescend to me like that is uncalled for and reeks of naivete and your assumptions about me playing make-believe and hugging dictators are offensive. I'm not worried about defending my views against this sea of conservative thinkers but you're starting to wade into the personal attack zone - it's not nessecary, I'm sure you can make your points without that.

Naive? If you think this is a personal attack from me, you ARE delusional (and completely naive...but that's already been established). Trust me, if you were personally attacked by me(especially given the EXTREMELY high level of sensitivity you are displaying), it'd leave a mark.

The reality is that you have an unrealistic view of what can be achieved through diplomacy and peaceful means. War is reality, and it's necessary, and it will never be abolished as long as humans occupy this planet. It's part of our nature. Doesn't make it right, doesn't mean you have to like it or embrace it, but denying that nature and reality is the ultimate naivety.

Hammer67
09-19-2008, 01:49 PM
Naive? If you think this is a personal attack from me, you ARE delusional (and completely naive...but that's already been established). Trust me, if you were personally attacked by me(especially given the EXTREMELY high level of sensitivity you are displaying), it'd leave a mark.

The reality is that you have an unrealistic view of what can be achieved through diplomacy and peaceful means. War is reality, and it's necessary, and it will never be abolished as long as humans occupy this planet. It's part of our nature. Doesn't make it right, doesn't mean you have to like it or embrace it, but denying that nature and reality is the ultimate naivety.

Kind of reminds me of my "bully" philosophy from grade school. Bullys tend to pick on the people who have the least likelihood to fight back. Makes it easy for them to impose their will. I always say to forget the turn the other cheek garbage. If you smack a bully, they will usually back down...and, you make it known to anyone else that they will get retaliation if they mess with you.

...as Kenny Rogers says, sometimes you have to fight when you're a man. :laughing:

Same with war...sometimes the bully needs smacked. Speak softly and carry a big stick, or so they say.

revefsreleets
09-19-2008, 01:53 PM
I'm no war monger, by the by...I just recognize it's a necessary and realistic evil, and that it's always going to be part of our nature.

Leftoverhard
09-19-2008, 03:58 PM
I'm a firm believer that diplomacy is an excellent tool. I also believe that war is sometimes a neccesary evil. I believe in the balance of our society and I understand that our differing opinions here on this board represent what is great about our country.
Here's an interesting site:
www.yourmorals.org

GBMelBlount
09-20-2008, 10:28 AM
I'm a firm believer that diplomacy is an excellent tool. [/url]

Like the diplomatic way you joined SF to provide us with a barrage of combative nonsense? Do you honestly think you are going to win people to your way of thinking, or friends on Steelersfever for that matter, by insulting others beliefs with your first posts here. I would take a step back if I were you Leftover, reevaluate what your goals are on this site, and perhaps keep that in mind before you submit each new post. If you state your opinions and views more tactfully, you may find that there are some on SF that agree with your GENERAL thoughts. However, if your goal is to create enemies and positively influence noone, simply proceed as you have.....

HometownGal
09-20-2008, 04:53 PM
I'm a firm believer that diplomacy is an excellent tool. I also believe that war is sometimes a neccesary evil. I believe in the balance of our society and I understand that our differing opinions here on this board represent what is great about our country.
Here's an interesting site:
www.yourmorals.org

I think you need to stop with the left-handed bitch-slaps and learn to respect the "differing opinions on this board". Just because I don't agree with everyone's opinions around here doesn't mean I don't respect them. There is a diplomatic way to disagree and you may find this website interesting:

www.stopbeingadick.org

Hammer67
09-20-2008, 08:51 PM
www.stopbeingadick.org (http://www.stopbeingadick.org)

:laughing: