|
Here is Sarah Palin in her own words. If you listen close she say that we should pray that our leaders are sending them on a mission from God. She does not say that they are on a mission from God. Once again we see that the media is willing to distort her words and the words of any other Republican to get Barack Obama elected.
Okay. Actually *hearing* it for myself, I'm inclined to fully agree with you about her intent and that I previously misinterpreted that statement. The only thing negative I can say about it in light of its proper context is that it's unfortunate that this can be misinterpreted (either accidentally or willfully) in a manner that's "jihadist" in nature (even though that's not the intent).
Okay, even though I disagree with some of her views, I feel a lot better about her now.
|
Okay. Actually *hearing* it for myself, I'm inclined to fully agree with you about her intent and that I previously misinterpreted that statement. The only thing negative I can say about it in light of its proper context is that it's unfortunate that this can be misinterpreted (either accidentally or willfully) in a manner that's "jihadist" in nature (even though that's not the intent).
Okay, even though I disagree with some of her views, I feel a lot better about her now.
Makes you wonder how many of her other positions the press has misinterputed.
|
|
Makes you wonder how many of her other positions the press has misinterputed.
She is the Alpha Target in this election.
She has rallied too many of the once-disgruntled GOP base to McCain's banner.
She has charisma to match Obama's, which in itself will swing some undecideds, unless she can be discredited as a lunatic, criminal, or phony.
Makes you wonder how many of her other positions the press has misinterputed.
Yeah, no one would ever imply that Obama was a Muslim. Or not a U.S. citizen. Or any other misinterpretations of that nature.
This kind of thing is to be expected in all elections, from both sides. It's sad and regrettable, but it's been going on as long as people have been able to vote. All Palin can do is get the full quote out there quickly and explain its meaning, as you have tried to do here. Just as the only thing Obama can do is blather on about his Christian faith, and post his birth certificate on the web.
|
|
According to an independent research firm, those two rumors were started by the Hillary campaign. Same with the one about him dealing drugs when he was younger. The difference is that they were not reported on by the media. The Palin comments were distorted by the media and the media has been the ones fanning the flames of Baby-gate, they are the ones who have been reporting the "Trig is really Bristol's baby" story, they are the ones giving Barack Obama credit for legislation he had nothing to do with. That's the difference here. As someone else pointed out on another thread:Makes you wonder how many of her other positions the press has misinterputed.Yeah, no one would ever imply that Obama was a Muslim. Or not a U.S. citizen.
The President of the U.S. (or a staffer for a would-be-future-president) has a MUCH bigger impact than some guy running his mouth down at the paint factory or shopping for chips at Meijer's grocery store.
The same is true when it is the media verses some dude on a blog or forwarding an e-mail.
|
|
My mom's I guess a loyal democrat; I vote for whoever seems to be the best candidate/could actually win i.e. lesser evil-type choice....
Well, she saw an article on the interweb about a librarian getting hassled by Palin for not yanking certain books; anybody know if this is true or yet another Nixonian "rat-effing" exercise? McCain doesn't strike me as much of a bookyanker, so I want to say, "meh..."
(that's what my dad said Nixon's people called it; I'm not trying to be vulgar. And my dad was really into Nixon--he wouldn't talk crap about the guy. Nixon didn't just try to combat an opponent in the realm of ideas. He wanted to personally destroy them.)
|
|
I thought she gave a great speech, but the whole "social conservative" spiel is a big turnoff to me. It's a harder choice for me now, because I got the impression that McCain wasn't really concerned with his constituency's behind closed doors comportments.
I get the feeling now, though, that Obama doesn't get to fire his mouth with impunity any more. That makes my drive to work every morning a less hypertensive scene.
My mom's I guess a loyal democrat; I vote for whoever seems to be the best candidate/could actually win i.e. lesser evil-type choice....
Well, she saw an article on the interweb about a librarian getting hassled by Palin for not yanking certain books; anybody know if this is true or yet another Nixonian "rat-effing" exercise? McCain doesn't strike me as much of a bookyanker, so I want to say, "meh..."
(that's what my dad said Nixon's people called it; I'm not trying to be vulgar. And my dad was really into Nixon--he wouldn't talk crap about the guy. Nixon didn't just try to combat an opponent in the realm of ideas. He wanted to personally destroy them.)
What I saw was she was fairly fresh as mayor of the town and was poking around on the subject of taking books out of the library and backed off pretty quick on that. She's a really conservative person personally, so I guess the question is where she has gone since then in terms of how she reconciles that with her role as an elected official.
The difference is that they were not reported on by the media. The Palin comments were distorted by the media and the media has been the ones fanning the flames of Baby-gate...
What "media" are these? All newspapers are not bonded into a conspiratorial evil empire. Yes, many have a liberal slant, but do you read, for example, The Wall Street Journal, or the Christian Science Monitor? Nor are newspapers the only media; they are a medium. Fox News? TownHall.org? Talk radio? Obama gets plenty of thrashing, and the perpetuation of anti-Obama rumors continues unabated by many of those media.
|
|
I think the media where every cover of Time magazine either looks like it should say "Special Tiger Beat issue: win a dream date with Barry," or "Cassini Probe Sends New Pictures of Io--oh, wait that's McCain's head under harsh lighting." That media.
I'm sorry, we can try to outlawyer this one out, but it's real, baby. It has a pulse.
|
|
My mom's I guess a loyal democrat; I vote for whoever seems to be the best candidate/could actually win i.e. lesser evil-type choice....
Well, she saw an article on the interweb about a librarian getting hassled by Palin for not yanking certain books; anybody know if this is true or yet another Nixonian "rat-effing" exercise? McCain doesn't strike me as much of a bookyanker, so I want to say, "meh..."
(that's what my dad said Nixon's people called it; I'm not trying to be vulgar. And my dad was really into Nixon--he wouldn't talk crap about the guy. Nixon didn't just try to combat an opponent in the realm of ideas. He wanted to personally destroy them.)What I saw was she was fairly fresh as mayor of the town and was poking around on the subject of taking books out of the library and backed off pretty quick on that. She's a really conservative person personally, so I guess the question is where she has gone since then in terms of how she reconciles that with her role as an elected official.
I just don't wanna go Fahrenheit 451 all over the place. It's bad when history repeats itsself, but when history mimics scifi morality tales, it's just downright eerie.
|
A list of Palin rumors, including the library episode
For What its Worth, it seems to me that a lot of people don't know how small town politics work. Everything is personal because everyone knows everybody else and half the people are related to everyone else. I would guess that the issue with the books was a combination of people asking Palin to look into getting certain books removed conflated with the politics of the librarian being involved romantically with Palin's in-town political opposition. No books were actually banned though, the issue was dropped, so its a bit of a muchness.
|
|
I think the media where every cover of Time magazine either looks like it should say "Special Tiger Beat issue: win a dream date with Barry," or "Cassini Probe Sends New Pictures of Io--oh, wait that's McCain's head under harsh lighting." That media.
I'm sorry, we can try to outlawyer this one out, but it's real, baby. It has a pulse.
Interestingly enough, I've been noticing lately a trend of the opposite kind on generic news sites such as yahoo.com. They often feature pictures of McCain smiling and waving, and pictures of Obama looking sad, grim or dour, sometimes in shadow even. Sometimes they even put these pictures right next to each other. I've seen pictures of McCain and Obama making speeches with captions such as "McCain smiles during applause at most recent speech" and "Obama scratches his head while addressing [such and so] at a recent event" (and no, I'm not making the last one up).
It seems like they would use similar shots in order to be unbiased, especially since they're AP stories.I dunno...John McCain's been friends with media folks for a long time.
If "Time" is your only source of news, you need to get out more often. Citing it as an example of "liberal media bias" is fine, but saying it represents all printed media is like saying Conservapedia represents the entire internet.
|
|
Okay, here (it looks like it might change in half an hour....)
you have McCain's head, the fifth moon of Io, floating in the void of space next to Obama's winning smile. I see Obama's grimace a few pictures down. Yeah, so not like he displays the full gamut of human emotions in the fierceness of his youth or anything.
I'm just sick of the necrodream. I do it too, I admit; we want to cling to the dreamier aspects of the necrodream and fight the ones we ourselves consider nightmarish. I want to cling to the lulling comforts. I just wish there was a way out of this dronedom. Reality hurts when you plop naked onto the asphalt like Michael Biehn in Terminator. It's cold. It's sharp. It's visceral.
The necro-dream is comfortable.
Voltaire was a venture capitalist...imagine that(?)
It gives us banners to take up. It tells us when to fight, and how much.
I read through those rumors, pretty funny stuff.
The one that jumped out at me was the library thing. People were acting so worried that she might try to ban stuff. She asked if there was a process for banning books. Hello! If there is a process, it is there for a reason. There is nothing wrong, and a lot right, about an elected official seeking information about a subject that some of her constituents are concerned/interested about. Now if there should be a process in the first place, that is another issue, but if there is one, then it should be ok to discuss it and learn about it.
|
|
If "Time" is your only source of news, you need to get out more often. Citing it as an example of "liberal media bias" is fine, but saying it represents all printed media is like saying Conservapedia represents the entire internet.
The mainstream media has an obvious liberal bias. My journalism teacher in highschool who idolized Jane Fonda told me the same thing. Time isn't my only source of news. Time is everywhere I go. Everywhere I go, Obama's winning smile captivates me. Comforts me.
It's Skinnerian psychology. It's what leads to....."Obama: change. McCain: old." And it's almost impossible to fight due to it's spellpenetrating insipidity.The Wallstreet Journal doesn't have the image power of Time magazine with it's tiny woodblock avatar head pictures. It doesn't have the same impact on the typical American's psyche. It's hardly the same thing as Conservapedia representing the entire internet. Go ask 50 people on the street if they've heard of Conservapedia. One might say, "is that like wikipedia?"
I'm wrestling with what I want. I want news, man. I don't want drooling dog skinnerpsionics. I don't want Rush Limbaugh's droning hyperbole as a counterbalance. Just the facts, man. Just the facts.
I don't want my side's talking head to fight it out with your side's (I mean your generically) talking head ad infinitum. I want facts.
I'm trying to edit this to not sound snarky; Kirth I dig you the most, you know that.
I'm trying to edit this to not sound snarky; Kirth I dig you the most, you know that.
Word, bro. No snark taken. My problem is I travel a lot, so I hear more talk radio in the truck than I see magazines on shelves. And 99% of the talk I hear starts with "those stupid liberals..." So, from my standpoint, the media have a pompous, mean-spirited, snarling conservative bias.
Just the news would be great. You know, a law against commentary would never pass ("censorship!"), but it might not be a bad thing.
I tend to like the Economist, though my politics and theirs differ quite a bit, because in my opinion, they do good coverage. Sorry to sound harsh, but from my point of view, the American news media act like children. It seems like they have absolutely no interest in helping people who really are trying to find out about something.
I'm trying to edit this to not sound snarky; Kirth I dig you the most, you know that.Word, bro. No snark taken. My problem is I travel a lot, so I hear more talk radio in the truck than I see magazines on shelves. And 99% of the talk I hear starts with "those stupid liberals..." So, from my standpoint, the media have a pompous, mean-spirited, snarling conservative bias.
Just the news would be great. You know, a law against commentary would never pass ("censorship!"), but it might not be a bad thing.
What you're thinking of is what the Fairness Doctrine is all about. I disagree with you. Any conservative or liberal should have the ability to rant and rave all they want. If you don't to hear it, you can always turn it off.
|
|
You know what I want?
I want the debates that Hillary wanted.
I want the town hall meetings that McCain wants.That's what I want.
I don't want Rolling Stone covers.
You and me both. I'd love for the election to be based on issues, but far too often (especially for "swing" voters that otherwise wouldn't care) it becomes a beauty pageant, a popularity contest, a reality TV show...
I'm tired of mud-slinging, I want civilized discussion, dammit. If only real life was as civilized as the Paizo boards. :p
|
|
I'm trying to edit this to not sound snarky; Kirth I dig you the most, you know that.Word, bro. No snark taken. My problem is I travel a lot, so I hear more talk radio in the truck than I see magazines on shelves. And 99% of the talk I hear starts with "those stupid liberals..." So, from my standpoint, the media have a pompous, mean-spirited, snarling conservative bias.
Just the news would be great. You know, a law against commentary would never pass ("censorship!"), but it might not be a bad thing.
Make you feel better, or maybe not, but....
during the Clinton years, my pappy had Rush on the t.v. every day...
the choice between smiling Obama and scowling Rush (for a brief example) is hardly a palatable one. I've tried for the Rashomon smorgasbord of equal spoonfuls from the propaganda saladbar for news, and I've come to this conclusion: I don't believe Rashomon was meant as merely a commentary of the human condition, more like a warning sign that each and every one of us have to dedicate ourselves to some kind of quest for veracity, or we get yet another Rashomon Cluster.
|
|
I'm trying to edit this to not sound snarky; Kirth I dig you the most, you know that.Word, bro. No snark taken. My problem is I travel a lot, so I hear more talk radio in the truck than I see magazines on shelves. And 99% of the talk I hear starts with "those stupid liberals..." So, from my standpoint, the media have a pompous, mean-spirited, snarling conservative bias.
Just the news would be great. You know, a law against commentary would never pass ("censorship!"), but it might not be a bad thing.
Right on; my first post smelled like ass big time; I felt the need to follow with a disclaimer; I had the smell in my nose still, and I couldn't tell. ;)
I didn't cuss your mom or nothing, it was mostly some kinda self-gratifying passive aggressive pablum that detracted from rational discourse.I....the only thing I can think of is an appeal to the hearts and junk of everybody to try and not intentionally pee on everybody else's feet while smiling and saying, "looks like we finally got some rain." I like that better than lawmaking that flouts one of those truths that seems pretty self-evident to me, anyway.
If you don't to hear it, you can always turn it off.
That's what Heathy is complaining about: it's everywhere you go. When he walks by a magazine rack, there's Obama and McCain, grinning like idiots, and Hillary looking like a mutant bulldog, and Palin looking like Sandra Bullock in Miss Congeniality. Likewise whenever you open the Internet from a public computer. When I go downstairs for breakfast in a hotel, trying to prepare my mind for a 12-14 hour day ahead, I have to listen to Fox News the whole time, because for some reason hotel managers in Texas think that everyone needs that to be on at all times. If I ask to change the channel (or, preferrably, to turn it off), I'm accused of being a terrorist sympathizer. A person gets sick of it.
I....the only thing I can think of is an appeal to the hearts and junk of everybody to try and not intentionally pee on everybody else's feet while smiling and saying, "looks like we finally got some rain." I like that better than lawmaking that flouts one of those truths that seems pretty self-evident to me, anyway.
That might be better all around, but unfortunately ratings and revenue trump rationality every time. It's the consumers' fault.
If you don't to hear it, you can always turn it off.That's what Heathy is complaining about: it's everywhere you go. When he walks by a magazine rack, there's Obama and McCain, grinning like idiots, and Hillary looking like a mutant bulldog, and Palin looking like Sandra Bullock in Miss Congeniality. Likewise whenever you open the Internet from a public computer. When I go downstairs for breakfast in a hotel, trying to prepare my mind for a 12-14 hour day ahead, I have to listen to Fox News the whole time, because for some reason hotel managers in Texas think that everyone needs that to be on at all times. If I ask to change the channel (or, preferrably, to turn it off), I'm accused of being a terrorist sympathizer. A person gets sick of it.
Someone actually called you a terrorist sympathizer? As for me, I'll be glad when the election is over and everything gets back to normal. Too much coverage of everything is burning me out.
|
|
Someone actually called you a terrorist sympathizer? As for me, I'll be glad when the election is over and everything gets back to normal. Too much coverage of everything is burning me out.If you don't to hear it, you can always turn it off.That's what Heathy is complaining about: it's everywhere you go. When he walks by a magazine rack, there's Obama and McCain, grinning like idiots, and Hillary looking like a mutant bulldog, and Palin looking like Sandra Bullock in Miss Congeniality. Likewise whenever you open the Internet from a public computer. When I go downstairs for breakfast in a hotel, trying to prepare my mind for a 12-14 hour day ahead, I have to listen to Fox News the whole time, because for some reason hotel managers in Texas think that everyone needs that to be on at all times. If I ask to change the channel (or, preferrably, to turn it off), I'm accused of being a terrorist sympathizer. A person gets sick of it.
But then they'll start up for the next Congressional election. One man, one vote, one election rolling on FOREVER!!!!!
Someone actually called you a terrorist sympathizer? As for me, I'll be glad when the election is over and everything gets back to normal. Too much coverage of everything is burning me out.
Trying to remember where. Odessa, maybe? Lufkin?
I kinda wish we could all just vote electronically right now and be done with it.|
|
I think the debates will be quite good these last few months. It's always hard in the world of mass media and ratings at all costs to differentiate what is real and what is junk when it comes to politicians. At the end of the day, I vote for the candidate that most closely approximates my own views on how things should be done. In theory, the one who ends up in charge is the one who the majority think best represents how they want things done. In practice it doesn't always work out like that.
As an individual I actually like McCain a fair bit. I don't agree with all his politics but on the whole he seems moderate enough that it won't be Bush redux (which I desparately don't want to happen). Palin is far too conservative in her views for my taste. A lot of the stuff she is getting called out on is undoubtedly smear, but they also point to a player whose arena is "small town" politics. Inquiring about book banning, talking about family values while raising your teenage daughter's child, etc. etc. don't mean she's a bad person but they raise concerns for me that she is somewhere between ultra conservative and hypocrite. Hopefully the debates will clarify that better.
With Obama, I worry that he is too radical and polarizing to get anything done. He is inexperienced and has his own personal demons. I many ways he is the mirror image of Palin but slanted to the far left. Just as Palin appeals to the far religious right Obama appeals to the far liberal left. Both are family oriented and inexperienced in national level politics. Both are inspiring speakers who can mobilize their followers to action. On a personal level, I agree with far more of Obama's views than I do Palin's. On some issues I feel like Palin would represent a return to the dark ages for knowledge and how we make decisions in this country. Whether real or not is debatable, but the only voice I have in that is my vote which will almost certainly be for Obama/Bidin just because I disagree so strongly with Palin's position. Bidin is very experienced and probably the least noticable of the 4 big names in the election. I like him as a running mate for Obama because he is a more neutral and less polarizing character.
In any event. We can argue endlessly over the politics of all this on a website like this and never convince each other of anything. So long as the eventual president does not push an agenda that impinges on my individual liberty or force an agenda I don't agree with on me, I can live with whomever I suppose. That said, there are a handful of issues that I consider so completely obvious to a rational mind that I will not bend on them regardless of what the government says. Unfortunately, if there is anything the last 8 years have taught me, is that rationale, logic, and just good thinking in general can be completely obliterated by the wrong candidate. Gore struck me as too smart for the average man to relate to and Kerry as too snobbish. That said, I voted for both because I could see from a thousand miles away what would happen with Dub-ya at the helm. I wish I had been wrong. As it is, I can only hope whoever gets elected can undo some of the damage of the last 8 years. The economy is in shambles. We are fighting a war in the middle east that we can't get out of. Inflation is spiraling out of control. Healthcare has become a game of how much HMO's and PPO's can screw you. Education in the public school classroom has detiorated constantly despite promises of NCLB to fix that very problem. Budget cuts to education, welfare, and social programs has screwed those in poverty even more than they already were.
There is a lot of work to do. I hope we elect the president that can provide the leadership to do that job.
Inquiring about book banning, talking about family values while raising your teenage daughter's child, etc. etc. don't mean she's a bad person but they raise concerns for me that she is somewhere between ultra conservative and hypocrite. Hopefully the debates will clarify that better.
Where has she said she will be raising her daughter's child when it is born?
|
|
The difference is that they were not reported on by the media. The Palin comments were distorted by the media and the media has been the ones fanning the flames of Baby-gate...What "media" are these? All newspapers are not bonded into a conspiratorial evil empire. Yes, many have a liberal slant, but do you read, for example, The Wall Street Journal, or the Christian Science Monitor? Nor are newspapers the only media; they are a medium. Fox News? TownHall.org? Talk radio? Obama gets plenty of thrashing, and the perpetuation of anti-Obama rumors continues unabated by many of those media.
I did a Google search and could not find a single article on what you had mentioned from any media outlet, either left leaning like CNN,MSNBC and the like, or from right leaning like Fox News, WSJ, or the like. Townhall.com likewise did not turn up a single result, other than the use of thw words Obama and Muslim in the same article. However, there was not any pieces there that I found that said Obama is a Muslim. Even then, those are opinion pieces, much like talk radio. The article that claimed that Gov. Palin said one thing when she actually said another was presented by the Associated Press as an unbiased news story. That to me is the difference.
|
|
Someone actually called you a terrorist sympathizer? As for me, I'll be glad when the election is over and everything gets back to normal. Too much coverage of everything is burning me out.If you don't to hear it, you can always turn it off.That's what Heathy is complaining about: it's everywhere you go. When he walks by a magazine rack, there's Obama and McCain, grinning like idiots, and Hillary looking like a mutant bulldog, and Palin looking like Sandra Bullock in Miss Congeniality. Likewise whenever you open the Internet from a public computer. When I go downstairs for breakfast in a hotel, trying to prepare my mind for a 12-14 hour day ahead, I have to listen to Fox News the whole time, because for some reason hotel managers in Texas think that everyone needs that to be on at all times. If I ask to change the channel (or, preferrably, to turn it off), I'm accused of being a terrorist sympathizer. A person gets sick of it.
I was accused of being a commie because I said I did not think that the U.N. was the anti-christ or that it was trying to take over America. And because I said that I had proudly worn the U.N. beret during my deployment as part of a peacekeeping force.
I'll vote aye for that as well. The politics of personality are insidious, and ALL parties play. Even the Libertarians played the 'name recognition' card this year with Barr's nomination.
I just want a decent Executive Branch that might take a shot at trimming some of the stupendous revenue that Foggybottom wastes getting its duties done, no matter who seems to be in power. Oh and maybe invest some dough in long term (i.e. 10+ years) solutions to our problems.
|
|
I'll vote aye for that as well. The politics of personality are insidious, and ALL parties play. Even the Libertarians played the 'name recognition' card this year with Barr's nomination.
I just want a decent Executive Branch that might take a shot at trimming some of the stupendous revenue that Foggybottom wastes getting its duties done, no matter who seems to be in power. Oh and maybe invest some dough in long term (i.e. 10+ years) solutions to our problems.
Admitadly im not American so take what i say with a grain of salt but from an outside view a lot of the time one gets the impresion that who ever is president of the country at the time is only interesteted in what happens in the next 4 years (8 if they plan to stand for re-election) and when there term is up well what happens next isent there problem after that.
|
|
Inquiring about book banning, talking about family values while raising your teenage daughter's child, etc. etc. don't mean she's a bad person but they raise concerns for me that she is somewhere between ultra conservative and hypocrite. Hopefully the debates will clarify that better.Where has she said she will be raising her daughter's child when it is born?
** spoiler omitted **
No, I am referring to one of the magazine headlines I saw at the grocery store the other day that was talking about her raising her teenage daughters child once born. I don't remember the magazine, but it wasn't a strict tabloid. Maybe something like People. I wish I could remember.
There is also the scandal where she tried to get the ex-husband of like her sister or some other relative fired from a job. That doesn't concern me as much because it is a he said she said thing and difficult to prove.
Also, for the record and not meant as any sort of personal offense... Your or anyone else's opinion of me as an intellectual is rather irrelevant to me. I am well educated. Of that there is no question. I used to care about whether others thought I was smart, and especially my family but I have long since matured past that need. I know how much work I have put into my own education and the knowledge I have acquired. That is enough for me. If you respect my intellect less, then you respect it less. It doesn't offend me if you feel that way. My own self worth is not tied to the opinion of a messageboard acquaintance whom I've met in person once.
|
|
Apropos of not much... I was thinking to myself today about the candidates and what role would they fill in a Dungeons and Dragons Game.
I can't see Obama as a DM but I can see him as a player. I can't see McCain as a player but I can picture him as a DM.
Biden I can see doing both. I can also see him talking the whole time so that otheres never get to play (that man loves the sound of his voice).
Palin I can see as a player, but not so much a DM.
Anyway... back to the politics.
I can't picture Palin playing OR DMing D&D. Knowing that she wanted to ban books from the local library when she became mayor suggests too strongly to me that she would never be caught dead opening up a D&D rulebook.
Apologies if this has been mentioned already; I didn't have time to read through the previous pages of this thread, but this post on page one caught my eye.
I can't picture Palin playing OR DMing D&D. Knowing that she wanted to ban books from the local library when she became mayor suggests too strongly to me that she would never be caught dead opening up a D&D rulebook.
You mean they still have libraries?
You mean they still have libraries?
I can't picture Palin playing OR DMing D&D. Knowing that she wanted to ban books from the local library when she became mayor suggests too strongly to me that she would never be caught dead opening up a D&D rulebook.
Yeah, my grandmother told me all about them. You could go in there and check out a book and it didn't cost you a cent, as long as you took them back within a specified amount of time. However, I think she's just pulling my leg. Sounds too good to be true. [/sarcasm]
|
|
Yeah, my grandmother told me all about them. You could go in there and check out a book and it didn't cost you a cent, as long as you took them back within a specified amount of time. However, I think she's just pulling my leg. Sounds too good to be true. [/sarcasm]You mean they still have libraries?
I can't picture Palin playing OR DMing D&D. Knowing that she wanted to ban books from the local library when she became mayor suggests too strongly to me that she would never be caught dead opening up a D&D rulebook.
Wait a sec your supposed to take them back? I was wandering why they said I was no longer welcome.
No, I am referring to one of the magazine headlines I saw at the grocery store the other day that was talking about her raising her teenage daughters child once born. I don't remember the magazine, but it wasn't a strict tabloid. Maybe something like People. I wish I could remember.
So do I. The most I have been able to find is that she has said that the family will help her daughter with caring for her child. Something I think most families would do when something like this comes up. Still, going off of a magazine you saw in line at a store isn't exactly the best place to look for information, no?
Also, for the record and not meant as any sort of personal offense...
I understand. It is just you have when talking about science earlier presented yourself as someone that valued looking at the facts objectively. Going by some quick look at a magazine in the line at a store seems to not be representative of that.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
The tax cuts from 2003 have not cut revenue. According to the IRS, tax revenue from 2003 was roughly 2 trillion. In 2007, the IRS collected roughly 2.7 trillion.
Revenue from the capital gains tax is projected to drop, not revenue from all sources. Note that the years in question followed a drop in revenue due to the poor eocnomy in 2000-2001, so it's not what you would call a shocker that growth in the economy raised tax rates. The primary increase in revenue in those years was for corporate profits. The big spike between 2003-2006 actually just put taxes as a percentage of GDP back to historical norms.
The idea that tax cuts increase tax revenue is largely propaganda. This should be obvious, since 0% taxes equals 0 revenue (and so does 100% taxation, after the first year).
|
|
The idea that tax cuts increase tax revenue is largely propaganda. This should be obvious, since 0% taxes equals 0 revenue (and so does 100% taxation, after the first year).
it's a little more complex than that. taxation isn't a zero sum game. obviously, all things remaining unchanged, lowering the tax rate would result in a lowering of tax revenue (although i don't see lower tax revenue as a BAD thing, personally: less money for the bastiches to waste...)
the reason tax revenue tends to show a modest increase when rates are lowered (particularly corporate taxes)(and this has happened under kennedy, reagan and bush) is investment. when the tax rate is percieved as "too high", investors tend to put their money in savings rather than investing in the market or starting businesses. when taxes are lowered, more investment into businesses and expansion of existing business takes place. this has the secondary effect of creating more jobs, which expands the tax base. so, yes, each individual and business pays less, but there are more people working and more businesses opening up, all of which contribute to the overall tax revenue.
one of the reasons the depression lasted as long as it did was FDR made the tax burden so high, investors and businessmen basically wouldn't put their money at risk. the depression really didn't end until lend-lease, when it became profitable to invest in industry again.
look at europe. without heavy subsidy from governments, there would be little incentive to invest money to start new businesses, or to expand existing businesses. and these are direct subsidies, not the tax breaks people in the states erroneously call "corporate welfare" (getting to keep more of your own money isn't a "subsidy", imho).
not to say there isn't "corporate welfare in the U.S., but farmers (corn and tobacco, for the most part, atm) are the beneficiaries of a lion's share of those subsidies.
|
|
John McCain is up against Obama in the latest USA Today poll. It is an 11 point turn around since last week.
|
|
According to the Politico, here are the top eight flubs of the campaign.
1. “Bitter”
At an April 6 fundraiser in San Francisco, a city whose name many on the right take as a shorthand for liberal excess, Obama told the gathered donors in remarks not intended for broader consumption:"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them…And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Not coincidentally, the small towns in places like Western Pennsylvania and West Virginia are where Obama found the least support in his primary bid.
2. Countless houses
There’s never a good time for such a slip, but when McCain wasn’t able to tell Politico in an interview last month how many houses he owned (“I think—I’ll have my staff get to you, I can’t tell you about that. It’s condominiums where—I’ll have them get to you,” he replied), the timing was especially bad.The slip dovetailed perfectly with a just-launched Democratic bid to counter McCain’s ads painting Obama as a lightweight celebrity with an offensive of their own depicting the Republican as wealthy and out of touch with the concerns of ordinary Americans.
The Obama campaign had an attack ad spot-lighting the remarks up the same day.
3. “Shout out to my pastor”
Obama, who took the name of his second book, “the Audacity of Hope,” from one of the sermons of his longtime pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr., cut ties after footage surfaced of Wright at the pulpit saying, among other things, “God damn America.”
So far, no video has circulated showing Obama taking in any of his longtime pastor’s more fiery sermons. There is a clip, though, of the already declared presidential candidate’s praise for Wright last July while addressing a conference of black clergy members:
“And then I’ve got to give a special shout out to my pastor. The guy who puts up with me, counsels me, listens to my wife complain about me. He’s a friend and a great leader not just in Chicago but all across the country, so please everybody give an extraordinary welcome to my pastor Dr. Jeremiah Wright, Jr., Trinity United Church of Christ.”
The comments seems tailor-made for an attack ad, where they can be juxtaposed with some of Wright’s more inflammatory remarks.
4. Don’t know much about economy
In 2005, McCain told the Wall Street Journal, "I'm going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated."
By his own admission, that education hasn’t happened yet. Last year, before the economy passed the war in opinion polls as voters’ foremost concern, he conceded,“The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should.”
He added, “I’ve got Greenspan’s book”—though given the decline in the former Fed chair’s reputation since the burst of the housing bubble, that remark too might come back to haunt him.
As damaging as print quotes can be, it’s video of similar comments that may prove most damaging with voters.
5. “Likable enough”
As polls continue to show that Clinton supporters, and especially older women, may cross the aisle and vote for McCain (who ran an ad running during coverage of the Democrat convention urging them to do just that), Obama’s crack at his then-rival during the Jan. 5 primary debate may come back to haunt him.Clinton was asked a question about voters preferring Obama to her on a personal level, and as she replied, “I’ll try to go on. He’s very likable, I agree with that. I don’t think I’m that bad—“ he interrupted to crack, “You’re likable enough, Hillary.”
Longtime Hillary watchers flashbacked to the first debate in her successful 2000 Senatorial run, when her opponent Rick Lazio strode across the stage and physically confronted her with a pledge in hand for her to sign. Women cringed, and Lazio, who’d been expected to run at least a competitive race, was quickly reduced to the answer to a trivia question.
6. “100 years”
McCain’s remark at a January 3 town hall that American troops might stay in Iraq for 100 years had been intended to evoke America’s continued peacetime military presence in countries like Germany and South Korea, but the sound bite endures:Questioner: “President Bush is talking about our staying in Iraq for 50 years.”
McCain: “Maybe 100 [talking over each other]. We’ve been in South Korea—we’ve been in Japan for 60 years, we’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That’d be fine with me as long as Americans—as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. That’s be fine with me.”
Obama quickly added the line “John McCain wants us to keep troops there for 100 years” into his stump speech, and MoveOn.org aired one of the first significant third-party buys of the cycle, “Not Alex,” with a young mother looking into the camera while holding her baby, Alex, and telling John McCain he can’t have her baby to serve in Iraq.
7. The “Ones”
Republicans will spend the next two months painting Obama as an empty celebrity with a messianic complex. Expect this Super Tuesday Obama moment to resurface as part of that effort:“You see, the challenges we face will not be solved with one meeting in one night. Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time.
“We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. We are the hope of those boys who have little; who've been told that they cannot have what they dream; that they cannot be what they imagine.”
8. Illiterate
Politico’s list ends where the McCain list begins, with the Republican answering a question from Mike Allen, this one from January:“Mac or PC?”
“Neither,” McCain replied. “I am a illiterate that has to rely on my wife for all of the assistance that I can get.”
Younger, internet-savvy voters were aghast.
Honorable mention: The wives
Michelle Obama — Pride
On February 18, Michelle Obama gave two speeches that right-wing talk radio have replayed endlessly since. In the first, she said of her husband’s surging candidacy, “For the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.”In the later speech, she toned the remark down slightly: “For the first time in my adult life, I’m really proud of my country, and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change.”
Cindy McCain—The only way to travel
Meanwhile the Netroots lit up after Cindy McCain’s remark in July on traveling about the state while her husband ran for the Senate, “In Arizona the only way to get around the state is by small private plane.”Honorable mentions: Symbolic screw-ups
Isn't it telling of the kowtowing general media that it takes a fake news show to point out the glaring hypocrisy?
The double talk and hypocrisy of Karl Rove, Bill O'Reilly, John McCain's senior policy advisor and others.
Why aren't anyone holding these people accountable?