And if the Democrats do lose, IMO, it was because the Democrats were too stupid to come out and say they oppose and would end an unpopular war.Indeed, I always find it funny when the antiwar people protest Republican events but don't protest at Democrat ones. Obama has made it fairly clear that he is not going to stop the armed conflicts, he just wants to change the theater it takes place in (Iraq -> Afghanistan). When Bush recently sent some more troops to Afghanistan, Obama said that more should have been sent.Not all people against the Iraq war are 'Antiwar'.
many are just against the War in Iraq.
Quite true, but people that are "antiwar" (not merely anti-Iraq war) should be protesting both parties and disrupting them equally.
|
Quite true, but people that are "antiwar" (not merely anti-Iraq war) should be protesting both parties and disrupting them equally.And if the Democrats do lose, IMO, it was because the Democrats were too stupid to come out and say they oppose and would end an unpopular war.Indeed, I always find it funny when the antiwar people protest Republican events but don't protest at Democrat ones. Obama has made it fairly clear that he is not going to stop the armed conflicts, he just wants to change the theater it takes place in (Iraq -> Afghanistan). When Bush recently sent some more troops to Afghanistan, Obama said that more should have been sent.Not all people against the Iraq war are 'Antiwar'.
many are just against the War in Iraq.
Why? If Obama gets the Presidency, they'll be back at the Democrats next year, but for now GW is still in charge so he gets all the blame. Who protests outside the guys who aren't in charge (I know they control Congress, but to most people, President=in charge).
Why? If Obama gets the Presidency, they'll be back at the Democrats next year, but for now GW is still in charge so he gets all the blame. Who protests outside the guys who aren't in charge (I know they control Congress, but to most people, President=in charge).Quite true, but people that are "antiwar" (not merely anti-Iraq war) should be protesting both parties and disrupting them equally.And if the Democrats do lose, IMO, it was because the Democrats were too stupid to come out and say they oppose and would end an unpopular war.Indeed, I always find it funny when the antiwar people protest Republican events but don't protest at Democrat ones. Obama has made it fairly clear that he is not going to stop the armed conflicts, he just wants to change the theater it takes place in (Iraq -> Afghanistan). When Bush recently sent some more troops to Afghanistan, Obama said that more should have been sent.Not all people against the Iraq war are 'Antiwar'.
many are just against the War in Iraq.
Last time I checked McCain isn't Bush, unless you think all white guys look alike.
|
|
Last time I checked McCain isn't Bush, unless you think all white guys look alike.Why? If Obama gets the Presidency, they'll be back at the Democrats next year, but for now GW is still in charge so he gets all the blame. Who protests outside the guys who aren't in charge (I know they control Congress, but to most people, President=in charge).Quite true, but people that are "antiwar" (not merely anti-Iraq war) should be protesting both parties and disrupting them equally.And if the Democrats do lose, IMO, it was because the Democrats were too stupid to come out and say they oppose and would end an unpopular war.Indeed, I always find it funny when the antiwar people protest Republican events but don't protest at Democrat ones. Obama has made it fairly clear that he is not going to stop the armed conflicts, he just wants to change the theater it takes place in (Iraq -> Afghanistan). When Bush recently sent some more troops to Afghanistan, Obama said that more should have been sent.Not all people against the Iraq war are 'Antiwar'.
many are just against the War in Iraq.
Same party, ergo their fault. I didn't think I was being particularly obtuse with my reasoning.
1) The Republicans are in charge (see earlier definition).
2) The Republicans started the wars (by being in charge when the decision was taken. And, in the case of Iraq, actively presenting the now-discredited information that supported the decision).
3) Therefore, protest at the Republican events.
The logic isn't too hard to fathom.
Same party, ergo their fault. I didn't think I was being particularly obtuse with my reasoning.
1) The Republicans are in charge (see earlier definition).
2) The Republicans started the wars (by being in charge when the decision was taken. And, in the case of Iraq, actively presenting the now-discredited information that supported the decision).
3) Therefore, protest at the Republican events.
The logic isn't too hard to fathom.
Democrats are in charge of congress and the military's purse strings. If continued military operations are going on, ultimately it is the people who are authorizing the payment for it who are at fault. Bush can scream and shout and stomp up and down, but if there is no money he is powerless. Also democrats voted for the use of military force (as did republicans), thus they are just to blame as well (see Biden's voting record). And if someone is again anti-war, not just anti-Iraq war, then Obama's stance on increasing military involvement in Afghanistan (even above the levels that Bush currently wishes) should be something that should be opposed.
Also, even if Obama does not win the presidency, he will still be a senator and will use his position to help continue hostilities in Afghanistan by authorizing more money to the military.
|
|
Democrats are in charge of congress and the military's purse strings. If continued military operations are going on, ultimately it is the people who are authorizing the payment for it who are at fault. Bush can scream and shout and stomp up and down, but if there is no money he is powerless. Also democrats voted for the use of military force (as did republicans), thus they are just to blame as well (see Biden's voting record). And if someone is again anti-war, not just anti-Iraq war, then Obama's stance on increasing military involvement in Afghanistan (even above the levels that Bush currently wishes) should be something that should be opposed.Same party, ergo their fault. I didn't think I was being particularly obtuse with my reasoning.
1) The Republicans are in charge (see earlier definition).
2) The Republicans started the wars (by being in charge when the decision was taken. And, in the case of Iraq, actively presenting the now-discredited information that supported the decision).
3) Therefore, protest at the Republican events.
The logic isn't too hard to fathom.
Yes, I know. That's why I explained, in the first post, why that wasn't an issue because the President, and by extension his party, is in charge, even if he isn't in fact. People do not always behave completely rationally. If they did, politics would be very different, a lot more bi-partisan and the Republicans wouldn't be foaming at the mouth that Obama was sexist when he wasn't. Expecting everyone to actually use their brain is asking a bit much of humanity, I'm afraid.
As for the other matter, the vat majority the anti-war movement is anti the Iraq war exclusively rather than against all war as principle. There will be a few pacifists, but most people just think they were lied to and the war mishandled. And surprisingly enough, most people don't like to be lied to (or in this case think they've been lied to) and see people die owing to incompetence.
You are not stupid. I am not speaking Swahili. I do not understand what you are not getting and because of that, I am done. Attempting to clarify further isn't likely to be a productive use of either of our time.
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Congress has approved every action taking place in Iraq. Even JohnKerry said - when he thought it had to be said to get him elected - "if you don't think Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, you shouldn't vote for me."
I am sure I'll be assailed here for this, but there's something to be said for eliminating Saddam Hussein, and the constant sponsor of terrorism that he was, and allowing another 25 million people to vote. I am unsure how that doesn't resonate with Americans. The media, undeniably adversarial in nature, shells us with stories of AMerican "torture" tacitcs, but the reality is that torture is what was happening BEFORE we took action there.
Add to that the 12 year soap opera that was trying to get Hussein to open his doors and making himself accountable to the terms opf his surrender, and the corruption that was oil for food (why do people who hate America get away with everything? And why do we keep giving them money?), and it's pretty clear to me that corruption and terrorism couldn't be defeated with him in place.
I'm not for war, but I am for victory against evil. Who thinks he wasn't evil? And who thinks the world isn't better off without him?
And let's all be honest: the Code Pink types are gonna froth at the mouth and demonstrate against Republicans no matter what. Hating Republicans is like a religion to them. I won't go so far as to say that there aren't bad seeds in my own party, but over the last two Democratic conventions, how many protestors had to be dragged away from the scene because they were disrupting the Democratic nominee's speech?
Politics is such a hot topic, and the reality is no one comes to this thread looking to be persuaded. A lot of us come looking for a fight, or for an excuse to say something mean about someone else's beliefs, or at best to defend something we're passionate about. So in this forum, I want to mention I like a lot of you guys regardless, and the 'leftleaningness' of some of you is not a dealbreaker for friendship or sitting at my gaming table.
Just so that kind of sentiment is thrown out there.
And boo on affirmative action. Colorblind is colorblind. There's no such thing as two perfectly even candidates. A preferred school of thought, a little maturity, a better image and presentation - even if only by a little, someone is gonna edge someone out. Happens to white people all the time. No one is gonna hire me to add 'diversity', and to do so is as discriminatory as to not do so.
And if the Democrats do lose, IMO, it was because the Democrats were too stupid to come out and say they oppose and would end an unpopular war.Indeed, I always find it funny when the antiwar people protest Republican events but don't protest at Democrat ones. Obama has made it fairly clear that he is not going to stop the armed conflicts, he just wants to change the theater it takes place in (Iraq -> Afghanistan). When Bush recently sent some more troops to Afghanistan, Obama said that more should have been sent.Not all people against the Iraq war are 'Antiwar'.
many are just against the War in Iraq.
Count me in that group.
|
TIME - "Sarah Palin's Myth of America"
Funny thing is, I remember Bush Senior as Vice President doing virtually nothing for a whole year. The guy virtually was absent. Cheney on the otherhand was President. No idea how this is going to work. McCain has drifted pretty far from where he was to appear sellable that Palin and him are currently able to see each other. Not sure what this president will be once he reaches the office. He may just say, "I got elected, and now I will really do what I planned. And you Palin? Honey, take a seat, I'll get back to you later."
Cheers,
Zuxius
|
I wish the politicians and the media would stop throwing hate at each other and talk more about the issues that are important to people....
Political positions of Barack Obama
Political positions of Joe Biden
Political positions of John McCain
Political positions of Sarah Palin
Comparison of United States presidential candidates, 2008
The comparison is REALLY interesting. Thanks for putting up the link!!
|
|
2) The Republicans started the wars (by being in charge when the decision was taken. And, in the case of Iraq, actively presenting the now-discredited information that supported the decision).
Yes, but it was information that both sides believed at the time. The only belivable way to say that only the Republicans misled the American people is by saying that Bush/Cheney were cooking the books on intelligence before they were ever in the White House. In December of 1998, then president, Bill Clinton said this:
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons...The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again...First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years. Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past...So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.
First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens...The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently. The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.
These remarks were made two years before George Bush was president and five years before we began the Second Iraq War. If you want to read Clintons full remarks, you can find them here. However, the fact remains that we felt that Saddam was trying to restart his WMD program as early as 1998, which means that we cannot only blame Republicans for being taken in by misleading intelligence.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Added to that, six other intelligence agencies, Jordan, Egypt, Israel and the UK among them (the UK and Israel not known to be slouches in the intelligence department) also believed Hussein was developing WMDs, and the fact that Hussein put up numerous road blocks to fend of international inspections means responsible governments have little choice but to put the man in his place.
Imagine that he was developing them, and then launched an attack on the US or Israel or Saudi Arabia because the corrupt government elements in France, Russia and Germany continued to pocket dollars while cheating the sanctions that were designed to force compliance from Hussein. What excuses would be made by the people who wanted the White House then? If Bush 43 were to suffer another terrorist attack, or were to watch the middle east implode, the "I was afraid the media wouldn't like the war." excuse wouldn't resonate much.
Instead, we worked with the intelligence we had, we waited too long and might have allowed what weapons he had to be shipped elsewhere (Syria? Russia?), and both houses of our congress supported the action because stopping terrorism was still important to Americans. When the unity wore off and it was time to play politics again, the tv news kept showing us protesters and corpses, not open schools or running water. TIME magazine has the balls to question the worthiness of the war in Iraq, but then make their VOTING CITIZENS person of the year.
How do we lose the significance of that without realizing we take voting for granted? Their government isn't perfect, but we scrapped our own Articles of Confederation after experimenting with our freedom for a while. But it's better than anything they've had, and it's a step toward stability. Did someone think the region would be stable and friendly without intervention? It's taken centuries for the climate there to become like it is now. Are we gonna fix it all pretty-like before the end of a decade?
Heh. We just might. Thanks to people who'd "rather lose an election than lose a war."
|
|
Added to that, six other intelligence agencies, Jordan, Egypt, Israel and the UK among them (the UK and Israel not known to be slouches in the intelligence department) also believed Hussein was developing WMDs, and the fact that Hussein put up numerous road blocks to fend of international inspections means responsible governments have little choice but to put the man in his place.
And the Jordanians and Egyptions, unlike the U.S., had undercover operatives in Iraq, which means the Iraqis thought that Saddam was developing WMDs.
|
|
On the subject of Sarah Palin, and more specifically, the style vs substance argument; there is a suggestion that Charlie Gibson's interview was edited in such a way as to make her appear less competent.
Here is a link to the full interview with the parts edited out marked in underlined bold.
What's the consensus here, an interview where the substance of her knowledge was still honestly represented or a Michael Moore-like hatchet job?
To be upfront, the text is displayed on a conservative radio host's website, but he hasn't inserted any personal commentary into the text of the transcript.
Do opinions break across party/supporter lines, or do Palin supporters find the accusation unfounded? For that matter, are there any Obama supporters who feel that the editing job was ethically questionable?
Of course, you could just look at the Saturday Night LIVE sketch featuring Sarah and Hillary. It's a fine example of bi-partisan bashing.
On the subject of Sarah Palin, and more specifically, the style vs substance argument; there is a suggestion that Charlie Gibson's interview was edited in such a way as to make her appear less competent.
Here is a link to the full interview with the parts edited out marked in underlined bold.
What's the consensus here, an interview where the substance of her knowledge was still honestly represented or a Michael Moore-like hatchet job?
To be upfront, the text is displayed on a conservative radio host's website, but he hasn't inserted any personal commentary into the text of the transcript.
Do opinions break across party/supporter lines, or do Palin supporters find the accusation unfounded? For that matter, are there any Obama supporters who feel that the editing job was ethically questionable?
Of course, you could just look at the Saturday Night LIVE sketch featuring Sarah and Hillary. It's a fine example of bi-partisan bashing.
Well I know they gave her a lot of guff for the Bush Doctrine comment, but to be honest her questioning of what he meant by it is valid.
[quote=]Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin seemed puzzled Thursday when ABC News anchor Charles Gibson asked her whether she agrees with the "Bush doctrine."
"In what respect, Charlie?" she replied.
Intentionally or not, the Republican vice presidential nominee was on to something. After a brief exchange, Gibson explained that he was referring to the idea -- enshrined in a September 2002 White House strategy document -- that the United States may act militarily to counter a perceived threat emerging in another country. But that is just one version of a purported Bush doctrine advanced over the past eight years.
Surprisingly, I was going to site wikipedia because previous it had discussed the different versions (up to 7 different ones) but as of today it has been edited and now makes no mention of the different versions. Curious.
|
|
I think there may have been some liberties taken with the interview. When it was first announced the headlines I saw were "Anti-Obama commentator scores first Palin interview." I expected that it would someone like Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity, and I thought, "how is that going to help her." Then I found out that it was Charles gibson and I was stunned. I actually asked my wife when he had become an anti-Obama commentator. She said that it had to be because he dared to ask Obama some hard questions during the ABC debate between Obama and Hillary. Things like that make me miss Tim Russert even more.
|
|
If you don't think that the mainstream media has picked sides this election, check out this story from CBS News. I think the headline says everything that needs to be said about this story. Note how the continue to harp on the "task from God" quote, even though it has since been shown, on this board even, that it isn't what she was saying.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
If you don't think that the mainstream media has picked sides this election, check out this story from CBS News.
Fascinating. Sarah Palin's ignorance on foreign policy has 2 examples: her belief that we ought to be on God's side of foreign policy, and her lack of familiarity with a phrase coined by the media, and confirmed by a liberal policy group. I guess we can throw in there Matt Damon's highly detailed analysis of how Sarah Palin would handle Putin.
I wonder what the community organizer (who never achieved his agendae)would respond to Putin or Ahdaminejad. We already know he would have let Hussein and North Korea have whatever they wanted.
Hey - I think if they don't believe she was quoting Lincoln, they should have Biden call her on it during the vice presidential debate. That would be must-see TV.
|
|
Sadly, this really illustrates what our presidential election has come down to. Hillary Clinton was set to attend a rally protesting the Iranian nuclear program when she learned that Sarah palin would be attending the same rally. Rather than be seen at the same rally togethe, Hillary dropped out. The two of them together at the same rally would have sent a clear message that regardless of our differences politically, the U.S. is united in it's goal of preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Instead Hillary dropped out because she was afraid that a few wack jobs might see the two of them appearing at the same function as being support for McCain/Palin.
|
|
And the Jordanians and Egyptions, unlike the U.S., had undercover operatives in Iraq, which means the Iraqis thought that Saddam was developing WMDs.
Saddam certainly put up a good show of it, with all his swaggering and posturing (which seems to have inspired 'Comical Ali' as well, with his broadcasts that 'the Americans are not in Bagdad!' as his city fell), and we'd sold him enough dual-use technology during the Iran-Iraq scuffle that the only reason Iraq *didn't* have awesome WMDs is because they lacked the technical know-how to assemble the stuff we sold them and ended up storing or re-selling them.
I worry that the nuclear materials we sold the Saudis a month or so back will be much more competently used against us.
Sadly, this really illustrates what our presidential election has come down to. Hillary Clinton was set to attend a rally protesting the Iranian nuclear program when she learned that Sarah palin would be attending the same rally. Rather than be seen at the same rally togethe, Hillary dropped out. The two of them together at the same rally would have sent a clear message that regardless of our differences politically, the U.S. is united in it's goal of preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Instead Hillary dropped out because she was afraid that a few wack jobs might see the two of them appearing at the same function as being support for McCain/Palin.
Maybe she was just worried about another SNL skit.
On the subject of Sarah Palin, and more specifically, the style vs substance argument; there is a suggestion that Charlie Gibson's interview was edited in such a way as to make her appear less competent.
Here is a link to the full interview with the parts edited out marked in underlined bold.
What's the consensus here, an interview where the substance of her knowledge was still honestly represented or a Michael Moore-like hatchet job?
To be upfront, the text is displayed on a conservative radio host's website, but he hasn't inserted any personal commentary into the text of the transcript.
Do opinions break across party/supporter lines, or do Palin supporters find the accusation unfounded? For that matter, are there any Obama supporters who feel that the editing job was ethically questionable?
Of course, you could just look at the Saturday Night LIVE sketch featuring Sarah and Hillary. It's a fine example of bi-partisan bashing.
Good link. Thank you.
"We the People' have let the media do our thinking for us for quite some time. (Exaggeration, but you get the point.) We shouldn't be surprised to see the 'shaping' of interviews/articles/etc. be revealed. One of the plusses for the internet is that you can find these things. But you can also find large piles of manure.
Ethics in Journalism have been eroding for some time, being replaced with sensationalism, voyeurism, and a frequent distortions.
Set's point about looking at the voting records is a good one. Unfortunately too many are too lazy to do that, or to understand what was really being voted on.
Take the time to fact checks, from multiple sources. Use our brains to push the spin off to the side. Look for substance over promises. Take the passion out of politics?
Check this out, Obama Proposes $5 billion fund
Is it surprising that Obama would propose this in a key battleground state? Will he/can he deliver it if elected?
Politicians make promises. It's hard to hold them to it after the election, so promises are cheap.
|
|
"We the People' have let the media do our thinking for us for quite some time. (Exaggeration, but you get the point.) We shouldn't be surprised to see the 'shaping' of interviews/articles/etc. be revealed. One of the plusses for the internet is that you can find these things. But you can also find large piles of manure.
Ethics in Journalism have been eroding for some time, being replaced with sensationalism, voyeurism, and a frequent distortions.
Set's point about looking at the voting records is a good one. Unfortunately too many are too lazy to do that, or to understand what was really being voted on.
Take the time to fact checks, from multiple sources. Use our brains to push the spin off to the side. Look for substance over promises. Take the passion out of politics?
Check this out, go to [/url]
Hope I did the link thing correctly. Is it surprising that Obama would propose this in a key battleground state? Will he/can he deliver it if elected?Politicians make promises. It's hard to hold them to it after the election, so promises are cheap.
Check these out...
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Barack_Obama]Political positions of Barack Obama
Political positions of Joe Biden
Political positions of John McCain
Political positions of Sarah Palin
Comparison of United States presidential candidates, 2008
Look at the sources if you want to check the facts. All sources are linked.
"We the People' have let the media do our thinking for us for quite some time. (Exaggeration, but you get the point.) We shouldn't be surprised to see the 'shaping' of interviews/articles/etc. be revealed. One of the plusses for the internet is that you can find these things. But you can also find large piles of manure.
Ethics in Journalism have been eroding for some time, being replaced with sensationalism, voyeurism, and a frequent distortions.
Set's point about looking at the voting records is a good one. Unfortunately too many are too lazy to do that, or to understand what was really being voted on.
Take the time to fact checks, from multiple sources. Use our brains to push the spin off to the side. Look for substance over promises. Take the passion out of politics?
Check this out, go to [/url]
Hope I did the link thing correctly. Is it surprising that Obama would propose this in a key battleground state? Will he/can he deliver it if elected?Politicians make promises. It's hard to hold them to it after the election, so promises are cheap.
Check these out...
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Barack_Obama]Political positions of Barack Obama
Political positions of Joe Biden
Political positions of John McCain
Political positions of Sarah Palin
Comparison of United States presidential candidates, 2008Look at the sources if you want to check the facts. All sources are linked.
Will do. Thx.
Obama has been making a big deal about how home prices are falling. Two things to consider about this though:
1)New home buyers, the prices falling is a good thing for them.
2)Property tax, a lower value for the same house means a lower property tax, which is especially helpful for older citizens on a fixed income.
Obama has been making a big deal about how home prices are falling. Two things to consider about this though:
1)New home buyers, the prices falling is a good thing for them.
2)Property tax, a lower value for the same house means a lower property tax, which is especially helpful for older citizens on a fixed income.
1) Except credit is now harder to come by and mortgage rates aren't going down.
2) Property tax usually pays for a lot of local services, which doesn't help cities and towns provide for residents.
Obama has been making a big deal about how home prices are falling. Two things to consider about this though:
1)New home buyers, the prices falling is a good thing for them.
2)Property tax, a lower value for the same house means a lower property tax, which is especially helpful for older citizens on a fixed income.1) Except credit is now harder to come by and mortgage rates aren't going down.
2) Property tax usually pays for a lot of local services, which doesn't help cities and towns provide for residents.
True but a bit simplified.
Low home prices are usually offset with higher interest rates, but they haven't gone up much. (My 1st home in '89 was at 10.25%.) Credit is harder to come by due to the high # of failures and the resulting pull-back by mortgage lenders. If you have strong credit you can get a decent rate and more home for the buck.
The lower values will drive down taxes on new/newly purchased homes, but not efffect current homeowners. Here in MI we've had steadily lowering values and these lovely pamphlets from our taxing authorities telling us why that doesn't result in a lower tax bill. Yet, they still keep reducing services.
saw this on yahoo
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080918/ap_on_el_pr/palin_hacked
Yeah, saw it last night on the news. Now the question is 'political or pranskters?', or both.
All I know is that I wouldn't want to be the idiot to get on the radar pulling this. Politicians from both parties would be screaming for tough law enforcement.
Obama has been making a big deal about how home prices are falling. Two things to consider about this though:
1)New home buyers, the prices falling is a good thing for them.
2)Property tax, a lower value for the same house means a lower property tax, which is especially helpful for older citizens on a fixed income.1) Except credit is now harder to come by and mortgage rates aren't going down.
2) Property tax usually pays for a lot of local services, which doesn't help cities and towns provide for residents.
1) Not for people with good credit. Those that probably shouldn't have been in a home in the first place, most likely though.
2) If you are senior citizen on a fixed income being literally taxed out of your home, that is small consolation.
2) If you are senior citizen on a fixed income being literally taxed out of your home, that is small consolation.
Good point. This has been happening for years here in Metro Detroit. As the burbs expand the older homes and large lots have seen their property taxes go thru the roof.
How much of an elitist do you actually have to be for a Rothschild to call you one?
Is that like the CEO of Cristal lamenting that his product has gone from offical champagne of the Czars to official champagne of hip-hop videos?
Hillary Clinton's top fundraiser, Lynn Rothschild, has come out and endorsed McCain. She said that the Democrats had left her behind in their move to the left and that Obama was "an elitist." How much of an elitist do you actually have to be for a Rothschild to call you one?
Funny. I saw her interview and she also said that she made the decision based on the shift to the extreme left, and the possible loss of checks and balances with a Dem controlled Executive Branch/House/Senate. To be fair she also poo-poo'd the extreme right.
If we got rid of the extremes on both sides 80% of us would get along. Sounds good to me.
Voters trusting Obama more than McCain on economy?
Wall Street Journal Article with (you guessed it) polling results
EDIT: Quote from the article
"Sen. McCain's advisers haven't helped matters. One top supporter, Carly Fiorina, said publicly she doesn't think that either Sen. McCain or his running mate, Alaska Gov. Palin, would be capable of running a big company like Hewlett-Packard, where she was chief executive."
Yes there was good stuff said about McCain. I just happen to find this quote interesting.
If we got rid of the extremes on both sides 80% of us would get along. Sounds good to me.
This I completely agree with.
If we got rid of the extremes on both sides 80% of us would get along. Sounds good to me.
Unfortunately, all the extremists view themselves as "moderate," and view moderates as extremists on the other side.
Voters trusting Obama more than McCain on economy?
Wall Street Journal Article with (you guessed it) polling results
EDIT: Quote from the article
"Sen. McCain's advisers haven't helped matters. One top supporter, Carly Fiorina, said publicly she doesn't think that either Sen. McCain or his running mate, Alaska Gov. Palin, would be capable of running a big company like Hewlett-Packard, where she was chief executive."Yes there was good stuff said about McCain. I just happen to find this quote interesting.
But in the full interview she said the same about Obama and Palin.
If we got rid of the extremes on both sides 80% of us would get along. Sounds good to me.Unfortunately, all the extremists view themselves as "moderate," and view moderates as extremists on the other side.
How true.
Hillary Clinton's top fundraiser, Lynn Rothschild, has come out and endorsed McCain. She said that the Democrats had left her behind in their move to the left and that Obama was "an elitist." How much of an elitist do you actually have to be for a Rothschild to call you one?Funny. I saw her interview and she also said that she made the decision based on the shift to the extreme left, and the possible loss of checks and balances with a Dem controlled Executive Branch/House/Senate. To be fair she also poo-poo'd the extreme right.
If we got rid of the extremes on both sides 80% of us would get along. Sounds good to me.
I should also add that she said that McCain would be the more likely of the two to reach across the aisle to bring changes that would benefit the people.
|
|
Hillary Clinton's top fundraiser, Lynn Rothschild, has come out and endorsed McCain. She said that the Democrats had left her behind in their move to the left and that Obama was "an elitist." How much of an elitist do you actually have to be for a Rothschild to call you one?Funny. I saw her interview and she also said that she made the decision based on the shift to the extreme left, and the possible loss of checks and balances with a Dem controlled Executive Branch/House/Senate. To be fair she also poo-poo'd the extreme right.
That's true, she is saying that she is a centrist Democrat. However, I still think it's telling that she has come out and supported John McCain.
|
|
saw this on yahoo
The problem is that none of the e-mails posted were actually of any public interest. Several of the articles said that there were e-mails that "sounded official" but none of those were leaked. If there was any material that could have been used to smear Palin, why not release that, unless they are saving it for an "October suprise." I still find it interesting that just a month ago the Democrats investigating "troopergate" said that they were convinced that there was nothing to the allegation and know they are demanding subpoena powers and the ability to compell witness to testify. It should also be remembered that there were two other troopergate scandals, both involving Democrats and covered up by the media until they could not hide them anymore.
But in the full interview she said the same about Obama and Palin.Voters trusting Obama more than McCain on economy?
Wall Street Journal Article with (you guessed it) polling results
EDIT: Quote from the article
"Sen. McCain's advisers haven't helped matters. One top supporter, Carly Fiorina, said publicly she doesn't think that either Sen. McCain or his running mate, Alaska Gov. Palin, would be capable of running a big company like Hewlett-Packard, where she was chief executive."Yes there was good stuff said about McCain. I just happen to find this quote interesting.
Was that suppose to be "Obama and Biden" not "Obama and Palin"? Poor Biden, even on his own ticket people forget that he is the VP nominee
The problem is that none of the e-mails posted were actually of any public interest. Several of the articles said that there were e-mails that "sounded official" but none of those were leaked. If there was any material that could have been used to smear Palin, why not release that, unless they are saving it for an "October suprise." I still find it interesting that just a month ago the Democrats investigating "troopergate" said that they were convinced that there was nothing to the allegation and know they are demanding subpoena powers and the ability to compell witness to testify. It should also be remembered that there were two other troopergate scandals, both involving Democrats and covered up by the media until they could not hide them anymore.saw this on yahoo
They'll release the bombshells later. Once they create a few.
It seems that people are looking towards this 'info' to see IF she conducted state business from her personal account to avoid subpoena issues, since personal accounts are out of bounds. I feel for this lady. People are turning her life inside out. And the media feels justified in doing so. In fact they feel obligated to do so. Pushed to the wayside is the illegal hack itself. All info is admissable into the Court of the Media.
Imagine the outcry if she forwarded an off-color joke. No public offices for me thank you. School Board was bad enough.
Was that suppose to be "Obama and Biden" not "Obama and Palin"? Poor Biden, even on his own ticket people forget that he is the VP nomineeBut in the full interview she said the same about Obama and Palin.Voters trusting Obama more than McCain on economy?
Wall Street Journal Article with (you guessed it) polling results
EDIT: Quote from the article
"Sen. McCain's advisers haven't helped matters. One top supporter, Carly Fiorina, said publicly she doesn't think that either Sen. McCain or his running mate, Alaska Gov. Palin, would be capable of running a big company like Hewlett-Packard, where she was chief executive."Yes there was good stuff said about McCain. I just happen to find this quote interesting.
lol. You are corrrect. Freudian amnesia? *still chuckling*
The same as if I posted an article about how what Sarah Palin represents is all that is good about America, there's bias.
Ah, but where are those articles? They don't exist! They aren't out there- because she's "one of them...conservatives" <shock, horror!>
However, those type of articles do exist for "the other side."
The "other side" is replete with positive press- so much so that such articles aren't just biased, but the very institution (journalism) is biased _towards_ "the other side."
|
Ah, but where are those articles? They don't exist! They aren't out there- because she's "one of them...conservatives" <shock, horror!>
But they do exist. Time ran an article very favorable towards VP hopeful Palin just last year. The difference is that now she's running against the media's choice candidate.
Edit: Forgot to add; Sarah Palin's hacked emails were screenshotted and posted. Most of them were trivial (like family pictures) and were likely included to show authenticity of the hack. Long lists of her email contacts, including friends and relatives, were also shown. I find this to be the more malicious act, as all those people will have to change their accounts and passwords. I checked out Wikileaks the day before this story appeared on Yahoo; some of her emails could be construed as violating governmental transparency laws as they relate to her work, but none of it was particularly damning or even what I would call "official" memos. Lastly, I despise violations of privacy.
|
|
It doesn't matter what the policies are for both parties, this country is so polarized thanks to the way Karl Rove ran W's campaign. When NBC is getting letters from Americans saying they'll never watch again b/c Brian Williams had the audacity to refer to Bill Clinton as "President Clinton" and not just "Bill" says to me that most people bought into BOTH parties BS and are now hating each other.
Whoever gets elected, the media as a whole is just gonna "f" it up more, make this country even MORE polarized. Don't believe me? Just watch O'Biden and McPalin ads, listen to Rush Limbaugh & Micheal Savage and watch a little bit of Wolf Blitzer, Keith Olbermann & Hannity and Colmes. They don't report the news, they just give out their option and try to make it FACT.