OT: Elections/Politics thread, part 4

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 2:39 pm

Brando70 wrote:I don't think Pope John Paul II or Pope Benedict fit the hairy hippie description.

It's true that there's a lot of "social justice" types in the Church, probably because there are a lot of "social justice" types in the New Testament

And I'll see your comment and raise you the time we had to explain what gerbil sharing was to the priest who taught my faith and morality class.

The people in the scriptures weren't after social justice. That's way too limiting of the purpose they served.

greggsand · Post by **greggsand** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 2:41 pm

pk500 wrote:
greggsand wrote:I disagree, if McCain loses, she becomes a trivia question. She'll become the big "what if" question from republicans. "What if McCain chose someone else?" The finger pointing will come faster than u can say "Ya betcha"!
Gregg:

I would agree with you if McCain was well ahead in all polls before the Palin pick and then dropped to 10 points behind Obama after she was selected.

But John McCain won't lose this election due to Sarah Palin. If he loses, it will be due to John McCain and people's perception of the GOP's handling of THE hot-button issue right now, the economy and financial crisis.

Think about it: When is the last time the GOP had a party leader with folksy appeal? Ronald Reagan, the current saint of the party. The GOP has been searching for someone like Palin since 1988, and now it has her and won't let her go.

Take care,
PK

All good points. I just think the GOP will search for someone palin-esque, but with a key difference - a man. But then again, a Black dude is on the verge of being the prez. Viva America! (seriously, i find all this to be pretty cool).

Feanor · Post by **Feanor** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 3:13 pm

And I think a woman would have been on the verge of becoming president if Hilary had won the nomination. It seems like a lot of the attacks on Obama (e.g. experience) couldn't have been launched at her, not with as much success anyway.

webdanzer · Post by **webdanzer** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 3:22 pm

Feanor wrote:And I think a woman would have been on the verge of becoming president if Hilary had won the nomination. It seems like a lot of the attacks on Obama (e.g. experience) couldn't have been launched at her, not with as much success anyway.

You can't just leave out the excitement and enthusiasm that Obama brings though. Folks were not nearly as excited about Hillary. I think the + for enthusiasm is greater than the - for lack of experience.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 3:29 pm

webdanzer wrote:
Feanor wrote:And I think a woman would have been on the verge of becoming president if Hilary had won the nomination. It seems like a lot of the attacks on Obama (e.g. experience) couldn't have been launched at her, not with as much success anyway.
You can't just leave out the excitement and enthusiasm that Obama brings though. Folks were not nearly as excited about Hillary. I think the + for enthusiasm is greater than the - for lack of experience.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 3:47 pm

Feanor wrote:And I think a woman would have been on the verge of becoming president if Hilary had won the nomination. It seems like a lot of the attacks on Obama (e.g. experience) couldn't have been launched at her, not with as much success anyway.

Thank God Hillary wasn't nominated. Obama at least hides his ambition under a cloak of caring about his country. Hillary is brazen about her ambition and thought the nomination was her divine right as a Clinton.

Plus after 16 years, America has a strong case of Clinton fatigue. I hope it doesn't find a cure any time soon.

Take care,
PK

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 4:08 pm

Brando70 wrote:
And I'll see your comment and raise you the time we had to explain what gerbil sharing was to the priest who taught my faith and morality class.

LMAO, we had a similar issue. We had to explain to father what tittyf_cking is. I think someone was asking hiim to make a judgement call on the morality LOL

Slumberland · Post by **Slumberland** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 4:27 pm

I'm an east coast liberal elite who thinks so much of Biden's performance last night that I dreamt he made sweet love to me on the capitol steps, while David Brooks and Mark Shields commented from the sidelines. However in the spirit of brotherhood I will isolate two moments that I actually liked from Palin's otherwise cloying and scripted faux-triumph amidst the soft bigotry of low expectations:

-Her shout out (no not to those third-graders) to the concept of personal responsibility and living within ones means with regards to the mortgage crisis.

-When she talked about signing off on budgets in Alaska that she found far from ideal. I would think that a maverick like her would be able to use her "little starbursts" (as Rich Lowry put it) to dazzle legislators into giving her whatever she wanted, but it did seem like an honest moment.

And because I'm feeling generous, another gift:

macsomjrr · Post by **macsomjrr** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 4:47 pm

webdanzer · Post by **webdanzer** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 4:56 pm

RobVarak wrote:Maybe we should have our candidates debate in French too. It's not like what they're saying about the facts has any grounding in reality anyway Here's just a sampling from Factcheck.org. I'm just going with the summary as the analysis is way too long LOL

...snipped a bunch lies, damn lies, and statistics...

Good grief. This can't matter much because the veep's only have one debate, but in cases like the presidential format where there are a series of debates, after each one the candidates should be presented with a factcheck-like review of their statements. Those labled as false cannot be repeated in future debates unless they are broinging them up to define how the factchecking was in error.

If they break this rule, they cannot be president. Not for them.

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 4:56 pm

macsomjrr wrote:

too funny.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 5:26 pm

JackB1 wrote:
macsomjrr wrote:
too funny.

Too predictable. Who wrote that, David Letterman?

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 5:55 pm

Great VP debate recap. Equal opportunity sarcasm.

8:32 - Biden: Global warming totally manmade. I know. I made it. By Talking.

http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/ ... -liveblog/

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:57 pm

Four hours without a post in this thread? What the hell is the matter with you cats?

Take care,
PK

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:03 pm

Check out the facts on the debate:

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/printe ... check.html

I feel that Palin's lies were much worse and greater stretches of the truth that Biden's were. But I'm sure the Rep's will see it exactly the opposite way

Clipped from AJC.com

PALIN: Said of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama: “94 times he voted to increase taxes or not support a tax reduction.”

THE FACTS: The dubious count includes repetitive votes as well as votes to cut taxes for the middle class while raising them on the rich. An analysis by factcheck.org found that 23 of the votes were for measures that would have produced no tax increase at all, seven were in favor of measures that would have lowered taxes for many, 11 would have increased taxes on only those making more than $1 million a year.

BIDEN: Complained about “economic policies of the last eight years” that led to “excessive deregulation.”

THE FACTS: Biden voted for 1999 deregulation that liberal groups are blaming for part of the financial crisis today. The law allowed Wall Street investment banks to create the kind of mortgage-related securities at the core of the problem now. The law was widely backed by Republicans as well as by Democratic President Clinton, who argues it has stopped the crisis today from being worse.

PALIN: “Two years ago, remember, it was John McCain who pushed so hard with the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reform measures. He sounded that warning bell.”

THE FACTS: Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska led an effort in 2005 to tighten regulation on the mortgage underwriters —- McCain joined as a co-sponsor a year later.

BIDEN: Warned that Republican presidential candidate John McCain’s $5,000 tax credit to help families buy health coverage “will go straight to the insurance company.”

THE FACTS: Of course it would, because it’s meant to pay for insurance.

PALIN: Claimed she has taken on the oil industry as Alaska governor.

THE FACTS: Palin pushed to impose a windfall profits tax on oil companies and distributed the proceeds to the state’s citizens to offset rising energy costs. However, she has also sided with the industry on a number of issues. She sued the Interior Department over its designation of polar bears as an endangered species. That puts her on the same side as the American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry’s chief trade association.

BIDEN: Said McCain supports tax breaks for oil companies, and “wants to give them another $4 billion tax cut.”

THE FACTS: Biden is repeating a favorite saw of the Obama campaign, and it’s misleading. McCain supports a cut in income taxes for all corporations, and doesn’t single out any one industry for that benefit.

PALIN: Said the United States has reduced its troop level in Iraq to a number below where it was when the troop increase began in early 2007.

THE FACTS: Not correct. The Pentagon says there are currently 152,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, about 17,000 more than there were before the 2007 military buildup began.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:54 pm

I knew something looked strange about Joe last night...

FatPitcher · Post by **FatPitcher** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 1:14 am

Brando70 wrote:I don't think Pope John Paul II or Pope Benedict fit the hairy hippie description.

It's true that there's a lot of "social justice" types in the Church, probably because there are a lot of "social justice" types in the New Testament

Show me one place in the new testament where any christian figure advocated political action. Everything there is about doing the right thing and taking care of others as a personal responsibility.

macsomjrr · Post by **macsomjrr** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 2:32 am

FatPitcher wrote: Show me one place in the new testament where any christian figure advocated political action. Everything there is about doing the right thing and taking care of others as a personal responsibility.

So they were all democrats then?

FatPitcher · Post by **FatPitcher** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:53 am

macsomjrr wrote:
FatPitcher wrote: Show me one place in the new testament where any christian figure advocated political action. Everything there is about doing the right thing and taking care of others as a personal responsibility.
So they were all democrats then?

I hope that was sarcasm, because the Democratic party is about collective responsibility. They think that using government to force people to pay for the causes they see as just is the proper way to advance those causes. As a libertarian, on the other hand, I see it as a personal duty, something that I do by choice because I think it is a good thing to do, not because the law compels me to.

Stuff like this is not surprising to me: http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v ... 001101.htm

In general, I think Democrats view paying taxes and supporting political causes (typically ones that require additional government spending, thereby forcing other people to pay more in taxes) as the most effective way to make society better, while libertarians see charitable giving and non-political volunteer work as the proper avenue.

Since human beings are (mostly) wired to feel good when they help people directly instead of indirectly, I think that the paying taxes doesn't give us the same feedback and incentive to help people again as targeted giving and direct help does. That is what makes the "sponsor a child" programs so effective; even though your contribution to the organization isn't going directly to the child, you get to see how you are helping people rather than just feeling a sting in your wallet every time taxes come out of it.

And of course there are other benefits:
- You have more control over what causes to support, instead of having your money used for all sort of things you may not like (wars, earmarks, etc.)
- Private charities, as a whole, have always been far more efficient that government at fulfilling their missions, largely because they will lose funding if they aren't

Just think of how much good could be done with all the time and money spent trying to elect politicians to make laws to create programs to do good.

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 6:43 am

Palin post debate interview with Carl Cameron.

Talks about the mdia.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjoMxjjzxzY

Talks about Michigan.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5ot5Mb9-7g

Talks about Supreme Court Decisions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vD8vMyJXfY

Talks about troop levels in Iraq.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVWvpPDRvo0

The whole interview.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yy7B0O6LPCo

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 6:49 am

O'Reilly busts a blood vessel on Barney Frank.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5ZGnWgT9fw

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 7:31 am

JackB1 wrote:
That was no worse than Palin's continued claims to be "middle class" when she is worth over $1.2 M, with a beautiful waterfront home on the water in Alaska and her own personal seaplane.

Anyone that believes ANY of these politicians are in the same financial boat as the true middle class is just kidding themselves.

Palin and her husband earned $166,000 in 2007, up from $128,000 in 2006, the tax returns show. For a family of seven I would call them upper middle class at best. So in a nutshell,Todd Palin is "Joe Sixpack". Looking at the numbers, the Palin's can relate to a lot more Americans than any of the other candidates.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1223070 ... lenews_wsj

The Palins said they donated $8,105 to charity over the two years

The Biden's claimed $995 in deductions for charitable giving, about triple what they deducted in any of the nine previous years. Over the past decade they reported giving an average of $369 to charity.

McCain released his own tax returns on April 18, which showed he reported $405,409 of income and gave $105,467 to charity, about 26 percent. His wife, Cindy, who files separately, released a summary of her own returns on May 23, which showed she earned $6 million and paid $1.75 million in tax. She didn't release the schedule of her tax returns that discloses her charitable contributions.

The Obamas gave less than 1 percent of the $1.2 million they earned from 2000 to 2004 to charities, their returns showed. They increased their giving to more than 5 percent when their income rose in 2005 and 2006 after the Illinois senator published a best-selling book.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... refer=home

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin made considerably less money than rival Sen. Joe Biden, but the Palin family gave more to charity in the last two years than Biden has in the last eight combined, according to Palin's tax records released Friday afternoon.

In 2006, the Palins paid $11,944 in taxes on $127,869 in income. In 2007, they paid $24,738 on $166,080.

But in 2006, they donated $4,880 to charity, and in 2007, they donated $3,325.

By contrast, Biden (D-Del.), Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's running mate, has donated a total of $3,690 since 1998 despite his higher Senate salary, according to an analysis posted by National Review.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pal ... 10-03.html

Looks like Joe spent his donations at Home Depot.

FatPitcher · Post by **FatPitcher** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 8:09 am

JackDog wrote:
Looks like Joe spent his donations at Home Depot.

If the press were as thorough with Biden as they are with Palin, there'd already be a front page story on the Washington Post:
"Home Depot Sales Clerk Never Saw Biden"
"Biden Didn't Know Difference Between Wood, Sheet Rock Screws"
"Biden's Do-It-Yourself Claims Questioned By Contractor"
with juicy quotes from jilted sales clerks and the like.

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 8:36 am

FatPitcher wrote:
JackDog wrote:
Looks like Joe spent his donations at Home Depot.
If the press were as thorough with Biden as they are with Palin, there'd already be a front page story on the Washington Post:
"Home Depot Sales Clerk Never Saw Biden"
"Biden Didn't Know Difference Between Wood, Sheet Rock Screws"
"Biden's Do-It-Yourself Claims Questioned By Contractor"
with juicy quotes from jilted sales clerks and the like.

No doubt.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 11:53 am

JackDog wrote:
FatPitcher wrote:
JackDog wrote:
Looks like Joe spent his donations at Home Depot.
If the press were as thorough with Biden as they are with Palin, there'd already be a front page story on the Washington Post:
"Home Depot Sales Clerk Never Saw Biden"
"Biden Didn't Know Difference Between Wood, Sheet Rock Screws"
"Biden's Do-It-Yourself Claims Questioned By Contractor"
with juicy quotes from jilted sales clerks and the like.
No doubt.

Agreed.

Take care,
PK