- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 25, 2008 at 12:09 am #644583
AnonymousInactiveOctober 25, 2008 at 9:27 am #644584
AnonymousInactiveSo, everyone wants to charge McCain with playing the “race card” in light of recent events concerning a McCain supporter. I thought I would look at how race plays a factor in this election as well – but maybe not the same way y’all want to see it:
And let’s shed some light on the Democratic fear mongering that goes on unnoticed and unaccounted for:
October 25, 2008 at 2:59 pm #644585
AnonymousInactiveUnnoticed and unaccounted for? Google *Biden warns Obama will be tested* (topic of Pat Buchanan op-ed) and you receive 55,600 entries. Someone noticed, and it hasn’t even been a week since he said it. How do you figure *the story was smothered* by the media, as Pat complains?
When you type in Biden’s incorrect quote about FDR, you get 314,000 results. Someone noticed that too. A search for Biden’s gaffes, 739,000 results. Seems his foot in mouth syndrome is a wide topic of discussion.
Obama self reported his cocaine use in his first book. Admits it, takes responsibility for it and expresses great regret and wrong doing. Also widely reported with 314,000 unflattering google hits. Cindy McCain hid her drug addiction from everyone including her husband, and only acknowledged it when she was busted for stealing drugs from her charity.
I don’t think it’s appropriate for the media to go after Cindy, she’s not running for office. But as for unfair reporting, I recall Teresa Heinz Kerry taking quite a beating in the press four years ago. Some even contribute her unlikeable public perception as being a big liability for Kerry.
And lastly, SNL is unfair? Umm, so. It’s comedy satire. It’s what they do. And with Palin’s characterization, at least they’ve taken direct quotes. And…people love Tina’s Palin. Many have said it makes them like her.
I doubt it bothered you a whole lot when they *disrespected the office* spoofing President Clinton. Phil Hartman was hysterical exaggerating his appetite for food and women. Made the guy look like a total buffoon. And it was funny. Pat Buchanan needs to spend a little time on you-tube. He doesn’t seem to be aware that making fun of politicians is a time honored tradition at SNL.
The simply truth is none of us like *our guy* to be attacked. It feels personal. But Pat’s analysis is flat wrong.
October 25, 2008 at 5:10 pm #644586
villagegreenMemberNR – If you start a thread with a link to an article that argues Obama is all about “change” with no specifics and consistently refer to his plans for the country as “vague” and yet claim that you have “researched Obama’s website” and “looked at both side’s positions on the issues,” then you are either being dishonest or confused as to the definition of vague.
Obama has spelled out his plan in great detail. If you don’t agree with it that’s fine. But starting a thread with the tired argument of “who is Obama” is intellectually very weak.
October 25, 2008 at 6:47 pm #644587
acemotelParticipantThese people are scared to death and have nothing to say other than parroting back what their party tells them. I’m losing my patience with civility.
The choice of Palin is an insult to citizens and an affront to the integrity of out government, an affront to feminism, an affront to our intelligence. Being vice presidency is not equal to being a flight attendant.
October 25, 2008 at 8:17 pm #644588
JoBParticipant“The Joint Tax Committee reports that the bottom 60% of taxpayers with incomes below $50,000 paid less than 1% of the federal income tax in 2006, while the 3.3% with incomes above $200,000 paid more than 58%. Most of Mr. Obama’s tax rebates go to the bottom 60%. They can’t possibly be financed by shifting an even larger share of the tax burden to the top 3.3%” – Alan Reynolds
Just a question.. but what was the percentage of the wealth the those with incomes above $200,000 generated in that same time period?
To get even more interesting.. you might try the breakdown of the amount of taxes paid by those with incomes between $200,000 and $500,000 as opposed to those with reportable incomes over $500,000.
and then you might ask yourself what happened to all that wealth that was generated by the top 1% and yet doesn’t seem to have been taxed at all.
remember.. those figures don’t represent actual income.. just that which ends up as the bottom line after ALL deductions.
Obama is not advocating any new taxes on those who make more money.. he is simply advocating restoring the tax levels to what they were before the tax cuts which are set to expire.
He doesn’t have to propose a tax hike.. all he has to do is not renew the tax cuts….
you know.. the ones that were supposed to trickle down into increased jobs for Americans.
October 25, 2008 at 8:31 pm #644589
JoBParticipantI went back to read Thomas Sowell’s piece a second time…
and for an intelligent man who should have been able to make a compelling argument against Obama using Obama’s rhetoric and policies, he did a really poor job.
What did this intelligent man choose to make his argument?
He chose…. change can be bad… and then offered all kinds of horrendous examples.
Aside from the fact that he totally ignored that the republicans are also running on a platform of change…
ok… i admit.. being intelligent people, both Thomas and I have figured out that in the republican platform the notion of change is based on nonexistent reality…
but the rhetoric is definately that of change….
He spent the majority of the article postulating that Obama supporters are not looking for content from their candidate.. cited an example of someone he thought was unwilling to supply content.. and then chose to ignore all content himself.
Hmmm…
that’s a pretty lame condemnation from a man whose intelligence would lead one to suspect that he could have easily dissected Obama’s content and laid out misinformation and failed rhetoric in piles.
He chose not to…
and those of you who read and found those the words of a great man apparently didn’t notice that he really didn’t say much.
I wonder what he will have to say after the election if Obama is elected?
October 25, 2008 at 10:28 pm #644590
AnonymousInactive“and those of you who read and found those the words of a great man apparently didn’t notice that he really didn’t say much” – JoB
Interesting. I could make that very statement about Obama.
What I think a lot of people do not understand (or choose to overlook) with Obama is the fact that he wants to INCREASE government spending without realistically explaining, or accounting for, where all this money will come from.
This has been dissected, studied and found by several economists.
Where will he get the money? Taking money from the top earners does not come close to equaling the amount he wants to spend.
villagegreen- Simply because I post an article that is interesting to me does not mean that is the ONLY thing I have read on the subject. Why would I link Obama’s website? Everyone here has read it. To imply that I am “dishonest” is quite a leap. Should I assume that every link you might share is the extent of what you read?
The fact that you even make that accusation is extremely “intellectually weak”.
October 25, 2008 at 10:35 pm #644591
AnonymousInactive“The choice of Palin is an insult to citizens and an affront to the integrity of out government, an affront to feminism, an affront to our intelligence. Being vice presidency is not equal to being a flight attendant.” – acemotel
And I would have to add that being Vice President would also require the use of proper grammer and editing skills when writing.
October 25, 2008 at 10:40 pm #644592
CaitParticipantNR – get off the uppity grammar stuff, please. This is a blog, not a high school essay. It’s petty and it’s rude. Do you have nothing else to say about the above quote?
October 25, 2008 at 11:01 pm #644593
AnonymousInactiveCait – You’re right, it is a blog. Rather, a forum within a blog. However, I believe I have the right to defend myself when being slighted.
I also believe stating that a Vice President is not equal to being a flight attendant (my job) is “petty” and “rude”. It was unnecessary and a ridiculous statement.
As far as any further comments relating to that particular statement, no, I have nothing else to say because I’m tired of hearing about how upset and insulted women all over America are.
October 25, 2008 at 11:03 pm #644594
AnonymousInactiveWould you care to explain and account for all of the money that Obama is promising to spend?
Where would it all come from? If you know, please share because economists can’t even figure it out.
October 25, 2008 at 11:18 pm #644595
JanSParticipantwell, it seems to me it will come from the magic money machine that pumps out billions for the Iraq war, and the Wall Street bailout. Hey, there are mints all over the place…they just print more ;-)
October 25, 2008 at 11:20 pm #644596
JimmyGMemberUsually when one is going to point out the grammatical errors of another person on the forums here at WSB then you would hope that said person would spell GRAMMAR correctly.
October 25, 2008 at 11:23 pm #644597
CaitParticipantHmmm… see, I think it’s fairly obvious that you weren’t injecting your role as a flight attendant into any of that. You were calling attention to something that acemotel wrote and berating his/her proofreading skills. That was a pretty far reach to play the victim card, but alright. I still think it was petty and rude seeing that you’ve done it on two threads now.
Obama is going to cut programs that do not work to fund ones that will – I don’t know what’s so hard to understand about that unless you think that every program we have now is a good way to spend your tax dollars. He’s also going to dare to tax the top 5% of earners another piddly 3% in order to fund any of the rest. How dare he. Socialist.
Have you gone to his website? Because he’s got really detailed plans on there that no republicans (or “economists” as you call them) seem to have acknowledged (I know… how dare I assume you haven’t…)
I really don’t think you get to be “sick” of the legitimate feelings of women all over America any more than we get to be sick of Palin tirelessly trying in vain to connect Obama with anti-American sentiments.
October 25, 2008 at 11:25 pm #644598
CaitParticipantJimmy – now if that isn’t poetic justice I don’t know what is. I wasn’t gonna bring it up but… zing.
October 25, 2008 at 11:29 pm #644599
ZenguyParticipantHer keyboard would erupt in flames.
October 25, 2008 at 11:35 pm #644600
AnonymousInactiveCait – If you read Obama’s website (which I have – at length), you will see everything you want to see. It will all add up, of course.
Not all economists are Republican. Have you read any other research (besides Obama’s own website) that confirms Obama would make what he is promising work? If you have, please share.
I’m not sure where some of you get the idea that I play myself the “victim” or that I “berate” people. I think both charges are inaccurate and a stretch. And completely unimportant, imo.
Jimmy – Thanks for that…. it is pretty funny!
October 25, 2008 at 11:39 pm #644601
JimmyGMemberIt wasn’t meant to be funny.
It was meant to show that when a person wants to take pot-shots that have nothing to do with the topic at hand they had better be above reproach or they come out looking extra foolish.
October 25, 2008 at 11:41 pm #644602
CaitParticipantI think you hit the nail on the head with the whole “seeing what you want to see” thing, but you should probably practice saying that into the mirror has much as you type it on here.
I don’t think you saw where I was going with the republican/economist thing, btw…
October 25, 2008 at 11:41 pm #644603
AnonymousInactiveBtw, Cait, I wasn’t looking for permission to feel “sick” of the feelings of other women.
You asked me a pointed question and that was my answer.
I think your anger towards me is unnecessary. I realize that this election is heated and everyone is extremely involved (which I think is absolutely great), but I would like to think we can have discussions without anger.
If my links or comments are upsetting to you, I don’t know why you would continue to read this thread (I started it in the interest of sharing conservative information for those silent conservative lurkers)? However, if you are interested is debate and discussion, I am as well. I really would like to think that we could do that without anger, though.
October 25, 2008 at 11:42 pm #644604
AnonymousInactiveJimmy – Well, I apologize for being able to laugh at myself.
October 25, 2008 at 11:45 pm #644605
CaitParticipantNot to say that you haven’t read it thoroughly enough but… well…
October 25, 2008 at 11:52 pm #644606
CaitParticipantI’m sorry to tell you, but your comments don’t really get me worked up enough to quit visiting ANY thread. I may get “angry” sometimes, but there’s no need for you to think that I spend a lot of time thinking about some personal vendetta I have against republicans on this forum. I’m passionate about my political beliefs and if that intimidates you then I get that. But I can tell you that you really don’t get me that “angry” (I don’t get angry about things and opinions that I can’t change) – though I can get a little lippy. I can tell you that doesn’t equate to anger. Sorry. *shrugs*
Jimmy – I get what you’re sayin’.
October 25, 2008 at 11:55 pm #644607
AnonymousInactiveFor all the crap Palin gets about how poorly she has been said to manage interviews, it seems the Obama campaign can’t handle much either:
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2008/10/obama-campaign.html
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.