PDA

View Full Version : McCain Leads Obama in New Polls


Davian93
08-20-2008, 02:23 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26308429/

Interesting and not really unexpected. McCain has been hammering Obama on his weaknesses (that thing called experience) for months now. Obama will get a big jump from his convention and McCain will get one from his and we'll see how things really are in a month or so after the conventions and VP picks...still its clear its not over.

Brita
08-20-2008, 02:24 PM
Groan....

I'm not a voting American- but I would really like to see Obama win...

Gilshalos Sedai
08-20-2008, 02:27 PM
Why?

Sodas
08-20-2008, 02:43 PM
Another "Likely Voter" poll.

Brita
08-20-2008, 02:56 PM
I'm just shell-shocked from Bush I guess- I'd like to see a complete change in the leadership of the US at this point.

It is a fairly uneducated opinion- I'm not well versed on their policy stances or party platforms, I am just still hurting from the re-election of George W in 2004. And I am taking it out on the whole Republican Party.

In general I would like to see our neighbour to the south less involved with foreign threats and more involved with taking care of their own affairs. I know McCain is said to be more moderate than Bush- but I imagine Obama is even more moderate than that. The US image could really use some lovable PR at the moment.

Sinistrum
08-20-2008, 02:58 PM
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Douchebag vs. turdsammich.

Cary Sedai
08-20-2008, 03:01 PM
Which is which? :p

Sinistrum
08-20-2008, 04:00 PM
Doesn't really matter.

Davian93
08-20-2008, 04:04 PM
Doesn't really matter.

Sadly true.

Sei'taer
08-20-2008, 04:32 PM
I guess I'll have to see who's on the ballot and then do an eeny meeny miney mo for everyone under these 2...either that or I won't vote for prez.

Gilshalos Sedai
08-20-2008, 04:35 PM
I'm only really worried about Congress.


Every single damned incumbent is getting the axe on my ballot.

Sei'taer
08-20-2008, 04:37 PM
Every single damned incumbent is getting the axe on my ballot.

Me too...9% in the polls. And people talk about Bush and low approval ratings.

Gilshalos Sedai
08-20-2008, 04:39 PM
That's America... you don't like your government, wait two years, you can change 1/3 of it.

tanaww
08-20-2008, 05:49 PM
I'm only really worried about Congress.


Every single damned incumbent is getting the axe on my ballot.

Funny. That is exactly what I did in 2006. If you had an I behind your name, you got voted against. I think I voted for some Greens Party candidates... Not sure.

This year, Obama's pile of shit is slightly smaller and less smelly than John "I gave my balls to the religious right so I could get elected President" McCain so I plan to vote for him. I could surprise myself and vote for Darth Nader just to keep to my stance of if you didn't vote you can't bitch because if I can't bitch, I will explode.

Vote for Hopper and I. I mean it. It will be awesome!

Sodas
08-20-2008, 08:13 PM
but will you approve that message tanaww? ;)

Frenzy
08-20-2008, 08:35 PM
I'm just shell-shocked from Bush I guess
totally
In general I would like to see our neighbour to the south less involved with foreign threats and more involved with taking care of their own affairs.
Fine, you deal with Russia right now then. :p
The US image could really use some lovable PR at the moment.
We could have a fluffy kitteh as president and still be the world's whipping boy spittoon. It's too trendy to dis the US of A, so i'm not sure a lovable schmuk in office is going to make much difference.

Frenzy
08-20-2008, 08:37 PM
Proof that the Democratic Party is on it's last legs. This presidency has basically been gift-wrapped for them, and STILL they can't walk away with it.

i think they're more interested in keeping cotrol of Congress. That's where the real power is, while the presidency takes all the blame.

Brita
08-20-2008, 09:27 PM
We could have a fluffy kitteh as president and still be the world's whipping boy spittoon. It's too trendy to dis the US of A, so i'm not sure a lovable schmuk in office is going to make much difference.

Ya- you're probably right- but you have to admit Bush did not help. Like at all. The US had a great opportunity to capitalize on the sympathy of the whole civilized world after 9-11, and now...that has been kinda left behind in Iraq's dust.

tanaww
08-20-2008, 09:31 PM
but will you approve that message tanaww? ;)

I am Tana and I approve this message.

Frenzy
08-20-2008, 10:03 PM
yah, that was poor management. But to hope that the party that can't walk away with a win on that colossal failure can be a decent media puppetteer is kinda foolish.

Sinistrum may be righter than he thinks, as hard as THAT is to believe. :p

tanaww
08-20-2008, 11:29 PM
Sinistrum may be righter than he thinks, as hard as THAT is to believe. :p

If that is true, then we are on the eve of the apocalypse.

ShadowbaneX
08-21-2008, 12:05 AM
If that is true, then we are on the eve of the apocalypse.
Why am I in this hand-cart and why is it getting so hot?

We've been here on the eve for a while...I'm content to enjoy the ride.

Davian93
08-21-2008, 08:03 AM
Dems are great....just look how much they've done with majorities in both houses...pathetic. That's what happens when you let Nancy Pelosi do anything.

tanaww
08-21-2008, 08:27 AM
Dems are great....just look how much they've done with majorities in both houses...pathetic. That's what happens when you let Nancy Pelosi do anything.

Good sir, I would say the GOP is no better. Politics has devolved into a big money industry in which the Golden Rule is "Those that have the gold make the rules." Congressional Votes are sold to the highest bidder and candidates that spend the most money (acquired by pandering to big business and ridiculously arrogant and wealthy private donors) are the ones being elected. Unfortunately, the people that want that to change cannot create enough mass to actually make it happen. Congress is full of lawyers and "scholars" who figure if it's not broke (translation: I'm getting mine) why fix it? (translation: Fuck you average Joe).

As an aside - what could we do for education or poverty if instead of spending hundreds of millions on campaign ads (buying influence in the case of the donors), we put it to a truly good use? Or, Professor Snow? How much would you like a $500 million research grant for Malaria or Aids research? Isn't that better than spreading bullshit to get "douchebag" or "turdsammich" elected?

I am Tana and I approve this message.

Davian93
08-21-2008, 09:21 AM
I agree Tana...both sides suck...2nd Vermont Republic Here we come!!!

tanaww
08-21-2008, 10:52 AM
McCain Not Sure How Many Houses He Owns (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080821/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_houses)

If you can't count the number of houses you own, how can I trust you to balance the Government's checkbook or keep track of how many brigades of troops are deployed overseas?

Mr. McCain, you're either a liar or a douche. Either way, you have proven your lack of competence to hold this nation's highest office.

Sinistrum
08-21-2008, 11:36 AM
I would say the GOP is no better.

Allow me to just say DUH! to that. :p

Bryan Blaire
08-21-2008, 05:57 PM
LOL

That's okay Tanaww, Obama doesn't even help out his own half-brother. Why should I expect him to help me?

I think I am writing in Tanaww's real name on the ballot this year.

Edit: Not to mention, actually, I don't think that McCain himself owns but like two houses. Now, his rich wifey on the other hand... well, trophies generally have some land assets too, right?

And no, the GOP is no better. It's all politics as usual all around. I just hate rich folk out to save the little guy.

Frenzy
08-21-2008, 09:49 PM
As if anyone could tell you ~exactly~ is in their investment portfolio. i hope he spends more time being a senator than counting his nest egg. Like Bryan said, he married money, so she probably handles it. Or they have a consultant.

are Democrats so hard-up for dirt on the guy that they're running with this? Come on, i'm sure he has SOME skeletons of respectable size. Get those interns out of under Clinton's desk and onto google to dig it up!

Sodas
08-22-2008, 03:56 AM
Dems are great....just look how much they've done with majorities in both houses...pathetic. That's what happens when you let Nancy Pelosi do anything.
Two problems :

Republican filibusters and a republican president. This is known as gridlock, and was intentionally designed by the founders.

It will be alittle easier to see what the agenda out of Congress will be once they gain the White House and come close to 60 in the Senate.

p.s. Frenzy, there are plenty of things to mention about mccain like him cheating on his wife, the Keating 5, his support of Bush and much more. It's just how can you expect people to believe you competant when you can't remember something so basic? It paints McCain as elitest and out of touch. But i'm sure one of those homes should make all those troubles fade away...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v392/mwar/MonopolyMan.jpg
Trollop! Fetch me my moneybags!

tanaww
08-22-2008, 07:33 AM
As if anyone could tell you ~exactly~ is in their investment portfolio. i hope he spends more time being a senator than counting his nest egg. Like Bryan said, he married money, so she probably handles it. Or they have a consultant.

are Democrats so hard-up for dirt on the guy that they're running with this? Come on, i'm sure he has SOME skeletons of respectable size. Get those interns out of under Clinton's desk and onto google to dig it up!

Ha ha ha Frenzy, I'd agree with you for the most part on the investments thing - I mean with hundreds of millions - possibly more - in his wife's assets - you can't really expect him to know whether he's got 10,000 shares of AB stock or 100,000, right? But HOUSES are pretty big and it should be a fairly small number.

Besides, poo slinging diverts the attention of the Perez Hilton reading public from real issues like Health Care, Education, Energy Policy and National Defense.

irerancincpkc
08-22-2008, 08:57 AM
http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/political-pictures-mccain-puppies.jpg

Part of why I like Obama... :D

On the McCain ahead thing... I say great. Obama always does better as the underdog. And current polling models are basically useless now, with the wave of new/young voters for Barack. If there is a 12+ point lead, I would say one person is ahead, but less than that it is up in the air.

Davian93
08-22-2008, 09:04 AM
Because he pretends to be poor?

tanaww
08-22-2008, 09:34 AM
It paints McCain as elitest and out of touch.

Funny. I think the media is trying to portray him as too old and addle-minded to be a world leader. Also out of touch with this newfangled technology. I'd be more impressed if he'd admitted to getting his news from The Daily Show than I was when he admitted to watching The Hills.

Frenzy
08-22-2008, 10:05 AM
no, because Michelle Obama is better looking. Excelent way to choose a candidate.

The Brewster's Millions candidate is looking better and better in my book...

Ozymandias
08-22-2008, 10:23 AM
Dems are great....just look how much they've done with majorities in both houses...pathetic. That's what happens when you let Nancy Pelosi do anything.

Not much, thanks to gridlock and filbusters, but you have to look at it in this light. The Republican Congress basically acted as lapdog to Bush and screwed the country in about every hole it has. As in, they were actively bad, as supposed to the Dems, who are passively not good... which is the POINT of the system.

When the government is running the way its planned to, the Dems are probably actually doing something right. The country does better when Congress is being inefficient or fighting with the White House. We saw the wisdom of the Founding Fathers the last 8 years... when one man in government had the ability to do what he wanted without a check on his power, basically everything went wrong.

Lets all just take a moment and pray Bush breaks his neck on the way out of the White House... that man must be one of the biggest incompetents to walk into the White House. He should thank god for idiotic opponents and the Republican smear machine for keeping him in office.

Frenzy
08-22-2008, 10:44 AM
i thought James Buchannan was the biggest incompetent. Though i suppose it's a matter of preference. Do you prefer the bottom of your crap list to be populated by a do-nothing president or one who does the wrong thing?

Sei'taer
08-22-2008, 10:50 AM
Not much, thanks to gridlock and filbusters, but you have to look at it in this light. The Republican Congress basically acted as lapdog to Bush and screwed the country in about every hole it has. As in, they were actively bad, as supposed to the Dems, who are passively not good... which is the POINT of the system.

When the government is running the way its planned to, the Dems are probably actually doing something right. The country does better when Congress is being inefficient or fighting with the White House. We saw the wisdom of the Founding Fathers the last 8 years... when one man in government had the ability to do what he wanted without a check on his power, basically everything went wrong.

Lets all just take a moment and pray Bush breaks his neck on the way out of the White House... that man must be one of the biggest incompetents to walk into the White House. He should thank god for idiotic opponents and the Republican smear machine for keeping him in office.

Damn, feeling your oats today, Ozy?

I want all of you to remember what I said about Hillary a few months back. Seems they are going to have a floor vote at the convention. I predict Obama will win it, but it will not be pretty. I heard on the news that they are going to put out people among the delegates to help the Hillary supporters be nice to Obama. I can't wait. It's going to be a blast to watch...especially if the floor vote gets nasty...and I think it just might, depending on how much control Hill actually has over her supporters. From the interviews I've seen and heard, she doesn't have much.

irerancincpkc
08-22-2008, 10:50 AM
Don't rag on old James. Only Prez from my home state... okay, he was a fool, but still. :D

And Davian, last I heard there was a difference between one house and seven. But really, that doesn't bother me. What bothers me is McCain didn't know.

And Sei, you're assuming Hillary doesn't get the VP slot. I know Biden looks sure right now, but if Obama wanted to shock people and make some noise, and shore up 18 million voters...

Davian93
08-22-2008, 11:12 AM
I'd trust the guy with 7 houses as he's obviouslly doing something right...Maybe as president he can marry rich and solve all of our problems too! :)

Yuri33
08-22-2008, 11:32 AM
Well, guys who marry rich women have not bode well for election, just look at John Kerry (worth billions because he married the Heinze ketchup lady).

Now, guys who are born into rich families have a much better chance (George W), but not a very good record once they get into office.

BTW, criticizing McCain for being elitist and out of touch based on the number of homes he can't remember he has is at least a bit more respectable than sandwiching Obama between Brittany and Paris and calling him a celebrity to try and make the same point.

irerancincpkc
08-22-2008, 04:33 PM
Because he pretends to be poor?
He isn't poor. He's poor in relation to McCain though.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-nickolas/official-net-worth-mccain_b_120524.html

McCain's Net Worth - 36,000,000
Obama's Net Worth - 799,000

So McCain's net worth is about 45 times more than Obama's, so in relation... :D

Sei'taer
08-22-2008, 04:46 PM
He isn't poor. He's poor in relation to McCain though.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-nickolas/official-net-worth-mccain_b_120524.html

McCain's Net Worth - 36,000,000
Obama's Net Worth - 799,000

So McCain's net worth is about 45 times more than Obama's, so in relation... :D

Yeah, you might as well have quoted FOX for all that.


And Sei, you're assuming Hillary doesn't get the VP slot. I know Biden looks sure right now, but if Obama wanted to shock people and make some noise, and shore up 18 million voters...

I wasn't assuming, funny, on the same website you linked: Hillary was never vetted for VP (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/29/hillary-clinton-obamas-vi_n_115435.html)

I heard Howard Wolfson on CNN today say the same thing. Like I said, it should be lotsa fun to watch.

Yahoo news (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080821/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_houses)

The truth is, neither candidate is hurting for money.

McCain's tax returns showed a total income of $405,409 in 2007. According to her 2006 tax returns, Cindy McCain had a total income of $6 million. Her wealth is estimated by some at $100 million, based on her late father's Arizona beer distributorship. She has not released her 2007 returns, which she files separately from her husband.

Obama and his wife, Michelle, reported making $4.2 million in 2007

irerancincpkc
08-22-2008, 04:48 PM
I wasn't assuming, funny, on the same website you linked: Hillary was never vetted for VP (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/29/hillary-clinton-obamas-vi_n_115435.html)

I heard Howard Wolfson on CNN today say the same thing. Like I said, it should be lotsa fun to watch.
She doesn't need to be vetted. :D

No, the party will come together, don't get your hopes up. :D

Sei'taer
08-22-2008, 04:54 PM
I overlapped you with an edit. Take a look at my last post again.

Sei'taer
08-22-2008, 04:55 PM
She doesn't need to be vetted. :D

No, the party will come together, don't get your hopes up. :D

How about a bet? I'll bet my next very substantial amount of poker winnings that she will not be picked.

Bryan Blaire
08-22-2008, 09:16 PM
Yeah, considering how much Obama's last tax return stated, Spammer, you are a fool if you think he is only worth a little less than $800K. His family is definitely worth less than McCain's family, but he's still in that little 1% sliver of Americans earning over $500K a year. In other words, Obama is rich, bitch! Or was that Obama's Rick James, bitch! ? I can never tell...

The fact is, McCain specifically is trying to appeal to the rich by saying "I won't take as much from you," and Obama is saying "All you poor folk are victims, and you don't have to take it any more!" I am not a victim. I WOULD like to work to become rich and have less taken from me in that instance. As well, if you ARE poor, yes, you DO have to take it. You are poor, you are the world's bitch. You do not have the power to do anything about it, and neither does a President. He personally can not do enough about the US to make the extraordinarily large changes that would be required to make the poor NOT the bitches of the rich. Even in a Socialist society, which yes, Obama, by personal admission he routinely attended the Socialist Youth meetings in college and he very much holds the views that seem to signify that he thinks this would be a better way of life for all of us, the poor STILL end up being the bitches of the rich, there are just MORE poor and less rich people. Socialism is a great way to go if you WANT to CONTROL the Proletariat. It does nothing to better their station in life.

What I want to know is why there is not a strong candidate in this race this year that says "I want the Presidency to get out of your life as much as possible, and want to make the government do the same." Where the hell is that person?

Also, where the hell did the Democratic Party get off the "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" train, and get onto the "Ask what your country can give you, and ask nothing about what you can do for yourself" train? I want zombie JFK to come back and bitch slap Obama for violating his vision.

Oh, and on the Congress getting enough seats to gain a majority... LOL. Not with a 9% and declining approval rating they won't.

Sei'taer
08-22-2008, 09:38 PM
What I want to know is why there is not a strong candidate in this race this year that says "I want the Presidency to get out of your life as much as possible, and want to make the government do the same." Where the hell is that person?

Bobby Jindal. Maybe I'll write him in.

Yuri33
08-23-2008, 10:47 PM
Bobby Jindal

Not when it comes to women's rights, to begin with...

Sodas
08-23-2008, 11:29 PM
Yeah, considering how much Obama's last tax return stated, Spammer, you are a fool if you think he is only worth a little less than $800K. His family is definitely worth less than McCain's family, but he's still in that little 1% sliver of Americans earning over $500K a year. In other words, Obama is rich, bitch! Or was that Obama's Rick James, bitch! ? I can never tell...
Obama made roughly 4 million last year off book sales and his wife's salary. That is a far cry from when they were only recently paying off their student loans.

They are certainly rich by my standards, and I don't understand the problem with that, but not by McCain standards (5 million to be rich).

The fact is, McCain specifically is trying to appeal to the rich by saying "I won't take as much from you," and Obama is saying "All you poor folk are victims, and you don't have to take it any more!"
Niether are facts, they are your interpretation of the candidate's policies. Obama specifically has been talking about lowering taxes on those under 250,000 a year in income. That is certaintly a long way from playing a populist, poor folk are hurting, campaign.

I am not a victim. I WOULD like to work to become rich and have less taken from me in that instance.
Of course everyone wants to have as much money as possible. However, it's simply impossible to pay for what we are currently spending on without either raising taxes or cutting the entire discressionary budget. You can blame this on the last 8 years of tax cuts and budget deficits.

As well, if you ARE poor, yes, you DO have to take it. You are poor, you are the world's bitch. You do not have the power to do anything about it, and neither does a President.
Being poor, in this nation, doesn't mean you are fated to be the "world's bitch." That is the whole point of welfare and student aid, these are the network by which the US brings it's people from poverty into the middle class. And yes, the President and Congress have direct control on these policies.

He personally can not do enough about the US to make the extraordinarily large changes that would be required to make the poor NOT the bitches of the rich.
That's a rather large exaggeration.

Even in a Socialist society, which yes, Obama, by personal admission he routinely attended the Socialist Youth meetings in college and he very much holds the views that seem to signify that he thinks this would be a better way of life for all of us,
No one believes those NY Daily News smears. And to think that he still holds those same ideals is beyond your ability - unless you are reading minds.

What I want to know is why there is not a strong candidate in this race this year that says "I want the Presidency to get out of your life as much as possible, and want to make the government do the same." Where the hell is that person?
That would be Bob Barr, Libertarian.

I happen to be a Libertarian, and while I won't vote for Barr because of his own sex affairs, I also recognize that this election is more than just about my tax brackets. I'm willing to sacrifice some money so that my country can fight the wars it needs to fight, to make sure that the books get to the classrooms, and that our highways and bridges aren't collapsing. After 9/11, it's our duty to solve these problems and not leave endless debt to our children.

I'd rather sacrifice a few bucks than the Bush-McCain agenda of sacrificing our National Honor through TORTURING, OCCUPYING a foreign nation endlessly, SPYING on it's own people, POLITICIZING the DOJ, FAILING to support our Veterans, and continuing to ship all our money to the Saudi's.
Also, where the hell did the Democratic Party get off the "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" train, and get onto the "Ask what your country can give you, and ask nothing about what you can do for yourself" train?
I suppose you are against the $1000 middle class rebates, which I'm going to be happy to recieve. If you would please forward your rebate check to my address. KK Thx.

I want zombie JFK to come back and bitch slap Obama for violating his vision.
Lol. If you got that Zombie grow, can we get zombie George Washington to do the same to Dubya?

Oh, and on the Congress getting enough seats to gain a majority... LOL. Not with a 9% and declining approval rating they won't.
First off, they already have a majority. What they are going for is 60 seats.

Secondy, that 9% affects the incumbant Republicans in these cases. Republican party ID and registration is vastly down, while Democrat and Independant registrations are through the roof. This is why the Republican Leaders in the Senate said that the loss of under 6 seats would be a Victory! Most experts and polls are suggesting about 8 though.

Sei'taer
08-24-2008, 12:48 AM
Niether are facts, they are your interpretation of the candidate's policies. Obama specifically has been talking about lowering taxes on those under 250,000 a year in income. That is certaintly a long way from playing a populist, poor folk are hurting, campaign..

Um, not really (http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/candidates_taxproposals_tpc/?postversion=2008061113)

The nut quotes:

In addition to making the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent, McCain says he would double the exemption for dependents, lower the corporate tax rate, make expensing rules more generous for small businesses and lessen the bite of the estate tax and Alternative Minimum tax.

The net result: compared with their tax bill today, taxpayers on average would see their tax bill cut by nearly $1,200. That means their after-tax income would rise by 2%

Obama would also introduce new tax breaks for lower and middle-income groups. Such breaks include expanding the earned income tax credit, giving those making less than $150,000 a $500 tax credit per person on the first $8,100 in income, giving those making under $75,000 a 50% federal match on the first $1,000 of savings, and exempting seniors making less than $50,000 from having to pay income tax.

Like McCain, Obama would lessen the bite of the estate tax and the Alternative Minimum Tax, but to a lesser degree.

The net result: compared with their tax bill today, taxpayers on average would see their tax bill cut by nearly $160 under Obama's plan. That means their after-tax income would rise by 0.3%



Of course everyone wants to have as much money as possible. However, it's simply impossible to pay for what we are currently spending on without either raising taxes or cutting the entire discressionary budget. You can blame this on the last 8 years of tax cuts and budget deficits.

Cut the pork budget then. Even JFK understood that cutting taxes significantly raised revenue. What we need is not more taxes, we need tax reform, i.e. flat tax, consumption tax, etc. Some kind of fair tax. Thats the problem with the republicans right now, they have become tax and spend followers.


Being poor, in this nation, doesn't mean you are fated to be the "world's bitch." That is the whole point of welfare and student aid, these are the network by which the US brings it's people from poverty into the middle class. And yes, the President and Congress have direct control on these policies.

Welfare reform was put into place by Clinton because it was found and proven that what you just said is incorrect. Welfare adds more people to welfare, destining them to be poor. Clinton, at least, understood this. Student aid is a good thing, but so are the millions of dollars donated by private citizens for scholarships...and they do much the same thing. Bryan is essentially correct, if you don't take it out of context. As long as you are poor and don't try to better yourself you are at the worlds mercy.



No one believes those NY Daily News smears. And to think that he still holds those same ideals is beyond your ability - unless you are reading minds.

I don't know if its a smear or not. I haven't looked very deep into Obamas past. People still believe he is a muslim so that tells me that if it is a smear, and like I said, I don't know that it is, it may carry some weight with some voters. People are blogging all over the place about Obamas half brother in Africa that lives on $12 a year. They want to know why Obama can't even pass the guy a twenty now and then...so they believe a lot is all I'm trying to say. Same for McCain though so that kind of goes both ways. Some believe he cheated on his wife and some don't. The point is that it doesn't matter if it's true or not it can either hurt or help, but there are people who will believe it anyway.


That would be Bob Barr, Libertarian.

I happen to be a Libertarian, and while I won't vote for Barr because of his own sex affairs, I also recognize that this election is more than just about my tax brackets. I'm willing to sacrifice some money so that my country can fight the wars it needs to fight, to make sure that the books get to the classrooms, and that our highways and bridges aren't collapsing. After 9/11, it's our duty to solve these problems and not leave endless debt to our children.

I'd rather sacrifice a few bucks than the Bush-McCain agenda of sacrificing our National Honor through TORTURING, OCCUPYING a foreign nation endlessly, SPYING on it's own people, POLITICIZING the DOJ, FAILING to support our Veterans, and continuing to ship all our money to the Saudi's..

No, you're not if that is what you believe. Libertarian Principles (http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/11/02/ca/state/vote/weissbuch_r/paper1.html) Scan down to number 6 where it says this:

6. Taxation

It is morally wrong to initiate force against another human being. Therefore, no tax can ever be morally justified. The American people were wrong to enact the 16th Amendment, permitting the imposition of the national income tax. It should be repealed, along with the Internal Revenue Service, along with all of the programs the income tax funds. The privatized services which the American people believe are important can be paid for privately and voluntarily.

Your stance on taxes dq's you. Your stance on war dq's you. Even your stance on education dq's you. You might want to read all of them. I think I agree with more of them than you do and I don't consider myself a libertarian or a conservative...I think I'm a little of both with just a dab of liberal in there (Gay Marriage, Stem cell research).

I suppose you are against the $1000 middle class rebates, which I'm going to be happy to recieve. If you would please forward your rebate check to my address. KK Thx...

I dunno about Bry, but I am against them. I think we should have our taxes cut by a lot more than $1000 and quit borrowing from the Chinese or Japanese or whoever this time to give me a feel good shot of heroine that'll get me a couple tanks of gas and pay off part of a credit card. You can have my check...oh thats right, I don't fucking get one!



Secondy, that 9% affects the incumbant Republicans in these cases. Republican party ID and registration is vastly down, while Democrat and Independant registrations are through the roof. This is why the Republican Leaders in the Senate said that the loss of under 6 seats would be a Victory! Most experts and polls are suggesting about 8 though.

I've heard the same about republicans losing spots and I don't really care because I think they need to lose big to get their shit together. I have also been hearing for the last week that democrat registration is pretty stagnant but we'll see how that pans out after the convention, I think they'll prolly get a bump on registration along with a bump in the polls...now, whether or not those people will acutally vote is a different story.

tanaww
08-24-2008, 09:44 AM
What I want to know is why there is not a strong candidate in this race this year that says "I want the Presidency to get out of your life as much as possible, and want to make the government do the same." Where the hell is that person?

That person is in North Juarez, Texas.

Key Points of My Presidential Platform:

1. No more faith-based initiatives. If it is something the government should be doing, then we shouldn't be overpaying "not-for-profit" agencies to do it. It is neither efficient nor cost effective.

2. Don't ask for government help if you're not willing to first help yourself. Hate on Tommy Thompson all you want but his W-2 program (in principle) was the best thing that ever happened to Wisconsin. You can have a hand-up, people, not a hand-out. This applies to international aid as well as welfare programs. Especially all you po-dunk countries that bash the U.S. until you have a typhoon. Handle it. We're not interested in being called aggressors for trying to build schools. (Did you know that Squidward spent about a month off the coast of Myanmar with a boat full of medical supplies and they wouldn't let them in?)

3. No Child Left Untested becomes no child, parent or school not held accountable. If Johnny can't fucking read, it's probably Johnny's own damn fault and his parents as well. If Johnny's whole damn class can't read, then we look at the school. Don't get me wrong. Standards are good. Learning objectives are good. Let's nationalize them so that you don't have great schools some places and shitty schools in others because the standards are different. But teaching to a test is not the answer. Memorization should never replace critical thinking.

4. Hey! Let's do an audit. Let us commence a comprehensive study of each and every public office at every level and every school district to show these people (who don't have one ounce of common or financial sense) that they do, in fact, have enough money, they're just pissing it away. Then we'll legislate controls to make it stop. Okay, I'm not going to be Empress so we'll just start at the federal government but we can make funding given to other bodies contingent upon a review of their books.

The last thing on this topic is that I will guarantee a veto of any bill that contains two unrelated items. For example, a military spending bill that mentions anything about studying the reproductive habits if the cockroach will be vetoed. Highway funding and pigs don't mix. You get the idea.

5. Phase 2 of said audit would include a study of the faux tenure system pervading our federal government. Many of our government employees are flat-out incompetent and unqualified for their jobs and need to be replaced by people who understand who their true boss and customer is and are capable of serving them. Value creation and value delivery are two very simple concepts. I will be researching and writing about them extensively over the next three years.

Ten minutes after my inauguration, all civil service employees are in probationary status while their credentials are reviewed relative to their job descriptions. If you have worked your way up, you'll probably be finding your way out. You must meet the same criteria as a "new hire" for your position. In other words; nepotism, a high school diploma and fifteen years of putting in your time will not qualify you for a GS-11 Financial Analyst position unless, of course, you've also taken the time in the last fifteen years to meet at least the Bachelor's Degree requirement that is listed at the GS-7 level. And you will be easier to replace when you become complacent. Bureaucrat is not a tenure-track position. Neither is legislator. Yay for term limits.

6. Our military leaders will be retrained in leadership and not in politics. Our political leaders will be retrained to understand that their lane is diplomacy not tactics and certainly not strategy. Bureaucrats are not Generals and Generals are not Bureaucrats. If legislators are uncomfortable with their lane, they're welcome to enlist. (Wouldn't Pelosi make a great E2 11B? {In civilian this is a Private, Infantryman - a Grunt} Maybe Airborne too. We don't need to discriminate.) We will pull out if Iraq when we can. We can when diplomats are diplomats and soldiers are soldiers. Let the leaders on the ground get their jobs done while the armchair generals in Washington re-focus on creating a diplomatic environment in which the Iraqi government has support from people other than us to withstand the inevitable threats from Syria and Iran.

And "Don't ask, don't tell" is bullshit. Get rid of the pretense and leave homosexuals alone. Hold them to the heterosexual standards of conduct and leave it at that.

7. In addition to paying down the national debt, the cost savings identified in the audit phase will then be used to fund research and development. Think of the money we'll have for medical, technological and other areas where we have been ceding competitive advantage for decades. We can talk about true alternative fuels rather than increased offshore drilling! The end of No Child Left Untested might actually help us grow our own scientists rather than importing them.

8. Fine, I'll say it. About Gay Marriage, let's re-educate folks about separation of church and state. Marriage is defined in the bible (somewhere - who can read the bible when football is on?) as between a man and a woman. Fine. A civil union is authorized by the government - and I do think it's a states issue except that each and every individual is entitled to the same right in this regard. It is not for government to legislate morality. Two consenting adults, regardless of gender, should be able to commit to one another on an official, legal level. It is none of my business whether that is two men, two women or one of each. That's between them. If they have a faith preference and their faith allows it, GREAT! But two pieces are required: the civil portion (the legal part) and the church piece. I believe this is common in Europe and I think it's awesome.

9. Abortion is another issue that is made more complex because people insist on trying to legislate morality. The bottom line is that abortion should be a safe, readily available medical procedure. Whether or not to have one is a woman's choice and, I can assure you, not a decision anyone takes lightly. Don't make it worse by making it dangerous and illegal. Contraception should be covered by insurance and recreational drugs like Viagra should not.

10. The drinking age is outside the responsibility of the Federal government and the attempt to coerce states into raising it to 21 or face cuts to their road funds will be repealed because coercion is illegal. The same applies to the speed limit.

If I've missed stating an opinion on anything you're curious about, please ask. I guarantee I have an opinion on everything.

Sei'taer
08-24-2008, 11:52 PM
If you don't mind, I'm going to hit a few points here and then I'll let you know how I feel about your platform.




1. No more faith-based initiatives. If it is something the government should be doing, then we shouldn't be overpaying "not-for-profit" agencies to do it. It is neither efficient nor cost effective.


Deal. I think this is a fabulous idea. I can name several more government funded intiatives I would love to see go away.

2. Don't ask for government help if you're not willing to first help yourself. Hate on Tommy Thompson all you want but his W-2 program (in principle) was the best thing that ever happened to Wisconsin. You can have a hand-up, people, not a hand-out. This applies to international aid as well as welfare programs. Especially all you po-dunk countries that bash the U.S. until you have a typhoon. Handle it. We're not interested in being called aggressors for trying to build schools. (Did you know that Squidward spent about a month off the coast of Myanmar with a boat full of medical supplies and they wouldn't let them in?).

Amen Sister.

3. No Child Left Untested becomes no child, parent or school not held accountable. If Johnny can't fucking read, it's probably Johnny's own damn fault and his parents as well. If Johnny's whole damn class can't read, then we look at the school. Don't get me wrong. Standards are good. Learning objectives are good. Let's nationalize them so that you don't have great schools some places and shitty schools in others because the standards are different. But teaching to a test is not the answer. Memorization should never replace critical thinking..

I think school vouchers would solve this problem. People who wanted their kids to have a good education would fight for their children to be in the good schools. Here we have a couple of schools that are allowed to take children from all over the district. They are only allowed to take a few though. People line up at these schools trying to get their kids in (blacks and whites both...funny, it's actually about even now that I think about it). It blows me away that when I was in school, if you got caught with a calculator you were in deep doodoo. Now, I had to shell out $140 for a calculator for my oldest to be able to go to school.

Also, we need to go to a system like I've heard several of our European friends talk about for university. And I think I got it right from them so they can correct me if I'm wrong. Go to school to learn to be what you are going to be. If I want to be a chemist, I don't need to learn about theater. This seems to me to be a way to simply grind out a couple of uears of extra cash out of students and also grab some huge grants from the gov't

4. Hey! Let's do an audit. Let us commence a comprehensive study of each and every public office at every level and every school district to show these people (who don't have one ounce of common or financial sense) that they do, in fact, have enough money, they're just pissing it away. Then we'll legislate controls to make it stop. Okay, I'm not going to be Empress so we'll just start at the federal government but we can make funding given to other bodies contingent upon a review of their books.

The last thing on this topic is that I will guarantee a veto of any bill that contains two unrelated items. For example, a military spending bill that mentions anything about studying the reproductive habits if the cockroach will be vetoed. Highway funding and pigs don't mix. You get the idea..

Just give me the power to hire and fire and I could do this for you and I'll even do it for free. I read an article a while back about how the gov't actually keeps three different books to hide its actual spending and deficets. Look up David Walker who is the comptroller general of the United States of America if you really want to get pissed off.

5. Phase 2 of said audit would include a study of the faux tenure system pervading our federal government. Many of our government employees are flat-out incompetent and unqualified for their jobs and need to be replaced by people who understand who their true boss and customer is and are capable of serving them. Value creation and value delivery are two very simple concepts. I will be researching and writing about them extensively over the next three years.

Ten minutes after my inauguration, all civil service employees are in probationary status while their credentials are reviewed relative to their job descriptions. If you have worked your way up, you'll probably be finding your way out. You must meet the same criteria as a "new hire" for your position. In other words; nepotism, a high school diploma and fifteen years of putting in your time will not qualify you for a GS-11 Financial Analyst position unless, of course, you've also taken the time in the last fifteen years to meet at least the Bachelor's Degree requirement that is listed at the GS-7 level. And you will be easier to replace when you become complacent. Bureaucrat is not a tenure-track position. Neither is legislator. Yay for term limits..

Again, I totally agree. Also term limits should be set for every single position in the house and senate...well all voted for positions anywhere for that matter, should be subject to term limits. No way should a person stay for as long as Strom Thurmond, Ted Kennedy or Robert Byrd.

6. Our military leaders will be retrained in leadership and not in politics. Our political leaders will be retrained to understand that their lane is diplomacy not tactics and certainly not strategy. Bureaucrats are not Generals and Generals are not Bureaucrats. If legislators are uncomfortable with their lane, they're welcome to enlist. (Wouldn't Pelosi make a great E2 11B? {In civilian this is a Private, Infantryman - a Grunt} Maybe Airborne too. We don't need to discriminate.) We will pull out if Iraq when we can. We can when diplomats are diplomats and soldiers are soldiers. Let the leaders on the ground get their jobs done while the armchair generals in Washington re-focus on creating a diplomatic environment in which the Iraqi government has support from people other than us to withstand the inevitable threats from Syria and Iran.

And "Don't ask, don't tell" is bullshit. Get rid of the pretense and leave homosexuals alone. Hold them to the heterosexual standards of conduct and leave it at that..

My step-dad got in deep shit after serving 40 months in Vietnam and coming home a smarting off about how all officers should serve at least 24 months in theater. This, and a couple of other incidents, (think dysentary, a smartass Lt. Colonel, a very long debrief, a metal wastecan) caused him to retire early and take a huge cut in his retirement package. Don't fuck with Special Forces.


7. In addition to paying down the national debt, the cost savings identified in the audit phase will then be used to fund research and development. Think of the money we'll have for medical, technological and other areas where we have been ceding competitive advantage for decades. We can talk about true alternative fuels rather than increased offshore drilling! The end of No Child Left Untested might actually help us grow our own scientists rather than importing them.

I don't think the gov't need to fund it at all. We give it back to them in the form of tax breaks and they will use it as the market requires. If people want alternatives (and it seems they do) then the market will provide. Also, we will never get away from oil products. From aspirin to tires it is in everything. We may be able to recycle a lot of it, but we'll never get totally off of it.

8. Fine, I'll say it. About Gay Marriage, let's re-educate folks about separation of church and state. Marriage is defined in the bible (somewhere - who can read the bible when football is on?) as between a man and a woman. Fine. A civil union is authorized by the government - and I do think it's a states issue except that each and every individual is entitled to the same right in this regard. It is not for government to legislate morality. Two consenting adults, regardless of gender, should be able to commit to one another on an official, legal level. It is none of my business whether that is two men, two women or one of each. That's between them. If they have a faith preference and their faith allows it, GREAT! But two pieces are required: the civil portion (the legal part) and the church piece. I believe this is common in Europe and I think it's awesome. .

Cool. I don't think the feds should be in it either. They seem to get there grimy little fingers into a lot of stuff that shouldn't be any of their business.

9. Abortion is another issue that is made more complex because people insist on trying to legislate morality. The bottom line is that abortion should be a safe, readily available medical procedure. Whether or not to have one is a woman's choice and, I can assure you, not a decision anyone takes lightly. Don't make it worse by making it dangerous and illegal. Contraception should be covered by insurance and recreational drugs like Viagra should not..

Woo. I'm glad you said insurance. I was worried for a bit that you were into universal healthcare.

10. The drinking age is outside the responsibility of the Federal government and the attempt to coerce states into raising it to 21 or face cuts to their road funds will be repealed because coercion is illegal. The same applies to the speed limit..

Nevada fixed the speed limit problem for us, and Texas is on the way to fixing the death penalty problem. Like I said earlier, the feds need to get out of the states biz.

If I've missed stating an opinion on anything you're curious about, please ask. I guarantee I have an opinion on everything.

A couple for you. What is the W-2 program? How do you handle illegal immigration, especially now that you are living so close to one of the worst places in the country for the nastiness that goes along with it? Are unions good or bad for American business? What about trade tariffs?

Sodas
08-25-2008, 07:02 AM
Just because I'm Libertarian, doesn't mean I agree completely with their party platform. I feel it suits me the best because I want goverment to stay as far away from my money I earn and my life as possible. That is why I registered originally as a Libertarian, and I'm proud of that decision. I know many Republicans that are pro-choice, and Democrats that are life-long NRA members. They should be allowed to choose the party that best represents them as well.

And in this case, I plan to vote for Obama because of his middle-tax cuts (that affect me and 95% of Americans). You can keep trying to make it sound like he is been speaking like a populist, but he isn't. His plan is basically a move back to Clinton's earlier budgets. Bryan says its about "poor people," when most "poor people" get EITC (earned income tax credits) and more (Cash Aid, Stamps, WIC) already - and none of that will change under Obama. Obama is talking about middle tax cuts, and that is vastly different than what he said.

Here is a graphic breakdown of the reality (it's really a cleaned up visual of the page you linked to) -

http://i282.photobucket.com/albums/kk272/hannahhassett/ObamasTaxPlan.gif

Cut the pork budget then.
Fat chance that will cover the current deficit. Pork barrel spending was down last year to under 20 BILLION dollars (funny, a Democratic congress approving less pork than the previous 6 years). We are looking at between 400-500 BILLION in the red for 2008. There is no way cutting Pork will achieve a balanced budget, that is why I said DISCRETIONARY spending. Everything that isn't military or entitlements would need to be cut to balance the budget atm.

Welfare reform was put into place by Clinton because it was found and proven that what you just said is incorrect.
The only reason you think i'm incorrect is because you think I refer to welfare pre-Clinton. Clinton signed welfare reform back in 1996. The year is 2008.

I don't know if its a smear or not.
Yes, it is.

The point is that it doesn't matter if it's true or not it can either hurt or help, but there are people who will believe it anyway.
It absolutely matters if it's true or not. People's ignorance is no excuse in a Democracy.

Your stance on taxes dq's you. Your stance on war dq's you. Even your stance on education dq's you.
There is a difference between what I would like tax wise, which would be no national taxes, and what reality is atm. What we have to do now that we are stuck in a situation we can't get out of easily is fix the problems. We need to kill Bin Laden. We need to eliminate Al Queda. We need to pull out of Iraq responsibly.

After that, bring the troops home and start cutting taxes/spending. Cut defense spending and stop bailouts of failing companies (Airlines, Freddie Mac, etc.)

You got me on education ~ the one point I vastly disagree on with the Libertarian party ~ but I certaintly don't agree with either the Republicans or Democrats in the way they approach it either. I think pre-college education DOES NOT need to be Nationalized, but supported by local decision making and funding.

I have also been hearing for the last week that democrat registration is pretty stagnant but we'll see how that pans out after the convention, I think they'll prolly get a bump on registration along with a bump in the polls...now, whether or not those people will acutally vote is a different story.
Where did you hear that from? Just curious.

This is what I saw back in July, but I'm positive the trend will continue.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/rcookchart1.gif


And before I go, a nod to the Thread's title:
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

In the last week, Obama leads in all non-Daily trackers. Not to mention, McCain has yet to crack 45%.

tanaww
08-25-2008, 08:22 AM
I don't think the gov't need to fund it at all. We give it back to them in the form of tax breaks and they will use it as the market requires.

Now, I believe in the power of a free market as much as anyone, but I don't think we can get back to where we need to be in the area of scientific innovation using the invisible hand. We need to set this as a national priority in order to sustain our competitive advantage. This will also create great jobs for those choosing to acquire the skill set to fill them.

Woo. I'm glad you said insurance. I was worried for a bit that you were into universal healthcare.

I'm for anything that helps reduce the power of insurers on availability of care and lowers healthcare costs. Hospitals shouldn't bullshit the public either. Don't tell me rising costs and lower insurance payments are raising my bill. I can see the three new clinics and the shiny fucking parking ramp. A system something like Canadia's or Europe's would be nice but it'll never happen here. Let's just make sure people can get the care they need when they need it and no HMO or PPO will stand in their way. And may God help anyone caught committing welfare, medicare or medicaid fraud because I won't.

A couple for you. What is the W-2 program? How do you handle illegal immigration, especially now that you are living so close to one of the worst places in the country for the nastiness that goes along with it? Are unions good or bad for American business? What about trade tariffs?

W-2 stands for Wisconsin Works. It was a program that came to be under Tommy Thompson that basically caps your welfare payments at two years unless there are extenuating circumstances. They'll help you get some job training (a Tech. School diploma) and then you've got to fend for yourself. Before W-2, Wisconsin was quite the welfare haven with people staying on Welfare and the state paying for their housing, food, education, you name it as long as they wanted to. Wisconsin, as far as I know (I don't know anyone on welfare anymore, sorry), doesn't enable people to spend their entire life on welfare anymore.

Illegal immigration is a pain in the ass. I think we make it easier for the illegals already here to become legal, tax paying citizens of this country (see also: Welfare Reform) and tighten our controls at the border while eliminating much of the red tape required for deportation. It shouldn't take months or years to send people home if they're not authorized to be here. It also shouldn't be so difficult to become a citizen. (We could just conquer Mexico. Canadia won't mind:cool: )

Unions are bad for business because they artificially inflate wages and deflate output. They also create a false sense of job security for their members. No one making $20 an hour to turn a screw should be surprised when that job moves offshore to someone making $1.00 an hour for the same job. It's what it is actually worth.

The NEA is worse than the mafia. Teacher's unions, in general, are the very worst. The. Very. Worst. They have created an atmosphere where inept teachers are protected and the taxpayer is hamstrung. In Grand Rapids, Michigan; for example, the teachers union was up in arms about health insurance. They nearly went on strike because of the preposterous notion that they pay part of their premiums just like everyone else does. Not only did they not think they should have to pay, they were unwilling to accept changes in coverage as well. The sense of entitlement of the teachers' unions is absurd.

Unfortunately, the labor unions probably aren't going anywhere and the workers who could really use the help have the worst unions. Labor reform is necessary but it is hard to tell where to start.

I'm mostly a free marketer when it comes to trade tariffs. I think they let American Business off the hook when it comes to cost controls (see also: Unions) and are bad for the consumer. Of course I realize what the impact of reducing tariffs and other trade restrictions would be on the economy in the short run but sooner or later the average worker needs to face the fact that if there is no demand for your skill set, then you will need to acquire and supply a different one.

Do you want to talk Taxes? I think a flat tax or consumption based tax is a lovely idea. Close the loopholes - all of them - and hold each accountable for their fair share.

Davian93
08-25-2008, 08:33 AM
Illegals Suck
Welfare Suck
Teachers Suck
Taxes Suck
etc
etc
etc
etc


Dav no have coffee yet...Dav brain no work yet cause Dav stay up to watch Phillies beat Dodgers.

Dav Tired.

Ivhon
08-25-2008, 09:18 AM
On teachers. Married to one, I get to be fairly conversant with their concerns.

As with any union, when the union gets too strong there are abuses of power - hey, wow, that's news (look at the auto unions who have gotten their members 2/3 pay indefinitely to come to work and watch tv).

On the other hand, there is a very real reason that unions exist in the first place, and that is to offer protection to their members from abuses of power in the work place. If anything over the last 8 years, we should have seen that power unchecked WILL be abused every single time.

Speaking of the teachers' union, the length of neck that teachers have on the chopping block - particularly special ed teachers - is absurd. If a teacher's principal or district isn't strong - and most are not - who gets fired or sued when little Johnny Perfect's mom makes a fuss about his B? Or the fact that he did not get one of the ten billion entitlements that he "needs (and some of these are ridiculous - and you're right when you guess that all the extra work goes on the teacher)?"

Frivolous lawsuits abound at schools. Probably moreso than anywhere other than the hospital, if even that. And unlike a doctor, a teacher doesn't have the means to retain counsel nor is there the equivalent of liability insurance. There is the union and that's it for protection, because pricipals and supers will throw their employees under the bus in a second (just as most bosses will) if it makes their life easier.

So yeah, the teacher's union has its excesses - so does every other. It protects the bad apples. But it is also the only thing out there for the good apples. And considering how hostile the environment is, how low the pay is, and how difficult the job is, if you take away the only protection they have, who is going to go teach? Desperados and desperados only. Because nobody wants to pay more taxes to make teaching worth it financially. And the burnout rate is incredibly high already.

I see both sides of this thing and it is a big tricky thing. We're all for low taxes but at the same time we piss and moan when our precious darlins don'have phd 4th grade teachers. Yet we won't pay those teachers and we throw them under the bus at the first opportunity. And now we want to take away the only protection that they can rely on? On the other hand, that same protection does allow for lazy worthless teachers (the vast majority Ive encountered are not. Less lazy underachievers in that field than in most others along the same payscale, I would say). Teachers themselves - and honestly, most parents, I think, would probably refuse the biggest thing they could do to reduce class size and justify a legitimate paycheck (year round school - any given kid has 2 of 3 trimesters, teachers are there year-round).

So what do you do? Take the union away and you wont have competent teachers because the competent ones will quit and do something easier, safer and more lucrative.

Sei'taer
08-25-2008, 09:38 AM
It absolutely matters if it's true or not. People's ignorance is no excuse in a Democracy.


Just to give you an example of what I was trying to say, here is an email I recieved today from a woman I used to work with who was an avid BO supporter.

As of today I can no longer support Obama. I am sick of all his lies and this was just the last straw. To all of you who know me, I had to peel the Obama sticker off my car last night. I am on my way to the convention and I will be voting for Hillary in the floor vote. I am praying that there are a lot of people out there like me who are tired of all this.

Please watch this & forward as soon as possible, it will probably be taken off youtube soon.


Obama making fun of the Bible


If this gives you the message "This video no longer available".....try it again. It is available.....at least for the present time.


click on link below
http://www.youtube.com/v/4FCNKwHRCQM
You will need to copy and paste


Now, is that a smear? Seems that it is. Do some people believe it? Seems that they do. Will it likely hurt Obama? I kind of doubt it because the percentages of people changing will be so small...but a bunch of smalls can add up to a big.

There is a difference between what I would like tax wise, which would be no national taxes, and what reality is atm. What we have to do now that we are stuck in a situation we can't get out of easily is fix the problems. We need to kill Bin Laden. We need to eliminate Al Queda. We need to pull out of Iraq responsibly.

After that, bring the troops home and start cutting taxes/spending. Cut defense spending and stop bailouts of failing companies (Airlines, Freddie Mac, etc.)

You got me on education ~ the one point I vastly disagree on with the Libertarian party ~ but I certaintly don't agree with either the Republicans or Democrats in the way they approach it either. I think pre-college education DOES NOT need to be Nationalized, but supported by local decision making and funding

Cool. I understand what you are saying, but I think that these things can be fixed without tax increases. I really like what you said about failing companies. I think you are absolutely correct. A company is never, ever too big to fail. As a matter of fact, economists say failure is good because someone with newer and better ideas will always step in to fill the gap that has been left.

And in this case, I plan to vote for Obama because of his middle-tax cuts (that affect me and 95% of Americans). You can keep trying to make it sound like he is been speaking like a populist, but he isn't. His plan is basically a move back to Clinton's earlier budgets. Bryan says its about "poor people," when most "poor people" get EITC (earned income tax credits) and more (Cash Aid, Stamps, WIC) already - and none of that will change under Obama. Obama is talking about middle tax cuts, and that is vastly different than what he said

Just one small question. How do you cut someones taxes by 5.5% who does not pay taxes? I'm talking about all those people get EITC, stamps, cash aid, wic etc. In other words, I remember when I was young and made very little money, I would actually get more taxes returned to me than I paid in. Where does that money come from? Now we are going to add another 5.5% onto that? It just doesn't make any sense to me.


Fat chance that will cover the current deficit. Pork barrel spending was down last year to under 20 BILLION dollars (funny, a Democratic congress approving less pork than the previous 6 years). We are looking at between 400-500 BILLION in the red for 2008. There is no way cutting Pork will achieve a balanced budget, that is why I said DISCRETIONARY spending. Everything that isn't military or entitlements would need to be cut to balance the budget atm.

Oh, I completely understand. Cutting pork is simply a way to get people headed on the right track. Plus, 20 billion is 20 billion more than we had. What needs to happen is lobby reform, and also this stupid practice of saying something is being cut when in reality it isn't. For example, I think this was on school funding (it doesn't really matter because they do it on a lot of things) Dems wanted a 10% increase on the school money, Reps wanted a 5%. Dems went out and said that the reps were cutting the budget, when in reality they were increasing it, just not as much as the dems wanted. Don't get the impression that I'm blaming the dems, because both parties use this tactic. Reps have done it for war spending in exactly the same way. The gov't neds to keep its books the same way we do at home. When they are out of money they are out. Sorry. We funded WW2 on war bonds not deficets.

I better get to work now. I'll post some more later on.

Sei'taer
08-25-2008, 09:53 AM
So what do you do? Take the union away and you wont have competent teachers because the competent ones will quit and do something easier, safer and more lucrative.

I don't think you necessarily have to take away the unions (I am anti union because I got severely screwed by one, but thats my opinion only) but I think things that you discussed would help immensely, especially reforms that would take away frivolous lawsuits...this also needs to be done in the medical field. I also think that vouchers would be a big help in making this go away. If people got to choose where they send their children to school, and the shitty schools started losing students, then issues teachers face would change in a hurry. Schools with high enrollment would be happy to pay teachers good money to bring in even more enrollment, and crappy teachers, most of them anyway, would get left behind.

Davian93
08-25-2008, 10:07 AM
You could always do what Reagan did to unions...though I wouldn't recommend it. It was kinda a prick thing to do IMHO.

tanaww
08-25-2008, 10:21 AM
So what do you do? Take the union away and you wont have competent teachers because the competent ones will quit and do something easier, safer and more lucrative.

I plan on doing some doctoral level research on the potential effectiveness of LEAN methodology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lean_manufacturing) in all levels of education(to show how much money gets pissed away by school districts) and hopefully those cost savings can get redirected to pay GOOD teachers what they deserve. No way should an administrator have a $200K salary with the average teacher making $40K. We do need to compensate good teachers and keep them. We also need to be able to get rid of the bad teachers.

Sorry the Wiki link isn't the best, but LEAN applies to services as well as manufacturing.

Sodas
08-25-2008, 01:10 PM
I'm glad you see alittle bit more from my perspective.

On Obama's half-brother, I recently read http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/07/barack-obamas-1.html. I'm sure you know which half-brother to which you are refering. If it's Bernard, it's more than likely he's not really even Obama's brother. If it's Malik you are talking about, he's wealthy enough - he runs an electronics store.

Sei'taer
08-25-2008, 10:01 PM
I'm glad you see alittle bit more from my perspective.

On Obama's half-brother, I recently read http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/07/barack-obamas-1.html. I'm sure you know which half-brother to which you are refering. If it's Bernard, it's more than likely he's not really even Obama's brother. If it's Malik you are talking about, he's wealthy enough - he runs an electronics store.


It was George, in Kenya. Here's the new link (http://www.smh.com.au/news/us-election/obama-blasted-for-neglecting-brother/2008/08/26/1219516421035.html), but if you google his name there are thousands of blogs about it.

Sodas
08-26-2008, 03:15 AM
I gather that maybe this guy doesn't want to be found then, since it seems he has been hiding. I'm sure there is more to the story than what the UK Telegraph is reporting here 3rd hand. I'd be interesting to know if this Italian Vanity Fair is just as 'legit' as the US Vanity Fair.

Crispin's Crispian
08-26-2008, 11:17 AM
I plan on doing some doctoral level research on the potential effectiveness of LEAN methodology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lean_manufacturing) in all levels of education(to show how much money gets pissed away by school districts) and hopefully those cost savings can get redirected to pay GOOD teachers what they deserve. No way should an administrator have a $200K salary with the average teacher making $40K. We do need to compensate good teachers and keep them. We also need to be able to get rid of the bad teachers.

Sorry the Wiki link isn't the best, but LEAN applies to services as well as manufacturing.
Sounds pretty interesting, Tana. I know a bit about LEAN in theory, but haven't been involved in true implementations.

As for unions, I know a bit about them internally and politically. My feeling is that there's nothing inherently wrong with unions--they protect workers and help level the playing field between management and the labor force. As Ivhon said, whatever your beliefs about corruption and over-protection inside unions, they are sometimes the only recourse for the good employees.

All that said, I don't think that employers should be forced to do anything with a union, except not harass or discipline employees who sign on. If they don't want to negotiate, so be it. Let the union figure out what it needs to do to get what it wants. It's sort of a free market approach, in that hands are only forced by the needs of the two parties involved.

As a case in point, if a school district wanted to fire an inept teacher, they should go for it. The union would then decide whether to protect that teacher or let him or her go. Is it worth weeks of striking just to save one teacher who may or may not be worth salt? Let that teacher's co-workers decide.