Female Mccain''s VP pick

[stone_seeker]

Date: 9/14/2008 9:58:25 AM
Author: thing2of2
Great Op-Ed in the NY Times about the energy policy of the McCain/Palin ticket:


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/opinion/14friedman.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Not sure why this is great - its factually inaccurate if you read John McCains energy plan on his website. He is for many alternative energy plans. Drilling is a part of it but necessary to force oil prices down. Since the candidates have discussed more drilling - oil prices have gone down from $150 a barrel to $100. This despite 2 major hurricanes. The author complains about McCain''s nuclear policy not being affordable - but it is if we eliminate spending in other areas of government. He doesnt explain how Obama''s 2 trillion of programs he has planned will be paid for. Not by taxes since Obama''s tax plain is solely for the redistribution of wealth. Cap gains tax raises have proven to not increase government revenue.

And since its an opinion piece that takes a number of shots at McCain, I hardly think his view on McCain''s energy policy is impartial.

 

[iheartscience]

Date: 9/14/2008 11:23:29 AM
Author: stone_seeker

Date: 9/14/2008 9:58:25 AM

Author: thing2of2

Great Op-Ed in the NY Times about the energy policy of the McCain/Palin ticket:



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/opinion/14friedman.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Not sure why this is great - its factually inaccurate if you read John McCains energy plan on his website. He is for many alternative energy plans. Drilling is a part of it but necessary to force oil prices down. Since the candidates have discussed more drilling - oil prices have gone down from $150 a barrel to $100. This despite 2 major hurricanes. The author complains about McCain''s nuclear policy not being affordable - but it is if we eliminate spending in other areas of government. He doesnt explain how Obama''s 2 trillion of programs he has planned will be paid for. Not by taxes since Obama''s tax plain is solely for the redistribution of wealth. Cap gains tax raises have proven to not increase government revenue.


And since its an opinion piece that takes a number of shots at McCain, I hardly think his view on McCain''s energy policy is impartial.

It''s great because it points out the idiocy of continuing to support oil-based energy. Also, I said it''s great because I like it. And it''s an Op-Ed, which I stated. Op-Eds are opinion pieces, in case you didn''t know that.

 

[goobear78]

Date: 9/14/2008 11:23:29 AM
Author: stone_seeker

Date: 9/14/2008 9:58:25 AM
Author: thing2of2
Great Op-Ed in the NY Times about the energy policy of the McCain/Palin ticket:


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/opinion/14friedman.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Not sure why this is great - its factually inaccurate if you read John McCains energy plan on his website. He is for many alternative energy plans. Drilling is a part of it but necessary to force oil prices down. Since the candidates have discussed more drilling - oil prices have gone down from $150 a barrel to $100. This despite 2 major hurricanes. The author complains about McCain''s nuclear policy not being affordable - but it is if we eliminate spending in other areas of government. He doesnt explain how Obama''s 2 trillion of programs he has planned will be paid for. Not by taxes since Obama''s tax plain is solely for the redistribution of wealth. Cap gains tax raises have proven to not increase government revenue.

And since its an opinion piece that takes a number of shots at McCain, I hardly think his view on McCain''s energy policy is impartial.

Why can''t a journalist question a candidate’s policies without being accused of taking "shots"? Last time I checked that was their job to uncover facts, examine and question.

I am not saying this for the comment that stoneseeker had above, because yes, this is an op-ed piece. It''s something all over the media, that I find I have a problem with this election. As soon as a journalist reports, they are pounced on for being for one side or the other, instead of looking at the real facts that they are digging to uncover. And I am talking about "real" journalists. Not ones that pose as journalists and have talking points from either side.

 

[stone_seeker]

Date: 9/14/2008 12:01:35 PM
Author: goobear78

Date: 9/14/2008 11:23:29 AM

Author: stone_seeker

Date: 9/14/2008 9:58:25 AM

Author: thing2of2

Great Op-Ed in the NY Times about the energy policy of the McCain/Palin ticket:



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/opinion/14friedman.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Not sure why this is great - its factually inaccurate if you read John McCains energy plan on his website. He is for many alternative energy plans. Drilling is a part of it but necessary to force oil prices down. Since the candidates have discussed more drilling - oil prices have gone down from $150 a barrel to $100. This despite 2 major hurricanes. The author complains about McCain''s nuclear policy not being affordable - but it is if we eliminate spending in other areas of government. He doesnt explain how Obama''s 2 trillion of programs he has planned will be paid for. Not by taxes since Obama''s tax plain is solely for the redistribution of wealth. Cap gains tax raises have proven to not increase government revenue.


And since its an opinion piece that takes a number of shots at McCain, I hardly think his view on McCain''s energy policy is impartial.

Why can''t a journalist question a candidate’s policies without being accused of taking ''shots''? Last time I checked that was their job to uncover facts, examine and question.


I am not saying this for the comment that stoneseeker had above, because yes, this is an op-ed piece. It''s something all over the media, that I find I have a problem with this election. As soon as a journalist reports, they are pounced on for being for one side or the other, instead of looking at the real facts that they are digging to uncover. And I am talking about ''real'' journalists. Not ones that pose as journalists and have talking points from either side.

This is a quote from that article:

"I don’t know how much steel is in Obama’s belly, but I do know that the issues he is focusing on in this campaign — improving education and health care, dealing with the deficit and forging a real energy policy based on building a whole new energy infrastructure — are the only way we can put steel back into America’s spine. McCain, alas, has abandoned those issues for the culture-war strategy.

Who cares how much steel John McCain has in his gut when the steel that today holds up our bridges, railroads, nuclear reactors and other infrastructure is rusting? McCain talks about how he would build dozens of nuclear power plants. Oh, really? They go for $10 billion a pop. Where is the money going to come from? From lowering taxes? From banning abortions? From borrowing more from China? From having Sarah Palin “reform” Washington — as if she has any more clue how to do that than the first 100 names in the D.C. phonebook?"

Please show me where the "journalist" is uncovering facts? Why hasnt he gone to McCain''s web site and read his plan for energy and how he will pay for it? If you cant see the author''s bias then you must be reading something different. Once someone begins to show their bias, their arguments lose all effect to independent voters like myself. In that first paragraph, does he question how raising taxes on cap gains is going to pay for Obama''s policies when history has showed us that raising taxes REDUCES government revenue? No he doesnt because it doesnt fit the bias of his op-ed piece (and yes I know what op-ed stand for thank you very much) He starts talking about mccain''s culture war strategy which only began once the obama camp unleashed a swarm of attacks on Palin''s inexperience and being from a small town.

Dont forget - McCain has begged Obama to take the entire campaign to town hall meeting type debates where they could discuss nothing but issues and Obama refused because he was so far in the lead and didnt want to take the risk. And now, Obama is shaking in his boots realizing his ego got in the way.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 9/14/2008 1:11:53 AM
Author: MoonWater

Like I said, go back and read the posts. I addressed one point to ladypirate about the fact that Dems were not the majority during this entire failed administration. You decided to respond to me about people blaming the entire Republican party. Since I never said that, I have no idea why you quoted me. Since you did, I pointed out what *I* saw as the problem and again you quoted me and said ''not the entire Republican party.'' Er ok. Never said it, why are you quoting me and telling me this?

And for the record, I put more blame on those that voted for George W. Bush in the 2000 primaries. The party had a stronger candidate in John McCain, but I guess an ''illegitimate black child'' is scary to some folks.

I don''t need to go back & read any posts; I''ve read every post on this thread because I don''t like jumping in without knowing what others have said previously. I quoted you because I wanted to know why *you* (and others that think like you) blame particular members of one party and not the government as a whole. You answered that by saying that you blame everyone who voted for Bush in 2000 primaries...okay...

Not many were complaining during the early part of Bush''s first term if I recall correctly; Clinton had left a "bad taste in people''s mouths."

Voters kept the Republican party in the White House in 2004, which could''ve easily been thwarted by a strong Democratic candidate. Bush had his lowest approval ratings ever going into the 2004 election but, of course, it wouldn''t have taken much from any candidate to beat John Kerry. NO ONE could''ve predicted what happened in these last 4 years, so to put blame on the voters in 2000 for the current state of things is ridiculous IMHO. I don''t get the logic of expecting people to have seen 8 years into the future & blaming them because a president didn''t pan out (not the first or last time). Were voters supposed to turn to Kerry to lead us back to glory? The 2004 election was a dismal one, no matter which party you were voting for.

Anyway, back to Palin - article on her possible effect in Congress. Also interesting are some Biden rumors, although I think they are purely speculation like the Palin ones. Biden is about 45% of the reason I won''t vote for Obama right now.

 

[goobear78]

What I don''t understand about Gov. Palin is why she keeps repeating the lie that she said "thanks, but no thanks to the bridge to nowhere." She was for it and received the $200 million plus goverment money for it. Then when public opinion backfired on the bridge, they didn''t go ahead with the bridge, she changed her mind but Gov. Palin kept the money. I have a huge problem with that, because that''s not "reform". So since the public knows this fact, why do they keep repearting the same lie?

 

[partgypsy]

"NO ONE could''ve predicted what happened in these last 4 years, so to put blame on the voters in 2000 for the current state of things is ridiculous IMHO."

What exactly are you referring to? The consequences of invading Iraq with no apparent exit strategy? The loosening of environmental regulations? The nullification of consumer protection laws including those for lending? The lax oversight and regulations of how corporations post profits and losses? The censoring of information about the effects of global warming?

I can probably think of more if I had more time. The fact of the matter is all that information was known, but Bush still got elected in 2004. That''s where that saying "if you are not angry, you''re not paying attention" came from. A poll done this year (I don''t have the reference) found out that the overwhelming majority of citizens agree with the democratic stance on major issues such as the war, the economy, health care (there were other issues, can''t remember them all). However there is still is a very good chance that the Republican party may still win dispite their poor record. And I''m sorry, McCain is part of that poor record. My only conclusion is that while the Republican party is remarkably good at getting elected (and there is much speculation why this is), they also remarkably poor at governing.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 9/14/2008 4:08:19 PM
Author: part gypsy
'NO ONE could've predicted what happened in these last 4 years, so to put blame on the voters in 2000 for the current state of things is ridiculous IMHO.'

What exactly are you referring to? The consequences of invading Iraq with no apparent exit strategy? The loosening of environmental regulations? The nullification of consumer protection laws including those for lending? The lax oversight and regulations of how corporations post profits and losses? The censoring of information about the effects of global warming?

I can probably think of more if I had more time. The fact of the matter is all that information was known, but Bush still got elected in 2004. That's where that saying 'if you are not angry, you're not paying attention' came from. A poll done this year (I don't have the reference) found out that the overwhelming majority of citizens agree with the democratic stance on major issues such as the war, the economy, health care (there were other issues, can't remember them all). However there is still is a very good chance that the Republican party may still win dispite their poor record. And I'm sorry, McCain is part of that poor record. My only conclusion is that while the Republican party is remarkably good at getting elected (and there is much speculation why this is), they also remarkably poor at governing.

If you read the actual posts, the blame was being put in voters in 2000, not 2004. And yes, Bush got RE-elected in 2004 because the Democrats didn't have a viable candidate...perhaps some of the blame can be found there. It's ridiculous IMHO to blame Bush voters in 2000 is what my post said. if someone could've predicted the current state of things TODAY in 2000 then maybe they should be running for president. It is your opinion that "Republicans" are poor at governing, but I guess they did a good enough job to take back the White House after 8 years of Clinton, unless voters are just incredibly stupid. As for whatever poll said that the "overwhelming majority" of citizens agree with Democrats...if that was the case Obama wouldn't be even/behind McCain in the polls NOW. It is quite obvious that the "overwhelming majority" of citizens don't agree with either party on every single issue. I am very informed as to the different parties' stances on the war, economy, and health care & I whole-heartedly agree with the side I am voting for, as are other voters from both sides that I know.

 

[partgypsy]

I''m sorry I''m just a little upset because I read about "Obama Waffles" a tasty little mix that was being sold at a conservative forum/fundraiser "Values Voter Summit". Apparently it contains the gamut of physical racial stereotypes, comparison of Obama to Aunt Jemima, Obama in an Arab headress not to mention pot shots at his wife. And yes I do find that offensive.

You can speculate all you want why Kerry lost, but even veterans who did not agree with his politics were disgusted by the "swiftboating" done to him as it was an insult to all soldiers who received medals. It is also true that emails that Obama is a Muslim who "hates this country" are being forwarded around (by who? I don''t know) even though it has been refuted in the mainstream press. There is alot of dirty stuff going on in this election that you don''t happen to mention. Even though I think McCain is a decent man, he also desperatly wants to win, and he is part of a machine that values winning over playing fairly. And Rove is stil around; he instead heads "Freedom''s watch".

 

[coatimundi_org]

Date: 9/13/2008 7:12:14 PM
Author: stone_seeker

I have said in prior posts on this thread that I dont agree with the current direction of the republican party - but if there is someone I think who can change that its John McCain. Obama has given me not one sign that he would move to the center on any issue whatsoever. That worries me because I am not interested in living in a socialist society where I pay 60% of my income and capital gains in taxes and the gov''t tells me what to do and how to do it.

From Timesonline.co.uk

"Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: “The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.”

Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation."

I know this is an old article--info has been posted around here before, but it''s the truth, plain and simple.

The idea that the US is or could become a true socialist state is absurd. No one is going to be paying 60%, but people that make less than 30K a year will continue to pay 30% while the wealthy/corporate/elite get breaks. Don''t know what tax bracket you are in Stoneseeker, but a society benefits from distribution of wealth. Stealing from the backbone of this country will drive it further into ruin.

 

[Anna0499]

I am not naive enough to think McCain is the only one "playing dirty" in this election...it is POLITICS, after all. I''m well-aware of mud being flung from BOTH sides and I wouldn''t expect anything more in such a heated and recently very close election. It''s easy to act "above" normal political ploys when you''re ahead in the polls, but everyone''s true colors are showing right now. Perhaps purely Obama-related stories would get a better response in the Obama thread...

Back to Palin (sorry for the non-Palin posts, everyone)...good news (maybe) for people who feared NV would become a blue state.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 9/14/2008 4:26:37 PM
Author: coatimundi

Date: 9/13/2008 7:12:14 PM
Author: stone_seeker

I have said in prior posts on this thread that I dont agree with the current direction of the republican party - but if there is someone I think who can change that its John McCain. Obama has given me not one sign that he would move to the center on any issue whatsoever. That worries me because I am not interested in living in a socialist society where I pay 60% of my income and capital gains in taxes and the gov''t tells me what to do and how to do it.

From Timesonline.co.uk

''Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: “The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.”

Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation.''

I know this is an old article--info has been posted around here before, but it''s the truth, plain and simple.

The idea that the US is or could become a true socialist state is absurd. No one is going to be paying 60%, but people that make less than 30K a year will continue to pay 30% while the wealthy/corporate/elite get breaks. Don''t know what tax bracket you are in Stoneseeker, but a society benefits from distribution of wealth. Stealing from the backbone of this country will drive it further into ruin.

Perhaps the 60% includes capital gains tax? Obama has changed the percentages of the capital gains tax in his plans within the last year due to pressures from various groups, so it''s quite confusing. With the capital gains tax increasing so rapidly won''t unemployment increase? The ultimate cost will go towards the consumer, so perhaps it''s all the same anyway.

I''m not an economist, just trying to understand.

 

[SarahLovesJS]

Date: 9/14/2008 4:22:21 PM
Author: part gypsy
I''m sorry I''m just a little upset because I read about ''Obama Waffles'' a tasty little mix that was being sold at a conservative forum/fundraiser ''Values Voter Summit''. Apparently it contains the gamut of physical racial stereotypes, comparison of Obama to Aunt Jemima, Obama in an Arab headress not to mention pot shots at his wife. And yes I do find that offensive.


You can speculate all you want why Kerry lost, but even veterans who did not agree with his politics were disgusted by the ''swiftboating'' done to him as it was an insult to all soldiers who received medals. It is also true that emails that Obama is a Muslim who ''hates this country'' are being forwarded around (by who? I don''t know) even though it has been refuted in the mainstream press. There is alot of dirty stuff going on in this election that you don''t happen to mention. Even though I think McCain is a decent man, he also desperatly wants to win, and he is part of a machine that values winning over playing fairly. And Rove is stil around; he instead heads ''Freedom''s watch''.

Re: Kerry being an example of offended soldiers: Do you mean the other soldiers that received medals, but didn''t throw them back at the country like Kerry did? And yes, unfortunately, those Obama e-mails are being forwarded around. Just like the Sarah Palin banned book list is, does that bother you as well?

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 9/14/2008 1:36:49 PM
Author: IndyGirl22
I don''t need to go back & read any posts; I''ve read every post on this thread because I don''t like jumping in without knowing what others have said previously.

Then I''d like to know why your responses don''t seem to correspond to what you are responding to:

I quoted you because I wanted to know why *you* (and others that think like you) blame particular members of one party and not the government as a whole. You answered that by saying that you blame everyone who voted for Bush in 2000 primaries...okay...

Let me refresh your memory. I agreed with a specific post of LP and said this:

This needs repeating since I saw this ''Democrats control Congress'' line before as if they did during the entire course of this failed Administration.

Because I think it''s absurd to bring up that Dems were the majority in Congress as part of the argument for why they should take some of the blame. They can take some of the blame simply because there were Dems in Congress period. It has jack to do with them being the majority (which indicates some sort of extra power) because they only were in the last two years. That was what I took issue with. However, you responded with this:

The whole point of my post was that it is illogical to blame an entire party for the actions presumably ONE man. Congress/Senate majority has had little meaning for quite awhile now, with seats running within 2-3 of each other on either side in the 107th, 108th, and 110th Congresses and flipflopping back and forth when Bush first took office, and it shows in the little that has been accomplished. It has been a failure of BOTH parties IMHO.

Which I didn''t get at all because it had no impact on the point I made in the post you were replying to. Howevever, I took issue with the accusation of blaming the whole party which is why I responded with:

It''s not ONE man, it''s HIS ADMINISTRATION and the portion of the Republican Party that Bush appealed to which is the same exact group that did not like McCain but are now excited due to Palin, (who to me is Bush in lipstick, yes, I just had to get a lipstick joke in there).

You then provided a lengthy response on how that still wasn''t the entire Republican party which is why I asked, when did I even imply that? Then you claimed you didn''t say I did. Now you are telling me that somewhere in those posts you were asking me a question? Would you mind quoting yourself and bolding what portion of it was actually directed at me? I don''t want to make any assumptions that when you quote me you are actually directing your entire response to me.

Now, for the rest of your post:

Not many were complaining during the early part of Bush''s first term if I recall correctly;

Actually I recall Bush having a very low approval rating prior to 9/11. People complained that he spent too much time vacationing.

Clinton had left a ''bad taste in people''s mouths.''

Voters kept the Republican party in the White House in 2004, which could''ve easily been thwarted by a strong Democratic candidate. Bush had his lowest approval ratings ever going into the 2004 election but, of course, it wouldn''t have taken much from any candidate to beat John Kerry. NO ONE could''ve predicted what happened in these last 4 years, so to put blame on the voters in 2000 for the current state of things is ridiculous IMHO. I don''t get the logic of expecting people to have seen 8 years into the future & blaming them because a president didn''t pan out (not the first or last time). Were voters supposed to turn to Kerry to lead us back to glory? The 2004 election was a dismal one, no matter which party you were voting for.

LMAO!!!! First, I mentioned the 2000 primaries in direct response to you bringing up Kerry and the 2004 primaries. I can''t believe you missed that. But I digress, my point had jack all to do with predicting the future. John McCain was simply a stronger candidate for President back in 2000 and it appears that the only reason he lost was due to Bush''s buddy Rove and his nasty smear. As far as the rest of what you''re talking about. I really don''t care. It has absolutely nothing to do with my original posting which was to say that bringing up the Dems as majority in Congress is ridiculous when trying to assess blame for the things that have gone wrong in this country over the last 8 years. Now, if you do have a question for me, can you please ask it without anything else which I may confuse for being directed at me when it isn''t? Thanks.

 

[partgypsy]

Indygirl, what you said was: "NO ONE could''ve predicted what happened in these last 4 years, so to put blame on the voters in 2000 for the current state of things is ridiculous IMHO." You are saying no one could have predicted what happened in these last 4 years i.e. 2004-2008. So to put the blame on the voters in 2000 for the current state of things is ridiculous IMHO. I agree it is ridiculous to blame the voters in 2000. But it is entirely reasonable to blame the voters in 2004. Or am I missing something.

Sarah, yes the veterans who brought this up to me were Vietnam vets. Some came in visibly upset and venting about what they perceived was a re-attack on Vietnam vets. I didn''t ask what their political affiliation so I am assuming they ran across the political spectrum. The bottom line that was upsetting to them was an attack on the patriotism and valor of another soldier, which they felt was demeaning to their sacrifices as well. So yes, what he did with those medals afterwards was irrelevant to their concern, as they were his to do what he chose.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 9/14/2008 5:31:40 PM
Author: MoonWater

Now, if you do have a question for me, can you please ask it without anything else which I may confuse for being directed at me when it isn''t? Thanks.

Any part of my post that had the word *you* in it is a question for *you*...I thought that was clear but I guess not. "Okay, so the Bush Administration [is to blame]...whom would you tie into that definition?" You also blamed everyone who voted for Bush in the 2000 preliminaries, at which point I said that it is illogical to blame voters in 2000 for the current state of things TODAY. I originally asked you the question because you seemed to blame one party in government and not the other whereas I think it was a failure on both sides; if this isn''t true and you blame both parties than I am wrong. If this is true, then I asked because I wanted to know why you felt that way & which particular members you felt were responsible for the current state of things. In your last post you said that the Dems have only been the Congressional majority for two years, so, again, I stated that it''s a bipartisan failure since the majority doesn''t mean anything (which I think we agree on, but you think that it turns in favor of blaming Republicans whereas I think it shows failures on both sides; if this is untrue then I apologize). I don''t get the confusion but there apparently was some. Hopefully it''s over now. I guess a low approval rating wins elections...

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 9/14/2008 5:47:07 PM
Author: part gypsy
Indygirl, what you said was: 'NO ONE could've predicted what happened in these last 4 years, so to put blame on the voters in 2000 for the current state of things is ridiculous IMHO.' You are saying no one could have predicted what happened in these last 4 years i.e. 2004-2008. So to put the blame on the voters in 2000 for the current state of things is ridiculous IMHO. I agree it is ridiculous to blame the voters in 2000. But it is entirely reasonable to blame the voters in 2004. Or am I missing something.

Sarah, yes the veterans who brought this up to me were Vietnam vets. Some came in visibly upset and venting about what they perceived was a re-attack on Vietnam vets. I didn't ask what their political affiliation so I am assuming they ran across the political spectrum. The bottom line that was upsetting to them was an attack on the patriotism and valor of another soldier, which they felt was demeaning to their sacrifices as well. So yes, what he did with those medals afterwards was irrelevant to their concern, as they were his to do what he chose.

Yes, no one in 2000 could've predicted what happened in 2004 to 2008. The poster had said blame was to be put on the voters in the 2000 preliminaries, so I responded accordingly. Some "blame" may be put on the 2004 voters, but John Kerry wasn't exactly a formidable opponent IMHO.

FWIW, my father is a Vietnamese Vietnam vet and he was disgusted with Kerry.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 9/14/2008 5:54:22 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 9/14/2008 5:31:40 PM

Author: MoonWater


Now, if you do have a question for me, can you please ask it without anything else which I may confuse for being directed at me when it isn't? Thanks.

Any part of my post that had the word *you* in it is a question for *you*...I thought that was clear but I guess not. 'Okay, so the Bush Administration [is to blame]...whom would you tie into that definition?' You also blamed everyone who voted for Bush in the 2000 preliminaries, at which point I said that it is illogical to blame voters in 2000 for the current state of things TODAY. I originally asked you the question because you seemed to blame one party in government and not the other whereas I think it was a failure on both sides; if this isn't true and you blame both parties than I am wrong. If this is true, then I asked because I wanted to know why you felt that way & which particular members you felt were responsible for the current state of things. In your last post you said that the Dems have only been the Congressional majority for two years, so, again, I stated that it's a bipartisan failure since the majority doesn't mean anything (which I think we agree on, but you think that it turns in favor of blaming Republicans whereas I think it shows failures on both sides; if this is untrue then I apologize). I don't get the confusion but there apparently was some. Hopefully it's over now. I guess a low approval rating wins elections...

You want me to define who the Bush Administration is? Really?

I don't see anything illogical in putting blame on those that chose the less qualified and capable candidate due to smears. I think it was obvious at the time that Bush & Co. were pandering to the religious right in order to gain power (and it worked). He certainly wasn't my choice for the Republican side, I preferred John McCain.

Yes blame is to be put on both sides. However, the ones in control and the ones that lead this country in this direction was a part of the Republican party. I think this Rolling Stone article sums things up nicely: How Bush Destroyed the Republican Party

No, the majority doesn't mean much in Congress (unless you are working with a President with the same party affiliation), which is why I couldn't figure out why *you* kept pointing out that Dems were in the majority. If you agree that this means nothing, why do you keep referencing it???

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 9/14/2008 6:02:07 PM
Author: MoonWater

You want me to define who the Bush Administration is? Really?

I don't see anything illogical in putting blame on those that chose the less qualified and capable candidate due to smears. I think it was obvious at the time that Bush & Co. were pandering to the religious right in order to gain power (and it worked). He certainly wasn't my choice for the Republican side, I preferred John McCain.

Yes blame is to be put on both sides. However, the ones in control and the ones that lead this country in this direction was a part of the Republican party. I think this Rolling Stone article sums things up nicely: How Bush Destroyed the Republican Party

No, the majority doesn't mean much in Congress (unless you are working with a President with the same party affiliation), which is why I couldn't figure out why *you* kept pointing out that Dems were in the majority. If you agree that this means nothing, why do you keep referencing it???

Well, would you say Condy is part of the problem? What about Leavitt? Paulson? If you blame all of them that's okay, I was just wondering... By pointing out that the Dems were the majority most recently shows that BOTH parties failed, not just one...makes sense to me, at least. If anything, the inability for Congress to do anything shows the lack of bipartisanship in Congress & the Senate, which won't bid well no matter who's in the White House.

That link's been posted previously...not sure in which thread, but I've already seen it and not read it due to the source. From the most recent polls, seems like Palin has re-energized the Republican Party just fine.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 9/14/2008 6:20:04 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 9/14/2008 6:02:07 PM

Author: MoonWater


You want me to define who the Bush Administration is? Really?


I don't see anything illogical in putting blame on those that chose the less qualified and capable candidate due to smears. I think it was obvious at the time that Bush & Co. were pandering to the religious right in order to gain power (and it worked). He certainly wasn't my choice for the Republican side, I preferred John McCain.


Yes blame is to be put on both sides. However, the ones in control and the ones that lead this country in this direction was a part of the Republican party. I think this Rolling Stone article sums things up nicely: How Bush Destroyed the Republican Party


No, the majority doesn't mean much in Congress (unless you are working with a President with the same party affiliation), which is why I couldn't figure out why *you* kept pointing out that Dems were in the majority. If you agree that this means nothing, why do you keep referencing it???

Well, would you say Condy is part of the problem? What about Leavitt? Paulson? If you blame all of them that's okay, I was just wondering... By pointing out that the Dems were the majority most recently shows that BOTH parties failed, not just one...makes sense to me, at least. If anything, the inability for Congress to do anything shows the lack of bipartisanship in Congress & the Senate, which won't bid well no matter who's in the White House.


That link's been posted previously...not sure in which thread, but I've already seen it and not read it due to the source. From the most recent polls, seems like Palin has re-energized the Republican Party just fine.

Yes, it was posted before, by me. You asked about my thinking, the article sums it up nicely. If you chose not to read it oh well. But if you ever wonder again where I think the blame should fall, feel free to refer back to it. Not all of us blame the entire Republican party. And btw. Palin is re-energizing the same portion of the party that fell in love with Bush.

 

[Anna0499]

BACK ON TOPIC....didn't see anyone post this story in which SC's Democratic Chairwoman said that Palin's only qualification was that she hasn't had an abortion. She apologized but it seems to have bit her in the you-know-where because other female Democrats such as Dianne Feinstein have criticized her for making the "absurd" comment.

 

[stone_seeker]

60% tax rate I was referring to was including capital gains. History shows that increases in capital gains rates does not increase government revenues - it actually lowers them. So Obama intends to re-distribute wealth. If I had Warren Buffet''s money, I wouldnt care either. And he endorses people for a variety of reasons. But someone who earns $150K and lives in New York City is not a rich person.

I am not a fan of the notion of re-distribution of wealth for a lot of reasons. Ironically, history has proven that the people it hurts the most are the recipients because it keeps them in their current state with no incentive to seek higher wage jobs.

Barack worked with people from Saul Alinsky''s group as a community organizer in Chicago which is a radical left-wing group who''s ideologies border on those of the socialist party. Class warfare was one of the methods they employed to generate conflict in order to rise to power.

 

[SarahLovesJS]

Date: 9/14/2008 5:47:07 PM
Author: part gypsy
Indygirl, what you said was: ''NO ONE could''ve predicted what happened in these last 4 years, so to put blame on the voters in 2000 for the current state of things is ridiculous IMHO.'' You are saying no one could have predicted what happened in these last 4 years i.e. 2004-2008. So to put the blame on the voters in 2000 for the current state of things is ridiculous IMHO. I agree it is ridiculous to blame the voters in 2000. But it is entirely reasonable to blame the voters in 2004. Or am I missing something.


Sarah, yes the veterans who brought this up to me were Vietnam vets. Some came in visibly upset and venting about what they perceived was a re-attack on Vietnam vets. I didn''t ask what their political affiliation so I am assuming they ran across the political spectrum. The bottom line that was upsetting to them was an attack on the patriotism and valor of another soldier, which they felt was demeaning to their sacrifices as well. So yes, what he did with those medals afterwards was irrelevant to their concern, as they were his to do what he chose.

Well..just be aware that not all Vietnam vets feel that way. For example, my great-uncle who was injured in Vietnam is one who does not feel that way.

 

[SarahLovesJS]

Date: 9/14/2008 6:25:45 PM
Author: IndyGirl22
BACK ON TOPIC....didn''t see anyone post this story in which SC''s Democratic Chairwoman said that Palin''s only qualification was that she hasn''t had an abortion. She apologized but it seems to have bit her in the you-know-where because other female Democrats such as Dianne Feinstein have criticized her for making the ''absurd'' comment.

Yeah, I read about that. I think she apologized when she realized she was doing the Dems more harm than good.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 9/14/2008 6:48:42 PM
Author: SarahLovesJS

Date: 9/14/2008 6:25:45 PM
Author: IndyGirl22
BACK ON TOPIC....didn't see anyone post this story in which SC's Democratic Chairwoman said that Palin's only qualification was that she hasn't had an abortion. She apologized but it seems to have bit her in the you-know-where because other female Democrats such as Dianne Feinstein have criticized her for making the 'absurd' comment.

Yeah, I read about that. I think she apologized when she realized she was doing the Dems more harm than good.

Yeah, it's just shocking what comes out of people's mouths these days; the filter must've been turned off! I bet her "people" were beating their heads on the wall after that one!

 

[SarahLovesJS]

Date: 9/14/2008 6:50:55 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 9/14/2008 6:48:42 PM

Author: SarahLovesJS

Date: 9/14/2008 6:25:45 PM

Author: IndyGirl22

BACK ON TOPIC....didn''t see anyone post this story in which SC''s Democratic Chairwoman said that Palin''s only qualification was that she hasn''t had an abortion. She apologized but it seems to have bit her in the you-know-where because other female Democrats such as Dianne Feinstein have criticized her for making the ''absurd'' comment.

Yeah, I read about that. I think she apologized when she realized she was doing the Dems more harm than good.

Yeah, it''s just shocking what comes out of people''s mouths these days; the filter must''ve been turned off! I bet her ''people'' were beating their heads on the wall after that one!

Oh man I am sure they were. This is the last thing Obama wants. The more people make these comments the angrier some people get..myself included.

 

[iheartscience]

Date: 9/14/2008 6:53:26 PM
Author: SarahLovesJS

Date: 9/14/2008 6:50:55 PM

Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 9/14/2008 6:48:42 PM

Author: SarahLovesJS

Date: 9/14/2008 6:25:45 PM

Author: IndyGirl22

BACK ON TOPIC....didn''t see anyone post this story in which SC''s Democratic Chairwoman said that Palin''s only qualification was that she hasn''t had an abortion. She apologized but it seems to have bit her in the you-know-where because other female Democrats such as Dianne Feinstein have criticized her for making the ''absurd'' comment.

Yeah, I read about that. I think she apologized when she realized she was doing the Dems more harm than good.

Yeah, it''s just shocking what comes out of people''s mouths these days; the filter must''ve been turned off! I bet her ''people'' were beating their heads on the wall after that one!

Oh man I am sure they were. This is the last thing Obama wants. The more people make these comments the angrier some people get..myself included.

I think that''s a spot-on comment. Not smart for a politician to make, though. Why is it so shocking of a comment? The religious right has been stressing the fact that she (and then her daughter) didn''t get an abortion over and over again. They''re holding her up like some sort of hero. Guess I''m just not that impressed-lots of people don''t get abortions.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 9/14/2008 7:15:14 PM
Author: thing2of2

I think that's a spot-on comment. Not smart for a politician to make, though. Why is it so shocking of a comment? The religious right has been stressing the fact that she (and then her daughter) didn't get an abortion over and over again. They're holding her up like some sort of hero. Guess I'm just not that impressed-lots of people don't get abortions.

I think it's offensive for the same reasons I found Biden's comments about Obama being the first "clean" African-American offensive...it's quite different when members of "the religious right" support & publicize Palin's pro-life decision than when an actual Democratic politician says that her ONLY qualification is that she didn't have an abortion. It's the same thing as saying that Obama's only qualification is being an "articulate" African-American.

It may be her OPINION, but very stupid of her (and Biden) to say so outloud with cameras rolling.

 

[SarahLovesJS]

Date: 9/14/2008 7:44:08 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 9/14/2008 7:15:14 PM

Author: thing2of2


I think that''s a spot-on comment. Not smart for a politician to make, though. Why is it so shocking of a comment? The religious right has been stressing the fact that she (and then her daughter) didn''t get an abortion over and over again. They''re holding her up like some sort of hero. Guess I''m just not that impressed-lots of people don''t get abortions.

I think it''s offensive for the same reasons I found Biden''s comments about Obama being the first ''clean'' African-American offensive...it''s quite different when members of ''the religious right'' support & publicize Palin''s pro-life decision than when an actual Democratic politician says that her ONLY qualification is that she didn''t have an abortion. It''s the same thing as saying that Obama''s only qualification is being an ''articulate'' African-American.

It may be her OPINION, but very stupid of her (and Biden) to say so outloud with cameras rolling.

Exactly.

 

[mimzy]

Date: 9/14/2008 6:34:34 PM
Author: stone_seeker
60% tax rate I was referring to was including capital gains. History shows that increases in capital gains rates does not increase government revenues - it actually lowers them. So Obama intends to re-distribute wealth. If I had Warren Buffet''s money, I wouldnt care either. And he endorses people for a variety of reasons. But someone who earns $150K and lives in New York City is not a rich person.

i think obama might agree with you

. raised taxes (including on capital gains) would only apply to people who earn over $250k.


*goes back into hiding*