14
   

I Still Am Not Sure Of Who Will Win The Election

 
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Oct, 2008 07:03 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
and now he's dazzled....being used like a 2 dollar whore by McCain...and is so bedazzled by the spotlight and his 15 minutes that he's hired a publicist and thinks he's going to be a country music star. First he jumps in with the tiger sharks...and now he wants to jump in with the great whites. The guy is really, really stupid.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Oct, 2008 07:09 pm
@Bi-Polar Bear,
Quote:
are you 100% sure your candidate is going to prevail? I am voting for Obama but not sure of the outcome of the election.


Certainly not.

The chances are that "my candidate, " McCain, is not going to prevail.

I don't think though that any of us can be sure of the outcome.

I will not vote for Obama and I hope that he doesn't win, but I have to agree with brandon, if he does win, I hope he proves me wrong. It would be pretty stupid to hope that he's a disaster as president.





0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Oct, 2008 07:12 pm
@Bi-Polar Bear,
Maybe, but the ridicule, smears, and intense investigations came long before the guy tried to capitalize on his fame.

blatham
 
  2  
Reply Thu 30 Oct, 2008 08:49 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
Maybe, but the ridicule, smears, and intense investigations came long before the guy tried to capitalize on his fame.


Investigations? Sure, and what's inappropriate about this given that the McCain campaign had begun to use the fellow as representative of the honest, hard-working, regulation-oppressed Everyman?

Ridicule? Joe said that he agreed "a vote for Obama is a vote for the destruction of Israel" and then told people to "get informed". Joe fibbed about his plans to buy the plumbing business. The campaign, with Joe's eager assistance, made him a cartoon and made him ridiculous.

Smears? Name them.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Oct, 2008 08:24 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

Quote:
Maybe, but the ridicule, smears, and intense investigations came long before the guy tried to capitalize on his fame.


Investigations? Sure, and what's inappropriate about this given that the McCain campaign had begun to use the fellow as representative of the honest, hard-working, regulation-oppressed Everyman?

Ridicule? Joe said that he agreed "a vote for Obama is a vote for the destruction of Israel" and then told people to "get informed". Joe fibbed about his plans to buy the plumbing business. The campaign, with Joe's eager assistance, made him a cartoon and made him ridiculous.

Smears? Name them.

What's inappropriate is that this individual's personal faults don't invalidate whatever general principle McCain was trying to use him to illustrate.

This is like talking to children.
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Oct, 2008 09:03 am
@Brandon9000,
What was that general principle that McCain was trying to illustrate? The fact is that Joe was wrong about how Obama's tax plan would affect his business plans, and that Obama's four words about spreading the wealth were part of a much longer, non-controversial explanation about how people having more money in their pockets is good for business.

Now I agree that Joe got way more attention than he deserved, but I think that a) he invited it (by calling a press conference in front of his house) and b) it wasn't the Obama campaign that was doing most of the digging so far as I know.

Whatever point McCain was trying to use him to illustrate, the point taken is that some people are really angry about things they don't understand or are not informed about, and that those people tend not to support Obama. You'll notice that Obama does not engage him on the JTP topic for one very good reason: to point out Joe's ignorance would play into the elitist stereotype. McCain knows this too, which is why he's still working the JTP angle even though it's not really resonating anywhere except his existing support base.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Oct, 2008 09:14 am
@FreeDuck,
FreeDuck wrote:

What was that general principle that McCain was trying to illustrate? The fact is that Joe was wrong about how Obama's tax plan would affect his business plans, and that Obama's four words about spreading the wealth were part of a much longer, non-controversial explanation about how people having more money in their pockets is good for business.

Now I agree that Joe got way more attention than he deserved, but I think that a) he invited it (by calling a press conference in front of his house) and b) it wasn't the Obama campaign that was doing most of the digging so far as I know.

Whatever point McCain was trying to use him to illustrate, the point taken is that some people are really angry about things they don't understand or are not informed about, and that those people tend not to support Obama. You'll notice that Obama does not engage him on the JTP topic for one very good reason: to point out Joe's ignorance would play into the elitist stereotype. McCain knows this too, which is why he's still working the JTP angle even though it's not really resonating anywhere except his existing support base.

The general principal was that it's stealing to take a disproportionately high amount of money from high income people to pay for government programs. This is still a valid assertion about right and wrong, regardless of the personal merits or demerits of this one person.
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Oct, 2008 09:24 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

The general principal was that it's stealing to take a disproportionately high amount of money from high income people to pay for government programs. This is still a valid assertion about right and wrong, regardless of the personal merits or demerits of this one person.

Even if I agreed that it is "stealing" (which most Americans do not believe ) how does that apply to what Obama has actually proposed? The fact is that JTP didn't understand Obama's plan and later admitted that he would actually get a tax cut under it -- not exactly an example of how Obama's plan is bad for business. So without an actual example of how his plan would cause harm, you're just spinning your wheels on a hypothetical and philosophical discussion which has no bearing on the current issues of the day. Further, how is it not stealing to require proportionally higher taxes from middle income people than from the very rich? (See Warren Buffet and his secretary)
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Oct, 2008 10:06 am
@FreeDuck,
I keep hearing reports by and about Obama which state that he will lower taxes on the middle class, but raise them on the high end. Furthermore, many of his backers on this board have clearly endorsed that idea.

To my way of thinking, it's stealing, and should be rectified, whenever anyone pays a different percentage of income in taxes than anyone else, except for real hardship cases, who should pay less or even nothing. This is why I have consistently supported closing almost all loopholes. I say almost all, because I am willing to admit the possibility that it might be valid in, rare cases, to reward good behavior with incentives. In general, though, I believe that loopholes should be closed and that everyone who isn't actually poor should pay the same percentage of income, and I will support or oppose programs, based on whether they further or block that goal.
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Oct, 2008 10:14 am
@Brandon9000,
Ok, that's your position and I can respect that. But then you have to understand that both candidates support a progressive income tax, so in that sense, Obama's plan isn't any more stealing than McCain's is. But again, the purpose of the JTP nonsense was not to get people to really research and compare the two candidates' tax plans, it was to create a phony class war and put a white working class face on the "spread the wealth" strawman. Probably one of the more effective campaign offensives for McCain, but nothing to be proud of.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Oct, 2008 10:16 am
@FreeDuck,
FreeDuck wrote:

Ok, that's your position and I can respect that. But then you have to understand that both candidates support a progressive income tax, so in that sense, Obama's plan isn't any more stealing than McCain's is. But again, the purpose of the JTP nonsense was not to get people to really research and compare the two candidates' tax plans, it was to create a phony class war and put a white working class face on the "spread the wealth" strawman. Probably one of the more effective campaign offensives for McCain, but nothing to be proud of.

I suppose it comes down to a matter of how graduated a tax the candidates advocate. The more unequal it is, the more I oppose it.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Oct, 2008 09:59 pm
@blatham,
Quote:
Investigations? Sure, and what's inappropriate about this given that the McCain campaign had begun to use the fellow as representative of the honest, hard-working, regulation-oppressed Everyman?

Ridicule? Joe said that he agreed "a vote for Obama is a vote for the destruction of Israel" and then told people to "get informed". Joe fibbed about his plans to buy the plumbing business. The campaign, with Joe's eager assistance, made him a cartoon and made him ridiculous.

Smears? Name them.


Google

Joe The Plumber Liar
Joe The Plumber Racist
Joe The Plumber Moron

All this because he asked Barrack Obama

“I’m getting ready to buy a company that makes $250,000 to $280,000 a year. Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn’t it?”

And because Obama promoted "spreading the wealth" in his answer and John McCain jumped on it in his campaign.

It is incredible that you or anyone can justify the onslaught that befell Joe Wurzelbacher, including improper, if not illegal, governmental probes of his records and background, simply because he happened to ask Obama a question that led to a campaign advantage for McCain.

What is particularly ironic is that your guy could not have been more respectful and willing to engage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5OMlOPgrBk

This was an excellent exchange between a voter and a candidate, and Obama is to be credited for his participation just as Wurzelbacher should be.

The notion that he brought all of the derision on himself is ridiculous and , at best, disingenuous. The onslaught began and ramped up before Wurzelbacher began to act like a media celebrity.

Obama's answer was what it was and the character of Joe Wurzelbacher is entirely immaterial as respects someone's judging what that answer reflects about Obama.

Refute the argument McCain made based on Obama's answer but the reaction to Joe the Questioner resembled that of an angry mob's.









blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Oct, 2008 10:24 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
It is incredible that you or anyone can justify the onslaught that befell Joe Wurzelbacher, including improper, if not illegal, governmental probes of his records and background, simply because he happened to ask Obama a question that led to a campaign advantage for McCain.


What "smears" originated out of the Obama campaign?
I did not justify probes using government computers. That is improper and if illegal, I hope those involved are charged.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Oct, 2008 10:32 pm
@FreeDuck,
Quote:
The fact is that Joe was wrong about how Obama's tax plan would affect his business plans, and that Obama's four words about spreading the wealth were part of a much longer, non-controversial explanation about how people having more money in their pockets is good for business.


So if Joe's income grows to $250,000 to $280,000, Obama's tax plan will not mean increased taxes for him as opposed to what he would pay now?

That's interesting because that's how I understand his plan to work (At least unless Biden and Richardson are correct and it will kick in at a lot lower level).

What's more, I've listened to his answer to Joe several times, and he never suggested that his plan wouldn't mean increased taxes for Joe. He did provide an intelligent, if flawed, explanation of why it was a good thing for Joe to pay more taxes, but he never argued Joe would not.

This is what astounds me about so many Obama supporters.

He very specifically endorsed "spreading the wealth," in his response.

He very clearly promoted weath redistribution in his PBS interview in 2001.

And yet his supporters want us to believe that he either didn't say these things, didn't mean them, or that it's no big deal.

If you agree with him then I guess it isn't a big deal

The argument that we already have "wealth redistribution" because of our progressive tax system attempts to dodge the point.

Because Americans accept a progressive tax system that has, like most taxes, systematically creeped up on them doesn't mean that they want more of their wealth redistributed.

How much does Obama want to redistribute?

Well, let's see.

The Civil Rights Movement is generally accepted to have spanned the years 1955 to 1968

During these years we had some of the highest tax rates since 1913, and yet Obama thought it was a tragedy that the Civil Rights Movement missed the chance to go further with wealth redistribution through legislation.

Are we really to believe that he will be satisfied with taking "a little more" from the people who he considers "rich?"
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Oct, 2008 10:41 pm
@blatham,
I never argued that the Obama Campaign was directly or indirectly behind the smears (although I would not be surprised by the latter).

My dismay is with the treatment of Wurzelbacher by Obama's supporters - including the MSM.

How far does the Obama Camapign have to go when it has so many surrogates willing to do their dirty work?

In fairness, I think the least guilty party in the rush to shoot the messenger was Obama himself.



blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Nov, 2008 08:48 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
My dismay is with the treatment of Wurzelbacher by Obama's supporters - including the MSM.


I'm at a loss to figure out what you find dismaying here. The man was pushed into public attention by the McCain campaign, to use him as a symbol. Reporters are entirely justified in checking him out to see if he squares with the portrayal that the McCain campaign wished to forward. And in key respects, he did not match that portrayal. Joe's eager complicity in this makes him all the more valid as a target of reporting.

But let's take a look at another case...the 'revelation' yesterday, carried broadly across the rightwing media, of Obama's aunt. How does this fit into your thinking?
Quote:
Breaking the Law for McCain
You may have noticed that the AP is reporting that Barack Obama's aunt (who he does not seem to have a relationship with) was denied asylum in the US four years ago and is now living illegally in Boston. Convenient timing, ain't it?

The real story, though, is down in the third paragraph of the AP story ...

Information about the deportation case was disclosed and confirmed by two separate sources, one of them a federal law enforcement official. The information they made available is known to officials in the federal government, but the AP could not establish whether anyone at a political level in the Bush administration or in the McCain campaign had been involved in its release.
That's about as transparent a red flag as an outfit like the AP is usually willing to give. And there you have it. Quite likely working in concert with the McCain campaign, a Bush administration official is leaking details on an immigration case to try to help McCain three days before the election. It's shades of Bush I's riffling through Bill Clinton's passport files just before the 1992 election in a desperate last minute gambit as they were swirling down the drain.

Late Update: Note too that the story first got leaked to the Times of London, a Murdoch paper with a history of taking planted stories from Republicans for siphoning back into the US media.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Nov, 2008 09:18 am
This is quite cute. October 31, 2008
Quote:
"Smoke of Registration Fraud Leads to Election Fires"
Hans von Spakovsky has written this opinion piece for FOX News. My favorite part:
Quote:
"One doesn't have to look far to find instances of fraudulent ballots cast in actual elections by 'voters' who were the figments of active imaginations. In 1984, a district attorney in Brooklyn, N.Y. (a Democrat), released the findings of a grand jury that reported extensive registration and impersonation fraud between 1968 and 1982."


Not have to "look far?" Any examples this century, or in the last two decades, of any kind of voter impersonation fraud?

Posted by Rick Hasen at October 31, 2008 01:34 PM


Hans von Spakovsky is one of the key dudes who has been driving the voter disenfranchisement strategies for some years now. Bad boy.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 04/23/2019 at 04:17:22