Log in

View Full Version : Why the Democrats Will Lose...Again



Pages : 1 [2] 3

Melonie
09-10-2008, 04:50 PM
there's also one other key piece of historical information about Israel / Palestine that needs to be understood ... i.e. the role of Yassir Arafat's uncle





Melonie I have no idea what you posted but I think you're tying Obama to Ayers and Arab terrorists or something via a fundraiser for Arabs in Chicago? What are you trying to say. Speak plainly please.

the arguable point which 'reassures' Arabs / Muslims and 'worries' Israelis / Jews is that Obama appears to have quite a history of supporting 'radical' muslim figures / organizations. Here's a more recent example of Barack actively supporting his cousin Raila Odinga during his visit to Kenya a couple of years ago.



(snip)"In 2006 Obama took a trip to Kenya and voiced his support for his fellow tribesman and political ally, Odinga. Obama also directly attacked the sitting Kenyan leadership (Kibaki) calling them ‘corrupt’ (Kenya is one of the most stable places in Africa).
Odinga is the man that ran on the socialist democrat ticket in Kenya and lost to sitting president Kibaki.

It’s not getting reported in the media that the looting and burning of businesses in Kisumu was targeted to both Kikuyus and Kenyan Indians. The economy of Kenya is controlled by these two groups because they are Entrepreneurial. But Kenyan Indians rarely get involved in Kenyan politics, they do not vote by choice, yet the Luos in Kisumu do not like them, that’s why their stores were getting burnt too.
A Tribe of 540,000 Kikuyu, rivals of the Luo for Power, all but vanishes from Kenyan City ethnically cleansed and massacred by Odinga’s butchers.
...

Yet Obama interrupted his New Hampshire campaigning to speak by phone with Odinga, his cousin. He did not speak with Kenyan President Mwai Kibaki. Odinga has now made a deal for support with Muslim fundamentalists. A photograph copy of a Memorandum of Understanding, dated and signed on August 29, 2007, between Raila Odinga and Shiekh Abdullah Abdi, chairman of the National Muslim Leaders Forum of Kenya.

Here is a summary on the agreement which was signed: It pledges the support of Kenyan Moslems for Raila’s election. In return, as President of Kenya, Raila agrees to 14 actions, listed a) through n) on page two.

* Within 6 months re-write the Constitution of Kenya to recognize Shariah as the only true law sanctioned by the Holy Quran for Muslim declared regions.

* Within one year facilitate the establishment of a Shariah court in every Kenyan divisional headquarters. [Note: everywhere in Kenya, not just in “Muslim declared regions.”]

* “Popularize Islam, the only true religion by ordering every primary school in Kenya in the regions to conduct daily Madrassa classes.” “Impose a total ban on open-air gospel crusades by worshippers of the cross…” “Outlaw gospel programs… on KBC, the National Broadcaster.” “Impose a total ban on the public consumption of alcoholic beverages…” “Impose an immediate ban on women’s public dressing styles that are considered immoral and offensive to the Muslim faith…”


Raila Odinga has, in his own words, a “close personal friendship” with Barrack Hussein Obama. When Obama went to Kenya in August of 2006, he was hosted by Raila and spoke in praise of him at rallies in Nairobi. Obama’s bias for his fellow Luo was so blatant that a Kenya government spokesman denounced Obama during his visit as Raila’s “stooge.” "(snip)

Yekhefah
09-10-2008, 04:54 PM
Eagle, we're operating from a completely different definition of "conservative." I'm taking about the original meaning of the term - low taxes, small government, and the government stays the fuck out of my life. The current Republican Party is NOT conservative. I am a pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-freedom Jewish conservative, so don't lump me in with the Christian right.

As for the healthcare thing... I know he's not saying it now. I'm just looking ahead to where it will lead.

Optimist
09-10-2008, 04:56 PM
OK, very very very condensed summation:

Israel has been Jewish for several thousand years. During the Roman occupation of Judea, Jews were oppressed and the Romans renamed the region Palestine (after the Philistines who also lives there) in order to subvert Jewish authority there. Due to various political upheaval, many Jews left to other countries, but plenty remained. The Muslim/Arab world gained political control of the Middle East and the country known as Palestine was mostly barren desert and third-world conditions.

Around the late 1800's, Zionism spread throughout European Jewry and many fled anti-Jewish communities in Russia and other nations to go home to Israel. They built farms and kibbutzim and communities, and brought technology and other improvements. For the first half of the 20th century, Zionists lobbied hard to remove the British from power (Palestine was then British property) and yeah, there was terrorism from both Jews and Muslims who wanted them out. Around the end of the 1940's, the British finally gave Palestine over to the UN to divide. It was split into a Jewish state (Israel) and an Arab state (Transjordan, now called Jordan).

It was commonly accepted that the Arabs would not condone the existence of a Jewish nation in the middle east, and everyone expected civil war to break out in Israel on Independence Day. Arabs were encouraged to leave to get away from the fighting, with the promise that they would reap the benefits and gain more land (the Jewish land) when the war was over. It was supposed to be pretty short. War did indeed break out on Independence Day, but to everyone's surprise the Jews won. Since then the Arab world has made a concerted sworn effort to "drive the Jews into the sea" and eliminate the Jewish state.

Every war that Israel has fought has been defensive. Israel has no agenda to eliminate Arabs or take over Jordan. But the fact remains that there is ALREADY an Arab-Palestinian state, and it would be suicidal for Israel to stop fighting back from those who are sworn to destroy her.

BTW, no one was a "Palestinian" before the 1960's. Yasser Arafat coined the term as a political ploy to gain sympathy from the West, and it worked. It's a bogus term so don't believe the hype. :)

Hope that helps!

^^^^Both of these boldfaced statements above can't be true.

In essence the majority of Jews left the area for Europe and nearly 2000 years later worked with America and others to settle there again but there was a wider population of Arabs living there. They didn't move in next door and get along swimmingly. They fought and fought and 'til today still fight. The Palestinians believe their land was taken by outsiders and given to Europeans that most countries in Europe didn't want to take.

Before you villify me I openly acknowledge having Euro-Jewish, American Jewish, Israeli, Lebanese and Palestinian friends who gave me much of the above synopsis. Then I looked up what they said to be sure they weren't funnin' me.

Check it out http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/dec/03/comment

eagle2
09-10-2008, 05:00 PM
well, here is some background material to get your brain cells moving ...

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57231



WorldNetDaily is known for their lies and dishonesty.

http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2008/wndliar08.html

Melonie
09-10-2008, 05:03 PM
^^^ that was my point about Yassir Arafat's uncle the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. The Grand Mufti supported the 3rd Reich during WW2, and as a result 'lost' their territory to the (victorious) British ... who were in turn pressured by the liberal world press to A. allow huge numbers of european Jews to resettle to the territory immediately after WW2 ended, and B. allow those Jews to assert their independence soon after.


on the other implication ...

http://www.dontvoteobama.net/images/obama%20and%20odinga.jpg

this picture of Obama speaking in support of Raila Odinga in Kenya in 2006 is 100% verifiable.


I'm sure that you'll take THIS source as 'unimpeachable' ...




and here is the actual document stating Raila Odinga's promised Islamic goals ...



~

eagle2
09-10-2008, 05:04 PM
Eagle, we're operating from a completely different definition of "conservative." I'm taking about the original meaning of the term - low taxes, small government, and the government stays the fuck out of my life. The current Republican Party is NOT conservative. I am a pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-freedom Jewish conservative, so don't lump me in with the Christian right.

As for the healthcare thing... I know he's not saying it now. I'm just looking ahead to where it will lead.

Hello Yekhefah,

I wasn't trying to lump you in with the Christian Right. I was only stating some of their positions, since you said you were considering voting for the party where they have a great deal of influence.

Zia_Abq
09-10-2008, 05:09 PM
Then please point me in the right direction. I am really clueless. I don't want to discuss it, I just want to know the facts.

To be fair it must be said that Yek takes the Zionist view on the conflict which is very one sided. There is another side to things which should be equally considered. Also it’s worthy to note that many Jews oppose Zionism. It's all a very complicated situation to say the least.

Zia_Abq
09-10-2008, 05:28 PM
Melonie I have no idea what you posted but I think you're tying Obama to Ayers and Arab terrorists or something via a fundraiser for Arabs in Chicago? What are you trying to say. Speak plainly please. I have pregnancy brain and I'm not as quick as I used to be.

It’s not pregnancy brain. You got it right. She is still trying to make people believe LIES about him being a Muslim and a terrorist too. But I know you are too smart to fall for that cry wolf crap. Thankgoodness!

Miss_Luscious
09-10-2008, 05:30 PM
To be fair it must be said that Yek takes the Zionist view on the conflict which is very one sided. There is another side to things which should be equally considered. Also it’s worthy to note that many Jews oppose Zionism. It's all a very complicated situation to say the least.

http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/zionism/zanda.cfm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-Palestinian_conflict

Thanks for this. It's a lot to digest so I'll have to take my time reading through everything. I want to have the most objective sources so I can form an objective opinion. Now, back on topic. Sorry for the derail.

Miss_Luscious
09-10-2008, 05:32 PM
It’s not pregnancy brain. You got it right. She is still trying to make people believe LIES about him being a Muslim and a terrorist too. But I know you are too smart to fall for that cry wolf crap. Thankgoodness!

yeah, I thought so. Melonie, please stop shitting up threads with stuff like this. Thanks.

Zia_Abq
09-10-2008, 05:39 PM
Thanks for this. It's a lot to digest so I'll have to take my time reading through everything. I want to have the most objective sources so I can form an objective opinion.

You are most welcome. Happy reading. Be warned it is a long and winding subject with both sides having valid points of view. It can be difficult to pick one side or the other which I'm sure is why the conflict has lasted so very long.

Miss_Luscious
09-10-2008, 05:57 PM
Continuing derail...

Here's an earlier thread from Member Boards.

An Israel/Zionism thread (http://www.stripperweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=111382)

It was started by Scarlett_V as a request for education, same as you've done. I think it - rather predictably - managed to generate a decent amount of light and a great amount of heat, but it's probably worth a review.

Oh yay for this! Thank you too.

Now it's the end of the derail.

sapphiregirl
09-10-2008, 06:08 PM
Here is a reason why the Democrats will win.


John Mccain is they type of man who OPPOSES equal pay for women in the Senate.


Joe Biden is the type of man who WRITES the Violence Against Women Act.



Now who do you think is going to Washington to stand up for women and who is there for the good ole boys?

francescadubois
09-10-2008, 06:11 PM
Here is a reason why the Democrats will win.


John Mccain is they type of man who OPPOSES equal pay for women in the Senate.


Joe Biden is the type of man who WRITES the Violence Against Women Act.



Now who do you think is going to Washington to stand up for women and who is there for the good ole boys?

The problem is most voters don't know that. They don't do research. They listen to sound bites and get on message boards/hang out with people that agree with them. They are gonna vote on the fact that Palin is pretty, and can do a helluva speech and look good while saying some underhanded things (the latter part of the statement is more on the subconscious level, though).

ETA: Democrats do this as well. Don't wanna leave that out.

cinammonkisses
09-10-2008, 06:14 PM
Here is a reason why the Democrats will win.


John Mccain is they type of man who OPPOSES equal pay for women in the Senate.


Joe Biden is the type of man who WRITES the Violence Against Women Act.



Now who do you think is going to Washington to stand up for women and who is there for the good ole boys?


The problem is most voters don't know that. They don't do research. They listen to sound bites and get on message boards/hang out with people that agree with them. They are gonna vote on the fact that Palin is pretty, and can do a helluva speech and look good while saying some underhanded things (the latter part of the statement is more on the subconscious level, though).

ETA: Democrats do this as well. Don't wanna leave that out. You are so right!!

sapphiregirl
09-10-2008, 06:29 PM
John McCain opposed equal pay for women with yet another excuse to support the good ole boys......Barack Obama made sure he was in Washington for YOU.


-----------------------------------

NEW ORLEANS — Republican Sen. John McCain (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/john-mccain), campaigning through poverty-stricken cities and towns, said Wednesday he opposes a Senate bill that seeks equal pay for women because it would lead to more lawsuits.
Senate Republicans killed the bill Wednesday night on a 56-42 vote that denied the measure the 60 votes needed to advance it to full debate and a vote. Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., had delayed the vote to give McCain (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/john-mccain)'s Democratic rivals, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/barack-obama), time to return to Washington to support the measure, which would make it easier for women to sue their employers for pay discrimination.
McCain skipped the vote to campaign in New Orleans.
"I am all in favor of pay equity for women, but this kind of legislation, as is typical of what's being proposed by my friends on the other side of the aisle, opens us up to lawsuits for all kinds of problems," the expected GOP presidential nominee told reporters. "This is government playing a much, much greater role in the business of a private enterprise system."
The bill sought to counteract a Supreme Court decision limiting how long workers can wait before suing for pay discrimination.
It is named for Lilly Ledbetter, a supervisor at the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.'s plant in Gadsden, Ala., who sued for pay discrimination just before retiring after a 19-year career there. By the time she retired, Ledbetter made $6,500 less than the lowest-paid male supervisor and claimed earlier decisions by supervisors kept her from making more.
The Supreme Court voted 5-4 last year to throw out her complaint, saying she had waited too long to sue.
Democrats criticized McCain (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/john-mccain) for opposing the bill.
"Senator McCain (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/john-mccain) has yet again fallen in line with President Bush while middle-class families are falling by the wayside," Clinton said in a statement following the vote. "Women are earning less, but Senator McCain is offering more of the same."
Democratic National Committee spokeswoman Karen Finney said: "At a time when American families are struggling to keep their homes and jobs while paying more for everything from gasoline to groceries, how on Earth would anyone who thinks they can lead our country also think it's acceptable to oppose equal pay for America's mothers, wives and daughters?"
McCain stated his opposition to the bill as he campaigned in rural eastern Kentucky, where poverty is worse among women than men. The Arizona senator said he was familiar with the disparity but that there are better ways to help women find better paying jobs.
"They need the education and training, particularly since more and more women are heads of their households, as much or more than anybody else," McCain said. "And it's hard for them to leave their families when they don't have somebody to take care of them.
"It's a vicious cycle that's affecting women, particularly in a part of the country like this, where mining is the mainstay; traditionally, women have not gone into that line of work, to say the least," he said.
McCain chose to visit the tiny hamlet of Inez, Ky., because it is where President Lyndon B. Johnson declared war on poverty. But McCain said Johnson's poverty programs had failed.
"I wouldn't be back here today if government had fulfilled the promise that Lyndon Johnson made 44 years ago," he said.
In recent weeks, McCain has proposed a series of tax breaks for corporations, doubling the dependent child tax exemption, government-backed refinancing for struggling homeowners and a summer holiday from gas taxes. He proposed another new program Wednesday: a tax write-off for companies that provide high-speed Internet access for underserved, low-income communities.

sapphiregirl
09-10-2008, 06:35 PM
Have John McCain or SARAH PALIN accomplished anything like this or are they cracking jokes to the good ole boys at the RNC?




Domestic Violence

http://biden.senate.gov/imo/media/image/domestic_violence_banner.jpg

"I consider the Violence Against Women Act the single most significant legislation that I’ve crafted during my 35-year tenure in the Senate. Indeed, the enactment of the Violence Against Women Act in 1994 was the beginning of a historic commitment to women and children victimized by domestic violence and sexual assault. Our nation has been rewarded for this commitment. Since the Act’s passage in 1994, domestic violence has dropped by almost 50%, incidents of rape are down by 60%, and the number of women killed by an abusive husband or boyfriend is down by 22%. Today, more than half of all rape victims are stepping forward to report the crime. And since we passed the Act in 1994 over a million women have found justice in our courtrooms and obtained domestic violence protective orders." – Senator Joe Biden


THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT
Ending Violence Against Women:Senator Biden wrote the ground-breaking Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) in the 1990s that set the national agenda on criminalizing violence against women and holding batterers truly accountable. It encouraged states to set up coordinated community responses to domestic violence and rape; was the catalyst for passage of hundreds of state laws prohibiting family violence; and provided resources to set up shelters so battered women abused by husbands and boyfriends had a place to go. The law also established the national hotline that over 1.5 million abused women have called for help. By empowering women to make changes in their lives, and by training police and prosecutors to arrest and convict abusive husbands instead of telling them to take a walk around the block, domestic violence is down 50 percent and rape is down 60 percent nationwide.

Each time the Senator renewed the Act – in 2000 and 2005 – he pushed for new initiatives. In 2000, the Act was attached to ground-breaking laws on human trafficking – crimes where over 80% of the victims are women. In 2005, the Violence Against Women Act tackled issues like domestic violence in public housing and treating children witnesses of family violence. Click here for more information on the Violence Against Women Act of 2005.

CRITICAL RESOURCES FOR STATES AND TOWNS
Supporting States and Local Efforts:Tremendous progress has been made by communities taking the Violence Against Women Act’s laws and programs and turning them into real action, change, and support for families wracked by domestic violence and sexual assault. The Violence Against Women Act of 2005 contains over 40 programs to be administered by either the Department of Justice or the Department of Health and Human Services. These programs range from policies to encourage the arrest and prosecution of abusers, to victims’ services like shelters, to education that can prevent violence against women from happening in the first place. Since fiscal year 1995 to date, over $4 billion dollars have been appropriated for the programs created by the Violence Against Women Act. In Delaware alone, the Office on Violence Against Women has overseen 21 grant awards totaling $9.5 million. Delaware has passed far-reaching domestic violence laws and supported critical victim services. To learn more, click here to reach the Delaware’s Domestic Violence Coordinating Council. (http://dvcc.delaware.gov/)

KEEPING THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ACCOUNTABLE
An Independent Violence Against Women Office:To ensure that federal Department of Justice remains dedicated to tackling domestic violence and sexual assault crimes, Senator Biden fought tenaciously for an independent and empowered federal Office on Violence Against Women. The Senator’s law requires that the Director be nominated by the President, confirmed by the Senate and report directly to the Attorney General.

Because of the Senator’s initiative, the Office’s leadership and agenda cannot be pushed to the sidelines nor marginalized as one of many offices in a large bureaucracy. Instead, this law gives the Violence Against Women Office the foundation and roots it deserves. It is a separate and distinct office within the Department of Justice with a Director who answers only to the Attorney General.

THE NATIONAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE HOTLINE
The National Domestic Violence Hotline: One of the most important pieces of the Violence Against Women Act is the National Domestic Violence Hotline (http://www.ndvh.org/) (1-800-799-SAFE and http://www.ndvh.org/). It answers approximately 16,000 calls per month, almost 500 calls daily. Since answering its first call in February, 1996, call volume has increased by over 133%. Over the years, as the number of calls soared, the Hotline equipment wasn’t able to handle them all. So Senator Biden started an innovative public/private partnership, the Connections Campaign. He turned to America’s leading technology and telecommunications companies, asking them to transform the Hotline into a 21st century call center - something they would want in their own businesses. The Connections Campaign raised over $4 million public and private resources and as a result, the Hotline now is as sophisticated as the back office in any leading businesses. There are 70 new desktop computers; paper phone books and atlases have been replaced by mapping software so they can quickly connect the caller to the closest shelters or police stations.

100,000 VOLUNTEER LAWYERS FOR BATTERED WOMEN
Representing Battered Women: Domestic violence remains a reality for one out of four women in our country. Experts agree a key to ending domestic violence is meaningful access to the justice system. Often stopping the violence hinges on a victim’s ability to obtain effective protection orders, initiate separation proceedings or design safe child custody. Yet thousands of victims of domestic violence go without representation every day in this country. At best, less than 1 out of 5 low-income victims ever see a lawyer.

There is a wealth of untapped resources in this country - lawyers who want to volunteer. Senator Biden’s National Domestic Violence Volunteer Act would harness the skills, enthusiasm and dedication of these lawyers and infuse 100,000 new volunteer lawyers into the justice system to represent domestic violence victims. To enlist, train and place lawyers, the Act creates a new, electronic National Domestic Violence Attorney Network and Referral Project to be managed by the American Bar Association with the help of the National Domestic Violence Hotline and statewide legal coordinators.

Deogol
09-10-2008, 09:48 PM
^^^ Yea, I watch women get thrown in handcuffs all the time on Cops because of this legislation.

I agree people should be punished for hitting on each other, it's just kinda ironic. :)

Melonie
09-11-2008, 12:53 AM
Originally Posted by Zia_Abq
It’s not pregnancy brain. You got it right. She is still trying to make people believe LIES about him being a Muslim and a terrorist too. But I know you are too smart to fall for that cry wolf crap. Thankgoodness!

yeah, I thought so. Melonie, please stop shitting up threads with stuff like this. Thanks.

"those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it" - George Santayana


Regardless of his personal religion, what worries Jews / Israelis about Obama is his actual associations with and support for Muslim causes in the past.



During WW2, the Grand Mufti, who wanted British rule and the increasing number of Jewish settlers out of the area, allied himself with Britain's enemy (Germany) as the best hope of achieving his goals. Obviously it was a losing bet... As I recall, many Irish Republicans had similar views about Britain vs. her enemy, but de Valera managed to restrain them from being foolish enough to act on their views.

Had only Yasir Arafat's uncle the Grand Mufti acted as DeValera had (i.e. a moderating influence), the world's post-WW2 reaction toward the Arabs would probably have been quite different. However, such was not the case ...

Melonie
09-11-2008, 02:06 AM
circling back on topic, here's what the Democratic 'back room boys' themselves are saying lately ...

(snip)"Yet still, the Obama campaign seems to be struggling to find a consistent, cohesive economic message. One can understand why aides would not want to muddy his mantra of change and his image as a post-partisan, revolutionary figure. But blue-collar voters in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia and Michigan likely won’t vote for Obama because of some meta-narrative or a series of fabulous speeches.

“The [Obama] campaign is beginning to look like other campaigns,” said a former top strategist for past Democratic presidential campaigns, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “Obama is struggling with working-class whites just like John Kerry, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Michael Dukakis did, and Walter Mondale. He’s struggling with voters in the border-state South. And he’s struggling with an enormous wind at his back, a hatred for George Bush and a mainstream media that is little short of a chorus for his campaign.”

Clinton, of course, was the only one of these Democrats to actually win the struggle. As he could tell Obama, voters want to know how their lives would be bettered by an Obama presidency in very specific terms. This connection (along with independent Ross Perot) is what powered his upset run against George H.W. Bush in 1992.

Clinton probably would have offered Obama that advice personally months ago — but the two men were scheduled to have their first campaign-year meeting on Thursday, just over 50 days from Election Day.

The Expectations Game: Anyone who thinks the presidential election should be a layup for Obama should remember that Democrats have broken the 50 percent barrier in presidential elections only twice since 1944.

Did Obama himself forget?

Even if he didn’t, he let a narrative take hold in the news media and among many of his own supporters that led to expectations that he should be far ahead, leading to disappointment when he isn’t.

“A lot of Democratic elites thought this was a slam-dunk. And I thought, no it’s not,” said Lake, the pollster. “People in this town were already measuring drapes. And I was thinking, have you been in the real world lately?

“If you have been involved in campaigns, you thought it was going to be close for a year,” she added. “And I think a lot of Democratic elites are waking up to that.”"(snip)

from


And Joe Biden's comments on the campaign trail today were truly 'inspiring' ...

(snip)"Biden: Hillary a Better Pick Than Me
Email
Share September 10, 2008 5:17 PM

ABC News' Matthew Jaffe reports: Sen. Barack Obama's, D-Ill., vice presidential nominee, Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., Wednesday said that Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., might have been a better pick for the position than him.

At a rally in Nashua, N.H., a man in the audience told Biden how glad he was that Obama picked him over Hillary, "not because she's a woman, but because, look at the things she did in the past."

"Make no mistake about this," Biden responded. "Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. Let’s get that straight. She’s a truly close personal friend, she is qualified to be president of the United States of America, she’s easily qualified to be vice president of the United States of America, and quite frankly, it might have been a better pick than me. But she’s first rate, I mean that sincerely, she’s first rate, so let’s get that straight."

Spokesman Ben Porritt offered this response from the McCain camp: "Barack Obama’s most important decision of this election, and Biden -- the candidate he selects -- suggests, himself, that he wasn’t the right man for the job, and that Hillary Clinton would have been a better choice. Biden certainly has a credible viewpoint on this.""(snip)

from

lildreamer316
09-11-2008, 02:31 AM
The problem is most voters don't know that. They don't do research. They listen to sound bites and get on message boards/hang out with people that agree with them. They are gonna vote on the fact that Palin is pretty, and can do a helluva speech and look good while saying some underhanded things (the latter part of the statement is more on the subconscious level, though).

ETA: Democrats do this as well. Don't wanna leave that out.


I agree also.

The reason we ( I at the moment identify as being a Dem, although I am starting to really like PUMAs; lol) are possibly/probably going to lose is simply this:

Obama was not very observant and/or was still nursing wounds from the primaries/was advised badly (Donna Brazile,anyone? Duh!!) and decided not to have Hillary as a running mate; despite her very strong showing in major states (New York, California, Florida, Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan) and the fact that she won the popular vote in the primaries (1.8 million). Whatever your opinion of Hillary is, the bottom line is that she could bring in a LOT of voters in key states and demographics, for just the reasoning path francesca is pointing out.

McCain and advisors saw this golden opportunity/fatal mistake and jumped on it..who can blame them? Now the discussion is all on Palin - and it divides the electorate, and especially the undecideds, very well. Vagina equals vote here, quite possibly.

I'm fairly active on a strong Dem board (yeah yeah, armchair warrior etc.) but have ceased to get into much debate about the subject because they have closed ranks around Obama and will bear no criticisim whatsoever; constructive or otherwise. It's almost fundamentalist-religion scary. I am not happy about our choices either, and have not decided what I am going to do.

The article in the OP was posted at my other board today....lots of interesting responses.

Oh, and side note..I was under the impression the carbon tax was only going to be initiated at the expense of eliminating tax witheld from your paycheck by your employer; allowing both you and your employer to keep more of the profit and paycheck...so doesn't that equal out instead of increase the taxes you pay? The carbon tax would be for industries and corporations that are considered high pollution producers. Of course the prices would increase, but if one has more money coming in, well...?? I think it's worth consideration and some reasoned debate. I'm probably shooting for the moon here, though.

Gotta love corporate personhood..that so needs to be abolished.

Yekefah, I don't understand how even in the worst case scenario, 'socialized' (great way for repubs to frame the idea, btw) medicine could be so very much worse than what happens today. Talk about having restrictions about who can be treated? Corporate healthcare does that already!! If you are too fat or have been diagnosed as a heart disease/high blood pressure/diabetes risk, you now can be assured that if you are lucky enough to be insured (HA HA HA) that your rates are astronomical. Not to mention if they find out you are a smoker or work in a high risk job or even a high risk CITY. I personally know of a lady that died from pnemonia just last week because she was afraid to go to any emergency room, being broke as hell and holding on by a thread. That is utter bullshit. There has to be a better way.

Oh, and just for the record, you (all) are talking to a welfare recipient. I did not know I was pregnant until I was FIVE months along ( I was not showing but just a wee bit, and had my period the whole time, etc.). So having this child was what was going to happen. I immed. went on WIC and etc,; and am more grateful for it than I could ever tell you. It saved me and my child from certain malnutrition (money for good food was scarce and I had toxemia) and I had a safe and happy birth at a fully staffed and wonderful hospital. Bless that system. I am forever grateful that I live in a country that helped me at my most desparate hour, and do not ever begrudge the taxes that I pay for those who, like me, need the assistance. I am aware that there are those who abuse the system. Then there are people like me. And as soon as we could afford to stand on our own, we dropped the program so that I would not feel I was mooching off the system any more than I needed to.

Someone upthread also said they thought Obama was going to be more Arab-friendly. I just don't think he could be any more friendly than this:

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a19/lildreamer316/bush_kiss.jpg

If McCain is in power, then this tie is much more likely to be kept intact, versus a less friendly Dem administration. Not that there is a whole hell of a lot of difference, but there is enough to drive a wedge through/get other viewpoints heard.

But of course I could always be wrong.


But my bottom line is: I like peace. I like to try to continue to open my mind. I don't like restricitons on my freedoms. ESPECIALLY don't like the fact that my gov't is listening to my phone calls. Obama SERIOUSLY dropped the ball on the FISA vote, and that's another strong reason for me not to vote for him.

If the libertarians had a satisfactory answer to helping people in need, I would be very likely to subscribe to their platform in general. But I just don't think we are grown-up enough for that yet. We still need some guidance and help. Religion used to own that racket, now it's government. I'm not seeing a lot of people who can function without either.

francescadubois
09-11-2008, 04:32 AM
Vagina equals vote here, quite possibly.

You know, I think that this is SO right. I'm just now discovering how incredibly unsophisticated voters are in their selection of a candidate! Yes, Palin is an INCREDIBLE fuckin' package when it comes to being marketable, but at the end of the day, do you REALLY think this woman is capable of being a good President (because I honestly believe that she will be in McCain is elected)? I can respect anyone's preference for a political party, but this blind allegiance thing is getting ridiculous. I was raised Republican, but I have voted for both sides of the ballot after I read up on how the candidates voted. I think people only wanna hear whatever supports their ideals, and anything that doesn't support their ideals is bullshit.

So what is it about Americans that make us like this? A combination of over-inflated ego plus a bad case of adult ADD, perhaps? :shrug:

Eric Stoner
09-11-2008, 10:47 AM
Give me a break....the only thing Stoner has taught me is that he thinks Hillary Clinton has the physique of a pig etc etc...

Go lecture him

Without wading too far into the personalization, "Havana" called Palin a "lipstick wearing pig " and YOU claimed Palin said she was a " dog who wears lipstick". I committed the unpardonable and noted Hillary's fat ass and thunder thighs and posted that her physique was "porcine".Which it is afaic. It's also not nice and I reserve that sort of stuff for Hillary. She's the ONLY public figure who I regularly go after on a personal level because , imo, EVERYTHING about her is so fake; so phony; so dishonest that I am simply incapable of concealing my complete and total revulsion. Nonetheless I think that was the first time I insulted her physicality. Usually I go after her tasteless wardrobe.

In fact, if you actually READ what I post, some of my harshest critiques are reserved for some on the right wing side of things. I can't stand Ann Coulter ( although I don't think I commented on her anorexic appearance more than once ) and I deliberately misspell Ashcroft's name because I think he is an "ass" hence my personal "pet name" for him = "Asscroft".

I NEVER call ANYONE on this board a name. I NEVER attack ANYONE on this board personally. I attack their ideas. Or in one or two cases what I think is their lack of same.

I am all for civil discourse and continually encourage my fellow posters to engage in same. I try, with mixed successs, NOT to respond in kind when I am personally attacked. Occasionally I do respond in kind but, I would argue to a far lesser degree and ONLY AT AN INTELLECTUAL LEVEL i.e. I usually go after the intellectual emptiness of their personal attack. You might want to try and do likewise.

francescadubois
09-11-2008, 12:25 PM
I NEVER call ANYONE on this board a name. I NEVER attack ANYONE on this board personally. I attack their ideas.

But why "attack" anything? I don't think that being in attack mode constitutes civil discourse.

Eric Stoner
09-11-2008, 01:21 PM
But why "attack" anything? I don't think that being in attack mode constitutes civil discourse.

I use the word "attack" broadly to cover "criticize , critique, challenge, dispute etc. " More importantly, I don't attack the person. Just what they post.

francescadubois
09-11-2008, 01:37 PM
Hmm, yes. I see. It just takes so much energy though. Besides, you're much less likely to sway someone's opinion by critiquing, disputing, insert euphemism here. I don't even listen to people who say biting underhanded things, even if they support what I believe.

Eric Stoner
09-11-2008, 01:51 PM
Hmm, yes. I see. It just takes so much energy though. Besides, you're much less likely to sway someone's opinion by critiquing, disputing, insert euphemism here. I don't even listen to people who say biting underhanded things, even if they support what I believe.

"Biting" ? Occasionally but "underhanded" ? What have I posted that was "underhanded" ?

I don't know about "swaying opinion" but if someone's ideas can't stand up to examination and critique, then how valuable are they ?

francescadubois
09-11-2008, 02:21 PM
Well, see, I'm not saying YOU are underhanded. I'm saying that damn near everyone on this board has taken an unnecessary swipe at a person/people that doesn't agree with his/her ideals. It was a general reference.

And they are just opinions. They are valuable to the person who they belong to. I don't think anyone has the right to say whether someone else's opinion is valuable just because they don't agree with it.

ETA: I have seen both sides present evidence to back up their opinion/ideals, and seen people who don't agree with them shit all over said evidence b/c it doesn't line up with THEIR opinion/ideals.

Eric Stoner
09-12-2008, 07:53 AM
Well, see, I'm not saying YOU are underhanded. I'm saying that damn near everyone on this board has taken an unnecessary swipe at a person/people that doesn't agree with his/her ideals. It was a general reference.

And they are just opinions. They are valuable to the person who they belong to. I don't think anyone has the right to say whether someone else's opinion is valuable just because they don't agree with it.

ETA: I have seen both sides present evidence to back up their opinion/ideals, and seen people who don't agree with them shit all over said evidence b/c it doesn't line up with THEIR opinion/ideals.

Actually you have a very valid point. I SHOULD have said " ideas that don't hold up to examination and critique aren't very valuable TO ME ". My bad.

I also agree with your second point and it's why I continually commend posters who TRY to back up their opinions with facts. It's also why we ALL ought to try and maintain civility.

Without starting an entire metaphysical discussion about concepts like "Truth", I have to say that IN MY OPINION, facts ought to trump feelings and the objective is worth more than the subjective as far as public policy is concerned.

Miss_Luscious
09-12-2008, 09:06 AM
Actually you have a very valid point. I SHOULD have said " ideas that don't hold up to examination and critique aren't very valuable TO ME ". My bad.

I also agree with your second point and it's why I continually commend posters who TRY to back up their opinions with facts. It's also why we ALL ought to try and maintain civility.

Without starting an entire metaphysical discussion about concepts like "Truth", I have to say that IN MY OPINION, facts ought to trump feelings and the objective is worth more than the subjective as far as public policy is concerned.

I agree. It's all about civil discourse and actual facts, not just emotions, half truths and outright lies. I always try to find facts to back up what I say and if I can't then I won't argue that point.

Zia_Abq
09-12-2008, 10:02 AM
I just want to add something to this twist the discussion has taken.

People should not be grilled to death just for simply having an opinion. Nor should they be harassed for not being willing to argue that opinion against someone who they will never see eye to eye with in the first place.

If someone claims something to be absolute gospel truth then obviously it needs to be backed up with facts or source material. But opinions DO NOT require that same sort of support because they are opinions.

It is not right for certain members (who go unnamed for the purpose of this discussion) to be attacking others opinions and DEMANDING that they be proven to THEIR satisfaction. Especially when due to the vast difference in opinion to begin with such satisfaction is downright impossible. It argumentative and starts to become a form of harassment.

Miss_Luscious
09-12-2008, 10:19 AM
But opinions DO NOT require that same sort of support because they are opinions.

This is also true. If someone says, "I think..." or "My opinion is..." then that of course does not need to be backed up. Like you said, only things that people are stating as truth need to be backed up. We should not tear each other's opinions down, even if we don't agree with them.

francescadubois
09-12-2008, 10:21 AM
Yaaaaaaaaaaaaay!! People are calming the hell down! :dance:

Zia_Abq
09-12-2008, 10:58 AM
We should not tear each other's opinions down, even if we don't agree with them.


Exactly!

It’s also not right for people to go around day in and day out and attack nearly EVERY signal post that someone else writes. It’s called post stalking. It’s another form of harassment. And it should really stop. It becomes very hard to maintain civil discourse when one is under constant attack for even daring to participate at all.

PS : No one should have to ask another member repeatedly to just leave them alone either.

thesightofoneself
09-14-2008, 03:49 PM
all i have to say is that if McCain wins i'll be leaving this country sooner then expected. the only reason i'm still here is because i have a free ride for college. my brain is turning into mush.

Melonie
09-14-2008, 05:13 PM
and all I can say is that if Obama wins I'll be leaving this country sooner than expected as well !!! But unlike your free ride, I'll be seeking citizenship in a different country in order to avoid being taxed to death by America.

sapphiregirl
09-14-2008, 05:48 PM
If Obama wins and all the Republicans leave just because of taxes???

Cool....then the rest of US can build an America for EVERYONE. I'd probably start skipping around if Republicans started leaving....take the Right Wing Whackjobs with you. Come back when you can follow the US Constitution, protect the environment, and pull your head out of your ass when it comes to oil so people are not fighting wars for your sick greed.

I seriously think greed is a disease in Republicans.



:thanx:

leilanicandy
09-14-2008, 06:01 PM
and all I can say is that if Obama wins I'll be leaving this country sooner than expected as well !!! But unlike your free ride, I'll be seeking citizenship in a different country in order to avoid being taxed to death by America.


Please share the perfect country to move too! As I know American taxes is cheaper than the tax I will have to pay in Europe. I was told if i denounce my American country. I will not have to pay high taxes. I was also told by the accountant the treaty between American and the UK is something like what ever country charges the most taxes. The person get charge that tax, right now the UK taxes is more than America.

Which country will give better tax breaks?

Deogol
09-15-2008, 05:05 AM
Without starting an entire metaphysical discussion about concepts like "Truth", I have to say that IN MY OPINION, facts ought to trump feelings and the objective is worth more than the subjective as far as public policy is concerned.

So if we feel a fact is fucked up then there is nothing to be said about it?

Deogol
09-15-2008, 05:07 AM
If Obama wins and all the Republicans leave just because of taxes???

Cool....then the rest of US can build an America for EVERYONE. I'd probably start skipping around if Republicans started leaving....take the Right Wing Whackjobs with you. Come back when you can follow the US Constitution, protect the environment, and pull your head out of your ass when it comes to oil so people are not fighting wars for your sick greed.

I seriously think greed is a disease in Republicans.



:thanx:

You've been played.

The democrats are just as bad.

Look up Biden and his deals with the credit card companies and shit.

They do a lot of talk about race but their administrations are the whitest around.

I could go on but you will have to find out for yourself.

Your thinking is as simple as yelling "It's the Jews! It's the Jews!" Find some group and blame them. Sad. Sad. Sad.

Eric Stoner
09-15-2008, 08:29 AM
So if we feel a fact is fucked up then there is nothing to be said about it?

Not at all. One can accept the reality of a particular moment or situation without approval. Like the war in Iraq; or the economy ; whatever.

ArmySGT.
09-15-2008, 10:16 AM
They can't win a fair fight. The caging of the voter rolls has already begun.

In Virgina the there has been articles published in newspapers warning students that they may lose their scholarships/ financial aid/ dependent status/ residency status/ health insurance if they register to vote. That is utter bullshit, and they know it. The Universities have countered that there has never been any record of that ever happening. I guess that may mean that students that register this year may actually lose those things, now that the idea is in the heads of the conservatives that control the financial aid and medical insurance.


Wouldn't this be true of students of out of state students? Changing residence could certainly affect eligibility for for many of these.

Paris
09-15-2008, 10:21 AM
I certainly hope that's not a dig at me. I would think you know me better than that.

No, no, no! Certainly not! I actually had James Dobson in mind when I wrote that, LOL!

Melonie
09-15-2008, 03:29 PM
Which country will give better tax breaks

well, for example, Costa Rica and Belize charge ZERO taxes on income earned outside of the country i.e. stocks and bonds on American / European / Asian exchanges. In comparison, Obama is proposing that the existing 15% US tax on the same stocks and bonds be raised to 25-30% !

The problem is that, almost uniquely so, the US gov't attempts to charge US tax on the earnings of US citizens REGARDLESS of where in the world they are living. Thus to avoid the US tax, you must also give up US citizenship. This is a piece of cake if you are already a dual citizen and hold a second passport. But this is a real pain in the ass if you don't. Of course, there are various mechanisms in place for uber-rich people to 'buy' citizenship in other countries, but the price tag is far beyond middle class budgets. At least Belize and Costa Rica 'sell' citizenship for less than $100,000 !



I'd probably start skipping around if Republicans started leaving

I would only post a reminder about the old adage ... 'be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it !". Remember that all of Obama's wonderful promises depend on being able to tax the s#!t out of Americans who earn more than $250,000 per year. These are the people who already pay something like 67% of all income tax dollars. So if even a few of them decide to leave the country for Dubai or Monaco or wherever, and decide to renounce their US citizenship and with it their US income tax burden, then Obama is going to be facing a snowballing budget deficit. This will either lead to broken promises (which will piss off the American 'poor'), or more tax increases (on middle class earners like you and me), or both !

In point of fact, many uber-rich Democrats have already shielded themselves from a good part of the US tax burden by investing in tax free municipal bonds or Fannie / Freddie bonds, or invested in tax favored (subsidized) industries like solar / ethanol / wind or tax favored tech stocks like Microsoft . But many uber-rich Republicans are currently invested in politically incorrect basic industries like oil or steel or heavy equipment, which don't share anywhere near the level of tax favored status. Thus they have far more to gain by going the expatriate route.

kitana
09-15-2008, 06:50 PM
Of course the conservatives have control of the TV, radio and newspapers. The left has a solid foothold on the web, though. But the conservatives (like McCain) are working to control the internet, too. They won't get it before November, though.

That's funny since everyone I know including Dems, consider the news to be VERY liberal.

eagle2
09-15-2008, 11:02 PM
I would only post a reminder about the old adage ... 'be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it !". Remember that all of Obama's wonderful promises depend on being able to tax the s#!t out of Americans who earn more than $250,000 per year.

Even if Obama is elected and his proposed tax increases on the Americans earning over $250,000 are passed, taxes on the wealthiest Americans will still be low by historical standards. Remember, at one time the tax rate for the wealthiest Americans was 90%.

Deogol
09-15-2008, 11:20 PM
Even if Obama is elected and his proposed tax increases on the Americans earning over $250,000 are passed, taxes on the wealthiest Americans will still be low by historical standards. Remember, at one time the tax rate for the wealthiest Americans was 90%.

Which is, of course, way to high.

TheSexKitten
09-16-2008, 12:13 AM
That's funny since everyone I know including Dems, consider the news to be VERY liberal.

Sorry but, in Kentucky

kitana
09-16-2008, 02:46 AM
^^^ Count me among those disgusted with the current Republican Party, but I'm still not voting for Obama.

Doc's right, there are a lot of undecided voters and you are not doing your side any favors by playing race cards and calling people nasty names, even when they have it coming. A bit more restraint might better help your cause.

Exactly!

She did the same thing she is accusing him of with me. Assuming all sorts of thing about me due to my location and the fact I happen to like one specific candidate that is Republican.

Melonie
09-16-2008, 03:20 AM
Remember, at one time the tax rate for the wealthiest Americans was 90%.

an 'official' tax rate which of course no wealthy American actually paid !!! Again this is the great hypocracy of Democrat / Obama proposals to 'tax the rich' ... they always leave enough loopholes to render the 'official' tax rate little more than a press release for those rich enough to take advantage of those loopholes !