[afrakabob]

Originally Posted by sumiyia

if you thought that was bad... shoulda seen the other pictures i saw... her standing at the head of a moose she killed, blood pouring out of its neck while she holds on to its antlers..

ew, i just found that.

hahaha:
John McCain's speech

My fellow Americans,
I me my, I, I, I Me my; I. I. I, I, I -- I, me, my. I, me, my. I, me, my, I, I, I. I, me, my. I, me, my. I, me, my. I, me, my. I, me, my. I, me, my. P.O.W. I, me, my. I, me, my. I, me, my. P.O.W. I, me, my. I, me, my. I, me, my. I, me, my. I, me, my. I, me, my. I, me, my. I, me, my. I, me, my. I, me, my. I, me, my. P.O.W. I, I, I. Me, My, I. I, I, I.

My friends,
I, me, my. I, me, my. I, me, my. I, me, my. I, me, my. I, me, my. I, me, my. P.O.W. I, me, my. I, me, my. I, me, my. I, me, my. I, me, my. I, me, my. I, me, my. I, me, my. P.O.W. I, me, my. I, me, my. I, me, my. I, me, my. I, me, my. I, me, my. I, me, my. I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I. Thank you, and God you, and God bless America.

[Variable]

People who keep dried crabs in their offices or houses have always baffled me.

Anyway, one thing I'm having turmoil about - Iraq.

Obama has been making the point that situation there wasn't working out, and it'd fall to him to withdraw.

Now - the surge is showing dividends, many Iraqis are saying they don't want Americans to leave just yet, and Obama's withdrawal plan might end up looking a whole lot like the one currently being hashed out by the current administration.

This doesn't seem so good for Obama, but great for McCain.

At the same time, I haven't heard McCain driving that point home... so what am I missing?

[MossadConspiracy]

Originally Posted by Khairan

I would agree with you about the parties at large, but Obama is by no means a committed capitalist. His own ideas and background speak to that. However, the "socialism" issue aside, I still think his economic policies are horrible. Here is one view:

Obamanomics Flunks The Test

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, August 01, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Election '08: Barack Obama the lawyer-organizer could use a crash course in economics. His economic plan's assumptions, based on long-discredited Marxist theories, are wildly wrongheaded.

IBD Series: The Audacity Of Socialism

In arguing for a heavier mix of government, he assumes that capitalism unfairly favors the rich, almost exclusively so, and fails to spread prosperity.

"The rich in America have little to complain about," he carps. "The distribution of wealth is skewed, and levels of inequality are now higher than at any time since the Gilded Age."

Obama cites data showing a yawning gap between the income of the average worker and the wealthiest 1%. He thinks it's government's job to step in and close it — "for purposes of fairness" — by soaking the rich, among other leftist nostrums.

"Between 1971 and 2001," he complains, "while the median wage and salary income of the average worker showed literally no gain, the income of the top hundredth of a percent went up almost 500%."

But such a snapshot comparison would be meaningful only if America were a caste society, in which the people making up one income group remained static over time.

Of course that's not the case. The composition of the rich and poor in this country is in constant flux, as the income distribution changes dramatically over relatively short periods. Few are "stuck" in poverty, or have a "lock" on wealth.

Obama would discover this if only he'd put down his class-warfare manuals and look closely at the IRS' own data.

Take those megarich he vilifies — the top hundredth of a percent. According to a recent Treasury study, three-fourths of them in 1996 fell out of the group by 2005.

Meanwhile, more than half of those in the bottom income group in 1996 moved to a higher income group by 2005, with more than 5% leapfrogging to the richest quintile.

(It's no fluke: The same high degree of income mobility is seen in prior comparable periods, as well.)

Some poor moved up through personal effort, while many rode an expanding economy. Real median incomes of all taxpayers rose 24%, but the poor registered the biggest gains of all.

President Kennedy understood that a growing economy is like a rising tide that "lifts all boats." Obama, on the other hand, thinks some are lifted and others lowered, as if the economy were a system of locks operated by a cabal of evil capitalists.

He also fails to understand how taxes change behavior. He thinks raising taxes on the most productive members of society won't "curb incentives to work or invest." Even TV news anchor Charlie Gibson knows better.

During a primary debate, the ABC host took Obama to task for proposing a doubling in the capital gains tax. History shows, he pointed out, that raising the cap gains rate actually ends up costing the government revenues.

Obama just didn't get it. "Well, Charlie," he argued, "what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness."

Forget growth and revenues. Let's just punish those "greedy" investors. It's the same Marxist reasoning behind his plan to repeal the Bush tax cuts: The rich must be made to pay their "fair" share, Obama asserts.

Never mind that the top 1% of taxpayers already pay 38% of the total tax burden, according to recent IRS data, while the bottom 50% bear just 3% of the load.

Obama's economic plan also calls for mandating a "living wage." He plans to saddle retailers with a $10 minimum wage indexed to inflation, along with a mandate to provide seven days of paid sick leave to workers.

Obama assumes business owners will just eat the added costs.

But restaurants, the nation's second-largest private-sector employer, already operate on razor-thin profit margins. Faced with such mandatory paid benefits, they'll have no choice but to cut staff.

In fact, the last major minimum-wage increase cost the restaurant industry more than 146,000 jobs, the National Restaurant Association says, while restaurant owners put off plans to hire an additional 106,000 employees.

So Obama would get his wage-and-benefits mandate, but lose jobs in an industry that employs the very minorities Obama claims he's trying to help.

"If restaurateurs had their way, every lawmaker would run a small business before starting to legislate," the industry opined in a recent press release.

Lawmakers aren't the only ones. Leftist presidential candidates also could benefit from such a mandate.



IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- Obamanomics Flunks The Test

salam

I dont think its gonna be possible for Obama to get alot of this stuff through congress. I hope not, anyway

ws

[jinnzaman]

Originally Posted by Variable

People who keep dried crabs in their offices or houses have always baffled me.

Anyway, one thing I'm having turmoil about - Iraq.

Obama has been making the point that situation there wasn't working out, and it'd fall to him to withdraw.

Now - the surge is showing dividends, many Iraqis are saying they don't want Americans to leave just yet, and Obama's withdrawal plan might end up looking a whole lot like the one currently being hashed out by the current administration.

This doesn't seem so good for Obama, but great for McCain.

At the same time, I haven't heard McCain driving that point home... so what am I missing?

I think the country will be okay. Even before the surge began, the US teamed up with the Anbar council to fight al-Qaeda (which seemed to be far more successful counter-insurgency then those committed by US troops). Now the Shia dominated government is going to incorporate some of those elements into the national army and police force, arrest a few of the trouble-makers, and disband the rest of the militias. I think the country should be okay for a while.

Keep in mind that what drove the insurgency was the US military presence. If the US withdraws, I think most of the stuff will die down. Radical Sunni theology has little appeal to a country dominated by Shias and Kurds (who seem more concerned with creating Kurdistan than Islam).

[dreamdeferred]

Originally Posted by Khairan

I would agree with you about the parties at large, but Obama is by no means a committed capitalist. His own ideas and background speak to that. However, the "socialism" issue aside, I still think his economic policies are horrible. Here is one view:

Obamanomics Flunks The Test

IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- Obamanomics Flunks The Test

Obamanomics

Obama's economic policies aren't revolutionary at all......it's the reason his advisers include Chicago school economists, Clinton era economic chiefs and top securities and exchange people. Moreover...when we move past some of the campaign trail rhetoric.....the reality is that Presidents don't actually make economic policy nor would any recommendations pass without the consent/approval of Congress.....so let's take the personality stuff out of this convo. Let's look at the economic platforms of both parties instead....because there are key differences that are actually substantive (ie the kind of policy that makes it irrelevant whether Obama or Hillary took office...as compared against the policy we'd see under a Repub candidate)

There are several big problems with that article and the reasoning that under-girds it.....let's look at taxes for instance since it's the juiciest part of the debate between both economic outlooks.

In the article you posted.....apart from the shrill cries of "socialism!"....the assumption is that progressive taxation is unfair to the wealthy and any attempt to collect more taxes from the top earners impairs the mobility of economic growth........BUNK. This is the standard fiscal conservative argument and it is largely mythology. Tax cuts never pay for themselves.....never have and never will....this philosophy consistently leaves Americans holding the bag....with a large deficit and crumbling infrastructure.

Republicans argue that by cutting the tax rate (with the largest cuts going to those on top) we increase revenue, incentivize businesses to create more jobs and stimulate the economy which in turn pays for the huge cuts. (note: it has never gone down like this.....in practice this simply leaves us with a larger deficit). Now in order to provide these cuts initially a significant disinvestment in social programs and infrastructure has to take place. No matter... people should be able to take care of themselves right?.......meanwhile bridges and levies are collapsing, regulatory bodies flounder, education becomes subject to crude economic experiments (school vouchers anyone?), welfare programs are gutted, health care remains unaffordable etc etc...you get the picture.

Dems (like Obama) argue that tax cuts should be made liberally for the majority of Americans and rates for the richest of the rich should either stay the same or go up. Money collected pays for the infrastructure that a government should provide it's citizenry......the middle and lower classes now have some more money in their pockets to spend and thereby stimulate the economy, businesses are thriving because more money is being spent etc. This is pretty much exactly what happened during the Clinton administration (among other factors).

The top marginal rate wouldn't go up much under Obama and the idea that his policies are somehow dangerous or novel seems silly to me. McCain's plan is the real disaster we should be concerned about....we didn't get here by accident folks, Bush's plan was a total failure because the principles his team used are fundamentally flawed as evidenced by previous Republican administrations.

[Variable]

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

I think the country will be okay. Even before the surge began, the US teamed up with the Anbar council to fight al-Qaeda (which seemed to be far more successful counter-insurgency then those committed by US troops). Now the Shia dominated government is going to incorporate some of those elements into the national army and police force, arrest a few of the trouble-makers, and disband the rest of the militias. I think the country should be okay for a while.

Keep in mind that what drove the insurgency was the US military presence. If the US withdraws, I think most of the stuff will die down. Radical Sunni theology has little appeal to a country dominated by Shias and Kurds (who seem more concerned with creating Kurdistan than Islam).

I think the country looks like it's on a positive tack right now too... but my concern isn't that if the Americans withdraw, the country will fall apart.


The US invasion is the ultimate cause for the insurgency, which Obama's got down because he voted against that.

At the same time, maybe it was a year ago or even less, he was campaigning on the idea that he'd bring the troops home almost immediately if elected. Now, it's not only the Maliki gov't who's saying they'd be concerned if they left, but various folks on a more local level - particularly in Sunni areas. And the surge did seem to have an effect... primarily in Baghdad, not Anbar.


The Iraq mess has been a big point that the Obama campaign has been exploiting. Now it seems to be generally going according to plan, such as it is. Not only that, the current admin, not even McCain... is already planning the withdrawl.

Thus my turmoil... on some level (and only for an instant) I caught myself thinking "oh man, if things would just get worse in Iraq, it'll be a shot against the Republicans and give their opponents a big boost. Of course I don't want that, but I'm still waiting to see how either party uses it.

[Khairan]

Originally Posted by dreamdeferred

Obamanomics

Obama's economic policies aren't revolutionary at all......it's the reason his advisers include Chicago school economists, Clinton era economic chiefs and top securities and exchange people. Moreover...when we move past some of the campaign trail rhetoric.....the reality is that Presidents don't actually make economic policy nor would any recommendations pass without the consent/approval of Congress.....so let's take the personality stuff out of this convo. Let's look at the economic platforms of both parties instead....because there are key differences that are actually substantive (ie the kind of policy that makes it irrelevant whether Obama or Hillary took office...as compared against the policy we'd see under a Repub candidate)

There are several big problems with that article and the reasoning that under-girds it.....let's look at taxes for instance since it's the juiciest part of the debate between both economic outlooks.

In the article you posted.....apart from the shrill cries of "socialism!"....the assumption is that progressive taxation is unfair to the wealthy and any attempt to collect more taxes from the top earners impairs the mobility of economic growth........BUNK. This is the standard fiscal conservative argument and it is largely mythology. Tax cuts never pay for themselves.....never have and never will....this philosophy consistently leaves Americans holding the bag....with a large deficit and crumbling infrastructure.

Republicans argue that by cutting the tax rate (with the largest cuts going to those on top) we increase revenue, incentivize businesses to create more jobs and stimulate the economy which in turn pays for the huge cuts. (note: it has never gone down like this.....in practice this simply leaves us with a larger deficit). Now in order to provide these cuts initially a significant disinvestment in social programs and infrastructure has to take place. No matter... people should be able to take care of themselves right?.......meanwhile bridges and levies are collapsing, regulatory bodies flounder, education becomes subject to crude economic experiments (school vouchers anyone?), welfare programs are gutted, health care remains unaffordable etc etc...you get the picture.

Dems (like Obama) argue that tax cuts should be made liberally for the majority of Americans and rates for the richest of the rich should either stay the same or go up. Money collected pays for the infrastructure that a government should provide it's citizenry......the middle and lower classes now have some more money in their pockets to spend and thereby stimulate the economy, businesses are thriving because more money is being spent etc. This is pretty much exactly what happened during the Clinton administration (among other factors).

The top marginal rate wouldn't go up much under Obama and the idea that his policies are somehow dangerous or novel seems silly to me. McCain's plan is the real disaster we should be concerned about....we didn't get here by accident folks, Bush's plan was a total failure because the principles his team used are fundamentally flawed as evidenced by previous Republican administrations.

Thanks for your thoughts. Don't get me wrong -- I'm not against progressive taxation, but I do think that Obama would overdo it and again I do think he's a committed socialist who would push policies that will ultimately be very bad for the U.S.

My point is not that the government shouldn't tax and shouldn't have infrastructure, nor that the citizenry has no responsibility to this end. My point is that the general concept of the government having a program to fix all your problems and take care of all your needs is something I find very distasteful. Though I don't much care for either the Republican or the Democratic parties (their response to the recent war in Lebanon was identical and really illustrates how similar their foreign policies are), and my votes are not and will not be guided by party affiliations, I consider myself a staunch conservative (in the traditional sense) with respect to the role the government should play in our lives.

Small federal government with states making the majority of the important decisions, less taxation, more of a libertarian social policy without heavy-handed federal mandates telling us how we can and can't live. Down with Roe v. Wade. Stuff like that. I don't foresee a Democratic administration under Barack Obama doing any of these things.

[dreamdeferred]

Originally Posted by Khairan

Thanks for your thoughts. Don't get me wrong -- I'm not against progressive taxation, but I do think that Obama would overdo it and again I do think he's a committed socialist who would push policies that will ultimately be very bad for the U.S.

We'll agree to disagree bro

I'm convinced that a McCain presidency will sink us further into this economic abyss we're in.

My point is not that the government shouldn't tax and shouldn't have infrastructure, nor that the citizenry has no responsibility to this end. My point is that the general concept of the government having a program to fix all your problems and take care of all your needs is something I find very distasteful. Though I don't much care for either the Republican or the Democratic parties (their response to the recent war in Lebanon was identical and really illustrates how similar their foreign policies are), and my votes are not and will not be guided by party affiliations, I consider myself a staunch conservative (in the traditional sense) with respect to the role the government should play in our lives.

Understood....though I would say that Democratic governmental policy isn't nearly as intrusive as you've suggested above, and honestly...I can't even fathom how our govt could be more inflated, cumbersome or downright Orwellian than it is now (and promises to remain under McCain). In terms of foreign policy....yeah I agree, there is precious little that distinguishes Dems from Repubs....both seem to be committed to expansionism and uncritical support of Israel.

Small federal government with states making the majority of the important decisions, less taxation, more of a libertarian social policy without heavy-handed federal mandates telling us how we can and can't live. Down with Roe v. Wade. Stuff like that. I don't foresee a Democratic administration under Barack Obama doing any of these things.

Gotcha.

Hey if you're interested check out this Times article by a nobel laureate in economics

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/bu...ss&oref=slogin

If you're a policy wonk you might enjoy these...

The Tax Policy Center's analysis of McCain and Obama's plans

An Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans

and Jason Furman's (Obama economist) critique of McCain's plan

http://obama.3cdn.net/20badf9c4471379fcc_h3m6bxsaa.pdf

[Khairan]

As an aside, when I was a young child I took the idea of a "presidential race" somewhat too literally. I remember, after hearing that George Bush had beaten Democratic candidate Michael Dukakis "by a landslide," having an image of Bush wearing short shorts and a tank top running around a bend in a mountain road with Dukakis close on his heels, only to be swept away by a pile of tumbling rocks.

I also remember thinking what a bizarre way this was to choose the leader of a country.

[sally]

Sarah Palin reminds me of Benazir Bhutto (in looks).

Daily Show and Colbert were awesome all of last week.

Anyone heard about the 21 year old college student from Colorado named Adam Brickley? Supposedly he's kept a blog endorsing Palin since Jan 2007. Which is only like a few months after she got elected Governor.

Watch here for more: Adam Brickley | The Colbert Report | Comedy Central

Finally, anyone read this? I thought it was so amusing...the whole article.

Don't Like Sarah Palin's Wikipedia Entry? Change it.

NYT http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/01/te...l?ref=politics

By NOAM COHEN
Published: August 31, 2008
IN the 24 hours before the McCain campaign put the finishing touches on its surprise announcement Friday that Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska would be the Republican vice presidential candidate, one Wikipedia user was putting the finishing touches on her biography on the site.

Beginning at 2 a.m Eastern time on Thursday, a Wikipedia user with the name YoungTrigg began an overhaul of the article, adding compelling stories about her upbringing, including that “she earned the nickname ‘Sarah Barracuda’ because of her intense play” as point guard for her high school basketball team and that she and her father “would sometimes wake at 3 a.m. to hunt moose before school.”

Many details were culled from, and footnoted to, the book “Sarah: How a Hockey Mom Turned Alaska’s Political Establishment on Its Ear,” by Kaylene Johnson.

Soon enough, YoungTrigg pivoted from the biographical to the political, adding that Ms. Palin had high approval ratings as governor and that, as mayor, she had “kept her campaign promises, reducing her own salary, as well as reducing property taxes 60 percent.”

As governor, YoungTrigg wrote, her “tenure is noted for her willingness to take on oil companies” and that she has been called “a ‘politician of eye-popping integrity.’ ” Both of those statements were attributed to a profile in the conservative Weekly Standard magazine.

In total, YoungTrigg — whose user name is a reference to Ms. Palin’s infant son, Trig — made 30 “edits” to the article, all positive and largely unnoticed, since they came at a time when few were discussing her as a possible running mate of Senator John McCain’s.

The coincidence of the user’s name, and the sudden spurt of activity just before news broke of Mr. McCain’s choice, has raised suspicions that YoungTrigg was a campaign operative tasked to make sure that her Wikipedia article was ready for prime time, much as handlers have been assigned to do the same for the candidate.

While ethically suspect, the idea that a politician would try to shape her Wikipedia article shouldn’t come as a surprise. In modern politics, where the struggle is to “define” yourself before your opponent “defines” you, Wikipedia has become an important part of political strategy. When news breaks, and people plug a name into a search engine to find out more, invariably Wikipedia is the first result they click through to; it is where first impressions are made.

The daily page view totals for even well-known candidates are striking. For example, according to a site that tracks the traffic to Wikipedia, the John McCain article had 645,000 page views in June. That month, Barack Obama had 1.35 million page views. Henrik Abelsson, who tracks the traffic, said that on Friday there were 2.4 million page views for Gov. Palin’s Wikipedia article.

Last year, a graduate student, Virgil Griffith, created a clever Web site, Wiki- Scanner, that made it easy to detect where anonymous editors of Wikipedia were accessing the site. In the process, companies, government agencies and, yes, politicians were caught in the act of spiffing up their Wikipedia entries, even as many assumed that anonymity would make them safe. (Wikipedia, incredibly and mercilessly, keeps a record of every change made to every article.)

YoungTrigg made the last edit Friday morning, hours before the news of the Palin selection became official. But in the wee hours the day before, when no one was really paying attention, YoungTrigg did contact other Wikipedians, who were initially impressed by the rapid improvements to the article.

YoungTrigg was given a virtual unit of praise, the Barnstar, for the effort. When another Wikipedia contributor asked gently if YoungTrigg could include page numbers to his footnotes from “Sarah,” YoungTrigg wrote back excitedly: “Thank you! I’m afraid I didn’t use the page numbers when I did the edits, so I don’t have them now. The book has a pretty good index, though, and I can look something up if anything I added was controversial. I apologize if I misunderstood the format.”

Also, YoungTrigg reached out to an anonymous editor who had changed the Palin article on Thursday night, without any evidence, to say that she was Mr. McCain’s choice. In a public note to the anonymous editor, YoungTrigg wrote: “Where did you hear that Palin was the VP nominee? I can’t find anything online.”

Whether this pokes a hole in the idea that YoungTrigg had inside information, or rather confirms that the user had an unusually acute interest in whether the news had leaked out, is hard to tell.

page 2: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/01/te...&oref=sl ogin

[sally]

Originally Posted by sumiyia

also.... check this out..

Crosscut Seattle - About Sarah Palin: an e-mail from Wasilla

There's a link to this story by one of the people who posted a comment in response to that email.

Alaskans Speak (In A Frightened Whisper): Palin Is “Racist, Sexist, Vindictive, And Mean.� | The LA Progressive


Alaskans Speak (In A Frightened Whisper): Palin Is “Racist, Sexist, Vindictive, And Mean”
September 5, 2008

by Charley James –
“So Sambo beat the *****!”
This is how Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin described Barack Obama’s win over Hillary Clinton to political colleagues in a restaurant a few days after Obama locked up the Democratic Party presidential nomination.
According to Lucille, the waitress serving her table at the time and who asked that her last name not be used, Gov. Palin was eating lunch with five or six people when the subject of the Democrat’s primary battle came up. The governor, seemingly not caring that people at nearby tables would likely hear her, uttered the slur and then laughed loudly as her meal mates joined in appreciatively.