PDA

View Full Version : Final Analysis



tfg
10-31-2008, 03:54 PM
There's been a lot of arguing on the boards over some of these issues and it seems that taxes and jobs has been the overriding converstation, and deservedly so. However, this has pushed all the other issues to the backburner, which really kind of annoys me. What I'm curious about is what really is the most important issue you're considering? Or even more interesting, if you found the candidate you're supporting was on the opposite side of what you believe on that issue, would you not vote for them just because of that?

Taxes and the economy are gray areas for me. I have my opinions on what will work but all in all, there won't be that much of difference in how much taxes I'm going to pay under each person.

For me, money isn't everything. What I enjoy about America are my personal freedoms and civil liberties. To put it in plain english, I don't want to be bothered and when I want to say something I better be able to speak out against something. I have some very liberatarian views.

One of the things I enjoy very much is the internet and coming to sites like this. I am against any kind of regulation of the internet that curtails first amendment rights. Even if it is masked as child protection laws. As I'm also against those dumb ass FCC rulings of "indecency". For those of you who feel the same and are going to vote McCain, I would seriously consider changing your mind.

There are many important issues going on right now, but as I said in another thread, nothing is more important than our first amendment rights. McCain has proposed legislation back in 2006 to levy fines on blogs that have "offensive statements, photos or videos". This is not okay with me and is a complete deal breaker. He is also against net neutrality, which again is not good if you enjoy the internet.

These are the under reported type of issues that I wish we'd be able to talk about more. It is clear, Barack is the better candidate when it comes to civil liberties. Please choose wisely next Tuesday.

LetsGoMountaineers
10-31-2008, 04:30 PM
While I don't think blogs or sites on the Internet should be censored, I DO think that they should be forced to provide some sort of fair warning to individuals before entering. For instance, movies and TV shows are rated (movies get G, PG, PG-13, R, and Adult while TV shows get TV-MA, and a bunch of other ones I'm not familiar with). With each level, you know what you're getting yourself into (even then sometimes you don't exactly know what you're getting yourself into ie: Jason Segel's wang in Forgetting Sarah Marshall... but you're at least prepared for some sort of acceptable nudity when you watch an R rated movie). That being said, I think web sites should have to follow the same doctrine. The content is still available, but at least you know what to expect.

Some sites, like porn sites, alcohol or cigarette sites, or R-rated movie sites should have some sort of age verification software that comes up to simply verify that you're of age... even if it's as simple to cheat as lying about your birthday via pull down boxes, I still think they should be there.

Having these measured enacted and enforced (which could be difficult... but so is monitoring correct income tax disclosure) wouldn't hinder freedom of speech or expression in any way. It would simply fine US sites that don't comply.

But I agree, taking down the content altogether is inappropriate and I doubt this was McCain's stance.

I'm all for child protection laws on the Internet. Perverts should be kept away at all costs and I don't mind giving up a slight and minor civil liberty to protect young children from monsters.

Regarding tax and the economy, with the exception of the last eight years, I truly believe the Republican stance is far superior to the Democratic stance. At the moment it doesn't seem as such but that's because Bush's recklessness created this mess. Everything I've learned about economics in undergrad and graduate school (Business Administration and Industrial Relations, respectively) tell me the Republican fundamentals are the way to go on this issue.

On other issues such as the environment, education, some social issues, and consumer advocacy (to an extent) the Dems are superior. However, I believe McCain to be more centrist than more Republicans when it comes to these issues. Sure, Barack's sound good, but I believe McCain's are more realistic.

Rome wasn't built in a day. We need measured progress and we need to walk before we can run. I love Obama's enthusiasm but I'd rather see him as President in 4-8 years when his proposals are more realistic.

I like Obama, I do. But, putting aside emotion and making a decision based on educated logic and facts, I truly believe McCain is the best choice at the moment.

I hope everyone here makes their decisions based on logic and investigation, not based on emotion (ie: "fucking Republicans!") and one liners. Not all Republicans are the same, nor are all Democrats.

chago04
10-31-2008, 04:35 PM
I like Obama, I do. But, putting aside emotion and making a decision based on educated logic and facts, I truly believe McCain is the best choice at the moment. This is how I feel about him too. I think he is a good person, even if I don't agree with his policies. And I like that both candidates have kept the race much cleaner than in past years (Swift Boat, Personal attacks on Bush, it all needed to stop)

LetsGoMountaineers
10-31-2008, 04:56 PM
John Kerry would have been the ugliest President of all time. :D

tfg
10-31-2008, 05:00 PM
I agree, rational and logical discussions are where we need to be. This is another reason why I believe Obama is the superior choice. I don't believe he's going to try to ram some crazy ideas down everyone's throat. I believe he is more level headed and intelligent that McCain and it's great to see that he's getting so much support from Republicans as well. Like he said in his convention speech, there may be disagreements with issues, but there's no reason why there can't be compromises. No one is against the second amendment, but no one wants to see terrorists and felons running around with machine guns in the streets. No one wants so many regulations that the free market becomes hindered, but some common sense ones are indeed logical. I believe this is the stance he's going to take.

I could've lived with McCain if he had picked Tom Ridge or Joe Liberman like I believe he wanted to. I do believe that he has opposed the republicans on some issues and could be a reformer. I agree with him on some his fiscal conservative views such as cutting some wasteful spending, but his pick of Palin has made him an unacceptable pick. She's far to conservative and I believe represents the faction of the republican party that has hi-jacked the rational part.

jacobvandy
10-31-2008, 05:52 PM
While I don't think blogs or sites on the Internet should be censored, I DO think that they should be forced to provide some sort of fair warning to individuals before entering. For instance, movies and TV shows are rated (movies get G, PG, PG-13, R, and Adult while TV shows get TV-MA, and a bunch of other ones I'm not familiar with). With each level, you know what you're getting yourself into (even then sometimes you don't exactly know what you're getting yourself into ie: Jason Segel's wang in Forgetting Sarah Marshall... but you're at least prepared for some sort of acceptable nudity when you watch an R rated movie). That being said, I think web sites should have to follow the same doctrine. The content is still available, but at least you know what to expect.

Some sites, like porn sites, alcohol or cigarette sites, or R-rated movie sites should have some sort of age verification software that comes up to simply verify that you're of age... even if it's as simple to cheat as lying about your birthday via pull down boxes, I still think they should be there.

Having these measured enacted and enforced (which could be difficult... but so is monitoring correct income tax disclosure) wouldn't hinder freedom of speech or expression in any way. It would simply fine US sites that don't comply.

But I agree, taking down the content altogether is inappropriate and I doubt this was McCain's stance.

I'm all for child protection laws on the Internet. Perverts should be kept away at all costs and I don't mind giving up a slight and minor civil liberty to protect young children from monsters.

who's going to rate all these sites? what about the millions (billions?) of other websites based outside the US? they won't be bothered to comply with such a law. and if any kind of enforcement does happen, you'll just see people moving their sites to foreign servers.

just about every porn site already has some age verification page, as do lots of other ones for mature entertainment (R-rated movies, M-rated games, etc.). except for porn, which i think has some law about it, it's just a courtesy. what you're asking is just another plea to take the role of parenting AWAY from the parents. you don't want your kids to see all the fucked up shit on the internet? monitor them! install parental control software, don't give them a computer with internet access in their own room, put limits on how much they use it, check their browser history and chat logs and punish them if they slip up. don't expect the internet to be a "safe place" where you can just let them run free, because it ain't gonna happen, regardless of how many frivolous laws you pass.

and how dare you say you don't mind civil liberties being taken from you? give them an inch and they'll take ten fucking miles. :dead:

LetsGoMountaineers
10-31-2008, 06:15 PM
who's going to rate all these sites? what about the millions (billions?) of other websites based outside the US? they won't be bothered to comply with such a law. and if any kind of enforcement does happen, you'll just see people moving their sites to foreign servers.

just about every porn site already has some age verification page, as do lots of other ones for mature entertainment (R-rated movies, M-rated games, etc.). except for porn, which i think has some law about it, it's just a courtesy. what you're asking is just another plea to take the role of parenting AWAY from the parents. you don't want your kids to see all the fucked up shit on the internet? monitor them! install parental control software, don't give them a computer with internet access in their own room, put limits on how much they use it, check their browser history and chat logs and punish them if they slip up. don't expect the internet to be a "safe place" where you can just let them run free, because it ain't gonna happen, regardless of how many frivolous laws you pass.

and how dare you say you don't mind civil liberties being taken from you? give them an inch and they'll take ten fucking miles. :dead:

Start an agency. The IRS monitors 300 million income tax returns, don't they? Sure, they only check/audit 1% of all returns, but that 1% scares the vast majority into correctly reporting their taxes. Apply the same principle to the Net.

And I don't mind... and to be honest with you, I'm not sure that policing the Internet for child-predators takes away or infringes on any of my civil liberties. Why don't you explain to me how it infringes upon anything in my life, as I'm not all that up-to-date on predatory laws, seeing as how I'm neither a child nor a predator.

tfg
10-31-2008, 06:58 PM
who's going to rate all these sites? what about the millions (billions?) of other websites based outside the US? they won't be bothered to comply with such a law. and if any kind of enforcement does happen, you'll just see people moving their sites to foreign servers.

just about every porn site already has some age verification page, as do lots of other ones for mature entertainment (R-rated movies, M-rated games, etc.). except for porn, which i think has some law about it, it's just a courtesy. what you're asking is just another plea to take the role of parenting AWAY from the parents. you don't want your kids to see all the fucked up shit on the internet? monitor them! install parental control software, don't give them a computer with internet access in their own room, put limits on how much they use it, check their browser history and chat logs and punish them if they slip up. don't expect the internet to be a "safe place" where you can just let them run free, because it ain't gonna happen, regardless of how many frivolous laws you pass.

and how dare you say you don't mind civil liberties being taken from you? give them an inch and they'll take ten fucking miles. :dead:

Agreed 100%. If we start going down that path, you never know where it'll lead.

Axis on a Tilt
10-31-2008, 07:09 PM
And I don't mind... and to be honest with you, I'm not sure that policing the Internet for child-predators takes away or infringes on any of my civil liberties. Why don't you explain to me how it infringes upon anything in my life, as I'm not all that up-to-date on predatory laws, seeing as how I'm neither a child nor a predator.

Policing the Internet for sexual predators has nothing to do with slapping a R or PG-13 rating on a website. How is that going to help? Do you think child predators hang out at R-rated sites anyway?

I agree with vandy that this is just a ticket for parents to be lazy.

tfg
10-31-2008, 07:11 PM
Start an agency. The IRS monitors 300 million income tax returns, don't they? Sure, they only check/audit 1% of all returns, but that 1% scares the vast majority into correctly reporting their taxes. Apply the same principle to the Net.

And I don't mind... and to be honest with you, I'm not sure that policing the Internet for child-predators takes away or infringes on any of my civil liberties. Why don't you explain to me how it infringes upon anything in my life, as I'm not all that up-to-date on predatory laws, seeing as how I'm neither a child nor a predator.

I just explained above how it infringes. McCain's proposal was to fine sites for obscene pictures and offensive statements. With that kind of vague definition, that could be anything. That could mean probably some metal bands websites and message boards. Something that he may find offensive, I may not. I honestly can't believe what I'm hearing. This is really the one topic that really gets me going. What about certain rap artists or bands that have questionable lyrics? Should they be fined as well?

And isn't it funny how the republicans complain about big government and how the government doesn't work and so on and then the answer is to create another government agency. The IRS just gave out $1 billion in errorenous refunds. The response to that was, oh well we can't track down everything.

chago04
10-31-2008, 08:08 PM
per me, the most important issue is immigration, however, neither of the two candidates have said what i wanted to hear (amnesty), so i couldnt vote based on that. so then it came down to my bottom line. im a selfish person, and if it doesnt benefit me, i dont want it. ok, maybe thats not true, but i hate to see my money going to people who dont deserve it. on top of taxes, i donate at least an extra 10% of my income to causes that i support (mostly in a full tithe to my church), so id rather not that most of my taxes goes to a broken welfare system. i do my part.

brenan
10-31-2008, 08:27 PM
the final analysis:

both the R and D candidates betrayed me on the two largest issues FISA and the Bailout.

Not voting for them, ever.

jacobvandy
10-31-2008, 08:31 PM
Start an agency. The IRS monitors 300 million income tax returns, don't they? Sure, they only check/audit 1% of all returns, but that 1% scares the vast majority into correctly reporting their taxes. Apply the same principle to the Net.

And I don't mind... and to be honest with you, I'm not sure that policing the Internet for child-predators takes away or infringes on any of my civil liberties. Why don't you explain to me how it infringes upon anything in my life, as I'm not all that up-to-date on predatory laws, seeing as how I'm neither a child nor a predator.

the IRS is already a ginormous waste of money. what you've just said about them only checking 1% is right on the money, so why not cut down the number of tax returns to that number? enact the FAIR TAX, forget all this tiered federal tax bullshit, let you take home your entire paycheck, and charge you a 23% tax on everything you buy. stores already collect state sales taxes, so that infrastructure is already there. then all the IRS has to do is keep track of the few million stores instead of the few hundred million people... and people that don't pay taxes now wouldn't be off the hook (homeless panhandlers, illegal immigrants, anyone that deals only in cash) because EVERYONE who buys anything from a store will pay the tax. doesn't matter how much you make, either, what you buy is what you can afford, so you'd pay taxes in proportion to that.

as for the civil liberties thing, i wasn't remarking on any one in particular, just your attitude about it.

chago04
10-31-2008, 08:41 PM
the final analysis:

both the R and D candidates betrayed me on the two largest issues FISA and the Bailout.

Not voting for them, ever.

this is the reason senators usually dont win the election, had either party had the balls to choose a non senator (say romney), it would have been a shoe-in

APlaneTookOff
10-31-2008, 11:11 PM
To put it in plain english, I don't want to be bothered and when I want to say something I better be able to speak out against something. I have some very liberatarian views.Haha holy shit, then don't you dare ask Barack Obama a question. (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10075746-38.html)

Axis on a Tilt
10-31-2008, 11:36 PM
per me, the most important issue is immigration, however, neither of the two candidates have said what i wanted to hear (amnesty), so i couldnt vote based on that. so then it came down to my bottom line. im a selfish person, and if it doesnt benefit me, i dont want it. ok, maybe thats not true, but i hate to see my money going to people who dont deserve it. on top of taxes, i donate at least an extra 10% of my income to causes that i support (mostly in a full tithe to my church), so id rather not that most of my taxes goes to a broken welfare system. i do my part.

Isn't this a little bit contradictory? You want amnesty for illegal immigrants but don't want to pay taxes to welfare. It seems like those issues sort of go hand in hand, because a large amount of new citizens would be applying for federal assistance. Maybe I'm not clear where you stand.

chago04
11-01-2008, 12:18 AM
Isn't this a little bit contradictory? You want amnesty for illegal immigrants but don't want to pay taxes to welfare. It seems like those issues sort of go hand in hand, because a large amount of new citizens would be applying for federal assistance. Maybe I'm not clear where you stand.
no, i want a program that works to take care of the people that cant afford the S.O.L.. Also, its very rare that "illegals" are on welfare, since most states require SSN and verification.

Axis on a Tilt
11-01-2008, 12:31 AM
no, i want a program that works to take care of the people that cant afford the S.O.L.. Also, its very rare that "illegals" are on welfare, since most states require SSN and verification.

I know that "illegals" wouldn't be on welfare, but if amnesty makes them citizens, wouldn't they be eligible?

Yusuf
11-01-2008, 12:38 AM
Haha holy shit, then don't you dare ask Barack Obama a question. (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10075746-38.html)Bob, you're turning wacky. Nothing in that article suggests that there's any proof that the searches were related to Obama's campaign. Let's slow it down a bit with the useless accusations.

APlaneTookOff
11-01-2008, 08:42 PM
Bob, you're turning wacky. Nothing in that article suggests that there's any proof that the searches were related to Obama's campaign. Let's slow it down a bit with the useless accusations.Do you honestly believe that the Democrats didn't dig into the guy's personal life?

Yusuf
11-01-2008, 09:27 PM
Do you honestly believe that the Democrats didn't dig into the guy's personal life?Yes.

chago04
11-01-2008, 09:53 PM
I know that "illegals" wouldn't be on welfare, but if amnesty makes them citizens, wouldn't they be eligible?

hence the need to rework the system before-hand. im just saying that we are all being screwed by the current welfare (and social security) system.

edit: yusuf, i mean this in the nicest way, because i like you, but i think that is incredibly naive of you and is the very root of the problem i have with obama. no one questions him, and he feels he can get away with anything. he has been caught in several lies and all he does is in essence say 'oh well, you caught me, what i meant was....'

APlaneTookOff
11-02-2008, 12:16 AM
Yes.So who is turning wacky then :D

Yusuf
11-02-2008, 01:27 AM
i think that is incredibly naive of you and is the very root of the problem i have with obama. no one questions him, and he feels he can get away with anything. he has been caught in several lies and all he does is in essence say 'oh well, you caught me, what i meant was....'I beg to differ. I'm certainly not naive about Obama, his campaign, and his potential presidency. McCain gets away with as much stuff as Obama does. It's just your perspective, as to who is correct, that defines the frame through which you think someone "got away with something." For instance, I think McCain "got away" with choosing Palin as a running mate. Obviously, you probably disagree.

I know that Obama faces a major uphill battle, not only because of the problems that already exist. I'll be the first to admit that voting for him requires a leap of faith. But, I think all of those issues apply equally to McCain. McCain may be older, and with age comes experience, but neither individual knows what it's like to be President. No one can really be ready to be President.

The "research" into Joe the Plumber's background could have been done by just about anyone--Republicans, Democracts, Independents, people who just want to know who this guy is. He was, and continues to be, heavily featured in the news. To pin this down on the Obama campaign at this point, without any further proof, is reckless.

sst2
11-02-2008, 02:06 AM
The "research" into Joe the Plumber's background could have been done by just about anyone--Republicans, Democracts, Independents, people who just want to know who this guy is. He was, and continues to be, heavily featured in the news. To pin this down on the Obama campaign at this point, without any further proof, is reckless.

I.e., the media. JSM's campaign obv. went out of its way to contact the guy. I don't think anyone really cares though.

LetsGoMountaineers
11-02-2008, 04:50 AM
the IRS is already a ginormous waste of money. what you've just said about them only checking 1% is right on the money, so why not cut down the number of tax returns to that number? enact the FAIR TAX, forget all this tiered federal tax bullshit, let you take home your entire paycheck, and charge you a 23% tax on everything you buy. stores already collect state sales taxes, so that infrastructure is already there. then all the IRS has to do is keep track of the few million stores instead of the few hundred million people... and people that don't pay taxes now wouldn't be off the hook (homeless panhandlers, illegal immigrants, anyone that deals only in cash) because EVERYONE who buys anything from a store will pay the tax. doesn't matter how much you make, either, what you buy is what you can afford, so you'd pay taxes in proportion to that.

as for the civil liberties thing, i wasn't remarking on any one in particular, just your attitude about it.

I love the FAIR Tax and am all for it. We all need to step up and get the word out and put pressure on our congressional leaders.

Hooby
11-02-2008, 05:14 AM
Do you honestly believe that the Democrats didn't dig into the guy's personal life?

Democrats are one thing. Obama is another.

You may consider it naive, but since there's no empirical evidence directly tying his campaign with the incursion....then why jump to conclusions?

And even if there were data linking his campaign, what would it matter? There have been countless incidents on both sides marking their distrust and basic unethical action. Bottom line is, this guy was pretending to be something he was not.

APlaneTookOff
11-02-2008, 09:36 AM
The "research" into Joe the Plumber's background could have been done by just about anyone--Republicans, Democracts, Independents, people who just want to know who this guy is. He was, and continues to be, heavily featured in the news. To pin this down on the Obama campaign at this point, without any further proof, is reckless.It could've been done by anybody. Yes. But it was definitely done by people with D's after their name, that were apparently *told* to do non-routine inquiries. People that donated heavily to the Obama campaign.

It pisses me off. I made that whole thread about it!


Democrats are one thing. Obama is another.

You may consider it naive, but since there's no empirical evidence directly tying his campaign with the incursion....then why jump to conclusions?

And even if there were data linking his campaign, what would it matter? There have been countless incidents on both sides marking their distrust and basic unethical action. Bottom line is, this guy was pretending to be something he was not.No, dude. He never pretended to be anyone. The "unlicensed" bit, or his credos, it's completely meaningless. That whole flurry of 70,000 media stories an hour after we learned who he was was one of the biggest crocks of shit I have ever witnessed. There is no reason everyone in this country shouldn't be outraged at the media.

You make a statement in front of a camera and run home and tell everyone you're gonna be on the news, only to have them actually air .05% of what you said...?? That's one thing to be pissed off at. "I'm gonna be on TV dissecting the anatomy of the car accident" and it only shows you saying "yeah, the car went WHOOOMP" instead of all the amazing stuff you went on about? - that's what we all usually get pissed off at.

To go the other way... to have your shit aired in full - and then have the entire country's media run with it over and over again, and then flip out at what you said? Run stories about who you are as a person? About what you do?? About your goddamn BIRTH NAME? These news people have problems, seriously. They are classless, elitist d-bags.

The "empirical evidence" never traces back to the top. There is no jumping to conclusions, there is only blatent conclusions. It's so silly to like... fight it, or explain it away.

brenan
11-02-2008, 07:53 PM
it's completely meaningless. .

I would say that once you give people (who don't give a shit about you) one a single inch of openness, your privacy is null.

And you should damn well know that, regardless of any moral, ethical, legal standpoint. This is politics, and there is nothing moral, ethical, or legal that doesn't get twisted before the election is over.

You should damn well know that if you're talking to a presidential candidate in the last month, month and a half of an election, within days of a presidential debate, that if you give them a reason to stick in their mind, you will come up and be used as an example.

You should damn well know that you should stay out of the public spotlight if you're flying under the radar for a while. You don't talk to the fucking press if you have dirt. Stay out of the papers, don't get caught. Don't talk to the fucking presidential candidates, they always have press near them.

Sam damn well knew this but he decided to play ball instead of excusing himself and walking inside.

The media IS the biggest piece of shit there is, but he decided to play their game and continues to do so. The fault is on him.

should_be_working
11-02-2008, 07:55 PM
edit: yusuf, i mean this in the nicest way, because i like you, but i think that is incredibly naive of you and is the very root of the problem i have with obama. no one questions him, and he feels he can get away with anything. he has been caught in several lies and all he does is in essence say 'oh well, you caught me, what i meant was....'

I agree with this quite a bit. I, admittedly bias, think that Obama does get away with a lot, certainly more than McCain. Wether its his questionable associations, his lack of experience, or this socialism ideals, to many the man could basicallly say anthing and his supporters will overlook it. Biden makes rediculous comments on a daily basis which gets very little airplay oustide of fox news while media outlets are grilling Sarah Palin about her wardrobe?

Whats become increasingly alarming to me of late is Obama's recent flip-flopping of stances on his taxation policies. For the longest time he's been stating that anyone making $250,000 or less will get a tax break, effectively baiting many voters, and on a new ad on television, he's now saying that number is down to $200,000. Biden's been know to say in interviews that magic number is now $150,000, and some has said it's now as low as $120,000. Changing such details after months of selling them, now days before the election should be sending up a red flag in every voters eye. If he's changing his mind about this crucial policy, what's next? He's promiced so much, based on that example how can any voter trust what he'll do when he actually gets in the White House?? Some voters are taking notice, but i believe many simply don't know what he's now saying, or simply don't care. He's saying a lot of things to get votes that i just really don't see him making good on.

sst2
11-02-2008, 08:08 PM
I agree with this quite a bit. I, admittedly bias, think that Obama does get away with a lot, certainly more than McCain. Wether its his questionable associations, his lack of experience, or this socialism ideals, to many the man could basicallly say anthing and his supporters will overlook it. Biden makes rediculous comments on a daily basis which gets very little airplay oustide of fox news while media outlets are grilling Sarah Palin about her wardrobe?

Whats become increasingly alarming to me of late is Obama's recent flip-flopping of stances on his taxation policies. For the longest time he's been stating that anyone making $250,000 or less will get a tax break, effectively baiting many voters, and on a new ad on television, he's now saying that number is down to $200,000. Biden's been know to say in interviews that magic number is now $150,000, and some has said it's now as low as $120,000. Changing such details after months of selling them, now days before the election should be sending up a red flag in every voters eye. If he's changing his mind about this crucial policy, what's next? He's promiced so much, based on that example how can any voter trust what he'll do when he actually gets in the White House?? Some voters are taking notice, but i believe many simply don't know what he's now saying, or simply don't care. He's saying a lot of things to get votes that i just really don't see him making good on.

That's silly. Bill Richardson misspoke; the policy has not changed. It's pretty sad that McCain and Palin can't talk about anything more than spoken "typos", if you will, by people who aren't even representing the Obama/Biden campaign.

should_be_working
11-02-2008, 08:15 PM
That's silly. Bill Richardson misspoke; the policy has not changed. It's pretty sad that McCain and Palin can't talk about anything more than spoken "typos", if you will, by people who aren't even representing the Obama/Biden campaign.

I litterally saw the ad for Obama - it was Obama himself saying that the number was $200,000. No one misspoke. Period.

Axis on a Tilt
11-02-2008, 08:22 PM
Whats become increasingly alarming to me of late is Obama's recent flip-flopping of stances on his taxation policies. For the longest time he's been stating that anyone making $250,000 or less will get a tax break, effectively baiting many voters, and on a new ad on television, he's now saying that number is down to $200,000. Biden's been know to say in interviews that magic number is now $150,000, and some has said it's now as low as $120,000. Changing such details after months of selling them, now days before the election should be sending up a red flag in every voters eye. If he's changing his mind about this crucial policy, what's next? He's promiced so much, based on that example how can any voter trust what he'll do when he actually gets in the White House?? Some voters are taking notice, but i believe many simply don't know what he's now saying, or simply don't care. He's saying a lot of things to get votes that i just really don't see him making good on.

I think you've got it wrong. He's been saying that if you make less than $250,000, you will not see an increase in your taxes. If you make less than $200,000, you will see a tax decrease. When Biden said $150,000, I'm pretty sure that it was a mistake, that's all.

should_be_working
11-02-2008, 08:34 PM
I think you've got it wrong. He's been saying that if you make less than $250,000, you will not see an increase in your taxes. If you make less than $200,000, you will see a tax decrease. When Biden said $150,000, I'm pretty sure that it was a mistake, that's all.

You're absolutely right. That's how its stated on their website. My appologies for my ignorance. They've been throwing that $250,000 number around so consistantly, that i got my numbers mixed up. When I heard a recent Obama ad and the mention of $200,000, i automatically assumed that he had lowed the tax rate amount. Again, my apologies.

I do however, still beleive, taxes will ultimately be raised under Obama all around.

Hooby
11-02-2008, 11:32 PM
It could've been done by anybody. Yes. But it was definitely done by people with D's after their name, that were apparently *told* to do non-routine inquiries. People that donated heavily to the Obama campaign.

It pisses me off. I made that whole thread about it!

No, dude. He never pretended to be anyone. The "unlicensed" bit, or his credos, it's completely meaningless. That whole flurry of 70,000 media stories an hour after we learned who he was was one of the biggest crocks of shit I have ever witnessed. There is no reason everyone in this country shouldn't be outraged at the media.

The man who nearly immediately said he was thinking of running for office WASN'T pretending to be anything? C'mon now.

Bottom line is, even if it were people that donated heavily to his campaign.....it wasn't his campaign.

APlaneTookOff
11-03-2008, 05:41 AM
The man who nearly immediately said he was thinking of running for office WASN'T pretending to be anything? C'mon now.No no, the order is right there for everyone to see if they dig. Yes, Brenan, he played the game. But BEFORE he did play the game, things went south for him. It went:

- Obama showed up. He spoke. Media picked up on it.
- Fox portrayed it positive for McCain
- D's & media dug into him, ran interference. This is when I made that thread about him.
- He gave press conference. Media snowballed, he went on shows, McCain mentioned him in teh debate, etc, etc...

Then he gained his celebrity status, etc. Then he mentioned he'd run in 2012, etc, etc...

There is a distinct timeline to it all. Point is, he went against the Democrats and the media's narrative and was ostracized for it. Why the fuck else would we even know who he is? Not because of his middle name, not because he didn't have a license, not because of any of that, but because he made a goddamn good point about Obama's bullshit plan for our economy, one that went against the grain.


Bottom line is, even if it were people that donated heavily to his campaign.....it wasn't his campaign.You're right. If you want to get technical, it was Clinton's people and their political tentacles. Thankfully, Obama's the new guy, the outsider bringing "change" that's going to steer our country away from all that crap though, right?

Maybe
11-03-2008, 08:29 AM
What I enjoy about America are my personal freedoms and civil liberties. To put it in plain english, I don't want to be bothered and when I want to say something I better be able to speak out against something. I have some very liberatarian views.

same here. for instance, I think that the right to life is our most sacred right, and shouldn't be anyone's choice. the fact that McCain agrees with me is very important. even so, that was not what I based my vote on - I voted on the economy, and Obama has it so crooked it's not even funny. I literally, and I know this is offensive, but I literally feel like if 55% of Americans vote for Obama after knowing his policies, then [gah]. it's almost better to be one of those people who're voting for him just because he's black (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyvqhdllXgU). I'm sure a lot of people feel the same way about McCain though (well, not because he's black.. errr..) just different viewpoints I guess.


Agreed 100%. If we start going down that path, you never know where it'll lead.
funny, that's what I said about raising taxes on the rich and lowering them on the poor.