NationStates Jolt Archive

Uh, what? The 10% that admit it would already be in the McCain camp. Why would we assume that people can admit that race is a factor but not admit they're planning to vote McCain?

The people you're talking about admitting they were voting for Hillary. In fact, analysis usually showed that Obama did slightly better than the polling. It's the exact opposite of what you'd expect from the Bradley effect. Now, those are skewed liberal, so I'd definitely buy that there will be some Bradley effect, but suggesting we will see a swing of 13% is just fucking ludicrous.


Zogby gives 4% as the difference right now, I believe.

To the point. If 10% of Democrats will admit they can't vote for Obama because he's black, it's fait to assume 10% of all voters would admit they can't vote for Obama because he's black.

Add 3% for the Bradley Effect (NOT admitting it, but voting on that same protocol) to get the 13%.


No offense, but I've watched you analyze American politics for half of a decade; forgive me if I'm skeptical. (I don't think I used that semicolon right.)

And most of the time in the last half decade, when I've talked politics, I've been spot on or pretty close.

I'm not going to claim I've always been right. I expected a much broader conflict with Iran by now, for example.

Zogby gives 4% as the difference right now, I believe.

To the point. If 10% of Democrats will admit they can't vote for Obama because he's black, it's fait to assume 10% of all voters would admit they can't vote for Obama because he's black.

Add 3% for the Bradley Effect (NOT admitting it, but voting on that same protocol) to get the 13%.



And most of the time in the last half decade, when I've talked politics, I've been spot on or pretty close.

I'm not going to claim I've always been right. I expected a much broader conflict with Iran by now, for example.

So, wait, 10% of undecideds won't vote for a black candidate...then what the fuck are they undecided about? To the point, McCain has at least 40% of the vote-you don't think that the people that make up that 40% already contain the people who are willing to admit they can't vote for a black guy? You're double counting a group to get your shift...

Further, if we want to assume that for some reason those undecideds contain people who won't vote for a black man and are open about it but for some mind boggling reason they're still undecided, it would amount to 10% of that 4%. (and this is using the lowest poller, the average is around seven). That is small enough of a shift that could be just as easily regular ol' race tightening.

And this is still granting your 'it's different because I say so' premise that makes it impossible for 'firsts' but easy for people after that impossible barrier.

A couple of thoughts - a more full response in a while.

1) In the primaries, almost 3% of Democrats said they voted against Obama with race as the most important factor. About 6.5% said it was 'one of several important factors'.

This is the party that picked him as a candidate - and almost 10% of his OWN party admit they voted against him on race. How many voted against him on race but didn't admit it?

http://southernstudies.org/facingsouth/2008/02/did-racism-swing-super-tuesday.asp

What happens when you carry that forward? Can we expect 10% to vote against Obama because he's black, as their most important, or one of the most important, reasons?
I don't think so.

Of those 10% who voted against Obama due to his skincolour - how many do you think would really vote for a GOP candidate solely cause their Dem candidate is the wrong colour? Let alone vote for McCain!
So sure, 10% of Dems might have felt queasy about voting for a Black man, but I wager a great majority of them would feel even sicker voting for McCain. the 6.5% who said it was a factor (but not the most important factor) surely would fall into this range, leaving just the diehard 3.5% who harbour racist views. Say a 1/3 of them hold race so important as to define their vote: this leaves us with 1% at the most of registered Dems falling into the "I ain't never voting for no ******!" category. But in any election, there's always going to be 1 or 2% of the base who vote against the party ticket for whatever reason.

And then we look out over the rest of the population.
Using your 10% figure - the 10% of registered Republicans who are that racist so as to never vote for a man of colour would, I'd argue, be part of the GOP base who would never vote for anyone other than a GOP candidate no matter who GOP put up. Which makes their racist opinions moot, as no Democrat candidate, not just Obama, could ever compete for their vote. Had Hillary won the nomination, they'd no doubt make up the same 10% who would never vote for a wimmin.

Which leaves us with the Independents. Hard to say about them, but using the Democrat stats you supplied it might be safe to say there's, at maximum, 3% of them who think race is the defining factor for their vote. Which is more than off-set by the number of newly-enrolled Black (and other) voters who are voting for Obama for the same reason.

Here's a topic:

I've noticed quite a few people on either side of the aisle raising the point that <candidate> has changed his/her opinion on a given topic, and is therefore "a flip-flopper". I don't remember this being an issue before the Kerry campaign, but now being branded a flip-flopper is somehow horrible.

Given that politics is a game of compromise, and that decisions are necessarily made before all the facts are in, somebody please explain to me in tiny words why changing your mind after hearing more facts is a bad thing. I'd like my leaders to be able to be persuaded by a reasoned and reasonable argument. Wherein lies the problem?

It depends, really.

Re-evaluating one's position isn't necessarily bad, but changing one's position simply to win popularity (*cough* Romney *cough*) is.

And I am still annoyed at Palin at hinting that Obama was/is a terrorist. And...well she's a fine one to talk. What about her husband, who belonged to a radical party that wanted to seperate from Alaska. Not sure if the group was a 'terrorist group' but still that's pretty bad as well. It is the old story about throwing stones at glass houses.

Obama is a terrorist. He supports the war in Afghanistan, the victims of which are almost always innocent people. He has also talked about attacking Pakistan, and of course he refuses to rule out attacking Iran (in spite of the fact that Iran poses not even the slightest threat to the U.S.).

Of course, McCain, Biden, Palin, and all the other warmongers are terrorists, as well.

Is anyone catch the distinctive whiff of Ferrous Oxide about Pro-Am Socialists?
The style of writing is certainly similar, and the attitudes contained therein are definitely the same.

I can assure you I am not Ferrous Oxide. If you don't believe me, I'm sure the moderators will be happy to prove it.

Is anyone catch the distinctive whiff of Ferrous Oxide about Pro-Am Socialists?
The style of writing is certainly similar, and the attitudes contained therein are definitely the same.

I am not sure....it's in the same calibar but.... FO was pretty pro McCain. But then again hard to say.

Frankly I am tired of Pro's flamebaiting of Obama. I've read all the smears because I have Republican friends emailing me the stuff all the time. They don't know I am a pretty active Democrat because I don't talk politics with them. I'd rather keep their friendship then to ruin it with petty poltics. I've proven most of those smears as wrong or distortions from Fact Check and Snopes,so it's just getting really annoying now.

Speaking the truth = flamebaiting?

Interesting thesis.

Obama’s pro-war record (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=334x1712)
Have No Illusions (http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13564)
Is Obama the ‘Antiwar’ Candidate? (http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13183)
Obama capitulates (http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12944)
O-bomb-a and the War Party (http://www.antiwar.com/article.php?articleid=10181)

Speaking the truth = flamebaiting?

Interesting thesis.

When you butcher the meanings of the English language to fit your definition, you aren't speaking the truth anymore.

Speaking the truth = flamebaiting?

Interesting thesis.

Gee.... because it is. Flamebaiting with the insistance that Obama and even McCain and Palin are terrorists.

I don't necessarly agree with the military actions of the US, but can you dispute the fact that we do need to get Osama Bin Ladin? Or would you rather leave him in Afghanstan or Pakistan?

Iran. Since when did Obama state he was going to attack them? He never has.


And as for McCain and Palin, they keep crying wolf everytime there is a world crisis. First Iran, then Russia. The Republican party is filled with warmongers.

But I tire of this insinuation game. Time for me to go to bed.

How am I "butchering the meanings of the English language?"


Oh, and here's Obama on Pakistan. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIum0o-_LZk)

Gee.... because it is. Flamebaiting with the insistance that Obama and even McCain and Palin are terrorists.

According to dictionary.reference.com, they are (http://dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?qh=terrorism&ia=luna).

I don't necessarly agree with the military actions of the US, but can you dispute the fact that we do need to get Osama Bin Ladin? Or would you rather leave him in Afghanstan or Pakistan?

There were other options, including, but not limited to, the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001.

Iran. Since when did Obama state he was going to attack them? He never has.

He hasn't ruled out attacking them.

How am I "butchering the meanings of the English language?"


By attributing false descriptors to the word "Terrorist".


He hasn't ruled out attacking them.

I will not rule out tracking you down, and nailing your fingers to your door.

The actual probability of me doing so is probably a few decimal places short of 1%.

But that probably makes me some sort of psychopath or "terrorist" in your book I suppose.

They fit the description given here (http://dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?qh=terrorism&ia=luna).

Besides, what else is war but terrorism?

They fit the description given here (http://dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?qh=terrorism&ia=luna).

Besides, what else is war but terrorism?

From your link.


1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

You have yet to show this factor in your claims. If you discount it, you include all acts of intimidation, including legal threats, schoolyard bullying, not to mention law enforcement, as "terrorism".

Zogby gives 4% as the difference right now, I believe.

To the point. If 10% of Democrats will admit they can't vote for Obama because he's black, it's fait to assume 10% of all voters would admit they can't vote for Obama because he's black.

Add 3% for the Bradley Effect (NOT admitting it, but voting on that same protocol) to get the 13%.



And most of the time in the last half decade, when I've talked politics, I've been spot on or pretty close.

I'm not going to claim I've always been right. I expected a much broader conflict with Iran by now, for example.

You fail math. As I'm sure has been pointed out several times by now, when you are talking about Obama needing more than 13% advantage, you imply 13% of voters claiming to support Obama in polls, but voting for McCain in the election. The 3% you give to Bradly effect is an okay guess - that's the amount of "closet-racists" who poll for Obama.

Now please explain exactly why the 10% of people who are openly stating they oppose Obama for being black would falsely claim to support him in the polls. Because unless they do that, then your 13% is a meaningless number.

Palin is not helping McCain much. She is still hinting that Obama is or was a terrorist.

(By the way, I found this epic presidential election ad: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=GCx0J3NiABY)

You fail math. As I'm sure has been pointed out several times by now, when you are talking about Obama needing more than 13% advantage, you imply 13% of voters claiming to support Obama in polls, but voting for McCain in the election. The 3% you give to Bradly effect is an okay guess - that's the amount of "closet-racists" who poll for Obama.
to be fair, you're sorta both at fault here.
It wouldn't be 13% of Obama voters switching to McCain - just 6 or 7%. Obama's vote count falls 6.5%, McCain's rises 6.5% - a 13% turnaround. Hence Grave coming up with needing a 13% clear margin for Obama to feel safe.
eg: say Obama is leading 56-44 - a 12 point lead. If, as Grave says, the Bradley effect is 6.5% then on election day, 6.5% switch over to McCain, giving him victory 50.5-49.5.

It's all supposition anyway. And confusing for everyone. Grave is confusing 13% of voters where it would really be 13% of Obama supporters (at least those polled who say they'd vote Obama).

Even if 10% of Obama voters end up voting McCain that's only 5% of the total vote. And 10% is a very big proportion - greater than any effect seen in recent times. As fivethirtyeight says, the effect has been steadily decreasing over time, partly due to pollsters knowing about it and incorporating it into their questionings.

I expect it would be no more than 3%. And that's 3% of likely Obama supporters. As you (and others) have pointed out, the Bradley effect is about people who say they'll vote for a Black guy but then bail out come election day. It's not about people already saying they won't cause he's Black.

eg.
Let's assume on Election Day the polls read Obama 52-48 over McCain. Then 3% of votes thought to be cast for Obama on election day in fact being Bradleys is going to equal 1.56% of total votes, which would still give him victory: 50.4-49.6 (ignoring EVs here for simplicity's sake).

The race would have to get a lot tighter than it is now for us to really become concerned that the Bradley effect might tip it towards McCain. The contest would have to narrow to just a 2% difference between candidates, which is within the margin of error making the whole Bradley effect moot anyway.

I can assure you I am not Ferrous Oxide. If you don't believe me, I'm sure the moderators will be happy to prove it.
huh. I am sorry for that case of mistaken identity.
I must say, It's all rather odd that for someone who has just joined as of TODAY immediately knows who I'm talking about. Especially as the poster I mentioned hasn't posted in this thread for more than 3 days, 15 pages ago.

But I trust ya. I trust that the first thing you did upon joining up was read through 185 pages (and counting) of this thread and carefully note who each poster was. That's why it only took you 9 minutes to negate my post so forcefully and without hesitation.

(By the way, I found this epic presidential election ad: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=GCx0J3NiABY)
awesome clip. Compare his rhetoric to McCains. How can anyone still want to vote for McCain. Obama is talking about the positivity and the future while all McCain can do is whine and squeal negativity.
How can anyone feel uplifted and motivated listening to McCain?

edit: I notice this has been on Youtube just one week yet it's already had nearly 400,000 views. That's impressive. And very interesting.

Is anyone catch the distinctive whiff of Ferrous Oxide about Pro-Am Socialists?
The style of writing is certainly similar, and the attitudes contained therein are definitely the same.

Second time I have seen someone being accused of also being FeO.

Second time I have seen someone being accused of also being FeO.
He might well not be, but he's certainly someone's troll. How else can you explain why someone can pop up today yet immediately know who it is I'm referring to when said NS'er hasn't posted in this thread for 3 days?

Let alone his knowledge of just how to prove he's not FO. I've been on this board a few months and that's the first I've ever heard about the mods being able to track one's a/c log.

... I've been on this board a few months and that's the first I've ever heard about the mods being able to track one's a/c log.


We don't tell you all our mystic powahs, you know. Not even when your post count reaches 666. :tongue:

Is anyone catch the distinctive whiff of Ferrous Oxide about Pro-Am Socialists?
The style of writing is certainly similar, and the attitudes contained therein are definitely the same.But he uses references, which is highly untypical of Rusty...
I can assure you I am not Ferrous Oxide. If you don't believe me, I'm sure the moderators will be happy to prove it.I'm not sure they'll be happy to do so...

He might well not be, but he's certainly someone's troll. How else can you explain why someone can pop up today yet immediately know who it is I'm referring to when said NS'er hasn't posted in this thread for 3 days?

Let alone his knowledge of just how to prove he's not FO. I've been on this board a few months and that's the first I've ever heard about the mods being able to track one's a/c log.

Well who knows, maybe he had read through the last ten pages or so before posting. And I have known for awhile that the Mods can see if you are the same person, just like they can see what posts had in them before they are edited, amongst other fantastical tricks.

As Ard says they don't tell us all their powers, I hear they can even levitate and move objects through thought alone.

They hide their powers to keep us plebs scared and obedient.

So, wait, 10% of undecideds won't vote for a black candidate...then what the fuck are they undecided about? To the point, McCain has at least 40% of the vote-you don't think that the people that make up that 40% already contain the people who are willing to admit they can't vote for a black guy? You're double counting a group to get your shift...

Further, if we want to assume that for some reason those undecideds contain people who won't vote for a black man and are open about it but for some mind boggling reason they're still undecided, it would amount to 10% of that 4%. (and this is using the lowest poller, the average is around seven). That is small enough of a shift that could be just as easily regular ol' race tightening.

And this is still granting your 'it's different because I say so' premise that makes it impossible for 'firsts' but easy for people after that impossible barrier.

The 10% might be included in the 40%. Or it might not. I'm not double counting - I'm saying we don't KNOW the constituency of McCain's support.

If we allow for the fact that McCain's poll numbers are based on target groups of a few thousand, it's entirely possible we're seeing calculations based largely on other factors. Indeed, based on the statistic, if McCain is polling 40%, 4% of his supporters would be willing to admit they are voting for McCain all, or mostly, because of race.

But how much of the 10% of the voter constituency as a whole are we seeing?

you guys go at it like dogs fighting over a bone.

since "the bradley effect" is just a theory, havent you discussed this theory thoroughly enough? there is no way to know if it will be a factor until it IS a factor. being the most right in your discussion of it wont change that.

Using your 10% figure -


Not mine - I posted the source. Ssaying it's my figure makes it sound like I'm thea rchitect of the numbers.


the 10% of registered Republicans who are that racist so as to never vote for a man of colour would, I'd argue, be part of the GOP base who would never vote for anyone other than a GOP candidate no matter who GOP put up.


That doesn't even make sense - what if the GOP put up a black candidate?

I can't tell you who it would be, to be honest. I'm encountered racism in some of the most surprising people.

Do I think there's this unaccounted 13% variation that might instantly leap in, of people that would admit they were too racist to support Obama, or would not admit it but would vote that way? Maybe not. I assume that at least some - if not all - of that figure is already being accounted... just not declared.

And because it's not declared, we don't know for sure... there COULD be an extra 13% support for McCain that's going to come swinging in out of nowhere.


Which makes their racist opinions moot, as no Democrat candidate, not just Obama, could ever compete for their vote. Had Hillary won the nomination, they'd no doubt make up the same 10% who would never vote for a wimmin.


Maybe, maybe not. Again, we can guess... but I've never seen any declarations to that effect. (Although I do have anecdotal evidence that would support it, but faced with the choice of a black president, or a female VP, they could apparently swallow a female VP, when it came down to it).


Which leaves us with the Independents. Hard to say about them, but using the Democrat stats you supplied it might be safe to say there's, at maximum, 3% of them who think race is the defining factor for their vote.


Why 3%?

The stats I found say 3% will consider it the MOST important factor, and almost another 7% will consider it ONE OF the most important factors. ANd then the Bradley Effect suggests there's maybe another 3% not admitting they find it an important issue, that will vote as though it is.


Which is more than off-set by the number of newly-enrolled Black (and other) voters who are voting for Obama for the same reason.

Maybe. And I hope you're right.

Although, of course, it has to be said that just being black doesn't guarantee you think a black man should be president.

you guys go at it like dogs fighting over a bone.

since "the bradley effect" is just a theory, havent you discussed this theory thoroughly enough? there is no way to know if it will be a factor until it IS a factor. being the most right in your discussion of it wont change that.
I think it's starting to morph into a kind of fantasy football for political nerds. Hopefully, the debate on Wednesday will give them something beside imagined numbers and trolls to talk about.

Although, of course, it has to be said that just being black doesn't guarantee you think a black man should be president.

True, but it's not a matter of thinking a black guy is entitled to be president. The GOP has done such a bang-up job the last fifty years on racial issues that blacks vote Democrat about 90-95%.

You fail math. As I'm sure has been pointed out several times by now, when you are talking about Obama needing more than 13% advantage, you imply 13% of voters claiming to support Obama in polls, but voting for McCain in the election. The 3% you give to Bradly effect is an okay guess - that's the amount of "closet-racists" who poll for Obama.

Now please explain exactly why the 10% of people who are openly stating they oppose Obama for being black would falsely claim to support him in the polls. Because unless they do that, then your 13% is a meaningless number.

You fail reading. I didn't say those people are falsely claiming to support Obama. I said 3% (the Bradely Effect) are not admitting their voting preference based on race, but that a further 10% would admit - if asked - such a bias. I didn't say what that further 10% are doing right now.

They could be unmeasured in the polls as a complete quantity. They might be partially represented. They might be looking like McCain supporters, Independents, or even still Democrats. We don't KNOW - because they are undeclared.

I think it's starting to morph into a kind of fantasy football for political nerds. Hopefully, the debate on Wednesday will give them something beside imagined numbers and trolls to talk about.
i have become such a political junkie that i wouldnt consider missing that debate.

i have never been so entertained by debates. just remembering mccain wandering around behind obama in the blurry camera background.... i cant wait to see what he does tomorrow.

im hoping that he "asks" obama about ayers. i want to see the response that obama has obviously already prepared.

i have become such a political junkie that i wouldnt consider missing that debate.

i have never been so entertained by debates. just remembering mccain wandering around behind obama in the blurry camera background.... i cant wait to see what he does tomorrow.

im hoping that he "asks" obama about ayers. i want to see the response that obama has obviously already prepared.
Me too. I have never been so interested in US political debates before. But this week, my mom and I both cancelled social engagements so we could watch it live (and watch the finale to Project Runway, too. ;))

I'm looking forward to that pitying yet amused look Obama gets on his face. I love that.

you guys go at it like dogs fighting over a bone.

since "the bradley effect" is just a theory, havent you discussed this theory thoroughly enough? there is no way to know if it will be a factor until it IS a factor. being the most right in your discussion of it wont change that.

The Bradley Effect is only part of what I'm talking about, and not the most significant part - its just the most unaccountable part because you can't track or detect it until AFTER the voting.

What I'm talking about is the statistics that were apparent earlier this year, as in the source I provided, that showed an almost 10% divergence that people were willing to admit when asked.

Unless we assume that Democrats are, collectively, MORE racist than everyone else - we SHOULD be expecting a similar percentile in other groups. AT least 10% of voters should be expected to reject ANY candidate, purely or mainly based on race... and be willing to admit as much.

The Bradley Effect would be on top of that.

(And, if we assume that Democrats are more diverse, and maybe LESS racist than the average, we should be looking for MORE than 10% of the total voter count to be represented this way).

I'm not trying to 'be most right' - I'm trying to be clear.

I'd like to believe that Obama has this in the bag. I'd like to believe that today's voters are not willing to ignore politics, policy and issues... to focus on outdated concepts of race. But I think it's important that we confront the spectre of racism in politics, rather than just walking round and round saying 'what elephant? I see no elephant in this room"....

True, but it's not a matter of thinking a black guy is entitled to be president. The GOP has done such a bang-up job the last fifty years on racial issues that blacks vote Democrat about 90-95%.

But you can have anti-black-president sentiments even among black constituencies. Even among black Democrats, it's not impossible that there can be a percentage who don't think America is 'ready' for a black president.

The Bradley Effect is only part of what I'm talking about, and not the most significant part - its just the most unaccountable part because you can't track or detect it until AFTER the voting.

What I'm talking about is the statistics that were apparent earlier this year, as in the source I provided, that showed an almost 10% divergence that people were willing to admit when asked.

Unless we assume that Democrats are, collectively, MORE racist than everyone else - we SHOULD be expecting a similar percentile in other groups. AT least 10% of voters should be expected to reject ANY candidate, purely or mainly based on race... and be willing to admit as much.

The Bradley Effect would be on top of that.

(And, if we assume that Democrats are more diverse, and maybe LESS racist than the average, we should be looking for MORE than 10% of the total voter count to be represented this way).

I'm not trying to 'be most right' - I'm trying to be clear.

I'd like to believe that Obama has this in the bag. I'd like to believe that today's voters are not willing to ignore politics, policy and issues... to focus on outdated concepts of race. But I think it's important that we confront the spectre of racism in politics, rather than just walking round and round saying 'what elephant? I see no elephant in this room"....
and you have covered your points thoroughly. it really requires no more defense.

cant you just accept that some of your fellow posters will never agree with you?

By the way, what do we all make of McCain's failure to unveil his new economic plan yesterday, as he had announced he would?

Personally, I think he doesn't have one. Or rather, he does, but it sucks, and his econo-wonks are desperately trying to spruce it up and sprinkle glitter all over it before the debate.

Is he likely to try to shoehorn the unveiling into the debate, regardless of the time constraints? Or will he try to dodge the economy issue during the debate with promises that the plan he will unveil will be a humdinger on account of he's been places and knows how to do stuff, so we should all just "turn the page" until he tells us otherwise?

OH WAIT, I KNOW -- he'll unveil it today, or tomorrow morning, so Obama won't have time to prepare statements with which to highlight how much it sucks before the debate starts.

I heard some details of Obama's plan, and it is very ambitious and unlikely to be fully implemented on all points, but what I heard, I liked. However, I can imagine a lot of Republicans kicking up a fuss because it sounds very FDR-ish. But then our times are rather FDR-ish, too.

EDIT: Yes, I am proposing to change the subject.

and you have covered your points thoroughly. it really requires no more defense.

cant you just accept that some of your fellow posters will never agree with you?

Absolutely.

But are you saying I should present it, and then watch as they misread the statistics?

I thought I was being clear. I thought my source was clear... but I've seen a couple of people conflate the Bradley Effect with the almost 10% 'racially motivated' vote admitted earlier this year...

They can feel free to disagree with me. I'd LIKE to disagree with me. Time will tell, though. I just want them to agree or disagree with what I was actually talking about.

But you can have anti-black-president sentiments even among black constituencies. Even among black Democrats, it's not impossible that there can be a percentage who don't think America is 'ready' for a black president.

Quite true, and partially why some of us refuse to be optimistic until the votes are all counted.

Quite true, and partially why some of us refuse to be optimistic until the votes are all counted.

How can you be optimisitic about an outcome thats already happened?:confused:

By the way, what do we all make of McCain's failure to unveil his new economic plan yesterday, as he had announced he would?

Personally, I think he doesn't have one. Or rather, he does, but it sucks, and his econo-wonks are desperately trying to spruce it up and sprinkle glitter all over it before the debate.

Is he likely to try to shoehorn the unveiling into the debate, regardless of the time constraints? Or will he try to dodge the economy issue during the debate with promises that the plan he will unveil will be a humdinger on account of he's been places and knows how to do stuff, so we should all just "turn the page" until he tells us otherwise?

OH WAIT, I KNOW -- he'll unveil it today, or tomorrow morning, so Obama won't have time to prepare statements with which to highlight how much it sucks before the debate starts.

I heard some details of Obama's plan, and it is very ambitious and unlikely to be fully implemented on all points, but what I heard, I liked. However, I can imagine a lot of Republicans kicking up a fuss because it sounds very FDR-ish. But then our times are rather FDR-ish, too.

Considering McCain's last offering still had Hillary's handwriting on it, and was already a feature of the bailout package, I don't hold out much hope for a McCain plan.

He's painted into a corner - he can't come up with anything that's close to charity, because his party and what's left of his base will crucify him. Which basically means the best he can hope to offer is some kind of regulatory package (which has already been tabled), some kind of moratorium (already tabled on shortselling, already offered by Obama on mortgage repo)... or tax breaks - which is the one thing that always get's the GOP wet.

I'd be interested to see how he's going to table a proposal of taxbreaks that will help the chronically underemployed/underpaid to buy houses on bad mortgages.

How can you be optimisitic about an outcome thats already happened?:confused:

Are you suggesting the November 4th election already happened?

Considering McCain's last offering still had Hillary's handwriting on it, and was already a feature of the bailout package, I don't hold out much hope for a McCain plan.

He's painted into a corner - he can't come up with anything that's close to charity, because his party and what's left of his base will crucify him. Which basically means the best he can hope to offer is some kind of regulatory package (which has already been tabled), some kind of moratorium (already tabled on shortselling, already offered by Obama on mortgage repo)... or tax breaks - which is the one thing that always get's the GOP wet.

I'd be interested to see how he's going to table a proposal of taxbreaks that will help the chronically underemployed/underpaid to buy houses on bad mortgages.
Perhaps his safest option would be to float taxbreaks and keep it vague on taxbreaks for whom.

Are you suggesting the November 4th election already happened?

Quite true, and partially why some of us refuse to be optimistic until the votes are all counted.

Optimism, Noun:

A tendency to expect the best, or at least, a favourable outcome.

Thus you can't be optimisitic after the votes are counted as the outcome has already happened.

By the way, what do we all make of McCain's failure to unveil his new economic plan yesterday, as he had announced he would?

Personally, I think he doesn't have one. Or rather, he does, but it sucks, and his econo-wonks are desperately trying to spruce it up and sprinkle glitter all over it before the debate.

Is he likely to try to shoehorn the unveiling into the debate, regardless of the time constraints? Or will he try to dodge the economy issue during the debate with promises that the plan he will unveil will be a humdinger on account of he's been places and knows how to do stuff, so we should all just "turn the page" until he tells us otherwise?

OH WAIT, I KNOW -- he'll unveil it today, or tomorrow morning, so Obama won't have time to prepare statements with which to highlight how much it sucks before the debate starts.

I heard some details of Obama's plan, and it is very ambitious and unlikely to be fully implemented on all points, but what I heard, I liked. However, I can imagine a lot of Republicans kicking up a fuss because it sounds very FDR-ish. But then our times are rather FDR-ish, too.

EDIT: Yes, I am proposing to change the subject.
there was a suggestion that he would be out with one today.

id like to see him put out something that isnt crazy.

it could happen.

Perhaps his safest option would be to float taxbreaks and keep it vague on taxbreaks for whom.
wsnt that his party's original plan that derailed the bailout?

that if we suspend the capital gains tax for a year or 2 it will fix the economy?

Optimism, Noun:

A tendency to expect the best, or at least, a favourable outcome.

Thus you can't be optimisitic after the votes are counted as the outcome has already happened.

Right. So - withholding optimism, until the point at which the event is passed. That doesn't actually mean that one would have to start being optimistic then... just that that's the cutoff point for 'stopping yourself hoping for the best'.

Kinda.

Perhaps his safest option would be to float taxbreaks and keep it vague on taxbreaks for whom.

Well.. Republicans.

So - we know who would get the taxbreaks - business and wealthy people. Because that's what moves the economy. Or something.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_5ieXw28ZUpg/SPPiKmJOsTI/AAAAAAAAAT0/IpDEAID4ASc/S1600-R/1013_mainchart.png

McCain can only hit on a 20.

Bradley effect would be those who denied that race was a factor, but still voted based on race.

If 10% admit it, and the Bradley effect might account for... say... 3%, then a poll would have to be at least... 13% (in that case)... advantage to be 'safe'.

See what I mean?

Actually, that wouldn't be the Bradley effect. The Bradley effect refers to a phenomenon in which people actually lie about who they voted for (or, I suppose, who they plan on voting for), in order to keep from appearing racist.

The confusing thing in the Bradley election (and in some others with the same effect) was that exit polls (polls after voting) had vastly different percentages than the actual tallied votes. The theory is that people were worried about appearing to be racist, and thus claimed to have voted for the black guy when they really didn't.

So 3% of people who said they voted against him but didn't admit it was due to race wouldn't be a part of the Bradley effect. Now, if exit polls had consistently showed Obama doing, say, 3% better than he actually did in the vote tallies, that would be evidence of the Bradley effect (assuming that the 3% would be outside the margin of error).

wsnt that his party's original plan that derailed the bailout?

that if we suspend the capital gains tax for a year or 2 it will fix the economy?
Why, yes, it was. But what else do they have left, except to keep repeating the magic word "abra-ca-taxbreak-a" and hope it'll get the zombies to check the right box on the ballot?

There's evidence that there's a bit of a reverse Bradley effect going on with Obama, actually.

By the way, what do we all make of McCain's failure to unveil his new economic plan yesterday, as he had announced he would?

Personally, I think he doesn't have one. Or rather, he does, but it sucks, and his econo-wonks are desperately trying to spruce it up and sprinkle glitter all over it before the debate.
I think he's beginning to think he's the unluckiest guy to ever run for office.
Whatever his 'super-amazing-cuminyourpants' economic policy is, it's been trumped by the huge leap in the Dow today along with nearly all the financial pundits saying the bail-out package + bank share buy-up is exactly what was needed to restore confidence and that we've likely hit bottom already♠. You know - the very bail-out package that McCain went to Washington and blamed the Democrats - especially Obama - for?
That one*?

The huge DJ surge couldn't have come at a worse time for McCain, especially if we get a follow-up tomorrow: He'll look rather foolish pronouncing the Democrat-led bail-out package a failure and proclaiming how only his economic policy can save America. If the Dow was still sliding, he could score valuable points. But if we get a week of gains...well, yet another body blow for the McCain campaign.
Not that I'd gloat or anything.


*and yes I know that's not entirely true, but it can be easily spun as this and I've no doubt the Dems won't hesitate to do so.

Why, yes, it was. But what else do they have left, except to keep repeating the magic word "abra-ca-taxbreak-a" and hope it'll get the zombies to check the right box on the ballot?
mccain keeps comparing obama to herbert hoover.

"the last president who raised taxes during an economic crisis was herbert hoover"

as if obama is promising to raise taxes...

oh yeah, he IS promising to raise mccain's taxes (or his wife's since they file seperately)

Do I think there's this unaccounted 13% variation that might instantly leap in, of people that would admit they were too racist to support Obama, or would not admit it but would vote that way? Maybe not. I assume that at least some - if not all - of that figure is already being accounted... just not declared.

And because it's not declared, we don't know for sure... there COULD be an extra 13% support for McCain that's going to come swinging in out of nowhere.
Your problem is that you are completely misunderstanding what the Bradley Effect even IS. There are about 10% who openly admit they won't vote for a black man: that is precisely what the Bradley Effect is NOT, because those 10% are already counted in the polls; the people who admit it are not "coming in out of nowhere", we've already seen them.
The Bradley Effect is the 3% who won't vote for a black man, but say they are "undecided" or pretend they will vote for Obama, when a pollster asks: if that still happens (and it seems that it stopped happening at all about ten years ago, but let's suppose otherwise), then McCain's support in the polls is 40% (including the 10% openly racist) but he will get 43% in November. This is not going to do it for him.

I heard some details of Obama's plan, and it is very ambitious and unlikely to be fully implemented on all points, but what I heard, I liked. However, I can imagine a lot of Republicans kicking up a fuss because it sounds very FDR-ish. But then our times are rather FDR-ish, too.

EDIT: Yes, I am proposing to change the subject.

There was a McCain supporter on the radio the other day claiming that investing in infrastructure wouldn't create any jobs. I didn't really hear any support for that, though. And, speaking of FDR, I've always been under the impression that the huge infrastructure projects he pushed created quite a few - not to mention helping the economy as a whole.

I think he's beginning to think he's the unluckiest guy to ever run for office.
Whatever his 'super-amazing-cuminyourpants' economic policy is, it's been trumped by the huge leap in the Dow today along with nearly all the financial pundits saying the bail-out package + bank share buy-up is exactly what was needed to restore confidence and that we've likely hit bottom already?. You know - the very bail-out package that McCain went to Washington and blamed the Democrats - especially Obama - for?
That one*?

The huge DJ surge couldn't have come at a worse time for McCain, especially if we get a follow-up tomorrow: He'll look rather foolish pronouncing the Democrat-led bail-out package a failure and proclaiming how only his economic policy can save America. If the Dow was still sliding, he could score valuable points. But if we get a week of gains...well, yet another body blow for the McCain campaign.
Not that I'd gloat or anything.


*and yes I know that's not entirely true, but it can be easily spun as this and I've no doubt the Dems won't hesitate to do so.
I was just thinking about McCain's apparent (lack of) luck, and I wondered what Caribou Barbie has to say about it. Is it a sign from God that he doesn't want McCain to be president? Or is it witchcraft?

(However, I will be surprised if the Dow remains stable for even a week.)

mccain keeps comparing obama to herbert hoover.

"the last president who raised taxes during an economic crisis was herbert hoover"

as if obama is promising to raise taxes...

oh yeah, he IS promising to raise mccain's taxes (or his wife's since they file seperately)
Which is funny when you think about how recently McCain was compared to Hoover -- with comparative quotes, too! He's like a parrot. He just repeats back whatever has been said to him.

There was a McCain supporter on the radio the other day claiming that investing in infrastructure wouldn't create any jobs. I didn't really hear any support for that, though. And, speaking of FDR, I've always been under the impression that the huge infrastructure projects he pushed created quite a few - not to mention helping the economy as a whole.
Yes, they did, and normally infrastructure projects create tons of jobs, but maybe this McCain supporter was wondering how hiring Mexicans will help Americans? (You know, kind of failing to connect one of the dots.)

There was a McCain supporter on the radio the other day claiming that investing in infrastructure wouldn't create any jobs. I didn't really hear any support for that, though. And, speaking of FDR, I've always been under the impression that the huge infrastructure projects he pushed created quite a few - not to mention helping the economy as a whole.

I remember reading somewhere recently that infrastructure spending creates more jobs per dollar than any other way the government can spend its money. Can't quite remember where.

<snip picture>
McCain can only hit on a 20.

Quick, Obama! Use turn undead!

Perhaps his safest option would be to float taxbreaks and keep it vague on taxbreaks for whom.

But then Obama could continue to point out that McCain won't even uttter the words "middle class" during a debate.

(you'd think he would have slipped it in somewhere in the 2nd debate, seriously)

I was just thinking about McCain's apparently (lack of) luck, and I wondered what Caribou Barbie has to say about it. Is it a sign from God that he doesn't want McCain to be president? Or is it witchcraft?


Voodoo. Clearly.

Yes, they did, and normally infrastructure projects create tons of jobs, but maybe this McCain supporter was wondering how hiring Mexicans will help Americans? (You know, kind of failing to connect one of the dots.)

Well, he claimed that Japan built a lot of bridges and stuff when they had their financial crisis and it didn't help one bit. I doubt he was thinking about Japan hiring Mexicans. =)

But then Obama could continue to point out that McCain won't even uttter the words "middle class" during a debate.

(you'd think he would have slipped it in somewhere in the 2nd debate, seriously)



Voodoo. Clearly.



Well, he claimed that Japan built a lot of bridges and stuff when they had their financial crisis and it didn't help one bit. I doubt he was thinking about Japan hiring Mexicans. =)
Please, who knows what these people "think"?

Quick, Obama! Use turn undead!

Obama's a Bard, not a Cleric.

Actually, that wouldn't be the Bradley effect. The Bradley effect refers to a phenomenon in which people actually lie about who they voted for (or, I suppose, who they plan on voting for), in order to keep from appearing racist.

The confusing thing in the Bradley election (and in some others with the same effect) was that exit polls (polls after voting) had vastly different percentages than the actual tallied votes. The theory is that people were worried about appearing to be racist, and thus claimed to have voted for the black guy when they really didn't.

So 3% of people who said they voted against him but didn't admit it was due to race wouldn't be a part of the Bradley effect.

As far as I can tell, you're agreeing with me here.

The Bradley Effect is the disconnect between what the vote shows, and what the voters claim - where the voters deny voting against a candidate based on race.

But that's separate to the other source I provided which shows 10% of the Democrat voters siding against Obama openly, with the admission that colour was a major or THE major factor.

3% Bradley Effect + 10% admitted race bias = 13% race vote.

Obama's a Bard, not a Cleric.

Seriously, if he was a cleric the zombie and succubus wouldn't have had a prayer.

Seriously, if he was a cleric the zombie and succubus wouldn't have had a prayer.

Nah, McCain's more a Lich than a zombie, I think-- he made a dark pact and did unspeakable things to gain power.

I wonder where he keeps his phylactery...

Seriously, if he was a cleric the zombie and succubus wouldn't have had a prayer.

Ow. Of course, if he was a cleric nobody save a wizard or a druid would have a prayer.

Seriously, if he was a cleric the zombie and succubus wouldn't have had a prayer.

Ah, succubi... *Drools*

And people keep asking why I keep talking about this...

Your problem is that you are completely misunderstanding what the Bradley Effect even IS.


No, I'm really not. You're simply claiming my argument is something other than what it is.


There are about 10% who openly admit they won't vote for a black man: that is precisely what the Bradley Effect is NOT,


Right.


because those 10% are already counted in the polls;


Or not.

Show me that 10% and where they are accounted.

You can't - because they are a hidden figure. We dont know how well represented they are in polling, and they're not declared in the polling - so we have NO idea where they are in the numbers. They could even be showing up as Democrat votes.


the people who admit it are not "coming in out of nowhere", we've already seen them.
The Bradley Effect is the 3% who won't vote for a black man, but say they are "undecided" or pretend they will vote for Obama, when a pollster asks:


I think I made that very point, just a little while ago...


if that still happens (and it seems that it stopped happening at all about ten years ago, but let's suppose otherwise),


No - it seemed to stop being statistically noticable back in the mid 90's... but we've not yet had a black presidential election to compare it to for like-to-like data.


then McCain's support in the polls is 40% (including the 10% openly racist) but he will get 43% in November. This is not going to do it for him.

The problem here is that you're assuming that the 10% factor has already declared for McCain.

As far as I can tell, you're agreeing with me here.

The Bradley Effect is the disconnect between what the vote shows, and what the voters claim - where the voters deny voting against a candidate based on race.

Wrong. The Bradley Effect is the disconnect between how people say they voted and how they actually voted - based on race.

If a voter says they're voting for McCain, but they don't admit it's based on race, that's not an example of the Bradley effect.

To be an example of the Bradley effect, someone has to lie about their vote (or, I suppose, intended vote). In order to try not to appear racist, they have to say that they're voting for Obama when, in fact, they're not.

It refers, not just to people in general voting in a racist manner, but instead to people actually misleading pollsters in an effort to hide their racism.

Show me that 10% and where they are accounted.

You can't - because they are a hidden figure. We dont know how well represented they are in polling, and they're not declared in the polling - so we have NO idea where they are in the numbers. They could even be showing up as Democrat votes.

If they're showing up as Democrat votes, they're another demographic entirely.

The 10% you're talking about admitted that they didn't vote for Obama (and, of course, a big reason why). Thus, a similar 10% of the overall voting population would also admit that they aren't voting for Obama.

Someone who is currently claiming that they will vote Obama, but who actually will not do so because of his race would be a Bradley effect voter. But that is completely separate from those who are willing to admit racial bias in voting.

The problem here is that you're assuming that the 10% factor has already declared for McCain.

To be similar to the 10% you're using from the primaries, they would have to be already declared for McCain. The 10% you're referencing didn't claim to have voted for Obama. They were quite open in the fact that they voted for Clinton. As such, a similar population wouldn't pretend to be voting for Obama at this juncture.

wow. McCain is in a complete state of denial:
McCain vows fight-back on economy

Republican US presidential candidate John McCain is preparing to unveil a new economic plan, as he vows to overhaul Barack Obama's poll lead.

A McCain aide said the plan would focus on "those most badly hurt: workers, homeowners, savers and seniors". (read: rich white people)

It comes a day after Senator Obama gave details of his own "economic rescue plan for the middle class" in Ohio. (mmm...I notice the phrase middle class there. A phrase John McCain apparently has yet to come across. Let's hope Obama explains the concept to him in the debate)

Mr McCain told supporters it was too early to count him out, despite a poll giving Mr Obama a double-digit lead.

"We're six points down," he told a rally in the key state of Virginia.

"The national media has written us off... But they forgot to let you decide. My friends, we've got them just where we want them." (Is he not able to say more than 2 sentences without throwing in the meaningless 'my friends'? Does he honestly believe that using it every other sentence makes him sound sincere?)

The ABC/Washington Post poll, released on Monday, suggested the Democrat had a margin of 53% support to 43% for Mr McCain. (ummm...wait: 53-43 = 6? And we're expected to trust this man with the economy?!)

Of those voters who rate the economy as the most important issue, 62% favour Mr Obama, while 33% prefer Mr McCain. (right where you want them, eh John? Not even 30 points ahead! Lulled into a false sense of security right up to election day)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/us_elections_2008/7668931.stm

I guess when you're that far behind, you need to make anything sound positive.
"Ah ha! I planned to look like an incompetent buffoon right from the start, so I could do a whammy on you when you least expected it!"
He's reminding me more and more of the Black Knight in MP Holy Grail movie.
"It's just a scratch!"

Another note: So the personal attacks failed, after just a week and so McCain's back to focusing on the economy. What does that tell you about his campaign's level of desperation - and about his leadership? How are they deciding on what platform to campaign on - by rolling a dice?

mccain keeps comparing obama to herbert hoover.

"the last president who raised taxes during an economic crisis was herbert hoover"

as if obama is promising to raise taxes...

oh yeah, he IS promising to raise mccain's taxes (or his wife's since they file seperately)

They're gonna take one of his houses away and leave him with only six! :eek:

we've got them just where we want them

Really John? Really? Three weeks to go until the election. 8 points down the polls, a 90 electoral vote deficit, 6 of the 7 remaining swing states leaning Obama, one debate left, on your opponent's strong suit, and a rising stock market taking the wind out of the sails of your soon to come economic package announcement, and THIS is right where you want to be?

Not, I dunno...winning?

To be similar to the 10% you're using from the primaries, they would have to be already declared for McCain. The 10% you're referencing didn't claim to have voted for Obama. They were quite open in the fact that they voted for Clinton. As such, a similar population wouldn't pretend to be voting for Obama at this juncture.
Also, that 10% who claimed race was a big factor - how many of them are still saying that NOW?
Race might have been a factor when you're choosing who's going to represent your ticket.
But now you're having to choose between the person you didn't really want to represent you (Obama) yet who shares your political views and another person (McCain) who represents all the political views you actively dislike.
Really think those 10% of registered Dems are going to be THAT racist that they would vote for GOP for no other reason than that their guy's black?
I don't buy it. That's why I said maybe 1% at most of registered Dems will go that way.

Which leaves us with 3% of the undecideds who are saying they'll vote for Obama.
Undecideds make up 30% of the total voting population (with Dems & GOP evenly split at 35% each). According to latest polls, Obama has 53% support.

34% (minus the 1% who won't vote for him) would presumably be registered Democrats, leaving the rest (19%) Independents.
Assuming even a 10% Bradley effect, this doesn't mean that Obama's true support among Indies is really 9, not 19%.
It's 10% of voters who declare themselves Independent Obama supporters. 10% of 19%, which is 1.9% ~2%.

This still leaves Obama with 51% support, not 53 and McCain with 45%.
Still a commanding lead.

And of the remaining undecideds - there's now just 4% if that poll is anything to go by. Leaving aside that this is almost within the margin of error. Even if we assume an even split, giving each candidate 2% each. Once again, the Bradley effect is only on those who say they're voting Obama but don't. 10% of 2% is only another 0.4% swing to McCain.

Right now, as the poll stands the Bradley effect at it's worst is not going to save McCain. We'd have to accept that 10% of voters supporting Obama are Bradleys and even this just puts them even.

The other interesting thing about "the Bradley effect" is that people are not sure exactly how it works, if it does at all. Some proport that it's latent racism, and only affects black candidates. However others have posited that it's more about social conformity, telling pollsters you'll vote for the more "acceptable" choice. Which in places in the south and midwest, traditionally republican, we may be seeing the same thing in reverse, where the "acceptable" position is to be republican. So we may have people declaring they are undecided, while secretly knowing they plan to vote Obama.

Really John? Really? Three weeks to go until the election. 8 points down the polls, a 90 electoral vote deficit, 6 of the 7 remaining swing states leaning Obama, one debate left, on your opponent's strong suit, and a rising stock market taking the wind out of the sails of your soon to come economic package announcement, and THIS is right where you want to be?

Not, I dunno...winning?
That's what I mean. He's certainly campaigning hard - and winning I might add - for the important state of Denial.

Wrong. The Bradley Effect is the disconnect between how people say they voted and how they actually voted - based on race.

If a voter says they're voting for McCain, but they don't admit it's based on race, that's not an example of the Bradley effect.

To be an example of the Bradley effect, someone has to lie about their vote (or, I suppose, intended vote). In order to try not to appear racist, they have to say that they're voting for Obama when, in fact, they're not.

It refers, not just to people in general voting in a racist manner, but instead to people actually misleading pollsters in an effort to hide their racism.

So, I'm wrong because you said what I said, but used more words?

McCain is presenting his economic plan. He's been talking for less than 5 minutes, and he's already promised taxbreaks but not said for whom.

So far his "plan" consists of "drill baby drill" (yep, he said it) and the same having the fed buy up bad mortgages he floated before. Other than that, he's just blaming Wall Street executives, and promising not to cooperate with corruption but to lead the country in a new direction -- which would definitely be a change, for him.

EDIT: Basically he's just listing platitudes about honesty, reform and transparency, but he's not saying HOW he intends to "restore rational choices to the market".

Oh, he's mentioning letting people withdraw early from IRAs without penalties (something Obama wants to do, too).

EDIT2: He's now claiming that his IRA plan is different from Obama's. :rolleyes:

So, I'm wrong because you said what I said, but used more words?

No, you're wrong because you aren't saying what I said.

You're using the term "Bradley effect" to refer to any and all people who won't vote for a black man because of his race, when it in fact only refers to those who wont' vote for a black man because of his race, but will tell you that they plan to in order to appear less racist.

Person A: Says they're not voting for Obama, secretly because of race.
Person B: Says they're not voting for Obama, admits to racial bias.
Person C: Says they are voting for Obama just to convince you they aren't racist, but actually won't vote for him.

You're placing persons A and C into the Bradley Effect. In reality, only Person C would contribute to it.


You also tried to use exit polling from the primaries as some sort of evidence of the Bradley effect, but failed to show a difference in the percentage of people who claimed to vote for Obama and the actual numbers he got in the election - thus failing to show any evidence of the effect.

Now McCain is itemizing the magical taxbreaks he wants to implement. It's starting to sound like a list of bribes on offer to every citizen. He has a taxbreak for every voting block.

Some would be fine, if they can be done -- like eliminating the tax on unemployment insurance benefits -- but I find it ironic that he is claiming he wants to reduce payroll taxes while his health care plan requires adding a tax to employees on employment-based health insurance.

EDIT: For the past 5 minutes, he's been doing nothing but attacking Obama (rather than talk about his own plan). My head is exploding. McCain just claimed that Obama said he is going to "raise taxes to spread wealth around" and elicited to thunderous booing from his audience. The bullshit and the enthusiasm with which these people eat it, is truly amazing.

Some would be fine, if they can be done -- like eliminating the tax on unemployment insurance benefits -- but I find it ironic that he is claiming he wants to reduce payroll taxes while his health care plan requires adding a tax to employees on employment-based health insurance.

Shhhhh! You're not supposed to notice that!

McCain just claimed that Obama said he is going to "raise taxes to spread wealth around" and elicited to thunderous booing from his audience. The bullshit and the enthusiasm with which these people eat it, is truly amazing.
It comes from desperation more than anything else though. They know they've hitched their horse to the losing team but don't want to admit it. They'll gobble up anything McCain flings at them, and ask for more, because they're so desperate to believe he can win.

EDIT: For the past 5 minutes, he's been doing nothing but attacking Obama (rather than talk about his own plan). My head is exploding.
Then his plan is working...
Shhhhh! You're not supposed to notice that!
Nah, since Vyets never intended to vote for him in the first place, he probably doesn't care.

Well, that was one of McCain's more disturbing performances. I'd say easily a third or more of it had nothing to do with the economy, and the rest was maybe 60% vague promises and platitudes and the remainder specifics, most of which we have heard before.

At the end of it, he indulged completely in demogoguery, literally pounding the podium and shouting, chant-like, over and over about how wonderful America is, and Americans fight for justice and truth and puppies and whatnot, and "I'm an American and I choose to fight!" (his new slogan), and getting so worked up, I feared he'd give himself a stroke whipping his base into a frenzy.

I walk away from that speech with the conclusion that I was right -- he doesn't have an economic plan. He has only jingoism.

No, you're wrong because you aren't saying what I said.

You're using the term "Bradley effect" to refer to any and all people who won't vote for a black man because of his race,


No, I'm not.

This is that 'conflating' I was talking about...


You also tried to use exit polling from the primaries as some sort of evidence of the Bradley effect,

No, I'm not. Two separate factors - both about race.

I think I've been watching way too much CNN and other political pundants. I had the strangest John McCain dream ever.

I dreamt that somehow McCain lost his eye, I think he was sick or something and lost it, and he had a black patch over his eye. He was talking to his crowd and I think, as I am trying to re-remember the dream, it was on the left eye.

I tend to look at an interpretation of it as John McCain's unwillingness to look at the poltical viewpoints of the 'left'

And yes, I think I am going to stop watching CNN for awhile. I hate having poltics mess up my dreams.

I think I'll try dreaming about pink fluffy bunnies instead. :p

McCainamp - really whips Obamas ass

Well, that was one of McCain's more disturbing performances. I'd say easily a third or more of it had nothing to do with the economy, and the rest was maybe 60% vague promises and platitudes and the remainder specifics, most of which we have heard before.

At the end of it, he indulged completely in demogoguery, literally pounding the podium and shouting, chant-like, over and over about how wonderful America is, and Americans fight for justice and truth and puppies and whatnot, and "I'm an American and I choose to fight!" (his new slogan), and getting so worked up, I feared he'd give himself a stroke whipping his base into a frenzy.

I walk away from that speech with the conclusion that I was right -- he doesn't have an economic plan. He has only jingoism.

awww i was watching last nights shows on tivo and i missed it.

but i see from his webpage that he is STILL wanting to pay off the difference between people's mortages and the value of their home when they owe more than their house is worth.

and that is STILL insane.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3023/2939476582_7b1cf99e83.jpg Doesn't that just say it all about this election?

Show me that 10% and where they are accounted.

You can't - because they are a hidden figure.
That 10% are the people who are NOT, repeat NOT, hidden. They say, quite openly, they are voting against Obama. It doesn't matter whether the pollster breaks them out as a separate category: they are among the people who, for various reasons, openly tell the pollsters they are voting against Obama.
They could even be showing up as Democrat votes.
NO, not the people who flat-out tell you, they are voting against the Democrat.

Ohio Atheists FOR Baby-Murdering Muslims should counter protest.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3023/2939476582_7b1cf99e83.jpg Doesn't that just say it all about this election?

So, he's an Ohio Christian against exclamation marks, and supports Baby-murdering Muslims for president? :tongue:

http://www.dontvoteobama.net/images/No%20Bama.jpg

I'll see your disgusting picture and raise you this one.

http://www.dontvoteobama.net/images/No%20Bama.jpg

I'll see your disgusting picture and raise you this one.
ohmygod thats funny!

is the picture of obama with a cig in his mouth supposed to make him look dangerous?

So, he's an Ohio Christian against exclamation marks, and supports Baby-murdering Muslims for president? :tongue:
Yes. :D

http://www.dontvoteobama.net/images/No%20Bama.jpg

I'll see your disgusting picture and raise you this one.
What's supposed to be -- a photo line-up? Those guys don't look at all alike, and not one of them is the guy who stole my wallet.

ohmygod thats funny!

is the picture of obama with a cig in his mouth supposed to make him look dangerous?
Street.

That was taken right after he went to see Denzel Washington as Malcom X.

ohmygod thats funny!

is the picture of obama with a cig in his mouth supposed to make him look dangerous?

Yeah, that's the idea I think. OMG a smoker.

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b323/patfish/political%20tidbits/barackwithears.jpg

And my personal "favorite"

http://s.buzzfeed.com/static/imagebuzz/2008/6/18/11/d9c411c258d653cfde9a38089598a043.jpg

ohmygod thats funny!

is the picture of obama with a cig in his mouth supposed to make him look dangerous?

he wants to give your children cancer!

he wants to give your children cancer!
that bastard!

FINE THEN. ill vote for him so he can be president and age 20 years for his 8 years in office!

that'll teach him.

that bastard!

FINE THEN. ill vote for him so he can be president and age 20 years for his 8 years in office!

that'll teach him.

8 years huh? You'll have to vote for him TWICE for that to happen. You must really hate him.

Really John? Really? Three weeks to go until the election. 8 points down the polls, a 90 electoral vote deficit, 6 of the 7 remaining swing states leaning Obama, one debate left, on your opponent's strong suit, and a rising stock market taking the wind out of the sails of your soon to come economic package announcement, and THIS is right where you want to be?

Not, I dunno...winning?


Thats how Mavericks roll. They dont try to win.

8 years huh? You'll have to vote for him TWICE for that to happen. You must really hate him.
i didnt before but i do now.

cancer-causing-in-his-wayward-youth commie bastard!

I heard a funny rumor:

The origin of the word "maverick" is actually a family's name. They were cattle ranchers back in the 1800s who were notorious for not branding their cattle, so on the open range, any unbranded cattle were referred to as "Mavericks" meaning they were claimed by the Maverick family.

Well, that family still exists and they support Obama. :D

The current little old lady of the Maverick clan apparently was quoted by some news channel as wishing their name had not become a generic word because she hates that there's no way to stop McCain from using it to describe himself. Apparently, she denounced him, saying "He's no Maverick!"

Really John? Really? Three weeks to go until the election. 8 points down the polls, a 90 electoral vote deficit, 6 of the 7 remaining swing states leaning Obama, one debate left, on your opponent's strong suit, and a rising stock market taking the wind out of the sails of your soon to come economic package announcement, and THIS is right where you want to be?

Not, I dunno...winning?

In order to understand a maverick, you need to have Maverick explain it:

You don't have time to think up there. If you think, you're dead.

If you think about it from this perspective, so much of McCain's campaign strategy and his speeches make perfect sense.

i didnt before but i do now.

cancer-causing-in-his-wayward-youth commie bastard!
Commie Muslim bastard. Never forget that part.

Yeah, and I'm starting to hate him too. Let's slam his ass into the White House and see how he likes that! *lightly knocks fist upon desk*

Commie Muslim bastard. Never forget that part.

Yeah, and I'm starting to hate him too. Let's slam his ass into the White House and see how he likes that! *lightly knocks fist upon desk*
im going to tell EVERYONE to vote that bastard in!

this is the WORST time to be president. he'll have to work work work day and night to straighten out what party-boy bush has done. there will be no "month long vacations at the ranch" for HIM. HE DOESNT OWN A RANCH!

I heard a funny rumor:

The origin of the word "maverick" is actually a family's name. They were cattle ranchers back in the 1800s who were notorious for not branding their cattle, so on the open range, any unbranded cattle were referred to as "Mavericks" meaning they were claimed by the Maverick family.

Well, that family still exists and they support Obama. :D

The current little old lady of the Maverick clan apparently was quoted by some news channel as wishing their name had not become a generic word because she hates that there's no way to stop McCain from using it to describe himself. Apparently, she denounced him, saying "He's no Maverick!"

No rumor.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/weekinreview/05schwartz.html?_r=2&no_interstitial&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

In order to understand a maverick, you need to have Maverick explain it:



If you think about it from this perspective, so much of McCain's campaign strategy and his speeches make perfect sense.

I truly think McCain's campaign slogan should be "ready....fire...aim!"

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_5ieXw28ZUpg/SPPiKmJOsTI/AAAAAAAAAT0/IpDEAID4ASc/S1600-R/1013_mainchart.png

McCain can only hit on a 20.

Well, don't count any bears before they've hatched. Natural 20's happens!

http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/9907/natural20xu2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Thats how Mavericks roll. They dont try to win.

http://roflrazzi.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/rick-astley-they-see-me-rickrollin-they-hatin.jpg?w=500&h=375

No rumor.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/weekinreview/05schwartz.html?_r=2&no_interstitial&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
It just gets better and better. :D

“I’m just enraged that McCain calls himself a maverick,” said Terrellita Maverick, 82, a San Antonio native who proudly carries the name of a family that has been known for its progressive politics since the 1600s, when an early ancestor in Boston got into trouble with the law over his agitation for the rights of indentured servants.

...

Sam Maverick’s grandson, Fontaine Maury Maverick, was a two-term congressman and a mayor of San Antonio who lost his mayoral re-election bid when conservatives labeled him a Communist. He served in the Roosevelt administration on the Smaller War Plants Corporation and is best known for another coinage. He came up with the term “gobbledygook” in frustration at the convoluted language of bureaucrats.

This Maverick’s son, Maury Jr., was a firebrand civil libertarian and lawyer who defended draft resisters, atheists and others scorned by society. He served in the Texas Legislature during the McCarthy era and wrote fiery columns for The San Antonio Express-News. His final column, published on Feb. 2, 2003, just after he died at 82, was an attack on the coming war in Iraq.

Terrellita Maverick, sister of Maury Jr., is a member emeritus of the board of the San Antonio chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas.

...

“It’s just incredible — the nerve! — to suggest that he’s not part of that Republican herd. Every time we hear it, all my children and I and all my family shrink a little and say, ‘Oh, my God, he said it again.’ ”

“He’s a Republican,” she said. “He’s branded.”
Muravyets is happy this afternoon. :D

Interesting article:

Some (prominent) pro-Life Catholics are throwing in with Obama because they think the 'intrinsic evil' of abortion is no longer the only intrinsic evil on the horizon.

Good job, Dubya - you made the Catholics liberal.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/163896/page/1

but i see from his webpage that he is STILL wanting to pay off the difference between people's mortages and the value of their home when they owe more than their house is worth.

and that is STILL insane.
totally. First thing I'd do is get another whopping great mortgage if I knew the govt was going to pay it off for me.

Well, I just voted via absentee ballot. (I was going to do early voting, but I had apparently forgotten that I was set up to do mail balloting.)

Among other things, like voting down some ridiculous amendments (Define personhood at moment of fertilization? Fuck no!) I voted for Obama. I also--for kicks--voted for the Green candidate for Senator, since I've never really liked Mark Udall, and Bob Schaffer just pisses me off.

Well, I just voted via absentee ballot. (I was going to do early voting, but I had apparently forgotten that I was set up to do mail balloting.)

Among other things, like voting down some ridiculous amendments (Define personhood at moment of fertilization? Fuck no!) I voted for Obama. I also--for kicks--voted for the Green candidate for Senator, since I've never really liked Mark Udall, and Bob Schaffer just pisses me off.

Thumbs up all round, methinks.

Interesting article:

Some (prominent) pro-Life Catholics are throwing in with Obama because they think the 'intrinsic evil' of abortion is no longer the only intrinsic evil on the horizon.

Good job, Dubya - you made the Catholics liberal.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/163896/page/1

http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/fail-owned-billboard-fail.jpg

Thats how Mavericks roll. They dont try to win.
You have a TG.

Thumbs up all round, methinks.

Thing is, I accidentally messed up on voting on Amendment 54(one of those things dealing with limiting employee contribution rights, etc.) I meant to vote no, but accidentally voted yes, and then filled in no and crossed out the yes.

Which just means that'll get invalidated. http://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/html/emoticons/rolleyes.gif Rest of the ballot'll be okay though.

http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/fail-owned-billboard-fail.jpg

Yeah. I laughed. I guess I'm just evil...

Thing is, I accidentally messed up on voting on Amendment 54(one of those things dealing with limiting employee contribution rights, etc.) I meant to vote no, but accidentally voted yes, and then filled in no and crossed out the yes.

Which just means that'll get invalidated. http://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/html/emoticons/rolleyes.gif Rest of the ballot'll be okay though.

Doy. Yeah - unless it's close and they declare yours a spoiled ballot....

Not that they NEED any actual 'spoiling' to do that.

Doy. Yeah - unless it's close and they declare yours a spoiled ballot....

Not that they NEED any actual 'spoiling' to do that.

I'm honestly not too worried, to be honest. If it's declared spoiled, then it's spoiled, and there's nothing I can do about it now.

If not, I contributed to the democratic process. :)

McCain unvieled his economic plan.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-campaign15-2008oct15,0,3195267.story

McCain's economic policy essentially helps the rich--unsurprisingly. There is very little assistance for the majority of Americans in that plan, despite the way it sounds, and it encourages, among other things, an extreme risk of capital flight.

It's a bad plan all the way around.

McCain's economic policy essentially helps the rich--unsurprisingly. There is very little assistance for the majority of Americans in that plan, despite the way it sounds, and it encourages, among other things, an extreme risk of capital flight.

It's a bad plan all the way around.

It als benefits the elderly much, much more then anyone else.

It als benefits the elderly much, much more then anyone else.

Rich elderly.(Who don't need it.) Not so much the middle-class and lower class elderly, whom see absolutely zero benefit from this.

It's talked up a lot, but really it doesn't give them any help at all.

Have I ever mentioned how much I love John Stewart?


If you didn't just see his segment on McCain's 'new' stump speech, look for it in reruns. Yeah.

Have I ever mentioned how much I love John Stewart?


If you didn't just see his segment on McCain's 'new' stump speech, look for it in reruns. Yeah.

I laughed till I cried during his whole show.

http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/fail-owned-billboard-fail.jpg

That's pretty funny but I never knew Maccas used fertilised eggs.

In fact I never knew Maccas used real eggs full stop.

Interesting article:

Some (prominent) pro-Life Catholics are throwing in with Obama because they think the 'intrinsic evil' of abortion is no longer the only intrinsic evil on the horizon.

Good job, Dubya - you made the Catholics liberal.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/163896/page/1

I know a lot of Catholics who would be considered liberal in America.

Rich elderly.(Who don't need it.) Not so much the middle-class and lower class elderly, whom see absolutely zero benefit from this.

It's talked up a lot, but really it doesn't give them any help at all.

"McCain said he would lower the tax rate on their withdrawals from retirement accounts to 10% this year and next"

Sorry but isn't this for all elderly people on the retirement funds?

"Cut Capital gains tax in half for two years"

Well before I ask about this how many mum and dad investors are there in America?


"suspending taxes on unemployment benefits for workers making less than $100,000"

$100,000 well that doesn't sound rich to me.


"ordering the Treasury Department to guarantee 100% of Americans' savings for six months to calm fears of bank failures"

Now apart from the implication of raising moral hazard, what is wrong with this. Though I do know (correct me if I'm wrong) but the US already had deposit insurance for accounts up to $100,000.

I also seem to remember reading (this may have been for Australia) that business deposits were also now covered up to $30,000. That would be looking after small business' now wouldn't it? The middle class.


"90-day moratorium on home foreclosures"
Can someone explain this to me?

ohmygod thats funny!

is the picture of obama with a cig in his mouth supposed to make him look dangerous?

That's no fag that's a joint.

He smoked it but he never inhaled.

No, you're wrong because you aren't saying what I said.

You're using the term "Bradley effect" to refer to any and all people who won't vote for a black man because of his race, when it in fact only refers to those who wont' vote for a black man because of his race, but will tell you that they plan to in order to appear less racist.

Person A: Says they're not voting for Obama, secretly because of race.
Person B: Says they're not voting for Obama, admits to racial bias.
Person C: Says they are voting for Obama just to convince you they aren't racist, but actually won't vote for him.

You're placing persons A and C into the Bradley Effect. In reality, only Person C would contribute to it.


You also tried to use exit polling from the primaries as some sort of evidence of the Bradley effect, but failed to show a difference in the percentage of people who claimed to vote for Obama and the actual numbers he got in the election - thus failing to show any evidence of the effect.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/14/king.missouri.race/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

Is there something that is the opposite to the Bradley effect?

Yes I know they aren't saying it then changing their mind they come right out and admit it straight away.

That's no fag that's a joint.

He smoked it but he never inhaled.

Sure he inhaled. In his own words, "that was the point."

"90-day moratorium on home foreclosures"
Can someone explain this to me?

it lets them stay in their homes through christmas.


ok ok it lets this economy thing and relief plan get going so that these people who are getting forclosed on can have a chance to get a new job or have the economy pick up enough that they can sell the damned house.

or maybe it really is to let them stay in their homes through christmas.... not that hes going to try to get it passed NOW...

it sounds good?

it lets them stay in their homes through christmas.


ok ok it lets this economy thing and relief plan get going so that these people who are getting forclosed on can have a chance to get a new job or have the economy pick up enough that they can sell the damned house.

or maybe it really is to let them stay in their homes through christmas.... not that hes going to try to get it passed NOW...

it sounds good?

Ok, fair enough.

Sure he inhaled. In his own words, "that was the point."

this

I think Blouman Empire might be easily confused

"McCain said he would lower the tax rate on their withdrawals from retirement accounts to 10% this year and next"

Sorry but isn't this for all elderly people on the retirement funds?

Those with personal IRA's, yes. But those with actual pensions or who rely on social security? Not so much.

"suspending taxes on unemployment benefits for workers making less than $100,000"

$100,000 well that doesn't sound rich to me.

Wasn't that Obama's plan first?

"ordering the Treasury Department to guarantee 100% of Americans' savings for six months to calm fears of bank failures"

Now apart from the implication of raising moral hazard, what is wrong with this. Though I do know (correct me if I'm wrong) but the US already had deposit insurance for accounts up to $100,000.

I think they recently raised it to $250K. The real problem here is the sheer sum it puts the taxpayers on the hook for. And, since the vast majority of people don't even hit the $100K mark, this really only helps the very rich - and even then only if their bank fails.

This particular move isn't really designed to help individuals, though. It's designed to keep a run on the banks from happening. They don't want people who have money over the cap to run out and start pulling it out of the banks - which would just put the banks in an even worse position.

"90-day moratorium on home foreclosures"
Can someone explain this to me?

No foreclosures allowed for 90 days. IIRC, this is also something that was first proposed by Obama. Ah, yes, this was a portion of Obama's plan in the article. That's what I get for answering before reading.

Okay, I will be the trailblazer....

Note to Mods.....if you don't like the title....then change it.


We prefer not to have any involvement with the internal affairs of republics. However, if we were to have a preference for any particular candidate in that race, it would be Alan Keyes, because of his position on the issues, not because he is the nominee of the Constitution Party,(whch he is), nor because he is black,(far more than Obama, in fact), but because he is the most Biblically Correct candidate and that is what counts above ALL else.

We prefer not to have any involvement with the internal affairs of republics. However, if we were to have a preference for any particular candidate in that race, it would be Alan Keyes, because of his position on the issues, not because he is the nominee of the Constitution Party,(whch he is), nor because he is black,(far more than Obama, in fact), but because he is the most Biblically Correct candidate and that is what counts above ALL else.

You're funny. You should do stand-up.

but because he is the most Biblically Correct candidate and that is what counts above ALL else.

The Bible means nothing. Only MY word counts.

Now, disprove this, if you can. :)

The Bible means nothing. Only MY word counts.

Now, disprove this, if you can. :)

I predict an appeal to popularity in the future. If he returns.

"Cut Capital gains tax in half for two years"

Well before I ask about this how many mum and dad investors are there in America?

I highly doubt most of those small investors are worried about the taxes they'll have to pay on all their capital gains right now, but you're correct, cutting the capital gains tax benefits anybody who owns securities outside of a tax-deferred account (such as an IRA or 401(k)). In reality, people who own significant amounts of securities outside of their retirement accounts are much more likely to be rich than not.

Saying that cutting the long-term capital gains tax isn't a tax cut for rich people is like saying giving tax credits on sports cars isn't aimed at rich people, because you don't have to be rich to own a sports car.

I predict an appeal to popularity in the future. If he returns.I would predict a circular, "The Bible is what counts, because it is the Word of God" -- if he returns.

I would predict a circular, "The Bible is what counts, because it is the Word of God" -- if he returns.

I would predict him not returning.

I would predict him not returning.I think that's pretty much a consensus favorite.

Alan Keyes isn't the nominee of the Constitution Party, so maybe it was an attempt at humor?

We prefer not to have any involvement with the internal affairs of republics. However, if we were to have a preference for any particular candidate in that race, it would be Alan Keyes, because of his position on the issues, not because he is the nominee of the Constitution Party,(whch he is), nor because he is black,(far more than Obama, in fact), but because he is the most Biblically Correct candidate and that is what counts above ALL else.

Alan Keyes: Blacker Than Obama™

Alan Keyes: Blacker Than Obama™

If Obama's too white, how come he has to worry about the Bradley Effect?

:D

So, CNN, which has been super-mega-ultra conservative so far this election season in "calling" states, has flipped Virginia from toss-up to leaning Obama.

So, CNN, which has been super-mega-ultra conservative so far this election season in "calling" states, has flipped Virginia from toss-up to leaning Obama.

Even CNN right now has an article about how Obama could take Virginia. After the pounding the mainstream media, especially CNN, took after calling the election for Gore in 2000, they're being EXTREMELY conservative and won't push either candidate into 270+ range until the writing is clearly on the wall.

I stand by my prediction that will be the case early next week. My guess is Tuesday.

Fuckin' CALLED it.

So, CNN, which has been super-mega-ultra conservative so far this election season in "calling" states, has flipped Virginia from toss-up to leaning Obama.

I'm amazed they did that. That puts Obama at 277 by their count. Cue the whining about how the media has crowned Obama president without the people deciding.

Reading CNN's account of why they changed it they claim Obama is now up by double digits there so they changed it. Jesus, 10 points or better is required to be "leaning"?

Fuckin' CALLED it.

To the day, even...nice...

Fuckin' CALLED it.
Witchcraft! Call Palin's pastor, we need an exorcism!

Witchcraft! Call Palin's pastor, we need an exorcism!

I am both a good witch, and a very, very bad one ;)

I am both a good witch, and a very, very bad one ;)

Oats: Well... your colleagues keep telling me the Omnians used to burn witches...
Granny: They never did.
Oats: I'm afraid I have to admit that the records show —
Granny: They never burned witches. Probably they burned some old ladies who spoke up or couldn't run away. I wouldn't look for witches bein' burned. I might look for witches doin' the burning, though. We ain't all nice.

Have I ever mentioned how much I love John Stewart?

If you didn't just see his segment on McCain's 'new' stump speech, look for it in reruns. Yeah.

In preparation for the debate, I am putting this on my revision schedule.

Fuckin' CALLED it.

I can totally imagine you grabbing the nearest football-shaped object, slamming it down on the ground, and doing a touchdown dance.

This greatly amuses me.

I can totally imagine you grabbing the nearest football-shaped object, slamming it down on the ground, and doing a touchdown dance.

This greatly amuses me.

unfortunately it was a large spindle of very carefully organized CDs...

unfortunately it was a large spindle of very carefully organized CDs...

Correction: It was a large spindle of formerly carefully organized CDs.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081015/ap_on_el_pr/murtha_obama_racism

Murtha says even though western PA is racist, Obama still has a good chance of winning the state.

Congrats Art - So, the next lottery numbers in CA are...?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081015/ap_on_el_pr/murtha_obama_racism

Murtha says even though western PA is racist, Obama still has a good chance of winning the state.

Congrats Art - So, the next lottery numbers in CA are...?

What a dumb thing to say. Seriously, some friggin' politicians clearly have no clue.

I know! It's like he's trying to make it harder on Obama

What a dumb thing to say. Seriously, some friggin' politicians clearly have no clue.

Sometimes the truth isn't politically smart.

Sometimes the truth isn't politically smart.

"Sometimes"?

Interesting article here:
Polls probably undercounting Obama's support
Growth of 'cell-phone-only' households may be affecting the results

According to the estimates compiled by the National Center for Health Statistics, by the last six months of 2007, 14.5 percent of all adults were living in households that could only be reached by a cell phone, a number that had more than tripled (from 4.4 percent) since 2004.

Younger Americans especially are out of reach. Mining the same NCHS study, the Pew Research Center reports that nearly a third (30.6 percent) of 18-to-24-year-olds can be reached only by cell phone.

...

In 2004, exit polls told us that voters living in cell-phone-only households were different. They tended to be younger and more likely to support John Kerry. But these differences were not great, and the size of affected population was still relatively small. (Just 7 percent of voters were cell-phone only.) More important, the younger cell-only voters were not much different in their political views than younger landline-phone voters. So when pollsters weighted by age, the potential coverage error largely disappeared.

This year the share of cell-phone-only voters is obviously much larger, so the key question is whether the uncovered cell-phone-only voters are making different choices in the presidential race, especially when we look at the results by age. More specifically, are Barack Obama and John McCain running differently among younger voters reachable only by cell phone than among younger voters reachable by landline phones?

The good news is that, unlike in 2004, some of the pollsters doing national surveys have been gathering data on this issue. The Pew Research Center, Gallup and the CBS/New York Times partnership have been conducting some of their interviews by cell phone all year. They have been joined in this endeavor more recently by the NBC/Wall Street Journal, Time/SRBI and AP/GfK national polls.

...

And what is that data telling us?

• The Pew Research Center looked at the three major political surveys they have conducted since June, comparing the results with cell-phone interviews included against the landline-only figures. They saw "a virtually identical pattern" on all three surveys: "In each case, including cell-phone interviews resulted in slightly more support for Obama and slightly less for McCain, a consistent difference of 2 to 3 points in the margin."
The biggest reason is a large difference they observed among registered voters under 30: Those in cell-phone-only households preferred Obama by a 35-percentage-point margin (62 percent to 27 percent), while Obama led by a much closer margin (52 percent to 39 percent) among those in households with wired phones.

• This past spring, Gallup managing editor Jeff Jones looked at six Gallup/USA Today surveys conducted during the first four months of 2008 and saw a similar pattern. Adding cell-phone interviews appeared to add roughly 2 points to Obama's total and take roughly 2 points from McCain.

I checked in with Jones this week to see if the pattern has held in the ongoing Gallup Daily tracking conducted over the course of the year. They are "still seeing the same pattern (crudely)," he wrote back, a "point or two more for McCain and a point or two less for Obama excluding cell-phone interviews." Jones hedged a bit, however, saying that they did not re-weight their wired-phone data (as Pew did) for this comparison.
http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/msnbc/Sections/NEWS/A_Politics/Contributors/National%20Journal/081015_NatJournal.hmedium.jpg

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27196636/

Obama, if this is indeed true, is actually leading 55 - 37 (:eek:). That's encouraging news if it's borne out come Election Day. Fingers crossed it will be.

this

I think Blouman Empire might be easily confused

Maybe I am, a poor joke gone wrong.

Those with personal IRA's, yes. But those with actual pensions or who rely on social security? Not so much.

Well hard to give people a tax break on their retirement funds when they don't have any.

Wasn't that Obama's plan first?

Your asking me? Regardless if it was Obama's plan first that means McCain must be doing something good here. And still hardly pandering to the rich if it is for people only earning under $100,000.

I think they recently raised it to $250K. The real problem here is the sheer sum it puts the taxpayers on the hook for. And, since the vast majority of people don't even hit the $100K mark, this really only helps the very rich - and even then only if their bank fails.

This particular move isn't really designed to help individuals, though. It's designed to keep a run on the banks from happening. They don't want people who have money over the cap to run out and start pulling it out of the banks - which would just put the banks in an even worse position.

That's exactly right it is good policy it will stop any bank runs, thus keeping liquidity in the system. Not doing this will have en effect on every American rich or poor should a run on a bank occur and if this spread to other banks well the economy would be worse then it is now.

No foreclosures allowed for 90 days. IIRC, this is also something that was first proposed by Obama. Ah, yes, this was a portion of Obama's plan in the article. That's what I get for answering before reading.

That's right I was just asking about it.

I highly doubt most of those small investors are worried about the taxes they'll have to pay on all their capital gains right now, but you're correct, cutting the capital gains tax benefits anybody who owns securities outside of a tax-deferred account (such as an IRA or 401(k)). In reality, people who own significant amounts of securities outside of their retirement accounts are much more likely to be rich than not.

Saying that cutting the long-term capital gains tax isn't a tax cut for rich people is like saying giving tax credits on sports cars isn't aimed at rich people, because you don't have to be rich to own a sports car.

Hence why I asked the question; How many middle class families in America own shares?

If there is a large amount then yes it will be benefiting them also and helping out middle America, and giving them tax cuts on capital gains.

Hence why I asked the question; How many middle class families in America own shares?

If there is a large amount then yes it will be benefiting them also and helping out middle America, and giving them tax cuts on capital gains.

But how many of those Middle Class Americans (MCAs) depend on their share gains to live on? They'd be lucky to have, what?, 30 maybe 40k worth of shares. How much tax are they going to save on the capital gains on that?

Which is the point. The MCAs will benefit very little by this, as they don't have much capital tied up in stock. The people who will benefit the most are the wealthy Upper Class who have a great deal of stock - running into the hundreds of thousands and beyond - are the ones who are the biggest benefactors from McCain's plan.

So to claim that this is a way of helping MCA is downright duplicitous. It barely helps them, but greatly helps the Upper Class.

More about Obama's down-ballot effect in his 50-state strategy... a fillibuster proof senate? (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/07/america/senate.php?page=2?pass=true)

I mean, yeah it's just a dream, but still... one can hope.

a fillibuster proof senate?

I mean, yeah it's just a dream, but still... one can hope.

by 538's model, it's about 6 times more likely than mccain winning the presidency

But how many of those Middle Class Americans (MCAs) depend on their share gains to live on? They'd be lucky to have, what?, 30 maybe 40k worth of shares. How much tax are they going to save on the capital gains on that?

Which is the point. The MCAs will benefit very little by this, as they don't have much capital tied up in stock. The people who will benefit the most are the wealthy Upper Class who have a great deal of stock - running into the hundreds of thousands and beyond - are the ones who are the biggest benefactors from McCain's plan.

So to claim that this is a way of helping MCA is downright duplicitous. It barely helps them, but greatly helps the Upper Class.

Well I dare say there would be many middle americans who would want to be able to use the money from their shares without having to pay even more taxes on top of it. And yet they still benefit, I was asking how many do and what they own, in Australia a tax cut on this would benefit many middle class Australians, which is why I was asking about how many middle class Americans own shares. Funny how this is th only point people are hitting out against, I suppose people think the rest is good.

Ach, here's a little something I chanced upon elswhere:

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a205/ulteriormotives/gop-poster.jpg

It even works if you sing the show's theme song with the names and a couple words changed.

fafblog is a thing of beauty:

"FACT! Barack Obama was a community organizer. ACORN is made of community organizers. Acorns come from oak trees. Oak trees belong to the genus Quercus, which includes Quercus faginea, the Portuguese oak. The prime minister of Portugal is José Sócrates, whose last name looks like Socrates, who lived in Athens, which is also a city in Georgia, whose state fruit is the peach, which is native to China, which is exactly what Osama bin Laden was eating off of while he was plotting to destroy the Twin Towers. It's all connected, people - they just don't want you to know! And they could be black."
http://fafblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/barack-obama-black.html

FACT! Barack Obama was a community organizer. ACORN is made of community organizers. Acorns come from oak trees. Oak trees belong to the genus Quercus, which includes Quercus faginea...
which contains the word "fag"!!11!!!

It even works if you sing the show's theme song with the names and a couple words changed.

McCain - a genius ;) ?
But it indeed fits eerily well...

which contains the word "fag"!!11!!!

also, a word that looks suspiciously like 'queer'. fafblog is nothing if not subtle.

What a dumb thing to say. Seriously, some friggin' politicians clearly have no clue.

So Western Penn. isn't racist?

So Western Penn. isn't racist?

Lots of things are dumb to say that are true.

I have a big cock. Would you consider it a bad idea to announce it to my coworkers?

Not to mention that gross generalizations are fallacies. Some people, even a lot of people, in Western PA are certainly racist. Labeling the whole area as racist is a stupid thing to do.

fafblog is a thing of beauty:

"FACT! Barack Obama was a community organizer. ACORN is made of community organizers. Acorns come from oak trees. Oak trees belong to the genus Quercus, which includes Quercus faginea, the Portuguese oak. The prime minister of Portugal is José Sócrates, whose last name looks like Socrates, who lived in Athens, which is also a city in Georgia, whose state fruit is the peach, which is native to China, which is exactly what Osama bin Laden was eating off of while he was plotting to destroy the Twin Towers. It's all connected, people - they just don't want you to know! And they could be black."
http://fafblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/barack-obama-black.html

Indeed it is. Thank you for sharing this with us. It has been bookmarked.

Some more facts:

"FACT! Barack Obama and sixties radical Bill Ayers were both associated with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a radical education foundation whose radical goal is to radically educate black children by educating them... while they are still black.

FACT! Barack Obama spent twenty years in the same church as radically black pastor Jeremiah Wright, who has been known to make such incendiary claims as "white people enslaved black people" and "white people killed Native Americans." Is Barack Obama part of the international black conspiracy to trick white people into thinking about racism? Answer: maybe."

That man is a menace to society, and he must be, erm, dealt with in the harshest manner possible!

I was talking to someone who gets all her news from Fox, and she was talking about some rumor about Obama I don't think I've heard yet.

Something about a group to help black students in Chicago that is supposedly all about "hate America"?

Any idea what she might have been talking about?

Lots of things are dumb to say that are true.

I have a big cock. Would you consider it a bad idea to announce it to my coworkers?


Well if you're a porn star it's kind of a bad idea not to. Since that's the whole point of the film.

Well if you're a porn star it's kind of a bad idea not to. Since that's the whole point of the film.

Of course, then you wouldn't have to announce it.

It would be self-evident. =)

I was talking to someone who gets all her news from Fox, and she was talking about some rumor about Obama I don't think I've heard yet.

Something about a group to help black students in Chicago that is supposedly all about "hate America"?

Any idea what she might have been talking about?

My first and only guess is this piece in the WSJ (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212856075765367.html) from a while back which characterized the work of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge as some sort of radicalizing force in Chicago Public Schools. Since I know a few people who are actually familiar with CPS policies & practices I can pretty much say that the whole thing is bollocks, but I don't have sources.

Of course, then you wouldn't have to announce it.

It would be self-evident. =)

Which is why I provide free copies of the videos at all of my parties.

Of course, then you wouldn't have to announce it.

It would be self-evident. =)

I'm talking about before the naked bit. Although a metaporno would be pretty cool.

Lots of things are dumb to say that are true.

I have a big cock. Would you consider it a bad idea to announce it to my coworkers?

Not to mention that gross generalizations are fallacies. Some people, even a lot of people, in Western PA are certainly racist. Labeling the whole area as racist is a stupid thing to do.

Yes, but I could see you doing that anyway. Especially considering the laughs and looks of incredulity that'd be met with.

Some people, even a lot of people, in Western PA are certainly racist.

That's all you had to say.

Of course, then you wouldn't have to announce it.

It would be self-evident. =)

Nah, I've seen that porn. Either that's a body-double, or Jocabia is hung like a lightswitch.

Of course, allegedly, Sarah Palin was (allegedly) the (alleged) other person in the (alleged) film, and that'd be enough to turn a LOT of outies into innies...

Nah, I've seen that porn. Either that's a body-double, or Jocabia is hung like a lightswitch.

Seriously, seriously considering sigging this.

And you've got mail (or a TG, as it were)

Seriously, seriously considering sigging this.

And you've got mail (or a TG, as it were)

TG already returned before I even read this.. I just am that good... ;)

TG already returned before I even read this.. I just am that good... ;)

Responded. Now I've got to go educate myself on the concept of "balanced combat encounters," and hope this education doesn't come a tad late.

Obama 2008
usa you owe us!!

That's all you had to say.

Black people are criminals.

It's okay if I say that, no?

McCain just made me cry laughing at the charity event this evening. He's virtually untoppable.

McCain just made me cry laughing at the charity event this evening. He's virtually untoppable.

Details?

McCain just made me cry laughing at the charity event this evening. He's virtually untoppable.

I missed most of it. Obama has had his moments. I'll have to find McCain's online or something.

Details?

It's the Alfred Smith benefit deally, candidates give funny speeches-even Rachel Maddow said McCain was quit funny-she's about to play it again if you have MSNBC

It's the Alfred Smith benefit deally, candidates give funny speeches-even Rachel Maddow said McCain was quit funny-she's about to play it again if you have MSNBC

Have it, can't really watch it at the moment. So, they're both there, to give speeches? Obama and McCain?

Have it, can't really watch it at the moment. So, they're both there, to give speeches? Obama and McCain?
Back to back, roast style. Obama borrowed a joke from Muhammad Ali, but kinda torqued it. It's "I'm a humble man. I can recognize my faults. My main (only) fault is that I don't know how (great) awesome I really am."

The parenthesis are what I think Ali said on I am the Greatest, 45 solid minutes of the best smack talk in the history of smack talk before winning the title.

He also insinuated that he's from Krypton. (poking fun of his Messianic image)

Back to back, roast style. Obama borrowed a joke from Muhammad Ali, but kinda torqued it. It's "I'm a humble man. I can recognize my faults. My main (only) fault is that I don't know how (great) awesome I really am."

The parenthesis are what I think Ali said on I am the Greatest, 45 solid minutes of the best smack talk in the history of smack talk before winning the title.

He also insinuated that he's from Krypton. (poking fun of his Messianic image)

It's good to know that pollies can and do occasionally make fun of themselves. It's heartening.

Back to back, roast style. Obama borrowed a joke from Muhammad Ali, but kinda torqued it. It's "I'm a humble man. I can recognize my faults. My main (only) fault is that I don't know how (great) awesome I really am."

The parenthesis are what I think Ali said on I am the Greatest, 45 solid minutes of the best smack talk in the history of smack talk before winning the title.

He also insinuated that he's from Krypton. (poking fun of his Messianic image)

And said he wasn't born in a manger.

McCain said, Oprah likes to call Obama "the one". I call him "that one". He has his own nickname for me, as well. George Bush.

McCain - a genius ;) ?
But it indeed fits eerily well...

Not a genius.

"They're Palin and McCain, they're Palin and McCain, one's gone senile the other's just insane."

:p

Back to back, roast style. Obama borrowed a joke from Muhammad Ali, but kinda torqued it. It's "I'm a humble man. I can recognize my faults. My main (only) fault is that I don't know how (great) awesome I really am."

The parenthesis are what I think Ali said on I am the Greatest, 45 solid minutes of the best smack talk in the history of smack talk before winning the title.

He also insinuated that he's from Krypton. (poking fun of his Messianic image)

Hehe. Hopefully someone will have it up on Youtube by tomorrow afternoon.

And said he wasn't born in a manger.

McCain said, Oprah likes to call Obama "the one". I call him "that one". He has his own nickname for me, as well. George Bush.

Also quality. As was "What you don't know is Barack is Swahili for "That One". (that was Barack) Maddow cut off McCain when she came in, not when I did, so I still missed most of his speech.

That man is a menace to society, and he must be, erm, dealt with in the harshest manner possible!
very true. And what possibly harsher way to deal with a Black man than to elect him President of the USA? it's well known that your average Black guy can't handle stress that well, so giving him one of the most stressful job on the planet would be very harsh indeed.
Let's hope McCain supporters see it this way and vote accordingly.

Black people are criminals.

It's okay if I say that, no?

Sure. Why not?

Freedom of expression includes the ability to say stupid and or hateful things.

As TCT comments, the truth is not always politically smart.

In the Murtha case, people tend to speak in generalities for which we usually can understand the intent of the comment.

Did Murtha mean all of Western Pennsylvania is racist? Of course not. Is the amount of racist viewpoints above "normal" there? From the sounds of it; yes.

Do you know of anybody who speaks with absolute clarity all the time?

Sure. Why not?

Freedom of expression includes the ability to say stupid and or hateful things.

Interesting. All I said was that it was stupid. You should really try to pay attention to your own argument. Otherwise, why should we?

As TCT comments, the truth is not always politically smart.

In the Murtha case, people tend to speak in generalities for which we usually can understand the intent of the comment.

Did Murtha mean all of Western Pennsylvania is racist? Of course not. Is the amount of racist viewpoints above "normal" there? From the sounds of it; yes.

Do you know of anybody who speaks with absolute clarity all the time?

No, I don't. And when people don't, I call them on it. Particularly when what they say is offensive.

He said it was a racist area. He's absolutely responsible for absolutely false implications of such a statement.

Interesting. All I said was that it was stupid. You should really try to pay attention to your own argument. Otherwise, why should we?


Maybe you read more then what was being asked?

All I did was ask a simple question and you went in a different direction.



No, I don't. And when people don't, I call them on it. Particularly when what they say is offensive.


That's good.

He said it was a racist area. He's absolutely responsible for absolutely false implications of such a statement.

So you know the area doesn't have a problem with racism?

Maybe you read more then what was being asked?

All I did was ask a simple question and you went in a different direction.

And then take my reply out of context to imply that as long as some are racist what he said was okay. It's okay though. Intellectual honesty isn't required. It's nice to see, but if you can bring yourself to address what you actually were saying, I can't force you to.


That's good.

So you know the area doesn't have a problem with racism?

That's not what he said. What he said was that it was a racist area.

Are you sure black people don't have a problem with criminals? I mean, sure, that's not what I said, but, hey, we're just making shit up here at this point, aren't YOU?

And then take my reply out of context to imply that as long as some are racist what he said was okay. It's okay though. Intellectual honesty isn't required. It's nice to see, but if you can bring yourself to address what you actually were saying, I can't force you to.




That's not what he said. What he said was that it was a racist area.

Are you sure black people don't have a problem with criminals? I mean, sure, that's not what I said, but, hey, we're just making shit up here at this point, aren't YOU?

If asking a question is making shit up then I guess I am.

I don't know Western Penn, that's why I asked.

I didn't take Murtha's comment to say everybody in Western Penn is a racist. I took there is a problem with racism....

If asking a question is making shit up then I guess I am.

I don't know Western Penn, that's why I asked.

I didn't take Murtha's comment to say everybody in Western Penn is a racist. I took there is a problem with racism....

Then he should have said it. Much like I might say that there is a problem with crime among the black community, rather than saying blacks are criminals.

What he said was stupid. He's been a politician for years. He should have known better. I didn't even protest the accuracy.

Here's a link for topical humor, especially regarding the recent discussion of Obama votes being influenced by the Bradley Effect:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoDbO3NeTj4

Enjoy!

Okay slightly off topic but....going to see Madeline Albright at my university today. She's going to be talking about National Security issues as well as stumping for Obama.

And then Biden is going to be speaking at our park today. But... I can't go, I signed up for a writer's workshop at my university. It's kind of nice living in a battlegroud state. heh and Early voteing starts tomorrow.

Okay slightly off topic but....going to see Madeline Albright at my university today. She's going to be talking about National Security issues as well as stumping for Obama.

And then Biden is going to be speaking at our park today. But... I can't go, I signed up for a writer's workshop at my university. It's kind of nice living in a battlegroud state. heh and Early voteing starts tomorrow.

Not to mention having Vegas nearby. (Sorry, I was just looking at their travel and speech schedules on Daily Kos, and it says where each of the candidates is going to be today)

You know, I watched a clip of Bill Maher on Larry King Live and he made an interesting point in comparing Sarah Palin's experience with Barack Obama's experience. He said that the difference in experience goes beyond just their time in elected office. It goes back to their educational roots. Intrigued, I looked up them both at wikipedia.

Palin attended several colleges and universities. In 1982, she enrolled at Hawaii Pacific College but left after her first semester. She transferred to North Idaho community college, where she spent two semesters as a general studies major. From there, she transferred to the University of Idaho for two semesters.[10][11] During this time Palin won the Miss Wasilla Pageant,[12][13] then finished third in the 1984 Miss Alaska pageant,[14][15] at which she won a college scholarship and the "Miss Congeniality" award.[16] She then attended the Matanuska-Susitna community college in Alaska for one term. The next year she returned to the University of Idaho where she spent three semesters completing her Bachelor of Science degree in communications-journalism, graduating in 1987.[10][11]

Following high school, Obama moved to Los Angeles, where he studied at Occidental College for two years.[10] He then transferred to Columbia University in New York City, where he majored in political science with a specialization in international relations.[11] Obama graduated with a B.A. from Columbia in 1983, then worked for a year at the Business International Corporation[12] and then at the New York Public Interest Research Group.[13][14]

After four years in New York City, Obama moved to Chicago, where he was hired as director of Developing Communities Project (DCP), a church-based community organization originally comprising eight Catholic parishes in Greater Roseland (Roseland, West Pullman, and Riverdale) on Chicago's far South Side, and worked there for three years from June 1985 to May 1988.[13][15] During his three years as the DCP's director, its staff grew from one to thirteen and its annual budget grew from $70,000 to $400,000, with accomplishments including helping set up a job training program, a college preparatory tutoring program, and a tenants' rights organization in Altgeld Gardens.[16] Obama also worked as a consultant and instructor for the Gamaliel Foundation, a community organizing institute.[17] In mid-1988, he traveled for the first time to Europe for three weeks and then for five weeks in Kenya, where he met many of his Kenyan relatives for the first time.[18]

Obama entered Harvard Law School in late 1988. At the end of his first year, he was selected, based on his grades and a writing competition, as an editor of the Harvard Law Review.[19] In February 1990, in his second year, he was elected president of the Law Review, a full-time volunteer position functioning as editor-in-chief and supervising the Law Review's staff of eighty editors.[20] Obama's election as the first black president of the Law Review was widely reported and followed by several long, detailed profiles.[20] During his summers, he returned to Chicago where he worked as a summer associate at the law firms of Sidley & Austin in 1989 and Hopkins & Sutter in 1990.[21] After graduating with a Juris Doctor (J.D.) magna cum laude from Harvard in 1991, he returned to Chicago.[19]

Now I'm not going to try to disparage the fine community college system(*tries to keep a straight face*), and I certainly won't say that this in any way means that Sarah Palin is dumber than Barack Obama. Many very intelligent people have no comfort in structured pressure-oriented educational institutions. But we aren't talking about hiring an advertising executive. We're talking about the President of the United States. If you could erase all knowledge in your minds about these two candidates including their names and looked at these two educational histories, which would you pick to be President?

You know, I watched a clip of Bill Maher on Larry King Live and he made an interesting point in comparing Sarah Palin's experience with Barack Obama's experience. He said that the difference in experience goes beyond just their time in elected office. It goes back to their educational roots. Intrigued, I looked up them both at wikipedia.





Now I'm not going to try to disparage the fine community college system(*tries to keep a straight face*), and I certainly won't say that this in any way means that Sarah Palin is dumber than Barack Obama. Many very intelligent people have no comfort in structured pressure-oriented educational institutions. But we aren't talking about hiring an advertising executive. We're talking about the President of the United States. If you could erase all knowledge in your minds about these two candidates including their names and looked at these two educational histories, which would you pick to be President?

Certainly not that Obama character. Elitist bastard.

Now I'm not going to try to disparage the fine community college system(*tries to keep a straight face*), and I certainly won't say that this in any way means that Sarah Palin is dumber than Barack Obama. Many very intelligent people have no comfort in structured pressure-oriented educational institutions. But we aren't talking about hiring an advertising executive. We're talking about the President of the United States. If you could erase all knowledge in your minds about these two candidates including their names and looked at these two educational histories, which would you pick to be President?Joe the Plumber!

If you could erase all knowledge in your minds about these two candidates including their names and looked at these two educational histories, which would you pick to be President?

That one.

Certainly not that Obama character. Elitist bastard.Anyone that's been elected is by definition elite, silly =P

Anyone that's been elected is by definition elite, silly =P

Not my Sarah!

Not my Sarah!Yes! There is no escaping etymology! >=D

Not my Sarah!

I'm so very proud of her.

Yes! There is no escaping etymology! >=D

http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l192/whereyouthinkyougoing/Smilies/sad021.gif

http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l192/whereyouthinkyougoing/Smilies/sad021.gif
Now my week is complete >=)

Also quality. As was "What you don't know is Barack is Swahili for "That One". (that was Barack) Maddow cut off McCain when she came in, not when I did, so I still missed most of his speech.
He followed that up saying, "And my middle name? Well I got that from somebody who obviously didn't know I was going to be running for President. So here's my October Surprise: I'm changing my name. From now on, I'm Barack Steve Obama."

Now my week is complete >=)

http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l192/whereyouthinkyougoing/Random/pictures-of-cats_dax-big-yawn_04.jpg

http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l192/whereyouthinkyougoing/Random/pictures-of-cats_dax-big-yawn_04.jpg

Your sig made me lol myself http://forums.tvgasm.com/images/smilies/thumbup.gif

Certainly not that Obama character. Elitist bastard.

Mcain is a much worse elitist than Obama. Mcain has been a washington elitist for deccades despite that bs he spews.

Mcain is a much worse elitist than Obama. Mcain has been a washington elitist for deccades despite that bs he spews.

Whereyouthinkyougoing was being sarcastic. :p

Whereyouthinkyougoing was being sarcastic. :p

Sarcasm is hard to pick up from print.

Mcain is a much worse elitist than Obama. Mcain has been a washington elitist for deccades despite that bs he spews.
and has been his entire life. have you read his profile in rolling stone magazine? its well worth the time spent reading it.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain

Whereyouthinkyougoing was being sarcastic. :p

Germans don't know how to be sarcastic.

She once said I annoy her. That's terrible sarcasm.

Not to mention having Vegas nearby. (Sorry, I was just looking at their travel and speech schedules on Daily Kos, and it says where each of the candidates is going to be today)

Well it was a fine and intresting meeting/stump for Obama with Albright. She absolutely was astounding with her knowledge of foreign policy. I was very impressed. I even was able to ask her question. I asked her about Russia and the problems with Georgia and the missle defense in Poland.

She gave a pretty long winded response, but she admited that Putin's government smacks of the old government that was held in the past. She stated that the most important thing was to have dialogue between Russia, Iran, and the US. She did not believe the missle defense bases in Poland would work. She stated that John McCain's policy was basically old Cold War rhetoric. (Of course I am paraphrasing her response.)

Overall I enjoyed hearing her speak, and if Obama has her as part of his advising staff, I am not worried in the slightest about Obama being a bit lacking in foreign policy. After all most presidents have advisors and some of them are well...smarter than the man who is in the seat.

Germans don't know how to be sarcastic. That's not true! We just don't learn it as early as the rest of the World does!

Have I ever mentioned how much I love John Stewart?


If you didn't just see his segment on McCain's 'new' stump speech, look for it in reruns. Yeah.

http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/7274/tmpnv5.png (http://imageshack.us)

Jon Stewart is a God on cable...

Or on the Comedy Central website! Check out the episodes there!

Speaking of humor, here's one guy's take on why corn-based ethanol is still being talked about and supported in speeches despite how horrible it is for everything:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=fuels-errand

I just watched GWB and Guiliani's (same one) campaign tour bus sell at auction in Nevada for $50k. For point of comparison, here's a list (http://www.busforsale.com/buses_for_sale.html) of 'non famous' tour buses...

When you devalue your former rides, you are one unpopular president. In a next few minutes JFK's Lincoln will go on the block (not the death one, family one)...($190,000 for the Lincoln)


Not that it actually contributes...

If you could erase all knowledge in your minds about these two candidates including their names and looked at these two educational histories, which would you pick to be President?
Palin of course. Obama has never entered, let alone won, a beauty contest. That tells us a lot about this shady Obama character.

Colin Powell has officially endorse Obama:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/19/colin.powell/index.html

Colin Powell has officially endorse Obama:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/19/colin.powell/index.html
That. Is. Fucking. Awesome.

A huge kick in the balls for the McCain campaign.

Colin Powell has officially endorse Obama:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/19/colin.powell/index.html

If he does a little campaigning of his endorsement, we are likely to see McCain's support diminish as republicans who said Powell should have been McCain's VP or saying that Powell himself should have run, would likely now vote for Obama.

Personally, I would even consider voting for republican candidate Colin Powell in a future election, if a. I were a US citizen (likely to happen since I'm marrying a US citizen in a little under two weeks) and b. he were not running against Obama.

Your sig made me lol myself http://forums.tvgasm.com/images/smilies/thumbup.gif
Stolen from here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14105078&postcount=633

If the McCain campain is as out of touch as he appears to be, Someone in his camp will call Colin Powell's endorsement racially motivated. Of course, McCain won't do that himself. He's not that far gone yet. :tongue:

Maybe Fox News will do it for him.

If he does a little campaigning of his endorsement, we are likely to see McCain's support diminish as republicans who said Powell should have been McCain's VP or saying that Powell himself should have run, would likely now vote for Obama.

Personally, I would even consider voting for republican candidate Colin Powell in a future election, if a. I were a US citizen (likely to happen since I'm marrying a US citizen in a little under two weeks) and b. he were not running against Obama.
congratulations in advance!

are you living in the US now?

I doubt Powell would ever run for president because he's probably aware of what that entails. A GOP candidate nowadays has to be scrubbed clean of personal ethics and wrung through the neo-right kool aid. No excuses, no exceptions. He's not as naive as McCain who thinks he can take control of the machine, if he actually was ethical previously.