NationStates Jolt Archive

Per diem isn't paid out for money saved.

It's paid out for money spent by the employee above normal costs. In other words, she get reimbursed for gas driving to Anchorage. If she has to buy a meal while visiting Anchorage, that gets reimbursed as well.

Charging them for a day or night spent at her own home or a meal eaten there, on the other hand, is still inappropriate.

Really? Are you sure your interpretation is the only one?

Per diem is understood to include the additional expenses incurred living away from home - basically having two residences. The IRS sets the maximum amount of per diem each year based on the location - for instance, New York City has a higher rate than Peoria, Illinois. Per diem is supposed to be paid on a daily basis, seven days a week, while you're at the remote location. It is not supposed to be tied to your salary, number of hours/days worked, etc. - just a flat daily rate. However, many brokers will try to save money by saying it's only for those days you work, or you get the full amount only if you work a full day, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_diem

No, Im all for them. But she needs to stop pretending like shes a fiscal conservative when she has a record of increasing debt and big spending.


Or are you going to pretend that Palin increasing debt and spending big is still being a fiscal conservative?


Oh, and what do you have to say about her charging rape victims for the rape kits? Or is that undefendable even to you?

They VOTED on the .5 tax increase for the sports stadium and how long it would take to repay the cost. She didn't mandate the increae of taxes or debt on them ...

Source your rape kit, I have no idea what you are talking about.

They VOTED on the .5 tax increase. She didn't mandate it on them...



Doesnt matter. She increased their debt. Not a very fiscal conservatve thing to do.

Aaaand your defense on her charging victims for their rape kits?

Right, so you are willing to give McCain the benefit of the doubt, but you refuse to do the same for Obama. Thanks for proving once again you are just against Obama. "Clearly"
Unless McCain was calling Hillary an "it", then he clearly was talking about the healthcare policy.

Recap:

Originally Posted by McCain

***voice offscreen: "I notice in your speech, you avoided any comparison of your plan to Hillary Clinton's plan. I'm curious - can you or your staff put a price-tag, on what we see coming out of her campaign..."

("for Hillary care"? That's what it sounds like - I can't make out the end og the question.)

McCain: "No but I... there's many things that concern me about it. It's vaguely... not vaguely but eerily reminiscent of what they tried back in 1993.
I think they put some lipstick on the pig but it's still a pig."
So, let's just agree to disagree?

Obama claims he's against earmarks.

And then, get this, he picks a running mate who gets billions and billions and billions of dollars in earmarks. Do you understand now?

No, he claims he's against earmarks being rewarded based on seniority instead of merit.

He hasn't claimed to be against earmarks in general.

Bashing someone for getting earmarks while taking them yourself is hypocritical.

And if he were bashing someone for getting earmarks, that would be a problem. But his problem isn't that Alaska got earmarks. It's that Palin aggressively pursued earmarks, and now is being held up as being anti-earmark.

It's perfectly ok to ask for earmarks when you're ok with their use. It isn't ok to ask for earmarks when you are supposedly against them.

Understand?

Cut Pork Barrel Spending: Obama introduced and passed bipartisan legislation that would require more disclosure and transparency for special-interest earmarks. Obama believes that spending that cannot withstand public scrutiny cannot be justified. Obama will slash earmarks to no greater than year 2001 levels and ensure all spending decisions are open to the public. (from his own website).

Shame he doesn't apply that to his running mate, or to his own past history.

Actually, he does. Obama has made his earmarks public - putting them up for public scrutiny.

And, while Biden didn't do it before, he has done so this year.

Maybe she is ready to be Commander in Chief. Shes clearly learned from Dubya.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/15/palin.investigation/index.html

McCain campaign spokesman Ed O'Callaghan said Palin will not cooperate with "that investigation so long as it remained tainted and run by partisan individuals who have a predetermined conclusion," referring to a comment by French earlier this month that the case could produce criminal charges or an "October Surprise" for the GOP ticket.




When you get a subpena, claim some nonexistant privalge and pretend the law doesnt apply to you.

Source your rape kit, I have no idea what you are talking about.

KoL already sourced it, but here is more.

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/2008/view.bg?articleid=1118416&srvc=2008campaign&position=5


An excerpt:

While some of their complaints have already been aired, Knowles broke new ground while answering a reporter’s question on whether Wasilla forced rape victims to pay for their own forensic tests when Palin was mayor.

True, Knowles said.

Eight years ago, complaints about charging rape victims for medical exams in Wasilla prompted the Alaska Legislature to pass a bill -- signed into law by Knowles -- that banned the practice statewide.

"There was one town in Alaska that was charging victims for this, and that was Wasilla," Knowles said

A May 23, 2000, article in Wasilla’s newspaper, The Frontiersman, noted that Alaska State Troopers and most municipal police agencies regularly pay for such exams, which cost between $300 and $1,200 apiece.

"(But) the Wasilla police department does charge the victims of sexual assault for the tests," the newspaper reported.

It also quoted Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon objecting to the law. Fannon was appointed to his position by Palin after her dismissal of the previous police chief. He said it would cost Wasilla $5,000 to $14,000 a year if the city had to foot the bill for rape exams.

Source your rape kit, I have no idea what you are talking about.

Already did, but I understand why you choice to ignore that your Saint isnt this awesome feminist that the right keeps saying she is.

Really? Are you sure your interpretation is the only one?

Per diem is understood to include the additional expenses incurred living away from home - basically having two residences. The IRS sets the maximum amount of per diem each year based on the location - for instance, New York City has a higher rate than Peoria, Illinois. Per diem is supposed to be paid on a daily basis, seven days a week, while you're at the remote location. It is not supposed to be tied to your salary, number of hours/days worked, etc. - just a flat daily rate. However, many brokers will try to save money by saying it's only for those days you work, or you get the full amount only if you work a full day, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_diem

Do you not see how that hurts your case? If Palin had to pay the rent on the governor's mansion in Juneau, or if she had to book a hotel room in Anchorage when she was there, then you'd have a point. But she doesn't have to pay the rent on the governor's mansion, and she doesn't have to get an additional residence in Anchorage - she has one already in Wasilla, which you've indicated is close enough. Air fare, gas, meals; these are all things that are seperately reimbused by the state when she spends time working in Anchorage. Per diem is meant to help the employee pay for an additional residence when they are forced to work away from home. Whether you consider her home in Wasilla or the governor's mansion in Juneau her "home", either way she is not being forced to pay for an ADDITIONAL residence. Claiming a per diem to help offset the cost of the second residence that she doesn't have any financial responsibility towards is unethical.

I'll give you an example. Last year, my company relocated me from Boston to Raleigh-Durham, NC, for three months, give or take. I was presented with two options. I could either get my own apartment in Raleigh-Durham (which would be stupid since I would only be there for three months), or the company would put me up in corporate housing. If I found my own place, the company would pay me a per diem for my duration in NC. If I took the corporate housing, I could not claim the per diem. I was still, SEPERATELY, reimbursed for my plane tickets to and from RDU, as well as all my mileage expenses while I was down there. But I could not claim the per diem amount if I was staying in the housing that was paid for by the company.

Unless McCain was calling Hillary an "it", then he clearly was talking about the healthcare policy.

Recap:


So, let's just agree to disagree?

McCain himself said he doesn't believe Obama was referring to Palin. He just said it was a stupid thing to say.

McCain says Obama didn't call Palin a pig

By BRENDAN FARRINGTON – 8 hours ago

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. (AP) — Did Barack Obama really call Sarah Palin a pig, as a John McCain ad leads people to believe? "No," McCain said Monday. The Republican presidential nominee defended the ad anyway, saying Obama "chooses his words very carefully."

The implication: Obama was slyly up to something when he said McCain's call for change in Washington is "lipstick on a pig," days after Palin made a lipstick joke at the Republican convention.

"He's very eloquent," McCain told The Associated Press and Florida newspapers in an interview, and "it was the wrong thing to say."

A day earlier, hard-nosed Republican tactician Karl Rove, a former adviser to President Bush, said some of McCain's ads were not truthful and both sides should cool the attacks.

McCain said of Obama's comment: "I didn't like it. So we respond. I think the American people will judge as to whether he and others have treated Governor Palin fairly or not." But he said he won't let attacks go unanswered.

McCain stood up for Palin at other times in the interview.

He was asked about nearly $200 million in congressional pet projects Palin requested for 2009 for her state, despite her boasts that she opposes such projects and his claim that she didn't ask for any. McCain responded by criticizing Obama for seeking more than $900 million in these earmarks, by one count.

"That's nearly a million every day, every working day he's been in Congress," McCain said. "And when you look at some of the planetariums and other foolishness that he asked for, he shouldn't be saying anything about Governor Palin."

Did he call her a pig?" McCain was asked. "No, I but know that he chooses his words carefully, and it was the wrong thing to say," he responded.

McCain cut off a question about the "Bridge to Nowhere," which Palin claims to have killed in Alaska even though Washington pulled back money for the project before she turned against it.

"The important thing is she's vetoed a half a billion dollars in earmark projects — far, far in excess of her predecessor and she's given money back to the taxpayers and she's cut their taxes, so I'm happy with her record," McCain said.

In addition to her current requests, state budget documents show Alaska requested 52 earmarks worth $256 million for 2008.

On this I can agree with John McCain. You believe he was talking about Palin because you want to believe Obama is sexist. Believing Obama is sexist means that you can continue to believe Obama was sexist against Hillary. Even John McCain had to admit that Obama wasn't talking about Palin, so why can't you? I will not agree to anything, because it's just plain BS.

Obama poked fun of McCain and Palin's new "change" mantra.

"You can put lipstick on a pig," he said as the crowd cheered. "It's still a pig."

"You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It's still gonna stink."

"We've had enough of the same old thing."

The crowd apparently took the "lipstick" line as a reference to Palin, who described the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull in a single word: "lipstick."

UPDATE: The McCain campaign is now saying Obama called Palin a pig, which he didn't. The Obama campaign notes that "lipstick on a pig" is a fairly common idiom Obama often uses, as in a recent Washington Post interview. McCain has also used the phrase.

Though on a day when Obama's surrogates were joking that Palin's record can't be concealed with lipstick, it was hard for those following the campaign not to hear the echo.

UPDATE: Obama aide Anita Dunn responds to the McCain campaign's claim that Obama compared Palin to a pig:

Enough is enough. The McCain campaign’s attack tonight is a pathetic attempt to play the gender card about the use of a common analogy – the same analogy that Senator McCain himself used about Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s health care plan just last year. This phony lecture on gender sensitivity is the height of cynicism and lays bare the increasingly dishonorable campaign John McCain has chosen to run.

Palin lies about Obama's tax plan (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080915/ap_on_el_pr/palin)

In fact, independent groups such as the Tax Policy Center have concluded that four out of five U.S. households would receive tax cuts under Obama's proposal, which include higher income and payroll taxes only for the wealthiest wage-earners.

Again, she comes up with an idea that Obama already helped make law...

"I've got another idea that I think Senator McCain likes. In Alaska, we took the state checkbook and put it online, so everyone can see where their money goes. We're going to bring that kind of openness to Washington," she said.

In fact, there already is a searchable database that allows the public to track federal grants and contracts, and Obama was a principle force behind the 2006 law that created it, along with Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.

The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act is one of Obama's few legislative accomplishments in his short Senate tenure.

Really? Are you sure your interpretation is the only one?

Per diem is understood to include the additional expenses incurred living away from home - basically having two residences. The IRS sets the maximum amount of per diem each year based on the location - for instance, New York City has a higher rate than Peoria, Illinois. Per diem is supposed to be paid on a daily basis, seven days a week, while you're at the remote location. It is not supposed to be tied to your salary, number of hours/days worked, etc. - just a flat daily rate. However, many brokers will try to save money by saying it's only for those days you work, or you get the full amount only if you work a full day, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_diem

And if her job required her to have two residences, you would have a point.

The truth of the matter is that she chose to live in two different places at once. Her job did not require it.


Unless McCain was calling Hillary an "it", then he clearly was talking about the healthcare policy.

"John McCain says he's about change too, and so I guess his whole angle is, 'Watch out George Bush -- except for economic policy, health care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy and Karl Rove-style politics -- we're really going to shake things up in Washington,'" he said.

"That's not change. That's just calling something the same thing something different. You know you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. You know you can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change, it's still going to stink after eight years. We've had enough of the same old thing."

So was Obama calling Palin, who was never even mentioned in the quote, "it" or "thing"?

Or could it be that the "lipstick on a pig" was referring to McCain's policy positions - you know, the actual topic under discussion?

So, let's just agree to disagree?

How about we just agree that you're applying an incredibly obvious double standard here?

Maybe she is ready to be Commander in Chief. Shes clearly learned from Dubya.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/15/palin.investigation/index.html

When you get a subpena, claim some nonexistant privalge and pretend the law doesnt apply to you.

LOL

And it's really rich coming from the woman who filed an ethics complaint against herself to try and get in the way of the investigation she was supposedly going to cooperate with.

Lets focus this, to the important tidbit.

....
I'll give you an example. Last year, my company relocated me from Boston to Raleigh-Durham, NC, for three months, give or take. I was presented with two options. I could either get my own apartment in Raleigh-Durham (which would be stupid since I would only be there for three months), or the company would put me up in corporate housing. If I found my own place, the company would pay me a per diem for my duration in NC. If I took the corporate housing, I could not claim the per diem. I was still, SEPERATELY, reimbursed for my plane tickets to and from RDU, as well as all my mileage expenses while I was down there. But I could not claim the per diem amount if I was staying in the housing that was paid for by the company.

The house Alaska provides for the governor is in Juneau. When Palin is getting per diem in Wasilla, it's because she's working in anchorage, 600 miles away from the house that they are providing for her. You said it yourself, IF you got your own house in Raleigh-Durham, they would have paid you for your duration in NC. Thats EXACTLY what Palin is doing now, but she took the other option. When she's in anchorage she's got her own house and so she's getting per diem because of that, just like you would have IF you had gotten your own house in NC.

And if her job required her to have two residences, you would have a point.

The truth of the matter is that she chose to live in two different places at once. Her job did not require it.
Her job requires her to work in Anchorage and Juneau and other places too. You are mistaken.

Really? Are you sure your interpretation is the only one?

Per diem is understood to include the additional expenses incurred living away from home - basically having two residences. The IRS sets the maximum amount of per diem each year based on the location - for instance, New York City has a higher rate than Peoria, Illinois. Per diem is supposed to be paid on a daily basis, seven days a week, while you're at the remote location. It is not supposed to be tied to your salary, number of hours/days worked, etc. - just a flat daily rate. However, many brokers will try to save money by saying it's only for those days you work, or you get the full amount only if you work a full day, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_diem

That's not a different interpretation. It's the same. The point of per diem is based on you incurring unusual expense that don't occur when you're at home. Here, she could have claimed her family had to be away and thus needed per diem but she collected for herself.

Lets focus this, to the important tidbit.



The house Alaska provides for the governor is in Juneau. When Palin is getting per diem in Wasilla, it's because she's working in anchorage, 600 miles away from the house that they are providing for her. You said it yourself, IF you got your own house in Raleigh-Durham, they would have paid you for your duration in in NC. Thats EXACTLY what Palin is doing. When she's in anchorage she's gotten her own house and she's getting per diem because of that.

You miss the point, per usual. When I was in Raleigh-Durham, I was still paying the rent on my house in Boston, same as I would be if I hadn't accepted the temporary assignment. My house in Boston equates to Palin's house in Wasilla. Regardless of our respective employment situations, we would still be paying the rent/mortgage on those homes. When I was in Raleigh-Durham, I was provided an apartment by my company, no cost to me. My apartment in Raleigh-Durham equates to Palin's house in Juneau. If I had chosen to get my own apartment in Raleigh-Durham, where I had to pay the rent, then I would get a per diem from the company to offset the cost of having to obtain a second residence due to my employment. If Palin had to pay the rent on the governor's mansion in Juneau, you'd have a point, but as it is, you don't have a leg to stand on. What she did was unethical.

I notice it's been three pages now since Ardweasels has made a comment.
Why this is interesting is that, thus far, his modus operandi has been to:
1. turn up and made some outrageous and slanderous attack on Obama
2. when called on it throw in some chery-picked quotes which don't back his claim up at all
3. ignore all the posts pointing out the glaring inconsistencies in his claims, just keep rehashing said claims
4. ignore all the posts pointing out the hypocrisy of his claims, as they invariably apply much better to McCain/Palin than anything Obama has done. Instead just keep flinging said accusations at Obama
5. finally stop posting once the mountain of evidence disproving his mud-slinging has gotten so great even he can't deny just how wrong he is. (He will though)
6. wait 3 or 4 pages before returning to step 1 with something even more slanderous.

As I said, it's been 3 pages so he must be due to return soon. Personally I'm looking forward to it. It's not often to see someone get so pwned so thoroughly and so regularly.

Her job requires her to work in Anchorage and Juneau and other places too. You are mistaken.

But it doesn't require her to live in two places. If you move your family, you've moved. It's that simple. They should pay for the move. They have to pay for expenses incurred by traveling to somewhere other than your primary residence. It can include renting a place or those types of things, but it requires that you not benefit. That means you can't buy two homes and charge them for one of them, for example. I can't buy a car for the second place and charge them for the payments. Because I would basically be creating equity for myself on their dime, which isn't the point of per diem or expenses on the whole.

It's not just an employer's money issue, either. It's a tax issue. She can't benefit or she's taxed on those benefits.

The house Alaska provides for the governor is in Juneau. When Palin is getting per diem in Wasilla, it's because she's working in anchorage, 600 miles away from the house that they are providing for her.

Which is irrelevant. She does not have to keep a home in Wasila to carry out her duties in Anchorage. The fact that she just happens to have one is a convenience, not an extra expense for her. As such, it is not appropriate for a per diem charge.

I go on a business trip once a year for a conference. My mother just so happens to live within 45 min-1hr of the conference site. This is convenient for me, because it means I get to stay with her instead of in a hotel. Even if I owned her home, I wouldn't get the money I would have spent on a hotel - because I didn't spend it as a result of the trip.

You said it yourself, IF you got your own house in Raleigh-Durham, they would have paid you for your duration in in NC. Thats EXACTLY what Palin is doing. When she's in anchorage she's gotten her own house and she's getting per diem because of that.

Did she buy the house because she was governor?

Is she personally paying for two different houses?

The answer to both questions is no. One of those houses is provided to her as part of her job. The other is a home that was not required by her job and, in fact, she owned before she even got the job. She doesn't maintain two households because of her job. She maintains one out of personal preference.

If she was personally paying for a home in Anchorage for the purpose of her job, you would have a point.

Meanwhile, I've noticed that you've been claiming that all of the days she charged per diem to be at home she was working in Anchorage without backing it up. Got a source for that?

You miss the point, per usual. When I was in Raleigh-Durham, I was still paying the rent on my house in Boston, same as I would be if I hadn't accepted the temporary assignment. My house in Boston equates to Palin's house in Wasilla. Regardless of our respective employment situations, we would still be paying the rent/mortgage on those homes. When I was in Raleigh-Durham, I was provided an apartment by my company, no cost to me. My apartment in Raleigh-Durham equates to Palin's house in Juneau. If I had chosen to get my own apartment in Raleigh-Durham, where I had to pay the rent, then I would get a per diem from the company to offset the cost of having to obtain a second residence due to my employment. If Palin had to pay the rent on the governor's mansion in Juneau, you'd have a point, but as it is, you don't have a leg to stand on. What she did was unethical.

^this

That's the point. Worse, it wasn't that she needed to travel so they needed to cover it. She chose to go home and live there while she gave birth. They should pay for her to get there and get back, but she was there specifically because it was HOME.

Her job requires her to work in Anchorage and Juneau and other places too. You are mistaken.

Her job requires her to travel, yes. It does not require her to own a home in Wasila or to stay there.

Which is irrelevant. She does not have to keep a home in Wasila to carry out her duties in Anchorage. The fact that she just happens to have one is a convenience, not an extra expense for her. As such, it is not appropriate for a per diem charge.

This is wrong. That she can keep her home is exactly why they have the travel rules they do. There actually ways this could have been ethical. there are a number of reasons for setting that up. Many companies encourage you to move your family closer, as she did. The problem is that they're covering all of the extra expense already.

Again, it's not as simple as people are protraying it here.



I go on a business trip once a year for a conference. My mother just so happens to live within 45 min-1hr of the conference site. This is convenient for me, because it means I get to stay with her instead of in a hotel. Even if I owned her home, I wouldn't get the money I would have spent on a hotel - because I didn't spend it as a result of the trip.

This is true, but you would still get per diem for other expenses like food.

This is wrong. That she can keep her home is exactly why they have the travel rules they do. There actually ways this could have been ethical. there are a number of reasons for setting that up. Many companies encourage you to move your family closer, as she did. The problem is that they're covering all of the extra expense already.

Again, it's not as simple as people are protraying it here.

I don't see what you're arguing with. None of this contradicts what I said.

This is true, but you would still get per diem for other expenses like food.

Indeed. And I do, as well as getting the conference fees reimbursed. But the fact that I choose to stay with my mother and make the drive instead of staying on site means that I don't get extra money.

I don't see what you're arguing with. None of this contradicts what I said.



Indeed. And I do, as well as getting the conference fees reimbursed. But the fact that I choose to stay with my mother and make the drive instead of staying on site means that I don't get extra money.

Your referencing the residence, but it oversimplifies the purpose. You don't get extra money. But you would get per diem.

For example, my residence costs are not part of my per diem in most cases. I almost always have to give my specific costs for that. This is likely the case for a governor, specifically since she may collect per diem while staying in the governor's mansion. Again, talking about whether she owned the place is oversimplifying the issue.

Your referencing the residence, but it oversimplifies the purpose. You don't get extra money. But you would get per diem.

For example, my residence costs are not part of my per diem in most cases. I almost always have to give my specific costs for that. This is likely the case for a governor, specifically since she may collect per diem while staying in the governor's mansion. Again, talking about whether she owned the place is oversimplifying the issue.

Baldy was referencing the case in which a per diem is paid for maintaining two residences. In that case, you have to be actually paying for both residences. In fact, according to the article he cited, if you rent out one of them, you no longer get the per diem.

Baldy was referencing the case in which a per diem is paid for maintaining two residences. In that case, you have to be actually paying for both residences. In fact, according to the article he cited, if you rent out one of them, you no longer get the per diem.

Yes, but as you pointed out, the travel could still be responsibility of the job you hold whether you own that residence or not. She does a job that requires you regularly stay in many places. The part she would have trouble with here is that Wasilla is obviously still her home residence because she went there to give birth. But if it weren't she could have collected per diem.

Hype up Doin and make totally undefendable and outright false claims about how great she is and how awful her opponent would be for the country you dont live in. Make all these wild, unsupported declarations about her impending victory, and do not be discouraged about consistantly being wrong, but keep making them. And then cry sexism whenever anyone tells you you are wrong.


Only then, young grasshopper, will you have truely become CH.

Won't work. Stéphane Dion is a guy.:D

Hype up Doin and make totally undefendable and outright false claims about how great she is and how awful her opponent would be for the country you dont live in. Make all these wild, unsupported declarations about her impending victory, and do not be discouraged about consistantly being wrong, but keep making them. And then cry sexism whenever anyone tells you you are wrong.


Only then, young grasshopper, will you have truely become CH.

This just might be flamebait.

Indeed it might. KoL, knock it off. (You've been warned about this sort of thing before -- yellow card to jog your memory.)

Zombie PotatoHeads, you cut it out, too. It's just possible that Aardweasels might have, gasp, a legitimate reason for not posting on NS !

EDIT: Hmm -- make that a red card, KoL. Your last warning was just three days ago, and for the same thing.

Already did, but I understand why you choice to ignore that your Saint isnt this awesome feminist that the right keeps saying she is.

KoL already sourced it, but here is more.

My deepest and most sincere apologies for having missed a post in a large thread. I do not however promise that it won't happen again, in fact, I'm quite sure it will. So get over it.

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/2008/view.bg?articleid=1118416&srvc=2008campaign&position=5


An excerpt:

While some of their complaints have already been aired, Knowles broke new ground while answering a reporter’s question on whether Wasilla forced rape victims to pay for their own forensic tests when Palin was mayor.

True, Knowles said.

Eight years ago, complaints about charging rape victims for medical exams in Wasilla prompted the Alaska Legislature to pass a bill -- signed into law by Knowles -- that banned the practice statewide.

"There was one town in Alaska that was charging victims for this, and that was Wasilla," Knowles said

A May 23, 2000, article in Wasilla’s newspaper, The Frontiersman, noted that Alaska State Troopers and most municipal police agencies regularly pay for such exams, which cost between $300 and $1,200 apiece.

"(But) the Wasilla police department does charge the victims of sexual assault for the tests," the newspaper reported.

It also quoted Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon objecting to the law. Fannon was appointed to his position by Palin after her dismissal of the previous police chief. He said it would cost Wasilla $5,000 to $14,000 a year if the city had to foot the bill for rape exams.


I notice that you left this part out...
He said it would cost Wasilla $5,000 to $14,000 a year if the city had to foot the bill for rape exams.

"In the past we’ve charged the cost of exams to the victims’ insurance company when possible," Fannon told the newspaper. "I just don’t want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer."


As for me, I don't have to defend it, it doesn't appear to be an issue where someone was denied emergency services. I think Ambulances, for example, should be free to use as well, but they're not.

I think Ambulances, for example, should be free to use as well, but they're not.

Why do you believe this? Why are ambulances to be free of cost, in your opinion?

It seems a slippery slope to full healthcare, I don't see why you single ambulances out if they're taking someone to something they cannot afford. Surely, if any insurance was bought, it would be an ambulance, they at least get you to where they have to treat you, regardless of whether you can foot the bill.

So if ambulances are to be covered, why not full healthcare since, surely, the point is keeping people alive? Is it the ambulance or good healthcare that keeps you alive?

So, you'd almost think you'd vote in Barack Obama, if you actually followed through on the logic of sparing some money to help others, as in paying tax to cover the ambulance service, why wouldn't you accept an accountable administration to handle the apportioning of a certain amount of your paycheck to 'helping others'.

'How much?', people cry, yet Barack Obama will mean tax is lowered to 95% of the population. How many of you, aside from Il Ruffino, belong to a family in the top 5% of earners?

This particular vote seems unusually clear yet utterly misleaded by simple mantras of the right - 'zombie taxessss' or the 'I don't know what he stands for', crowd. All in all regardless, people can continue to believe in the vision of the right, and all it's constrictive beliefs about how one should live, or, at least, a little shift towards the centre.

Try to conjure in your mind the reaction to a Barack Obama win, the hope for something, or the overall sigh if John McCain wins, at best the best the right could hope for.

Which is irrelevant. She does not have to keep a home in Wasila to carry out her duties in Anchorage. The fact that she just happens to have one is a convenience, not an extra expense for her. As such, it is not appropriate for a per diem charge.

I go on a business trip once a year for a conference. My mother just so happens to live within 45 min-1hr of the conference site. This is convenient for me, because it means I get to stay with her instead of in a hotel. Even if I owned her home, I wouldn't get the money I would have spent on a hotel - because I didn't spend it as a result of the trip.

Did she buy the house because she was governor?

Is she personally paying for two different houses?

The answer to both questions is no. One of those houses is provided to her as part of her job. The other is a home that was not required by her job and, in fact, she owned before she even got the job. She doesn't maintain two households because of her job. She maintains one out of personal preference.

If she was personally paying for a home in Anchorage for the purpose of her job, you would have a point.

Her home residence being in Juneau is not optional. When she's working away from Juneau she's eligible for Per Diem. And as for your example, if your employer gave you no option but to stay where they provided a place for you then that's a different issue. If your employer said they will pay you per diem and you turned it down, then that's your business but you were eligible for per diem regardless if you stayed with a relative.

Meanwhile, I've noticed that you've been claiming that all of the days she charged per diem to be at home she was working in Anchorage without backing it up. Got a source for that?

I would like to see what source you've been using about the per diem issue at all that didn't mention where she was working. That's a suspiciously bad source I suspect.

But here, one google search, top selection... this article has people both attacking her and defending her.
http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/521329.html

First, legitimacy of claims for staying at 'home' meals...
In Palin's case, the state is also paying for at least some meals when she's staying in Wasilla. Like other state officials, she's entitled to $60 a day "per diem" for food and incidentals, such as tips, while traveling on state business. State rules say that if your job stations you in Juneau or Anchorage, but you live in another part of the state, you can still get the meal money when visiting your hometown, said Linda Perez, director of administrative services for the governor.

And an example of work in Anchorage...outside of the government Anchorage offices.

In mid-June of 2007, according to records, Palin arrived in Anchorage on the state's King Air propeller plane for the beginning of a long stay away from the capital. On her agenda: The special legislative session on senior aid, signing the state budget and a baseball game between the Mat-Su Miners and Alaska Goldpanners.

During the same trip, Palin performed the coin toss at an Alaska Wild football game one day, and vetoed $231 million for projects in the state construction budget the next. For two weeks, she worked in Anchorage while living at home, charging the state a total of about $800 in meal money, according to the travel records.

...

There is more than one way of paying for Ambulances and Medical Care. Giving every family a five thousand dollar tax exempted allowance to buy their own medical coverage that would pay for needed rape kits and ambulances etc., could be another good way.

...Try to conjure in your mind the reaction ... the overall sigh if John McCain wins, at best the best the right could hope for.

I think there would be a collective shout and dancing in the streets for the first ever woman VP and a possibility that the first woman vs. woman president election the following election or two.

There is more than one way of paying for Ambulances and Medical Care. Giving every family a five thousand dollar tax exempted allowance to buy their own medical coverage that would pay for needed rape kits and ambulances etc., could be another good way.
There would still be plenty of big operations/services far too expensive to be covered by $5000.

I notice that you left this part out...
He said it would cost Wasilla $5,000 to $14,000 a year if the city had to foot the bill for rape exams.

"In the past we’ve charged the cost of exams to the victims’ insurance company when possible," Fannon told the newspaper. "I just don’t want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer."

I notice I said "EXCERPT" in front of the part I quoted and didn't try to pass it off as the whole article.

The first sentence you say I left out, I included.

The second sentence shows how incredibily insensitive and stupid Palin's personal choice for police chief is. Thanks for adding it.


As for me, I don't have to defend it, it doesn't appear to be an issue where someone was denied emergency services. I think Ambulances, for example, should be free to use as well, but they're not.

If ambulances were free everywhere in Alaska except Wasilla, some people might think it a legitimate question to ask why Wasilla charged for ambulances.

Here we have a policy that inflicts increased sufferring on rape victims. Your fake feminist didn't do anything about it. (In fact, there is some evidence she supported it directly.)

You are the one that wants to make Palin's record as a small-town mayor relevant to the Presidency. Well, this is part of her record: punishing rape victims. I can see why you don't want to defend it.

Her home residence being in Juneau is not optional. When she's working away from Juneau she's eligible for Per Diem. And as for your example, if your employer gave you no option but to stay where they provided a place for you then that's a different issue. If your employer said they will pay you per diem and you turned it down, then that's your business but you were eligible for per diem regardless if you stayed with a relative.



I would like to see what source you've been using about the per diem issue at all that didn't mention where she was working. That's a suspiciously bad source I suspect.

But here, one google search, top selection... this article has people both attacking her and defending her.
http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/521329.html

First, legitimacy of claims for staying at 'home' meals...
In Palin's case, the state is also paying for at least some meals when she's staying in Wasilla. Like other state officials, she's entitled to $60 a day "per diem" for food and incidentals, such as tips, while traveling on state business. State rules say that if your job stations you in Juneau or Anchorage, but you live in another part of the state, you can still get the meal money when visiting your hometown, said Linda Perez, director of administrative services for the governor.

Nothing like relying on "experts" that happen to be on Palin's own staff. :rolleyes:

Whoa. Vice-Presidents to rape. Staying out of this thread...

There would still be plenty of big operations/services far too expensive to be covered by $5000.

You are supposed to buy medical coverage insurance with the five thousand, not cover medical costs.

You are supposed to buy medical coverage insurance with the five thousand, not cover medical costs.
Ahh. Being brought up with the NHS makes me unsure around medical insurance terminology.

Would $5000 insurance cover a lifetime of possible medical expenses? Including, say, for those with debilitating yet not fatal conditions?

...
If ambulances were free everywhere in Alaska except Wasilla, some people might think it a legitimate question to ask why Wasilla charged for ambulances.

Here we have a policy that inflicts increased sufferring on rape victims. Your fake feminist didn't do anything about it. (In fact, there is some evidence she supported it directly.)

You are the one that wants to make Palin's record as a small-town mayor relevant to the Presidency. Well, this is part of her record: punishing rape victims. I can see why you don't want to defend it.

I don't think you've shown 'increased suffering' at all. The only thing I saw was that they bill back the medical costs to the insurance when they can.

Just like they bill medical insurance plans for the ambulances, they want(ed) to bill medical insurance plans for the medical rape kits there. If someone crashes their car into the meridian guard rail, they charge the drivers vehicle insurance to fix that too. I fail to see your outrage objection to this and not all those other things as well.

I think there would be a collective shout and dancing in the streets for the first ever woman VP and a possibility that the first woman vs. woman president election the following election or two.

Yes, rejoice the world would.

The world will only notice that the USA didn't vote in Barack Obama, some will have conspiracy theories, some will note that it was as expected, all will lead to a negative opinion of America, when people view something negatively, they ascribe negative views to anything it says and does.

Economically, the policies of don't tax but spend, all of you, on houses and stuff, here, take $600 back, spend, spend... doesn't work.

Globally, it simply confirms to the world that America is about 'self' first, the star quarterback, the Injun killin' cowboy, the good Christian woman, the false golden idol of America's past.

For some the choice seems reasonably understandable, the only arguments i've seen against Barack Obama are 'taxessss' and 'I don't know what he stands for?'.

Barack Obama on the issues (http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Barack_Obama.htm) - there you go.

Ahh. Being brought up with the NHS makes me unsure around medical insurance terminology.

Would $5000 insurance cover a lifetime of possible medical expenses? Including, say, for those with debilitating yet not fatal conditions?

$5000 per year, not a lifetime.

As to if it would be 'enough', I'm not sure it's enough, but it would be close.

Yes, rejoice the world would.

The world will only notice that the USA didn't vote in Barack Obama, some will have conspiracy theories, some will note that it was as expected, all will lead to a negative opinion of America, when people view something negatively, they ascribe negative views to anything it says and does.

Yes, I meant the USA. It's not a global election.

Economically, the policies of don't tax but spend, all of you, on houses and stuff, here, take $600 back, spend, spend... doesn't work.

Globally, it simply confirms to the world that America is about 'self' first, the star quarterback, the Injun killin' cowboy, the good Christian woman, the false golden idol of America's past.

For some the choice seems reasonably understandable, the only arguments i've seen against Barack Obama are 'taxessss' and 'I don't know what he stands for?'.

Barack Obama on the issues (http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Barack_Obama.htm) - there you go.

I couldn't care less what the rest of the world thinks about who we elect for our President. They can deal with it or 'punish' us with bad foreign relations, whatever.

Yes, I meant the USA. It's not a global election.

Then the US forfeits all the right it ever thought it had to interfere in the world the way it does!

NOW!

I don't think you've shown 'increased suffering' at all. The only thing I saw was that they bill back the medical costs to the insurance when they can.

Just like they bill medical insurance plans for the ambulances, they want(ed) to bill medical insurance plans for the medical rape kits there. If someone crashes their car into the meridian guard rail, they charge the drivers vehicle insurance to fix that too. I fail to see your outrage objection to this and not all those other things as well.

You really just don't get it.

Rape kits are NOT medical treatment. They are for evidence collection purposes. We don't charge crime victims for the investigation of their cases -- except rape victims in Wasilla under Palin.

It is not at all clear that medical insurance will cover rape kits, precisely because they are not medical treatment.

Even if we assume medical insurance would cover the rape kit, the victim would still have to pay the deductible and/or increased rates.

This was such a bizarre practice that no other town in Alaska practiced it and, not long after the Palin administration implemented it, it so outraged the state of Alaska that they passed a state-wide policy on the issue.

Palin seriously fucked up on this issue and your blindness (willful or otherwise) doesn't change that.

I couldn't care less what the rest of the world thinks about who we elect for our President. They can deal with it or 'punish' us with bad foreign relations, whatever.

So - even though current economic policies are affecting America, nationally, as witnessed by the current turmoil and, though not a direct causation, the idea that 'America can spend its way out of a recession, here, take some more money' while spending enormous amounts, 'let's have us a war', might be, in any way, be good - you'll go with them?

On top of that, a negative view of America takes hold, affecting business relations, trade agreements, etc.,

In return for?

So - even though current economic policies are affecting America, nationally, as witnessed by the current turmoil and, though not a direct causation, the idea that 'America can spend its way out of a recession, here, take some more money' while spending enormous amounts, 'let's have us a war', might be, in any way, be good - you'll go with them?

On top of that, a negative view of America takes hold, affecting business relations, trade agreements, etc.,

In return for?

Pffft, are you implying that we are a part of a global economy where having poor foreign relations could negatively impact us, or that negative foreign relations could make diplomacy (if it was important of course-- diplomacy is a very bad thing, as all True Americans (tm) know) more difficult?

Yeah right. Ameeeerrrrica, Fuck Yeah!

You really just don't get it.

Rape kits are NOT medical treatment. They are for evidence collection purposes. We don't charge crime victims for the investigation of their cases -- except rape victims in Wasilla under Palin.

An Ambulance is not simple medical treatment either... They are transportation and medical stabilization.

It is not at all clear that medical insurance will cover rape kits, precisely because they are not medical treatment.

Even if we assume medical insurance would cover the rape kit, the victim would still have to pay the deductible and/or increased rates.

Increased rates? Are you thinking of auto insurance? There very well might be a co-pay though, and I agree, I wouldn't like that either.

This was such a bizarre practice that no other town in Alaska practiced it and, not long after the Palin administration implemented it, it so outraged the state of Alaska that they passed a state-wide policy on the issue.

Palin seriously fucked up on this issue and your blindness (willful or otherwise) doesn't change that.


Nonsense, its a nationwide issue that needs to be addressed. Your attempt to isolate Palin and Wasilla alone is disingenuous.

How forensic exam costs are handled varies. In some locations, hospitals bill patients' insurance and absorb whatever the insurers don't pay or bill patients for the balance. Some states have special funds to cover a portion of the costs. Others require convicted offenders to pay into a fund to reimburse the costs of the exams.

No one I spoke with tried to defend the practice of billing rape victims for their exams. Predictably, people cited a host of problems—from bureaucratic inefficiency to chronic underfunding of victim compensation funds—that partially explain but don't excuse it. Ironically, the nature of rape may actually make it more likely that victims will be billed for the evidence-gathering exam. Unlike a break-in, where police gather forensic evidence at the victim's home and send it directly to the crime lab, in rape the victim's body is the scene of the crime. In these cases, "there's a crossover between medical care and forensic care," says Brown.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/on-health-and-money/2008/2/21/rape-victims-can-be-hurt-financially-too.html

$5000 per year, not a lifetime.

As to if it would be 'enough', I'm not sure it's enough, but it would be close.

$5000 a year would be $416.67 a month. For family coverage (that is, more than just yourself plus spouse), $416.67 would not cover even the most basic of health plans. $416.67 a month would not even cover half the unsubsidized rates for what most people would consider "good" coverage.

$5000 a year would be $416.67 a month. For family coverage (that is, more than just yourself plus spouse), $416.67 would not cover even the most basic of health plans. $416.67 a month would not even cover half the unsubsidized rates for what most people would consider "good" coverage.

According to Blue Cross Blue Shield, their family rates are variable for things like tobacco use and drug coverage and state location etc.,:

http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee218/Balderdash71964/BlueCross.gif
Link to .pdf file (https://www.bluecrossmn.com/bc/wcs/groups/bcbsmn/@mbc_bluecrossmn/documents/public/mbc1_awarecare.pdf)

Almost pays for a family with 2 kids and a $500 deductible and it would pay for the $750 deductible. (I agree I want a much lower deductible though, I'm just pointing out that you can get coverage from a respectible insurance company for that price range)

According to Blue Cross Blue Shield, their family rates are variable for things like tobacco use and drug coverage and state location etc.,:

http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee218/Balderdash71964/BlueCross.gif
Link to .pdf file (https://www.bluecrossmn.com/bc/wcs/groups/bcbsmn/@mbc_bluecrossmn/documents/public/mbc1_awarecare.pdf)

Almost pays for a family with 2 kids and a $500 deductible and it would pay for the $750 deductible. (I agree I want a much lower deductible though, I'm just pointing out that you can get coverage from a respectible insurance company for that price range)

How much coverage is that?

How much coverage is that?

Page 4 of the .pdf file linked to seems to be what you're looking for.

Page 4 of the .pdf file linked to seems to be what you're looking for.

It mentions a max of 5 million over a lifetime, but doesn't mention a maximum per incident. That doesn't really tell me what I want to know.

According to Blue Cross Blue Shield, their family rates are variable for things like tobacco use and drug coverage and state location etc.,:

http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee218/Balderdash71964/BlueCross.gif
Link to .pdf file (https://www.bluecrossmn.com/bc/wcs/groups/bcbsmn/@mbc_bluecrossmn/documents/public/mbc1_awarecare.pdf)

Almost pays for a family with 2 kids and a $500 deductible and it would pay for the $750 deductible. (I agree I want a much lower deductible though, I'm just pointing out that you can get coverage from a respectible insurance company for that price range)

https://bluecrossma.inshealth.com/ehi/IFPAllPlans.ds?ehi.selectedFilterTab=18&ehi.BannerClicked=&ehi.st.reset_payment_type=Y&mcei.app.terminalID=__tid__9_

Either insurance is astronomically more expensive in Massachusetts than in Minnesota, or that rate chart is misleading. That link above is for a family of four in my zip code. You can see the 80/20 PPO with the $2000 deductible is $545.35 a month. What most people would consider a "good" plan, something like the 80/20 PPO with the $500 deductible (Blue Care Elect Preferred 80), costs $1,194.13 a month.

I suspect that chart has cummulative rates.

It mentions a max of 5 million over a lifetime, but doesn't mention a maximum per incident. That doesn't really tell me what I want to know.

There is no maximum per incident, except for home health care, it looks.

There is no maximum per incident, except for home health care, it looks.

I find that a bit odd, but then I've never shopped for health insurance. Why spend $400 a month when you can toss it into an investment account and make money instead of gambling on insurance paying off.

I find that a bit odd, but then I've never shopped for health insurance. Why spend $400 a month when you can toss it into an investment account and make money instead of gambling on insurance paying off.

Because if you have to have $250,000 worth of surgery, even in the worst of those plans you only end up paying $6,000 out of your own pocket.

https://bluecrossma.inshealth.com/ehi/IFPAllPlans.ds?ehi.selectedFilterTab=18&ehi.BannerClicked=&ehi.st.reset_payment_type=Y&mcei.app.terminalID=__tid__9_

Either insurance is astronomically more expensive in Massachusetts than in Minnesota, or that rate chart is misleading. That link above is for a family of four in my zip code. You can see the 80/20 PPO with the $2000 deductible is $545.35 a month. What most people would consider a "good" plan, something like the 80/20 PPO with the $500 deductible (Blue Care Elect Preferred 80), costs $1,194.13 a month.

I suspect that chart has cummulative rates.

Linky no worky. I note there's a massive variance in Boston's rates for a couple. $1176.07 to $407.65 depending.

Because if you have to have $250,000 worth of surgery, even in the worst of those plans you only end up paying $6,000 out of your own pocket.
The odds of that happening are rather astronomically small. That's how they make their money.

Linky no worky. I note there's a massive variance in Boston's rates for a couple. $1176.07 to $407.65 depending.

Hmm, the link works for me. I'll try to screenshot it.

The odds of that happening are rather astronomically small. That's how they make their money.

Of course that's how they make their money. They're not in it for the benefit of mankind; it's a business. But that's why people get insurance, to protect against the unforeseen.

Incidentally, consumer-driven health plans (CDHP) are considered the wave of the future as far as health care goes, and they incorporate your idea of just investing the money. It allows for more judicious use of health care, and it puts the onus on the consumer. A lot of employers are going this route with their subsudized plans because it relieves a lot of the financial burden on their health care funds, and it emphasizes preventive health care rather than reactive health care.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_driven_health_care

Her home residence being in Juneau is not optional. When she's working away from Juneau she's eligible for Per Diem. And as for your example, if your employer gave you no option but to stay where they provided a place for you then that's a different issue. If your employer said they will pay you per diem and you turned it down, then that's your business but you were eligible for per diem regardless if you stayed with a relative.

....except I wasn't. I was eligible for a maximum food per diem (and even that had to be demonstrated with receipts). Any food I ate at my mother's was not be covered. The fact that I didn't pay anything extra for lodging meant that I was not eligible to receive a per diem rate for lodging.

Why? Because I didn't pay anything extra for it and thus there was nothing to reimburse me for.

I would like to see what source you've been using about the per diem issue at all that didn't mention where she was working. That's a suspiciously bad source I suspect.

Even your own source doesn't answer the question. It says that she often spends time working in Anchorage and staying in Wasila. It doesn't demonstrate that all 300-some days were spent that way or that she was there because she needed to be rather than by choice.

First, legitimacy of claims for staying at 'home' meals...
In Palin's case, the state is also paying for at least some meals when she's staying in Wasilla. Like other state officials, she's entitled to $60 a day "per diem" for food and incidentals, such as tips, while traveling on state business. State rules say that if your job stations you in Juneau or Anchorage, but you live in another part of the state, you can still get the meal money when visiting your hometown, said Linda Perez, director of administrative services for the governor.

As someone said in the article:

"When you're living at home, you don't pay yourself for living at home," Knowles, a Democrat, said in an interview Tuesday. "And if you use a technicality to get around that rule so you can get paid for it, it's not right."

The fact that it's legal doesn't mean it's appropriate.

There is more than one way of paying for Ambulances and Medical Care. Giving every family a five thousand dollar tax exempted allowance to buy their own medical coverage that would pay for needed rape kits and ambulances etc., could be another good way.

Sure, if you could actually get decent private coverage for a family for $5000 which would pay for all of these things.

Even people who have insurance don't necessarily get those things paid for. And $5000 is barely a drop in the bucket for what insurance costs. My husband and I (no kids, just us) - for pretty basic coverage - were looking at paying about $1000 per month and that was through COBRA which actually gets you coverage at a reduced rate.


I think there would be a collective shout and dancing in the streets for the first ever woman VP and a possibility that the first woman vs. woman president election the following election or two.

Because their genitalia are clearly important enough to overshadow bad policy.

I don't think you've shown 'increased suffering' at all. The only thing I saw was that they bill back the medical costs to the insurance when they can.

And charged it to the individual when there was either no insurance or the insurance wouldn't cover it.

Just like they bill medical insurance plans for the ambulances, they want(ed) to bill medical insurance plans for the medical rape kits there. If someone crashes their car into the meridian guard rail, they charge the drivers vehicle insurance to fix that too. I fail to see your outrage objection to this and not all those other things as well.

If someone crashes their car into the median guard rail, they are at fault and either they or their insurance should pay for it.

If someone is raped, is that person responsible for the damage?

Meanwhile, performing a rape kit is a vital part of a criminal investigation, so this is really more like charging someone who was robbed for the equipment used to investigate.

I'm not entirely surprised, but has anyone else noticed (or disagrees) that the race seems to have turned from 'Obama vs. McCain' to 'Obama vs. Palin'?

I did see that clip before making comment, and my opinion still stands.


If you'd already seen the clip, that means you knew that the context has nothing to do with the politicians, and everything to do with the policies.

To pretend otherwise, in face of your OWN admission that you have seen the whole comment, is dishonest.


Clearly McCain was talking about the healthcare policy, not Hillary.


Clearly, Obama was talking about McCain's policies, not Palin.

You can't have it both ways.


That is definitely not proof, unless of course you believe that Obama is incapable of telling a lie?


So, you're poisoning the well?

The context of the original quote say it wasn't about Palin. Looking at McCain's parallel says it wasn't about Palin - and Obama himself says it wasn't about Palin.

I don't have to believe that Obama is incapable of telling a lie, but it is partisanship that travels far beyond merely being 'blinkered', to suggest that he MUST automatically be lying.


Only Obama knows the truth of the matter. In the meantime, I get to make a discernment about "his" truth(s).


If you are dishonest about it, yes. Innocent until proven guilty seems like a fair maxim.

You are claiming that you are making a discernment about the 'truth' - but you're willing to discard the context, other uses of the phrase, and the speaker's own testimony...

What EXACTLY are you making this discernment on? Faith?


Since we cannot unequivocably know the truth, then I am more than willing to drop the issue, so that we can deal with more meaty matters.

Of course you're willing to drop the issue. You just got served so hard your grandchildren will be sore.

Yes, I meant the USA. It's not a global election.



I couldn't care less what the rest of the world thinks about who we elect for our President. They can deal with it or 'punish' us with bad foreign relations, whatever.

Yeah, you here that non-Americans on this board. You all can go F yourself. We don't have to care what you think of who we elect to lead our country. It's not as if foreign relations on war and peace will be affected by it. So screw you and your opinion. After all, it's not like the world in an incredibly interconnected economic place. It's not as if trade deals are determined by who is in office. So screw you if we ever want to create a coalition of the willing (a bad joke) again. So screw you world, we'll do what we want.

If you get your source from a self described Democrat favoring blog, and then they link to a story that has their soundbite in self described Democrat 'nugget;' Other nuggets Democrats hope reporters will mine over the next two months: Of course you are only going to get half the story.


This, my friend - is poisoning the well.

I have to point out, you're hardly innocent of the 'crime' you are claiming here - having recently posted the opinion piece from the NYT that said Obama was demanding soldiers not be drawn down until after the election.

I'm not entirely surprised, but has anyone else noticed (or disagrees) that the race seems to have turned from 'Obama vs. McCain' to 'Obama vs. Palin'?

McCain just isn't very interesting. I'm watching with a mounting amusement as Palin becomes an albatross around McCain's neck.

This, my friend - is poisoning the well.

I have to point out, you're hardly innocent of the 'crime' you are claiming here - having recently posted the opinion piece from the NYT that said Obama was demanding soldiers not be drawn down until after the election.

I believe it was the Washington Times, no?

McCain just isn't very interesting. I'm watching with a mounting amusement as Palin becomes an albatross around McCain's neck.
Yes...

Although, as unpopular as she is with people who wouldn't ever vote Republican, she seems (from my admittedly poor vantage-point) rather popular with many people who were thinking of voting McCain.

She'd be a terrible running-mate in a country of centrist/centre-left voters, but with the US...

I'm not entirely surprised, but has anyone else noticed (or disagrees) that the race seems to have turned from 'Obama vs. McCain' to 'Obama vs. Palin'?

I think it's more "Obama vs. McCain and Palin". For whatever reason, McCain supporters seem to be ignoring Biden.

Yes...

Although, as unpopular as she is with people who wouldn't ever vote Republican, she seems (from my admittedly poor vantage-point) rather popular with many people who were thinking of voting McCain.

She'd be a terrible running-mate in a country of centrist/centre-left voters, but with the US...

Depends on how the media plays it. If they continue to give her attention she'll be a pariah pretty quickly.

I believe it was the Washington Times, no?

Eh... maybe. I typed that off the top of my head.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v223/maddillphatyo/untitled.jpg

This is the best my laziness would allow. You can see the family of four I put in on the top right. For the record, I enterred them in as non-smokers. These are the lowest prices BCBSMA offers a family of four for coverage. The very first one is the 80/20 PPO with the $2000 deductible for $545.35. I tried to find a rate chart from BCBSMA, but all their SPDs had were plan details; no rates. So this was the best I could do. If you need I can screenshot some of the more expensive plans too.

....except I wasn't. I was eligible for a maximum food per diem (and even that had to be demonstrated with receipts). The fact that I didn't pay anything extra for lodging meant that I was not eligible to receive a per diem rate for lodging.

Why? Because I didn't pay anything extra for it and thus there was nothing to reimburse me for.

Ummmm, you do know that's what we're talking about right? When Palin was at her Wasilla residence and asking for per diem, she was asking for per diem to pay for meals...If you have a source that says otherwise, you should present it.

Even your own source doesn't answer the question. It says that she often spends time working in Anchorage and staying in Wasila. It doesn't demonstrate that all 300-some days were spent that way or that she was there because she needed to be rather than by choice.

Not even her opponents are accusing her of not working in Anchorage. I agree that I didn't provide you with a copy of every per diem request she's submitted, and I wouldn't hold your breath. If you want to go look it up and compare it to duties performed for each request, feel free.


As someone said in the article:

"When you're living at home, you don't pay yourself for living at home," Knowles, a Democrat, said in an interview Tuesday. "And if you use a technicality to get around that rule so you can get paid for it, it's not right."

The fact that it's legal doesn't mean it's appropriate.

It's not a technicality to charge per diem for what you are allowed to ask for. The fact that she could be charging hundreds of thousands dollars more, like her predecessor in office have done before her, shows me you guys are barking up the wrong tree. The more light you bring to this issue, the better Palin's going to look. Compared to what Alaska has normally been paying, she's a teetotaler and saves the taxpayers money by any stretch of the imagination. The only people that will likely get mad should be the example she sets for other governors, they'll have to cut back now.

Sure, if you could actually get decent private coverage for a family for $5000 which would pay for all of these things.

Even people who have insurance don't necessarily get those things paid for. And $5000 is barely a drop in the bucket for what insurance costs. My husband and I (no kids, just us) - for pretty basic coverage - were looking at paying about $1000 per month and that was through COBRA which actually gets you coverage at a reduced rate.

We've been talking about that already, different states different rates, twice as much, half as much etc., etc., etc.

And charged it to the individual when there was either no insurance or the insurance wouldn't cover it.

That hasn't been confirmed.


If someone crashes their car into the median guard rail, they are at fault and either they or their insurance should pay for it.

No Fault insurance comes to mind. Doesn't matter whos at fault, your insurances covers you regardless of fault.

If someone is raped, is that person responsible for the damage?

Meanwhile, performing a rape kit is a vital part of a criminal investigation, so this is really more like charging someone who was robbed for the equipment used to investigate.

I'm not defending it, just pointing out that it's a national issue, not a specific Wasilla issue.

Ummmm, you do know that's what we're talking about right? When Palin was at her Wasilla residence and asking for per diem, she was asking for per diem to pay for meals...If you have a source that says otherwise, you should present it.

I don't think meals eaten at home are appropriate per diem requests.

Meanwhile, weren't you the one claiming that it was about maintaining two households?

Not even her opponents are accusing her of not working in Anchorage.

I'm not accusing her of not working there at all. What I want to see is
(a) that she was working there all 300-some days (including the 30-some days that another source said she spent at home due to giving birth)
and
(b) that she had to be there all of those days - that it wasn't a personal choice she made to be closer to home.

It's not a technicality to charge per diem for what you are allowed to ask for.

"Allowed to" is not equivalent to "appropriate".

The fact that she could be charging hundreds of thousands dollars more, like her predecessor in office have done before her, shows me you guys are barking up the wrong tree.

If her predecessor actually had to spend more, it would be appropriate to charge more. It's sort of like my situation with my conference. Most of my colleagues who attend don't conveniently have a family member nearby to stay with. This means that they eat out the entire weekend and need a place to stay and thus charge more in per diem than I do. There's nothing wrong with that.

And if I charged more than I actually needed to spend, even if it was less than them, it wouldn't somehow make me better.

We've been talking about that already, different states different rates, twice as much, half as much etc., etc., etc.

And yet the $5000 isn't supposed to vary by state, now is it?

That hasn't been confirmed.

It's what the article said.

No Fault insurance comes to mind. Doesn't matter whos at fault, your insurances covers you regardless of fault.

You missed the point here.

I'm not defending it, just pointing out that it's a national issue, not a specific Wasilla issue.

It was specific to Wasilla in this case. Wasilla was the only place in Alaska that it was an issue - so much of an issue, in fact, that a state law was passed to prevent them from doing it.

Yeah, you here that non-Americans on this board. You all can go F yourself. We don't have to care what you think of who we elect to lead our country. It's not as if foreign relations on war and peace will be affected by it. So screw you and your opinion. After all, it's not like the world in an incredibly interconnected economic place. It's not as if trade deals are determined by who is in office. So screw you if we ever want to create a coalition of the willing (a bad joke) again. So screw you world, we'll do what we want.

You know, you should spend some more time in American History and American Government classes. The entire system is designed with the idea that American elections (for the Presidency specifically) are NOT to be influenced by foreign governments and foreign opinions, and European governments specifically. Strange that you would make that appeal if you understood this.

I don't think meals eaten at home are appropriate per diem requests.

Strange, I could have sworn it was you who said: I was eligible for a maximum food per diem, why yes, yes it was you. Now you've switched sides?

Meanwhile, weren't you the one claiming that it was about maintaining two households?

Yes, the residency for the Governor is in Juneau. This fact hasn't changed.


I'm not accusing her of not working there at all. What I want to see is
(a) that she was working there all 300-some days (including the 30-some days that another source said she spent at home due to giving birth)
and
(b) that she had to be there all of those days - that it wasn't a personal choice she made to be closer to home.

Then ask the auditors.

If her predecessor actually had to spend more, it would be appropriate to charge more. It's sort of like my situation with my conference. Most of my colleagues who attend don't conveniently have a family member nearby to stay with. This means that they eat out the entire weekend and need a place to stay and thus charge more in per diem than I do. There's nothing wrong with that.

And if I charged more than I actually needed to spend, even if it was less than them, it wouldn't somehow make me better.

LMAO - you want an itemized day by day explanation for Palin's account requests that total only about a quarter of the amount of her predecessors but you are willing to let them have the benefit of the doubt? :P LOL Partisan much? lol

And yet the $5000 isn't supposed to vary by state, now is it?

Then call your congressman and have them fight to correct that. I think Federal taxes are adjusted for the state you live in, oh wait, no it isn't. Maybe the little states should ask that they pay a lower premium in federal income taxes as well since their jobs pay less... :rolleyes:


It's what the article said. It was specific to Wasilla in this case. Wasilla was the only place in Alaska that it was an issue - so much of an issue, in fact, that a state law was passed to prevent them from doing it.

Then the problem is settled isn't it.

Balderdash: Glutton for Punishment.

You have to admire that kind of resilience, even in the face of constant defeat.

Strange, I could have sworn it was you who said: I was eligible for a maximum food per diem, why yes, yes it was you. Now you've switched sides?

I was explaining what I was eligible for in my case.

Yes, the residency for the Governor is in Juneau. This fact hasn't changed.

A residence that Palin pays nothing to maintain. As such, she is not maintaining two households.

LMAO - you want an itemized day by day explanation for Palin's account requests that total only about a quarter of the amount of her predecessors but you are willing to let them have the benefit of the doubt? :P LOL Partisan much? lol

No, if her predecessor was running for vice president, I would treat him the same way - I would want to know that he could justify all of his per diem charges, particularly if he charged them while living in his own home.

But he isn't running for VP. Palin is. He isn't claiming to be some paragon of virtue and responsible spending. Palin is. Thus, Palin gets the scrutiny.

Then call your congressman and have them fight to correct that.

Or maybe I just won't support an idiotic tax plan that would begin to tax my current employer-provided healthcare as income while offering me a credit for far less than I would need to get that coverage privately.

Then the problem is settled isn't it.

Yes, but no thanks to Palin.

Balderdash, either through intellectual dishonesty or an unwillingness to think, misses the point on the rape issue.

First of all, what if somebody without insurance is raped? Tough shit for them, I guess. But in any event, the idea of charging for a criminal investigation is ludicrous, even if the person *does* have insurance. And the motivation, I think, springs from Palin's extremist religious ideas. Like most of the religious right, she believes that it is the victim's fault in a rape case. If she hadn't been such a slut, she never would have been raped! Besides, the Bible says it's the rape victim's fault for not crying out, so we should base our law on that! Of course, you may have a more generous idea as to what her motives were for implementing this policy, but I'm not inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt, given that she's corrupt enough to try shit like firing librarians for being unwilling to ban books or police chiefs for not firing somebody against whom she had a personal grudge.

Secondly, he tries to distract us with claims "well, some other places do it too!"
But that's fallacious. If the mayors of other cities where this is the policy are up for election, then you can bring that up. But until then, saying that other people do it too does not justify it in the slightest. And the fact that the state of Alaska made the policy illegal does not, as Baldy likes to pretend, make it irrelevant, because the issue is that Sarah Palin supports charging rape victims for justice. Utterly despicable. But-- hey, maybe I was wrong. We should implement Palin's plans for criminal investigations for rape. And while we're at it, why don't we turn the entire police force into a for-profit organization?! $500 to report theft. $1000 for murder. Arson-- well, how much was your house worth before it was burnt down?

But, remember, if they hadn't dressed like sluts or gone to bars, they never would have gotten raped. This just proves that a woman should stay home in the kitchen! (Unless, of course, she's a extremely socially conservative Christian running for public office.)

And, as a side note, what does she think should happen should a rape victim become pregnant? She thinks that she should be forced to bear the child!

Yeah. If Sarah Palin gets her way, you better really hope you never get raped, because after you report the crime, the government can just pick up where the attacker left off.

Balderdash, either through intellectual dishonesty or an unwillingness to think, misses the point on the rape issue.

First of all, what if somebody without insurance is raped? Tough shit for them, I guess. ... snipped big Strawman BS ...

Source your conclusion there that anyone without insurance was turned away...

And, as a side note, what does she think should happen should a rape victim become pregnant? She thinks that she should be forced to bear the child!

Yeah. If Sarah Palin gets her way, you better really hope you never get raped, because after you report the crime, the government can just pick up where the attacker left off.

Wouldn't Palin be a bit inconsistent to believe and argue (like McCain does) that it's not okay to kill pre-borns because they are people too, unless their Mommas don't want them Her position is more defendable than McCain's position is.

A residence that Palin pays nothing to maintain. As such, she is not maintaining two households.

Lets see what they said about that one last time...
Like other state officials, she's entitled to $60 a day "per diem" for food and incidentals, such as tips, while traveling on state business. State rules say that if your job stations you in Juneau or Anchorage, but you live in another part of the state, you can still get the meal money when visiting your hometown, said Linda Perez, director of administrative services for the governor.

And the motivation, I think, springs from Palin's extremist religious ideas. Like most of the religious right, she believes that it is the victim's fault in a rape case. If she hadn't been such a slut, she never would have been raped! Besides, the Bible says it's the rape victim's fault for not crying out, so we should base our law on that!

Eh, I don't honestly believe Palin thinks rape victims deserve to be charged for the investigations of said rapes.

I think she just doesn't give a damn.

(I love the quote in that article, too, about "reducing the burden for the taxpayer." Memo to all government officials: I am officially and permanently content with having a few cents of my tax money going towards putting rapists behind bars so they can't rape people. I can, in fact, think of almost nothing I would rather you spend my tax money on than reducing the risk that I or someone I care about will be raped.)

Lets see what they said about that one last time...

And what did I say about that?

I believe it was something along the lines of "allowed" not being equivalent to "appropriate".

Lets see what they said about that one last time...
Like other state officials, she's entitled to $60 a day "per diem" for food and incidentals, such as tips, while traveling on state business. State rules say that if your job stations you in Juneau or Anchorage, but you live in another part of the state, you can still get the meal money when visiting your hometown, said Linda Perez, director of administrative services for the governor.

You bolded it yourself. She wasn't VISITING, was she?

Eh, I don't honestly believe Palin thinks rape victims deserve to be charged for the investigations of said rapes.

I think she just doesn't give a damn.

(I love the quote in that article, too, about "reducing the burden for the taxpayer." Memo to all government officials: I am officially and permanently content with having a few cents of my tax money going towards putting rapists behind bars so they can't rape people. I can, in fact, think of almost nothing I would rather you spend my tax money on than reducing the risk that I or someone I care about will be raped.)

Heres the thing: Baldy is missing the point. This whole rape kit issue just proves that Palin isn a feminist (something everyone saw but right wingers).

Charging rape victims for their own examination will decrease the amount of rapes reported, and we already have a hard enough time getting women to come foward as it is. Its also misogynistic and inconsistant. I wonder if they also bill the families for murder victims for any expenses incured in their investigation? Probably not, because rape victims are really just dirty sluts who were asking for it anyway (at least in the mind of the far right - people like Baldy).

The claim about the increase in tax is idiotic in and of itself, but lets take it one step further. They increased taxes (and put the city in debt) to build a fucking sports stadium. But they now dont have the money to give rape victims the care they need and deserve?

Palin was the mayor. She knew this was going on. She did nothing. This means she either endorsed it, didnt think it was a big deal, or was just lazy. This shows at best poor judgement and at worst a very misogynistic outlook. The point is she clearly isnt a feminist, and every feminis should see red and foam at the mouth whenever she has the audacity to make this claim.

Getting a rape examination isnt a health care issu like Baldy wants to pretend it is. Its a part of a criminal investigation. Do we charge people for the coroner examination in a murder to determine cause of death? No.

Baldy, if you are being willfully ignorant, it isnt cute. If you really dont see this as an issue, youre a misogynist.

You bolded it yourself. She wasn't VISITING, was she?

Um, yes she is. Her working 'home' is in Juneau, her wasilla home is 600 miles as the crow flies, from that Capital building and governors residence.

And what did I say about that?

I believe it was something along the lines of "allowed" not being equivalent to "appropriate".

You want to take that away from ALL the Alaskan state workers? Well that's not your call to make.

Um, yes she is. Her working 'home' is in Juneau, her wasilla home is 600 miles as the crow flies, from that Capital building and governors residence.

Um, no. She's LIVING in Wasilla, not VISITING. Nice try, though.

Source your conclusion there that anyone without insurance was turned away...

Even if they aren't officially turned away, it will discourage people without insurance from filing a complaint in the first place, especially if they don't have much money-- and, seeing as they don't have insurance, they probably don't. There is enough of a problem with people being unwilling to report rape as it is, should we really add a thousand dollars of debt as a disincentive?


Wouldn't Palin be a bit inconsistent to believe and argue (like McCain does) that it's not okay to kill pre-borns because they are people too, unless their Mommas don't want them Her position is more defendable than McCain's position is.

Well, both their positions are rationally unsupportable, because the contention that a fetus is equivalent to a fully-grown human rests on no rational or scientific basis, but only on emotional arguments. But further, one of the common arguments from the anti-choice crowd is that the woman chose (that slut!) to have sex, so it is her own damn fault she's pregnant and should have to take responsibility for her actions.
In the case of rape, by definition, the person being raped did not choose to have sex.

And, okay, fair enough, my speculation on her motivations may have been fair enough to snip(not on grounds of it being strawman, but because it really is irrelevant), but I notice you (not so) artfully used it to avoid having to admit your "well it happens in other places too!" argument is complete bullshit.

You used it to dodge the central point: that Palin supports charging money for justice. You can try to call that a strawman, but it does not make it so. Demonstrate that that is not, indeed, her position, why don't you? Because as far as I can tell, it is her position, when it comes to rape.

You want to take that away from ALL the Alaskan state workers? Well that's not your call to make.

Legally? No, I'm not Alaskan. If they want to allow workers to charge per diem for things that really shouldn't fall under that, that's their business.

But my opinion of it or of elected officials taking advantage of it certainly is my call to make.

Heres the thing: Baldy is missing the point. This whole rape kit issue just proves that Palin isn a feminist (something everyone saw but right wingers).

...

Baldy, if you are being willfully ignorant, it isnt cute. If you really dont see this as an issue, youre a misogynist.


How about you go tell us how many other states are having to deal with this issue? North Carolina just dealt with it as well...

Hospitals are now prohibited from settling with the victim for the forensic exam.
http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/story/1177105.html

And just this year, the Federal government as made Anonymous Rape Kits a mandatory state service to begin next year, I'm not against it. You trying to pretend like this is a Palin issue is BS.

How about you go tell us how many other states are having to deal with this issue? North Carolina just dealt with it as well...

Hospitals are now prohibited from settling with the victim for the forensic exam.
http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/story/1177105.html

And just this year, the Federal government as made Anonymous Rape Kits a mandatory state service to begin next year, I'm not against it. You trying to pretend like this is a Palin issue is BS.

It IS a Palin issue. Notice how everywhere else it is being dealt with. It was not dealt with in Palin's town while she was mayor.

This is a Palin issue. She either made a very stupid decision or is a misogynist. Your call.

And just this year, the Federal government as made Anonymous Rape Kits a mandatory state service to begin next year, I'm not against it. You trying to pretend like this is a Palin issue is BS.

Palin was mayor of the only town in Alaska that was doing it. And, instead of seeing that problem solved, she waited for a state law to force them to change it.

So, yes, it is an issue with Palin.

Palin was mayor of the only town in Alaska that was doing it. And, instead of seeing that problem solved, she waited for a state law to force them to change it.

So, yes, it is an issue with Palin.

But...but...but...Sean Hannity told me Sarah Palin was a feminist.

How about you go tell us how many other states are having to deal with this issue? North Carolina just dealt with it as well...

Hospitals are now prohibited from settling with the victim for the forensic exam.
http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/story/1177105.html

And just this year, the Federal government as made Anonymous Rape Kits a mandatory state service to begin next year, I'm not against it. You trying to pretend like this is a Palin issue is BS.

Your intellectual dishonesty is astounding. Just because it is an issue in other places as well does NOT make it not a Palin issue.
The economy is an issue everywhere-- but that doesn't make a candidate's economic policies irrelevant.

Similarly, just because other places have had to deal with this, doesn't mean her position is irrelevant. And her position is that rape victims should have to pay for the investigation.

You're intellectual dishonesty is astounding. Just because it is an issue in other places as well does NOT make it not a Palin issue.
The economy is an issue everywhere-- but that doesn't make a candidate's economic policies irrelevant.

Similarly, just because other places have had to deal with this, doesn't mean her position is irrelevant. And her position is that rape victims should have to pay for the investigation.

You summarize for political partisanship and erroneously. You can swing your club of righteous indignation all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the issue was dealt with, that women were not turned away, that the city government tried to get some of their costs back from the insurance carriers is not such a horrible thing.

You summarize for political partisanship and erroneously. You can swing your club of righteous indignation all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the issue was dealt with,

How? By being allowed to continue?

that women were not turned away,

No, but Im sure that many women didnt report the rape because of it.

that the city government tried to get some of their costs back from the insurance carriers is not such a horrible thing.

Yes it is. Its also misogynistic and increases the suffering of the rape victim buy charging them a grand for a criminal investigation.

Youre being intellectually dishonost and misogynistic and I frankly find it disgusting. Its obvious to everyone else what youre doing. Man up and just admit that Palin isnt a feminist.


EDIT: If you really dont see a problem with charging rape victims for their examination, then you are just as vile as she is. But its ok, they were just dirty sluts right? They were asking for it, right? They wanted it deep down, right? Who cares if a few whores get violated?

...
Yes it is. Its also misogynistic and increases the suffering of the rape victim buy charging them a grand for a criminal investigation.

Youre being intellectually dishonost and misogynistic and I frankly find it disgusting. Its obvious to everyone else what youre doing. Man up and just admit that Palin isnt a feminist.

When a person is shot, does the police department have to pay for the surgery?

And how about you get a grip on reality some time soon. When did I say I was against paying for Rape Kits? As a matter of fact, I'm glad the Federal government is stepping in to settle the discrepancies from state to state and location to location.

...EDIT: If you really dont see a problem with charging rape victims for their examination, then you are just as vile as she is. But its ok, they were just dirty sluts right? They were asking for it, right? They wanted it deep down, right? Who cares if a few whores get violated?

You're PUKING on yourself.

When a person is shot, does the police department have to pay for the surgery?

They pay for any part of the investigation.

And how about you get a grip on reality some time soon. When did I say I was against paying for Rape Kits? As a matter of fact, I'm glad the Federal government is stepping in to settle the discrepancies from state to state and location to location.

No, you just support Palin's decision to make the victim pay. Because you worship Palin.


You're PUKING on yourself.


No, I just am realizing that you are either EXTREMELLY dishonost or extremelly vile. Which is it?

When a person is shot, does the police department have to pay for the surgery?

And how about you get a grip on reality some time soon. When did I say I was against paying for Rape Kits? As a matter of fact, I'm glad the Federal government is stepping in to settle the discrepancies from state to state and location to location.



You're PUKING on yourself.

Surgery doesn't yield evidence pertinent to a criminal investigation. A rape kit is not a medical procedure, it's a criminal investigation. You know that and you're dodging it.

Um, no. She's LIVING in Wasilla, not VISITING. Nice try, though.

Shes staying in Wasilla while WORKING in Anchorage, her governor's home is in Juneau. You fail, and it wasn't a nice try, this has been repeated many many times.

Surgery doesn't yield evidence pertinent to a criminal investigation. A rape kit is not a medical procedure, it's a criminal investigation. You know that and you're dodging it.

OhMyGoodness... surgery for gunshot wounds DOES yield evidence . :rolleyes:

I'm not dodging anything, I've said I don't see anything wrong with the state trying to get some of their costs back from insurance where possible. If it isn't possible, then they have to eat the costs and do the investigation anyway, of course.

OhMyGoodness... surgery for gunshot wounds DOES yield evidence . :rolleyes:

I'm not dodging anything, I've said I don't see anything wrong with the state trying to get some of their costs back from insurance where possible. If it isn't possible, then they have to eat the costs and do the investigation anyway, of course.

What evidence, that the victim got shot? You're still comparing a medical procedure to a police investigation.

Why should insurance companies have to pay for a police procedure? Isn't that what we all pay taxes for? So the police will protect us and help us when we're victims? Why should we have to pay twice just because you're a rape victim?

When a person is shot, does the police department have to pay for the surgery?

The surgery would be treatment for an injury.

A rape kit is not treatment. It's purpose is to collect evidence of rape.

A better comparison would be to ask if the gunshot victim's insurance should pay for the police to determine the trajectory of the bullet and find the shell casing.

The surgery would be treatment for an injury.

A rape kit is not treatment. It's purpose is to collect evidence of rape.

A better comparison would be to ask if the gunshot victim's insurance should pay for the police to determine the trajectory of the bullet and find the shell casing.

Really? You want a police officer or a medical professional to perform the Rape Kit procedures?

Me, I want the medical personnel to perform the medical aspects of it and the police professional to do the investigation. Who's going to pay the hospital, thats the question. Federal government now says that the states will, and I'm all for it. The city departments should never have had to deal with that cost, the states or the feds should, the municipalities are too small and diverse to expect equal ability in that aspect.

Really? You want a police officer or a medical proffessional to perform the Rape Kit procedures.

Autopsy of a poisoning victim, should a cop do it or a doctor? Is it a police investigation or just a medical procedure. Do you approve of charging the victims for that too? You disgust me. I don't think you really support Palin's horrifying policy of victimizing rape victims, but you're so intellectually dishonest you pretend you do.

I hope at the very least you don't actually support such a travesty of justice.

Really? You want a police officer or a medical professional to perform the Rape Kit procedures.

A medical professional, just as I would expect a coroner to perform an autopsy. What's your point?

Me, I want the medical personnel to perform the medical aspects of it and the police professional to do the investigation.

Again, a rape kit is not a medical treatment. It is part of the investigation. Now, it is a part best performed by a medical professional, but that doesn't change the fact that it's purpose is investigatory.

Who's going to pay the hospital, thats the question.

Who pays forensics labs in an investigation?

I don't think you really support Palin's horrifying policy of victimizing rape victims, but you're so intellectually dishonest you pretend you do.

He's been clear that he thinks the government should pay for it.

Palin, though, apparently can't possibly be at all responsible for the fact that her town was the only one in Alaska that didn't have it taken care of. After all, she was only mayor.

Really? You want a police officer or a medical proffessional to perform the Rape Kit procedures.
How do you live with yourself? I mean in a practical sense -- how do you get through a day without injuring yourself trying to live according to such ridiculously unrealistic bullshit? I mean seriously, if someone you didn't agree with were to argue in favor if eating soup with a spoon and using water to wash clothes, I can easily imagine you going around eating your soup with a fork and "cleaning" your clothes in a blast furnace just so you can insist that they are wrong.

You are fooling no one with this tripe. A rape kit is a procedure of a police investigation. Period. It is not covered by medical insurance. Period. That is reality. Every claim otherwise is a baldfaced lie, and everyone knows it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you know it, too.

And I'll also take a guess as to why you would try to promote this paticular idiotic lie. Very simply, by derailing the conversation with this nonsense, you get to avoid addressing the fact that no other town in all of Alaska charged rape victims for rape kits, and the state government of Alaska so disapproved of that one town's practice that it passed a law declaring that the policy of the state was not to do this, ever, anywhere, just as a reinforcement for all the towns that had no intention of ever doing it. I guess nobody else in Alaska wanted anyone outside of Alaska to get the mistaken impression that they were all a bunch of brainless, heartless bastards.

All your pathetic attempts to claim that Palin was somehow right with this contemptible policy are put to the lie by the fact that everyone else in the state of Alaska rejected her policy so forcefully. There was and is NO value of any kind in what she did, and there is none in what you are doing here, either.

....
All your pathetic attempts to claim that Palin was somehow right with this contemptible policy are put to the lie by the fact that everyone else in the state of Alaska rejected her policy so forcefully. There was and is NO value of any kind in what she did, and there is none in what you are doing here, either.

I didn't say it was right, I said it was bigger than a Palin Wasilla problem, it's national and all over the place, in many of the states and districts that some of us live in but you're all acting like it's something you've never heard of before. well that explains the ignorance but that's not an argument.

Autopsy of a poisoning victim, should a cop do it or a doctor? Is it a police investigation or just a medical procedure. Do you approve of charging the victims for that too? You disgust me. I don't think you really support Palin's horrifying policy of victimizing rape victims, but you're so intellectually dishonest you pretend you do.

I hope at the very least you don't actually support such a travesty of justice.

Thats it, you and the others that have decided to take this non-debate position can KMA, all of the personal insults in this thread are bullshit. The liars are you and the others doing this crap. How many times have I said I'm for the state paying for it and making it Federal so that all investigation are done regardless of jurisdiction or district. Your obfuscation is pure poppycock BS, dishonesty is your only argument, when you've done patting each other off in your circle jerk party you pretend to be a debate forum then I will come back to this thread, but otherwise, whatever.

I'm not entirely surprised, but has anyone else noticed (or disagrees) that the race seems to have turned from 'Obama vs. McCain' to 'Obama vs. Palin'?

No wonder, McCain is hiding behind Palin (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g1qdKqxdsFltUc94jJWzuCLISrtAD937LU2O0).

He's running on how she'll bring change to Washington now. (Whether or not he's thinking that it should happen when he's alive or dead I don't know...)

McCain's stump speech more about Palin than self
Listen to McCain on Palin:

_He likes to say that Palin "is right on national security." McCain tells voters she understands national security because she negotiated for a natural gas pipeline to run through Alaska, because of the state's proximity to Russia's borders and because she has been, like him, a consistently strong supporter of the Iraq war.

_He takes any chance to gush about her husband, Todd, a worker on the oil fields of Alaska's North Slope, commercial salmon fisherman, world champion snowmobiler, entrepreneur, sometime gubernatorial adviser to his wife — and, oh, a Mr. Mom to their five children, too. "What a family, what a family, what a family!" McCain enthuses. (One of McCain's few rhetorical flourishes is to repeat points he especially likes three times.)

_McCain finds many ways to highlight Palin's reputation for cracking down on business-as-usual. "I can't wait to introduce her to Washington, D.C., I can't wait," he said Monday in Jacksonville, Fla. "The word is going out. The word is going out, my friends, to the old-boy network, the pork-barrelers, the earmarkers. My friends, the word is: Change is coming and change is coming. Two mavericks coming to Washington and we're going to shake it up." (One thing that absolutely has not changed about McCain's speeches is his frequent use of the folksy "my friends" before points he wants to emphasize.)

Thats it, you and the others that have decided to take this non-debate position can KMA, all of the personal insults in this thread are bullshit. The liars are you and the others doing this crap. How many times have I said I'm for the state paying for it and making it Federal so that all investigation are done regardless of jurisdiction or district. Your obfuscation is pure poppycock BS, dishonesty is your only argument, when you've done patting each other off in your circle jerk party you pretend to be a debate forum then I will come back to this thread, but otherwise, whatever.

You're leaving? Like, for real? Promise?

You're leaving? Like, for real? Promise?

Well when your stance about charging victims for criminal investigations is pointed out as bullshit there's little recourse. Particularly in a town like Wasilla, which not only has their own taxes to pay for such things, but also got untold millions in federal dollars.

Thats it, you and the others that have decided to take this non-debate position can KMA, all of the personal insults in this thread are bullshit. The liars are you and the others doing this crap. How many times have I said I'm for the state paying for it and making it Federal so that all investigation are done regardless of jurisdiction or district. Your obfuscation is pure poppycock BS, dishonesty is your only argument, when you've done patting each other off in your circle jerk party you pretend to be a debate forum then I will come back to this thread, but otherwise, whatever.

Personally, I really couldn't care less what YOUR position on the subject of rape kits is. You can think they should be paid for by giant pink space monkeys for all I care - but Sarah Palin is running for Vice-President of my country. Her policies could actually personally affect me someday. Your continued insistence that it is somehow unfair to point out that a policy Palin supported was utterly repugnant to any sane human being is ridiculous. Her actions suggest that she does not believe that finding and imprisoning rapists is an important priority. The overwhelming majority of Americans would almost certainly disagree with her on that.

Personally, I really couldn't care less what YOUR position on the subject of rape kits is. You can think they should be paid for by giant pink space monkeys for all I care - but Sarah Palin is running for Vice-President of my country. Her policies could actually personally affect me someday. Your continued insistence that it is somehow unfair to point out that a policy Palin supported was utterly repugnant to any sane human being is ridiculous. Her actions suggest that she does not believe that finding and imprisoning rapists is an important priority. The overwhelming majority of Americans would almost certainly disagree with her on that.

I'm waiting for the declaration that we're all sexists for calling her on it.

You know, you should spend some more time in American History and American Government classes. The entire system is designed with the idea that American elections (for the Presidency specifically) are NOT to be influenced by foreign governments and foreign opinions, and European governments specifically. Strange that you would make that appeal if you understood this.

I'd challenge you in any area of American History of Government. it has nothing to do with influence at all. Ordinary citizens are able to vote on any basis they wish. Your assumption would only be true if we started allowing foreigners to vote in our elections, or contribute to campaigns. This is not the case, so you fail horrifically. I said nothing about allowing them to vote, campaign, or donate to our elections.

Let's get back to the point of what I did say. It matters to the rest of the world who we elect. Why does it matter? Well, the world in this century consists of an increasingly interconnected set of goals. The economy of America is not in isolation. It is affected by trade all over the world. Our foreign policy is a large part of our ability to work economically with the world. I'll put Iran and Venezuela up as the two most notable at the current time. Who we elect matters in how they deal with other countries when it comes to matters of war and peace. We can have a "shoot first" policy as we do now, or we can truly have a policy of diplomacy before military action. I think you knew I was saying this, or you are being daft.

I didn't say it was right, I said it was bigger than a Palin Wasilla problem, it's national and all over the place, in many of the states and districts that some of us live in but you're all acting like it's something you've never heard of before. well that explains the ignorance but that's not an argument.
That's because you are lying when you say that.

Thats it, you and the others that have decided to take this non-debate position can KMA, all of the personal insults in this thread are bullshit. The liars are you and the others doing this crap. How many times have I said I'm for the state paying for it and making it Federal so that all investigation are done regardless of jurisdiction or district. Your obfuscation is pure poppycock BS, dishonesty is your only argument, when you've done patting each other off in your circle jerk party you pretend to be a debate forum then I will come back to this thread, but otherwise, whatever.
Yadda, yadda, yadda. Though I do give you credit for using the words "obfuscation" and "poppycock" in the same sentence. Been doing crossword puzzles?

I'm waiting for the declaration that we're all sexists for calling her on it.

Well, obviously. We hate women so much, we...um...want their rapists to be caught...

Um, no. She's LIVING in Wasilla, not VISITING. Nice try, though.

You beat me to this. Visiting is "hey I'm going to come home and see mom and dad for a few days." It's not living there all of the time.

Well, obviously. We hate women so much, we...um...want their rapists to be caught...

It was under Evangelical Mayor/Governor I Can't Believe It's Not Hillary after all. Sex is a shameful, sinful thing and women should be subservient to men. Therefore rape victims are to be charged for having their sin tested.

No wonder, McCain is hiding behind Palin (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g1qdKqxdsFltUc94jJWzuCLISrtAD937LU2O0).

He's running on how she'll bring change to Washington now. (Whether or not he's thinking that it should happen when he's alive or dead I don't know...)

McCain's stump speech more about Palin than self
when he goes off the palin topic he just gets into trouble

like saying that the fundamentals of the economy are solid yesterday after the dismal events of the weekend and THEN in a later speech pretending that he was talking about how good our workers are.

when he goes off the palin topic he just gets into trouble

like saying that the fundamentals of the economy are solid yesterday after the dismal events of the weekend and THEN in a later speech pretending that he was talking about how good our workers are.

No shortage of folk telling themselves that's what he really meant.

You beat me to this. Visiting is "hey I'm going to come home and see mom and dad for a few days." It's not living there all of the time.
according to that article i was reading on the huffington post, you can have a home and a TAX home (only one of which counts for tax purposes). so she can be officially living in the governor's mansion in juneau and only visiting her real home in wasilla when she is working in anchorage.

this lets loose a barrage of bewildering IRS regulations that may or may not require her to report some of those per diems as income. (regardless of how legal they are in alaska for her to take) as are also the travel expenses for her family that the state was happy to pay for but the IRS (might) consider to be not business expenses and thus taxable income.

im looking forward to the release of palin's tax returns.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/15/palin-tax-mystery-enters_n_126553.html

Well, obviously. We hate women so much, we...um...want their rapists to be caught...
Damn sexist!

when he goes off the palin topic he just gets into trouble
And the Democrats should try to force him off that issue - while still hammering home her flaws. Especially the ones she shares with McCain.

Like the "Today we're all Georgians" attitude, which now looks outright stupid compared to Obamas softer response to the trouble in Georgia.

like saying that the fundamentals of the economy are solid yesterday after the dismal events of the weekend and THEN in a later speech pretending that he was talking about how good our workers are.
The economy is one of his weaker areas...

Palin's lackeys suing to try and stop the probe into the trooper debacle:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/16/palin-allies-sue-to-halt-trooper-probe/

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (CNN) — Allies of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin asked a judge Tuesday to halt the state Legislature's investigation into the firing of her public service commissioner, calling the probe a "McCarthyistic" inquisition.

The five Republican state lawmakers who filed suit say the leaders of the investigation "are unable to hold the balance between vindicating their own political interests and the interests of those who are being investigated."

Palin, the Republican nominee for vice president, is battling allegations that she and her advisers pressured then-Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan to fire a state trooper going through a bitter custody dispute with her sister — and that Monegan was terminated when he refused. Palin says she fired Monegan over budget issues, and denies any wrongdoing.

She originally pledged to cooperate with the investigation that a bipartisan commission of the state Legislature commissioned in July. But since becoming Sen. John McCain's running mate, campaign spokesmen have lashed out at the probe as "tainted" and "partisan."

I didn't say it was right, I said it was bigger than a Palin Wasilla problem, it's national and all over the place, in many of the states and districts that some of us live in but you're all acting like it's something you've never heard of before. well that explains the ignorance but that's not an argument.



Thats it, you and the others that have decided to take this non-debate position can KMA, all of the personal insults in this thread are bullshit. The liars are you and the others doing this crap. How many times have I said I'm for the state paying for it and making it Federal so that all investigation are done regardless of jurisdiction or district. Your obfuscation is pure poppycock BS, dishonesty is your only argument, when you've done patting each other off in your circle jerk party you pretend to be a debate forum then I will come back to this thread, but otherwise, whatever.

Because you have been getting called on the carpet you are getting heat. You fight strawmen most of the time. You respond to what you want to think we are saying rather than what we actually say. For instance, you knew I wasn't saying foreigners should be able to have "influence" in our voting process. You knew I was saying that it matters what foreign people and governments think because we are in an inter-related world. I think that is the type of behavior we are getting aggravated with.

Also, it doesn't matter what you believe about rape kits. It matters what you are defending Palin for. It remains true that while she was governor of Wasilla they made rape victims pay for their own rape kits. Rape kits are not medical treatment, but part of a legal investigation. Taxes are paid for the legal process to serve and protect the common good. To have victims of a crime paying for the investigation into their case is ludicrous. The fact that she allowed this to remain until she was forced by the state government is ridiculous. Using the governor's own representative to claim she didn't misuse per diem is another non-starter. Independent analysis of the action would do better to quell that argument as well. It's about the way you want to debate that is what makes people angry. Failing to see how there's a difference between medical treatment and criminal investigations is disingenuous.

Like the "Today we're all Georgians" attitude, which now looks outright stupid compared to Obamas softer response to the trouble in Georgia.

So I Can't Believe It's Not Hillary says Americans are all for the reabsorption and ethnic cleaning of Abkazians and South Ossetians?

Really, in the wake of letting Kosovo, Taiwan and East Timor run wild and free vouching for the right of Georgia to reclaim "Renegade Provinces" is glaring hypocrisy that any sarcastic leader would be quick to pounce on. Especially in Russia and China.

Palin's lackeys suing to try and stop the probe into the trooper debacle:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/16/palin-allies-sue-to-halt-trooper-probe/
Yep, four more years of this shit.

Palin's lackeys suing to try and stop the probe into the trooper debacle:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/16/palin-allies-sue-to-halt-trooper-probe/
its pretty obvious that she fired the PSC because she couldnt fire her ex brother in law.

which may or may not be illegal, its alaska after all.

Yep, four more years of this shit.

She went to the King George school of dealing with scandal. Just declare it a witch hunt, take your ball and go home.

She went to the King George school of dealing with scandal. Just declare it a witch hunt, take your ball and go home.

Cronyism, lack of accountability and lack of responsibility is soooo 2005.

Cronyism, lack of accountability and lack of responsibility is soooo 2005.

Cronyism, Lack of Accountability and Responsibility: It's Only Bad If You're a Democrat.

Shes staying in Wasilla while WORKING in Anchorage, her governor's home is in Juneau. You fail, and it wasn't a nice try, this has been repeated many many times.

And yet it still sticks.

Okay, how is "staying" not "living"?

And if she's commuting to all three places, then she's wasting even more taxpayer money.

That's because you are lying when you say that.


Yadda, yadda, yadda. Though I do give you credit for using the words "obfuscation" and "poppycock" in the same sentence. Been doing crossword puzzles?

More like the Word-A-Day™ Calendar. Crosswords seem like a stretch if he can't tell the difference between a rape kit and surgery.

And yet it still sticks.

Okay, how is "staying" not "living"?

And if she's commuting to all three places, then she's wasting even more taxpayer money.



More like the Word-A-Day™ Calendar. Crosswords seem like a stretch if he can't tell the difference between a rape kit and surgery.
Maybe word search puzzles or something else that doesn't give definitions, because, actually, "poppycock BS" is redundant and ungrammatical.

Cronyism, Lack of Accountability and Responsibility: It's Only Bad If You're a Democrat.

You need a "witty" acronym for that.

My friends:
I have now been convinced to vote for John McCain.
Why?

Because he invented the Blackberry! (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/16/mccain-adviser-blackberry-a-%E2%80%98miracle%E2%80%99-he-%E2%80%98helped-create%E2%80%99/) :D

You need a "witty" acronym for that.

Well, the first part is easy: CLAP.

As in, "Democrats got the CLAP from Republicans."

Hmm...I think I may have read that wrong.

I've really stopped caring for the election
Face it people, no matter who wins, nothing will be fixed overnight

That hasn't been confirmed.

No Fault insurance comes to mind. Doesn't matter whos at fault, your insurances covers you regardless of fault.

I'm not defending it, just pointing out that it's a national issue, not a specific Wasilla issue.

Source your conclusion there that anyone without insurance was turned away...

How about you go tell us how many other states are having to deal with this issue? North Carolina just dealt with it as well...

Hospitals are now prohibited from settling with the victim for the forensic exam.
http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/story/1177105.html

And just this year, the Federal government as made Anonymous Rape Kits a mandatory state service to begin next year, I'm not against it. You trying to pretend like this is a Palin issue is BS.

You summarize for political partisanship and erroneously. You can swing your club of righteous indignation all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the issue was dealt with, that women were not turned away, that the city government tried to get some of their costs back from the insurance carriers is not such a horrible thing.

I didn't say it was right, I said it was bigger than a Palin Wasilla problem, it's national and all over the place, in many of the states and districts that some of us live in but you're all acting like it's something you've never heard of before. well that explains the ignorance but that's not an argument.

Thats it, you and the others that have decided to take this non-debate position can KMA, all of the personal insults in this thread are bullshit. The liars are you and the others doing this crap. How many times have I said I'm for the state paying for it and making it Federal so that all investigation are done regardless of jurisdiction or district. Your obfuscation is pure poppycock BS, dishonesty is your only argument, when you've done patting each other off in your circle jerk party you pretend to be a debate forum then I will come back to this thread, but otherwise, whatever.

*sigh*

I don't really believe you are going away, so let's look at what your arguments boil down to.

First, you ASSUME no one was turned away from getting a rape kit because they couldn't pay for it. You seem to ASSUME that only insurance companies were charged for the rape kits. The articles already linked in this thread say the second assumption is flat wrong. And a rape victim is further violated if she is saddled with debt for the rape kit whether or not she is turned away because of a lack of insurance. AND, as you already partially conceded, a rape victim shouldn't have to pay the deductible and co-pay on a rape kit.

Second, your "this is a national problem" argument rings particularly hollow. Sure, it is a problem anywhere idiotic and insensitive government officials wish to charge rape victims for the investigation of their rape. It just so happens that under the Palin administration Wasilla was the only town in Alaska that was so idiotic and insensitive. THAT makes it a Palin issue.

Third, your "the problem is solved now" is particularly ironic as the national legislation you refer to was sponsored by Joe Biden and co-sponsored by Barack Obama.

Again, your inability to admit even the slightest imperfection in the record of St. Palin shows who is really engaging in "non-debate" positions.

My friends:
I have now been convinced to vote for John McCain.
Why?

Because he invented the Blackberry! (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/16/mccain-adviser-blackberry-a-%E2%80%98miracle%E2%80%99-he-%E2%80%98helped-create%E2%80%99/) :D

From the comments below:
"I thought he invented the wheel?" :D

Well, the first part is easy: CLAP.

As in, "Democrats got the CLAP from Republicans."

Hmm...I think I may have read that wrong.

wouldn't LARC be better. the Democrats and Republicans are out on a LARC.

...

nah, doesn't sound much better.

From the comments below:
"I thought he invented the wheel?" :D

No no no... he discovered fire.

From the comments below:
"I thought he invented the wheel?" :D

That must be what he meant! He invented the wheel, which is used in Blackberries for scrolling and such. Ergo, he helped invent the Blackberry! :D

No no no... he discovered fire.

Penicillin (he was in the Navy, after all).

no no no Mccain is actually GOD therefore he invented everything . .. and ergo the blackberry. . . .but unfortunately also Vanilla Ice . . .*cringe*

My friends:
I have now been convinced to vote for John McCain.
Why?

Because he invented the Blackberry! (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/16/mccain-adviser-blackberry-a-%E2%80%98miracle%E2%80%99-he-%E2%80%98helped-create%E2%80%99/) :D

Can we give this a meh? It's really like making too much of the internet comment. I kind of like the Obama response, "If he hadn't said the fundamentals of our economy were sound this would be the most outrageous thing he's said all week." Stick to bigger issues, not equivocation. Though really, the other thing is a bit of the same, he was talking about the workers and entrepreneurial spirit and such, not the current policy. It's this kind of stupid ass shit I'd like to see go away in a campaign all together. Yeah, it was stupid to imply that he invented the Blackberry, but he really didn't even imply that, he implied that it was McCain's stewartship over the market that allowed for things like the Blackberry. I don't want to have to be willfully stupid enough to go after this.

Ummmm, you do know that's what we're talking about right? When Palin was at her Wasilla residence and asking for per diem, she was asking for per diem to pay for meals...If you have a source that says otherwise, you should present it.


The source I presented way back, when we first encountered the whole 'per diem' controversy - which stated that she sacked the chef because she wanted to cook the meals herself.

Thus - she's not using per diem to pay for meals.


It's not a technicality to charge per diem for what you are allowed to ask for.


It is a technicality to use your per diem under the assertion that 'that which isn't expressly forbidden MUST be allowed'.

More to the point - being 'a technicality' isn't the issue. Whether it is appropriate is far more important.


The fact that she could be charging hundreds of thousands dollars more, like her predecessor in office have done before her, shows me you guys are barking up the wrong tree.


Utter rubbish. If she's using the money illegitimately, that is far more important than someone using twice the amount for a legitimate cause.

Example: if the local government imposes a temporary tax for a certain purpose (improvement of infrastructure, for example) and uses it for infrastructure - most people have no complaint.

If the same local government charged only a quarter of that tax, but went ahead and spent it on drugs and alcohol for their all-night raves, most people would have a little more to say about it.

Can we give this a meh? It's really like making too much of the internet comment. I kind of like the Obama response, "If he hadn't said the fundamentals of our economy were sound this would be the most outrageous thing he's said all week." Stick to bigger issues, not equivocation. Though really, the other thing is a bit of the same, he was talking about the workers and entrepreneurial spirit and such, not the current policy. It's this kind of stupid ass shit I'd like to see go away in a campaign all together. Yeah, it was stupid to imply that he invented the Blackberry, but he really didn't even imply that, he implied that it was McCain's stewartship over the market that allowed for things like the Blackberry. I don't want to have to be willfully stupid enough to go after this.

Oh, of course I realize it's entirely equivalent to the Al Gore "internet" thing. I was just trying to provide a little bit of comic relief to a debate that occasionally gets a bit... heated.

If I were serious, I'd not have used the smiley.

I've really stopped caring for the election
Face it people, no matter who wins, nothing will be fixed overnight

duh

the question is who is going to actually FIX it? who is going to fix it in a way YOU want it fixed?

take health care. do you like the way it works now? do you want it changed? if so, the 2 candidates have VERY different proposals for how it can be fixed. it sure wont happen overnight but who is elected determines what is going to be done.

Oh, of course I realize it's entirely equivalent to the Al Gore "internet" thing. I was just trying to provide a little bit of comic relief to a debate that occasionally gets a bit... heated.

If I were serious, I'd not have used the smiley.

You know, if I didn't register dissent then a month from now I'd be arguing with some conservative and he'd be all, 'You were all for razzing McCain about the Blackberry thing, I didn't see you objecting...blah blah blah...' Now I can at least go, 'No, see, I thought that was stupid, too.'

Can we give this a meh? It's really like making too much of the internet comment. I kind of like the Obama response, "If he hadn't said the fundamentals of our economy were sound this would be the most outrageous thing he's said all week." Stick to bigger issues, not equivocation. Though really, the other thing is a bit of the same, he was talking about the workers and entrepreneurial spirit and such, not the current policy. It's this kind of stupid ass shit I'd like to see go away in a campaign all together. Yeah, it was stupid to imply that he invented the Blackberry, but he really didn't even imply that, he implied that it was McCain's stewartship over the market that allowed for things like the Blackberry. I don't want to have to be willfully stupid enough to go after this.
No, he wasn't. That's just face-saving BS his handlers came up with after he got slammed for the original careless comment.

"The fundamentals are still strong" is a meaningless phrase that plenty of people fall back on when they can't deny that their system is imploding all around them but they don't want to admit that there's a flaw in the system. So they brush the current issues off with some vague reference to "fundamentals," as if the current problems are completely unrelated to the system they are attached to. They say shit like that when they have no intention of changing the system or when they have no clue how to fix it.

Obama was spot on about what was wrong with McCain's comment, but when McCain said it, I'll warrant he wasn't thinking about workers or systems or anything in particular at all. He was just brushing off criticism of the Republican policies without even a nod, and instead scapegoating just about everything and everyone else anywhere near the problem. Whether he did it because he supports the current policies or because he has no counter policy in mind is an open question.

The very meaninglessness of the words "the fundamentals are still strong" in that context shows how out of touch McCain is on the economy, because it suggests a lack of thought applied to it.

You know, if I didn't register dissent then a month from now I'd be arguing with some conservative and he'd be all, 'You were all for razzing McCain about the Blackberry thing, I didn't see you objecting...blah blah blah...' Now I can at least go, 'No, see, I thought that was stupid, too.'

Of course it's a shame that such solid backing of evidence is usually wasted on the Bushevik ability of McCain's supporters to conveniently shuffle actual factual information when making an argument or attack.

ohhhh so mccain never claimed to invent anything. one of his advisors was trying to pretend that mccain has some claim to being able to fix the economy because he was on the commerce committee.

john is going to REFORM WALL STREET. but he doesnt seem to know how he is going to do that.

It's really like making too much of the internet comment.

though at least his majesty, al gore, founder and king of the interent, actually did have a hand in things. mccain actually voted against all of the relevant stuff.

btw, i invented the dial tone.

You know, if I didn't register dissent then a month from now I'd be arguing with some conservative and he'd be all, 'You were all for razzing McCain about the Blackberry thing, I didn't see you objecting...blah blah blah...' Now I can at least go, 'No, see, I thought that was stupid, too.'

true, but when has indisputable evidence ever stopped them from disputing something?

Can we give this a meh? It's really like making too much of the internet comment. I kind of like the Obama response, "If he hadn't said the fundamentals of our economy were sound this would be the most outrageous thing he's said all week." Stick to bigger issues, not equivocation. Though really, the other thing is a bit of the same, he was talking about the workers and entrepreneurial spirit and such, not the current policy. It's this kind of stupid ass shit I'd like to see go away in a campaign all together. Yeah, it was stupid to imply that he invented the Blackberry, but he really didn't even imply that, he implied that it was McCain's stewartship over the market that allowed for things like the Blackberry. I don't want to have to be willfully stupid enough to go after this.

Sorry, but the GOP made hay on Gore doing exactly what McCain did and more to facilitate the development of the Internet. I'm not keen on making even a moderate deal of this, but I can't in good conscience let it go, either.

Sorry, but the GOP made hay on Gore doing exactly what McCain did and more to facilitate the development of the Internet. I'm not keen on making even a moderate deal of this, but I can't in good conscience let it go, either.

But it's not something McCain said, it's something one of his aides said, while on the spot.

But it's not something McCain said, it's something one of his aides said, while on the spot.

Has McCain come out and corrected or disavowed it in any way? If he doesn't, it's out there, and it'll stay out there.

Has McCain come out and corrected or disavowed it in any way? If he doesn't, it's out there, and it'll stay out there.

There's a statement about McCain's reaction at the bottom of the linked article. Nothing official, though.

Sorry, but the GOP made hay on Gore doing exactly what McCain did and more to facilitate the development of the Internet. I'm not keen on making even a moderate deal of this, but I can't in good conscience let it go, either.

While the point itself isn't big, and while I originally brought it up in jest, I think it does help demonstrate one point that actually is significant that I'd like to mention.

Namely, you know that the "liberal media" will not make as big a deal of this as they did of Gore's comment, because despite all the Republicans constantly whining about how biased the media is, they're almost completely unwilling to hold Republicans to the standard they do Democrats. Indeed, it's mostly because of Republican whining-- journalists don't want the "liberal media" label, so they go out of their way to appear non-partisan by favoring the Republicans. There are, of course, exceptions (Keith Olbermann comes to mind), but they are rare.

Here's hoping we see the same sort of backlash against McCain for this that Gore received for his comments about inventing the internet. Enough of this high road crap.

While the point itself isn't big, and while I originally brought it up in jest, I think it does help demonstrate one point that actually is significant that I'd like to mention.

Namely, you know that the "liberal media" will not make as big a deal of this as they did of Gore's comment, because despite all the Republicans constantly whining about how biased the media is, they're almost completely unwilling to hold Republicans to the standard they do Democrats. Indeed, it's mostly because of Republican whining-- journalists don't want the "liberal media" label, so they go out of their way to appear non-partisan by favoring the Republicans. There are, of course, exceptions (Keith Olbermann comes to mind), but they are rare.

Good point, and also more symptoms of the bullshitting of America.

While the point itself isn't big, and while I originally brought it up in jest, I think it does help demonstrate one point that actually is significant that I'd like to mention.

Namely, you know that the "liberal media" will not make as big a deal of this as they did of Gore's comment, because despite all the Republicans constantly whining about how biased the media is, they're almost completely unwilling to hold Republicans to the standard they do Democrats. Indeed, it's mostly because of Republican whining-- journalists don't want the "liberal media" label, so they go out of their way to appear non-partisan by favoring the Republicans. There are, of course, exceptions (Keith Olbermann comes to mind), but they are rare.
thats why i love watching keith olbermann. someone has to have outrage over the crap that keeps being shoveled onto us.

thats why i love watching keith olbermann. someone has to have outrage over the crap that keeps being shoveled onto us.

Indeed. I try to catch Countdown even on normal nights, but if I hear he has a special comment some night, I'll actually make sure to record it if I have to miss it.

Here's hoping we see the same sort of backlash against McCain for this that Gore received for his comments about inventing the internet. Enough of this high road crap.

The high road in American politics is labeled "Don't Vote For Me Expressway". I say we knife fight the bastards.

Indeed. I try to catch Countdown even on normal nights, but if I hear he has a special comment some night, I'll actually make sure to record it if I have to miss it.
and he has those sad hurt puppydog eyes when he gets very upset at some horror the bush adminstration has perpetrated. i love that.

You need a "witty" acronym for that.
How about BOING (Bad Only In Non-GOP)?

Has McCain come out and corrected or disavowed it in any way? If he doesn't, it's out there, and it'll stay out there.

There's a statement about McCain's reaction at the bottom of the linked article. Nothing official, though.
There is a quote from a staffer (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/16/mccain-adviser-blackberry-a-%E2%80%98miracle%E2%80%99-he-%E2%80%98helped-create%E2%80%99/)and I would assume that it was official:

Meanwhile, McCain senior aide Matt McDonald said that the senator "laughed" when he heard the comment.

"He would not claim to be the inventor of anything, much less the BlackBerry. This was obviously a boneheaded joke by a staffer," McDonald said.

The very meaninglessness of the words "the fundamentals are still strong" in that context shows how out of touch McCain is on the economy, because it suggests a lack of thought applied to it.
As Chris Matthews pointed out, the quote is eerily similar to Herbert Hoover's reaction to the 1929 crash: "The economy remains fundamentally sound."

thats why i love watching keith olbermann. someone has to have outrage over the crap that keeps being shoveled onto us.

I can't stand Olbermann. He is so blatantly attempting to channel Edward R. Murrow that it is sickening. Murrow was a journalist with principles, who fought for free speech and against the awfulness that was McCarthyism, Olbermann is condescending prick, who mocks people, declares people he doesn't like the "worst person in the world", and hasn't actually proven capable of acting like a decent human being. Yeah, he's better than O'Reilly, but he doesn't measure up to Matthews, Brokaw or Lehrer, just to name a few.

As Chris Matthews pointed out, the quote is eerily similar to Herbert Hoover's reaction to the 1929 crash: "The economy remains fundamentally sound."

And McCain fiddled while Wall Street burned.:headbang:

And McCain fiddled while Wall Street burned.:headbang:

Given the fundamental flaws that underlie the American financial system, letting the mess burn itself out is far better in the long term than trying to stop it.

There is a quote from a staffer (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/16/mccain-adviser-blackberry-a-%E2%80%98miracle%E2%80%99-he-%E2%80%98helped-create%E2%80%99/)and I would assume that it was official:

So, that's a 'no', then?

Since - as you well know - "a staffer" =/= McCain.

But then, of course, McCain would probably lie, anyway.

So, that's a 'no', then?

Since - as you well know - "a staffer" =/= McCain.

But then, of course, McCain would probably lie, anyway.

Turnabout's a bitch, isn't it? :D

Turnabout's a bitch, isn't it? :D

I don't know - I'm quite liking it, right now. But then, 'hoist by your own petard' is one of my absolute favourite gems of the language.

I don't know - I'm quite liking it, right now. But then, 'hoist by your own petard' is one of my absolute favourite gems of the language.

Is it sad that I first learned that phrase from Family Guy?

oh THATS mccains plan for dealing with the economy....

he keeps saying that he is going to reform wallstreet. turns out that his big fat plan is to .....


wait for it....



SET UP A COMMISSION TO STUDY WHAT WENT WRONG.

oh THATS mccains plan for dealing with the economy....

he keeps saying that he is going to reform wallstreet. turns out that his big fat plan is to .....


wait for it....



SET UP A COMMISSION TO STUDY WHAT WENT WRONG.

Awesome. Awesome-coated awesome.

Awesome-coated awesome with a soft awesome-y center.

That's the kind of thinking America needs.

Is it sad that I first learned that phrase from Family Guy?

No. One should never speak ill of Family Guy. :)

No. One should never speak ill of Family Guy. :)

Fair enough.

So, that's a 'no', then?

Since - as you well know - "a staffer" =/= McCain.

But then, of course, McCain would probably lie, anyway.
Considering our earlier conversation, I am not surprised that you would paint McCain as a liar, since you don't believe it is possible for Obama to lie.

No. One should never speak ill of Family Guy. :)

Except those retarded episodes where 3/4's of the episode consists of characters having mundane, boring, unfunny conversations, or most of it is just a "Peter fights Chicken Man... AGAIN!" or when the characters apparently keep accidently killing people, then stuffing them in mailboxes.

Considering our earlier conversation, I am not surprised that you would paint McCain as a liar, since you don't believe it is possible for Obama to lie.

Give it up already. We get it. You are bitter about Hillary. Get on with your life.

Except those retarded episodes where 3/4's of the episode consists of characters having mundane, boring, unfunny conversations, or most of it is just a "Peter fights Chicken Man... AGAIN!" or when the characters apparently keep accidently killing people, then stuffing them in mailboxes.

Hey! The Chicken Fight scenes are some of my favorite recurring gags from Family Guy, simply because of how absolutely silly and unrelated to the rest of the episode they are.

*calls attention to the class*

And this:
Considering our earlier conversation, I am not surprised that you would paint McCain as a liar, since you don't believe it is possible for Obama to lie.

Is what we call "projecting."

Hey! The Chicken Fight scenes are some of my favorite recurring gags from Family Guy, simply because of how absolutely silly and unrelated to the rest of the episode they are.

I personally hate all Family Guy's stupid running gags. Except that funny stand-up w/ Piano gag. Hilarious. But let's get back to topic.

Considering our earlier conversation, I am not surprised that you would paint McCain as a liar, since you don't believe it is possible for Obama to lie.

Considering our earlier conversations?

I don't think you are - I actually said the exact opposite of "I don't believe it is possible for Obama to lie". What I DID say is - it's irrelevent. You don't poison the source because you don't LIKE a person, you accept, or discard, the evidence.... based on the evidence, not on prejudice.

For some reason, you'll accept what McCain says is true, despite his HORRENDOUS reputation for lying.... but you question even a simple explanation by Obama, of what he might have meant.

*calls attention to the class*

And this:

Is what we call "projecting."
Actually it was a response to an earlier "projection". All you are doing is adding the spotlight to that projection. ;)

If Baldy has really taken his marbles and gone home, there isn't much point to this, but I had quickly made a list of just some of the reasons I don't like Sarah Palin that have nothing to do with quibbling about her record as a small-town mayor:

1. Palin is opposed to abortion even in cases of rape, incest, or threat to the health of the mother. Imagine forcing a 14-year old incest victim to carry her rapists baby to term even though it may endanger her health and leave her sterile.

2. Palin supports the teaching of creationism in schools.

3. Palin opposes gay rights, including same-sex marriage and benefits to same-sex couples.

4. Palin opposes hate-crime laws – using the ridiculous and tired excuse that all heinous crime is hate-based.

5. Strongly supports home-schools.

6. Strongly supports keeping “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance – stupidly claiming that it was “good enough for our Founding Fathers.”

7. Believes global warming exists, but is not man-made.

8. Opposed protections for salmon from mining contamination.

9. Supports oil drilling practically everywhere, including off-shore and in ANWR.

10. Sued the Bush Administration to stop the listing of polar bears as endangered.

11. Opposes protections for beluga whales.

12. “Resource First” philosophy: encourage timber, mining, drilling, and commercial fishing.

13. Supports subsidized roads for mining.

14. Opposes effective sex-education programs.

15. Opposes needed health-care reform, supports “free market” solution

16. Cozied up to Senator Ted Stevens, right up to when he was indicted

17. Believes the Iraq War is “God’s Will”

Actually it was a response to an earlier "projection". All you are doing is adding the spotlight to that projection. ;)

No - Deus is right. My post was a parody of what looked to me like hypocrisy.

The way you responded answered that suspicion for once and for all.

Yes, it was a trap. Yes, I'm a bad person.

No, I'm not proud.

Considering our earlier conversations?

I don't think you are - I actually said the exact opposite of "I don't believe it is possible for Obama to lie". What I DID say is - it's irrelevent. You don't poison the source because you don't LIKE a person, you accept, or discard, the evidence.... based on the evidence, not on prejudice.

For some reason, you'll accept what McCain says is true, despite his HORRENDOUS reputation for lying.... but you question even a simple explanation by Obama, of what he might have meant.
Since you lack evidence to the contrary, in this matter, and based on your own prejudice, you decide to "poison the source" because you don't like the person, and as a result, you defeat your own argument.

And no, I don't want to go another round on this....let's move forward?

Thats it, you and the others that have decided to take this non-debate position can KMA, all of the personal insults in this thread are bullshit. The liars are you and the others doing this crap. How many times have I said I'm for the state paying for it and making it Federal so that all investigation are done regardless of jurisdiction or district. Your obfuscation is pure poppycock BS, dishonesty is your only argument, when you've done patting each other off in your circle jerk party you pretend to be a debate forum then I will come back to this thread, but otherwise, whatever.

In that case I will see to it personally that nothing changes here. Take your rightous indignation where someone cares.

St. Palin

HOLY CRAP! Cat Tribe borrowed my derogitory and sarcastic name for Palin!


Im honored.

Since you lack evidence to the contrary, in this matter, and based on your own prejudice, you decide to "poison the source" because you don't like the person, and as a result, you defeat your own argument.

And no, I don't want to go another round on this....let's move forward?

Here. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/parody) Pay particular attention to #7.

Since you lack evidence to the contrary, in this matter, and based on your own prejudice, you decide to "poison the source" because you don't like the person, and as a result, you defeat your own argument.

And no, I don't want to go another round on this....let's move forward?

Which source have I poisoned? McCain is a liar. Look at his position on tax cuts. Not only does it change with almost every bill, but he keeps reasserting what his position has 'always been'... and that has somehow managed to be both for AND against tax cuts. Sometimes.. the SAME one.

Give it up already. We get it. You are bitter about Hillary. Get on with your life.
When the wheels fall off come November 5th, perhaps then you will understand bitterness? I have identified with Democrats all my life and for the first time, I feel disconnected. I do hope that the experience will lead to meaningful renewal of the Party.

When the wheels fall off come November 5th, perhaps then you will understand bitterness? I have identified with Democrats all my life and for the first time, I feel disconnected. I do hope that the experience will lead to meaningful renewal of the Party.

You currently support the opposite ticket.

Maybe that's why you feel disconnected from the Democrats - you're on the opposite side.

You currently support the opposite ticket.

Maybe that's why you feel disconnected from the Democrats - you're on the opposite side.

Benedict Arnold: *hands the keys over to the redcoats* Man, I've been a Yank for all my life, but now I don't think I've ever felt quite so British.

You currently support the opposite ticket.

Maybe that's why you feel disconnected from the Democrats - you're on the opposite side.

It's not his fault the Democrats are so goddamned sexist! They should of bowed in worship to Hillary-hime! She ought of ascended to her rightful place on the throne!

When the wheels fall off come November 5th, perhaps then you will understand bitterness? I have identified with Democrats all my life and for the first time, I feel disconnected. I do hope that the experience will lead to meaningful renewal of the Party.

First, we've already gone over why I'm unimpressed by your feeling "disconnected" and bitter about your experience in the Democratic Party in another thread. link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13987602&postcount=996) Do I really need to repeat it?

Second, you are doing your damnest to see that the wheels do fall off for the Democrats in November, so you have little to be bitter about. If the Democrats lose, you will be getting exactly what you seem to want.

Your candidate didn't win the nomination, but she made it very clear who she thinks you should support. So, suck it up and pick a side. If you don't want to support the Democratic Party, fine, but don't whine about how the Party left you behind.

Moving on. Based on an article posted at RCP today:

Battleground Update: The Red States Get Redder, The Blue States Get Purpler (http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/09/15/swing-state-update.aspx)

Seven months ago, I was premising this very scenario. Although the Obama crowd was pushing the "every State matters" meme, I was suggesting that the Red States will stay Red and the Blue States will stay blue, with minor movement based on who the Democratic nominee would be. I suggested that Hillary was better poised to add the number of States required to win the Presidency.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13443083&postcount=527

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13527914&postcount=2014

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13533424&postcount=2049

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13534806&postcount=2073

You can bet, that Obama and McCain will be spending most of their time in the battleground States, and that this will go down to the wire.

Benedict Arnold: *hands the keys over to the redcoats* Man, I've been a Yank for all my life, but now I don't think I've ever felt quite so British.

Priceless.

More economic suckage-

http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/16/news/companies/AIG/?postversion=2008091622

Let’s be clear,” Mr. Obama said sternly. “What we’ve seen the last few days is nothing less than the final verdict on an economic philosophy that has completely failed.”

In the closing weeks of the presidential race, Mr. Obama is urgently working to seize the economic issue, using the collapse of Wall Street firms to illustrate a need for greater regulation and stronger oversight in the financial sector. But he is facing a challenge on that front from Senator John McCain, who has adopted a populist reformer message in vowing to “clean up Wall Street.”

Mr. Obama originally built his campaign on his opposition to the Iraq war, but his message has shifted to the economy. And now the financial crisis is presenting Democrats with a fresh political argument as they try to win back the White House.



SOURCE:http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/17/us/politics/17obama.html?ref=politics

Provided it really is "the economy stupid!" McCain is Mcboned.


Oh, fun little fact:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/16/AR2008091603226.html

The campaign of Sen. John McCain wanted to be clear yesterday: The Arizona Republican did not help create the BlackBerry.

That message came after McCain's top economic adviser said that he had, in fact, helped bring about the handheld device, comments that the campaign later called a "boneheaded joke."


So, little damage control for McCain, dont want to become the parody that Gore become with the "I invented the internet!" comment.

oh THATS mccains plan for dealing with the economy....

he keeps saying that he is going to reform wallstreet. turns out that his big fat plan is to .....


wait for it....



SET UP A COMMISSION TO STUDY WHAT WENT WRONG.
Oh, not just any commission. He wants a "9/11 Commission such as what we had after 9/11." -- McCain's own words.

So, apparently, in McCain's view, the US economy, the fundamentals of which are sound, is similar to 9/11, i.e. as fucked as the WTC, the Pentagon, and Flight 93 over Pennsylvania. And apparently he wants to set up a commission of experts to find out how it got so fucked despite his claims that it is sound and can fix itself. And I suppose he'd like his commission to take as long as the 9/11 commission did to come up with recommendations for how to fix the thing he says doesn't really need fixing because it's so sound. And I suppose it may as well take as much time as it likes, since, if it's really going to be a "9/11 Commission such as what we had after 9/11," he would ignore its recommendations anyway.

Yeah, great analogy pick there, McCain. Shows a lot of political savvy, from all that experience, no doubt.

<snip>

Oh, fun little fact:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/16/AR2008091603226.html
The campaign of Sen. John McCain wanted to be clear yesterday: The Arizona Republican did not help create the BlackBerry.

That message came after McCain's top economic adviser said that he had, in fact, helped bring about the handheld device, comments that the campaign later called a "boneheaded joke."

So, little damage control for McCain, dont want to become the parody that Gore become with the "I invented the internet!" comment.
Oh, so cute! They want to make sure nobody thinks they were serious but that everyone knows they're just boneheads. That's so sweet, but really, I think we already knew that.

Oh, so cute! They want to make sure nobody thinks they were serious but that everyone knows they're just boneheads. That's so sweet, but really, I think we already knew that.

Aaah. The things they say when they deviate from the script.


I love Republicans.

I've really stopped caring for the election
Face it people, no matter who wins, nothing will be fixed overnight

Right, it will take time and work to make real and substantive change. I think we all knew this very well. Unless we all believed like GWB said, "I wish I had a magic wand to make gas prices go down..." Now all we need is to give our candidates the wand. No seriously, this was obvious to us all.

I suggested that Hillary was better poised to add the number of States required to win the Presidency.

but this time you forgot to put on the wizard hat and robe, and therefore have to defend your fucking assertions with argument and evidence

The high road in American politics is labeled "Don't Vote For Me Expressway". I say we knife fight the bastards.

Exactly. This is what I was trying to say when I responded to CH's comment that "he can't rise above this with his message?" If this election were truly about ideas this wouldn't even be a competition. As the McCain campaign chair said, "this election won't be about issues, it will be about personality." Sadly this is what happens with the American elections.

Moving on. Based on an article posted at RCP today:

Battleground Update: The Red States Get Redder, The Blue States Get Purpler (http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/09/15/swing-state-update.aspx)

Seven months ago, I was premising this very scenario. Although the Obama crowd was pushing the "every State matters" meme, I was suggesting that the Red States will stay Red and the Blue States will stay blue, with minor movement based on who the Democratic nominee would be. I suggested that Hillary was better poised to add the number of States required to win the Presidency.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13443083&postcount=527

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13527914&postcount=2014

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13533424&postcount=2049

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13534806&postcount=2073

You can bet, that Obama and McCain will be spending most of their time in the battleground States, and that this will go down to the wire.

You seem to be under the misimpression that polls are relevant to who should be President of the United States.

Polls can be (but often are not) predictive of who will be the winner, but the winner (or potential winner) isn't the same as who would be best for the U.S. and/or the world.

First, we've already gone over why I'm unimpressed by your feeling "disconnected" and bitter about your experience in the Democratic Party in another thread. link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13987602&postcount=996) Do I really need to repeat it?

Second, you are doing your damnest to see that the wheels do fall off for the Democrats in November, so you have little to be bitter about. If the Democrats lose, you will be getting exactly what you seem to want.

Your candidate didn't win the nomination, but she made it very clear who she thinks you should support. So, suck it up and pick a side. If you don't want to support the Democratic Party, fine, but don't whine about how the Party left you behind.
Well, the Jews did wander in the desert for 40 years before finding the promised land.....

but this time you forgot to put on the wizard hat and robe, and therefore have to defend your fucking assertions with argument and evidence
I already did that, but alas it is too late to undo the wrongs. :(

I already did that

no, you didn't. i was there dude, i saw it all.
and everyone was embarrassed for you.

Considering our earlier conversation, I am not surprised that you would paint McCain as a liar, since you don't believe it is possible for Obama to lie.

No, it is certainly possible for Obama to lie. I am not a person who believes Obama to be the Messiah. After all he's still a politician. It's just that McCain seems to be lying more and more. When Karl Rove says you are going too far then you are in trouble. Just looking at www.factcheck.org shows this to be quite true. Obama is not perfect, he's just a hell of a lot better than McCain.
Hell, Palin and McCain even lied about how much energy Alaska provides to the US. How much were they off by? They overstated 10x's the true amount.

Energetically Wrong
September 12, 2008
Palin says Alaska supplies 20 percent of U.S. energy. Not true. Not even close.
Summary
Palin claims Alaska "produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy." That's not true.

Alaska did produce 14 percent of all the oil from U.S. wells last year, but that's a far cry from all the "energy" produced in the U.S.

Alaska's share of domestic energy production was 3.5 percent, according to the official figures kept by the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

And if by "supply" Palin meant all the energy consumed in the U.S., and not just produced here, then Alaska's production accounted for only 2.4 percent.
Analysis
Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin sat down with ABC News' Charlie Gibson for an interview, part of which aired Sept. 11. In the exchange, the Alaska governor misstated a basic fact about her state's energy production:

Palin: Let me speak specifically about a credential that I do bring to this table, Charlie, and that's with the energy independence that I've been working on for these years as the governor of this state that produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy, that I worked on as chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, overseeing the oil and gas development in our state to produce more for the United States.

It's simply untrue that Alaska produces anything close to 20 percent of the U.S. "energy supply," a term that is generally defined as energy consumed. That category includes power produced in the U.S. by nuclear, coal, hydroelectric dams and other means – as well as all the oil imported into the country.

Palin would have been correct to say that Alaska produces just over 14 percent of all the oil produced in the U.S., leaving out imports and leaving out other forms of power. According to the federal government's Energy Information Administration, Alaskan wells produced 263.6 million barrels of oil in 2007, or 14.3 percent of the total U.S. production of 1.8 billion barrels.

But Alaskan production accounts for only 4.8 percent of all the crude oil and petroleum products supplied to the U.S. in 2007, counting both domestic production and imports from other nations. According to EIA, the total supply was just over 5.5 billion barrels in 2007.

Furthermore, Palin said "energy," not "oil," so she was actually much further off the mark. According to EIA, Alaska actually produced 2,417.1 trillion BTUs [British Thermal Units] of energy in 2005, the last year for which full state numbers are available. That's equal to just 3.5 percent of the country's domestic energy production.

And according to EIA analyst Paul Hess, that would calculate to only "2.4 percent of the 100,368.6 trillion BTUs the U.S. consumes."

Palin didn't make clear whether she was talking about Alaska's share of all the energy produced in the U.S. or all the energy consumed here. Either way, she was wrong.

McCain Gets It Wrong, Too

Sen. John McCain has also has used this inflated, incorrect figure. On Sept. 3, McCain told ABC News' Gibson:

McCain: Well, I think Americans are going to be very, very, very pleased. This is a very dynamic person. [Palin's] been governor of our largest state, in charge of 20 percent of America's energy supply.

McCain repeated the false figure more recently, in a September 11 interview with Portland, Maine, news station WCSH6.

Footnote: When we asked the McCain campaign where the 20 percent figure came from, we were referred to the Web site of the Resource Development Council for Alaska, Inc, a group that says it promotes development of Alaska's natural resources. It states:

Alaska Resource Development Council: Alaska's oil and gas industry has produced more than 16 billion barrels of oil and 6 billion cubic feet of natural gas, accounting for an average of 20 percent of the entire nation's domestic production.

This falls far short of supporting Palin's sweeping claim, however. It refers only to "oil and gas" production, not total energy. It refers only to production, not total consumption or supply. And the 20 percent figure is an "average" over many years, though the site does not say exactly how many. That makes it very much out of date, because Alaskan oil production has declined sharply in recent years. According to EIA figures Alaskan oil production has dropped 22 percent in the most recent five years alone.

And in case you are wondering, Alaska produces even less of the nation's natural gas than it does of its oil. EIA figures show Alaska accounted for just 1.9 percent of total U.S. natural gas production during the six months ending June 2008. And even that is dropping rapidly. The figure was 2.3 percent just two years earlier.

Update, Sept. 16: The Washington Post's Fact Checker reports that Palin has modified her claim, saying at a campaign appearance Sept. 15 that she oversees "20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of oil and gas." That's still wrong. The Fact Checker points out the correct number is 7.4 percent, according to EIA. See our post on The FactCheck Wire for more.

–by Justin Bank
Sources
Milkowski, Stefan. "One Year Later, Palin Making Progress in Role of Governor," The Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. 4 December 2007.

Gibson, Charlie. "Gibson Interviews John McCain," ABC News. 3 Sept 2008.

Gibson, Charlie. "Gibson Interviews Sarah Palin," ABC News. 11 Sept 2008.

Caldwell, Rob. "News Center Interviews John McCain," WCSH6 NBC Portland.

Give it up already. We get it. You are bitter about Hillary. Get on with your life.

He's not bitter. What the hell would make you think he's bitter? Now you are just engaging in flaming and baiting. You are an evil man! :rolleyes:

no, you didn't. i was there dude, i saw it all.
and everyone was embarrassed for you.

Kinda painful to watch.

He's not bitter. What the hell would make you think he's bitter? Now you are just engaging in flaming and baiting. You are an evil man! :rolleyes:

Careful you might get reported:rolleyes:

Liuzzo you got a link to that article of Rove talking about McCain going to far? I cant seem to find it and I want to send it to a couple of my buddies.

Thats it, you and the others that have decided to take this non-debate position can KMA, all of the personal insults in this thread are bullshit. The liars are you and the others doing this crap. How many times have I said I'm for the state paying for it and making it Federal so that all investigation are done regardless of jurisdiction or district. Your obfuscation is pure poppycock BS, dishonesty is your only argument, when you've done patting each other off in your circle jerk party you pretend to be a debate forum then I will come back to this thread, but otherwise, whatever.
translation: I've been thoroughly pwned and instead of having a modicum of respect towards others (and myself) by admitting I err'd I'm throwing all my toys out of the sandpit and waddling back home for a big sulk.
Oh and call you all poohpooh heads. so there.

Moving on. Based on an article posted at RCP today:

Battleground Update: The Red States Get Redder, The Blue States Get Purpler (http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/09/15/swing-state-update.aspx)

Seven months ago, I was premising this very scenario. Although the Obama crowd was pushing the "every State matters" meme, I was suggesting that the Red States will stay Red and the Blue States will stay blue, with minor movement based on who the Democratic nominee would be. I suggested that Hillary was better poised to add the number of States required to win the Presidency.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13443083&postcount=527

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13527914&postcount=2014

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13533424&postcount=2049

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13534806&postcount=2073

You can bet, that Obama and McCain will be spending most of their time in the battleground States, and that this will go down to the wire.

Yes, because ignoring battleground states as things go down to the wire would be fricken stupid. You want credit for something that is obvious? As of now Obama is campaigning everywhere. He still has a 50 state strategy and is going with it. It only makes sense that as things go down to the wire you do 3 things: spend more time in those states;spend more money on get out the vote drives and advertising in those states; spend more money in print and TV spots. Not doing this as things come down to the end would be suicide.

Careful you might get reported:rolleyes:

Liuzzo you got a link to that article of Rove talking about McCain going to far? I cant seem to find it and I want to send it to a couple of my buddies.

This is the easiest one from CNN. There are many more sources out there as well. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/14/campaign.wrap/index.html

Edit: Ok kids, it's been fun enough for tonight. I need to do another 12 hours tomorrow and work to set up mom's next rounds of chemo and radiation. Be well all. CH, that includes you of course too. Realize that even though I fervantly disagree with you I've never hated you. I simply just think you are wrong. Until tomorrow!!!!

Careful you might get reported:rolleyes:

Liuzzo you got a link to that article of Rove talking about McCain going to far? I cant seem to find it and I want to send it to a couple of my buddies.
really dude. improve your googling skills. I just googled 'Karl Rove + McCain' and this was one of the first that popped up:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/14/campaign.wrap/

really dude. improve your googling skills. I just googled 'Karl Rove + McCain' and this was one of the first that popped up:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/14/campaign.wrap/

I didnt want to take the energy to open up a new tab.:p

Um, yes she is. Her working 'home' is in Juneau, her wasilla home is 600 miles as the crow flies, from that Capital building and governors residence.

Dude, she was having a baby. She wasn't there on state business. Can I collect per diem when I go to Disney world because my job doesn't station me there?

Night folks. Im sure there will be more campaign nuttyness I can bring to you good generalites tomorrow.

I'm sure I've pushed this point before but I think the chances for Barack Obama come from getting out the youth vote.

The impact was visible in the primaries and caucuses, where 7 million voters under 30 turned out, helping to trounce the hopes of Hillary Clinton by voting for Obama in a ratio of four to one.

It was not ever thus. When the Harvard project began in 2000, it found a mood among students that was apathetic, as reflected in a dismal turnout among 18- to 24-year-olds of 30% - well below the figure for all ages of 51%.

They're also generally first-time voters, as in not appearing so much in polling data, however...

It shows that while John Kerry enjoyed a 13-point lead on George Bush among 18- to 24-year-olds at this stage in the 2004 election, Obama is 23 points ahead of John McCain. The institute's researchers have found exceptional levels this year of engagement among the young, with 62% of young voters reporting that they were excited about the election and more than two-thirds saying they were definitely, or probably, intending to vote.

Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/17/uselections2008.barackobama1)

I think the ability to debate and discuss on the Internet has been a great driver of this, let's hope it's sustained until November 5th.

Moving on. Based on an article posted at RCP today:

Battleground Update: The Red States Get Redder, The Blue States Get Purpler (http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/09/15/swing-state-update.aspx)

Seven months ago, I was premising this very scenario. Although the Obama crowd was pushing the "every State matters" meme, I was suggesting that the Red States will stay Red and the Blue States will stay blue, with minor movement based on who the Democratic nominee would be. I suggested that Hillary was better poised to add the number of States required to win the Presidency.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13443083&postcount=527

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13527914&postcount=2014

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13533424&postcount=2049

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13534806&postcount=2073

You can bet, that Obama and McCain will be spending most of their time in the battleground States, and that this will go down to the wire.

Yes, we remember. Before you said you supported Hillary because she was more likely to win. However, she has NO opportunity to win and you're still campaigning against Obama. Somehow your words ring a bit hollow.

Unfortunately, those polls generally focus on likely voters. That's why they were so off when looking at Hillary and Obama. So for newly registered voters, I'm curious, who has the advantage?

My friends:
I have now been convinced to vote for John McCain.
Why?

Because he invented the Blackberry! (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/16/mccain-adviser-blackberry-a-%E2%80%98miracle%E2%80%99-he-%E2%80%98helped-create%E2%80%99/) :D

McCain's confused: He was thinking of the abacus.

McCain's strong grasp on the US economy shows through:
"I still believe our fundamental underpinnings of our economy are strong."
-Sen. John McCain (1/23/08)

"I still believe the fundamentals of our economy are strong."
-Sen. John McCain (8/20/08)

"Our economy, I believe, still, the fundamentals of our economy are strong…"
-Sen. John McCain (9/15/08)

Apparently he believes that repeating the same mantra will make it true.

He probably spends his evenings clicking his heels and saying, "There's no place like a strong US economy, There's no place like a strong US economy, There's no place like a strong US economy"

Unless of course he actually thinks 'fundamentals' as meaning FUBAR. Then he is indeed correct.

McCain's confused: He was thinking of the abacus.

Win.

Be well all. CH, that includes you of course too. Realize that even though I fervantly disagree with you I've never hated you.
Despite my disagreements with posters here, you can be sure that I hate no one. :)

I simply just think you are wrong.
Obviously the feeling is mutual.

Oh, of course I realize it's entirely equivalent to the Al Gore "internet" thing. I was just trying to provide a little bit of comic relief to a debate that occasionally gets a bit... heated.

If I were serious, I'd not have used the smiley.

Then you should have posted this instead:

http://mcbama.ytmnd.com/

Then you should have posted this instead:

http://mcbama.ytmnd.com/
Did you notice the name of that image?

"a giant douch and a terd sandwich"

Oh my!!

On a more serious note, the debates are scheduled to begin quite soon. Polling by Zogby indicates strong support for including either Bob Barr or Ralph Nader in the debates(possibly both.)

Should this be done? I think so, because although neither is someone I'd really want to vote for--Bob Barr is a repainted Republican dressed up as a Libertarian, and Ralph Nader is rather bitter and has some questionable policy ideas--the more people we have involved in the debates, the better. More representation is needed, after all.

McCain, on the US economy meltdown and Obama's ridicule of his 'the fundamentals of our economy are strong' comment: “My friends, this is not a time for political opportunism. This is a time for leadership...Let’s have straight talk. Senator Obama is not interested in the politics of hope. He is interested in his political future, and that is why he is hurling insults and making up facts about his record,”

Obama's plan to help the economy:

Give middle-class taxpayers a substantial tax break
End the Bush administration tax cuts that favor the wealthy
Invest in infrastructure
Change bankruptcy laws to help people facing foreclosure


McCain's plan to help the economy:

Set up a commission to study the problem


time for leadership indeed.



Incidently, the same day that Obama raised $9mill at a Hollywood gathering (which of course McCain lambasted him for it*) McCain himself held a gathering in Florida where he raised $5 million.
But that's okay cause he's a republican.

*“He(Obama) talks about siding with the people … just before he flew off to Hollywood for a fundraiser with Barbra Streisand and his celebrity friends. Let me tell you, my friends, there is no place I’d rather be than here with the working men and women win of Ohio.”


FOX is up (or shd I say down) to it's usual standard:
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/17/clinton-blindsided-palin/
last sentence (in a report about Hilary and Palin):
Obama ... has worked to dispel doubts created by false rumors that he is Muslim.
But that's okay, really it is, cause they used the word, "false".
I heard a, cough, 'false' rumour FOX editors are a bunch of paedophiles and chicken rapists.

Careful you might get reported:rolleyes:

Liuzzo you got a link to that article of Rove talking about McCain going to far? I cant seem to find it and I want to send it to a couple of my buddies.

I didnt want to take the energy to open up a new tab.:p

Just wanted to point out that I already posted Rove's comments here, but I posted that on Sunday, and it got buried several pages back.


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14011544&postcount=317

On a more serious note, the debates are scheduled to begin quite soon. Polling by Zogby indicates strong support for including either Bob Barr or Ralph Nader in the debates(possibly both.)

Should this be done? I think so, because although neither is someone I'd really want to vote for--Bob Barr is a repainted Republican dressed up as a Libertarian, and Ralph Nader is rather bitter and has some questionable policy ideas--the more people we have involved in the debates, the better. More representation is needed, after all.The nice thing about voting for Nader is I know he won't win, but him getting enough votes will positively impact the party landscape. And then there's his strong pro-consumer stance.

As a light aside, and possibly insightful into Heikoku's fervour for Barack Obama, seems he's not the only one in Brazil.

Due to a quirk of Brazilian law, candidates are allowed to run under the name of their choice. As a result, at least six Brazilian politicians have officially renamed themselves "Barack Obama" in a bid to get an edge over their rivals in October's municipal elections.

Welcome to Obama-mania, Brazil-style. Few countries have embraced the idea of the US's first black president as enthusiastically as Brazil, a country with one of the largest Afro-descendant populations on Earth yet where black faces remain a minority in politics. Obama T-shirts are everywhere while chat shows and newspaper columns are filled with talk of the 47-year-old Illinois senator.

"In truth it was an accident," says Belford Roxo's Obama, an IT consultant who is bidding to become the city's first black mayor. "I'd been on the television wearing a suit and people thought I looked a bit like him so they started calling me Barack Obama. They'd see me in the street and shout: 'Hey! Barack!" So I decided to register it."

Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/15/brazil.barackobama)

Jogo Politico.

Moving on. Based on an article posted at RCP today:

Battleground Update: The Red States Get Redder, The Blue States Get Purpler (http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/09/15/swing-state-update.aspx)

Seven months ago, I was premising this very scenario. Although the Obama crowd was pushing the "every State matters" meme, I was suggesting that the Red States will stay Red and the Blue States will stay blue, with minor movement based on who the Democratic nominee would be. I suggested that Hillary was better poised to add the number of States required to win the Presidency.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13443083&postcount=527

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13527914&postcount=2014

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13533424&postcount=2049

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13534806&postcount=2073

You can bet, that Obama and McCain will be spending most of their time in the battleground States, and that this will go down to the wire.

*points out the obvious 273 Obama 265 McCain numbers*

As a light aside, and possibly insightful into Heikoku's fervour for Barack Obama, seems he's not the only one in Brazil.

Okay, let me make things clear: My fervor for Barack Obama? He's NOT A REPUBLICAN! That simple. Kthxbai.

*points out the obvious 273 Obama 265 McCain numbers*

Yeah, I love that CH is posting an article about how Obama is doomed and that same article shows hes...erm...winning.

On a more serious note, the debates are scheduled to begin quite soon. Polling by Zogby indicates strong support for including either Bob Barr or Ralph Nader in the debates(possibly both.)

Should this be done? I think so, because although neither is someone I'd really want to vote for--Bob Barr is a repainted Republican dressed up as a Libertarian, and Ralph Nader is rather bitter and has some questionable policy ideas--the more people we have involved in the debates, the better. More representation is needed, after all.

I would want both of those guys in the debate. Not only would it help both of them get more votes, but it would also open up the debate a bit. We recently had a bit of debate about the leader's debate in Canada. There was overwhelming support to allow the Green Party leader in, despite the fact that the party has traditionally been viewed as a one-issue fringe party.

I would want both of those guys in the debate. Not only would it help both of them get more votes, but it would also open up the debate a bit. We recently had a bit of debate about the leader's debate in Canada. There was overwhelming support to allow the Green Party leader in, despite the fact that the party has traditionally been viewed as a one-issue fringe party.

Plus if these were on the debates, in all likelihood McCain would suffer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/17/us/politics/17mccain.html?_r=2&pagewanted=2&em&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Page One:
VIENNA, Ohio — On Monday morning, as the financial system absorbed one of its biggest shocks in generations, Senator John McCain said, as he had many times before, that he believed the fundamentals of the economy were “strong.”

Hours later he backpedaled, explaining that he had meant that American workers, whom he described as the backbone of the economy, were productive and resilient. By Tuesday he was calling the economic situation “a total crisis” and denouncing “greed” on Wall Street and in Washington.

The sharp turnabout in tone and substance reflected a recognition not only that Mr. McCain had struck a discordant note at a sensitive moment but also that he had done so with regard to the very issue on which he can least afford to stumble.

With economic conditions worsening over the course of this year and voter anxiety on the rise, Mr. McCain has had to labor to get past the impression — fostered by his own admissions as recently as last year that the subject is not his strongest suit — that he lacks the experience and understanding to address the nation’s economic woes.

In the most recent case, he first sought to explain away his remarks about the economy’s fundamental soundness by saying he had been referring to the American people, almost daring his Democratic rival, Senator Barack Obama, to contradict him on that score. But within hours his aides were scheduling appearances for him Tuesday on all the morning television news shows so that he could try to erase the notion, being promoted aggressively by Democrats, that he was out of touch.

His campaign also sent to reporters the text of a speech he was delivering later Monday that included much starker language about the nation’s financial troubles, and by Tuesday had produced a new advertisement asserting that his experience and leadership were necessary in a “time of crisis.” Aides and advisers repeated to anyone who would listen the words that Mr. McCain has frequently spoken following his comments about the economy’s fundamental strengths: that “these are very, very difficult times.”

Beyond striking a more populist tone and more explicitly acknowledging the nation’s economic problems, his campaign also began an effort Tuesday to cast him as a strong leader with profound experience on economic issues, given his service on the Senate Commerce Committee, where he was chairman for six years. That effort quickly hit a pothole when one of his economic advisers suggested that he had helped to create the BlackBerry, by virtue of his role in brokering telecommunications legislation; the McCain campaign later disavowed that, calling the suggestion “boneheaded.”

For much of this year, Mr. McCain has seemed to struggle to strike a balance between conveying the optimism that many voters want in their leaders, and the I-feel-your-pain empathy that they crave during hard times. His task is complicated by the tension between his plans to continue many of the economic policies of the unpopular incumbent Republican president he hopes to succeed, and his pledges to improve the American economy and shake up Washington.

As recently as January, Mr. McCain argued at a Republican debate that Americans were better off than they were eight years ago; by this summer he had released an advertisement that said “we’re worse off than we were four years ago.”

His first big speech on the mortgage crisis warned against excessive government intervention; a month later he released his plan for government action to help people keep their homes.

And a tour on which he embarked in July to emphasize his understanding of Americans’ economic pain was overshadowed when one of his top economic advisers, former Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, was quoted as saying that the United States was only in a “mental recession” and had become “a nation of whiners.”

The most recent episode began Monday morning at a rally in Jacksonville, Fla., where Mr. McCain spoke of the troubles in the financial sector.

“There’s tremendous turmoil in our financial markets and on Wall Street,” he said. “People are frightened by these events. Our economy, I think still, the fundamentals of our economy are strong. But these are very, very difficult times. And I promise you we will never put America in this position again. We will clean up Wall Street. We will reform government. And this is a failure.”


Page 2
His statement about the strength of the economy’s fundamentals was one he has made for nearly a year now, usually adding that times are tough or people are hurting. And in some ways, given that the recession that many have feared all that time has yet to be officially proclaimed, he has been borne out.

But his repeating the remark on Monday, even as the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers was helping send the stock market plunging to its steepest loss since the terrorist attacks of 2001, quickly became a political problem.

His campaign swung into action then, to try to put the remark “in context,” as one top aide said, and to push back against what the McCain organization deemed unfair attacks coming from the Obama camp. In short order Mr. McCain’s campaign sent reporters the advance text — a step usually reserved for major speeches or pronouncements — of remarks he planned to deliver in Orlando, Fla., on Monday afternoon proclaiming that “the American economy is in crisis” and redefining what he had meant when he spoke about the “fundamentals.”

On Tuesday morning, Mr. McCain was interviewed for CBS, ABC, NBC, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC and CNBC. Again and again, he explained that he understood the “crisis” and called for a new commission to study it, modeled on the one that investigated the Sept. 11 attacks.

On the NBC News television program “Today,” Matt Lauer asked Mr. McCain how he could say that “the fundamentals of our economy are strong” while his campaign was releasing an advertisement that said the economy was in crisis.

“Well, it’s obviously true that the workers of America are the fundamentals of our economy, and our strength and our future,” Mr. McCain replied. “And I believe in the American worker, and someone who disagrees with that — it’s fine. We are in crisis. We all know that. The excess, the greed and the corruption of Wall Street have caused us to have a situation which is going to affect every American. We are in a total crisis.”

Mr. McCain’s economic adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, told reporters Tuesday that the senator, who has often favored deregulation, would push for new regulations as president.

“This story line that people want to write that somehow McCain himself or the McCain campaign doesn’t understand what’s going on with the economy is wrong,” Mr. Holtz-Eakin said. “You shouldn’t run for president by denigrating everything in sight and trying to scare people. Let’s be accurate. HA! Whats this? A Republican denouncing scare mongering? The McCain campaign talking about "being accurate"? How cute. This is an economy that has serious problems.”

By the end of the day, the campaign had gone back on offense. Here in Vienna, outside Youngstown, Mr. McCain noted at a joint rally with his running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin, that Mr. Obama had originally chosen a former head of the recently bailed-out Fannie Mae to lead his vice-presidential search (though the head of Mr. McCain’s search committee was himself a past lobbyist for Fannie Mae).

And Ms. Palin said that Mr. Obama’s “tax plans really would kill jobs and hurt small businesses and make even today’s bad economy look like the good old days.”

:rolleyes:


The McCain campaign has got more waffles then a frickin IHOP. I seriously dont understand how this is even still a close election. The economy is getting nuked, this goon keeps saying that we're fine and wants to continue most of the policies that got us here (after hes admitted that he knows dick about the economy), and hes somehow tied with Obama? The guy who cant remember how many houses he owns is saying hes more in touch? Maybe Im being unfair. Im sure all of us forget how many houses we own. I mean, ten houses is a lot to keep track of. What? What do you mean you only have one (which you are about to lose because of the mortgage crisis anyway)?

The McCain campaign has got more waffles then a frickin IHOP. I seriously dont understand how this is even still a close election. The economy is getting nuked, this goon keeps saying that we're fine and wants to continue most of the policies that got us here (after hes admitted that he knows dick about the economy), and hes somehow tied with Obama? The guy who cant remember how many houses he owns is saying hes more in touch? Maybe Im being unfair. Im sure all of us forget how many houses we own. I mean, ten houses is a lot to keep track of. What? What do you mean you only have one (which you are about to lose because of the mortgage crisis anyway)?
It's very simple, KoL. Look at who is most vehemently supporting McCain/Palin (leaving aside that one crazy Canadian). They're all "social conservatives." You know, the ones who want to deny equal rights to gays and women, replace science with religion in public schools, and rewrite the laws to match their favorite Bible verses. Apparently, they want that so much, they'd be willing to destroy the nation -- and their own futures -- to get it. Maybe they figure, if they do everything just right, Daddy-God will take care of them so they can afford to sacrifice the economy, the military, our national security, everything like that.

It's very simple, KoL. Look at who is most vehemently supporting McCain/Palin (leaving aside that one crazy Canadian). They're all "social conservatives." You know, the ones who want to deny equal rights to gays and women, replace science with religion in public schools, and rewrite the laws to match their favorite Bible verses. Apparently, they want that so much, they'd be willing to destroy the nation -- and their own futures -- to get it. Maybe they figure, if they do everything just right, Daddy-God will take care of them.

Im just shocked that 50% of the country really is that....stupid.

Im just shocked that 50% of the country really is that....stupid.

I'm not. Not since 2004.

Im just shocked that 50% of the country really is that....stupid.
I know how you feel. Everytime I think about it, it knocks me back a few steps. But this is why I insist that the rest of us cannot afford to dick around with this election. That's why I get so pissed off when people start messing around with 3rd party candidates who have zero chance of doing anything but fracturing the vote. *glares at a few people in thread*

This is an election that demands strategic voting to accomplish an urgent goal, NOT prancing around with what amount to little more than "vanity" candidates.

First, stop these new fascists from utterly cementing their control over the country. Knock them out of power, and THEN diversify the party system. I fail to see why this is so difficult to for some people.

The Bush Administration really has nothing to do with the subprime crisis. They may be the public face and scapegoat of the failing economy, but Bush and his people aren't responsible. Good, old fashioned American greed is. Regardless of how detached McCain is from the reality of the economy, neither he nor Obama would have a markedly different approach to handling the subprime crisis.

Oil dependency is a much more pertinent economic issue on which to attack McCain.

I know how you feel. Everytime I think about it, it knocks me back a few steps. But this is why I insist that the rest of us cannot afford to dick around with this election. That's why I get so pissed off when people start messing around with 3rd party candidates who have zero chance of doing anything but fracturing the vote. *glares at a few people in thread*

This is an election that demands strategic voting to accomplish an urgent goal, NOT prancing around with what amount to little more than "vanity" candidates.

First, stop these new fascists from utterly cementing their control over the country. Knock them out of power, and THEN diversify the party system. I fail to see why this is so difficult to for some people.


Yep. Which is why I said "Oh sweet mercyful gawd NO!" when I read about the thought to include 3rd party candidates in the debate.


All though Bar would be stealing from McCain, so maybe he can come. Pure politics on my end, Ill admit that.

The Bush Administration really has nothing to do with the subprime crisis. They may be the public face and scapegoat of the failing economy, but Bush and his people aren't responsible. Good, old fashioned American greed is. Regardless of how detached McCain is from the reality of the economy, neither he nor Obama would have a markedly different approach to handling the subprime crisis.

Oil dependency is a much more pertinent economic issue on which to attack McCain.
I would have thought you'd have noticed by now that pertinence of an issue has nothing to do with US campaign politics.

Yep. Which is why I said "Oh sweet mercyful gawd NO!" when I read about the thought to include 3rd party candidates in the debate.


All though Bar would be stealing from McCain, so maybe he can come. Pure politics on my end, Ill admit that.
I'm not convinced that Barr would take away Republican votes. Remember what voters we are talkng about here. Remember what it is they want, and that McCain has already sold out to them, in spades. Just look at his recent position shifts. And his running mate.

I would have thought you'd have noticed by now that pertinence of an issue has nothing to do with US campaign politics.

What are you...

*Watches as a pig with lipstick on runs by*

...talking about?

I would have thought you'd have noticed by now that pertinence of an issue has nothing to do with US campaign politics.

I'm just saying that oil dependency is an issue that McCain is much more "attackable" on than the subprime crisis. Both Obama and McCain would do the exact same thing in regards to the subprime crisis: bail out the healthier companies and let the unhealthier ones go down in flames.