NationStates Jolt Archive

Who cares? Obama win = bad for the U.S. - McCain win = bad for the U.S. I am so tired of people destroying the dream that was and the American rights that we once had. I believe if Obama wins we may have permanently lost this country, and if McCain wins we will be one step away but a likely step. Face it, there is no United States of America left, this is a new nation build on the corpse of a great nation. We have lost all "common sense" and are quickly losing "the rights of man", Thomas Paine weeps from beyond the grave.

Who cares? Obama win = bad for the U.S. - McCain win = bad for the U.S. I am so tired of people destroying the dream that was and the American rights that we once had. I believe if Obama wins we may have permanently lost this country, and if McCain wins we will be one step away but a likely step. Face it, there is no United States of America left, this is a new nation build on the corpse of a great nation. We have lost all "common sense" and are quickly losing "the rights of man", Thomas Paine weeps from beyond the grave.

That's cute.

What exactly is "executive experience" and why is it relevant? Can you show with historical examples why such experience makes for a better president?

Also, how much of this "executive experience" does McCain have?

Executive experience is the person that has to decide, not the person that gets to vote this way today and that way tomorrow. The person that has to make the decisions when the questions come to their desk whether they wanted to deal with that problem or not.

Assembling your administration (team) and develop the strategy for moving forward (setting goals and priorities and establishing the guidelines of how your administration is going to achieve it's goals). Then overseeing that process in its day by day execution, delegating and managing.

As to examples, you want examples of governors who have gone on to be Presidents? Surely you can google.

Who cares? Obama win = bad for the U.S. - McCain win = bad for the U.S. I am so tired of people destroying the dream that was and the American rights that we once had. I believe if Obama wins we may have permanently lost this country, and if McCain wins we will be one step away but a likely step. Face it, there is no United States of America left, this is a new nation build on the corpse of a great nation. We have lost all "common sense" and are quickly losing "the rights of man", Thomas Paine weeps from beyond the grave.
what do you think that obama is going to do to destroy the country?

what do you think that mccain would do to take us one step away from it?

Are you sure you're not thinking of someone beside me? I'm not recalling the conversation you seem to be recalling...

Actually, it was apparently Aardweasels. Sorry about that. Going back through the other thread, you seem to have simply dropped that line of conversation.

McCain says it a lot.

Yes, he says it a lot. And then he picks a VP who is the governor of the state that receives the most per capita earmarks - who has personally supported earmarks that he holds up as examples.

Palin says a lot, yet is the governor of the state receiving the most per capita earmarks - and has personally gone after a great deal of that money.

The problem here is that their actions are inconsistent with their words.

Nothing dishonest about it. She HAS reduces the amount of earmarks in state, and she's told her state that they need to learn how to stop depending on earmarks. Your expectation that an entire state can go over night cold turkey is disingenuous.

Does this mean that McCain's expectation that the entire country can go cold turkey is stupid?

I'm trying to hold her to the standards she claims to hold. It isn't my fault if her standards are unreasonable.

How transparent is the Governor who fulfilled her campaign promise to put her state budget online for everyone to see and she did it? Pretty transparent.

Ah.

So if I hide some things, but openly show you something else, I'm being transparent? Gotcha.

You 'assume' guilt for the Yahoo nonsense.

Destruction of evidence often points towards guilt.

You assume she did it to hide something, but if you're aware that high security networks, like banking and government networks, require wired system access to their computers than you are also aware that high security networks are insufficient for travel and convenience via wireless and/or wifi. Using both types of systems is not an indicator of shady or criminal activity.

(a) Do you have evidence that Palin is unable to access official email through her Blackberry or while traveling?

(b) She apparently specifically met with her administration to discuss the fact that personal email couldn't be obtained through subpoena - taking a play from Karl Rove's book. If it was really just a matter of convenience, she could have had a specific personal email *just* for state business that would be made just as publicly available as the official state email. Instead, those emails were withheld from public records.

And she wouldn't have deleted the accounts just before they could be needed for a criminal investigation.

We can see her record, we know what she stands for and what she wants to do and we know what McCain wants to do and what he stands for.

We can't see what someone wants to do. We can only see what they say they want to do.

And when that is inconsistent with what they have done...

As to examples, you want examples of governors who have gone on to be Presidents? Surely you can google.

If you make assertions in a debate, you are expected to back up your assertions with evidence.

Executive experience is the person that has to decide, not the person that gets to vote this way today and that way tomorrow. The person that has to make the decisions when the questions come to their desk whether they wanted to deal with that problem or not.

Assembling your administration (team) and develop the strategy for moving forward (setting goals and priorities and establishing the guidelines of how your administration is going to achieve it's goals). Then overseeing that process in its day by day execution, delegating and managing.

As to examples, you want examples of governors who have gone on to be Presidents? Surely you can google.

1. Sorry but running a U.S. Senate office involves making decisions, leadership, assembling a team, developing a strategy, etc. So I guess Obama and Biden have lots of executive experience.

2. You seem to make no distinction as to how important the "decider" is. The manager of my local McDonalds seems to qualify for President by your standards.

3. I notice you didn't answer about McCain's executive experience. I suspect that is because it is hard to credit him with such experience but not credit Obama and Biden.

4. Do you want examples of legislators who have gone on to be great Presidents? Surely you can Google. :tongue: Regardless you are ducking the question of evidence that "executive" experience makes one more qualified for the Presidency than other kinds of political experience.

If you make assertions in a debate, you are expected to back up your assertions with evidence.

you expect much from a person who doesn't know the difference between a noun and an adjective.

1. I repeat. No one truly knows the complete facts behind this private matter.
Of course not. We can only make the most reasonable inferences we can from the information we have.
And Sarah Palin's positions on imposing her "family values" on everyone else make this far less of a "private" matter than it would otherwise be.
I have a couple of friends who want to marry. Are they married? No. They're waiting for 3/4 years until she's finished university.

I do not think it reasonable to think that this is the situation with Bristol and Luke.
2. True, if by "knocked up" you mean "got pregnant" yes.

It is the only meaning I know for the phrase.
However, the phrase has negative connotations that I have an issue with.

The connotation, so far as I understand it, is that "knocked up" is used for "became pregnant" when the two are not married.

2. You seem to make no distinction as to how important the "decider" is. The manager of my local McDonalds seems to qualify for President by your standards.

Let's be fair, the manager of your local McDonalds probably has a harder job than mayor of Wasilla Alaska.

Also, all this recent talk of fiscal conservatism reminds me...

its even worse than that. over the past 70 years or so (since the democratic economic ideology consolidated), the economy has consistently been significantly better under democrats than republicans on a huge range of issues. employment rates, growth, inflation, whatever. shit, even income growth for the rich is better under dems (though not, iirc, the ridiculously rich, who actually do benefit from conservatism's feudalistic policies)

http://rodrik.typepad.com/dani_rodriks_weblog/WindowsLiveWriter/clip_image002%5B21%5D.gif

Let's be fair, the manager of your local McDonalds probably has a harder job than mayor of Wasilla Alaska.

And he has probably never made a rape victim pay for a evidence collection kit, either.

Some people just rise to greatness. ;)

when a person has chosen to run for president, we can believe that they have thought about national politics, where they stand on all the pertinent issues, and how they would deal with current and past problems.

when a person is chosen for vp nominee without ever having run for any kind of national office and has had the job of governor for less than 2 years we cannot be so confident. this lack of confidence is re-inforced by nonsense like pretending that having been on the alaska oil regulartory board is a qualification for national security issues, sharing a maritime border with russia as foreign policy experience, and taking federal money for pork barrel projects and putting unqualified friends into top state offices qualfies as reform.

Two years ago, Obama said HE wasn't ready to run for President. Your criteria of choosing to run for national office could be considered a negative in some points of view...

Being on the the Alaska oil regulatory board is a qualification for national Oil Board oversight on security issues that deal with national energy... sharing a border with Canada and overseeing the largest ever private international natural pipeline agreement is experience in international trade and business contracts, taking federal money for state projects and reassigning it to better and higher priority uses in the state show fiscal responsibility, and reformation of big oil corruption in state big oil contacts and contracts in Alaska is experience for reforming big oil and energy dealings with corrupt government oversight in Washington DC.

Well there you go then, Palin has more executive experience than Obama and Biden do combined.

Well, if you limit it to executive experience, does that mean that legislators are automatically unqualified to be president unless they've held executive positions before?

Also, when discussing the VP slot, wouldn't it be helpful to discuss legislative experience, as the VP is president of the Senate?

Executive experience is the person that has to decide, not the person that gets to vote this way today and that way tomorrow.

So those in executive office never change their minds?

Assembling your administration (team) and develop the strategy for moving forward (setting goals and priorities and establishing the guidelines of how your administration is going to achieve it's goals). Then overseeing that process in its day by day execution, delegating and managing.

Strangely, this sounds like experience that can be gained outside of executive office.

As to examples, you want examples of governors who have gone on to be Presidents? Surely you can google.

I believe you were asked for evidence that those with executive experience (which you have equated here to "governors") make better presidents.

Two years ago, Obama said HE wasn't ready to run for President. Your criteria of choosing to run for national office could be considered a negative in some points of view...

Being on the the Alaska oil regulatory board is a qualification for national Oil Board oversight on security issues that deal with national energy... sharing a maritime border with Canada and overseeing the largest ever private international natural pipeline agreement is experience in international trade and business contracts, taking federal money for state projects and reassigning it to better and higher priority uses in the state show fiscal responsibility, and reformation of big oil corruption in state big oil contacts and contracts in Alaska is experience for reforming big oil and energy dealings with corrupt government oversight in Washington DC.

I'm sure you've already done this somewhere, but please humor me and give concrete examples of Palin's reformation of big oil corruption in Alaska.

I believe you were asked for evidence that those with executive experience (which you have equated here to "governors") make better presidents.

8 years ago, a former state governor ran against a former US senator for the office of President of the United States. The governor won.

We see how better the nation is for it.

1. Sorry but running a U.S. Senate office involves making decisions, leadership, assembling a team, developing a strategy, etc. So I guess Obama and Biden have lots of executive experience.

I didn't attack Senators as not being qualified, I am defending Governors as being qualified.

...2. You seem to make no distinction as to how important the "decider" is. The manager of my local McDonalds seems to qualify for President by your standards.

Captains of Ships, CEO of corporations, Department Heads, sure, if you want your country to be run like a McDonalds, then go right ahead. You know, I've heard that some farmers make good Presidents too, do you want to belittle them next?

...
3. I notice you didn't answer about McCain's executive experience. I suspect that is because it is hard to credit him with such experience but not credit Obama and Biden.

I call bullshit there, sorry. I have repeatedly, in many different posts and threads, said that Palin has more executive experience than all three of the other candidates combined. so no, you did not notice that I didn't answer about McCains executive experience, you just failed to notice.

4. Do you want examples of legislators who have gone on to be great Presidents? Surely you can Google. :tongue: Regardless you are ducking the question of evidence that "executive" experience makes one more qualified for the Presidency than other kinds of political experience.

That wasn't my argument was it? That was their argument against Palin for VP, saying she wasn't experienced enough, I pointed out how she's qualified because every governor is qualified. I didn't agrue that Obama isn't qualified, only tyring to asses how they think he is and she isn't.

Geez, Tmutarakhan I just told off an Obamabot for being partisan and crude when commenting on a sensitive and perhaps upsetting episode in the Palin family, and then asked others to try and be more civil if we have to discuss it.

It seems to me that you're just picking at my post simply because I dared to suggest that Palin's family has even the slightest right to some basic privacy and respect.


Maybe it's because I originate from a different political climate, where we don't try to use every little excuse to kick an opponent when he's down.

I do not agree that the Palin family has the right to basic privacy, when they certainly do not intend to grant that to others, nor to any respect, until they earn it.

I call bullshit there, sorry. I have repeatedly, in many different posts and threads, said that Palin has more executive experience than all three of the other candidates combined.

You have said that. What you haven't done is, in any way, demonstrate how 20 months experience as the executrix of Alaska makes her better qualified than someone who has decades of experience on a federal level.

Yes, she has more executive experience than Biden, Obama, and McCain combined, she also has more vaginas than Biden, Obama, and McCain combined. And I have more jewish relatives than all four of them combined.

The mere fact that she has more of something than the rest of them doesn't make her any qualified for the job of vice president of the united states than the fact that my cousin is having a Bar Mitzva next month makes me qualified. You haven't shown in any way why "executive experience" as mayor of Wasilla and less than 2 years as governor of alaska actually qualifies her for the job.

I pointed out how she's qualified because every governor is qualified.

I think I see the problem here. You live in Candy Land.

I do not agree that the Palin family has the right to basic privacy, when they certainly do not intend to grant that to others, nor to any respect, until they earn it.

Sorry, but just what has Palin's collective family done to invade other's privacy, and what hoops would they have to jump to earn your respect, exactly?

And he has probably never made a rape victim pay for a evidence collection kit, either.

Some people just rise to greatness. ;)

If the McSame/ICBINH ticket gets elected, that's probably part of their economic plan: Charge rape victims for evidence collection and put part of the money towards reducing the deficit. They can claim they're fixing the country's financial problems while spreading that subliminal evangelical "rape victims are filthy, filthy wores" message at the same time.

Well, if you limit it to executive experience, does that mean that legislators are automatically unqualified to be president unless they've held executive positions before?

Nope.

Also, when discussing the VP slot, wouldn't it be helpful to discuss legislative experience, as the VP is president of the Senate?

Nope.


So those in executive office never change their minds?

Who said that? I was specifically refering to difficult choices that can't wait to be made... sorry for any confusion that might have caused you.

Strangely, this sounds like experience that can be gained outside of executive office.

I don't recall saying it couldn't be gained elsewhere.

I believe you were asked for evidence that those with executive experience (which you have equated here to "governors") make better presidents.


Why, that wasn't my claim against Obama, that was Hillary's that he wasn't qualified, I never said it myself.

Geez, Tmutarakhan I just told off an Obamabot for being partisan and crude when commenting on a sensitive and perhaps upsetting episode in the Palin family, and then asked others to try and be more civil if we have to discuss it.

It seems to me that you're just picking at my post simply because I dared to suggest that Palin's family has even the slightest right to some basic privacy and respect.


Maybe it's because I originate from a different political climate, where we don't try to use every little excuse to kick an opponent when he's down.

I agree with your basic objection to the Obamabot and baseless allegations against (and crudity) towards Bristol Palin's pregnancy and engagement.

It is a bit ironic, however, to talk about "basic privacy and respect" regarding reproductive matters involving the family of someone that doesn't believe women deserve basic privacy and respect regarding reproductive matters.

And, while I don't believe Bristol Palin's decisions are being forced, it is true that Gov. Palin has publicly said in the past that even if her daughter was raped, she would not be allowed to get an abortion.

Nonetheless, I agree these aren't the most productive or dignifined bases to criticize the McCain/Palin ticket.

Sorry, but just what has Palin's collective family done to invade other's privacy, and what hoops would they have to jump to earn your respect, exactly?

Not abusing your wife's position to get someone fired, and not being so stupid as to not use birth control if you insist on having sex at the age of 17 is a start.

what do you think that obama is going to do to destroy the country?

Obama has some very "utopian" ideals, not so different from Mussolini, Hitler, and other extreme socialist. Hopefully a bit less violent of course. He has talked of nationalizing certain key industries, wage/price controls, and despite the unity he preaches he shows no tolerance for those of a different view. Even telling his followers at one point to argue and get into the face of those who do not agree with his message.

With the powers Bush has stolen, he is going to be a dangerous man. He also plans to go ahead with the Real ID program and has spoken possitively of the RFID option within it. Which proves he has no intention of fully restoring our privacy or removing the Presidential privileges granted to Bush. In a big brother government run by socialist we soon find the extremes of Nazism and Fascism. History has shown this lesson to be true.

Not to mention the message of Peace, Unity, Strength, Nationalism, Changing the world, and the future is ours message was spoke once before. By the very men I mentioned earlier. With his attempt at a 250,000 man youth movement to "help" Americans serve their country... You can see where all this is going.

what do you think that mccain would do to take us one step away from it?

McCain also supports Real ID and the RFID program, what makes his ideas worse is he thinks the States should have to pay for a Federal program. He of course strongly believes the powers taken by Bush should be used in the name of protecting Americans. He is quite likely to push for more tools to use in the fight against terrorism. This keeps us on track to the Oligarchy we are heading towards assuming we are not already there.

Foreign intervention, corporate bailouts, and continued fiscal irresponsibility are something they both have going for them. These continue to foster American hatred, big business taking major risk, and a question as to whether or not the future of our country will be able to govern at all or will all their hard earn money be going to pay off our national interest so we can have a few poorly run social programs.

Honestly this is not the same nation, we were given a Republic. We have a out of control Democracy.

The great news for them, in a Democracy the minority can not be heard. So people who hear those of us who believe in protecting American liberty's and the American dream are over looked, drowned out, or just dismissed.

Sorry, but just what has Palin's collective family done to invade other's privacy

I spoke of what she INTENDS to do, which is to impose her "family values" on all of us. She is running for an office which puts her in line for the most powerful office in the country, with one of her major policy aims being to reshape this nation's judiciary.
and what hoops would they have to jump to earn your respect, exactly?
A very minor amount of either honesty or courtesy would go a long way. Have you noticed yet that I very seriously dislike her?

Obama has some very "utopian" ideals, not so different from Mussolini, Hitler, and other extreme socialist. Hopefully a bit less violent of course. He has talked of nationalizing certain key industries, wage/price controls, and despite the unity he preaches he shows no tolerance for those of a different view. Even telling his followers at one point to argue and get into the face of those who do not agree with his message.

With the powers Bush has stolen, he is going to be a dangerous man. He also plans to go ahead with the Real ID program and has spoken possitively of the RFID option within it. Which proves he has no intention of fully restoring our privacy or removing the Presidential privileges granted to Bush. In a big brother government run by socialist we soon find the extremes of Nazism and Fascism. History has shown this lesson to be true.

Not to mention the message of Peace, Unity, Strength, Nationalism, Changing the world, and the future is ours message was spoke once before. By the very men I mentioned earlier. With his attempt at a 250,000 man youth movement to "help" Americans serve their country... You can see where all this is going.



McCain also supports Real ID and the RFID program, what makes his ideas worse is he thinks the States should have to pay for a Federal program. He of course strongly believes the powers taken by Bush should be used in the name of protecting Americans. He is quite likely to push for more tools to use in the fight against terrorism. This keeps us on track to the Oligarchy we are heading towards assuming we are not already there.

Foreign intervention, corporate bailouts, and continued fiscal irresponsibility are something they both have going for them. These continue to foster American hatred, big business taking major risk, and a question as to whether or not the future of our country will be able to govern at all or will all their hard earn money be going to pay off our national interest so we can have a few poorly run social programs.

Honestly this is not the same nation, we were given a Republic. We have a out of control Democracy.

The great news for them, in a Democracy the minority can not be heard. So people who hear those of us who believe in protecting American liberty's and the American dream are over looked, drowned out, or just dismissed.


Would you mind sourcing your claims please? All of them.

Obama has some very "utopian" ideals, not so different from Mussolini, Hitler, and other extreme socialist. Hopefully a bit less violent of course.Mussolini and Hitler weren't socialists. The fact you think they were speaks volumes.
He has talked of nationalizing certain key industries, wage/price controls, and despite the unity he preaches he shows no tolerance for those of a different view. Even telling his followers at one point to argue and get into the face of those who do not agree with his message.Source?

With the powers Bush has stolen, he is going to be a dangerous man. He also plans to go ahead with the Real ID program and has spoken possitively of the RFID option within it.Source?
Which proves he has no intention of fully restoring our privacy or removing the Presidential privileges granted to Bush. In a big brother government run by socialist we soon find the extremes of Nazism and Fascism. History has shown this lesson to be true.Again, Nazism and Fascism are not socialism. They're not even close.

Not to mention the message of Peace, Unity, Strength, Nationalism, Changing the world, and the future is ours message was spoke once before. By the very men I mentioned earlier. With his attempt at a 250,000 man youth movement to "help" Americans serve their country... You can see where all this is going.Who?



McCain also supports Real ID and the RFID program, what makes his ideas worse is he thinks the States should have to pay for a Federal program.Source? He of course strongly believes the powers taken by Bush should be used in the name of protecting Americans. He is quite likely to push for more tools to use in the fight against terrorism. This keeps us on track to the Oligarchy we are heading towards assuming we are not already there. Yeah, that's pretty much the Republican platform. The evil Muslims are out to get us, trust us!

Foreign intervention, corporate bailouts, and continued fiscal irresponsibility are something they both have going for them. These continue to foster American hatred, big business taking major risk, and a question as to whether or not the future of our country will be able to govern at all or will all their hard earn money be going to pay off our national interest so we can have a few poorly run social programs. Much as I loathe the bailout program to not do so would lead to another depression.


Nice rhetoric, completely wrong on a variety of points, with unsourced statements all around.

Obama has some very "utopian" ideals, not so different from Mussolini, Hitler, and other extreme socialist. Hopefully a bit less violent of course. He has talked of nationalizing certain key industries, wage/price controls, and despite the unity he preaches he shows no tolerance for those of a different view. Even telling his followers at one point to argue and get into the face of those who do not agree with his message.

With the powers Bush has stolen, he is going to be a dangerous man. He also plans to go ahead with the Real ID program and has spoken possitively of the RFID option within it. Which proves he has no intention of fully restoring our privacy or removing the Presidential privileges granted to Bush. In a big brother government run by socialist we soon find the extremes of Nazism and Fascism. History has shown this lesson to be true.

Not to mention the message of Peace, Unity, Strength, Nationalism, Changing the world, and the future is ours message was spoke once before. By the very men I mentioned earlier. With his attempt at a 250,000 man youth movement to "help" Americans serve their country... You can see where all this is going.



McCain also supports Real ID and the RFID program, what makes his ideas worse is he thinks the States should have to pay for a Federal program. He of course strongly believes the powers taken by Bush should be used in the name of protecting Americans. He is quite likely to push for more tools to use in the fight against terrorism. This keeps us on track to the Oligarchy we are heading towards assuming we are not already there.

Foreign intervention, corporate bailouts, and continued fiscal irresponsibility are something they both have going for them. These continue to foster American hatred, big business taking major risk, and a question as to whether or not the future of our country will be able to govern at all or will all their hard earn money be going to pay off our national interest so we can have a few poorly run social programs.

Honestly this is not the same nation, we were given a Republic. We have a out of control Democracy.

The great news for them, in a Democracy the minority can not be heard. So people who hear those of us who believe in protecting American liberty's and the American dream are over looked, drowned out, or just dismissed.

That tinfoil hat must be too tight.

Pray tell, for example, when has Obama talked about nationalizing certain key industries?

Obama has some very "utopian" ideals, not so different from Mussolini, Hitler, and other extreme socialist.

...and that's where i stopped. did i miss anything sane?

...and that's where i stopped. did i miss anything sane?

No not really. Lots of stuff that would be alarming if true, but none of it sourced.

I didn't attack Senators as not being qualified, I am defending Governors as being qualified.

Captains of Ships, CEO of corporations, Department Heads, sure, if you want your country to be run like a McDonalds, then go right ahead. You know, I've heard that some farmers make good Presidents too, do you want to belittle them next?

I call bullshit there, sorry. I have repeatedly, in many different posts and threads, said that Palin has more executive experience than all three of the other candidates combined. so no, you did not notice that I didn't answer about McCains executive experience, you just failed to notice.

That wasn't my argument was it? That was their argument against Palin for VP, saying she wasn't experienced enough, I pointed out how she's qualified because every governor is qualified. I didn't agrue that Obama isn't qualified, only tyring to asses how they think he is and she isn't.

So your only argument is NOT that Obama isn't qualified to be President, is NOT that Palin is more qualified to be President or Vice-President than Obama or Biden, and is NOT that McCain is more qualified to be President than Obama or Biden.

Your ONLY argument is that Palin is qualified because everyone who has been a governor of any state for any period of time is automatically qualified to be President or Vice-President.

And that argument you base on ..... nothing.

Glad you cleared that up.

So your only argument is NOT that Obama isn't qualified to be President, is NOT that Palin is more qualified to be President or Vice-President than Obama or Biden, and is NOT that McCain is more qualified to be President than Obama or Biden.

Your ONLY argument is that Palin is qualified because everyone who has been a governor of any state for any period of time is automatically qualified to be President or Vice-President.

And that argument you base on ..... nothing.

Glad you cleared that up.

as I said TCT, candy land.

Every elected Governor is qualified to be President. Not even every elected President is qualified to be president.

Nazism and Fascism are not forms of Socialism? Nationalizing key industries, providing wage/price controls, massive welfare, and health care programs.... sounds like a form of socialism to me. Certain I agree there are other elements to it, but they are forms of socialism. The fact you beleive they are so different speaks volumes for you.

sources eh

First part:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/poverty/
Minimum Wage is Not Enough: Even when a parent works full-time earning minimum wage and EITC and food stamps are factored into their income, families are still $1,550 below the federal poverty line because of the flat-lined minimum wage.
wage control.

Improve Transportation Access to Jobs: As president, Obama will work to ensure that low-income Americans have transportation access to jobs. Obama will double funding for the federal Jobs Access and Reverse Commute program to ensure that additional federal public transportation dollars flow to the highest-need communities and that urban planning initiatives take this aspect of transportation policy into account.
Federal Transportation (key industry)

Raise the Minimum Wage to $9.50 an Hour by 2011: Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe that people who work full time should not live in poverty. Even though the minimum wage will rise to $7.25 an hour by 2009, the minimum wage's real purchasing power will still be below what it was in 1968. As president, Obama will further raise the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour by 2011, index it to inflation and increase the Earned Income Tax Credit to make sure that full-time workers can earn a living wage that allows them to raise their families and pay for basic needs such as food, transportation, and housing - things so many people take for granted.
more wage control

Supports Affordable Housing Trust Fund: Obama has supported efforts to create an Affordable Housing Trust Fund to develop affordable housing in mixed-income neighborhoods.
Price control

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy

• Increase Fuel Economy Standards.
• Get 1 Million Plug-In Hybrid Cars on the Road by 2015.
• Create a New $7,000 Tax Credit for Purchasing Advanced Vehicles.
• Establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard.
• A “Use it or Lose It” Approach to Existing Oil and Gas Leases.
• Promote the Responsible Domestic Production of Oil and Natural Gas.
Indirect price control

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

this whole thing is nationalizing a key industry

think that covered all those without even digging to deep not like he hides it.

next

http://www.input.com/blogs/public/index.cfm/2008/9/12/Obama-on-REAL-ID-Hedging-his-bets

there are a hundred article about it, basically he thinks the concept is good but does not like the states having to fund it. He believes the federal government should.

and

again people may try to separate them but their principles are the same. nationalize industries, create, wage/price controls, ect... all the parts of socialism are in both, they just expand it some. The only real difference they admit they are controlling you for your own good while socialist try to make you believe you are in control.

and hate to go back to him but...

Hitler used everyone of those words to come to power.

McCain

http://www.input.com/blogs/public/index.cfm/2008/9/11/McCain-on-Real-ID-I-support-full-implementation-of-Real-ID

fully supports it

next

nice way to put words in my mouth

and

bailouts are part of the problem, they encourage companies to be irresponsible with their loans.

as for the guy after you....

See that is how a democracy works you can just dismiss me.

Your ONLY argument is that Palin is qualified because everyone who has been a governor of any state for any period of time is automatically qualified to be President or Vice-President.

And that argument you base on ..... nothing.

Well, actually if he wanted to he could say George W. Bush had been the governor of Texas for a couple of years and thus he is automatically qualified-

:D:D:D:D

I spoke of what she INTENDS to do, which is to impose her "family values" on all of us. She is running for an office which puts her in line for the most powerful office in the country, with one of her major policy aims being to reshape this nation's judiciary.

A very minor amount of either honesty or courtesy would go a long way. Have you noticed yet that I very seriously dislike her?

1. Indeed. And that would be most unfortunate.

2. Indeed. I'm not exactly a fan of her policies either, but I still regard her daughters pregancy as a largely private matter which, while significant and not off limits when discussing Palin's policies, shouldn't have to be needlessly probed into or worse conjectured about.

There are better targets to go after. Try winning the argument concerning "family values" by going after the substance instead of needlessly bringing up the daughter like she's a trump card.

I hope I'm making some sense.

I do not agree that the Palin family has the right to basic privacy, when they certainly do not intend to grant that to others, nor to any respect, until they earn it.That's silly. If you defend the right to privacy, then you need to defend it for everyone, even those that would deny it to others.

It's just annoying that in normal America, you can live free of the moral opinions of politicians, but in Soviet Republican America, Politicians can live free of your moral opinion.
I guess I oughta run for office so I can have a private life, too.

Nazism and Fascism are not forms of Socialism?

precisely

*this has been another edition of short answers to stupid questions

precisely

*this has been another edition of short answers to stupid questions

The American Right has worked its tail off to prove you can have a militarized economy and society without a welfare state. Fair play to them.

I still regard her daughters pregancy as a largely private matter which, while significant and not off limits when discussing Palin's policies...
What I heard you as saying is that it should be off limits.
If you defend the right to privacy, then you need to defend it for everyone, even those that would deny it to others.No I don't :D

Hmm... did anyone recall Barack Obama trying to censor media coverage on him?

AP: Reporters Allowed to Cover Palin at UN (http://news.aol.com/elections/article/reporters-allowed-to-cover-palin-at-un/183734?icid=200100397x1210312874x1200610416)

What's this about ICBINH being more qualified than Obama, especially in Foreign Relations?

Then again maybe she wasn't a last-minute pick like everyone expected if she's mastering the art of secrecy from Dear Leader's examples eh?

precisely

*this has been another edition of short answers to stupid questions

I explained how they are, you tell me how they are not. If you can't then stop stop asking for my sources.

"Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods."

Check, both fit that description

a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

check again

Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

check again

Amazing eh?

Nazism and Fascism are not forms of Socialism? Nationalizing key industries, providing wage/price controls, massive welfare, and health care programs.... sounds like a form of socialism to me. Certain I agree there are other elements to it, but they are forms of socialism. The fact you beleive they are so different speaks volumes for you.

sources eh

First part:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/poverty/
Minimum Wage is Not Enough: Even when a parent works full-time earning minimum wage and EITC and food stamps are factored into their income, families are still $1,550 below the federal poverty line because of the flat-lined minimum wage.
wage control.

Improve Transportation Access to Jobs: As president, Obama will work to ensure that low-income Americans have transportation access to jobs. Obama will double funding for the federal Jobs Access and Reverse Commute program to ensure that additional federal public transportation dollars flow to the highest-need communities and that urban planning initiatives take this aspect of transportation policy into account.
Federal Transportation (key industry)

Raise the Minimum Wage to $9.50 an Hour by 2011: Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe that people who work full time should not live in poverty. Even though the minimum wage will rise to $7.25 an hour by 2009, the minimum wage's real purchasing power will still be below what it was in 1968. As president, Obama will further raise the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour by 2011, index it to inflation and increase the Earned Income Tax Credit to make sure that full-time workers can earn a living wage that allows them to raise their families and pay for basic needs such as food, transportation, and housing - things so many people take for granted.
more wage control

Supports Affordable Housing Trust Fund: Obama has supported efforts to create an Affordable Housing Trust Fund to develop affordable housing in mixed-income neighborhoods.
Price control

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy

• Increase Fuel Economy Standards.
• Get 1 Million Plug-In Hybrid Cars on the Road by 2015.
• Create a New $7,000 Tax Credit for Purchasing Advanced Vehicles.
• Establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard.
• A “Use it or Lose It” Approach to Existing Oil and Gas Leases.
• Promote the Responsible Domestic Production of Oil and Natural Gas.
Indirect price control

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

this whole thing is nationalizing a key industry

think that covered all those without even digging to deep not like he hides it. I don't think you know what nationalizing means.

next

http://www.input.com/blogs/public/index.cfm/2008/9/12/Obama-on-REAL-ID-Hedging-his-betsIn January, CNET News attained the senator's only statement of record on the subject where he declares that he is against REAL ID, from your own source. He doesn't state whether there are any other issues with the system he disagrees or agrees with. You're stretching it to a blanket endorsement which is fallacious.

there are a hundred article about it, basically he thinks the concept is good but does not like the states having to fund it. He believes the federal government should.And yet you have no sources for this, at all.

again people may try to separate them but their principles are the same. nationalize industries, create, wage/price controls, ect... all the parts of socialism are in both, they just expand it some. The only real difference they admit they are controlling you for your own good while socialist try to make you believe you are in control.

and hate to go back to him but...

Hitler used everyone of those words to come to power. Yeah, GODWIN. I must say though, first time I've ever seen anyone compare Obama to Hitler.

McCain

http://www.input.com/blogs/public/index.cfm/2008/9/11/McCain-on-Real-ID-I-support-full-implementation-of-Real-ID

fully supports itNot shocked. Properly implemented it could be a boon to security.

next

nice way to put words in my mouth

and

bailouts are part of the problem, they encourage companies to be irresponsible with their loans.

as for the guy after you....

See that is how a democracy works you can just dismiss me.

No I dismiss you because you have no proof to back up your claims, and your other claims are absurd. You're under the impression that two noted non-socialist regimes in history are socialist. You're repeatedly linking Hitler to people on incredibly slim and fallacious grounds. That is why you're dismissed. You've the stench of a troll about you. I'd compare you to MeansToAnEnd, but he was far more eloquent.

Obama has some very "utopian" ideals, not so different from Mussolini, Hitler, and other extreme socialist. Oh, dear. No. Just no.
Hopefully a bit less violent of course. He has talked of nationalizing certain key industries,Like health care? What will they think of next, nationalizing defense? wage/price controls, Where and what?
and despite the unity he preaches he shows no tolerance for those of a different view. No tolerance? Less tolerance than the current administration?
Even telling his followers at one point to argue and get into the face of those who do not agree with his message.I have yet to hear him do this. In fact, I've heard him say the exact opposite. Perhaps you can enlighten us with a source?

With the powers Bush has stolen, he is going to be a dangerous man. He also plans to go ahead with the Real ID program and has spoken possitively of the RFID option within it. He has?
Which proves he has no intention of fully restoring our privacy or removing the Presidential privileges granted to Bush. Nope.
In a big brother government run by socialist we soon find the extremes of Nazism and Fascism. History has shown this lesson to be true.History has shown the exact opposite, considering that socialism and nazism are nigh diametrically opposed ideologies.
Not to mention the message of Peace, Unity, Strength, Nationalism, Changing the world, and the future is ours message was spoke once before. By the very men I mentioned earlier. With his attempt at a 250,000 man youth movement to "help" Americans serve their country... You can see where all this is going.Cept the change they were talking about was getting rid of the Jews and reinstating empires of old.
McCain also supports Real ID and the RFID program, what makes his ideas worse is he thinks the States should have to pay for a Federal program. He of course strongly believes the powers taken by Bush should be used in the name of protecting Americans. He is quite likely to push for more tools to use in the fight against terrorism. This keeps us on track to the Oligarchy we are heading towards assuming we are not already there.I was strongly tempted to break my vow to never use the new smilies and toss in the good ol' eyeroller, but I managed to resist the urge.
Foreign intervention, corporate bailouts, and continued fiscal irresponsibility are something they both have going for them. These continue to foster American hatred, big business taking major risk, and a question as to whether or not the future of our country will be able to govern at all or will all their hard earn money be going to pay off our national interest so we can have a few poorly run social programs.What, pray tell, do you mean by "American hatred"?
Honestly this is not the same nation, we were given a Republic. We have a out of control Democracy.Don't worry, the electoral college keeps it from being classified a democracy.
The great news for them, in a Democracy the minority can not be heard. So people who hear those of us who believe in protecting American liberty's and the American dream are over looked, drowned out, or just dismissed.Do you have a point or just a dull rant?

slim? apparently some people are only aware of the end of Hitler and do not realize how his rise to power took a very innocent peace and for the betterment of mankind philosophy. He promised social reform to help those in need and he delivered too. This is the classic tale of be known for one thing and all you else you did is erased. I am not saying Obama is going to slaughter the Jews and create a war I am saying Obama has the same political philosophies are the men who did. I think I proved enough that socialism and the other two are in the same category, just because they have some addition baggage does not mean they do not have socialistic backgrounds.

slim? apparently some people are only aware of the end of Hitler and do not realize how his rise to power took a very innocent peace and for the betterment of mankind philosophy. He promised social reform to help those in need and he delivered too. This is the classic tale of be known for one thing and all you else you did is erased. I am not saying Obama is going to slaughter the Jews and create a war I am saying Obama has the same political philosophies are the men who did. I think I proved enough that socialism and the other two are in the same category, just because they have some addition baggage does not mean they do not have socialistic backgrounds.

Jesus H. Christ, perhaps you aren't aware that Hitler did time for trying to violently overthrow the democratic government of Germany or wrote an entire book about how much he hated the Jews, 10 years before he sniffed power. Obama edited the Harvard Law Review and wrote a book about his dad. This is Godwin of freakin' roid rage proportions.

nationalization means state controlled. What do you think it means?

Nope.

So experience relevant to the job description shouldn't be discussed?

Who said that? I was specifically refering to difficult choices that can't want to be made... sorry for any confusion that might have caused you.

Ah, so you weren't drawing a comparison to legislative experience?

Why, that wasn't my claim against Obama, that was Hillary's that he wasn't qualified, I never said it myself.

Where did Hillary come from? Hillary's claims weren't a part of this discussion and her claims had nothing to do with whether or not Obama's experience was in an executive position.

slim? apparently some people are only aware of the end of Hitler and do not realize how his rise to power took a very innocent peace and for the betterment of mankind philosophy. He promised social reform to help those in need and he delivered too. This is the classic tale of be known for one thing and all you else you did is erased. I am not saying Obama is going to slaughter the Jews and create a war I am saying Obama has the same political philosophies are the men who did. I think I proved enough that socialism and the other two are in the same category, just because they have some addition baggage does not mean they do not have socialistic backgrounds.

You're a human, Hitler was human, ergo you're evil. Reductio ad Hiterlum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum).

Jesus H. Christ, perhaps you aren't aware that Hitler did time for trying to violently overthrow the democratic government of Germany or wrote an entire book about how much he hated the Jews, 10 years before he sniffed power.

Is that how he came to power? You people are funny. None of you provide me with anything but insults and dismissals yet expect me to prove everything.

Anyone think Chambrial might be a Balderdash puppet? Awfully convenient that Join Date.

Anyone think Chambrial might be a Balderdash puppet? Awfully convenient that Join Date.

No, you people do not think you just attack and request others to think.

Is that how he came to power? You people are funny. None of you provide me with anything but insults and dismissals yet expect me to prove everything.

I don't expect you to prove jack, mainly because you're full of it. Look up the Bier Hall Putsch in Wikipedia, jeeze. Peaceful, love freak hippy Hitler was always rather fond of rough tactics. He came to power by bashing Commies in the street and keeping the left vote split so the Nazis could backdoor Krautland in the election.

I explained how they are, you tell me how they are not. If you can't then stop stop asking for my sources.

"Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods."

Check, both fit that descriptionThat's not a definition, that's the introductory sentence from Wikipedia. Here's the definition it's paraphrased from:
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done The prime motivation of Nazism and Fascism have never been the advocation of collective and governmental ownership of the entire means of production, whereas that is the prime motivation of socialism. National Socialism (ironically a name chosen to leech off the impoverished vote that the Socialists were gaining) has always been about creating a unified state of one nationality where all individuals must strive together for the glory of the nation. Two completely different concepts, despite sharing some characteristics. That's why they're called totalitarian.
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

check againProve it. Nazism stipulates nothing of the sort.

Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

check againDefinitely not. That never occurred in Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy.
Amazing eh?
Nah, not really. People like you show up more often than you think.

Nazism and Fascism are not forms of Socialism?

Nope.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

this whole thing is nationalizing a key industry

...except it isn't. Try reading the actual plan next time.

think that covered all those without even digging to deep not like he hides it.

next

http://www.input.com/blogs/public/index.cfm/2008/9/12/Obama-on-REAL-ID-Hedging-his-bets

there are a hundred article about it, basically he thinks the concept is good but does not like the states having to fund it. He believes the federal government should.

So you can't show that he agrees with it or that he would push for it, just that he hasn't explicitly stated disagreement with it.

One would think that if it were something he planned to push, he'd mention it, no?

Hitler used everyone of those words to come to power.

Most politicians do.

No, you people do not think you just attack and request others to think.

Why is it every right wing nut job with 10 posts who shows up here and rattles off some nonsense thinks there's a problem with us?

Maybe the problem lies with the one who compared obama to hitler.

You people are funny.

I'm glad you find us amusing. It's our modest payback for the pure hilarity many have felt upon reading your posts.


Most politicians do.

Most politicians are Hitler!

Why is it every right wing nut job with 10 posts who shows up here and rattles off some nonsense thinks there's a problem with us?

Maybe the problem lies with the one who compared obama to hitler.

The Word of the Day is Projection (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Projection):

6 a: the act of perceiving a mental object as spatially and sensibly objective ; also : something so perceived b: the attribution of one's own ideas, feelings, or attitudes to other people or to objects ; especially : the externalization of blame, guilt, or responsibility as a defense against anxiety

Why is it every right wing nut job with 10 posts who shows up here and rattles off some nonsense thinks there's a problem with us?

Maybe the problem lies with the one who compared obama to hitler.I think he's a libertarian, actually. Based off the condemnation of both parties and the harping on about "freedoms".

nationalization means state controlled. What do you think it means?

Ah, so you do know what it means.

This clearly means that you simply haven't read Obama's healthcare plan. Maybe you should try doing so.

Anyone can say hateful words based on race or religion.

Here are quotes from Barack Hussein Obama's book, "Dreams Of My Father"...

From Dreams of My Father: 'I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.'

From Dreams of My Father : 'I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race.'

From Dreams of My Father: 'There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white.'

From Dreams of My Father: 'It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.'

From Dreams of My Father: 'I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa , that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself , the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.'

From Audacity of Hope: 'I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.'

This is not an attack on Obama by the way, I for one do not believe he still harbors any of these things. I am just pointing out a book means nothing. Past political stances mean nothing, people change.

I explained how they are, you tell me how they are not.

because they have opposite foundations, motivations, and, frankly, definitions. you don't know what either fascism or socialism are well enough to discuss them coherently. i could recommend some books and articles, if you like.

Anyone can say hateful words based on race or religion.

Here are quotes from Barack Hussein Obama's book, "Dreams Of My Father"...

Ah, the out-of-context quotes.

Have you read the books?

This is not an attack on Obama by the way, I for one do not believe he still harbors any of these things. I am just pointing out a book means nothing. Past political stances mean nothing, people change.

Actually, I'd guess that he absolutely does stand by the last quote. Of course, in context, you would find that he is speaking of Muslims in our own country - that, if laws were to be passed to restrict their freedoms on the basis of their religion, he would stand with them.

As for the rest, he didn't harbor them even when he wrote the book. He was reflecting on his own struggles with race relations - and his opinions of the past.

Anyone can say hateful words based on race or religion.

Here are quotes from Barack Hussein Obama's book, "Dreams Of My Father"...

From Dreams of My Father: 'I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.'

From Dreams of My Father : 'I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race.'

From Dreams of My Father: 'There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white.'

From Dreams of My Father: 'It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.'

From Dreams of My Father: 'I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa , that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself , the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.'

From Audacity of Hope: 'I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.'

This is not an attack on Obama by the way, I for one do not believe he still harbors any of these things. I am just pointing out a book means nothing. Past political stances mean nothing, people change.I should certainly hope he still harbors that one.

I should certainly hope he still harbors that one.

I can tell you that my pale ass does.

I should certainly hope he still harbors that one.

And looks like Balderdash Puppet is trying to revive the "Obama iz teh ebil mozlem" myth again.

I should certainly hope he still harbors that one.

Shhh!

You're supposed to believe that he means he'd support Al Qaeda over the US, didn't you know?

How about telling me how they are opposite if they both believe in the same social planning? I admit they are different, but pointed out their social similarities. Now you show how with those similarities they are still opposite. I say they are the same the opposite would be Anarchy. Can you prove me wrong? Just because someone tells you they are opposites, does not make them opposites.

So you believe in division by religion? Good to know.

Is that how he came to power? You people are funny. None of you provide me with anything but insults and dismissals yet expect me to prove everything I allege.
Fixed. And there's nothing wrong with asking you to back up your claims.

Shhh!

You're supposed to believe that he means he'd support Al Qaeda over the US, didn't you know?

Lynch mobs are all the rage these days. The trouble is finding a group of slavering, bloodthirsty idiots I really feel I belong in. Anybody know of a good one for young, Unitarian family men?

You only wish Sarah Palin was your mom...


...wait...no you don't. Probably a tyrannical ho.

Fixed. And there's nothing wrong with asking you to back up your claims.

Why not tell everyone else to start backing up theirs.

Why not tell everyone else to start backing up theirs.

nobody else is making such far out claims at the moment

so you believe in division by religion? Good to know.

cannot divide by religi0--0000h $&it!!!!

I think he's a libertarian, actually. Based off the condemnation of both parties and the harping on about "freedoms".

Oh gods it's a Paulbot 2.0. RUN!

That's not a definition, that's the introductory sentence from Wikipedia. Here's the definition it's paraphrased from:
The prime motivation of Nazism and Fascism have never been the advocation of collective and governmental ownership of the entire means of production, whereas that is the prime motivation of socialism. National Socialism (ironically a name chosen to leech off the impoverished vote that the Socialists were gaining) has always been about creating a unified state of one nationality where all individuals must strive together for the glory of the nation. Two completely different concepts, despite sharing some characteristics. That's why they're called totalitarian.
Prove it. Nazism stipulates nothing of the sort.

Definitely not. That never occurred in Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy.

Nah, not really. People like you show up more often than you think.

1. Indeed it is and it it fits Nazism and Fascism.

2. The distribution of wealth is the key to socialism and Nazism... to a lesser extent Fascism as Fascism is more on the nationalism aspect.

3. the Nazi movement in English is "National Socialism" how about that?

they are claiming I am wrong, prove me wrong.

1. Indeed it is and it it fits Nazism and Fascism.

2. The distribution of wealth is the key to socialism and Nazism... to a lesser extent Fascism as Fascism is more on the nationalism aspect.

3. the Nazi movement in English is "National Socialism" how about that?

3. The official name of Kim Jong Il's Satanic Disneyland is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Are you telling me you're so freakin stupid you believe that it's Democratic and a Republic?

How about telling me how they are opposite if they both believe in the same social planning? Trick question: Neither Nazism nor Fascism have the same social planning that Socialism aspires to. Next!
I admit they are different, but pointed out their social similarities. Both dogs and cats have fur. What is that supposed to tell us?
Now you show how with those similarities they are still opposite. Apart from they hate eachother's guts, Nazism pursues a strictly conservative/rightwing social platform while Socialism usually preaches egalitariansim?
I say they are the same the opposite would be Anarchy. This is why the political compass is so useful, because while Anarchy is at the opposite end of Totalitarianism, there's still a social scale. Socialism/Communism are on the "left" side and Nazism/Fascism are on the "right" side of the social values. So yeah, they're opposite, despite being on the same end of the governmental control scale.
Can you prove me wrong? Just because someone tells you they are opposites, does not make them opposites.Likewise a sixpost wonder saying they're the same is equally meaningless.

So you believe in division by religion? Good to know.

Where, pray tell, did this question come from?

I believe that he misinterpreted the quote to mean that he will fight the Christians for Muslim superiority.

I believe that he misinterpreted the quote to mean that he will fight the Christians for Muslim superiority.

It sure sounds like a deliberate mischaracterization, actually.

Well, I gave reasons so far, you have not. You speak of the "Political Spectrum" which people created to explain things, but this was the first post which you actually gave a reason why they are different. Now, they are different in some ways I agree, but opposites? Both are for government control of the populous and both have social program agendas. We will have to agree to disagree, because to me opposites require them to be opposite of each other in every way. They are not in my book for the reason as you said this is the 7th time posting.

But thank you for finally answering me.

And people are letting the troll hijack the thread. Yay.

Why not tell everyone else to start backing up theirs.Because you started. You made allegations, you prove them.
1. Indeed it is and it it fits Nazism and Fascism.List examples.
2. The distribution of wealth is the key to socialism and Nazism... to a lesser extent Fascism as Fascism is more on the nationalism aspect.List examples and show how they are the defining characterics of Nazism and Fascisms.
3. the Nazi movement in English is "National Socialism" how about that?There's a fun quote from "Das Spinnennetz":

"It's called the National Socialist German Workers' Party. But don't worry, they've got nothing to do with workers."

The name was primarily for propagandistic reasons. Most of the early voters were the disenfranchised of the depression. The NSDAP dropped any pretenses of caring for the working class, and thus socialism, when they instigated the Röhm Putsch to put the SA out of commission in favor of the more elitist SS.

I mean seriously, if the NSDAP was socialist because it called itself that, wouldn't that make the DPRK democratic?
they are claiming I am wrong, prove me wrong.You claimed you're right first, you prove you're right first.

That's how we play here. Otherwise I could allege you're a liar, and it would have to be considered true until you prove otherwise.

I believe that he misinterpreted the quote to mean that he will fight the Christians for Muslim superiority.

Yeah, that's essentially what I figured.

Which is completely and utterly ridiculous.

Seriously people, READ the book. It's not that long.


It sure sounds like a deliberate mischaracterization, actually.

Just a little bit. I mean, it's not a leap at all to get there from a quote referring to protecting the rights of Muslims. Nope, not at all.

On the religion thing, I would hope that a man of peace and unity chooses the side of peace and unity. Which would be neither side of a religious conflict, and he would promote tolerance by both for both.

And people are letting the troll hijack the thread. Yay.Oh, come on. It's been so long since we last got to feast on tender Paulbot flesh...

Just a little bit. I mean, it's not a leap at all to get there from a quote referring to protecting the rights of Muslims. Nope, not at all.

Although you have to admit in today's self-absorbed Reality Television addicted FOXNews licking Bush worshipping American populace anyone who'd support the basic human rights of Muslims would be considered a "terrorist supporter".

On the religion thing, I would hope that a man of peace and unity chooses the side of peace and unity. Which would be neither side of a religious conflict, and he would promote tolerance by both for both.

If you prevented an attack on a law abiding turban-wearing Sikh, the kind that happened after 9/11, would that count as "taking sides in a religious conflict"?

On the religion thing, I would hope that a man of peace and unity chooses the side of peace and unity. Which would be neither side of a religious conflict, and he would promote tolerance by both for both.Religious conflict? One would expect the "ugly" to refer to persecution. I should hope he stands against persecution.

On the religion thing, I would hope that a man of peace and unity chooses the side of peace and unity. Which would be neither side of a religious conflict, and he would promote tolerance by both for both.

Do you just enjoy proving your own ignorance?

That quote was not in reference to a religious conflict. It was in reference to the possibility that the political tide in this country might turn against members of a particular religion - and that their rights might be threatened.

Here let me prove I am right again and again in one post.

Big government + Socialist Programs = Similar to Socialism not opposite.
Big government + Socialist Programs = Similar to Socialism not opposite.
Big government + Socialist Programs = Similar to Socialism not opposite.
Big government + Socialist Programs = Similar to Socialism not opposite.
Big government + Socialist Programs = Similar to Socialism not opposite.

Did everyone read it now? Now go ahead call me a liar and prove it. Or stop bringing this one up.

On the religion thing, I would hope that a man of peace and unity chooses the side of peace and unity. Which would be neither side of a religious conflict, and he would promote tolerance by both for both.

That's a cute but fairly empty statement, given that the quote refers to the potential for oppression against Muslims and the need to stand firm against such a thing.

But go on quoting out of context, by all means. It's not as if we can't see what you're doing.

Here let me prove I am right again and again in one post.

Big government + Socialist Programs = Similar to Socialism not opposite.
Big government + Socialist Programs = Similar to Socialism not opposite.
Big government + Socialist Programs = Similar to Socialism not opposite.
Big government + Socialist Programs = Similar to Socialism not opposite.
Big government + Socialist Programs = Similar to Socialism not opposite.

Did everyone read it now? Now go ahead call me a liar and prove it. Or stop bringing this one up.

Big government + Socialist Programs = The US Military

The Armies is Communists!

Here let me prove I am right again and again in one post.

Big government + Socialist Programs = Similar to Socialism not opposite.
Big government + Socialist Programs = Similar to Socialism not opposite.
Big government + Socialist Programs = Similar to Socialism not opposite.
Big government + Socialist Programs = Similar to Socialism not opposite.
Big government + Socialist Programs = Similar to Socialism not opposite.

Did everyone read it now? Now go ahead call me a liar and prove it. Or stop bringing this one up.
I see no evidence of any sort. Try again.

Here let me prove I am right again and again in one post.

*snip*

Similar and "the same" are not equivalent.

You claimed that fascism was a form of socialism.

My pants and my shirt are similar. They're both made out of cotton. But my shirt is not a form of pants.

Meanwhile, "socialist programs" are not inherently a part of a fascist system.

Here let me prove I am right again and again in one post.

Big government + Socialist Programs = Similar to Socialism not opposite.
Big government + Socialist Programs = Similar to Socialism not opposite.
Big government + Socialist Programs = Similar to Socialism not opposite.
Big government + Socialist Programs = Similar to Socialism not opposite.
Big government + Socialist Programs = Similar to Socialism not opposite.

Did everyone read it now? Now go ahead call me a liar and prove it. Or stop bringing this one up.

BTW when you sit down to pound the keyboard for a long hard redbating session, do you lube up first?

Similar and "the same" are not equivalent.

You claimed that fascism was a form of socialism.

My pants and my shirt are similar. They're both made out of cotton. But my shirt is not a form of pants.

I said they were different, several times. It is you people who claim they are OPPOSITE, now your going to agree they are similar?

It sure sounds like a deliberate mischaracterization, actually.

I just figure that he is young and idealistic; easily taken by blogs that twist words/'facts' for him which he accepts without thinking because it's convenient and gives him ammunition to fight for his personal cause.

Ther is a good chance he is just being dishonest but something about his posts doesn't strike me that way. He just seems to believe what he wants to believe when it is convenient. I'm sure many of us have fallen prey to our own biases in such a way.

Maybe the trials he faces at NSG will help him in debates in the future.

I usually start off giving someone the benefit of the doubt. He doesn't seem to be a post and run troll, so there might be hope for this one yet :D

BTW when you sit down to pound the keyboard for a long hard redbating session, do you lube up first?

I am well aware none of the people are going to change their mind and I was aware it is unlikely anyone on this thread would ever have agreed with my statements in the first place. ;) I am just having fun listening to them make fools of themselves when they think they are making a fool of me.

I just figure that he is young and idealistic; easily taken by blogs that twist words/'facts' for him which he accepts without thinking because it's convenient and gives him ammunition to fight for his personal cause.

Ther is a good chance he is just being dishonest but something about his posts doesn't strike me that way. He just seems to believe what he wants to believe when it is convenient. I'm sure many of us have fallen prey to our own biases in such a way.

Maybe the trials he faces at NSG will help him in debates in the future.

I usually start off giving someone the benefit of the doubt. He doesn't seem to be a post and run troll, so there might be hope for this one yet :D

Well, if you're right, that sort of naiveté should get bled out pretty quickly.

I said they were different, several times. It is you people who claim they are OPPOSITE, now your going to agree they are similar?
Really how germane to any of this is it how close or distant they are?

Hocolesqua,

If they are close I can proclaim one like the other, if they are opposite I can not.

I am well aware none of the people are going to change their mind and I was aware it is unlikely anyone on this thread would ever have agreed with my statements in the first place. ;) I am just having fun listening to them make fools of themselves when they think they are making a fool of me.You read the rules on trolling?

Hocolesqua,

If they are close I can proclaim one like the other, if they are opposite I can not.

And what good does any of that do?

Hocolesqua,

If they are close I can proclaim one like the other, if they are opposite I can not.They are quite opposite in the goals they pursue, even if their methods to achieve them are similar.

I said they were different, several times. It is you people who claim they are OPPOSITE, now your going to agree they are similar?

Where did I say they were polar opposites?

They certainly come from diametrically opposed motivations, but in their more extreme forms seem to result in rather similar problems.

This does nothing, however, to support your claim that one is a form of the other.

Laerod

I am not trolling so much, trolling suggest I do not believe in the message I am trying to defend. I do believe in it, I just accept that you never will.

edit: which does allow me to go to an extreme I might normally I admit. I honestly do not care about the books or any of that. I just hate the idea that our founding fathers dreams are going up in smoke.

Hocolesqua
It helps visual my concerns.

Laerod

I am not trolling so much, trolling suggest I do not believe in the message I am trying to defend. I do believe in it, I just accept that you never will.

Hocolesqua
It helps visual my concerns.

What exactly does it imply for your argument, that they are or are not "opposite"?

Well, if you're right, that sort of naiveté should get bled out pretty quickly.

I'm wondering if I have already been proven wrong be the posts made during the time I was posting that.

Palin is the ultimate sexist. She uses her gender to protect herself, thus all the good press, because all of a sudden just about anything we call her (she doesn't know what it means, her real vocabulary being maybe 100 words) becomes sexist. I have my own problems with Obama and Biden, but I'd rather put two well-read hippies in the White House over one ancient jughead and a social conservative witch.

I'm a true conservative: get the government OUT of my life. If you think about the current 'far-right', they're so against every policy we've held for many years. It's like the Republicans are suddenly all rednecks. It seems that all of our Bill Buckleys and Barry Goldwaters have left their heir apparent as Ron Paul, which is a sad thing.

Laerod

I am not trolling so much, trolling suggest I do not believe in the message I am trying to defend. I do believe in it, I just accept that you never will.Not on this forum it doesn't.

It helps visualize my concerns, as I said in the quote. If those men came to power with the promises of social reform and then took that form of social slavery to an extreme... then it stand within reason to believe with the powers Bush has taken plus the social reforms Obama will add we will head in that direction. Maybe Obama is not a bad guy and does not take advantage of it, but once the power is with the government someone will eventually come along.

Palin is the ultimate sexist. She uses her gender to protect herself, thus all the good press, because all of a sudden just about anything we call her (she doesn't know what it means, her real vocabulary being maybe 100 words) becomes sexist. I have my own problems with Obama and Biden, but I'd rather put two well-read hippies in the White House over one ancient jughead and a social conservative witch.

I'm a true conservative: get the government OUT of my life. If you think about the current 'far-right', they're so against every policy we've held for many years. It's like the Republicans are suddenly all rednecks.

Goons are easier to mobilize en masse than the Ivy League Mayflower-crowd or Yankee farmers who used to make up the Republicans.

Not on this forum it doesn't.

So on this forum defending a non-populist view is trolling?

It helps visualize my concerns, as I said in the quote. If those men came to power with the promises of social reform and then took that form of social slavery to an extreme... then it stand within reason to believe with the powers Bush has taken plus the social reforms Obama will add we will head in that direction. Maybe Obama is not a bad guy and does not take advantage of it, but once the power is with the government someone will eventually come along.

Would this be worse than carrying the country to war under false pretenses and maintaining our official policy of judicial torture? Really your statement is an indictment of the current administration.

It helps visualize my concerns, as I said in the quote. If those men came to power with the promises of social reform and then took that form of social slavery to an extreme... then it stand within reason to believe with the powers Bush has taken plus the social reforms Obama will add we will head in that direction. Maybe Obama is not a bad guy and does not take advantage of it, but once the power is with the government someone will eventually come along.

Others have promised social reform without going to such extremes.

And, believe it or not, Obama recognizes the fact that Bush has claimed power that the president should not have. Personally, I quite like the idea of a Constitutional scholar in the White House after someone who quite clearly didn't give it any consideration. If anyone is going to do something to return the balance of power, it will be someone who understands what it is supposed to be.

Others have promised social reform without going to such extremes.

And, believe it or not, Obama recognizes the fact that Bush has claimed power that the president should not have. Personally, I quite like the idea of a Constitutional scholar in the White House after someone who quite clearly didn't give it any consideration. If anyone is going to do something to return the balance of power, it will be someone who understands what it is supposed to be.

If we have to take it on any amount of faith at all, Obama has demonstrated a far greater commitment to traditional American Constitutional government than any Republican who could win the nomination, let alone McCain and his Christbunny.

Hocolesqua - obviously I do not approve of the Republicans policies either, I stated that in the past. It is just people defending Obama more than McCain that makes it seem contrary.

It helps visualize my concerns, as I said in the quote. If those men came to power with the promises of social reform and then took that form of social slavery to an extreme... then it stand within reason to believe with the powers Bush has taken plus the social reforms Obama will add we will head in that direction. Maybe Obama is not a bad guy and does not take advantage of it, but once the power is with the government someone will eventually come along.

Have we seen anything by Obama in his current or past positions that would suggest he is a fascist in the making?

Also, please explain:

- how Obama's plan will nationalize healthcare in your own words. You do know what his plan is right?

- how raising the minimum wage is a bad thing.

- how helping to create affordable housing is a bad thing.

- how promoting alternative energy is a bad thing

- how givng low-income kids money for college is bad by asking them to first serve their country

So on this forum defending a non-populist view is trolling?On this forum, believing the bullshit you harp just to get a reaction is no protection from being held accountable.

Have we seen anything by Obama in his current or past positions that would suggest he is a fascist in the making?

Also, please explain:

- how Obama's plan will nationalize healthcare in your own words. You do know what his plan is right?

- how raising the minimum wage is a bad thing.

- how helping to create affordable housing is a bad thing.

- how promoting alternative energy is a bad thing

- how givng low-income kids money for college is bad by asking them to first serve their countryBecause it's socialism, SB! It's bad by definition, even if it helps people!

also please don't just say "minimum wage = price controls"
real explanations would be preferable

Hocolesqua - obviously I do not approve of the Republicans policies either, I stated that in the past. It is just people defending Obama more than McCain that makes it seem contrary.

No, according to you he's just an angry black who will make us all Muslims.

Because it's socialism, SB! It's bad by definition, even if it helps people!

Wise man once say: you can call me red, but you can't call me yellow.

Because it's socialism, SB! It's bad by definition, even if it helps people!

hitler!!!!!111!

Have we seen anything by Obama in his current or past positions that would suggest he is a fascist in the making?

Also, please explain:

- how Obama's plan will nationalize healthcare when in your own words. You do know what his plan is right?

- how raising the minimum wage is a bad thing.

- how helping to create affordable housing is a bad thing.

- how promoting alternative energy is a bad thing

- how givng low-income kids money for college is bad by asking them to first serve their country

In essence it is similar to Mussolini's approach regulated to a point that the government controls the service. Mussolini used that very approach on most industries. Telling the companies who they have to insure for what price what kind of coverage ect... It's a slicker form of control, oh you own your company still... but you have to run it how we tell you.

wage control causes job loses, believe it or not. Even in the Government With the rise of minimum wage our local transportation department will have to fire people. The same works in private companies as well and furthers to push them to cheaper labor over seas.

Price control ruins the free market but increasing the cost of non-controlled items and limiting the willingness to sell on the market for those items controlled.

Promoting things is not a bad thing, I never said it was.

I also never said anything about his 4k for college students who perform community service.

But thanks for adding those two to my non-existent attacks

It's hard to imagine there is such a thing as "cheaper labor" overseas, since the Yankee Dollar is worth what, half a yen now?

In essence it is similar to Mussolini's approach regulated to a point that the government controls the service. Mussolini used that very approach on most industries. Telling the companies who they have to insure for what price what kind of coverage ect... It's a slicker form of control, oh you own your company still... but you have to run it how we tell you.

wage control causes job loses, believe it or not. Even in the Government With the rise of minimum wage our local transportation department will have to fire people. The same works in private companies as well and furthers to push them to cheaper labor over seas.

Price control ruins the free market but increasing the cost of non-controlled items and limiting the willingness to sell on the market for those items controlled.

Promoting things is not a bad thing, I never said it was.

I also never said anything about his 4k for college students who perform community service.

But thanks for adding those two to my non-existent attacks
Back
Your
Allegations
Up

No, according to you he's just an angry black who will make us all Muslims.

We will leave it at that, as you obviously have reach the bottom of you bag to bring up false statements about my beliefs. That is an attempt to plead to the masses to dismiss me for being a racist which I am not. In fact the government I advocate is the only was 12% of the population is equal to the rest. Which make me about as un-elitist, racist, group oriented as possible.

We will leave it at that, as you obviously have reach the bottom of you bag to bring up false statements about my beliefs. That is an attempt to plead to the masses to dismiss me for being a racist which I am not. In fact the government I advocate is the only was 12% of the population is equal to the rest. Which make me about as un-elitist, racist, group oriented as possible.

You're not a racist, just a cynic, who will pretend to believe such rot for God knows what twisted purpose.

Back
Your
Allegations
Up

I have over and over and over, but if you wish leave me a message and I will go into detail about that last statement tomorrow. Not that you will ever accept my views because your not even trying to be open about them. I must go for now.

We will leave it at that, as you obviously have reach the bottom of you bag to bring up false statements about my beliefs. That is an attempt to plead to the masses to dismiss me for being a racist which I am not. In fact the government I advocate is the only was 12% of the population is equal to the rest. Which make me about as un-elitist, racist, group oriented as possible.Nifty double-standard there. Throwing idiotic interpretations of people's posts is fine, unless its done to you, apparently.

I have over and over and over, but if you wish leave me a message and I will go into detail about that last statement tomorrow. Not that you will ever accept my views because your not even trying to be open about them. I must go for now.I have yet to see a single example that goes into greater detail than "Mussolini did this..."

In case you were wondering, that's not adequate. Prove your allegations by providing concrete examples. Mussolini was in power for a while and it's been well documented what he did. You should have no trouble finding examples that undermine the comparison between Obama and Mussolini, and then sourcing them. Unless, of course, this isn't possible because there are no valid comparisons.

Nifty double-standard there. Throwing idiotic interpretations of people's posts is fine, unless its done to you, apparently.

Black people are the new racists. Got an issue with a black dude? He's probably a racist! Jesse Jackson going around the world getting hostages released? Racist! Charlie Rangel stonewalling your bill in Congress? Racist! Big bouncer won't let you into the club? Racist!

- how raising the minimum wage is a bad thing.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/new-federal-minimum-wage-rate/story.aspx?guid={8F1B63BF-2664-4F51-A726-1FA4D552887F}&dist=hppr

To summarize - raising the minimum wage causes job losses. Some people might consider that a bad thing(tm).

The study found that for every 10% increase in the minimum wage, employment among 16-29 year olds without a high school degree decreased between 6 and 14 percent.

The study does go on to say it's worst in a stagnant economy - which is a no-brainer. However, in any economy raising the minimum wage will result in job losses. Small businesses can't take those kind of hits forever.

I have yet to see a single example that goes into greater detail than "Mussolini did this..."

In case you were wondering, that's not adequate. Prove your allegations by providing concrete examples. Mussolini was in power for a while and it's been well documented what he did. You should have no trouble finding examples that undermine the comparison between Obama and Mussolini, and then sourcing them. Unless, of course, this isn't possible because there are no valid comparisons.

Lest we forget, Mussolini was the absolute pansiest of all fascists, ever. We should be so lucky that his preening, incompetent ilk are the greatest threat to freedom.

So let me get this straight Chambrial...

You are completely anti-regulation?

Captains of Ships, CEO of corporations, Department Heads, sure, if you want your country to be run like a McDonalds, then go right ahead. You know, I've heard that some farmers make good Presidents too, do you want to belittle them next?

Wait - did you honestly just, this week of all weeks, use CEOs as an example of "people who are automatically well-qualified to run things because they have 'executive experience'"?

Raising the minimum wage to >0 left millions of African Americans unemployed in 1865. The Democrat Party just wanted them all on welfare.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/new-federal-minimum-wage-rate/story.aspx?guid={8F1B63BF-2664-4F51-A726-1FA4D552887F}&dist=hppr

To summarize - raising the minimum wage causes job losses. Some people might consider that a bad thing(tm).



The study does go on to say it's worst in a stagnant economy - which is a no-brainer. However, in any economy raising the minimum wage will result in job losses. Small businesses can't take those kind of hits forever.

650 economists disagree
http://www.epi.org/minwage/epi_minimum_wage_2006.pdf

The economists, assembled by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) and including such heavy-hitters as Nobel winners Kenneth Arrow, Clive Granger, Robert Solow and Joseph Stiglitz, issued a statement that lays out the case for increasing the federal minimum wage:

We believe that a modest increase in the minimum wage would improve the well-being of low-wage workers and would not have the adverse effects that critics have claimed.

While controversy about the precise employment effects of the minimum wage continues, research has shown that most of the beneficiaries are adults, most are female, and the vast majority are members of low-income working families.

As economists who are concerned about the problems facing low-wage workers, we believe the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2005’s proposed phased-in increase in the federal minimum wage to $7.25 falls well within the range of options where the benefits to the labor market, workers, and the overall economy would be positive.

You people are funny.
Funny, how? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_ff46b58Hk)

I thought it was quaint that we were being quoted Laissez-Faire Orthodoxy chapter and verse again. It was kind of like getting a phrenology reading.

Wait - did you honestly just, this week of all weeks, use CEOs as an example of "people who are automatically well-qualified to run things because they have 'executive experience'"?

Tee hee. Yep, some people still buy that.

The head of the US Fed said with a straight face that the economy is teetering on destruction because of over reaching homeowners and banks being willing to loan to them... and completely left out all the trading in mortgage derivatives and short selling that drove every greedy investment bank in the US out of business in less than a month. Kinda like blaming the price of gas in the US on people who own Jeeps when everyone knows about 50% of that price is based on unregulated trading of petroleum futures.

And the head of the SEC said that their 3 page request for $700 billion that specifically forbids legislative and judicial oversight never said that, that they welcome oversight, and they expect Congress to enact the oversight they think is appropriate. As long as they do that immediately or they'll be responsible for a disaster. :$

Of course their evidence that they know it will work is that disaster hasn't happened yet because they keep throwing money at things and buying up bad debt. So they must know what they're doing. Except they presided over the economy getting into this mess. So who better to trust with the future of the US economy than the guys who let go of the wheel and let it drive itself into a ditch?

Please. I've got your executive experience right here. :p

No matter who gets elected, day one will be a migraine and we can thank the current occupant for that.
....
High Counselor Eustace
People's Republic of Monkeys in Helmets

650 economists disagree
http://www.epi.org/minwage/epi_minimum_wage_2006.pdf

650 whole economists disagree? Wow. Because, you know, out of the 15,000 approximate people who hold this job, that's a whole...wait a second, let me do the math....4.3 percent of the economists, in this country, who have disagreed with the statement that minimum wage increases cause job losses.

650 whole economists disagree? Wow. Because, you know, out of the 15,000 approximate people who hold this job, that's a whole...wait a second, let me do the math....4.3 percent of the economists, in this country, who have disagreed with the statement that minimum wage increases cause job losses.

Oh please, you have to be smart enough to know that because 650 got together and disagreed doesnt by default mean that every other economist out there agrees?


Please dear sweet god, please tell me you are smarter then that.

650 whole economists disagree? Wow. Because, you know, out of the 15,000 approximate people who hold this job, that's a whole...wait a second, let me do the math....4.3 percent of the economists, in this country, who have disagreed with the statement that minimum wage increases cause job losses.

Hilarious.

So you have a source that the other 95.7% think that raising the minimum wage does hurt the economy? I don't think so.

Hilarious.

So you have a source that the other 95.7% think that raising the minimum wage does hurt the economy? I don't think so.

From the same organization that published 650 economists agreed...


http://www.epionline.org/study_detail.cfm?sid=107

Let's look at some of the salient points there:

Almost three-fourths of labor economists (73%) believe that a mandated minimum wage increase set at 150% of the current wage would result in employment losses.

Not surprisingly, when asked which of these three best addresses the income needs of poor families, 70% said an expanded EITC, 21% said general welfare supports, and only 9% said a higher minimum wage.

In contrast, only 6% of labor economists believe an increased minimum wage would lead to employment gains, 29% believe it would lead to no change in employment, and 65% believe there would be employment losses.

From the same organization that published 650 economists agreed...


http://www.epionline.org/study_detail.cfm?sid=107

Let's look at some of the salient points there:

I haven't seen anyone claim raising the minimum wage will not lead to job loss; those 650 economists are simply saying that the benefits will exceed the costs.

To summarize - raising the minimum wage causes job losses. Some people might consider that a bad thing(tm).

the question is, do the positives outweigh the negatives? even with no other changes, it is not clear that moderate increases in the minimum wage actually do any real damage to anything and there is some evidence of positive value associated with them. and let's face it, it's not like anyone wants to merely increase the minimum wage and declare victory forever.

Obama has some very "utopian" ideals, not so different from Mussolini, Hitler, and other extreme socialist. Hopefully a bit less violent of course. He has talked of nationalizing certain key industries, wage/price controls, and despite the unity he preaches he shows no tolerance for those of a different view. Even telling his followers at one point to argue and get into the face of those who do not agree with his message.

With the powers Bush has stolen, he is going to be a dangerous man. He also plans to go ahead with the Real ID program and has spoken possitively of the RFID option within it. Which proves he has no intention of fully restoring our privacy or removing the Presidential privileges granted to Bush. In a big brother government run by socialist we soon find the extremes of Nazism and Fascism. History has shown this lesson to be true.

Not to mention the message of Peace, Unity, Strength, Nationalism, Changing the world, and the future is ours message was spoke once before. By the very men I mentioned earlier. With his attempt at a 250,000 man youth movement to "help" Americans serve their country... You can see where all this is going.



McCain also supports Real ID and the RFID program, what makes his ideas worse is he thinks the States should have to pay for a Federal program. He of course strongly believes the powers taken by Bush should be used in the name of protecting Americans. He is quite likely to push for more tools to use in the fight against terrorism. This keeps us on track to the Oligarchy we are heading towards assuming we are not already there.

Foreign intervention, corporate bailouts, and continued fiscal irresponsibility are something they both have going for them. These continue to foster American hatred, big business taking major risk, and a question as to whether or not the future of our country will be able to govern at all or will all their hard earn money be going to pay off our national interest so we can have a few poorly run social programs.

Honestly this is not the same nation, we were given a Republic. We have a out of control Democracy.

The great news for them, in a Democracy the minority can not be heard. So people who hear those of us who believe in protecting American liberty's and the American dream are over looked, drowned out, or just dismissed.
thank you for responding to my post! i didnt expect you to come back. i had some computer problems this afternoon so i didnt get to see your response until now. if it still requires a response, ill do so after i read through the responses you already received to it.

Oh please, you have to be smart enough to know that because 650 got together and disagreed doesnt by default mean that every other economist out there agrees?


Please dear sweet god, please tell me you are smarter then that.

Something tells me a class on statistics would do him well.

LOL... Okay then. These tidbits aren't attacks then...

*everything you say about McCain/Palin is false
That's not a personal attack. It's a statement of fact, backed up by the content of the thread itself.

*You have slogged -- blindly, obviously
"Slogged," as in the hard grinding work of reading through all these posts. We are all slogging through this thread. Like slogging through a mire.

"Blindly, obviously," as a suggestion of why you have so consistently ignored every fact presented to you in the thread. In other words, I am suggesting you have been keeping this thread going but not actually reading it.

*You are lying, and you are doing it as deliberately as they are.
It is my opinion that no intelligent person can so consistently contradict documented facts for so long unless they are doing it on purpose. You are an intelligent person. Ergo, I believe you are contradicting the facts on purpose. That means I believe you are lying.

It is not a personal attack because it is based on an analysis of your arguments.

*your flashing-neon-obvious lies
They are very obvious.

*you have been doing for weeks now is playing the stereotypical Dishonest Bushevik Clown Doll that your opponents occupy their spare time beating up for laughs, like a pinata, when we have nothing more interesting to do. Your carryings on are so outrageous that I would think you are actually engaging in an extended parody act, except that I don't think even the most accomplished actor could stay in character and improv so many words for so long.

*quit this and salvage some little bit of your dignity, but I'm sorry to say you have none left to save.

*maybe, in time, someone will be able to respect you again, when this performance is far enough behind you

*if you prefer to continue making a fool of yourself

*destroying the reptutations of McCain and Palin just by associating with them
It is very sad that you have no clue that this is how you are being perceived as a result of your arguments in this thread. I was trying to tell you how you appear, but apparently you are too caught up in your performance to objectively critique what is happening here.

Two years ago, Obama said HE wasn't ready to run for President...

And, since this is not now two years ago, this is relevent, how?

I call bullshit there, sorry. I have repeatedly, in many different posts and threads, said that Palin has more executive experience than all three of the other candidates combined...

Didn't you just say "I didn't attack Senators as not being qualified, I am defending Governors as being qualified." In this very thread, no less? In this very post, no less?

So - how is her miniscule experience greater than the other three combined?

Ah, so you do know what it means.

This clearly means that you simply haven't read Obama's healthcare plan. Maybe you should try doing so.

Personally, I'd be a lot happier with Obama if he WAS in favour of nationalising healthcare. But he's never even suggested it, unfortunately.

Looking at the current economy, this poltergeist version of Obama that would be uber-regulator, price-setter, wage-setter, nationaliser President... might be the best hope the US has to avoid deep recession. Shame he's not real.

Anyone can say hateful words based on race or religion.

Here are quotes from Barack Hussein Obama's book, "Dreams Of My Father"...

From Dreams of My Father: 'I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.'

From Dreams of My Father : 'I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race.'

From Dreams of My Father: 'There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white.'

From Dreams of My Father: 'It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.'

From Dreams of My Father: 'I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa , that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself , the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.'

From Audacity of Hope: 'I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.'

This is not an attack on Obama by the way, I for one do not believe he still harbors any of these things. I am just pointing out a book means nothing. Past political stances mean nothing, people change.

If you pull stuff straight from someone else's site, you're supposed to at least credit the source. This looks a lot like stuff I've seen before... (like word-for-word).

So you believe in division by religion? Good to know.

You're saying that those who supported Jews against Nazism believed "in division by religion"? Good to know.

I keep wanting to catch up on this thread, and every time I try, I realize two things: 1) All the fans of Caribou Barbie are just going to keep shifting the goalposts and refusing to answer questions directly, no matter who calls them on it, or how often (including when Caribou Barbie was getting in her photo ops with Mohammed Karzei and Henry Kissinger -- which only Palin staffers were allowed to witness or record in any way...isn't that at least a little telling?); and 2) those here actually willing to keep fighting this battle of wits against such chronically unarmed opposition are doing superbly without any extra input from me. Kudos, and keep it up...but only as long as you can before insanity sets in.

I keep wanting to catch up on this thread, and every time I try, I realize two things: 1) All the fans of Caribou Barbie are just going to keep shifting the goalposts and refusing to answer questions directly, no matter who calls them on it, or how often (including when Caribou Barbie was getting in her photo ops with Mohammed Karzei and Henry Kissinger -- which only Palin staffers were allowed to witness or record in any way...isn't that at least a little telling?); and 2) those here actually willing to keep fighting this battle of wits against such chronically unarmed opposition are doing superbly without any extra input from me. Kudos, and keep it up...but only as long as you can before insanity sets in.
Caribou Barbie!! :D :D :D Thanks for that one.

Anyone can say hateful words based on race or religion.

Here are quotes from Barack Hussein Obama's book, "Dreams Of My Father"...

From Dreams of My Father: 'I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.'

From Dreams of My Father : 'I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race.'

From Dreams of My Father: 'There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white.'

From Dreams of My Father: 'It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.'

From Dreams of My Father: 'I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa , that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself , the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.'

From Audacity of Hope: 'I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.'

This is not an attack on Obama by the way, I for one do not believe he still harbors any of these things. I am just pointing out a book means nothing. Past political stances mean nothing, people change.

How are any of these words hateful?

Also, from what complete context were these words taken?

To me, "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction" means that he won't play on fear-based stereotypes and cast the whole of the Muslim world as some kind of nebulous "enemy".

The book is actually quite important if it shows how he transformed from someone who wanted to downplay his white half to someone who understood that such divisions were harmful. Those quotes don't show me what he believes now, they show me what he went through then to become who he is now. To go from a pretty standard anti-White, Black-intellectual upbringing and stance to someone genuinely interested in the welfare of the nation, and color be hanged, well, that shows me someone who understands what it is to grow as a person and allow for experience to shape your beliefs.

That's the kind of President I want (for once).

Caribou Barbie!! :D :D :D Thanks for that one.

I wish I could say I coined it. I can't remember where I heard it first, but there's a Web site (of course): http://www.cariboubarbie.com (http://www.cariboubarbie.com/).

How are any of these words hateful?

Also, from what complete context were these words taken?

To me, "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction" means that he won't play on fear-based stereotypes and cast the whole of the Muslim world as some kind of nebulous "enemy".

The book is actually quite important if it shows how he transformed from someone who wanted to downplay his white half to someone who understood that such divisions were harmful. Those quotes don't show me what he believes now, they show me what he went through then to become who he is now. To go from a pretty standard anti-White, Black-intellectual upbringing and stance to someone genuinely interested in the welfare of the nation, and color be hanged, well, that shows me someone who understands what it is to grow as a person and allow for experience to shape your beliefs.

That's the kind of President I want (for once).

That's an...interesting way to put it. :p

That's an...interesting way to put it. :p

Oh fuckbeans, did I type that? "X be hanged" is an expression that means "never mind X". I didn't think of the unfortunate lynching image it might have been linked to.

However, I didn't even remotely mean it that way, so I won't change it.

I'm sure you've already done this somewhere, but please humor me and give concrete examples of Palin's reformation of big oil corruption in Alaska.

More than that, I'll explain the reform I want her to duplicate, but in Washington and National Oil/Government oversight corruption and waste as well...

Taxing the Oil companies in a fair way, not a favored way…September 4, 2007
Governor Sarah Palin today unveiled a new oil and gas tax plan. The proposal comes after an extensive evaluation of the current Petroleum Profits Tax by the Department of Revenue. That evaluation showed the state is expected to receive $800 million less for the current fiscal year than would have been expected under the actual PPT documentation presented by the prior administration. The new plan, called Alaska's Clear and Equitable Share, or ACES, is a hybrid of a gross and net tax system. It includes a minimum 10 percent tax based on gross receipts for the North Slope's legacy fields with a 25 percent net tax to encourage new development and reinvestment in existing infrastructure. ACES also allows for tax credits on future work. It restricts capital expense deductions to scheduled maintenance and implements strong audit and information sharing provisions.

"In case there is any question on where we stand, let me be clear - PPT doesn't work as promised," said Governor Palin. "There are those who would say we should do nothing and that we should continue the PPT experiment. Doing nothing is not an option. This clearer, equitable plan fulfills our state constitution mandate that says I'm to develop our resources for the maximum benefit of all Alaskans."
http://alaskareport.com/news907/z46633_alaska_pipeline.htm

In addition to Oil corruption/favoritism - Ethics reform bill… May 15, 2007
From the governor's press release - Governor Sarah Palin today thanks members of the Legislature for passage of House Bill 109, the Governor's ethics bill. In January, Governor Palin proposed legislation to improve Alaska's ethics and disclosure laws. Legislators combined those proposals with many of their own, crafting a bill that makes many substantial improvements to Alaska's laws.
http://www.alaskareport.com/z45944_alaska_ethics_bill.htm

Oil corruption corrections December 12, 2007 (notice how pissed the oil companies are afterwards by their remarks...)
One decisive response to the scandal came last month, when the legislature rewrote the 2006 tax bill that critics say was hopelessly tainted. Gov. Sarah Palin, a reform-minded Republican who has clashed famously with her party's establishment, called for the special session to "restore public trust in our oil and gas value system."

The oil-tax bill that resulted – passed Nov. 16 – raised overall rates, tightened allowances for deductions and investment credits, and closed loopholes. Gone, for example, are credits for investments made several years ago and the ability of companies to write off public-relations and lobbying expenses. The measure includes an explicit ban on credits or deductions for costs of repairing or replacing improperly maintained equipment.

"We didn't blink," says Senate Judiciary Chairman Hollis French, an Anchorage Democrat. "You just don't see the sort of reflex subservience that you saw in the '70s, '80s, and even '90s."

Meanwhile, stunned oil companies say the new tax bill, estimated to bring in an extra $1.5 billion in annual state revenues, is a money grab.

"You can't tell me that [this is] anything more than a feeding frenzy," Jim Bowles, president of ConocoPhillips Alaska Inc., said at an industry conference last month in Anchorage.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1212/p02s02-uspo.html?page=1

Cutting Pork, excess expenses go bye bye… April 3, 2008
Alaska governor Sarah Palin did just what she said she would, she took a large knife and cut the fat from the supplemental bill.http://alaskareport.com/news48/z51168_budget_palin.htm


For your perusal - the State Budget W/veto cuts slashed out for 2008…
http://alaskareport.com/pdf/SB256w_vetoes.pdf


THAT's executive experience.

More than that, I'll explain the reform I want her to duplicate, but in Washington and National Oil/Government oversight corruption and waste as well...

Thank you.

Despite my critiques below, much of what you quote is impressive. But given that she opposes increasing oil taxes on the national level (in fact, she and McCain want to decrease corporate taxes), how is she going to repeat these feats?

Taxing the Oil companies in a fair way, not a favored way…September 4, 2007

http://alaskareport.com/news907/z46633_alaska_pipeline.htm

Um. Apparently "alaskareport.com" is in the habit of simply printing press releases. (I've looked around the site and it is full of straight press releases.)

You skipped in this article the part just before what you quoted that said: "From a Governor Palin press release:"

In addition to Oil corruption/favoritism - Ethics reform bill… May 15, 2007
From the governor's press release -*snip*
http://www.alaskareport.com/z45944_alaska_ethics_bill.htm

Notice the bold.

Oil corruption corrections December 12, 2007 (notice how pissed the oil companies are afterwards by their remarks...)
*snip*
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1212/p02s02-uspo.html?page=1

Good for her.

She took advantage of the corruption scandals to hike oil taxes. Too bad she is against doing the same thing federally.

Of course, you probably overlooked the part of the article about corruption by Senator Ted Stevens -- to whom Palin stayed closely tied right up until he was indicted. Or how Palin herself has taken lots of money from the oil companies.

Cutting Pork, excess expenses go bye bye… April 3, 2008
Alaska governor Sarah Palin did just what she said she would, she took a large knife and cut the fat from the supplemental bill.http://alaskareport.com/news48/z51168_budget_palin.htm

1. "From an Alaska state press release:"

2. From a budget of $4.3 billion, she cut $22.3 million. Somebody smarter than me can do the math, but that doesn't seem that impressive.

3. Again, out of 171 projects, she cut a total of 16. That was all the fat?

For your perusal - the State Budget W/veto cuts slashed out for 2008…
http://alaskareport.com/pdf/SB256w_vetoes.pdf

Um. I don't believe this is accurate -- or at least the amounts of items it shows vetoed doesn't match the press release quoted above.

Nor do I agree that all of the things shown as vetoed were bad. Elementary school books, for example.

I also note, that despite Palin's alleged aversion to federal pork, federal funding accounted for 16% of Alaska’s total revenue in FY 2007.

THAT's executive experience.

Yeah, if you ask the Palin Administration, they say good things about her. Not that surprising.

Now wanna talk about the nasty things in her record, like the rape kits?

http://alaskareport.com/news98/x61620_rape_palin.htm

2. From a budget of $4.3 billion, she cut $22.3 million. Somebody smarter than me can do the math, but that doesn't seem that impressive.

3. Again, out of 171 projects, she cut a total of 16. That was all the fat?



0.519% and 9.357%, respectively.

I will go over your whole post more tomorrow, but this point I will ask...


1. "From an Alaska state press release:"

2. From a budget of $4.3 billion, she cut $22.3 million. Somebody smarter than me can do the math, but that doesn't seem that impressive.

3. Again, out of 171 projects, she cut a total of 16. That was all the fat?

What are you counting? A quick scan down the .pdf report shows me at least 161 vetoes in the Act, not 16.

I will go over you whole post more tomorrow, but this point I will ask...

What are you counting? A quick scan down the .pdf report shows me 161 vetoes in the Act, not 16.

From your source (emphasis added):

From an Alaska state press release: Governor Sarah Palin today signed Senate Bill 256, the FY2008 supplemental bill, into law. The supplemental totals $4.3 billion and includes $18.5 million for the Senior Benefits Program, $44.7 million for bargaining unit agreements, $300 million for energy conservation, $125 million for oil and gas tax credits, and $3.6 billion in savings in the state's Constitutional Budget Reserve and Statutory Budget Reserve funds.

"Alaska is blessed to have surplus revenues that we can save for the future when oil price and production declines. I applaud legislators for committing $3.6 billion of the FY08 surplus to savings," Governor Palin said. "At the same time, high oil prices have hit Alaskans hard in the cost of energy. Funding for weatherization and energy efficiencies will help families across the state."

The supplemental bill also contained $70 million in capital projects that were vetoed last summer. When signing the bill, Governor Palin said supplemental budgets are generally reserved for unforeseen expenses, not items that should be part of a capital budget. The Governor met with lawmakers to discuss the importance of the projects. Based on timing concerns, the governor left 52 projects totaling $12.4 million in the supplemental.

The Governor is recommending that the House Finance Committee consider 155 of the projects totaling $35.4 million as an amendment to the capital budget. The remaining 16 projects totaling $22.3 million were vetoed.

"I appreciate our lawmakers' willingness to discuss the individual projects and the timing concerns," Governor Palin said. "It is time to move beyond the supplemental and work together in a cooperative manner to move Alaska forward."

From your source (emphasis added):

From an Alaska state press release: Governor Sarah Palin today signed Senate Bill 256, the FY2008 supplemental bill, into law. The supplemental totals $4.3 billion and includes $18.5 million for the Senior Benefits Program, $44.7 million for bargaining unit agreements, $300 million for energy conservation, $125 million for oil and gas tax credits, and $3.6 billion in savings in the state's Constitutional Budget Reserve and Statutory Budget Reserve funds.

"Alaska is blessed to have surplus revenues that we can save for the future when oil price and production declines. I applaud legislators for committing $3.6 billion of the FY08 surplus to savings," Governor Palin said. "At the same time, high oil prices have hit Alaskans hard in the cost of energy. Funding for weatherization and energy efficiencies will help families across the state."

The supplemental bill also contained $70 million in capital projects that were vetoed last summer. When signing the bill, Governor Palin said supplemental budgets are generally reserved for unforeseen expenses, not items that should be part of a capital budget. The Governor met with lawmakers to discuss the importance of the projects. Based on timing concerns, the governor left 52 projects totaling $12.4 million in the supplemental.

The Governor is recommending that the House Finance Committee consider 155 of the projects totaling $35.4 million as an amendment to the capital budget. The remaining 16 projects totaling $22.3 million were vetoed.

"I appreciate our lawmakers' willingness to discuss the individual projects and the timing concerns," Governor Palin said. "It is time to move beyond the supplemental and work together in a cooperative manner to move Alaska forward."

Oh I get it.... You are looking at the article where its says 155 and 16, but you misunderstood, they are all crossed out veto items in the bill. The 155 are crossed out line item veto style but she is telling the House Finance Committee to consider them for an amendment to the capital budget, but the other 16 that she's vetoed she's essentially saying don't try again... I don't know how to identify which are the 155 and which are the 16 in the .pdf file, but the pdf file shows a very large number of line item vetoes from the supplemental bill and if they count to 171 I wouldn't be surprised.

Quick scan of your post tells me that this little misunderstanding clarifies two of your objections. 1, it is a way bigger cutting of the fat than you first thought, AND 2. you objected to some of the things being cut, and she gave the House Finance Committee a way of still providing for many of those things... So she cut more than you thought AND she agreed with you that some of those things should be looked at closer and perhaps funded.

I have over and over and over, but if you wish leave me a message and I will go into detail about that last statement tomorrow. Not that you will ever accept my views because your not even trying to be open about them. I must go for now.

You've repeated the same bullshit over and over. Which makes sense because you're likely parroting that bullshit from elsewhere.

I don't think Palin is fond of combating Global Warming.

because they have opposite foundations, motivations, and, frankly, definitions.
Really? I was wondering some of the groups I go to didn't have an obsession with Lebensraum...

I mean seriously, if the NSDAP was socialist because it called itself that, wouldn't that make the DPRK democratic?

DPRK: A democracy of one person :p (though it is more an oligarchy based around one person).

Thank you.

Despite my critiques below, much of what you quote is impressive. But given that she opposes increasing oil taxes on the national level (in fact, she and McCain want to decrease corporate taxes), how is she going to repeat these feats?

Seeing as how she will be VP and not the President, I'm not pretending she can do everything she wants. However, McCain and Palin have said in the their stump speeches that her 'assignment' will be oil and energy and ethics reform, so the stuff she's good at is the stuff he picked her for and the job he's says he's going to give her.

She took advantage of the corruption scandals to hike oil taxes. Too bad she is against doing the same thing federally.

She didn't take 'advantage' of the corruption to tax them, she's ending the corruption and taxing them at a fair rate, it's not a 'windfall' or 'punishment for success' tax. Perhaps you've also noticed that in the last couple of weeks or so the national oil and energy sex scandals that were revealed? It looks like the corruption wasn't only in Alaska, if elected, Palin will be in a position to do for all of us what she did in Alaska and put an end to that crap and then use her expertise to help all the states that are about to have offshore drilling and don't know how to protect their interests with the big oil companies slight of hand deals.

Of course, you probably overlooked the part of the article about corruption by Senator Ted Stevens -- to whom Palin stayed closely tied right up until he was indicted. Or how Palin herself has taken lots of money from the oil companies.

I didn't overlook the Stevens stuff, I don't have the same opinion of it as you do, probably because I don't think your summation of the events around Stevens is accurate.

As far back as September of last year, Palin has been asking her political ally Stevens to come clean, that he owes Alaskans an explanation...
http://www.adn.com/news/politics/fbi/stevens/story/243337.html
And she asked that Stevens and his son should resign from the RNC while the probes take place...
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/alaska-governor-sen.-stevenss-son-should-quit-rnc-2007-09-20.html

Since then, corruption is being rooted out...
http://alaskareport.com/news78/x61447_alaska_corruption.htm

As to the oil money, what's your point? Oil companies, like mortgage giants Freddie and Fanny, give money to both sides during the elections. I've even seen editorials in Alaska that wonder if the oil companies want Palin to win the VP just so they can get her out of Alaska and get someone else more favorable to them back in office there... Tinfoil hat stuff I think.


Now wanna talk about the nasty things in her record, like the rape kits?
http://alaskareport.com/news98/x61620_rape_palin.htm


Well that article is an editorial. And even as I agree with the authors outrage at Alaskan rape statistics and the lack of progress in reducing it, clearly the author is also an anti-Palin or perhaps anti republican writer. the main evidence against Palin on the issue is that she isn't spending enough to prevent rape in Alaska, and I agree, they should do more to try prevent more rapes and rape victims should have more resources at their disposal for their investigation and trauma and recovery.

However, the irrational level that these accusations about Palin being anti-woman and pro-rapist etc., etc., etc., are partisan IPUKED arguments, IMO.

Seeing as how she will be VP and not the President

Considering the McCain/Palin ticket is trailing by 9 points, no, no she won't.

Considering the McCain/Palin ticket is trailing by 9 points, no, no she won't.

I'm seeing only a +2 points for Obama today at Rasmussen (49% vs. 47%), and I'm seeing Palin beating Biden straight up.

I'm seeing only a +2 points for Obama today at Rasmussen (49% vs. 47%), and I'm seeing Palin beating Biden straight up.

Gallup has Obama up by 3 points (47 to 44), American Research group has him up by 2 (48 to 46), Zogby says 3 points (47 to 44), Quinnipac has Obama up by 4 points (49 to 45). I'm kind of curious what has given McCain a boost.

Gallup has Obama up by 3 points (47 to 44), American Research group has him up by 2 (48 to 46), Zogby says 3 points (47 to 44), Quinnipac has Obama up by 4 points (49 to 45). I'm kind of curious what has given McCain a boost.

ABC/Washing Post polls have him up by 9%.

Gallup has Obama up by 3 points (47 to 44), American Research group has him up by 2 (48 to 46), Zogby says 3 points (47 to 44), Quinnipac has Obama up by 4 points (49 to 45). I'm kind of curious what has given McCain a boost.

Biden?

We shouldn't have done that add, FDR went on Television and told America in no uncetain terms exactly what was going on after the stock market crash in 1929, Hillary would have been better etc.?

I'm seeing only a +2 points for Obama today at Rasmussen (49% vs. 47%), and I'm seeing Palin beating Biden straight up.

Irrelevent, Palin and Biden arent the heads of the ticket. And after the VP debates, Palin will only have the loon votes.

I'm seeing only a +2 points for Obama today at Rasmussen (49% vs. 47%), and I'm seeing Palin beating Biden straight up.Seeing as she's only VP and all that. But seriously now, Palin beats McCain too. That ain't good news for the Republicans.

...Taxing the Oil companies in a fair way... Governor Sarah Palin today unveiled a new oil and gas tax plan. The proposal comes after an extensive evaluation of the current Petroleum Profits Tax by the Department of Revenue. That evaluation showed the state is expected to receive $800 million less for the current fiscal year... The oil-tax bill that resulted – passed Nov. 16 – raised overall rates, tightened allowances for deductions and investment credits, and closed loopholes... Gone... are credits for investments made several years ago... Meanwhile, stunned oil companies say the new tax bill, estimated to bring in an extra $1.5 billion in annual state revenues, is a money grab.


Awesome. So 'fiscal conservatism', in Sarah Palin's playbook - is to raise taxes, reduce deduction allowances, and remove credits for investment?


"We didn't blink," says Senate Judiciary Chairman Hollis French, an Anchorage Democrat. "You just don't see the sort of reflex subservience that you saw in the '70s, '80s, and even '90s."


Awesome again. Sarah Palin's catchphrase "we don't blink" is stolen from a Democrat. Love it.

Caribou Barbie!! :D :D :D Thanks for that one.
I said "Thanks, but no thanks" to that B*tch from Nowhere!

I said "Thanks, but no thanks" to that B*tch from Nowhere!

Was that before or after you said "Yes please" and then changed your tune when it became too expensive/a national embarassment?;)

Irrelevent, Palin and Biden arent the heads of the ticket. And after the VP debates, Palin will only have the loon votes.

Unfortunately, that is not a small demographic.

Unfortunately, that is not a small demographic.

Not sure, lets see. Its really easy to figure out how big that demographic is. Whats Bush's approval rating down to?;)

Not sure, lets see. Its really easy to figure out how big that demographic is. Whats Bush's approval rating down to?;)

27%, IIRC. But you have to remember the people who are dissatisfied with Bush because he hasn't nuked the Middle East.

27%, IIRC. But you have to remember the people who are dissatisfied with Bush because he hasn't nuked the Middle East.And hasn't made any progress on acid proof alligators for the acid moat to protect America from the immigrants. Or the moat, for that matter.

Awesome. So 'fiscal conservatism', in Sarah Palin's playbook - is to raise taxes, reduce deduction allowances, and remove credits for investment?

Sure, but let me fix that for you: raise taxes to where they belong on big Oil companies, reduce deduction allowances for big oil companies, tightened allowances for deductions and investment credits, and closed loopholes for big oil companies, and removed credits for investments made several years ago by big oil companies...


Awesome again. Sarah Palin's catchphrase "we don't blink" is stolen from a Democrat. Love it.

That's right, she'll work across party lines to stop corruption and install fair taxation.

That's right, she'll work across party lines to stop corruption and install fair taxation.

Buwahahahaha.

Biden?

We shouldn't have done that add, FDR went on Television and told America in no uncetain terms exactly what was going on after the stock market crash in 1929, Hillary would have been better etc.?

As opposed to "the foundations of the economy are sound"

As opposed to "the foundations of the economy are sound"

they are sound

In essence it is similar to Mussolini's approach regulated to a point that the government controls the service. Mussolini used that very approach on most industries. Telling the companies who they have to insure for what price what kind of coverage ect... It's a slicker form of control, oh you own your company still... but you have to run it how we tell you.

...except that's not how the plan works. The government isn't telling any given insurance company how they must do anything. Instead, the government is saying, "We're looking for such and such in a plan. Who will provide this plan to the American people for an affordable price?" It is, in essence, much like companies that negotiate insurance plans for their employees.

No insurance company will be forced to do anything other than live up to the contract they choose to sign.

they are sound

Which is why our economy is trashed, right?


No. No they arent.

Which is why our economy is trashed, right?


No. No they arent.

Wall street might be having problems, but if you think 7% unemployment is trashed, I suggest you look at Europe, I suppose they are destitute in your book?

Wall street might be having problems, but if you think 7% unemployment is trashed, I suggest you look at Europe, I supposed they are destitute in your book?

Theres more to a crappy economy then unemployment. Cost of commedeties like food, housing, and gas (all are on the rise), the strength of the dollar (weak as fuck), the potential for greater inflation and rising inflation rates, and yes, wall street. And all of these inevitably contribute to unemployment and cause it to rise.


In Fundie land, the economy may be fine. Here in the real world, it isnt.

Theres more to a crappy economy then unemployment. Cost of commedeties like food, housing, and gas (all are on the rise), the strength of the dollar (weak as fuck), and yes, wall street.


In Fundie land, the economy may be fine. Here in the real world, it isnt.

Housing? Are you confusing yourself? The value of housing is down right now, thus it is more purchasable, not less attainable. Its a buyers market if you want to purchase a house... Whereas, selling a house aint so good if you bought it only a few years ago as an investment :p

Wall street might be having problems, but if you think 7% unemployment is trashed, I suggest you look at Europe, I suppose they are destitute in your book?

The credit industry is all better? The banking industry is sound? State budges are ok? The Federal deficit is ok?

So what foundations are you talking about?

Housing? Are you confusing yourself? The value of housing is down right now, thus it is more purchasable, not less attainable. Its a buyers market if you want to purchase a house... Whereas, selling a house aint so good :p

Yeah, its easy to buy a house, not so easy to get a loan/mortgage.


So, that does hurt the housing market.

The credit industry is all better? The banking industry is sound? State budges are ok? The Federal deficit is ok?

So what foundations are you talking about?

Apperantly rising food prices, crashing stocks, a weak, nearly infirm dollar, and rising inflation dont mean squat.

Housing? Are you confusing yourself? The value of housing is down right now, thus it is more purchasable, not less attainable. Its a buyers market if you want to purchase a house... Whereas, selling a house aint so good :p

Correct. However, for those unfortunate enough to get an ARL before the housing bubble burst, the cost is increasing.

I don't share your optimism about the market - however, I don't think that the market is soon to crash.

Correct. However, for those unfortunate enough to get an ARL before the housing bubble burst, the cost is increasing.

I don't share your optimism about the market - however, I don't think that the market is soon to crash.


Credit is the problem. The lenders are not handing out loans to easily. People aren't rushing to buy because of the next wave of foreclosures that are coming....

Credit is the problem. The lenders are not handing out loans to easily. People aren't rushing to buy because of the next wave of foreclosures that are coming....

None of this is that scary though if you own so many houses you forget the exact number.

No wonder he thinks the fundamentals are strong.

Well that article is an editorial. And even as I agree with the authors outrage at Alaskan rape statistics and the lack of progress in reducing it, clearly the author is also an anti-Palin or perhaps anti republican writer. the main evidence against Palin on the issue is that she isn't spending enough to prevent rape in Alaska, and I agree, they should do more to try prevent more rapes and rape victims should have more resources at their disposal for their investigation and trauma and recovery.

However, the irrational level that these accusations about Palin being anti-woman and pro-rapist etc., etc., etc., are partisan IPUKED arguments, IMO.

I picked an article (http://alaskareport.com/news98/x61620_rape_palin.htm) from YOUR SOURCE to try to keep you from using the "it's just biased argument."

Is CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/21/palin.rape.exams/?iref=hpmostpop) just biased too?

The facts are fairly straight-forward that the Palin administration (1) changed city policy from paying for rape kits to charging rape victims for them and (2) opposed the change in law at the state level that stopped charging victims for evidence collection.

Or is reality biased and insulting to Palin?

Maybe what is really insulting is requiring rape victims to pay for their own evidence collection kits.

Oh I get it.... You are looking at the article where its says 155 and 16, but you misunderstood, they are all crossed out veto items in the bill. The 155 are crossed out line item veto style but she is telling the House Finance Committee to consider them for an amendment to the capital budget, but the other 16 that she's vetoed she's essentially saying don't try again... I don't know how to identify which are the 155 and which are the 16 in the .pdf file, but the pdf file shows a very large number of line item vetoes from the supplemental bill and if they count to 171 I wouldn't be surprised.

Quick scan of your post tells me that this little misunderstanding clarifies two of your objections. 1, it is a way bigger cutting of the fat than you first thought, AND 2. you objected to some of the things being cut, and she gave the House Finance Committee a way of still providing for many of those things... So she cut more than you thought AND she agreed with you that some of those things should be looked at closer and perhaps funded.

Perhaps there is some misunderstanding on my part, as the state press release was very confusingly written.

But you can straighten that out?

Out of a final budget that ran to $4.3 billion, how much did Palin actually veto out of the budget?

Out of the final budget how many programs did Palin actually end up vetoing and keeping from being funded out of how many programs proposed?

I picked an article (http://alaskareport.com/news98/x61620_rape_palin.htm) from YOUR SOURCE to try to keep you from using the "it's just biased argument."

Is CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/21/palin.rape.exams/?iref=hpmostpop) just biased too?

The facts are fairly straight-forward that the Palin administration (1) changed city policy from paying for rape kits to charging rape victims for them and (2) opposed the change in law at the state level that stopped charging victims for evidence collection.

Or is reality biased and insulting to Palin?

Maybe what is really insulting is requiring rape victims to pay for their own evidence collection kits.



Why are you so sexist? We all know that rape victims dont deserve proper care because they were dirty sluts and were asking for it.

Why are you so sexist? We all know that rape victims dont deserve proper care because they were dirty sluts and were asking for it.

And if they try and have an abortion, they should be stopped and criminally prosecuted.

Yep. That Palin is quite the feminist.

I picked an article (http://alaskareport.com/news98/x61620_rape_palin.htm) from YOUR SOURCE to try to keep you from using the "it's just biased argument."

Is CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/21/palin.rape.exams/?iref=hpmostpop) just biased too?

The facts are fairly straight-forward that the Palin administration (1) changed city policy from paying for rape kits to charging rape victims for them and (2) opposed the change in law at the state level that stopped charging victims for evidence collection.

Or is reality biased and insulting to Palin?

Maybe what is really insulting is requiring rape victims to pay for their own evidence collection kits.

Thanks Cat! I was wondering if she knew about it or had a hand in it, etc....

Cheers!

And if they try and have an abortion, they should be stopped and criminally prosecuted.

Yep. That Palin is quite the feminist.

You know it's funny but before "feminist" used to annoy me and I would argue against things, etc.

Since those two started talking, I have become a feminist......

Thanks Cat! I was wondering if she knew about it or had a hand in it, etc....

Cheers!

You're most welcome. Here is more data with links to city documents from Wasilla: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-alperinsheriff/sarah-palin-instituted-ra_b_125833.html

And if they try and have an abortion, they should be stopped and criminally prosecuted.

Yep. That Palin is quite the feminist.

Were the ones charged for the rape kits allowed to bill the expense with their insurance company, if so available?

I read the article before, but I'm assuming that you have a better knowledge of it than I do. I mean, one has to wonder if the budget of the county that the law was changed for was really that bad, but I am unsure if this was a move to increase revenue at the expense of insurance companies or not...

Credit is the problem. The lenders are not handing out loans to easily. People aren't rushing to buy because of the next wave of foreclosures that are coming....

If you want to get a traditional loan with 20% etc., there is no problem getting a loan. If you want to get one of the risky for the bank loans because you have bad credit or no money down, they yeah, you're going to have a hard time getting a loan, and you should have a hard time getting a loan. It's those bad loans that caused this problem to begin with.

If you want to get a traditional loan with 20% etc., there is no problem getting a loan.

Prove it. Conventional wisdom and the state of such industry says otherwise.

If you want to get a traditional loan with 20% etc., there is no problem getting a loan. If you want to get one of the risky for the bank loans because you have bad credit or no money down, they yeah, you're going to have a hard time getting a loan, and you should have a hard time getting a loan. It's those bad loans that caused this problem to begin with.

Guess you missed all the reports of people that are in good standing and are having problems getting loans.

I picked an article (http://alaskareport.com/news98/x61620_rape_palin.htm) from YOUR SOURCE to try to keep you from using the "it's just biased argument."

Is CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/21/palin.rape.exams/?iref=hpmostpop) just biased too?

The facts are fairly straight-forward that the Palin administration (1) changed city policy from paying for rape kits to charging rape victims for them and (2) opposed the change in law at the state level that stopped charging victims for evidence collection.

Or is reality biased and insulting to Palin?

Maybe what is really insulting is requiring rape victims to pay for their own evidence collection kits.


I didn't call it biased as in false, I called it an editorial opinion piece because it is an editorial opinion piece. I didn't comment on the CNN piece.

During the time Palin was mayor of Wasilla, her city was not the only one in Alaska charging rape victims. Experts testified before the Legislature that in a handful of small cities across Alaska, law enforcement agencies were charging victims or their insurance "more than sporadically."

One woman who wrote in support of the legislation says she was charged for her rape exam by a police department in the city of Juneau, which is hundreds of miles from Wasilla.

But Wasilla stood out. Tara Henry, a forensic nurse who has been treating rape victims across Alaska for the last 12 years, told CNN that opposition to Croft's bill from Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon was memorable.

"Several municipal law enforcement agencies in the state did have trouble budgeting and paying for the evidence collection for sexual assault victims," Henry said. "What I recall is that the chief of police in the Wasilla police department seemed to be the most vocal about how it was going to affect their budget."

Croft has a similar memory. He said victims' advocates suggested he introduce legislation as a way to shame cities into changing their practice, and Wasilla resisted.

"I remember they had continued opposition," Croft said. "It was eight years ago now, but they were sort of unrepentant that they thought the taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for that."

He does not recall discussing the issue with then-Mayor Palin.

I didn't call it biased as in false, I called it an editorial opinion piece because it is an editorial opinion piece. I didn't comment on the CNN piece.

During the time Palin was mayor of Wasilla, her city was not the only one in Alaska charging rape victims. Experts testified before the Legislature that in a handful of small cities across Alaska, law enforcement agencies were charging victims or their insurance "more than sporadically."

One woman who wrote in support of the legislation says she was charged for her rape exam by a police department in the city of Juneau, which is hundreds of miles from Wasilla.

But Wasilla stood out. Tara Henry, a forensic nurse who has been treating rape victims across Alaska for the last 12 years, told CNN that opposition to Croft's bill from Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon was memorable.

"Several municipal law enforcement agencies in the state did have trouble budgeting and paying for the evidence collection for sexual assault victims," Henry said. "What I recall is that the chief of police in the Wasilla police department seemed to be the most vocal about how it was going to affect their budget."

Croft has a similar memory. He said victims' advocates suggested he introduce legislation as a way to shame cities into changing their practice, and Wasilla resisted.

"I remember they had continued opposition," Croft said. "It was eight years ago now, but they were sort of unrepentant that they thought the taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for that."

He does not recall discussing the issue with then-Mayor Palin.

What part of what you quoted do you think looks good for Palin, beyond the "Wasilla may not have been the only city to ever do this" excuse?

EDIT: I like your policy on bias/reliability. Press releases from the Palin Administration about how great Palin is are reliable, but an editorial from the same paper running the press release isn't -- so much so that it doesn't even deserve a response.

Were the ones charged for the rape kits allowed to bill the expense with their insurance company, if so available?

I read the article before, but I'm assuming that you have a better knowledge of it than I do. I mean, one has to wonder if the budget of the county that the law was changed for was really that bad, but I am unsure if this was a move to increase revenue at the expense of insurance companies or not...

It would depend entirely on the insurance policy. Some medical insurance specifically doesn't cover rape kits precisely because they are almost exclusively for evidence collection and not medical treatment.

Those that do cover it, usually still charge deductibles and co-pays.

Luckily, federal law written by Joe Biden and opposed by John McCain helped change this at a federal level, so that rape victims aren't supposed to be charged anymore.

Were the ones charged for the rape kits allowed to bill the expense with their insurance company, if so available?

Since the original article said the insurance was charged where available, I think the answer to this is yes.

Let's also clear up a few facts:

This line item was denoted "contractual services", and was described on page G-26 of that budget (available in this PDF on page 42) as covering "costs for medical blood tests for intoxicated drivers & medical exam/evidence collection for sexual assaults." As a member of the city council at the time, Palin was required to read and approve this budget. The contractual services line item was more succinctly described in the 1995 and 1996 budgets as "costs for medical blood tests or exams as required for evidence."

When the item was removed from the budget, it was simply listed as "costs for medical blood tests or exams as required for evidence". Prior years showed this cost also covered blood tests for intoxicated drivers. Unless you were in Palin's head at the time she crossed this item off the list, you cannot know whether she thought she was removing a line item which covered tests for rape kits. You are, once again, assuming. But then, there's been a lot of that on both sides.

Let's also clear up a few facts:

When the item was removed from the budget, it was simply listed as "costs for medical blood tests or exams as required for evidence". Prior years showed this cost also covered blood tests for intoxicated drivers. Unless you were in Palin's head at the time she crossed this item off the list, you cannot know whether she thought she was removing a line item which covered tests for rape kits. You are, once again, assuming. But then, there's been a lot of that on both sides.

Oooh, nice try at a substantive response. A few points:

1. You appear to have overlooked that from your own quote, the line-item had been explicit while Palin was a member of the city council.(emphasis added):

This line item was denoted "contractual services", and was described on page G-26 of that budget (available in this PDF on page 42) as covering "costs for medical blood tests for intoxicated drivers & medical exam/evidence collection for sexual assaults."

I guess you could argue that despite having approved the budgets before Palin was so busy running a small town that she didn't notice this major change in policy instituted by her hand-picked police chief. But that's "executive experience" for you.

2. You fail entirely to explain why the Palin Administration changed the policy.

3. You fail entirely to explain why the Palin Administration resisted attempts to change the policy back and opposed the state law on the issue.

Since the original article said the insurance was charged where available, I think the answer to this is yes.

This, of course, assumes that said insurance policy a) covers non-emergency medical expenses and b) comes with a low deductible.


Let's also clear up a few facts:

When the item was removed from the budget, it was simply listed as "costs for medical blood tests or exams as required for evidence". Prior years showed this cost also covered blood tests for intoxicated drivers. Unless you were in Palin's head at the time she crossed this item off the list, you cannot know whether she thought she was removing a line item which covered tests for rape kits. You are, once again, assuming. But then, there's been a lot of that on both sides.

I'm sorry, but this is inexcusable. Are you telling me that Gov. Palin mistakenly crossed off a budget item that would make rape victims pay financially after they've already paid emotionally?

The next thing you're going to say is that she mistakenly supported the Bridge to Nowhere before she stopped supporting it...

What part of what you quoted do you think looks good for Palin, beyond the "Wasilla may not have been the only city to ever do this" excuse?

Who said it makes her look good? I think the quote from CNN presents the story fairly enough, with both sides saying what they think. Some think Palin is dirt and did it on purpose, others aren't so sure, and still others point out that it wasn't ONLY wasilla afterall and I don't see you guys jumping all over yourselves to admit you've been mistakenly claiming otherwise all along...

EDIT: I like your policy on bias/reliability. Press releases from the Palin Administration about how great Palin is are reliable, but an editorial from the same paper running the press release isn't -- so much so that it doesn't even deserve a response.

I don't think I challanged their reliability at all. What response did you want from me? I already agreed, they have to do better about that issue in Alaska.

Since the original article said the insurance was charged where available, I think the answer to this is yes.

Let's also clear up a few facts:



When the item was removed from the budget, it was simply listed as "costs for medical blood tests or exams as required for evidence". Prior years showed this cost also covered blood tests for intoxicated drivers. Unless you were in Palin's head at the time she crossed this item off the list, you cannot know whether she thought she was removing a line item which covered tests for rape kits. You are, once again, assuming. But then, there's been a lot of that on both sides.

I am curious how you equate intoxication tests with rape tests?

who said it makes her look good? I think the quote from CNN presents the story fairly, with both sides saying what they think. some think Palin is dirt and did it on purpose, other aren't so sure, and still others point out that it wasn't ONLY wasilla afterall and I don't see you guys jumping all over yourselves to admit you've been mistakenly claiming otherw

You know, America isn't the only country that uses capital punishment and has liberal gun rights.

I guess that makes okay, hm?

Who said it makes her look good? I think the quote from CNN presents the story fairly enough, with both sides saying what they think. Some think Palin is dirt and did it on purpose, others aren't so sure, and still others point out that it wasn't ONLY wasilla afterall and I don't see you guys jumping all over yourselves to admit you've been mistakenly claiming otherwise all along...

I'll gladly admit that, based on news reports at the time, I said over 1 week ago that Wasilla was the only place in Alaska doing this. It still isn't clear that other towns in Alaska had a deliberate policy the way Wasilla did. Nor that other towns fought the change in state law the way Wasilla did.

Nor am I clear on why the fact that other places may have done it makes it OK. Some places in the world make rape victims marry their rapists. Would that be OK policy? Or do we judge the policy on its merits?

When the item was removed from the budget, it was simply listed as "costs for medical blood tests or exams as required for evidence". Prior years showed this cost also covered blood tests for intoxicated drivers. Unless you were in Palin's head at the time she crossed this item off the list, you cannot know whether she thought she was removing a line item which covered tests for rape kits. You are, once again, assuming. But then, there's been a lot of that on both sides.

It was a town of 7000 people. Let me clear up something, when a crime happens every fucking person in the town knows about it. Every time you fart everyone knows about it. You're telling me she was so disconnected from her own town she didn't know what the police were doing?

You know, America isn't the only country that uses capital punishment and has liberal gun rights.

I guess that makes okay, hm?

Boy, I sure don't get this post. Yeah, I think it's okay to have capital punishment and liberal gun rights, in fact I think it would be okay even if no other country did it as well... If we get rid of capital punishment and lock them up for life, I'm okay with that too, but I'm certainly not against the concept of captial punishment for the most heinous of criminals. Methodology of reaching those verdicts could be better in some states, that's for sure. But I surely don't understand your post, yes, its okay.

Sure, but let me fix that for you: raise taxes to where they belong


Based on... where she wants it to be? What someone said they should be?


...on big Oil companies, reduce deduction allowances for big oil companies, tightened allowances for deductions and investment credits, and closed loopholes for big oil companies, and removed credits for investments made several years ago by big oil companies...


How do you think that's fixing it? All of that is implicit in what was posted.

The fact is - you argue she's a fiscal conservative, and then argue in increasing corporate taxation, removing investment incentives, and made it harder to claim deductions.

She's increased taxation - that's your idea of fiscal conservative?


That's right, she'll work across party lines to stop corruption and install fair taxation.

1) Has nothing to do with the comment I illustrated.

2) Is horseshit and/or fanboy fantasy.

Based on... where she wants it to be? What someone said they should be?



How do you think that's fixing it? All of that is implicit in what was posted.

The fact is - you argue she's a fiscal conservative, and then argue in increasing corporate taxation, removing investment incentives, and made it harder to claim deductions.

She's increased taxation - that's your idea of fiscal conservative?



1) Has nothing to do with the comment I illustrated.

2) Is horseshit and/or fanboy fantasy.

She didn't just increase taxation, she instituted a windfall tax then berated Obama's idea to do the same.

Wall street might be having problems, but if you think 7% unemployment is trashed, I suggest you look at Europe, I suppose they are destitute in your book?

"Wall Street" is not divorced from the rest of the economy.

Wall Street is 'having problems' because the main underpinnings of our economy have been falling to pieces. 3 small 'crashes' in seven days is NOT just a Wall Street problem.

And, even if unemployment was the only indicator of the strength of an economy... our unemployment figures are much more likely to climb than drop.

She didn't just increase taxation, she instituted a windfall tax then berated Obama's idea to do the same.

I'm just trying to put a finger on what Baldy thinks 'fiscal conservatism' is, since it's the one of only two things he admits to. Apparently - Palin is THE candidate because she's an anti-corruption reformer, and because she's a fiscal conservative.

Baldy has challenged me when I said I believed his partisanship for Palin was all about the fact that she's a fascist theocrat, so I'm trying to work out exactly what the values ARE that he feel Palin embodies.

Given the fact that, every 'virtue' Baldy claims for her turns out to be either revisionism, or pure wishful thinking... I'm beginning to think Baldy just fancies her.

It was a town of 7000 people. Let me clear up something, when a crime happens every fucking person in the town knows about it. Every time you fart everyone knows about it. You're telling me she was so disconnected from her own town she didn't know what the police were doing?

Go ahead, give me a list of all the women who were actually charged by the police department for a rape kit, in Wasilla. Give me even one name (with proof to back it up, please).

The fact is, there were no women in Wasilla who have come forward and said they were charged for a rape kit. This being the case, why would Palin know about what the police were doing? Why would the issue even come up when it appears to have been a non-issue. A line item crossed off that had no consequences to anyone isn't exactly a top priority on anyone's desk.

And, in response to all the brilliant people who claim Palin crossed off the line item when it specified rape victims...erm, no. She crossed it off when it simply stated "costs for medical blood tests or exams as required for evidence".

I'm just trying to put a finger on what Baldy thinks 'fiscal conservatism' is, since it's the one of only two things he admits to. Apparently - Palin is THE candidate because she's an anti-corruption reformer, and because she's a fiscal conservative.

Baldy has challenged me when I said I believed his partisanship for Palin was all about the fact that she's a fascist theocrat, so I'm trying to work out exactly what the values ARE that he feel Palin embodies.

Given the fact that, every 'virtue' Baldy claims for her turns out to be either revisionism, or pure wishful thinking... I'm beginning to think Baldy just fancies her.

In earnest that's probably why McCain picked her. Her policies are close enough to the GOP standard to withstand the uncritical eye of a supporter, and she's pretty. Face made for bukakke.

Dear God! I hope not! (In reference to the title) It would take away the only sense of joy I get from this election.

In earnest that's probably why McCain picked her. Her policies are close enough to the GOP standard to withstand the uncritical eye of a supporter, and she's pretty. Face made for bukakke.

I think your quote to me was; You disgust me, is applicable here.

I am curious how you equate intoxication tests with rape tests?

They're both the fault of the person to whom the test is being administ-

Okay I damn near threw up typing that I ain't finishing it.

In earnest that's probably why McCain picked her. Her policies are close enough to the GOP standard to withstand the uncritical eye of a supporter, and she's pretty. Face made for bukakke.

*shudder*

I'm sending you the bill from my psychiatrist. jerk : - P

Go ahead, give me a list of all the women who were actually charged by the police department for a rape kit, in Wasilla. Give me even one name (with proof to back it up, please).

The fact is, there were no women in Wasilla who have come forward and said they were charged for a rape kit. This being the case, why would Palin know about what the police were doing? Why would the issue even come up when it appears to have been a non-issue. A line item crossed off that had no consequences to anyone isn't exactly a top priority on anyone's desk.

And, in response to all the brilliant people who claim Palin crossed off the line item when it specified rape victims...erm, no. She crossed it off when it simply stated "costs for medical blood tests or exams as required for evidence".

Got a 146 page PDF document of their budget I'm digging through now.

Edit: Budget document was a bust, way too general, however: http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2000/05/23/news.txt There's Wasilla's police chief whining that he won't be allowed to do it anymore.

http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/523708.html another article with the same quote from the chief.

Go ahead, give me a list of all the women who were actually charged by the police department for a rape kit, in Wasilla. Give me even one name (with proof to back it up, please).

The fact is, there were no women in Wasilla who have come forward and said they were charged for a rape kit. This being the case, why would Palin know about what the police were doing? Why would the issue even come up when it appears to have been a non-issue. A line item crossed off that had no consequences to anyone isn't exactly a top priority on anyone's desk.

And, in response to all the brilliant people who claim Palin crossed off the line item when it specified rape victims...erm, no. She crossed it off when it simply stated "costs for medical blood tests or exams as required for evidence".

Nice job of not responding to any of my points raised earlier.

Regardless, why would Palin know? Because she was supposed to be in fucking charge of things, particularly the budget.

We are on the one-hand supposed to give credit for Palin's "executive experience" as mayor of a small-town, but when it is clear that town had an outrageous and offensive policy we are supposed to assume she didn't know about it.

As for your "show me a victim" argument, you just don't get it. Rape is a very traumatic experience. How many rape victims invite national press attention? Who wants to come forward with "actual proof" they were charged for a rape kit? Nor do I believe for a second that the names of such victims would change your tune on this issue, you're just making a desperate attempt to divert the issue.

Having known rape crisis and anti-domestic violence advocates my whole life, I know that the issue of charging victims for rape kits is one that has long been fought in the trenches. Most officials have a clue and recognize it is wrong to charge the victim for evidence collection. Some are simply insensitive. Palin and her hand-picked police chief clearly fall in the latter category -- and that is giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Remember, the Palin Administration didn't just implement this policy (a change from how things had been done in Wasilla) but also were the most vocal opponents of the change in state law that overrode this policy.

Luckily, Joe Biden wrote the Violence Against Women Act that eventually led to states picking up the bill for rape kits in exchange for federal grants to fight violence against women. Too bad John McCain opposed both the original bill and its more recent re-authorization.

Look, I don't expect you or Baldy or anyone else to say ... "well, that's it. She can't be VP." because of this issue. But at least acknowledge this was a pretty bad thing that calls her judgement into question.

And McCain's opposition to laws and funding to fight violence against women is another reason people should not support him.

EDIT: By the way, as to your "when she changed it it read somthing ambiguous" argument, who do you think was responsible for changing the wording given that she was mayor and she had hand-picked the police chief? Magic budget fairies?

EDIT2: To expand on the point Khadgar just made, if no rape victims were ever charged in Wasilla for rape kits, why did Wasilla's police chief say that not charging victims for those kits would cost "the Wasilla Police Department approximately $5,000 to $14,000 a year to collect evidence for sexual assault cases."

In earnest that's probably why McCain picked her. Her policies are close enough to the GOP standard to withstand the uncritical eye of a supporter, and she's pretty. Face made for bukakke.

Ooh, god - I hope not. I wasn't kidding when I said I found Hillary more attractive. Or Bill, for that matter...

I'm just trying to put a finger on what Baldy thinks 'fiscal conservatism' is, since it's the one of only two things he admits to. Apparently - Palin is THE candidate because she's an anti-corruption reformer, and because she's a fiscal conservative.

Baldy has challenged me when I said I believed his partisanship for Palin was all about the fact that she's a fascist theocrat, so I'm trying to work out exactly what the values ARE that he feel Palin embodies.

Given the fact that, every 'virtue' Baldy claims for her turns out to be either revisionism, or pure wishful thinking... I'm beginning to think Baldy just fancies her.

You try really hard to pretend like you are aware of the conversation going on around you, but if you really did you would recall that I linked to the a budget with 171 line item vetoes in it. Try not to let yourself get so confused about the differences between fiscal conservatism and ending big oil corruption via tax reform.

You try really hard to pretend like you are aware of the conversation going on around you, but if you really did you would recall that I linked to the a budget with 171 line item vetoes in it. Try not to let yourself get so confused about the differences between fiscal conservatism and ending big oil corruption via tax reform.

Funny how we are supposed to be impressed with Palin for every one of 171 line-item vetoes in the state budget (even though it appears only 16 of those vetoes remainded in the final budget), but we are supposed to believe Palin didn't know about (and/or isn't responsible for) highly objectionable line-item changes in the budget of Wasilla (a town of about 7,000).

You try really hard to pretend like you are aware of the conversation going on around you, but if you really did you would recall that I linked to the a budget with 171 line item vetoes in it. Try not to let yourself get so confused about the differences between fiscal conservatism and ending big oil corruption via tax reform.

That's the 'budget reform' part, and it's arguably still horseshit.

The 'fiscal conservatism' is your red herring I'm chasing down, right now.

"You try really hard to pretend like you are aware..." and "Try not to let yourself get so confused..." Very patronisoing. Cute. For someone who is being repeatedly shown to be constructing a house on sand, you have an annerving capacity for being sanctimonious and condescending.

EDIT: And I didn't hear a "no"...

End the sexism against Sarah Palin!

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/24/campbell.brown.palin/index.html

That's the 'budget reform' part, and it's arguably still horseshit.

The 'fiscal conservatism' is your red herring I'm chasing down, right now.

...

No, its big oil TAX reform and budget fiscal conservatism... you seem to still be mixing them up a bit there.


But if your red herring is what I think fiscal conservatism looks like for Palin, I posted my imaginary description of a Palin administration way back on page 2 of this thread...here:


They're not trying to make her into the next Obama, they're being overrun by the next Theodore Roosevelt...

I'll show you:

Theadore Rosevelt article in Wikipedia 2008 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Roosevelt)
Theodore Roosevelt, also known as T.R., and to the public (but never to friends and intimates) as Teddy, was the twenty-sixth President of the United States. A leader of the Republican Party and of the Progressive Movement, he was a Governor of New York and a professional historian, naturalist, explorer, hunter, author, and soldier. He is most famous for his personality: his energy, his vast range of interests and achievements, his model of masculinity, and his "cowboy" personality.

In 1901, as Vice President, the 42-year-old Roosevelt succeeded President William McKinley after McKinley's assassination by anarchist Leon Czolgosz. He is the youngest person to become President.[4] He was a Progressive reformer who sought to move the dominant Republican Party into the Progressive camp. He distrusted wealthy businessmen and dissolved forty monopolistic corporations as a "trust buster". He was clear, however, to show he did not disagree with trusts and capitalism in principle but was only against corrupt, illegal practices. His "Square Deal" promised a fair shake for both the average citizen (through regulation of railroad rates and pure food and drugs) and the businessmen.

(In) December 1901 (he) asked Congress to curb the power of trusts "within reasonable limits." They did not act but Roosevelt did, issuing 44 lawsuits against major corporations; he was called the "trust-buster".

Roosevelt firmly believed: "The Government must in increasing degree supervise and regulate the workings of the railways engaged in interstate commerce." Inaction was a danger, he argued: "Such increased supervision is the only alternative to an increase of the present evils on the one hand or a still more radical policy on the other."

Sarah Palin article in Wikipedia 2048 (timetravel.dll.not.found)
Sarah Palin, also known as Sarah to the public and to friends, was the forty-fifth President of the United States. A leader of the Republican Party and of the Transparency in Government Movement, she was a Governor of Alaska and a professional fisherman, naturalist, explorer, hunter, mayor, and mother of five. She is most famous for her personality: her energy, and her vast range of interests and achievements, her model of femininity, and her "wild frontier" personality.

In 2010, as Vice President, the 46-year-old Palin succeeded President John McCain after McCains sudden death by brain aneurysm. She is the first woman to become President. She was an aggressive reformer who sought to move the dominant Washington insiders into the twenty first century of transparency in government. She distrusted wealthy energy brokers and lobbyist and dissolved forty monopolistic corporate fronts for energy corporations as a "trust buster". She was clear, however, to show she did not disagree with oil and energy development and oil drilling in principle but was only against corrupt, illegal practices. Her "For the People" promised a fair shake for both the average citizen (through fair taxation of of oil drilling (not windfall taxes) and development and taxation of renewable energy sources through development) and the businessmen who brought the products to market.

In December 2010 she asked Congress to curb the excessive use of earmarks "within reasonable limits." They did not act but Palin did, issuing 44 veto's of major bills; she was called the "pork-barrel-buster".

Palin firmly believed: "The Government must in increasing degree supervise and regulate the workings of the big oil and energy companies engaged in interstate commerce." Inaction was a danger, she argued: "Such increased supervision is the only alternative to an increase of the present evils on the one hand or a still more radical policy on the other."

See, two from the same cut. :)

No, its big oil TAX reform and budget fiscal conservatism... you seem to still be mixing them up a bit there.


But if your red herring is what I think fiscal conservatism looks like for Palin, I posted my imaginary description of a Palin administration way back on page 2 of this thread...here:

So, your entire argument for Sarah Palin's fiscal conservatism... is a fantasy scenario YOU constructed about her?