When racism, classism, sexism, heterosexism and every other form of social ill out there is completely erased, there will no longer be a need for any sort of welfare or government financial assistance programs outside of maybe a "disaster relief" type program for people who have their lives torn asunder through no fault of their own.

We're a long way off from that day, though, and since a black, yellow or brown-skinned man still makes less money for the same amount of work than me, I'm perfectly fine with paying higher taxes and/or doing my share to counterbalance the racism inherent in our employment and financial systems.

Again, since we're a long way off, and I'm aware that women still make $0.75 to my $1.00, I'm more than happy to contribute to assistance programs that help alleviate that discrimination.

And again, since the notion that "hard work" is "rewarded" is almost completely false in our system... because if it were true, a white single parent working 3 jobs would make more than an old white Fortune 500 CEO... and since I know the barriers of classism are enormous (and are even more imposing if you are a woman or person of color), I don't mind paying taxes or contributing to funds that try to acknowledge those barriers.

List social ill here, and repeat.

But anyway, wasn't this thread about Sarah Palin BREAKING THE LAW and LYING ABOUT IT and why it makes no sense for anyone, dem or repub alike, to want to support her assuming they operate from even the most basic moral framework...?

There are plenty of "ism" in your post above

Sarah Palin is a suboptimal choice. She may likely go back to Alaska into hibernation when McCain wins.

REPORT CLEARS PALIN IN TROOPERGATE PROBE

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081104/ap_ ... opergate_9

Phew! This report came just in time. You can vote McCain/Palin now Goliathvt!

pbmax wrote:

REPORT CLEARS PALIN IN TROOPERGATE PROBE

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081104/ap_ ... opergate_9

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, or if you're just trying to defend McCain/Palin (again). That article still isn't enough to convince me (or many others, I bet) that she's a worthy replacement if John McCain were to pass on. I say we don't take any chances with her...vote Obama!*

* I acknowledge the irony of my statement, for we will always be taking chances and risks no matter who we vote for. So please, there's no need for anybody to point out the obvious.

Wow! Amazing! Who could have guessed a hand-picked panel would hire an "independent investigator" and release a report "just in time" that has findings that are OPPOSITE of the other investigation where Palin didn't have the ability to hand-pick members....

(And in a few weeks after the election, we'll probably find out that she perjured herself and she'll be hauled off in hand-cuffs having committed a felony to cover up her power abuse scandal.)

*yawn*

That's the headline of New York Times.

The Post writes: "Probe Finds Palin Abused Power in Case of Trooper"

FOX News's headline: Panel: Palin Abused Her Power in Firing of Commissioner

All three news stories point out that there was pressure by Sara Palin and her husband to convince other officials, especially Commissioner Monegan, to fire Trooper Wooten.

Separately, the report points out that Palin does have the power to remove anyone in her office without reason, so the firing of Commissioner Monegan was lawful.

What does this mean? One, she's willing to break the law to get her way even when others are warning her (as Commissioner Monegan had tried to do when the Palins first started pressuring officials to get the trooper fired) that pursuing such action was unethical and unlawful. Two, she will fire or get rid of anyone who tries to stand up for the law or who disagrees with her.

Those are very frightening qualities in a VP if you ask me. Add on to that her remarks and misconceptions about the powers that the VP is supposed to have and the powers she thinks the position should carry. Let's also keep in mind that she was only governor for a very short period of time, and within that short time broke the law. In other words, you can't even make claims that she got jaded or too comfortable within the system where her moral compass may have relaxed... instead, she seems to already lack a sense of right and wrong. Tack on to that her lack of knowledge on... well, just about anything other than putting on a good show, her complete unpreparedness with dealing with conflicts (again, look at how she handled this Troopergate business), her willingness to change direction on a subject based on the blowing of the political winds (support for and then denouncing the bridge project... while keeping most of the money), and then also I'm miffed that she allowed her husband to meddle with affairs of the State, since it was he who did a lot of the pressuring of officials trying to get this trooper fired, all with her full knowledge.

Keep in mind how many times she's denied these allegations. Keep in mind how many times she's lied to Alaskans. To the people of the United States. Why on earth would we want to elect someone like that into a higher office? Potentially the presidency?

This woman is so terribly unfit to lead, and the fact that John McCain has tapped her speaks volumes about his judgment. Let's keep in mind that she is the antithesis of some of the best qualities of John McCain. On one hand, two of the things I like about the guy are his willingness to work with others AND his attention to wasteful spending from both sides of the aisle. Palin, on the other hand, through her handling of Troopergate, seems unwilling to work with others. And, during her stint as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska and as governor of the state, Palin was one of the worst offenders when it came to wasting taxpayer dollars. Why on earth would he want her as a running mate?

My guess is that some focus group saw how well Hillary did in the poll and the campaign thought, hey, we should get a woman on the ticket. That seems incredibly shallow, though, and I have a hard time thinking it could be true. But then again... these two runningmates seem so opposite from each other that I can't imagine McCain considering her to be the best choice. I've lost a lot of respect for the guy over the last few weeks.

I've been waiting for you to post this and I'm waiting for someone else to come a long and tell us there is nothing to see here.

I think ultimately a governor will always remove people he or she cannot work with, sometimes for the right sometimes for the wrong reasons. There is no denial that a magnifying glass on top of a microscope on top of a hubble space telescope is getting used so close to election time.

US elections are, to me, a horrible but entertaining mess. Some people are shamelessly portraying Obama as "that one" or "Hussein Obama with direct terrorist support", others run a wide array of accusations against McCain / Palin.

It's hard to stay objective in all this mess. The world is full of scandals and I sincerely hope we'll have worked out more urgent issues soon enough to sit back and refocus on the yellow press.

This said I haven't seen much substance about this campaign at all. Mud sling contests and WWF still are very popular in the US as it appears, but maybe it's all the distorted European press view which reaches me and falls short of brainwashing me to support either this or that camp.

However, what goes around comes around in US elections. I wish both candidates would get forced to surrender all campaign money to more important things and future campaigns simply receive a fixed budget by the state, levelling all attempts at mass manipulation equal.

goliathvt wrote:

.
.
.
Separately, the report points out that Palin does have the power to remove anyone in her office without reason, so the firing of Commissioner Monegan was lawful.

What does this mean? One, she's willing to break the law...

You lost me here, goliath. The reports say she acted lawfully, you say she broke the law?!?

Yes, there are two things in this situation, one illegal and one legal:

1: Palin used her position as the governor and allowed her husband to pressure other officials to try to fire a state Trooper named Wooten. This pressuring and use of the governor's office to do this is an abuse of power and is illegal.

2: Palin fired her Commissioner, Monegan, after he cautioned against her pressuring tactics and disagreed with her decision. This firing act was legal according to Alaskan law, although to me it demonstrates poor judgment and unwillingness to deal with criticism.

Is that more clear?

@BNA: Microscope on top of a magnifying glass or not, I think it's very important for the American people to know that the potential VP is willing to break the law and then lie about it. It speaks volumes about her character... and such a brazen lack of integrity is something I do not want in my elected officials.

My standards for politicians these days are pretty low... but being able to abide the law is still on the list.

What I really want to hear, though, is from the McCain supporters as to why they would still follow a ticket with such glaring contradictions and facts staring them in the face.

goliathvt wrote:

Yes, there are two things in this situation, one illegal and one legal:

1: Palin used her position as the governor and allowed her husband to pressure other officials to try to fire a state Trooper named Wooten. This pressuring and use of the governor's office to do this is an abuse of power and is illegal
2: Palin fired her Commissioner, Monegan, after he cautioned against her pressuring tactics and disagreed with her decision. This firing act was legal according to Alaskan law, although to me it demonstrates poor judgment and unwillingness to deal with criticism.

Well I certainly can't/won't challenge your opinion, goliath. In my opinion Trooper Wooten was a menace to himself and the people he had sworn to protect. If Safety Commissioner Monegan refuses to fulfill his office's obligations and fire Wooten then he gets fired. That's how it works.

Quote:

Does that clarify it for you?

We can only wait and see if this witch hunt that was perpetrated in Alaska will stick.
My money is that it doesn't. Nor will it change any minds out there.

goliathvt wrote:

@BNA: Microscope on top of a magnifying glass or not, I think it's very important for the American people to know that the potential VP is willing to break the law and then lie about it. It speaks volumes about her character... and such a brazen lack of integrity is something I do not want in my elected officials.

Well, I don't disagree the people need to get informed. Aside this issue I think it's best to hear her speaking - that speaks more volumes about her character.

Don't forget, there are many Americans out there who consider stronghanding a case, bullying and law-bending a virtue and worth to vote for. Many people sleep better with having a Pitbull around the house, unless it bites someone they know or their children of course.

I have no stand on this topic. Bill Clinton redefined sex, Rumsfeld "torture" and the list goes on... in this light I'd like to say she follows the tradition of every successful politician world wide.

Politicians have a talent for dancing around the law, and how many times I've read that a politician's actions weren't illegal, they were just unethical. They usually get off and soon after the law is changed to prevent a repeat. Go figure. I guess the fact that politicians make the laws means they know how to manipulate them. Unlike the common Joe, who can't afford high priced lawyers, and don't have the luxury of stalling tactics like public inquires or executive immunity, these elected officials do what ever they want and get away with it. I'm not really even sure why Palin is being discussed in the first place. She's just a mascot for McCain's failing campaign. After the election she will be forgotten anyway.

pendragon wrote:

Well I certainly can't/won't challenge your opinion, goliath. In my opinion Trooper Wooten was a menace to himself and the people he had sworn to protect. If Safety Commissioner Monegan refuses to fulfill his office's obligations and fire Wooten then he gets fired. That's how it works.

If Monegan failed in his duties, then sure, fire him. That's perfectly legal and within Palin's right. But using a position of power to pressure the dismissal of Trooper Wooten, no matter if he's the worst cop on the force or the best cop to walk the earth is illegal. That's how it works.

pendragon wrote:

We can only wait and see if this witch hunt that was perpetrated in Alaska will stick.

Witch hunt? A witch hunt is an investigation into charges that are obviously absurd or have no merit. Looking into Palin's actions, on the other hand, is a very worthwhile exercise since it seems she broke the law and abused her power. That's not a witch hunt. That's a proper investigation. It's also extremely relevant to understanding her character as she will potentially be in the #2 spot of the executive branch.

You seem to dismiss the investigation as a witch hunt. Are you saying you are okay with the fact that she broke the law? That it doesn't matter? That we should ignore what seems to be a lapse in moral conduct?

BNA! wrote:

However, what goes around comes around in US elections. I wish both candidates would get forced to surrender all campaign money to more important things and future campaigns simply receive a fixed budget by the state, levelling all attempts at mass manipulation equal.

I completely agree with this. The millions of dollars each party pays just to get into power and have a mud slinging contest is ridiculous. They could literally feed a few small countries in poverty and have plenty of money left over. This country is about waste, abuse and greed, nothing more ran by a bunch of people who have no idea what it's like to live paycheck to paycheck wondering if they're gonna be evicted at the end of the month, have enough to eat for that week, pay for theirs and their children's medical bills etc. etc.

It is something to think about with Palin possibly abusing that power and I don't know the full story about it, but on the other hand, it might be a great quality to bring to Washington if it is used in correct fashion. Washington definitely needs someone to take a stand and cleanup and they most certainly need to get rid of some governmental rift raft that are making the most horrible decisions to date for the future of this country.

The country will continue on it's current downward spiral if they don't get rid of the people making these decisions in Washington. They'll just continue making poor decisions until we collapse and are back into a full recession.

Kiltron wrote:

but on the other hand, it might be a great quality to bring to Washington if it is used in correct fashion.

I can somewhat agree with what you're saying here... but Palin clearly isn't this type of person. Her abuse of power is self-serving and has no moral grounds on which to stand.

If I'm reading you correctly, you're basically talking about the need of a radical or anarchist leader in Washington. I haven't seen one of those... ever. Maybe Dennis Kucinich or something... but even he's hardly a radical. He's just a liberal democrat. It's an interesting thought though.

goliathvt wrote:

If I'm reading you correctly, you're basically talking about the need of a radical or anarchist leader in Washington. I haven't seen one of those... ever. Maybe Dennis Kucinich or something... but even he's hardly a radical. He's just a liberal democrat. It's an interesting thought though.

Nah, I was just saying at least have someone in the white house with some balls to say hey, you guys are making horrible country ruining decisions and have done so repeatedly so uhh.........you're fired!

Kiltron wrote:

goliathvt wrote:

If I'm reading you correctly, you're basically talking about the need of a radical or anarchist leader in Washington. I haven't seen one of those... ever. Maybe Dennis Kucinich or something... but even he's hardly a radical. He's just a liberal democrat. It's an interesting thought though.

Nah, I was just saying at least have someone in the white house with some balls to say hey, you guys are making horrible country ruining decisions and have done so repeatedly so uhh.........you're fired!

The Bush administration was running along these lines for many years. My post was made to underline malpractices and their interpretation by the public, ultimately leading to a Darwinian administration no more longer bound by constitutions, laws, moral, ethics...

To me as it is getting portrayed by the international press respectively by the candidates themselves Sara Palin makes my internal compass pointing to further erosion of the split between religion and politics. The US has a great constitution, no need to replace that by bible interpretations usually rewritten on a daily basis.

Furthermore I do not want the US to end up as an Autocracy. Germany owes the US a great deal of freedom and we're still the most prominent if not only example that a dictatorship can get turned into a sufficiently functioning democracy with equally strong social and industrial advances.

Addressing mostly the fears of the common people is, in my opinion, abuse of the people you are about to get sworn in to serve. Right from day one I was convinced Palin is a purely strategic pick to level out age issues and fish in the Hillary Clinton camp for voters. Besides that I haven't seen anything substantial about her besides being able to look young enough to make Biden look old and radiate a sort of beauty halo around McCain. This may or may not be an unfair statement, but take it as a far away observation of an unpolitical viewer of the election campaign.

She may be abusive in her Alaska office, which is natural if you give power to a human being, but I resent her abusive election campaign even more. Rallying the people up into hate is a method only carried out by the most feared and hated dictators of the last century. To me she has "street violence" potential, enough to turn a nut into a psychopath eventually doing something the world later will mourn for decades. I am very sure the Palin election camp would benefit greatly from an exploding bomb somewhere in the US, by today the only thing that could happen to turn the public interest from the financial world wide crisis to war, isolationism and protectionism.

My hope is not with either of the candidates to win, but with the elected person to turn the derailed US back on track without military actions.

This is the best you can do, goliath? Troopergate? :roll:

Obama only worked ~150 days as a US Senator before deciding to run for President. 150 actual working days! And you want to talk about Palin's lack of experience?

And the approval ratings for the Democrat led Congress is at 15%- much much lower than Bush's. What a great idea to elect two Democrat Senators!

What does this topic have to do with Obama pbmax? Care to tell us, or refute the accusations in the first post?

@pbmax: First off, Obama has been a senator since Nov. 2004, so I'm not quite sure why you're fudging numbers to make it seem like he's been in the position for less than half a year. It seems you are employing an empty, misleading tactic to try to suggest some sort of bullshit.

Second, even if Sarah Palin had been governor for 10 years instead of her actual less than 2 years in the office, it wouldn't matter. I'm not pointing out her lack of experience. I'm pointing out that with the little experience she has had, she BROKE THE LAW and then LIED about it.

Please explain to me your reasoning that might convince me that I should be okay with this and would want a person with that type of poor moral judgment as my VP.

Please.

As for the rest of your post:

Quote:

And the approval ratings for the Democrat led Congress is at 15%- much much lower than Bush's.

Please note that Bush has vetoed or the Republicans have cried over spilled milk at nearly every single bill proposed by Congress. I'll agree that Congress has been fairly ineffective on some of the "large ticket" issues they promised, but a lot of efforts have been held back by partisan bickering on both sides, but primarily from the R's. Republicans in the House are a bunch of whiny limp-dicks who should have their asses kicked. Demos are a bunch of whiny limp-dicks that should learn how to stand up to George Bush.

Still, Obama and Biden are SENATORS, not Congressmen. In case you're wondering what the Dems have done in the Senate, though, here's a quick list since 2006:

Quote:

* Ethics and lobbying reform: a law to slow the “revolving door” for former Senators and staff, strengthen limits on gifts and travel, expand lobbying disclosure requirements, establish a study commission on ethics and lobbying, prohibit pensions for Members of Congress convicted of certain crimes, and implement reform procedures relating to earmarks and conference reports;

* A fiscally-responsible budget: a budget that restores fiscal discipline and will lead to a surplus, while cutting middle-class taxes and restoring funding for domestic and international priorities, including education, children’s health care, veterans, and our troops all without raising a penny in taxes;

* Continuing Resolution: a law that provided funding for the agencies covered by the nine remaining 2007 appropriations bills not completed by Republicans in the 109th Congress, including vital funding for veterans’ medical care, Pell grants, elementary and secondary education, the National Institutes of Health, state and local law enforcement, and global AIDS prevention and treatment;

* Omnibus appropriations: consolidated funding to support the operations of the federal government in Fiscal Year 2008;

* 9/11 Commission recommendations: a law to make America more secure by giving our first responders the tools they need to keep us safe; making it more difficult for potential terrorists to travel into our country; advancing efforts to secure our rail, air, and mass transit systems; and improving intelligence and information sharing between state, local, and federal law enforcement agencies;

* Homeland security funding: a consolidated appropriations law that invests $34.85 billion in the nation’s highest-priority security projects – $550 million more than the President proposed – to strengthen our borders, ensure first responders have the tools they need to do their jobs, and enhance security at our airports, ports, and mass transit facilities; the bill also provides $2.7 billion in emergency spending, not requested by the President, to address unmet border security and immigration enforcement needs;

* Defense authorization: legislation to authorize defense related spending and advance national security priorities, including promoting the transition of our military to meet 21st Century threats; strengthening nonproliferation and cooperative threat reduction programs; eliminating terrorist safe havens in Pakistan and strengthening initiatives to combat al Qaeda and bring Osama bin Laden to justice; ensuring a fair process for detainees held at Guantanamo Bay; improving the management and efficiency of Defense Department programs; and strengthening oversight and accountability of war-time contractors;

* Defense funding: an appropriations law to provide $459.3 billion in funding to the Department of Defense to help restore the readiness of our overstretched forces and fully support the needs of our servicemen and women by investing in equipment, training, and cutting-edge weaponry, and also providing our military personnel and their families with the care and benefits they have earned and deserve; the bill also includes a 3.5 percent across-the-board pay raise for all uniformed service personnel, $11.6 billion for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles, and increased funding for body armor and other protective equipment for Special Operations Command;

* Care for wounded soldiers and veterans: legislation to improve military health care facilities, fill in gaps in health insurance coverage, increase severance pay, and provide a seamless transition from the Department of Defense to the Department of Veterans Affairs, and transition from military service to civilian life; and legislation to protect military bonuses for wounded soldiers;

* Military Construction and Veterans Affairs funding: a consolidated appropriations law that provides $60.2 billion in discretionary funding for military construction and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), including a $3.7 billion increase above the President’s budget request for the VA, to (1) ensure funding for military construction, Base Realignment and Closure, and family housing; (2) support the Administration’s “Grow the Force” initiative, to increase the size of the U.S. Army and Marine Corps; and (3) ensure the VA has the resources it needs to provide benefits and first-rate care to all of our nation’s veterans, including the growing number of returning Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans;

* Tax relief for military families: legislation to provide tax relief for members of the military who are receiving combat pay, saving for retirement, or purchasing their own homes;

* Benchmarks for Iraq: legislation that conditions U.S. economic support for the Iraqi government on its progress toward achieving key political benchmarks;

* National Guard and Reserve readiness: a law that provides $980 million in additional funding for National Guard and Reserve equipment above the President’s budget request to remedy equipment shortfalls that are compromising the quality of force training and limiting the Guard’s ability to quickly respond to natural disasters and defend against terrorist threats at home;

* Terrorism Risk Insurance: a law that provides a federal backstop against catastrophic losses associated with massive terrorism damages in the property and casualty insurance marketplace;

* Diplomatic and foreign aid programs funding: a consolidated appropriations law providing $32.8 billion in funding for State Department operations and foreign aid programs, including increased funding for international peacekeeping, combating infectious diseases, and development initiatives, and U.S. contributions to the United Nations, World Bank, and other international organizations;

* Sudan divestment: a law that allows American investors, taxpayers, and pensioners to divest from businesses directly contributing to the violence and misery of hundreds of thousands of innocent Darfuris;

* Minimum wage: a law that increases the federal minimum wage to $7.25/hour;

* Extending trade adjustment assistance: a law to ensure that eligible U.S. workers, farmers, fisherman, and manufacturing firms facing job losses as a consequence of free trade agreements do not fall through the cracks while Congress completes its work on a broad expansion and reauthorization of the current programs;

* Experienced airline pilots: a law that raises the mandatory retirement age for pilots from 60 to 65;

* Federal Housing Administration (FHA) reform: legislation to strengthen and modernize the FHA to help homeowners facing foreclosure obtain safe and affordable home loans;

* Mortgage tax relief: a law that offers tax relief to Americans facing foreclosure by providing a three-year exception for debt forgiveness on home loans and extends a provision that allows homeowners to deduct mortgage insurance payments from their taxable income;

* American competitiveness: a law that increases the nation’s investment in basic and innovative research; strengthens educational opportunities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics from elementary through graduate school; and develops the infrastructure needed to enhance innovation and competitiveness in the United States;

* Middle-class tax cuts: provisions of the budget resolution that allow for permanent extensions of the Marriage Penalty tax relief, the $1,000 refundable Child Tax Credit, the 10 percent income tax bracket; the adoption tax credit; the dependent care tax credit, and U.S. soldiers’ combat pay for the earned income tax credit; and reform of the estate tax to protect small businesses and family farms;

* Financial services and general government programs: a consolidated appropriations law that invests $20.6 billion in agencies and programs that safeguard toys and other consumer products, support small businesses and community economic growth in urban and rural low-income communities, improve taxpayer services, and ensure the implementation of key governmental programs, such as the Help America Vote Act;

* Energy bill: a bill to increase our energy independence, enhance energy efficiency, increase production of clean domestic biofuels, raise fuel economy standards for the first time in 25 years, punish price gougers, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve our energy security, reduce our dependence on oil, strengthen the economy, and protect American consumers;

* Energy and water programs funding: a consolidated appropriations law that provides $30.9 billion to help reduce America’s dependence on oil, protect the environment, and support the development of our nation’s water resources by funding the Department of Energy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Bureau of Reclamation;

* Higher education: a law providing $20 billion in additional college aid to students – the largest increase since the G.I. bill – including an increase in the maximum Pell Grant; simplifying the financial aid process; decreasing subsidies so that the student loan system works for students, not the banks; and improving our K-12 schools by promoting effective teacher preparation programs;

* Head Start: a law to expand eligibility for the Head Start program;

* Elementary and secondary education: provisions of the budget resolution that provide for the largest increase in funding for elementary and secondary programs since 2002;

* Labor, health, and education funding: a consolidated appropriations law that provides $144.8 billion to make responsible investments to research cancer, heart disease, and diabetes; expand educational opportunities; provide access to health care for rural America; strengthen the skills of America’s workers and worker safety; and heat the homes of low-income elderly Americans, including $307 million in emergency funds for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program;

* Children’s health coverage: a bill to reauthorize the popular and effective Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), investing an additional $35 billion over five years to strengthen the program’s financing; increase outreach and enrollment for low-income children of the working poor; enhance premium assistance options for low-income families; and improve the quality of health care that children receive from public programs like Medicaid and CHIP;

* Extending Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP: a law that blocks cuts to Medicare and ensures access to health care for rural seniors; funds the Transitional Medicaid Assistance and special diabetes programs; and extends CHIP;

* Stem cell research: legislation to expand the number of human embryonic stem cells eligible for federally-funded research;

* Mental health parity: legislation prohibiting a group health plan that offers mental health coverage from imposing financial requirements or treatment limitations on mental health benefits that are more restrictive than the financial requirements or treatment limitations that apply to the plan’s medical and surgical benefits;

* Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) programs: legislation to reauthorize state grants for community-based services and support for adults and children with TBI;

* Newborn screenings: legislation to improve health screenings for newborn babies;

* Women’s health care: a law to reauthorize of the National Breast Cancer and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program;

* Safety for seniors: a bill that directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to expand research programs on elder slip and falls;

* Asbestos ban: a bill to prohibit the importation, manufacture, processing, and distribution of asbestos containing products, invest in research and treatment, and launch a public education campaign on the dangers of asbestos;

* Farm bill: legislation to invest in rural communities, ensure participation in the food stamp program, expand programs to feed low-income children, improve conservation, reform producer income protection programs, and expand the development and use of farm-based renewable energy;

* Water resources development: a law that invests in environmental restoration and storm protection along the Gulf Coast, supports the restoration of wetlands and their accompanying ecosystems across the country, improves transit and increase environmental protection along America’s waterways, and enhances the safety of levees nationwide;

* FDA reauthorization: a law to greatly improve the Food and Drug Administration’s oversight of food and drug safety;

* Agriculture, food and drug safety, and rural development funding: a consolidated appropriations law that invests $18.1 billion -- more than the President’s request -- to safeguard the nation’s food supply, meet the nutritional need of low-income pregnant and postpartum women and infants, and address housing shortages in rural America by funding the Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, and the United States Commodity Future Trading Commission;

* Environmental protection and interior funding: a consolidated appropriations law that invests $26.6 billion -- $900 more than the President – in programs that promote clean air, improve the quality of our drinking water, support firefighting activities, and improve and safeguard the nation’s national parks;

* Transportation, housing and urban development funding: a consolidated appropriations law to provide $103.4 billion for key investments in the nation’s highway systems, securing our pipelines and railways, and providing housing and community development services for those in need, the elderly, and veterans;

* Amtrak Reauthorization: a bill to help ease congestion on the road and in the air, improve the environment, enhance Amtrak operations, and reduce its operating subsidy by 40 percent;

* Gulf Coast revitalization: a law that provides a total of $6.4 billion for victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, including $1.3 billion to complete levee and drainage repairs, $50 million to reduce violent crime in Gulf Coast states, and $110 million to repair the seafood and fisheries industries, which is vital to the region’s economic recovery;

* Emergency disaster fraud: a law that enhances criminal penalties for fraud associated with major disaster or emergency relief benefits;

* Disaster assistance for small businesses: a bill to provide recovery assistance for small businesses impacted by the 2005 hurricanes in an effort to revitalize the Gulf Coast economy;

* Tax relief for small businesses: a law that provides a range of deficit-neutral tax incentives designed to help small businesses grow;

* Veterans-owned businesses: legislation to reauthorize Small Business Administration programs for veterans and reservists for two years and provide millions for Veterans Business Outreach Centers;

* Gang abatement and prevention: legislation authorizing more than $1 billion for gang prevention, intervention, and suppression programs, as well as creating tough federal penalties to deter and punish members of illegal street gangs;

* Combating the impact of methamphetamine abuse: a law that establishes guidelines for the decontamination and remediation of former meth labs;

* Criminal background checks for gun purchases: a law that improves the National Instant Criminal Background Check System by ensuring that records are more easily updated by state and federal agencies to reflect a disqualifying mental illness and by establishing a better process by which citizens who have overcome a disqualifying mental illness can have their rights restored;

* Law enforcement: a reauthorization of the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, which provides critical assistance to state and local governments to prevent and control crime and improve the criminal justice system;

* Commerce, Justice and science funding: a consolidated appropriations law providing more than $51.8 billion to strengthen the economy and promote American competitiveness; protect our nation from terrorism and violent crime, including $263 million in emergency appropriations for border and cyber security; and promote scientific advancements;

* U.S. Attorney appointments: a law ending the indefinite appointment of interim U.S. Attorneys and restoring the role of the Senate in the selection of U.S. Attorneys;

* Judicial and court security: a law to improve the security of our courts, judges, and their families;

* Combating identity theft and cyber crime: legislation to assist the victims and aid in the prosecution and punishment of perpetrators of identity theft and cyber crimes;

* Improving the Do-Not-Call Registry: a bill to ensure that phone numbers can remain on the list beyond five years and that removed numbers can be re-included; and a bill to authorize the Federal Trade Commission to collect do-not-call registry fees from telecommunications companies for the operation and enforcement of the registry;

* Internet tax moratorium: a law to extend the moratorium on taxes on Internet usage and electronic commerce;

* Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) reform: a law that addresses the policy and administrative hurdles that have created an extensive FOIA request backlog; and

* Government contracting reform: a bill to strengthen competition in federal contracting, add transparency to the process, and help curtail waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayers’ money.

Is it enough? No. But it's hardly a reason for a 15% approval rating. I believe the low rating is instead an indication that Congress has been ineffective. However, simply looking at what has gotten passed in the House doesn't take into account the temper tantrums by the Repubs over every bill nor Bush's heavy veto hand that quashes decent legislation just because it doesn't meet some arbitrary requirement of his.

I'm not saying the Dems are doing a good job. I'm saying they're doing a better job than people think they're doing if you take into account the interference from the retards across the aisle.

goliathvt wrote:

Please explain to me your reasoning that might convince me that I should be okay with this and would want a person with that type of poor moral judgment as my VP.

Why? You wouldn't touch the McCain/Palin ticket with a 100 foot pole anyway.

Do you have problems with Obama's judgment?

Yes, I have problems with some of the people Obama has surrounded himself with, like his economic policy advisers that are fairly entrenched with big businesses. I also dislike his stances on Cuba and Israel. Worse than that, his comments regarding Latin America are chilling to me. I've written about all of this before, too:

http://goliathvt.wordpress.com/2008/06/ ... y-choices/
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=21668

Still, please explain to me why I might want to support Palin, a VP candidate that has been found to have BROKEN THE LAW and then LIED ABOUT IT repeatedly.

Why do you dodge the question? Why do you fail to offer even a basic counter-argument or defense of her actions?

I have yet to see a single conservative that actually explained this issue. Either they call into question the motives of the investigation and feign partisan quibbling (forgetting that the investigation was created by and pushed for by Alaskan Republicans, not democrats), or they do exactly what you just did, which was wonder if I have problems with Obama.

I've answered your question. Now you answer mine. Why should I be okay with a VP candidate that has broken the law... and by broken the law I don't mean has a speeding ticket, I mean used her elected position illegally to try to influence others. Why is that okay?

BNA! wrote:

US elections are, to me, a horrible but entertaining mess. Some people are shamelessly portraying Obama as "that one" or "Hussein Obama with direct terrorist support", others run a wide array of accusations against McCain / Palin.

They (US Presidential elections) are a joke. It's a circus that we can't even walk out of. They are a parody of the Democratic system that people need to seriously wake up and realize is not helping our government at all and makes us an embarrassment (ok, worse than we make of ourselves) to our society. Most people don't even know that we don't even have the power, as the public, to directly vote into office the President we want. Our "vote" is public popular choice while a small (by comparison) group of politicians with serious conflicts of interest actually choose the President which ultimately makes the entire elections a waste of time.

As for the Obama vs. McCain thing...

Obama scares the hell out of me and Palin equally scares me. McCain would be a puppet who would be a lame duck for four years and forgotten by most of the public before someone else gets into office. If he manages to get anything done...well, he scares the hell out of me too.

Bittoman wrote:

McCain would be a puppet

And Obama doesn't just follow along with whatever his advisers tell him?

McCain actually has a history of following his own path. He has been perfectly fine in the past with giving his own party the finger and doing his own thing when he feels it's needed. The only time I ever heard of McCain's actions before this election season is when he was pissing of sections of republicans by working too much with the Democrats.

And aren't politicians meant to be a puppet of the people? Maybe the big controlling power you see behind the candidates is really the 1/2 the country behind each of them that they try to do the bidding of.

I never said I liked Obama, in fact I said "(he) scares the hell out of me" so please, don't assume because I bash someone you may support that I support the opposing party. If I need to be more clear, I think both are steaming piles of bird crap worth about as much or less. McCain may very well follow his own path but Republicans have such a bad reputation right now that if a democratic majority remains in the house and congress then he will be nothing more than a lame duck and a puppet of whatever advisors he may choose.

No matter which candidate you think is best, neither are going to be worth a damn.

Bittoman wrote:

No matter which candidate you think is best, neither are going to be worth a damn.

*high five*

I hope the hate preachers wont get elected, ever, again.

Bittoman wrote:

I never said I liked Obama, in fact I said "(he) scares the hell out of me" so please, don't assume because I bash someone you may support that I support the opposing party. If I need to be more clear, I think both are steaming piles of bird crap worth about as much or less. McCain may very well follow his own path but Republicans have such a bad reputation right now that if a democratic majority remains in the house and congress then he will be nothing more than a lame duck and a puppet of whatever advisors he may choose.

No matter which candidate you think is best, neither are going to be worth a damn.

Why does he scare you? Because of his "socialist" views? Because with his policies he'll turn the mighty free-market driven health system in the usa into something like some european countries, or "eech!" Canada's? Mccain is far scarier than obama. That old fart is nothing but a tool. He'll dance to whatever tune he's handed over coins to dance to.

BNA! wrote:

Furthermore I do not want the US to end up as an Autocracy. Germany owes the US a great deal of freedom and we're still the most prominent if not only example that a dictatorship can get turned into a sufficiently functioning democracy with equally strong social and industrial advances.

Seriously, do you believe that? Im not mocking anyone, i just find it surprising, being german that you'd say that. Do you really believe the usa butted into the ww2 because of their selfless interest in the german people's freedom? The real reasons are very muddy to say the least, and it most likely had only to do with financial reasons. Afterall, many big usa corporations made lucrative deals with Nazi Germany, ibm, bayer, Prescott Bush (dubya's granddaddy), etc. I think the quote "Sometimes you have to lie to the people to get them to do the right thing" is attributed to D. Roosevelt, and in my opinion, that's just plain bull.

aardwolf wrote:

Because with his policies he'll turn the mighty free-market driven health system in the usa into something like some european countries, or "eech!" Canada's?

don't we all know by now that the government is the last institution we would want to run anything- especially healthcare?

"free" health insurance does not equal healthcare. in a government run healthcare system you might have insurance, but will you be able to get the needed healthcare when you need it? the wait times are atrocious in places like canada and the uk. and nothing is ever free either.

why stop at healthcare? doesn't everyone need food to live? if you don't eat, you'll get sick and die so why not government supplied "free" food?

we know the government wants more of our money. we know the government loves to spend our money. we also know the government wastes our money. so why not give them more so they can run an inefficient healthcare system! brilliant!

something doesn't add up. everybody complains about the idiots in congress. everbody complains about bush, obama & mccain. everyone is sick of washington politics. no one trusts what our representatives say. so why are there so many people in this country so eager to give more power to the government?

for 200 years, what made this country great? what made this country so wealthy top to bottom? socialism or capitalism? equal opportunity or forced fairness?

capitalism & equal opporunity. you know it is true.

pbmax wrote:

aardwolf wrote:

Because with his policies he'll turn the mighty free-market driven health system in the usa into something like some european countries, or "eech!" Canada's?

don't we all know by now that the government is the last institution we would want to run anything- especially healthcare?

"free" health insurance does not equal healthcare. in a government run healthcare system you might have insurance, but will you be able to get the needed healthcare when you need it? the wait times are atrocious in places like canada and the uk. and nothing is ever free either.

why stop at healthcare? doesn't everyone need food to live? if you don't eat, you'll get sick and die so why not government supplied "free" food?

we know the government wants more of our money. we know the government loves to spend our money. we also know the government wastes our money. so why not give them more so they can run an inefficient healthcare system! brilliant!

something doesn't add up. everybody complains about the idiots in congress. everbody complains about bush, obama & mccain. everyone is sick of washington politics. no one trusts what our representatives say. so why are there so many people in this country so eager to give more power to the government?

for 200 years, what made this country great? what made this country so wealthy top to bottom? socialism or capitalism? equal opportunity or forced fairness?

capitalism & equal opporunity. you know it is true.

What made a few very rich at the expense of the majority, you mean. So why have the government pay for health? Pay for your own damn medicines. So why have the government pay for the education of kids. Have them pay for your own damn lessons. So why have the government get involved in public transportation? Pay for your wheels. So why have people breathe air freely? Pay for your own damn air supply.

aardwolf wrote:

BNA! wrote:

Furthermore I do not want the US to end up as an Autocracy. Germany owes the US a great deal of freedom and we're still the most prominent if not only example that a dictatorship can get turned into a sufficiently functioning democracy with equally strong social and industrial advances.

Seriously, do you believe that? Im not mocking anyone, i just find it surprising, being german that you'd say that. Do you really believe the usa butted into the ww2 because of their selfless interest in the german people's freedom? The real reasons are very muddy to say the least, and it most likely had only to do with financial reasons. Afterall, many big usa corporations made lucrative deals with Nazi Germany, ibm, bayer, Prescott Bush (dubya's granddaddy), etc. I think the quote "Sometimes you have to lie to the people to get them to do the right thing" is attributed to D. Roosevelt, and in my opinion, that's just plain bull.

No - I haven't said a single word that the US went into WW2 because of selflessness. They unscrewed every factory here and transferred every single bit of knowledge. Up until they invaded the Normandy Jews got counted in the camps with IBM machines (specifically developed for Germany) and under the hood of military cars had been Ford motors (scary thought for a German who has gasonline rather than blood in his veins) - to name only two selfless acts of the US during WW2.

The motives which drew the US into WW2 are secondary to us. After all there had been two plans - leave an agricultural Germany or an industrial Germany. Thanks to Mr. Marshall and his plan we were allowed to stay industrial and sort of kept the (political) line against the iron fence (which was in front of our windows for a long time, never in front of any US window).

If there wouldn't had been a strong belief Germany can get democratized we'd probably be part of the eastern block now, happily mowing away grass for some great communist leader.

pbmax wrote:

for 200 years, what made this country great? what made this country so wealthy top to bottom? socialism or capitalism? equal opportunity or forced fairness?

Hm - out of interest: do you really think George Bush would have become president without forced fairness?

I don't like to think I'm against McCain/Palin because I'm being "fed" information like the stuff goliath is providing, nor am I saying he's full of shit. It's just that it's difficult to look at this campaign with an unbiased perspective when all I see all over the internet are threads like this about corruption and stupidity, especially with McCain and Palin. If I had to give my comments on Palin just based only on any debates and speeches I've watched on my own, I'd say she just isn't a good choice for VP.

BNA! wrote:

I hope the hate preachers wont get elected, ever, again.

Hate preachers?

BNA! wrote:

pbmax wrote:

for 200 years, what made this country great? what made this country so wealthy top to bottom? socialism or capitalism? equal opportunity or forced fairness?

Hm - out of interest: do you really think George Bush would have become president without forced fairness?

What do you mean forced fairness?

evilartist wrote:

BNA! wrote:

I hope the hate preachers wont get elected, ever, again.

Hate preachers?

People who preach hate, like racists, religious fundamentalist or simply liars speaking in the public with a dozen TV cams pointed on them.

evilartist wrote:

BNA! wrote:

pbmax wrote:

for 200 years, what made this country great? what made this country so wealthy top to bottom? socialism or capitalism? equal opportunity or forced fairness?

Hm - out of interest: do you really think George Bush would have become president without forced fairness?

What do you mean forced fairness?

pbmax will explain.

BNA! wrote:

People who preach hate, like racists, religious fundamentalist or simply liars speaking in the public with a dozen TV cams pointed on them.

Sorry, I should have been more specific. I mean, who among the U.S. presidents has ever been a member of one those hate groups or extremists? When I think of hate preachers, I think of Fred Phelps.

Who, among Americans here, is actually going to vote? I certainly will, as soon as I actually get a chance to sit down and go over all the facts with Obama and the third party candidates, their views, their promises, and their plans on how to fund those promises. I certainly hope no one here is going to avoid voting because of how ridiculous our system is. It's that apathetic attitude by many americans that makes it easier for people like Bush to get re-elected.

Another post by pbmax that doesn't even attempt to address Palin's breaking of the law and subsequent lies about it...

evilartist wrote:

BNA! wrote:

People who preach hate, like racists, religious fundamentalist or simply liars speaking in the public with a dozen TV cams pointed on them.

Sorry, I should have been more specific. I mean, who among the U.S. presidents has ever been a member of one those hate groups or extremists? When I think of hate preachers, I think of Fred Phelps.

Who, among Americans here, is actually going to vote? I certainly will, as soon as I actually get a chance to sit down and go over all the facts with Obama and the third party candidates, their views, their promises, and their plans on how to fund those promises. I certainly hope no one here is going to avoid voting because of how ridiculous our system is. It's that apathetic attitude by many americans that makes it easier for people like Bush to get re-elected.

The way Sarah Palin speaks, to me, is hate preaching. The way George W. Bush spoke in the past was hate preaching. This is subjective. If you ask me "have you seen them at a clan meeting?" I say no. If you ask me "have you seen them publicly admitting they hold a membership card of secret extremist club X" I say no. If you ask me "have you heard them speaking in a way which highly questions intelligence of the speaker and gives the impression of unprecedented naivity and insubstantiality" I say yes. I held equal sympathy for Obama and McCain, but then all the racists and Christian fundamentalists started chanting "Hussein" and now they present a person like Sarah Palin as running mate. I think it's safe to assume Democrats and Republicans alike know, hope and pray she'll be gone "for personal or health reasons" the same second Mr. McCain is getting elected. It either was a mistake they already regret greatly or they did it on purpose to fish for the extremist and uneducated voters. Who knows?

I live in happy dappy island of Europe, things are different here and of course I am fully aware Carter unfortunately introduced the bible in politics after the Nixon times of corruption, yet I hope the US will swing back to separation between religion and state with this election.

It is getting more and more exciting, I still hope no whacko will blow up a bomb of last resort on US soil to create an environment which could get interpreted as mentally more beneficial for the McCain camp.

goliathvt wrote:

Another post by pbmax that doesn't even attempt to address Palin's breaking of the law and subsequent lies about it...

Did he ever respond with substantial information in a political thread? I mean other than linking images from Iraq as proof the whole invasion was welcome and soldiers got greeted with flowers everywhere.

To each his own - you and pbmax are like poled magnets anyways. What you write too much he writes too little, perhaps you both should sit down and agree on terms who writes how much.
But don't forget - Republicans prefer one liners, Democrats 8 hour speeches

goliathvt wrote:

Another post by pbmax that doesn't even attempt to address Palin's breaking of the law and subsequent lies about it...

Goliath, I really don't care to defend Palin or justify what she did. I don't like McCain or the Republican party. Part me actually wants Obama to win because I think he will be disastrous. Perhaps it will serve as a big wake up call for everyone.

Personally, I don't think that what she did was that big of a deal. If that's the worst thing she did as Governor of Alaska then her record is fairly clean compared to most politicians. No one is pure as the wind driven snow.

By the way, I don't like McCain or the Republican party.

If I were a republican (and by republican I mean the real definition, not neo-conservative) I would at least like McCain more than Bush.

As I understand them, republicans are supposed to be for things like:

Personal values, integrity and morality,
Small and efficient government,
Being dutiful to country (military service is admired),
Against corruption, including moral, financial and political,
and believing people should take responsibility for themselves and not expect hand-outs.

Personal values and morality: McCain (at least before this dismal campaign) had a war hero, dignity forged by the experiences as a POW, stand-up-guy persona. Bush, on the other hand, dodged his military responsibilities, ran baseless attack-dog campaigns since he couldn't challenge opponents on the issues, lied repeatedly to the American people about wiretaps (even if you disagree about the right/wrong of wiretaps, I'd prefer honesty), didn't have the guts to be straight the threat of Iraq, hired anyone that would take his side, regardless of qualifications--i.e. FEMA Chairman--and fired anyone who disagreed with him--i.e. that financial adviser from way back when who claimed the Iraq war was going to cost us billions, not the pittance Bush and his folks somehow believed.

Small, efficient government: McCain fights against government overspending and, for the most part, has taken R's and D's to task for their greedy and wasteful ways. He has his own share of "pork-barrel expenditures," for sure, but he does have a record for speaking up on these things.

Bush, on the other hand, has dumped trillions of dollars of debt onto the nation's lap and has been one of the most wasteful administrations when it comes to spending (overpaying contractors like Haliburton in Iraq, overpaying mercs like BlackwaterUSA in Iraq, overpaying on missile defense that will probably never work, etc. etc. etc. His administration has been one of the biggest economic black holes on the planet... maybe even of all time.

Dutiful to country: McCain has done quite a bit in his decades long tenure in the Senate and has served the country multiple times with a distinguished military career.

Bush, again, dodged his military responsibilities, faked medical records to do so, never saw any combat, and was fairly underwhelming as a serviceman. Before being selected as president, he actually has the nerve, then, to call into question the record of a guy who did see combat... who did get decorated for his service. Worse, as Commander in Chief, he then taunts the enemy to "bring it on" and makes threats and invades countries unilaterally almost as if he's trying to prove he's tough. How many lives were lost because he didn't understand the magnitude of his words and actions? I say this because clearly, if he understood the seriousness of his position, he would never, ever say something like "bring it on," when our troops are over there fighting for their very survival.

The corruption thing is too hilarious to even cover... the Bush presidency has been, hands-down, the most corrupt, despicable, unrelentingly dishonest, fear-mongering, self-serving administration I can remember. The short list might include the motives and reasons for war with Iraq, appointments of friends to offices with real responsibilities that resulted in people needlessly dying (Katrina), ousting CIA operatives as a grudge, handing out no-bid contracts to companies like Houston, Texas-based Kellog Brown & Root that do their jobs so poorly that our service men get electrocuted to death or injured by fires started by the shoddy electrical work, ignore the inflated prices that these shoddy companies charge the government (U.S. taxpayer), the strong-arming from Cheney and other top advisers on the so-called Iraq intelligence, etc. etc. etc.

Of course, here's where I see McCain showing some similarities... unlike the completely baseless Ayers-Obama connections... since the "connection" was that Obama merely sat on the same charity as Ayers (along with plenty of other R's and D's)... in McCain's case, there's the business with convicted Charles Keating of the Keating Five. There is clear evidence of a friendship and business partnership between McCain and Keating. You can read all about this stuff going back to 1980s if you want.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/ ... hive1.html

The last bit... believing people should take responsibility for themselves and all that... well apparently all the working folks with one home need to get it together and take care of business because both McCain and Bush believe the rich qualify for bailouts when they totally fuck up the entire world's economy. The folks losing their homes right and left don't. The folks going bankrupt because health care costs are through the roof thanks to a run-away-oversightless insurance racket don't. Single moms working 3 jobs don't. The once gainfully employed, longing-for-work-but-ran-out-of unemployment-benefits-after-being-downsized in an economy that isn't hiring don't. The veterans of the current and past wars who need mental and physical care don't...

Actually, a quick note on that... both Bush and McCain have dismissed (and McCain has even solidified his views by voting against) multiple pieces of legislation that include PTSD treatment for our returning Iraq vets in an order to be more "cost effective."

Of all the people you might think would be sensitive to the mental strains of battle, I'm always surprised when I read the next chapter in this particular "Fuckover the vets but then say things patriotic!" saga.

Was that long enough for you BNA?

Other than belief in a need for a small government what issues out of the ones you listed goliath would Dems dispute?

The Obama-Ayers connection is just arbitrary? Nice.

I'm also pretty sure Obama and the vast majority of Dems were in favor of the bailout plan.

In respnse to the tear-jerking stuff about single moms etc. :

A) Bailing out wall street was apparently the majority of our representatives' idea.
B) If taxes on our corporations weren't like they are (as in, way higher than other similar nations') maybe we could afford to employ more people over here and not have to "ship" jobs overseas (I freaking hate that terminology too). It's not going to get any easier when company owners (ie the "rich", or as I like to say "successful") have to pay even higher taxes.
C) There are plenty of jobs out there. People either don't want the jobs available to them or don't know how to find them. My company is hiring at an unprecedented rate. Fifty-four new hires this week, over sixty the week before that. I'm always reminded of that quote from Office Space about no one wanting to be a janitor because no one wants to clean up shit.
D) Unfortunately most people losing their homes could never afford them in the first place. Make a mistake, pay the consequences.
E) My insurance rates at FedEx were pretty low, and I was fully covered only working part-time there as a package handler (the literally lowest of the low). This job is essentially open to anyone as long as you're not doing drugs (that means weed too) which is I guess hard for a lot of people out there.

BTW McCain blows too. But in general I think it's pointless to "argue" politics or religion, it can be fun though.

BNA! wrote:

Republicans prefer one liners, Democrats 8 hour speeches

That's because the democrats rely on news papers, web sites, comedians, musicians, and... forum thread titles, to do it for them.

If they spouted some of the complete crap that gets onto those they'd never keep their jobs, but notice how those are the things everyone uses as arguments.

goliathvt wrote:

Was that long enough for you BNA?

Barely, it still fits on one page

stabinbac wrote:

BNA! wrote:

Republicans prefer one liners, Democrats 8 hour speeches

That's because the democrats rely on news papers, web sites, comedians, musicians, and... forum thread titles, to do it for them.

If they spouted some of the complete crap that gets onto those they'd never keep their jobs, but notice how those are the things everyone uses as arguments.

Quote:

It's not going to get any easier when company owners (ie the "rich", or as I like to say "successful") have to pay even higher taxes.

This is an argument that hasn't held water any better than the Titanic and for much longer.

If you make $1,000,000 a year and you are taxed 10% then you pay $100,000 a year in taxes.

If you make $50,000 a year and you are taxed 10% then you pay $5,000 a year in taxes.

Simple math, no arguments there but a family of 3-4 would struggle on a remaining salary of $45,000 yet I've not seen too many families struggle to survive with the remaining $900,000 a year.

If you make the big bucks, expect to contribute even bigger bucks. It's the Robin Hood effect. If you are making vastly more money than you really need to live excessively comfortable then you can afford to contribute a larger portion of that money to society, those that are trying to scratch their way to the top cannot. I'd presume you would not suggest a flat tax of (an arbitrary number here) $50,000 a year. Somehow I don't think that's ever worked for pretty obvious reasons.

And don't even bother giving me the sob story of "but we/they/I earned that money". Trust me, I don't have sympathy for those with a silver spoon in their mouth griping about hanging onto that extra $100,000 that isn't going to do anything but get inherited in years to come while I've seen people who didn't have the talent or skill (or luck) to succeed to that level and struggle to make ends meet. The sad part being I've seen some do a far better job of managing the tiny amount of money they have compared to some spoiled CEO complaining about how much they had to pay in taxes.

Also, large corporations by percentage pay far less tax than smaller companies. One benefit the rich have that the middle/lower-middle class do not is they have the money to hire lawyers and accountants to work out the "details" (*cough* loopholes) of their tax returns to save them quite a lot and significantly reduce how much tax they pay. This is not a big secret. It is also not unknown that there are huge tax credits for companies that hire out overseas or "import" people into the US to take jobs nor is it a secret that there are some very huge loopholes that foreign companies are able to exploit that keeps them from having to pay ANY tax at all.

Bittoman wrote:

If you make the big bucks, expect to contribute even bigger bucks. It's the Robin Hood effect.

why do you care how much your neighbor makes? who cares? i don't. good for them.

why can't successful people be looked upto instead of scorned?

i agree that wealthy people should help out the needy. but why does the government get to call the shots on that? the government is last place we should look to when it comes to spending money. we can all agree on that, right?

most wealthy people already donate alot of money to charitable causes. perhaps if they were taxed less, they could give more.

If the government didn't tax the rich more, lets face it, a majority of the rich would choose to keep their money. Many of those donations are made for tax breaks and deductions as well. I'm not saying all are without good intentions, but many have the intention of saving themselves in taxes at the end of the year first and actually helping people somewhere lower down the line.

Successful people are looked up to. It's the wealthy people who complain that they can't afford the fuel to their personal jet for whatever reason that anger people having a hard time just feeding their family.

Deadite4 wrote:

It's the wealthy people who complain that they can't afford the fuel to their personal jet for whatever reason that anger people having a hard time just feeding their family.

my family is living paycheck to paycheck right now. we can't pay all of our bills on time. we have medical bills up the wazzu. and yet i don't care that some CEO gets to ride in a private jet and has 6 different homes. that doesn't effect my life one way or the other.

i could drive across town into a wealthy area and get mad as hell that they are living the high life while i'm stressed out not knowing if my mortgage payment will bounce or not. its just not fair! the government needs to tax those greedy people into the poor house! that will make me feel better! um, right?

the artificial redistribution of wealth is a broken model. taxing the successful only punishes success. transfering wealth to the needy rewards being needy.

You misunderstood what I said and only took the first portion of my quote. Its not the successfull people, or people with multiple houses, cars, etc...those aren't the people I'm talking about. It's the ones complaining about having to pay a higher tax because now they can't afford their 7th house, car, etc....it is at that point where I don't want to hear it. Huge difference. Also successful doesn't mean rich.

Another pbmax post avoiding Palin's BREAKING of the LAW and LIES about it.

goliathvt wrote:

If I were a republican (and by republican I mean the real definition, not neo-conservative) I would at least like McCain more than Bush.

As I understand them, republicans are supposed to be for things like:

Personal values, integrity and morality,
Small and efficient government,
Being dutiful to country (military service is admired),
Against corruption, including moral, financial and political,
and believing people should take responsibility for themselves and not expect hand-outs.

Personal values and morality: McCain (at least before this dismal campaign) had a war hero, dignity forged by the experiences as a POW, stand-up-guy persona. Bush, on the other hand, dodged his military responsibilities, ran baseless attack-dog campaigns since he couldn't challenge opponents on the issues, lied repeatedly to the American people about wiretaps (even if you disagree about the right/wrong of wiretaps, I'd prefer honesty), didn't have the guts to be straight the threat of Iraq, hired anyone that would take his side, regardless of qualifications--i.e. FEMA Chairman--and fired anyone who disagreed with him--i.e. that financial adviser from way back when who claimed the Iraq war was going to cost us billions, not the pittance Bush and his folks somehow believed.

Small, efficient government: McCain fights against government overspending and, for the most part, has taken R's and D's to task for their greedy and wasteful ways. He has his own share of "pork-barrel expenditures," for sure, but he does have a record for speaking up on these things.

Bush, on the other hand, has dumped trillions of dollars of debt onto the nation's lap and has been one of the most wasteful administrations when it comes to spending (overpaying contractors like Haliburton in Iraq, overpaying mercs like BlackwaterUSA in Iraq, overpaying on missile defense that will probably never work, etc. etc. etc. His administration has been one of the biggest economic black holes on the planet... maybe even of all time.

Dutiful to country: McCain has done quite a bit in his decades long tenure in the Senate and has served the country multiple times with a distinguished military career.

Bush, again, dodged his military responsibilities, faked medical records to do so, never saw any combat, and was fairly underwhelming as a serviceman. Before being selected as president, he actually has the nerve, then, to call into question the record of a guy who did see combat... who did get decorated for his service. Worse, as Commander in Chief, he then taunts the enemy to "bring it on" and makes threats and invades countries unilaterally almost as if he's trying to prove he's tough. How many lives were lost because he didn't understand the magnitude of his words and actions? I say this because clearly, if he understood the seriousness of his position, he would never, ever say something like "bring it on," when our troops are over there fighting for their very survival.

The corruption thing is too hilarious to even cover... the Bush presidency has been, hands-down, the most corrupt, despicable, unrelentingly dishonest, fear-mongering, self-serving administration I can remember. The short list might include the motives and reasons for war with Iraq, appointments of friends to offices with real responsibilities that resulted in people needlessly dying (Katrina), ousting CIA operatives as a grudge, handing out no-bid contracts to companies like Houston, Texas-based Kellog Brown & Root that do their jobs so poorly that our service men get electrocuted to death or injured by fires started by the shoddy electrical work, ignore the inflated prices that these shoddy companies charge the government (U.S. taxpayer), the strong-arming from Cheney and other top advisers on the so-called Iraq intelligence, etc. etc. etc.

Of course, here's where I see McCain showing some similarities... unlike the completely baseless Ayers-Obama connections... since the "connection" was that Obama merely sat on the same charity as Ayers (along with plenty of other R's and D's)... in McCain's case, there's the business with convicted Charles Keating of the Keating Five. There is clear evidence of a friendship and business partnership between McCain and Keating. You can read all about this stuff going back to 1980s if you want.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/ ... hive1.html

The last bit... believing people should take responsibility for themselves and all that... well apparently all the working folks with one home need to get it together and take care of business because both McCain and Bush believe the rich qualify for bailouts when they totally fuck up the entire world's economy. The folks losing their homes right and left don't. The folks going bankrupt because health care costs are through the roof thanks to a run-away-oversightless insurance racket don't. Single moms working 3 jobs don't. The once gainfully employed, longing-for-work-but-ran-out-of unemployment-benefits-after-being-downsized in an economy that isn't hiring don't. The veterans of the current and past wars who need mental and physical care don't...

Actually, a quick note on that... both Bush and McCain have dismissed (and McCain has even solidified his views by voting against) multiple pieces of legislation that include PTSD treatment for our returning Iraq vets in an order to be more "cost effective."

Of all the people you might think would be sensitive to the mental strains of battle, I'm always surprised when I read the next chapter in this particular "Fuckover the vets but then say things patriotic!" saga.

Was that long enough for you BNA?

This post above pretty much sums up the entire bush administration exactly like it was. bush is not even a republican, he's just a neo-con, and neo-cons are f***ing up the world, not only the usa. But the part i disagree a little is about mccain. Mccain is a neo-con too, dont let apparent differences fool you. True old style republicans are gone from the picture.

pbmax wrote:

Bittoman wrote:

If you make the big bucks, expect to contribute even bigger bucks. It's the Robin Hood effect.

why do you care how much your neighbor makes? who cares? i don't. good for them.

why can't successful people be looked upto instead of scorned?

i agree that wealthy people should help out the needy. but why does the government get to call the shots on that? the government is last place we should look to when it comes to spending money. we can all agree on that, right?

most wealthy people already donate alot of money to charitable causes. perhaps if they were taxed less, they could give more.

I could care less about how much anyone makes. I have a problem with those who make a living that is comfortable enough that they could retire 50 times over griping that they have to pay "more" in taxes.

I don't scorn wealthy or successful people, I only scorn those that have no real reason to bitch. As my scenario suggested, if you make a million a year and you have to pay a hundred thousand in taxes on it...trust me, you aren't suffering. It sucks...but they are not going to starve eating bologna sandwiches while living in a cardboard box wearing the same pair of worn out Wal Mart jeans every day of the week.

Wealthy people donate a lot of money to charitable causes as a way so that they are taxed less and they get a nice return from a tax write off at the beginning of the following year. It's an odd sort of "investment" in a way.

And I never said the government should call the shots on how to spend it. I didn't even suggest it.

I could care less. Democrats and liberals have lied and abused power countless times. Bill Clinton anybody? Nuff said.

Bittoman wrote:

I could care less about how much anyone makes. I have a problem with those who make a living that is comfortable enough that they could retire 50 times over griping that they have to pay "more" in taxes.

well, those types are already completely miserable no matter what their taxes are. if they paid no tax, they would find something else to be upset about.

it sounds like you want want to take money away from people who are ungrateful.

I thought you wanted everyone to be intellectually honest? Turning that into wanting to take money away from ungrateful people is not that. You specifically asked why people have a problem with the successful, or rather the wealthy. The responses were, its not a problem with the wealthy, but a problem with the portion of wealthy who complain about money when they are financially set for 3 generations after them.

All of which was a side issue to taxing the wealthy a little more than the poor and middle class.

john_doe2 wrote:

I could care less. Democrats and liberals have lied and abused power countless times. Bill Clinton anybody? Nuff said.

Bill Clinton actually got us a surplus. He raised taxes by sugar-coating them with fancy names, and it worked (that's what I remember, anyway). I honestly believe we should do that...raise taxes, especially the sales tax. Nothing significant. Maybe increase the rate from 7.8% to 9%. It's a subtle, yet notable difference. I'm willing to pay a little more for my goods if it meant pumping more cash back into the country's budget. I think all this talk from both parties about lowering taxes just isn't going to work.

pbmax wrote:

it sounds like you want want to take money away from people who are ungrateful.

If I may be cynical...yeah, I certainly wouldn't be upset :mrgreen:

BNA! wrote:

It is getting more and more exciting, I still hope no whacko will blow up a bomb of last resort on US soil to create an environment which could get interpreted as mentally more beneficial for the McCain camp.

You read my mind. That wouldn't surprise me at all. If it happens then conspiracy theorists will blame the republican extremists, but it could just as easily be foreign extremists making sure the republicans win, continuing with their plan of provoking the west into a war it can't win without committing genocide, which would prove their point. It's working surprisingly well so far.

BNA! wrote:

But don't forget - Republicans prefer one liners, Democrats 8 hour speeches

I think it's because Republicans have nothing to say other than praise Jesus, down with socialism, bomb whoever, USA.

Ignoring my political beliefs and hatred of that particular aspect of American culture for a second and focusing purely on the candidates, Palin's got ruthless selfish far right elitist bitch tattooed on her stupid and highly overrated face. I spose that's not really ignoring my political beliefs, it's confirming them. McCain just seems to me to be an elderly hobbit who's recovering from a stroke.

pbmax wrote:

Part me actually wants Obama to win because I think he will be disastrous. Perhaps it will serve as a big wake up call for everyone.

Disastrous? You mean worse than invading a country with just cause, making the name: USA a negative term, and crippling the world economy. Not that the world economy is the responsibility of the US, but still, crippling the domestic economy is surly bad enough. In think most people in the US have already or are starting to wake up.

The main purpose of the National Health Service in Britain is to treat emergencies without leaving people with a bill. If people want to go private, they can.

And you still haven't answered goliathvts' question.

pbmax wrote:

most wealthy people already donate alot of money to charitable causes. perhaps if they were taxed less, they could give more.

LOL

pbmax wrote:

the artificial redistribution of wealth is a broken model. taxing the successful only punishes success. transfering wealth to the needy rewards being needy.

LOL Stop it you're killing mLOL

rcumps01 wrote:

This job is essentially open to anyone as long as you're not doing drugs (that means weed too) which is I guess hard for a lot of people out there.

So not worth it.

rcumps01 wrote:

It's not going to get any easier when company owners (ie the "rich", or as I like to say "successful") have to pay even higher taxes.

I definitely don't rate how successful my life is by basing it on how much money I've made.

Sorry for all the quotes, it's just easier to be concise without going on and on.

wal wrote:

pbmax wrote:

the artificial redistribution of wealth is a broken model. taxing the successful only punishes success. transfering wealth to the needy rewards being needy.

LOL Stop it you're killing mLOL

why is this so funny? why did Bill Clinton sign the 1996 Welfare Reform Bill if this is not true? that bill turned out to be a great success. it helped people to not depend on the government for their financial needs.

isn't this what we want? independent people able to provide for their own needs?

If you think needy people feel rewarded when they receive government aid, then again your views of the needy are as skewed as your view of what 'poor' families in America have.

Deadite4 wrote:

If you think needy people feel rewarded when they receive government aid, then again your views of the needy are as skewed as your view of what 'poor' families in America have.

the artificial redistribution of wealth is a broken model. taxing the successful only punishes success. transfering wealth to the needy encourages being needy.

is that better? :roll:

so you like people stuck on welfare programs? being dependent on the state? or would you rather see people learn to forge their own way and become more independent?

pbmax wrote:

Deadite4 wrote:

If you think needy people feel rewarded when they receive government aid, then again your views of the needy are as skewed as your view of what 'poor' families in America have.

the artificial redistribution of wealth is a broken model. taxing the successful only punishes success. transfering wealth to the needy encourages being needy.

is that better? :roll:

so you like people stuck on welfare programs? being dependent on the state? or would you rather see people learn to forge their own way and become more independent?

How would you help people to help themselves?

People being able to make their own way is good. However not everyone can be wealthy, not everyone can be middle class, and not everyone is poor.

Quote:

the artificial redistribution of wealth is a broken model. taxing the successful only punishes success. transfering wealth to the needy encourages being needy.

No, that isn't better. If you think poor, needy people are encouraged to stay poor by getting government aid, you are out of your mind. People need this help to survive, for their family, their kids. This is all some families have and its not because they are encouraged to stay poor. On the opposite, government aid actually allows people to get back on their feet and get new jobs, it allows them to survive long enough to once again become dependent on their own. If you honestly think that the poor are encouraged to stay poor by helpful programs you have never been in any of these programs before, and don't have the slightest clue what its like to be in those shoes. Sometimes its unavoidable, and it saves families everyday.

Yes its very encouraging to not be sure if you will be able to eat next week :roll:

Deadite4 wrote:

If you think poor, needy people are encouraged to stay poor by getting government aid, you are out of your mind.

i'm not out of mind. are you familiar with the Welform Reform Bill of 1996? bill clinton signed it and its been a great success because people were taking advantage of it and were also becoming totally dependent on it as a way of life. there was no need to work because they could make just enough on welfare.

Quote:

On the opposite, government aid actually allows people to get back on their feet and get new jobs, it allows them to survive long enough to once again become dependent on their own.

yes, tax payer aid can if used correctly.

Quote:

If you honestly think that the poor are encouraged to stay poor by helpful programs you have never been in any of these programs before, and don't have the slightest clue what its like to be in those shoes.

but there's the rub. "helpful" programs can get people back on their feet again. but being helpful isn't always what the government has in mind.

i could go even further and argue that people should not live beyond their means and save enough money to cover rough times like being laid-off or fired. if you got fired, would you go to your next door neighbors and demand that they give you money? well, when you file for unemployment, your taking other people's money.

we need to stop looking at the government as the solution to every problem. its not the solution, it IS the problem.

When racism, classism, sexism, heterosexism and every other form of social ill out there is completely erased, there will no longer be a need for any sort of welfare or government financial assistance programs outside of maybe a "disaster relief" type program for people who have their lives torn asunder through no fault of their own.

We're a long way off from that day, though, and since a black, yellow or brown-skinned man still makes less money for the same amount of work than me, I'm perfectly fine with paying higher taxes and/or doing my share to counterbalance the racism inherent in our employment and financial systems.

Again, since we're a long way off, and I'm aware that women still make $0.75 to my $1.00, I'm more than happy to contribute to assistance programs that help alleviate that discrimination.

And again, since the notion that "hard work" is "rewarded" is almost completely false in our system... because if it were true, a white single parent working 3 jobs would make more than an old white Fortune 500 CEO... and since I know the barriers of classism are enormous (and are even more imposing if you are a woman or person of color), I don't mind paying taxes or contributing to funds that try to acknowledge those barriers.

List social ill here, and repeat.

But anyway, wasn't this thread about Sarah Palin BREAKING THE LAW and LYING ABOUT IT and why it makes no sense for anyone, dem or repub alike, to want to support her assuming they operate from even the most basic moral framework...?

There are plenty of "ism" in your post above

Sarah Palin is a suboptimal choice. She may likely go back to Alaska into hibernation when McCain wins.

REPORT CLEARS PALIN IN TROOPERGATE PROBE

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081104/ap_ ... opergate_9

Phew! This report came just in time. You can vote McCain/Palin now Goliathvt!

pbmax wrote:

REPORT CLEARS PALIN IN TROOPERGATE PROBE

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081104/ap_ ... opergate_9

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, or if you're just trying to defend McCain/Palin (again). That article still isn't enough to convince me (or many others, I bet) that she's a worthy replacement if John McCain were to pass on. I say we don't take any chances with her...vote Obama!*

* I acknowledge the irony of my statement, for we will always be taking chances and risks no matter who we vote for. So please, there's no need for anybody to point out the obvious.

Wow! Amazing! Who could have guessed a hand-picked panel would hire an "independent investigator" and release a report "just in time" that has findings that are OPPOSITE of the other investigation where Palin didn't have the ability to hand-pick members....

(And in a few weeks after the election, we'll probably find out that she perjured herself and she'll be hauled off in hand-cuffs having committed a felony to cover up her power abuse scandal.)

*yawn*