McCain v Obama

Everything Political

Re: McCain v Obama

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Thu Oct 23, 2008 3:37 pm

Chorlton wrote:POLITICS AND RELIGION GENTLEMEN !!

I would love to sling off at people in the Spirituality forum but I dont. I'm not allowed to and I feel thats wrong but thems the rules.
It should also be the rule for Politics. People have the same deep set beliefs about politics as they have about religion and no amount of discussion will change it.
BUT!


But indeed! While many want to treat politics like religion, I defy that idea because there is one, MASSIVE difference that should always be kept in the front of our mind:

In politics, there is no "absent deity" who refuses to answer questions and/or take responsibility for the activities that are being attributed to them!

IOW, we can NOT give politicians the same "pass" that we give to an (alleged) God. The day we do so, and the day we cease confronting political issues is the day that politics BECOMES religion. And that is just what the people who grab power and seek to hold onto it want from us: "Just believe in me, and leave me alone, and I will take care of you my children."

Obama didnt answer the diret question that was put to him directly, he skirted round it. BUT THATS WHAT POLITICIANS DO!, They dont like answering direct questions.
Surely people, if a daft old Brit Musician can see that, you younger, superior (though less handsome suave and debonair) colonials can see it as well?.


And here....RIGHT HERE is where we can do a bit of self-examination and see that WE GET WHAT WE ALLOW in politics! All too often we (and the media) "give a politician a pass" simply because we have resolved ourselves to the fact that politicians will NOT answer direct questions that require integrity!! Hence, IT IS OUR FAULT, people! We are seeing all around us the result of allowing politicians to get away with this, and it is our own stupidity to actually BELIEVE all the happy smoke the pols blow up our arses every 2 years (here in the US).

I have talked before about a 3rd political party. Why not the "Responsive Party"? How about forming an entire party around nothing more than NOT giving pols a "pass", and engaging in massive letter-writing campaigns to media outlets and personalities that allow pols to give non-answers and not hold them to a real answer?

I have said before we are close to coming to the end of the Age of Information. We see all around us just how useless information can be when it is polluted with viral memes, especially when those memes cannot be detected and isolated. 9-11 conspiracy theorists are just one example. It is time to embrace the new Age of Intention...and in doing so, it is my belief that when politics IS revamped (by me, us, or whomever), you will see that it will no longer embrace simply "informing the public", because information can be used to grab and hold power under false pretenses. The new form of Democracy must be, and will be, based upon transparent INTENTION. And we must no longer judge politicians on what they say, but rather on what their intentions have exhibited their entire life.

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA


Re: McCain v Obama

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:38 pm

Earlier in this thread there were discussions of the high oil prices we endured earlier this year, and further discussions of whether they were market-induced, or a result of "speculators". I had agreed that short term price fluctuations can be driven by speculators, as any economist who studies commodities would agree. The very fact that the US exhibits a cyclical driving season centered around summer vacations has always been a chance for traders to try and profit on oil futures.

But in the spirit of RU's "evidence-based claims", I now wish to point everyone to what has happened to the price of oil as defacto evidence (which is also difficult to refute) that it is the MARKET which sets the price of oil as a result of supply and demand. If there was any evidence of speculators driving the price of oil up, we would still see higher prices now (although off their peaks because we are now out of the summer driving season). However, what we have seen is the floor fall out from under oil prices because of the lower demand as a result of the global economic slowdown.

Indeed, the ONLY evidence that exists for any form of market manipulation is the same evidence that I pointed to long ago in this thread, and which openly tries to manipulate the markets: OPEC. The fact that people can get foaming-at-the-mouth angry at US oil companies when prices are high, but won't even growl (even a little) when OPEC openly has a meeting to reduce output to keep prices artificially high amazes me. And I see it as evidence that such people who do react to oil company profits (but do not react to OPEC) are infected with one of the viral memes I am talking about. I call this particular viral meme "the big, bad US companies are trying to screw the customer by manipulating gas prices".

I should also like folks to note how Obama's rhetoric of "slap those bad oil guys with a windfall tax on their 'exorbitant' profits" has all but disappeared. Can't find ANYTHING about that tired rhetoric on the radar these days, can we? But it sure seemed to work to suck people in to believe that "Obama is gonna give us justice against those oil profiteer bad guys."

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: McCain v Obama

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:46 pm

Evidence:

http://www.time.com/time/business/artic ... 75,00.html

Oil demand in the U.S. has dropped 10% in the few weeks, continuing a year long trend. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Americans drove 15 billion fewer miles in August, or 5.6% less than they did the year before. DOT says it's the largest ever year-to-year decline recorded in a single month. Over the past 10 months, Americans have driven 78 billion fewer miles than they did in the same 10 months the previous year — sure proof of what economists call "demand destruction."


Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: McCain v Obama

Postby torbjon » Sat Oct 25, 2008 8:38 pm

Nola knows more about economics than I do, so bear with me...

isn't the demand less because people can't afford it? I mean, wasn't there less of a 'demand' for goods and services after Black Tuesday (Crash of 1929) than before?

It's not that folks don't Want the stuff... they just can't afford it...

or am I being stupid again?

thanks.
twj
Expendable Guy. The show is no good without them.
User avatar
torbjon
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 378
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 7:08 am
Location: New Jersey

Re: McCain v Obama

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:51 pm

Hi Torb,

torbjon wrote:isn't the demand less because people can't afford it?


Sure. But I do not see how that alters my point. The oil companies benefited from a market-driven price rise...if you call a profit margin of 10% "benefiting". Because of lower usage, the market price for oil (and therefore gas) adjusted accordingly. So oil company profits are going to be back where they were before $100+ per barrel oil (meaning 8% magin or less).

My point was that conspiracy folks always talk about "big oil" (i.e. US oil companies) being the bad guys who manipulate the market to fatten themselves up. When in reality the most obvious market manipulation by OPEC is given a pass. Some would rather point out the conspiracy for which there is scant evidence, and all the while ignore the conspiracy that is out in the open and admitted to by OPEC nations. Why is that, I wonder? Why do people want to penalize US companies that must compete in a world market with threats of "windfall profits", but do not wish to confront the defacto market manipulators?

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: McCain v Obama

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Wed Oct 29, 2008 2:58 am

More evidence... that the media is actually protecting Obama. Let's see...how often do we see a news organization flatly refuse to make news available?

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/28 ... -activist/

A number of Web sites have accused the Times of purposely suppressing the tape of the event -- which former Weather Underground terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn reportedly attended.

Sullivan said she would not give details of what else may be on the tape, adding that anyone interested in the video should read the newspaper's report, which was its final account.

"This is a story that we reported on six months ago, so any suggestion that we're suppressing the tape is absurd -- we're the ones that brought the existence of the tape to light," Sullivan said.


Uhhhh, sure. That is why you are refusing to release the video? How exactly does that logic work? I am sure Obama supporters will, once again, minimize this... but doesn't anyone else see this as irresponsible, biased journalism?

So now let's again take stock of all the people Obama associated with but has now "thrown under the bus":

1) Bill Ayers
2) Tony Rezko
3) Rev. Jeremiah Wright
4) Rashid Khalidi

Yes... and we are to believe him when he says these people will not have influence over him, or he does not agree with them even though he associated with them quite a bit? I am sure we can trust him, right? Just like we could trust him when he promised to accept public financing and stay within the guidelines thereof?

Oh yes...and for those of you who are willing to confront the truth of this typical pol, take a look at the list of 56 people he has "thrown under the bus" because associating with them was jeapordizing his ambitions:

http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/07/li ... r-bus.html

As always it will be history that tells us if we, the people, did the right thing electing a "popular pol". I am worried, especially when I see media to blatently protecting a pol.

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: McCain v Obama

Postby lost_shaman » Wed Oct 29, 2008 8:53 am

You Can Call Me Ray wrote:As always it will be history that tells us if we, the people, did the right thing electing a "popular pol". I am worried, especially when I see media to blatently protecting a pol.

Ray


The Media does this because they know they do influence the Election and there is no real Law against doing so and the reward for doing so is real too.

The only question is whether you personally want a Conservative White House or an Ultra-liberal White-House for the next four years. I predict that this will be another one of those Elections that a handful of Voters will determine our collective future.

I'd argue that people choose conservatism in the White House if not simply because a Democratic controlled Congress will have to negotiate! Or you could just sign your life away without checks and balances because you are 'Smitten' this week. =P~

As I said before I won't be 'wasting' my only Vote on a Third Party Candidate in such an important Election.
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am

Chinagate all over again?

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Wed Oct 29, 2008 3:59 pm

With not many people (in the media at least) actively questioning Obama, this leaves the door open to not only breaking rules of campaign finance, but worse... fiscal influence from outside the USA.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 13_pf.html

Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign is allowing donors to use largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask a contributor's identity, campaign officials confirmed.


How will Obamatrons slough this one off?

The problem with such cards, campaign finance lawyers said, is that they make it impossible to tell whether foreign nationals, donors who have exceeded the limits, government contractors or others who are barred from giving to a federal campaign are making contributions.


We have already heard from several "world leaders" who are definitely shady weigh-in on the fact that they would like to see Obama become president (Hamas anyone?). So with anonymous donations like this, it should cause someone who is hawkish to the fact that all pols are dishonest when it comes to money to wonder how much foreign money may be flowing into Obama's coffers unknowingly? It has the potential to make the Clinton/Gore "Chinagate" fiasco look like kids selling lemonade on the street! :shock:

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: McCain v Obama

Postby ryguy » Thu Oct 30, 2008 5:04 pm

In light of the thread topic, McCain vs. Obama, I found an interesting Article from Factcheck.org that compares the tax plans of each candidate.

I can't see why would McCain's political campaign need to resort to blatant lying when they could just say the truth - that Obama's tax plan is too expensive? Maybe it's because he'd have to admit that his is too expensive also...? lol...

Title: A New Stitch in a Bad Pattern:
- A McCain ad wrongly claims Obama plans "painful tax increases" for working families. And who's talking about deficits?


Excerpts (click the link above for the full article):

***start paste***
McCain's new ad puts another stitch in what we've called his pattern of deceit on Obama's tax plan. This one claims Obama and congressional Democrats plan to push forward "painful tax increases on working American families" and that they will bring about "years of deficits," "no balanced budgets" and "billions in new government spending."

The ad is plain wrong about higher taxes on working families. In fact, Obama's economic plan would produce a tax cut for the majority of American households, with middle-income earners benefiting most. As for "years of deficits," exactly the same claim could be made about McCain's program. It's unlikely either Obama or McCain would balance the budget, and both are projected to increase the debt by trillions.

Analysis

We've already reported on at least three other ads, in both Spanish and English, from Sen. John McCain's campaign that distort his rival's tax policy. The ads claim that, for example, Democratic Sen. Barack Obama would raise taxes "on the sale of your home" and that he has a "history of raising taxes" and that he wanted to raise taxes on "families" making just $42,000 a year.

Claims like these have led us to say that McCain's campaign is engaging in a "pattern of deceit" when it comes to describing Obama's tax plan. This most recent ad fits right into the template.

Tax Counter-Spin

The ad says Obama and “out of touch Congressional leaders” plan to implement “painful tax increases on working American families,” and it shows an image of a family presumably upset about an impending tax increase. But, as we've reported numerous times, Obama proposes a tax cut for the vast majority of households.

[sample ad snipped for space]

We spoke with Len Berman, director of the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, which has produced one of the most authoritative analyses of the two candidates’ tax plans. When we asked him if Obama’s claim that he would “cut taxes for 95 percent of all working families” was true, Berman told FactCheck.org that it was “consistent with our estimates.” Overall, the TPC found that Obama’s plan would produce a tax cut for 81.3 percent of all households, and a cut for 95.5 percent of all households with children.


Under Obama's plan, the TPC estimates that people (or couples) making between $37,595 and $66,354 a year would see an average savings of $1,118 on their taxes.

Under McCain's plan, on the other hand, those same individuals would save $325 on average — $793 less than the average savings under Obama's plan.


Put It on Our Tab

The ad also claims that Obama and congressional Democrats would bring about "years of deficits." But (and we've reported this before, too), the fact is both candidates' economic plans would fail to bring an end to deficit spending, and by that measure, McCain's is worse than Obama's. According to the TPC analysis, Obama's tax plan would increase the debt by $3.5 trillion by 2018, while McCain's plan would bring about a projected $5 trillion increase in the same time frame. The TPC also found that:

[snipped for space]

So the ad's claims about deficit spending and "no balanced budgets"? They could be applied just as easily to McCain as to Obama and the Dems. And we're not sure McCain really wants to go there.

***end paste**
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Re: McCain v Obama

Postby ryguy » Thu Oct 30, 2008 5:19 pm

In one of the last presidential debates, McCain made the point that America needs to remain in Iraq...that we're "winning the war" and shouldn't pull out in defeat.

Jeff Goldberg interviewed McCain earlier in the year, and This blog article, "The Wonk Room" outlines how the McCain/Bush Iraq policies are a dismal failure, and will continue if we don't remove this entire mindset from the White House by keeping McCain out.

Choice Excerpts:

**Start Paste**

Jeffrey Goldberg’s interview of John McCain is very worth reading, as it gives a pretty good view into the coloring book version of the Middle East that McCain offers to the American people. For all of the Middle East leaders that McCain has met with — and he really, really wants you to know how many he has met with — McCain’s knowledge of the region persists at the level of a twenty minute briefing. It’s nice that he can name-check Barak, Olmert, and Abbas; It would be really nice if he demonstrated any knowledge of the history of the Israel-Palestine conflict, or offered any good idea on how to move the peace process forward, which he does not.

What’s really troubling is McCain’s cluelessness about the disastrous effects of the Iraq war on American security. Asked by Goldberg whether he thinks Iran’s intention “is the actual destruction of America,” McCain answers that…the United States should stay in Iraq:

"It’s hard for me to say what their intentions are, but the effect -– If they were able to drive us out of Iraq, and al Qaeda established a base there, and the Shiite militias erupted and the Iranian influence was expanded, which to my mind is what would happen, then the consequences for American national security would be profound. I don’t know if their intention is to destroy America and what we stand for, but I think the consequences of them succeeding in the destruction of the state of Israel and their continued support for terrorist organizations – all of these would have profound national security consequences."

You know what’s also had profound negative consequences for American national security? Invading and occupying Iraq. McCain has offered this justification before, and continues to completely miss the point.

Iran has been the single biggest beneficiary of the American invasion and occupation of Iraq. Former diplomat Peter Galbraith wrote last September that Iraq was a “mission accomplished–for Iran“:

"Of all the unintended consequences of the Iraq war, Iran’s strategic victory is the most far-reaching…For eight years of brutal warfare in the 1980s, Iran tried to breach that line but could not. (At the time, the Reagan administration supported Saddam Hussein precisely because it feared the strategic consequences of an Iraq dominated by Iran’s allies.) The 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq accomplished what Khomeini’s army could not."

Journalist Robert Dreyfuss wrote in March that "the United States has spent most of the past five years in a de facto alliance with Iran in support of the Shiite-led (and US-installed) regime in Baghdad….Washington’s decision to topple Saddam’s government has put in place a ruling elite that is far closer to Iran than it is to the United States."

Rather than weakening Iranian hard-liners, as the Iraq war’s advocates insisted it would, the American invasion only strengthened them.

The consequences of Iraq for Israel’s security have also been negative. Brian Katulis writes that "in the summer of 2006, when Israel was fighting a live war with the Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah, it was clear whose side most Iraqi leaders were on — and it was not Israel."

Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki condemned Israel’s "aggression," and that same summer, the Iraqi speaker of parliament Mahmoud Al-Mashhadani accused "Jews" of being behind the violence and murders in Iraq. Are these the type of allies that the United States wants? Is the current policy in Iraq undermining U.S. and Israeli security interests by giving Iran some breathing room to expand its influence further around the region? These are tough questions to answer, but U.S. leaders need to address this fundamental contradiction at the heart of U.S. policy in the Middle East.

Rather than consider these questions, however, McCain prefers to engage in empty sloganeering and fear-mongering as he plans the next war.

**end paste**
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

And So It Begins...Again!

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Fri Oct 31, 2008 4:25 pm

Just as we saw Barack Obama change his stripes after he secured his Party nomination over Hillary (to try to position himself as centrist, which would not work for the Dem Party nomination), we are now seeing his "slick" pol moves to shift again as he wraps-up the Big Jawb:

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/31 ... n-victory/

Barack Obama's senior advisers have drawn up plans to lower expectations for his presidency if he wins next week's election, amid concerns that many of his euphoric supporters are harboring unrealistic hopes of what he can achieve.


Geee...Ya think? :roll:

The sudden financial crisis and the prospect of a deep and painful recession have increased the urgency inside the Obama team to bring people down to earth, after a campaign in which his soaring rhetoric and promises of "hope" and "change" are now confronted with the reality of a stricken economy.


Ya don't say! My prediction of the FIRST "lowering of expecations"? That he is going to do ANYTHING to lower ANYONE's taxes! But that's just my prediction. Time will tell how many other promises are dust.

One senior adviser told The Times that the first few weeks of the transition, immediately after the election, were critical, "so there's not a vast mood swing from exhilaration and euphoria to despair."


It's what pols (think they) do best: "Shape" public opinion.

In an interview with a Colorado radio station, Obama appeared to be engaged already in expectation lowering. Asked about his goals for the first hundred days, he said he would need more time to tackle such big and costly issues as health care reform, global warming and Iraq.


Suddenly, the "Rock Star" who could do no wrong, and who was promising all sorts of "hope and change" is sounding just like every other political scheister.

The honeymoon is just about over all you Obamanauts. Soon you will awake to just how much he has lied to you... and I will be here to point to the lies he has already propagated which you have chosen to ignore, downplay, or simply say were "fabricated". Let me just close with a quote from a British journalist that pretty much sums it up for me:

Melanie Philips wrote:"You have to pinch yourself - a Marxist radical who all his life has been mentored by, sat at the feet of, worshiped with, befriended, endorsed the philosophy of, funded and been in turn funded, politically promoted and supported by a nexus comprising black power anti-white racists, Jew-haters, revolutionary Marxists, unrepentant former terrorists and Chicago mobsters, is on the verge of becoming President of the United States. And apparently it's considered impolite to say so."
- Melanie Philips, The Spectator (UK) 10/14/08


We are moving past the time where words will get him accolades. Time to start taking notice of the actual deeds he may perform to affect all our lives... for the better? I don't ever see that coming from ANY pol, and certainly not a "I'm not a leftist" leftist like this.

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: McCain v Obama

Postby ryguy » Fri Oct 31, 2008 4:51 pm

Has the election become nothing more than a contest of lies?

I found this fascinating article from Time magazine...media analysts are finding themselves faced with presidential candidates that are not just telling half-truths in this campaign, but they are pushing the whole politics-as-liars thing to the ultimate extreme. Is it desperation? If not...why the need to lie so much?

Time Article titled "John McCain and the Lying Game" by Joe Klein

Politics has always been lousy with blather and chicanery. But there are rules and traditions too. In the early weeks of the general-election campaign, a consensus has grown in the political community — a consensus that ranges from practitioners like Karl Rove to commentators like, well, me — that John McCain has allowed his campaign to slip the normal bounds of political propriety.


McCain's lies have ranged from the annoying to the sleazy, and the problem is in both degree and kind. His campaign has been a ceaseless assault on his opponent's character and policies, featuring a consistent—and witting—disdain for the truth. Even after 38 million Americans heard Obama say in his speech at the Democratic National Convention that he was open to offshore oil-drilling and building new nuclear-power plants, McCain flatly said in his acceptance speech that Obama opposed both. Normal political practice would be for McCain to say, "Obama says he's 'open to' offshore drilling, but he's always opposed it. How can we believe him?" This persistence in repeating demonstrably false charges is something new in presidential politics.


On Sex Education:

Worse than the lies have been the smears. McCain ran a television ad claiming that Obama favored "comprehensive" sex education for kindergartners. (Obama favored a bill that would have warned kindergartners about sexual predators and improper touching.) The accusation that Obama was referring to Sarah Palin when he said McCain's effort to remarket his economic policies was putting "lipstick on a pig" was another clearly misleading attack — an obnoxious attempt to divert attention from Palin's lack of fitness for the job and the recklessness with which McCain chose her. McCain's assault on the "élite media" for spreading rumors about Palin's personal life — actually, the culprits were a few bloggers and the tabloid press — was more of the same. And that gets us close to the real problem here. The McCain camp has decided that its candidate can't win honorably, on the issues, so it has resorted to transparent and phony diversions.


On the Iraq War:

This new strategy emerged during the first week of Obama's overseas trip in late July. McCain had been intending to contrast his alleged foreign policy expertise and toughness with Obama's inexperience and alleged weakness. McCain wanted to "win" the Iraq war and face down the Iranians. But those issues became moot when the Iraqis said they favored Obama's withdrawal plan and the Bush Administration started talking to the Iranians. At that point, McCain committed his original sin — out of pique, I believe — questioning Obama's patriotism, saying the Democrat would rather lose a war than lose an election. Ever since, McCain's campaign has been a series of snide and demeaning ads accompanied by the daily gush of untruths that have now been widely documented and exposed. The strategy is an obvious attempt to camouflage the current unpopularity of his Republican brand, the insubstantiality of his vice-presidential choice, and his agreement on most issues — especially economic matters — with an exceedingly unpopular President.


Running a dirty campaign:

The good news is that the vile times may be ending. The coming debates will decide this race, and it isn't easy to tell lies when your opponent is standing right next to you. The Wall Street collapse demands a more sober campaign as well. But these dreadful weeks should not be forgotten. John McCain has raised serious questions about whether he has the character to lead the nation. He has defaced his beloved military code of honor. He has run a dirty campaign.


Thank god the election is next week...this torture will be over and maybe the country can start working to recover from the last 8 years under an inadequate and bumbling rich-frat-boy president.

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Re: McCain v Obama

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Fri Oct 31, 2008 6:18 pm

ryguy wrote:Has the election become nothing more than a contest of lies?


Is anyone surprised? I'm not. And at least (it seems like) you are finally admitting that Obama is just as much a liar as McCain. They both suck, which is why neither get my vote.

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re-Defining "Middle Class"

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Fri Oct 31, 2008 8:27 pm

Gee...I should get a job as a psychic! Less than 4 hours after I posted my prediction above, look at what we have regarding the whole "who is middle class" issue:

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/31 ... ss-making/

For the second time in a week, a prominent Democrat has downgraded Barack Obama's definition of the middle class -- leading Republicans to question whether he'll stick to his promise not to raise taxes on anyone making under $250,000.

The latest hiccup in the campaign message came Friday morning on KOA-AM, when New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson pegged the middle class as those making $120,000 and under.


What is patently ridiculous about any discussion where pols believe they can define "the magic number" is that the cost of living can be drastically different depending on where you live in the USA. For example, out here in Southern California, where although home prices have dropped, the mean price of a MEAGER 3 bedroom/2 bath house in a "middle class" neighborhood is still WELL over $450,000. My gross annual salary is slightly above this new "cutoff"...so I guess that now defines me as "wealthy", eh? Forget the fact that I am in the highest tax bracket so that I don't take home anywhere NEAR that level.

"What Obama wants to do is he is basically looking at $120,000 and under among those that are in the middle class, and there is a tax cut for those," Richardson said in the interview, according to a clip posted on YouTube.


Yep...the "re-shaping" of public opinion (or what the criminal pols want people to think) is well under way. So where just a few weeks ago in the debates, Obama was allegedly telling me that I was "middle class", now his henchmen are telling me "no tax cut for you...you are now deemed 'wealthy'." :shock: I can just about feel their hands sliding into my pocket! :evil:

I don't like being "right" about this stuff, but there is growing evidence (with more to come once Obama wins the election) that I am absolutely right about his nefarious lies and BS promises. You Obamatrons think you are going to get better than Bush? Well, then you won't complain when your standard of living goes down, now will you? Let's see how well you pay your bills and feed your children on Obama's wonderfully uplifting oratorial stylings! :roll:

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: McCain v Obama

Postby ryguy » Fri Oct 31, 2008 9:04 pm

You Can Call Me Ray wrote:
ryguy wrote:Has the election become nothing more than a contest of lies?


Is anyone surprised? I'm not. And at least (it seems like) you are finally admitting that Obama is just as much a liar as McCain. They both suck, which is why neither get my vote.

Ray


I do admit that - absolutely. Like I said in my earlier post though, I've just decided to vote for the dude who sucks a tiny bit less. :)

Call it retribution against my fellow Republicans who were dense enough to vote for Bush in 2004... Sure, the alternative wasn't a lot better back then, but anything would have been better than the last 4 years. I'll be completely honest, I feel like the country has gone much too far to the right in the last 8 years, the pendulum simply needs to swing back to the left for a while to get back to the center. Then I'll likely be back to voting down Repub. party lines. But right now, I feel like the country needs this. And I gotta tell you...it's gonna feel very good. It's long overdue.

Cheers,
-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

PreviousNext

Google

Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests

cron