Third Debate Blow by Blow

[SDW2001]

And we're off....

Candidates take stage 9:02 EST

[SDW2001]

McCain looks more awake---Obama looks more tired than last time.

Strong opening from McCain. Could have used more detail.

Strong opening from Obama.

_______________________________

Taxes: McCain wins this round. "Why raise taxes at all" and "spread the wealth" attacks were very effective.

Deficit: McCain has more specifics than Obama. Obama focusing on branding McCain Bush III. McCain slams him with "I'm not President Bush, if you wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago." This is going to be a memorable line. Still, I think this round is a draw in the end. Obama came back strong and McCain went on the defensive.

Tone of campaign: McCain is delivering a VERY aggressive attack. Calls Obama's integrity into question. Obama says "100% of your ads have been negative." :???: McCain is responding strongly to Obama's rebuttal. Calling Obama out on supposed inaccuracies in his ads. They are going at each other pretty strong. Obama trying to diffuse by basically putting the "tone of campaign" issue aside. McCain looks far more passionate and engaged which may give him this round.

***Edit---Obama addressing Ayers issue. I think this may be a mistake. Gives a decent explanation, though. Now distancing himself from ACORN...another plausible explanation. Not sure if this is a good idea or not. We'll see.

Running Mates: This is basically fluff on both sides. Draw.

Energy/Trade: Obama is in talking point land, and I think struggling a bit. McCain's proposals were not new, but better communicated. McCain wins the smaller argument about NAFTA from my point of view. McCain slams Obama on never being south of the border...I think he got too aggressive on the Columbia issue. Obama's response didn't really add up though.

...off to just watch for a bit.

[franksargent]

http://www.tutorialquest.com/templates/tutorials/jack-o-lantern/jack-o-lantern_13.jpg
John McCain looks like the above in tonight's debate

[Outsider]

My first impression is that McCain is reacting hyper defensively. Obama appears cool and collected. He takes attacks in stride, brushes the baseless stuff aside, and addresses the main issues succinctly.

McCain , IMO, is doing pretty well though, compared to the last debate.

Re: attack ads; McCain acts like his shit don't stink.

[franksargent]

http://www.hwfreak.com/Images/october2007/jackolantern.jpg
Here's Johnny

[@_@ Artman]

McCain turned the tables with the "Joe the Plumber (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFC9jv9jfoA)", even though he never really talked with "Joe". He's out for blood.

And some low blows as far as the negative campaign, McCain. Low. Many of the people that do attend your rallies are racist assholes, sorry.

This race could have just gotten a lot tighter though.

But some of these claims McCain's getting in (he won the toss) are horrible.

Expect a spike in McCain's polls, dead cat bounce I hope.

I really don't want this old man for president.

[franksargent]

http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/ol-images/chicago/uploads/103107loki.jpg
The devil is in McCain

[Outsider]

New internet memes:

Joe the Plumber

Overhead projectors



++ to Obama for hating on FoxNews :lol:

[@_@ Artman]

I really thought McCain was going to say (about Palin) that she was a breast of fresh air.

Wow, I'm beat, this one will go down in history. McCain did school Obama on judging your opponent though, he came out swinging. Erratically, emotionally and dishonestly but a noble effort. I hope that McCain stays in Washington DC, we need someone like him in the Senate.

I just don't ever want to give him full reign of the whole enchilada. :no:

Oh, and by the way Palin's child has downs syndrome...not autism.

[franksargent]

http://64.226.23.133/woodycarr/scarefx/images/flaming_pumpkin.jpg
DOA McCain blows his top again

[SDW2001]

I thought McCain won the debate pretty solidly. The biggest difference tonight was McCain's demeanor, which was more focused and pointed (too much so at one point, actually). Neither committed any major gaffes. McCain's "you should have run four years ago" line was very good. I thought he won solidly on taxes/Joe the Plumber. He also dinged him on Ayers and ACORN.

That said, Obama stuck to his talking points and came across well enough. He avoided the traps he needed to. I don't know whether his explanation on Ayers and ACORN were sufficient for undecided voters or not. Overall, I'd say McCain is going to get a bump from this. After 2 years and a billion dollars, we'll be back to a statistical dead heat on election day. Imagine that.

[franksargent]

http://msnbcmedia3.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/ArtAndPhoto-Fronts/HEALTH/080519/080519-mccain-vmed-1p.widec.jpg
Obama hammered McCain

[hardeeharhar]

I thought McCain won the debate pretty solidly. The biggest difference tonight was McCain's demeanor, which was more focused and pointed (too much so at one point, actually). Neither committed any major gaffes. McCain's "you should have run four years ago" line was very good. I thought he won solidly on taxes/Joe the Plumber. He also dinged him on Ayers and ACORN.

That said, Obama stuck to his talking points and came across well enough. He avoided the traps he needed to. I don't know whether his explanation on Ayers and ACORN were sufficient for undecided voters or not. Overall, I'd say McCain is going to get a bump from this. After 2 years and a billion dollars, we'll be back to a statistical dead heat on election day. Imagine that.
I disagree.

It seems conservatives think the winner is always the aggressive one. In every single debate McCain/Palin have been the aggressor -- look how well this has worked out so far.

Obama consistently stood by his stated desire to raise the level of discourse. McCain's use of Joe (whose last name he had wrong) was awkward especially for anyone who actually watched the entirety of the exchange between Joe and Obama. Most effective in that exchange was McCain's surprised "Zero WTFBBQ???" response to Obama stating his clear policy point. This being McCain's last Joe exchange made him look like he was abusing this poor plumber for a political point...

It will be a draw/Obama lead.

Exchange.

[@_@ Artman]

I honestly don't think it matters who won this debate. Obama has this election in the bag. I'm not disputing that McCain was no slouch either. But too long, too late.

Props to Bob Scheiffer for moderating so well. His questions were good, and well constructed because he includes the candidates views in the asking - forcing them to give you responses they haven't memorized.

Can someone clarify something to me, did McCain actually say that he talked to Joe the Plumber too?

[groverat]

Independents don't like McCain because he's angry, erratic, and attacking. Obama is cool and collected.

[BRussell]

As usual, by a large margin uncommitted voters believe Obama won. (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/10/15/politics/horserace/entry4525171.shtml) But I don't even really think people are watching the debate and looking to see who "won" in any objective fashion. I think people just don't like Republicans right now, they don't like Bush, and so they don't like McCain. I don't think these people in these polls are really looking at debating style or how well they made their points. They've just decided to not elect another Republican, and nothing else that happens matters.

[hardeeharhar]

Exchange...

Sorry folks. I am beat... I was running a silica column right up until 845 which left me 15 minutes to get dinner and get home... It was the first time I ever passed a car moving the speed limit on my bike with fully human power...

[hardeeharhar]

As usual, by a large margin uncommitted voters believe Obama won. (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/10/15/politics/horserace/entry4525171.shtml) But I don't even really think people are watching the debate and looking to see who "won" in any objective fashion. I think people just don't like Republicans right now, they don't like Bush, and so they don't like McCain. I don't think these people in these polls are really looking at debating style or how well they made their points. They've just decided to not elect another Republican, and nothing else that happens matters.
Fair enough.

I should say that it is difficult to separate those responses with actually listening to the debate, however. One would need to have a better question to gauge the level of how much just hating on Republicans is affecting these things.

You must admit, though, that McCain is troll like in his visual gaffes... That doesn't suit these debates well...

[addabox]

I thought McCain won the debate pretty solidly. The biggest difference tonight was McCain's demeanor, which was more focused and pointed (too much so at one point, actually). Neither committed any major gaffes. McCain's "you should have run four years ago" line was very good. I thought he won solidly on taxes/Joe the Plumber. He also dinged him on Ayers and ACORN.

That said, Obama stuck to his talking points and came across well enough. He avoided the traps he needed to. I don't know whether his explanation on Ayers and ACORN were sufficient for undecided voters or not. Overall, I'd say McCain is going to get a bump from this. After 2 years and a billion dollars, we'll be back to a statistical dead heat on election day. Imagine that.

Which of course means, inevitably, that the polling will show Obama won and he'll get a bounce, then win in a landslide.

Yep, here they come: CBS (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/10/15/politics/horserace/entry4525171.shtml), 53-22, CNN, 58-31

[franksargent]

http://www.iammoon.com/images/pumpkins/shp_troll_2003.jpg
McCain The Troll blows his top for the third straight debate

[hardeeharhar]

Think back to the debate, guys...

Did McCain go into much detail about his proposals?

I remember parts about mortgages, but nothing much else specific...

The Columbia trade agreement thing was bizarre...

It is clear that they are going to try to paint Obama as a tax and spend liberal for the rest of the race... I am fairly certain the campaigns response is in the offing...

Meanwhile, I am a little concerned that the GOP may be running out of cash, and a cashless GOP is an angry GOP...

[franksargent]

http://www.geekus.org/Pumpkins2004/exploding-head.jpg
McCain was on FIRE!

[@_@ Artman]

"ZERO!? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EASpPlcVbdI)"

blink

blink blink

blink

blink

blink blink blink

And to note, I watched the debate without a split screen so NOW I see that zinger in effect.

Awesome.

[FormerLurker]

"ZERO!? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EASpPlcVbdI)"

blink

blink blink

blink

blink

blink blink blink

And to note, I watched the debate without a split screen so NOW I see that zinger in effect.

Awesome.

Does anyone know Morse Code? Was McCain trying to send a Secret Message?

[jimmac]

About winning the debate. Here you go.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/15/debate.poll/index.html

Poll: Debate watchers say Obama wins Story Highlights
58 percent of those polled who watched the debate say Obama is the winner

Poll: Obama's favorable rating up to 66 percent, McCain's down to 49 percent

Slightly more Democrats than Republicans respond to poll



I can understand why more Democrats responded.;)

[jimmac]

I thought McCain won the debate pretty solidly. The biggest difference tonight was McCain's demeanor, which was more focused and pointed (too much so at one point, actually). Neither committed any major gaffes. McCain's "you should have run four years ago" line was very good. I thought he won solidly on taxes/Joe the Plumber. He also dinged him on Ayers and ACORN.

That said, Obama stuck to his talking points and came across well enough. He avoided the traps he needed to. I don't know whether his explanation on Ayers and ACORN were sufficient for undecided voters or not. Overall, I'd say McCain is going to get a bump from this. After 2 years and a billion dollars, we'll be back to a statistical dead heat on election day. Imagine that.

Uh huh.;)

[pfflam]

"ZERO!? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EASpPlcVbdI)"

blink

blink blink

blink

blink

blink blink blink

And to note, I watched the debate without a split screen so NOW I see that zinger in effect.

Awesome.
OMG!!

That's great . . . I dodn't watch the debate but I listened to it. And this is the first one where I knew Obama won.
I think that listening allows the substantial aspects to be heard.

But with this vid then I know for sure: Go Oby-Won!

[gastroboy]

McCain looks more awake---Obama looks more tired than last time.


Agreed.

Thought Obama could have made a point of following McCain's "logic" that being on the same committees as Republicans would therefore make him a NeoCon.

It seemed to me that McCain got a lot more interrupt time and last words in, but spoiled it with his constant references to poor old rich Joe the plumber and oddball Columbian Free Trade agreements.

I found these both to be laughable, but then I am not American and don't react to the Pavlovian signals of topics that are taken as profound by many in the States.

[FormerLurker]

When McCain pressed the Lewis "wallace" comments issue, Obama responding by mentioning that there were shouts of "terrorist" and "kill him" at McCain/Palin rallies that were highly inappropriate. After Obama explained that Lewis was right by condemning the atmosphere encouraging such remarks but wrong about comparing them to Wallace, it was McCain's turn.

"I'm proud of the people that come to my rallies", he starts off... and proceeds to go into a passionate defense of his supporters... as if pointing out what one supporter shouted out was somehow an attack on all of his supporters.

I was disappointed that Obama didn't jump on that one... but it would have been like running up the score in a ballgame that you controlled from start to finish.

[Gilsch]

Even the Fox focus group thought Obama won........:lol:

There were a bunch of undecideds in that focus group and in the end Luntz asked if any of them had switched and it went like this:

Yes. Obama, Obama, Obama, Obama.

Luntz: This is a good night for Barack Obama.

:lol: Ouch.

http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/1237/mccain_buggin.gif

[Akumulator]

What was this all about?
http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/1054/mctongue.jpg

Anyone else think McCain's smile is creepy? When he does it it reminds me of the preacher from Poltergeist 2.
http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/9467/henrykane32ef.jpg


Also, are John McCain and his mother the same age?
http://deseretnews.com/photos/midres/4799390.jpg

[tonton]

http://homepage.mac.com/bentonton/4799390-1.jpg

[groverat]

I was disappointed that Obama didn't jump on that one... but it would have been like running up the score in a ballgame that you controlled from start to finish.

Yeah, that one was pretty sad.

McCain: "How DARE you insult veterans, SIR!"

America: :rolleyes:

[jimmac]

Even the Fox focus group thought Obama won........:lol:

There were a bunch of undecideds in that focus group and in the end Luntz asked if any of them had switched and it went like this:

Yes. Obama, Obama, Obama, Obama.

Luntz: This is a good night for Barack Obama.

:lol: Ouch.

http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/1237/mccain_buggin.gif

It looks like McCain got a hold of some really good stuff! " Wow man! What a rush! ":lol:

[@_@ Artman]

It looks like McCain got a hold of some really good stuff! " Wow man! What a rush! ":lol:

"Looks like I took the wrong week to quit sniffing glue! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwyrGwM4a7M)"

And Obama already has an ad from this debate. Fork, over, done (http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1185304443?bctid=1859660952).

[BRussell]

http://homepage.mac.com/bentonton/4799390-1.jpgHaha.

What was this all about?
http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/1054/mctongue.jpg

I remember that - Schieffer was coming around to shake hands with both candidates, and they got mixed up as to which way to go around the table.

But somehow that picture symbolizes the debate. The non-verbal communication from the two of them was so different. Obama just looks calm and cool and positive, and McCain looks twitchy and weird. I think that has a big effect on viewers, perhaps more than what comes out of their mouths.

In fact maybe this picture could come to symbolize the entire campaign.

[jimmac]

"Looks like I took the wrong week to quit sniffing glue! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwyrGwM4a7M)"

And Obama already has an ad from this debate. Fork, over, done (http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1185304443?bctid=1859660952).


I knew that reminded me of some scene!:lol:

Yeah I think " the republicans are on fire and it still raining gasoline ". We're watching the last embers of the neocon control in Washington go up.;)

[Fellowship]

Haha.

http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/1054/mctongue.jpg

Obama just looks calm and cool and positive, and McCain looks twitchy and weird. I think that has a big effect on viewers, perhaps more than what comes out of their mouths.



http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/1237/mccain_buggin.gif

I think this is a point not to be missed.

I too kept noticing just how weird McCain was acting with his mannerisms. And the times he would sniff loudly for all to hear.

Do any of you all notice as I do how after the debates McCain buzzes around aimlessly bouncing off of different spots on the stage giving his wife a quick hug then off he goes trying to give goofy gestures to the crowd?

I watch Obama embrace his wife like a normal human being embraces his spouse and he takes a natural amount of time to do so.

McCain almost bounces off of Cindy and it looks like everything he does is just token gesture and FAKE.

It really makes McCain look bad.

Fellows

[Outsider]

http://20pirates.com/p/debate3.jpg

[FloorJack]

Best debate so far though. Candidates going at each other over real issue. It gets disappointing when they rehash the same stuff over and over. Yes yes we know already that 95% of tax payers get a "tax cut" and alright already about $5000 tax credit for health care.

[e1618978]

Its all over but the shouting. The only thing up in the air now is the number of seats in the house and senate the Democrats get - will they be filibuster proof?

It will probably be like Clinton, where the Republicans bounced back a bit after two years - I just hope that the Democrats have their shit together and make the most of that two years.

[hardeeharhar]

more about joe:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/16/joe-in-the-spotlight/?hp

[e1618978]

Typically a business that generates $250K/year will cost between one and two million (from bizbuysell.com). If Joe can afford to pay cash for that business, then the extra tax is no big deal. If he is taking out a loan, then the interest on that loan is tax deductible and he won't be paying extra tax.

[hardeeharhar]

Typically a business that generates $250K/year will cost between one and two million (from bizbuysell.com). If Joe can afford to pay cash for that business, then the extra tax is no big deal. If he is taking out a loan, then the interest on that loan is tax deductible and he won't be paying extra tax.
Yeah... it's clear that he either was lying, or his income would be a lot lower than $250K...

[SDW2001]

Typically a business that generates $250K/year will cost between one and two million (from bizbuysell.com). If Joe can afford to pay cash for that business, then the extra tax is no big deal. If he is taking out a loan, then the interest on that loan is tax deductible and he won't be paying extra tax.Yeah... it's clear that he either was lying, or his income would be a lot lower than $250K...

Please tell me you're both kidding. Not a big deal? Lying?

<considers moving to Canada, eh>

[SDW2001]

It is interesting to see how the media, even Fox, says Obama won because he remained collected and didn't make any gaffes. I on the other hand thought this was McCain's best debate. He looked like the McCain we used to know. He had a great line about running against Bush.

It's almost as if the media really played up the "McCain needs a knockout blow" line. When he didn't get one (even if his performance was strong), that was it in their minds. Even Charles Krauthammer (whom I can't stand) said that given the political environment, Ronald Reagan himself couldn't have won.

At this point it seems Obama is going to win. I'm not happy about it, but that's where we are. I just hope if he is able to implement his agenda that it isn't as Left as it would seem.

[@_@ Artman]

more about joe:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/16/joe-in-the-spotlight/?hp

In a single day Joe the Plumber has done more interviews than Sarah Palin has this entire campaign.

[@_@ Artman]

I on the other hand thought this was McCain's best debate.

http://i33.tinypic.com/2vb3qlc.gif

Really though, I thought the same without the split screen view, but I've changed my mind now. It's amazing the difference that made. McCain was a pompous, old, wrinkled ass.

I said before though that I hope he stays on as Senator, Obama will need to have him on his side and very much against some of his policies, that's what he is good at.

[Bergermeister]

I agree. Yes, it was McCain's best debate... he wasn't good at the first two... but also his worst. He came out stronger in this one, but lost it, as per his personality. He has a history of getting angry and it came out in the debate. He demonstrated vividly that he is not presidential material. The attacks probably pleased his base, but they don't really seem to care about the bigger issues on the times. They like and have demanded dirty. Sadly, he has played down to their level recently, rather than trying to lift them up. Slowly but surely, the conservative movement is sinking itself. Even Buckley jumped ship!

A slideshow of McCanin's different faces during the debate:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/16/the-many-faces-of-john-mc_n_135255.html

The last tongue-out joking around bit was disturbing, at best. Would he do something similar when meeting a foreign head of state? As the rolling Stone article suggested, he has never really grown up; he can't control his temper and thus could not be trusted with the codes to nukes.

Hopefully, he has not already led the sheep too far away form Obma so that when Obama becomes resident they will ruin the country while trying to get even or whatever with Obama because of McCain's weaknesses.

I was saddened again for the country watching McCain's performance tonight; he needed to show true leadership that would improve the country. Instead, he continued down the same road of uncontrolled anger that is currently ripping the country apart and setting up a difficult and uncertain future.

That people care so little about the country as a whole is deeply saddening.

I also agree that the debates shouldn't be compared to boxing matches. The guy who gets the other wins the WH! No. The one who presents a better platform, argues it well and maintains a manner befitting the office should win. There should be no need for "gloves coming off" or other school-yard antics; it is detrimental to the country and also humiliating on the world stage.

Many people were impressed by Palin's acceptance speech. It was horrible, but well-delivered. Since then, she has been horrible when unscripted. So, the one performance didn't cut it. The debates are slightly different (unless you are Palin and declare you aren't actually participating). This third debate style was the best as it didn't allow that many prepped speeches; this is where Mccain got tripped up.

[addabox]

It is interesting to see how the media, even Fox, says Obama won because he remained collected and didn't make any gaffes. I on the other hand thought this was McCain's best debate. He looked like the McCain we used to know. He had a great line about running against Bush.

It's almost as if the media really played up the "McCain needs a knockout blow" line. When he didn't get one (even if his performance was strong), that was it in their minds. Even Charles Krauthammer (whom I can't stand) said that given the political environment, Ronald Reagan himself couldn't have won.

At this point it seems Obama is going to win. I'm not happy about it, but that's where we are. I just hope if he is able to implement his agenda that it isn't as Left as it would seem.

Except this is exactly backwards. "The media" was eager to award the debate to McCain, and it's the polls (as in, voters) that gave Obama the edge.

[addabox]

In a single day Joe the Plumber has done more interviews than Sarah Palin has this entire campaign.

Given the right's abrupt obsession with another (apparently poorly vetted) symbol of "regular Americans", I'm assuming their candidate for president on 2012 will be selected by random lottery from an emblematically small town. At which point things like "having a rap sheet", "never finishing high school" and "being under a restraining order" will come to be considered badges of authenticity.

Liberal elites, with their pussyfied lack of jail time and non-existent history of violent outbursts! Real Americans have drinking problems and poor impulse control and a 5th grade educations!

[Northgate]

It is interesting to see how the media, even Fox, says Obama won because he remained collected and didn't make any gaffes. I on the other hand thought this was McCain's best debate. He looked like the McCain we used to know. He had a great line about running against Bush.

I thought it was his best debate too. He definitely had the best line of the night.

[Northgate]

Given the right's abrupt obsession with another (apparently poorly vetted) symbol of "regular Americans", I'm assuming their candidate for president on 2012 will be selected by random lottery from an emblematically small town. At which point things like "having a rap sheet", "never finishing high school" and "being under a restraining order" will come to be considered badges of authenticity.

Liberal elites, with there pussyfied lack of jail time and non-existent history of violent outbursts! Real Americans have drinking problems and poor impulse control and a 5th grade educations!

I love you sometimes, Adda. I really do! :lol::lol::lol::lol:

[midwinter]

Given the right's abrupt obsession with another (apparently poorly vetted) symbol of "regular Americans"

Poorly vetted, indeed (http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20081016/Joe.the.Plumber/?cvqh=itn_joeplumber).

[Gilsch]

Poorly vetted, indeed (http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20081016/Joe.the.Plumber/?cvqh=itn_joeplumber).

Very Jeff Gannon-ish. Plant?

[addabox]

So Joe the Plumber isn't a plumber, strictly speaking, doesn't have a real plan to buy the business, beyond some vague talk, owes back taxes, and isn't an independent or undecided.

And the McCain campaign may have destroyed the business by making it common knowledge that they aren't aren't licensed, even though the county they're doing business in requires it-- and even though Joe isn't aware of that.

I dunno, maybe all of that somehow plays to the base? Are county licensing requirements fascist? Are building codes part of the nanny state?

I bet in Sarah Palin's Alaska you can do rocket surgery with homemade certificate; maybe he can move there after somebody in Ohio sues his ass.

[@_@ Artman]

http://i38.tinypic.com/6jn1n6.gif

[FloorJack]

Fuck. Democrats are so stingy over any criticism they have to swift boat Joe the Plumber.

[hardeeharhar]

Fuck. Democrats are so stingy over any criticism they have to swift boat Joe the Plumber.
If McCain hadn't used him as an example during the debate, none of this would have mattered.

McCain could have simply said that Obama called for spreading the wealth around and left it at that. Instead he used Joe's financial situation to critique Obama's plan and so Joe's financials suddenly become profoundly interesting. Only made more interesting now that it is known that not only would he get a tax cut under Obama's plan, he probably would get insurance as well.

[midwinter]

Fuck. Democrats are so stingy over any criticism they have to swift boat Joe the Plumber.

I often wonder whether the drive to say just any old thing to piss off the libruls is stronger than the knowledge that conservatives should apologize for destroying America, STFU, and hang their heads in shame.

[SpamSandwich]

Can someone clarify something to me, did McCain actually say that he talked to Joe the Plumber too?

Sometimes a plumber is needed to unclog pipes, not just give his political opinions. :lol:

[jimmac]

Some more about " Joe The Plumber ".

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20081016/Joe.the.Plumber/?cvqh=itn_joeplumber

It seems that Joe doesn't even have a license.;)

[SpamSandwich]

Poorly vetted, indeed (http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20081016/Joe.the.Plumber/?cvqh=itn_joeplumber).

Why in the world would anyone find the need to "vet" a random questioner? Who cares what his personal issues are, his basic question was a valid one.

[@_@ Artman]

Sometimes a plumber is needed to unclog pipes, not just give his political opinions. :lol:

I don't like McCains ideas for the internet either, he doesn't have any. Well censorship is one (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/12/13/mccain-war-on-blogs/).

No, I really thought I heard McCain say, "Well, that isn't what Joe said to me!" :err:

[midwinter]

Why in the world would anyone find the need to "vet" a random questioner? Who cares what his personal issues are, his basic question was a valid one.

You'd think that if the McCain campaign were going to pounce on a guy who harangued Obama, mention his name 20-some times in the debate, they'd have checked into the guy.

[hardeeharhar]

Why in the world would anyone find the need to "vet" a random questioner? Who cares what his personal issues are, his basic question was a valid one.
Which one?

The question of whether someone will be taxed more for making $250K (which Obama has said so, repeatedly)?

The question of whether Obama supports a flat tax?

The question of whether Obama believes in the American Dream?

Or perhaps you are referring to a question he didn't ask: how does the marginal tax system work?

[FloorJack]

No matter the questioner Obama committed the perfect gaffe. That being when a politician says something they shouldn't but is also exactly their true feelings. The purpose of the tax increase on people making $250K is to take their money and give it to people that make a lot less. "Share the wealth."

[hardeeharhar]

No matter the questioner Obama committed the perfect gaffe. That being when a politician says something they shouldn't but is also exactly their true feelings. The purpose of the tax increase on people making $250K is to take their money and give it to people that make a lot less. "Share the wealth."
Changing the relative burdens of taxation is not giving money to other people regardless of your political ideology.

[franksargent]

Fuck. Democrats are so stingy over any criticism they have to swift boat Joe the Plumber.

Joe the Faux Plumber swiftboated himself with a lot of help from that Pumpkinhead McCain.

http://www.mwctoys.com/images/review_pumpkinhead_9.jpg

[franksargent]

No matter the questioner Obama committed the perfect gaffe. That being when a politician says something they shouldn't but is also exactly their true feelings. The purpose of the tax increase on people making $250K is to take their money and give it to people that make a lot less. "Share the wealth."

Exactly, and the sooner we steal all their money the better. :p

[FloorJack]

Changing the relative burdens of taxation is not giving money to other people regardless of your political ideology.

Uh no. "Tax rebate" means that your tax can go negative and you get more money back than you may have paid. 30% of filers don't pay any taxes and many get money back anyway.

[BRussell]

Uh no. "Tax rebate" means that your tax can go negative and you get more money back than you may have paid. 30% of filers don't pay any taxes and many get money back anyway. So that's a bad thing? And was it a bad thing when earned income tax credits and child tax credits were conservative Republican ideas, meant to be a better alternative to government programs? Or only when Obama proposes to expand them a small amount relative to what the conservative Republicans have proposed and enacted over the years?

[FloorJack]

So that's a bad thing? And was it a bad thing when earned income tax credits and child tax credits were conservative Republican ideas, meant to be a better alternative to government programs? Or only when Obama proposes to expand them a small amount relative to what the conservative Republicans have proposed and enacted over the years?

Yea I don't know. Selling it as a tax cut is bullshit.


For members that still don't understand how Obama's tax "cut" for 95% of "tax payers" will work read here.

Obama's 95% Illusion (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html?)


...
- A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.

- A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.

- A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).

- A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.

- An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.

- A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.

- A "clean car" tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.

Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.

The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.

...

[BRussell]

Just because it's a credit doesn't mean it's an illusion. They're still going to get that money. And people are still going to be paying plenty of other taxes.

[franksargent]

Yea I don't know. Selling it as a tax cut is bullshit.


For members that still don't understand how Obama's tax "cut" for 95% of "tax payers" will work read here.

Obama's 95% Illusion (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html?)

The WSJ, the AEI, and The Heritage Foundation are a bunch of lying cocksuckers, sucking McCain's cock 247. :p

[FloorJack]

The WSJ, the AEI, and The Heritage Foundation are a bunch of lying cocksuckers, sucking McCain's cock 247. :p

Maybe Obama can give Joe the Plumber a reach around after the tax increase?

[franksargent]

maybe obama can give joe the liar a reach around after the tax increase?

tftfu

[giant]

Fuck. Democrats are so stingy over any criticism they have to swift boat Joe the Plumber.
Nope. Before he went on fox to talk shit and before McCain dropped his name throughout the debate, the video was circulating around the internet (and praised by Obama supporters) as an example of the kind of respectful, adult policitian/citizen policy debate so sorely missing from the infantile republican party:

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/77cb0/plumber_asks_obama_spontaneous_question_obama/

[FloorJack]

Nope. Before he went on fox to talk shit and before McCain dropped his name throughout the debate, the video was circulating around the internet (and praised by Obama supporters) as an example of the kind of respectful, adult policitian/citizen policy debate so sorely missing from the infantile republican party:

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/77cb0/plumber_asks_obama_spontaneous_question_obama/

Yup because that was before it was used against Obama. Then it's swift boat the plumber.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Yup because that was before it was used against Obama. Then it's swift boat the plumber.

Is there something about swiftboating you object to, scott?

[groverat]

It ain't swiftboating if it's true.

The only person swiftboating Joe the Plumber is Joe the Plumber.

[franksargent]

It ain't swiftboating if it's true.

The only person swiftboating Joe the Plumber is Joe the Plumber.

Exactly.

Has a single past acquaintance of Joe the Liar stepped forward to denounce Joe the Liar's words, actions, or deeds during his youth?

I know that that hasn't happened yet.

Maybe Joe the Liar is actually Joe the Cook since it is implied by me that he ran a meth lab in his youth.

[FloorJack]

Blame the victim.:lol:

[franksargent]

Blame the victim.:lol:

No one's blaiming Obama.

The blame fully belongs to the perps doing the perp talk show walk, Joe the Liar and John the Liar. :D

[@_@ Artman]

http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/5743/mccainosferatuci8.jpg

[talksense101]

LOL. Mc Cain is expressive.

[SDW2001]

Except this is exactly backwards. "The media" was eager to award the debate to McCain, and it's the polls (as in, voters) that gave Obama the edge.

I don't agree with that at all. The media was talking about how much of "game changer" McCain needed to deliver. They set an impossible standard, then said he didn't meet it.

Speaking of polls, I'm feeling better today. Joe the Plumber has apparently made a real impact. AP is 44-42 Obama and Gallup 49-47. The AP poll surveyed 200 more Dems than Republicans (D=873, R=650). I think the "spread the wealth" comment might undo Obama.

[addabox]

I don't agree with that at all. The media was talking about how much of "game changer" McCain needed to deliver. They set an impossible standard, then said he didn't meet it.

Speaking of polls, I'm feeling better today. Joe the Plumber has apparently made a real impact. AP is 44-42 Obama and Gallup 49-47. The AP poll surveyed 200 more Dems than Republicans (D=873, R=650). I think the "spread the wealth" comment might undo Obama.

I'm sure it will. Just like the contested and divisive convention did, just like "bittergate" did, just like disaffected Hillary voters did, just like Wright did, just like Ayers did....

[Flounder]

I don't agree with that at all. The media was talking about how much of "game changer" McCain needed to deliver. They set an impossible standard, then said he didn't meet it.

Speaking of polls, I'm feeling better today. Joe the Plumber has apparently made a real impact. AP is 44-42 Obama and Gallup 49-47. The AP poll surveyed 200 more Dems than Republicans (D=873, R=650). I think the "spread the wealth" comment might undo Obama.

Gallup is 51-45 today, and you might want to reconsider the significance of that AP poll (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/bad-spin-watch-drudge-touts-weeks-old.html)

The national polls are on average pretty much right where they've been, with a roughly 6.5-7% Obama advantage.

[FloorJack]

Bittergate and Plumbergate are the same in that Obama said exactly how he feels but those feelings don't win elections.

[@_@ Artman]

I don't agree with that at all. The media was talking about how much of "game changer" McCain needed to deliver. They set an impossible standard, then said he didn't meet it.

Speaking of polls, I'm feeling better today. Joe the Plumber has apparently made a real impact. AP is 44-42 Obama and Gallup 49-47. The AP poll surveyed 200 more Dems than Republicans (D=873, R=650). I think the "spread the wealth" comment might undo Obama.

http://www.geocities.com/rjcmenard2002/smiling_cat_bouncing_lc.gif

[addabox]

Bittergate and Plumbergate are the same in that Obama said exactly how he feels but those feelings don't win elections.

I'm not sure what "Plumbergate" is. I'm guessing Obama's controversial support of our progressive tax code?

If so, I think we can safely assume the whole "-gate" formulation is officially meaningless.

In that spirit, WHY WON'T THE MCCAIN CAMPAIGN LEVEL WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ABOUT TONGUEGATE???!!!

[midwinter]

I'm not sure what "Plumbergate" is. I'm guessing Obama's controversial support of our progressive tax code?

If so, I think we can safely assume the whole "-gate" formulation is officially meaningless.

In that spirit, WHY WON'T THE MCCAIN CAMPAIGN LEVEL WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ABOUT TONGUEGATE???!!!

I think they're hoping that the press will be distracted by crazy-roll-eyes-gate.

[addabox]

You know, I take it back. If this campaign has shown us anything, it's the right's ability to seize on a series of wingnut code issues with the fervor of a drowning man clutching at every bit of flotsam that floats his way, absolutely sure that each waterlogged splinter is a fully equipped lifeboat.

Plumbergate it is. Tell your friends.

[FloorJack]

I'm not sure what "Plumbergate" is. I'm guessing Obama's controversial support of our progressive tax code?

No it's Obama's support for wealth redistribution via progressive taxes and tax rebates.

[addabox]

I think they're hoping that the press will be distracted by crazy-roll-eyes-gate.

SIGHGATE! SNORTGATE! AIRQUOTESGATE! OLDGATE! STUPIDGATE!

McCain is furious about his neighbor's rusty gate! GATEGATE! Palin seems to undermine his position! GATEGATEGATE!

Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!

[addabox]

No it's Obama's support for wealth redistribution via progressive taxes and tax rebates.

So that would be the same wealth redistribution that we've had for the last 100 years.

[@_@ Artman]

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/10/17/gall.plungers1017.cnn.jpg

IT IZ TEH SUK.:rolleyes:

[screener]

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/10/17/gall.plungers1017.cnn.jpg

IT IZ TEH SUK.:rolleyes:
Shitdisturbers.

[Northgate]

Fuck. Democrats are so stingy over any criticism they have to swift boat Joe the Plumber.

You're funny. Last I checked it was the media that camped itself outside "Joe's" house. It was the media that dug into his past and vetted his story.

But you can wax on about how the big ol' meanies, the Democrats.

[FloorJack]

You're funny. Last I checked it was the media that camped itself outside "Joe's" house. It was the media that dug into his past and vetted his story.

But you can wax on about how the big ol' meanies, the Democrats.

Actually if you look into it on your own you'll notice that the unions in ohio dug into their membership roles and swift boated Joe the Plumber for Obama at lightening speed.

[@_@ Artman]

Actually if you look into it on your own you'll notice that the unions in ohio dug into their membership roles and swift boated Joe the Plumber for Obama at lightening speed.

C'mon. They didn't need to assert themselves much against a clearly disillusioned, moronic, tax evading dreamer destined for a life of disappointment and failure anyway.

and... (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/16/eveningnews/realitycheck/main4527129.shtml?source=mostpop_story)

“I would, if you believe him, I would be receiving his tax cuts,” Wurzelbacher said.

Next?

[addabox]

Actually if you look into it on your own you'll notice that the unions in ohio dug into their membership roles and swift boated Joe the Plumber for Obama at lightening speed.

I suppose this is pointless, but how do you figure "noting that a guy isn't in a particular union" amounts to "swiftboating"?

And now that Joe admits that he would, in fact, be receiving a tax cut from Obama, is he "swiftboating" himself?

Does "swiftboating" now mean "exposing any information about an individual, no matter how factual"?

Would you say the Alaska legislature "swiftboated" Sarah Palin? When McCain notes that Obama is from Chicago, that is "swiftboating", no?

I'm swiftboating the thread even now. I myself am a swiftboat, in fact. It's swiftboatgate. I wish this election was over.

[franksargent]

http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/dre0547l.jpg
Joe the Pedophile

[BRussell]

I have to say, I think that getting into Joe the Plumber's personal life and business is pretty distasteful.

He just asked Obama a question, someone happened to film it, the conservative blogs picked it up and made it viral, and then McCain jumped on the bandwagon, making Joe famous. Yeah he's obviously a conservative Republican, so what? I'm trying to imagine me throwing McCain a tough question, maybe bending some facts a bit (like Joe buying a $270,000 business) because I didn't think anyone would ever know, and then people all over the country get into my personal life. Yuck.

What gets me most about it is that I don't see how anyone who watches the actual footage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElPBxiVxVEw) of Obama's conversation with this guy can come away thinking it's going to hurt Obama. Even if you disagree with Obama, you can't watch that and think anything but that Obama took this guy's question seriously and tried to answer it honestly. The righties latched onto one off-hand comment about "spreading the wealth," which I didn't even catch when I first watched it a few days ago, because Obama otherwise explained in detail his tax proposals. It was a good moment for Obama, not a bad one.

[FloorJack]

I suppose this is pointless, but how do you figure "noting that a guy isn't in a particular union" amounts to "swiftboating"?

And now that Joe admits that he would, in fact, be receiving a tax cut from Obama, is he "swiftboating" himself?

Does "swiftboating" now mean "exposing any information about an individual, no matter how factual"?

Would you say the Alaska legislature "swiftboated" Sarah Palin? When McCain notes that Obama is from Chicago, that is "swiftboating", no?

I'm swiftboating the thread even now. I myself am a swiftboat, in fact. It's swiftboatgate. I wish this election was over.

The point being, which I didn't start someone else did, that Obama's union pals started the swift boating of Joe, not the media.

Now the liberal bloggers are painting Joe as a racist. Let's hold our breath until Obama calls off the attack on Joe.

[franksargent]

Actually if you look into it on your own you'll notice that the unions in ohio dug into their membership roles and swift boated Joe the Plumber for Obama at lightening speed.

I looked into it, and it didn't happen in any way, shape, or form as per your assertion above.

[gastroboy]

No matter the questioner Obama committed the perfect gaffe. That being when a politician says something they shouldn't but is also exactly their true feelings. The purpose of the tax increase on people making $250K is to take their money and give it to people that make a lot less. "Share the wealth."

So I guess they won't want the socialist funded police to attend a break in by the "people that make a lot less" when they unilaterally decide to "Share the wealth."

[franksargent]

The point being, which I didn't start someone else did, that Obama's union pals started the swift boating of Joe, not the media.

Now the liberal bloggers are painting Joe as a racist. Let's hold our breath until Obama calls off the attack on Joe.

They are not Obama's union pals and they did not swiftboat Joe the Liar.

Liberal bloggers are not painting Joe the Liar as a racist.

[gastroboy]

Now the liberal bloggers are painting Joe as a racist.

Where?

Let's hold our breath until Obama calls off the attack on Joe.

I thought it was McCain that held up Joe as a target, to throw the dogs off McCain's scent.

[@_@ Artman]

http://funwithmccain.com/images/funwithmccain18.gif

[addabox]

The point being, which I didn't start someone else did, that Obama's union pals started the swift boating of Joe, not the media.

Now the liberal bloggers are painting Joe as a racist. Let's hold our breath until Obama calls off the attack on Joe.

Again, in what sense did the union "swiftboat" the guy? My understanding is that they took note that he isn't in a union.

If you want to assign blame for the scrutiny coming his way (and I agree with Northgate that it's pointless and stupid to besiege the guy) then ask the McCain campaign why they decided to make him everyman in a nationally televised debate. They knew full well that singling someone out that way would lead to a lot of media scrutiny, it is, unfortunately, how things are done.

[giant]

I have to say, I think that getting into Joe the Plumber's personal life and business is pretty distasteful ... because I didn't think anyone would ever know, and then people all over the country get into my personal life. Yuck.
Sam/Joe was more than happy to talk about his personal life nationally before the debate. Here he is on fox early in the week (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpZLMPoQ8VI) talking about himself and his life in detail, even though a lot of what he's saying is, we now know, exaggerated.

Sam/Joe made a national issue out of his own personal life. He is the one who repeatedly used his (exaggerated) personal details to push an agenda in the national press.
What gets me most about it is that I don't see how anyone who watches the actual footage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElPBxiVxVEw) of Obama's conversation with this guy can come away thinking it's going to hurt Obama. Even if you disagree with Obama, you can't watch that and think anything but that Obama took this guy's question seriously and tried to answer it honestly. The righties latched onto one off-hand comment about "spreading the wealth," which I didn't even catch when I first watched it a few days ago, because Obama otherwise explained in detail his tax proposals. It was a good moment for Obama, not a bad one.
Indeed. The title in the reddit submission before the debate: "Plumber asks Obama spontaneous question. Obama spends four minutes giving him a detailed, cogent, respectful answer. Good stuff." (http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/77cb0/plumber_asks_obama_spontaneous_question_obama/)

The point was that Obama can actually talk about the issues in detail and respectfully even to people who disagree with him, and that it's refreshing to see a nice, adult debate between a politician and a citizen.

Of course, it turns out that Sam/Joe was just trolling, and he immediately turns around and starts doing sensationalist interviews making claims about himself that aren't entirely true, and the McCain campaign used him as a poster boy for their agenda. And, frankly, the combination of it happening so quickly and Sam/Joe being so completely on message makes it absolutely reek of being manufactured.

The whole incident illustrates exactly how far the republican party has devolved into a hodgepodge of fanatical infants.

[addabox]

"Hodgepodge of fanatical infants" would be an excellent band name. HOFI to their fans.

[Northgate]

The point being, which I didn't start someone else did, that Obama's union pals started the swift boating of Joe, not the media.

Now the liberal bloggers are painting Joe as a racist. Let's hold our breath until Obama calls off the attack on Joe.

You know what I love? I love how Obama's "pals" and what they do means Obama is directly responsible. Which is kinda hypocritical, is it not?

I mean, you guys get red faced when McCain is held to account for the actions of his own precinct captains and party heads. You go on and on and protest that McCain can't be held to account for a the actions of others.

But boy oh boy you don't hesitate for single second to apply Obama's hand to EVERYTHING.

So I tell you what. Fine. If you want Obama to be responsible for everything then you'll have to agree that McCain is to? Agreed?

[hardeeharhar]

No it's Obama's support for wealth redistribution via progressive taxes and tax rebates.
Progressive taxes are not wealth redistribution.

[e1618978]

Progressive taxes are not wealth redistribution.

What? Is this some new form of 1984 style doublespeak? Why are they not wealth distribution?

[groverat]

The money taken via income taxes are not given to poor people.

It is not wealth redistribution.

[BRussell]

What? Is this some new form of 1984 style doublespeak? Why are they not wealth distribution? Why aren't even flat tax rates, which are a percentage of income, wealth redistribution? When you use a percentage, rich people are paying more than others. The only way it wouldn't be wealth redistribution, using your apparent definition, is if you charged everyone the same amount - say, everyone has to pay $10,000/year.

[e1618978]

The money taken via income taxes are not given to poor people.

It is not wealth redistribution.

No, it is spent on services given to everyone, part of which is money given directly to poor people (via welfare, tax credits, etc). If I pay double taxes, and my neighbor pays nothing, then he is getting his road maintenance at my expense - my wealth is being redistributed to him, and if he gets a tax credit, then the wealth distribution is even more direct.

I'm not saying that is a bad thing, but to say that progressive taxation is not wealth redistribution is weird. Are you just trying to avoid a negative connotation or something? What is your motivation for your argument?

Why aren't even flat tax rates, which are a percentage of income, wealth redistribution? When you use a percentage, rich people are paying more than others. The only way it wouldn't be wealth redistribution, using your apparent definition, is if you charged everyone the same amount - say, everyone has to pay $10,000/year.

A flat tax is also wealth redistribution. Anything other than direct "pay for services used" is.

[groverat]

Road maintenance is not wealth.

If you want to call it something else then feel free, but it is explicitly not wealth redistribution.

[e1618978]

Road maintenance is not wealth.

If you want to call it something else then feel free, but it is explicitly not wealth redistribution.

So if the government forced you to take your neighbour to dinner (and pay for it) each day for the rest of your life, would that be wealth redistribution? He didn't get any money from you.

Your argument reminds me of Gene Clean.

[FloorJack]

Progressive taxes are not wealth redistribution.

With refundable tax rebates?

[SpamSandwich]

I have to say, I think that getting into Joe the Plumber's personal life and business is pretty distasteful.

He just asked Obama a question, someone happened to film it, the conservative blogs picked it up and made it viral, and then McCain jumped on the bandwagon, making Joe famous. Yeah he's obviously a conservative Republican, so what? I'm trying to imagine me throwing McCain a tough question, maybe bending some facts a bit (like Joe buying a $270,000 business) because I didn't think anyone would ever know, and then people all over the country get into my personal life. Yuck.

What gets me most about it is that I don't see how anyone who watches the actual footage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElPBxiVxVEw) of Obama's conversation with this guy can come away thinking it's going to hurt Obama. Even if you disagree with Obama, you can't watch that and think anything but that Obama took this guy's question seriously and tried to answer it honestly. The righties latched onto one off-hand comment about "spreading the wealth," which I didn't even catch when I first watched it a few days ago, because Obama otherwise explained in detail his tax proposals. It was a good moment for Obama, not a bad one.

Y'know, "Joe" could have called it a day after he was taped querying Obama instead of giving interviews all over the place. He's seeking his 15 minutes of fame. With any luck and a good PR person, he could extend his fame to 25 minutes.

[FloorJack]

The money taken via income taxes are not given to poor people.

It is not wealth redistribution.

Of course it is. What do you call it when someone gets more money back than they paid in taxes?

[BRussell]

A flat tax is also wealth redistribution. Anything other than direct "pay for services used" is.It seems to me that this is a crazy Orwellian definition of things, not what hardeehar said.

[addabox]

With refundable tax rebates?

Which we also have now. So Bush and the Republican Congress were what, a secret socialist terror cell, for all those years they had complete control of tax policy?

Jesus Christ, it's not like Obama is proposing some kind of radical overhaul of the tax code.

[Northgate]

Funny, isn't it? They say in one breath that "income redistribution" is exactly what's happening. Which implies a negative connotation (it's a Luntz approved term, like Death Tax). And then in the second breath claim they're not "against taxes being spent on services for everyone".

We can't have one without the other. Relying on "volunteer generosity" hasn't worked out so well in the past. So what do they propose?

Nothing.

Just a bunch of bitching.

[FloorJack]

Funny, isn't it? They say in one breath that "income redistribution" is exactly what's happening. Which implies a negative connotation (it's a Luntz approved term, like Death Tax). And then in the second breath claim they're not "against taxes being spent on services for everyone".

We can't have one without the other. Relying on "volunteer generosity" hasn't worked out so well in the past. So what do they propose?

Nothing.

Just a bunch of bitching.

Gates and Warren are forking over billions. Bad or good idea?

[Northgate]

Gates and Warren are forking over billions. Bad or good idea?

We all agreed that if we want the pleasure of doing business in this country then we will pay our fair share of the proceeds for such a golden opportunity. Seems pretty fair and straight forward to me.

[midwinter]

No, it is spent on services given to everyone, part of which is money given directly to poor people (via welfare, tax credits, etc)

I fucking hate clean water coming out of the tap. Bastards.

[Northgate]

I fucking hate clean water coming out of the tap. Bastards.

I know. I hate that when I walk out of my apartment there's like pavement and shit. I hate that when I pull out of my garage there aren't sick, downtrodden or dead people in the gutters. I hate that I'm not assaulted by the criminally insane because there's too many hospices, shelters and asylums.

Actually. You know what?

I love clean streets.
I love green grass at the library.
I love feeling relatively safe knowing we've got cops patrolling the streets.
I love that we don't live in our own filth like we did at the turn of the 20th century.
I love that when I flush the toilet it goes somewhere I don't have to think about.
I love using freeways and highways to get to work.
I love that there's a court house that will hear my case against a lazy contractor.
I love that the air is somewhat breathable.
I love that some dude comes to my place once a week and takes out the garbage.
I love that when I flip a switch that those wires actually bring me electricity.
AND
I especially love that my daughter got a great public education and is now attending her first year at a community college.

I would HATE to find out what our communities would look like if we all decided that paying for this stuff was "unfair" and "socialist".

[addabox]

I know. I hate that when I walk out of my apartment there's like pavement and shit. I hate that when I pull out of my garage there aren't sick, downtrodden or dead people in the gutters. I hate that I'm not assaulted by the criminally insane because there's too many hospices, shelters and asylums.

Actually. You know what?

I love clean streets.
I love green grass at the library.
I love feeling relatively safe knowing we've got cops patrolling the streets.
I love that we don't live in our own filth like we did at the turn of the 20th century.
I love that when I flush the toilet it goes somewhere I don't have to think about.
I love using freeways and highways to get to work.
I love that there's a court house that will hear my case against a lazy contractor.
I love that the air is somewhat breathable.
I love that some dude comes to my place once a week and takes out the garbage.
I love that when I flip a switch that those wires actually bring me electricity.
AND
I especially love that my daughter got a great public education and is now attending her first year at a community college.

I would HATE to find out what our communities would look like if we all decided that paying for this stuff was "unfair" and "socialist".

I think the plan is for all of those things to be available in gated towns where you pay directly for services. The fact that American life outside of those gated towns will be one vast teeming slum is just incentive to work harder.

[addabox]

I do think it's interesting, however, that the prospect of a black president means we have to revisit each aspect of our existing social contract and behave as if it were some kind of freshly conceived Marxist assault on normal people.

White guys presiding over business as usual: A-OK.

Black guy presiding over business as usual: OMFG TOTALITARIAN DEATH CAMP!!!!!!

[FloorJack]

Too bad not every student can enjoy great public education like Northgate's kids(s).

[midwinter]

I love that the air is somewhat breathable.

Oh, how I long for breathable air, but alas, it is not to be found in northern Utah.

[BRussell]

Y'know, "Joe" could have called it a day after he was taped querying Obama instead of giving interviews all over the place. He's seeking his 15 minutes of fame. With any luck and a good PR person, he could extend his fame to 25 minutes.

Yeah, but I think it's different to go seek it versus what happened here. He, through no intention of his own, got on youtube and then got mentioned by McCain. Sure, a bunch of news orgs wanted to interview him and he said yes. But as far as I know he didn't seek it.

[@_@ Artman]

I do think it's interesting, however, that the prospect of a black president means we have to revisit each aspect of our existing social contract and behave as if it were some kind of freshly conceived Marxist assault on normal people.

White guys presiding over business as usual: A-OK.

Black guy presiding over business as usual: OMFG TOTALITARIAN DEATH CAMP!!!!!!

http://icebarrel.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/trading-places.jpg

[Gilsch]

Of course it is. What do you call it when someone gets more money back than they paid in taxes?

Halliburton.

[FloorJack]

They are a something and not a someone. If they didn't pay taxes then we need to change the tax laws.

[hardeeharhar]

What? Is this some new form of 1984 style doublespeak? Why are they not wealth distribution?
First, taxes mostly (super mostly?) do not go to providing services to people.

Second, even if they did go to providing services to people, wealth cannot legitimately be called what services people make use of. If you cannot borrow against those services, you can't call them wealth.

[Gilsch]

They are a something and not a someone. If they didn't pay taxes then we need to change the tax laws.

How about, doing a Halliburton instead? Better? I doubt you really care about taxes anyway. Highly doubt Obama's plan will affect you just like it won't affect that Joe wanna-be-plumber moran either.

Shouldn't you be talking about the new talking points anyway? You know. Voter "fraud"?

;)

[hardeeharhar]

Of course it is. What do you call it when someone gets more money back than they paid in taxes?

Except for people in extreme poverty, I don't think that anyone who files tax returns are ever going to recover more money than they paid out in taxes (all taxes total) from refundable tax credits.

And you know what, I couldn't care less about the fact that people in poverty are getting relief from rising costs.

[SpamSandwich]

Yeah, but I think it's different to go seek it versus what happened here. He, through no intention of his own, got on youtube and then got mentioned by McCain. Sure, a bunch of news orgs wanted to interview him and he said yes. But as far as I know he didn't seek it.

If you have the nerve to walk up to the likely future president and call him out on his policy proposals (with dozens of cameramen and reporters watching, mind you) you would have to have rocks in your head if you expected anything less. He knew exactly what he was doing, and he's milking the attention.

[SpamSandwich]

Except for people in extreme poverty, I don't think that anyone who files tax returns are ever going to recover more money than they paid out in taxes (all taxes total) from refundable tax credits.

And you know what, I couldn't care less about the fact that people in poverty are getting relief from rising costs.

I want someone to explain to me, a person who has never lived beyond my means (and even though I could have purchased a house and gotten myself into a financially tenuous situation I didn't)....I just want someone to explain to me why my taxes or the taxes of the super-rich should go to lift someone else out of poverty? Did I make that person poor by my cautiousness? Did I deny them opportunity when I worked my ass off for decades to get what I have? I guess I'm just a little confused about what's meant by "fairness".

It looks and feels like socialism delivered with a pretty red bow on top.

[midwinter]

I just want someone to explain to me why my taxes or the taxes of the super-rich should go to lift someone else out of poverty?

1) Is it in your best interests, or the best interests of the country, for there to be people who live in poverty?

2) Do you know who made the clothes you're wearing right now?

[addabox]

Holy shit, we really do we really have to revisit every single settled bit of normative social policy as if we've been living in some kind of libertarian paradise and Europe sent Obama as their socialist puppet?

What's this? I hear that Obama fellow will have nothing to do with poor houses! And I am here in possession of an email that alludes to his ongoing plan to institute child labor laws! How is a hardworking blacksmith to amass any wealth, with such wanton disregard for the sanctity of personal fortitude?

Guys? The nineteenth century called, they want their chilling indifference to human suffering back.

[midwinter]

Holy shit, we really do we really have to revisit every single settled bit of normative social policy as if we've been living in some kind of libertarian paradise and Europe sent Obama as their socialist puppet?

What's this? I here that Obama fellow will have nothing to do with poor houses! And I am here in possession of an email that alludes to his ongoing plan to institute child labor laws! How is a hardworking blacksmith to amass any wealth, with such wanton disregard for the sanctity of personal fortitude?

Guys? The nineteenth century called, they want their chilling indifference to human suffering back.

Indeed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factory_Acts#Factory_Act_1847). Fucking gummit telling me how long I can make children work in my blacking factory.

[hardeeharhar]

I want someone to explain to me, a person who has never lived beyond my means (and even though I could have purchased a house and gotten myself into a financially tenuous situation I didn't)....I just want someone to explain to me why my taxes or the taxes of the super-rich should go to lift someone else out of poverty? Did I make that person poor by my cautiousness? Did I deny them opportunity when I worked my ass off for decades to get what I have? I guess I'm just a little confused about what's meant by "fairness".

It looks and feels like socialism delivered with a pretty red bow on top.
See midwinter's response...

Basically, it does you, society in general, or the government no good to have people living below the poverty line.

To suggest that somehow people who live below the poverty line aren't working hard is an appalling lie that should have died decades ago.

[midwinter]

To suggest that somehow people who live below the poverty line aren't working hard is an appalling lie that should have died decades ago.

Actually, it should have died eons ago.

[groverat]

Scott:

Who is getting money back they didn't pay in taxes?


e#s:

So if the government forced you to take your neighbour to dinner (and pay for it) each day for the rest of your life, would that be wealth redistribution? He didn't get any money from you.

No, that isn't wealth redistribution.

Wealth redistribution is the redistribution of wealth.

[SpamSandwich]

1) Is it in your best interests, or the best interests of the country, for there to be people who live in poverty?

2) Do you know who made the clothes you're wearing right now?

Yes, I do. They all live in China, Guatemala and India. And they have provided me something in return for my money. Let that sink in. They have provided me something in return for my money.

That is a significant difference between that and income redistribution, handouts and taxation without representation.

[SpamSandwich]

Guys? The nineteenth century called, they want their chilling indifference to human suffering back.

This has less to do with imagined inequalities and more to do with an utter lack of economic understanding.

[SpamSandwich]

See midwinter's response...

Basically, it does you, society in general, or the government no good to have people living below the poverty line.

To suggest that somehow people who live below the poverty line aren't working hard is an appalling lie that should have died decades ago.

Poverty is not something that can be erased with the wave of a wand, or through income redistribution. If the real answer was for you to live in squalor so the world's poor could be lifted up, would you choose that route? Because socialism doesn't work. It's been proven time and again.

[midwinter]

Yes, I do. They all live in China, Guatemala and India. And they have provided me something in return for my money. Let that sink in. They have provided me something in return for my money.

Ok, then. Here's a very serious question. Do you care if your clothes (or diamonds or cocaine or widgets or whatever) are made by slaves? Or, say, by people who make $1 a month?

[SpamSandwich]

Ok, then. Here's a very serious question. Do you care if your clothes (or diamonds or cocaine or widgets or whatever) are made by slaves? Or, say, by people who make $1 a month?

Here's a serious answer. I've had the task of visiting Chinese factories that make clothes, stuffed toys, baby carriages, paper products, dog collars, leather products, etc. These products were not made by slaves, but I could tell that in the course of trying to find low-cost manufacturers, there were definitely factories employing young kids for labor. This was near the very large city of Shenzhen (there are also some very run down areas in Guangzhou... the further inland you go, usually the poorer the surroundings). Now, these kids actually had it pretty good. They were able to earn some money for themselves and their families in a relatively safe environment instead of stealing manhole covers for their metal content, or begging in the streets or sifting through piles of garbage for food and valuables. It's all relative. Until you go to the places you only hear about or get second (or third) hand information, you literally have no clue because you have no frame of reference, and I would also put myself in that category before I saw this for myself.

If you get the chance to spend several weeks in a poverty-stricken area, somewhere really outside your comfort zone, you'll start to gain a whole new appreciation for how good people have it here in the America. Even the homeless have it better here.

It also helped me to gain a real respect for people who came from parts of China to America to work hard and improve their lives. I get choked up when I see someone become successful due to their hard work and personal sacrifice.

[midwinter]

Here's a serious answer. I've had the task of visiting Chinese factories

That's not what I asked you. Do you care if your clothes are made by slaves?

If you get the chance to spend several weeks in a poverty-stricken area

I'm from rural Mississippi. You don't need to talk to me about poverty-stricken areas.

[SpamSandwich]

That's not what I asked you. Do you care if your clothes are made by slaves?



I'm from rural Mississippi. You don't need to talk to me about poverty-stricken areas.

If you re-read my entire post instead of cherry-picking, things might make more sense.

Also, your loaded question is theoretical. How's this... Do you care how many people you've harmed or what environmental damage you do by eating hamburgers, which contributes to global warming by increasing the demand for livestock? It's a pretentious stance that ignores the complexity of the real world.

[addabox]

How come, anymore, when we talk about taxes and poor people 'n shit, we start talking about third world peasantry? Is that the benchmark, now?

"Why should my taxes go to help these so-called 'poor people', when they live well above the level of the world's naked children scrabbling through dung heaps?"

Seems like we used to shoot a little higher, here in these United States.

[SpamSandwich]

How come, anymore, when we talk about taxes and poor people 'n shit, we start talking about third world peasantry? Is that the benchmark, now?

"Why should my taxes go to help these so-called 'poor people', when they live well above the level of the world's naked children scrabbling through dung heaps?"

Seems like we used to shoot a little higher, here in these United States.

I basically agree with you. But, yes, if you want to talk about peasantry, the third world is still the place to find it.

[midwinter]

If you re-read my entire post instead of cherry-picking, things might make more sense.

I have now asked you two questions. They are simple questions. They are un-nuanced questions.

1) Do you care if your clothes are made by slaves?

2) Do you know who made your clothes?

You sort of answered #2, noting that they are made by people in "China, Guatemala and India."

I'll condense both of these questions into a nice, clear, question:

3) do you care about the conditions in which the goods you purchase are made?

[hardeeharhar]

Poverty is not something that can be erased with the wave of a wand, or through income redistribution. If the real answer was for you to live in squalor so the world's poor could be lifted up, would you choose that route? Because socialism doesn't work. It's been proven time and again.

Socialism has not been shown NOT to work. Socialism is not a governance principle, in point of fact, many socialistic programs DO work. Medicare/Medicaid, social security etc do in fact help people live better lives than they would have been otherwise (the proof is in the fact that between the periods right before these programs came to exist and right afterward, controlling for other economic externalities, elder members of society got appreciably better access to healthcare, etc than before). Socialism in conjunction with capitalism works amazingly well -- together they bring balance to two unbalanced economic theories. So don't tell me socialism doesn't work... Socialism is NOT communism. Communism DOESN'T work.

Income redistribution, a retarded meme that has never existed, describing the provision of social alms to the poor is about as fundamental a principle in our ethical framework as anything else. It has never been about getting people out of poverty. It is about making those who are in poverty have better chance at survival so they can get themselves out of poverty. It is about reducing THEIR burden on society, from diseases to economic damage done by a large disgruntled uncared for group.

There is no danger of me living in squalor to help the poor -- in point of fact, there is so little money needed for the provision of basic food and medical attention for the poor it is almost laughable that you are using this as an argument. I read recently that you could end starvation world wide with $38B/year. That is nothing. We don't do it because people with philosophies similar to your don't think it is worth it. I think it is.

Don't give me your crap about income redistribution. You live the life you lead because the poor don't suffer as much here.

[SpamSandwich]

Socialism has not been shown NOT to work. Socialism is not a governance principle, in point of fact, many socialistic programs DO work. Medicare/Medicaid, social security etc do in fact help people live better lives than they would have been otherwise (the proof is in the fact that between the periods right before these programs came to exist and right afterward, controlling for other economic externalities, elder members of society got appreciably better access to healthcare, etc than before). Socialism in conjunction with capitalism works amazingly well -- together they bring balance to two unbalanced economic theories. So don't tell me socialism doesn't work... Socialism is NOT communism. Communism DOESN'T work.

Income redistribution, a retarded meme that has never existed, describing the provision of social alms to the poor is about as fundamental a principle in our ethical framework as anything else. It has never been about getting people out of poverty. It is about making those who are in poverty have better chance at survival so they can get themselves out of poverty. It is about reducing THEIR burden on society, from diseases to economic damage done by a large disgruntled uncared for group.

There is no danger of me living in squalor to help the poor -- in point of fact, there is so little money needed for the provision of basic food and medical attention for the poor it is almost laughable that you are using this as an argument. I read recently that you could end starvation world wide with $38B/year. That is nothing. We don't do it because people with philosophies similar to your don't think it is worth it. I think it is.

Don't give me your crap about income redistribution. You live the life you lead because the poor don't suffer as much here.

So, you can really remedy starvation with your $388 annual contribution? Do it. Make your contribution. The end result of this would be accelerated population growth, famine and more starvation (I'm making the assumption you are referring to third world poverty). More money is not the answer to everything, just like technology is not the utopian answer to everything (as we seem to think in the western world).

At first glance you provide arguments which seem emotionally satisfying, but you eventually do advocate for socialism.

The theoretical framework you describe will work for a while, until the size and influence of government providing these "freebies" (keep in mind government also continues to grow and grow... it tends to want to feed itself) but these social programs eventually become unsustainable.

What is more immoral... providing "free" services that come at the expense of everyone equally whether they are needed or not, or debasing the financial system by printing more money which accelerates the eventual poverty of all?

[SpamSandwich]

I have now asked you two questions. They are simple questions. They are un-nuanced questions.

1) Do you care if your clothes are made by slaves?

2) Do you know who made your clothes?

You sort of answered #2, noting that they are made by people in "China, Guatemala and India."

I'll condense both of these questions into a nice, clear, question:

3) do you care about the conditions in which the goods you purchase are made?

Answers to both: What difference does it make to you, and what would you do about it? How do you know if anything you buy/enjoy/use has been touched by the hand of slave labor? Are you in a position to do anything about it? And if you give up this "thing" that has been produced by slave labor, do you realize you could be contributing to the starvation or death of that person?

Don't self-centeredly think you have the right answers to the important and sometimes life and death decisions other people must make to improve their own lives. For many people it's work or die, not just work or go on unemployment.

[midwinter]

Answers to both: What difference does it make to you, and what would you do about it? How do you know if anything you buy/enjoy/use has been touched by the hand of slave labor? Are you in a position to do anything about it?

You still haven't answered my questions.

[SpamSandwich]

You still haven't answered my questions.

You haven't paid attention. I've been here long enough to know you prefer to split hairs over questioning your preconceptions. Discussion is not your real goal, just agreement with your viewpoint. Well, you can't change your view if you don't change your vantage point.

[midwinter]

You haven't paid attention. I've been here long enough to know you prefer to split hairs over questioning your preconceptions. So there you go.

And now you're really not answering the question. Do you care about the conditions in which the things you buy are made?

[addabox]

Answers to both: What difference does it make to you, and what would you do about it? How do you know if anything you buy/enjoy/use has been touched by the hand of slave labor? Are you in a position to do anything about it? And if you give up this "thing" that has been produced by slave labor, do you realize you could be contributing to the starvation or death of that person?

Don't self-centeredly think you have the right answers to the important and sometimes life and death decisions other people must make to improve their own lives. For many people it's work or die, not just work or go on unemployment.

So as long as slavery is an economic system that produces goods, we have an obligation to consume those goods, lest slaves go hungry.

I think it's clear that the answer to poverty in America is nothing so radical as a progressive tax code, but rather work houses. Sure, they'll be ruthlessly exploited, but lets say we make it a choice between that and letting them die like dogs in the gutter.

By those lights, we are totally doing right by them.

[addabox]

You haven't paid attention. I've been here long enough to know you prefer to split hairs over questioning your preconceptions. Discussion is not your real goal, just agreement with your viewpoint. Well, you can't change your view if you don't change your vantage point.

No, that's me. Midwinter wants to get down to cases.

[SpamSandwich]

So as long as slavery is an economic system that produces goods, we have an obligation to consume those goods, lest slaves go hungry.

I think it's clear that the answer to poverty in America is nothing so radical as a progressive tax code, but rather work houses. Sure, they'll be ruthlessly exploited, but lets say we make it a choice between that and letting them die like dogs in the gutter.

By those lights, we are totally doing right by them.

Are you referring to this (http://www.workhouses.org.uk/)?

Although I don't often quote the Bible....

"For the poor ye have always with you; but me ye have not always"
-Mark 14:7

[addabox]

Are you referring to this (http://www.workhouses.org.uk/)?

I am. Is it to much to hope that you're going to make a case for the misunderstood workhouse?

[SpamSandwich]

I am. Is it to much to hope that you're going to make a case for the misunderstood workhouse?

Yes. :p

[midwinter]

No, that's me. Midwinter wants to get down to cases.

Indeed. I'm asking a simple question.

[hardeeharhar]

So, you can really remedy starvation with your $388 annual contribution? Do it. Make your contribution. The end result of this would be accelerated population growth, famine and more starvation (I'm making the assumption you are referring to third world poverty). More money is not the answer to everything, just like technology is not the utopian answer to everything (as we seem to think in the western world).

The malthusian cycle is not a local phenomenon when food is transported around the world. In any event, it seems that you have misunderstood Malthus's argument which depended upon the fact that the society at large was agrarian and agriculture production directly correlated to number of workers was the sole economic driver. While there may be nations that are operating near Malthus's trap, the very fact that working hands can produce goods other than agriculture means that his argument falls apart. Regardless, if you were right, Europeans who have lots of food would have a booming population as well...


At first glance you provide arguments which seem emotionally satisfying, but you eventually do advocate for socialism.

What I am arguing is that the core framework of socialism is based upon Christian charity.


The theoretical framework you describe will work for a while, until the size and influence of government providing these "freebies" (keep in mind government also continues to grow and grow... it tends to want to feed itself) but these social programs eventually become unsustainable.

This only happens if you let it happen. At no point have we ever really set up an agency which is designed to run small and efficient. That may be changing.

What is more immoral... providing "free" services that come at the expense of everyone equally whether they are needed or not, or debasing the financial system by printing more money which accelerates the eventual poverty of all?

Huh? I don't see that there is a relevant comparison here...

[SpamSandwich]

Indeed. I'm asking a simple question.

The old "how long have you been beating your wife" question. How about you provide some of your own answers?

[SpamSandwich]

So, you can really remedy starvation with your $388 annual contribution? Do it. Make your contribution. The end result of this would be accelerated population growth, famine and more starvation (I'm making the assumption you are referring to third world poverty). More money is not the answer to everything, just like technology is not the utopian answer to everything (as we seem to think in the western world).

The malthusian cycle is not a local phenomenon when food is transported around the world. In any event, it seems that you have misunderstood Malthus's argument which depended upon the fact that the society at large was agrarian and agriculture production directly correlated to number of workers was the sole economic driver. While there may be nations that are operating near Malthus's trap, the very fact that working hands can produce goods other than agriculture means that his argument falls apart. Regardless, if you were right, Europeans who have lots of food would have a booming population as well...

At first glance you provide arguments which seem emotionally satisfying, but you eventually do advocate for socialism.

What I am arguing is that the core framework of socialism is based upon Christian charity.

The theoretical framework you describe will work for a while, until the size and influence of government providing these "freebies" (keep in mind government also continues to grow and grow... it tends to want to feed itself) but these social programs eventually become unsustainable.

This only happens if you let it happen. At no point have we ever really set up an agency which is designed to run small and efficient. That may be changing.

Theory and philosophical absolutes have little to do with real life. What I know, I know from first hand experience. Not everything, but the years have a way of acting as a governor against unsubstantial personal views. The answers you provide indicate you are a student, not a person who has learned from life. There is no known cure for youth. ;)

[midwinter]

The old "how long have you been beating your wife" question. How about you provide some of your own answers?

That's a false dilemma. I'm asking you a simple question. Do you care about the conditions in which the clothes you wear were made?

[hardeeharhar]

The old "how long have you been beating your wife" question. How about you provide some of your own answers?
No, SpamSandwich -- midwinter isn't begging the question...

If he were, he would have said:

Since when did you stop caring that you clothes are made by slaves?

Are you going to stop buying slave labor made clothing?

[hardeeharhar]

Theory and philosophical absolutes have little to do with real life. What I know, I know from first hand experience. Not everything, but the years have a way of acting as a governor against unsubstantial personal views. The answers you provide indicate you are a student, not a person who has learned from life.
Heh.

How old do you think I am?

Edit: And I pointed out several real world examples to back up the theory and philosophical ramifications of thought... You do understand that your voiced concern over giving money for food for the hungry will only cause more people to be born and thus increase hunger is a theoretical framework first crystalized by Malthus. It seems your world view isn't so experienced based afterall...

[SpamSandwich]

Heh.

How old do you think I am?

Edit: And I pointed out several real world examples to back up the theory and philosophical ramifications of thought... You do understand that your voiced concern over giving money for food for the hungry will only cause more people to be born and thus increase hunger is a theoretical framework first crystalized by Malthus. It seems your world view isn't so experienced based afterall...

You're obviously smart as hell for a 10th grader.... :D

Like I said, I've learned from life, which sometimes has the unintended side benefit of making me seem "uneducated" compared to you whippersnappers.

[SpamSandwich]

That's a false dilemma. I'm asking you a simple question. Do you care about the conditions in which the clothes you wear were made?

If it makes you feel any better, I seldom worry myself with questions like that. I have a first-hand understanding of how the world works. All else is mental masturbation. If everyone really knew how their "sausage" got made, the world would come to a standstill.

[giant]

Until you go to the places you only hear about or get second (or third) hand information, you literally have no clue because you have no frame of reference, and I would also put myself in that category before I saw this for myself.

If you get the chance to spend several weeks in a poverty-stricken area, somewhere really outside your comfort zone, you'll start to gain a whole new appreciation for how good people have it here in the America. Even the homeless have it better here.
It's very interesting that you assume that people here are not from, nor have been to, nor done business in ... CHINA. W.T.F.

As for the general issue of third world countries, poverty and liberals, it would do you some good to recognize that just about every anti-poverty college-educated American has done their third world tour of duty. It's a fucking rite of passage for them. Hell, living in third world countries is what even mildly motivated high school drop outs have been doing since at least the 60s.

[midwinter]

If it makes you feel any better, I seldom worry myself with questions like that. I have a first-hand understanding of how the world works. All else is mental masturbation. If everyone really knew how their "sausage" got made, the world would come to a standstill.

And why do you think the world would come to a standstill if people knew how their clothes got made?

[Harald]

Until you go to the places you only hear about or get second (or third) hand information, you literally have no clue because you have no frame of reference.



Unless you're Sarah Palin.

[Bergermeister]

Many people are voting for Obama for many reasons.

Some, simply because McCain has proven so well that he lacks the maturity, character and frame of mind to be president, and it is basically a race between the two. They will vote for Obama because the thought of a McCain win bothers them.

Many of the people who are voting for McCain have proven on video that they haven't the slightest clue about much of anything - he's an Arab, Alaska is close to Russia, etc., etc., etc.

Few voters I would guess fully understand all the points of their candidate's platform; such is the state of politics in the US. For some, it is as simple as, What color is his skin? Can I keep me's guns? or Can I have an abortion? For others, it is a deeper analysis of who will better the standing of the US in the world and how they will achieve it? or Who will give me better health care and what does