or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Wright in Context - What The Media Didn't Show
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Wright in Context - What The Media Didn't Show - Page 5

post #161 of 191
This is the cover of our product mailer I illustrated and designed for work.



It's titled "Hillary Heading to the 3:10 to Yuma"

Carry on...
post #162 of 191
You're hired.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #163 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

You're hired.

When do I start?

Honestly, I am looking for a new job...
post #164 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

When do I start?

Honestly, I am looking for a new job...


<starts sifting through freelance jobs in the IN box... >
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #165 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

This is the cover of our product mailer I illustrated and designed for work.



It's titled "Hillary Heading to the 3:10 to Yuma"

Carry on...

Obama as the Sherif makes me thing of Blazing Saddles. Man they could never make that movie today.
post #166 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by mydo View Post

Obama as the Sherif makes me thing of Blazing Saddles. Man they could never make that movie today.



We welcome our new..... " "

(As an aside, note that your drawing DOES show the badge, same shirt, same hat... )

I demand that you repudiate this drawing, that you condemn it, distance yourself from it.... the American people deserve better than... <vomit>



Maybe the next incarnation will have McCain, reins in hand, with a dalmatian riding shotgun and crates of Budweiser stacked behind him...
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #167 of 191
3:10 to yuma is from the movie.
post #168 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by mydo View Post

Oddly enough employment is not that bad compared to other recessions.

US payrolls shrank by 20,000 jobs in April: Net job less in 2008 at 260,000

Quote:
The Labor Department reported Friday that the US economy lost a net total of 20,000 jobs in April, marking the fourth consecutive month of overall job losses. The employment report, combined with other data on economic growth, retail sales, consumer spending and wages, provides a picture of an economy sinking deeper into recession and a population in increasingly desperate financial straits.

While the net job loss reported by the Labor Department was lower than most economists predictions, it nevertheless confirms that the crisis ignited by the collapse in the housing and credit markets is dramatically impacting production, sales and consumption, and driving down working class living standards.

Aprils job losses followed upwardly revised losses of 81,000 in March and 83,000 in February. Payrolls also fell by 76,000 jobs in January.

The payroll decline would have been far worse except for a spurt of new jobs in the generally low-paying service sector. Service industries added 90,000 jobs, the most since last December. Most of them came in the health care and professional technical services sectors.
post #169 of 191



As I said, and you ignored, unemployment is not that bad compared to other recessions (which were not in right now). 5% isn't that bad. I don't know what the future holds and neither do you.
post #170 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by mydo View Post



As I said, and you ignored, unemployment is not that bad compared to other recessions (which were not in right now). 5% isn't that bad. I don't know what the future holds and neither do you.

Let's see... 2008- net job loss... the chances are better than 1000 to 1 that you haven't lost your job this year. Soup lines, people. Soup lines. Babies handed into orphanages. The dust bowl will be here by summer...

Jeeze... some of you got really, really spoiled with 2003-2007.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #171 of 191
It's all abstract until you're the one looking for work.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #172 of 191

Here's some more data. Be glad were not at 10%


post #173 of 191
Back to Obama......

Here's a very interesting graph from the NYT:



It shows Hillary's disapproval rating among black dem voters in a free fall, while Obama's positive/negative numbers among white dems is a wash. There was a small spike of negatives around the Wright festival, which has since rebounded somewhat, even as his positives have come back up.

If all-Wright-all-the-time-fear-of-a-black-nation can't drive Obama's negatives any better than that, just how invulnerable is this guy's base?
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #174 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

ROTFLMAO!

You can't be serious, you clearly lack sufficient analytical skills to do much of anything bordering on a serious statistical analysis. And that's just the plain truth.

Help me out here, I trying to remember if you've ever made a valid statistical argument here in PO.

I'd suggest you stay away from any mathematical/statistical related arguments, it's clearly way over your head. It should be self evident and therein lies your paradoxical dilemma.

The rest of what you say is speculative and conjectural and lacks any buttressing facts.

"I think that this is so, therefore it follows that I also think that this is so, ..., ad infinitum." - SDW circa 2001 - 20?? (pick out any of your previous, present, or future posts at random)

In one word? BORING!


First, thanks again for the personal attack. Once again, I won't respond directly to it.

Now, let's look at your response. Rather than arguing the merits of what I posted, you chose to attack me as someone having no analytical ability. That said, I encourage you to take a look at what I posted again and evaluate it on the merits. I made several statements supported by the facts, particularly those relating to who comprises the base of support with Barack and Hillary voters, respectively. If you have information that contradicts mine, I welcome it.

Of course, I did draw some conclusions and make some predictions. However, those were based on the demographics within each respective state compared to makeup of Hillary and Barack's supporters.

Again, if you can make a reasonable argument as to why I'm wrong, I'd enjoy reading it. Somehow I think you'll choose to respond with your typical condescending vitriol, but one can hope.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #175 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

We also can't overlook all the work Obama's organization is doing to build infrastructure and get new voters signed up.

Anytime we talk about the winners of recent election, we're talking about a bare majority of a minority of eligible voters.

Obama's campaign has the kind of buzz that gets people involved, especially people who may not have bothered to participate before now.

Good points.

Quote:

The McCain candidacy isn't going to energize any new voters. I don't think he really even has a constituency, beyond "people who wouldn't vote for a Democrat if you put a gun to their head." He was a lackluster candidate in the primary, who kind of backed into the nomination.

I think he does have one, but I see where you are coming from.

Quote:

Am I supposed to have forgotten all the animosity for McCain from the base, already? Is the specter of a black president enough to get them out to the polls, en masse? Because they sure aren't going to be turning out because they think McCain's the second coming of Regean, or even much a conservative standard bearer at all.

1. No.
2. I really don't think it has to do with race. It has to do with Barack Obama. Now, there will be some voters that won't vote for a black man (or a woman), but the question is...how many?

Quote:

The idea that he's this flexible "moderate" that can pull disgruntled Dems is laughable. The only reason he gets away with casting himself as such is that he still hasn't had to answer any real questions about his voting record or policy proposals.

I really have to disagree there. He's going to take a lot of moderates, particularly if the alternative is exceptionally liberal. He'll have a tougher time against HRC though, who actually looks conservative next to Obama.

As for him no spelling anything out, I don't agree there. He's been as detailed as the Dems for the most part, though he's gotten no attention during their war.


Quote:

Obama's people are going to be turning out because they're genuinely excited about the prospect for a new direction for the country. Guess which group I'd rather have on my side?

Generally I agree. But in terms of the electoral math, it doesn't work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mydo View Post

Oddly enough employment is not that bad compared to other recessions.

To be fair, it's a trailing indicator. If the slowdown deepens, it will likely get worse. In fact, I think you'll see close to 6% unemployment whether things turn around quickly or not.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #176 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

First, thanks again for the personal attack. Once again, I won't respond directly to it.

Now, let's look at your response. Rather than arguing the merits of what I posted, you chose to attack me as someone having no analytical ability. That said, I encourage you to take a look at what I posted again and evaluate it on the merits. I made several statements supported by the facts, particularly those relating to who comprises the base of support with Barack and Hillary voters, respectively. If you have information that contradicts mine, I welcome it.

Of course, I did draw some conclusions and make some predictions. However, those were based on the demographics within each respective state compared to makeup of Hillary and Barack's supporters.

Again, if you can make a reasonable argument as to why I'm wrong, I'd enjoy reading it. Somehow I think you'll choose to respond with your typical condescending vitriol, but one can hope.

.... than in engaging in a guessing game. Which is what you're engaged in right now. Whatever, what follows is my guessing game for the Democratic nomination.

'Meet the Press' transcript for May 4, 2008
[CENTER]
Quote:
MR. RUSSERT: Here's the latest elected delegate count. These are the elected delegates: Obama, 1492; Clinton, 1338; an advantage of 154. The superdelegates: 274 declared for Clinton, 254 for Obama, 267 are uncommitted, which gives you an overall lead of about 134 if you combine those two numbers. This is what you said in New Albany, Indiana, the other day.

SEN. OBAMA: If we've won the most delegates from the voters, seems to me that it might be a good idea to make me the nominee.

MR. RUSSERT: It's doesn't appear mathematically possible that Senator Clinton can overcome your lead of elected delegates.

SEN. OBAMA: Hm.

MR. RUSSERT: If the superdelegates got together, the undecided superdelegates and said, "You know, Senator Obama, we think that Hillary Clinton is a stronger candidate against John McCain. Here are the latest polls in the swing states, the overall national polls. You've run a wonderful race, but we're going to go with Senator Clinton as our nominee," what would you do?

SEN. OBAMA: I don't think that's going to happen. I--let, let me say at the outset, I want a Democrat to win in November, so even if Senator Clinton were the nominee instead of me, I would still be campaigning for Democrats because we haven't talked much about John McCain today, and the one thing I'm clear about is he wanted--wants to continue George Bush's foreign policy, he wants to continue George Bush's economic policies. He said George Bush had, had made great progress economically. And his proposals, which are essentially $300 billion worth of corporate tax cuts that aren't paid for that would add to our deficit and increase the imbalance in our tax code, I think is the exact wrong prescription for America. So, so, so...

MR. RUSSERT: The Republicans suggest your plans don't add up either, but that's a whole different discussion.

SEN. OBAMA: So, so, so...

MR. RUSSERT: But do the superdelegates have the right to override, in effect, the decision of the elected delegates?

SEN. OBAMA: I, I think the superdelegates, by rule, can make their own decision. I think the superdelegates are going to take a look not at momentary snapshot polls, but they're going to take a look at who's run the campaign that can bring about change in American and can actually govern after the election. And the number of new people that we've brought in, the organizations that we've set up in all 50 states, the enthusiasm, the energy that our campaign has displayed indicates to me and should indicate to the superdelegates that the American people are ready to move in a new direction, and that's what we're offering. And I'm confident that, if I am the nominee, that I offer Democrats the best chance of winning in November.

MR. RUSSERT: And if the superdelegates decide otherwise, you will abide by it.

SEN. OBAMA: Well, you know, as, as I said, I'm committed to making sure Democrats win in November.

[/CENTER]
MR. SARGENT: Me too.

BTW the numbers in bold above have been changed from the MTP transcript since Obama picked up one more superdelegate today.

And if the two primaries tomorrow essentially split the 187 pledged delegates (Obama = 94, Clinton = 93 (slight advantage to Obama since NC has more pledged delegates))), then the totals would be, Obama 1840 and Clinton 1705.

And if in the 218 remaining pledged delegates in the remaining Democratic primaries split then it's Obama 1949 and Clinton 1814.

That means Obama only needs 76 (~26%) additional superdelegates while Clinton would need 211 (~74%) additional superdelegates. And for Clinton to pull even with Obama with the 405 pledged delegates remaining as of today, Clinton needs 270 (~67%).

Then it's one-on-one with five months to go, a whole heck of a lot will happen in those five months, so my argument is basically, it's too soon to tell, until we're in a one-on-one contest.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #177 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

.... than in engaging in a guessing game. Which is what you're engaged in right now. Whatever, what follows is my guessing game for the Democratic nomination.

And you still haven't challenged what my "guesswork" is based on. You've not made a credible counter-argument.

Quote:

'Meet the Press' transcript for May 4, 2008

MR. SARGENT: Me too.

BTW the numbers in bold above have been changed from the MTP transcript since Obama picked up one more superdelegate today.

And if the two primaries tomorrow essentially split the 187 pledged delegates (Obama = 94, Clinton = 93 (slight advantage to Obama since NC has more pledged delegates))), then the totals would be, Obama 1840 and Clinton 1705.

And if in the 218 remaining pledged delegates in the remaining Democratic primaries split then it's Obama 1949 and Clinton 1814.

That means Obama only needs 76 (~26%) additional superdelegates while Clinton would need 211 (~74%) additional superdelegates. And for Clinton to pull even with Obama with the 405 pledged delegates remaining as of today, Clinton needs 270 (~67%).

Then it's one-on-one with five months to go, a whole heck of a lot will happen in those five months, so my argument is basically, it's too soon to tell, until we're in a one-on-one contest.

What you're saying is that Obama's lead is insurmountable, and it's unlikely the Dems will take the nomination from him if he's in the lead. Well guess what...I agree. However, I do think it's possible for Clinton to be the nominee. If she does well in the remaining contests and gets MI and/or FL seated, things change considerably. What if the delegate count is within 50 delegates and she leads the popular vote? Can't the case be made that it's really a tie...and that since Obama can't win the swing states and larger states...HRC should be the nominee?

In fact, that's the dilemma the Dems face: Just how fumin' pissed will Obama supporters (read: blacks) be? Will it be worth it to screw him to gain a better shot at beating McCain? I'm starting to think it's possible, even if unlikely.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #178 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

In fact, that's the dilemma the Dems face: Just how fumin' pissed will Obama supporters (read: blacks) be?

Probably as "fumin'" as the white Obama supporters...what's your point (pissed = black)?
post #179 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

And you still haven't challenged what my "guesswork" is based on. You've not made a credible counter-argument.



What you're saying is that Obama's lead is insurmountable, and it's unlikely the Dems will take the nomination from him if he's in the lead. Well guess what...I agree. However, I do think it's possible for Clinton to be the nominee. If she does well in the remaining contests and gets MI and/or FL seated, things change considerably. What if the delegate count is within 50 delegates and she leads the popular vote? Can't the case be made that it's really a tie...and that since Obama can't win the swing states and larger states...HRC should be the nominee?

In fact, that's the dilemma the Dems face: Just how fumin' pissed will Obama supporters (read: blacks) be? Will it be worth it to screw him to gain a better shot at beating McCain? I'm starting to think it's possible, even if unlikely.

Democrats, 25 states + DC = 310
Republicans, 25 states = 228

In other words the Democratic nominee win this one fairly easily.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #180 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Probably as "fumin'" as the white Obama supporters...what's your point (pissed = black)?

I think it's reasonable to assume that his black supporters would be far more pissed off.

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Democrats, 25 states + DC = 310
Republicans, 25 states = 228

In other words win this one fairly easily.

You absolutely must be kidding me.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #181 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I think it's reasonable to assume that his black supporters would be far more pissed off.

Yeah, if Al Sharpton and Rush Linbaugh say so, it must be true. Though my African American friends (and most Afram's in general) downtown don't listen to them.
post #182 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You absolutely must be kidding me.

[CENTER]
1992


1996


2000


2004[/CENTER]

In Pennsylvania, the last four Presidential races went into the Democratic column.

BTW, this is a measured response so that I don't overload your brain with too many facts in a single post. \
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #183 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

[CENTER]
1992


1996


2000


2004[/CENTER]

In Pennsylvania, the last four Presidential races went into the Democratic column.

BTW, this is a measured response so that I don't overload your brain with too many facts in a single post. \


Uh...let's look at that for a second. In 2004, PA was within 5 points. Despite the unpopularity of the Iraq war, Bush won FL and OH as well. That was against John Kerry...who, while liberal, at least had experience in the Senate and in the military.

In 2000, PA was close as well. Gore was running as a moderate.

In 1996, Dole had no chance. He ran a terrible campaign against Clinton who at the time had good approval ratings.

In 1992, Clinton won because of one man: Ross Perot. Period.

And in 1988? Oh look...here we have a very liberal Dem candidate against a fairly moderate Republican. And guess who won? Hmmm.

The point is that PA is tailored for Hillary and McCain. It's not a good state for Obama. OH is similar to PA, and actually a bit more conservative. While we're at it, let's throw in working class voters in MI too.

Look, if it was Obama versus Romney or Huckabee...I'd give him a much better shot. But the problem is that McCain is strongest where Obama is weakest...the center. Both parties know they need a portion of the center to win. And both parties know that against MccCain, Obama cannot win the center.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #184 of 191
Oh, SDW, what can you possibly know... you're from West Chester.

(your year-by-year analysis is correct, BTW, TYVM... and, uh, "FACTS!")

Maybe the hope is that you bitter folk in PA will take some time away from clinging to guns and bibles and racism and go vote for someone who is soooo much better than you.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #185 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Uh...let's look at that for a second. In 2004, PA was within 5 points. Despite the unpopularity of the Iraq war, Bush won FL and OH as well. That was against John Kerry...who, while liberal, at least had experience in the Senate and in the military.

In 2000, PA was close as well. Gore was running as a moderate.

In 1996, Dole had no chance. He ran a terrible campaign against Clinton who at the time had good approval ratings.

In 1992, Clinton won because of one man: Ross Perot. Period.

And in 1988? Oh look...here we have a very liberal Dem candidate against a fairly moderate Republican. And guess who won? Hmmm.

In 2000 Gore lost FL because of Nader and the Green Party, and Gore a moderate? Yeah, I guess so, relative to Nader, but then who isn't.

Hmmm, Obama != Dukakis and Johnny != Bush (41)

In 1988 VP Bush (41) was running, against a very weak Democrat, this time Johnny is running for Bush's (43) 3rd term!

[CENTER]
GWB Public Opinion [Approve - Disapprove - Unsure][/CENTER]

Good luck having GWB campaign successfully anywhere in support of McCain.

So the fact still remains that PA was in the Democratic column the last four presidential elections, Bush has the lowest approval ratings of any POTUS that I can remember in my adult life, gas prices and food prices are going through the roof, the economy seems to be truly heading south, an extended U.S. occupation of two sovereign nations with no end in sight (particularly if McCain is elected), the housing crisis continues, etceteras.

There is no PA senator up for office in 2008. Specter is a moderate, to say the least, and I wish him a return to good health, but unfortunately his cancer has returned;

[CENTER]
Quote:
On 15 April 2008, he announced his cancer had returned.

[/CENTER]

So he may not be a factor in supporting McCain in the fall. But like I already said I wish him a good and speedy recovery, he's one of my favorite Republicans (and that's saying a lot ).

In the 2006 PA senatorial race Casey literally hammered Santorum by a whopping 17.4% points. Santorum was running for his 3rd term, so basically, another one bites the dust. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

In the PA 2006 House of Representative races, there was a swing of four representatives from the Republican side to the Democratic side, so what was a 12 to 7 Republican lead, is now a 11 to 8 Democratic lead going into the fall election;

United States congressional delegations from Pennsylvania

Heck the D's might even pick up a couple of House seats in the fall election.

Note also, that the PA governor and lieutenant governor, Rendell and Knoll, respectively, are both Democrats, and those posts are also not under contention this fall.

So considering all of the above factors, and the DNC, the Democratic party machine in PA is as strong as it's ever been, and PA will definitely go into the win column for whomever the Democratic presidential nominee happens to be.

Swing batter swing! You now have (or will have) an 0-2 count, and I'm winding up for the final delivery.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #186 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Uh...let's look at that for a second. In 2004, PA was within 5 points. Despite the unpopularity of the Iraq war, Bush won FL and OH as well. That was against John Kerry...who, while liberal, at least had experience in the Senate and in the military.

In 2000, PA was close as well. Gore was running as a moderate.

In 1996, Dole had no chance. He ran a terrible campaign against Clinton who at the time had good approval ratings.

In 1992, Clinton won because of one man: Ross Perot. Period.

And in 1988? Oh look...here we have a very liberal Dem candidate against a fairly moderate Republican. And guess who won? Hmmm.

The point is that PA is tailored for Hillary and McCain. It's not a good state for Obama. OH is similar to PA, and actually a bit more conservative. While we're at it, let's throw in working class voters in MI too.

Look, if it was Obama versus Romney or Huckabee...I'd give him a much better shot. But the problem is that McCain is strongest where Obama is weakest...the center. Both parties know they need a portion of the center to win. And both parties know that against MccCain, Obama cannot win the center.

So it's your contention that "the center" is simply to racist to vote for a black guy?

Because if your idea is that Obama is some kind of big ole' liberal to Hillary's moderate, you'd have to show me where Obama's policies diverge wildly from hers.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #187 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

So it's your contention that "the center" is simply to racist to vote for a black guy?

Because if your idea is that Obama is some kind of big ole' liberal to Hillary's moderate, you'd have to show me where Obama's policies diverge wildly from hers.

I'll do that.

She's moving towards the "let's try and get the vote by promising tax cuts" road. Look at the idiotic gas tax break. Take money away from the government, which is already in huge debt, yet OPEC still gets its $150 a barrel. And guess what cutting the gas tax will do. Increase demand. And what does that mean? Prices go up. Dumb.

She's also far more supportive about sustained proactive political coercion through force (especially with regard to increasing pressure on Iran and keeping full strength in Iraq) in the Middle East. Obama will definitely cut spending and get more Americans out of harm's way than Hillary will.

Those are two areas where I support Obama, as his policy is leaning towards liberal (not quite there yet) and away from where Hillary stands, which is right smack dab in the middle of conservative land, at least as far as those two issues are concerned. I'm willing to say that just about the only places where Hillary is not a conservative are with regard to health care and the right to choose. For me that's not enough. Obama has a health care plan as well.
post #188 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Obama will definitely cut spending

Says who?

(Hint... it's not anywhere near the topic of "socialized, single-payer medicine")
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #189 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Says who?

(Hint... it's not anywhere near the topic of "socialized, single-payer medicine")

I'm talking with regard to the war. And yes, I think he will cut spending elsewhere more than Hillary (which is the point being discussed here -- McCain was not a part of this statement), but that's a harder point to argue. McCain may cut some social programs and add to the poverty problem -- fuck the poor, they deserve it, right? But McCain will add to military spending even more than the amount of any social cuts he makes... just watch, if he gets elected. I'm even willing to bet anyone on that point.
post #190 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

fuck the poor, they deserve it, right?

You can do better than that, tonton.

Anyway... McCain is a spender. Obama is a spender. Hillary is a spender. IMHO 80% of congress consists of politicians I'd call budget-blowing earmarking spenders. Until we get real about not blowing money on endless war and endless social dependency programs, while politicians continue to bribe us with our own money, we're going to continue the slide ever downward. We need to get money out of DC.

Spending is the number one reason that the Republican party is having hell getting their base to give a shit about the congressional agenda or The Mick. They misjudged in a huge way... most of us on the right think of ourselves based on conservative principles, not as branded "Republicans." The GOP is finding out real, real hard that we support the actions, not the party. And unless the GOP gets a clue, and soon, November is going to be a wake up call. Hold on to your wallet. Get ready for open borders (coming under McCain OR Obama). Trying terrorists in the same systems as hubcap thieves. You know... 2-4 years of real big fun.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #191 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Anyway... McCain is a spender. Obama is a spender. Hillary is a spender. IMHO 80% of congress consists of politicians I'd call budget-blowing earmarking spenders.

And don't forget the more than 25% of US Congress members who had a hand in Iraq war's profits.

Quote:
An investigation by Ralph Forbes from American Free press reported on May 05, 2008 that more than a quarter of US senators and congressmen have invested at least $196 million of their own money in companies doing business with the Department of Defense (DoD) that profit from the death and destruction in Iraq [1].

The report also edifies that 151 members of congress invested close to a quarter-billion dollars in companies that received defense contracts of at least $5 million in 2006. These companies got more than 275.6 billion from the government in 2006, or $755 million per day, according to Fedspending.org [2]. In 2004, the first full year after the current Iraq war began, Republican and Democratic lawmakers-both hawks and doves invested between $74.9 million and 161.3 million in companies under contract with the DoD [1]. No wonder the Democratic congress kept approving the enormous spending bills on the war, since a significant portion of it happens to end up in their deep pockets.

The report elucidates further that investments in these contractors yielded Congress members between $15.8 million and $62 million in personal income from 2004 to 2006, through dividends, capital gains, royalties, and interest [1]. Certainly, as the war went on and escalated, so did the increase in profits.

Interestingly, the report also mentioned that members of the senate foreign relations and armed services committees which oversee the Iraq war had between $32 million and $44 million invested in companies with DoD contracts. Per example, war hawk Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), chairman of the defense-related Senate Homeland security and Governmental Affairs Committee, had at least $51,000 invested in these companies in 2006. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), who voted for Bush’s war, had stock in defense companies such as Honeywell, Boeing and Raytheon, but sold them in May 2007. [1].

I am shocked. Shocked I tells ya!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Wright in Context - What The Media Didn't Show