posted
Palin's arguments and name calling is not going to gather any Democrats to vote Rep, nor convince many independents.
The Rolling Stone article won't get any Republicans to vote Dem, or convince many independents.
This is the same stuff I saw in the VP Debate. With 30 days left it seems that the race is on not to target undecided, but to scare the base into caring enough to vote against the other side.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: He was being sarcastic.
It really didn't register.
How could it possibly not have? It's an utterly absurd assertion, intended to underscore the ridiculousness of the post it was written in response to.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
We should decide this election on two issues, and two issues only....
Abortion and Gay marriage.
If we elect Palin/Mccain - Abortion will be illegal (Abortions will stop an thousands of innocent babies will be saved! Teens will wait until marriage to have sex!) and Gays will no longer use their Marriage Speculation techniques that drive up the divorce rate! The constitution clearly states, No dude dude marriages. If russia sees that we can't stop gay guys, they'll think they can invade!
Posts: 377 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:"My response to her, I guess it was kind of flippant. But, I was sort of taken aback, like, the suggestion was, 'You're way up there in a far away place in Alaska, do you know that there are publications in the rest of the world that are read by many?' And I was taken aback by that because, I don't know, the suggestion just was a little bit of perhaps we're not in tune with the rest of the world."
Her head must not be screwed on right if Katie Couric asking "what do you read for news?" somehow translates into "you're a stupid hick." It's a perfectly fair question to ask any candidate. Are you reading the Wall Street Journal or Mad Libs? No one knows until you ask. It's especially fair after having a president for eight years who revels in the fact that he's disdainful of print media.
On the Rolling stone article -
I only got halfway through and stopped. I didn't see any documentation, as it looked like most of it either came from interviews with people who hate McCain or from McCain's own book, but is everything in the article perfectly refutable? At least the flight record stuff seems to be true. Excusing the dozen or so different times that McCain's motivations are assumed for him, are the actual events ALL fictitious?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Her head must not be screwed on right if Katie Couric asking "what do you read for news?" somehow translates into "you're a stupid hick." It's a perfectly fair question to ask any candidate.
I am surprised that she didn't name at least one publication. Perhaps she is so on the defensive when it comes to the media that she felt that she would be ridiculed no matter what she answered so she preferred not to answer? I'm surprised this "small-town girl" didn't think to name a local newspaper - I think that would have played perfectly to her image.
Posts: 21 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
I only got halfway through and stopped. I didn't see any documentation, as it looked like most of it either came from interviews with people who hate McCain or from McCain's own book, but is everything in the article perfectly refutable? At least the flight record stuff seems to be true. Excusing the dozen or so different times that McCain's motivations are assumed for him, are the actual events ALL fictitious?
Rolling Stone should just give up on political coverage.
Its high-water mark was in 1972. They will never match the coverage of that year and it's said to see how low they've fallen.
quote:Perhaps she is so on the defensive when it comes to the media that she felt that she would be ridiculed no matter what she answered so she preferred not to answer?
Well she pretty much said exactly that in the interview. Using supposed "gotcha" journalism as an excuse never to give a straight answer is pretty damned weak though. You can't just ignore any question that demands a potentially damaging answer. I guess in that respect she IS a maverick. Instead of giving the usual BS answer we usually get from politicians, she refuses to answer at all. Granted the regular people of the country would rather have a maverick that actually ANSWERED the question, it's still different than the norm!
sndrake -
I never read Rolling Stone for political coverage. Frankly I wasn't even aware that they really even tried that hard at it (and apparently they don't). Like I said I only read half of it, figuring I didn't need to read the other half because I saw where they were going with it. It read like a stream of tabloid rumors. I suspect there were several kernels of truth in the article, but were so buried in obvious bias against the man that I couldn't begin to guess where they might be.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
They really did make an attempt, back in the day, but the coverage wasn't for the faint of heart.
Hunter S. Thompson's coverage of the '72 campaign is a classic - but it's heavily interspersed with some ravings about his drug use and wild claims about candidates he didn't think anyone would take seriously (like claiming Ed Muskie was addicted to ibogaine).
The parts of the coverage that aren't the ravings of a drug maniac are a really great look at the inner workings of a political campaign.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
This 'financial crisis' is a liberal media facade, fabricated to take our eye off the REAL subject. Barack Hussien Bin Laden Obama laid plans in the 60's with American terrorists to become President right before 2012, then NUKE AMERICA when we elected him.
Republicans always put America and the Children first, and Democrats always hate America and enjoy killing babies.
quote:We are looking forward to turning a page on this financial crisis and getting back to discussing Mr. Obama's aggressively liberal record and how he will be too risky for Americans."
Man, Obama doesn't even have to make the point that McCain is out of touch. His campaign is doing it just fine on its own.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Man, Obama doesn't even have to make the point that McCain is out of touch. His campaign is doing it just fine on its own.
It's even more blatent when Palin says it. She's the one who said 'I don't want to answer all these questions, I want to bash Obama' because that's what Americans want to hear. She's more blatent, but at least she smiles and winks when she says it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thought this was an interesting poll of Asians in the States:
quote: This morning, the 2008 National Asian American Survey (NAAS) was released by researchers from Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey; University of California, Berkeley (UC Berkeley); University of California, Riverside (UC Riverside); and University of Southern California (USC) which surveyed Asian American voters:
* 41 percent of Asian Americans are likely to favor Obama, while 24 percent support John McCain. * In battleground states, where either candidate could win on Election Day, Obama leads with 43 percent of Asian Americans supporting him and 22 percent favoring McCain. * The research shows that support for the candidates does vary by Asian American ethnic groups. Among those who have made up their mind on a candidate, two-thirds of Vietnamese Americans support McCain; Japanese Americans, Chinese Americans, and Indian Americans support Obama by more than a three-to-one ratio; and Korean and Filipino Americans who are likely voters also support Obama over McCain, but the gap is much smaller, with ratios less than 1.4 to 1. * About 80 percent of likely voters who are Asian American list the economy as one of the most important problems the nation faces, followed by the war in Iraq. * Overall, 32 percent of all Asian Americans identify themselves as Democrats; 14 percent as Republicans; 19 percent as independents; and 35 percent as nonpartisan, not fitting into any of the major party categories.
posted
Well, the questions that lead to that distinction are phrased like this, "Question: "Generally speaking, do you think of yourself as a Republican, Democrat, Independent, some other party, or do you not think in these terms?"
So I guess an Independent might be a self-identified member of the Green Party, the Rhinosaurus Party, or the Marijuana Party, someone that has clear political views but hasn't signed up with the Democrats or Republicans.
The non-partisan group would be people that do not have clear political views or do not participate in the process. As a guess, the relatively large size of this group may reflect immigration from countries where people do not have a political voice, marginalization from the political process (not like there are a lot of Asian Americans in politics), or a holdover from racial segregation when Chinese Americans preferred to avoid taking sides.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Danlo the Wild: We should decide this election on two issues, and two issues only....
Abortion and Gay marriage.
If we elect Palin/Mccain - Abortion will be illegal (Abortions will stop an thousands of innocent babies will be saved! Teens will wait until marriage to have sex!) and Gays will no longer use their Marriage Speculation techniques that drive up the divorce rate! The constitution clearly states, No dude dude marriages. If russia sees that we can't stop gay guys, they'll think they can invade!
I believe recreational chemistry is considered a no-no here at Hatrack, but whatever works for you.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
:: splutters :: But...but the evidence has been right in front of you! How could you have missed it?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
My recent readings of some of Ben Franklin's political essays must have dulled my appreciation for sarcasm and satire.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's probably it. The moment this trouble started I thought that Ben Franklin was probably at the root of it.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If it helps, when others don't get appreciate your wit, think of yourself as Ben Franklin and the others as John Adams on a particularly humorless day.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: The biggest Obama booster yet is coming in the mail soon: your 401(K) quarterly report.
Chris,
George Will made the same point on "This Week with George Stephanopolous."
Great minds think alike.
I already got mine, and as I commented a few days back -- $2000/per family is a bargain assuming it works.
And just to preempt the "Doesn't that mean your 401K was already over inflated" let me add that I've always been very conservative with how I've allocated my funds and my portfolio has only barely out earned my fixed rate annuities over the past decade. Luckily I still have a lot of years before retirement so I can hope it recovers. My colleagues who are at retirement age now won't be so lucky.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sndrake: If it helps, when others don't get appreciate your wit, think of yourself as Ben Franklin and the others as John Adams on a particularly humorless day.
Which would pretty much have been any day between his birth and his death? Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sndrake: If it helps, when others don't get appreciate your wit, think of yourself as Ben Franklin and the others as John Adams on a particularly humorless day.
[Edited to make it clear what I was smiling in response to]
posted
I haven't looked at my 401(K) report more than a few times in the last couple decades, so I won't be traumatized in any event. Got some co-workers who are sweating it, though...
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: The biggest Obama booster yet is coming in the mail soon: your 401(K) quarterly report.
Mine surprised me. My conservative and moderate stocks have only lost about as much interest as they'd earned int he last two years (as long as I've had this 401k), but two of my aggressive stocks have yet to lose as much as they had previously earned. Here's the emerging markets and overseas markets! Whatever that means.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I don't really see the "gloves coming off" so far. If anything McCain is slightly less rancorous than he was in the first debate, and I think Obama is doing a much better job of parry/thrusting than he did in the first debate.
I think they're actually getting more into the issues than they did in the first debate as well. The problem with "specifics" is that if you get TOO specific, people get turned off, but if you speak in generalities, they complain that you aren't giving real answers. It's a pretty fine line.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
I REALLY hope that Obama finally smacks him down on that damned Energy Bill. It had a net INCREASE in taxes for oil companies!
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
When we had to pay the full amount of our health insurance coverage for two months this summer (in between end of job and start of school) it cost $1300 a month for our family of four. And it was adequate, but not great, insurance. $5000 a year isn't going to cut it.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The trouble is that individual health insurance is not affordable, only group health plans are remotely affordable. I've bought insurance on my own before -- OUCH!
The debate bored me so I stopped watching a few minutes ago. The format isn't a very good one. They don't seem to have enough time to really answer the questions, let alone get any good back and forth. Both of them are frankly sticking to their talking points and not doing a terrific job of answering the actual questions. I'd be surprised if anyone's opinions changed based on this debate.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:When we had to pay the full amount of our health insurance coverage for two months this summer (in between end of job and start of school) it cost $1300 a month for our family of four. And it was adequate, but not great, insurance. $5000 a year isn't going to cut it.
For a single guy, it's a fine start. It still sounds like a win/win. Employee benefits packages will change markedly, and it'll still ease the burden off of mid-sized businesses.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I do like McCain's $5,000 health care credit. It frees workers and employers. If administered well, it would be a huge boon.
This will screw working families. Why? Because a $5,000 tax credit is worthless to people who, after all their other tax credits -- like, say, the ones you have for having kids, or paying interest on a house -- are only paying about $5,000 in tax. They'll bump up against the AMT. And if you've got two kids, you're paying $5,000 in insurance anyway -- and now you don't have the buying power of your employer behind you, or the expertise of your HR department, so you're at the mercy of insurance marketers.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's my understanding that some people with certain pre-existing conditions have trouble getting any individual health insurance at all, let alone an individual plan that will cover the illnesses they already have.
Also, the talk of not having a government bureaucrat between me and my doctor is silly. I already have a bureaucrat between me and my doctor.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:The health care plan might help a single guy, but for a family, it does not work.
Not alone, but as a voucher to add with employment benefits, it stirs the pot.
Not when McCain is taxing your employer health care benefits as income it won't. Besides, how is this going to help the poor that don't pay taxes anyway? A tax credit for them is imaginary money. Unless he's just giving out $5,000 checks to everyone, but I can't fathom that's what he is suggesting.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The $5,000 health care credit is a great way to slap another bandaid over our current model and keep it vaguely solvent for a few years longer, while not really actually fixing things for families or for the long-term viability of the actuarial model.
I love 'solutions' like that. We're throwing money at the system to keep it buoyed, but in order to prevent the appearance of leftist nationalism from being too prevalent, we're socializing it in the least efficient ways possible.
/edit - not that this is any more lol than 'i wish obama had it in his character to give a thumbs up to domestic terrorism and arson' but still, all the same
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
