*nochannel
*election08
*politics
*news
*lies

This video has been removed from all channels (Terrible, Worldaffairs, Femme, Election08, Politics) due to invalid channel assignment - nochannel invoked by NetRunner. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.

Adding video to channels (Election08, Lies, News, Politics) - requested by NetRunner.

Mixed emotions watching this since Carville drives me up the wall.

freaky bald guy scares me.. aaaaagh!!!

Seriously they both make valid points.

Palin is obviously not the most qualified Republican, but Obama isn't the most qualified democrat in the country. The objective wasn't to select the most qualified running mate. The voters don't mandate that kind of logic. We don't always vote for the best candidate. It's a populatity contest to a certain extent. McCain selected Palin because he thought she would improve his chances of being elected. It's a political move. Are you surprised?


P.S. I love how anytime there is any kind of a debate posted on videosift, the approval of the viewers here always sides with the better scoff artist. I'm not taking a side on this one; I think they both bring up some valid statements as well as some completely irrelevant statements.

Urg... I love how that lady has to resort to calling him sexist because he has a point. What the hell part of what he was saying (as abrasive or not) had anything to do with her gender?

She has a valid point because she has a vagina.

What a sexist woman...

(And no, retards, that's not sarcasm.)

>> ^deedub81:
Palin is obviously not the most qualified Republican, but Obama isn't the most qualified democrat in the country. The objective wasn't to select the most qualified running mate. The voters don't mandate that kind of logic. We don't always vote for the best candidate. It's a populatity contest to a certain extent. McCain selected Palin because he thought she would improve his chances of being elected. It's a political move. Are you surprised?

P.S. I love how anytime there is any kind of a debate posted on videosift, the approval of the viewers here always sides with the better scoff artist. I'm not taking a side on this one; I think they both bring up some valid statements as well as some completely irrelevant statements.


The difference being that Obama was selected by 18 million voters after more than a year of running for president, while Palin was selected by the McCain campaign after a fifteen minute interview.

>> ^deedub81:

I see your point, but the humor of the situation derives from that the GOP's main argument up until a week ago was that experience was the most important issue for a presidential ticket.

Palin is a horrible choice, not because she's a woman, heavens no, but because she's a moron.

Ugh. She has that scientology stare.

Why do all GOP shills look like that? *promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Tuesday, September 2nd, 2008 11:08am PDT - promote requested by Fjnbk.

McCain say "America First" but this choice was purely political trying to get the woman vote. And shame on her for saying that it was demeaning to women. If a man were selected with only 20 months experience noone would be using the "demeaning to men" argument. Sometimes I really hate crutches like that.

It would've been demeaning to women if perhaps McCain said "I want her as VP because I'm getting a bit tired of my trophy wife." But noone has gone remotely near that talking point ... yet.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Carville, Bachman, election, Palin, Larry King Live, unqualified' to 'Carville, Bachman, election, Palin, Larry King Live, unqualified, botox overdose' - edited by sometimes

@Fjnbk:
Yep. That's the difference. We haven't had an opportunity to vote for or against Palin. That's how it works.
The fact that Obama has campaigned longer doesn't mean he has more experience.

@chilaxe
Good point.

Palin had some one plug for her on Wikipedia named YoungTrigg.

That person is a sock puppet.

>> ^Fjnbk:
Why do all GOP shills look like that? promote



I have 2 theories... see the comment above yours (scientology)... either that or she's a stepford wife!

God, he looks like a turtle.

>> ^deedub81:
@Fjnbk:
Yep. That's the difference. We haven't had an opportunity to vote for or against Palin. That's how it works.
The fact that Obama has campaigned longer doesn't mean he has more experience.

The bit about voting has become something of a lefty talking point, but saying "Everyone in the world has been vetting Obama since he declared his candidacy in January of 2007, and a majority of primary voters still chose him" is still a pretty sound argument that Americans have reached a comfort level with his ability to lead.

Add in that his campaign has employed more people, and commanded a larger budget than the Governor's office has, and the argument gets stronger still. Then consider that the Governor will naturally be focused on state-level concerns, while the Obama campaign has had to respond to questions about every area of the political landscape, from affirmative action to trade relations with China, and it gets stronger still.

Palin is unknown to most people, no one selected her in a primary, and the election is 62 days from now. McCain is 72 years old, with a medical history that includes cancer -- if he dies, she'll be President. What do we know about her?

Not a lot, and in just 4 days, the press has found quite a bit to be concerned about.

Bald Coca cola guy needs to take lady who never blinks out for a coke.

And then... well you know the drill.

what point does she make that you find valid?

>> ^Constitutional_Patriot:
freaky bald guy scares me.. aaaaagh!!!
Seriously they both make valid points.

>> ^deedub81:
Palin is obviously not the most qualified Republican, but Obama isn't the most qualified democrat in the country.


But Palin is possibly the *least* qualified person in the country for #2. Possibly the least qualified person to ever be suggested for this slot.

I mean, Come. The. Fuck. On.

>> ^deedub81:
The fact that Obama has campaigned longer doesn't mean he has more experience.


Obama 1985-1988: Served as the director of the Developing Communities Project (DCP), a church-based community organization originally comprising eight Catholic parishes in Greater Roseland (Roseland, West Pullman, and Riverdale) on Chicago's far South Side. During his three years as the DCP's director, its staff grew from 1 to 13 and its annual budget grew from $70,000 to $400,000, with accomplishments including helping set up a job training program, a college preparatory tutoring program, and a tenants' rights organization in Altgeld Gardens.

Palin 1984-1988:In 1984, Palin won the Miss Wasilla beauty contest (playing the flute), then finished second in the Miss Alaska pageant, at which she won a college scholarship and the "Miss Congeniality" award. Palin attended Hawaii Pacific College — now known as Hawaii Pacific University — in Honolulu for a semester in 1982, majoring in Business Administration. She transferred in 1983 to North Idaho College. In 1987, Palin received a Bachelor of Science degree in communications-journalism from the University of Idaho, where she also minored in political science.

Obama 1988-1996:Attended Harvard Law School, graduating magna cum laude in 1991. During that time he was also the editor of the Harvard Law Review. In his sophomore year he was elected president of the Law Review, supervising a staff of 80 editors. Between 1992 and 1996, he taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School.

Palin 1988-1996:1988, she worked briefly as a sports reporter for KTUU-TV in Anchorage, Alaska. She also helped out in her husband’s family commercial fishing business. Ran for Wasilla city council in 1992, won and served two terms from 1992 to 1996. Ran for mayor of Wasilla (pop. ~8000) in 1996 and won.

*****

Quick outline. Source: Wikipedia.

I might continue on another post, Deedub, but I just wanted to make something clear here:

Do you consider the two outlines above to be equal in measure and weight?

If yes, why?

If no, which would you consider more qualified for a career in government?

>> ^Constitutional_Patriot:
freaky bald guy scares me.. aaaaagh!!!
Seriously they both make valid points.


Both make valid points? Her only points were that she 1. sold an airplane on ebay 2. was against the bridge to nowhere 3. is against corruption 4. her opponent is a sexist

1. The plane was bought for $2.7 million and sold on ebay for $2.1 million, so $600,000 loss right there. The state makes $62,492.79 payments on it each quarter, and it seats up to nine. When not in use by the governor, it was used to shuttle inmates. Sarah Palin flies commercial--most likely business class which is what, a couple grand a seat, especially on last minute bookings? So to fly herself and her family/aides around with business class is probably $5,000-10,000 a flight. If she flies mores than 6 times a quarter she is costing the state money. The reality was that the plane was described: "You can't stand up in it, and the bathroom is basically a port-a-potty. You dare not use it." Fine, if she wants to prevent taxpayer waste, but how about doing a cost analysis before you sell a plane for a $600,000 loss your first day in office?

2. "Last year, Palin announced she was stopping state work on the controversial project, earning her admirers from earmark critics and budget hawks from around the nation. The move also thrust her into the spotlight as a reform-minded newcomer.
The state, however, never gave back any of the money that was originally earmarked for the Gravina Island bridge, said Weinstein and Elerding.
In fact, the Palin administration has spent "tens of millions of dollars" in federal funds to start building a road on Gravina Island that is supposed to link up to the yet-to-be-built bridge, Weinstein said."

3. "Palin is under investigation to determine whether she pressured and then fired the state police chief in July because he refused to dismiss her former brother-in-law. At the time, the governor's younger sister was involved in a bitter divorce and child custody dispute with the man, a state trooper. A bipartisan committee of the state legislature voted unanimously to hire a retired prosecutor to investigate. His report is due in October.”"

4. The argument that Carville is sexist because he is questioning the credentials of a woman is insulting and sexist itself, especially when he brings up another woman who he thinks is more qualified.

All I see here is a vice presidential candidate who is woefully ignorant and already corrupt with what little power she has as a governor in Alaska. Do you even know her education, or her grades in college? Christ, she has BA in journalism from the University of Idaho and you want to elect her as next in line to president?

I really don't get why you want your doctors, lawyers, and scientists to finish in the top of their class after 7-8 years of schooling. Why you wouldn't dare fly on a plane, drive in a car, or ride on a boat designed by someone without a phd or masters degree--yet you will elect people to run your entire lives who are at the bottom of their class and hold a completely irrelevant or non-demanding degree.

Sarah Palin is an ignorant fundamentalist who caused her youngest child to get down syndrome by having him too late in her life. She got elected mayor of some pathetic little town on less than 1,000 votes, and then in 2006 miraculously won the race for Governor. She's wrong on every substantive policy issue that separates her from Obama. She already abused her power as governor to try to fire her sister's ex-husband in some kind of personal vendetta.

Barack Obama was president of the fucking Harvard Law Review. He was a lawyer for many years, then a state senator for almost 8 years, then a US Senator for almost 4 years. He's more qualified than Lincoln was when Lincoln first ran for president.

It takes someone as stupid as that pro-palin propaganda-bot to make Carville look good.

"All Obama ever did was run for president" and "Obama never proposed any specific changes" are the Big Lies(TM) that Republican strategists like to repeat ad infinitum, following in the footsteps of Goebbels.

>> ^jwray:
Sarah Palin is an ignorant fundamentalist who caused her youngest child to get down syndrome by having him too late in her life. BR>

That has to be the most crazy thing I have ever heard. I don't care your political, religious standings, to take that counter position on having a child that isn't perfect just smacks so much insensitivity to your specified paramiters of what a human life can and should consist of that I am finding it hard to think without emotion. Next up on the chopping block, deaf people and cripples. Kill'em all, they aren't worth the DNA they are printed on.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

^ I'm really enjoying this thread. Let's not Godwin it ... I feel a reference to you-know-who coming ...

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

^ And speaking of Voldemort - James Carville bears a striking resemblance.

God, if I end up moving to her district I know who to vote for...anyone else.

"she roots up evil".... what other countries have those types of words in a political debate?

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^jwray:
Sarah Palin is an ignorant fundamentalist who caused her youngest child to get down syndrome by having him too late in her life. BR>
That has to be the most crazy thing I have ever heard.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Trisomy21_graph.jpg

It's wrong to cause human suffering intentionally or through gross negligence. 43 is too old to safely have kids. The chance of the child of a 43 year old to be born with Down Syndrome is 1 in 30. For a 22 year old mother, it's a hundred times less. She should not have gotten pregnant at 43. It's not as bad as getting pregnant while addicted to crack, but it's still gross negligence.

Nobody here suggested killing anybody, so take your staw man arguments and shove them up your ass.

A better conversation...

Man: "She's not qualified."

Woman: "You're sexist, hatefilled, and a monster."

Man: "... you make a good point, but she's still not qualified."

Found this article about Palin. Scary stuff and worth a read.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/02/1327574.aspx

jwray, thank you for trying to shove facts down the gullets of these pigeons.

Look at it this way, Quayle is the standard bearer for underqualified. Quayle has a law degree and was elected twice to the US House and twice to the Senate before being tapped for VP.

Palin got 114,697 votes from Alaskans in 2006 general election. She beat out the incumbent Republican Gov in the primary because of his 19% approval rating (secong worse only to Bob Taft)

Prior to that she won the mayor race by getting like 600 Wasilla residents to vote for her.

That is the sum total of her political career. The whole thing is a phenomenal joke and almost an attempt by big oil to say, "you're our bitches, we can put this Palin lady in and you can't do anything about it". Record oil company profits, our military is burning money and lives in Iraq with no end in sight, and they aren't even building refineries. Big oil told McCain you have to pick this lady, you have to open up ANWAR, you have to allow us to put in gas pipelines on the northern slopes, you have to stay in Iraq and keep protecting the Saudi interests. Do it you lil bitch or we pull the plug on your economy and sell all the oil to China. (Oops, we already let China win all the contacts in Iraq)

Hitler would approve of this fascist Nazi thread. This is the blue-eyed, blond-haired darling of the Third Reich.

Hitler Eichmann SS Cheney Auschwitz!

>> ^dag:
^ I'm really enjoying this thread. Let's not Godwin it ... I feel a reference to you-know-who coming ...

I went to a university in Idaho, for political science.

I received third place in my seventh grade spelling bee.

I live around a lot of Republicans.

Vote thinker247 for Vice-President 2016!

I won my seventh grade spelling bee, and that must count for more. Vote Fjnbk for President 2016!

I've been deployed overseas. Twice. I win.

^President MG decree's all sandwiches must be consumed, in full, no leaving crusts, in under 2 minutes. Failure to do so will result in immediate execution and conversion of your carcass into biofuel.

Never ever criticise a woman guys, you'll be accused of sexism.

>> ^dag:
^ And speaking of Voldemort - James Carville bears a striking resemblance.


With the talking head on the right playing the part of Wormtail. Should've never decursed that Scabbers!

I watched the video before reading the description. I agree, she has creepy zombie eyes.

>> ^MrConrads:
Found this article about Palin. Scary stuff and worth a read.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/02/1327574.aspx

"shes a disciple of jesus christ before shes a mayor"
"god's will has to be done in unifying people to get that gas pipeline built"
"our national leaders are sending them out on a task for god" (talking about iraq)
“Ben, I don't know you well enough yet, but looking at you, I'm thinking, people are going to interested in Jesus Christ through you because of the way you look - this red-headed Sasquatch for Jesus. You look good!”


jesus christ the video in that link scares me.

her son has a tattoo of the map of alaska and a jesus fish. wtf is wrong with this family.

yep.....
wouldnt be so scary if it werent for the fact that thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people were just like them.
The constitution/bill of rights/etc, seem to be more like loose guidelines than a document to live by.
There should be a separation of church and state....any questions????
You can't bring your religion no matter what it is into office and be a leader of a FREE country at the same time. Every religion brings with it its own rules, biases, and ways of living many of which that are in direct contradiction to the constitution and bill of rights. You can't stand for the something that states that "all men are created equal" and then turn around and discriminate against gays, lesbians, or whatever group of people your religion happens to hate, the two are like oil and vinegar.

No...Botox is demeaning to women.

Now the site of "her" church has a statement about her on the frontpage and from what i can tell, the video is not accessable through the page anymore. It is still hosted though, embeds work just fine.

Damage control ftw hehe

Just wanted to chime in for a second time and say this woman makes me sick. Totally reminds me of this client I've got right now, who runs a pole-dancing studio, with the same blank stare, infuriating tone of voice, and tendency to make everything about men versus women. If I don't get a cheque from her today I'm going to fire her ass.

hmmm i have children but i want more. and i am old, and i am thinking about a hectic political career.

i know, i will have another baby anyway despite the risks, and then fuck off to my career anyway. because contraception users go straight to hell.

/parody

sorry girls, this is exactly why it took so long for women to get the vote, and why they don't have equal opportunities in the workplace. It's called the womb. It's kinda important to our society.

You think Obama has been vetted? By whom? The only thing about Obama that has been under the microscope is his personal life before politics. The media has spoken about his mother and his place of birth and his religion and his skin color and his wife until they were blue in the face.

Just because people are comfortable with him, doesn't mean they know anything about him. It's because he won the popularity contest that is the DNC by first landing in the good graces of the media.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1828309,00.html

Again, I don't like McCain and I know that there are people out there that are much more qualified to be VP than Palin.

Obama favors "pay-as-you-go" accounting so new spending or tax cuts are offset by program cuts or increased revenue, but he hasn't said how he would pay for all his tax proposals.

One thing in particular eats at me: How is he going to pay for universal-health-care and all his other promises? Is he going to give us all heath care by the time he leaves office? WHEN he doesn't make that happen, are the democrats going to hold him accountable?

What about the $482 Billion deficit? He's gonna save the American economy by cutting taxes, providing $300 Billion in guarantees for mortgage renegotiations, providing universal-health care and still, somehow, he'll manage to pay down the deficit?

All these promises have been vetted?



>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^deedub81:
@Fjnbk:
Yep. That's the difference. We haven't had an opportunity to vote for or against Palin. That's how it works.
The fact that Obama has campaigned longer doesn't mean he has more experience.

The bit about voting has become something of a lefty talking point, but saying "Everyone in the world has been vetting Obama since he declared his candidacy in January of 2007, and a majority of primary voters still chose him" is still a pretty sound argument that Americans have reached a comfort level with his ability to lead.
Add in that his campaign has employed more people, and commanded a larger budget than the Governor's office has, and the argument gets stronger still. Then consider that the Governor will naturally be focused on state-level concerns, while the Obama campaign has had to respond to questions about every area of the political landscape, from affirmative action to trade relations with China, and it gets stronger still.
Palin is unknown to most people, no one selected her in a primary, and the election is 62 days from now. McCain is 72 years old, with a medical history that includes cancer -- if he dies, she'll be President. What do we know about her?
Not a lot, and in just 4 days, the press has found quite a bit to be concerned about.

Not to point fingers but where are BillO and QM in all of this? (looks around)

I can't help thinking that the Republicans are beginning to dominating the election on their terms.

I highly doubt the VP plays an important part in average voter decision making, even considering McCain's age. On the other hand, experience has become the defining referendum issue of the election process and in doing so, it's keeping the 'is Obama qualified' issue directly in the limelight. In that sense, the hypocrisy of picking Palin, let alone her own qualifications may as well be irelevant.

Ok, so to attack her for legitimate qualifications is to attack all women.

That seems an interesting assessment there RedSky, but I think the larger issue is that it is HIGHLY irresponsible for John McCain to choose this person for VP just to win an election, when of all presidents in history, his health and age give him one of the highest chances of dying from something other than a bullet while in office.

He is thinking politics first/ country second... and no one seems to be calling him on it.

My inability to spell "purposely" when I was 13 has absolutely nothing to do with my ability to lead in case the President is incapacitated! That is sexist, and I demand you retract that vitriolic statement!

>> ^Fjnbk:
I won my seventh grade spelling bee, and that must count for more. Vote Fjnbk for President 2016!

*obligatory thanking of you for your service* It doesn't matter that you've served twice! You think the best way to curb illegal immigration is not amnesty or guest worker programs, but driving them to the INS building and laughing as they scatter! Vote no on MG for President!

Also, he uses toilet paper completely wrong. Vote NO!

>> ^MarineGunrock:
I've been deployed overseas. Twice. I win.

You caught me - You saw my self link. I must be banned now.

>> ^deedub81:
You think Obama has been vetted? By whom? The only thing about Obama that has been under the microscope is his personal life before politics. The media has spoken about his mother and his place of birth and his religion and his skin color and his wife until they were blue in the face.

That's what vetting for political office entails -- searching a candidate's past for any tabloid-style scandals that could come out of nowhere to torpedo your chances, regardless of your policy positions. People have been doing that to Obama all over the world for some 20 months now.

Just because people are comfortable with him, doesn't mean they know anything about him. It's because he won the popularity contest that is the DNC by first landing in the good graces of the media.

Not to be too snide, but you do understand how elections work, right? People very often will vote for who they feel "comfortable" with, above any other consideration. Generally speaking (and I realize that the 2000 and 2004 elections didn't work this way), the person who gets more votes gets the Presidency. I suppose that's a popularity contest.

As for winning the media's attention, I would point out that even the right-wing media spends more time covering Obama than McCain, just the nature of the coverage is even more negative than other outlet. He's new, and he's interesting -- people are going to naturally talk about him more.

They've kinda forgotten him for Palin in the last week, 'cause she's newer, and potentially more interesting.

Again, I don't like McCain and I know that there are people out there that are much more qualified to be VP than Palin.

On this we agree.

Obama favors "pay-as-you-go" accounting so new spending or tax cuts are offset by program cuts or increased revenue, but he hasn't said how he would pay for all his tax proposals.
One thing in particular eats at me: How is he going to pay for universal-health-care and all his other promises? Is he going to give us all heath care by the time he leaves office? WHEN he doesn't make that happen, are the democrats going to hold him accountable?
What about the $482 Billion deficit? He's gonna save the American economy by cutting taxes, providing $300 Billion in guarantees for mortgage renegotiations, providing universal-health care and still, somehow, he'll manage to pay down the deficit?

Before I address your specific concerns, I'll note that you're phrasing the argument in terms of Obama's plan, rather than touting the superiority of another candidates'. Perhaps you're part of the media elite that the DNC controls who can't stop talking about Obama?

I also need to ask when Republicans are planning on holding Bush accountable for his deficit? You know, that $482 billion one you mentioned, plus the "emergency" spending levied for the war in Iraq that wasn't on the budget. Never? Is McCain somehow immune from being held responsible for the Republican party's failings over the last 8 years, despite being that party's standard-bearer?

Politics aside, you're making a valid (if one-sided) argument -- based purely on policy promises from Obama, the proposed tax plan doesn't pay for the spending proposals. But McCain's doesn't either.

In fact, the Tax Policy Center's most recent study shows that McCain's plans would put us about $500bn further in debt than Obama, even with his "unspecified spending cuts provided by the campaign" included.

I haven't read the fine print of the study, but Obama's health care plan does include charging people for its use (even if it is a sliding scale based on income), and I'm not sure if that revenue is being factored in. For that matter, I'm honestly not sure if the sliding scale with actual prices has even been developed or published.

I would also point out, that Obama has ruled out balancing the budget in his first term. Restoring PAYGO rules just means new spending has to be offset, it doesn't put the existing set of taxes & spending back into balance after the Republican party's drunken sailor policy of cutting taxes and increasing spending.

McCain's promised to balance the budget, but he's offered no numbers or collection of promises that would make that even remotely possible, even if he gets a full 8 years.

I think politician's policy proposals aren't worthy of a study like the TPC did -- they're not going to become word-for-word policy if the candidate is elected. They're just there to give you an idea of the kinds of changes the candidate plans on making.

If a balanced budget is your primary economic concern (and it's not my primary one, personally), here's what the two candidates offer:

Obama does not commit to balance the budget, just reduce the deficit, and his plan looks to reduce the level to approx $250bn/yr.

McCain on the other hand commits to balancing the budget in his first term, but his proposals point to a $370bn/yr deficit.

Which makes you more comfortable?

Well, in Obama's position, first thing I'd start is giving our nation a real GI bill, not this embarrassment we call a GI bill. The GI bill we had during WWII payed for itself, 7-fold. Educated veterans went on to climb employment ladders, finding jobs with better salaries, which they used to buy bigger homes and start businesses of their own. Bigger salaries and bigger homes translated into bigger income and property taxes. When we took care of our soldiers, instead of merely paying them lip service while slashing their benefits, our soldiers took care of our country.

Doing that today would be a HUGE boon. The Army might even have an easier time meeting their recruitment goals without having to resort to slumming for gang members who go on to use their battlefield experience to kill cops.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgwfVJIoBNM

Unfortunately, an educated public participates in democracy much more actively, which is something those currently in power do not want at all. Sheep are easier to keep in line with fear-mongering. Its easier to keep the wool over the eyes of the dumb.

>> ^Jinx:
Never ever criticise a woman guys, you'll be accused of sexism.


Criticizing anyone who is not a 25-35 year old, white, healthy, affluent man is SOME sort of -ism.

^NetRunner: That's what vetting for political office entails -- searching a candidate's past for any tabloid-style scandals that could come out of nowhere to torpedo your chances, regardless of your policy positions. People have been doing that to Obama all over the world for some 20 months now.

I understand that the kind of vetting that you refer to holds value. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about a deep examination into his career.

Not to be too snide, but you do understand how elections work, right? People very often will vote for who they feel "comfortable" with, above any other consideration. Generally speaking (and I realize that the 2000 and 2004 elections didn't work this way), the person who gets more votes gets the Presidency. I suppose that's a popularity contest.

I understand exactly why people vote for him. That's why I debate the issues. Because there isn't enough of that going on. It's mostly just propaganda.
I believe my point is still valid: Just because people are comfortable, doesn't mean they know much about his policies and voting history. According to something I heard on the radio today, while serving on the Illinois State Senate, despite the fact that he was present, Barack Obama was unable to decide yea or nay, 130 times.

Before I address your specific concerns, I'll note that you're phrasing the argument in terms of Obama's plan, rather than touting the superiority of another candidates'. Perhaps you're part of the media elite that the DNC controls who can't stop talking about Obama?

I also need to ask when Republicans are planning on holding Bush accountable for his deficit? You know, that $482 billion one you mentioned, plus the "emergency" spending levied for the war in Iraq that wasn't on the budget. Never? Is McCain somehow immune from being held responsible for the Republican party's failings over the last 8 years, despite being that party's standard-bearer?

Politics aside, you're making a valid (if one-sided) argument -- based purely on policy promises from Obama, the proposed tax plan doesn't pay for the spending proposals. But McCain's doesn't either.

My argument is one-sided because I'm not defending anyone who is running for President. I'm not Pro-McCain, I'm Anti-Obama.

If a balanced budget is your primary economic concern (and it's not my primary one, personally), here's what the two candidates offer:

Obama does not commit to balance the budget, just reduce the deficit, and his plan looks to reduce the level to approx $250bn/yr.

McCain on the other hand commits to balancing the budget in his first term, but his proposals point to a $370bn/yr deficit.

Which makes you more comfortable?


Do you realize how much our deficit, the weakening dollar, and the high price of fuel have in common. It's a snowball effect that trickles down to the price of food and the wages we're paid. Getting the country out of debt is on my top 3 list of things for the next Pres to accomplish. I want him to whittle the deficit down as much as possible.

If you don't mind, could you cite your sources on those projected deficit figures you references? I'd love to read up on that. It would definitely change my opinion of Obama if they turn out to be accurate. I just can't imagine that they are. I wouldn't think he's been specific enough for somebody to put together numbers like that (Although, I have been wrong once or twice before).

A bit of background on Bachman. She thinks that environmentalism is useless because Jesus Christ has already saved the planet.

>> ^deedub81:
I understand that the kind of vetting that you refer to holds value. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about a deep examination into his career.

Yeah, we've done that too.

I understand exactly why people vote for him. That's why I debate the issues. Because there isn't enough of that going on.

I agree. I think if there were, we'd be seeing Obama at 60%+ in the polls.

It's mostly just propaganda. I believe my point is still valid: Just because people are comfortable, doesn't mean they know much about his policies and voting history. According to something I heard on the radio today, while serving on the Illinois State Senate, despite the fact that he was present, Barack Obama was unable to decide yea or nay, 130 times.

Actually, you just proved your own point about propaganda. Have you even heard the reason for the present votes? It's a convention available in the Illinois state senate to communicate that you support a bill in principle, but can't vote for it because of some the details you disagree with.

Also, that was 130 present votes...out of over 4,000.

My argument is one-sided because I'm not defending anyone who is running for President. I'm not Pro-McCain, I'm Anti-Obama.

Big cop out. So you're not for anything, just anti-Obama? Why? You don't know enough about him? Have you even read his positions on his website, or his many, many rebuttals to the concerns you've raised?

If not, why not?

If it's an ideological schism, shouldn't you be boning up on Palin, Barr, or McCain? If none of them suffice, why not try to figure out who would, and help them out with a 2012 run?

Do you realize how much our deficit, the weakening dollar, and the high price of fuel have in common. It's a snowball effect that trickles down to the price of food and the wages we're paid. Getting the country out of debt is on my top 3 list of things for the next Pres to accomplish. I want him to whittle the deficit down as much as possible.

Yes, I do, and all three have different fixes. As for deficit, did you vote for Bush? Did you encourage the impeachment of Clinton? Did you like Ronald Reagan?

If you answered yes to one or more, I think you should be explaining to me why you helped get us where we are today, and how much extra tax money you're willing to pay to fix it, rather than trying to tell others that Obama isn't going to help.

If you don't mind, could you cite your sources on those projected deficit figures you references? I'd love to read up on that.

I did. There's a PDF with the full details. The deficit numbers are given as a full 1st term total, I just divided them by 4.

It would definitely change my opinion of Obama if they turn out to be accurate. I just can't imagine that they are. I wouldn't think he's been specific enough for somebody to put together numbers like that (Although, I have been wrong once or twice before).

Read the link yourself. As I said, they're a pretty elaborate straw man, but they do cover the commitments made (except for "emergency spending" requests for war). My favorite part is the diagram showing whose tax plan benefits who most.

The weakest part is that they include those "unverified savings provided by the campaign". Part of me wants to delete those from consideration, but doing that just narrows the gap, it doesn't reverse who has the lower deficit.

Obama's tax plan vs. McCain's tax plan:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html

The USA's "Defense Budget" plus a lot of other Iraq related stuff that doesn't get counted in the defense budget, is larger than the deficit. If the USA stops playing world police, then the deficit will be much less.

Carville is bald for the same reason vultures don't have feathers on their heads. When you constantly stick your head in crap, you don't want hair/feathers to give it something to stick to.

Carville is a professional turdpolisher and he's rather good at it. He's so smooth with his attack that none of *YOU* people even noticed that he's not arguing apples-to-apples. Congratulations on a successful smokescreen which compares the Democrat Presidential candidate to the person who will only become important if McCain dies or becomes otherwise incapacitated.

If you all want to compare Palin with someone, the correct counterpart is the liberal-holocaust-on-legs, Joe Biden.

^ Hey OperationMindCrime, nice try

Check out 1:13 into the video, a clear (if indirect) reference to Obama. SHE brought him up first, with that weird labotamy gaze of hers. SHE brought him into it, Carville just responded to her insinuations.

Also, aside from the creative name calling, whats yer beef with Biden or Obama? Or are you just one of the Palinistas and don't feel like others are allowed to question your assertions?

(/me is preparing himself for flames )

What can you expect from a country that elected a crappy actor as a President ?

The thing that drives me crazy about dealing with women (and men) like this is that fucking SMILE! What are you smiling about you passive agressive shithead?

^@ Netrunner:

I haven't decided who to vote for out of the presently available pool. My first choice didn't make it through the primaries.

As for voting for Bush Jr: When he ran in 2000 I was 18 and I didn't vote (because I didn't care). In 2004, I didn't vote for him because he had already broken too many campaign promises.

Reagan did a fantastic job for our economy. He saved it. Just ask Milton Friedman and Robert A. Mundell, both Nobel Prize winners. They'll tell you that Reagan's tax policies invigorated America's economy and contributed to the economic boom of the 1990s.

Clinton committed sexual acts and then lied under oath. He should have been found guilty, just like Martha Stewart.

^ You were talking about the debt -- I'll agree that Reagan's tax cuts helped the economy, since the tax rates were above the optimal level, and reduction was needed.

However, the deficit is another story.

Reagan and the Bushes are responsible for most of the debt we're carrying right now. They didn't cut spending in proportion to the tax cuts (or at all in Bush 43's case), just cut taxes.

Clinton has the best record of reducing the debt since WWII, blowjobs notwithstanding.

What did you think of the TPC's analysis of the Obama and McCain tax plans?

I would like to quote my stupid co-worker:
"But shes hot!"

*1stTube

Adding video to channels (1sttube) - requested by Grimm.

*dead

This published video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by sometimes.

rasch187 has fixed this video's dead embed code - no Power Points awarded because rasch187's points are already fully charged.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by critical_d.

*backup=[...snipped...]

Added alternate embed code for this video - backup requested by NetRunner.

Replaced video embed code with backup #3634 (supplied by member NetRunner) - embed replaced by member NetRunner.

*notdead

This dead video has been deemed functional; it must have been accidentally declared dead - declared notdead by NetRunner.

Awesome at their disbelief over Palin THREE YEARS AGO :

She is uniquely and supremely unqualified, and to support her is unfair to her at least... and look what crazy bitch is supporting her! Suprise!