All the talk about the surge clouds the real difference in policy between these two. McCain believes we should have a large, long-term presence in Iraq and Obama wants at minimum a much smaller presence and possibly no presence. That's the argument the country needs to have.

IMO, a lot of the shows I enjoy watching (Daily Show, Chris Matthews, Anderson Cooper, ..) are pretty much entering "elect Obama lockdown mode" and it's a little too much for me. I'm cool with them ripping Rove for his comments on Hillary, I thought it was pretty funny. But to not zing Obama on his ridiculous all-over-the-map response to Russia-Georgia and his continued comments on how being a lawyer and community organizer make him fit to be president shows the Daily Show has completed abandoned their normal balanced format.

If someone like Mike Huckabee had stated that leading a church group helped prepare him for being president back in the primaries or someone on the right had said being a lawyer prepared them for the presidency, Stewart and company would have barbecued them. Yet, they would never dream of doing that to Obama.

Again, these are their shows and they are welcome to do whatever format they wish. It just impacts my enjoyment of them when I know that I am going to see a litany of anti-republican comments for the next 30 minutes when there's a similar amount of "red meat" laying out there on the other side that goes untouched. But, to each his own and I'm sure the left is eating it up.

There's more to it. Supposedly Murdoch and Ailes met with Obama after he secured the nomination. The meeting was heated, but eventually they came to a sort of detente. The O'Reilly interview grew out of that meeting. This isn't to say O'Reilly's lying, but this is a part of a bigger relationship.

But he's still evil if for no other reason than his sexual abuse!

IMO, a lot of the shows I enjoy watching (Daily Show, Chris Matthews, Anderson Cooper, ..) are pretty much entering "elect Obama lockdown mode" and it's a little too much for me. I'm cool with them ripping Rove for his comments on Hillary, I thought it was pretty funny. But to not zing Obama on his ridiculous all-over-the-map response to Russia-Georgia and his continued comments on how being a lawyer and community organizer make him fit to be president shows the Daily Show has completed abandoned their normal balanced format.

If someone like Mike Huckabee had stated that leading a church group helped prepare him for being president back in the primaries or someone on the right had said being a lawyer prepared them for the presidency, Stewart and company would have barbecued them. Yet, they would never dream of doing that to Obama.

Again, these are their shows and they are welcome to do whatever format they wish. It just impacts my enjoyment of them when I know that I am going to see a litany of anti-republican comments for the next 30 minutes when there's a similar amount of "red meat" laying out there on the other side that goes untouched. But, to each his own and I'm sure the left is eating it up.

Here is McCain's original statement

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/...a0ea95e945.htm

"The United States and our allies should continue efforts to bring a resolution before the UN Security Council condemning Russian aggression, noting the withdrawal of Georgian troops from South Ossetia, and calling for an immediate ceasefire and the withdrawal of Russian troops from Georgian territory. We should move ahead with the resolution despite Russian veto threats, and submit Russia to the court of world public opinion."


And here is Obama's statement released on the same day (Aug 11)

The Page - by Mark Halperin - TIME

"The United States, Europe and all other concerned countries must stand united in condemning this aggression, and seeking a peaceful resolution to this crisis. We should continue to push for a United Nations Security Council Resolution calling for an immediate end to the violence. This is a clear violation of the sovereignty and internationally recognized borders of Georgia – the UN must stand up for the sovereignty of its members, and peace in the world."


Also, Russia would not have its veto power if the UN Security Council were voting on a resolution that condemned their actions. They would have to abstain from the vote. (Now, if they were voting to actually take action against them, which neither candidate was suggesting, they would have its veto power.)

EDIT: Looks like these are their 3rd statements (after reading over what factcheck.org wrote). Looks like they were both calling for UN involvement from the beginning.

FactCheck.org: GOP Convention Spin, Part II

This was checked out as well. Obama and McCain had very similar initial statements on the conflict and neither of them said anything about the veto power. Giuliani tried to spin it like you did but it's just not true.

The Clinton economic era was rare in it produce the tech boom and cheap money. I don't expect us to return the type of stock and real estate gains of that era or in the before-the-housing/credit meltdown era.

The top 1% pay about 40% of federal income taxes as it is, with the top 5% paying around 60% of all federal income taxes. The bottom 50% of taxpayers pay 2.99%.

http://www.house.gov/jec/news/2008/July/pr110-45.pdf

When is it enough?

Maybe I missed this earlier in the htread, but could someone post, or link to, the quote from Obama where he says being a community organizer makes him fit to be President?

There were all sorts of economic gains that weren't tied to tech stocks or real estate. A prime example would be the growth and productivity gains of Wal-Mart in the nineties. I wouldn't argue that was becaus eof Clinton's tax policies, but it is proof that those policies didn't cause Wal-Mart to contract.

We're going to disagree on where the line should be in terms of justice/fairness. Again, my point is that there's simply no evidence that tax increases of any size are always detrimental to the economy.

How different are the tax rates today v. the Clinton years? How different would they be under McCain v. Clinton? What about Obama v. McCain, or Obama v. Clinton?

There were other parts of the tax bill such as R&D credits and child credits, but here's how the rate structure changed. From Whitehouse.gov before the bill was passed:


edit: I think there was a 35% bracket added eventually.

another edit: In 2008 the rates were 10, 15, 25, 28, 33 and 35

Here are two that I have seen in recent stories (both on MSNBC):

TV ad from Obama

Obama himself on being a community organizer

Unfamiliar with 48 Laws of Power. I'm going to have to look into it.

SI

I don't know. Maybe he looked at it and decided that no such thing happened.


Still waiting on that quote!


When did they have a balanced format?

I'm sure no one will ever address this point, tho. Like someone said earlier in the thread, people have gone into attack mode rather than actually debate at this point.

SI

but even if you remove Jon, and put them on a vanilla website back to back the hypocrisy of the statements and the people saying them remains.

Neither of those quotes come close to Obama saying that being a community organizer makes him fit to be President. The first quote, I have no idea how or why you see that in the first quote. That's just biographical info. The second one, you lifted from his response to what Rudy and Palin said at the RNC

YouTube - Barack Obama on Community Organizing

Doesn't sound like he's saying that being a community organizer makes him fit to be President in that video to me.

Does being Mayor of a small town and Governor for a short term make you qualified or not?

Is a mother a pinhead for letting her teenage daughter get pregnant or not?

Should a woman candidate whine about unfair and unequal treatment or not?


O'Reilly, Rove, Morris, and Palin seem torn on these questions. Wondering what you guys think!

And I'm sorry, but comparing these contradictory statements to saying 5 or 6 people had dinner is one of the worst analogies ever made on this board. It's not even close to the same thing. Give me a break.

Shorter: I'm never wrong.

If it's between a governor and a senator with equal time in their positions, I'll take the governor every time.

She's not really a pinhead. She can't monitor her daughter at all times. With that said, it sure seems like some things could have or should have been different. Even looking at them now when they're together, it looks like the daughter hates her.

Should a woman candidate whine? Probably not. Women will support her anyway and men aren't going to support a woman who whines and complains all the time. If you're married, you can have enough of that at home.

I could show you a link that says that Obama's running for president. I think that implies that he thinks his overall experience makes him fit to be president, as silly as that is.

The Republicans started trashing the community organizer stuff after the Democrats started trashing Palin being a mayor of a small town. (And I'm sure some did it before then, but the direct attacks at the RNC were clearly a response to the Obama camp's critisisms of Palin)

And beyond that, if Obama tries to play up that experience as anything relevant (which he does), it's not unreasonable for the other side to downplay the experience. That's what you do in a campaign.

I wasn't comparing it to any of the specific examples you mentioned, just making a point about the ridiculous consistency police thing.

I still don't care that Bill O'Reilly says different things about teen pregnancy though. Who gives a shit? Do you really expect him to make a huge negative issue out of Palin?

I'll let you inside O'Reilly's brain here:

Spears: "She's a skank"

Palin: "She's a skank. But I really don't want to make a big deal of that because I don't think it matters to this election, and I support McCain/Palin. So I'll downplay it and say it's a private matter."

Everyone does stuff like that. What is this evidence of? That O'Reilly is a McCain/Palin supporter? Shock. It does tell you that you have to take his opinions with a grain of salt. Just like anyone else (including the liberals in this thread) who have already made their mind up about how everything in the world is supposed to work, and how everyone else just "doesn't get it".

no, hypocrites do stuff like that. See he didnt say "skank" the second time, he may have thought it but the exact opposite came out of his hole. That's the difference in my view. The right, or at least the sold right, and the sold left, are willing to sell out in the name of hypocrisy for the greater good of winning the election. IMO, the selling out and being a hypocrite is the bigger problem and thusly means you cant possibly know someone's true feelings. Ive said it before and Ill say it again...I appreciate the KKK member, just so long as he wears the white cape and hat so I know "he is who I thought he is" and can treat him and his idiocy accordingly....It's the David Duke kind that scares me.

I bet you only get fired up about it if it's a conservative doing it.

And why does it fire you up? You know O'Reilly's conservative. You don't agree/believe his opinions anyway. You already have negative feelings about him. So why do you care? How does this become a Daily Show moment and something liberals email too each other? Does it empower you? Does it make you feel more right? Everyone in the world knows that O'Reilly is bias. Just like Michael Moore. This is how people with bias act.

This questions aren't intended to be facetious.

nope, I was killin' the other side too when they were doing shit 2 years ago. There were a few things that got me more fired up than usual in the last 5 years, the congressman hitting on the teen boy was one, the congressman in NO with the money in his freezer was another, the CIA agent outing (she wasnt assigned overseas! BS, Scott McClellan press conferences in general), etc. They all deserve to be lit on fire if the issue arises which is why I want Troopergate to play out and see if there is truly something there, if not GREAT but generally Ive found where there is smoke there's fire. It ticks me off if people want to sweep shit under the rug or say "nothing is wrong, nothing happened" while the shit is still being looked into. You cant know....Anyways, eventhough Im certain few people will agree both sides piss me off when they do hypocritical shit and they both do. That being said, the stuff in the video is undeniable and hypocritical. period. Oh and religion doesnt belong in politics so that stuff ticks me off to no end and generally it's the religious right that promotes that not the tradition Republican party, whose platform, IMO, has been hijacked.

No, I just read.

You too can find it through the miracle of the Google:


or


You also have a misunderstanding of taxation and outsourcing. Taxation occurs on income or profits. Regardless of where you make the widget the taxation on the sale of the widget in the US is what matters most. I know there are a lot of ways to fool with the numbers, but at heart outsourcing manufacturing will not effect your tax liability greatly. You'll only reduce tax liability by moving the whole company to a more friendly tax environment, but that really doesn't happen all that often.

You'd have a stronger argument if you were saying regulation is a reason for outsourcing.

I think "hypocrite", like "lie" is a word that's current usage is far too broad. Sometimes "hypocrite" is used when "inconsistent" would be the proper word, or even "inconsistent for political gain".

O'Reilly would be a hypocrite if he spoke out against teen pregnancy, said that he personally believes that no teens should ever be pregnant, and then he went out and intentionally got a teen pregnant.

It's not a hypocrite to say one thing and then say something else.

Every time I read a post by Flasch, I want sweet tea. That is all.

Arles and others are making it sound as if Obama listed "community organizer" as experience that makes him fit to be President. Arles suggested that the Daily Show should "zing" Obama for saying that. The only way to do that is if Obama explicitly says such a thing. So far, I can't find him doing so.

ok, touche

and that is all that matters, really :)

Threadjack! (but since it is my thread, you can all bite me), is there a FOFC discount code to order your tea? :)

Who doesn't like sweat tea? That stuff rules!

unfortunately, Paypal doesnt have discount code entry, which is ridiculous...but if anyone from here orders some Ill mail you back $3 in your box. You'll just have to PM me your real name and address so I can match it up and put the check in the right box. Just lemme know...


so that also applies to the order I just received, if that was you....Just PM me your real name and address so I can be sure before Im giving money away to everyone :) Which I think that that was you GD.

Yup, it was me. Don't send me money back, just send me some extra stuff in the box. :)

How about an autographed headshot, (lemme see what's here) a double a battery, a business card from......some website developer schlub, a cord for something, a chiclet, and a vacuum bag to a vacuum I dont own anymore :) J/K Ill throw in some extra Southern Sweet Tea Pouches for ya. Just follow the brewcard directions and dont forget to stir occasionally :)

On it, baby! If it is as good as I think it will be, I'll be on be ordering regularly.

And now back to your partisan bickering...

He likes to drop the loofah in the shower.

I thought he liked to eat falafel in the shower?

You all are bias.

About sweet tea?

That, and everything else.

I thought he liked to eat loofahs while washing himself with falafels in the shower...

Shorter: Never ever.

Give yourself some credit SFL. I wouldn't be so right if you weren't so wrong.

Wow, you're right. Google is awesome. Thanks.

BBC NEWS | Business | High tax 'forces firms out of UK'
CARPE DIEM: Workers Pay the Burden of Higher Corporate Taxes
How Do High Small Business Corporate Tax Rates Hurt The Economy?
The Wall Street Journal Online - Featured Article
Amateur Economists » High Corporate Tax Rates Making United States Uncompetitive
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArti...02741272440704
Wall Street braces for higher tax rates - Nov. 8, 2007
Oregon small brewers say proposed state excise tax hike could be very damaging | Modern Brewery Age | Find Articles at BNET
Obama Capital Gains Tax Hike Would Hit N.Y. Hard - July 15, 2008 - The New York Sun
No Economic Silver Lining in Tax Hikes

Try again, but it's encouraging that you're at least trying to provide evidence. I never said it wasn't possible for taxes to harm business. The bar you set was that tax increases always are passed down through the economy.

You still can't prove that.

I never will be able to either...at least as far as you're concerned. :)

When you get enough Heritage and WSJ editorials to convince the Nobel Committee let me know.