Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

They also mention that Obama did really well in Monday night polling, which could be a good sign, or it could be an anomaly.

Even if not an anomaly, it won't carry over. On one of the worst economic days in memory, Obama's going to test better than McCain. But that will fade somewhat from memory as we get farther from the event.

SI

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Another Hollywood actor sounds off against Palin. This time it's Chevy Chase saying Tina Fey didn't portray Palin as negatively as he would have liked..............

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540...18574#26718574

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

That's a stretch.

Christmas Vacation FTW!

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I haven't seen this noted in the current discussion. It was brought up after Obama spoke today and claimed that the current economic crisis is based in the S&L problems in the 1980s. A much more likely cause for our current problems was the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in the later years of the Clinton administration. It allowed commercial and investment banks to consolidate. Below is the general info from Wikipedia for those wanting to know more..........

Glass-Steagall Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On November 12, 1999, President Bill Clinton signed into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. One of the effects of the repeal was to allow commercial and investment banks to consolidate. Some economists have criticized the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act as contributing to the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis.[7][8]

The repeal enabled commercial lenders such as Citigroup, the largest U.S. bank by assets, to underwrite and trade instruments such as mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations and establish so-called structured investment vehicles, or SIVs, that bought those securities. Citigroup played a major part in the repeal. Then called Citicorp, the company merged with Travelers Insurance company the year before using loopholes in Glass-Steagall that allowed for temporary exemptions. With lobbying led by Roger Levy, the "finance, insurance and real estate industries together are regularly the largest campaign contributors and biggest spenders on lobbying of all business sectors [in 1999]. They laid out more than $200 million for lobbying in 1998, according to the Center for Responsive Politics..." These industries succeeded in their two decades long effort to repeal the act.[9]

The banking industry had been seeking the repeal of Glass-Steagall since at least the 1980's. In 1987 the Congressional Research Service prepared a report which explored the case for preserving Glass-Steagall and the case against preserving the act.

[larrymcg421]

Hotline/FD tracking poll shows a 46-42 Obama lead, but as mentioned earlier it does have a smaller sample size than other polls.

[Flasch186]

And Blame Clinton comes out again on page 96, so desperate.

[Flasch186]

Palin supports $600 million 'other' bridge project - Yahoo! News

Palin supports $600 million 'other' bridge project

By GARANCE BURKE, Associated Press Writer Tue Sep 16, 6:58 AM ET

ANCHORAGE, Alaska - Gov. Sarah Palin may eventually have said "no thanks" to a federally funded Bridge to Nowhere.
ADVERTISEMENT

But a bridge to her hometown of Wasilla, that's a different story.

A $600 million bridge and highway project to link Alaska's largest city to Palin's town of 7,000 residents is moving full speed ahead, despite concerns the bridge could worsen some commuting and threaten a population of beluga whales.

Local officials already have spent $42 million on plans to route traffic across the Knik Arm inlet, a narrow finger of water extending roughly 25 miles northeast of Anchorage toward Wasilla. The proposal exists thanks to an earmark request by Republican Rep. Don Young, whose son-in-law has a small stake in property near the bridge's proposed western span.

A Democratic council member in Anchorage will try Tuesday to spike the city's sponsorship of the project, which Palin supports with some reservations.

"This is basically an incredibly expensive project that doesn't help commuters, doesn't help create jobs and may drive whales to extinction," said Justin Massey, an attorney advising environmentalists opposed to the proposal. "It is also a project that serves the area where the governor is from, which is near and dear to her heart."

The Knik Arm was one of two bridge proposals in Alaska awarded more than $450 million from lawmakers who requested money for special projects in 2005, when Young chaired the House Transportation Committee. Young, Alaska's 18-term congressman, has said Alaska still lacks basic roads, railroads and bridges that were developed long ago in older and less spacious states.

At the time, Palin's running mate for the Republican ticket, Arizona Sen. John McCain, derided both projects as wasteful. He called Young's highway bill a "monstrosity" that was "terrifying in its fiscal consequences."

"I want no part of this," McCain said in a July 2005 statement. "This legislation is not — I emphasize not — my way of legislating."

The governor initially championed the first so-called Bridge to Nowhere, which would have connected the southeastern Alaska town of Ketchikan to its airport on nearby Gravina Island. She later pulled the plug on the project after it became a national symbol of extravagant federal spending.

Palin's record on the Bridge to Nowhere has emerged as a central point of controversy in the campaign over her recent public claims that she had opposed it, aligning herself with McCain's anti-earmarks philosophy.

Palin still supports the second bridge, officially named Don Young's Way in honor of the congressman. She called for a review of the bridge's financing plans and raised concerns about its financial risks for the state. Still, the planning process is marching forward.

"Governor Palin's demand for accountability and transparency around this project is exactly what she has called for across the board to ensure taxpayers' dollars are being used wisely," spokeswoman Maria Comella said.

Dianne Keller, who succeeded Palin as mayor in Wasilla, has said the new $600 million crossing could lower traffic congestion in the fast-growing community. A Federal Highway Administration study shows the project would cut down some area commutes, but could add to others as more people move to the suburbs.

The average commuter trip to work for Wasilla residents is 34 minutes, compared to an average of 25 minutes for the rest of the United States, according to 2000 Census figures, the most recent available.

The bridge is popular with property developers — including a group comprised of Young's son-in-law, the former legislative director for indicted Republican Sen. Ted Stevens and three others — who own land across from Anchorage on the inlet's western side.

The National Marine Fisheries Service is evaluating whether the isolated beluga whales that breed and feed in the waterway's strong tides should be listed as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act. Palin has publicly urged the government not to list Cook Inlet beluga whales as endangered.

Anchorage Assembly members Patrick Flynn and Matt Claman, both Democrats, plan to introduce a proposal to kill the bridge on Tuesday. They argue the money would be better used to set up commuter van pools and fix Alaska's existing highways, some of which are so rutted that cars go skidding off the road.

"She clearly hasn't said 'no thanks' to this particular bridge," Claman said. "If money were not an issue and we had no limits, maybe we'd build a bridge. But this is not a pragmatic or efficient way to spend scarce resources."

Im not necessarily opposed to the bridge or the improvements but it'll be interesting to see how McCain handles the inevitable flip flop on the issue.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I haven't seen this noted in the current discussion. It was brought up after Obama spoke today and claimed that the current economic crisis is based in the S&L problems in the 1980s. A much more likely cause for our current problems was the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in the later years of the Clinton administration. It allowed commercial and investment banks to consolidate. Below is the general info from Wikipedia for those wanting to know more..........

Glass-Steagall Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Gramm that's listed is Phil Gramm, McCain's chief economic advisor. Anyone want to ask why McCain's cribbing his econ plan from one of the guys that caused the current mess?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

that's BS of the highest order.

Ok, let's go through and see.

When she didnt know what the Bush Doctrine was, the widely accepted one by Journalists in this country, she didn't know. So be it. I honestly dont care but the spin afterwards is disheartening and dishonest.

You mean the Bush Doctrine that Obama didn't know about, which was among 7 different Bush Doctrines that are out there? I actually don't think Gibson's is even the "widely accepted one".

Who was just saying that's not what she meant on this issue? Every post on it linked to included an article detailing the various Bush Doctrines or Obama's lack of understanding of it, etc.

When she says that Alaska produces 20% of this countries energy, she's wrong. So when the shit comes out, 'that's not what she meant' you have to have the standard the same for both parties.

Someone may have posted "that's not what she meant" about the statement, but I don't remember it.

The list goes on and on of things that have been said over the past few weeks that are lies or attempts to get the country to assume things (Ie. the Aide saying she visited the military theatre in Iraq and Ireland) so you either are going to spin things in a way that you can backpedal by saying, 'that wasnt the intent' or youre going to go by what is said. If it's the latter than I'd ask you to hold the standard of ads and accusations to a much higher level than has currently been accepted.

I thought people said that the aide was wrong, but it may not be the same thing as the candidate actually said.

Now if you want to go ahead and say the Obama aide was wrong in what she said, go ahead. Though the "that's not what she meant" thing doesn't seem to hold up, especially not with those statments.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'd be interested in seeing the article mentioning that he was pushing a policy contrary to the administration stance.

Read his initial statements compared to the White House. He was pushing a much tougher line.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Though the "that's not what she meant" thing doesn't seem to hold up, especially not with those statments.

Right, only one side gets to use the 'thats not what s/he meant' out.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Read his initial statements compared to the White House. He was pushing a much tougher line.

Understood, but that was an open expression of opinion in the media. Had Obama made his remarks in an open forum, then the two would be comparable.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Right, only one side gets to use the 'thats not what s/he meant' out.

So I said that I don't recall anyone saying "that's not what she meant" for Palin (or McCain) without supporting documentation and you can't even come back with a link showing someone saying it? That's telling.

And if we could just back up a second... since when did Obama say "that's not what she meant" referring to the comments of his PR person?

Don't be trying to act like you really want both sides playing fairly.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The Gramm that's listed is Phil Gramm, McCain's chief economic advisor. Anyone want to ask why McCain's cribbing his econ plan from one of the guys that caused the current mess?

You won't find me arguing for Phil Gramm. I'm not much of a fan. However, since you agree that it did cause the current mess, we now have to deal with the reality that this could have been avoided to a large extent if the Clinton Administration would have heeded the warnings of the report issued in 1987 that predicted that the events of today would occur if the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The Gramm that's listed is Phil Gramm, McCain's chief economic advisor. Anyone want to ask why McCain's cribbing his econ plan from one of the guys that caused the current mess?

Who?

Oh, did you mean Douglas Holtz-Eakin?

FT.com / Home UK / UK - Douglas Holtz-Eakin

Douglas Holtz-Eakin is chief economist adviser to US presidential nominee John McCain

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

So I said that I don't recall anyone saying "that's not what she meant" for Palin (or McCain) without supporting documentation and you can't even come back with a link showing someone saying it? That's telling.

And if we could just back up a second... since when did Obama say "that's not what she meant" referring to the comments of his PR person?

Don't be trying to act like you really want both sides playing fairly.

Link? I thought the last 10 pages of this thread and it's links would suffice cuz honestly, like Arles and Chief have said, it's useless. I am, IMO, asking for things that both sides should want, honesty, transparency, no 527 ads, etc. but the GOP and it's supporters (even on here) spin spin spin away instead of saying, "Yes we want that stuff too." (Some of the leftists do too but the scales are not even, in the campaign[s] or on here). I mean shit, they even abused Factcheck.org and had Rove say it cant be trusted, AUFKM!?

AFAIK, I said I dont necessarily agree that Obama shouldve talked foreign policy to the Iraqi leader. If we assume the article is truthful and the guy cited was honest I said, I agree with you all and wish that there was an open line of communication to W and those in charge. I have doubts that that exists and wonder where else there is to go when that avenue is shut down. I dont think anyone doubts W's unwillingness to work with Dems and especially Dems with aspirations and some leverage.

Throughout this thread I have conceded to both sides when something is right, wrong, done well, or not executed well but it seems Im the only one who is willing to do so. You obviously dont see it the same way.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Understood, but that was an open expression of opinion in the media. Had Obama made his remarks in an open forum, then the two would be comparable.

He has said the same thing in public numerous times.

[Flasch186]

wow, so Gramm wasn't? still doesnt have his ear? spinster:

Paul Rejects Gramm's Pro-McCain Pitch
September 10, 2008 3:14 PM

ABC News' Hope Ditto and Teddy Davis report: Former Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul said Wednesday that former Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, called him on Tuesday urging him to endorse Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., sparking charges from Democrats that the former McCain adviser is still active on behalf of the Republican presidential nominee.

"I got a phone call yesterday and it was a bit of a surprise to me because their request was that I endorse John McCain. The argument was, 'he would do a little less harm than the other candidate,'" said Paul.

Despite Gramm's effort to convince the Texas congressman that McCain would keep taxes lower than Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., Paul turned down the offer to get on board.

"How could I support a candidate that doesn't support the positions that I've supported for 30 years?" asked Paul. "I would have to reject everything I believed in and worked for and voted for, and I said, 'it might diminish my credibility.'"

Jesse Benton, a Paul spokesman, elaborated on the decision not to endorse, telling ABC News, "It's all well and good to cut taxes and to keep taxes low. But if you don't address the spending -- and that includes the overseas spending on troops in 130 countries -- the tax issue is almost irrelevant."

Though Paul's refusal to endorse McCain is nothing new, the Democratic National Committee pounced on his remarks, which they saw as a sign that Gramm is continuing to help McCain after publicly disassociating himself.

Gramm, who advised McCain on economic issues, left the campaign on July 18 after telling The Washington Times that the United States had "become a nation of whiners." Democrats used the Gramm interview, in which he pointed out that the United States was not technically in a recession, to portray McCain as out of touch with economic anxiety.

"Who did John McCain task with securing Ron Paul's endorsement?" asked the DNC's Damien LaVera in a Wednesday e-mail to reporters. "Phil 'Nation of Whiners' Gramm."

Asked why Gramm called Paul if he is no longer supposed to be playing a role in the McCain campaign, Benton said, "Ron and Sen. Gramm have known each other for 20 years. He said, 'Ron, this is Phil. I'd like you to consider endorsing McCain. Here's why ... '

"It was Phil Gramm calling on behalf of Phil Gramm. He was not making an official call on behalf of McCain," said Benton in an explanation that is not likely to satisfy Democrats intent on reviving stories about the McCain-Gramm connection.

Beyond discussing the pro-McCain pitch he received from Gramm, Paul told reporters at the National Press Club on Wednesday that Americans should consider supporting a third-party candidate in the 2008 campaign. He did not, however, endorse a particular candidate.

Paul also said that he is not considering a presidential bid as the candidate of the Reform Party. Though the Reform Party selected Paul as their candidate in Virginia, Paul said he is taking steps to remove his name from the ballot.

The Reform Party is planning to make a national presidential endorsement on Oct. 11 when it holds its national convention in New York, N.Y.

The only reason he was 'officially' taken from that role was due to his 'whiners' comment. So is there duct tape over his mouth?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

He has said the same thing in public numerous times.

If you could provide where he stated in public that he didn't want to draw down the troops until after the current administration was gone, that would be great. I haven't seen anything like that from his public comments. Obama's stance has been to remove them ASAP. I haven't seen anything about ASAP as long as it's done by the next administration.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

You won't find me arguing for Phil Gramm. I'm not much of a fan. However, since you agree that it did cause the current mess, we now have to deal with the reality that this could have been avoided to a large extent if the Clinton Administration would have heeded the warnings of the report issued in 1987 that predicted that the events of today would occur if the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed.

That 1987 report was not a warning report at all. It was a report prepared by the research arm of Congress that listed both the pros and cons of repealing the act. It was 12 years between the publishing of the report, and the repeal of the act. The problem wasn't necessarily the repeal of the act, it was the squashing of the oversight pieces that should have been put in place after the repeal was passed. The banks pretty much got a blank check to do as they pleased without the oversights in place.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by cartman

That 1987 report was not a warning report at all. It was a report prepared by the research arm of Congress that listed both the pros and cons of repealing the act. It was 12 years between the publishing of the report, and the repeal of the act. The problem wasn't necessarily the repeal of the act, it was the squashing of the oversight pieces that should have been put in place after the repeal was passed. The banks pretty much got a blank check to do as they pleased without the oversights in place.

But the concerns about the oversight issue and the merger issues were both cited in that report. That report was created because the banking industry had been pursuing a repeal since 1980. That report was directly related to an extremely similar bill that had been circulated for years. I understand that they presented both pros and cons, but the cons in that report ended up being spot-on, albeit 20 years before they were proven right.

[Vegas Vic]

Sarah Palin's reputation survived her interview with ABC News' Charlie Gibson.

The same cannot be said for Charlie Gibson.

On my radio show last week, I twice defended Barack Obama. Once, against those conservatives who took a comment made by Obama in an interview with George Stephanopoulos out of context and suggested that Obama had inadvertently admitted he was a Muslim. And again, when I contended that Obama did not imply that Palin was a pig in his now famous "lipstick on a pig" reference.

I mention this only because I want to assume that people of good will on both sides can still be honest about what transpires politically. And in this instance what transpired was that Gibson intended to humiliate Palin.

It wasn't even subtle. Virtually everything Gibson did and virtually every question he posed was designed to trap, or trick, or demean Gov. Palin. There are views of his face that so reek of contempt that anyone shown photos of his look would immediately identify it as contemptuous.

But one series of questions, in particular, blew any cover of impartiality and revealed Gibson's aim to humiliate Palin.

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?

PALIN: His worldview?

GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.

When he asked Palin whether she agreed with the Bush Doctrine without defining it, he gave the game away. He lost any pretense of fairness. Asking the same unanswerable question three times had one purpose -- to humiliate the woman. That was not merely partisan. It was mean.

I couldn't answer it -- and I have been steeped in international affairs since I was a Fellow at the Columbia University School of International Affairs in the 1970s. I have since been to 82 countries, and have lectured in Russian in Russia and in Hebrew in Israel. Most Americans would consider a candidate for national office who had such a resume qualified as regards international relations. Yet I had no clue how to answer Gibson's question.

I had no clue because there is no right answer. There are at least four doctrines that are called "Bush Doctrine," which means that there is no "Bush Doctrine." It is a term bereft of meaning, as became abundantly clear when Gibson finally explained what he was referring to:

GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that -- the right to preemptive attack of a country that was planning an attack on America?

That's the Bush Doctrine? "The right to preemptive attack of a country that was planning an attack on America?"

Isn't that just common sense? What country in history has thought it did not have the right to attack those planning to attack it? I learned the "Bush Doctrine" when I was a student at yeshiva in the fourth grade, when I was taught a famous Talmudic dictum from about 1,800 years ago: "If someone is coming to kill you, rise early and kill him."

And preemptive attack is exactly what happened in June 1967, when Israel attacked Egypt and Syria because those countries were planning to attack Israel. Would any American president before George W. Bush have acted differently than Israel did? Of course not. Did they all believe in the Bush Doctrine?

That is how Gibson added foolishness to his meanness.

All the interview did was reconfirm that Republicans running for office run against both their Democratic opponent and the mainstream news media.

This year it is more obvious than ever. The press's beatification of Obama is so obvious, so constant (how many covers of Newsweek and Time has Obama been on?) that media credibility even among many non-conservatives has been hurt.

Let me put this another way. Charlie Gibson showed far greater hostility toward the Republican vice-presidential candidate than Dan Rather did in his interview with Saddam Hussein or Mike Wallace did in his interview with Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Which reminds me of another Talmudic dictum: "Those who are merciful to the cruel will be cruel to the merciful."

We might call it the media's Gibson Doctrine: Confront Republicans, act obsequious toward tyrants.

The Gibson Doctrine

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

wow, so Gramm wasn't? still doesnt have his ear? spinster:

The only reason he was 'officially' taken from that role was due to his 'whiners' comment. So is there duct tape over his mouth?

Gramm still advocates for McCain, but to believe that only Gramm had McCain's ear on economic policies is utterly insane, even when he was considered the chief economic advisor. There have been a motley crew of free market idealists and pragmatic moderates throughout. I doubt Gramm has been informing McCain the last few days, when McCain has been talking about having a commission (9/11 commission like) to evaluate the entire industry.

[Flasch186]

why would you doubt Gramm's informance on one day vs. the next outside of it's convenience for your stance?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

why would you doubt Gramm's informance on one day vs. the next outside of it's convenience for your stance?

Cause obviously Gramm would have never advised this.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

The Gibson Doctrine

I was with him a decent amount on this article. The Bush Doctrine thing was stupid and was clearly meant as a trap and the article stated it well. At least until the buzzword "mainstream media" and the usual drivel oozed out in the last few paragraphs.

SI

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I was with him a decent amount on this article. The Bush Doctrine thing was stupid and was clearly meant as a trap and the article stated it well. At least until the buzzword "mainstream media" and the usual drivel oozed out in the last few paragraphs.

SI

Just curious, what specifically do you disagree with in his last few paragraphs?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

But the concerns about the oversight issue and the merger issues were both cited in that report. That report was created because the banking industry had been pursuing a repeal since 1980. That report was directly related to an extremely similar bill that had been circulated for years. I understand that they presented both pros and cons, but the cons in that report ended up being spot-on, albeit 20 years before they were proven right.

The house vote on this was 362 YEA - 57 NAY, so it didn't really matter what the Clinton Administration thought, a veto more than likely would have been overridden. So the blame falls back to the feet of the bill authors.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by cartman

The house vote on this was 362 YEA - 57 NAY, so it didn't really matter what the Clinton Administration thought, a veto more than likely would have been overridden. So the blame falls back to the feet of the bill authors.

That's fine, but that to me shows what $200M can buy you more than anything else. That doesn't dismiss the fact that there were some major issues that were not addressed due to greasy palms. Just because the bill is veto-proof doesn't mean he couldn't veto it on principal. The whole thing just reeks of buy-offs.

I hope the banking industry is enjoying the fruits of their lobby efforts.

[larrymcg421]

Prager is fine when he's criticizing Gibson, not so much when runs into OMG Liberal Media in Black Helicopters Fixing Election hysteria.

[Flasch186]

Like ive pointed out to the righties on here who cant fathom someone being able to be open to both sides and be honest. I dont care that she didnt know. I didnt necessarily like how she squirmed in her chair although I can understand her moment of concern considering the prep work Im sure her handlers had with her (not a sleight by any means). Whether or not she picked the Doctrine that Gibson was thinking of, I honestly dont give a shit ISid, so screw off. Im not a fan of Obama talking politics with foreign heads of state in an effort to steer decisions (if thats true).

My personal problem is that I AM able to see both sides and see what I believe is lies, scams, insinuations, spin, etc. and try to point it out. The best most enlightening thing Ive read is when Arles said that he, and others, dont want to be fair and balanced and are biased. I shouldve realized that long ago and unfortunately what couldve been an 'analytical' thread turned into a soapbox for both sides where you'll slam eachother, refuse evidence to the contrary, spin stuff that cant be spun without lying, and do or accept all kinds of unethical, borderline immoral behavior for the greater good of winning office and the spoils that come with it. I just wont and dont and that is probably a bad thing for my health.

So please, go on, spin away.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

That's fine, but that to me shows what $200M can buy you more than anything else. That doesn't dismiss the fact that there were some major issues that were not addressed due to greasy palms. Just because the bill is veto-proof doesn't mean he couldn't veto it on principal. The whole thing just reeks of buy-offs.

I hope the banking industry is enjoying the fruits of their lobby efforts.

LOL

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

My personal problem is that I AM able to see both sides and see what I believe is lies, scams, insinuations, spin, etc. and try to point it out.

Flasch186: The Great Purveyor of Truth in the FOFC Universe.

[Flasch186]

the bane of my existence and it does cause me problems in RL too since I dont have much grey area except in my hair.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

My personal problem is that I AM able to see both sides and see what I believe is lies, scams, insinuations, spin, etc. and try to point it out.

Problem is, you probably think so, but don't realize how biased you end up sounding. It's kind of like the MSNBC. I'm sure they thought they were able to see both sides and see the lies and spin on both, etc., but didn't realized they were incredibly slanted to the left and the reaction to their convention co-anchor pairing of Olbermann and Matthews caught them completely off-guard as a result.

[Flasch186]

ok, hence my "I Believe" which your brain doesnt see in my sentence. I think for your eyes, its a big white blank space there but trust me, it says, "I believe". Can you see it if it's in quotes? hit refresh.

[ISiddiqui]

Sorry if that came out sounding meaner that I was intending (I wasn't intending to be mean)... but we all have our biases and our posts will show that, even if we believe we are trying to be fair.

[ISiddiqui]

After that edit... I'm taking back my last post and requoting you (emphasis added by me... do you also "believe" you are able to see both sides, or as put there, you are completely sure of it?):

My personal problem is that I AM able to see both sides and see what I believe is lies, scams, insinuations, spin, etc. and try to point it out.

I'll add another quote

Like ive pointed out to the righties on here who cant fathom someone being able to be open to both sides and be honest.

Do you "believe" you are open to both sides and are being honest?

[Flasch186]

...and this is meaningful? Here is a classic example of the "s/he meant" but the right are going to immasculate the statement to mean that the left's idea of a tax cut will only get people to buy a small item, like a toaster, etc. This is just what I was talking about, sillyness, lying, and spin...like teaching sex-ed in Kindergarten:

GOP mocks Biden 'tax cuts for toasters'

Mike Allen Tue Sep 16, 10:58 AM ET

Republicans had fun giving out tire gauges after Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) suggested folks save energy by inflating their tires. Now, some toaster tomfoolery may be in the offing.

Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) said on NBC’s “Today” show: “Our tax plan would take that tax cut of another $130 billion that John [McCain] wants to give to people making over $250,000 next year, not let it go forward and give it to the middle class — the very people who desperately need it to stay in their homes, to buy food, to take care of the gas, to fill up their tank, to be able to go out and buy a toaster, to employ people.”

The McCain campaign’s Joe Pounder (“his real name,” as The New Yorker recently put it) crowed in his morning e-mail to reporters: “[D]id you catch Joe Biden saying this morning that their tax cut will allow Americans to buy a ‘toaster’? Nothing says a sound economic plan like ‘buying a toaster.’”

Republicans also posted a YouTube clip of an exchange between Biden and the “Today” host, Meredith Vieira, in which he disputed the idea that economists have questioned raising taxes in a recessionary economy.

VIEIRA: “Senator, you and Senator Obama are calling for tax increases on the wealthy. And there are many economists who say that that would hurt the economy even more.”

BIDEN: “I don't know any economists who are saying that.”

Expect to see a list by the end of the day.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

After that edit... I'm taking back my last post and requoting you (emphasis added by me... do you also "believe" you are able to see both sides, or as put there, you are completely sure of it?):



I'll add another quote



Do you "believe" you are open to both sides and are being honest?

It's my brain. Im not completely sure of anything but I 'Believe' I am open minded and can see through some of the smoke you and the other spun people on both sides put out there. Am I sure of anything? Probably not, not as sure as some of the people in this thread are about what so and so meant when they said XY or Z.

and to your edit: yes and yes, and the comment righties is because theyre seemingly the ones who think I am not. Maybe that's coincidental but it seems to be par. I dont believe in media bias, I dont believe that Palin traveled to Iraq in the way she meant, I dont believe in anti-choice when it comes to abortion rights, I dont believe that being a POW alone is a resume for President, I dont believe that blacks or whites should vote based on race, I dont believe in trickle down economics, etc. etc. so NO, I dont agree with the GOP's platform as it's executed although ex-religious right, much of their platform I think most American's could. However, as stated before the platform as written and campaigned upon has not been, historically, how the right have behaved in leadership positions. ugh.

[larrymcg421]

I'm not sure it's a good idea for the Republicans to keep mentioning that Obama has a tax cut plan. That just seems like a bad idea from an objectively strategic point of view.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

My personal problem is that I AM able to see both sides and see what I believe is lies, scams, insinuations, spin, etc. and try to point it out.

That is just so hard to judge of yourself. I think there plenty of people that feel they are able to fairly see both sides, but I don't think there are very many that do. I know I try. I've actually open my eyes so much that a few years ago I changed my whole political world-view. I still try my best to be fair of what I hear and read.

I will also admit that, unlike some, I do not know everything. My opinon on what I think is best may be: a)wrong, b) may just be what is best for me, c) may even be what I think is best for me and is actually not. That is actually the truth for everyone here, even the most died-in-the-wool "I know I'm right and everyone else is wrong" pundit for both sides. Those are the people that in the end really scare me. I have seen that "take a hard stand and stick with it" attitude sink more ships than drive them safely home. There is a fine line between "sticking to your guns" and "sticking with a stupid idea."

Anyway, I digress. What I was getting at is that most people believe they are fair, when in actuality they are at the very least some-what biased. Even most likely you.

[ISiddiqui]

The interesting thing about the article... the toaster thing isn't the most important issue... its Biden saying he doesn't know any economists who are saying tax increases (even just on the wealthy) would hurt the economy... but I guess that can be lessened if they focus on the Republicans talking about toasters.

That's what I mean by the bias on both sides, even if they think they are being "fair" and "honest".

[JAG]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

My personal problem is that I AM able to see both sides and see what I believe is lies, scams, insinuations, spin, etc. and try to point it out.

Why? What's your motivation?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

That is just so hard to judge of yourself. I think there plenty of people that feel they are able to fairly see both sides, but I don't think there are very many that do. I know I try. I've actually open my eyes so much that a few years ago I changed my whole political world-view. I still try my best to be fair of what I hear and read.

I will also admit that, unlike some, I do not know everything. My opinon on what I think is best may be: a)wrong, b) may just be what is best for me, c) may even be what I think is best for me and is actually not. That is actually the truth for everyone here, even the most died-in-the-wool "I know I'm right and everyone else is wrong" pundit for both sides. Those are the people that in the end really scare me. I have seen that "take a hard stand and stick with it" attitude sink more ships than drive them safely home. There is a fine line between "sticking to your guns" and "sticking with a stupid idea."

Anyway, I digress. What I was getting at is that most people believe they are fair, when in actuality they are at the very least some-what biased. Even most likely you.

Bingo. That's exactly the point. Most people think they are being fair and honest to both sides. I actually respect those who come out and say, "I'm biased", because they are actually seeing clearly and realizing no one is truly fair and honest; everyone has their own biases and their own version of reality.

The ones I'm scared of are the ones who are sure they are being fair and honest to both sides while unacknowledging their own biases, which color any analysis they may do.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

That is just so hard to judge of yourself. I think there plenty of people that feel they are able to fairly see both sides, but I don't think there are very many that do. I know I try. I've actually open my eyes so much that a few years ago I changed my whole political world-view. I still try my best to be fair of what I hear and read.

I will also admit that, unlike some, I do not know everything. My opinon on what I think is best may be: a)wrong, b) may just be what is best for me, c) may even be what I think is best for me and is actually not. That is actually the truth for everyone here, even the most died-in-the-wool "I know I'm right and everyone else is wrong" pundit for both sides. Those are the people that in the end really scare me. I have seen that "take a hard stand and stick with it" attitude sink more ships than drive them safely home. There is a fine line between "sticking to your guns" and "sticking with a stupid idea."

Anyway, I digress. What I was getting at is that most people believe they are fair, when in actuality they are at the very least some-what biased. Even most likely you.

hence the diatribe about the word 'believe'. Others that wash their hands and say, "I am biased" I think have 'given up' in a way. I just think that some things should cross party lines, or race, religion, etc. one of which is honesty and I guess I continue, probably to my diminishment of sanity, to hope for that to be true.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by JAG

Why? What's your motivation?

hmmm, good question and not sure why. I think it has to do with a feeling of 'wrongdoing' when a lie is permitted to be put forth, but it's a very good question and Im not sure of the answer outside of my own personal fabric.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I'm not sure it's a good idea for the Republicans to keep mentioning that Obama has a tax cut plan. That just seems like a bad idea from an objectively strategic point of view.

Ditto. I think the majority of voters (who are in the middle class level, not the upper-class level) would like to hear more about a Dem cutting taxes.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

hence the diatribe about the word 'believe'.

It's also hard to have it both ways. To act holier than thou and act above it all and parsing through the BS of both sides and then fall back on "I believe" when called on it.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

hence the diatribe about the word 'believe'.

Which you posted while I typed.