Muhme goes to the practices.

That's all for you Glenn.

If there is any candidate that gives a shit about the troops, its McCain.

JM wanted increased benis for the longer you stay in...DUH! Thats the way most things work.

If you gave the whole shebang to everyone after 4 years, there wouldn't be enough 5 year folks.
As the song lyric goes -- you can check in any time you like, but you can never leave. As it stands, they're all 5+ year folks, no matter how long they sign up for active service. Once they leave, they're still reservists for a good long time after, and reservists have been called up to resume active duty in a big way. Heck, a buddy of mine is currently on his third stint to the Middle East, and was last active in the Air Force in 1993.

751... I see what you did there

Lesson:

Never sign any contract with the government unless you already have more money then them.

As the song lyric goes -- you can check in any time you like, but you can never leave. As it stands, they're all 5+ year folks, no matter how long they sign up for active service. Once they leave, they're still reservists for a good long time after, and reservists have been called up to resume active duty in a big way. Heck, a buddy of mine is currently on his third stint to the Middle East, and was last active in the Air Force in 1993.

Sure you can leave and you'll get benis that are commensurate with the years you put in. I think there is a difference between war time years and peace time years.

Yes, you are a reservist. And you know that when you sign up. If you don't want that, don't sign the paper, don't raise your hand.

Lesson:

Never sign any contract with the government unless you already have more money then them.

LOL. Good one.

But isn't the Gov't in like 10 vazillion dollar debt? Wouldn't we all be wealthier than the Gov't?

I see what you did there and its a solid turn.

I wish I could give all my peeps $600 while being in debt.

The point in all of this was replying to Chris about campaigns lieing. The Dems were saying JM sends troops to war but won't take care of them when they come home. Thats a lie.
http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=40821&dcn=todays_most_popular

Poll

White Women Voters

in August:

BO 50%
JM 42%


September:

BO 41%
JM 53%

That amazing. NOTHING is trending for BO right now. Who is better on the economy, trustworthyness, etc.

I bet he can't wait for the debates.

And the all important Independents:

Aug:

BO 42
JM 42

Sept

BO 37
JM 52.

Gallup.

The White Women was from ABC

I'm sure those women will remain on his side when they are asked about their stances on women's rights in a debate.

Veteran California Democrat Willie Brown (former mayor of San Francisco)


"The Democrats are in trouble. Sarah Palin has totally changed the dynamics of this campaign."

"The Republicans are now on offense and Democrats are on defense. And we don't do well on defense."

Interesting coming from one of your own.

Muhme goes to the practices.


MoTown,

Get this man some, um, MoTowns.

I would if you followed up my requests.

The people have spoken. They are tired of betting the Alpaca farm. These poor alpacas are endangered now. For this contest at least, we need to start betting MoTowns. Then DBTM can be Lord of the Alpacas, but there can be only one Lord of the MoTowns.

PS +20 MoTowns for Fool.

I'm sure those women will remain on his side when they are asked about their stances on women's rights in a debate.

JM won't get all of them, but FOR NOW, this is a huge win for JM. If he can continue to steal those voters from BO, he made the right choice.

McCain can only Palin comparison to The Rack!

ba dum dum!

Paul: Reject the major parties, go for a third

WASHINGTON (AP) - Libertarian-leaning congressman Ron Paul is urging voters to reject John McCain and Barack Obama and support one of the third-party candidates for president.

Paul, a Republican who abandoned his White House bid earlier this year, is gathering some of the candidates, independent Ralph Nader among them, on Wednesday to make his plea.

"The strongest message can be sent by rejecting the two party system," Paul said in prepared remarks obtained by AP. "This can be accomplished by voting for one of the non-establishment, principled candidates."

He recommended Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party, former Georgia Republican Rep. Bob Barr of the Libertarian Party and former Georgia Democratic Rep. Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party. He invited them to his news conference Wednesday.

I voted 3rd party in '96 and generally think the 2-party system sucks. However, i don't see anything special in the current crop of 3rd party candidates and i don't trust mccain on foreign policy, taxes, or domestic spying.

Now ladies and gentlemen, your moment of zen... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMxp5UkeGCc)


"No one knows what war is like other than my family—period"

I voted 3rd party in '96 and generally think the 2-party system sucks. However, i don't see anything special in the current crop of 3rd party candidates and i don't trust mccain on foreign policy, taxes, or domestic spying.

I voted for Clinton in 92'

I voted for Petey to be 6th grade class president in '92.

I voted for Clinton in 92'

Tahoe is ageless. He also voted for Dewey in '48.

As the song lyric goes -- you can check in any time you like, but you can never leave. As it stands, they're all 5+ year folks, no matter how long they sign up for active service. Once they leave, they're still reservists for a good long time after, and reservists have been called up to resume active duty in a big way. Heck, a buddy of mine is currently on his third stint to the Middle East, and was last active in the Air Force in 1993.

One of the hardest thing for the military to do is keep peeps past 3 or 4 years. A lot of peeps still feel like serviing and then moving on, going to college, or serving after college, etc.

It was so hard to keep peeps after 4 years when I was about to get out that Regan stopped giving vets unemployment benis. He stopped them, saying that we had a job, but it was like we quit. So he tried to keep the 2nd termers in that way.

If we give the whole shebang after 4, it will only make the problem worse.

btw...it worked on me. I stayed in til 82 and then did stuff with them for another few years before I got out altogether.

Now ladies and gentlemen, your moment of zen... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMxp5UkeGCc)

Nice job. Too bad he didn't say that (I don't think a family member mis-stepping really sticks.

One of the hardest thing for the military to do is keep peeps past 3 or 4 years. A lot of peeps still feel like serviing and then moving on, going to college, or serving after college, etc.

It was so hard to keep peeps after 4 years when I was about to get out that Regan stopped giving vets unemployment benis. He stopped them, saying that we had a job, but it was like we quit. So he tried to keep the 2nd termers in that way.

If we give the whole shebang after 4, it will only make the problem worse.

Who wants to stay in the military after 4 years when Bush gives them shitty equipment and keeps sending them back over? Can you blame people? At least when they signed up for WWII they had a cause they could support and knew what they were fighting for. They knew the world was behind them. Instead they are fighting an illegal war without the support of most nations. Who wants to re-enlist after that?

If we give the whole shebang after 4, it will only make the problem worse.

The army did a study and found that increasing college benefits would increase enlistment at a rate commensurate with de-enlistment for college. Thus, the program was a wash in regard to recruiting. You replace troops going to college with an increase in those enlisted. It seemed like a good deal for everyone, just more expensive for govt. However, if anyone deserves a break, it is those that are actually making huge sacrafices for this war.

One of the hardest thing for the military to do is keep peeps past 3 or 4 years. A lot of peeps still feel like serviing and then moving on, going to college, or serving after college, etc.
They can't really "move on" if they get called up every other year for 12-15 months, and that's what's been happening. That's scaring away people at the get-go, one big reason why 40% of the troops in the Middle East are Reserves or National Guard. If you're signing up today, either you expect to be tied up for more than your initial term of active duty, OR you're dumb as a post and likely contribute to the military brain drain.

Check out the weekly trends, especially for the regional support:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/109687/Candidate-Support.aspx

And I voted for Perot in '92. Does anyone here think I voted for Dewey in '48? :)

Who wants to stay in the military after 4 years when Bush gives them shitty equipment and keeps sending them back over? Can you blame people? At least when they signed up for WWII they had a cause they could support and knew what they were fighting for. They knew the world was behind them. Instead they are fighting an illegal war without the support of most nations. Who wants to re-enlist after that?

The problems existed even when Bush wasn't President.

The army did a study and found that increasing college benefits would increase enlistment at a rate commensurate with de-enlistment for college. Thus, the program was a wash in regard to recruiting. You replace troops going to college with an increase in those enlisted. It seemed like a good deal for everyone, just more expensive for govt. However, if anyone deserves a break, it is those that are actually making huge sacrafices for this war.

Thats my recollection. So JM wants to give benis on a graduated scale. Someone might get to year 4 and want to stay in cuz of the incentives with the new GI bill.

The problems have gotten worse since Iraq. I think you're misunderestimating the brain drain effect that's been happening. The problem isn't just getting warm bodies, but getting warm bodies with aptitude. We're at the point where we've got to bribe 'em to come in.

On another subject, here's the uber-liberal (NOT!) BusinessWeek magazine comparing Obama and McCain's tax plans:

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jun2008/db20080611_220050.htm

I agree the problem is worse during war. But we won't be at war continuously. The GI bill needs to be workable during peacetime and war time. Graduating Benefits works best.

I remember when it was tough for the recruiters when things were really going shitty in Iraq. But they've been meeting their goals lately.

The problems existed even when Bush wasn't President.
It has existed, but not always. It was a problem with Vietnam too. Of course I wasn't alive during WWII or the Civil War, but from documentaries I've seen it looks like people were pretty eager for the most part to fight for the cause. There is now way that Iraq instills the same feeling of cause. It has it's merits no doubt, but it's a different ball game than stopping Hitler, etc. The point is that aside from just GI benifits, the cause of the war is a big factor in GI morale.

The question for me is why are we enriching private contractors (owned by friends of the administration) while treating the military like endentured servants. If I were in Washington, I would write a bill that would require that private contractors be paid no more that 25% more than active military. if you can't find private contractors to work for that, then boost salaries and benefits for the active military to make up the difference. i don't understand why we insist on screwing the troop and paying outrageous salaries to private employers at the same time. it seems that republican 'privatization' is no more than cronyism and 'privateering'. that democrats are in charge of Congress and seem feckless about this is a disgrace.

It has existed, but not always. It was a problem with Vietnam too. Of course I wasn't alive during WWII or the Civil War, but from documentaries I've seen it looks like people were pretty eager for the most part to fight for the cause. There is now way that Iraq instills the same feeling of cause. It has it's merits no doubt, but it's a different ball game than stopping Hitler, etc. The point is that aside from just GI benifits, the cause of the war is a big factor in GI morale.

From people I talk to in the military, the major reason for the drop in the morale is the inability to define victory. They are generally proud to have tried to protect the iraqi people, but do not believe that the currently installed govt. really cares about those people. thus, we have no idea what will happen once we turn over power to the malicki govt. my opinion is that iran will have a new best friend.

It has existed, but not always. It was a problem with Vietnam too. Of course I wasn't alive during WWII or the Civil War, but from documentaries I've seen it looks like people were pretty eager for the most part to fight for the cause. There is now way that Iraq instills the same feeling of cause. It has it's merits no doubt, but it's a different ball game than stopping Hitler, etc. The point is that aside from just GI benifits, the cause of the war is a big factor in GI morale.

What I'm gathering here is you are tieing this as something that is needed just becuase of the Iraq war. Not ture. The problem existed in peace time too.

We have plenty of peeps in the armed services today. The GI bill revisions are bringing benis up to todays standards. Much needed, imo.

Also, there is no MAJOR issue with morale in todays military.

Mxy, i can't find the link but Citizens against Gov't Waste cagw.org apparently came out with their ratings

JM gets 100%

BO gets a 10% rating

and Joe Biden gets a big fat Zero.

They say they are not partisan, but do you know if they are full of it? I've heard of them but just wondering your thoughts.

Here's the report in pdf

http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/DocServer/2007_Senate_Ratings_Final.pdf?docID=3242

What I'm gathering here is you are tieing this as something that is needed just becuase of the Iraq war. Not ture. The problem existed in peace time too.

Certainly military enlisting has been a problem long before the Iraq War. But, I think that the morale of the war itself plays a huge part in soldiers remaining in the military after their service is up. There are many other factors of course. I was just stating that I can't really fault people for not signing up again after fighting a war like Iraq (or Vietnam for that matter).

And thats fine, even if you do tie it directly to it. I feel that it would be wrong to conclude that, but it wouldn't be the first time we've disagreed.

My whole point in talking about my experience, etc is to add to the discussion that this is NOT just an Iraq war thing. Wars make it tougher for sure, but I read (fwiw) that reups are much higher during the Iraq war than Viet Nam. Viet Nam was a fucking quagmire. Iraq has light at the end of the tunnel.

I wouldn't pretend to tie them directly together. Having not served nor really done any research that would be a huge stretch for me to say. I just feel it has to be a big factor for many soldiers.

I'll never support Bush on the war (regardless of the outcome) because the ends do not justify the means of getting us in the war. However, I do hope things turn out well and that it does improve military enlistment with a true victory over there.

I'm about 49/51 supporting going in, in the first place. Meaning, not supporting it barely. But it will be a decade or so before we know for sure, imo.

I'm 100% supporting JM's plan to stay as long as it takes to stablilize things and give Iraqis time to get a grip on their country.

Its too bad that we had Rummy running things for so long. We could have been way ahead of where we're at right now. I'm sure he honestly did his best, but that doesn't mean he wasn't a fucking horse ass, fucktard or something.

Pontius Pilate was a governor, Jesus was a community organizer.


How about that gem? Heard that about 3 different times today, from 3 different BO campaign correspondents, on 3 different networks...

For one, Muslims don't believe Jesus was the son of God, so if Barack is to be portrayed as Jesus, than in his view, he's not anymore spectacular than you or I...

Not to mention, in the Bible, it was Caiaphas, the High Priest & chairman of the high court, who accused, arrested & charged Jesus with a crime. When Jesus was then taken to Pilate, he didn't find any fault in him, so simply turned him over to the citizens of Jerusalem, who then crucified him.

The Dems entire analogy is flawed.

I don't think the Dems are trying to say Obama is Jesus. They are saying that community organizers are very important in history. Sometimes they accomplish more than a governor might.

^^
But how would that be a knock on Palin? (which it has to be, because otherwise, there's no point in mentioning the word "governor" at all)

US Governor is a far more highly regarded title than "community organizer"...

I don't think they were trying to knock Palin. I think they were trying to refute the belittling of community service (implying that having a lesser title doesn't mean unimportant work.)

Mxy, i can't find the link but Citizens against Gov't Waste cagw.org apparently came out with their ratings

JM gets 100%

BO gets a 10% rating

and Joe Biden gets a big fat Zero.

They say they are not partisan, but do you know if they are full of it? I've heard of them but just wondering your thoughts.
A quick lookup turned up this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/30/AR2008053003121.html

But, until today, I mostly remember these dudes as being Microsoft lobbyists:

http://screaming-penguin.com/node/5906

Not good.

I'd bet the percentages are prolly different then their report, but I think we could assume they're somewhat close?

Keep in mind that in the grand scheme of things, earmarks account for 2-3% of the federal budget. It's huge in absolute dollars, but not big relatively speaking. Lots of earmarks go toward reasonable things -- bridges to nowhere are more of an exception than the rule. Obama's earmarks were disclosed fully during the primaries, because Obama was for earmark disclosure while Hillary voted against.

I'm 100% supporting JM's plan to stay as long as it takes to stablilize things and give Iraqis time to get a grip on their country.
Not that the situation in Iraq isn't the same as Vietnam, but this is the textbook definition of Nixon's Vietnamization, and it led us down the path of many more years in Vietnam at huge cost with little reward.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/09/AR2008090903727.html?hpid=topnews


John Feehery, a Republican strategist, said the campaign is entering a stage in which skirmishes over the facts are less important than the dominant themes that are forming voters' opinions of the candidates.

"The more the New York Times and The Washington Post go after Sarah Palin, the better off she is, because there's a bigger truth out there and the bigger truths are she's new, she's popular in Alaska and she is an insurgent," Feehery said. "As long as those are out there, these little facts don't really matter."

This is how John McCain translates teaching little kids that it's not ok for random adults to touch their private parts:

uVLQhRiEXZs

Keep in mind that in the grand scheme of things, earmarks account for 2-3% of the federal budget.

Earmarks are <1% of total spending and <2% of non-entitlement spending (repaying). in fact earmarks have decreased since 2005 when the r's were in charge. if you really want to want to make a dent in spending, you need to investigate the pentagon. in fact 40% of earmarks went to DoD.



Congress' year-end budget passed in December 2007 contains nearly 10,000 Congressional earmarks worth $10.4 billion, according to a comprehensive database compiled by Taxpayers for Common Sense.[2] In addition, the Department of Defense appropriations bill, passed earlier in the year, contains nearly 2,200 earmarks worth $7.9 billion. The total Congressional earmarks for fiscal year 2008 numbered 11,780 worth $18.3 billion. This is a 23% cut in earmarks from the high in FY 2005, but falls well short of the 50% reduction House leadership set as its goal earlier in the year.[3]


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7a/U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png/450px-U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png

Keep in mind that in the grand scheme of things, earmarks account for 2-3% of the federal budget. It's huge in absolute dollars, but not big relatively speaking. Lots of earmarks go toward reasonable things -- bridges to nowhere are more of an exception than the rule. Obama's earmarks were disclosed fully during the primaries, because Obama was for earmark disclosure while Hillary voted against.

That may be true, but its a slippery slope that the thieves up in DC do with our money. Fuckin theives.

They should be running a tight ship up there, especially in times of war. Don't cut taxes, just stop being such fucking idiots with our money.

for the record, i don't like earmarks and think that govt. needs to be more transparent. i support mccain's beliefs, but i don't think the issue is very important relative to other types of govt. corruption especially defense contractor thievery. Note that $3 billion (1/6) goes to Israel and mccain stated that he wants to continue that aid.

The problems have gotten worse since Iraq. I think you're misunderestimating the brain drain effect that's been happening. The problem isn't just getting warm bodies, but getting warm bodies with aptitude. We're at the point where we've got to bribe 'em to come in.

On another subject, here's the uber-liberal (NOT!) BusinessWeek magazine comparing Obama and McCain's tax plans:

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jun2008/db20080611_220050.htm

I see it as 'income redistribution' Take money from the wealthy and give it the less wealthy.

for the record, i don't like earmarks and think that govt. needs to be more transparent. i support mccain's beliefs, but i don't think the issue is very important relative to other types of govt. corruption especially defense contractor thievery. Note that $3 billion (1/6) goes to Israel and mccain stated that he wants to continue that aid.

And BO is going to cut aid to Israel? Good luck with running on that.

Don't you remember how good of a friend BO is to Israel?

And BO is going to cut aid to Israel? Good luck with running on that.

Don't you remember how good of a friend BO is to Israel?

The point is neither would cut aid to israel, thus the potential savings from earmark programs are even smaller. i didn't realize it was necessary to spell out every little detail.

The point is neither would cut aid to israel, thus the potential savings from earmark programs are even smaller. i didn't realize it was necessary to spell out every little detail.

Yea, if you could spell out every little detail, I'd apreciate it.

I was just pointing out that its the same with both candidates.

I don't think they were trying to knock Palin. I think they were trying to refute the belittling of community service (implying that having a lesser title doesn't mean unimportant work.)


I highly doubt anybody would interpret it that way...

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/52266.html
Critics: Under Palin, Wasilla charged rape victims for exam

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/52266.html
Critics: Under Palin, Wasilla charged rape victims for exam


Speaking to a teleconference audience of reporters around the nation, former Gov. Tony Knowles and current Ketchikan Mayor Bob Weinstein -- both Democrats -- accused Palin of misleading the public in her new role as the vice presidential running mate of Arizona Sen. John McCain

Dumb.

So you expect that Republicans are going to expose her?

That's naive.

I always lol when small town government officials (mayors, supervisors, trustees) are labeled Democrat or Republican......they have no power to do anything where that affiliation would even remotely come into play

I always lol when small town government officials (mayors, supervisors, trustees) are labeled Democrat or Republican......they have no power to do anything where that affiliation would even remotely come into play
So Palin would still be where she is now if she was a Dem back in the Wasilla days?

:dismissed:

:wizzle owns:

So you expect that Republicans are going to expose her?

There's nothing to expose her on.

The only person who can "expose" Palin is herself. She doesn't have the baggage Obama has, so only she can ruin her public image (which polls suggest is more popular than Barack's, btw).

Notice there hasn't been any major headlines on any front line media outlets suggesting she's abused her political power in the past. The removal of an officer, the bridge thing, all that stuff is page 2 irrelavant nonsense that the libs can't even get off the ground to create into a scandal.

She's untouchable, and the more the Dems try, the worse they look.

There's nothing to expose her on.

The only person who can "expose" Palin is herself. She doesn't have the baggage Obama has, so only she can ruin her public image (which polls suggest is more popular than Barack's, btw).

Notice there hasn't been any major headlines on any front line media outlets suggesting she's abused her political power in the past. The removal of an officer, the bridge thing, all that stuff is page 2 irrelavant nonsense that the libs can't even get off the ground to create into a scandal.

She's untouchable, and the more the Dems try, the worse they look.

You really haven't been paying attention, have you?

"She's untouchable"

.... to Republicans.

Rasmussen says she has 35% favorability among moderates, with 61% unfavorability. She's energized the base, not so much the middle. That is toward Bush levels. And this despite coverage of her being balanced, so say the Lexis folks: http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/080911/20080911005671.html?.v=1

Rasmussen says she has 35% favorability among moderates, with 61% unfavorability. She's energized the base, not so much the middle. That is toward Bush levels. And this despite coverage of her being balanced, so say the Lexis folks: http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/080911/20080911005671.html?.v=1

LOL Mxy, poll after poll shows she's made headway into the undecideds. You pick one part and post it. How bout fair and balanced? Or is that for me to post?

And the all important Independents:

Aug:

BO 42
JM 42

Sept

BO 37
JM 52.

Gallup.

The White Women was from ABC


Poll

White Women Voters

in August:

BO 50%
JM 42%


September:

BO 41%
JM 53%

That amazing. NOTHING is trending for BO right now. Who is better on the economy, trustworthyness, etc.

I bet he can't wait for the debates.

The top 20% of income pays about 80% of taxes. The bottom 40% pays none of the taxes. Up to about $43,000, a faily of 4 isn't going to pay any taxes. Bush took a bunch of peeps off the payroll at the bottom.


^ I just typed that while listening to it, with the help of TIVO. Not trying to politicize anything, just thought I'd post for an fyi.

Oops, at the end the commentator dude said BO's isn't really a tax cut cuz peeps aren't paying any taxes. He's just going to simply cut them a check.

I call it: Income redistribution fwiw.

Is it better for the wealthiest Americans to help the lower class afford a college education for their kids so they can become future earners/tax payers or is it better for those uneducated kids to suck off unemployment and/or end up in the prison system?

Tahoe, why is this in the UM/ND thread?

I didn't notice until I replied to your posts.

Where were your posts supposed to go?

^those polls aren't specific to Palin though.

^those polls are specific to Palin though.

I think you mean 'aren't' Not trying to put words in your mouth there, but I think thats what you are saying and you are correct.

I should have posted those polls a couple of days ago too.

But the result is clearly due to her being picked, imo. I mean its not like JM did something would have made that dramatic of a change.

yes, thanks. I'm just curious what the polls are on her specifically. I don't know one way or the other (aside from the one Mxy posted).

MY BAD!

Jesus H Christmas, I'm doing too many things at once here.

General Election. Sorry again.

Is it better for the wealthiest Americans to help the lower class afford a college education for their kids so they can become future earners/tax payers or is it better for those uneducated kids to suck off unemployment and/or end up in the prison system?

Its a debate worth having, but not quite like the way you framed it, imo.

I just have a problem with BO calling them tax cuts when its clearly taking money from wealthy Americans and giving it to less wealthy Americans.

Thats like working for free and having your boss say you are going to take a pay cut. <--actually, not really. :)

Tahoe, you're posting "white women voters". I'm talking "moderates" (which, theoretically, may be the same as "Independents", but perhaps not).

We're not comparing apples to apples, here.

^gotcha

BO..."Part of my job is to make Gov't cool again"

^ I'm sorry but that is funny I don't care who you are?

I've got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old," he added.

"I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby," Obama said.


Despicable.

Yup, despicable and monstrous. He doesn't want underaged unprotected sex fucking up his kids in any number of ways. Here's a fuller context:


When it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include -- which should include abstinence education and teaching the children -- teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual. But it should also include -- it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I've got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at the age of 16. You know, so it doesn't make sense to not give them information.

On another note, here's McCain ducking and weaving:
Z75QSExE0jU

Tahoe, you're posting "white women voters". I'm talking "moderates" (which, theoretically, may be the same as "Independents", but perhaps not).

We're not comparing apples to apples, here.
Had I wanted to speak about white women voter preferences, I might have used this bit from Gallup:

No Disproportionate Shift in White Women’s Preferences
http://www.gallup.com/poll/110260/Disproportionate-Shift-White-Womens-Preferences.aspx

Palin says:

"I believe America should exercise all options to stop the terrorists"

Does that mean we nuke the whole middle east? That would be an option.

On the 'still waiting for my question to be answered' front Chris you never answered whether you believe that JM wants to send peeps to war and not take care of them when they come back?

LOL @ BO

Last night he said we should let military recruiters on our campuses. I seriously laughed thinking he would have NEVER said that during the primary.

JM might have switched his positions on things, but at least he did it before election. BO is a ever-changing candidate. But the sheep will follow him into the promise land, no matterr what. :)

Well, Palin did her first interviews and no screw ups, like I heard predicted. She handled foreign policy stuff really well.

She passed another test.

Well, Palin did her first interviews and no screw ups, like I heard predicted. She handled foreign policy stuff really well.

She passed another test.

^your opinion, many others disagree strongly

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2008/09/12/sarah-palin-and-charlie-gibson-got-the-bush-doctrine-wrong-its-preventive-war-not-pre-emptive.html

Well I don't even see MSNBC saying she screwed up. Thats evidence enough for me.

edit...I was actually giving the opinion of news outlets this morning too. I'm sure Michael Moore, etc will say it was completely a screw up, but generally the opinions I've heard has been no screw ups.

On the 'still waiting for my question to be answered' front Chris you never answered whether you believe that JM wants to send peeps to war and not take care of them when they come back?

No, I think he does want to take care of them. But I think taking care of them when they come back is 2nd on his list after making sure they stay in the army.

He refuses to do #2 (taking care of those who leave) until completing #1 (keeping as many of them in as he can).

It's infinitely better than Bush who doesn't puts padding pockets ahead of the troops.

Well, Palin did her first interviews and no screw ups, like I heard predicted. She handled foreign policy stuff really well.

She passed another test.

No screw ups? She had no clue what the Bush doctrine was. And she didn't misstep anything because she dodged around every question. It was like she had prepared canned answers and that was it.

Obama to pressure McCain on openness

Fri Sep 12, 8:09 am ET

Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) plans to release 10 years of his tax returns on Friday morning, pressuring his Republican counterpart, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, to do the same, Politico has learned.

The move is part of a fresh aggressiveness from Barack Obama's campaign, which wants to discredit the new posture by John McCain as the candidate of real change.

Disclosure, or transparency, is a big way for a candidate to make that case during a campaign.

News reports from Alaska have said that Palin collected per diem travel payments even when she was at home, and the Obama-Biden campaign wants reporters to see if she paid taxes on it.

McCain has disclosed little about his family finances. He files separately from his wife, Cindy, and he has put out only his 2006 and 2007 returns. The campaign released her two-page tax return for 2006, but not complete returns.

The Obama campaign calls this “a disappointingly low bar for disclosure.”

Obama has released tax forms for each year beginning in 2000.

Brilliant move.

Hitting back a little, but still not hard enough, IMO.

H-ae409tJEI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-ae409tJEI


"Our economy wouldn't survive without the Internet, and cyber-security continues to represent one our most serious national security threats," Pfeiffer said. "It's extraordinary that someone who wants to be our president and our commander in chief doesn't know how to send an e-mail."

McCain has said he relies on his wife and staff to work the computer for him and that he doesn't use e-mail.

What kind of an attack ad is "not being able to work a computer"?? What does that have to do with anything???

Not to mention, there's no way to prove it...

Talk about getting desperate, now it's just getting funny...

And McCain's surge keeps getting more modest...

and LMFAO at Joy Behar for trying to cut down JM on The View

she's a complete joke when she tries to turn that show into a political platform...

same goes for Barbara Walters & the has-been Whoopi

Uh, you were watching The View?

Uh, you were watching The View?


Don't all men?

What kind of an attack ad is "not being able to work a computer"?? What does that have to do with anything???

Not to mention, there's no way to prove it...

Talk about getting desperate, now it's just getting funny...

And McCain's surge keeps getting more modest...

Read the snippet under the video. It addresses your post almost to a "t".

What kind of an attack ad is "not being able to work a computer"?? What does that have to do with anything???

Not to mention, there's no way to prove it...


Well, I think it matters for sure. Most people that don't know how to work a computer are either

a) too poor to own/have access to one.
b) don't think it's important to adapt to that technology

Usually the latter is old people who think it's a waste of time to learn it at that point. I tend to agree with that view, except that most of those people would never use a PC for more than typing their grandkids a letter anyway.

McCain has I'm sure been surrounded by PCs for years in the Senate. He has important things in his daily life based on PCs I am sure (email, research, etc). Him not learning it is basically saying he resists a better way of doing something.

Would it sway my vote? No. But I do think it's important to adapt to better ways of doing things.

Glenn, on it's surface, nobody's going to put any stock into it...

I think it may be a little too creative for the average American mind...

But I do think it's important to adapt to better ways of doing things.


I don't think it would say anybodys vote.

Obama's entire campaign is just starting to get lazy, I mean seriously?? Attack ads about computer literacy?

C'mon now...at least put some effort into it...

I wonder if Biden's Hillary comment saying she may be better qualified is just breaking the ice for BO to dump Biden and pick up Hillary. BO is desperate.

alsojustsomefunpoliticaljabbing

That won't happen. But I do expect them to do some damage with that comment. I would expect the dems to do the same with a similar comment.

I wouldn't be surprised if BO actually originally offered the VP slot to Hillary and she turned it down.

They can't talk about that now, because it would open up a whole bunch of "he wasn't even his first choice" attacks on Biden, but it's something to consider, at least.

And I wouldn't say that BO is desperate at all, Tahoe.

I think he'd biding his time until the debates.

He's been campaigning too long due to the duel with Hillary, and I think the polls might reflect a bit of "Obama burnout" on the part of the public right now.

I think he can get it back with solid performances in the debates and as the case builds against Palin.

He's still looking good in key battleground states, and that's all that really matters.

BO..."Everyone in America, EVERYONE, will pay lower taxes then they did in the 1990s under Bill Clinton"

Mxy? True?

I wouldn't be surprised if BO actually originally offered the VP slot to Hillary and she turned it down.

They can't talk about that now, because it would open up a whole bunch of "he wasn't even his first choice" attacks on Biden, but it's something to consider, at least.

And I wouldn't say that BO is desperate at all, Tahoe.

I think he'd biding his time until the debates.

He's been campaigning too long due to the duel with Hillary, and I think the polls might reflect a bit of "Obama burnout" on the part of the public right now.

I think he can get it back with solid performances in the debates and as the case builds against Palin.

He's still looking good in key battleground states, and that's all that really matters.

He was mostly behind in the first half of the Demo race, then crushed that bitch down the stretch.

I agree with Glenn.

But....she won the last few primary things. He limped dicked it across the line.

When will I ever learn NOT to fuck with DM?

BO..."Everyone in America, EVERYONE, will pay lower taxes then they did in the 1990s under Bill Clinton"

Mxy? True?

All I know is during 8 years of Clinton we had THE largest economic growth in history and the largest deficit reduction as well.

His administration wasn't perfect, but Obama really needs to hammer that point home I think.

All I know is during 8 years of Clinton we had THE largest economic growth in history and the largest deficit reduction as well.

His administration wasn't perfect, but Obama really needs to hammer that point home I think.

It was. And the Prez gets too much credit when we're in a good cycle and too much blame when we are in a bad one.

When you are numero uno, the blame has to fall on you. You can't go higher up the ladder. Nobody else has more power to effect the situations that arise.

Well I don't even see MSNBC saying she screwed up. Thats evidence enough for me.
The headline I saw from MSNBC.com was:

Palin says she is ready, Obama ups attacks
In first major interview as GOP's VP pick, she struggles with foreign policy
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26664074/

Struggling is a reach and NOT a screw up that 'the place for politics' was looking for.

When you are numero uno, the blame has to fall on you. You can't go higher up the ladder. Nobody else has more power to effect the situations that arise.

It does, but most peeps know it shouldn't to the degree it does.

I don't think she had any major screwups. I just think she looked like she had no answers, rather than wrong ones.

BO..."Everyone in America, EVERYONE, will pay lower taxes then they did in the 1990s under Bill Clinton"

Mxy? True?
I will pay more in taxes, I'd imagine, but that's because I make more money than I did during the 1990s. It's probable hyperbole in that context.

But as far as income tax brackets go (and that was the context he was speaking in), I think it's a correct statement. He wants to repeal part (but not all) of the Bush tax cuts, which would adjust the tax brackets to near Clintonian levels (but not at Clintonian tax levels).

(Yes, I overused the parentheses. :) )

Peeps above 250k?

LOL @ BO
Provably false. At the Nevada primary debate:
Last night he said we should let military recruiters on our campuses. I seriously laughed thinking he would have NEVER said that during the primary.

Provably false. At the Nevada primary debate:


RUSSERT: Will you vigorously enforce a statute which says colleges must allow military recruiters on campus and provide ROTC programs?

OBAMA: Yes. One of the striking things, as you travel around the country, you go into rural communities and you see how disproportionally they are carrying the load in this war in Iraq, as well as Afghanistan.

OBAMA: And it is not fair. Now, the volunteer Army, I think, is a way for us to maintain excellence. And if we are deploying our military wisely, then a voluntary army is sufficient, although I would call for an increase in our force structure, particularly around the Army and the Marines, because I think that we’ve got to put an end to people going on three, four, five tours of duty and the strain on families is enormous. I meet them every day.

But I think that the obligation to serve exists for everybody, and that’s why I’ve put forward a national service program that is tied to my tuition credit for students who want to go to college. You get $4000 every year to help you go to college. In return, you have to engage in some form of national service. Military service has to be an option.

OBAMA: We have to have civilian options as well. Not just the Peace Corps, but one of the things that we need desperately are people who are in our foreign service who are speaking foreign languages can be more effective in a lot of the work that’s going to be require that may not be hand-to-hand combat but is going to be just as critical in ensuring our long-term safety and security.

Transcript is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/us/politics/15demdebate-transcript.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=login

Peeps above 250k?
Depends on what Clinton timeframe you're talking about, I suppose. The exact phrase is fuzzy enough to be instantly proven bogus on any number of fronts. But the sentiment I think he was headed for, the one that's consistent with his stated plans, could fit into that statement. I'm not all that interested in digging into what the tax brackets were like throughout the Clinton era. I'm often not awake when posting on here... going through IRS shit will insure I'm not awake.
:)

I was just listening to someone you all know and love and he said that to ask 'what do you think about Bush's doctrine? is a bullshit question.

There are, or could be, as many as 4 different plans that could be considered Bush doctrines.

It was a bullshit, gotcha type question. At least she didn't say something like this....BO "I've been to 57, states with 1 more to go"

I'd expect someone who's paid attention to recent U.S. foreign policy to articulate their angle of what the Bush Doctrine is and frame a response. When asked "what do you interpret it to be", I wouldn't expect a question in return.

For that matter, I'd reasonably expect a U.S. foreign policy expert (or someone who studied U.S. history recently) to know what the Monroe Doctrine is. It's had similar "shades of meaning" over the centuries.

W3ijYVyhnn0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3ijYVyhnn0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=)

I'd expect someone who's paid attention to recent U.S. foreign policy to articulate their angle of what the Bush Doctrine is and frame a response. When asked "what do you interpret it to be", I wouldn't expect a question in return.


Please, your suddenly holding Palin to a higher standard because she's the first to have been asked that question? Had Biden stumbled on the same question (which he probably would have), you'd have defended him the same way Tahoe did, that is, a question that really is A) not made clear or B) does not have one particular answer.

To suggest she completely dropped the ball (which even Alan Colmes said she didn't on that very question), it's obvious your being partisan.

I'd expect someone who's paid attention to recent U.S. foreign policy to articulate their angle of what the Bush Doctrine is and frame a response. When asked "what do you interpret it to be", I wouldn't expect a question in return.

For that matter, I'd reasonably expect a U.S. foreign policy expert (or someone who studied U.S. history recently) to know what the Monroe Doctrine is. It's had similar "shades of meaning" over the centuries.

Much like the JM answer to houses (he should have said, "none of your fucking bidness mothafucka) she could have handled the question better.

But a question back to Charlie isn't a bad thing, imo, if it's the right question.

Charlie was too informal in his interview, he showed an obvious demeanor of disrespect for Palin, and as much as he tried to bait her "Do you feel scared; Do you feel overwhelmed", Sarah didn't take the bait, not even any hesitation.

Nice try Charlie, now put the cameras back on the plane, and go take your vitamins and prick your finger. Your not Brit Hume.

The more I read about it, the more I feel it was just a dumbass question.

Quick trying to make headlines with gotcha moments and explain what you question is.

Like I said, there is NOT one Bush doctrine. If he wanted a reply to a specific doctrine, then explain which or what the fuck you are talking about.

Biden was asked the same question back when he was running for President. He didn't stumble. He was asked to define what a "Biden Doctrine" would look like. He compared and contrasted his "Biden Doctrine" to his perception of what the "Bush Doctrine" was.


PROF. CHRIS PENCE (MARION, INDIANA): (From tape.) American diplomatic history books recount the Monroe Doctrine, the Truman Doctrine, and will likely discuss the Bush Doctrine. When future historians write of your administration’s foreign policy pursuits, what will be noted as your doctrine and the vision you cast for U.S. diplomatic relations?

…

SIEGEL: And Senator Biden, the Biden Doctrine.

SEN. BIDEN: Clarity. Prevention, not preemption. An absolute repudiation of this president's doctrine, which has only three legs in the stool: one, push the mute button, don't talk to anybody; two, preemption; and three, regime change. I would reject all three. We need a doctrine of prevention. The role of a great power is to prevent the crises. And we don't have to imagine any of the crises. We know what's going to happen on day one when you're president. You have Pakistan, Russia, China, the subcontinent of India. You have Afghanistan. You have Darfur. And it requires engagement — engagement and prevention. That does not rule out the use of force; it incorporates the notion of prevention — prevention.

I'm not holding Palin to a higher standard. John McCain certainly can characterize faces of the Bush Doctrine is in a way that someone who knows what the Bush Doctrine is would recognize ("preemptive"/"preventative", "push the mute button"/"don't negotiate with the enemy", etc.). Obama was citing the failures of the Bush Doctrine throughout 2007 in the "don't talk with the enemy" angle... he's been addressing this for a long time, now.

With us or against us and on and on.

But at least she knows how many states there are. :)

IH0xzsogzAk

http://www.obamawaffles.com/
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hNafTsdlgbSZ8YMoFRDSgrVlEwGwD9360EOO0

"They're at it again!! I wish they'd finally decide which gang of hooligans constitutes the government of this country!!" -- from "Doctor Zhivago"

Greenspan spanks McCain:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080913/ap_on_el_pr/mccain;_ylt=AhA1w_yas_d23XYvgsyUtYOs0NUE

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0CE0D9123EF936A35751C1A96F9582 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

In 1980, doctors reported Mr. McCain had a herpetic lesion on his genitals. The lesion was not tested to see if it was the herpes virus, and it healed without treatment. Dr. Ambrose said ''herpetic'' is a medical term describing any blisterlike lesion.

Doctors said Mr. McCain's time as a P.O.W. could have exposed him to forms of the herpes virus that were transmitted through his wounds.
This is from a long time ago, but I have to ask -- would anyone NOT have their testes tested for this shit if they had a nasty lesion?

How do you guys keep finding all these damning articles on McCain, yet nothing shows up on Fox News or CNN?

My biggest news source is http://news.google.com. For some of the other stuff, Bloglines and Google Blog Search are fun -- that's how I found out about McCain and possible herpes. (I could go to the hard left and hard right blogs direct, but they mostly annoy me.)

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/defense_mccain_FCS_091208/

igAmVs0cvY8
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/09/their_brand_is_collapse.html

Newsweek poll

White Women 11 pt swing to McCain since Palin

Interesting discussion this weekend about the "Bubba vote".

Chuck Todd (Meet the Press) was saying that they have identified (through polling) white "undecided voters" in key areas (primarily Michigan and Wisconsin) that proclaim that they are very dissatisfied with the direction of the country, are voting almost straight Dem for congressional and other candidates, but still proclaim to be "undecided" for President.

Todd says that it's likely that 70% of these "Bubbas" will vote for McCain.

Which is why I was saying, as far back as 2004, that I doubted that Obama could win.

Hopefully he can overcome it, but it's definitely there.

Interesting discussion this weekend about the "Bubba vote".

Chuck Todd (Meet the Press) was saying that they have identified (through polling) white "undecided voters" in key areas (primarily Michigan and Wisconsin) that proclaim that they are very dissatisfied with the direction of the country, are voting almost straight Dem for congressional and other candidates, but still proclaim to be "undecided" for President.

Todd says that it's likely that 70% of these "Bubbas" will vote for McCain.

Which is why I was saying, as far back as 2004, that I doubted that Obama could win.

Hopefully he can overcome it, but it's definitely there.

I'd tell those peeps...

:thatsracist:

j/k

More on the Bubbas:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-03-armey_N.htm

In the end, I believe, our country's ignorance will win this election. Not important issues, or the right person for the job (you know, the guy that will be better for the American people). No, the outcome will be determined by race or gender. I'm not sure why I'm surprised by this, but just watching this thing unfold has just been a depressing experience. And I am talking about both sides here. The overwhelming majority of voters will be uneducated on the candidates and will not be choosing on issues, but rather, automatic ideals.


:emo kid:

Interesting discussion this weekend about the "Bubba vote".

Chuck Todd (Meet the Press) was saying that they have identified (through polling) white "undecided voters" in key areas (primarily Michigan and Wisconsin) that proclaim that they are very dissatisfied with the direction of the country, are voting almost straight Dem for congressional and other candidates, but still proclaim to be "undecided" for President.

Todd says that it's likely that 70% of these "Bubbas" will vote for McCain.

The vast majority of "bubbas" are unafraid to say how they'll vote, AFAICT.

One thing that Michigan and Wisconsin have in common is a lack of party registration. You're more prone to that kind of polling as a consequence. Typically, the choice of presidential preference is the first question, so it's where your indy-minded person asserts their indepdendence. I'd expect it'd factor into "likely voter" models for most pollsters these days.

As for racism, black candidates' election results were in line with polling for most 2006 elections, in places more racist than the U.S. as a whole. Pollsters have a LOT more computing power and commercial information gathering than they did when the Bradley Effect was named. It's why gerrymandering has been much more effective. Obama won the primary because his campaign understood math much better than Hillary's.

HcDpLlRTO0k

Rove says McCain has gone too far:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/14/campaign.wrap/index.html

He must be out to prove that he's really a "fair and balanced" nice guy.

~cue DJ Karl Rove dancing~

Even Karl Rove had to admit yesterday that the McCain campaign's lies and negative attacks have gone "too far."

John McCain is running the most negative and dishonest campaign in modern presidential history. He has demonstrated that he'd rather lose his integrity than lose this election.

It's right out of the Bush-Rove playbook. Unfortunately, as Karl Rove knows better than anyone, these shameful tactics have worked in the past.

This year, we can't let that happen.

The culture of corruption and dishonesty that has hurt America so badly the last eight years is playing an even larger role in McCain's campaign.

Just this past week, John McCain hired a Washington super-lobbyist to fill positions in a potential McCain-Palin White House. At least 177 lobbyists have been on McCain's campaign staff, and apparently he hopes to run the White House the same way.

Also this week, the McCain campaign continued to repeat a number of outrageous lies, even after watchdogs in the media called them "shamelessly misleading," "thoroughly dishonest," and "a toxic mix of lies and double-speak."

They also lied about the crowd size at one of their rallies -- reporting 23,000 attendees when there were only 8,000.

McCain's campaign -- run on lobbyists and lies -- is no match for this unprecedented grassroots movement. More than 2,500,000 people have stepped up to own a piece of this campaign.

But if we want change, we must continue to grow this movement and put an end to these dishonorable political tactics. And we have just 50 days left to do it.

Right now, a previous donor -- an ordinary person just like you -- has promised to match your donation if you step up today.

Double your impact to combat McCain's dishonest campaign tactics -- make a matched donation of $5 or more today:

https://donate.barackobama.com/match

Thanks for all you do,


David Plouffe
Campaign Manager
Obama for America

http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/2004/first-choice

Gore invented the Internet, but McCain invented Wi-Fi!

http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=john-mccain-talks-science-says-hes-2008-09-15


Under my guiding hand, Congress developed a wireless spectrum policy that spurred the rapid rise of mobile phones and Wi-Fi technology

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3hx9ljxdy4
F3hx9ljxdy4

Gore invented the Internet, but McCain invented Wi-Fi!

http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=john-mccain-talks-science-says-hes-2008-09-15
That link doesn't work. Any chance you can give us a quick recap?

EDIT-

I found the full transcript answer to the technology question:


I am uniquely qualified to lead our nation during this technological revolution. While in the Navy, I depended upon the technologies and information provided by our nation’s scientists and engineers with during each mission. I am the former chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. The Committee plays a major role in the development of technology policy, specifically any legislation affecting communications services, the Internet, cable television and other technologies. Under my guiding hand, Congress developed a wireless spectrum policy that spurred the rapid rise of mobile phones and Wi-Fi technology that enables Americans to surf the web while sitting at a coffee shop, airport lounge, or public park.

Above all, my commitment to innovation is a commitment to the well-established entrepreneurial spirit and creativity of America’s thinkers and tinkerers whose inventions have improved our lives and promoted prosperity. To maintain American leadership, I believe we must nurture the conditions under which entrepreneurs can continue to prosper by bringing new innovators to market and the American people can reap the rewards.

What does it say about your commitment to something (the internet) when you won't even learn how to use it?

Hmmm... the entire site isn't working at the moment. I suspect it's temporary. Here's the deal:

As part of the campaigns answering questions about science, McCain (well, the McCain campaign on his behalf most likely) said: "Under my guiding hand, Congress developed a wireless spectrum policy that spurred the rapid rise of mobile phones and Wi-Fi technology that enables Americans to surf the web while sitting at a coffee shop, airport lounge, or public park."

Compare and contrast this with Al Gore and: "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet.", which famously got translated to Al Gore inventing the Internet.

So the logical conclusion is that John McCain created Wi-Fi as we know it. :)

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/MCCAIN_BLACKBERRY?SITE=VANOV&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Adviser says McCain helped create the BlackBerry

That comment from the McCain aide is part of the "McCain created Wi-Fi" stuff he spewed to the Science Debate 2008 folks. Oh my... it's amazing that he was able to do that without knowing how to send email.

Adviser says McCain helped create the BlackBerry


I believe this, McCain is older than fruit.

lol, maybe that's what he meant.

Did he also invent the boysenberry?

"boysenberry" is a hilarious berry.

Jeffrey Sachs, a renowned economist and special adviser to the U.N. secretary-general, said he blames the Bush administration for "ignoring the economy" and the Fed for increased deregulation.


Sachs said he thinks Obama's plan is "closer" to being on target, with his calls for regulation. McCain also has started talking about increased regulation, but Sachs said McCain has "reinvented himself in the last 24 hours" with such talk.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.ht m


WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview.

Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops - and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its "state of weakness and political confusion."

"However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open." Zebari says.

Though Obama claims the US presence is "illegal," he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the "weakened Bush administration," Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.

While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a "realistic withdrawal date." They declined.

Obama has made many contradictory statements with regard to Iraq. His latest position is that US combat troops should be out by 2010. Yet his effort to delay an agreement would make that withdrawal deadline impossible to meet.

Supposing he wins, Obama's administration wouldn't be fully operational before February - and naming a new ambassador to Baghdad and forming a new negotiation team might take longer still.

By then, Iraq will be in the throes of its own campaign season. Judging by the past two elections, forming a new coalition government may then take three months. So the Iraqi negotiating team might not be in place until next June.

Then, judging by how long the current talks have taken, restarting the process from scratch would leave the two sides needing at least six months to come up with a draft accord. That puts us at May 2010 for when the draft might be submitted to the Iraqi parliament - which might well need another six months to pass it into law.
Thus, the 2010 deadline fixed by Obama is a meaningless concept, thrown in as a sop to his anti-war base.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and the Bush administration have a more flexible timetable in mind.

According to Zebari, the envisaged time span is two or three years - departure in 2011 or 2012. That would let Iraq hold its next general election, the third since liberation, and resolve a number of domestic political issues.

Even then, the dates mentioned are only "notional," making the timing and the cadence of withdrawal conditional on realities on the ground as appreciated by both sides.

Iraqi leaders are divided over the US election. Iraqi President Jalal Talabani (whose party is a member of the Socialist International) sees Obama as "a man of the Left" - who, once elected, might change his opposition to Iraq's liberation. Indeed, say Talabani's advisers, a President Obama might be tempted to appropriate the victory that America has already won in Iraq by claiming that his intervention transformed failure into success.

Maliki's advisers have persuaded him that Obama will win - but the prime minister worries about the senator's "political debt to the anti-war lobby" - which is determined to transform Iraq into a disaster to prove that toppling Saddam Hussein was "the biggest strategic blunder in US history."

Other prominent Iraqi leaders, such as Vice President Adel Abdul-Mahdi and Kurdish regional President Massoud Barzani, believe that Sen. John McCain would show "a more realistic approach to Iraqi issues."

Obama has given Iraqis the impression that he doesn't want Iraq to appear anything like a success, let alone a victory, for America. The reason? He fears that the perception of US victory there might revive the Bush Doctrine of "pre-emptive" war - that is, removing a threat before it strikes at America.

Despite some usual equivocations on the subject, Obama rejects pre-emption as a legitimate form of self -defense. To be credible, his foreign-policy philosophy requires Iraq to be seen as a failure, a disaster, a quagmire, a pig with lipstick or any of the other apocalyptic adjectives used by the American defeat industry in the past five years.

Yet Iraq is doing much better than its friends hoped and its enemies feared. The UN mandate will be extended in December, and we may yet get an agreement on the status of forces before President Bush leaves the White House in January.


and then...THE "DENIAL"


http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hi9TDNHvuBZpFsO8ZbiFYsnbIl3A


In the New York Post, conservative Iranian-born columnist Amir Taheri quoted Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari as saying the Democrat made the demand when he visited Baghdad in July, while publicly demanding an early withdrawal.

Obama’s national security spokeswoman Wendy Morigi said Taheri’s article bore “as much resemblance to the truth as a McCain campaign commercial.”
In fact, Obama had told the Iraqis that they should not rush through a “Strategic Framework Agreement” governing the future of US forces until after President George W. Bush leaves office, she said.

WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT TAHERI WROTE!!!!

Obama's own spokeswoman confirmed what he denied...sounds like they got they're shit in order, huh?

Dude, you seriously need to improve your reading skills.

Explain, because I know your wrong on this, but amuse me DRay...please...

She confirmed what he denied...and what he denied, was something that would completely contradict what Obama has been telling us about how things are going in Iraq...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1Jr4YfSemk
F1Jr4YfSemk

Not rushing is not equivalent to delaying. It's as simple as that.

Furthermore, the fact that Obama asked for a realistic withdrawal date shows that he still wants to get out quickly, but understandably he doesn't want the Bush administration to rush to get a bunch of troops out to save face with independents. It's pretty clear to me.

Furthermore, the fact that Obama asked for a realistic withdrawal shows that he still wants to get out quickly, but understandably he doesn't want the Bush administration to rush to get a bunch of troops out to save face with independents. It's pretty clear to me.


No, he wants the credit for being able to tell the people that "he brought our troops back"...

if you interpreted it that way, than why did Obama deny involvment altogether with Zebari???

see, it makes no sense, he knows that things are getting done over there, but is never going to admit it...because he knows that anything positive that's going on right now in Iraq, is only going to be credited to Bush...

dudes just an empty shell...

Furthermore, the fact that Obama asked for a realistic withdrawal


Barack doesn't have the authority to ask for a withdrawal. He's a fucking senator, he doesn't have the legal right to authorize or negotiate with Iraqi leaders when our troops can be withdrawan...

I'm pretty sure he's admitted that things have been getting better along with the surge timeline. Funny that you think a dude's just an empty shell when you support the guy who has a lobbyist as a campaign adviser yet somehow tells people he will end the lobbyists in DC.

Barack doesn't have the authority to ask for a withdrawal. He's a fucking senator, he doesn't have the legal right to authorize or negotiate with Iraqi leaders when our troops can be withdrawan...
I said withdrawal date. Just like your fucking Republican campaign, putting words in my mouth.

Edit: on second check I left out the word date but you knew damn well what I meant, and you took it out of context.

He can't negotiate a withdrawal date either, he doesn't have the authority to do that.

Besides, he denied ever doing so, despite his spokeswoman saying he did.

Somebody (He) is obviously lying.

Funny that you think a dude's just an empty shell when you support the guy who has a lobbyist as a campaign adviser yet somehow tells people he will end the lobbyists in DC.

How does that correlate into Obama not being an empty shell?

Explain, because I know your wrong on this, but amuse me DRay...please...

She confirmed what he denied...and what he denied, was something that would completely contradict what Obama has been telling us about how things are going in Iraq...
The Iranian journalist at the NY Post has it critically wrong. The thing to know is that Obama was taking about the Status of Forces Agreements (SOFA) and Strategic Framework Agreement (SFA). Here's what was said at the time:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/16/1146329.aspx


He said he told Zebari that negotiations for a Status of Forces agreement or strategic framework agreement between the two countries should be done in the open and with Congress's authorization and that it was important that that there be strong bipartisan support for any agreement so that it can be sustained through a future administration. He argued it would make sense to hold off on such negotiations until the next administration.

Neither the SOFA nor SFA is about military deployments, withdrawals, and the like, not in a direct sense.

SOFAs are about things like tax issues, who has jurisdiction for crimes (not even war crimes) on Iraq soil, that kinda stuff. It's what we negotiate for peacetime military presences in Japan, South Korea, Kuwait, etc. or even if we just want flyover rights. SOFAs are a formal construct, and the NY Post article mistakenly lower-cases it as "status of forces" to demonstrate their ignorance. (Say, aren't Republicans supposed to be up on all this war shit, and pissing on Democrats who mixes up a brigade and a batallion?)

The SFA is a SEPARATE pseudo-treaty (because if it were a formal Treaty, it'd have to go through Congress) which has both military and non-military components -- debt forgiveness, financial aid (how much of that $79 billion Iraqi budget surplus do we get?), do we have create some kind of NATO-like deal, all that shit. There's lots of military and non-military shit we want from each other, and hashing that out is contentious. Yes, this is the "do we maintain a base in Iraq after withdrawing most of our troops" deal, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. It's not principally about withdrawal, but the overall relationship, especially the overall relationship AFTER withdrawal. The AFP rebuttal article mischaracterized the SFA as being just about troops, and that's only part of it.

Obama saying to delay the SOFA and SFA until the next U.S. presidency has little to do with phased withdrawal at this stage.

if you interpreted it that way, than why did Obama deny involvment altogether with Zebari???
Cite me where Obama denied involvement altogether with Zebari.

I don't see such a denial in either:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.ht m?page=0
or:
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hi9TDNHvuBZpFsO8ZbiFYsnbIl3A

The meeting was mischaracterized by the Iranian NY Post journalist (who Republicans are lining up to support, because the Republicans just love them Iranians, yessirree), but never denied.

Put up or shut up.

So let me get this straight,


- NY Post says Barack talks to Zebari to negotiate withdrawal date after election

- Barack denys talking to Zebari altogether

- Barack's security spokeswoman says he did infact talk to Zebari, and confirmed the previous article from the NY Post

- Obama calls a teleconference to reiterate what he did talk to Zebari about, and ends up saying that what Zebari, the NY post AND his security spokeswoman said is innaccurate...


Please.

Don't be too facetious Barack, you have nobody to back you up.

Cite me where Obama denied involvement altogether with Zebari.

I don't see such a denial in either:


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2082989/posts


Obama Camp Denies he tried to delay withdrawal agreement of troops from Iraq

A top foreign policy adviser to Obama sat in on the meetings between the candidate and Iraqi officials this summer and said no such conversations occurred, the campaign said Monday.

“It should be concerning to all that he reportedly urged that the democratically-elected Iraqi government listen to him rather than the U.S. administration in power."

Again, Barack has NOBODY that can back him up on his claims.

McCain doesn't have the authority to ask for a withdrawal. He's a fucking senator, he doesn't have the legal right to authorize or negotiate with Georgian leaders when our troops can be deployed...
Fixed.

Also, keep in mind, that the denial of having talked to Zaberi article is from Yesterday, whereas the link you submitted where he "reiterated" what he did talk with Zebari about, was from today...

if his spokeswoman wouldn't have spilled the beans, he wouldn't have had to do a tele-conference

So...yikes.

Fixed.


He never did negotiate it. Obviously each of them have a plan, but they don't have the political authority to begin acting upon their plans until they're elected.

And while McCain hasn't, Obama has...

Obama Camp Denies he tried to delay withdrawal agreement of troops from Iraq

A top foreign policy adviser to Obama sat in on the meetings between the candidate and Iraqi officials this summer and said no such conversations occurred, the campaign said Monday.
As noted, the stuff that Zebari and Obama did talk about WASN'T withdrawal agreements. So, there was no SUCH conversation.

BTW, you and I have had no such conversation about your converting into a left-wing tool. That doesn't mean we haven't had other conversations. :)

He never did negotiate it. Obviously each of them have a plan, but they don't have the political authority to begin acting upon their plans until they're elected.
The issue of what a Senator can and can't negotiate in the way of foreign affairs can be complex. You're right in that military issues are the purview of the President. But treaties require 2/3rd Senate approval -- Article II of some famous document somewhere says that. Typically, the compromise has been for the President and a bipartisan gaggle of Senators to be in on negotiations, so that treaty approval by the Senate is pretty much a formality.

However, in the case of the SFA, Bush has been attempting to bypass Congressional approval by conducting what are seemingly treaty negotiations under the guise of non-treaty things, by mixing military and non-military objectives within the same deal. It's unclear what the path of recourse actually is when the Senate is bypassed in such negotiations.

Quite independently of that, it's very likely that any non-treaty "thing" that one administration without broad bipartisan support would negotiate would be "renegotiated" (perhaps in a Darth Vader "the deal is altered" way) by who comes next. Of course, I'm sure the Republicans are just eager as shit to remind the American public about how dumb Bush has been with unilateral bullshit. ;)

"Every part of America's economy, I oversighted."
-John McCain's Tombstone?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEApjPqPch8
OEApjPqPch8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1Jr4YfSemk
F1Jr4YfSemk

The COMPLETE answer is available on Youtube.

Left wing smear merchants.

Is Rachel Maddow a lesbian?

The COMPLETE answer is available on Youtube.

Left wing smear merchants.
Uhh... the complete question and answer isn't better, Tahoe. The complete answer includes a bigass McCain flip-flop. Here's the complete text that relates to the question.


SMITH: Let me ask you this. Earlier this year on the campaign trail, you said -- or you admitted that you didn't know a lot about the economy. Why should voters trust you in these perilous times with the economy of the United States?

MCCAIN: You know, that's one of the interesting things about having long conversations. The point is, I was chairman of the Commerce Committee. Every part of America's economy, I oversighted. I have a long record, certainly far more extensive of being involved in our economy than Senator Obama does. I understand the economy. I know the issues-

SMITH: Well, if that's the case, wouldn't you bear more responsibility for some of the crisis we're in then?

MCCAIN: I warned about it. I have said that this Fannie and Freddie thing was of the most grave importance. And the point also is that Senator Obama took -- he's the third highest recipient of contributions from Fannie and Freddie. But the real point is here that it's greed, excess, corruption. We're not going to stand for it. We need to make sure that every person who's bank deposit -- has made a bank deposit in a bank, is insured. We need to set up a 9/11 Commission in order to get to the bottom of this and get it fixed, and act to clean up this corruption.
Clean up the corruption? Please... this is the same John McCain who's been strongly against regulation to prevent such corruption. Fuck, the title of a Wall Street Journal article from earlier this year is:

'I'm Always for Less Regulation'
McCain's Economic Thinking
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120431596193503527.html?mod=article-outset-box

The COMPLETE answer is available on Youtube.

Left wing smear merchants.

Here is Fiorina's complete answer

CnBXXssj0KY

Zebari has a history of making shit up, although that's a plus for truthiness denizens of the right:



The neoconservative campaign to equate Iran with Nazi Germany received a setback in May. Bloggers and a few journalists quickly exposed as wholly concocted a story about a new law that would require Iranian Jews to wear yellow insignia. Within days the National Post of Canada--founded by disgraced neocon media mogul Conrad Black and now owned by the no less hawkish Asper family--was forced to apologize publicly for its "scoop." But by then the New York Post, Rush Limbaugh, the Drudge Report, right-wing blogs and some wire services had picked up the claim, bringing the phony news to millions.

Few ran retractions. And despite the debunking, the story's powerful visual imagery was likely lasting for casual readers. Over headlines blaring Iran, some papers ran photos of Jews from the Nazi era wearing the yellow stars that separated them from their fellow citizens before their slaughter.

Nevertheless, the debunking exposed the moving parts of a media machine intent on priming the public for war with Iran--as it did earlier with stories about Iraq's nonexistent WMD. Ubiquitous in this campaign, as it was with Iraq, is the PR firm Benador Associates. Its president, Eleana Benador, told me it was her agency that placed the article with the National Post. Its stable of writers and activists, a Who's Who of the neocon movement, includes Richard Perle, Michael Ledeen, Frank Gaffney, Charles Krauthammer, Victor Davis Hanson and Iranian exile journalist Amir Taheri--the author of the bogus piece. Even among a crowd notable for wrongheaded analyses, Taheri stands out, with a rap sheet that leaves one amazed that he continues to be published. It is here that the role of Benador is key; the firm gives Taheri a political stamp of approval that provides entree to hawkish media venues, where journalistic criteria are secondary.

It was in 1989 that Taheri was first exposed as a journalistic felon. The book he published the year before, Nest of Spies, examined the rule and fall of the Shah of Iran. Taheri received many respectful reviews, but in The New Republic Shaul Bakhash, a reigning doyen of Persian studies, checked Taheri's footnotes. Suddenly a book review became an investigative exposé. Bakhash, a history professor at George Mason University and a former fellow at Princeton's Institute for Advanced Study, detailed case after case in which Taheri cited nonexistent sources, concocted nonexistent substance in cases where the sources existed and distorted the substance beyond recognition when it was present. Taheri "repeatedly refers us to books where the information he cites simply does not exist," Bakhash wrote. "Often the documents cannot be found in the volumes to which he attributes them.... [He] repeatedly reads things into the documents that are simply not there." In one case, noted Bakhash, Taheri cited an earlier article of his own--but offered content he himself never wrote in that article. Bakhash concluded that Nest of Spies was "the sort of book that gives contemporary history a bad name." In a response published two months later, Taheri failed to rebut Bakhash's charges.

Yet, thanks to Benador and the outlets that publish its writers, Taheri survived to publish again. And again. The concoctions continued, with the full knowledge of his enablers. In a New York Post column last year, Taheri identified Iran's UN ambassador, Javad Zarif, as one of the students involved in the illegal 1979 seizure of hostages at the US Embassy in Tehran. San Francisco State University professor Dwight Simpson wrote the Post politely to request a correction. "This allegation is false," he explained. "On November 4, 1979 [the day of the seizure], Javad Zarif was in San Francisco. He was then a graduate student in the Department of International Relations of San Francisco State University. He was my student, and he served also as my teaching assistant."

"The newspaper didn't print the letter, and I never got an acknowledgment," Simpson told me. When an Iranian friend of Simpson's, Kaveh Afrasiabi, called Eleana Benador about the error, she initially promised to seek a retraction from Taheri if he faxed her Simpson's letter, Afrasiabi related. When he followed up, "she became hysterical," he said. And when Afrasiabi called Taheri himself, "he hung up on me."

Taheri was unreachable by phone. But Benador, who said her client was "traveling in the Middle East," was impatient with dissections of his work. Terming accuracy with regard to Iran "a luxury," she said, "My major concern is the large picture. Is Taheri writing one or two details that are not accurate? This is a guy who is putting his life at stake." She noted that "the Iranian government has killed its opponents." Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "says he wants to destroy Israel. He says the Holocaust never happened.... As much as being accurate is important, in the end it's important to side with what's right. What's wrong is siding with the terrorists."

Taheri might seem to be one of Benador's biggest liabilities. In fact, he is right now the agency's proudest coup. On May 30--just days after the National Post's apology for running his false story on Iranian Jews--Taheri was one of a group of "Iraq experts" brought to the White House to consult with George W. Bush on the disastrous situation there. Who needs Hill & Knowlton when you've got Benador Associates?


http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060703/cohleresses

The original interview was on a radio show. she was already in bullshit mode by that interview, but McCain also believes that the "fundamentals" of the economy are workers, right?


Here is Fiorina's complete answer

CnBXXssj0KY

The COMPLETE answer is available on Youtube.

Left wing smear merchants.
Ok, I'm confused.

I posted the complete text of the question, the answer, the related followup question, and its answer. I even got that text from a conservative blog somewhere.

So why are you posting this again? <confused>

The complete Q&A, a series of questions and answers, is up there on YouTube I reckon, but I don't see where that's needed to get enough context. I don't think I'm twisting anything. I'm missing something.

Some of McCain's gaffes are interesting. He'll mix some contrarian stuff into otherwise-reasonably messages, turning so-called "straight talk" into a bunch of doubletalk. In the midst of an economic meltdown, if I were to say: "I feel your pain and it sucks. Still, the fundamentals of our economy are strong. But yeah, things are really bad right now.", I'd expect to be called out on it. Add all the context you want, and it still sounds out of touch during what is clearly an economic meltdown.

A third party candidate emerges -- could it be trouble for McCain?
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/85698?utm_source=embedded_video

It goes back to the youtube clip you posted at 917.

Ahhh... gotcha, Tahoe. The context doesn't add much. She attacked all candidates on CEO qualifications. But she's is there to be a McCain campaign spokesperson. That's wandering off the plantation big time, and just makes the campaign look stupid. It's not like I give a fuck about what Fiorina thinks. Given her tenure at HP, her saying that someone isn't qualified would make me want to give them a second look. :)

BO doesn't know what AIG is. For talking so much about everything, you'd think he, or his camp, would know what it is.

BO doesn't know what AIG is. For talking so much about everything, you'd think he, or his camp, would know what it is.
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/09/obama_has_aig_on_his_face_gop.html

McCain said SPIC repeatedly when it's really SIPC. Much worse.

Dilbert and economists:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/16/dilbert.economy/index.html

That appears almost entirely useless. I'm sure it was costly though as I work in the survey field.

I mean really, academics think education is the biggest factor on their field of study? ASTONISHING! (and I'm generally pro-education in EVERY issue)

It appears that McCain told Carly Fiorina "thanks, but no thanks" on that continuing to "help out" on the campaign thing.

Apparently, if they want to try to win, they'll do it themselves.

That's a net-plus for McCain. Having a disgraced CEO like Fiorina as front-person for McCainomics was a bad joke long before her ego gaffe.

McCain tries to pretend that he's for progressive stem cell research:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-2ayFo3BXs

but then says weasel words otherwise:

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/09/mccain-on-stem.html

Oh, and this is amusing:

Despite Claims Today He Warned of this Crisis, McCain in 2007 Said He Didn't See This Crisis Coming
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/despite-claims.html

And McCain impresses the Spanish media by not knowing who the president of Spain was:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/217710.php

Did anyone notice that Glenn was not posting during the McCain/Palin visit to GR?

I think he sees the light.

Don't go off on him too hard though. This is America. I will defend Glenns right to vote for war hero, that was a POW.

The View just got Republicans more votes.

Its so blatant bias that it actually made news or something, on CNN, Fox and shit.

Unbelievable.

Its really too bad neither of these Libs running for office this year have the balls to committ political suicide and say, yea there are bad guys up in Wall Street but 'some' of the American peeps went out and got these loans knowing damn well they couldn't pay them back.

We can't have any responsibility put on voters. Oh no. Its all the bad guys in the big corps.

There is no conservative voice in this election on this. I watched some of McCains TH in GR. Peeps would say, What are you going to do....? Every answer is "We are going to give you a tax credit" We are going to give you a tax break" We are going to write more legislationg" <---that will end up strangling our economy.

They are all a bunch of pandering fucking thieves.

And hell no, I don't feel any better after that rant.

Fucking mother fucking son of a bitchin god damn mother fuckin sons a bitchen thieves. fuck

Its really too bad neither of these Libs running for office this year have the balls to committ political suicide and say, yea there are bad guys up in Wall Street but 'some' of the American peeps went out and got these loans knowing damn well they couldn't pay them back.

We are going to write more legislationg" <---that will end up strangling our economy.


1. those people lost their homes and fucked up their credit. unlike the high paid executives they were 'punished' for taking out a bad loan.

2. no one forced the banks to make those loans. why shouldn't they be held accountable for sucking at their jobs? the banks thought they would make out well either way since they believed houseing values would continue to rise. if there was intentional accounting fraud (i.e. worldcom, enron), those fuckers should be thrown in jail.

3. the credit rating agencies gave those piles of shit ('financial instruments') high ratings, which fucked up our economy and others. where is the punishment for those people. did they get fired? were they bribed? why shouldn't these instruments and those rating agencies be better regulated?

4. the banking industry pushed very hard for the de-regulation that allowed them to make their shitty new instruments. without that deregulation, there would no cdo's. however, it's because of people mortgage seekers' fault right?

5. honestly, what do you really know about regulation? i know you like to regurgitate the repub talking points, but how many times do they have to be wrong before you realize that they are morons? seriously, you have no clue. properly implemented, regulation should even the playing field so that ceo's aren't allowed to write their own rules, deceive stockholders, and fuck over everyone else. No one wants over-regulation, but to argue that we are under-regulated is fucking retarded at this point.

Its really too bad neither of these Libs running for office this year have the balls to committ political suicide and say, yea there are bad guys up in Wall Street but 'some' of the American peeps went out and got these loans knowing damn well they couldn't pay them back.
Obama's said precisely that -- commercials talking about not rewarding investors and speculators (and indeed, people who get loans knowing damn well they couldn't pay but did so anyway are speculators). And, some folks called it political suicide. Check this thread out:

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_(A_to_Z)/Stocks_F/threadview?m=tm&bn=7179&tid=296142&mid=296142&tof=9&frt=2


We can't have any responsibility put on voters. Oh no. Its all the bad guys in the big corps.

There is no conservative voice in this election on this. I watched some of McCains TH in GR. Peeps would say, What are you going to do....? Every answer is "We are going to give you a tax credit" We are going to give you a tax break" We are going to write more legislationg" <---that will end up strangling our economy.

They are all a bunch of pandering fucking thieves.

And hell no, I don't feel any better after that rant.

Fucking mother fucking son of a bitchin god damn mother fuckin sons a bitchen thieves. fuck
Waitasec... the conservative thing to do to fix a crisis IS to give tax breaks and credits! You stimulate the economy by reducing taxes! That comes down from Reaganomics and conservative dogma (even though that's being proven wrong yet again). You have a problem with tax cuts? What are you, Tahoe, a commie pinko liberal? I'm gonna tell Grover Norquist...

Like Dick DeVos in the recent Michigan gubernatorial election, McCain has proposed tax cuts without giving a solid idea of what programs will be cut. He focuses on earmarks, hoping no one will really notice that earmarks are tiny in the grand scheme of things. He hasn't said what big programs he'll cut badly to balance the budget. Note that the largest things in our budget that are out-of-whack relative to the budgets of most other larger countries are our military costs and healthcare/social security costs.

The View just got Republicans more votes.

Its so blatant bias that it actually made news or something, on CNN, Fox and shit.

Unbelievable.
I take it that Elizabeth Hasselbeck is part of that? Or is she simply a token righty tool of the left, like Alan Colmes is a token lefty tool for the right?

Honestly, McCain being on there himself instead of sending Palin/Cindy/Carly or some other female surrogate was stupid. He should've braced himself better for not getting any love on the show. He'd been on the show just 5 months earlier and was grilled quite a bit back then. If you think McCain went there so he could be "punk'd" as a gambit to attract more Republicans votes and he let that happen, what does that say about his judgement? Folks from the Obama camp didn't complain much when he went on O'Reilly.

Here's the author of "Citizen McCain", a somewhat-popular pro-McCain book back in 2002, who's now bashing McCain:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13541.html

Did anyone notice that Glenn was not posting during the McCain/Palin visit to GR?

I think he sees the light.

Don't go off on him too hard though. This is America. I will defend Glenns right to vote for war hero, that was a POW.
Glenn, did you visit your local GOP office? Have you made your decision for Christ? Are you gonna take it? Are you man enough to take it?

http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/09/17/mcpalin-town-hall-was-pre-ticketed/

Remember, second prize is a set of steak knives.

The GR Chamber is putting on their first Regional Policy Conference today and tomorrow. It's a similar concept to the annual Detroit Chamber Mackinac Conference. Anyhoo, since McCain and Palin stayed the night in GR last night, there are "rumors flying" that they might do a "surprise visit" on these 600 business/government leaders today, which is especially interesting since Granholm declined her invite to go to Japan and try to lure some jobs back to Michigan.

So, I know where you can find 600 right wing evangelical Dutch that are angry with Granholm if anybody needs 'em.

Jesus Christ, I can't say shit anymore without an argument.

The sky is blue...sometimes for Christ sakes.

I mean keeping peeps in the military past year 4 is a problem. So JM's plan is to INCREASE the benis of the GI bill a lot, but pay them the course of a career and y'all argue that. That dosnt make sense to you cuz it comes from a Repub.

So if you have a problem keeping peeps in any career to year 5, y'all want to give them ALL their benis in year 4. Wow, that makes sense. That'll keep them around.

Y'all are just argueing to argue.

Jesus Christ, at least Geerusell concedes a point here and there.

Ok, now I'm starting to feel better.

Obama's said precisely that -- commercials talking about not rewarding investors and speculators (and indeed, people who get loans knowing damn well they couldn't pay but did so anyway are speculators). And, some folks called it political suicide. Check this thread out:

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_(A_to_Z)/Stocks_F/threadview?m=tm&bn=7179&tid=296142&mid=296142&tof=9&frt=2


Waitasec... the conservative thing to do to fix a crisis IS to give tax breaks and credits! You stimulate the economy by reducing taxes! That comes down from Reaganomics and conservative dogma (even though that's being proven wrong yet again). You have a problem with tax cuts? What are you, Tahoe, a commie pinko liberal? I'm gonna tell Grover Norquist...

Like Dick DeVos in the recent Michigan gubernatorial election, McCain has proposed tax cuts without giving a solid idea of what programs will be cut. He focuses on earmarks, hoping no one will really notice that earmarks are tiny in the grand scheme of things. He hasn't said what big programs he'll cut badly to balance the budget. Note that the largest things in our budget that are out-of-whack relative to the budgets of most other larger countries are our military costs and healthcare/social security costs.

He can say whatever he wants. He's still going to steal from the peeps who make money and give it to the less wealthy.

His programs cost way more than he is going to bring in.

Yesterday, He said he may delay his tax hikes if elected, cuz of the condition the economy is in. If thats not admitting that his plan will fuck up the econonmy I don't know what it.

He's been saying that for weeks. Effectively, the idea was that he might not rescind the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy earlier than they expire on their own (end of 2010) if we were in a formal recession. It's something he's committed to doing as president, but perhaps not instantaneously. It got a decent response from Wall Street:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122091851312912585.html?mod=article-outset-box

As for budgets that exceed what there's money for, McCain's tax cuts without any tax hike are $3 trillion more than Obama over the next 10 years. McCain's talked about balancing the budget, but he hasn't shown any indication of what he'd cut, so all his tax cuts just add to the national debt until he does that. Obama has shown some willingness to tax at the high end and de-escalate in Iraq to counterbalance the middle-class breaks. What Obama doesn't do is to counterbalance the enormous debt the administration is acquiring with FM, FM, AIG, etc. There's no way to do that at this time.

McCain ad for Michigan only:

Lk_zBZ-pjHs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lk_zBZ-pjHs

That's a bad ... smirkish-thing at the end there.

And to show you how badly these scumbags want Michigan, here they are with their latest voter supression tactics:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/m.s.-bellows/dems-sue-gop-for-voter-su_b_127300.html

Today, it's loans for assembly lines. One month ago:
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080813/NEWS15/80813059

On a local note, McCain told reporters at the Townsend Hotel that he doesn’t think it’s prudent to promise loan guarantees for the auto industry to help with economic problems.

“I’ve had meetings with the Big 3 and they are confident with the new hybrids, flex fuel vehicles and other technological advances, that they will succeed,” he said. “I worry about us predicting failure on the part of automakers when they’ve made strides on things like labor agreements.”
Pander.

And to show you how badly these scumbags want Michigan, here they are with their latest voter supression tactics:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/m.s.-bellows/dems-sue-gop-for-voter-su_b_127300.html

They are only scumbags if they have a (R) or a (D) or an (I) after their name describing their political affiliation.

Y'all don't forget to vote. Choices are between a moderate Democrat, John McCain or a Socialist.

Y'all don't forget to vote. Choices are between a moderate Democrat, John McCain or a Socialist.
Didn't you get the memo?

Conservative Republicans are now socialists, bailing out the capitalist scum. It's front page news. So, that would make McCain a Communist and Obama would be an angry black man. :)

I still don't think McCain is disorganized enough to be a Democrat, but he's working at it.

Y'all don't forget to vote. Choices are between a moderate Democrat, John McCain or a Socialist.

Please explain exactly what makes mccain a moderate democrat?
his zealous support for the iraq war?
his bellicosity on iran?
his desire to privatize social security?
his constant calls for deregulation (until this week)?
his votes against abortion rights?
his votes for unlimited govt. surveillance?
his budget busting desire for tax cuts for the wealthy?
his doubtlessly sincere conversion to Baptist theology?

so which of those policies make mccain the democrat???
so what makes mccain a dem: campaign finance reform? the judicial compromise? his slight opposition to torture? the vote against bush tax cuts (which passed anyway and which he now wants to expand?)

Also do you really think barney frank has more control over wall st. and the finance industry than the bush-appointed treasury sec., the bush-appointed head of the SEC, all the past dergulation zealously supported by republicans BEFORE 2007? Your party pushed for all the primary causes of this crash- these causes were put in place way before barney frank was given the reigns of the house banking committee. You are just trying to scapegoat others because you followed republican philosophy like a rat to the pied piper. Own the shit your party's philosophy created. barney frank is no financial genius, but he didn't create this shit, the non-socialists deregulators and tax cutters did. their complicity is not quite as bad as it was for enron (wholly repub operated and lobbied for), but repubs set this disaster in motion and your guy bush put the final nail in the coffin. If you are so certain barney frank is to blame, tell us what he should have done? own it and stop whining about 'socialists and moderate dems'. I assume you don't know much about history because fdr policies (which you would surely call socialist) helped pull us out of a financial meltdown that was precipitated by many of the root causes associated with this meltdown.

Didn't you get the memo?

Conservative Republicans are now socialists, bailing out the capitalist scum. It's front page news. So, that would make McCain a Communist and Obama would be an angry black man. :)

I still don't think McCain is disorganized enough to be a Democrat, but he's working at it.

lol. Great point and don't think I haven't been noticing.

I'm don't claim to know everything that happened in all of this but I do NOT want to bail these things out, unless it means an all out 29 type depression.

It just goes against the fundamentals of free markets.

Then we go and buy AIG. Some say, we might actually make money on that one, but who cares. Its wrong and they have learned nothing.

He's been saying that for weeks. Effectively, the idea was that he might not rescind the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy earlier than they expire on their own (end of 2010) if we were in a formal recession. It's something he's committed to doing as president, but perhaps not instantaneously. It got a decent response from Wall Street:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122091851312912585.html?mod=article-outset-box

As for budgets that exceed what there's money for, McCain's tax cuts without any tax hike are $3 trillion more than Obama over the next 10 years. McCain's talked about balancing the budget, but he hasn't shown any indication of what he'd cut, so all his tax cuts just add to the national debt until he does that. Obama has shown some willingness to tax at the high end and de-escalate in Iraq to counterbalance the middle-class breaks. What Obama doesn't do is to counterbalance the enormous debt the administration is acquiring with FM, FM, AIG, etc. There's no way to do that at this time.

Well its a good thing Politicians are such liars, cuz if they gave everything they promised everyone to get elected, or we'd be further in debt.

A side note: I really don't mind having more debt as opposed to raising taxes. We've been through these things before and when the economy comes around, we pay it back. Or we SHOULD pay it back.

With the current mess in the banking industry that McCain and the Republicans have gotten us into, just imagine what a mess Social Security would be right now if they had succeeded in privitizing it.

Talk about the next great depression.

A side note: I really don't mind having more debt as opposed to raising taxes. We've been through these things before and when the economy comes around, we pay it back. Or we SHOULD pay it back.
Unfortunately we have a fuck-ton of debt already. Past a certain point, too much borrowing morphs into the '80s-era U.S.S.R. Unlike a mortgage, that kind of debt can't be locked to a fixed interest rate. Also, unlike decades past, we don't have institutional sanity to pay debt. That went away with the advent of the First Church of the Credit Card. At the first hint of surplus, just like the RHCP song says, we'll "give-it-away give-it-away give-it-away now". Neither party has the backing to do otherwise. Accumulating debt is a valid means of dealing with emergencies. But when everything is spun as an emergency, things get stupid in a hurry.

Given the stupidity with which most folks manage money and accumulate debt, we need to start demanding some intelligence, responsibility, and sane priorities from ourselves as much as our politicians.

A former publisher of the National Review, a conservative mainstay, has come out for Obama:

http://www.dmagazine.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?nm=Core+Pages&type=gen&mod=Core+Pages&tier=3&gid=B33A5C6E2CF04C9596A3EF81822D9F8E

McCain's gaffe about Spain is coming out:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1842156,00.html?imw=Y

Either he was hard of hearing, ignorant of who Zapatero was, or was aware and pushing bad foreign policy. It doesn't matter -- it's not good for McCain with the Hispanic vote and beyond.

On that note, Obama's being somewhat sleazy in his latest Spanish ad, likening McCain to Rush Limbaugh's antics. While that's not the case, it does remind the Hispanic voters that there's a strong racist anti-immigrant streak among the Reps and forces McCain to either eat it or throw Rush Limbaugh over a bus. This is very much like Obama being forced to defend Farrakhan and getting smeared on the Jewish vote at every opportunity, only now the shoe's on the other foot.

Here are some interesting comments from conservative columnist George Will (who was the keynote speaker at the policy conference in Grand Rapids last night).

George Will blends humor and anger

Using his knowledge and love of baseball, lifelong Chicago Cub fan George Will wowed the Chamber’s Regional Policy Conference dinner audience Thursday with his irreverent views on the political situation in Washington, the economy, baseball and the Presidential race. He managed to add some harsh words for both President Bush and John McCain.

He had fun with his baseball anecdotes, especially with the success of the “Chicago Cubs’ 100 year rebuilding effort finally paying off,” and “You know that every team can have a bad century.”

McCain was cited by Will for the “honorable” positions he frequently takes when discussing his views and positions, which make it difficult for anyone to have serious policy disagreements with anything he says without seeming dishonorable. Will suggested this characteristic display of righteous indignation by McCain will contribute to more polarization in Washington, not less as promised, should the McCain-Palin ticket win in November.

He called George Bush "the most liberal President in the history of the US," due to the growth of the federal government under his watch, especially taking on the debt of huge corporations. Will admitted, in spite of his lifelong conservative credentials, he was angry with the Bush administration for all these recent huge bailouts and other federal power grabs. He expressed concern that this will only lead to more efforts by corporations to get similar bailouts. So the policy implications of all this are “profits are viewed as private, but losses are public.” That is not a good policy for this country.

The danger, of course, from all this mountain of debt is the only way (or, the usual way) the federal government reduces debt is to encourage inflation. This is not a good prescription for our country.

http://grbusinessjournal.blogspot.com/

McCain calls for firing the head of the SEC. Of course, as an independent body, appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, the head of the SEC -can't- be fired by the President. Doh!

And on an unrelated note...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvFiHpIdTLc
UvFiHpIdTLc

He would do it anyways.

He's a maverick like that.

Washington Post


As Michigan Goes . . .

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Friday, September 19, 2008; A19

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. -- If he carries Michigan, many routes to victory are open for Barack Obama. Without Michigan, he's got a big problem.

This state, which was living with economic catastrophe long before this week's Wall Street meltdown, could be to this election what Ohio was in 2004 and Florida was in 2000.

And voters here are so angry -- about unemployment at 9 percent and some of the country's highest rates of foreclosures and outbound one-way U-Haul rentals -- that no one is certain where they will lash out.

"What's challenging about Michigan is that they've suffered this economy in its worst form," said Stan Greenberg, a Democratic pollster who has studied the state for years. "They blame the Democratic governor and the Democratic Party, and the Republican president and the Republican Party, and an elite they believe sold out their state."

It's no wonder, then, that John McCain and Sarah Palin held their first joint town hall meeting in this solidly Republican city Wednesday, or that McCain played his newly discovered populist tune during a visit earlier in the day at a General Motors plant. "We are not going to leave the workers here in Michigan hung out to dry," McCain said, "while we give billions in taxpayer dollars to Wall Street."

It's also no wonder that Detroit, Grand Rapids and Flint were three of the top five media markets nationally for political advertisements in the week after the party conventions, according to the University of Wisconsin Advertising Project. Grand Rapids alone saw 1,197 of them.

Michigan matters hugely because it will be exceedingly difficult for Obama to assemble an electoral college majority unless he holds virtually every state carried by John Kerry four years ago. This is the most vulnerable of the big Kerry states. "Michigan," says Greenberg, "is the key to the whole map."

Most polls have given Obama a small lead, but he has special problems here. Because of the Democrats' wrangle over delegate rules, Obama did not campaign in the state's primary. "There's a lot of catch-up going on," says Sen. Debbie Stabenow, a Democrat.

Republicans are also trying to link Obama to Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm, whose popularity has suffered with the economy. Saul Anuzis, chairman of the state Republican Party, describes Granholm as "an articulate, attractive woman who happens to be a Harvard graduate," generous words that he uses as a stiletto against Granholm's fellow Harvard Law graduate Obama.

"If you like what Jennifer Granholm has done in Michigan, you'll love what Barack Obama will do for America," says Anuzis, reciting the Republicans' battle cry. But Democrats such as Stabenow scoff at the idea that Republicans will be able to use Granholm to dodge local ire over President Bush's policies.

The choice of Palin has been helpful to McCain in western Michigan, with its large constituency of conservative Christians. On Wednesday, the faithful here greeted her with loud cries of "Sarah! Sarah! Sarah!" And noting the Palin family's penchant for snowmobiling, Anuzis reports that Michigan has the largest number of registered snowmobiles in the country -- more than 300,000, according to the American Council of Snowmobile Associations.

Obama is counting on a huge African American vote in Detroit, but the city's politics are in turmoil following Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick's departure from office yesterday as part of a plea agreement related to perjury charges. Anuzis said the controversy has left the Detroit Democratic organization "splintered and divided." And a pro-McCain group has run an ad, clearly aimed at white suburban voters, linking Obama and Kilpatrick.

Anuzis is one of the few Republican politicians who say openly that Obama's race is an inescapable factor in the election. "Racism, like sexism, is not something people admit to," he says. He notes that McCain voters typically offer diverse reasons for supporting their candidate over Obama. His conclusion: "When they have five or six reasons, it's usually for another reason they don't want to mention."

"It is one of the most taboo subjects people can talk about," Anuzis adds. "Every time I bring it up, people cringe."

But by forcing Obama to sharpen his economic appeal, the bad news from Wall Street may prove to be a particularly potent tonic for his chances here. Former Democratic representative David Bonior believes that a very bad economy will brush aside "the Reagan Democrat social issues that are normally important in our state." So does Stabenow.

"For us to win Michigan, people have to understand that Barack Obama is going to put people back to work," she says. "That's going to trump every other division in the state."

And a pro-McCain group has run an ad, clearly aimed at white suburban voters, linking Obama and Kilpatrick.

Just unreal.

Shouldn't be surprising, I suppose.

I think there's too much Kwame fatigue for those comparisons to do much good. They've already painted over his name on the Detroit Zoo watertower. I wonder how many nanoseconds it took after Kwame's fall for that to go down. Speaking of which, here's some equal opportunity local amusement. Either the Dems can be amused at folks chanting Obama as McCain leaves SE Michigan, or Reps can be amused at Olbermann botching how to say "Lake Orion". I post, you decide. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_WqNmD8TE0
K_WqNmD8TE0

Unfortunately we have a fuck-ton of debt already. Past a certain point, too much borrowing morphs into the '80s-era U.S.S.R. Unlike a mortgage, that kind of debt can't be locked to a fixed interest rate. Also, unlike decades past, we don't have institutional sanity to pay debt. That went away with the advent of the First Church of the Credit Card. At the first hint of surplus, just like the RHCP song says, we'll "give-it-away give-it-away give-it-away now". Neither party has the backing to do otherwise. Accumulating debt is a valid means of dealing with emergencies. But when everything is spun as an emergency, things get stupid in a hurry.

Given the stupidity with which most folks manage money and accumulate debt, we need to start demanding some intelligence, responsibility, and sane priorities from ourselves as much as our politicians.

But I don't think we're that far out of whack with our GDP or something.

Its not good, but raising taxes on corporations right now = DUMB! Raising taxes anytime is pretty dumb, imo though.

Just unreal.

Shouldn't be surprising, I suppose.


Has nothing to do with the McCain campaign. They didn't make the ad. It's everyday joes who are trying to push that one across...

Yes, just everyday racist joes. I didn't mean to imply that McCain was responsible, actually, I don't think I did.

I know you didn't imply, I just wasn't sure if you knew.

I don't see it as a racist shot at BO. Personally, I don't put any stock into that ad. It's only aired in Michigan and Ohio from what I heard.

But I don't think we're that far out of whack with our GDP or something.
I see debt to GDP as a misleading measure of fiscal efficiency, like assists to turnovers is for PGs. Deron Williams and (pre-Larry Brown) Stephon Marbury have comparable A:TO ratios and can rack up big numbers. Everyone except Stephon knows who the better PG is. :)

Debt to GDP far from a universal measure of "how much debt" a country "should" have, even in an abstract sense. But my inner economics weenie has had enough for the moment.


Its not good, but raising taxes on corporations right now = DUMB! Raising taxes anytime is pretty dumb, imo though.
The tax raises of the early '90s by "Read My Lips" and the Overeducated Hillbilly were associated with a lot of later 90s-era prosperity. Some of it turned out to be dot-com bullshit, but overall, people were becoming a lot better off. We've had tax cuts since, and things seem to have gotten worse (both at a federal and state level in Michigan's case). Paying less in taxes gets replaced with paying more for a bunch of other things, and having less. Hmm...

I see debt to GDP as a misleading measure of fiscal efficiency, like assists to turnovers is for PGs. Deron Williams and (pre-Larry Brown) Stephon Marbury have comparable A:TO ratios and can rack up big numbers. Everyone except Stephon knows who the better PG is. :)

Debt to GDP far from a universal measure of "how much debt" a country "should" have, even in an abstract sense. But my inner economics weenie has had enough for the moment.


The tax raises of the early '90s by "Read My Lips" and the Overeducated Hillbilly were associated with a lot of later 90s-era prosperity. Some of it turned out to be dot-com bullshit, but overall, people were becoming a lot better off. We've had tax cuts since, and things seem to have gotten worse (both at a federal and state level in Michigan's case). Paying less in taxes gets replaced with paying more for a bunch of other things, and having less. Hmm...

And if it weren't for the tax cuts thing would be hecka lot worse, imo.

It's all Obama's fault:

L2fxGAXzFAY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2fxGAXzFAY

In the current issue of Contingencies, the magazine for the American Academy of Actuaries, McCain puts his foot in it:

http://www.contingencies.org/septoct08/mccain.pdf

Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.

So, John McCain wants to introduce the same deregulation practices he introduced in the financial industry into the healthcare industry.

Clever... devillishly clever! The timing couldn't be better...

Gracias!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ry9LnAazwMg
Ry9LnAazwMg

McCain may have violated campaign finance law.
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/bill-conroy/2008/09/did-mccain-presidential-campaign-violate-finance-laws-southeast-asia-tr

His economic flip-flops are just atrocious. Does anyone buy what he's saying?

I was hearing on the radio this morning about McCain covering up his POW confessions and working for years to pass legislation to keep them from being exposed. Any good info on this?

I was hearing on the radio this morning about McCain covering up his POW confessions and working for years to pass legislation to keep them from being exposed. Any good info on this?
What radio did you hear this on, if I may ask?

Check out:
http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/cin_declassified_landing.htm
It has the conspiracy theory tone to it, but there's a lot of aspects that are provably true, and covered by the more-mainstream media recently. This bit in particular amuses me in a Rashomon kind of way:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/10/AR2008031003141.html
http://www.sptimes.com/2008/03/08/Life/A_revolutionary_meets.shtml

By McCain's own admission, he broke under torture and signed a letter and recorded propaganda stuff rather than commit suicide. It's unclear to what extent that happened. He says it's minimal, but the rumor is that it's more than what he said and THAT's what fuels the conspiracy theorists.

Here's what McCain said about it 35 years ago:
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/2008/01/28/john-mccain-prisoner-of-war-a-first-person-account.html?PageNr=1

And here's McCain crawling in the mud with all manner of Bushies:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/21/AR2008092101608_pf.html

What radio did you hear this on, if I may ask?



AM 760 (Colorado station)