The Policitical Pivot... MONEY

[saltandsand]

Sprtsracer asks:

1) Please tell us (in your opinion) what Obama/Biden have been "clear" on when they speak of change.

2) Please tell us, (in your opinion) what "the Mavericks" should acknowledge as "their role" with the current problems.

3) What (in your opinion) do they know to be improper that they have not denounced?
__________________


How about we start with:

You define "change". Then you define "maverick." I've got plenty to discuss on these two words.

Start here: http://www.campaignfinancesite.org/

As to numero три, here's the scoop: http://therealmccain.com/pac/

Now that's the easy version. McCain-Feingold, "ya recall that? hey no problem I'll get ya the facts and bring em back to ya."

Here's a primer for "ya" : http://edition.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/03/16/mccain.plans/index.html

And stomping on free speach... shame on you John... http://www.nrlc.org/Federal/Free_Speech/McCain_Feingold_Traps.html

I suppose dollars are votes, and votes are dollars but citizens are something else so let the dollar be the patriot rather than the person. (And the trolls that wanna speak about Biden's quote... get it right...oops I mean correct... please. Once again... I'm not a Biden fan.)

The "program" stomps the voice of a third party, enhances the message of the wealthy, and undermines the representation of the common good.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/26/dems.mccain.financing/index.html?eref=rss_politics

Now what kind of change shall a maverick bring? An analysis of McCain-Feingold is expected, or get off the podium: http://www.fec.gov/press/bkgnd/bcra_overview.shtml

The flip-flop saga is PALIN SIMPLE... http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters/332840/mccain_flip_flops_on_public_financing

Hard money ain't anywhere to be found these days for anyone other than McCain... hard money is gone from investors with the recent $700B Jail Out Bill (another topic, yes I know) but then Bush set the stage with judicial appointments: http://centerforinvestigativereporting.org/
http://centerforinvestigativereporting.org/articles/election2008thesecretmoneyproject The deck is stacked in favor of minority policy... that minority being those who have seized control of a democracy.

Here's the interactive map, check it out: http://www.centerforinvestigativereporting.org/files/flash/secretmoneyproject.html

As usual, comments appreciated but kindly check the bull tards at the door.

[surfsidesativa]

I think your boy has this thing in the bag unless they come up with pictures of him wearing a turban and holding an AK47. Get ready for some nasty adds from the McCain camp that will only push him down further.

[J_Lannon]

I think your boy has this thing in the bag unless they come up with pictures of him wearing a turban and holding an AK47. Get ready for some nasty adds from the McCain camp that will only push him down further.

That will come after the election.

[surfsidesativa]

Jlann- I don't think republicans should be too upset with losing this election. Obama will get to run the country for 4 years during a time of financial crisis and the people will really be sceaming for change in 4 years. The next 3-5 years are going to be extremely trying on our country no matter who's in the office. I just don't think it matters right now.

[sprtsracer]

Sprtsracer asks:

1) Please tell us (in your opinion) what Obama/Biden have been "clear" on when they speak of change.

2) Please tell us, (in your opinion) what "the Mavericks" should acknowledge as "their role" with the current problems.

3) What (in your opinion) do they know to be improper that they have not denounced?
__________________


How about we start with:

You define "change". Then you define "maverick." I've got plenty to discuss on these two words.

Start here: http://www.campaignfinancesite.org/

As to numero три, here's the scoop: http://therealmccain.com/pac/

Now that's the easy version. McCain-Feingold, "ya recall that? hey no problem I'll get ya the facts and bring em back to ya."

Here's a primer for "ya" : http://edition.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/03/16/mccain.plans/index.html

And stomping on free speach... shame on you John... http://www.nrlc.org/Federal/Free_Speech/McCain_Feingold_Traps.html

I suppose dollars are votes, and votes are dollars but citizens are something else so let the dollar be the patriot rather than the person. (And the trolls that wanna speak about Biden's quote... get it right...oops I mean correct... please. Once again... I'm not a Biden fan.)

The "program" stomps the voice of a third party, enhances the message of the wealthy, and undermines the representation of the common good.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/26/dems.mccain.financing/index.html?eref=rss_politics

Now what kind of change shall a maverick bring? An analysis of McCain-Feingold is expected, or get off the podium: http://www.fec.gov/press/bkgnd/bcra_overview.shtml

The flip-flop saga is PALIN SIMPLE... http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters/332840/mccain_flip_flops_on_public_financing

Hard money ain't anywhere to be found these days for anyone other than McCain... hard money is gone from investors with the recent $700B Jail Out Bill (another topic, yes I know) but then Bush set the stage with judicial appointments: http://centerforinvestigativereporting.org/
http://centerforinvestigativereporting.org/articles/election2008thesecretmoneyproject The deck is stacked in favor of minority policy... that minority being those who have seized control of a democracy.

Here's the interactive map, check it out: http://www.centerforinvestigativereporting.org/files/flash/secretmoneyproject.html

As usual, comments appreciated but kindly check the bull tards at the door.

Well, as usual for you, you have posted nothing but pure drivel and avoided the questions altogether. First, however, I'll call your attention to a couple of things. The first as to the links you posted. The CNN links you posted have nothing to do with my questions. I would remind you that Obama "opted out" of the Federal Campaign Funds so that he would have no funding caps, even though he pledged originally to accept them. This frees him up to spend as much as he wants. You post another link to a PAC (therealmccain.com) which is nothing more than a Political Action Committee dedicated to the defeat of McCain. The National Right To Life link goes to a complaint of that organization that they can't spew out propaganda, which, by the way, if they had free reign, would be "anti-Obama", since it is a pro-life organization. Preventing these left AND right wing organizations from doing so goes more to proving McCain is a "maverick" than anything else you've cited. I hardly see how this has ANYTHING to do with "stomping on free speech"!!! As far as your link to "The Nation"...let me clue you and everyone else in...IT'S A BLOG!!! Hardly credible...but if that weren't enough...there's a photo from their "Subscription Promo Ad" showing their issue covers at the bottom of this post. I think this speaks for itself.


I could go on and on, but it isn't worth my time! Let me, while I'm at it, however, educate you on something. You talk about "hard money" being available to McCain only, and "hard money is gone from investors with the recent $700B Jail Out Bill..." but you obviously don't know what "hard money" as opposed to "soft money" is. Hard money is money received from the Federal Campaign Fund through the Federal Elections Commissions...NOT from Investors. Obama doesn't receive it because he opted out!!! You'd know that if you bothered to read any of the links YOU posted above. Another example of your drivel and the fact that you have NO CLUE what you are talking about. Now let me bring you back into focus. Here is the previous quote you are referring to. Why you started a new thread, I have no clue, other than maybe to take attention away from my original reason for the questions and take them out of context in conjunction with your original post.

BHT:

I'm now presenting a topic that is surely to be criticized. It is my opinion.

The current problems are significant from many respects, more on that in a moment. But Palin's refusal to discuss the past is indicative of her (and McCain's) proclivity. Any reasonable person cannot assert that the policies of the past decade are reasonable, unless of course you are a top 1 percent wealth holder, or allied with the Corporate strangehold, or some perverse definition of a "patriot." Palin simply doesn't have the moxy to break out of the one-liner modicum, the singular agenda, the "aw shucks" presentation. Once again... this is just my opinion.

Anyone who speaks loudly but cannot associate with the significance of the current problems is someone with whom I have little regard. The current problems have been caused by many factors, and that is not my point (but those trolls who want to comb over this topic endlessly are more than welcome to make their points... I'll not respond unless they announce it as their opinion or otherwise provide support.) Continuing with my opinion, anyone who does not want to speak of change is part of the problem. Change is required, nothing less is to beg for failure.

(1)The Obama campaign has come out clear and announced a directive of change. The McCain campaign, although not so clear, does the same when the continue to announce themselves as "mavericks." (2) The problem with the mavericks is that they will not acknowledge their role with the current problems (3) nor will they denouce what they now know to be improper and this, IMO, will be their downfall. Palin's show last night is an extension of denial when she refuses to answer a question as asked. If such can be said of Biden then someone please point it out. (Once again, anyone who has read what I've written should know that I am not a Biden fan.)

Instead of discussing another issue (the Jail Out)... I post another thread (otherwise risk complaints from the trolls)...

SS

Those were my three questions based on YOUR statements, yet YOU have the gall to start another thread, re-post my questions, ask ME to define YOUR terms of "change" and "maverick", and then continue to never answer the questions. I am asking YOU to define what YOU meant when YOU made those statements. My definition of the terms has nothing to do with this. At the same time, you have the balls to call others TROLLS!!! Get real!!! I will not continue ad-infinitum answering your posts or commenting on them as it's useless and they are meaningless. We all now know your strategy and your tactics.

[saltandsand]

By gosh sprtsracer I think you are getting it.

McCain set about campaign reform, but has he changed anything? That is in direct response the the "three questions."

Obama declined Federal funds, that's WHAT he's done. I do believe that is an example of change. You can argue he said, he was inclined to do, etc. Focus on WHAT he did in this instance.

As to "hard" money, I'm fully aware of the definition with elections. The term "hard" money also applies to investments which, by your response, you acknowledge with the bail out. But then I guess you'll limit me to one defintion... go read how I wrote the darned paragraph.

No comment on the last link. Nice source of info if ya ask me.

BTW: I chose this topic because it's the pivot of the issue of change, rather than move onto other examples of change which I'm sure you'd debate tooth and nail.... claiming the cited example of change is really something else, as in re-defining or placing in another context. Ya know... like saying the economy is great and then saying the word "economy" really means the "workers."

As to others.... last reminder.... Obama ain't my boy, he may not get my vote...

[BubbaHoTep]

As usual, comments appreciated but kindly check the bull tards at the door.

OK, am I the only one here who does not know what a bull tard is? :confused:

[sprtsracer]

By gosh sprtsracer I think you are getting it.

McCain set about campaign reform, but has he changed anything? That is in direct response the the "three questions."
Obama declined Federal funds, that's WHAT he's done. I do believe that is an example of change. You can argue he said, he was inclined to do, etc. Focus on WHAT he did in this instance.

As to "hard" money, I'm fully aware of the definition with elections. The term "hard" money also applies to investments which, by your response, you acknowledge with the bail out. But then I guess you'll limit me to one defintion... go read how I wrote the darned paragraph.

No comment on the last link. Nice source of info if ya ask me.

BTW: I chose this topic because it's the pivot of the issue of change, rather than move onto other examples of change which I'm sure you'd debate tooth and nail.... claiming the cited example of change is really something else, as in re-defining or placing in another context. Ya know... like saying the economy is great and then saying the word "economy" really means the "workers."

As to others.... last reminder.... Obama ain't my boy, he may not get my vote...


Are you TOTALLY DELUSIONAL??? You HAVE NOT answered the questions...I asked what YOU meant, IN YOUR OPINION!!! Stop throwing up "smoke screens"!!! You WON'T GET AWAY WITH IT when you deal with me!!! Also, stop "backpedaling on the "hard money" issue!!! You had no idea what you were saying when you made that statement!!! The term "hard money" has absolutely NOTHING to do with "investments" and never has. Stop trying to act like you know more than you do!!! As far as "change", do you REALLY think that the fact that Obama turned down Federal Funds so that he can SPEND TO HIS HEART'S CONTENT is "CHANGE"??? Sounds like the typical "politics as usual" Washington Insider "bull tard" to me. When are you going to realize you can't bull$hit me??? If you are going to make blanket statements, be prepared to back them up!!! You can't...therefore you won't!!! Instead, you'll change the subject, throw up even more smokescreens, make different blanket statements, and try to act like you know what you are talking about. Take your crap to the Daily KOS and post it there!!! They won't ask you to explain and will welcome you with open arms!!!

As far as your "last link"...it shows what it calls "deceptive ads" from BOTH sides. It hardly proves your point...but then again, you probably didn't look at all of them anyway, found ONE from the McCain Camp, and assumed they were ALL like that. There are more on there that are deceptive Obama ads than McCain ads. The McCain ads are questionable, in that., for example, they cite Obama's refusal to visit the wounded troops in Germany on his "World Tour" and whether or not he refused based on not being able to take his biased mainstream media entourage. The fact remains, he didn't visit them, and opted to do other things instead. He could easily have gone to visit them with his Secret Service detail ONLY, without the reporters, campaign staff, etc... That's just one example among many that could be argued. Try again!!!

As far as "me getting it"...I've always gotten it!!! It is YOU who apparently doesn't "get it"!!!

[saltandsand]

Are you TOTALLY DELUSIONAL??? You HAVE NOT answered the questions..Which one of the dozen or so questions that you've asked over the last couple of days?.I asked what YOU meant, IN YOUR OPINION!!! Fair enough, I'll provide my opinion in a summary, I'll get right on it...tomorrow. Stop throwing up "smoke screens"!!! You WON'T GET AWAY WITH IT when you deal with me!!! That's a loaded sentance, for sure. Also, stop "backpedaling on the "hard money" issue!!! You had no idea what you were saying when you made that statement!!! Uh, go read it again Sam. Good grief. The term "hard money" has absolutely NOTHING to do with "investments" and never has. The term is specifically applied to investments when one refers to a "hard money" investor such as with real estate. Do I have to define everything? Good lord... Stop trying to act like you know more than you do!!! As far as "change", do you REALLY think that the fact that Obama turned down Federal Funds so that he can SPEND TO HIS HEART'S CONTENT is "CHANGE"??? Ughhh... YES, that is what I saying... YES INDEEDY YOU HAVE GOTTEN ONE POINT, I'm so glad we are actually communicating now. :D Sounds like the typical "politics as usual" Washington Insider "bull tard" to me. When are you going to realize you can't bull$hit me??? If you are going to make blanket statements, be prepared to back them up!!! Now when you ask for an opinion, does the same requriement apply or can someone refer to generally known facts? You can't...therefore you won't!!! Instead, you'll change the subject, throw up even more smokescreens, make different blanket statements, and try to act like you know what you are talking about. Take your crap to the Daily KOS Please define ther KOS, I'm not familar with that term.and post it there!!! They won't ask you to explain and will welcome you with open arms!!!

As far as your "last link"...it shows what it calls "deceptive ads" from BOTH sides. It hardly proves your point...but then again, you probably didn't look at all of them anyway, found ONE from the McCain Camp, and assumed they were ALL like that. There are more on there that are deceptive Obama ads than McCain ads. Really... provide your support, complete with a summary and conclusion, links are required or the essay will be returned.The McCain ads are questionable, in that., for example, they cite Obama's refusal to visit the wounded troops in Germany on his "World Tour" and whether or not he refused based on not being able to take his biased mainstream media entourage. Nice try at support, but that's pure speculation and besides you failed to provide a link.The fact remains, he didn't visit them, and opted to do other things instead. He could easily have gone to visit them with his Secret Service detail ONLY, without the reporters, campaign staff, etc... That's just one example among many that could be argued. Try again!!! what?

As far as "me getting it"...I've always gotten it!!! It is YOU who apparently doesn't "get it"!!!

Now where are we? I mean there's so much nonsense being thrown out that I'm not following which of the dozens of points are relevant.... :D is someone keeping track... I need an inventory assistant.... :D can someone tell me where we're at with the agenda... I need a point brief.... :popcorn:an agenda.... call to order... can there be order in the house.... we need to figure out where we are before we can decide where we're going... :D

[sprtsracer]

Now where are we? I mean there's so much nonsense being thrown out that I'm not following which of the dozens of points are relevant.... :D is someone keeping track... I need an inventory assistant.... :D can someone tell me where we're at with the agenda... I need a point brief.... :popcorn:an agenda.... call to order... can there be order in the house.... we need to figure out where we are before we can decide where we're going... :D

Yeah...I can see where it would be easy for you to get lost and not being able to keep track...so much drivel and so many links, along with "so little time"!!! LOL:D

[wolfva]

SnS, Sprtsracer has a valid point. You have yet to answer any of his questions. So, I join him in asking you to answer those 3 questions that he asked. Really, wouldn't it be easier for you to just answer them instead of finding ways not to? I swear, I feel like I'm watching Tom Sawyer paint a fence here. You spend more effort and time avoiding answering questions then almost any person I know.

So, here they are.
Sprtsracer asks:

1) Please tell us (in your opinion) what Obama/Biden have been "clear" on when they speak of change.

2) Please tell us, (in your opinion) what "the Mavericks" should acknowledge as "their role" with the current problems.

3) What (in your opinion) do they know to be improper that they have not denounced.

And, before you go out of your way to try and frustrate me like you have Sprts, I'll remind you that I'm pretty much imperturable. Remember what happened the last time I kept on you to answer 3 simple questions based on something you said? Let's try to keep the swearing down to less then 14 instances this time, eh?

[saltandsand]

SnS, Sprtsracer has a valid point. You have yet to answer any of his questions. So, I join him in asking you to answer those 3 questions that he asked. Really, wouldn't it be easier for you to just answer them instead of finding ways not to? I swear, I feel like I'm watching Tom Sawyer paint a fence here. You spend more effort and time avoiding answering questions then almost any person I know.

So, here they are.
Sprtsracer asks:

1) Please tell us (in your opinion) what Obama/Biden have been "clear" on when they speak of change.

2) Please tell us, (in your opinion) what "the Mavericks" should acknowledge as "their role" with the current problems.

3) What (in your opinion) do they know to be improper that they have not denounced.

And, before you go out of your way to try and frustrate me like you have Sprts, I'll remind you that I'm pretty much imperturable. Remember what happened the last time I kept on you to answer 3 simple questions based on something you said? Let's try to keep the swearing down to less then 14 instances this time, eh?


Three Questions:

1) Please tell us (in your opinion) what Obama/Biden have been "clear" on when they speak of change.

a. Not only do they speak, but they act on campaign finance and not working around, through or beside the system. Declining Federal funding is not a feeble attempt to "spend their money how they want" as my esteemed collegue has pointed out. Rather it is an act that shows that they are not playing games with taxpayer dollars. Obama also departs, not only from McCain, but Clinton on this issue. (Uhh, better make that clear as someone will trash on me if I don't... I mean Mrs. Clinton.) Now, all those who want to Monday morning quarterback to my game... here's one for you: Name a recent Presidential candidate that has done this? BTW: For those who didn't get it, that was the point of the thread that is shown above... guess I'll use more explicating language.

b. Bring a sense of community responsibility. His focus is not only on the USA as a community but the world as a community. He does not see fractionalized groups and tally up to the fat cats who are bankrolled. Rather he sees community action as more important than special interest gains.

c. Alternate energy that can be pushed into practicality, rather than year and year of dashed promises and unmet expectation. And here's another little assignment for those who see fit to dole them out to me...hey, it's a debate, correct?... so if I respond then you gotta do the same... look into state level encumbrances to the adoption of alternate energy, name them and then identify why the policies are not functioning.

d. Medical care for children. Rather than adhering to an archaic formula that disenfranchies the poor from receiving preventative medical care and forcing more expensive emergency room treatment upon the taxpayer through disproportionate sharing and other complex formulations, he seeks to update the poverty definition that plagues the delivery of public health care. Before you respond kindly look up the definition of the poverty rate that applies to these health programs and tell me how they are applied through the cost sharing arrangements between the Fed and States. Don't come to the table unless you have information to support your contention that not SCHIP should be denied Federal funding based on out dated formula.

e. Overhaul of overall medical care. Currently we face an enormous challenge with delivery of health care, not withstanding costs. We continue to not build an infrastructure for training new entrants into the delivery areana and choose to extend visas and other proxies to address our clearly demonstrated national needs. I'll stop at this summary on this one.

f. Tax parity. Once again I've said throughout many a thread that he/she/it (corporation in last instance) who receives more of a benefit from conducing free business in a capitalistic society based on a democratic model must pay for that enhanced benefit. Ordinary working stiffs do not utilize the roads to run commercial traffic for their profit, they merely buy the goods transported on these roads and often at inflated prices.

g. Regulations and enforcement. Self explanatory.

h. Pursue diplomacy and adhesion with allies rather than single handed combat. Ensure that war, as a last resort, is entered with clear goals and exit strategies. Avoid costly scenarios without end... we simply cannot fight 100 year wars, or decade long wars...

i. Bolster our international reputation. Through self discipline and continued flexibility we will bring forth a state reputation and solid finances, rather than become a laughing stock having passed off trillions of dollars of sham deals unto the world's financing floors.

j. Generational parity. Enforce PAYGO and budget nuetrality rather than seeing debt and deficits as a necessary evil.

k. Change in being the first minority elected. Something that should be celebrated by all rather than feared by old white people.

l. Reasoned tax policy. Rational in understanding that the middle class consumer is the engine of the American economy and understanding that multi-billion annual compensation packages are a drain upon the engine of growth. This is not wealth distribution, go read my other posts. Gentlemen, wealth distribution is the theft that occurs daily out of the back door of the board room, people who steal more value than they brought, who make deals with their little friends to skim off the productive value of hundreds and thousands of workers.

m. Support employment as a means of American ideology. Rather than make comments about the economy being strong and then saying that it's the American workers that are strong and then daring anyone to say otherwise. He will come forth and say clearly that an unemployed worked has no strength at all.

n.
o.
p.
q.
.
.
..
...

enough on that question (whew.... this is a long exam...)

2) Please tell us, (in your opinion) what "the Mavericks" should acknowledge as "their role" with the current problems.

Anyone who wants to be part of the solution must first acknowledge their role as part of the problem. Inane refusal to admit any part whatsoever with part of the problem renders that individual an impediment to progress. But since ya'all want specifics...

a. Gas prices, continued support for failure to bring forth a cohert energy policy.
b. Stubborn insistence on trickle down economics which has been proven over and over and over and over and over and over not to work.
c. Respect for those with whom you may not agree. Good lord, McCain couldn't even address Obama at the last debate let alone even look at him. Such disdainful non-sense is a relic of the past.
c. Admit being a failed maverick. A maverick sits at the table, plays his hand as dealt and continues with the game, does not call the game early, or walk away for the chips.... he walked away from Michigan, he's walked out on many a hearing because of his temper. Mavericks are planned individuals with tact and ability, not hot heads that walk out because they didn't get their way. Hey... we all can't be mavericks...
d. Failed military endeavors... I'll leave that one right there for now.
e. Name calling and other negative campaigning... and it's jsut starting. Let's be clear...McCain drew first blood here, Obama has resisted response, McCain and Failin' Palin have continued to launch negative attacks... so if Obama does respond then it's only because its JUSTIFIED. Besides, let's hear their plan.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
.
..
...

3) What (in your opinion) do they know to be improper that they have not denounced?

Professor, I refuse to answer this question because you did not distinquish it from your second question. Besides... got WORK to do.

[wolfva]

I find it completely hilarious SnS that you send me an email deriding me for asking questions that you answered....when you answered them AFTER I repeated the questions which at that point you had not answered. For someone who thinks he's so smart, you sure are silly!

1a) They've also voted against regulation which would have helped the current crisis. Obama declined federal funding because it would allow him to spend MORE money then McCain. I'll note he did so after PROMISING that he wouldn't. So, he started out breaking his promise. Not good. As far as campaign finance reform goes...did you forget who wrote that bill? Here's a hint...he's running for President, but he's not from Hawaii.
b)How is he going to bring a sense of community responsibility? More to the point, since when is that the role of President? Isn't there something more important he should be doing?
c)McCain is also for alternative energy; however, he wants to drill for oil WHILE looking for alternatives rather then Obama's plan which would be to drill for a little bit in such a way the states wouldn't get any money while depending heavily on foreign oil.
d)Children get medical care. And isn't there a law that hospitals can not turn away patients for financial reasons? In any case, ever hear of 'free clinics', medicaid, charities, etc? When did it become the President's job to wipe our sniffles anyways?
e)see above
f)Tax parity? Rich people pay more taxes while getting fewer benefits then anyone. Yet he says he will cut the tax cuts to the rich while increasing taxes on companies. Which, of course, will pass the additional taxes on down to the consumer. So the poor get stiffed again. Meanwhile, small businesses won't be able to compete and will get swallowed by the giant corperations; so the little guy suffers.
g)What types of regs and enforcement? Like shutting down radio stations that say things not nice about Obama as is going on in Michegan? Remember, not all regulations are good. And this IS the guy who helped block regulations on Fannie Mae and Freddie mac which would have helped prevent the current financial mess. Of course, he DID get the second most cash from them.....
h)Funny, that's what McCain says to. Of course, Obama also says he will meet with enemies without preconditions. And that he will forcibly invade our allies in an act of war. And he'll send 3 brigades to Afghanistan, but he hasn't said what they'll do. As if their mere presence will solve problems.
i)Suuuure he will. In any case, our reputation can't be that bad since we're the FIRST country (STILL!) that everyone else looks to after a natural disaster.
j)The only way for his budget to work is if he graduated from Hogwarts. Debtus disapearus!
k)So, he should be elected becuase of the color of his skin? What a racist thing to say. Personally, I prefer a person be elected because he'll do a better job then the other candidate...but then again, I'm not racist.
l)You already used this point in f.
m)As opposed to that other candidate that supports unemployment? The way to support employment is not to raise taxes on corperations encouraging them to open up overseas, thus costing America jobs.
n-q) Hey, you didn't have to type so much, you just wanted to show off. Brevity...it's your freind!

2) Good point. It would be nice for Obama and Biden to admit their culpability as well. I notice they refuse to. Further, that Obama even admitted he would not reach out to Republicans on the issue. Then again, he never has on anything, has he? Unlike McCain who HAS bucked his party, and HAS reached out to democrats.

a)McCain has addressed how to lower gas prices, by being oil sufficient. He has a coherent energy policy, you just don't like it because you hate Republicans.
b)trickle down economics worked great since Reagan's day. If it hadn't, we wouldn't have had unemployment rates as low as we have for the last few decades. Further, we wouldn't have as large a middle class, and we wouldn't have so many luxeries. Luxeries like TVs, more then 1 pair of shoes, more then 2 outfits (regular wear and Church clothes), meat on the table daily, sodas in the fridge, etc. Oh yeah, refridgerators to! What we consider 'necessities' much of the world doesn't even have.
c)McCain has shown nothing but respect, and has worked with a number of Democrats over the years. He did not address Obama at the debate because he was addressing the AMERICAN PEOPLE. Guess he thought we were more important. Obama, on the other hand, treated McCain disrespectfully. Calling an elder statesman by his first name in public? Not even I would do that.
d)Even McCain said it doesn't take skill to get shot down. Nonetheless, his wartime service is more a testament to his character, willpower, and sense of loyalty to his country. Further, I'll point out McCain pushed for the surge 2, 3 years before it happened. Obama claimed that it would fail miserably. McCain was RIGHT. The Surge and COIN strategy worked, and Iraq is peacefull now and being turned over to the Iraqi government. The DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED Iraqi government, I'll add. Meanwhile, Obama refused to even accept that the Surge was successfull until recently, against overwhelming evidence. Your comment is far FAR truer of Obama then it can ever be to McCain. I'll also add that McCain supported the Surge when Bush did NOT. Again, he bucked his party and pushed for something his president was against until he convinced him to try it. Sounds mavericky to me.
e)Most of the 'name calling' that McCain has in his ads is true though. In any case, Obama has been doing his own share all along, including the meme that anyone that says anything against him is racist. Which is ludicrouse. Don't believe me? Just look at his early ads against Clinton, then against McCain.

3) Those weren't my questions, they were J's questions, or was it Sprts? But it most definately is dilineated from the above. And, if memory serves me correctly, these questions are based on claims that YOU made.

Hey, can we keep these things shorter next time? My arthritus is acting up.

[saltandsand]

I find it completely hilarious SnS that you send me an email deriding me for asking questions that you answered....when you answered them AFTER I repeated the questions which at that point you had not answered. For someone who thinks he's so smart, you sure are silly!




I'll read the rest of what you said in a minute.

In response to the above....hey genius... I sent the e-mail informing you of the answer. It's that PALIN AND SIMPLER... stop trying to impress with your cat and mouse games...

BTW: I said I would answer them yesterday and I did as I said. What's wrong with that?

A couple of meetings at Antagonists Anonymous might help you feel better. :D

[saltandsand]

Here's the best of the best.... wolfva in full glory as he says (and I quote)...

"trickle down economics worked great since Reagan's day. Support... kindly provide support showing relative economic improvement between the classes.... don't just cite things about necessities... good lord man, get a hold of yourself... If it hadn't, we wouldn't have had unemployment rates as low as we have for the last few decades. Further, we wouldn't have as large a middle class, and we wouldn't have so many luxeries. Luxeries like TVs, more then 1 pair of shoes, more then 2 outfits (regular wear and Church clothes), meat on the table daily, sodas in the fridge, etc. Oh yeah, refridgerators to! What we consider 'necessities' much of the world doesn't even have."

Such necessities that much of the world doesn't have?? Like where, in impoverished nations?? Is soda even important....good grief...

Whew.... I'm so glad that health care isn't one of these so-called luxuries and Wolfva should too since he's gone to seek relief for his arthritis...

Luxuries... like multi-million dollar yachts, houses as big as stadiums, diamond rings so big they would choke an elephant, extravagant parties with more spent on champagne than an average worker earns in a lifetime, private jet planes, multiple houses so many a person looses count, owning vast stretches of land to be thousands and thousands of acres.... don't you mean these kind of luxuries??

Do us a favor and give us all a break...

[wolfva]

I'll read the rest of what you said in a minute.

In response to the above....hey genius... I sent the e-mail informing you of the answer. It's that PALIN AND SIMPLER... stop trying to impress with your cat and mouse games...

BTW: I said I would answer them yesterday and I did as I said. What's wrong with that?

A couple of meetings at Antagonists Anonymous might help you feel better. :D


Actually, what you said in the email, and with your kind permission I'll print it, is this. " whoa boy... calm down
Go ahead and slice and dice the words, change my response, and cast bad light. But I did make my response to the "three questions" and clearly denoted other items to add to each question. Cheers!~"

You sent that immediately AFTER you answered the questions, and long before I responded to your answers. Soooo, how could I have sliced, diced, changed responces, and cast bad lights on something I hadn't even seen yet? It makes you feel good to play the victim card, we all know that and see evidence in a plethora of your posts.

Sometimes you really make no sense. And you project waaayyyy to much of your own style and shortcomings on others.

To the rest of the crew, I'm not in the habbit of posting other people's emails, but sadly SnS apparently blocked all future emails from me after posting another pitiable little diatribe so there was no way I could point out his temporal anomaly privately.

[wolfva]

Here's the best of the best.... wolfva in full glory as he says (and I quote)...

"trickle down economics worked great since Reagan's day. Support... kindly provide support showing relative economic improvement between the classes.... don't just cite things about necessities... good lord man, get a hold of yourself... If it hadn't, we wouldn't have had unemployment rates as low as we have for the last few decades. Further, we wouldn't have as large a middle class, and we wouldn't have so many luxeries. Luxeries like TVs, more then 1 pair of shoes, more then 2 outfits (regular wear and Church clothes), meat on the table daily, sodas in the fridge, etc. Oh yeah, refridgerators to! What we consider 'necessities' much of the world doesn't even have."

Such necessities that much of the world doesn't have?? Like where, in impoverished nations?? Is soda even important....good grief...

Whew.... I'm so glad that health care isn't one of these so-called luxuries and Wolfva should too since he's gone to seek relief for his arthritis...

Luxuries... like multi-million dollar yachts, houses as big as stadiums, diamond rings so big they would choke an elephant, extravagant parties with more spent on champagne than an average worker earns in a lifetime, private jet planes, multiple houses so many a person looses count, owning vast stretches of land to be thousands and thousands of acres.... don't you mean these kind of luxuries??

Do us a favor and give us all a break...

Hilarious how you post your demand in bold red letters to 'prove' my statements, and didn't even notice the proof was already in the body of the statement. Where you hoping the size of your font would blind everyone to the inanity of your request?

There is a very good reason why 'necesities' was placed in apostrophe's. To denote that they aren't actually necessities, yet many people in America think they are. Having grown up overseas on a small agricultural island where refridgeration wasn't exactly a given I have some small knowledge of what I speak. Not one thing you have said in your rambling attack actually disproves anything that I opined.

Bottom line, the average poor person in America would be considered upper middle class or rich in many 3rd world nations.

I dunno, I think I'm going to have to start talking to SnS like a child. It's obviouse he doesn't understand irony. I wouldn't be surprised if he's staring at this sentance muttering, "Irony??? Why is he talking about pressing clothes?!? "

[J_Lannon]

It is very true that what we take for granted in the USA, is often a luxury in many places over seas. I have been to enough countries to figure that out.