All Political Threads

[Disclaimer]

Please... don't waste your vote.

[Disclaimer]

...there is a true correct answer...it's just not republican or democrat.

Quoted for truth.

[SpinalFusion]

Ron Paul baby!!!!!!!! wooo hoooo

[Disclaimer]

More articles I found interesting... just from today.

From the AP wire [http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hgSOF08EZJrEAB34f2kJkANBWguAD9454PNG0]

Fact Check: Palin's Alaska spreads its wealth

By RITA BEAMISH – 15 hours ago

Republicans John McCain and Sarah Palin summon antidemocratic images of a communist state to attack Democrat Barack Obama's tax plan and his comment about spreading the wealth around. But in her home state, Palin embraces Alaska's own version of doing just that.

Palin and McCain seized on a comment Obama made to Ohio plumber Joe Wurzelbacher, who asked about his tax plans.

Obama wants to raise taxes on families earning $250,000 to pay for cutting taxes for the 95 percent of workers and their families making less than $200,000. "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody," he told Wurzelbacher.

McCain said that sounds "a lot like socialism" to many Americans. Palin has derided the Illinois senator as "Barack the Wealth Spreader."

But in Alaska, Palin is the envy of governors nationwide for the annual checks the state doles out to nearly every resident, representing their share of the revenues from the state's oil riches. She boosted those checks this year by raising taxes on oil.

McCain campaign spokesman Taylor Griffin said Thursday that spreading wealth through Obama's tax plan and doing it through Alaska's oil-profit distribution are not comparable because Alaska requires the state's resource wealth to be shared with residents, but it's not taxing personal income.

"It's how the revenue is shared between the oil companies and the state."

A look at Palin's and McCain's comments and the record in Alaska:

THE SPIN:

"Barack Obama calls it spreading the wealth. Joe Biden calls higher taxes patriotic," Palin told a crowd in Roswell, N.M., and elsewhere. "But Joe the Plumber and Ed the Dairyman, I believe they think it sounds more like socialism.

"Friends, now is no time to experiment with socialism."

In Ohio, she asked, "Are there any Joe the Plumbers in the house?" To cheers, she said, "It doesn't sound like you're supporting Barack the Wealth Spreader."

McCain told a radio audience that Obama's plan "would convert the IRS into a giant welfare agency, redistributing massive amounts of wealth at the direction of politicians in Washington."

"Raising taxes on some in order to give checks to others is not a tax cut; it's just another government giveaway."

THE FACTS:

In Alaska, residents pay no income tax or state sales tax. They receive a yearly dividend check from a $30 billion state investment account built largely from royalties on its oil. When home fuel and gas costs soared last year, Palin raised taxes on big oil and used some of the money to boost residents' checks by $1,200. Thus every eligible man, woman and child got a record $3,269 this fall.

She also suspended the 8-cent tax on gas.

"We can afford to share resource wealth with Alaskans and to temporarily suspend the state fuel tax," she said at the time.

Much as Obama explains his tax hike on the rich as a way to help people who are struggling, Palin's statement talked about the energy costs burdening Alaskans:

"While the unique fiscal circumstances the state finds itself in at the end of this fiscal year warrant a special one-time payment to share some of the state's wealth, the payment comes at a time when Alaskans are facing rising energy prices. High prices for oil are a double-edged sword for Alaskans. While public coffers fill, prices for heating fuel and gasoline have skyrocketed over the last six months and are now running into the $5- to $9-a-gallon range for heating fuel and gasoline across several areas of the state."

In an interview with The New Yorker last summer Palin explained that she would make demands of a new gas pipeline "to maximize benefits for Alaskans":

"And Alaska we're set up, unlike other states in the union, where it's collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs."

[Disclaimer]

This is more lighthearted. The Onion predicts "Joe the Plumber" in 1993:

[http://www.theonion.com/content/node/48940]

[Disclaimer]

on fbc's show, neil cavuto lambasted john mccain over his economic policies, or lack thereof. It's a searing commentary on mccain's nonsensical approach and the shifting positions he has taken during his campaign.

cavuto: Frankly, neither of your numbers adds up. But i’ve come to see a consistent pattern in obama's. For the life of me, senator straight talk, i see no such straight thing with yours.

{snip}

you rail against big government, yet continue to push cockamamie spending plans that make a mockery of it. That's why you're losing right now, senator mccain.

not because you don't have the courage of your convictions. But because on economic matters, you have no convictions, period

.

Obviously cavuto disagrees with obama's economic policies, but explains that he's been consistent throughout his entire candidacy. Mccain on the other hand shouts "socialism" at obama while embracing the same philosophy as obama for the most part where convenient. Or, he just doesn't

* "i'm going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than i do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated." (november 2005)

cavuto just rips mccain apart in his "" segment.

john mccain, i figured out today why you're losing. Your positions are always changing.

You voted for the $700 billion rescue package. Yet today lumped your opponent with the bush administration for essentially pushing the same package.

What's the deal with the straight talk express?

He voted for this rescue, but now says barack obama and the white house, who voted for the same rescue, apparently voted for something different.

Specifically, mccain wants to target the $700 billion into solving the mortgage crisis, not helping wall street banks. Look, i wasn't for this rescue, but i kind of knew what it was about...shoring up the banks.

if senator mccain didn't know that, he shouldn't have voted for that...maybe he should have read that. Because he is smarter than this, and the verbal gymnastics that rival anything john kerry was ever for before he was against...way, way before this.

Not that barack obama's positions are any more encouraging...but they are consistent.

I don't like the left-leaning, spread-the-wealth approach, but it's a consistent approach and the democratic nominee has never veered from it.

You can accept him and his views or not.

With john mccain i’m not so sure. But i am sure i'm not the only one confused.

...confused by a man who says he hates government spending, but supports pushing $300 billion to bail out folks behind on their mortgage.

You can't say you're against earmarks when you're earmarking that kind of dough, senator. Or adding more than $50 billion to a stimulus plan you cannot pay for...all the while blasting your opponent for coming up with programs he can't pay for.

Frankly, neither of your numbers adds up. But i’ve come to see a consistent pattern in obama's. For the life of me, senator straight talk, i see no such straight thing with yours. Obama argues big government d spells out why we need it...accept it or reject it.

You rail against big government, yet continue to push cockamamie spending plans that make a mockery of it. That's why you're losing right now, senator mccain.

Not because you don't have the courage of your convictions. But because on economic matters, you have no convictions, period.

[Disclaimer]

This looked good. Keith Olbermanns special comment

http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/countdown-campaign-comment-rank-hypoc

This is a good one for Fonz who judges folks by the company they keep (and donate to)

What's that old saying? When you point a finger at someone, you have four fingers pointing back at yourself. Well, just like every other smear that the McCain campaign has desperately flung at the Obama campaign, the reality of this new "palling around with anti-Israel types like Rashid Khalidi" looks bad...bad for McCain.

Senator, Senator, Senator...Morals aside, this is the classic problem of guilt by association:

Obama and Ayers gave Khalidi's organizations 80-thousand dollars. McCain gave Khalidi's organizations 448 thousand dollars.

Obama and Ayers. Obama and Ayers. Obama and Ayers... and McCain.

Obama and Ayers and McCain. Ayers and McCain.

Ayers and McCain!

So now, not only is Rashid Khalidi your problem, not Obama's. But now you're connected to Bill Ayers. The only difference is who gave this nebulously nefarious guy with the Arabic name more money, you or Ayers?

Golly, Senator, that'd be you... by a figure of at least 5-1.

Which is also the ratio of your campaign's sleaze bombs that blow up in your own face.

[Full transcript]

Finally as promised, tonight's Campaign Comment and Rashid Khalidi.

And it is one thing -- one stupid, cataclysmic thing -- to try to slime your opponent because of his relationship with some guy, only to then find out that your own candidate has a stronger relationship with that guy.

But this graduates to the level of fatal political malpractice when the ultimate result of your effort to slime your opponent, is to in fact draw a parallel between your candidate, and William Ayers.

The huffing, puffing, panicky McCain noise machine has really done it this time.

John McCain, and William Ayers, both gave money to this man Rashid Khalidi.

Senator McCain, you may want to get a pad and pencil here and write all this down.

I'm actually going to agree with William Kristol, when he wrote in the New York Times, that you should fire your entire campaign staff.

In three short steps, while trying to link Senator Obama to Rashid Khalidi... they have instead linked you to Rashid Khalidi...and Bill Ayers.

Watch, Senator...

Step One: get the running mate who thinks she's smarter than everybody else to throw out the first pitch.

VIDEO, SARAH PALIN: It seems that there was yet another radical professor from the neighborhood who spent a lot of time with Barack Obama, going back several years. This is important, because this associate, Rashid Khalidi, he, in addition to being a political ally of Barack Obama, he's a former spokesperson for the Palestinian Liberation Organization.

Now Senator, if you're seeing that clip for the first time, take a minute to clean up whatever you were drinking, and whatever you hit with your spit-take.

As you remember, Senator McCain, Rashid Khalidi's also the guy you gave 448-thousand-873 dollars to, ten years ago.

When you were Chairman of the International Republican Institute, and Khalidi wanted grant money to spend in the West Bank, for his Center for Palestine Research and Studies.

As you know, Senator, 448-thousand dollars goes a lot further than friendship.

You gotta tell Governor Palin stuff like this, Senator.

Unless, of course, she already knew, and said it anyway -- which means that those stories about how she's stabbin' you in the back are just scratchin' the mavericky surface.

But to continue this long, dismal tide of self-destruction, Senator...

That was Step One.

Step Two... get the drumbeat rolling with the most over-rated strategist in the history of American politics, Karl Rove, on the echo chamber of choice, Fixed News.

VIDEO KARL ROVE: What bothers me about this is where was the McCain opposition research when this article came out last April that talked about Obama's presence at the dinner for Khalidi and mentioned in the story the tape. This would be a lot better if this drumbeat had been started last spring.

Senator, put the bottle down.

You may know all-too-well, and I may just be guessing, that Rashid Khalidi had to have come up last spring, but what used to be the cooler heads in your campaign said: ick-snay on the alidi-kay.

Because your campaign had to have known that you mainline directly back to him -- and not just the 448-thousand dollar grant in 1998... but another series of other grants from your group to Khalidi's group in 1993... you'd know how much those were for; we haven't found out.

Yet.

But, the smart folks are all gone now.

All you got left are Sarah Palin and Karl Rove... and Rudy Giuliani.

Steps One and Two having been completed....

He was Step Three.

I know! Let's ask Rudy! He'll try anything.

Honestly, Senator, I know you like this man, but, frankly, if he's talking about anything west of Hoboken, New Jersey, or anything more complicated than how to speed cross-town traffic, he's lost.

The problem is, when Rudy Giuliani starts talking Rashid Khalidi, not only is Rudy going down, but he's taking you with him.

VIDEO RUDY GIULIANI: What I do know is that Khalidi has made Israel... he has a connection with the PLO... I believe Khalidi's wife was the translator... he has a very hostile view to the state of Israel ...and he was giving a party and Senator Obama said laudatory things about him... and Senator Obama and Ayers, sitting on the Woods board, gave something like $70,000 or $80,000 to Khalidi's organizations

Senator, Senator, Senator...

Morals aside, this is the classic problem of guilt by association:

Obama and Ayers gave Khalidi's organizations 80-thousand dollars.

McCain gave Khalidi's organizations 448 thousand dollars.

Obama and Ayers.

Obama and Ayers.

Obama and Ayers... and McCain.

Obama and Ayers and McCain.

Ayers and McCain.

Ayers and McCain!

So now, not only is Rashid Khalidi your problem, not Obama's.

But now you're connected to Bill Ayers.

The only difference is who gave this nebulously nefarious guy with the Arabic name more money, you or Ayers?

Golly, Senator, that'd be you... by a figure of at least 5-1.

Which is also the ratio of your campaign's sleaze bombs that blow up in your own face.

Retire them, Senator, and this Clown College you have, before they quote "advise you" un-quote into trying to link Obama to the Keating Five or something.

Because if you lose on Tuesday, Senator, you're going to have a long time to think about not only why you sold your soul, but why you sold it to these chowderheads.

And if you win on Tuesday, you're going to go into office with more blowback sleaze on you than any president in our history.

And the White House is no place for a brain trust, consisting of very few brains, and nobody worth trusting.

Hey -- I got an idea, Senator -- maybe you should turn to a guy who evidently thinks like you, at least on funding Palestinian think-tanks.

Maybe you could get some late help... from William Ayers.

Edited November 1, 2008 by JRMMiii

[Disclaimer]

This is probably the last find before the election:

http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/11/02/76-nobel-laureates-endorse-obama/

76 Nobel Laureates Endorse Obama

Written by Tom Schueneman

Published on November 2nd, 2008

As of last Friday, the number of Nobel Laureates endorsing Barack Obama for president has risen to 76, saying Obama will end Bush-era trashing of scientific research, integrity, and competitiveness.

In an open letter (pdf), the Laureates cite the politicization of science under the Bush administration, particularly in the fields of heath and climate, saying that “vital parts of our country’s scientific enterprise have been damaged by stagnant or declining federal support,” adding that through an advisory process “distorted by political considerations” America’s “once dominant position in the scientific world has been shaken and our prosperity has been placed at risk.”

Despite John McCain’s claim that he is the true agent of change for all that has gone wrong under George Bush, both he and his remarkably incurious and misinformed (at best) running mate show how they plan to continue Bush’s appalling lack of regard for science; combining an inexcusable ignorance of the importance of basic scientific research, with the morally bereft penchant for using science as yet another divisive wedge to promulgate their politics of intolerance, fear, and derision - aiming straight at the lowest common denominator in the body politic.

The vital role of science to address the most pressing issues of our time, from economic competitiveness to climate change, energy, and sustainability, will return under an Obama administration, say the Nobel scientists:

“We especially applaud his emphasis during the campaign on the power of science and technology to enhance our nation’s competitiveness. In particular, we support the measures he plans to take – through new initiatives in education and training, expanded research funding, an unbiased process for obtaining scientific advice, and an appropriate balance of basic and applied research – to meet the nation’s and the world’s most urgent needs.”

The letter stresses that the country is in urgent need of a “visionary leader” saying, “We are convinced that Senator Barack Obama is such a leader, and we urge you to join us in supporting him”.

McCain and Palin would surely continue us on the resolute path back to the Dark Ages upon which George Bush set out eight years ago.

And there is no more time to waste on such foolishness.

[Disclaimer]

I just wanted to post this link, just in case we get into any future debates on the economy. It's here for safe keeping and information.

http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/bush-latest-goper-show-democrats-better-e

There's no shortage of studies to show that stock market returns are higher under Democratic leadership. (As it turns out, Wall Street's performance is also better when Democrats control Congress.) In 2000, Pedro Santa-Clara and Rossen Valkanov of UCLA's Anderson School of Business concluded that "that the average excess return in the stock market is higher under Democratic than Republican presidents - a difference of 9 percent per year for the value-weighted portfolio and 16 percent for the equal-weighted portfolio." As the New York Times noted of UCLA study in 2003:

"It's not even close. The stock market does far better under Democrats...

...Professors Santa-Clara and Valkanov look at the excess market return - the difference between a broad index of stock prices (basically the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index) and the three-month Treasury bill rate - between 1927 and 1998. The excess return measures how attractive stock investments are compared with completely safe investments like short-term T-bills.

Using this measure, they find that during those 72 years the stock market returned about 11 percent more a year under Democratic presidents and 2 percent more under Republicans - a striking difference."

...

As George W. Bush exits the stage and Barack Obama takes it, it is worth remembering the words of

Harry Truman

, as true today as when he uttered them generations ago:

"If you want to live like a Republican, vote Democratic."

[Disclaimer]

Top 10 Crazy Political Commentators

http://www.askmen.com/top_10/celebrity/top-10-crazy-political-commentators_1.html

10. Glenn Beck

9. Dennis Miller

8. Geraldo Rivera

7. Chris Matthews

6. Sean Hannity

5. Rush Limbaugh

4. Michael Savage

3. Ann Coulter

2. Keith Olbermann

1. Bill O'Reilly

[chevysoldier]

JRM -

[Disclaimer]

Man, I posted a lot of good information, forgot about some of that historical stuff.

[chevysoldier]

Lol

[ReconRat]

Man, I posted a lot of good information, forgot about some of that psycho stuff.

lol, wtf just happened...

fixed it for ya...

(play knife in shower music here)

[chevysoldier]

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

[Disclaimer]

Speaking of psycho stuff...Someone needs to 'shop Palin in there.

[Disclaimer]

Mostly Fox News viewers...

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brunitedstatescanadara/671.php?nid=&id=&pnt=671&lb=

Voters Say Election Full of Misleading and False Information

December 9, 2010

Poll Also Finds Voters Were Misinformed on Key Issues

Full report(PDF)

Questionnaire with Findings, Methodology (PDF)

Following the first election since the Supreme Court has struck down limits on election-related advertising, a new poll finds that 9 in 10 voters said that in the 2010 election they encountered information they believed was misleading or false, with 56% saying this occurred frequently. Fifty-four percent said that it had been more frequent than usual, while just three percent said it was less frequent than usual, according to the poll conducted by WorldPublicOpinion.org, based at the University of Maryland, and Knowledge Networks.

(Image Credit)

Equally significant, the poll found strong evidence that voters were substantially misinformed on many of the key issues of the campaign. Such misinformation was correlated with how people voted and their exposure to various news sources.

Voters' misinformation included beliefs at odds with the conclusions of government agencies, generally regarded as non-partisan, consisting of professional economists and scientists.

• Though the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) concluded that the stimulus legislation has saved or created 2.0-5.2 million jobs, only 8% of voters thought most economists who had studied it concluded that the stimulus legislation had created or saved several million jobs. Most (68%) believed that economists estimate that it only created or saved a few jobs and 20% even believed that it resulted in job losses.

• Though the CBO concluded that the health reform law would reduce the budget deficit, 53% of voters thought most economists have concluded that health reform will increase the deficit.

• Though the Department of Commerce says that the US economy began to recover from recession in the third quarter of 2009 and has continued to grow since then, only 44% of voters thought the economy is starting to recover, while 55% thought the economy is still getting worse.

• Though the National Academy of Sciences has concluded that climate change is occurring, 45% of voters thought most scientists think climate change is not occurring (12%) or that scientists are evenly divided (33%).

Other key points of misinformation among voters were:

• 40% of voters believed incorrectly that the TARP legislation was initiated under Barack Obama, rather than George Bush

• 31% believed it was proven true that the US Chamber of Commerce spent large amounts of money it had raised from foreign sources to support Republican candidates

• 54% believed that there were no tax cuts in the stimulus legislation

• 86% assumed their taxes had gone up (38%) or stayed the same (48%), while only 10% were aware that their taxes had gone down since 2009

• 53% thought that the bailout of GM and Chrysler occurred only under Obama, though it was initiated under Bush

Clay Ramsay, of WorldPublicOpinion.org commented, "While we do not have data to make a clear comparison to the past, this high level of misinformation and the fact that voters perceived a higher than usual level of false and misleading information, suggests that the increased flow of money into political advertising may have contributed to a higher level of misinformation."

The poll also found significant differences depending how people voted. Those who voted Republican were more likely than those who voted Democratic to believe that: most economists have concluded that the health care law will increase the deficit (voted Republican 73%, voted Democratic 31%); the American economy is still getting worse (72% to 36%); the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (67% to 42%); most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (62% to 26%); and it is not clear that Obama was born within the United States (64% to 18%)

On the other hand those who voted Democratic were more likely to incorrectly believe that: it was proven to be true that the US Chamber of Commerce was spending large amounts of foreign money to support Republican candidates (voted Democratic 57%, voted Republican 9%); Obama has not increased the level of troops in Afghanistan (51% to 39%); and Democratic legislators did not mostly vote in favor of TARP (56% to 14%).

In most cases those who had greater levels of exposure to news sources had lower levels of misinformation. There were, however, a number of cases where greater exposure to a particular news source increased misinformation on some issues.

Those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe that most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely), most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points), the economy is getting worse (26 points), most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points), the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points), their own income taxes have gone up (14 points), the auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points), when TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points) and that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points). The effect was also not simply a function of partisan bias, as people who voted Democratic and watched Fox News were also more likely to have such misinformation than those who did not watch it--though by a lesser margin than those who voted Republican.

There were cases with some other news sources as well. Daily consumers of MSNBC and public broadcasting (NPR and PBS) were higher (34 points and 25 points respectively) in believing that it was proven that the US Chamber of Commerce was spending money raised from foreign sources to support Republican candidates. Daily watchers of network TV news broadcasts were 12 points higher in believing that TARP was signed into law by President Obama, and 11 points higher in believing that most Republicans oppose TARP.

The poll of 848 Americans was fielded from November 6 to 15, 2010. The margin of error is plus or minus 3.4 percent. It was conducted using the web-enabled KnowledgePanel®, a probability-based panel designed to be representative of the U.S. population. Initially, participants are chosen scientifically by a random selection of telephone numbers and residential addresses. Persons in selected households are then invited by telephone or by mail to participate in the web-enabled KnowledgePanel®. For those who agree to participate, but do not already have Internet access, Knowledge Networks provides a laptop and ISP connection. More technical information is available at http://www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp/reviewer-info.html.

WorldPublicOpinion.org is a project managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland and funded by the Calvert Foundation and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

[Disclaimer]

Double post fail.

[Bad324]

i'm not reading that but I'm going to rebutt with one of my favorite sayings....People Are The Worst

[Uncle Punk]

You are getting there Justin it just takes time and a little observation but as you age and mature you might be able to see the bigger picture even if it does take someone else to point it out to you like this article does for you.

News flash for those just joining in any political debates, most voters are stupid. There I just summed up the entire article in half a sentence.

This is the only logical reason I can come up with to explain how the current president was elected.

[Disclaimer]

Or how we had 8 years of the one before him!

I already knew it, it just helps to have statistics and research to backup my opinion -- nothing new was pointed out here.

[Disclaimer]

ZOMFG this is quite shocking!

No Surprise, Republicans to Break Promise on Spending Cuts

Or...

PROMISES, PROMISES: GOP drops some out of the gate

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110106/ap_on_go_co/us_congress_gop_promises

[Casper]

ZOMFG this is quite shocking!

No Surprise, Republicans to Break Promise on Spending Cuts

Or...

PROMISES, PROMISES: GOP drops some out of the gate

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110106/ap_on_go_co/us_congress_gop_promises

[Bad324]

^^^^

I would hope that there would be a government takeover if that ever happens

Can we change the thread title to "ALL LIES THREAD"

Lets face it...politics is all one big lie

Edited January 6, 2011 by Bad324

[Casper]

^^^^

I would hope that there would be a government takeover if that ever happens

Can we change the thread title to "ALL LIES THREAD"

Lets face it...politics is all one big lie

You wouldn't vote for them?? They're about the last chance this country has.