Calculate your Obama Tax Cut - DPChallenge Forums

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

09/09/2008 12:21:14 PM · #202

Palin also claims to have fought against the infamously corrupt "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska -- yet video footage (played last night on MSNBC) shows her asking her congregation to pray for the bridge! And that was taped mere months ago.

EDIT: Furthermore, she also claimed to have fired her family's private chef -- when in actuality, the chef was rehired with a different job description, but continued to cook for them!

Message edited by author 2008-09-09 12:23:36.

09/09/2008 12:57:31 PM · #203

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Listening to Sarah Palin's speach we know where the American public is getting their ideas of Obama raising taxes.

If only people would do some of their own research and not just swallow what politicians feed them.

In the thread on Canadian politics you post as a conservative supporter. Here, you read as though you defend the liberal tax and spend philosophy. I fully agree that voters should be prepared to do their own research. However, unless you have the resources of several media outlets, the research will be limited to the research that others have written. Therefore, it is critically important (in my opinion) to garner a wide range of commentary (one reason I specifically tuned in MSNBC's commentary of the Republican convention to insure I would hear the slanted lefts take - which apparently wasn't too well received as the anchors have been re-assigned). Unless you read and listen to the opponents viewpoints, then you will never get the whole story and thus be lacking in perhaps a critical piece of information. Given that political savy by definition is sucessfully getting YOUR MESSAGE to be accepted as truth, it is not (or should not) be surprising to find creative editing on any candidates resume'. Kind of like what happens in the real world of job seekers. All the resume' gets you is maybe an interview. Then you actually have to interview. If hired (aka elected) you then must deliver. Something we have seen little of from at least one of the candidates.

cpanaioti

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

09/09/2008 01:00:18 PM · #204

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Listening to Sarah Palin's speach we know where the American public is getting their ideas of Obama raising taxes.

If only people would do some of their own research and not just swallow what politicians feed them.

In the thread on Canadian politics you post as a conservative supporter. Here, you read as though you defend the liberal tax and spend philosophy. I fully agree that voters should be prepared to do their own research. However, unless you have the resources of several media outlets, the research will be limited to the research that others have written. Therefore, it is critically important (in my opinion) to garner a wide range of commentary (one reason I specifically tuned in MSNBC's commentary of the Republican convention to insure I would hear the slanted lefts take - which apparently wasn't too well received as the anchors have been re-assigned). Unless you read and listen to the opponents viewpoints, then you will never get the whole story and thus be lacking in perhaps a critical piece of information. Given that political savy by definition is sucessfully getting YOUR MESSAGE to be accepted as truth, it is not (or should not) be surprising to find creative editing on any candidates resume'. Kind of like what happens in the real world of job seekers. All the resume' gets you is maybe an interview. Then you actually have to interview. If hired (aka elected) you then must deliver. Something we have seen little of from at least one of the candidates.

I don't see Obama with a tax and spend mentality. You need to look at the entire plan not just the parts that show spending since with the full plan it doesn't equate to that.

It happens in Canada as well. When you want to tar someone with a certain brush you ignore the parts of the plan that don't fit with the brush.

Message edited by author 2008-09-09 13:01:57.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

09/09/2008 01:02:56 PM · #205

Originally posted by Flash:

(one reason I specifically tuned in MSNBC's commentary of the Republican convention to insure I would hear the slanted lefts take - which apparently wasn't too well received as the anchors have been re-assigned)

If you're getting your idea of the left pov from MSNBC, then you don't know the left pov.

tate

Apple iPhone 15 Pro

09/09/2008 01:02:58 PM · #206

I'm sure most have heard about this â�¦ but how spooky is this?

09/09/2008 01:11:47 PM · #207

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

I don't trust anyone who's so wealthy they don't know how many houses they own.

It is your perogative to base decisions on any criteria you choose. However to claim that the reason that McCain's memory failed him was due to his wealth is false. You may choose to believe this reason, however if you truly believed that wealth was the reason for voting against any candidate then you would be left with only Palin. Scary isn't it? Certainly you are not claiming that Obama is believable because he is poor?

No, it is more policy driven items that have you favoring one candidate or party over the other.

09/09/2008 01:14:55 PM · #208

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by Flash:
(one reason I specifically tuned in MSNBC's commentary of the Republican convention to insure I would hear the slanted lefts take - which apparently wasn't too well received as the anchors have been re-assigned)

If you're getting your idea of the left pov from MSNBC, then you don't know the left pov.

Are you saying that MSNBC and specifically Oberman, is not representative of the left's pov? Is he too far left or not enough?

09/09/2008 01:22:39 PM · #209

Originally posted by metatate:

I'm sure most have heard about this â�¦ but how spooky is this?

If you are truly a proponent of truth, then please request that the Alaskan Democratic party return to their website the glowing credit they gave Gov Palin for stopping the Bridge to nowhere - which now it seems has beed edited out to more fall in line with the national party.

09/09/2008 01:31:52 PM · #210

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Really?? You really think invading another country based on false pretenses was justifiable because their leader was thumbing his nose at the U.S. and the U.N.? Killing all of those civilians and spending the lives of U.S. soldiers was worth getting back at a Saddam for being a jerk?

Jerk? Do you really seriously think that Saddam was just a jerk?

I am pretty confident that several thousand Iraqis may differ with your definition.

cpanaioti

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

09/09/2008 01:37:21 PM · #211

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Really?? You really think invading another country based on false pretenses was justifiable because their leader was thumbing his nose at the U.S. and the U.N.? Killing all of those civilians and spending the lives of U.S. soldiers was worth getting back at a Saddam for being a jerk?

Jerk? Do you really seriously think that Saddam was just a jerk?

I am pretty confident that several thousand Iraqis may differ with your definition.

What business is it of the US to invade a country where they don't like the leader? Oil?

Also, the US funded Saddam until he fell out of favour. Flip flop.

09/09/2008 01:40:57 PM · #212

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by Flash:
(one reason I specifically tuned in MSNBC's commentary of the Republican convention to insure I would hear the slanted lefts take - which apparently wasn't too well received as the anchors have been re-assigned)

If you're getting your idea of the left pov from MSNBC, then you don't know the left pov.

Are you saying that MSNBC and specifically Oberman, is not representative of the left's pov? Is he too far left or not enough?

MSNBC is not left enough to be called left. Neither is Olbermann consistently left.

09/09/2008 01:43:38 PM · #213

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by Flash:
(one reason I specifically tuned in MSNBC's commentary of the Republican convention to insure I would hear the slanted lefts take - which apparently wasn't too well received as the anchors have been re-assigned)

If you're getting your idea of the left pov from MSNBC, then you don't know the left pov.

Are you saying that MSNBC and specifically Oberman, is not representative of the left's pov? Is he too far left or not enough?

MSNBC is not left enough to be called left. Neither is Olbermann consistently left.

Well at least I now know what you consider left.

citymars

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

09/09/2008 01:49:26 PM · #214

Originally posted by Flash:

Perhaps the credit was removed because the truth was discovered? That Palin supported the bridge as recently as June of this year?

Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux M Aspherical MF - Black

09/09/2008 01:53:45 PM · #215

Originally posted by citymars:

Originally posted by Flash:
If you are truly a proponent of truth, then please request that the Alaskan Democratic party return to their website the glowing credit they gave Gov Palin for stopping the Bridge to nowhere - which now it seems has beed edited out to more fall in line with the national party.

Perhaps the credit was removed because the truth was discovered? That Palin supported the bridge as recently as June of this year?

I suppose that would be one way to explain it. The way that would save the most face for a state party that should have known what the truth was before it was "discovered" after she was nominated for national office. Kind of makes them to be a liar in the first place - or a liar in the second place. Either way they are/were lying. Didn't you folks have a discussion on pots and kettles a bit ago?

scarbrd

Leica M10

09/09/2008 02:04:55 PM · #216

Originally posted by Flash:

The live ones anyway.

09/09/2008 02:08:21 PM · #217

Here is an article that in my view - represents the correct approach. They do not agree with her politics but defend her against the adgenda driven attackers.

09/09/2008 02:39:33 PM · #218

Originally posted by Flash:

Here is an article that in my view - represents the correct approach. They do not agree with her politics but defend her against the adgenda driven attackers.

I agree. Beat her up on the issues.

But the character of all four candidates will be attacked, because that's what works best on swing voters. A sad fact of politics.

09/09/2008 03:00:08 PM · #219

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by Flash:
Here is an article that in my view - represents the correct approach. They do not agree with her politics but defend her against the adgenda driven attackers.

I agree. Beat her up on the issues.

But the character of all four candidates will be attacked, because that's what works best on swing voters. A sad fact of politics.

I suspect you are correct on the character attacks. Precisely why this article on Rev Wright's latest controversy will feed the political appetite. The comments at the end of the article is what I find illuminating into the voters mindset. Obama is not responsible for the actions of decisions of Rev Wright, but some will continue to question Obama's "judgement" as a reason to vote against him. I say - let their records speak to the candidates intentions/qualifications - not the actions of people whom they know. There is enough evidence from each candidate to essentially garner whether they support the basic tenets of the party platform.

Either you are pro gun or anti gun, pro life or pro choice, big government or small, pro union or anti union, for or against gay marriage, and on and on and on. I suspect many voters have personal interests in both parties (as I do), however only one gets the vote. Unfortunately the character assasinations are too common place.

Somewhere I once read that "Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events and small minds discuss people".

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

09/09/2008 03:03:27 PM · #220

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by Flash:
Here is an article that in my view - represents the correct approach. They do not agree with her politics but defend her against the adgenda driven attackers.

I agree. Beat her up on the issues.

But the character of all four candidates will be attacked, because that's what works best on swing voters. A sad fact of politics.

I suspect you are correct on the character attacks. Precisely why this article on Rev Wright's latest controversy will feed the political appetite. The comments at the end of the article is what I find illuminating into the voters mindset. Obama is not responsible for the actions of decisions of Rev Wright, but some will continue to question Obama's "judgement" as a reason to vote against him. I say - let their records speak to the candidates intentions/qualifications - not the actions of people whom they know. There is enough evidence from each candidate to essentially garner whether they support the basic tenets of the party platform.

Either you are pro gun or anti gun, pro life or pro choice, big government or small, pro union or anti union, for or against gay marriage, and on and on and on. I suspect many voters have personal interests in both parties (as I do), however only one gets the vote. Unfortunately the character assasinations are too common place.

Somewhere I once read that "Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events and small minds discuss people".

Wow, Flash, I think this is the most I've ever agreed with you! :D

Still not 100% though, because not everyone is sure on every issue. For example, I have mixed feelings about big vs. small government, and mixed feelings about unions.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

09/09/2008 03:09:11 PM · #221

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I don't trust anyone who's so wealthy they don't know how many houses they own.

It is your perogative to base decisions on any criteria you choose. However to claim that the reason that McCain's memory failed him was due to his wealth is false. You may choose to believe this reason, however if you truly believed that wealth was the reason for voting against any candidate then you would be left with only Palin. Scary isn't it? Certainly you are not claiming that Obama is believable because he is poor?

No, it is more policy driven items that have you favoring one candidate or party over the other.

I don't trust McCain because he claims to be a "maverick" who will stand up for the average guy. He's not. He's one of the wealthy elite who have enough money to buy so many houses that the number exceeds their capacity to remember. The fact that he has so many that he can't remember how many he owns speaks volumes about how far removed he is from the reality of life as an average American above and beyond any possible deterioration of his mental faculties.

As for his running mate, he's made an interesting choice, but from what I've seen, Palin's record is in such conflict with her recollection of events and her stated positions that I'd sooner vote for Dick Cheney.

trevytrev

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

09/09/2008 03:17:13 PM · #222

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by Flash:
Here is an article that in my view - represents the correct approach. They do not agree with her politics but defend her against the adgenda driven attackers.

I agree. Beat her up on the issues.

But the character of all four candidates will be attacked, because that's what works best on swing voters. A sad fact of politics.

I suspect you are correct on the character attacks. Precisely why this article on Rev Wright's latest controversy will feed the political appetite. The comments at the end of the article is what I find illuminating into the voters mindset. Obama is not responsible for the actions of decisions of Rev Wright, but some will continue to question Obama's "judgement" as a reason to vote against him. I say - let their records speak to the candidates intentions/qualifications - not the actions of people whom they know. There is enough evidence from each candidate to essentially garner whether they support the basic tenets of the party platform.

Either you are pro gun or anti gun, pro life or pro choice, big government or small, pro union or anti union, for or against gay marriage, and on and on and on. I suspect many voters have personal interests in both parties (as I do), however only one gets the vote. Unfortunately the character assasinations are too common place.

Somewhere I once read that "Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events and small minds discuss people".

Wow, Flash, I think this is the most I've ever agreed with you! :D

Still not 100% though, because not everyone is sure on every issue. For example, I have mixed feelings about big vs. small government, and mixed feelings about unions.

There in lies the problem, we get into political discussions and people tend to make issues black and white when there is so much shades of gray between. The party platforms usually take the extremes and feed them to their core base who eat it up like cake with icing, then you have a lot of people in the middle who are torn on multiple issues. Both sides have issues that I agree and disagree with, the hard part is trying to figure out which are the most important to yourself and what you think is for the betterment of the country