Remember when the shit hit the fan about Obama's former pastor?
I wonder if the kool-ade drinkers would be appreciative that Palin spoke/speaks highly of a Kenyan pastor that went on a witch hunt.
So, my opinion has and will always be that just because a preacher preaches doesn't mean his flock listens or even thinks he's correct. Obama is a good example when he openly criticized his former pastor's speeches. Not everyone is a blind sheep hobbling along with the rest of the deluded pack. But what does it say when you openly praise and give credit to prayer from a certified fuckwit? It says that you are either willing to create an artificial atmosphere of appreciation or that are just as demented as the person whom you are praising. Either way, the assessment is not in your favor.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Monday, September 22, 2008
McCain's cars
It isn't bad enough that McCain has seven-plus houses. He also has thirteen cars as well.
How many houses does Obama own? One? Can you guess how many cars? One.
Obama's "elitism" is laughable charge every day more financianl information about McCain surfaces. Oh look! Arugula!
How many houses does Obama own? One? Can you guess how many cars? One.
Obama's "elitism" is laughable charge every day more financianl information about McCain surfaces. Oh look! Arugula!
Stem Cell Research and the Republican Party Platform
I'm pretty confident that the few readers I have on this blog are well-aware of the ban on federal funds supporting embryonic stem cell research. I wonder though if they are like me and let the change in party platform go by. It seems that the 2008 Republican Party position on stem cell research is for a complete ban (public or private).
Regardless of your position on whether it is "right" for taxpayers to help fund such research, I think it is easy to determine when a political party takes a very totalitarian approach to an issue of little relevance to the daily functioning of a society.
Regardless of your position on whether it is "right" for taxpayers to help fund such research, I think it is easy to determine when a political party takes a very totalitarian approach to an issue of little relevance to the daily functioning of a society.
McCain needs to work on his comparisons.
I don't think what he says about what should be done about healthcare would jibe very well with some individuals:
So he wants to do to health care what the Repiblicans have been doing with the banking and credit industry. Someone needs to check his email more often before he writes.
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 he wants to do to health care what the Repiblicans have been doing with the banking and credit industry. Someone needs to check his email more often before he writes.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Watering Down the VP Debate
It seems that the McCain campaign fought hard to have a strict Q&A-type format for the the VP debate between Biden and Palin. Why?
It’s too bad she couldn’t see Joe Biden from her house. Because then she’d be an expert on him and know just what to say in the debates.
McCain advisers said they had been concerned that a loose format could leave Ms.
Palin, a relatively inexperienced debater, at a disadvantage and largely on the
defensive.
It’s too bad she couldn’t see Joe Biden from her house. Because then she’d be an expert on him and know just what to say in the debates.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
An Obama Campaign Gaffe
An viral ad made by the intellectually devoid and morally bankrupt group known as BornAliveTurth.org has been circulating the conservative blogosphere over the past few days.
The ad, of course, has no problem leaving out the reasoning behind why Obama voted against each bill. Anyone is welcome to read his website on that issue, which isn't the main point of this post. But basically, Obama does support born alive porotections, and he voting against the bill initially because it wasn't worded soundly compared to the already pre-existing bill calling for provisions of care to so-called "failed abortions".
Of course no one bothers to read the history, instead the kool-ade drinkers would rather hit the emotional zinger. "Gianna wouldn't be here today if Obama had his way" claims the site where the video is. But insert any percieved evil person for Gianna, and it can be shown that the emotionally charged statement is moot in this discussion on women's rights.
But an ad from Obama calling out the BornAliveTruth ad is simply wrong on who made the ad:
I think whoever is running the response-ad part of Obama's campaign needs to stop being so trigger happy in blaming McCain for every misleading and despicable ad put out. There do exist some grassroot initiatives that have been putting out erroneous ads, such as BornAliveTruth here and another organization distorting the relationship between Obama and Ayers to the point of beaing nearly libel.
The campaign needs to fire back at BornAliveTruth, not McCain, in this instance. They need to pull out the guns to suppress any doubts on Obama's position on women's rights and how misleading such ads are from these grassroots initiatives.
And I may suggest them looking into any possible connection between these so-called grassroots and the McCain campaign management. I'm not calling dirty politicis yet, but the Republicans have a track record of unethical actions during campaigns. Swift-boating and voter caging: need I say more?
NOTE: According to Ben Smith, the Obama ad hasn't been released to the press but was found on the BornAliveTruth's YouTube account. Here's to hoping that the Obama campaign reevaluates the integrity of the ad and revamp it to criticize the proper disgusting individuals involved.
The ad, of course, has no problem leaving out the reasoning behind why Obama voted against each bill. Anyone is welcome to read his website on that issue, which isn't the main point of this post. But basically, Obama does support born alive porotections, and he voting against the bill initially because it wasn't worded soundly compared to the already pre-existing bill calling for provisions of care to so-called "failed abortions".
Of course no one bothers to read the history, instead the kool-ade drinkers would rather hit the emotional zinger. "Gianna wouldn't be here today if Obama had his way" claims the site where the video is. But insert any percieved evil person for Gianna, and it can be shown that the emotionally charged statement is moot in this discussion on women's rights.
But an ad from Obama calling out the BornAliveTruth ad is simply wrong on who made the ad:
I think whoever is running the response-ad part of Obama's campaign needs to stop being so trigger happy in blaming McCain for every misleading and despicable ad put out. There do exist some grassroot initiatives that have been putting out erroneous ads, such as BornAliveTruth here and another organization distorting the relationship between Obama and Ayers to the point of beaing nearly libel.
The campaign needs to fire back at BornAliveTruth, not McCain, in this instance. They need to pull out the guns to suppress any doubts on Obama's position on women's rights and how misleading such ads are from these grassroots initiatives.
And I may suggest them looking into any possible connection between these so-called grassroots and the McCain campaign management. I'm not calling dirty politicis yet, but the Republicans have a track record of unethical actions during campaigns. Swift-boating and voter caging: need I say more?
NOTE: According to Ben Smith, the Obama ad hasn't been released to the press but was found on the BornAliveTruth's YouTube account. Here's to hoping that the Obama campaign reevaluates the integrity of the ad and revamp it to criticize the proper disgusting individuals involved.
How McCain twists Biden's words and Lies about Obama's tax plan (again, and again, and again...)
McCain distorting things? If you think he hasn't, then I have a Bridge to Nowhere to sell you.
Where do we begin? Did Biden say that paying higher taxes was patriotic, or that paying taxes is patriotic? When I watch the following and hear his speeches at various campaign stops, I sense the latter intent:
But let's put the word twisting aside. Can somebody instruct the McCain campaign that the tax increase they speak about was for individuals making more than $42,000 a year, and that this tax increase amounted to only about $15? And could somebody tell them that part of the Obama-Biden platform is to increase taxes on individuals making over $200,000 in total income?
But I guess real patriotism comes from not paying high taxes. If that's the case, then it seems Cheney is the best patriot because out of an adjusted gross income of over $3,000,000, he only spent 19% on taxes. Compared to Obama who made over $4,000,000 and spent about 33% to the IRS. It seems Obama isn't a patriot for giving so much money to the government.
Where do we begin? Did Biden say that paying higher taxes was patriotic, or that paying taxes is patriotic? When I watch the following and hear his speeches at various campaign stops, I sense the latter intent:
But let's put the word twisting aside. Can somebody instruct the McCain campaign that the tax increase they speak about was for individuals making more than $42,000 a year, and that this tax increase amounted to only about $15? And could somebody tell them that part of the Obama-Biden platform is to increase taxes on individuals making over $200,000 in total income?
But I guess real patriotism comes from not paying high taxes. If that's the case, then it seems Cheney is the best patriot because out of an adjusted gross income of over $3,000,000, he only spent 19% on taxes. Compared to Obama who made over $4,000,000 and spent about 33% to the IRS. It seems Obama isn't a patriot for giving so much money to the government.
McCain lieing about Obama's tax plan, again
The title really isn't shocking. We know McCain has lied before in his ads, such as with his recent one about Obama and sexual education. But let's take a look again at this 30-second soundbite:
I wish the McCain campaign could point me where in Obama's tax plan it states that electricity and heating oil would be taxed? Oh, wait. That's right. Obama is actually wanting to give people a $1,000 tax rebate on heating costs. Did McCain's campaign confuse a tax rebate with an actual tax? Or are they confusing a windfall profits tax, a tax on the coproration, with a tax on the consumer? Wait a minute...maybe they shouldn't go that route, since Palin supported a windfall tax in Alaska. Oops.
Probably not. They are claiming that in order to cover all of Obama's plans, Obama would eventually have to raise taxes. That's not what the ad implies. The ad makes the viewer believe Obama would tax such things now, not later. McCain is welcome to his opinion on the spending Obama proposes, but neither candidate has proposed anything that would cut down the budget's deficit (analysis on Obama and McCain from the Tax Policy Center).
But don't tell anyone that McCain's plans would actually increase the debt by about twice as much as Obama's plans. It may upset the kool-aid drinkers.
Spreading Misinformation in Spanish
In the first half of this political game, McCain has been attempting to use misleading and even completely false ads to gain an edge on the Obama. Now, in the second half and the home stretch, it seems both campaigns are upping their distortions.
Personally, I find it pathetic that the American audience has become so dependent on 30 second soundbites that such misnformation can be given over the airwaves. But that's for another post.
First, take a gander at the following Spanish speaking Obama ad:
For those who speak Spanish, the jest of it is linking Limbaugh with McCain, and claiming Limbaugh said that Mexicans were "stupid and unqualified" and need to "[s]hut up, or get out". Though I disagree with Limbaugh's claims that his quotes were taken out of context and that Obama is attempting to create racial antagonism, I do disagree with the Obama ad misleading viewers into thinking McCain associates with the political drek known as Limbaugh. They are not friends, and probably never will be.
I do think the Obama ad would have done a better job informing undecided voters that it was a Republican-ran coalition that filibustered an immigrant amnesty bill. The very same Republican-led coalition that now supports McCain's campaign, despite the fact that it was McCain's bipartisan legislation they opposed. The very same Republican coalition that McCain has hired to run his campaign and to operate the transition between his campaign and his potential transfer to the presidential office. Isthe new thing to do is to repackage the same-old politics as "reform" and "prosperity"? It seems so in the style of McCain.
And with that aside, we discuss the hilarious misinformation in the following McCain ad:
The legislation had poison pills? Doesn't seem so to me. The list constructed seem like reasonable plans. How does testing the waters with a new program before making it a permanent mainstay a poison pill? The truth of the matter is, though, it wasn't the "11th hour" amendments that did the imigration bill in. In the words of McCain himself, "I just think the opposition to it was very strong.”
But all of this is a moot point. The ad is misleading because it may make viewers think John McCain supports immigration reform still. He doesn't. When asked back in Janurary:
Maybe that's another thing a better Obama ad should point out? The fact that an ad criticizing Obama on immigration reform is coming from a candidate who has no interest in doing immigration reform. Nice.
Personally, I find it pathetic that the American audience has become so dependent on 30 second soundbites that such misnformation can be given over the airwaves. But that's for another post.
First, take a gander at the following Spanish speaking Obama ad:
For those who speak Spanish, the jest of it is linking Limbaugh with McCain, and claiming Limbaugh said that Mexicans were "stupid and unqualified" and need to "[s]hut up, or get out". Though I disagree with Limbaugh's claims that his quotes were taken out of context and that Obama is attempting to create racial antagonism, I do disagree with the Obama ad misleading viewers into thinking McCain associates with the political drek known as Limbaugh. They are not friends, and probably never will be.
I do think the Obama ad would have done a better job informing undecided voters that it was a Republican-ran coalition that filibustered an immigrant amnesty bill. The very same Republican-led coalition that now supports McCain's campaign, despite the fact that it was McCain's bipartisan legislation they opposed. The very same Republican coalition that McCain has hired to run his campaign and to operate the transition between his campaign and his potential transfer to the presidential office. Isthe new thing to do is to repackage the same-old politics as "reform" and "prosperity"? It seems so in the style of McCain.
And with that aside, we discuss the hilarious misinformation in the following McCain ad:
The legislation had poison pills? Doesn't seem so to me. The list constructed seem like reasonable plans. How does testing the waters with a new program before making it a permanent mainstay a poison pill? The truth of the matter is, though, it wasn't the "11th hour" amendments that did the imigration bill in. In the words of McCain himself, "I just think the opposition to it was very strong.”
But all of this is a moot point. The ad is misleading because it may make viewers think John McCain supports immigration reform still. He doesn't. When asked back in Janurary:
Q: At this point, if your original proposal came to a vote on the Senate floor, would you vote for it?
McCain: No, I would not, because we know what the situation is today. So to say that that would come to the floor of the Senate, it won't.
Maybe that's another thing a better Obama ad should point out? The fact that an ad criticizing Obama on immigration reform is coming from a candidate who has no interest in doing immigration reform. Nice.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Republican Geography 101
I have no itentions on turning this blog into a political discussion blog, but I can't help myself to point out a disturbing trend. The current Republican nominee seems to be lacking in geographical awareness.
I am not certain how many people remember when McCain talked about the problems at the Iraqi-Pakistan border, but we have another potential gaffe (or perhaps a serious foible in foreign policy) from the Republican candidate.
He thinks Spain may not be a friend of the United States. Spain, which is part of NATO and has contributed much in the intelligence gathering to fight terrorism. I guess the name of their prime minister[1] confused the poor guy. Either that, or McCain is very sore that Spain had no intentions to remain in Iraq for hundreds of years. Though Spain was part of the "coalition of the willing", the new prime minister (Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero) pulled the troops back in 2004.
Does it bother anyone else that the candidate who claims to have more foreign policy experience doesn't recognize the name of a current prime minister of an ally nation?
Oh well. I have a feeling that sometime in the near future someone will defend this gaffe/foible by saying something along the lines of "McCain was a POW for five years; so he didn't have a globe then" or something similarly inane.
Notes:
[1] His name does have a potential Latin flare to it due to being a Spanish name...but of course, since Spain speaks Spanish, one would assume it be possible for their prime minister to have a Spanish-sounding name. Is this a potential case of McCain showing prejudice?
I am not certain how many people remember when McCain talked about the problems at the Iraqi-Pakistan border, but we have another potential gaffe (or perhaps a serious foible in foreign policy) from the Republican candidate.
He thinks Spain may not be a friend of the United States. Spain, which is part of NATO and has contributed much in the intelligence gathering to fight terrorism. I guess the name of their prime minister[1] confused the poor guy. Either that, or McCain is very sore that Spain had no intentions to remain in Iraq for hundreds of years. Though Spain was part of the "coalition of the willing", the new prime minister (Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero) pulled the troops back in 2004.
Does it bother anyone else that the candidate who claims to have more foreign policy experience doesn't recognize the name of a current prime minister of an ally nation?
Oh well. I have a feeling that sometime in the near future someone will defend this gaffe/foible by saying something along the lines of "McCain was a POW for five years; so he didn't have a globe then" or something similarly inane.
Notes:
[1] His name does have a potential Latin flare to it due to being a Spanish name...but of course, since Spain speaks Spanish, one would assume it be possible for their prime minister to have a Spanish-sounding name. Is this a potential case of McCain showing prejudice?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
