Sarah Palin's speech

[Dave]

^^^Techincally, military bases are sovereign U.S. soil.

And, it annoys me when these kinds of smear campaigns are used by both sides. As much as I do not support Obama, that was uncalled for.

Actually, from a constitutional standpoint, it is up in the air.

And why dont you get off your fucking high horse and read my whole post. Hardly a smear by me.

[Ral]

^^^Techincally, military bases are sovereign U.S. soil.

And, it annoys me when these kinds of smear campaigns are used by both sides. As much as I do not support Obama, that was uncalled for.

[Dave]

^^^^^^

The irony is that McCain is the one who was NOT born in the US!!!!

(Though I do not personally think that he should be disqualified for it - he was born on a US military facility to US citizens . . . .)

[Farbin Kaiber]

Did you guys hear this?

http://www.timesherald.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20089295&BRD=1672&PAG=461&dept_id=33380&rfi=6

[Das Boots]

We need a Poll over here....still new to this forum to do polls. However, if you able to do one, Do It!!!!

McCain - Palin
Obama - Baiden

Says it all......simple!!!!

[ragged325]

Listen, here's what I've been saying. I'd consider myself a fiscal conservative who is socially liberal (I won't be enlisting in the "War Against Xmas" this year). Most of you are fiscal and social conservatives. I agree with you on most of the economic issues, but disagree on the social stuff.

Without knowing his take on every position, I would have liked to see someone like Bloomberg run for the job because I think he's the same (fiscal conservative, social liberal).

The stuff I'm trying to point out is that Palin is not a fiscal conservative (and is a liar). This bothers me, but is not as important to any of you because she is a social conservative.

The Daily Show clips demonstrate that McCain learned some lessons from the 2000 elections and realized he needed to pander to social conservatives to win the presidency. This doesn't bother any of you because you are all social conservatives. I get it.

[rwh11385]

Didn't Reagan borrow from Social Security and never put money back into it? It seems like Republicans can't keep their hands out of the SS Cookie Jar.

Also IIRC under Clinton, he did have higher taxes, but he was a great speaker much like Obama. He convinced the people yes, we will have higher taxes now; but it'll lower the deficit and we'll be better off in the long run.

I'm not sure if the same logic will work now; I don't have enough economic knowledge to see why it wouldn't.

I'm on the right track or onto something yes?

Just think of it as creating shifts in business behavior. Min wage going up = bad. Energy costs going up = bad. Huge demand shock of two planes into towers = bad. Katrina supply shock to oil refining = bad.

During the 90s, more outsourcing shit jobs to India = good for business. Continuing business even with tax rates during that time was what people would do since they got in the 80s and getting out would be dumb. But to bring them back in with higher costs across and a questionable environment would be harder if the rates weren't lowered.

There's plenty of business opportunity in BRIC countries, so controlling our costs and continuing our productivity while keeping incentive to invest is what we need - i.e. don't change min wage, create new jobs when worthless ones are skimmed, and keep capital gains taxes low and marginal top rates where they are.

Taxes don't create or reduce deficits, spending does.

The weak assumption on Clinton or others part is that if income/investment/business remains the same, that revenues will rise. But revenues rise when there is incentive to invest/earn which is the result of tax rates LOWERING. Simple economics.

Today there is more options to invest your money with, including international. My 401k has a large international investment component and if business is not going to be rosy here under socialist Obama decisions, the money that could be put into the system here will go outside the country instead. Jobs can be created other places than here, if there is a disadvantage here in taxes, wages, etc. and not enough return in productivity.

With Obama wanting to raise wage, have companies provide IRAs, etc. for employees, it's going to take a lot with the 2nd highest corporate tax in the world to have people want to invest here. Low taxes on a healthy machine is better than high taxes choking the engine with a throttle plate mostly closed off. Giving people something for nothing is not how capitalism works, that is socialism. People should be rewarded for risking capital.

[red]

Reaganomics were highly successful and everyone benefited. Even the poor became richer (although not at the same rate as the rich) - but the rich own the capital, the foundation of capitalism. They not only earned more but they weren't suffering from the inflation and lack of jobs that marked Carter's years.

Maybe if you were educated, you would know better.

Didn't Reagan borrow from Social Security and never put money back into it? It seems like Republicans can't keep their hands out of the SS Cookie Jar.

Also IIRC under Clinton, he did have higher taxes, but he was a great speaker much like Obama. He convinced the people yes, we will have higher taxes now; but it'll lower the deficit and we'll be better off in the long run.

I'm not sure if the same logic will work now; I don't have enough economic knowledge to see why it wouldn't.

I'm on the right track or onto something yes?

[Vedubin01]

Watch about 2:35 into it.....

[Pinepig]

^lol

I was about to say the same thing.

What else would you expect from the Daily Show?

I haven't been here that long but IMHO that failed even by Liar standards.

[RobertK]

^lol

I was about to say the same thing.

What else would you expect from the Daily Show?

[Ral]

Seriously?? You're quoting the Daily Show?? because that's the definition of journalistic integrity and accuracy right there...

OH NOES, A SARCASTIC LIBERAL TELEVISION SHOW HAD SOMETHING BAD TO SAY ABOUT MCCAIN, IT'S COMPLETELY TRUE AND UNBIASED!!!!!!

That's his job, to make fun of politicians!!

[ragged325]

I love how the media twisted McCain's ownership of multiple homes to seem like he cannot relate to the American public simply because he's wealthy. As much as it may hurt your feelings middle class America, you cannot simply obtain wealth by being medicre and maintaining the status quo.

Just to clarify, McCain obtained his wealth by divorcing his injured wife a month after meeting a very rich heiress. I guess he didn't maintain the status quo, but I'm not sure I'd call that anything above mediocre.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...ft-behind.html

The Daily Show has had some pretty hard hitting things to say about McCain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vm0P4LmHHM&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1rmk4hLROg

[E30 Cabrio]

Yes, Obama did. McCain's "middle class" goes up to $5million a year. That was my point.

You do realize McCain was being facetious when he made that statement, right?

And you do realize he immediately stated that the comment would be taken out of context and made the disclaimer as he wasn't serious when he made that claim.

Either you're being ignorant, obtuse or are knowingly posting a falsehood.

Regardless, it's not factually correct:

Pastor Rick Warren, Aug. 16: [G]ive me a number, give me a specific number - where do you move from middle class to rich?

McCain: I don't want to take any money from the rich – I want everybody to get rich. ... So, I think if you are just talking about income, how about $5 million?

(LAUGHTER)

But seriously, I don't think you can - I don't think seriously that - the point is that I'm trying to make here, seriously – and I'm sure that comment will be distorted – but the point is that we want to keep people's taxes low and increase revenues.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_obama.html

That didn't stop the Obama camp from running ads falsely claiming that McCain believes the difference between middle class and rich is 5 million dollars.

[E30 Cabrio]

McCain/Palin up 54-44 in the latest USA Today/Gallup poll:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-07-poll_N.htm

Other polls have McCain/Palin up by 3 to 6 pts.

After the dust settles, I expect "McPalin" to have a slight edge within the MOE (Margin of Error) heading into the debates (48-46) and after the debates, back up to near double-digits. (54-46)

Unless Obama can convince Hillary to join the ticket as VP and Biden drops out due to "personal issues" it's over for Obama.

Palin's speech was the shot heard 'round the world, and it completely flipped the script as Obama had a 6-9 pt. lead after the DNC Convention, and now, McPalin has a 6-9 pt. lead after the RNC Convention.

Anywhere from a 6-13 pt. turnaround, depending on which poll you're looking at.

Phenomenal turnaround.

What a shame. Obama was already planning on breaking ground on his Presidential Library.