[Masthead] A Few Clouds ~ 59°F  
High: 62°F ~ Low: 42°F
Thursday, Oct. 30, 2014

Anything to get elected

Posted Thursday, October 23, 2008, at 11:51 AM

John McCain is accusing Barack Obama today of saying "anything to get elected."

His example: A work requirement embedded within an Obama proposal to grant a 10 percent universal mortgage credit.

"The requirement was added two weeks ago to avoid charges that the proposal provided 'welfare' to non-working Americans," the Associated Press reports, adding that the requirement was disclosed only within the campaign or to inquiring reporters.

Campaign time's getting confusing, folks. Seems that a Republican would be backing instead of bashing a work requirement.

I suspect both McCain and Obama will say "anything to get elected."

Yes, I'm going to vote for one of 'em. But I don't particularly like either one.

Looks like it's time for a major upheaval in the nation.

If America could just get its collective mind unwrapped from around that confining two-party system and look beyond...

Of course, then we'd have still more people saying "anything to get elected."


Comments
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

Hasn't it always been "Say whatever needs to be said to get elected?"

I think the new slogan these days is " Vote Early and Vote Often"

-- Posted by Dianatn on Thu, Oct 23, 2008, at 2:04 PM

while it is strange to watch two basically centrist candidates impersonate extremists so as to appeal to the radical elements of their respective parties,

it is stranger still to watch when, one or two hours after some damaging gaffe or revelation, the revised story is released by the party and the faithful promptly pick it up and begin spouting it as gospel....

even when it represents a 180 degree change from the truth of an hour earlier.

as for the third party, americans have no one to blame but themselves. no matter how much they complain, no matter what happens, when they walk into that voting booth they slavishly vote for an R or a D.

if we ever want to have a third party, people will have to screw up the courage to vote for third party candidates.

-- Posted by lazarus on Thu, Oct 23, 2008, at 2:16 PM

anyone that believes obama will actually cut taxes is completely fooling themselves. he has shown nothing in his slim political history to support anything like that, but now he throws out all these false promises to the tax payers. i'm pretty sure most of america doesn't buy it. at least we know what we are getting with mccain and we have something to work with. obama is a smooth talker and his style is swaying millions of people. although he may win, it's too bad he has no substance to back it up. we do not this guy leading this country at this time.

-- Posted by DoubleJ on Thu, Oct 23, 2008, at 2:28 PM

I am so mixed up on who to trust and who to vote for. Time is coming to a end and I just do not know who is talking the truth or just talking to sound good.It is a darn shame not to know if they really mean what they say.

-- Posted by heaven8kids7grandrebelrose on Thu, Oct 23, 2008, at 4:04 PM

it isnt that bad, rebel rose.

as far as who is talking the truth, or talking to sound good, the answer is neither.

they are both talking to make the other one sound bad. that is what wins elections.

truth be known, the candidates do not have the animosity towards one another that exists among their supporters. as a matter of fact, biden and mccain are, and have long been, quite good friends.

at the end of the day, the candidates would have no problem going out to dinner and having a convivial evening. they understand the rules of the game, and are not likely to take anything that is being said personally.

in actuality, given the constraints that the election will be won by a democrat or a republican, these are two of the better presidential candidates that we have had to choose between in many years. both are men of above average integrity (for washington). obama has the edge in intelligence, mccain in experience. we will be about equally well served by either one winning. i will have to add that i sure do hope the winner lives out his term. i cant say that either vp candidate particularly inspires me.

to understand why negative campaigning works, you need to do some reading on psychological heuristics. there is not enough space in this forum for any in depth discussion of that topic, but you can probably locate enough information to make you question your own decision making.

with apologies to david for straying from his topic, dont expect either one's economic plan to "fix" our situation. there may be a thousand books out, touting a hundred theories, but there is only one significant fact in economics;

"sooner or later, someone has to pay."

the primary root cause of our current economic distress is the national debt, closely followed by our collective individual debt.

since both plans are based on further increasing the national debt in order to return us to the halcyon days of burgeoning personal debt, neither has any long term merit. however, it would not be feasible to run for president on a platform of "ya'll are gonna have to make some sacrifices until we get some of this debt paid down." the question of "sacrifices" was asked repeatedly during the debates. if you will recall, neither candidate answered it.

relax, rose. the only real threat to our nation are the extremists on either side. be glad our candidates arent among them.

-- Posted by lazarus on Thu, Oct 23, 2008, at 7:38 PM

there is only one significant fact in economics;

"sooner or later, someone has to pay."

-- Posted by lazarus on Thu, Oct 23, 2008, at 7:38 PM

lazarus,

Now that is hard core Reality. Right on the money.

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Thu, Oct 23, 2008, at 10:47 PM

This right here is what really saddens me about this election . . .

http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news...

To be honest, some Obama supporters have been scary at their approach to politics and this article doesnt help that belief.

-- Posted by jaxspike on Fri, Oct 24, 2008, at 7:39 AM

you all make some good point i think this election will benefit America more in the long run than it will immediately. For look at how many people are actually paying attention to politics just for the simple reason of..

1. we had a Black man beat out a woman for the democratic nomination(more black people than ever have started to follow politics

2. there is a potential woman vp on the other side(and she has drawn a lot of attention to this election as well.

No matter waht we are going to have a first in this election

either a Black president or a woman vp

-- Posted by volhater on Fri, Oct 24, 2008, at 7:40 AM

What about the vp's that are running also.Shouldn't we wonder who will be the best also when we get ready to vote? What if something happens to Obama or McCain? It is so mixed up that I am torn between them. If I go for McCain because i believe he has more experience but I do not believe that his vp would do a good job if she had to fill his spot. Obama I believe he has alot of intelligence and I do believe if something happened to him that his vp is a better man than McCains vp to fill the spot.

-- Posted by heaven8kids7grandrebelrose on Fri, Oct 24, 2008, at 8:48 AM

I am voting third party (Constitution Party) but this is my assumption of Obama . . .

Obama said he wants to expedite loans to small businesses, so he seems to have a clue that they produce much of the country's job growth. Yet his income-tax hike on upper brackets will hit vast numbers of small businesses - they'd face the highest rates they've seen in decades.

Overall, his plan includes some of the most lethal tax increases imaginable, including a jump in the capital-gains rate. He'd expand government spending massively, with everything from new public-works projects to increases in foreign aid to a surge in Afghanistan - plus hand out a token welfare check that he calls a tax cut to everyone else. In fact, the stock market is a forward-looking mechanism, and that at least some of the market's recent fall is result of pricing in an expected Obama victory because Obama's economic plan is anything but reassuring

Obama will increase employment by giving tax breaks for corporations to bring jobs back to America by giving a $3,000 tax break per job but how many people would be willing to work for $3,000 a year (the company still has to pay the workers and $3000 isn't a drop in the bucket when they can pay far less in other countries).

Also, how Obama will ensure a tax break for 95% of people despite the fact that about 40% don't pay income taxes? Obama has stated that he would reach the 95% figure by initiating taxes on the 40% who don't pay income taxes now, so that he could later give them their promised tax break. That one really amuses me.

Obama also wants to give us government-run health care and will pay for it, and all his other programs, by taxing the rich and corporations. The problem is that the wealthy already pay the majority of income taxes, and that corporations don't really pay taxes, that they for the most part simply pass those taxes on to consumers. So while you may not be paying as many taxes, you will be paying for higher goods so do you really save any many in the process . . . NO! Under Obama's health plan I will be able to go to any doctor, including the most expensive specialists I can find, and the government will pay for it and all my other medical expenses, no matter how high the cost. Again, paid for by increased taxes only on the rich and corporations and we know what they do in cases like that . . . again cut jobs and raise prices.

That is my view on him and his economic policies and how it was explained to me by an Obama campaign worker. Of course this person mentioned to me that we are at high unemployment levels but yet the unemployment rate for September was 6.1 which is historically kind of low.

-- Posted by jaxspike on Fri, Oct 24, 2008, at 9:31 AM

Even though I am an Obama supporter, I do believe this country will be better off with either of them than it has been over the past eight years. I admire McCain as a man, but he and I disagree on a political level. I'm much more in line with Obama's viewpoints.

And, yes, I do realize that they all will say things just to get elected.

-- Posted by tamb on Fri, Oct 24, 2008, at 9:37 AM

jaxspike-I went to the site about the young lady who was robbed at the ATM machine. As I was reading this I thought to myself what if she was making all this up to make it look bad on the people who are going to vote for Obama? It seems she had changed her story a couple of times.I knew before I got to the end of the story that she was going to say a black male. For some reason I do not believe that it happened. It looked like the B on her face was backwards.

-- Posted by heaven8kids7grandrebelrose on Fri, Oct 24, 2008, at 9:45 AM

I cant imagine getting beaten and having someone carve a letter on your face just to make a candidate look bad . . . so much violence happens now for such pointless reasons so I wouldn't doubt this situation happening either no matter what side it reflected on.

-- Posted by jaxspike on Fri, Oct 24, 2008, at 9:55 AM

lazarus, I agree that heuristics have far more significance than we realize, and I do agree with you that someone has to pay, I just wonder who you imagine is the one that always pays.

-- Posted by memyselfi on Fri, Oct 24, 2008, at 10:04 AM

jakspike-who is running for third party?

-- Posted by heaven8kids7grandrebelrose on Fri, Oct 24, 2008, at 10:08 AM

jaxspike

The incident in Pittsburg is looking more and more like a pathetic attempt at 15 minutes of fame.

http://wonkette.com/403766/racial-muggin...

-- Posted by GoTitans on Fri, Oct 24, 2008, at 10:20 AM

RR,

if you were asking me (i dont want to assume too much) i am not enamored with either VP choice. biden is a very intelligent man... with a loose tongue. if you could put a 5 minute limit on every statement he makes, like they had in the debate, he sounds great.

altho i would be less than elated with biden, he does have enough experience and intelligence to function as president.

i hate to say it, but palin would be a deal breaker for me (were i forced to vote R or D).

not because of what has been said about her, but from what she said about herself.

according to P, her first act as mayor was to demand resignations from all the department heads, and interview them to determine their personal loyalty before deciding whether to retain them. this demonstrates a complete failure to grasp how government functions.

the people's interests are represented by two distinctly separate groups within the government; the elected officials and the professional staff.

it is the professional staff which performs the actual tasks that government performs (be it garbage pickup, police & fire protection, road maintenance, or electrical inspections), and they are not, and should not be, bound by loyalty to any individual or party. the loyalty of the professional staff is (or should be) to the taxpayer. that is why they are not elected. Elected officials determine policy, and the professional staff enacts that policy. when the elected officials change, the professional staff maintains continuity of service during the transition. a good professional staff is able to work for whoever is in office.

if you have ever worked for any large business, imagine what would happen if a new CEO came in, and immediately fired all the managers and replaced them with friends and supporters. the result would be chaos.

her actions as governor would seem to follow the same pattern. a person who cannot find the line between themselves and the responsibilities of their office is not fit to serve.

under the executive branch of the federal govt there are a number of positions, some political and some professional. to a great extent a president's efficacy is determined by the quality of his professional staff (the political positions are intended to be plums for friends and supporters, and their quality is unimportant).

in my lifetime there have been three presidents whose professional staff was chosen based primarily on their personal loyalty: nixon, carter, and bush. does any more need to be said?

-- Posted by lazarus on Fri, Oct 24, 2008, at 11:07 AM

The main third party candidates are

Chuck Baldwin/Darrel Castle - Constitution Party

Bob Barr/Wayne Allyn Root - Libertarian Party

Cynthia McKinney/Rosa Clemente - Green Party

There are others but those are the main ones who are eligible for 270 electoral votes.

-- Posted by jaxspike on Fri, Oct 24, 2008, at 11:33 AM

Oh yeah and Ralph Nader who is independent . . . but he is a bit of a joke.

-- Posted by jaxspike on Fri, Oct 24, 2008, at 11:34 AM

Saying anything to get elected.... that happens locally too. A candidate has placed an ad asking for "re-election" and she has never been "elected". It simply amazes me what candidates will say and/or do for votes. This candidates "handout" is pretty astonishing also. Get a copy of it, and you will see what I mean -I wonder if your opinion will be different.

-- Posted by countrygal2008 on Fri, Oct 24, 2008, at 12:45 PM

Jaxspike,

I am glad to see you are voting for Chuck Baldwin, at least there are 2 of us that havent lost our mind.

-- Posted by greasemonkey on Fri, Oct 24, 2008, at 1:16 PM

after listening to what nader had to say about the economy, i've been tempted to break from my libertarian party & vote nader.

the republocrats have done a good job of selling him as a "joke", but he makes a lot more sense than either of their candidates.

best of all, he spends all his effort telling us what HE thinks and plans, rather than spending most of his effort misrepresenting the other candidates.

-- Posted by lazarus on Fri, Oct 24, 2008, at 1:19 PM

Yeah, I dont agree with some of his policies but I do agree with a majority of his other views. To me at least, he is a far better choice than Obama or McCain.

Will he win . . . most likely not but at least I dont feel like I made a choice between the lesser of two evils.

-- Posted by jaxspike on Fri, Oct 24, 2008, at 1:21 PM

"This right here is what really saddens me about this election . . .

http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news...

To be honest, some Obama supporters have been scary at their approach to politics and this article doesnt help that belief."

This has now been confirmed to be a total made up lie.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/24/...

-- Posted by GoTitans on Fri, Oct 24, 2008, at 2:04 PM

What an idiot. Can you really talk about Obama supporters when a McCain supporter makes up this terribly fabricated story. We have some true idiots walking around in this country

-- Posted by volhater on Fri, Oct 24, 2008, at 3:08 PM

Im referring to the lady in the story when I say idiot not you GoTitans

-- Posted by volhater on Fri, Oct 24, 2008, at 3:08 PM

I'm still tying to figure out why Biden would came out and say that once we elect our new young president that things are going to get worse then they are now. Other countries are going to test him like they did Kennedy and that his ratings will go down because he will do something the american people won't like. He use the term people better gird their loins because things are really going to get bad. Why would Biden say these things now? Is he trying to warn people or is he just an idiot that doesn't know what he's saying and he's going to be our VP.

-- Posted by bellbuckletn on Fri, Oct 24, 2008, at 5:45 PM

Jaxspike - I have to say kudos, and respects to you. We have been so convinced we "have" to vote for the lesser of two evils for so long that - now - proverbial evil is all we have left to choose from.

When I have spoken of this with friends/co-workers I am told if I don't vote for one of these two I'm throwing my vote away.

Even if true - I've come to the realization I'd rather throw it away on someone I truly believe is best for the job than to throw it away on someone just because they have a better chance of winning and if more voters did that we might all be surprised with the outcome...if not this time...maybe next.

-- Posted by GeeWoman on Fri, Oct 24, 2008, at 6:21 PM

I absolutely agree GeeWoman and glad you see this too . . . I wish it would become contagious but I really don't have much faith in us Americans in regards to that. :-(

GoTitans . . . I am glad to see that the situation in that article turned out to be a lie but it doesn't change the fact I am disappointed by the actions of several Obama supporters. I have several Obama supporters tell me that I am a racist and a bigot just because I am not voting for him even though I am voting for Chuck Baldwin and yet not once have I had a derogatory term thrown at me by a McCain supporter. Even Obama has told his supporters to get in people's faces and argue. Sorry . . . I prefer people to treat me with respect. Heck, even one Obama supporter on here made a tacky remark that I might be gay. Come on people, what is wrong with that. For a party that has stood for open mindedness and change and hope, they are definitely saying the other with their actions and that is one of the reasons why for the first time I am not voting for a Democratic candidate for president (main reason though is his horrible economic policies).

-- Posted by jaxspike on Fri, Oct 24, 2008, at 6:40 PM

and yet not once have I had a derogatory term thrown at me by a McCain supporter.

-- Posted by jaxspike on Fri, Oct 24, 2008, at 6:40 PM

I haven't seen you mention one negative thing about McCain's "horrible economic policies" either, unless of course you like the current status quo... I have also never seen ANYWHERE where Obama has told his supporters to "get in their faces" about anything... where is your proof? My guess, there isn't any. Also, I don't know who called you gay, but if you were, why would you feel the need to hide it?

GoTitans,

Glad I know you, and I am not one bit surprised that we get an entire post about Obama supporters being hateful, but absolutely NONE about the ridiculous crowds at the McCain rallies.... and absolutely NOTHING about McCain's "new" economic policy every other day. Talk about socialism, wasn't it McCain who proposed shelling out $300 billion to buy up bad mortgages from homeowners?

I am not voting for the lesser of two evils, because I believe neither candidate is at all, evil... However, I have already voted for one and I think it is obvious who.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Fri, Oct 24, 2008, at 8:25 PM

darrick_04 . . here is your proof. It comes straight out of Obama's mouth . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCMDur9CD...

Maybe you should know more about what comes out of your own candidate's mouth if you are going to support him.

Also, darrick_04, you have become an example of such behavior because you come on here and belittle people who don't believe what you believe and that is sad and pathetic. That is evident with your comment above "Also, I don't know who called you gay, but if you were, why would you feel the need to hide it?". Maybe because I am not and why does me not voting for Obama make me gay? I can tolerate a lot but your attitude is becoming annoying . . . if you cant accept other people's opinions then maybe you shouldn't be commenting on blogs.

And really, many Obama supporters are great and they present themselves in a good way but then are quite a few who seem to take it to the extreme and they seem to take it to a negative level while complaining about McCain's negative campaign. There are McCain supporters who are full of hate and ignorance too but I was only speaking of the situations I have been in . . . how can I comment about any rallies of either candidate when I haven't been to one? I was only speaking of my own personal experiences dealing with various supporters of both parties on a one on one basis and in chat forums. And really, I have stated on various occasions that I think McCain's economic policy is horrible also but then the media isn't glorifying McCain like they are Obama which I don't understand because both of their policies are equally as horrible. You are just upset because your viewpoint is one-side while I support neither side?

-- Posted by jaxspike on Sat, Oct 25, 2008, at 12:46 AM

jaxspike.When I read that story at 1st about the girl and the letter B put on her face with a knife I told you I felt it was un-true. The letter B was done backwards on her face it looked like to me. It is very sad that someone would do that and blame a black man on top of that. I hope she gets charged with something. I also hope we do not see more of this to look bad with Obama voters.

-- Posted by heaven8kids7grandrebelrose on Sat, Oct 25, 2008, at 9:00 AM

Yeah, it did seem fishy but I couldnt imagine someone making something like that up but I guess there are people like that who want to draw that kind of attention . . . sad really.

This election has gotten sad and uncivil and I will be glad when it is over . . . maybe some these people will crawl back into their holes that came from and we wont have to hear anymore from them.

-- Posted by jaxspike on Sat, Oct 25, 2008, at 11:31 AM

Also, darrick_04, you have become an example of such behavior because you come on here and belittle people who don't believe what you believe and that is sad and pathetic. That is evident with your comment above "Also, I don't know who called you gay, but if you were, why would you feel the need to hide it?".

-------->It's funny because you accuse me of belittling people yet I don't see that anywhere... and in reference to the comment you claim is sad and pathetic... learn how to read. The POINT of that statements was that, IF (not YES YOU ARE) you were gay, WHY would you feel the need to hide it... there should have been no offense taken whatsoever. If you feel that was a derogatory comment then apparently you've forgotten the many blogs in which YOU, myself and multiple others agree on that issue.

how can I comment about any rallies of either candidate when I haven't been to one?

--------> Didn't stop you from commenting about the "attack" from an Obama supporter that you weren't a part of... it was proven to be a lie... what makes it ANY different?

This election has gotten sad and uncivil and I will be glad when it is over . . . maybe some these people will crawl back into their holes that came from and we wont have to hear anymore from them.

--------->Really, is that what America is all about? Suppressing people, regardless of their positions? Hmmm... Millions of people have been silenced for the last few years, and have not been allowed to question the entire executive office... I think it's time everyone speak up... you're doing it.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Sat, Oct 25, 2008, at 10:25 PM

Yes darrick_04, but I am not discussing my opinions in a hostile way like some. There is a difference but evidently you can not see it and there is no use in continuing this conversation. It seems you are the one who wants to silence anyone having a different opinion than you.

Also, my point is this . . . why should anyone feel the need to call someone a name just for having a different opinion? Evidently you think it is ok and just goes to show your lack of character and immaturity.

-- Posted by jaxspike on Sun, Oct 26, 2008, at 10:18 AM

...why should anyone feel the need to call someone a name just for having a different opinion? Evidently you think it is ok and just goes to show your lack of character and immaturity.

-- Posted by jaxspike on Sun, Oct 26, 2008, at 10:18 AM

Sort of like your the adjective used to describe me... Maybe you answered your own question.

LOL... You have totally forgotten the blogs where you and I were in TOTAL agreement on most every issue. I enjoy dialogue, shunning it is impractical and results in narrow viewpoints. I just want both sides of the argument portrayed.

You don't feel you have the ability to speak of what has happened at the McCain/Palin rallies because "you weren't there" yet you linked an article and spoke NEGATIVELY about many Obama supporters because of an attack that you weren't a part of, and an attack that didn't even happen. If your views were impartial then you would report on both... but because there are no such incidences of vulgar language and mundane rhetoric from the crowd at Obama rallies there is nothing to speak of.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Sun, Oct 26, 2008, at 2:15 PM

I have reported on both . . . on my own blog plus I work with all Republicans so I spend eight hours each day arguing with them about McCain. Just because you dont see it on here doesnt mean it does not happen. Maybe if you spent more time listening to people instead of demonizing then maybe discussions with you would be more productive.

Also, I didn't call you names because of your political views(or in general) . . . I just question your character and integrity when you attack me. There is a difference . . . lets just agree to disagree and move on because nothing is going to change in this dialogue. You are always right and everyone else is always wrong . . . happy now.

-- Posted by jaxspike on Sun, Oct 26, 2008, at 2:46 PM

Also, my main point is this . . . both sides have issues and I dont represent either one. To say "no such incidences of vulgar language and mundane rhetoric from the crowd at Obama rallies there is nothing to speak of" is kind of naive . . . just the fact certain people have worn shirts saying "Sarah Palin is a c***" is vulgar. The Democratic Party is no better than the Republicans in their tactics or their actions and that is what saddens me . . . I always held Democrats to a higher level and now they have stooped to the same level as Republicans.

That is all I have been saying.

-- Posted by jaxspike on Sun, Oct 26, 2008, at 2:58 PM

As far as the VP race goes... Palin has done her thing in Alaska. Biden is a pure idiot, if you look at his record, he voted against Obama on just about everything & his beliefs are completely different. He even admitted this in the debate against Palin. The way I see it is he thinks Obamas gonna get elected & he might be in the "catbird" seat...

-- Posted by SteelerT on Sun, Oct 26, 2008, at 7:10 PM

Palin has done her thing in Alaska? Like what? Billed the state for her families travels and deemed them "official business"... including putting her children in $700 a night hotels...

Oh, that's right... she also wanted that Bridge to Nowhere until it become unpopular, oh and wasn't is Sarah Palin's husband who was very active in a group that wanted SECESSION from the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA... and here she is going to rallies talking about "Pro America"... LOL, notice she never says that about her home state... Yes, she was videotaped and photographed in a speech where she also admonished the secession of Alaska from the U.S. and for what? Maybe they could be Russia's little sister?

Wasn't it Palin who sought to rid the Alaskan legislature of "corruption" only to allow her family to access government information and mingle in state business, while trying to resolve a personal matter, publicly...

I'm drawing a blank as to what she's done that no other governor has done before.

-- Posted by stolen25 on Sun, Oct 26, 2008, at 8:39 PM

stolen25,

Look good???

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Sun, Oct 26, 2008, at 10:08 PM

HAHAHAHA @ stolen25 .... HAHAHA !!

You make dumb quote like that & were all gonna laugh at ya. Palin charged $700 hotel rooms for her family, is that all you could come up with. I'm not a math major but $700 don't count for much when your cutting 100's of millions & even giving $$$ back to the citizens of Alaska. Have you even noticed the only people complaining about Palin are the Democrat nay sayers trying to dig up dirt on her. Not one word from the citizens of Alaska..

However, Its just fine for Obama to hang out with a convicted American Terrorist that tryed blowing up the white house & killed a number of AMERICANS & say it's not a big deal. By the way, who was it that pardoned Ayers ?? Check the facts, it's the same person that Obama is in Florida with, BILL CLINTON the democrats other hero who almost got himself impeached for being a "GOOD GUY"

WOW it amazes me how ignorance spreads so fast,

just from drinking Socialists cool aid...Go ahead and give all your money to Obama & he will hand it out to the lazy welfare reciepients that don't want a job & your foreign brothers... then we'll see how great he is... don't cry to us when your lips are permanently stained by the cool-aid !!

-- Posted by SteelerT on Mon, Oct 27, 2008, at 4:54 PM

SteelerT --

What are you smoking and can I have some?

There's plenty of disturbing examples on Palin over the years... The ones that got me were her vindictiveness as mayor of Wasilla, her abuses of power as governor, her quickness to ban books, her separatist connections in the Alaska Independence Party, among other things. Not to mention that Alaska has one of the most "socialist" systems set up in the country, where the resources of the state end up paying back to the citizens of that state. If you're railing against socialism, then one the first things you have to do demand the privatization of all of Alaska's resource wealth and then let that trickle down to the citizens, instead of the government interfering with industry.

As for Ayers, he never bombed the white house -- it was the pentagon, and secondly, as best as I can research, his attacks never killed anyone. There was some water damage to the pentagon, however. For someone admonishing others to check the facts, you seem to have a primary one wrong here. For that matter, Ayers isn't on any of the lists of those pardoned by Clinton as you claimed. Clinton did pardon two other members of the Weathermen, but Ayers was not one of them.

If you're looking for ignorance here, perhaps you should look in a mirror. Note -- right wing radio is not a news source. Perhaps you should look elsewhere. It's easy to find this stuff.

And I don't know about you, but I'd rather see some money go to welfare recipients than Wall Street bankers who got this country into its current mess.

Wow... it amazes me how often that those shouting the loudest about the ignorance of others are they themselves among the least informed.

-- Posted by absolutenot on Tue, Oct 28, 2008, at 1:04 AM

I am glad that was cleared up, all this time I was thinking Bill Ayers was a terrorist. He only bombed the pentagon, thats not so bad.

-- Posted by greasemonkey on Tue, Oct 28, 2008, at 4:15 PM

absolutenot _____ THIS IS FOR YOU !! FACTS !!

A questionnaire from his 1996 campaign indicated more blanket opposition to the death penalty, and support of abortion rights, than he currently espouses. He spoke in support of single-payer health care as recently as 2003.

Like many of the most extreme figures from the 1960s Ayers and Dohrn are ambiguous figures in American life.

They disappeared in 1970, after a bomb -- designed to kill army officers in New Jersey -- accidentally destroyed a Greenwich Village townhouse, and turned themselves into authorities in 1980. They were never prosecuted for their involvement with the 25 bombings the Weather Underground claimed; charges were dropped because of improper FBI surveillance.

Both have written and spoken at length about their pasts, and today he is an advocate for progressive education and a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago; she's an associate professor of law at Northwestern University.

But -- unlike some other fringe figures of the era -- they're also flatly unrepentant about the bombings they committed in the name of ending the war, defending them on the grounds that they killed no one, except, accidentally, their own members.

Dohrn, however, was jailed for less than a year for refusing to testify before a grand jury investigating other Weather Underground members' robbery of a Brinks truck, in which a guard and two New York State Troopers were killed.

"I don't regret setting bombs; I feel we didn't do enough," Ayers told the New York Times in 2001.

Here's a link if you want the rest....

read the real facts that I couldn't find....

The cool-aid is blurring your vision, might

be time to quit sipping it....

-- Posted by SteelerT on Tue, Oct 28, 2008, at 4:29 PM

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/020...

-- Posted by SteelerT on Tue, Oct 28, 2008, at 4:30 PM

SteelerT --

OK...

I don't think I said anything about health care there, so not sure what you're going on about with that.

Thanks for the other background information though. Unlike your claims about them bombing the White House and being pardoned by Bill Clinton, these do seem to check out.

Oh -- and my vision is quite fine, thank you. I appreciate your point of view -- I just happen to disagree with it. No kool-aid was required to come to that conclusion, either.

greasemonkey -- I wasn't trying to infer that bombing the pentagon didn't make him a terrorist -- to the contrary, I despise what he did. I'm not crazy about his unrepentant stance on his actions. I do genuinely wish that he had been brought to justice for what he did.

That said -- I just wanted to point out some of the blatantly incorrect information that was being fed into this discussion. The devil is oftentimes in the details, and if we're to be commenting intelligently on the subject, we need to have our facts straight, to improve the signal to noise ratio here. That was the only point I was trying to put forward.

-- Posted by absolutenot on Tue, Oct 28, 2008, at 11:46 PM

absolutenot,

I agree there is alot of "spin" in these discussions. The facts seem to be avoided like the plague alot of times too.

-- Posted by greasemonkey on Wed, Oct 29, 2008, at 1:07 PM

absolutenot,

I also agree with your comments but would remind you that the accusations of Palin's book banning were not completely accurate either. Also, I think that everyone is trying to push their interpretation of socialism to suit their purposes. I don't think that the provision of governmental services such as postal, fire and police protection, social services, regulatory services, etc fit the classical definition of socialism as some bloggers would have us believe. Alaska's system may be a little more suspect but to my knowledge the revenues generated and returned to Alaska's citizens are generated from use of public lands by the oil companies (I think most if not all states have public lands) and whether through the direct sharing of the profits, or through taxes on the profits, does not constitute true socialism. Socialism to me is direct ownership and control of businesses that produce and distribute goods.

-- Posted by devan on Wed, Oct 29, 2008, at 3:09 PM

devan, Okay, that is a fair general definition of socialism, but I think the different interpretations depend on the mentor of the individual making the interpretations. Many economists do believe the services you listed constitute socialism and should not be in the public domain, with the exception of the the police, who in a classic sense, are there to enable the government to function. Even fire services used to be privately owned insurance providers who would provide their services to those members that were paying their premium.

The better question I think would be: What do you call it when the ownership and controllers of business also exert control of the legislative and executive branches of government?

-- Posted by memyselfi on Thu, Oct 30, 2008, at 10:21 AM

We agree then that the different interpretations are driven by individual preconceptions (or just for the sake of making political arguments). I also agree that over time the areas of private vs government provision of services have evolved and are sitll evolving (i.e., private corrections/prison services). The arguments here seem to be over where different interests are willing to draw the line in the evolutionary (or devolutionary) scale of socialism. Are we going to put on the brakes, go in reverse, or let it coast toward more.

The answer to your question, if I understand your intent, is I would call it dangerous to the health of our republic. However, exerting control and exerting influence are not the same. Capitalists (oweners and controllers of business) need a seat at the table just as do the other segments of society. They just need balancing forces.

My question is where do you think we are on this cycle of nationhood?

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.

Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage."

-- Posted by devan on Thu, Oct 30, 2008, at 11:28 AM

Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage."

-- Posted by devan on Thu, Oct 30, 2008, at 11:28 AM

devan,

Sounds like you are talking about those humans down there again. Think we ought to let them run another cycle or just go em and bring em home. :)

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Thu, Oct 30, 2008, at 12:06 PM

Devan --

What's that quote from? I've heard it before and I can't for the life of me remember where from.

-- Posted by absolutenot on Fri, Oct 31, 2008, at 2:35 PM

Devan, I am not sure if you are implying that you believe the balancing forces are currently in place. I do not think so. I do not think they ever have been though. To answer your question on why democracies fail, I do not believe we have a democratic society, in even the most basic of forms. Therefore, to ask where I believe we happen to be on the second quote significantly limits my choices. I do not believe we have gone much farther than bondage. That applies to almost every aspect of our lives. The bondage we face is very covert and mundane, but it is powerful nevertheless.

-- Posted by memyselfi on Fri, Oct 31, 2008, at 5:22 PM

Devan --

What's that quote from? I've heard it before and I can't for the life of me remember where from.

-- Posted by absolutenot on Fri, Oct 31, 2008, at 2:35 PM

Its origins seem to be somewhat of a mystery. I did a google on it before posting because I like to attribute quotes correctly, but the quote as commonly used has no certain origin.

-- Posted by devan on Fri, Oct 31, 2008, at 5:54 PM

memyselfi,

No I don't think they are perfectly in balance but I think there are enough competing forces to keep the tug of war interesting. I guess I'm just enough of a conservative to think that it might be better for the forces of ownership and business to have the upper hand that the forces of an unfettered democracy. Which, pretty much puts me in agreement with your second statement about our system not being a democracy. Whoever the author is may or may not have intended his use of the word to mean a pure democracy or he may have meant the form that it currently takes in our republic and those similar to it.

I take your last statement to mean you do not think that we have ever gotten out of a state of bondage. If that is correct I would strongly disagree, but I can only do that based on my own personal beliefs and circumstances. I am sure that there are more who would disagree than agree with you. On a more philosophical note, I think whether you agree or disagree depends on your perception of your situation. If you think you are free you are, and if you think you are in bondage you are, regardless of the reality.

-- Posted by devan on Fri, Oct 31, 2008, at 6:08 PM

devan, The problem with the "conservative" stance that you claim partiality to appears to be the concentration and consolidation of wealth without democratic policies to displace the power. This has always been an issue that was anticipated, since before we even had this society that we currently do. The further the concentration, the more profound the power being projected, to the point that we are approaching something quite different than the republic you identify with. I do not advocate a purely democratic society, but any society without some degree of loyalty to the populist agendas will not only ultimately fail, they will cause much suffering along the way.

Yes, I believe more people would agree with you regarding my comment about bondage. That is one of the problems to my way of thinking. I also agree that your philosophical comment is accurate. I also believe it to be currently working against our society and not for it. Any rat in a large enough maze would be convinced of their freedom if they could grasp such an idea. That does not mean that I would encourage anyone to be so complacent as to accept their maze as freedom. The reality of our situation proves differently.

Here are a couple quotes for you:

"What improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable."

"To widen the market and to narrow the competition is always the interest of the dealers ... The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted, till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it."

-- Posted by memyselfi on Fri, Oct 31, 2008, at 7:50 PM

memyselfi,

Agree with your first paragraph. We do seem to be drifting toward an unhealthy concentration of power and wealth. The thought I intended to convey was that in a healthy society/economy the balance should be slightly in favor of owners/businesses (capitalists).

The difference in your perception of the maze and mine is I see the possibility of the rat finding the cheese and getting out of the maze. You obviously do not. The motivational book "Who Moved My Cheese" demonstrates there are different ways to look at mazes.

As to the quotes, we seem to be caught somewhere between moral sentiments and wealth of nations. If only we could find that balance we might just find our way out of the maze.

-- Posted by devan on Fri, Oct 31, 2008, at 8:38 PM

"As to the quotes, we seem to be caught somewhere between moral sentiments and wealth of nations. If only we could find that balance we might just find our way out of the maze." Great comment. I think the chronological order of the two must be looked at to determine the predispositions and context of the latter.

If the rat finds the cheese and subsequently escapes the maze, he does so at the expense of keeping many other rats in the maze. We simply cannot all find the cheese. I will check out the book you mentioned when I get the opportunity. To my detriment, I have never read many books of that genre.

-- Posted by memyselfi on Fri, Oct 31, 2008, at 8:59 PM

You certainly have a way of looking at the half empty glass. I would have said if a rat finds the cheese and escapes the maze he is more likely to take other rats with him.

-- Posted by devan on Fri, Oct 31, 2008, at 10:25 PM

He could have looked at it as completely empty by telling you about the wise old tom that ran a trail of cheese out of the maze to the back of his tongue and ate all the rats as they ran out of the maze. What half the rats viewed as freedom could be viewed as captivity by the other half. In that case the maze (glass) would be completely empty and the stomach (glass) could be completely full and the only possible half would the in the imaginations of all the rats.

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Fri, Oct 31, 2008, at 10:51 PM

Pessimistic? Maybe. With all the rats getting full of cheese, who would work the maze? There is never enough cheese for all the rats. The most some rats will ever get is crumbs. It is the size of the crumbs that I question.

-- Posted by memyselfi on Fri, Oct 31, 2008, at 11:35 PM

parkerbrothers, I do understand your point. What confuses me is why you believe I am suggesting this mass movement into the stomach that was perceived as freedom, but became deeper bondage? I have told you repeatedly that I am not a communist. I do believe that some policies promoting democracy are well overdue and the balance is off.

-- Posted by memyselfi on Fri, Oct 31, 2008, at 11:41 PM

There is never enough cheese for all the rats. The most some rats will ever get is crumbs. It is the size of the crumbs that I question.

-- Posted by memyselfi on Fri, Oct 31, 2008, at 11:35 PM

memyselfi,

Tell the lazy rats to get their fat a**** out of bed a little earlier and leave the crumbs for the other rats for a change? -:) -:)

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Sat, Nov 1, 2008, at 9:24 PM


Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


David Melson is a copy editor and staff writer for the Times-Gazette.