Spread the wealth

[emayer]

nplenzick wrote:

bobt993 wrote:

dmano wrote:

More so because to date Obama has raised more money than any other politician in history thats why he will be doing a lot of paybacks to some big contributors. Do you all think he will be any different when it comes to kick backs? I think he will be worse because he will owe so much to so many.

What your assuming is the financial commitments all have shoe strings attached. I was surprised to witness a large amount of Mainline wealth giving towards what they see as a potential change in the way government does business.

You really want everyone to see your side as the absolute truth, but in doing so your bias is so apparent that it becomes difficult to be compelled to actually listen.

What concerns me is that there are many like him. It's why I think this election is going to be closer then some think even though I would love to see the Republicans decimated so the party can get back to it's Lincoln roots and leave the Karl Rove platform behind. When we were coming back from Barber Motorsports this past week I listen to a caller on a radio talk show who was convinced that Obama favors abortion in the third trimester. When the host played the tape of what Obama said during the debate it seemed like it just fell on deaf ears as she just refused to believe it. Think about, people voted for GW because it was someone they-ed like to have a beer with. People love Sarah Palin because they can relate to a hockey mom even though as of this date I have yet to hear one intelligent word from her mouth.

As I pointed out earlier their are many ignorant people in this country and it's to those ignorant people that the Republican party is campaigning to and it's their only hope of wining this election.

With due respect, there is ignorance on both sides of the spectrum.

As a funny example, Howard Stern recently sent a reporter into the heart of Harlem to interview people on the street. He laid out distinct elements of the McCain platform under the guise of these being Obama's views. Like lemmings they uniformly said they would vote for Obama.... Good comedy, but scary when you consider this side of things too.

For those of us considering both candidates carefully, some of the concerns regarding Obama relate to perception versus reality. This is not entirely his fault given his limited experience, but he certainly hasn't proven to be standaout in the Senate in respect to policy and legislation for example. His wavering on foreign affairs, energy, campaign finance are legitmate worries.... Others here have brought up issues in respect to the McCain/Palin ticket which are valid and any objective voter can see that the choice is not necessarily as clear as some would hope.

[dmano]

As Howard said on his show later that day " The bother is going to vote for the brother wrong or right"

[dmano]

I don't like the soccer mom either but I like the lesser of two evils.

 

Why is he lieing is all I want to know and why is nobody bitching about it. Obama has lied way too many times.

[Ccns23]

And McCain hasn't ever lied in his lifetime. I think you are the one who needs to stop drinking the McCain kool-aid. Look, the time to really bitch will be 4 years from now. We'll have a Democratic House, Senate, and (hopefully) Whitehouse. There will be no blaming republicans for anything.

McCain's whole problem is he and his party have only attacked Obama in every ad and debate there has been. I can't remember one ad that McCain has had recently where he touted HIS strengths and what he'll do for our country. All he has done is try to use FEAR to get people not to vote for Obama.

Sorry, this isn't 4 years ago and you don't have the attacks of Sept 11 to fall back on. Unfortunately the Republican party thinks our country if full of idiots. The American pubic isn't stupid and we aren't falling for the same tricks again. We want a change and there if you look, there really is only ONE candidate that can fulfil that need.

[dmano]

I will be the first to admit I was wrong if he gets elected and gets our country back on track but if I am right then what...... Your apology won't mean squat because we will all be ?????

 

McCane has a track record be it good or bad.

Obama has none.

[nplenzick]

emayer wrote:

With due respect, there is ignorance on both sides of the spectrum.

As a funny example, Howard Stern recently sent a reporter into the heart of Harlem to interview people on the street. He laid out distinct elements of the McCain platform under the guise of these being Obama's views. Like lemmings they uniformly said they would vote for Obama.... Good comedy, but scary when you consider this side of things too.

For those of us considering both candidates carefully, some of the concerns regarding Obama relate to perception versus reality. This is not entirely his fault given his limited experience, but he certainly hasn't proven to be standaout in the Senate in respect to policy and legislation for example. His wavering on foreign affairs, energy, campaign finance are legitmate worries.... Others here have brought up issues in respect to the McCain/Palin ticket which are valid and any objective voter can see that the choice is not necessarily as clear as some would hope.

I pretty much agree with you and I too heard the bit on Stern and I must admit I got a chuckle or two from it. I wonder how many people "Sal the stock broker" interviewed until he got the right response. If I remember there were only 3 or 4 people. Kinda makes me wonder if he was on the street for several hours to get the "right" kind of people.

There's a different kind of ignorance that the republicans are seeking. It's an ignorance born from intolerance and fear. As an example on the Chis Matthews show a little more then a week ago a congress women from a believe Minnesota or somewhere near there who basically said that some of the liberal minded congress men and women should be investigated. That my friend is ignorance of the highest level. If your not with us your against us. If your termed a liberal your looked on by the right wing conservatives as anti American.

It's comforting to me that the congress women I mentioned above who was a shoe in for her re-election and now she's fighting for her political life. So maybe there is hope, maybe the American people are waking up. In a little more then a week we'll know the answer.

[emayer]

Guys,

I know this is a bit off topic but I thought interesting and perhaps relevant to the election given that a fair amount of voters are basing their views on the premise that Bush lied.

This was forwarded to me today, and confirmed as an AP story back in July.  Where was the mainstream press on this one?  I'm no physicist, but I'm sure 550 metric tons of yellowcake is a decent precursor to WMDs....  If true, who's lying now? 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334

[bobt993]

Eric, the report you referenced  also points out that "yellow cake" is still a ways off from processing to use in a "dirty" bomb or tactical weapon.  I never doubted Sadam's intent to be a nuclear power, but I questioned as did the entire free world, how far along he actually was.  Colin Powell recently endorsed Obama and left the current administration somewhat frustrated.   I remember watching him as the Government puppet sent to the UN to argue for the invasion of Iraq.  I respect him and felt bad that our government used his reputation  to promote personal vendeta Bush had with Sadam.   

I do not correlate the Bush legacy with our current election since he is a "lame duck" President at this point.   I moved on awhile ago with the interview process for a qualified replacement.

[Wellardmac]

emayer wrote:

Guys,

I know this is a bit off topic but I thought interesting and perhaps relevant to the election given that a fair amount of voters are basing their views on the premise that Bush lied.

This was forwarded to me today, and confirmed as an AP story back in July. Where was the mainstream press on this one? I'm no physicist, but I'm sure 550 metric tons of yellowcake is a decent precursor to WMDs.... If true, who's lying now?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334

This stuff was known about before the first Gulf War and declared as part of the terms of the original cease fire. The IAEA had monitored this material since the original declaration to make sure that it was secure and undisturbed.

We were so worried about this stuff and the low grade uranium that was stored with it that we decided to secure the oil fields first and didn't both to secure this stuff for 2 months after the invasion - even though we knew it was there.

The funny thing about the entire 500T of yellowcake from Niger story was that it was a storm in a tea cup considering that we knew that Iraq already possessed this original stockpile. My comment above about knowing this stuff existed and no securing it makes the whole Niger story and even bigger smoke screen of hypocrisy.

[Wellardmac]

Here's the IAEA page detailing the contents of the Tuwaitha site, the dates that materials were acquired, along with where it came from.

http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/SV/Invo/factsheet.html

I also particularly liked this story from Greenpeace detailing the mess that the unsecured yellowcake was causing as as result of looting. Both Greenpeace and IAEA were begging the US government to secure this facility as soon as we invaded, but we thought that securing the oil was far more important than securing radioactive material. hock:

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/...rved-iraqi