Obama talks about York

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:

<quoted text>
Since you were too feeble to click them the first time....here they are again.
Click'em and weep.
What's that? You refuse to click on any of these?
Hardly surprising.... yet you feel compelled to comment on things for which you have NO INFORMATION.
http://www.americablog.com/2008/08/under-inve...
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/la...
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/97068/
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/09/jo...
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/09/pa...

Altnernet? Well, Sarah, I'm calling you a liar. And not even a good one. Trig Paxson Van Palin is not your son. He is your grandson. The sooner you come forward with this revelation to the public, the better.

This is actually old now and thoroughly debunked. If you bothered to watch the Sarah Palin documentary, you would have seen the Governor of Hawaii speaking about the conference she attended in Dallas with Gov. Palin in Dallas when she went into labor and flew back to Alaska after giving a last minute speech when someone else backed out. Also, the documentary showed Gov. Palin obviously pregnant in several segments.

I would truly be embarrassed posting something like alternet smear rumors.

mlc9852 wrote:

<quoted text>
As to Troopergate, the brother in law has admitted to child abuse in an interview on CNN. Did you see that? He should have been fired for that alone but there were several other reasons. If the chief refused, he should have been fired for among other things, not performing his duties and responsibilities. I may be wrong, but I believe the chief serves at the pleasure of the governor, as is the case in most states.
I will now go review your other sources and get back to you.
Why would you want to defend an admitted child abuser?

Jon Stewart? The Jon Stewart who called Gov. Palin an airline stewardess? Do you really get your political information from Jon Stewart?

I have now lost all respect for you. You are just a smear-mongering Obama hack.

mlc9852 wrote:

<quoted text>
Jon Stewart? The Jon Stewart who called Gov. Palin an airline stewardess? Do you really get your political information from Jon Stewart?
I have now lost all respect for you. You are just a smear-mongering Obama hack.

You might just consider that, according to a poll a while back, those that watched The Daily Show had a better grasp of current events than those that watched Fox News.

Kind of sad when a show that admits to being "fake news" gives better news than a channel that claims to be real news.

Darwins Stepchild wrote:

<quoted text>
You might just consider that, according to a poll a while back, those that watched The Daily Show had a better grasp of current events than those that watched Fox News.
Kind of sad when a show that admits to being "fake news" gives better news than a channel that claims to be real news.

Who did the poll? Jon Stewart?

Speaking of polls, did you see both Gallup and Zogby have McCain/Palin ahead? She is an amazing woman.

mlc9852 wrote:

<quoted text>
Who did the poll? Jon Stewart?
Speaking of polls, did you see both Gallup and Zogby have McCain/Palin ahead? She is an amazing woman.

No. The survey was made by the Pew Research Study.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/16/daily-sho...

This is something I find quite disturbing (and sad) about ideologues of any stripe...the fact that when faced with information that they find disagreeable, they dismiss it out of hand rather than look into the matter.

I did not recall where the survey had been made but it only took me about 1 min. to google the information. So easy to find out. Such little time to do so. Yet ideologues can't seem to be bothered with any sort of verification one way or the other.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

mlc9852 wrote:

<quoted text>
"
It's easy to see why. Palin is an evangelical Christian, a creationist and opposed to abortion and same-sex marriage.(Alaska was one of the first states to amend its constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage, and Palin supported that 1998 measure.) She also happens to be a lifetime member of the National Rifle Assn. and a hunting and fishing enthusiast whose favorite dish is moose stew."
Sounds like Tim Rutten of the LA Times is endorsing her. What's the problem there?

I'm a member myself of the NRA.

However that is the only thing I have in common with her.

She wishes to stop legal abortions based on RELIGIOUS reasons--(and certainly not BIBLE-religious, either...)

She wishes to force creationism into the SCIENCE classroom-- again for RELIGIOUS reasons (creationism is religion).

Both of these are against the constitution's prohibition of supporting specific religion or religious views.

As such-- she should be immediately disqualified.

mlc9852 wrote:

I have now lost all respect for you. You are just a smear-mongering Obama hack.

Did you have any to begin with?

No?

What's the big deal, then?

And, no, I am voting AGAINST McSame.

Did you see the speech by McSame? It had NEARLY ALL THE EXACT SAME TALKING-POINTS as the speech Dubya gave in 2000.....

Nearly the EXACT SAME.

Thus, we may safely ASSUME that McSame will be EXACTLY LIKE Dubya.

And just LOOK at the mess the US is in because of Dubya...!!!!

From serious miss-handling of 9/11, to serious miss-handling of the savings and loan stuff on and on, mistake-after-mistake down to the LATEST fiasco in the Russia/Georgian conflict.

Bush has ZERO ability as a foreign policy president.

Bush has ZERO ability as a domestic policy president.

And it looks like McSame will be.... exactly as lousy a president as Dubya was.....

Our economy cannot stand another 4 years of incompetence in the White House.

Even if Obama was nothing more than a TOASTER OVEN-- he would be BETTER, BY FAR than more of Dubya's failed ideas.....

....and Palin? She is just unqualified. ZERO experience at foreign policy. ZERO experience at national politics.

In fact, she's just a big ZERO.

The problem with most American voters is that they evaluate the effectiveness of Obama based upon what the McCain campaign states and they evaluate McCain based upon what the Obama campaign states.

Start thinking for yourself and evaluate their plans for the economy, etc. based upon independently verified FACTS.

Do you want to know the FACTS on the comparison of both their tax plans? Then don’t listen to the candidates. Listen to The Tax Policy Center, the think tank jointly run by the Brookings Institute and the Urban Institute.

Here is what The Tax Policy Center state about their tax plans:

Obama is going to raise payroll taxes on taxpayers that make MORE than 250,000 per year. He is going to raise corporate taxes and raise taxes on small businesses that make MORE than $250,000.00/year.

The Obama plan would reduce taxes for low- and moderate-income families, but raise them significantly for high-bracket taxpayers.

With Obama’s plan by 2012, middle-income taxpayers would see their after-tax income rise by about 5 percent, or nearly $2,200 annually.

As of now, Obama has no plans to extend the present tax cuts that Bush has given the wealthiest Americans and will definitely not rescind them if we are in a recession. Obama still plans on cutting taxes for those that make LESS than 250,000/year.

McCain’s plan will cut taxes across ALL income levels and is planning to CUT taxes for those in the top 1 percent by MORE than 125,000 per year, raising their after-tax income an average of 9.5 percent.

McCain’s plan would lift after-tax incomes an average of about 3 percent, or $1,400 annually, for middle-income taxpayers by 2012.

McCain will also tax the paid medical insurance premiums and co-pays provided by your employer.

From THE TAX POLICY CENTER:

Quote:

Executive Summary August 25, 2008 2 Both candidates prefer to compare their plans to the “current policy” baseline, which would extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and indefinitely extend an indexed AMT “patch”—and collect nearly $3.6 trillion less than under current law over the coming decade. Against that baseline, Obama would raise revenues by about $600 billion over the decade, while McCain would lose $600 billion. But choice of baseline doesn’t change how the proposals would affect the budget picture; without substantial cuts in government spending, both plans would sharply increase the national debt. Including interest costs, Obama’s tax plan would boost the debt by $3.5 trillion by 2018. McCain’s plan would increase the debt by $5 trillion.

The Obama plan would reduce taxes for low- and moderate-income families, but raise them significantly for high-bracket taxpayers (see Figure 2). By 2012, middle-income taxpayers would see their after-tax income rise by about 5 percent, or nearly $2,200 annually. Those in the top 1 percent would face a $19,000 average tax increase—a 1.5 percent reduction in after-tax income.

McCain would lift after-tax incomes an average of about 3 percent, or $1,400 annually, for middle-income taxpayers by 2012. But, in sharp contrast to Obama, he would cut taxes for those in the top 1% by more than $125,000, raising their after-tax income an average 9.5 percent.

These projections are built on descriptions of the candidates’ plans provided by senior McCain and Obama staff (see Table 1). However, TPC has also projected costs based upon what candidates have actually said on the campaign trail, and those promises paint a quite different picture (see second panel of Summary Revenue Table).

For instance, TPC estimates that one version of McCain’s proposal to create an optional simplified individual income tax system would increase the cost of his plan by more than $1 trillion over 10 years. McCain has provided few details for his plan, but TPC projected the costs of a similar proposal made by the Republican Study Committee.

Obama has proposed raising the payroll tax for those earning over $250,000. Again, he has not provided details, but TPC assumes this would be a 2 percent income tax surcharge on adjusted gross income above $250,000 for couples and $200,000 for others and an additional 2 percent payroll tax for employers on each worker’s earnings above those levels. Such a plan would increase taxes on high-income workers by nearly $400 billion over a decade.

In the July 23 update of its analysis, TPC added a preliminary estimate of the candidates’ health care proposals. Because the campaigns did not provide complete plans, TPC assumed certain details. We conclude that the McCain plan, which would replace the current exclusion for employer-paid premiums with a refundable income tax credit of up to $5000 for anyone purchasing of health insurance and make other changes to the healthcare system, would increase the deficit by $1.3 trillion over 10 years and modestly trim the number of uninsured. The Obama plan, which would make relatively low-cost insurance available to everyone through non-group pools and subsidize premiums for low- and moderate-income households, would cost $1.6 trillion, but would also cover virtually all children and many currently uninsured adults.

Work Cited:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/41...

Important quotes from their report:

Quote

Against that baseline, Obama would raise revenues by about $600 billion over the decade, while McCain would lose $600 billion.

But choice of baseline doesn’t change how the proposals would affect the budget picture.
Without substantial cuts in government spending, both plans would sharply increase the national debt. Including interest costs, Obama’s tax plan would boost the debt by $3.5 trillion by 2018. McCain’s plan would increase the debt by $5 trillion.

The Obama plan would reduce taxes for low- and moderate-income families, but raise them significantly for high-bracket taxpayers (see Figure 2). By 2012, middle-income taxpayers would see their after-tax income rise by about 5 percent, or nearly $2,200 annually. Those in the top 1 percent would face a $19,000 average tax increase—a 1.5 percent reduction in after-tax income.

McCain would lift after-tax incomes an average of about 3 percent, or $1,400 annually, for middle-income taxpayers by 2012. But, in sharp contrast to Obama, he would cut taxes for those in the top 1% by more than $125,000, raising their after-tax income an average 9.5 percent.

We conclude that the McCain plan, which would replace the current exclusion for employer-paid premiums with a refundable income tax credit of up to $5000 for anyone purchasing of health insurance and make other changes to the healthcare system, would increase the deficit by $1.3 trillion over 10 years and modestly trim the number of uninsured. The Obama plan, which would make relatively low-cost insurance available to everyone through non-group pools and subsidize premiums for low- and moderate-income households, would cost $1.6 trillion, but would also cover virtually all children and many currently uninsured adults.

Unquote

Work Cited:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/41...

Base your decision on FACTS, not commercials, not sound bites and certainly NOT spin. Study the plan, then based on your income; decide under which candidate you would fare better economically speaking.

Darwins Stepchild wrote:

<quoted text>
No. The survey was made by the Pew Research Study.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/16/daily-sho...
This is something I find quite disturbing (and sad) about ideologues of any stripe...the fact that when faced with information that they find disagreeable, they dismiss it out of hand rather than look into the matter.
I did not recall where the survey had been made but it only took me about 1 min. to google the information. So easy to find out. Such little time to do so. Yet ideologues can't seem to be bothered with any sort of verification one way or the other.

I have never watched Jon Stewart and still consider myself to be pretty much up to speed on current events. Not sure there is a point to be made or not. As for ideologues, I don't consider myself one of those, either. You paint with a very broad brush.

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm a member myself of the NRA.
However that is the only thing I have in common with her.
She wishes to stop legal abortions based on RELIGIOUS reasons--(and certainly not BIBLE-religious, either...)
She wishes to force creationism into the SCIENCE classroom-- again for RELIGIOUS reasons (creationism is religion).
Both of these are against the constitution's prohibition of supporting specific religion or religious views.
As such-- she should be immediately disqualified.

You just will not stop spreading lies, will you?

3) Palin “Wants Creationism Taught in School”

The Charge: Palin opposes the teaching of evolution, and would mandate the teaching of creationism in the state’s public schools.

The Facts: Palin said during her 2006 gubernatorial campaign that she would not push the state Board of Education to add creation-based alternatives to the state’s required curriculum, or look for creationism advocates when she appointed board members. She has kept this pledge, according to the Associated Press.

Palin has spoken in favor of classroom discussions of creationism, in some cases.“I don’t think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum,” Palin told the Anchorage Daily News in a 2006 interview.

(See:‘Creation science’ enters the race; Palin is only candidate to suggest it should be discussed in schools. By Tom Kizzia, Anchorage Daily News, 27 October 2006)

http://shockandblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/demo...

Obama supporters will stop at nothing to discredit a true American. But I guess if all you have are lies, then you go with that. Pitiful.

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:

<quoted text>
Did you have any to begin with?
No?
What's the big deal, then?
And, no, I am voting AGAINST McSame.
Did you see the speech by McSame? It had NEARLY ALL THE EXACT SAME TALKING-POINTS as the speech Dubya gave in 2000.....
Nearly the EXACT SAME.
Thus, we may safely ASSUME that McSame will be EXACTLY LIKE Dubya.
And just LOOK at the mess the US is in because of Dubya...!!!!
From serious miss-handling of 9/11, to serious miss-handling of the savings and loan stuff on and on, mistake-after-mistake down to the LATEST fiasco in the Russia/Georgian conflict.
Bush has ZERO ability as a foreign policy president.
Bush has ZERO ability as a domestic policy president.
And it looks like McSame will be.... exactly as lousy a president as Dubya was.....
Our economy cannot stand another 4 years of incompetence in the White House.
Even if Obama was nothing more than a TOASTER OVEN-- he would be BETTER, BY FAR than more of Dubya's failed ideas.....
....and Palin? She is just unqualified. ZERO experience at foreign policy. ZERO experience at national politics.
In fact, she's just a big ZERO.

I don't care who you vote for. What I do care about is trying to smear Gov. Palin with flat-out lies.

Obama interviewed tonight, Monday, on MSNBC "Countdown" with Keith Olbermann at 8pm EST

Obama has stated his case very clearly to the American people. Some of them have listened but others are bothered by his color. Obama will change No Child Left behind law, McCain will not, Obama believes that a woman has rights to her body but McCain says no to that. Obama says we should give health insurance to everyone including people strung up on drugs, McCain says no. However, McCain says we can bail out the corporates who are strung up on greed. I guess we little people do not deserve government help but Fredie and Fanie Mae deserves trillions of dollars assistance. I doubt if that little person hung up on drugs will cost any thing like a trillion bucks. In any case, if you believe that McCain is your man then go for it and have your 4 more years of wars,high interest rates, high gas prices, high food cost, lost of jobs and lost of the American dream of owning a home. Good luck on that change. Oh! I probably made too much sense for ha!

Did O say anything about the murders and crimes.

Teacher wrote:

Obama has stated his case very clearly to the American people. Some of them have listened but others are bothered by his color. Obama will change No Child Left behind law, McCain will not, Obama believes that a woman has rights to her body but McCain says no to that. Obama says we should give health insurance to everyone including people strung up on drugs, McCain says no. However, McCain says we can bail out the corporates who are strung up on greed. I guess we little people do not deserve government help but Fredie and Fanie Mae deserves trillions of dollars assistance. I doubt if that little person hung up on drugs will cost any thing like a trillion bucks. In any case, if you believe that McCain is your man then go for it and have your 4 more years of wars,high interest rates, high gas prices, high food cost, lost of jobs and lost of the American dream of owning a home. Good luck on that change. Oh! I probably made too much sense for ha!

Obama believes a child born of a botched abortion should be left to die a slow, agonizing death. I do not want him anywhere near the Oval Office. Thank goodness the polls show McCain/Palin out in front. God bless America!

mlc9852 wrote:

<quoted text>
Obama believes a child born of a botched abortion should be left to die a slow, agonizing death. I do not want him anywhere near the Oval Office. Thank goodness the polls show McCain/Palin out in front. God bless America!

This from one who wrote, " What I do care about is trying to smear Gov. Palin with flat-out lies".

Have a reliable source for the Obama smear? Didn't think so.

CBart95 wrote:

Semi: You need to get a life.
Meanwhile, check out this fresh new admission from your favorite (OBAMA) candidate for President:
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Geez, Pal! I'll get a life if you learn to understand the word "context." Wonder what the rest of the sentence consisted of that we didn't get to hear? If that is the best you guys have, it isn't nearly good enought to convince anyone with a brain that Obama was "admitting" to anything in that few-second sound byte. But then, I suppose most Republicans really are that shallow. Hey, it worked for the Nazis! Where do you think Karl Rove got all his ideas?