Dave’s prediction:More God talk, no Sarah Palin, McBush will bomb.Of course, my track record here isn’t so good…
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, October 15th, 2008 at 6:34 pm and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
I didn’t see much of the debate but I did catch the part where they were talking about school vouchers – McCain for and Obama against. I’m fully with Obama on that.
“I’ve worked hard . . . I work 10 to 12 hours a day and I’m buying this company and I’m going to continue working that way. I’m getting taxed more and more while fulfilling the American Dream.”
Ah yes, the American dream. Work 60 to 80 hrs a week, making money you don’t have time to enjoy, and then dying of hypertension before you turn 60. Now that’s the GOOD life.
And another thing: I am tired of hearing about how Obama pals around with the terrorist Bill Ayres. 80% of Americans supported invading Iraq and killing hundreds of thousands of human beings, and Bill Ayres is a terrorist? Pot/Kettle/Black
Karen
i got a call today also from mccain camp.they have bad leadership they should be saying what mccain will do instead it was obama is bad guy.that kind of message will not win election for mccain.
Ren
on another post
the other day i talked about troops being used to secure order i believe the north american command has been giving an expanded role in domestic sercurity.my hope is this of limited nature, logistics support or something.
I am afraid you are correct. Notice that I didn’t say it wouldn’t happen, just that it was illegal. Hasn’t stopped us from illegaly invading another country, or wiretapping our own citizens.
Ren
i know that you are a patriot old style like myself.we are the past i’m afraid. obama an mccain may very well be good men but look at the last debate neither gave hard answers about the economy or afghan war.we are losing ground in afghan war 7 yrs on and karzai is nothing more than a fancy mayor of kabul.will we join the soviets, british in the history book of afghanistan.
The really sad thing is; if we hadn’t invaded Iraq, we may very well have already been victorious in Afghanistan. Instead, we are loosing two wars. I don’t believe for a minute that things are going as swimmingly as the establishment makes it out to be in Iraq, and everyone admits that things are going to shit in Afghanistan.
History will not be kind to the Shrub administration.
In someways i can’t see how radical change will not happen due to economic blackhole United States confronts.I don’t trust gov’t facts and believe unemployment and inflation numbers are much worse than reported.As for iraq/afghanistan why should we believe anything by gov’t or corporate media.
Obviously, yes. I lived in rural Midwest Nebraska for several years, this is a common problem there ? and I suspect everywhere.
I can see someweak willed people doing this, but not the vast majority.
There are a lot of sexual politics at play here. What most people don’t recognize is that females play the game to increase their social status as well.
You’re ignoring several key facts:
* Women are statistically paid less for the same work.
* Women are generally physically weaker than men, and, while you can’t always go so far as to call it rape, they experience sexual pressure that us dudes cannot truly fathom.
* Once a woman is pregnant, her earning ability is practically shot for the next two years at least.
* A woman may feel she’s doing the responsible thing by sticking with the guy, but then he might starting drinking or abusing her or just get up and leave. Parental responsibility os a two-way street.
I’ll concede all your points. Based on feminist propaganda, all women know they’re at a distinct earning advantage, why the fuck handicap yourself even more with children?
Sexual pressure is bullshit. Again, a very weak willed person would submit to unwanted sex just to keep the relationship going for appearance’s sake.
I know women who stay in shitty relationships b/c it increases her social status/income/purchasing power. I know women who have married for these reasons as well.
They married assholes for essentially money & the thrill, got fucked on the deal & now want my sympathy??? Fuck that. It’s the old “assholes/pricks get laid & nice guys finish last” deal.
Ha! Not only is Joe The Plumber not a licensed plumber he also has two liens against him (unpaid taxes and, get this, medical bills) but he has no reasonable expectation of making that 250K that he spoke with Obama about at that Toledo rally. He makes 40K and has no real plan or ability to buy that business that he spoke of which, btw, makes 100K/year not 250K. But on top of all this from ABC News comes the revelation:
Wurzelbacher also divulged that the McCain campaign had contacted him several days before the debate and asked him to appear at the Toledo rally. A campaign aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, confirmed that Wurzelbacher had been invited.
Under Obama’s plan Joe, a single father of a 13 y.o. boy, would pay less taxes than under McSame’s plan but Joe can’t seem to stir up the intestinal fortitude needed to vote in his best interests. He says it’s just not right that Bill Gates should pay more taxes under Obama. Wow Joe! Stockholm Syndrome much?
See, that’s a good indication of how clueless the McCain campaign is. Even when they try to stage a false example they get it wrong. And that’s a pretty charitable statement considering how many times they’ve repeated statements they knew weren’t true. I used to think that at the very least, John McCain was a man of interity that would sooner lose than stoop to this level of bullshit. Either something changed or my take on people isn’t as good as it used to be.
Alright What, it’s time for a little fact checking on your half-reading problem:
You have accused me of this previously and I showed you then that it was not true (The subject was NeoWolfe’s posts. After you accused me Neo clarified his ambiguous position and, low and behold, no half-read.) Now you make similar accusations. I think you should reread my post. The thing that I could possibly be guilty of was stating that Joe asked his question at a rally. It was a visit by Obama to his neighborhood.
That quote you posted was from the LA Times, not ABC,
Hmm. Well that changes everything doesn’t it. I might be of a mind to comb through your posts in the future looking for unfactual assertions that change nothing.
Why is voting in one’s own interests a good argument to make?
A good argument for what? Do you mean the question: How can one be best represented by one’s government? That would make it a no-brainer. But maybe you mean something else. In that case why not say what that is?
So what was the “revelation” then? Why did you use that term and what did you think it revealed?
Joe Plumber implied that taxing people unequally was inherently unfair and that he didn’t approve of it, even if that made things harder on him. You implied that he was some kind of idiot of not voting for any rule that helped him, regardless of whether it violated a philosophical principle he held. Is that inaccurate?
As for your half-reading, you showed me once, but demonstrated that you do it dozens of times. You can go on feeling vindicated if you want, but I think anyone who’s followed your posts long enough knows what I’m talking about.
Joe Plumber implied that taxing people unequally was inherently unfair and that he didn’t approve of it, even if that made things harder on him.
I believe that CEOs that make hundreds of times more money than their next highest paid hourly wage earner, is inherently unfair.
Why should people like Bill O’really? make $50 million per year for bloviating on TV, and then not be expected to pay his fair share of taxes? I say the government should take $48 million of it in taxes, and he would still be overcompensated for the services he provides. Nobody, and I mean nobody, is worth tens of millions of dollars a year, especially on the backs of their employees that cannot afford to put shoes on their children’s feet, or clothes on their backs, or food in their bellies, or roofs over their heads.
So what was the “revelation” then? Why did you use that term and what did you think it revealed?
A full-read would have revealed that “the point” was that Joe was in contact with McCain campaign (Note that the word campaign) prior to the third debate.
Joe Plumber implied that taxing people unequally was inherently unfair and that he didn’t approve of it, even if that made things harder on him.
And it isn’t inheremtly unfair so what’s your point.
You implied that he was some kind of idiot of not voting for any rule that helped him, regardless of whether it violated a philosophical principle he held. Is that inaccurate?
He has two choices Obama or McSame. If he chooses McSame he will pay more taxes. If he chooses Obama he will pay less taxes. He approached Obama and asked him a question about HIS taxes. From the start he was declaring that HIS tax rate to be of primary importance to him. So yes, he is an idiot if he’s having trouble making his voting decision based on his stated concerns.
Then when he gets “exposed” he shifts to the bogus “inherently unfair” argument.
Feel vindicated? I am vindicated. But I will make a mental note to be more unforgiving of inconsequential assertions when reading your posts in the future.
If the revelation was that the GOP had been in contact with him prior to the 3rd debate, riddle me this…
It’s already been explained the quotes you out there, which were taken from their respective paragraphs, placed together, and then presented out of context, refered to the McCain campaign contacting him three days prior to the rally TO BE HELD in Toledo, OH on this UPCOMING Sunday, October 19th, 2008. Please note that this is a date in the FUTURE and that three days prior to this FUTURE date is Thursday, October 16th, 2008. That date, now in the PAST came one day AFTER the 3rd presidential debate.
Now. This is the second time I’ve had to say it. So explain:
Did you half read my previous explaination?
… or … (and this is and, really)
Did you half read the LA Times (not ABC news) article?
… or …
Did you not read the article at all and just post from someone else’s secondhand make up bullshit site?
… or …
Did you make it up yourself?
Why don’t you just make it easy on yourself and admit that you didn’t think (or read) this one through and be done with it.
As for Joe Plumber, it doesn’t matter whether he’s right to consider it unfair. It’s his opinion (even if that opinion was handed to him). The point is, there is nothing inherently superior to voting for the policy that helps you. That’s a very selfish philosophy of voting. That’s my opinion.
I am indeed apologizing. Somewhere between stress, lack of sleep, recent fight with my wife, my cold, medication, and excess caffine, I started having delusions in that article — ones that felt so real that I saw them again on double checking and would have testified under oath about. On a third check, I snapped to, and that’s why I’m apologizing. Besides being wrong, I’ve behaved poorly and you (all) deserve better.
Something about that still smells, however, but it’s not you. It’s the the way the LA Times (and the Associated Press before them) presented it combined with some poor logical association. I’m only half-logical when I have a cold and couldn’t put it all together until now.
Here’s the thing. Joe speaks to Obama at an Obama rally on the 12th. The McCain campaign contacts Joe “several days before the debate” and asks if he can attend the rally on the 19th. Joe tells the press that he told them I probably couldn’t attend because he’s going to be making some appearances on TV.
From that, we really can’t pull any kind of conclusion that the McCain campaign contacted him before the 12th, only that they saw him at the rally and then contacted him. I think what really muddied this was their decision to concatonate the ideas of “called to ask” and “told them I’d be on TV” because those must have been two separate calls — one before the debate, and one after the debate when he got suddenly popular.
But from that information, suggesting they sent him to Obama’s rally is pure and iffy speculation, unfounded and unnecessary to support what Joe has said. If there were any credible information to lead to that conclusion, it would have been the story lead — and not just at the LA Times.
But anyway, how I got from that gut reaction to deluded confabulation to support it, I dunno. Sorry.
alex,
Whoa. Is that really her?
Man, myspace + youtube = harsh.
I didn’t see much of the debate but I did catch the part where they were talking about school vouchers – McCain for and Obama against. I’m fully with Obama on that.
Ah yes, the American dream. Work 60 to 80 hrs a week, making money you don’t have time to enjoy, and then dying of hypertension before you turn 60. Now that’s the GOOD life.
And another thing: I am tired of hearing about how Obama pals around with the terrorist Bill Ayres. 80% of Americans supported invading Iraq and killing hundreds of thousands of human beings, and Bill Ayres is a terrorist? Pot/Kettle/Black
Karen
i got a call today also from mccain camp.they have bad leadership they should be saying what mccain will do instead it was obama is bad guy.that kind of message will not win election for mccain.
Ren
on another post
the other day i talked about troops being used to secure order i believe the north american command has been giving an expanded role in domestic sercurity.my hope is this of limited nature, logistics support or something.
reason,
I am afraid you are correct. Notice that I didn’t say it wouldn’t happen, just that it was illegal. Hasn’t stopped us from illegaly invading another country, or wiretapping our own citizens.
Ren
i know that you are a patriot old style like myself.we are the past i’m afraid. obama an mccain may very well be good men but look at the last debate neither gave hard answers about the economy or afghan war.we are losing ground in afghan war 7 yrs on and karzai is nothing more than a fancy mayor of kabul.will we join the soviets, british in the history book of afghanistan.
reason,
The really sad thing is; if we hadn’t invaded Iraq, we may very well have already been victorious in Afghanistan. Instead, we are loosing two wars. I don’t believe for a minute that things are going as swimmingly as the establishment makes it out to be in Iraq, and everyone admits that things are going to shit in Afghanistan.
History will not be kind to the Shrub administration.
Isn’t it wierd how “committed christians” are very likely to be greedy scumbags who only truly worship the dollar.
I think they need to go back to reading their book.
Of course most only pretend to believe – sometimes even fooling themselves.
Camel, eye, needle.
In someways i can’t see how radical change will not happen due to economic blackhole United States confronts.I don’t trust gov’t facts and believe unemployment and inflation numbers are much worse than reported.As for iraq/afghanistan why should we believe anything by gov’t or corporate media.
DVan:
I can see someweak willed people doing this, but not the vast majority.
There are a lot of sexual politics at play here. What most people don’t recognize is that females play the game to increase their social status as well.
r4d:
I’ll concede all your points. Based on feminist propaganda, all women know they’re at a distinct earning advantage, why the fuck handicap yourself even more with children?
Sexual pressure is bullshit. Again, a very weak willed person would submit to unwanted sex just to keep the relationship going for appearance’s sake.
I know women who stay in shitty relationships b/c it increases her social status/income/purchasing power. I know women who have married for these reasons as well.
They married assholes for essentially money & the thrill, got fucked on the deal & now want my sympathy??? Fuck that. It’s the old “assholes/pricks get laid & nice guys finish last” deal.
mx,
Your sounding like the proverbial jilted lover who’s anger has devolved into an irrational misogyny. It’s a bit unbecoming.
Ha! Not only is Joe The Plumber not a licensed plumber he also has two liens against him (unpaid taxes and, get this, medical bills) but he has no reasonable expectation of making that 250K that he spoke with Obama about at that Toledo rally. He makes 40K and has no real plan or ability to buy that business that he spoke of which, btw, makes 100K/year not 250K. But on top of all this from ABC News comes the revelation:
Under Obama’s plan Joe, a single father of a 13 y.o. boy, would pay less taxes than under McSame’s plan but Joe can’t seem to stir up the intestinal fortitude needed to vote in his best interests. He says it’s just not right that Bill Gates should pay more taxes under Obama. Wow Joe! Stockholm Syndrome much?
See, that’s a good indication of how clueless the McCain campaign is. Even when they try to stage a false example they get it wrong. And that’s a pretty charitable statement considering how many times they’ve repeated statements they knew weren’t true. I used to think that at the very least, John McCain was a man of interity that would sooner lose than stoop to this level of bullshit. Either something changed or my take on people isn’t as good as it used to be.
Alright What, it’s time for a little fact checking on your half-reading problem:
That quote you posted was from the LA Times, not ABC, and it refered to a republican rally with Palin in Toledo that hasn’t happened yet.
So long as I’m cranky, I might as well raise another point:
Why is voting in one’s own interests a good argument to make?
Trig Palin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEQdYdCfl60&feature=related
MX,
Ya, I clarified that in the post following my original comment.
R4D,
Nah, just a Tom Leykis listener. : )
Alex,
I not much of a conspiracy theorist, and even I’m not fully convinced Sarah Palin’s newest is hers and not her daughter’s baby.
Cynic
You have accused me of this previously and I showed you then that it was not true (The subject was NeoWolfe’s posts. After you accused me Neo clarified his ambiguous position and, low and behold, no half-read.) Now you make similar accusations. I think you should reread my post. The thing that I could possibly be guilty of was stating that Joe asked his question at a rally. It was a visit by Obama to his neighborhood.
Hmm. Well that changes everything doesn’t it. I might be of a mind to comb through your posts in the future looking for unfactual assertions that change nothing.
Cynic
A good argument for what? Do you mean the question: How can one be best represented by one’s government? That would make it a no-brainer. But maybe you mean something else. In that case why not say what that is?
So what was the “revelation” then? Why did you use that term and what did you think it revealed?
Joe Plumber implied that taxing people unequally was inherently unfair and that he didn’t approve of it, even if that made things harder on him. You implied that he was some kind of idiot of not voting for any rule that helped him, regardless of whether it violated a philosophical principle he held. Is that inaccurate?
As for your half-reading, you showed me once, but demonstrated that you do it dozens of times. You can go on feeling vindicated if you want, but I think anyone who’s followed your posts long enough knows what I’m talking about.
I believe that CEOs that make hundreds of times more money than their next highest paid hourly wage earner, is inherently unfair.
Why should people like Bill O’really? make $50 million per year for bloviating on TV, and then not be expected to pay his fair share of taxes? I say the government should take $48 million of it in taxes, and he would still be overcompensated for the services he provides. Nobody, and I mean nobody, is worth tens of millions of dollars a year, especially on the backs of their employees that cannot afford to put shoes on their children’s feet, or clothes on their backs, or food in their bellies, or roofs over their heads.
Ren
Ramen!
Karen,
Thank you, dear. Now for the inevitable labels of ‘Socia1ist’, which I will wear with pride.
Cheese be upon him.
Cynic
A full-read would have revealed that “the point” was that Joe was in contact with McCain campaign (Note that the word campaign) prior to the third debate.
And it isn’t inheremtly unfair so what’s your point.
He has two choices Obama or McSame. If he chooses McSame he will pay more taxes. If he chooses Obama he will pay less taxes. He approached Obama and asked him a question about HIS taxes. From the start he was declaring that HIS tax rate to be of primary importance to him. So yes, he is an idiot if he’s having trouble making his voting decision based on his stated concerns.
Then when he gets “exposed” he shifts to the bogus “inherently unfair” argument.
Feel vindicated? I am vindicated. But I will make a mental note to be more unforgiving of inconsequential assertions when reading your posts in the future.
OK, one thing at a time then.
If the revelation was that the GOP had been in contact with him prior to the 3rd debate, riddle me this…
It’s already been explained the quotes you out there, which were taken from their respective paragraphs, placed together, and then presented out of context, refered to the McCain campaign contacting him three days prior to the rally TO BE HELD in Toledo, OH on this UPCOMING Sunday, October 19th, 2008. Please note that this is a date in the FUTURE and that three days prior to this FUTURE date is Thursday, October 16th, 2008. That date, now in the PAST came one day AFTER the 3rd presidential debate.
Now. This is the second time I’ve had to say it. So explain:
Did you half read my previous explaination?
… or … (and this is and, really)
Did you half read the LA Times (not ABC news) article?
… or …
Did you not read the article at all and just post from someone else’s secondhand make up bullshit site?
… or …
Did you make it up yourself?
Why don’t you just make it easy on yourself and admit that you didn’t think (or read) this one through and be done with it.
As for Joe Plumber, it doesn’t matter whether he’s right to consider it unfair. It’s his opinion (even if that opinion was handed to him). The point is, there is nothing inherently superior to voting for the policy that helps you. That’s a very selfish philosophy of voting. That’s my opinion.
I apologize, What. I’m full of shit and having a bad week. Please forget I said anything about this.
http://www.latimes.com/wireless/avantgo/la-na-joe17-2008oct17,0,5877572.story
There’s the link for the article that show’s I’m full of shit. I just shouldn’t post stuff when I’m feeling like this. Sorry again.
Cynic
Odd. I have no idea what you are specifically apologizing for or whether you are apologizing at all.
If you are indeed having a bad week then I hope next week is a better one.
I am indeed apologizing. Somewhere between stress, lack of sleep, recent fight with my wife, my cold, medication, and excess caffine, I started having delusions in that article — ones that felt so real that I saw them again on double checking and would have testified under oath about. On a third check, I snapped to, and that’s why I’m apologizing. Besides being wrong, I’ve behaved poorly and you (all) deserve better.
Something about that still smells, however, but it’s not you. It’s the the way the LA Times (and the Associated Press before them) presented it combined with some poor logical association. I’m only half-logical when I have a cold and couldn’t put it all together until now.
Here’s the thing. Joe speaks to Obama at an Obama rally on the 12th. The McCain campaign contacts Joe “several days before the debate” and asks if he can attend the rally on the 19th. Joe tells the press that he told them I probably couldn’t attend because he’s going to be making some appearances on TV.
From that, we really can’t pull any kind of conclusion that the McCain campaign contacted him before the 12th, only that they saw him at the rally and then contacted him. I think what really muddied this was their decision to concatonate the ideas of “called to ask” and “told them I’d be on TV” because those must have been two separate calls — one before the debate, and one after the debate when he got suddenly popular.
But from that information, suggesting they sent him to Obama’s rally is pure and iffy speculation, unfounded and unnecessary to support what Joe has said. If there were any credible information to lead to that conclusion, it would have been the story lead — and not just at the LA Times.
But anyway, how I got from that gut reaction to deluded confabulation to support it, I dunno. Sorry.
OK, I hope this week is looking up for you. Best wishes.