Not The Socks We Knew

6/5/2008 8:54:29 AM

Quote :

"John McCain's biggest problem can be described with one letter: W."

or R.

6/5/2008 5:03:15 PM

R? Roids? Steroids?

Hell Yes!!! Juice is exactly what this race needs!!! Watch out Obama, here comes...MCPAIN!!!!!

6/5/2008 5:32:03 PM

This cat is ragin' out of control



[Edited on June 5, 2008 at 6:31 PM. Reason : wrong link!!!]

6/5/2008 6:29:47 PM

http://thepage.time.com/halperin%E2%80%99s-take-what-john-mccain-underestimates/

Quote :

"1. The astonishing enthusiasm that Obama inspires in his supporters — and how much it contrasts with the respect, but not passion, McCain enjoys from his own backers. (And the size of Obama’s crowds…) 2. The “Major League vs Little League” difference between Obama’s infrastructure and his own 3. The inherent difficulty/sensitivity of running against two figures at once. McCain will have to 1) explicitly criticize a sitting Republican president before Republican audiences and 2) prevent the historic event of electing the nation’s first African-American president that many in the country (and the media) desire. 4. The ever-present danger on the trail that he might evoke Bob Dole with a Bob Dole-like misstep (fall off a stage, sound like a Washington fossil, seem angry and out of touch). 5. How little most Americans care about foreign policy (beyond the Iraq War) when the economy is in the tank. 6. How many voters (even Republican stalwarts) dread the idea of a virtual third Bush term. 7. How many members of the media dread the idea of covering a virtual third Bush term (and how much they buy Obama’s argument that McCain is an extension of Bush-Cheney). 8. The extent to which McCain’s lack of an economic message could make Obama (who also is challenged in adequately addressing the economy) seem like Bob Rubin, Bill Clinton, and Lou Dobbs all rolled into one. 9. That many of his party’s wiseguys and wisegals see polling data suggesting his chances of winning are no more than 30% (and how much it infects their cable TV appearances). 10. That in modern America, perception is often reality and style often beats substance. 11. That age is only a number unless it’s a really high number — then it’s a liability. 12. How old he looks when he is acting “presidential” on the stump – and how incongruous it makes his message of change appear. 13. How powerful debates might be when the allegedly inexperienced Obama of allegedly questionable judgment goes toe-to-toe with McCain, even on national security, and is therefore deemed of sufficient strength and stature to be president by many. 14. How valuable Obama makes voters feel (”we are the change we have been waiting for”) – while McCain’s campaign instructs and lectures voters. 15. How forcefully Obama will now move to the center as a mainstream, optimistic candidate celebrating both change and America’s greatness."

6/6/2008 1:35:03 AM

John McCain, 2004: "Without privatization, I don't see how you can possibly, over time, make sure that young Americans are able to receive Social Security benefits."

John McCain, 2008: "But I'm not for quote privatizing Social Security, I never have been, I never will be."

If that's not a flat-out lie, I don't know what is.

6/14/2008 12:22:08 AM

Spooky,

It's pretty bad when the ASSOCIATED PRESS finds itself defending McCain against Obama's distorions (reminds me of Obama's mangling on McCain's 100-years statement, it only stopped when the press called it for the lie it really was).

Quote :

"WASHINGTON (AP) — John McCain has long advocated letting workers divert some of their payroll taxes into private accounts. So when he says now that he won't privatize Social Security, that raises eyebrows. But is he flip-flopping? No, not at all. The Republican presidential candidate is playing a game of semantics. He doesn't want to call his plan what is really is — a partial privatization of the Social Security system. Democrats play the same game, on the other side. They speak darkly and flatly of Republicans plunging Social Security into privatization, subjecting the venerable system to the mercies of the market, and they ignore the voluntary and partial nature of the proposal. They ignore, too, that Democrats including presidential candidate Barack Obama propose federal retirement subsidies that would likewise be tied to the ups — and downs — of the stock market. They would do this outside of the Social Security system. "

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jAvBP-erjO6bce7YRvcb06Em2dVQD919CRJ81

Personal accounts are not really full "privatization" (even if the Republicans used to talk about it as such). The government still forces you to contribute, personal accounts simply allow you to set aside a portion of what they take into actual assets like stocks, but only if you want to. Obama says that people should be afraid to have their savings tied up with stocks, but if he actually believes that he should re-think some of his own proposals (as the AP rightly points out).

I don't know why people keep asking "when will Obama go negative". He's already started folks. He's twisting John McCain's words to scare old people into thinking Social Security will no longer be secure and twisting John McCain's words to scare everyone into thinking he wants to continue fighting in Iraq for 100 years. It simply isn't true. No matter what the YouTube-News-Network tells you.

But I think AP put it best (using McCain's FULL quote IN CONTEXT).

Quote :

""I do not and will not privatize Social Security," McCain said Friday in New Jersey. "It's not true when I'm accused of that." He said he does want a system enabling "younger workers to take a few of their tax dollars and maybe put it in an account with their name on it. Please don't let them (the Democrats) twist that." Too late. They've been making hay with it for months. "

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jAvBP-erjO6bce7YRvcb06Em2dVQD919CRJ81

[Edited on June 15, 2008 at 11:29 AM. Reason : ``]

6/15/2008 11:24:55 AM

I didn't say he was flip-flopping, I said he was lying. The AP said he was "playing a game of semantics". I say that's putting it lightly.

The "full context" that you're posting is from a different speech altogether in New Jersey, a clarification he added after being blasted for what he said previously. The full context of this statement is as follows:

Quote :

"Amherst Democratic activist John Mendolusky engaged McCain in a sharp but respectful exchange over Social Security reform. "You stated you are in favor of private accounts which really is privatization of Social Security," Mendolusky began. "Why would you have workers risk their nest eggs on the roulette wheels of Wall Street?" "I am not for quote 'privatization of Social Security.' I never have been, never will be. That is a great buzzword for an attack," McCain shot back. "Workers should have the right to put their own taxes, their own money into an account. If they don't want to, don't do it.""

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080613/NEWS01/252373021

The fact of the matter is that when "privatization" was what they called it (then it was "private accounts", and then it was "personal accounts"), what that meant was that people would be allowed to remove some amount of their Social Security taxes and invest that money by some approved means, and John McCain was ABSOLUTELY in favor of that. I am not at the moment discussing the merits of Social Security privatization--what I am saying is that, for better or for worse, John McCain was, without question, in support of privatization. For him to say "I never have been, I never will be" in favor of privatization is broad, bold statement, one which is completely untrue.

6/15/2008 12:16:10 PM

^ Depending on how you define privatization. Democratic scare tactics have effectively resulted in the term losing all meaning. As AP points out, they often ignore the fact that the option to put payroll tax contributions into a personal account is voluntary and that those contributions can only account for a portion of your total payroll tax contributions. So, really, John McCain has never been in favor of privatization as it is often defined by the Democrats. IOW: He was not lying.

Seems like a very clear and honest difference to me.

This actually reminds me of the 1993-1994 Health Care debate. The Republicans were so effectively able to annex Democratic language on national health care reform, that it took over 10 years for Democrats to be able to start proposing true comprehensive reforms again (Gore's and Kerry's proposals were targeted at either specific demographic groups like children or narrow policy proposals like the government taking more responsibility for catastrophic medical expenses).

The Democrats have done the exact same thing with Social Security reform. I doubt we will see another serious proposal for reforming the broader system in the next decade. Now they're trying to use those same smear tactics again. But if McCain is guilty of anything, it's not lying, it's bad marketing. And if Obama's campaign proves anything....MARKETING MATTERS.

PS* That is the same townhall meeting I was referring to. The only quote you ever hear is that McCain never was and never will be in favor of privatization. You don't normally hear the rest where he explains what he means by that. In context, it is totally consistant with his previous statements in 2004 and 2005.

[Edited on June 15, 2008 at 12:56 PM. Reason : ``]

6/15/2008 12:43:51 PM

(CNN) – John McCain said Friday that every candidates' wife "should be treated with respect and if there's any disrespectful conduct on the part of anyone, those people should be rejected.” And if you disagree you're a trollop cunt.

6/15/2008 4:59:26 PM

McCain: "It's tough in some respects [to be proud of my country]"

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0608/McCain_doesnt_pick_up_on_Michelle_Obama_joke.html

6/15/2008 8:33:59 PM

Quote :

"McCain took Congress to task for taking a July 4 recess without completing action on a housing rescue plan, calling it "incredible that Congress should go on vacation while Americans are trying to stay in their homes."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-campaign29-2008jun29,0,4373840.story
This from the man who has so far missed over 61% of the votes in the current session of congress.

7/7/2008 11:48:54 AM

Quote :

"Mr. McCain’s main campaign promises, if fulfilled, would lead to huge budget deficits. Extending the Bush tax cuts, enacting more tax cuts of his own and staying the course in Iraq would cost hundreds of billions of dollars more, every year, than the small bore spending cuts he has specified. Mr. McCain cannot balance the budget on a crusade against pork and a one-year freeze in a sliver of federal spending. Either he has a secret plan to balance the budget or he’s blowing smoke. It is safe to assume there is no secret plan. To balance the budget in the face of ever-increasing tax cuts would require untenable near-term cuts in Medicare, one of the biggest drivers of budget imbalance. That, in turn, would harm elderly Americans, arguably Mr. McCain’s most important constituency. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/12/opinion/12sat1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

McCain's promises of a balanced budget make NO sense. There is nothing to back them up, and when pressed, the campaign offers little or no specifics.

STRAIGHT TALK!!

7/13/2008 2:27:49 PM

Quote :

"BLITZER: Are there any significant economic differences between what the Bush administration has put forward over these many years as opposed to now what John McCain supports? SANFORD: Um, yeah. For instance, take, you know, take, for instance, the issue of -- I'm drawing a blank, and I hate it when I do that, particularly on television. Take, for instance the contrast on NAFTA. I mean, I think that the bigger issue is credibility in where one is coming from, are they consistent where they come from."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2nNSMZKv_A

[Edited on July 14, 2008 at 12:34 AM. Reason : vid]

7/14/2008 12:33:09 AM

Well, of course McCain is not going to give specifics on balancing the budget. It would be bad politics. Balancing the budget isn't popular when it comes to actually cutting spending. Just ask Bill Clinton. This is a game both sides are playing. Obama's refusual to give specifics on important issues like international trade (specifically NAFTA) left him able to reposition himself during the general election and will allow him to potentially reposition himself again when he is in office. I personally find it distasteful all around, but if you want to complain about the one, you have to complain about the other.

I still take confidence in the fact that McCain has voiced concern for the budget situation. Obama has not. He has simply written off the entire prospect of balancing the budget during his term. An odd stance for a Democrat to take, considering all the flack Dems gave Bush over running large deficits.

That's just one more reason I find myself on the opposite side of the fence this election. My positions have not changed. I still strongly believe in fiscal discipline (excluding obvious exceptions such as during recession). Democrats used to believe that too. But the progressive wing has taken over and centrists are left out in the cold.

7/14/2008 1:15:51 PM

Ill agree with socks. balancing hte budget is a better goal to lie about than expanding entitlements.(when we cant afford the current ones long term)

Im voting for the lesser of two evils. It sucks its come down to these clowns. We really need more options.

7/14/2008 1:43:40 PM

If McCain is lying about balancing the budget then that puts him even closer to being Bush-clone doesn't it?

7/14/2008 6:51:34 PM

beats the marx clone

7/14/2008 9:14:07 PM

McCain Tops Obama in Commander-in-Chief Test; Stays Competitive on Iraq
Poll Finds 72 Percent of Americans Say McCain Would be Good Commander-in-Chief

http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Politics/Story?id=5370538&page=1

Obama Leads McCain by Eight But Doubts Loom, Raising Stakes
Obama Holds Advantage, But McCain Favored to Handle Global Politics

Quote :

"Americans by a wide margin, 63-26 percent, pick McCain as more knowledgeable on world affairs, rate him much more highly in terms of readiness for the world stage and military leadership alike, and put him ahead of Obama by 50-41 percent in trust to handle 'an unexpected major crisis.'"

http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Politics/story?id=5378482&page=1

McCain stomped Obama in these important categories.

7/21/2008 7:23:35 PM

^ All that shows is that democrats trust McCain more than Republicans trust Obama. It's not surprising that democrats would be more open-minded.

7/21/2008 7:37:06 PM

Are these the same 66% of Americans who cannot point out Iraq on a map? Public opinion polls are irrelevant.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/05/02/geog.test/index.html

7/21/2008 7:37:33 PM

except that the stupid fuckers vote

7/21/2008 10:17:18 PM

heheehe I wish I had the time to collect the various statements made on this board about public opinion.

"everyone is stupid...but me...and people that agree with me."

7/21/2008 10:21:15 PM

Quote :

"5. How little most Americans care about foreign policy (beyond the Iraq War) when the economy is in the tank."

7/21/2008 10:22:39 PM

^^ dude, stfu. you're such a tool and a douchebag.

66% is a blanket observation and has no political party.

if in the middle of our bazillion-dollar war, you can't locate Iraq on a map, you shouldnt fucking be able to vote, i dont care who you would vote for. worse, is (IIRC), something like 1/3 or 1/4 cant even locate the US on a globe.

I'm sure I'll totally break with my liberal counterparts here, because i really am in favor of some sort of intelligence criteria for voting -- and i know such a thing is totally unconstitutional and probably borderline fascist, but goddammit if you're stupid or just plain ignorant, i don't want you voting.




[Edited on July 21, 2008 at 10:29 PM. Reason : ]

7/21/2008 10:27:08 PM

i agree with you there

if that was the case, obama's electorate would be as minimal as his tax breaks

7/21/2008 10:32:18 PM

I don't think locating Iraq on a map is relevant. I haven't had to look at a map of the earth since high school. The ONLY way I'd be able to locate Iraq on a map is by watching map illustrations on cable news shows. But I don't watch those, I rely on NPR and the Internet to learn most of my news. It's an arbitrary litmus test.

7/21/2008 10:33:23 PM

^^^ I am a stupid, tool, douche bag that disagrees with you.

[Edited on July 21, 2008 at 10:33 PM. Reason : ``]

7/21/2008 10:33:25 PM

I thought the only people who liked Obama were overeducated effete latte sipping elitists????????

7/21/2008 10:34:41 PM

Quote :

"I rely on NPR and the Internet to learn most of my news. It's an arbitrary litmus test."

and there lies the problem with the majority of america

7/21/2008 10:35:06 PM

I know right, I should just listen to Rush and Fox and have them hand me my opinions for me.

7/21/2008 10:40:45 PM

not hand them

but express ideas already felt

almost like you

except i dont rely on the media to predetermine my beliefs

[Edited on July 21, 2008 at 10:47 PM. Reason : ...]

7/21/2008 10:46:42 PM

I don't think there's anything wrong with it. Just because I get my news from the Internet or NPR doesn't mean I take what's said at face value and agree with everything that's said. I listen to different perspectives and make my own decisions. Discussions are far more involved than anything on cable news and it's easier to ignore nutjobs.

7/21/2008 10:50:56 PM

Quote :

"not hand them but express ideas already felt almost like you except i dont rely on the media to predetermine my beliefs "

lol, southern white frat guy at an ag school leans republican

way to break the mold

so who do you rely on to predetermine your beliefs then?

[Edited on July 21, 2008 at 10:57 PM. Reason : .]

7/21/2008 10:53:25 PM

NEVER TRUST A PRELAW

7/21/2008 11:00:51 PM

ag school poly sci/English/humanities is still liberal

7/21/2008 11:03:54 PM

Quote :

"I'm sure I'll totally break with my liberal counterparts here, because i really am in favor of some sort of intelligence criteria for voting -- and i know such a thing is totally unconstitutional and probably borderline fascist, but goddammit if you're stupid or just plain ignorant, i don't want you voting."

joe_schmoe

Don't forget racist.

Quote :

"LEAD: MOST social scientists know - though few publicly discuss it - that there has been a puzzling gap of about 15 points in I.Q. test scores, on average, between blacks and whites in America ever since the tests were first widely used more than 70 years ago. After long debate over why blacks score lower, and what it means, a fresh theory is putting the discussion into perspective."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE1DF1E3AF933A25757C0A96E948260

THIRTY YEARS OF RESEARCH ON RACE DIFFERENCES IN COGNITIVE ABILITY

Quote :

"Throughout the history of psychology, no question has been so persistent or so resistant to resolution as that of the relative roles of nature and nurture in causing individual and group differences in cognitive ability (Degler, 1991; Loehlin, Lindzey, & Spuhler, 1975). The scientific debate goes back to the mid-19th century (e.g., Galton, 1869; Nott & Glidden, 1854). Starting with the widespread use of standardized mental tests in World War I, average ethnic and racial group differences were found. Especially vexing has been the cause(s) of the 15-point Black–White IQ difference in the United States."

http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf

7/21/2008 11:14:12 PM

I'd be interested in seeing the polling data from the people living on the Iraq/Pakistan border.

7/21/2008 11:14:35 PM

^^ haha nice!

joe_schmoe supports jim_crow

[Edited on July 21, 2008 at 11:16 PM. Reason : ``]

7/21/2008 11:16:06 PM

^ Yeah, from what I could gather from schmoe's rambling "manifesto" a few posts up, he's a racist fascist that doesn't support the Constitution--his words.



[Edited on July 21, 2008 at 11:29 PM. Reason : .]

7/21/2008 11:28:10 PM

My ranting "maifesto" was half-joking, and borne out of frustration with you TDub neocon retards. But, i guess it was also half-serious, so let me make one thing clear

I am not at all in favor of IQ tests.

IQ testing is arbitrary, based on a flawed methodology, and is culturally biased. furthermore, it's been my experience with people who claim they have high IQ's that they tend to be the biggest dipshits and the least capable of performing normal social functions.

but I also

Quote :

"rely on NPR and the Internet to learn most of my news"

and i can locate every major country on the globe. I'm not some history or geography major, it's just a matter of being reasonably informed. It's not hard.

so when I said

Quote :

"i really am in favor of some sort of intelligence criteria for voting"

I'm thinking more along the lines of something like the "citizenship test" they make immigrants take before becoming a US Citizen. something that can demonstrate they have a clue about how our government works and basic history ... or, really, just that they give a damn enough to study up on it.

personally, i think that overall it would cull more votes from the trailer trash, white, redneck Fox News watching fuckwit subculture.

because I'd be willing to bet that its the ignorant, sub-literate white rednecks who do actually go and vote moreso than the ignorant, illiterate people within some other ethnic group.







[Edited on July 22, 2008 at 2:18 PM. Reason : ]

7/22/2008 2:00:44 PM

^ hmmmm giving people tests before they can vote? How could anyone view that as racist!? This will work out perfectly.

7/22/2008 2:21:52 PM

nice work there, troll

but the fact is, and you know it, they give citizenship tests all the time. every immigrant who wants to be a US Citizen -- and vote -- has to take a test.

there's a vast difference between fairly and equally applied citizenship tests than the capricious and arbitrary voting booth tests from the mid-1800s.

in fact, it works out just fine. millions of naturalized citizens have no complaints about taking a "voting test" it's been working just fine for a long time.

my mother-in-law took the citizenship test 2 years ago. she's more informed about US history, government and economics than the average american -- by a long shot.





[Edited on July 22, 2008 at 2:40 PM. Reason : ]

7/22/2008 2:31:31 PM

Quote :

" Kate Couric: Senator McCain, Senator Obama says, while the increased number of US troops contributed to increased security in Iraq, he also credits the Sunni awakening and the Shiite government going after militias. And says that there might have been improved security even without the surge. What's your response to that? McCain: I don't know how you respond to something that is as -- such a false depiction of what actually happened. Colonel McFarlane [phonetic] was contacted by one of the major Sunni sheiks. Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening. I mean, that's just a matter of history. Thanks to General Petraeus, our leadership, and the sacrifice of brave young Americans. I mean, to deny that their sacrifice didn't make possible the success of the surge in Iraq, I think, does a great disservice to young men and women who are serving and have sacrificed. "

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/07/mccain_disputes_obama_account.php

Quote :

"The Awakening began in Anbar Province more than a year before the surge and took off in the summer and fall of 2006 in Ramadi and elsewhere, long before extra U.S. forces started flowing into Iraq in February and March of 2007. Throughout the war, enemy-of-my-enemy logic has driven Sunni decision-making. The Sunnis have seen three "occupiers" as threats: the United States, the Shiites (and their presumed Iranian patrons), and the foreigners and extremists in AQI. Crucial to the Awakening was the reordering of these threats."

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080701faresponse87413/colin-h-kahl-william-e-odom/when-to-leave-iraq.html

MAVERICK!! John McCain doesn't conform to the established narrative of history. HE MAKES HIS OWN HISTORY, BITCHES!!!

7/23/2008 10:43:44 AM

^ Or he may just genuinely believed that's what happened, which is worse than making your own history.

7/23/2008 12:00:02 PM

Is McCain trying to bring back the front porch campaign, or what?

I'm sure he's old enough to remember the last one.

Tip your waitresses, folks.




But really, though. Where does he get off saying he's not getting enough coverage when he's not doing anything worth covering? Obama is on an effing world tour hob nobbing with foreign leaders. McCain is touring a dairy aisle in who knows where.

[Edited on July 24, 2008 at 1:31 PM. Reason : .]

7/24/2008 1:14:52 PM

McCain has been on multiple foreign tours this campaign season. He's been to Iraq countless times.

But unlike Obama, he didn't travel with dozens of reporters.

7/24/2008 1:27:09 PM

^ http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/23/beck.obama.media/index.html

7/24/2008 1:32:47 PM

Hahaha Glenn Beck is the most willfully ignorant person in the media today

7/24/2008 1:54:27 PM

The thrust of his argument is that Obama is more popular and sells more advertising, thus media outlets cover him more.

Seems fair enough.

7/24/2008 2:06:58 PM