Archives

Powell lost respect with this Country after his speech to the UN about Iraq having WMD's and the truth that came out later. Today, Powell regained that lost of respect with me by speaking the real truth about this Country and McCain's campaign and his Party's actions.

GaryG

Hi Gary:

___I did not see his endorsement live but will look for it later tonight. My sentiments about the UN WMD speech follow yours and I have not had the same respect for him since. With his open appraisal of today’s political arena according to the politico’s on the Sunday morning talk show circuit this morning, I have regained some respect for him as well.

___Even Newt Gingrich said Powell’s endorsement this morning took McCain’s “No-experience” platform away.

___Good Luck

___Wayne

If you belong to a political party and you endorse the other party's candidate, then you are a traitor to your political party. Just see what happens to Joe Lieberman after the election. His chairmanship will be history.

Traitors are always suspect even by their new masters.

The correct way to do this is to switch party's, and then sometime later endorse your candidate.

It would appear to me, it is an endorsement for personal gain. We will know if this is correct, whden Powell gets a position in the government.

If you belong to a political party and you endorse the other party's candidate, then you are a traitor to your political party. Just see what happens to Joe Lieberman after the election. His chairmanship will be history.

Traitors are always suspect even by their new masters.

The correct way to do this is to switch party's, and then sometime later endorse your candidate.

It would appear to me, it is an endorsement for personal gain. We will know if this is correct, whden Powell gets a position in the government.

I don't think of Joe Lieberman is a traitor, but more of a prostitute for his own gains. Powell didn't change parties and is in no way a traitor or a prostitute. Powell followed orders IMO of the Commander and Chief like a good soldier was trained. Powell is no longer that soldier and can act on his own now like most good Americans.

GaryG

This side that the traitor comes to obviously doesn't think he is a traitor to his party. They think he has seen the light.

The side that he is betraying thinks he is a traitor to his party.

This is just common sense.

We think Benedict Arnold was a traitor, but the British didn't think he was a traitor.

Bottom line, he is a traitor to one side and a saint to the other.

This country has gotten so polarized it is really a shame.

Powell didn't change parties and is in no way a traitor or a prostitute. Powell followed orders IMO of the Commander and Chief like a good soldier was trained. Powell is no longer that soldier and can act on his own now like most good Americans.

GaryG

I can guarantee you one thing, Powell is no longer a Republican.

At that level Powell was at (commissioned officer), you don't just follow orders. If you know they are false or illegal, it is your duty to tell the truth. You may not break the law and claim you are just following orders. If you believe that he knew the truth and was just following orders, then I don't understand your position of support for him. He would be a crimminal then.

If you belong to a political party and you endorse the other party's candidate, then you are a traitor to your political party. Just see what happens to Joe Lieberman after the election. His chairmanship will be history.Lieberman was abandoned by the Democrats for supporting the war in Iraq. His own party ran another candidate against him for his Senate seat in the Connecticut primary, and that candidate won the primary. Lieberman then ran as an Independent and won, retaining his job in the Senate. He is a man without a party.
It would appear to me, it is an endorsement for personal gain. We will know if this is correct, whden Powell gets a position in the government.I think you enormously underestimate Colin Powell and his personal sense of what is right. He stayed with Bush long after he would have preferred, IMO out of his personal sense of duty. This is not a guy who does anything lightly, and certainly not something like this for personal gain.

Plus, given his stature, experience, and the respect given to him by just about everyone, either candidate might have approached him for some position or another; if personal gain were his goal, wouldn't it be a wiser bet not to take sides before the election is over?

Lieberman was abandoned by the Democrats for supporting the war in Iraq. His own party ran another candidate against him for his Senate seat in the Connecticut primary, and that candidate won the primary. Lieberman then ran as an Independent and won, retaining his job in the Senate.

Lieberman has said he is still a democrat. He votes with the dems and is a chairman of a committee. He has endorsed McCain. He will lose his chairmanship after the election, because the other dems consider him a traitor. Just watch this is what I predict.



I think you enormously underestimate Colin Powell and his personal sense of what is right. He stayed with Bush long after he would have preferred, IMO out of his personal sense of duty.

If as others have suggested, he lied about Iraq. If that is so, then he should be disqualified from public office and may have broken several laws. As far as a sense of duty, In the military, your swear to support and defend the constitution, not the president. Standing up for truth is what is honorable. Sticking by someone who falsely got us in Iraq is not honorable. If this is true, it is criminal.

The word "traitor" becomes diminished currency when applied broadly. It will pack much less punch in the future.

John Walker Lindh disgusts me. But now that he's in the same group as Colin Powell, maybe I should take a second look.

Traitor is a harsh word. That is why I put it in context of political party. With my limited education, I couldn't think of a better word. Maybe you could help me out here.

The word "traitor" becomes diminished currency when applied broadly. It will pack much less punch in the future.

John Walker Lindh disgusts me. But now that he's in the same group as Colin Powell, maybe I should take a second look.

I may misunderstand you here. Are you saying that you think Powell is in the same group as Lindh?

I may misunderstand you here. Are you saying that you think Powell is in the same group as Lindh?

No. That sentence is a too-clever-by-half way of saying that the word used to describe Lindh should not be used to describe an American hero.

Just calling Powell a RINO, or closet Democrat seems more than sufficient.

Fair enough.

It is hard for me to consider Powell to be an american hero, when he was one of the big three Bush lieutenants who, by most peoples standards, stood up with Cheney and Rumsfels and pushed the Iraq invasion.

It is kind of hard for me to put him up on that hero pedastle with the Iraq thing he did.

I think in a couple of weeks it will be obvious that millions of registered Republicans will do what Powell did. I won't be going that far, but see this coming. The White House has changed parties with milder economic downturns than this one, then there is the hubris going into Iraq would be as easy as when we went into Panama in 1989. To remain in power, you have to maintain a decent economy and foreign policy.

Then there is the math: there are fewer registered Republicans than registered Democrats, yet the rightmost wing is disowning the half that supports John McCain - a man that would be considered arch-conservative in 1980...in other words, today Ronald Reagan might be considered RINO :confused::confused::confused: This black-and-white mentality will not only elect Barak Obama, but likely give the Democrats both houses. For the neo-cons wanting all or nothing, don't whine on Nov 5 about the mandate you helped deliver.

...... This black-and-white mentality will not only elect Barak Obama, but likely give the Democrats both houses. For the neo-cons wanting all or nothing, don't whine on Nov 5 about the mandate you helped deliver.


Cheer up Chuck. Your party will figure out that they need to build a more moderate platform and if there's one thing that the Democratic party can't stand, it's success. The Democrats will start squabbling amongst themselves before New Year's.

Cheer up Chuck. Your party will figure out that they need to build a more moderate platform and if there's one thing that the Democratic party can't stand, it's success. The Democrats will start squabbling amongst themselves before New Year's.

I'm just going to put out one question, and this sort of backs up what you've said:

The Democrats swept into Congress at the end of '06. Why are the troops still in Iraq? Where's the great change they were bringing?

McBama are no different on policy and as a result there won't be any drastic change for the better or worse regardless of who wins.

I'll have to ask this question again in 2009 :rolleyes:

Fair enough.

It is hard for me to consider Powell to be an american hero, when he was one of the big three Bush lieutenants who, by most peoples standards, stood up with Cheney and Rumsfels and pushed the Iraq invasion.

It is kind of hard for me to put him up on that hero pedastle with the Iraq thing he did.

Saturday, my 17 year old son wanted to go see the movie "W", so my wife and I thought we would go also. There was a good crowd of mostly very elderly GOP talking folks (next to us anyway) and it made us seem a little out of place.

The movie was about W's college drinking days, W's problems with his father and W's first term as President. The movie portrayed Powell as the only one who had serious questions about going to war with Iraq over WMDs. Finally Powell gave in and came on board with Bush when he seen there was no stopping "W" and his cronies. Now that the movie is out, Powell releases some of his true feelings the next day.

I feel the movie was way to kind to "W", but the faces on those elderly folks there sure seems disappointed as they left the theater. I think the disappointment portrayed by the actor for H. W. Bush hit home to these folks as Parents. It does not help the GOP seeing Powell now supporting Obama and expressing his concerns about McCain, Palin and his Party. History may say Powell is the Hero that got the GOP back on track with his message on the GOP going to far to the Right.

GaryG

I wonder if the proposed fairness doctrine will apply to movies. It is amazing to me that this movie hits the streets 2 weeks prior to a presidential election. It is a attempt to have an impact on the election. Anybody who thinks it doesn't is kidding themselves.

I am thinking the fairness doctrine might be a good idea after all. It will apply to all forms of media, movies too.

Saturday, my 17 year old son wanted to go see the movie "W", so my wife and I thought we would go also. There was a good crowd of mostly very elderly GOP talking folks (next to us anyway) and it made us seem a little out of place.

The movie was about W's college drinking days, W's problems with his father and W's first term as President. The movie portrayed Powell as the only one who had serious questions about going to war with Iraq over WMDs. Finally Powell gave in and came on board with Bush when he seen there was no stopping "W" and his cronies. Now that the movie is out, Powell releases some of his true feelings the next day.

I feel the movie was way to kind to "W", but the faces on those elderly folks there sure seems disappointed as they left the theater. I think the disappointment portrayed by the actor for H. W. Bush hit home to these folks as Parents. It does not help the GOP seeing Powell now supporting Obama and expressing his concerns about McCain, Palin and his Party. History may say Powell is the Hero that got the GOP back on track with his message on the GOP going to far to the Right.

GaryG


Here is my problem with Powell's position,

I man of honor doesn't go along. A man of honor resigns rather then go along. To go along with a bad plan, sell the plan, and let thousand of soldiers die is not an honorable thing to do. You stand up and be counted, get fired or resign as applicable, not go along.

Then after the fact say, but I didn't agree then. He stood up infront of the UN and us the American People and said he did.

Answer this, what does that make him.

I wonder if the proposed fairness doctrine will apply to movies. It is amazing to me that this movie hits the streets 2 weeks prior to a presidential election. It is a attempt to have an impact on the election. Anybody who thinks it doesn't is kidding themselves.

I am thinking the fairness doctrine might be a good idea after all. It will apply to all forms of media, movies too.

The fairness doctrine when it was in force (roughly 1950-80), was a simple acknowledgement that the number of network frequencies (ABC/NBC/CBS) was far outnumbered by the number of political viewpoints and opinions. Unlike the print media (there's plenty of paper!), there existed the possibility that important opinions would be excluded simply because of frequency availability.

Interestingly enough, it was conservatives who in the 1960s were the biggest promoters of the fairness doctrine, because it allowed folks like Bill Buckley access to the networks................access which he (probably correctly) assumed he would not get in that era of bipartisan Post WWII Keynesian consensus.

Since then, the media has exploded. While network audience share continues to die, cable news and the internet are a huge and increasingly large source of information. Neither are regulated by the fairness doctrine, and no one has proposed that they should be regulated........as they are pay-for-service sites whose expansion is literally limitless (you can always add cable channels or register a new domain). In the same vein, nobody is suggesting that the motion picture industry be subjected to the doctrine either, as that too is a pay-for-service industry whose expansion is limitless.

Conservatives over time have turned against the fairness doctrine over time for a host of reasons. Trends in corporate ownership of networks (GE & NBC, Disney & ABC) make it more likely that conservatives will at the very least get a respectful hearing on television in the future (Indeed, all my Sunday talk show panels seem to prominently feature conservatives). But the more important reason is talk radio. Right wing dominance of talk radio would be immediately ended if the fairness doctrine were reimposed. Rush Limbaugh and his fellow broadcasters are the biggest drivers of conservative opinion on the doctrine today.

Interestingly enough, Obama does not support a return of the fairness doctrine. What he does support is media ownership caps and network neutrality. Both of these things are very important, as the first prevents monopolistic media consolidation.............which reduces the number of independently owned network, cable, & print media companies............and the second prevents politically discriminatory actions of internet service providers (i.e. time warner internet cable deciding to give high speed priority to dailykos.com over freerepublic.com).

So the fairness doctrine is a bit of an anachronism. The better solution is less and less corporate monopolistic control, and more and more independent voices with the freedom of access to make their case. I like Obama's position myself.

I think the concept of the fairness doctrine should be expanded to all forms of media. This includes movies. One side of the political spectrum is in control of production of that form of media. It is not fair. So let's expand the fairness doctrine to all forms of media.

It is only fair.

Here is my problem with Powell's position,

I man of honor doesn't go along. A man of honor resigns rather then go along. To go along with a bad plan, sell the plan, and let thousand of soldiers die is not an honorable thing to do. You stand up and be counted, get fired or resign as applicable, not go along.

Then after the fact say, but I didn't agree then. He stood up infront of the UN and us the American People and said he did.

Answer this, what does that make him.

That makes Powell a person that made the biggest mistake in his life. Powell had no proof that WMDs were not in Iraq, so he went along with Bush's plan. If Powell had resigned or blew the whistle on Bush's plan and they discovered WMDs, what would that make him? What would happen to his pension? His life would be destroyed and I'm sure he knew damn well how our Government would pay him back.

I'm sure many of you have no personal experience blowing the whistle on corruption in big government. Would that make you a hero if you did? Just how many lives would you have known to save after resigning or blowing the whistle?

I know such a high ranking person that wrote fire codes to protect this large County's residents for years. The politicians and local government was corrupt and wanted to end those costly national life saving codes for the Building Industry who supported their campaigns. He had to make a choice to risk his long career and pension for the safety of the residents and firefighters who might someday get killed for lack of fire and building protection. Would he be a hero to blow the whistle and let the public know what their County employees and politicians were planning? Where would this whistle blower who could take on the government be after it was all over? Should he have risk all he worked for just because he knew the inside story?

What would you have done?

GaryG

I think the concept of the fairness doctrine should be expanded to all forms of media. This includes movies. One side of the political spectrum is in control of production of that form of media. It is not fair. So let's expand the fairness doctrine to all forms of media.

It is only fair.

It would be next to impossible to apply to the internet. Do we shut down sites that have "too much" traffic? Slow their growth somehow? Free online advertising for less represented opinions? It's much better to simply have net neutrality and let content rule. Whoever attracts the most readers wins. I like the free marketplace of ideas.

Cable news could be more like this if we had a la carte. Don't like MSNBC? Don't include it as part of your package. It's hard to get a la carte passed because of the sway of some politically influential cable channels like CBN. I don't care for their political bias, and would not select them if I had the a la carte option. But because of Pat Robertson's success in denying me marketplace choice I only get an "all or nothing" option and thereby subsidize their low ratings.

Conservatives actually make movies too that attempt to influence elections. Here's a recent one:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1190617/

I'm fine with that. Again, marketplace of ideas and all. Given that tv & radio networks are dying a slow death, all I care about really is that all sides of the political spectrum are represented in motion picture, cable news, & internet.

History may say Powell is the Hero that got the GOP back on track with his message on the GOP going to far to the Right.

GaryG

HaHa...!!!!
That really cracked me up.

HaHa...!!!!
That really cracked me up.

I'd like to know a little more about your response if you really have one.

GaryG

I'd like to know a little more about your response if you really have one.

GaryG

Please, lets not get personal. I don't think this is over the line yet, but Gary you are asking a personal question which may start the flames flying. Considering the content and passion of the current debat and election, I am actually pleased with the civility of the posts so far. I want to congratulate everyone on maintaining this.

Now back to the debate.

That makes Powell a person that made the biggest mistake in his life. Powell had no proof that WMDs were not in Iraq, so he went along with Bush's plan. If Powell had resigned or blew the whistle on Bush's plan and they discovered WMDs, what would that make him? What would happen to his pension? His life would be destroyed and I'm sure he knew damn well how our Government would pay him back.

I'm sure many of you have no personal experience blowing the whistle on corruption in big government. Would that make you a hero if you did? Just how many lives would you have known to save after resigning or blowing the whistle?

I know such a high ranking person that wrote fire codes to protect this large County's residents for years. The politicians and local government was corrupt and wanted to end those costly national life saving codes for the Building Industry who supported their campaigns. He had to make a choice to risk his long career and pension for the safety of the residents and firefighters who might someday get killed for lack of fire and building protection. Would he be a hero to blow the whistle and let the public know what their County employees and politicians were planning? Where would this whistle blower who could take on the government be after it was all over? Should he have risk all he worked for just because he knew the inside story?

What would you have done?

GaryG

I think the answer to both situations is to consider what integrity is. Integrity in public office I will define as putting what is right for the country above what is right for yourself.

If we measure the performance of Powell by the way you described his action, we have someone who lacks integrity.

On your second example, we have a similiar situation. Do you put the safety of others above your career. For some this is a hard choice, for others it is not.

What would I do. I don't know. It would be easy for me to be all self righteous and say of coures I would through away my career, but I really don't know what I personally would do.

Regarless of my decision at the time, I would be judged for my decision, just like Powell should be judged by us, if he did as you said he did.

My point GaryG is simple. I found that funny. Not that you would make that statement but that wouldn't that be bizarre if powell did put the GOP "on track".

I'm not convinced that this was his intentions in his endorsement. I see it like this. What would he gain from that endorsement? He could have had some higher purpose in mind but to me it looks suspiciously self fulfilling. A job maybe? Maybe not, but the fact is that didn't score any points in GOP circles.

I believe the thing that will put the GOP back on track will be Obama. I'm not going to go on and on about any of his problems as I see them but an Obama presidency will bring the GOP back from its self induced slumber. I know alot you will have problems with that statement just like you have problems with the current administration. The last 8 years has helped the liberal cause and rallied your troops. I believe Obama will do the same for the GOP. Legislation that will be pushed through will scare the crap out of conservatives everywhere and rally conservative troops.

I still find that incredibly funny Powell the savior of the GOP. His endorsement will be forgotten in a few weeks no matter who wins the job.

Powell's endorsement of the faulty WMD theory was based on "intelligence" provided by the CIA. CIA Director George Tenet described the case for Iraq's WMD's as a "slam dunk". I'd let Powell off on most of the blame for an incorrect decision based on the CIA's erroneous information. The people who misrepresented information to mislead us into war are the ones at fault--i.e. senior staff at the CIA. They lacked the guts to resist the political pressure to fudge their analysis and they ended up humiliating and discrediting Colin Powell (as well as the whole US government) by failing to do their work honestly.

Smearing the reputations of those who tried to present the truthful information and exposing covert agents for political gain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair) on the other hand seems to be straightforward treason...Scooter Libby was the fall guy (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/06/libby.juror/index.html), but smart money would say that at some level Cheney, Rove, and Tenet were in on the betrayal. I can't blame Powell for not wanting to hang with that crowd anymore after what they've done.

Personally I only know about small government corruption and have generally taken the approach that we're better off with me in place preventing future frauds than with me being out of work from whistle blowing about little stuff from the past. My current work involves assessing and cleaning up chemical releases and reporting back to the government. I've never had much trouble getting people to correct any "immediate danger to life or health" conditions and people have always been polite when I've turned down incentives to look the other way. I guess I wouldn't last in Washington:rolleyes:.

The last 8 years has helped the liberal cause and rallied your troops. I believe Obama will do the same for the GOP. Legislation that will be pushed through will scare the crap out of conservatives everywhere and rally conservative troops.I fear history will repeat itself, because that's exactly what Clinton did to Republicans: energized them and got them to elect the 104th Congress (the Newt crowd). The neocons will still control the party (as they were starting to then), rather than true conservatives, so I don't see how this is is going to "save" the Republicans ideologically. It will just send a lot of scared people running into the arms of the neocons again.

Powell's endorsement of the faulty WMD theory was based on "intelligence" provided by the CIA. CIA Director George Tenet described the case for Iraq's WMD's as a "slam dunk". I'd let Powell off on most of the blame for an incorrect decision based on the CIA's erroneous information. The people who misrepresented information to mislead us into war are the ones at fault--i.e. senior staff at the CIA. They lacked the guts to resist the political pressure to fudge their analysis and they ended up humiliating and discrediting Colin Powell (as well as the whole US government) by failing to do their work honestly.

Smearing the reputations of those who tried to present the truthful information and exposing covert agents for political gain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair) on the other hand seems to be straightforward treason...Scooter Libby was the fall guy (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/06/libby.juror/index.html), but smart money would say that at some level Cheney, Rove, and Tenet were in on the betrayal. I can't blame Powell for not wanting to hang with that crowd anymore after what they've done.

Personally I only know about small government corruption and have generally taken the approach that we're better off with me in place preventing future frauds than with me being out of work from whistle blowing about little stuff from the past. My current work involves assessing and cleaning up chemical releases and reporting back to the government. I've never had much trouble getting people to correct any "immediate danger to life or health" conditions and people have always been polite when I've turned down incentives to look the other way. I guess I wouldn't last in Washington:rolleyes:.


I look at Powell as being in with Chevey, Rove and the rest of the gang. Why do people want to excuse him. Remember that in a bank robbery, all people involved are crooks even the getaway driver and anybody else involved. Just look at Terry Nichols, he helped McVeigh, but at the last minute, backed out, he is still guilty.

Powell was involved so he does not get a pass.

I think the concept of the fairness doctrine should be expanded to all forms of media. This includes movies.The Fairness Doctrine was adopted to ensure equal access to the limited broadcast spectrum of federally owned airwaves! And unlike free television, people actually PAY to go to movies. If the conservatives want to produce movies and try to get enough people to go see them to turn a profit, Lord knows they've got the deep pockets to attempt it.

I think the answer to both situations is to consider what integrity is. Integrity in public office I will define as putting what is right for the country above what is right for yourself.

If we measure the performance of Powell by the way you described his action, we have someone who lacks integrity.

On your second example, we have a similiar situation. Do you put the safety of others above your career. For some this is a hard choice, for others it is not.

What would I do. I don't know. It would be easy for me to be all self righteous and say of coures I would through away my career, but I really don't know what I personally would do.

Regarless of my decision at the time, I would be judged for my decision, just like Powell should be judged by us, if he did as you said he did.

I just see both sides of the argument and stick to my opening post that Powell lost my respect, but now has my respect. In my eyes, Powell just became a real hero by supporting change in what has became our nasty government. Bush and the Republican Party are trying to stack the Supreme Court with yes men to their cause. Judge Ryskamp was a perfect example who has ruled against Free Speech and has made it almost impossible for people to speech to the public on matters of public concern. Bush tried to promote Ryskamp during his term many times. In Powell's interview last Sunday, he spoke of his concerns of McCain appointing Judges of this kind and many voters don't really understand the impact that would make on that branch of our government, I do!

To say you don't know what you would have done in my example puts you on the fence of integrity. Powell made the wrong choice for Americans with his speech to the UN and lost his integrity. The Fire Marshal kept his integrity and blew the whistle on the corruption that was taking place. The battle lasted ten long years and there were bodies on both sides. The Fire Marshal won in Federal Court and reversed an earlier case by Judge Ryskamp that gave immunity to Public Officials punishing whistle blowers. The government filed a motion to Judge Paine to reconsider his ruling and the Fire Marshal's attorney sold the Fire Marshal down the road in his response. Judge Paine had no choice but to reverse his decision. The Fire Marshal then blew the whistle on his attorney and the case went to 2nd District Court of Appeals in Atlanta.

Integrity comes at a cost and it depends on what your willing to spend. Powell just spent what integrity he had left on the American public and the World for that matter.

GaryG

If as others have suggested, he lied about Iraq. If that is so, then he should be disqualified from public office and may have broken several laws. As far as a sense of duty, In the military, your swear to support and defend the constitution, not the president. Standing up for truth is what is honorable. Sticking by someone who falsely got us in Iraq is not honorable. If this is true, it is criminal.If everyone who lied about something directly related to the commission of their duty to the country were guilty, Ronald Reagan and his entire staff would have gone to jail.

However in the case of Powell and making a case for the war to the UN, I would agree -- if I could bring myself to believe that he did not believe what he was saying. I can believe he had doubts, but I cannot believe that he flat out did not buy it and went out there and sold it anyway. That would contradict everything else I know about Colin Powell.

History may say Powell is the Hero that got the GOP back on track with his message on the GOP going to far to the Right. Hear, hear. I'm a registered Republican, a fiscal conservative who craves the smallest government I can manage, and a social liberal (more socially liberal as I get older, oddly enough). I want the Republican Party to start appealing to me again, which it has not done for too many years.

McBama are no different on policy

Obama and Mccain are completely different. Just read whatever you can on each website. Surely enough with any sense of logic you will see the differences.

Obama and Mccain are completely different. Just read whatever you can on each website. Surely enough with any sense of logic you will see the differences.Agreed.

While I can understand many being unhappy with either candidate, to suggest both are the same is part of what's wrong with this country...the one making the "McBama" remark needs to watch it.

The most important thing Powell said during his visit with Brokaw was not his endorsement of Obama.

The most important thing was the tongue lashing delivered to the neo-cons. The question is whether or not the rest of the Republican party will key into his statements and throw out the religious right who are ruining their party and return to the roots of the conservative movement a la Barry Goldwater or will they maintain the status quo and hope for a reactionary vote in 2012 or 2016.

The question is whether or not the rest of the Republican party will key into his statements and throw out the religious right who are ruining their party and return to the roots of the conservative movement a la Barry Goldwater or will they maintain the status quo and hope for a reactionary vote in 2012 or 2016.
That would be a huge mistake. Just make the GOP like the dems?? There wouldn't be hardly any difference anymore. Nearly every thing that appealls to me about the GOP is based on religion.
If they did that I'd be finding a new party to vote with.
Wow, this politics thread has really opened my eyes to this site. With a few exceptions, I truly only have a quest for greater FE in common.

Hi Aether,

Don't let the politics stuff get you down. There are a few of us who think as you do. Almost all of the grenn car sites are filled to the brim with left leaning people. This site is much more balance then most.

While the FE stuff bringes us all together, don't let the politics stuff tear you away. This is also true for the rest of you reading, don't be so vile that you drive people away. To me. the politics stuff is interesting and fun. It can get personal at times, but try not to take it that way. The bottom line is that we are all going to still be here after the election and there will be a whole new set of topics to discuss.

Auston,

I noticed that a good chunk of your links date back to 1999-2004, when indeed McCain was much less loyal to conservatives.

Would you at least agree that in order to win the presidency he's tacked back to the right fairly substantially (in what you would probably call an insincere & politically expendient way) because he feels he needs the rank-and-file energized and fully behind him? I know I could find conservative 2008 McCain quotes that contradict many of your 1999-2004 quotes...........................which would be evidence of this rhetorical shift to the right.

I know I can provide polling that quite easily shows that his popularity among conservatives has grown from 2007 to 2008, and his popularity among independents has plummeted over this same time frame. I'll come back & edit.

Again, not saying he's conservative. All I'm really saying is that he's talking like a conservative this year, and conservatives are loving it more. Independents are not.

Auston,

McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Feingold, McCain-Lieberman, etc...

Bills typically have a sponsor from both parties...it really means the senators co-authored a bill rather than "sellout".

Auston - are your sources balanced?

I saw the scores from the Eagle Forum, Gun Owners of America, etc...did you know the score the Amercans for Democratic Action gave McCain? A complete conservative is 0% - he got 13% lifetime. McCain also was reported in the New York Times this July that Roe v Wade should be overturned, also suggested some privatizing Social Security, is anti-union. The American Conservative Union gave McCain 82% lifetime - ACLU: 24% lifetime.

BTW,

For a souce that is not partisan, try Wikiapedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_John_McCain) ...just at a glance, I see for instance your quote on McCain's statement allegedly supporting Rov v Wade is very incomplete...what you left out "I'd love to see a point where it is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary.he voted pro-life 119 times in the Senate....National Right to Life gave McCain a 72% rating - NAARL Pro-Choice America: 1%.

The truth is John McCain is neither a party man nor a closet Democrat.

I have no problem with you opposing McCain, Obama or anyone else, but I'm appalled your opinions own you to the point you can't make honest remarks about the people you disagree with...it's no different than AAA's propaganda that all hypermilers tailgate semis.

Much of what is going wrong in this country is summed up in Dividing America not smart politics (http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/21/real-america-two-americas/)

Would you at least agree that in order to win the presidency he's tacked back to the right fairly substantially (in what you would probably call an insincere & politically expendient way) because he feels he needs the rank-and-file energized and fully behind him? I know I could find conservative 2008 McCain quotes that contradict many of your 1999-2004 quotes...........................which would be evidence of this rhetorical shift to the right.

I know I can provide polling that quite easily shows that his popularity among conservatives has grown from 2007 to 2008, and his popularity among independents has plummeted over this same time frame. I'll come back & edit.

Again, not saying he's conservative. All I'm really saying is that he's talking like a conservative this year, and conservatives are loving it more. Independents are not.

This is a huge problem I have with the "conservatives" (I have yet to meet the conservatives who've been won over by John McCain shifting to the right) is how they've suddenly been sold on John McCain's supposed conservatism when his record shows otherwise.

I could just as easily find 2008 quotes that show John McCain to be a solid conservative - he does so because even he realizes without conservatives he will not win the election, but the pandering is really an insult to real people of principle.

I would have a similar problem (although not as drastic!) had Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani won the Republican primaries. At least the latter two didn't actively try to sell out our border, language, and culture (the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill).

Since when did the word "conservative" when used in a political context come to automatically be prefixed with the word "social"? I thought political conservatives were concerned with dollars, not babies or jesus, and favored small government that kept its nose out of its citizens' business.

Hi Auston:

Second Warning: This is not the thread or the site for you to redefine politics or candidates in your image. It is time for you to get back on topic or stay away from the political forums altogether. THERE WILL NOT BE A THIRD WARNING!

Wayne

Powell or no Powell. All he has been for many years is a mouth piece. A walking bull horn.

As for the race and the party's over all. Im a Rep. Im not a Mc. fan. But there is no way in heck Im voting for Obama. NO WAY! Mcman was not my choice! But after thinking about it. I think the Rep's. did there best to offer a olive branch to the people of this country with a very lib/conservative. What did the dem's. do? They offered up the must lib. person they could find. I honestly feel my party has put up a more moderate candidate than in the past. The dem's. are trying for at the least socialism, if not end roads into Communism. This scares me a lot.

I think we need a blend of both party's good and bad to make the system work. That is not happening anymore. Thus our country is broken and a land of extremist.

I think we need a blend of both party's good and bad to make the system work. That is not happening anymore. Thus our country is broken and a land of extremist.

Psyshack-

Hate to break it to you, but the USA is NOT filled with extremists, we have a moderate middle. Extreme Left is Socialism and near-Socialism like Chavez, China, or the Netherlands. Extreme Right is somebody like LePen who thinks all immigrants should be deported and the Holocaust was a WWII footnote. Even further Right is the Classical Conservatives like the Islamists and theocratic states.

On that spectrum, even most extremes of mainstream politics are moderate.

Psyshack-

Hate to break it to you, but the USA is NOT filled with extremists, we have a moderate middle. Extreme Left is Socialism and near-Socialism like Chavez, China, or the Netherlands. Extreme Right is somebody like LePen who thinks all immigrants should be deported and the Holocaust was a WWII footnote. Even further Right is the Classical Conservatives like the Islamists and theocratic states.

On that spectrum, even most extremes of mainstream politics are moderate.

I stand by my statement within the boarders of our country. If you don't see the extremist ideas and movements over all within our country and its party's. So be it. :D

...This is not the thread or the site... to redefine politics or candidates ... It is time ... stay away from the political forums altogether. ...

Speaking of destructive political arguments unrelated to the purpose of a site ...

Is there an easy way to set my user preferences to always hide a few forums? For example, when reading New Posts, I want to hide the Off-Topic forums Politics and Sports. This would seem to be the best way to not get drawn into discussions that belong only on other, overtly political sites.

-- Dean

Speaking of destructive political arguments unrelated to the purpose of a site ...

Is there an easy way to set my user preferences to always hide a few forums? For example, when reading New Posts, I want to hide the Off-Topic forums Politics and Sports. This would seem to be the best way to not get drawn into discussions that belong only on other, overtly political sites.

-- Dean

Not a bad idea if you could "turn off" certain forum areas. Sounds easy but probably not. I try not to even read this thread but look. I can't help myself.

We had a Poll here that I could not find now that gave us the choice of who we would vote for President. I found it interesting that ~59% voted for Obama and ~33% voted for McCain here and thought it was because this site may have more people on the Green side of our environment. Tonight I saw on the News that early voting indicates almost those same percentages for those two. Did our Poll represent what will be the results of this election?

GaryG

We had a Poll here that I could not find now that gave us the choice of who we would vote for President. I found it interesting that ~59% voted for Obama and ~33% voted for McCain here and thought it was because this site may have more people on the Green side of our environment. Tonight I saw on the News that early voting indicates almost those same percentages for those two. Did our Poll represent what will be the results of this election?

GaryG

Could be, but do you remember President Dewey's inauguration speech?

Could be, but do you remember President Dewey's inauguration speech?

No, but I see you and McCain must remember 1948:

"While completing Roosevelt's term, Truman was responsible for making the fateful decision to end the war with Japan by dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki"

The key then and the key now, we Americans want an end to all wars.

Truman has gone down in history, McCain, I'm not so sure. Certainly Powell will go down in history with his endorsement of Obama.

GaryG

I don't understand why people keep saying this about powell? I haven't heard anyone speak of it since the day of the endorsement.

Empty uniform endorses empty suit is what the endorsement was.

I don't understand why people keep saying this about powell? I haven't heard anyone speak of it since the day of the endorsement.

Empty uniform endorses empty suit is what the endorsement was.

A voice of wisdom in a sea of bias.

Hi Aether Glider:
I don't understand why people keep saying this about powell? I haven't heard anyone speak of it since the day of the endorsement.

Empty uniform endorses empty suit is what the endorsement was.

___I have more respect for Powell than either Bush or Cheney and they are the President and Vice President of the US. I also believe many more believe the same or this thread would not have come up.

___I would not call Powell's endorsement empty given his past credentials. At one point, I would have voted for him for President until the details of his UN presentation became known :( How did his superiors escape blame from that non-sense given one of them is actually in charge of the US military?

___Good Luck

___Wayne

I'm saying that his endorsement was not historic like someone said in a previous post. His support for obama was surprising at the most. A historic endorsement would be if all the living former presidents endorsed obama.

I call him an empty uniform because I believe his endorsement was more of a political move than a true endorsement (if there is a such thing).
He was considered a front runner for McCain's running mate in early 08' link./ (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/05/mccain_now_has_to_pick_a_vice_presidential_nominee/)and he even donated to McCain link (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/09/powell-donates-to-mccain/). Then powell stated when he endorsed obama one of the reasons was Mccain appointement of Palin as VP. Say what you want but to me that looks like a retaliation.

Powell donates max amount to McCain 07'
Powell considered a probable running mate 08'
McCain chooses Palin
Powell endorses Obama.

If Obama wins I expect another high level position for Powell in a Obama presidency. I think he still has aspirations of a political carreer or he wouldn't continue to pop up every year or so.

It was interesting to read about the 1st phase of "Spread the Wealth" (http://tinyurl.com/ObamaFees)

It was interesting to read about the 1st phase of "Spread the Wealth" (http://tinyurl.com/ObamaFees)

next will be "hey wait a minute, you hypermilers are getting 70 mpg in your hybrids and doing a great job but everyone should benefit from your success. I'm gonna take your savings in fuel and spread them around to others that drive aggressively and way to fast. This will benefit us all from your hard work."

:D Just kidding or is he??

Just kidding or is he??


Inquiring minds want to know!!!

That ought to test the loyalty of the media. Of course, with their deep pockets, they probably won't mind.

What is more likely, is the "onetime" 10-20% tax on all 401K adn IRA accounts. That will allow the Social Security system to extent its bankruptcy another decade or so.

I think this is a great idea. After all the only reason people are able to build up substantial 401K accounts is that they made more money then everybody else. Therefore it is only fair to "spread this wealth around" to the less fortunate.

What is more likely, is the "onetime" 10-20% tax on all 401K adn IRA accounts. That will allow the Social Security system to extent its bankruptcy another decade or so.

I think this is a great idea. After all the only reason people are able to build up substantial 401K accounts is that they made more money then everybody else. Therefore it is only fair to "spread this wealth around" to the less fortunate.

Or people like me, who make the same $ as everybody else despite working 50-60 hour weeks, but live in modest housing, don't spend much as discretionary income, and use 90% of it to pay off student loans or bank it.

I'm going to have a fairly large 401(k) that hopefully will mean financial independence for the future. I make an EITs salary and have massive student loans, but live well within my means.

and you're gonna take 20% of my well-earned savings and give it to people who blew theirs living high on the hog? Oh, HELL NO.:mad:

It is only fair that people who make more should be happy to help others. As Barry has said, you are "selfish" if you don't want to help.

It is going to be a great 4 or 8 years, isn't it.

What is more likely, is the "onetime" 10-20% tax on all 401K adn IRA accounts. That will allow the Social Security system to extent its bankruptcy another decade or so.


Social Security is in great shape. According to the CBO, SS will continue running surpluses until 2052, at which point it will start running small deficits.........deficits much smaller than the general revenue deficits that exist today.

Obama's proposal to flat tax everyone at 7.65% instead of regressively taxing just those making $100k or less will push SS surpluses into the 22nd century and beyond.

SS will not go "bankrupt". That's a word that applies only to corporations.

Because of rising health costs, Medicare faces a difficult near future. But SS is fine financially. So need for any mythical IRA tax.

Here (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12580846/) is an article that says it will be deleted by 2040. which means something has to be done way before that. I think Obama's plan to spread the wealth would apply perfectly here. For all the people who have saved dilligently in there 401K's, us people who didn't say thank you for your hard work.

Maybe it should be a 25% tax on 401K's, then we will thank you even more.

Remember if you don't agree, you are selfish. Go Obama.

Here is another more recent article that says by 2017 SS starts to pay out more then it takes in.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/23/AR2007042301963.html

SS is in deep trouble.

On a more serious note, if all you have substantial 401K accounts, you should seriously think about sheltering that money somewhere else, because Barry is going after it.

Unless you want to be on the giving end of "spread the wealth" take precautions now.

The rational is that those are retirement accounts and are subject to tax deferment. Barry's argument is that lets get the tax deferment now and not wait until later. Just watch and see what happens. Change is coming.

Here (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12580846/) is an article that says it will be deleted by 2040. which means something has to be done way before that. I think Obama's plan to spread the wealth would apply perfectly here. For all the people who have saved dilligently in there 401K's, us people who didn't say thank you for your hard work.

Maybe it should be a 25% tax on 401K's, then we will thank you even more.

Remember if you don't agree, you are selfish. Go Obama.

bestmapman,

There's a big debate between the CBO & SS Trustees re: expected future economic growth, which explains the difference between 2040 & 2052. Let's split the difference.

You say that means something has to be done way before that. You could not be more wrong. In fact, we have a moral obligation to do nothing.

For one, the problem may never emerge. Higher than expected growth could push that date off further into the future. But we'll assume that around 2040-2052 SS does in fact go into deficit.

How to correct that deficit? Tax hikes? SS benefit cuts? A combination of both? It is not for you or me to decide. Why? Because we are both dead.

Our sons & grandsons will hopefully be alive at that time. And we have no idea what they prefer. And you better believe it will affect their generation and not ours at all.

Tax hikes, benefit cuts, or a combination of both can have an immediate effect in 2046. So let them decide. They may not have to decide at all, but if they do.............they'll be glad you didn't bogart their choices. :)

Here is another more recent article that says by 2017 SS starts to pay out more then it takes in.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/23/AR2007042301963.html

SS is in deep trouble.

On a more serious note, if all you have substantial 401K accounts, you should seriously think about sheltering that money somewhere else, because Barry is going after it.

Unless you want to be on the giving end of "spread the wealth" take precautions now.

The rational is that those are retirement accounts and are subject to tax deferment. Barry's argument is that lets get the tax deferment now and not wait until later. Just watch and see what happens. Change is coming.

bestmapman,

The 2017 date is irrelevant. The 2040/2052 dates are all that matters.

Back in 1982, Reagan began to worry about 2017. So he agreed to increase FICA in order to build up a trust fund that would extend the life of the SS surplus to 2040/2052. Now SS holds securities that allow for an extra 25-30 years of surpluses.

And if they disappear in 2040/2052? Our kids & grandkids can & should decide what to do, since it affects them and since they certainly can without injury.

Now if you don't like SS and want to eliminate it, that's fine. Just say that. :)

I plan to never use any of the SS money I have paid in. It may be there it may not, but I aggressively save for the future for my family. 401K (only put in the amount that gets me my employer match, Roth IRA (15% of my family income) been doing that for 10 yrs now.

Now if any president starts messing with IRA's and 401k I think that would cost them a re-election. I certainly wouldn't vote for them.

bestmapman,

The 2017 date is irrelevant. The 2040/2052 dates are all that matters.

Back in 1982, Reagan began to worry about 2017. So he agreed to increase FICA in order to build up a trust fund that would extend the life of the SS surplus to 2040/2052. Now SS holds securities that allow for an extra 25-30 years of surpluses.

And if they disappear in 2040/2052? Our kids & grandkids can & should decide what to do, since it affects them and since they certainly can without injury.

Now if you don't like SS and want to eliminate it, that's fine. Just say that. :)

Quote from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/23/AR2007042301963.html

"By 2017, Social Security will pay out more in benefits than it collects in taxes, the trustees said in their annual report. "

I think that is pretty relevant. Also, are you really saying that we shouldn't fix it now when it is easier to fix and wait for later when it is in far harder to fix.

Maybe we should start a new thread, because we are way off btopic.

The idea of taxing 401k's is not new. Bubba was trying to do it in the 90's Here (http://www.house.gov/jec/cost-gov/regs/eti/grab.htm) is one of several links.

Hey I like the idea, all of you that have substantial 401k's, change is coming. The country is voting that way, so you better get ready for change.

Hi Jud:

___401K's are already taxed... When you take it out and at your income tax rate, not the lower capital gains rate... Unless you are in the 15% bracket that is? If Bush wanted to tax it going in, it will not be a 401K anymore but a simple savings account.

___The unfortunate part is we lost $6 Trillion $’s that have to be paid back and unless you have any better idea, the Military and SS spending are going to have to be cut first. Taxes on those that received the largest benefit during that $6 Trillion debt run up will see their taxes rise. If we do not, we will not just be bailing out Wall Street, we will be bailing out ourselves as the $6 Trillion party only helped the upper income classes with the middle class losing ground.

___Good Luck

___Wayne

Quote from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/23/AR2007042301963.html

"By 2017, Social Security will pay out more in benefits than it collects in taxes, the trustees said in their annual report. "

I think that is pretty relevant.

Reagan ensured it is not. The trust fund will ensure surpluses after 2017 for another 25-30 years.

Also, are you really saying that we shouldn't fix it now when it is easier to fix and wait for later when it is in far harder to fix.

It's not harder to fix later. A small deficit is a small deficit. You can raise taxes and/or cut SS benefits by 10% now, or raise/cut by 10% later. Ask your grandkids which they prefer and then go for it!

Maybe we should start a new thread, because we are way off btopic.

I have a tendency to do that. I read these political threads for fun, and really stay away from those expressing opinion, since that's never wrong.

But then I'll read a little something someone wrote that might not even be a main point, but I'll enjoy an attempt to clarify.

My prediction is that part of the change coming is a "one-time" tax on 401k accounts. It's not my idea, but hea, it looks like we are voting for change, so hold onto your walletrs if yoy can.

Reagan ensured it is not. The trust fund will ensure surpluses after 2017 for another 25-30 years.

It's not harder to fix later. A small deficit is a small deficit. You can raise taxes and/or cut SS benefits by 10% now, or raise/cut by 10% later. Ask your grandkids which they prefer and then go for it!

Do you have any references for your position. I know you are stating these things, but I don't see anything that you have shown to support your position. What I have quoted is diferent then you state.

401K's are already taxed...

???? 401k's are tax deferred. That is the whole idea behind the "onetime tax". The thinking is the the country can't afford to have tax deferred accounts anymore, so they will have to do away with 401k's. Hence exixting 401k's get a onetime tax.

It's not my idea here is a link. (http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/25/83/58.php) The dems are talking about it just last week.


Of course everyone knows that if done it won't be a onetime tax if instituted.
Change is coming, I hope we like it.

Do you have any references for your position. I know you are stating these things, but I don't see anything that you have shown to support your position. What I have quoted is diferent then you state.

http://www.tcf.org/list.asp?type=NC&pubid=928
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0127/p09s01-coop.html
http://workinglife.typepad.com/daily_blog/2005/01/ronald_reagan_s.html

If I fail to support anything, you can rest assured it is simply because I'm real lazy. ;)

What you have quoted is not different. It's actually accurate. But it's really only a small part of the story, and leaves out a significant part.

Saying SS benefits will exceed SS revenue in 2017 without mentioning the trust fund is a bit like saying my expenditures at retirement will exceed my salary without mentioning my IRA nest egg.

I'm find it quite amusing that my conservative friends continue to call for a "fix" for Social Security.

Let's be clear about the debate. Liberals like SS because it is an insurance program as much as a retirement vehicle. Everyone participates, and everyone is guaranteed a defined benefit. Conservatives don't like SS because it infringes upon economic freedom. One should be able to provide for one's own retirement without government interference..........let me invest my 7.65% as I wish in a defined contribution plan of my own control.

That's a fair, honest debate.

The problem for conservatives has been that SS remains very popular.....and it is hard to reduce/eliminate popular ideas. So the way around that was to create a crisis. So Bush in 2005 tried to convince the public that SS was in urgent need of a fix, and his private accounts solution was the answer. If "I don't like it and I'm gonna get rid of it" is a loser, maybe "It's in trouble and I'm gonna reform it the conservative way" might not be.

The problem was that liberals didn't budge. They stated the facts...........that SS benefits were paid up for 40-45 years, and that any action needed could be addressed by future generations at that time. The "there is no crisis" position, combined with the popularity of SS, doomed Bush.

Now, it just so happens that some liberals want to "shore up" the fiscal situation of SS to ensure sufficient funds for 100 years instead of 40-45, and the preferred method is by flattening the payroll tax to all wages, not just those under $100k. This is Obama's plan, and he's likely to get it with a Dem Congress.

And so, I sincerely suggest to my conservative friends that they drop this talk about Social Security needing emergency attention. Not only is it wrong, but it enables Obama & Dems to "fix" that problem via the flat FICA. If he succeeds, then when conservatives are in power they will REALLY have a hard time selling the public on a need to fix SS. It will be paid up until 2100.

So when conservatives call for a SS fix, they are enabling Obama's solution to a large degree. Best just to say "no need to do anything". Not only do you fight a tax increase, but........as Kissinger famously said.............."it has the added advantage of actually being true."

???? 401k's are tax deferred. That is the whole idea behind the "onetime tax". The thinking is the the country can't afford to have tax deferred accounts anymore, so they will have to do away with 401k's. Hence exixting 401k's get a onetime tax.

It's not my idea here is a link. (http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/25/83/58.php) The dems are talking about it just last week.


Of course everyone knows that if done it won't be a onetime tax if instituted.
Change is coming, I hope we like it.

I had a different take on the article you linked. The proposal to "nationalize 401K's" that was discussed sounds DOA to me. When press secretaries say "This [plan] certainly is intriguing" I think they usually mean "that sounds like crazy talk that my boss didn't think was important enough to discuss with me." Maybe the website in question advocates a particular political point of view? Did your speculation about the one time tax idea came from somewhere else?

The way Debts and Deficits have grown over the past eight years our 401K's taxes are being deferred into an era that likely will have higher tax rates. It's a bait and switch deal that apparently few middle class savers noticed:mad:. I haven't crunched the numbers, but over time tax revenue from 401K redemptions should balance the tax deferrals. To me, ending the 401k tax deferral would be analogous to choosing government debt over current taxes--once you look at cash flow both imply higher future tax rates.

next will be "hey wait a minute, you hypermilers are getting 70 mpg in your hybrids and doing a great job but everyone should benefit from your success. I'm gonna take your savings in fuel and spread them around to others that drive aggressively and way to fast. This will benefit us all from your hard work."

:D Just kidding or is he??

I use a similar example when on campus.

Me: "Let's say you get a 95 in a class, an A, and I get a 55, an F. Let's spread the wealth around. Give me 20 of your points so we are both equal at 75 a piece, both C's."

Obama supporter: "That's not fair!"

Me: "That's why I don't support Obama."

I use a similar example when on campus.

Me: "Let's say you get a 95 in a class, an A, and I get a 55, an F. Let's spread the wealth around. Give me 20 of your points so we are both equal at 75 a piece, both C's."

Obama supporter: "That's not fair!"

Me: "That's why I don't support Obama."

Prof 1: A student just asked me for a recommendation but I don't think I can. He's just not doing so well in my class. He's really doing poorly on the midterms and he just doesn't seem focused on my class.

Prof 2: I know him well. He's working with me on a research project and writes incredible papers. I also hear that he's working another job to try to ensure that his student loans don't cripple him when he finally graduates. Plus, he's out interviewing for jobs and looking at grad schools, so his time is limited. He studies as much as he can, but he has limited time. Also, from experiences in class, he might just not test well, and his numbers don't accurately reflect his ability. You should probably give him a chance.

Prof 1: I see. I'll have to talk to him to get a better sense of his abilities, but he seems like he would be an asset.

---

Adding nuance is fun.

My Son just graduated from MIT with a Major in Computer Science and a minor in Economics. He now makes at the age of 22 over $670,000 a year with his first business. He is voting for Obama. This thread was about Powell endorsing Obama... My Son and I agree, John McCain and Bush can drill baby drill all they want, but the ride is all over Tuesday.

GaryG

I guess we will see.

Prof 1: A student just asked me for a recommendation but I don't think I can. He's just not doing so well in my class. He's really doing poorly on the midterms and he just doesn't seem focused on my class.

Prof 2: I know him well. He's working with me on a research project and writes incredible papers. I also hear that he's working another job to try to ensure that his student loans don't cripple him when he finally graduates. Plus, he's out interviewing for jobs and looking at grad schools, so his time is limited. He studies as much as he can, but he has limited time. Also, from experiences in class, he might just not test well, and his numbers don't accurately reflect his ability. You should probably give him a chance.

Prof 1: I see. I'll have to talk to him to get a better sense of his abilities, but he seems like he would be an asset.

---

Adding nuance is fun.

yeah, except i think it would be more realistic example if the student never came to class, didn't have a job, and spent most of the day playing xbox. Then at midterm he wants someone to give him a handout because of all his hardships.

I guess we will see.

Well bestmapman we now have the answer. If you feel as bad as I did when W was elected, I've felt your pain for eight long years. I lost my 401K after Bush was elected and now others are again in the same boat. No more stock for me and Big Oil can go to hell. Take advantage of 0% interest and screw the banks also by paying them off on time before the deadline.

GaryG

Well bestmapman we now have the answer. If you feel as bad as I did when W was elected, I've felt your pain for eight long years. I lost my 401K after Bush was elected and now others are again in the same boat. No more stock for me and Big Oil can go to hell. Take advantage of 0% interest and screw the banks also by paying them off on time before the deadline.

GaryG

Your statement goes a long way in helping to unite us all behind the new president. You should be proud of your statement.

GaryG, how would you feel if bestmapman had made a similar statement if McCain won?

Can we avoid any "payback?"

Elections like this are a repudiation of failed administrations, but it's an opportunity for the new one to become the new majority party - i.e. it's not a mandate for Obama but he can turn it into one. Such was 1980 - it was a repudidation of Carter, then Reagan turned it into a mandate that lasted years.

Party dominance comes to an end sooner or later...too much, complancy, arrogance, or just bad government. Reagan had pushed America's political center to the right....the George W Bush administration's bad impersonation of Reagan brought it to an end - probably making the GOP the minority party for years.

Just as in the 1980's there were "Reagan Democrats", there are independants crossing over supporting Obama now. In a two-party system, whoever takes the middle wins. McCain was not himself as he was in 2000 - the GOP pressured him into moving so far right that coupled with an economic meltdown in September - he was doomed. He would have fared better being as he was in 2000, having an experienced moderate as a running mate and distantancing himself from Bush more. Probably would have lost anyway, but at least he would not have tripped himself.

Again, parties don't take control by snubbing the center. Over the years and esp during this administration, the GOP has moved farther right than Reagan, not only forgot the middle class that helped them get in power in the 1980's but let their jobs go overseas, alienated the largest minority with immigration policies - the Hispanics, claim to be limited government while setting records for spending. I don't fault them for going into Iraq for WMDs, but I had big issues with occupying them with far too few troops, attempting to compensate by pushing them into mulitple tours of duties, while not being sensitive to the differences of a Muslim culture. Abu Girab has sullied our image for years to come. It was hubris to think this occupation was like Granada in 1983 or Panama in 1989.

Republican operatives telling the center to get lost was not enough, it was telling half their party they are Republicans in name only (RINO). To a degree, Detroit has used the same marketing stategy....it's like GM forgetting their Impalas, Buicks, Malibus and build only Escalades, fewer and fewer, pricing them into the ultraluxury market. Detroit is realizing that does not work....I don't know if the Republicans will realize their recent addition by subtraction will put them thru elections like this one. Maybe they are hoping the state of the Union is worse in 2012 than 2008...I hope the odds are against that, but even if true, bi-polar political swings are bad for the country.

I reluctantly voted for McCain - I wish Obama well.

So if two people feel or have felt pain are they united?

GaryG, how would you feel if bestmapman and made a similar statement had McCain won?

Can we avoid any "payback?"

Well Chuck, I would have felt the same as when Bush would had won again. Hopeless I'm sorry to say. I feel much better and will purchase more things now. I hate war and love peace, but I know peace comes with power. That doesn't mean war when we are lying about WMD's, it means getting Bin laden. I think Bush is protecting Bin laden myself. I hope Obama puts Bush and Cheney in jail for their actions in killing Americans.

Payback Palin is a small cost to pay when McCain wanted to continue Bush and Cheney's road to destruction of America.

GaryG

Gary,

I'm not after your pollitical views.

In fact they are not in your quote of me.

It's about getting personal with Jud.

What would you think last night if McCain acted like a sore loser or Obama said something that came off like "we really stuck it to them?"

We have been excited the past few days about politics, religion, etc....can we try a little harder to be good sports and move on?

In case Jud was ungraceful in the past, I recommend the same.

On the ligher side what if in 2012 we had Franken vs Palin?

Ten televised debates on Saturday Night Live. :D

On the ligher side what if in 2012 we had Franken vs Palin?

Ten televised debates on Saturday Night Live. :D

Palin/Hasselbeck in 2012. How's that. :)

So if two people feel or have felt pain are they united?

One would hope that it creates some level of empathy and common ground despite our disagreements. There is a distinct lack of empathy in this world, or at least a lack of people willing to acknowledge it.

I use a similar example when on campus.

Me: "Let's say you get a 95 in a class, an A, and I get a 55, an F. Let's spread the wealth around. Give me 20 of your points so we are both equal at 75 a piece, both C's."

Obama supporter: "That's not fair!"

Me: "That's why I don't support Obama."


Not a really good argument. Its more of a horrible generalization that ignores reality, in order to make a misguided point, that I see many regurgitate. Of course as usual a blind-eye is turned towards the many subsidies, loans and outrageous contracts that get handed to the rich.

Wealth is not something you gain inspite of everyone, it is something you gain because of everyone. No one is an island, earning profits in complete isolation from the rest of the world. So the idea that "YOU" worked hard for it, and everyone else has no right to any of it is absurd. Without everyone else "YOU" would not be wealthy. Its because people are not properly compensated for their work, that wealth is redistributed, if the wealthy paid proper rates for work put in, then we wouldn't be in this situation. The wealthy have no one to blame but themselves.

Find me 1 person that became wealthy all by themselves, with no help from anyone ever, and I will say they should pay no taxes. You will never find that person in this country, or any industrialized country in the world, they don't exist.

Interesting argument. Just for the sake of that argument, what do you consider "proper compensation?"

Enough money for 1 person working 50 hours a week to afford reliable transportation to work/school etc with maintenance fuel etc, a safe place to live, healthcare/insurance for an average family, with the ability to take a family vacation every year. Enough money where 2 people working is a benefit and not required just to make ends meet for an average sized family.

Enough money for 1 person working 50 hours a week to afford reliable transportation to work/school etc with maintenance fuel etc, a safe place to live, healthcare/insurance for an average family, with the ability to take a family vacation every year. Enough money where 2 people working is a benefit and not required just to make ends meet for an average sized family.

Doing what? Unskilled labor? Semi-Skilled? Professional work? Advanced Research? Running a department?

Semi-Skilled/Professional.

Hi All:

___I am taking this one OT even further (sorry about that :() but I saw this on our local Chicago NBC affiliate tonight.

$40 for a Week's Worth of Groceries? (http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/40_for_a_Weeks_Worth_of_Groceries.html)

___This is the disadvantaged and I pray none of us have to live on this like some actually do here in IL :ccry:

___Good Luck

___Wayne

Hm. Again, just asking for clarification on your statements, Koreberg...

Why 50hrs a week instead of 40? I agree that we shouldn't be "required" to have two income households just to get by. :ccry:

Are you then proposing some sort of cap on earning to avoid people becoming "rich?"

OK, my responses to all this-

koreberg-
Most semi-skilled/professional jobs Do pay enough for the scenario you laid out. Maybe Not at starting salaries, but certainly after a few years, when you would expect to have to support a family.

It may be a basic life, without all the "entitlements" expected in modern America, but you can do it.

Wayne-

you can get by OK on $40. You're gonna eat a lot of cereal, pasta, occasional veggies, rice, PB&J, hot dogs, and whatever milk you throw in.

1 person is easy, 4 is doable if you watch as you shop.

I Speak from experience.

+1 on the $40 limit -- I used to get by on less than half of that, though my diet wasn't the best.

Our food budget is just over $60 / week, for a family of 3.5. (Soon to be 4, it'll probably cost more then)

We're doing something seriously wrong ;). Our food budget is 150 a week for a family of 5. However, I've declared a moratorium from eating fast food this month for me personally. At this point I'm mostly eating rice, home made pizza, and lots of saltines. It's a two fold issue though in that I'm also trying to drop weight (10lbs, yay!) so it helps in that respect too.

Palin/Hasselbeck in 2012. How's that. :)Oooh. That would provide no end of entertainment. It would give neocon Republicans something to do, which will stimulate the economy. SNL should prepare for it by having a Hasselbeck Lookalike Contest!

Our family went on the Food Stamp diet last year, in support of our governor who was also doing it (along with thousands of other Oregonians). Our budget was $53 for the three of us for a week. Which is actually slightly harder than $40/wk for two people, because our child easily eats at least a third of the food. My wife and I sacrificed part of our own meals several times so that he would have enough -- a choice that millions of families make week after week.

We had just enough food to stave off hunger, but certainly no "extra". I suppose that was partly because we tried to limit cheap crappy processed foods (no ramen noodles or Banquet frozen dinners) and prepare healthy meals. We had to REALLY limit the meat and produce, though, to far less than we usually eat because "real" fresh food is expensive compared to processed "food," and we really had to focus on the cheapest meats and vegetables. We are fortunate enough to have a good pressure cooker, which allowed us to make up some of that difference by easily incorporating rice, beans and other high-value (for the dollar) foods into our diet.

Also, we found we went through a LOT of spices to keep the meals from getting monotonous. That alone took $3-4 out of the week's budget, even buying spices cheaply in bulk. The most time-consuming part of all this was that I baked a lot of my own bread (my son and I are both gluten intolerant, and commercial gluten free bread is typically $6-8 per loaf) to stretch things, which still ended up costing a few dollars for 3 loaves.

It would be very hard for us to sustain this diet week in and week out. Possible, but not pleasant, and would be very difficult to do long-term without ultimately compromising our health. All in all, it was a very eye-opening experience.

And this was before the huge price increases we have seen in these types of goods.

@Right Lane Cruiser (http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/member.php?u=678)

I would put a cap on earnings, but it would be a floating cap, based on a percentage of what your employees make. Pay your employees more, and you can make more too. I would also like to see a move to 100% consumption based tax, away from income tax.

@warthog1984 (http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/member.php?u=1528)

IMO the "entitlements" should be part of the deal, it should be an average size house/dwelling for that area, with average amenities. We had this before the 70s came around. Since the 70s it has become almost impossible for most families to have the average american lifestyle without 2 bread winners. Mostly because wages for the majority of americans quit going up at the rate they had been for 50+ years before the 70s. At the same time wages for the wealthiest 5% started increasing at a much faster rate, after the 70s, than they ever had before. Could be coincidence, however I believe if the labor is the same, then the fruits of that labor would be the same, the 1 difference is how the fruits were spread around. Thicker at the top, and thinner on the bottom.

Its funny out the cheapest diets tend to be the healthiest. Nothing like lots of fresh fruits, vegs, grains, etc. If you can just cut out all the cans, bottles, and frozen things that tend to get into our life, the cost goes down. Cut out all but the recomended amount of meat or other protien and the cost goes down even further.

Maybe its something everyone should try at least for 2 months, just to understand how difficult it can be with a modern lifestyle and how easy it can be if you eat a little healthier. Loosing a few pounds doesn't hurt either.

Its funny out the cheapest diets tend to be the healthiest. Nothing like lots of fresh fruits, vegs, grains, etc. If you can just cut out all the cans, bottles, and frozen things that tend to get into our life, the cost goes down. Cut out all but the recomended amount of meat or other protien and the cost goes down even further.

Having lived on campus for a year I beg to differ... the cheapest food out there is top ramen, followed by the 99 cent cans of luncheon meat (enough for two or three meals when combined with the marked-down bread!), and McDonalds Dollar Menu... :)

There are a lot of ways to reduce your grocery bill. If you are not using coupons now then you are spending double or more then double what you could be using coupons.

My son has really gotten into couponing and is now not only saving money on coupons, but he is no longer paying anything for his weekly grocery bill, in fact he is gaining money each week. I know it hard to believe, but it is true.


For the past coupole of months, my wife has taken his advice and with her trips to the store, she has not only reduced our food bill 50%.

If anyone wants to know how we are doing it PM me.

There are a lot of ways to reduce your grocery bill. If you are not using coupons now then you are spending double or more then double what you could be using coupons.

My son has really gotten into couponing and is now not only saving money on coupons, but he is no longer paying anything for his weekly grocery bill, in fact he is gaining money each week. I know it hard to believe, but it is true.


For the past coupole of months, my wife has taken his advice and with her trips to the store, she has not only reduced our food bill 50%.

If anyone wants to know how we are doing it PM me.

I've seen how much jello, Velveeta, and salsa you've got in that house. :eek:

Good article:

THE former American secretary of state Colin Powell has revealed that he spent 2� hours vainly trying to persuade President George W Bush not to invade Iraq and believes today�s conflict cannot be resolved by US forces.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3bd_1184018220

GaryG

Good article:

THE former American secretary of state Colin Powell has revealed that he spent 2� hours vainly trying to persuade President George W Bush not to invade Iraq and believes today�s conflict cannot be resolved by US forces.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3bd_1184018220

GaryGIt's a bit out of date: July 8, 2007. Here's the original article, link found in the article you posted:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2042072.ece

Having lived on campus for a year I beg to differ... the cheapest food out there is top ramen, followed by the 99 cent cans of luncheon meat (enough for two or three meals when combined with the marked-down bread!), and McDonalds Dollar Menu... :)

OK. Having done the campus thing myself, I'll agree that for some the cheapest way is how you said. But for those in a home with a decent sized freezer. Twenty bucks will get a ton of veg & some chicken too (if you need it). And you can easily produce 20 meals worth. Hard to beat a buck a meal. In some ways families have it easier. Cooking at home for one, tends to produce a lot more waste per meal that cooking for 2 or more, so cooking for multiples usually is cheaper per person than cooking for one....even more so when you include the energy cost. Producing your own frozen or left-over meals being an exception...

On the news a few years ago was a sad story about a women who decided to go back into the work place to help support her family of five (husband, 3 kids) because they had been living on the edge. However they seemed to be having more problems keeping up with the bills once she did this. The news program hired an expert to look at their finances. Being a nearly first job, it only pulled in about 25k. When they looked at the added expenses of a new wardrobe & then maintianing it, additional take out instead of the cooking she had done, the additional gas, additional babysitting, etc, etc...the family lost more money with her working that she made. If I remember right, they judged her value in the home at 30/35k, and that didn't include the major reduction in family stress caused by having no time left to get things done. When they showed the numbers to the family, the wife broke down & was crying with a combination of grief & exhaustion. The husband was crying too. Like I said...a very sad story.

Ultimatly they showed that homemaker, be it man or woman, usually had a value of around 5/10k (no children), 20/25k (older children who don't need daycare/babysitters), and 30/40k+ (small children). They strongly recomended that all families look at the cost of working and seeing how to reduce it or seeing if maybe only parent working was better. They did have one point in the other direction. She only made 20k because she had no recent experience. In the event of a divorce or death, she could find herself in the situation of making that little and having that be nearly the only source of income. If she kept working for another 1 or 2 years, they might reach the break even point...sooner if the older children wer able to help out with things around the house (like making dinner or babysitting the smaller children). After that, she would start adding to the family wealth. Now that a tough call for anyone to make.

The elections are over and there is still much discussion and debate about: What if, What will, He will, He Won't, etc.......

I did not vote for him due to the stance that he has had on some issues that I am morally opposed to.

With this being said, my daughter sent me this taken from a blog and this portrays my sentiments exactly. Others reading this may lambast me, but please take it for what it's worth. The election is over. The residents of the United States of America have elected a new President. As residents, we should abide by the wishes of the majority and accept and respect the new President Of the Greatest Country in the WORLD!

This was posted on a blog and is something ALL Americans should abide by. Things happen for a purpose.

Romans 13:1
"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God."

Regardless of how I feel about the outcome of the presidential election, or any other election for that matter, the instructions for those of us who claim to be Christians are pretty specific. We need to be respectful and continue to make our voices heard in a positive way. Sure, I disagree with President-Elect Obama on many issues, but I respect the office he holds and think it's time to focus on what we all hold in common.

The same God who ruled the universe yesterday rules it today and I stand justified in His Son. What's more, I live in a country where I can shout that from the rooftops without fear of government interference or retribution and even with the many problems that exist here, that still makes us the greatest country in the world

This was posted on a blog and is something ALL Americans should abide by. Things happen for a purpose.


Romans 13:1
"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God."


Don't cut off Paul's letter too soon....... ;).

Romans 13:6-7
This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes................

I'm sure Mike will agree on that as well...

Guess the thing to note in American politics is massive or long-lasting mandates are not very common. The GOP took a beating, but McCain still got 46% of the vote. I tend to agree with analyst that the election is more of a statement GWB did a bad job - let's move to the center or center-left, than a move to the left. Still, this is an opportunity to have a generation of voters lean to the Democrats....2010 and 2012 will hint if that is the case.

The Obama Administration now has to seize the moment, while the GOP has to learn from this beating.

Oh, you have the same sin as Joe the Plumber???:eek: