OT: US President (US Dom Players only)

[sum1lost]

Honestly, I didn't see very much of evil mccain that many seemed to. His running mate was far nastier than he was, and he continuously got in arguments with her and some of his campaign advisors about lines that he would draw on what was acceptable. He seemed fairly honorable through most of the campaign, even if elements of his campaign were less so.

[DonCorazon]

Free at last, thank god almighty, free at last!!!!!

[Lingchih]

Originally Posted by sum1lost

Honestly, I didn't see very much of evil mccain that many seemed to. His running mate was far nastier than he was, and he continuously got in arguments with her and some of his campaign advisors about lines that he would draw on what was acceptable. He seemed fairly honorable through most of the campaign, even if elements of his campaign were less so.

McCain was an honorable man. Perhaps he still is. But he fell into the trap of the Republican party. It was his downfall.

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by rdonj

I may be misunderstanding the question here, but aren't you not a taxpayer if you don't pay taxes? That being the case, I don't see a conflict with these numbers are they are completely unrelated.

TAX-Payer. TAX*payer* tax PAYER. I don't know how else to say it.. No, if you are not paying taxes you are not a TAX PAYER.

Also, please address konming's posted birth certificates and why we should give any credence to unsubstantiated rumors spread about a candidate in a presidential election?

I did address konmings birth certificate, post. providing a document on the internet is *not* the same as providing it in court. Anyone can easily make a fake b.c. using photoshop. Providing one in court allows its authenticity to be verified.

I am not saying, (nor have I ever been) Obama isn't a US citizen.

I'm saying:

A). It was bad politics to squash the question on procedural issues. Provide a copy of the birth certificate - it ends the question definitively.

Whereas stonewalling on releasing birth certificate et.al feeds the frenzy.

B). Proving that you are eligible for the job should be part of the PAC formation. Right now according to the FEC, they are not responsible for verifying credentials. According to state of florida, Division of elections.. it is the responsibility of each of the counties subcommitties under the executive committe of the political party.

In other words, the democratic party is responsible for verifying that barack is eligible and the republican party for mccain.

[Tichy]

lwarmonger,

I readily concede that Obama used standard negative campaign tactics, such as interpreting McCain's policies in a bad light and then using that voice and that music in the ad with the grainy shot of the opponent. (Who is that woman that does "negative" voice in every dang ad? I think she showed up in ads for both Obama and McCain). McCain did the same.

But he and his camp also stooped to really scurrilous character attacks, "he's a marxist", "he's a radical", "he's not a 'real american'", "he has secret connections to terrorists," etc. That stuff was beyond the pale. It got him exactly what it should have gotten any candidate who stoops to it.

I felt badly for him. Much of the time he seemed so angry because he couldn't believe his handlers had him saying that junk. I interpreted part of his concession speech as repudiating that aspect of his own campaign...shushing the boos.

[rdonj]

TAX-Payer. TAX*payer* tax PAYER. I don't know how else to say it.. No, if you are not paying taxes you are not a TAX PAYER.

Yes, that was my point. So, either the 38% who don't pay taxes and the 95% who would theoretically get a tax break are completely unrelated ideas, or perhaps you are saying that because 38% of people are not paying taxes it is impossible to give a tax cut to said 95% of taxpayers. Or is it something else entirely? I honestly can't tell, sorry.

Thank you for clarifying the birth certificate thing, I am satisfied with this answer.

[chrispedersen]

For your dining pleasure - http://www.slate.com/id/2199810/

Yeah, bogus statistics in that slate article. Which just goes to prove you can prove anything you want to with statistics.

For example:

Why did the statistics start in 1957? Could it be to avoid including the huge deficits imposed by wwII? The great depression? If you're going exclude WWII years.. why shouldn't you exclude Korean, Vietnam, Kuwait War?

Secondly.. Democrats love to point to the years in the 50's and 60s, and the performance of the American economy.

OF COURSE the american economy did well. Europe, Japan, Russia and the rest of the 'first' world had been bombed to hell. We *had* no economic competitors.

No competition to our industry. No competition for resources. No competition for our investment into research.

But the telling fact is that a mere 25 years later, (1970) the Soviet Union never a world power, has become a military superpower, and the world (often) seems poised at the brink of nuclear destruction - and a group of Arab States are about to shake the world with the first Oil Embargo. Which, by the way, was a direct result of Kennedy's domestic oil policies - at least according to Onassis.

And quoting wiki...."After the 1954 Congressional elections, the Democratic Party now dominated both houses of Congress until 1994, except when Republicans held a majority of seats in the Senate, after the party dominated the 1980 US Presidential and US Senate elections".

So .. our competitors are in ruins; the democrats have more or less 40 years in power; and according to you they do an excellent job of managing the economy and world affairs.

Yet - if thats so how do our competitors, by 1980.. catch us? How does europe rebuild? How does Russia become a military power on par with us? You'd think that if the democrats did such a stellar job - there was no way anyone else could catch us.

Or is it in fact because perhaps in fact - that other nations - and not just one or two - but whole HOSTS of other nations.. exceeded us.

And if they exceeded us.. perhaps the democrats didn't do such a good job, did they.....

[Trumanator]

Well I doubt 95% of taxpayers make under 250k, or whatever the real number was.

Obama did associate with pseudo-marxist organizations, namely ACORN and to a lesser extent his church. He did remain in contact with Ayers until
2006, he does come from an intellectual tradition that tends to blame America first and always. I'm hoping the best for him, but I do think McCain's ads were true from a certain, exaggerated point of view. It really was on both sides. Obama alleged that McCain couldn't use a computer, it was steadily implied that he would probably die or go senile in office. I think that campaigns are dirty by their nature, and everyone condemns it, but it is not the property of one single party.

[Omnirizon]

WTF is a marxist organization?


on another note check out this **** going down on conservative forums and LAUGH YOUR ASSES OFF AT THOSE DIP****S

http://www.republicanoperative.com/f...ially-won.html

[chrispedersen]

[quote=JimMorrison;650408]What do our presidents "increase", in the economy?

Democrats =
GDP
Taxes
Social Programs
Public Works (important, increases jobs while building infrastructure)

Republicans =
Inflation
Unemployment
Deficit
Spending (where? pork?)/[quote]

Jim, I had to make one further observation. Our president's input on the economy is actually fairly small.

1. Congress passes spending bills, setting fiscal policy.
2. The federal reserve sets monetary policy.

Reference after refernce will document that the role of the president is overstated.