Debates

[Taxious]

Fiscally speaking, I find myself agreeing with Republican candidates more than Democratic ones. With that said, I personally think Joe is full of shit. I thought it was pretty obvious that he was bating Obama with the misleading intention of buying a business that knowingly makes less than he stated.

[Partha]

How's he gonna buy the business if no one is lending the money? He got $250k just lying around his bathroom?

Methinks if one REALLY wanted to look at something like his tax forms, he'd be affected by Obama's plan to let Bush's tax cuts sunset without the business. The business is just an excuse. Oh wait, that's what it's all about. Excuses not to vote for the Democrat.

EDIT - something for the lighter side of the race. http://www.chainsawsuit.com/20081017.shtml

[Lurker]

Are you going to place Obama's phrase in context that I asked you for several posts ago?

You need me to explain the difference between socialism and Obama's plan to raise the top marginal tax rate from 36% to 39%? We have a progressive tax code and I don't consider that socialism. I also think the "spread the wealth" part had more to do with his economic principles than the discussion about taxes, as it followed directly from a quote about the economy.

Here's the entire quote for people that haven't watched the video.

"I do believe that for folks like me who have worked hard but, frankly, have also been lucky... I don't mind paying just a little bit more than the waitress who I just met over there who's... things are slow and she can just barely make the rent. My attitude is, if the economy is good from the bottom up, it's going to be good for everybody. If you've got a plumbing business you're going to be better off if you've got a whole lot of customers that can afford to hire you. And right now, everybody's so pinched that business is bad for everybody. And I think when you spread the wealth around it's good for everybody."

[Trollbait]

My attitude is, if the economy is good from the bottom up, it's going to be good for everybody. If you've got a plumbing business you're going to be better off if you've got a whole lot of customers that can afford to hire you. And right now, everybody's so pinched that business is bad for everybody. And I think when you spread the wealth around it's good for everybody."

So how is considering that statement to be a socialist idea taking it out of context? I think the context is fairly clear.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Alright, someone with a business feel free to comment and correct me if I'm wrong(looking at you, Embar).

If Obama is raising taxes on big businesses, and potentially some smaller business, wouldn't that possibly mean a lower ceiling for payoll or higher cost on goods they manufacture?

If so, wouldn't that potentially lead to more layoffs/economic downturn?

[Harlowe]

Beyond Victimology
One day, conservatives will understand what an amazing victory against identity politics the Obama campaign has been. And how an Obama presidency could transform our racial debate in ways conservatives have long said they favored. Here's rock-ribbed conservative, Bradford Berenson, remembering what Obama was like as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review:

I think Barack took 10 times as much grief from those on the left on the Review as from those of us on the right. And the reason was, I think there was an expectation among those editors on the left that he would affirmatively use the modest powers of his position to advance the cause, whatever that was. They thought, you know, finally there's an African American president of the Harvard Law Review; it's our turn, and he should aggressively use this position, and his authority and his bully pulpit to advance the political or philosophical causes that we all believe in. And Barack was reluctant to do that.

It's not that he was out of sympathy with their views, but his first and foremost goal, it always seemed to me, was to put out a first-rate publication. And he was not going to let politics or ideology get in the way of doing that ...

He had some discretion as president to exercise an element of choice for certain of the positions on the masthead; it wasn't wide discretion, but he had some. And I think a lot of the minority editors on the Review expected him to use that discretion to the maximum extent possible to empower them. To put them in leadership positions, to burnish their resumes, and to give them a chance to help him and help guide the Review. He didn't do that. He declined to exercise that discretion to disrupt the results of votes or of tests that were taken by various people to assess their fitness for leadership positions.

He was unwilling to undermine, based on the way I viewed it, meritocratic outcomes or democratic outcomes in order to advance a racial agenda. That earned him a lot of recrimination and criticism from some on the left, particularly some of the minority editors of the Review. ... It confirmed the hope that I and others had had at the time of the election that he would basically be an honest broker, that he would not let ideology or politics blind him to the enduring institutional interests of the Review. It told me that he valued the success of his own presidency of the Review above scoring political points of currying favor with his political supporters.

[Harlowe]

Awesome, another one finding more important things about this campaign than pissing contests over Joe the Plumber...

http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman ... d-sex.html

Steven Waldman, the author of Founding Faith and editor of Beliefnet

I'm pretty sure this is the first presidential debate in which the sentence "sexuality is sacred" has been uttered. It came during the abortion discussion, when Barack Obama said, "We should try to prevent unintended pregnancies by providing appropriate education to our youth, communicating that sexuality is sacred and that they should not be engaged in cavalier activity." I actually think it was one of the most important lines of the evening.

Before I unpack why, I must start with a word of thanks to Obama for not feeling the need to illustrate this point via one of those anecdotes about a Real American. I'm not sure our fragile financial system could have withstood discussion of the sacredness of Joe the Plumber's piping.

Here's why it's important. Obama showed himself to have a culturally conservative streak. The classic conservative wrap on liberalism is that sexual permissiveness led to numerous social problems including teen pregnancy and abortion. Obama declared, in effect, that he agreed with that critique. "Cavalier" sex, he said, cost society.

He appealed to pro-lifers, suspicious that liberal drives toward expanding birth control would increase premarital sex and further destigmatize teen promiscuity. He indicated that he'd be sensitive to that risk.

He appealed to parents, and showed himself to be a conscientious one. Every parent struggles with how to describe sex as being beautiful yet discouraged. (If it's so beautiful why not do it all the time, as early in life as you can? Well, because its beauty is enhanced when it's part of a deep connection between people and maybe even fits some greater purpose.)

He appealed to traditional religious believers who have been trying for years to convey the idea that free love is destructive and who more recently have argued that sex in the context of marriage or committed relationships can be Godly. One book promoted -Christ-like Sex; while a Jewish one advocated Kosher Adultery. (in Jewish tradition, sex as part of marriage is a mitzvah, a good deed.) Obama's comments might even earn Obama friends in the chastity movement.

Remarkably, while appealing to the traditionally religious, Obama's phrasing also may appeal to the "spiritual but not religious" crowd. These voters are likely more in synch with the idea that sex can actually be a sort of spiritual experience, or a pathway to the divine. I'm not saying Obama was subliminally promising them an increase in Tantric sex It's just that by using the word "sexuality" -- the preferred terminology of the left -- rather than "sex," he signals that he's spiritual without being prudish.

Sullivan, another conservative's comment on it.

Obama's skin color has obscured a pretty basic fact about him: he seems to have had a very conservative private life as a public figure. His marriage and family life have been much more traditional than John McCain's - someone who admits to promiscuity and adultery and divorce. Unlike McCain he's a long-time regular church-goer. Biden is also a family man, devoted to his kids and first and second wife, and a tee-totaler.

[Ddrak]

Sorry to jump back in late - stupid time zones.

The Toledo Building Code says he does need to be a licensed apprentice or journeyman to do residential work, at least according to one building inspector as quoted in the AP.

That is for the City of Toledo. Holland and the surrounding communities are not Toledo. Also his boss has the license and THAT is who is required to have it. If he buys the business then he will need to get one.

The actual worker apparently (and I'm not expert, just trusting the AP report) needs to be licensed too *in Toledo*. You're probably right about Holland and the surrounding communities - I have no clue.

While I dislike those sorts of laws, you probably shouldn't be making a big noise in politics (and he knew what he was doing when he asked the question of Obama) if you're not properly licensed in the profession you claim to have.

He did not "make a big noise". He asked a legit question to a candidate who was walking down his street. People should not ask questions of the candidates now for fear of scrutiny of their lives? THAT is exactly why these digs and jabs at this man are so repugnant. What a chilling effect that has on any citizen that wishes to speak to a candidate. maybe that is exactly the effect they are going for /shrug

Oh, quit the talkshow drama queen bullshit. The question was fine, and Obama's answer was excellent. Then McCain used him in the debate, he gets press time on TV and says he "always wanted to ask one of these guys a question and corner them", followed by the claim that "I still got a tapdance". Sorry, but Joe's full of shit right there and gives up his rights to be treated fairly by anyone in the press. Obama spent a lot of time telling him exactly what his plan was, and it was fairly clear that he wasn't tapdancing around anything. He said quite plainly that the taxes would go up 3% and explained why he thought that was acceptable - no tapdance at all.

In short, Joe asked a tough question even though it was mostly hypothetical (and he knew it) - acceptable.
Obama answered the tough question - acceptable.
McCain misrepresents Joe - not acceptable, but not worthy of attacking Joe over.
Joe misrepresents Obama - not acceptable, and Joe loses any right to not being attacked.

He actually is a plumber. He wants to buy the business. The business could make a quarter of a million dollars under him.

Never said he wasn't a plumber. He said he was "getting ready to buy the business" and that it *was* "making 250-280k". Neither are even remotely close to true, but an excellent hypothetical. Thing is, when interviewed later he should have just said it was all fiction rather than tapdancing around pretending it might be true.

He painted a scenario in which he did not fully understand Obama's policy and had it explained to him. That is how such an exchange should work. I think Obama did well in the exchange and I have no problems with it other than the "spread the wealth around" part. In fact that exchange should happen more often.

Agreed. He only opened himself up for attack when he said later that Obama didn't answer his question, which was straight up bullshit.

Again, I ask you, if Joe lies on national TV about the character of the answer Obama gave, why shouldn't he get attacked?

Dd

[Kulaf]

Alright, someone with a business feel free to comment and correct me if I'm wrong(looking at you, Embar).

If Obama is raising taxes on big businesses, and potentially some smaller business, wouldn't that possibly mean a lower ceiling for payoll or higher cost on goods they manufacture?

If so, wouldn't that potentially lead to more layoffs/economic downturn?

Easy enough. Grab the shareholders report of any public company and look at the income statement. Compute their effective tax rate then compute what the additional 3% hike would do to their bottom line. If they cannot reasonably absorb that cost and still provide a dividend or other shareholder value then they will seek to incorporate it into their cost of doing business.

My guess is it would create moderate accross the board inflationary pressure. I doubt it would cost anyone their job unless the industry in question is operating on really thin margins already......like say grocery stores.

[Harlowe]

Oh, quit the talkshow drama queen bullshit. The question was fine, and Obama's answer was excellent. Then McCain used him in the debate, he gets press time on TV and says he "always wanted to ask one of these guys a question and corner them", followed by the claim that "I still got a tapdance". Sorry, but Joe's full of shit right there and gives up his rights to be treated fairly by anyone in the press. Obama spent a lot of time telling him exactly what his plan was, and it was fairly clear that he wasn't tapdancing around anything. He said quite plainly that the taxes would go up 3% and explained why he thought that was acceptable - no tapdance at all.

In short, Joe asked a tough question even though it was mostly hypothetical (and he knew it) - acceptable.
Obama answered the tough question - acceptable.
McCain misrepresents Joe - not acceptable, but not worthy of attacking Joe over.
Joe misrepresents Obama - not acceptable, and Joe loses any right to not being attacked.

Agreed. He only opened himself up for attack when he said later that Obama didn't answer his question, which was straight up bullshit.

Again, I ask you, if Joe lies on national TV about the character of the answer Obama gave, why shouldn't he get attacked?

Dd

Well said. I am sick to death of this taking center stage in a country with much more important fucking things to be concerned about then this retarded false indignation over a pretty simple situation that has ZERO to do with Obama's credibility. He was respectful and answered the guy, very thoughtfully. If Biden was a bit tough on him after he misrepresented Obama, then boo fucking hoo. McCain mentioned the guy 23 damn times in a national debate. Obama did 3-4 in rebuttal. You want to blame someone for all this vetting and negative attention, blame him for lying on national television and McCain for making him a diversionary prop.

With the current state of affairs in our country, it's absolutely preposterous this is being given this kind of attention.

[Select]

then Obama has lost my vote.

1) I have not said Obama has lost my vote. He just hasn't won it.

Who are you, McCain?
There's nothing more I can say that hasn't been said by Dd and Lurker.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

4) If these kinds of attacks from Biden and Obama surrogates are what we can expect on a working American for simply asking a question then Obama has lost my vote.

Quote the whole thing you fucking hack.

[Harlowe]

[Select]

If these kinds of attacks from Biden and Obama surrogates are what we can expect on a working American for simply asking a question then Obama has lost my vote.

You don't think from this discussion that he feels Obama's people are doing this? Since he feels that way, I gathered it's what he's come to expect since he's so upset over it, and so Obama has lost his vote. I think he was trying to backtrack and say Obama hadn't "won it" yet when the board was calling him out for having a hissy fit over something most of us feel was fair.

Why was it a hissy fit? Dd's explanation:

In short, Joe asked a tough question even though it was mostly hypothetical (and he knew it) - acceptable.
Obama answered the tough question - acceptable.
McCain misrepresents Joe - not acceptable, but not worthy of attacking Joe over.
Joe misrepresents Obama - not acceptable, and Joe loses any right to not being attacked.

Harlowe, sweetie, I need some eyeroll clarification. Who are those eyes rolling at?

[Harlowe]

At him calling you a hack. It made no sense, because you didn't need to quote the whole thing. He already said that due to this situation he was now an "undecided". His condition for regaining that support, was something that was so ridiculous, he might as well say he's lost his vote entirely. Neither candidate is going to make it a habit of just repudiating shit left and right, even if it's from their running mate. You certainly don't see McCain repudiating every dumb thing Palin says to demonize citizens that aren't from the right area of the nation or shit she says that incites hatred and violence at her rallies.

[Select]

Ah, okay. Sometimes I can't tell if it's a PMS-eyeroll or a justified-eyeroll with you, but I don't think it's your week yet.

[Select]

Neither candidate is going to make it a habit of just repudiating shit left and right, even if it's from their running mate. You certainly don't see McCain repudiating every dumb thing Palin says to demonize citizens that aren't from the right area of the nation.

I agree and I wouldn't want them to waste their time on every moron who tries to screw with their message. There are more important things, like the issues, and if the candidates focusing on the issues, they're getting their message across and any intelligent person is going to ignore the morons (even the running mates).

[Harlowe]

Neither candidate is going to make it a habit of just repudiating shit left and right, even if it's from their running mate. You certainly don't see McCain repudiating every dumb thing Palin says to demonize citizens that aren't from the right area of the nation.

I agree and I wouldn't want them to waste their time on every moron who tries to screw with their message. There are more important things, like the issues, and if the candidates focusing on the issues, they're getting their message across and any intelligent person is going to ignore the morons (even the running mates).

Amen to that. Honestly, I think it's a massive attempt at distraction, like the shady Robo-calls that McCain is putting out right now using the same business that he decried in 2000 for smearing him unfairly with bullshit propaganda. Like the McCain campaign said, if they keep talking about the economy, they'll lose, so he's using every dirty trick that Bush used against him in his desperate attempt to swing things back his way.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Seriously, only a bunch of crazy fucking liberals can think its ok to personally attack someone for presenting a valid hypothetical question to a candidate.

Did he misrepresent himself a little? Sure.
Was the question still valid? Of course it was.

[Harlowe]

Right because Ddrak always comes off as a crazy fucking liberal.

You keep skipping the point and going back to something that was never the fucking point.

McCain misrepresents Joe - not acceptable, but not worthy of attacking Joe over.
Joe misrepresents Obama - not acceptable, and Joe loses any right to not being attacked.

Agreed. He only opened himself up for attack when he said later that Obama didn't answer his question, which was straight up bullshit.

And again, OBAMA never attacked him.

I don't expect much from someone that brought up the hand-over-heart nonsense though. Only crazy fucking dishonest neo-con hacks become drama queens over non-issues.