ParanoiA

Well, I concede that your viewpoint is far more thought out than I gave it credit for. I guess, at some point, their religion has to be audited for sanity. I just have a hard time parsing through stuff I don't believe in. From where I sit, we're just trying to determine if believing in purple unicorns is worse than believing in the spaghetti monster. I think your fear about Palin is misplaced. There is nothing about that woman, her success, her husband and their kids, their lives, their general attitudes that would suggest their fear of mutual destruction does not equal mine. Only the religious rhetoric. Of course, that's just completely personal. I've been surrounded by christians my whole life and one of my problems with these folks has always been how on Sunday they are all about "X", while Mon - Sat they're all about "Y". They say some silly things in the pulpit, and the crowd nods their heads to things they'd ridicule others for, yet these same people are quite normal in practice, aside from my judgements. Maybe I'm misapplying this to Palin. Maybe she's far worse than I'm crediting. It just seems the same to me. Far out language and head spinning dogma in the context of religious service, followed by down to earth reasoning in real life, when exercising real decisions. I don't fear religion from any single person I guess, I just reject the institution as a whole and try not pick on individuals. Parsing through their belief systems always unearths weird ideas to me, some of which are dangerous. That's a great point.

That seems fair. I don't see why you can't roast him while simultaneously still drawing that conclusion. Or, why you can't accept Palin's religious dogma in parallel with Obama's "lite" version, while still drawing that same conclusion. I do. You're obviously passionate and a well reasoned gentleman and that reflects in your posts here.

No, I agree. I've always felt compromise is for politicians, not for the people. That's their role, and they blew it. However, I wanted to point out that they had a "side" to their story, and it is possible to hijack a position on its face, while disingenuously undermining it in legislation. In that case, standing against the legislation could be the noble position. Face value is not always valuable.

Or maybe we'll get a president that will stop taking money from companies that are going bankrupt and look the other way. I wonder if Obama would care to give that money back? The top three recipients of Fannie mae and Freddie mac were Chris Dodd, Barack Obama and John kerry. It has been said, but I have not verified it, that Obama received more in his short time in the senate than all but one politician received in two decades. Certainly soundbite material. I would like to see the rest of that list of politicians soaking in Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's campaign money. I'm sure that's where the list of republicans starts, or else we'd be hearing about the top four recipients. This whole thing is damn joke. Mccain, and Obama and his democrat congress didn't do shit in the way of oversight, and didn't do shit to stop this financial disaster. Maybe they were too busy running for president? They took their money and I guess they were happy. I'm not sure how much McCain got, but what happened to the maverick? How about the agent of change? Oh yeah, they're pointing fingers at each other trying to pretend it was the other guy's fault. McCain is hiring ex-lobbyists and Obama is lathered in cash from two financially screwed institutions that both of them failed to act on. These are corrupt politicians. Send them home.

Careful, none of those "unravel's" refer to the economy, but rather the financial market. Everyone agrees - as if any sane person couldn't - that the credit market is taking a horrible hit right now. And no, there's no such thing as the financial market not effecting the economy, just like there's no such thing as the financial market equals the economy. The financial market is a piece of the economy and should be looked at in that way. Not sure why we keep trying to go from one extreme statement to another.

You're roasting Palin as a quack and rewarding Obama as well rounded based on a slightly shorter list of unsubstantiated belief system dogma. Sorry, but my bullshit detector is just going off here. If you're not partisan, then prove it by stepping up your criticism of Obama's religious tripe or stepping down your criticism of Palin's. They both believe in the same basic things, only Obama's church isn't on youtube today - they already went through this bull. I don't think there's much statesmenship from either of them. I truly don't know which one is worse, but then, it's of little interest. It's like asking if Ted Bundy was worse than John Wayne Gacy. I suppose one is worse than the other, but both of them crossed the line after the first dead body. iNow, you are terrifically balanced in the absence of an election. I suppose all of us get tilted to some degree, it's inevitable and not preventable. Maybe you're being honest to yourself, but from where I'm sitting it seems like Obama can't do anything wrong and McCain / Palin can't do anything right. Real life isn't like that. You're too dynamic to line up to one side like that, unless of course, you're feeling invested in the race. Also, keep in mind that I'm rather petulant around election time. Remember, I blame us for the politicians we get to choose from, so it shouldn't be any surprise that I would criticize us for choosing them. We don't fix anything by enabling it - which is akin to your alternative fuel argument - we can't drill ourselves out of this. Well, you can't do the same ole same ole to get something different. You want change? Then change, my friend.

Yes, let's review: Obama asks god to make him his tool Obama followed a preacher that believes the CIA invented AIDS to kill black people and preaches hate - which is ok, because it's hating white people and they deserve it. Oh, and he wants god to damn america. Obama wants to teach kids how to use condoms whether parents like it or not Once belonged to a faith that hates Jews and promotes female servitude His declared faith believes in the second coming, just like Palin Yeah, golly gee is right. He's nothing like Palin. Palin is not afriad of what she believes. Obama wrights off 20 year relationships to divert what he believes. He sweeps old faiths under the rug to divert what he believes. He's a religious man. Religious people believe in weird things, to you and me. You can guage it all you want, but it still adds up to unsubstantiated belief systems. If you're scared of one, why not the other? They both believe in the second coming of christ. But you don't hate it enough to stand up for yourself and demand better. You don't hate it enough to toss aside your partisan worship and call him out on it. You don't hate it enough to roast a democrat for it - you only hate it enough to roast your enemy in the game. The two party siege is working you like a tool. Well I'll do it for you iNow. I'll cast my vote based on the principles you posted before you started worshipping Obama. You keep rewarding the opportunists, I'll reward honest, if flawed, statesmen. Are there really no conservatives here that can defend Palin and McCain? I'm really tired of dreaming up arguments for people I have no intention of rewarding with the white house. Someone has to do it or else this double standard will continue without opposition. This is why I think you're being disingenuous, if unintentionally so. Her church encourages this and yet we just went through this kind of nonsense with Wright - he believed the crazy shit, not Obama. You're doing the same thing. The only difference here is that Palin refuses to write off these people. Obama tosses them under the bus. And in all actuality, they're both doing it for their respective bases. Yet, both of them are guilty of being surrounded by quacks. I haven't even started on Obama's other ties with shady characters that aren't sorry for previously committed terrorism in their lives. I realize your position is more thoughtful than most, trust me. But the way you're parsing Palin and Obama on this issue is way too fine of a line to be legitimate. We're calling one a quack and one well rounded based on two extra bits of religious info in one column versus the other. Hell, the margin of error on what we actually know about what each candidate truly believes is higher than that. It's very worth mentioning. It's an unsubstantiated belief system that they are either pretending to believe in, or really do believe in - which is worse? To me, lying is unforgiveable. Ron Paul is a religio also, and I hate it as well, but he isn't a liar and I think he really does believe in this stuff. Obviously, I'm ok with it. I had to weigh it out, and I decided I'm willing to accept that flaw. But if he was trying to distance himself from it, to present himself falsely, or to write off people (like the 9/11 truthers) he would lose my support. But that didn't happen. Instead, the most embarrassing group out there, the 9/11 truthers, got an honest Dr Paul - he refused to agree with their assessment on 9/11, and he refused to denounce them on national TV. He stood up and declared they have a right to speak their minds because they are americans. Why didn't Obama do that? Why doesn't Palin? Answer: They are opportunists. I realize you accept lip service to religion, even if they're lying, but I don't. Honesty, or nothing. That's the biggest problem, to me. Crazy beliefs? Everybody has them. Let's get real and hear them. The only way to get real, is to stop punishing honesty. To quit pretending like religion is mental illness and to quit acting like hard core christians that believe in the second coming of christ haven't been enjoying access to the red button already.

Believing in the return of Jesus, or whatever is not a promotion of armageddon. It is a belief in the return of the savior. It's not "Hey lets the nuke the planet to get armageddon going so Jesus will come back, yeah!!!!" It's kooky, but it's the status quo and has been for quite some time. I'm against it, but fearful? Please, that's contrived. Pretend fear is just like 9/11 fear. It's just fear mongering. Quite appropriate for this thread actually.

Any of the babble spouted at church qualifies here. Just about any church on any given sunday will be filled with all kinds of kooky notions that resemble this kind of fantasy. Remember, Obama wants god to make him his tool. How is that any better? Palin didn't even say she's all into the armageddon theory, but Obama DID say he wants god to make him the tool of his will. Give me a break. You know damn good and well you're inflating this nonsense to make it sound like she's running around with her head full of god-fog. Her actions emulate someone who gets her values from her faith, not her marching orders. Just like Obama. Obama is just as guilty as Palin of accepting the fantacial extremism of church rhetoric, taken with a grain of salt. They're both down to earth enough to sluff that shit off, and you can tell by the success in their lives. I don't believe for a minute that Obama really wants to be god's tool and wishes to suspend all individuality for his will. Similarly, I don't believe for a minute that Palin wants to push the button for god, or wishes for a second that her and her family could be in the middle of armageddon. I mean seriously. This is just dumb. A low blow for this board. Neither of them are honest people, and you all just keep playing these disingenuous games pretending as if one really is better than the other. Sickening. This is the deprived state of politics. You are contributing to it 100%. Way to go.

No, I mean I'm not putting that paragraph together in my head right. Ok, so far so good.... Here's where I'm getting lost. Who's savings? Are we calling the additional revenue from cancelling the tax breaks, savings? If so, how and why does the government "pay for tax breaks and incentives"? Wait. I think I got it. Are they saying that the additional revenue from cancelling the tax breaks will offset proposed tax breaks and incentives for renewable fuels? That wording is kind of confusing.

That misses the point that the republicans don't like how the bill was written, and have basically been routed on this issue. The democrats kept them out of writing the bill and if I'm understanding what I'm reading, it eliminates tax break incentives for alternative fuels. But I'm not sure that second paragraph makes much sense. Savings from tax breaks to pay for tax breaks and incentives? Huh? Here's why the republicans are actually pissed: It's not a new practice to hijack another party's position while distorting it at the same time. I'm just not sure enough about the details of the bill to judge whether or not the democrats did that or not. The republicans are certainly saying that, but they could just be pissy because they just lost a major issue to throw in Obama's face.

Well, at least we are rational enough to agree on that point. I will choose my words carefully when referencing the successes and failures of the surge.

It's shifting more tax burden to the top 1%. We've established the principle of ganging up and pushing our tax burdens to a minority. There is no reason to think class envy will not continue to pimp this bullshit under the guise of fighting for the working man. It's crap and it's wrong. We're just basically saying there's more of us than them, so we'll continue to vote for them to take our burdens. Why not? What could possibly stop that trend? We obviously have no scruples. Maybe I'm just in a crap mood, but I hope we implode because of it. We deserve it.

No, one presumes that the percentage is calculated based on what he said: workers, not people paying taxes, or else he would have said that. Those are two different percentages. Obama would have had to say that his plan cuts taxes for 67% of workers and their families. Obama did not say workers with families either. I'm actually just having fun taking your guy to task for particulars. Since there's so much of that going on with Palin and McCain here, I figured I would try to balance it out. Not nearly as enjoyable as I thought it would be.

Well that's definitely better than what I saw on O'reilly. I guess the difference is whether The Surge is a military operation, or a military-political operation. Military operations usually support political operations, but we don't usually lump the two together to judge the military side of it. That's what has my head scratching here. For some reason, we're lumping the two together and I believe it's because people don't to admit success in Iraq. So they tie "The Surge" into the bigger picture, which is, of course, bleak and wrong and etc. This is the closest I've ever seen Obama to answering the damn question when he's asked. He always does a Palin and words his answer how he wants instead of saying, yes or no, and then completing his sentence. If the Surge lowered the violence dramatically and supported rebellions and helped to create a climate the government can operate in, then that's a successful operation. I say it worked. I say the politicians are blowing the breathing room created for them. He should say, "Yes, the Surge worked, but the political side has failed, miserably.". Then he gets points for admitting it worked, and he gets points for reminding everyone that this is still a mess. It's only false if you refuse to separate the military operation from political ones. I just thought "The Surge" was always in reference to the military operation. I can't imagine judging it any differently.

Straight from Obama's website: Obama’s Comprehensive Tax Policy Plan for America will: Cut taxes for 95 percent of workers and their families with a tax cut of $500 for workers or $1,000 for working couples. How can Obama cut taxes for 95% of workers when only 67% of them even pay taxes? Isn't that a lie? http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/1410.html http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/542.html

You're spinning again. Breathing room was provided, period. The Surge doesn't get its success from how well the breathing room was utilized - that's not the military's jurisdiction. And even if it was it wouldn't matter since there are many players here that we have no control over - remember? We're not supposed to be imperialists. We're supposed to give them the respect of representation and at least the semblence of running their own country and that means a distribution of power, not a consolidated force that can push through our agenda. And I say again, it has worked brilliantly to create the atmosphere for reconciliation, and a straight drop in violence. As good as you can achieve in a war, particularly a war like this one. I'm sorry if the atmosphere is being wasted by politics as usual, but it was provided. The Surge did what it was supposed to do. I would say, but I shoved it all up my ass like you requested above.

I don't know about unpatriotic, but definitely leftie and religious followers comes to mind. I call it how I see it, and I see democrat teammates dismiss the Surge the way creationists dismiss evolution. They seem to think it must solve everything in order to be credited - like the way creationists seem to think evolution must have an answer to everything to be credited. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/08/AR2008080802918.html The surge has worked to bring violence down to a stand still and has complimented rebellions against Al Queda and foreign insurgency, and that's still not crediting all of the dynamics here. The fallacy seems to be equating The Surge with the war. If the war isn't "successful", well then the the surge isn't successful either - and that's nonsense. The Surge is a campaign, not the war, that has dramatically turned things around like nothing we've been able to accomplish over there. Petraeus did a bang up job in planning and tactics, and deserves our thanks and appreciation. You can be against the war, like I am, and still recognize success and give people the credit they deserve. I won't expect that from those who have suspended individual thought and have pledged allegiance to a party.

Obama wouldn't admit the surge worked, so I doubt any of his religious followers will either. I'm curious how AIG is going to work out. Will that be another bail-out successfully predicted as "implied" government backing, if this loan thing doesn't work out? The financial market sure is a mess. I love it. It's what we need and what we deserve. We're made up of credit junkies and hacks and the credit market had to take a hit at some point. There is a risk to loaning money to people with bad credit, yet over the years it has become easier and easier to qualify poor credit scores. How does this happen? There is no such thing as risk if no one gets screwed exercising this risk. Personally, this hits me pretty hard. We really need to qualify for some kind of mortgage by January, or so of next year. From what I'm reading, it will be a rough ride, and we may not qualify. That's going to hurt. But the bigger picture is that maybe this will have a desirable psychological effect - kind of like how the great depression motivated your grandmother to save every scrap of anything worth anything and to embrace a frugile lifestyle. Maybe this credit crash will "right" the ship, remind us that we can't keep borrowing against the future, that eventually you really do have to pay for it. Maybe credit will burn us just enough that we are more responsible with it. Use it for mortgages, autos - and cut it out with splurging, theraputic shopping, and etc with money we haven't earned yet.

For what it's worth, Madison was arguably the most frail and sickly of the founding fathers yet he outlived them all. McCain does look that stubborn.

Good one. I'm going to use that, hope you don't mind.

Well, I'm not sure how much institutional "exclusion" is really present there. A couple of those examples certainly qualify, like refusing to help someone that wasn't a jew and so forth. But I don't think anything less than eternal kindness and gentle spirit makes him exclusionary. He can be mad, make philosophical points using shame and evasion without promoting a theme of exclusion. However, I'm way to ignorant about it. I read the first hundred pages, maybe, of the bible and put it down. I had always been taught Jesus surrounded himself with sinners, trying to help and so forth. So, in turn, I've always poked at exclusionary church policies based on that reasoning. Ah, well...

Why didn't I see that coming? Yeah, I'm with you on this one. But I've always loved Carlin's rant on the invisible man in the sky.

Apparently not. Since the majority opinion seems to be legislated most of the time, even on matters when opinion shouldn't be legislated, a book banner is only someone going against the majority opinion to cull books. This is a subtle example of majority siege, imo. Interesting. Similar to abortion serving eugenics, culling serves information control. But that's unfair really, since they're not banning them and theoretically could be requested. Because it is speech that does not cause damage. All speech should be fine as long as it does not jeopardize public safety - again, to demonstrate objective damage. You know...the yelling fire in a crowded theater bit. Otherwise, you're having to pass judgement and infer offense or damage, and that's the antagonist to liberty - it's how North Korea operates. It's also what Palin is doing when she makes excuses to ban these books. She has to make a value judgement, not a demonstration of harm.

That's cool. But I think it's a great demonstration of double standards that this hasn't taken off. Actually, I did hear some fox news analyst chick mention it, but she was making the point that their comments on faith should be taken with a grain of salt since "flowery" language is to be expected in that context. Which is BS. That's kind of the problem I think, to say things one doesn't mean and justify it by saying they weren't talking to me. Even worse, by that logic, this proves that both candidates are willing to stretch the truth when talking to an omnipotent being responsible for our very existence and could snuff us all out with a thought, so they say. Well hell, if you've got the nerve to lie to god... How easily will they stretch the truth with us? Prove it.