[QUOTE=ewmayer;141574]George, it baffles me that an intelligent truth-seeking individual like yourself can find something to like in these lying scumbags.[/QUOTE]

I'm not a fan of lying or truth-stretching. All politicians do it - especially in campaigns. I'm also not a big fan of labeling politicians scumbags (but if the last name is Clinton I can't help myself :smile:). I'm not a fan of Obama's recent irrelevant, bashing-the-rich, "McCain owns 7 homes" ad. In short, there is a lot about politics and government I'm not a fan of. I'm quite cynical.

Yet, for the first time ever, I find things to like in both parties candidates. McCain's POW story is powerful and his willingness to take unpopular stands is refreshing. Obama is smart, eloquent and inspiring. Coupled with the right policies, he could take America past the me,me,me baby-boomer generation.

I'm still in the undecided camp. It will all hinge on the third debate on economic policy. Obama is far more liberal fiscally than I like. If I think his policies will lead to a huge increase in government programs, then I'll vote for McCain in hopes of gridlock. If Obama refuses to give more details than he has to date, then I'll have a dilemma. I'd probably take a risk on a positive outcome rather than opting for the blocking move.

[QUOTE=Prime95;141587]I'm not a fan of lying or truth-stretching. All politicians do it - especially in campaigns.[/QUOTE]
"Stretching" is one thing ... "distorting beyond all recognition, or to the point where a reasonable hearer would infer the precise opposite of what actually occurred" is to me tantamount to a flat-out falsehood.

[QUOTE]I'm also not a big fan of labeling politicians scumbags (but if the last name is Clinton I can't help myself :smile:).[/QUOTE]
I calls 'em as I sees 'em - and to me, folks who repeatedly lie for political gain deserve the label. When Bill lied about Monica and "not inhaling" and so forth, I also considered him a lying scumbag. One difference, though - I didn't believe his political actions and policies to represent a clear and present danger to the country, as I do with Bush and McCain's. And I'm not necessarily talking about the Great Neocon Iraqi Adventure - supporting fiscal policies which end up wrecking a nation's economy is at least as dangerous as starting an ill-conceived war. Similarly, I consider Palin's religious zealotry and amply-demonstrated inability/unwillingness to separate her religious views from her official actions and policies a real danger to the constitutional separation of church and state, which has already been significantly eroded by 2 Bush terms.

[QUOTE]I'm not a fan of Obama's recent irrelevant, bashing-the-rich, "McCain owns 7 homes" ad.[/QUOTE]
We can argue about relevance or lack thereof, but there is one *tiny* difference between that ad and the McCain/Palin ones - namely, the Obama ad is [b]factually correct[/b], even if you don't like the spin. Although, yes, the ad is not entirely accurate - as it turns out, McCain & wife own at least [url=http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/aug/22/mccain-hangs-a-curve-on-number-of-homes-owned/]eight properties[/url], and some of those contain multiple houses and outbuildings. Shame on you, Obama, for getting the number wrong.

I'm just disappointed that my state only gives two options to vote for (and no write-ins). :yucky:

[QUOTE=ewmayer;141602]"Stretching" is one thing ... "distorting beyond all recognition, or to the point where a reasonable hearer would infer the precise opposite of what actually occurred" is to me tantamount to a flat-out falsehood.

[/QUOTE]

Has anyone noticed that Bush Senior has announced publicly that he will
not vote for McCain????? He doesn't like Obama either.

BTW, Palin has not [b]just[/b] shown herself to be a religious nut-job.
She has shown that she is willing to [b]abuse[/b] her position of power
to further her religious beliefs.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;141693]BTW, Palin has not [b]just[/b] shown herself to be a religious nut-job.
She has shown that she is willing to [b]abuse[/b] her position of power
to further her religious beliefs.[/QUOTE]

That might end up being the issue that tips the scales for me. I consider myself a non-theistic Christian. Her religious beliefs frighten me (as would any other religious zealots). I do not think that McCain will apply the pro-life litmus test to any Supreme Court appointee, but she would if she had the opportunity. IMO, people like her would love to turn the U.S. into a Christian version of Iran.

I heard someone on the radio today imply that if McCain wins this year that it could be a Palin vs. Clinton election in 2012. That's really scary.

So Palin is a "tough fiscal conservative", eh?
 

[url=http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1839724,00.html]Time Magazine | Sarah Palin's Alaskonomics[/url]
[quote]...maybe Governor Palin does represent everything that is good and fine about America, as she herself maintains. But spare us, please, any talk about how she is a tough fiscal conservative.

Palin has continued to repeat the already exposed lie that she said "No, thanks" to the famous "bridge to nowhere" (McCain's favorite example of wasteful federal spending). In fact, she said "Yes, please" until the project became a symbol and political albatross.

Back to reality. Of the 50 states, Alaska ranks No. 1 in taxes per resident and No. 1 in spending per resident. Its tax burden per resident is 2 1/2 times the national average; its spending, more than double. The trick is that Alaska's government spends money on its own citizens and taxes the rest of us to pay for it. Although Palin, like McCain, talks about liberating ourselves from dependence on foreign oil, there is no evidence that being dependent on Alaskan oil would be any more pleasant to the pocketbook.

Alaska is, in essence, an adjunct member of OPEC. It has four different taxes on oil, which produce more than 89% of the state's unrestricted revenue. On average, three-quarters of the value of a barrel of oil is taken by the state government before that oil is permitted to leave the state. Alaska residents each get a yearly check for about $2,000 from oil revenues, plus an additional $1,200 pushed through by Palin last year to take advantage of rising oil prices. Any sympathy the governor of Alaska expresses for folks in the lower 48 who are suffering from high gas prices or can't afford to heat their homes is strictly crocodile tears.

As if it couldn't support itself, Alaska also ranks No. 1, year after year, in money it sucks in from Washington. In 2005 (the most recent figures), according to the Tax Foundation, Alaska ranked 18th in federal taxes paid per resident ($5,434) but first in federal spending received per resident ($13,950). Its ratio of federal spending received to federal taxes paid ranks third among the 50 states, and in the absolute amount it receives from Washington over and above the amount it sends to Washington, Alaska ranks No. 1.

...

One thing Barack Obama and McCain disagree on is an oil windfall–profits tax. McCain is against it, on the theory that it is a tax and therefore bad, and also that it would discourage domestic production. Obama is for it, on the theory that if oil companies can make a nice profit when oil sells for $50 per bbl., they can still make a nice profit when it sells for more than $100, even if the government takes a bit and spreads the money around to those who are hurting from higher oil prices.

Although Palin's words side with McCain in this dispute, her actions side with Obama. Her major legislative accomplishment has been to revamp Alaska's windfall-profits tax in order to increase the state's take. Alaska calls it a "clear and equitable share" tax. The state assumes that extracting oil from the tundra costs about $25 per bbl. and takes as much as 75% of the difference between that and the sale price.

Why is a windfall-profits tax good for Alaska but not for the U.S.? Well, it's obvious, isn't it? People in Alaska are better than people in the rest of the U.S. They're more American. Although there are small towns and farms and high school hockey teams in the lower 48, there are fewer down here, per capita, than in Alaska. And there are many more journalists and pollsters and city dwellers and other undesirables who might benefit if every American had the same right to leech off the government as do the good citizens of Sarah Palin's Alaska.[/quote]

Regarding GOP accusations that Obama's "lipstick on a pig" remark ("... you can put lipstick on a pig; it's still a pig.") was sexist:

NPR just broadcast a number of recordings of politicians (including Cheney) making that, or a similar, "lipstick on a pig" remark in previous years. (None of those politicians were accused of sexism at those times.) Then NPR interviewed, by phone, a pig farmer as he stood out in a field with his pigs and a tube of lipstick. The fellow applied lipstick to a pig's lips, as well as he could (pigs have very small lips) but getting most of it on the pig's nose. He then confirmed that the just-lipsticked animal remained ... a pig.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;141828]Regarding GOP accusations that Obama's "lipstick on a pig" remarks were sexist.[/QUOTE]

Obama's comment was ill-conceived in the age of sound bite politics. Palin's lipstick joke from her convention speech was played over-and-over last week. So in many minds Palin/lipstick are associated with one another. When the news organizations clip Obama's comment down to "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig" the quick reaction is "Did he just call Palin a pig?"

Surely unintentional as it is was vote-losing comment.

Yes, George, we all got the reference.

When Palin compared soccer moms to lipsticked pit bulls, did any Republican (or Democrat, for that matter) accuse [I]her[/I] of sexism for that remark?

Has conservative word-twisting (e.g., "values", "government spending", "'death' tax") managed to convert all jokes about applying lipstick to an animal whose name begins with any letter of ["G", "O", "P"] into ones that only Republicans may utter without bias?

"Putting lipstick on a pig" is an extremely common expression in the financial world, meaning "making something out to be better than it is."

But since the GOP have nothing useful to say on any substantive issues, this is the kind of "meaningful political debate" we get.

And, rampant sexist that I am, I see Palin *still* has yet to make her first unscripted appearance. But she's really very attractive ... and she can flay a moose in seconds flat, even if it's wearing lipstick.

[i]Guardian[/i]'s headline writer has fun:

"Obama collars McCain over claim of Palin lipstick smear"

[URL]http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/10/uselections2008.barackobama1[/URL]