chr335 wrote:By the polls it isn't looking too good for McCain but after John "I served in Vietnam" Kerry lost in 2004 I tend to take polls with a grain of salt.
The polls showed John Kerry behind from late August on. There are reasons not to celebrate early just because the polls are good, but 2004 isn't one of them. You might be thinking about the exit polls which showed a Kerry win before the actual count showed otherwise, but those aren't the same kind of polls as what we're looking at now.
The real problem is McCain is just telling people why they shouldn't vote for Obama that isn't good enough with the panic over the economy if he really wants to win he needs to give reason's to vote for him. Obama just needs to shut his mouth and not make another foot in mouth comment like the bitter clinging to guns and religion remarks he made during the Primaries.
Ask Thomas Dewey about what happens when you clam up and try to coast with a big lead.
By keeping his mouth shut I meant making any foolish commits describing certain voter groups stick to the campaign talking points. There is no need to stomp on McCain he is too busy stabbing himself to really do any campaigning though I heard his speech in North Carolina was good.
So let me see if I understand your bright idea here: Obama has all the momentum, a big lead, and three weeks to go. Therefore, what he should do is...repeat Thomas Dewey's campaign of 1948, airily throw out talking points, and let John McCain throw all the punches he wants without fear of retaliation. Are you high? By your logic, a race car driver with a big lead on the last lap ought to get out and walk the rest of the way, so there's no risk he'll crash.
You do not win presidential elections in this country by coasting. You stay aggressive, you keep pounding the guy right up until November 4, and you take your chances you're going to make a mistake along the way--though it's worth noting, that "bitter" remark came when Obama was down big in Pennsylvania and flailing for a way to come back, which is another reason you keep the pressure on McSame. All of his worst mistakes have come after he fell behind. Obama backing off would be the one sure-bet way for McCain to get back in the race.
Any city gets what it admires, will pay for, and, ultimately, deserves…We want and deserve tin-can architecture in a tinhorn culture. And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed.--Ada Louise Huxtable, "Farewell to Penn Station", New York Times editorial, 30 October 1963 X-Ray Blues
chr335 wrote:So let me see if I understand your bright idea here: Obama has all the momentum, a big lead, and three weeks to go. Therefore, what he should do is...repeat Thomas Dewey's campaign of 1948, airily throw out talking points, and let John McCain throw all the punches he wants without fear of retaliation. Are you high? By your logic, a race car driver with a big lead on the last lap ought to get out and walk the rest of the way, so there's no risk he'll crash.
You do not win presidential elections in this country by coasting. You stay aggressive, you keep pounding the guy right up until November 4, and you take your chances you're going to make a mistake along the way--though it's worth noting, that "bitter" remark came when Obama was down big in Pennsylvania and flailing for a way to come back, which is another reason you keep the pressure on McSame. All of his worst mistakes have come after he fell behind. Obama backing off would be the one sure-bet way for McCain to get back in the race.
Where the fuck did I say anything about coasting? I had no idea that SELF PROMOTION was slacking off you respond to attacks when they come but why waste resources rehashing the same old McCain is Bush III attacks when that money would be better spend on gaining more votes.
swift death to evil
ninja>>>pirates>>>zombies the natural order
chr335 wrote:Where the fuck did I say anything about coasting?
When you said this, dipshit:
There is no need to stomp on McCain
Name me a successful presidential campaign where the candidate stopped attacking his opponent in October, and you'll have some kind of point.
I had no idea that SELF PROMOTION was slacking off you respond to attacks when they come but why waste resources rehashing the same old McCain is Bush III attacks when that money would be better spend on gaining more votes.
Because 1) they work, 2) when you have a zillion dollar war chest, you can do both at the same time, and 3) Obama would like to be the president, and unlike you, knows how to do it.
Any city gets what it admires, will pay for, and, ultimately, deserves…We want and deserve tin-can architecture in a tinhorn culture. And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed.--Ada Louise Huxtable, "Farewell to Penn Station", New York Times editorial, 30 October 1963 X-Ray Blues
chr335 wrote:Where the fuck did I say anything about coasting? I had no idea that SELF PROMOTION was slacking off you respond to attacks when they come but why waste resources rehashing the same old McCain is Bush III attacks when that money would be better spend on gaining more votes.
How have you established that it is a waste of resources to keep repeating the message that McCain is Bush III? It seems to be a highly effective message, so there is no reason to stop sending it.
Or are you suggesting that voters need hear something only once before they "get it" and then you should never repeat it again? Because that's just not realistic.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Darth Wong wrote:
Or are you suggesting that voters need hear something only once before they "get it" and then you should never repeat it again? Because that's just not realistic.
no I was suggesting it has been repeated enough to the point where everyone knows its true even though McCain and Bush only really agree on Iraq. I really hope we don't get another to the dam wire election like in 2000.
RedImperator I am sorry I just don't see a connection between a lack of negative ads and a lack of campaigning. But your right I can't think of any election won with out negative ads or lost for that matter.
swift death to evil
ninja>>>pirates>>>zombies the natural order
Remember when McCain said to supporters that he's going to kick Obama's "you know what" in the final debate? Looks like there's a note to append to the end of that story:
CNN wrote:Ayers will come up at debate, McCain says
(CNN) – John McCain and Sarah Palin appear to have dropped the subject of Barack Obama's connection to 1960's radical Bill Ayers from the campaign trail, but the Arizona senator said in an interview that aired Tuesday he'll likely bring it up at the third and final presidential debate Wednesday night.
The comments, during an interview with St. Louis radio station KMOX, come after Obama and Democratic VP candidate Joe Biden were sharply critical of McCain for targeting the Illinois senator over Ayers at campaign rallies, but not when the two last met for a presidential debate.
"I was astonished to hear him say that he was surprised I 'didn’t have the guts' to do that, because the fact is the question didn't come up in that fashion," McCain said of the last debate. "I think he's probably ensured it will come up this time."
McCain and Palin stepped up their criticism of Obama's past relationship with Ayers last week, as the GOP ticket's poll numbers continued to slide in the homestretch to Election Day. The campaign also released a string of ads that questioned Obama's truthfulness on the matter, in an effort to raise doubts about the Illinois senator's political origins and character. But the subject of Ayers was noticeably absent from both McCain and Palin's stump speeches Sunday and Monday, leading many political observers to conclude the campaign had deemed that line of attack ineffective.
Watch: Palin Renews Obama Attack
In the radio interview, McCain made clear he still thinks it's an issue.
"It’s not that I give a damn about some old washed up terrorist and his terrorist wife, who in 2001 said they wish they'd bombed more — what I care about, and what the American people care about, is whether he's being truthful," McCain told the St. Louis radio station.
I think I might have pop corn ready this time around.
If The Infinity Program were not a forum, it would be a pie-in-the-sky project. “Faith is both the prison and the open hand.”— Vienna Teng, "Augustine."
Darth Wong wrote:
Or are you suggesting that voters need hear something only once before they "get it" and then you should never repeat it again? Because that's just not realistic.
no I was suggesting it has been repeated enough to the point where everyone knows its true even though McCain and Bush only really agree on Iraq.
What? No, that's a load of shit too, and a perfect example of why Obama needs to keep pounding on McCain. McCain supports making the Bush tax cuts permanent, he supported and continues to support Bush's attempt to privatize Social Security, he supports Bush's plan to tax health benefits in order to pay for some half-assed health insurance tax credit, he's a serial deregulator just like Bush, he'd like to pack the Supreme Court with conservatives who would overturn Roe vs. Wade (he even cited Samuel Alito as the kind of judge he'd nominate), and he's just as belligerent towards Iran as Bush. Obama's criticism is perfectly fair and needs to be hammered relentlessly between now and Election Day, because if your opponent has done you the favor of tying himself to an incumbent with a 22% approval rating, you don't do him a favor and let that slide.
Any city gets what it admires, will pay for, and, ultimately, deserves…We want and deserve tin-can architecture in a tinhorn culture. And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed.--Ada Louise Huxtable, "Farewell to Penn Station", New York Times editorial, 30 October 1963 X-Ray Blues
Well done, Jonny.
You HAD to give your opponent a whole day to formulate the perfect way to smack down your stupid Ayers attack, didn't you? What use are tactics if you reveal them far too early?
chr335 wrote:I agree with privatizing Social security I would actually like to get some of the money I paid into it.
Why do you say this? Do you expect a personal and direct benifit for every tax dollar you send to the government?
They say, "the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots." I suppose it never occurred to them that they are the tyrants, not the patriots. Those weapons are not being used to fight some kind of tyranny; they are bringing them to an event where people are getting together to talk. -Mike Wong
But as far as board culture in general, I do think that young male overaggression is a contributing factor to the general atmosphere of hostility. It's not SOS and the Mess throwing hand grenades all over the forum- Red
chr335 wrote:I agree with privatizing Social security I would actually like to get some of the money I paid into it.
There's your problem, point blank. You're a glutton who can't defer gratification long enough to do you some good, so you accept a wild-eyed right-wing free market fantasy if it helps you fill your gut.
SirNitram wrote:Haven't looked at the DOW lately, have you, idiot?
The market goes up and down and privatization does not mean invest it in the stock market.
Knife wrote:Why do you say this? Do you expect a personal and direct benifit for every tax dollar you send to the government?
well seeing as I am promised social security benefits by paying social security taxes yes
ArcturusMengsk wrote:
There's your problem, point blank. You're a glutton who can't defer gratification long enough to do you some good, so you accept a wild-eyed right-wing free market fantasy if it helps you fill your gut.
I am not sure what you mean but it sounds like you think me keeping the money I worked for is a bad thing or am I misunderstanding you
swift death to evil
ninja>>>pirates>>>zombies the natural order
chr335 wrote:I am not sure what you mean but it sounds like you think me keeping the money I worked for is a bad thing or am I misunderstanding you
No, you fucking moron; I'm saying that the privatization of Social Security would be an unmitigated disaster that would likely lead to a lower standard of living for all elderly Americans drawing from it. Many of these people can barely make ends meet with a standardized check in the mail every month; imagine taking their only source of income and subjecting it to the whims of the market.
chr335 wrote:I am not sure what you mean but it sounds like you think me keeping the money I worked for is a bad thing or am I misunderstanding you
No, you fucking moron; I'm saying that the privatization of Social Security would be an unmitigated disaster that would likely lead to a lower standard of living for all elderly Americans drawing from it. Many of these people can barely make ends meet with a standardized check in the mail every month; imagine taking their only source of income and subjecting it to the whims of the market.
So why is it my problem they didn't prepare for retirement very well Social Security was never ever intended to be a sole means of support. And what the hell are these elderly going to do when Social Security goes bankrupt (which will happen). And what most people forget is Bush only wanted to do like 2% of the Social Security taxes you pay into a private account not everything.
swift death to evil
ninja>>>pirates>>>zombies the natural order
well seeing as I am promised social security benefits by paying social security taxes yes
Don't be a tool. You may be promised X but we all know how SS is structured and by simple virtue of such plus the demographics of the population paying versus receiving, you know damn well you aren't getting anything out of it. So again, do you expect a direct and personal benifit from all taxs you send to the government or are you some sort of ideologue who believes the sound bites instead of the real issues?
They say, "the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots." I suppose it never occurred to them that they are the tyrants, not the patriots. Those weapons are not being used to fight some kind of tyranny; they are bringing them to an event where people are getting together to talk. -Mike Wong
But as far as board culture in general, I do think that young male overaggression is a contributing factor to the general atmosphere of hostility. It's not SOS and the Mess throwing hand grenades all over the forum- Red
Tribun wrote:Well done, Jonny.
You HAD to give your opponent a whole day to formulate the perfect way to smack down your stupid Ayers attack, didn't you? What use are tactics if you reveal them far too early?
Oh, I think it's worse than that. The article said that McCain will push Ayers because Obama and Biden practically dared him to. You know what comes to mind? The scene that starts at 1:32 in this video. "I dare you to step over this line!"
chr335 wrote:So why is it my problem they didn't prepare for retirement very well
Because being concerned about the elderly is the ethical thing to do, unless you're a rightard sociopath (as you appear to be).
Social Security was never ever intended to be a sole means of support.
No, it wasn't. What it was intended to do - and which it can no longer do, as Bush has cut most of its programs - was to provide a basic means of support for requirements such as food and shelter, to take the burden off of the family of the benefactor.
And what the hell are these elderly going to do when Social Security goes bankrupt (which will happen).
It's only going to go bankrupt so long as right-wing nitwits continue to slash its funding. Why not slash the defense budget and use that to re-monetize Social Security instead?
chr335 wrote:I agree with privatizing Social security I would actually like to get some of the money I paid into it.
The merits of this idea aside, I'll take your concession that McCain is far more like Bush than you previously acknowledged. And seeing as the overwhelming majority of Americans don't want Social Security to be privatized, I fail to see how pointing out McCain wants to do that is a losing strategy.
Any city gets what it admires, will pay for, and, ultimately, deserves…We want and deserve tin-can architecture in a tinhorn culture. And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed.--Ada Louise Huxtable, "Farewell to Penn Station", New York Times editorial, 30 October 1963 X-Ray Blues
SirNitram wrote:Haven't looked at the DOW lately, have you, idiot?
The market goes up and down and privatization does not mean invest it in the stock market.
Okay, moron-boy. Point to where you invest it so you wouldn't have just lost your shirt?
Whereas if you pay into social security as it continues to work, with no changes and even with the 78% shortfall in benefits worst case shortfall in 2041, the real dollars you will be paid out of it will be...
125%, in real dollars, of what people in the system now get.
Because 78% of 160% is not less than 100. Don't believe me? Look up the various reports social security must make. And ignore the CBO's Low Cost model demands less economic growth than the Bush years.
Please run along now. You've shown you have no interest in using facts or figures or even putting anything hard down.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.
Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.
well seeing as I am promised social security benefits by paying social security taxes yes
Don't be a tool. You may be promised X but we all know how SS is structured and by simple virtue of such plus the demographics of the population paying versus receiving, you know damn well you aren't getting anything out of it. So again, do you expect a direct and personal benifit from all taxs you send to the government or are you some sort of ideologue who believes the sound bites instead of the real issues?
I believe that since I fucking paid money into Social Security I should get some Social Security benefits. Do I expect direct and personal benefits from paying all taxes no I don't just the ones that promise direct and personal benifits.
swift death to evil
ninja>>>pirates>>>zombies the natural order
well seeing as I am promised social security benefits by paying social security taxes yes
Don't be a tool. You may be promised X but we all know how SS is structured and by simple virtue of such plus the demographics of the population paying versus receiving, you know damn well you aren't getting anything out of it. So again, do you expect a direct and personal benifit from all taxs you send to the government or are you some sort of ideologue who believes the sound bites instead of the real issues?
I believe that since I fucking paid money into Social Security I should get some Social Security benefits. Do I expect direct and personal benefits from paying all taxes no I don't just the ones that promise direct and personal benifits.
Please show the CBO report that says you will get nothing.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.
Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.
well seeing as I am promised social security benefits by paying social security taxes yes
Don't be a tool. You may be promised X but we all know how SS is structured and by simple virtue of such plus the demographics of the population paying versus receiving, you know damn well you aren't getting anything out of it. So again, do you expect a direct and personal benifit from all taxs you send to the government or are you some sort of ideologue who believes the sound bites instead of the real issues?
I believe that since I fucking paid money into Social Security I should get some Social Security benefits. Do I expect direct and personal benefits from paying all taxes no I don't just the ones that promise direct and personal benifits.
Well then fucking retire and you'll see those benefits, nitwit. That's what Social Security is: gratification deferment, or, to put it more succinctly, an insurance on your future.
chr335 wrote:
I believe that since I fucking paid money into Social Security I should get some Social Security benefits. Do I expect direct and personal benefits from paying all taxes no I don't just the ones that promise direct and personal benifits.
What are these promises you keep speaking of? Or are they more campaign like promises you've converted into rights you want to demand? Considering it takes all the workers can do now to pay the SS of the retired, what part of the program is going to allow for it to continue with your right to have money later if the retiree's outnumber the workers? It is your right to demand money from your children and grandchildren?
Why is it you MUST get something out of SS, even if you don't need it? Not saying you won't but let's explore this demand for 'what's yours' you have with SS. Do you believe you own some sort of surface area on some part of the large freeway system that was set up with your tax money? Would you demand to use it even if it was broken up and underivable since it was your tax money that went into that particular square footage? Do you demand that some particular tank or perhaps a particular police car defend you since YOUR tax money went ito buying that particular item?
Programs that benifit Society are supposed to benifit society in whole and not necessarily every individual. If SS is broken and by and large won't be able to live up to its commitments, why shouldn't those in society who 'qualify' but don't need it take a hit for society even if they 'put their money' into it.
They say, "the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots." I suppose it never occurred to them that they are the tyrants, not the patriots. Those weapons are not being used to fight some kind of tyranny; they are bringing them to an event where people are getting together to talk. -Mike Wong
But as far as board culture in general, I do think that young male overaggression is a contributing factor to the general atmosphere of hostility. It's not SOS and the Mess throwing hand grenades all over the forum- Red
ArcturusMengsk wrote:
Because being concerned about the elderly is the ethical thing to do, unless you're a rightard sociopath (as you appear to be).
I am all for Charity but how is being force at the point of a gun to support someone else ethical?
No, it wasn't. What it was intended to do - and which it can no longer do, as Bush has cut most of its programs - was to provide a basic means of support for requirements such as food and shelter, to take the burden off of the family of the benefactor.
you are right looking at the original 1935 law it was set up that way I take back my earlier statement about being retirement a supplement
And what the hell are these elderly going to do when Social Security goes bankrupt (which will happen).
It's only going to go bankrupt so long as right-wing nitwits continue to slash its funding. Why not slash the defense budget and use that to re-monetize Social Security instead?[/quote] I have found what appears to be the social securty budget from 1936 to 2006 http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy02/ ... st13z1.xls I can't find anything that suggests funding slash but maybe someone better at accounting them me can do it.
swift death to evil
ninja>>>pirates>>>zombies the natural order
