Ah Hilary’s speech…Well, if she had spoke like that during the primaries, I may (strong may) have supported her. I found it very interesting how she interlaced references to Women’s voting rights and Harriet Tubman. But she failed when she talked about certain Americans. What she could learn the name of the cancer-stricken mother with autistic kids and the guy that went to war? Is that too much to ask.
Oh the Dems are really workin’ in over time to get back into control…
[quote]Although Americans are more likely to say Obama, rather than McCain, will raise their taxes, they favor Obama as the candidate better able to handle taxes by 48% to 43%. In part, this may be because a majority of Americans see Obama’s policies as benefiting the middle class and the poor the most, while a majority see McCain’s policies as benefiting the wealthy. In turn, this could work against Mitt Romney, who has a Wall Street background, in the vice presidential stakes since McCain may want to avoid reinforcing this “favoring the wealthy” perception.
It is also possible that McCain’s record of voting against the Bush tax cuts (although he now supports extending them) and his reputation as a “maverick” have some Americans believing – contrary to what might be expected with a Republican in the White House – he will raise federal income taxes if elected. In this regard, the fact that about one in three independents see a tax increase in a McCain presidency is something that might be of concern to the Republicans in the weeks ahead. In fact, how the candidates handle the tax issue in a time of recession may give voters significant insight into the fundamental economic policies of each candidate.[/quote]
It doesn’t matter that Obama says he will cut taxes for 95% of the people. It just matters what people believe.
[quote=“Dr. McCoy”]Gallup
[quote]Although Americans are more likely to say Obama, rather than McCain, will raise their taxes, they favor Obama as the candidate better able to handle taxes by 48% to 43%. In part, this may be because a majority of Americans see Obama’s policies as benefiting the middle class and the poor the most, while a majority see McCain’s policies as benefiting the wealthy. In turn, this could work against Mitt Romney, who has a Wall Street background, in the vice presidential stakes since McCain may want to avoid reinforcing this “favoring the wealthy” perception.
It is also possible that McCain’s record of voting against the Bush tax cuts (although he now supports extending them) and his reputation as a “maverick” have some Americans believing – contrary to what might be expected with a Republican in the White House – he will raise federal income taxes if elected. In this regard, the fact that about one in three independents see a tax increase in a McCain presidency is something that might be of concern to the Republicans in the weeks ahead. In fact, how the candidates handle the tax issue in a time of recession may give voters significant insight into the fundamental economic policies of each candidate.[/quote]
It doesn’t matter that Obama says he will cut taxes for 95% of the people. It just matters what people believe.[/quote]
It matters a lot what Obama says as he’s been recently wishy-washy. The problem is, McCain may have been a very different Republican, the kind that could have worked well, but he had to contend with the conservative side, which is very powerful, and unfortunately has stifled his original agenda.
Sometimes the truth slips out:
[quote]In an alley behind a non-descript row of brick buildings on North Speer Boulevard, and on the other side of a large metal gate with armed guards standing in front, Republicans have set up a “war room” in Denver.
In this west side location that is not far from the Pepsi Center yet out of sight from Democratic delegates and protesters walking downtown, Republicans will be crafting anti-Barack Obama messages nearly round the clock this week.
Republican National Committee Chairman Mike Duncan said the team of nearly two dozen staffers at the opposition headquarters will be “fact-checking” statements made by the Obama campaign and by speakers during the convention.
“Just consider this the Ministry of Truth,” quipped Dick Wadhams, chairman of the Colorado Republican Party. [/quote]
George Orwell, 1984:
“The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation. These contradictions are not accidental, nor do they result from ordinary hypocrisy; they are deliberate exercises in doublethink.”
Truly a great prophet!
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]They still come across as elitists. The populace sees that.
Look at their circle of friends…people don’t like what they are seeing. (people = the average American. Which most on here look down on and consider base and low)[/quote]
I’m quite certain that the overwhelming majority of Democratic and Republican politicians are elitist. The definition of elitism is:
What’s wrong with thinking that people with extraordinary skills, abilities, and wisdom are better fit to govern than say, a burger flipper? I think that most poor people are also elitist, as they tend to vote for extraordinary people just like the middle and upper classes do. I’m sure the counterargument to this is that Bush is, you know, a “man of the people.” I’m not sure what that means, but he’s the scion of a wealthy political family, has degrees from Yale and Harvard, owned two businesses, and governed a state of millions prior to becoming President. He is a member of the elite, and I think there’s little doubt that he believes himself and his kind better fit to govern than forklift operators.
Is there anyone here who believes that most Republicans and Democrats are not elitists?
I know some see any mention of Ted Kennedy as an excuse to hurl insults, but one has to give the guy a lot of credit for his huge committment, to show up and give a great speech at the convention. How many of us would have done the same if in his condition?
[quote]Senator Edward M. Kennedy had just left a hospital bed here when he delivered his speech to the Democratic National Convention on Monday night, after suffering a debilitating bout of kidney stones Sunday upon arriving in town, aides said.
. . . In June, he had told family members when he left the Duke University Medical Center, where he was operated on for brain cancer, that he was intent on giving the speech.
And with less than two hours to go before he was to take the stage, Mr. Kennedy — sitting unnoticed in a room at the University of Colorado Hospital — told his wife, Victoria, and doctors that he wanted to go to the Pepsi Center and deliver the speech.
He was driven there, accompanied by a doctor and paramedics, perched on a golf cart that took him inside. Mr. Kennedy, with his wife and his niece Caroline at his side, walked gingerly onto the stage, where he delivered a highly acclaimed address. He then returned to the hospital, where he spent the night. . .
. . . after Mr. Kennedy finally decided he was well enough to come to Denver over the weekend, they became alarmed when he arrived on Sunday after a long charter airplane flight, and reported being in excruciating pain.
Their first concern was that the pain was somehow related to his cancer, or the chemotherapy and radiology he had undergone, and that it had been complicated by the long flight or the high altitude of the city. A visit to a local hospital Sunday night revealed it was kidney stones and was unrelated to his cancer.
. . . Kidney stones are notoriously painful, and typically treated with morphine or other painkillers. (Aides would not say whether Mr. Kennedy had been given painkillers, or whether any stones had passed.)
Mr. Kennedy’s longtime associate Bob Shrum said that as soon as the senator became ill, he sent an even shorter three-sentence statement that Mr. Kennedy could read . . . Kennedy, in informing him that he wanted to speak, had rejected that option.
“He said, ‘I’m not getting up to go over there and give a three-sentence speech,’ ” Mr. Shrum said.
Mr. Kennedy’s advisers said he had begun working on the speech about three weeks ago and went through rehearsals every day when his health permitted. They said he made clear that he did not want to be represented at the convention only by a videotape tribute. . .[/quote]
nytimes.com/2008/08/27/us/po … dy.html?em
Most Republican and Democratic party members, or most elected politicians?
TC’s comment is reflective of the triumph of republican rhetoric: “a man’s house is his castle”, and “the gov’t’s got no place in my business.” Save that the show is run by men like the Bushes and McCains, whose houses are castles, and whose businesses – like Hunt Oil – are seriously massive and influential. The rhetoric is just as appealing to the little guys, most of whom either don’t realize, or forget, that the big boys aren’t talking about them. Even a cursory look at the history of property requirements for voting tells the story. Parties that realize this and attempt to curtail the political power of the economically powerful get dinged with being ‘elitists’ and ‘paternalists’. And it works, because no one wants to admit to being disadvantaged relative to all but the wealthiest. Silly psychology and political idiocy. And unlikely to change any time soon.
[quote=“Mother Theresa”]I know some see any mention of Ted Kennedy as an excuse to hurl insults, but one has to give the guy a lot of credit for his huge committment, to show up and give a great speech at the convention. How many of us would have done the same if in his condition?
[quote]Senator Edward M. Kennedy had just left a hospital bed here when he delivered his speech to the Democratic National Convention on Monday night, after suffering a debilitating bout of kidney stones Sunday upon arriving in town, aides said.
. . . In June, he had told family members when he left the Duke University Medical Center, where he was operated on for brain cancer, that he was intent on giving the speech.
And with less than two hours to go before he was to take the stage, Mr. Kennedy — sitting unnoticed in a room at the University of Colorado Hospital — told his wife, Victoria, and doctors that he wanted to go to the Pepsi Center and deliver the speech.
He was driven there, accompanied by a doctor and paramedics, perched on a golf cart that took him inside. Mr. Kennedy, with his wife and his niece Caroline at his side, walked gingerly onto the stage, where he delivered a highly acclaimed address. He then returned to the hospital, where he spent the night. . .
. . . after Mr. Kennedy finally decided he was well enough to come to Denver over the weekend, they became alarmed when he arrived on Sunday after a long charter airplane flight, and reported being in excruciating pain.
Their first concern was that the pain was somehow related to his cancer, or the chemotherapy and radiology he had undergone, and that it had been complicated by the long flight or the high altitude of the city. A visit to a local hospital Sunday night revealed it was kidney stones and was unrelated to his cancer.
. . . Kidney stones are notoriously painful, and typically treated with morphine or other painkillers. (Aides would not say whether Mr. Kennedy had been given painkillers, or whether any stones had passed.)
Mr. Kennedy’s longtime associate Bob Shrum said that as soon as the senator became ill, he sent an even shorter three-sentence statement that Mr. Kennedy could read . . . Kennedy, in informing him that he wanted to speak, had rejected that option.
“He said, ‘I’m not getting up to go over there and give a three-sentence speech,’ ” Mr. Shrum said.
Mr. Kennedy’s advisers said he had begun working on the speech about three weeks ago and went through rehearsals every day when his health permitted. They said he made clear that he did not want to be represented at the convention only by a videotape tribute. . .[/quote]
nytimes.com/2008/08/27/us/po … dy.html?em[/quote]
Too bad MJK couldn’t show up and speak at the convention, isn’t it? Too bad Teddy didn’t show some committment to getting her out of the car. Guess he was too committed to his political career. Shame about that.
How many of us are trying to live down killing someone in a drunk driving accident, then getting away with it via suspended sentence and no manslaughter trial, then never having the balls to go on TV, look in a camera, and say, “You know what? I never should have left that young woman there to die the way I did. Being a Kennedy, it was easy for me to have that whole affair swept under the rug the way it was… but I am truly, truly sorry.”
This guy – a public servant – has never told the whole truth about this incident, and therefore deserves little respect as a public figure. Having brain cancer and being carted into a forum and standing on his own two feet is no more than thousands of other brave cancer patients do every day. Excuse me if I don’t applaud this creep for leaning against lectern and flapping his gums.
Whatever. I knew I was tossing a softball for you guys. Sometimes the words a person speaks reflect more on the speaker than anything else.
He should save them for Mary Jo Kopechne.
This is a game to play in the future. Someone mention Ted kennedy and then count how long it takes Chewey to bring up Mary Jo. The one with the best time wins.
Edit: I shouldn’t say Chewey, it was the late great Comrade Evil Dr. Stalin that was also good at it.
MJK
He should save them for Mary Jo Kopechne.[/quote]
Fast Teddy is still a Sacred Cow for some people…(see above)
The very definition of infantilized political culture:
Fact:
[quote]The New York Times, in a report on January 12, 2005, reported testimony suggesting that the following events had taken place at Abu Ghraib:
* Urinating on detainees
* Jumping on detainee's leg (a limb already wounded by gunfire) with such force that it could not thereafter heal properly
* Continuing by pounding detainee's wounded leg with collapsible metal baton
* Pouring phosphoric acid on detainees
* Sodomization of detainees with a baton
* Tying ropes to the detainees' legs or penises and dragging them across the floor.
[…]
It was discovered that one prisoner, Manadel al-Jamadi, died as a result of abuse, a death that was ruled a homicide by the military.[[/quote]Other prisoners have died while in American custody at Abu Ghraib, but their deaths were not found to be homicides.
Maybe Ted Kennedy’s behavior that night and since is acceptable to some but it’s not okay by me:
[quote]The incident carries a controversial dark-cloud for Kennedy because John Farrar, the diver who retrieved Kopechne’s body early the following morning, stated Kopechne was in a position suggesting she had been breathing from a pocket of air trapped in the back-seat wheel well and had suffocated and not drowned, which implied that had Kennedy contacted authorities immediately, rescuers may have saved her life. However, since Kopechne’s parents’ lawyer, Joseph Flanagan, filed a petition barring an autopsy, the cause of death was never medically confirmed. When the car was recovered, all the doors were locked and three of the windows were either open or smashed in.
Kopechne’s parents also claim that they learned of their daughter’s death from Ted Kennedy before he reported his involvement to the authorities, and that they only learned he had been the driver through wire press releases some time later.
Kennedy ultimately received a deferred six-month sentence for leaving the scene of an accident. Kennedy defenders claim the legal case proved Kennedy was clear of guilt, whereas critics of the incident assert Kennedy got off lightly because of his family and political connections, and that many details were swept under the rug only to emerge later through journalistic efforts that suggested little effort was made to gather information detrimental to Kennedy.[/quote]
But your quips are still tolerated.
You gotta love conservatives.
They’re always complaining about the shiftless, um, “African-Americans” who sit around demanding hand-outs and won’t work their way up like decent white folks do, and when someone like Michelle or Barack Obama does exactly that, what’s the response?
They’re so uppity, ooops, “elitist”.
But your quips are still tolerated.[/quote]
On point and informative vs. “Bart, pull my finger!”
Satire vs. a pie in the face.
Overstuffed windbags should be pricked, particularly when being dressed up for sainthood, and you ought to be smart enough to use a pin rather than… I don’t know, what’s not quite as sharp and even less accurate than a sledge hammer?
[quote=“MikeN”]You gotta love conservatives.
They’re always complaining about the shiftless, um, “African-Americans” who sit around demanding hand-outs and won’t work their way up like decent white folks do, and when someone like Michelle or Barack Obama does exactly that, what’s the response?
They’re so uppity, ooops, “elitist”.[/quote]
Is that what it’s like in your world MikeN?
I’ve never seen that in mine. However I have seen the Demo party work long and hard to perpetuate the plantation mentality with minorities. Keeping them on the government tit and ruining the family unit in those who got on the Demo gov’t ‘gravy train.’
But getting back on topic…
Hillary Intro Video Contains Jimi Hendrix “Are You Experienced” Soundbyte <===YouTube video. (no, its not a trick. Its the real deal)
Speaker of the House Pelosi got a smack-down “…for her erroneous comments on the Church’s abortion teaching.”
[quote]Cardinal Egan Corrects Speaker Nancy Pelosi
8/27/2008
Catholic News Agency (catholicnewsagency.com)
“What the Speaker had to say… was utterly incredible in this day and age.”
NEW YORK, NY (CNA) - Representative Nancy Pelosi has been a lightning rod for the ire of conservatives for some time, but now she has drawn fire of a different kind. Within the last 24 hours, the archbishops of Denver, New York, Philadelphia and Washington D.C., along with Bishop William Lori have all publicly upbraided the Speaker of the House for her erroneous comments on the Church’s abortion teaching.
In a Meet the Press interview on August 24, Pelosi responded to a question from Tom Brokaw about when human life begins, saying “as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition . . . St. Augustine said at three months. We don’t know. The point is, is that it shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose.”
Cardinal Edward Egan of New York became the latest prelate to denounce Ms. Pelosi’s comments when he said on Tuesday, “Like many other citizens of this nation, I was shocked to learn that the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States of America would make the kind of statements that were made to Mr. Tom Brokaw of NBC-TV on Sunday, August 24, 2008.”
Not only was Cardinal Egan shocked, but he went on to say that, “What the Speaker had to say about theologians and their positions regarding abortion was not only misinformed; it was also, and especially, utterly incredible in this day and age.”
The crystal-clear photographs and films that give people the ability to see babies in their pregnant mothers’ wombs make it impossible for anyone with “the slightest measure of integrity or honor” to fail to know what these “marvelous beings manifestly, clearly, and obviously are, as they smile and wave into the world outside the womb,” Cardinal Egan asserted.
“In simplest terms, they are human beings with an inalienable right to live, a right that the Speaker of the House of Representatives is bound to defend at all costs for the most basic of ethical reasons. They are not parts of their mothers, and what they are depends not at all upon the opinions of theologians of any faith.”
The head of the Catholic Church in New York closed his statement by saying that anyone who defends abortion is not fit to be a leader in a civilized democracy. “Anyone who dares to defend that they may be legitimately killed because another human being ‘chooses’ to do so or for any other equally ridiculous reason should not be providing leadership in a civilized democracy worthy of the name.”
Cardinal Justin Rigali, chairman of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, and Bishop William E. Lori, chairman of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Doctrine also issued a statement on Monday evening in which they remarked, “Nancy Pelosi misrepresented the history and nature of the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church against abortion.”
The two prelates then provided a historical recounting of the Church’s teaching on abortion and reaffirmed that “the Church teaches that from the time of conception (fertilization), each member of the human species must be given the full respect due to a human person, beginning with respect for the fundamental right to life.”
Writing in a Monday statement, Archbishop of Washington D.C. Donald Wuerl also criticized Pelosi’s comments. The archbishop emphasized that elected officials have the right to address matters of public policy, but added “the interpretation of Catholic faith has rightfully been entrusted to the Catholic bishops.”
“Given this responsibility to teach, it is important to make this correction for the record,” he continued.
The archbishop then quoted paragraphs 2270 through 2271 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which read:
“Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception…Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law.”
The archbishop said the Catechism goes on to quote the Didache, an early Christian treatise from the first century AD, which reads: “You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.”
“From the beginning, the Catholic Church has respected the dignity of all human life from the moment of conception to natural death,” Archbishop Wuerl insisted.
On Monday Charles J. Chaput, Archbishop of Denver, and James D. Conley, Auxiliary Bishop of Denver, also released a statement responding to Pelosi’s comments, saying “ardent, practicing Catholics will quickly learn from the historical record that from apostolic times, the Christian tradition overwhelmingly held that abortion was grievously evil.”
catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=29033[/quote]