bmags

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news...e.statesman.com unfortunately there are some disgusting comments below it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 29, 2008 -> 03:10 PM) Now some conservatives are attacking Obama for using the phrase "negative liberties." I think they think Obama means "bad liberties" but they just don't really know what negative means. It's a concept they must have missed in grade school civics. http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/neg...nd_obama_n.html maybe the dumbest article I've ever seen.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 29, 2008 -> 03:24 AM) So I was at the Illinois State building (69 W. Washington) where they have early voting in the basement, there were long lines. It was pretty interesting to see just how many people seem to be voting early, I think voter turnout may be really high this year. I feel like early voting was to avoid long lines.

As much as you think it would be possible for a semantics argument to be made about the tax increases being attributed to Bush, it wouldn't. Nobody would believe that the tax raises on every bracket two years could be attributed to Bush by the democrats. For one, you are giving them far too much credit, and for two these are WILD extrapolations. You have absolutely no evidence as to this claim that Obama will simply let all of the Bush tax cuts to expire and then blame it on Bush 2 years later, when nobody will care. He is claiming that no one under 250 Gs will see their taxes raised, if in 4 years they are, income tax wise, he would be screwed. You say he is just that arrogant that he wouldn't care, and that doesn't make any sense.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Oct 29, 2008 -> 03:22 AM) So why is he putting all those resources there, then? And frankly, who cares? It's because he can. No other reason, really. I could say who cares to everything you say, it doesn't prove any point. What's your argument that he's so arrogant he'll tax increase every bracket without fear of re-election? That he eats arugula?

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Oct 29, 2008 -> 03:16 AM) Um, no, he has more money then God and wants to wipe the map so he can claim (add REVERB - VICTORRRRYYYYYY) EVERYWHERE! And a "TRUE MANDATE OF CHANGE"... unlike the doofus ass we have for a president now said 4 years ago. Right, but nebraska wouldn't turn red with him getting that district. He'd get 1 electoral vote. He wouldn't be able to claim victory there. So if he wants to win so badly that he has contingency plans to even get 1 electoral vote in NE, what does that say about how he'll play to get re-elected in your frame of Obama. Arrogance would be putting a ton of resources in Arizona and risking OH and FLA, not this.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Oct 29, 2008 -> 02:10 AM) A realist knows that Clinton would have never survived after 4 years. He learned something by HillaryCare getting hammered. Obama's more arrogant then that. So he started running trying to push all these liberal things, then gets defeated re election runs as centrist. Obama's more arrogant than that...right. So arrogant that he's going to win that he has staff in Omaha nebraska just to try and pry away that one electoral vote.

Clinton went left during elections then governed central? Right. That's the exact opposite of what he was accused of doing during his reign. This is all bunk. You are creating what you want to hear, that Obama is so pro taxes he's going to tax even more than tax itself! If the upper middle class sees an income tax increase when they were told they wouldn't, then his chances at a second term are over. And if you are accusing him to just be a politician who wants power, he wouldn't be dumb enough to seal his fate.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Oct 29, 2008 -> 02:09 AM) haha but he can still vote in the senate if he wins! can he submit his senate votes from jail, like an absentee ballot for imprisoned United States senators? I'd bet the reason he's staying because if he does win, he can step down and be replaced by Gov. Palin

FT, exactly. When that part happened with Eric telling him to walk away, is when me and my roommate looked at eachother and rolled our eyes. They are caricatures of themselves, I think the writers are turning them into shallow visions of what they think guys think cool guys are, they just party buy s***, f*** and talk s***. It's annoying. The banter is rarely funny anymore and they have weird forced laughs they didn't used to have to signify that yes, it was an attempt at a joke. But that said, on your ari prediction, that seems outside his character. But what does character development mean to this show anymore.

Obama's in columbia, MO on thurs. That's a big going out night for me. But hey, I guess.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 04:45 PM) The irony is that this article also takes the quote out of context, it leaves out the part where Obama then goes on to talk about how he believes the government should be the ones doing the redistribution of wealth. Yeah I just don't see it like that. I believe he was talking about government v. courts.

tpm: McCain Campaign Falsely Claims Obama Described Court's Failure to Redistribute Wealth As "Tragedy" By Greg Sargent - October 27, 2008, 12:16PM The McCain campaign's efforts to portray Barack Obama as a closet socialist took a turn into the burlesque today, with the McCain camp falsely claiming that in a seven year old interview, Obama said that it was a "tragedy" that the Supreme Court hadn't redistributed wealth away from hard-working Americans. The Obama interview in question is being pushed relentlessly today by the wingnuts, who are circulating this audio of it. The McCain campaign just blasted out a quote from senior economics adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin hammering Obama. In the interview, Holtz-Eakin claimed, "Obama expressed his regret that the Supreme Court hadn't been more 'radical' and described as a 'tragedy' the Court's refusal to take up 'the issues of redistribution of wealth.'" Holtz-Eakin asserted that this proves that Obama wants to take money "away from people who work for it" and give it to people "Obama believes deserves it." Apparently McCain himself is going to pick up this cudgel on the trail today, too. But as usual, this latest attack rests on a complete falsehood. If you look at Obama's full quote -- which you can read right here -- it's very clear that Obama was not directly "regretting" the failure of the court to be "radical." Rather, he was saying that the court's failure to take up redistributive issues proved that it wasn't as "radical" as some have claimed. The "radical" line was clearly a dispassionate claim about the reality of history. What's more, take a look at the operative part of Obama's quote that includes the "tragedy" line: One of the I think the tragedies of the Civil Rights movement was because the Civil Rights movement became so court focused I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change and in some ways we still suffer from that. As you can see, Obama simply didn't say that the court's faiulre to take up redistribution was a tragedy. Rather, he was arguing that it was a "tragedy" that the Civil Rights movement expected the courts to do too much in this regard, which led the movement away from other ways of accomplishing redistributive goals, such as organizing and legislative politicking. Now, it's true that Obama was describing redistribution as a worthy goal. The wingers are grabbing on to this as proof, along with his recent claims to America's Favorite Plumber, that he harbors a shadowy socialist and redistributionist agenda. But Obama clearly wasn't talking about the mass seizure of wealth -- after all, redistribution is the whole idea behind taxation, which is a fairly mainstream concept that McCain still presumably supports in principle. What's more, Obama legal adviser Cass Sunstein argues to Ben Smith that Obama was discussing "redistribution" in the context of a narrow legal discussion about civil rights, meaning he was discussing whether the courts should make the things that guarantee a social safety net -- education, welfare, and the like -- court-mandated rights. Ironically, Sunstein points out, Obama was arguing that legislative action was a preferable vehicle for accomplishing such goals. If McCain disagrees with Obama's argument that the courts aren't the primary place to accomplish such things, he should say so. It would certainly make news.

Income tax is not the sole tax in this country. While the wealthy pay the vast majority of the welfare tax, middle and lower classes have a significant, if not greater % of their income taxed in different ways. Everyone is paying into this system, and as a result we have a strong infrastructure, strong military and strong country.

imo this is the worst season. All the characters besides ari are unlikeable now. I don't really care if Vince fails after his mexico thing. And like people said, what type of friend would prevent another from a 10 million dollar job.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Oct 25, 2008 -> 11:35 PM) haha thats great. you know he was thinking "WTF is this. I want the usually softball questions the Democrats get. " yeah, not the tough ones like, what newspapers do you read, and what is the bush doctrine

Well played, sir.

I assume that polls may have gotten better since 48

My friend called me to get a play by play cause he was driving and the radio went out. I was so pissed after that ninth I was just telling them to leave me alone, and as this is happening, pods hits the ball, so I said "fine, pods hits the ball, its going deep (I'm still thinking it's a double), and HOLY s*** AHHHHHHHHHHHH WE WON WE WON" and ran out into the hallway and just started jumping into walls.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Oct 24, 2008 -> 03:14 PM) McClellan or D.L. Hughley? McClellan is definitely not black. However, out of these conservatives coming out and endorsing Obama, the one that has to sting the most to McCain is the Goldwater family. Ouch. I'm fairly certain he was making a "Rush Limbaugh on Colin Powell" joke.

Pinochet was an evil, evil man. They used to just take dissenters, put them on a helicopter ride and just drop them in the middle of the ocean. The weird thing about Pinochet is usually countries have a predisposition to some type of dictator rule while Chile really seemed like he came out of nowhere.

sports riots seemed to have faded out in the 00's. When Denver had one I think we all knew it was over.

lol

f*** off daley, go tell that to the people who were on death row for twenty years after providing false confessions after being brutally attacked by chicago police detectives.

that thing about elitists in NYC and Wash really pisses me off. Once again, as I've said, it was really insightful to hear Jon Stewart talk about how it pisses him off that politicians like Palin and McCain come to New York, go to ground zero was such empathy and talk about how resilient new yorkers are, and then leave and talk s*** about how they are just elitists telling the real americans how to act.