Honestly I think the only way in which Jox has been unpleasant is that he isn't laying on his back and pissing himself everytime someone tries to tell him Obama will solve the worlds problems. Some people on these boards actually think that Obama is perfectly ok doing anything it takes even if it is illegal to get elected.

After the election is over and Obama wins, assuming he does, I would like to know what people will consider a failed presidency by him. Not something like, if he is as bad as Bush OMG ERGG. But literally post a list of things he has to accomplish for you to consider him a good president. He just seems a lot like Carter to me without the affable dufus part. You can promise anything to get elected, but I think it is reasonable to hold him accountable afterwards. He is making some pretty high promises.

Just so it is clear, I am probably going to vote for McCain, but my vote will mean about as much as Skys since I live in Mn. I could still change it though based on what happens in the next few days. I don't hate Obama or anything, he just keeps making more and more promises and the ones he has made don't make any sense to me.

Exactly. Here's a list from Jake Tapper at ABC News of his promises in just one appearance. Bolded the ones I found particularly amusing. He has no money to pay for this.

* "give a tax break to 95 percent of Americans who work every day and get taxes taken out of their paycheck every week";
* "eliminate income taxes on Social Security for seniors making under $50,000";
* "give homeowners and working parents additional tax breaks";
* not increase taxes on anyone if they "make under $250,000; you will not see your taxes increase by a single dime –- not your income taxes, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains tax";
* "end those breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas";
* "give tax breaks to companies that invest right here in the United States";
* "eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses and start-up companies that are the engine of job creation in this country";
* "create two million new jobs by rebuilding our crumbling roads, and bridges, and schools -- by laying broadband lines to reach every corner of the country";
* "invest $15 billion a year in renewable sources of energy to create five million new energy jobs over the next decade";
* "reopen old factories, old plants, to build solar panels, and wind turbines";
* build "a new electricity grid";
* "build the fuel efficient cars of tomorrow";
* "eliminate the oil we import from the Middle East in 10 years";
* "lower premiums" for those who already have health insurance;
* "if you don't have health insurance, you'll be able to get the same kind of health insurance that members of Congress give themselves";
* "end discrimination by insurance companies to the sick and those who need care the most";
* "invest in early childhood education";
* "recruit an army of new teachers";
* "pay our teachers higher salaries, give them more support. But ... also demand higher standards and more accountability";
* "make a deal with every young person who's here and every young person in America: If you are willing to commit yourself to national service, whether it's serving in our military or in the Peace Corps, working in a veterans home or a homeless shelter, then we will guarantee that you can afford to go to college no ifs ands or buts";
* "stop spending $10 billion a month in Iraq whole the Iraqis have a huge surplus";
* "end this war in Iraq";
* "finish the fight and snuff out al Qaeda and bin Laden";
* "increase our ground troops and our investments in the finest fighting force in the world";
* "invest in 21st century technologies so that our men and women have the best training and equipment when they deploy into combat and the care and benefits they have earned when they come home";
* "No more homeless veterans"; and
* "no more fighting for disability payments."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch ... claus.html

that's pretty funny actually, heh

I read it as "Hillary... sup".. both work, really.

I like this one better, though. Slightly unrelated..

You can't take a few overzealous and irresponsible reporters(or in this case perhaps underlings of reporters) and paint it as if there's a huge problem. When Joe the Plant stops taking every single interview he can get his hands on, and almost every opportunity McCain gives him(outside of that one stump speech) to be in the public spotlight as a McCain drone after being deceitful with Obama when he was obviously already decided, then maybe Joe the Plant will have fewer people trying to dig up info on him.

Heh. Political intimidation is wrong regardless of what you do. He could paint his penis as a caricature of Obama - it doesn't matter. And when people like you and others parrot the findings of illegal information searches, you legitimize it as a practice and not just something done by a "few overzealous and irresponsible reporters".

Not that you read the actual story, of course.

Implicated were at least two public employees and a contractor. The searches weren't done BY reporters, because they don't have access.

Apparently tis you that have trouble reading. Read: "or in this case perhaps underlings of reporters". The question of course is whether the people reporting it based on that reporter's account knew it was illegally gathered information. Parroting it when you have no idea isn't quite the same as justifying such bad practices. In short: Try again.

Ok, I'm really struggling to decipher what you wrote. I can boil down my objection into one simple sentence. I challenge you to do the same.

It is wrong to dig up private information on any citizen who challenges a candidate running for office in an effort to discredit or intimidate that citizen.

Pretty simple, not too oblique. Do you disagree with that statement?

In your post, you seem to point out that the people in question (contractors, employees and an elected official.. a pretty diverse group, don't you think?) were the puppets of reporters. Then you turn around and say that the REPORTERS may not have known that the information was obtained illegally.

Let's follow your logic train here. I'm a reporter. I want to know something about Joe. I, as a resourceful professional whose trade is information gathering, turn to an official of government who has access that I do not have, and can not get, even through the Freedom of Information Act, and you're telling me that I DON'T KNOW IT WILL BE OBTAINED ILLEGALLY?

Regarding your other point. Have you ever heard of cause and effect? If so, you'd know that digging up dirt works because people like you let it affect your judgment. It worked beautifully. No one has talked about the actual point he brought up. You're a real stalwart of the political process.

I agree with the underlined portion.

You missed my point about the reporters though. I'm saying the reporter who actually received information and asked for it from people trying to dig up information for him/her DID act illegally, but the potential hundreds or thousands of reporters who SOURCED that report may not have known it was obtained illegally. Depending on the type of information, they may have been able to deduce that, but there's no way of knowing for absolute sure whether or not that information was publically available(for example, if Joe had accidentally put it out to the public somehow). They're relying on that reporter's work, which isn't always a good practice but in most cases can be reliable information depending on the reporter and source in question.

It really doesn't affect my judgment much. I'd feel the exact same way if it was a left-leaning person, and regardless of the dirt brought up I still feel the same way about Joe the Plant. We already covered the "point" he brought up earlier in the thread. Again, he won't have his taxes raised, especially because when all is said and done and Joe the Plant has bought it his business will be in the 150k-200k range.

Two points.

For one thing, the vast majority of stories with this information would be syndicated copies via the AP, or direct links to the Toledo Blade in some cases. Other than reading the original, most other forms of distribution of this information is via editorials or bloggers. Editorials are held to the same journalistic standard in terms of truthfulness and accountability. Sure, they're opinions, but they are just as accountable for the truth of any statements they make as beat reporters. Bloggers, well, we all know how bloggers are. You get a lower quality of news and opinion, but generally get much more of it and much faster, and in a lot of cases, better researched. But there are no journalistic standards applied to most bloggers.

Second, you guys saying he's "lying" is a bit of a stretch, and it relies on a mean-spiritedness that really turns me off. Here's why I feel this way.

If you believe that this guy is actually a regular person, who was standing in his yard at the time, I think you can also believe that regular people are NOT experts on tax codes, profitability and the full implications of buying a business. Certainly not to compete with those respective experts in the New York Times, the Washington Post and so on. Maybe the guy was just wrong, or had no idea that his business didn't fall into that bracket.

It's akin to a bunch of Harvard-educated experts on a given subject mocking someone in community college for getting the facts wrong.

We should have given him the benefit of the doubt.

Instead of doing that, we have evidence that private data was dug up on his personal life to discredit and intimidate him. Instead, we chose to ridicule and mock him. And it's just wrong. It's wrong because the guy was trying to participate in the political process. He had the balls to approach Obama and ask him a question - whether he was right on the facts or not, WHO CARES? He's a person like any of us, and just as likely to be wrong as any of us. Instead of just moving on, we chose to tear him down.

I don't blame him at all for milking his celebrity for as much as it's worth. If someone had done all of that to you, wouldn't you want to campaign for their enemy, a person you intend to vote for? Seriously, what's wrong with him campaigning for McCain? He's a true outsider.

There's a lot of shady shit going on here.

State employee says she was ordered to check out Joe the Plumber
http://www.columbusdispatch.com/live/co ... ml?sid=101

Obviously a lie.

There's a point where you reach where it's pretty hard to give a benefit of the doubt that he was merely some random joe that was harmlessly playing football outside when Obama just happened to stop by. If you're naive enough to believe that story, I have a few bridges to sell you as well. Calling him a liar up front may be hard to conclude since we don't know for absolute 100 percent sure, but at some point you have to call a spade a spade. There's enough evidence that he never had the slightest intention of voting for Obama, from his "coincidental" appearence, to his view on Iraq and Social Security beforehand, to the fact that he lived where he did was relatively well off(conservative profile anyone?).

The guy is a bigger douchebag if he based his decision on a few bad eggs digging shit up on him in the other campaign. Heaven forbid we vote based on the issues instead of little shit like that.

Ok, I feel the need to jump in here. joxur annoys the shit out of me, no doubt. I think it's clear to anyone reading that he has a serious axe to grind here and that he decided early on that he would look for and post any argument he could find that would make Obama look bad. I fully understand alot of the problems he has with an Obama presidency. I acknowledge that it's a possibility that in the end he could be right about Obama not being different at all from your regular pol. I do think he's wrong, and I do think Obama has the intelligence and pragmatism to be a pretty damn good president, and I think he will be. I'm also curious how he turns his pro-Clinton vote into a pro-McCain vote. That's honestly highly suspect to me.

But he's got a winning argument here. I'm a little baffled that he would be so gung ho about Joe Plumber, because to me he's an incredible joke in this campaign. But Obama supporters certainly shouldn't be supporting illegal access to his personal information for whatever reason. joxur, you're right, it's absolutely wrong for these people to be illegally accessing his information for partisan reasons, and they should be punished.

No one said it was ok for them to be illegally accessing that information. The argument here recently has been centered around reporters who report information given by other reporters(who had their minions do their dirty work), having had no idea it was illegal. If you believe they should be punished, I don't know what to say =)

The guy is a liar and a d-bag. I didn't need to know he beat his wife / deadbeat dad / tax evader / wtf ever to know that.

_________________

No one is saying it's okay to use illegal methods to garner information. That's simply the drum they HAVE to beat non-stop because it's such a loser issue for them.

It's a hallmark of the McCain side this campaign. When you have NOTHING you just keep screaming the same stupid shit over and over LOUDLY.

AYERS AYERS AYERS AYERS! MUSLIM! LIBERAL ELITE MEDIA BIAS! UNFAIR UNFAIR! FIRST AMENDMENT! LEAVE JOE THE PLUMBER ALONE! EVIL BLACKS FOR OBAMA CUT UP WHITE GIRL MCCAIN WORKER. PALS AROUND WITH TERRORIST! SOCIALISM! COMMIES! REAL AMERICA!

McCain and Palin are continually using Joe "the Plumber" as a campaign prop. They're running for high office. You want to talk about serious fucking problems, don't you think THAT'S one of them?

Just one of the many reasons they've lost.

Meanwhile there are factions in the GOP (and McCain's staff) who are spending their time throwing Palin under the bus, to make sure she takes a hit from this loss and doesn't prosper from it. Especially given that there are those who believe she's in large part responsible for it. Though since McCain and his people picked her so they have themselves to blame there.

But yes by all means let's talk about a very small handful of people who used illegal methods to get information (who no doubt will be prosecuted) because hey that's far more important.

Better yet, let's bandwagon this into implying that even legal methods of looking into such campaign props...even when the individuals themselves are out there media whoring (talk to his publicist now! Oh and he's got various irons in the fire, including perhaps a record deal) is unAmerican, unfair, and wrong!



It's really not fooling anyone. It simply allows for a justification for people who don't want to look at it, because they're quaffing the kool aid of their chosen party/candidate/etc. to dismiss ANYTHING bad associated with it.

Then again, such people aren't exactly known for their critical thinking skills anyway, and can often be spotted parroting (often word for word) what they've heard others think for them. It's pathetically obvious when they're unable to respond...because their talking heads didn't give them THOSE talking points.

Tuesday's win can't come soon enough.

_________________

Your posts are hilarious, Tarot. We're now in stage 2 of your all caps posts, where the all caps get progressively bigger!

The best part, though:

Ironic!

I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of -


AYERS
SOCIALISM
AYERS
SPREAD THE WEALTH
AYERS

On that note....

I actually got a political flyer from some Jewish organization saying,

"Concerned about Barack Obama?

YOU SHOULD BE

History has shown that a weak and naive foreign policy has had tragic consequences for the Jewish people."

Then there's a picture of Obama speaking in front of a crowd and a caption that says:

"Barack Obama delivering a speech in Germany, <some date here>"

Wow....really, is that not blatantly trying to make a terrible connection? Sickening.

And again, a reasonable question is ignored by Obamabots.

End the war within a year and a half or so and get universal healthcare up and running by the end of his first term, make some tangible progress on alternative fuels, help secure America and our borders and cut out some unnecessary Govt. spending.

I thought Tarot's post was a pretty damn good response to you, hence why you dismissed it out of hand.

Surcam, since you and I are on the same side, why don't you respond to her?

If he can somehow get this downward sliding economy back on track I will be damn impressed. With the issues whoever gets elected is going to face, I wouldn't count on ANY campaign promises being upheld. He may be able to influence the speed of our removal from Iraq which would be good and would honestly probably help the economy by not having however much money that is costing going out each month.

Failure to stop the downward sliding economy and getting it moving in the right direction in his first term would constitute a failure to me.

Are you happy now Kulabitch?

You cold put a Lemur in the oval office and we'll be out of the recession in 4 years.

Ok, how is John McCain going to save us all and make things good and keep our kids from getting killed in Iraq?

OMG A MINUTE HAS PASSED AND NO ONE PAYED SUFFICIENT ATTENTION TO ME! ANOTHER QUESTION IGNORED BY THE MCCAINOBOTS!!!

It wasn't ignored, just not answered to her "gotcha question" standards. I replied.

Since there are no answers that would be satisfactory, what would be the point?

_________________
Hope is the new black.

Actually I thought both Xan and Skys answers were good. I would take issue a bit with the whole out of Iraq thing since that is basically set up already.

If the economy doesn't recover I'd say it was through bad government intervention and I think that will be something the new president should have to answer for after 4 years. Does anyone actually think universal health care has a chance in hell? Alternate fuels are already a big deal so no way you can give him credit for that unless he really creates some sort of large tax break to put solar panels on your house or something, but Carter did that. Securing the borders would impress me, as long as it isn't due to our economy being so bad Mexicans are fleeing back to Mexico to escape it. Cutting unnecessary Gov't spending is something everyone promises, but the well is pretty deep.

For me he would have to show real leadership by reining in his own party on spending assuming they get a real majority. Not screwing up the economy further would be good and also stay on the withdrawal path Bush has set up for Iraq. Investing in a serious manner in higher education would be ok also. Cutting the sheer number of overseas bases wouldn't be bad.

All in all if he is able to get some reasonable health insurance policy up that doesn't screw people that are in actual need of continued medical help and cutting government spending in a real (not meaning future increases will be smaller) without screwing up the economy I would be happy.

On higher education.. bah that probably needs its own thread.

I think if he picks good cabinet members, they will mostly be responsible for fixing the problems we have right now. It's how he handles things that we don't even know about yet that I will judge his presidency on.

That's probably the best answer I've seen so far.

Just looking back to GW we had unforeseen events such as 9/11 and the resultant military action, but I was able to judge him 2 years prior to that. I don't need Iraq to tell me that I disagree with a person's general policies, and what they'll most likely do in any given situation. I will grant that I judge him even worse than I did originally because of his constant mistakes, but any unforeseen event response didn't change that a whole lot.

I will grant that it's perfectly possible that Obama does some horribly stupid things, and I'd be happy to judge him accordingly after that happens. But, if he sticks to his current mindset and meets his general policy proposals, I don't foresee too much of a problem with him. Leadership is often both forged and comes on display in a crisis, and I personally think he will handle such arising situations well.

And again, if he fails to meet those expectations set on his agenda, I would be perfectly willing to judge him poorly.

This is a common assumption that I am not sure I wholly subscribe to. Go ask the Japanese...

Lemur '12!

Obama now "agnostic" to raising taxes on those making less than $250k. Someone call Joe!

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-0 ... eases.html

I don't even know what to say.

I think it's good that he isn't willing to rule out potential solutions before they've even been explored. It's not going to win him any awards or commendations though.

I'm hearing good things in that article.

_________________

It's kind of like a binge drinker admonishing sober people of the dangers of drinking.

To you, clearly. To me, not so much. But we've already decided to agree to disagree about the stimulus.

_________________

I find it hard to believe he didn't consider this was a possibility during his campaign, which makes his claims that he absolutely won't do this just another campaign lie. I do understand the position presidential canidates are put in...if they don't embelish the truth they will never get elected because the other guy will...but I still don't like it. Now matter how you dress this up as whether or not raising the taxes is a good thing (and I don't think it is), there is no disputing that it is a campaign lie. Dissapointing.

I actually completely disagree.

You may look of the chain events up to and including this admission now that taxes for a lot more people are not off the table as nothing more than a lie, but I see it a different way. The chain of events since Obama came to office (argument for stimulus, stimulus, and the fall out from the stimulus) is telling ME that a whole lot of people are going "oh shit, this financial mess is a LOT worse than we thought and we have even less time than we thought we did."

So while you call it a campaign lie, I call it the nature of strategic planning. You can't fault someone for adjusting their position for strategic reasons. People do this every day in their own lives. You may have promised your daughter to go to disneyland before you lost your job, but having lost it, probably not the wisest promise to keep right now.

Guess what? America's bill is coming due. I'm actually glad to have a president that recognizes that fact. Anyone who thinks they are going to escape the taxes required to pay our bills is kidding themselves.

_________________

Agreed. Coupled with a spending freeze this is a good thing. Now we just have 2 wars to end to clean up the budget further. I'm tired of my tax dollars bombing nearly nonexistent bad guys.

But taxes are bad! People who raise taxes are bad! People who lower taxes are good! Right?!??

Taxes are a necessary evil. That's why the government should responsibly spend the money gained from taxation, and taxes should not be higher (on anyone) than they actually need to function as a government.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

Rugen:
I would give your logic more credit if the tax hike was related to the current financial dillema. The tax hike is aimed at the deficit though, and that has been there for all to see for ages now. I am not saying it isn't a real issue, I am saying it isn't a surprise issue, and that is why it is a lie.

I have been saying we need to spend less or take in more for years now, so I am not upset at the concept of higher taxes (though I perfer the spend less method, even if it means cutting important programs). I don't believe that anyone suddenly looked at the deficiet and said "Crap, I didn't know we owed THAT much!!!".

Yeah, I don't know how you can claim it's now worse than you ever anticipated. It's a campaign lie, pure and simple. Shame on you for letting him off the hook.

Speculation a year ago was the end of life as Americans knew it. Capitalism was dead, we heard. Etc, etc. Are you saying we're worse off right now than what people were speculating this time last year? So much so that he has to put a lie to one of his biggest campaign promises?

The precedent for stuff like this just doesn't exist outside of politics. What happens when you bring in a new CEO at the highest pay grade who promises to fix the company without layoffs, only to claim a year later while downsizing that, aww shucks guys, it was just worse than he ever imagined. If I get promoted at work and part of the deal is I have to hit a certain goal - do I get a pass if I don't deliver because I badly misjudged how bad the problem was?

You give them and their cronies a huge fat bonus! Oh wait you weren't talking about the financial sector? ;>

That whole bonus thing confuses me. The definition of bonus to me would be something paid for above expected returns, as if it is something just paid every year regardless of performance, then it would be salary. Since the financial have done so piss poor, and half the companies that gave these huge bonuses are practically bankrupt...where are the above expected performances to warrant the extra $$$ ???

A little off topic, but that has irritated me through this whole crisis.

So, would you rather he tell a lie now when he knows better or then when he didn't have the full picture? Even with that aside, a lot has happened in the last year. We're not looking at a banks failing from toxic assets, we're looking at GOVERNMENTS failing due to toxic assets. This isn't a "oh my shoe is untied, I should tie it" kind of problem/solution game. This shit evolves and changes over time. If he is saying he's going to stick to his campaign promise even when he knows he shouldn't and he can't, that would just be a re-election bid. Those statements also speak to some level of understanding that it can't just be "the rich" paying the bills of the country. Every american needs to do their part. We, and our government, spent ourselves into this mess with our indulgent attitude, now we need to fix it. Or it will fix itself in a much less desirable way.

There's an awful lot of bitching about the black and white nature of spectator politics. This (your response) would be a prime example of what that bitching is about. Like it or not, this isn't a black and white game. There's a whole lot of fucking grey to mire through. And partisian bullshit bickering from the sides doesn't make that process easier.

Trust me, no one would love to have his taxes lowered more than me. I got absolutely raped this year...and I can't say I'm entirely pleased about where all of those dollars are going. Even WITH that, I have no illusions about the fact that our government has borrowed next to its last dollar and it's time to a) pay our bills and b) fix our goddamn budgets so it isn't a problem in the future. They can't do one of those without increasing their income or cutting other things that are just as much political suicide as raising taxes for the middle class (like Social Security and Medicare).

And yet, when Obama says things like this? It makes it much, much easier to believe that he's not in this just to get re-elected...it definitely helps back up the idea that he's in this to get us on the right course, even if it is hard and means he won't get re-elected as a result of the back lash from it.

_________________

Whether it is the right thing to do or not is irrelevent to whether it was a campaign lie. We can argue if it is a good policy move or not, and frankly, both sides of the arguement there have good points, but that is a different discussion. The economy is in worse shape than predicted, but the deficit is not. The tax hike is a policy aimed at the deficit, not the economy. There is not a significant difference in the projected deficit, this has been a visible problem for some time now. No matter how you slice it, its going back on a campaign promise. Sugar coat it with "But its the right thing to do!", but that is the defense used for all broken campaign promises. Every campaign promise ever broken has been with the intentions that actual actions are more prudent than the campaign promise. Whether it works out for the best or not in this case only time will tell, but the fact that it is a campaign lie is not even a grey area, it clearly is.

Well then, I come back to...has he done it yet? Then no, he hasn't lied yet and you're crying wolf too soon. Saying it isn't off the table isn't the same as doing it.



That's like saying "He's firing an arrow at a bear about to eat that dude, not a woodchuck like he promised!"

The current world markets, a rising China, and our own inability to reign in our own spending has all led to a worsening of a situation that has been growing for quite some time. The economy is short term. The deficit is a 10 ton gorilla sitting on our backs about to eat our faces and the last year has only increased those odds in its favor.

_________________

YOU PROMISED WE COULD GO TO DISNEY LAND YOU PROMISED YOU PROMISED YOU PROMISED I WANNA GO NOW NOW NOW I HATE YOU!

We're moving closer to a consensus. The he hasn't done it yet defense is reasonable, and I do understand the benefit of considering all options. It may just be a bargaining chip to start on the far side to have room to negotiate with the other side (in order to get the taxes for $250k+ approved he might have to propose taxes for a larger segment and get whittled down to 250k+). With that in mind I'm not crucifying him, but it is worth noting that his campaign promise was not just to keep taxes the same or lower for under 250k families, but that a tax hike on them would never even be an option. Since it is now an option, he has already changed his stance on this issue.



No one with half a brain has thought the deficit was a woodchuck for over a decade now. It has been a hot topic since the early 90's and I am very confident that Obama has much more than half a brain.





The more appropriate analogy would be if your company was tanking and you knew you had a high chance of getting laid off in the near future and still promised your daughter you would take her to Disneyland no matter what. The error in this example is the original promise because it ignored well known risks and still promised only one possible outcome, a trip to Disney. Not going would be prudent given the financial situation, but that doesn't exonerate the Father from making the original promise. He should have originally said I'll take you to Disney if we can still afford it or if the new company plan works and I don't lose my job.

You are interpreting this as nitpicking the details, but I think it is more than that. It is not a flaw with Obama, it is a flaw with the political system that in order to get elected we force politicians to make promises they know are unlikely to come to pass. If they don't make these promises, someone else will and as a nation we will believe the best story, not the real one, so only the person painting the best picture will ever get elected. Knowing the system is at fault doesn't mean I'm giving a free pass though, and I still am dissapointed when any politician makes heartfelt campaign promise that I suspect they know to be unlikely they can adhere to.

You can't have it both ways. You can't ridicule people who call it bullshit when the promise is first made, and then ridicule them when it's broken. Take a look at early posts in this thread.

I think in his analogy the deficit is the bear, not the woodchuck.

Fribur, I read it as the dedicit is indeed a bear, but we thought it was only a woodchuck a year ago.

I'm not trying to have it both ways. I didn't make the earlier comments you are attributing to me. As requested, I scanned the earlier post and I simply called someone out for the "omg they investigated joe more than obama" crap.

_________________