[HoosierDaddy]

Shinrei no Shintai;351992 said:

Hmm, I guess I wasn't thinking it as anything philanthropic to begin with, just an interesting plan. I wasn't trying to argue that he's a great guy because I don't know anything about him. I think that's why I didn't know what you were trying to say right away.

Anyways, isn't he an "oil man"? Or does he do natural gas too?

If you can drill for one you can drill for the other. Or at least that is what I remember. I could be wrong here though.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

Iirc, they are often found in the same place. In more wasteful times, natural gas was a nuisance that had to be dealt with before the oil could be extracted. I could be wrong about this though.

[Slum]

New Jib Jab - 2008 Election

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

Ah, Jib Jab. Classic.

[Obdigore]

http://www.cnn.com/2....nyt/index.html

So, Obama put in an essay to the NY times, describing his plans for US involvement in Iraq, and due to US law, McCain is given the same chance. McCain's whole essay was focused on ridiculing Obama's and not on McCain's plan (if he has one) for Iraq.

McCain's staff then claim the NY Times is a liberal institution? I always thought the NY Times was pretty Conservative?

DM, I seem to remember that you read the NY Times, or anyone else that does, is the NY Times really a liberal newssource?

[HoosierDaddy]

Obdigore;356454 said:

http://www.cnn.com/2....nyt/index.html

So, Obama put in an essay to the NY times, describing his plans for US involvement in Iraq, and due to US law, McCain is given the same chance. McCain's whole essay was focused on ridiculing Obama's and not on McCain's plan (if he has one) for Iraq.

McCain's staff then claim the NY Times is a liberal institution? I always thought the NY Times was pretty Conservative?

DM, I seem to remember that you read the NY Times, or anyone else that does, is the NY Times really a liberal newssource?

Conservatives say that every major media outlet in the U.S. is biased to the left. Yet, they then say that Fox News Channel is unbiased.

The "editors" might be biased, but then again, they write Op/Eds, they don't actually make the enws.

[Obdigore]

Hmm yea I just looked up an article on wikipedia 'criticism of the new york times'.

Basicly says that they ran a poorly researched story about McCain, they haven't been as criticial towards Bush and his iraq war stance (and reasons for) as they should have, and they are liberal in regards to civil rights.

I would imagine that they keep both liberal and conservative writers on staff, hopefully.

Meh, it looks like they aren't any more biased towards one side than towards the other, and yes I know repubs claim every media outlet is biased and that (overused joke here) faux news isn't biased.

I was just hoping that McCain wasn't the typical old white man republican, like lots of his supporters claim he isn't.

I do think it is interesting that this essay 'he' submitted just attacked 'Obama's' essay, and didn't say anything about his plan for Iraq except that that he needs to evaluate the situation on the ground, instead of putting up timetables.

McCain also broke a 'gentlemans rule' of not attacking your opponent when (s)he is out of the country during an election race.

It seems that McCain's entire position is on how he thinks Obama is wrong?

[Dolorous Menhir]

When American conservatives use the word liberal, it is not a statement of how they view another's political principles. It is an accusation.

I look forward to McCain's loss.

To actually answer your question, I believe the NYT is a left-wing newspaper by US standards. It's also a lightning rod for the American right, much the same role that Fox News plays for the left. That's not necessarily a good guide to its leanings, it's just a symptom of that country's excuse for political debate.

edit: to follow up on your later question. McCain is crippled by the fact he has to run on the incumbent's record, which he has largely supported and which his party continues to support. Since he can't go out there and loudly champion his own, or his own party's, ideas, which would be electoral suicide, he has to tear down Obama's. It's been said that given the tide he is up against, McCain can't win on his own merits. He has to make sure that Obama loses. This means you have to go negative, gentleman's agreement or not. If McCain does nothing but make nice with Obama and talk about policy differences, he will lose.

This is only fair I think. The party that presided over the last 8 years of failed governance does not deserve another term in office. That is the basic fact that McCain is up against, and his only solution is to make this election about Obama's downsides (whatever they may be) and not about him or his party.

This was Clinton's strategy at the end of the primary - Obama was edging every closer to being the outright winner, so she had no choice but to throw everything at him, to try and make him unacceptable, radioactive. It didn't work.

Is it working? Obama is clearly the focus of this election, but that is in no way a negative focus. I think McCain is doomed, and I won't be losing any sleep over it.

[HoosierDaddy]

Obdigore;356474 said:

Hmm yea I just looked up an article on wikipedia 'criticism of the new york times'.

Basicly says that they ran a poorly researched story about McCain, they haven't been as criticial towards Bush and his iraq war stance (and reasons for) as they should have, and they are liberal in regards to civil rights.

I would imagine that they keep both liberal and conservative writers on staff, hopefully.

Meh, it looks like they aren't any more biased towards one side than towards the other, and yes I know repubs claim every media outlet is biased and that (overused joke here) faux news isn't biased.

I was just hoping that McCain wasn't the typical old white man republican, like lots of his supporters claim he isn't.

I do think it is interesting that this essay 'he' submitted just attacked 'Obama's' essay, and didn't say anything about his plan for Iraq except that that he needs to evaluate the situation on the ground, instead of putting up timetables.

McCain also broke a 'gentlemans rule' of not attacking your opponent when (s)he is out of the country during an election race.

It seems that McCain's entire position is on how he thinks Obama is wrong?

Biased leftist alert: Read at own conservative peril!

Repub's strategy usually involves just attacking a democrat, saying they are going to raise taxes, are soft on foreign-policy, and are just going to make government bigger.

By the way, McCain sold his "maverick" soul to get the republican base behind him. If he goes back he'll be the biggest blatant political flip-flopper in presidential campaigning history since Wilson's "He Kept Us Out of War" in 1916.

@DM: the polarization of American politics and the "hate-mongering" that takes place nowadays make public debates hard. Now, debates amongst friends and acquaintances are often very topical and civil. But once you have that much money at stake, they don't care about debate anymore. "You are wrong, I am right. And you are also Islamic because your name is Barack Hussein Obama." The ignorance of most Americans about public policy should astound, and yet what else can we do? It's a democracy, we can't give them literacy tests.

[Dolorous Menhir]

One reason to appreciate Obama. No matter what you think of his policies, you have to concede that he has raised the intellectual level of politics by an appreciable amount.

[HoosierDaddy]

Dolorous Menhir;356491 said:

One reason to appreciate Obama. No matter what you think of his policies, you have to concede that he has raised the intellectual level of politics by an appreciable amount.

After 8 years of Bush this wasn't very hard.

But, both candidates have attempted (not always doing, but attempting) to make the campaign about policy differences, which is a positive after the swift-boating saga of '04.

I'd be very surprised if it kept up much longer though.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

There's a possibility McVain might not be allowed toi run. There's debate as to if he is considered a naturaly born citizen or not, having been born on Panama.

[Shinrei]

Can Ron Paul replace him? Pretty please?

[Thelomen Toblerone]

Wow, the NYT is considered left-wing?!:shocked:

I'd be lynched in the US.

I cant take McCain seriously because it's a popular range of oven chips (fries) in this country. Plus he's a doddery old right wing bastard who'll have a heart attack from excitement if he wins. In Europe, our hearts are all set on Obama, if he doesnt win McCain (And unfortunate American tourists) can expect a continuation of the Bush-style negative view, which would be a shame.

[Cougar]

I want Barack to win. But I don't think McCain would be a disaster, he isn't half as right wing as you'd think and he's a tough old bastard.

[frookenhauer]

paladin;332588 said:

the problem i have with that argument is that its very similar to the "why are we spending police resources busting potheads when they should be busting murderers" argument.

I'm actually a huge fan of this particular argument. Even as a student when I smoked pot, but "never inhaled", ahem. I could see that busting potheads and similar programs designed primarily to 'squeeze' the demand side of the equation is the way forward.

paladin;332588 said:

its resources allocated for a specific job from the overall pool of money allocated for that specific group. you take it away the money either just doesnt get spent at all(ie it never existed) or you reallocate it somewhere else in the defense budget

There is something very wrong with this particular statement. How about turning it on its head? Hey we want to fight a war with Iraq even though we dont need to! Sorry, the two billion dollars a day that you need is being used on improving the health service and improving the lot of ordinary US citizens. Aww come on, I just wanna blow stuff up! Okay heres a couple of million, go buy some fire crackers, knock yourself out!
On a serious not: As for the reallocation of resources of two billion a day, you don't think that there are enough clever accountants on employ within government who can do the job if ordered? I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you may well be wrong.

Optimus Prime;323780 said:

Economy, Health care, Education.

I want money spent on this and not 2 billion dollars a day on a war we never should've fought.

Amen, brother.

[Shinrei]

The government may well have talented accountants, but they are still beholden to the policy makers, and furthermore, they are often ignored by the policy makers. I guarantee that if the government and the budget WAS run by accountants and not by politicians and bureaucrats, we'd be a lot better off.

Watch the video here:

http://current.com/items/88934328_america_...f_us_bankruptcy

[frookenhauer]

Shinrei no Shintai;360083 said:

The government may well have talented accountants, but they are still beholden to the policy makers, and furthermore, they are often ignored by the policy makers. I guarantee that if the government and the budget WAS run by accountants and not by politicians and bureaucrats, we'd be a lot better off.

Watch the video here:

http://current.com/items/88934328_america_...f_us_bankruptcy

Nice video. I also watched some more on youtube with the similar information with some graphs and analysis added, I also followed up by following a few links. Interesting stuff. Ever heard the term foreshadowing, I'm fairly sure you have because you seem to be running the writing contest. In a nutshell, I believe he is setting up the 'field of play' for the policymakers to make drastic cuts on 'Medicare' and Social Security, so when it happens people will say they saw it coming and just roll over and accept it.

The reasons for this are:

If the government were unhappy with these statements being aired, I'm sure that some disinformation and discrediting strategies would be the order of the day. All he's got arrayed against him are some rogue economists, while he holds think tanks and a non partisan concord coalitions as his aces.

The Wake up America campaign is cleverly put together, 'Defense' Budget versus other spending graphics show defense to be at 43% of the national budget in 1965 and in 2005 the defense budget is 20% alongside 21% for Social security and 19% Medicare and Medicaid, unfortunately the pie chart doesn't add up to 100, call it fudge error if you want. All the 'data' after these charts omits any comparison with spending on defense. This includes the future doom and gloom projections.

Basically, if you're clever enough, and Dave Walker exhibits all the signs, you can pretty much make stats say what you want them to say. He may even be right with his data, but the omission of 'defense' spending with regards to his projections and even his reform framework doesn't sit right with me.

[Shinrei]

Where are you getting this further information plz?

And why is it so hard to believe that the government is fiscally irresponsible and disasterously so?

Just recently the "Department of Homeland Security" was sited as not even keeping basic accounting practices and their books were essentially a big mess.

My dad was a CPA, and he once told me that the key to the success of an accountant is a federal government that creates a tax code that is so maze-like in its complications that you need a professional to figure it out, and the government has never disappointed in this regard. He'd have been out of business if they'd ever made it straightforward.

[frookenhauer]

Shinrei no Shintai;360370 said:

Where are you getting this further information plz?
And why is it so hard to believe that the government is fiscally irresponsible and disasterously so?

I watched the video which you put forward, that lead me to the following two part set from Dave Walker, BTW the dubbing is awful:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yAbT-JA7rM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=3ngGtnp6COU

I then wiki'd the guy and read the following link:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...ane-cover_x.htm

Also there is a film about the crisis out soon, I.O.U.S.A.:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/entertainmen...362992820080123

I am not disagreeing with your assessment regarding fiscal irregularities, I just reckon that the budget allocation for Social Security and Medicaid and Medicare is going to nosedive and David Walkers sole job is to create such Hysteria, that people will just roll over and accept it. The only people that are going to suffer is the poor and young families, but thats okay, because they don't have pressure groups, but are the very people that rely on these benefits. So why not include Defense in there, I bet there is mountains of cash at stake? Also, they crapped on the idea that growth might be able to alleviate the problem, but failed to show any data on that either.

Shinrei no Shintai;360370 said:

Just recently the "Department of Homeland Security" was sited as not even keeping basic accounting practices and their books were essentially a big mess.

And how many other government bodies are in the same state? Don't worry its the same on this side of the pond. I care what happens over there because it affects us here too. Before they start trying to cut spending on the benefits, do you think that if they spent more time on making everything more efficient, things would improve in the long run? I think its time to call in the Germans and the Japanese. Vorsprung Durch J.I.T.

Shinrei no Shintai;360370 said:

My dad was a CPA, and he once told me that the key to the success of an accountant is a federal government that creates a tax code that is so maze-like in its complications that you need a professional to figure it out, and the government has never disappointed in this regard. He'd have been out of business if they'd ever made it straightforward.

The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy, all this complexity means we'll need more of 'them' and I'm sure they are part of the problem, think of the wage bill. In all the videos and articles you hear the 'baby boomers' mentioned a lot, nobody mentions the bureaucrat boomers!