which horse mcain or obama

which horse is your money on obama or mcain

  • obama

    Votes: 32 61.5%
  • mcain

    Votes: 8 15.4%
  • other/third party

    Votes: 5 9.6%
  • fictional character

    Votes: 4 7.7%
  • none

    Votes: 3 5.8%

  • Total voters
    52
my favorite comedian by far just like me did a lot of drugs while he was young to see what life was about and did a lot of thinking as he got older when he figured out just as i have every thing is just a big bullshit game
"he who dies with the most money wins"
wellthe truth is the more money you have the more stressed out you are about losing it
its been provin the happiest people have just enough money to do what they want to accomplish in life but no more or in other words a middle class person like a lot of us
too much money is a bad as not enough just my 2 cents
ps i think mcain has a very good chance of winning i think it will be as close as
the bush/gore election but i hopeim wrong because i have always thought that consumer confidence is hiher when the dems are in office and control because the middle class puts more money in to the econamy than the poor or the rich
 
From the looks of the first debate, It is time to go back to voting for Nader, like I did in '96 and '00. I'm through with the useless sold-out democrats.

Will the Euros, Brits, Ozies, Kiwis (and to a lesser extent Canucks) out there please explain to the dumb USAns you meet your $18/hour minimum wages, healthcare, paid vacation, paid sick leave, paid university education etc...etc... you all enjoy - and how your economies are so much healthier because of all this "socialism"?
 
I need to look at Bob Barr closer. I am really thinking that both "parties" are truly opposing wings on the same bird. First, Obama agrees to offshore drilling, now he is selling the bailout. Something is wrong when the Republicans are fighting the President and the Democrats like Pelosi are siding with him. There is something rotten in Denmark.

Here is what Nader had to say-
[youtube]l-1Jj6YPYkQ[/youtube]
 
I'm a swiss man so forgive me if I post here ;) but I have the feeling that almost the whole world outside the USA would be VERY thankful if a the next president would be democratic instead of republican.
 
I have noticed lots of press coverage on Saturday Night Live spoof on Sarah Palins interview, cannot be good for Mcain. :!:
 
obama.jpg
 
I watched the Veep debate at a neighbor's house. Palin is very qualified to be a spokesperson.
 
It's interesting how the Israelis view Obama. He receives much support
both from Jewish liberals and arguably the right-wing AIPAC, but his
middle name bothers Israelis a lot. Also, there are doubts whether he is
really a Muslim apostate. Here is an article which analyzes Obama's
similarity to early Zionists:
http://samsonblinded.org/blog/obama-against-jewishness.htm What do you think of the parallels?
 
Any one in favor of killing babies, like partial birth abortions where they turn the baby around in the womb, so it comes out feet first, and just as the chin starts to come out stab it in the back of the brain with a syringe full of saline should be done away with not elected president or anything else. Gets even worse when the baby does not die right away then out wonderful Obama wants to just put it in the closet and let it die. Said he doesn't want his daughters burdened with children if they don't want to be. Sick! Bad thing about this grotesque thing is that some live through the ordeal and are happy to be here and alive even with the serious side affects of the botched murder attempt. People like this just make me want to puke. Killing babies is not an abortion or women’s rights.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I would vote for someone with better morals that doesn't pretend to be something he is not. Then again I can honestly say that I really don't care for ether of them but McCain at least has enough in the way of morals to be against this type of abortion and it's sometimes botched aftermath. :!:
 
Yeah, abortion is bad because women are too stupid to make choices about their own body! Only thing they're good at is going back 2 kitchen and make food, eh. Tell you what, I'm against abortion but FOR killing babies... Yeah I'm awsome, no one is better than me.
 
There is a difference between abortion in the first and second trimester. I'm not sure about Obama's view on second trimester abortions.

So you have a choice. One party likes killing babies. The other party likes killing people in jail. Who are we to be picky about who dies? :lol:
 
biohazardman said:
but McCain at least has enough in the way of morals to be against this type of abortion and it's sometimes botched aftermath.

:roll: Please. McCain/Palin won't even support abortion in rape cases. Yeah... morals.
 
Anyone want to EAT some babies? We do all the time, and usually don't even blink at it.

Just look around at your grocery store to see how many babies we eat! What makes humans sooooo special? I haven't seen enough collective intelligence in humankind to justify seperating us so much from the other inhabitants of this planet...
 
Christophers for Obama: Buckley and Hitchens
Mon Oct 13, 3:46 PM ET
The Nation -- This is how bad it has gotten for John McCain.

Even the defenders of the Iraq War are deserting the Republican nominee who once thought he might "surge" into the Oval Office.

Yes, he has lost the Christophers.

In recent days, he has lost both Christopher Buckley and, now, Christopher Hitchens. Both have announced their plans to vote for man who opposed launching the Iraq War: Democrat Barack Obama.

First, Buckley, the apple-did-not-fall-from-the-tree son of William F., writes a column titled, "Sorry, Dad, I'm Voting for Obama," in which he writes:


  • I have known John McCain personally since 1982. I wrote a well-received speech for him. Earlier this year, I wrote in The New York Times--I'm beginning to sound like Paul Krugman, who cannot begin a column without saying, "As I warned the world in my last column..." -- a highly favorable Op-Ed about McCain, taking Rush Limbaugh and the others in the Right Wing Sanhedrin to task for going after McCain for being insufficiently conservative. I don't--still--doubt that McCain's instincts remain fundamentally conservative. But the problem is otherwise.

    McCain rose to power on his personality and biography. He was authentic. He spoke truth to power. He told the media they were "jerks" (a sure sign of authenticity, to say nothing of good taste; we are jerks). He was real. He was unconventional. He embraced former anti-war leaders. He brought resolution to the awful missing-POW business. He brought about normalization with Vietnam--his former torturers! Yes, he erred in accepting plane rides and vacations from Charles Keating, but then, having been cleared on technicalities, groveled in apology before the nation. He told me across a lunch table, "The Keating business was much worse than my five and a half years in Hanoi, because I at least walked away from that with my honor." Your heart went out to the guy. I thought at the time, God, this guy should be president someday.

    A year ago, when everyone, including the man I'm about to endorse, was caterwauling to get out of Iraq on the next available flight, John McCain, practically alone, said no, no--bad move. Surge. It seemed a suicidal position to take, an act of political bravery of the kind you don't see a whole lot of anymore.

    But that was--sigh--then. John McCain has changed. He said, famously, apropos the Republican debacle post-1994, "We came to Washington to change it, and Washington changed us." This campaign has changed John McCain. It has made him inauthentic. A once-first class temperament has become irascible and snarly; his positions change, and lack coherence; he makes unrealistic promises, such as balancing the federal budget "by the end of my first term." Who, really, believes that? Then there was the self-dramatizing and feckless suspension of his campaign over the financial crisis. His ninth-inning attack ads are mean-spirited and pointless. And finally, not to belabor it, there was the Palin nomination. What on earth can he have been thinking?

Then, Christopher Hitchens, erstwhile former Nation columnist turned Iraq warrior, writes a column headlined: "Vote for Obama: McCain lacks the character and temperament to be president. And Palin is simply a disgrace."

Like Buckley, Hitchens is embarrassed by McCain as a candidate and as the man who has attempted to put Sarah Palin one heartbeat away from the presidency:

Hitch argues deliciously that:


  • McCain occasionally remembers to stress matters like honor and to disown innuendoes and slanders, but this only makes him look both more senile and more cynical, since it cannot (can it?) be other than his wish and design that he has engaged a deputy who does the innuendoes and slanders for him.

    I suppose it could be said, as Michael Gerson has alleged, that the Obama campaign's choice of the word erratic to describe McCain is also an insinuation. But really, it's only a euphemism. Anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear had to feel sorry for the old lion on his last outing and wish that he could be taken somewhere soothing and restful before the night was out. The train-wreck sentences, the whistlings in the pipes, the alarming and bewildered handhold phrases--"My friends"--to get him through the next 10 seconds. I haven't felt such pity for anyone since the late Adm. James Stockdale humiliated himself as Ross Perot's running mate. And I am sorry to have to say it, but Stockdale had also distinguished himself in America's most disastrous and shameful war, and it didn't qualify him then and it doesn't qualify McCain now.

    The most insulting thing that a politician can do is to compel you to ask yourself: "What does he take me for?" Precisely this question is provoked by the selection of Gov. Sarah Palin. I wrote not long ago that it was not right to condescend to her just because of her provincial roots or her piety, let alone her slight flirtatiousness, but really her conduct since then has been a national disgrace. It turns out that none of her early claims to political courage was founded in fact, and it further turns out that some of the untested rumors about her--her vindictiveness in local quarrels, her bizarre religious and political affiliations--were very well-founded, indeed. Moreover, given the nasty and lowly task of stirring up the whack-job fringe of the party's right wing and of recycling patent falsehoods about Obama's position on Afghanistan, she has drawn upon the only talent that she apparently possesses.

    It therefore seems to me that the Republican Party has invited not just defeat but discredit this year, and that both its nominees for the highest offices in the land should be decisively repudiated, along with any senators, congressmen, and governors who endorse them.

These are important statements, especially as expressions of concern about McCain's dwindling capacity and their dismissals of Palin.

They form the intellectual underpinnings for a rational rejection of the Republican ticket by mainstream Republicans and independents--and with it the prospect (though not the certainty) of an Obama victory sufficient to allow him to actually govern.

Buckley actually provides the language for those who may not ever be Obama enthusiasts, but who may be Obama voters:

"Obama has in him -- I think, despite his sometimes airy-fairy "We are the people we have been waiting for" silly rhetoric -- the potential to be a good, perhaps even great leader. He is, it seems clear enough, what the historical moment seems to be calling for.

"So, I wish him all the best. We are all in this together. Necessity is the mother of bipartisanship. And so, for the first time in my life, I'll be pulling the Democratic lever in November. As the saying goes, God save the United States of America."


http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20081013/cm_thenation/45371832
 
`Joe the Plumber,' Obama Tax-Plan Critic, Owes Taxes
Ryan J. Donmoyer – Thu Oct 16, 6:17 pm ET

"Joe the plumber,'' the Toledo, Ohio, man whose complaints about Barack Obama's tax plan were highlighted by John McCain in the final presidential debate, owes the state of Ohio almost $1,200 in back income taxes.
According to records on file with the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, the state filed a tax lien against Samuel J. Wurzelbacher for $1,182.98 on Jan. 26, 2007, that is still active.
Wurzelbacher was thrust into the national spotlight this week when he told Obama he worried that the Illinois senator's proposals to roll back Bush administration tax breaks for Americans earning more than $250,000 would prevent him from buying a plumbing business that would earn between $250,000 and $280,000 a year.

McCain, an Arizona Republican senator, pointed to the exchange during the debate last night when he turned to the camera and said, ``I will not stand for a tax increase on small- business income.'' Directly criticizing Obama, he added, ``what you want to do to `Joe the plumber' and millions more like him is have their taxes increased and not be able to realize the American dream of owning their own business.''
Today, at a rally in Downingtown, Pennsylvania, McCain said ``the real winner last night was `Joe the plumber.'''
On Oct. 12, as Obama was campaigning door-to-door in suburban Toledo, Wurzelbacher confronted the Democratic presidential nominee about his tax plan.

"Do you believe in the American dream?'' Wurzelbacher asked before asking about the tax increase. "I'm being taxed more and more for fulfilling the American dream.''
Wurzelbacher's home telephone number is unlisted, and efforts to reach him by calling his neighbors and family were unsuccessful. Attempts to reach Wurzelbacher at the plumbing company where he works were also unsuccessful. The address on the lien and other records for him matched the address published by the Toledo Blade, which also noted the lien.
Wurzelbacher told ABC's ``Good Morning America'' program today that high earners shouldn't be ``penalized for being successful.''
The state of Ohio places a lien on real property after several steps to try to collect a tax debt, according to John Kohlstrand, a spokesman for the Ohio Department of Taxation who said he couldn't discuss any specific case.

If a delinquency notice goes unheeded, the Department of Taxation issues a billing notice, Kohlstrand said. If that is ignored, a more formal assessment notice is sent. Failing to appeal an assessment or losing an appeal puts the debt into the hands of the state attorney general for collection. The attorney general typically sends a collection notice and simultaneously files a lien. "The taxpayers may not necessarily know about the lien,'' Kohlstrand said, although they would receive other notices. In Wurzelbacher's case, the lien indicated that the notice was sent to a previous address in Toledo. Ray Ann Estep, section chief for revenue-recovery services for the Ohio attorney general, said Wurzelbacher's lien was filed six months after the Department of Taxation certified the debt for collection. "Unfortunately, sometimes people don't resolve their debts as quickly as we would like them to,'' she said.

In addition to tax credits and a proposal that would allow Wurzelbacher to avoid paying capital-gains taxes if he ever sold the business he wants to acquire for a profit, Obama has proposed allowing the top two tax rates of 33 percent and 35 percent to revert to what they were during the Clinton administration, or 36 percent and 39.6 percent, respectively. In 2007, the 33 percent bracket applied to taxable income exceeding $195,851. Under Obama's proposal, Wurzelbacher would face about $900 more in taxes if he netted $280,000 of income from his new business and had to pay an extra 3 percentage points on the amount over $195,851, said Gerald Prante, a senior economist at the Tax Foundation, a Washington research group that is examining both candidates' plans. "His average tax burden, the final bill he pays to the IRS isn't going to go up much if he's just making $280,000 a year,'' Prante said. He would face higher marginal tax costs to expand the business beyond that, he said.

It's far more likely that the $280,000 Wurzelbacher told Obama he'd earn would be in the form of gross receipts and not taxable income, said Steven Bankler, a certified public accountant in San Antonio, who counts plumbers and other trade professionals as his clients. According to an analysis by Dun & Bradstreet on Wurzelbacher's employer, A. W. Newell Corp., the plumbing and heating contractor has annual sales of $510,000. If Wurzelbacher bought the company, by the time he took proper business deductions, Bankler said, he'd be left with between $150,000 and $200,000 in taxable income and wouldn't be affected by Obama's proposed increase in the top rates. Wurzelbacher might eventually have to pay more employment taxes under Obama's plan to impose a rate of between 2 percent and 4 percent on wages over $250,000, Bankler said, but Obama has said that change wouldn't take effect for a decade.

Wurzelbacher doesn't have a plumber's license and isn't registered as a plumber in Ohio, the Toledo Blade reported on its Web site today. His employer has a state plumbing license, the newspaper said. Before living in Ohio, Wurzelbacher was a resident of Mesa, Arizona, in McCain's home state, according to property records.
To contact the reporter on this story: Ryan J. Donmoyer in Washington at rdonmoyer@bloomberg.net
 
mccainobama.gif
 
Not just dogs.... clothes-horses too:

RNC shells out $150K for Palin fashion
Jeanne Cummings – Tue Oct 21, 8:47 pm ET
(Politico)

The Republican National Committee has spent more than $150,000 to clothe and accessorize vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin and her family since her surprise pick by John McCain in late August. According to financial disclosure records, the accessorizing began in early September and included bills from Saks Fifth Avenue in St. Louis and New York for a combined $49,425.74. The records also document a couple of big-time shopping trips to Neiman Marcus in Minneapolis, including one $75,062.63 spree in early September. The RNC also spent $4,716.49 on hair and makeup through September after reporting no such costs in August.

The cash expenditures immediately raised questions among campaign finance experts about their legality under the Federal Election Commission's long-standing advisory opinions on using campaign cash to purchase items for personal use. Politico asked the McCain campaign for comment, explicitly noting the $150,000 in expenses for department store shopping and makeup consultation that were incurred immediately after Palin’s announcement. Pre-September reports do not include similar costs. Spokeswoman Maria Comella declined to answer specific questions about the expenditures, including whether it was necessary to spend that much and whether it amounted to one early investment in Palin or if shopping for the vice presidential nominee was ongoing.

“The campaign does not comment on strategic decisions regarding how financial resources available to the campaign are spent," she said.
But hours after the story was posted on Politico's website and legal issues were raised, the campaign issued a new statement:
"With all of the important issues facing the country right now, it’s remarkable that we’re spending time talking about pantsuits and blouses. It was always the intent that the clothing go to a charitable purpose after the campaign," said McCain-Palin spokesperson Tracey Schmit.

The business of primping and dressing on the campaign trail has become fraught with political risk in recent years as voters increasingly see an elite Washington out of touch with their values and lifestyles. In 2000, Democrat Al Gore took heat for changing his clothing hues. And in 2006, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) was ribbed for two hair styling sessions that cost about $3,000. Then, there was Democrat John Edwards’ $400 hair cuts in 2007 and Republican McCain’s $520 black leather Ferragamo shoes this year.

A review of similar records for the campaign of Democrat Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee turned up no similar spending.
But all the spending by other candidates pales in comparison to the GOP outlay for the Alaska governor whose expensive, designer outfits have been the topic of fashion pages and magazines. What hasn’t been apparent is where the clothes came from – her closet back in Wasilla or from the campaign coffers in Washington. The answer can be found inside the RNC’s September monthly financial disclosure report under “itemized coordinated expenditures.” It’s a report that typically records expenses for direct mail, telephone calls and advertising. Those expenses do show up, but the report also has a new category of spending: “campaign accessories.”

September payments were also made to Barney’s New York ($789.72) and Bloomingdale’s New York ($5,102.71). Macy’s in Minneapolis, another store fortunate enough to be situated in the Twin Cities that hosted last summer’s Republican National Convention, received three separate payments totaling $9,447.71. The entries also show a few purchases at Pacifier, a top notch baby store, and Steiniauf & Stroller Inc., suggesting $295 was spent to accommodate the littlest Palin to join the campaign trail. An additional $4,902.45 was spent in early September at Atelier, a high-class shopping destination for men.
 
Back
Top