Question: Does Ayers Matter? Why or Why Not?

[Mikeyrat]

I'll answer after a few of you take a poke at it...

[StormCrow]

I'd say yes and no.

Yes as in Domestic terrorism is bad.

No, because Obama was a kid when it was happening.

His association with Ayers isn't that important.

Also, I'm sure you know Mccain was part of the World Anti-Communist League which is considered to be a "terrorist" organization who were responsible for bombings in Italy, supplied arms to Guerillas in the Iran-Contra affair.

So if the Republicans are going to bring up Obama's connections, maybe someone should bring up Mccains...

P.S. Palin is fucking nuts, and her "rallies" paint her as very racist to me.
not that this has anything to do with the discussion at hand.

[Mikeyrat]

I'd say yes and no.

Yes as in Domestic terrorism is bad.

No, because Obama was a kid when it was happening.

His association with Ayers isn't that important.

Also, I'm sure you know Mccain was part of the World Anti-Communist League which is considered to be a "terrorist" organization who were responsible for bombings in Italy, supplied arms to Guerillas in the Iran-Contra affair.

So if the Republicans are going to bring up Obama's connections, maybe someone should bring up Mccains...

P.S. Palin is fucking nuts, and her "rallies" paint her as very racist to me.
not that this has anything to do with the discussion at hand.

Never heard of the World Anti-Communist thing... hmm...

And what makes you believe her "rallies" paint her as racist? Specific examples, please of what SHE says... I know what the nutty left web sites say, but I'd like to know exactly how someone not nutty left can think so. I'm not looking to defend her, I'm just REALLY puzzled by those accusations...

EDIT: Also, on the issue of race in this election... the only people who aren't going to vote for Obama because of race are white Democrats... No Republican, racist or not, would vote for someone like Obama no matter what his color is. So unless we're being led to believe that Republicans are somehow playing the race card to persuade white Democrats, who, by definition, are racially blind and totally tolerant of all peoples, then I'm not sure what the problem is here. Unless the left is somehow trying to convince the "undecideds" Republican's are racists, dunno... But the whole issue of race just seems to be a way for the left to smear the right before they even say anything.

[Kadian]

Specific examples, please of what SHE says... I know what the nutty left web sites say, but I'd like to know exactly how someone not nutty left can think so.

Ahhh, Mikey is officially back.....

Although I agree, I also haven't heard of this anti-communist league thing (which doesn't mean I don't believe you, but I'd like see some info on it), and I also haven't sensed any racist behavior from Palin, but I guess I haven't watched many of the rallies, just the debates and conventions mostly...

The funniest thing for me about Palin is while watching her debate I said to my wife "her answers sound kind of like a beauty pageant answers" to which I was informed that she was in fact in beauty pageants at one point, which I did not even know. (I'm not talking about answers as bad as the "U.S Americans don't have maps" answer, but still a little like that some times)

[Mikeyrat]

Well, Kadian, its because I read the left's website and shit, too. Even when you hear complaints about race in the "MSM" its quoting extremely liberal individuals. I just want Storm to take some actual quotes and/or descriptions from her rallies and tell me how HE could possibly see them as racist at all. THAT will be interesting...

[StormCrow]

mostly talking about the rallies i've seen on the daily show, which are probably not all of her rallies, but sure show how some of their supporters are.

[Mikeyrat]

Well, Storm, in case you've missed it, some "supporters" at Obama rallies have been no different. And the fact that people continue to give Jon Stewart, a comedic satirist (and a good one) creedence blows me away. Just understand Storm, than Palin is in fact a strong pull for many conservatives back to a ticket they considered woefully unconservative, and thats a huge threat to the Omanas and the left, so she's being painted as everything nasty under the sun, including racist, true or not. I doubt anyone not already rabid with Bush-Cheney-Palin Derangement Syndrome would see her rallies as "racist" in any way. The general thinking seems to be, "Oh! She's making applause points with conservatives! She's damning the Democrats! The top of the ticket for the Democrats is *black*! She must be racist!" Absurd.

Read this, (yes conservative writer, but still funny and SO true!):

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Zj ... FjOTQ4YmQ=

[StormCrow]

you think that clips shown of Palin's rallies aren't valid because i saw them on a satirical show? Have you seen these things, they're bad.

And honestly any base that would find palin a plus to vote for Mccain is one i'd rather not be a part of.

IF Mccain had picked any other VP, any I'd probably be voting for him, but instead he decided to pander to the lowest common denominator of people who literally are too uptight and brain damaged to even look up relevant facts about either candidate, and buy shit such as her having foreign policy experience or that she can run the most powerful (2nd most incoming) country in the world because she's a "Hockey Mom." People need to understand this shit isn't a popularity contest, its about who is going to be the #1 guy in the #1 country and they think because she drives her kids to Hockey practice and makes citizens of her town pay for their own rape kits (when they were raped, obviously) that makes her a good choice to run the country when McCain dies (when for sure, theres no way he will survive a full term).

I can't even fathom how you could look at Palin and consider her a valid choice for president, theres no way in Hell someone with her experience and abilities (read: none in either catagory) could be even close to a reasonable choice for VP.

And i think Biden is a fucking twat but I'd rather his ass become president than Palin by 100x.

I wish people in this country would actually vote for someone to run the damned country, and not who can most pander bullshit votes from the lowest common denominator.

[RoamingMadness]

you think that clips shown of Palin's rallies aren't valid because i saw them on a satirical show? Have you seen these things, they're bad.

And honestly any base that would find palin a plus to vote for Mccain is one i'd rather not be a part of.

IF Mccain had picked any other VP, any I'd probably be voting for him, but instead he decided to pander to the lowest common denominator of people who literally are too uptight and brain damaged to even look up relevant facts about either candidate, and buy shit such as her having foreign policy experience or that she can run the most powerful (2nd most incoming) country in the world because she's a "Hockey Mom." People need to understand this shit isn't a popularity contest, its about who is going to be the #1 guy in the #1 country and they think because she drives her kids to Hockey practice and makes citizens of her town pay for their own rape kits (when they were raped, obviously) that makes her a good choice to run the country when McCain dies (when for sure, theres no way he will survive a full term).

I can't even fathom how you could look at Palin and consider her a valid choice for president, theres no way in Hell someone with her experience and abilities (read: none in either catagory) could be even close to a reasonable choice for VP.

And i think Biden is a fucking twat but I'd rather his ass become president than Palin by 100x.

I wish people in this country would actually vote for someone to run the damned country, and not who can most pander bullshit votes from the lowest common denominator.

/agree, that pretty much sums it up

[StormCrow]

i found some hilariousness if you want to watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHrExRHZnm0

[Crow]

http://www.southparkzone.com/episodes/8 ... -Turd.html

[Kadian]

Back to the topic at hand, the answer Obama gave for the Ayers situation in the debate seemed to make sense enough to get him through this.... In case you missed it he basically explained that both he and Ayers were on some "board" together along with some republicans, which I think was effective in making it seem like he had no more connection to him than the republicans that where on that board.... I'm sure there is some greater reason that he has been tied to this guy, but I don't think the general public will buy it, especially with the response given in this debate....

[Mikeyrat]

you think that clips shown of Palin's rallies aren't valid because i saw them on a satirical show? Have you seen these things, they're bad.

And honestly any base that would find palin a plus to vote for Mccain is one i'd rather not be a part of.

IF Mccain had picked any other VP, any I'd probably be voting for him, but instead he decided to pander to the lowest common denominator of people who literally are too uptight and brain damaged to even look up relevant facts about either candidate, and buy shit such as her having foreign policy experience or that she can run the most powerful (2nd most incoming) country in the world because she's a "Hockey Mom." People need to understand this shit isn't a popularity contest, its about who is going to be the #1 guy in the #1 country and they think because she drives her kids to Hockey practice and makes citizens of her town pay for their own rape kits (when they were raped, obviously) that makes her a good choice to run the country when McCain dies (when for sure, theres no way he will survive a full term).

I can't even fathom how you could look at Palin and consider her a valid choice for president, theres no way in Hell someone with her experience and abilities (read: none in either catagory) could be even close to a reasonable choice for VP.

And i think Biden is a fucking twat but I'd rather his ass become president than Palin by 100x.

I wish people in this country would actually vote for someone to run the damned country, and not who can most pander bullshit votes from the lowest common denominator.

/agree, that pretty much sums it up

Well, be cautious about "clips on a satirical show" they could be lacking a little context, yanno? As if they're not chosen and carefully edited to make the satirist's point. sheesh.

As far as Palin's qualifications, well she has just a little less experience that Bill Clinton (AR governor) and Jimmy Carter (GA governor).

The rape kit thing is pure bullshit, http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2008 ... 41845.aspx

Nut graph: "The Democratic sponsor of the legislation, Eric Croft, told USA Today recently that “the law was aimed in part at Wasilla, where now-Gov. Sarah Palin was mayor.” Yet in six committee meetings, Wasilla was never mentioned, even when the discussion turned to the specific topic of where victims were being charged. ....In light of Wasilla’s low number of rapes according to available FBI statistics (one to two per year, compared to Juneau’s 30-39), and the fact that the Wasilla Finance Department cannot find any record of charging a victim for a rape kit, it is entirely possible that no victim was ever charged."

But anyway, I dunno if Palin is the best VP candidate or not. Overall, though, I'd say she has as much experience as Obama, and she's not the top of the ticket....

Back the the original question, "Does Ayers matter?"

Most of the talk about Ayers focuses on his bit of domestic terrorism back in the '60s, but the issue with me about Ayers, Wright, Rezko and the rest of Obama's affiliations over the years deals with ideology. He's doing a great job of coming off as a moderate on the stump, but his associations in the past show a very hard left liberal mindset. On top of that, he's rated as the senator with the most liberal voting record (Biden's #3) and now, things like telling Joe the Plumber "its good to spread the wealth around" it shows that without his teleprompter's moderate message, he's a borderline socialist at heart. I'm sorry fellas, you all may hate conservatives, but you really need to think twice about ANY one who says flat out they want to take money from some people and hand it to others as they see fit. I will never understand anyone who can willfully, knowingly and forthrightly stand upon that principal.

[RoamingMadness]

And she can see Russia from her house!!

[Kadian]

Keep in mind that this "redistributing of wealth" is actually just the fact that the wealthy pay higher taxes than the lower and middle classes.

Republicans want to paint it as literally knocking on the door of the wealthy and taking their cash or property, and then physically handing that cash to the "poor," but in reality it means that people making less than a certain amount get a tax cut (tax cuts are good right?) and people who make more than that amount either

A.) Just don't get a tax cut, or
B.) Get their previous Bush tax cuts taken away...

This is a far cry from a socialist society, which basically gives the government control of all property, resources, and businesses in the country so that they can distribute the resources evenly, this also means you would have no private property rights, like owning your own home or land or a business. (Sorry, I just don't see this as being anywhere near the same thing as differing tax rates)

So no, they are not taking money to distribute to others as they see fit, they are taking money via taxes from everyone and using it to run the country, and the percentage that they take depends on how much money you make (varying only a few percent mind you, we aren't talking about 2% for the poor and 90% for the rich or anything). Seeing as though most politicians are very wealthy, and in a socialist society they would pretty much lose everything they have to make everyone equal, I guess I'm not too concerned about any politicians trying to create a true socialist society...

Making it look more like "taking" from the rich to "distribute" to others is what I call "spinning" the issue. Perhaps Obama should have thought twice before using the phrase "I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody” when trying to explain why people making over $250,000 would not get a tax cut in his plan, but I'm sure it will not turn out to be a big problem for him in the election since that will really only effect about 5% of the population, many of whom agree that they should pay a little more in taxes than those struggling to pay their rent, feed their kids, and fill their gas tanks...

[StormCrow]

you think that clips shown of Palin's rallies aren't valid because i saw them on a satirical show? Have you seen these things, they're bad.

And honestly any base that would find palin a plus to vote for Mccain is one i'd rather not be a part of.

IF Mccain had picked any other VP, any I'd probably be voting for him, but instead he decided to pander to the lowest common denominator of people who literally are too uptight and brain damaged to even look up relevant facts about either candidate, and buy shit such as her having foreign policy experience or that she can run the most powerful (2nd most incoming) country in the world because she's a "Hockey Mom." People need to understand this shit isn't a popularity contest, its about who is going to be the #1 guy in the #1 country and they think because she drives her kids to Hockey practice and makes citizens of her town pay for their own rape kits (when they were raped, obviously) that makes her a good choice to run the country when McCain dies (when for sure, theres no way he will survive a full term).

I can't even fathom how you could look at Palin and consider her a valid choice for president, theres no way in Hell someone with her experience and abilities (read: none in either catagory) could be even close to a reasonable choice for VP.

And i think Biden is a fucking twat but I'd rather his ass become president than Palin by 100x.

I wish people in this country would actually vote for someone to run the damned country, and not who can most pander bullshit votes from the lowest common denominator.

/agree, that pretty much sums it up

Well, be cautious about "clips on a satirical show" they could be lacking a little context, yanno? As if they're not chosen and carefully edited to make the satirist's point. sheesh.

As far as Palin's qualifications, well she has just a little less experience that Bill Clinton (AR governor) and Jimmy Carter (GA governor).

The rape kit thing is pure bullshit, http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2008 ... 41845.aspx

Nut graph: "The Democratic sponsor of the legislation, Eric Croft, told USA Today recently that “the law was aimed in part at Wasilla, where now-Gov. Sarah Palin was mayor.” Yet in six committee meetings, Wasilla was never mentioned, even when the discussion turned to the specific topic of where victims were being charged. ....In light of Wasilla’s low number of rapes according to available FBI statistics (one to two per year, compared to Juneau’s 30-39), and the fact that the Wasilla Finance Department cannot find any record of charging a victim for a rape kit, it is entirely possible that no victim was ever charged."

But anyway, I dunno if Palin is the best VP candidate or not. Overall, though, I'd say she has as much experience as Obama, and she's not the top of the ticket....

Back the the original question, "Does Ayers matter?"

Most of the talk about Ayers focuses on his bit of domestic terrorism back in the '60s, but the issue with me about Ayers, Wright, Rezko and the rest of Obama's affiliations over the years deals with ideology. He's doing a great job of coming off as a moderate on the stump, but his associations in the past show a very hard left liberal mindset. On top of that, he's rated as the senator with the most liberal voting record (Biden's #3) and now, things like telling Joe the Plumber "its good to spread the wealth around" it shows that without his teleprompter's moderate message, he's a borderline socialist at heart. I'm sorry fellas, you all may hate conservatives, but you really need to think twice about ANY one who says flat out they want to take money from some people and hand it to others as they see fit. I will never understand anyone who can willfully, knowingly and forthrightly stand upon that principal.

i may have quoted a lot, but i think the super liberal part is pretty cool imo, we need a change of pace after our super conservative past 8 years.

EDIT: I'm also all for universal healthcare (incoming how Canada's sucks).

Redistribution of wealth though seriously? i don't know about that, i'm perfectly fine with taxing the rich more.

think of it like this, poor people use all their money on: food, gas, bills, with a bit left over for entertainment/investing.

rich people (according to Obama 250k+ a year) Spend their money on the same things, and their bills may be higher (because of larger house/car/more expenses) but they will have much more to spend on entertainment/investing.

Investing particularly is where a large discrepancy lies. A poor person who makes say 16k/yr get taxed a much lower percent than the guy who makes 250k+ a year, but the guy who makes more can also invest and make even more money off of his investments. If the poorer guy invests it his returns will be even more minimal because although his % of income taken is less, he still has significantly less left over to invest/dowhatever with.

I realize that you don't like the idea of "taking peoples hard earned money," I agree, i don't like my money being taken either.

but i understand that it does not work the same for everyone, which is why there is a variable tax rate in the first place.

Although I very much dislike Welfare, and I think we should limit Welfare to a time limit (approx 1yr) max you're allowed to be on welfare for nondisability reasons. If thats the redistribution you're talking about I just haven't heard much from either campaign on that issue.

[Mikeyrat]

Well, first of all, most people making under $30k a year, families in particular, don't pay taxes. So, Obama is planning on issuing checks to those people. Well, if you *increase* taxes on some people, and then hand money to other people (as you see fit) then you are redistributing wealth... No spin, just socialism. The funny thing is, Obama is somehow trying to spin this as a "tax cut" for 95% of Americans... not sure how he'll do that, but hey, OK.

The idea behind NOT raising the taxes on small businesses is so that maybe the small business can invest in growing itself, hence employing more people. What sense does it make to make to produce an environment where you slow the growth of the people who employ others? Well, to me, it looks like the people getting the free checks keep getting them instead of better paying jobs. The Obamans handing them out promise to keep them coming until "things get better" and then keep taxing the only people who CAN make it better so they never do. But, people are roped into the free checks, like money for nothing, and keep voting for the guy handing them out. Simple, no?

The best line McCain had in the debate was, "I don't want government redistributing wealth, I want Joe to redistribute the wealth."

That is the principal our country was founded on, not taking from one set of people and handing it to another as government sees fit. It really is that simple guys. If you really do want to live in a place that does this, and has "free health care" then please, go there.

And, Storm, et al, do you all understand what happens when people invest money or put it in savings? Do you really? I still think some of you all think that when oil companies make big profits or some rich guy like Gates makes billions, they just sock in away in a chest like Uncle Scrooge... but investment in stock adds value to companies, so companies can grow and employ more people, make new things, make other companies necessary, because these bigger better companies need more goods and services, too. Its how the economy works. Its why that every time we DECREASE the capital gains tax rate, tax revenues to the government INCREASE. Because it spawns new economic activity and that way, move taxes are collected, even at the lower rate.

The thing is, either Obama doesn't know how the economy works, which disqualifies him for president, or he does know, and believes that socialism is better than capitalism, and that disqualifies him to be president, too.

[RoamingMadness]

Mikey. You think Bush did a good job. I think that pretty much disqualifies you.

At the end of the day, all Obama is doing is taking money from the top tier, and giving it to the rest of the pie. For the middle class, it will appear as a tax cut. For people who make less than 16k a year, they get a straight check. Little bit of money for them.

Honestly, if you add up how much in services the average person gets, id say the rebate isn't going to make or break the system. This money will get spent, it will instantly be reabsorbed.

So long as we do not continue on into debt to give this rebate, this will boost our economy. Unlike Bush's tax cuts. Which did nothing.

This isn't about taking money from one person, and giving it to another. This is about the big picture mikey. We need a list of prioties. At the top of these should be fixing our economy, taking care of the people who are being effected the most by it. We need to spend less. Both canidates agree on this. McCain thinks we the people should take the full effect of this. No one pays attention to history. Reagan put us into debt, bush raised taxed to stop the downfall, then we cut programs we couldnt afford, and gave money to poor people (welfare) which jumped the economy and suddenly we're in a surplus. While you're bitching about redistributing wealth, you fail to see what needs to be done. There is a problem that needs to be solved. If your small business can't operate, maybe you don't need a business. Hell, if your business isn't making over 250k TAXABLE income a year, you don't even make the cut. And that's a lot more than it sounds like. Not only that, but they you only get taxed on the difference. If you make 300k, only the last 50k get a tax increase.

This is NOT going to effect most small businesses. And even if it did, the market regulates itself. The Obama tax plan will boost the economy, lower taxes for the middle class. Help out lower income families (handouts if you will).

In addition to these things. There will be a small tax increase for 5% of the population.

This is hardly socialism mikey. I bet money spent per citizen, this adds less than 5% of the overall benefits.

and then keep taxing the only people who CAN make it better so they never do.

You are so completely detached from reality. 5% of people get a small tax increase. Most of them hardly notice. All the money 'handouts' is instantly dumpped into the economy. So all those companies have a better year than last year, surplus for the company. The company uses that money to expand.

OR....

Companies get a tax break. But the economy is shit. So rather than expand or reinvest, they use the tax break to keep afloat. Delay, delay, delay the REAL problem. THE ECONOMY.

It didn't work when Reagan did it. It didn't work when Bush did it. It won't work now, or ever.

Christ Mikey, we should have a BOOMing economy. War for 7 years, low housing market, plenty of oil reserves...

If the price of oil is so goddamn expensive, flood the market with our oil, reduce the price to nothing. We allow the saudi's to have a monopoly then wonder why prices are so high.

Honestly, Obama and McCain are both showing bad sides. But if you think McCain's plan is better for the economy, you shouldnt be allowed to balance a checkbook.

[RoamingMadness]

That is the principal our country was founded on, not taking from one set of people and handing it to another as government sees fit. It really is that simple guys. If you really do want to live in a place that does this, and has "free health care" then please, go there.

You really want to talk about the principal's our country was founded on? Because idea's back then were so great? Honestly Mikey, women being second class citizens and having slave labor, you think the founding fathers would have said no to free health care? Sounds right along the lines of free labor to me.

But of course, all obama is actually offering is the healthcare package that our current 'government' has. You're against me having access to the government health care package. But for obama and mccain having it? If its really free, then shouldnt we be pissed that obama and mccain have it, but we dont?

[Kadian]

Ok, I almost tried to point out all the flaws in Mikey's response last night but I realized I didn't want to be up all night, so I'll do my best now to create a shorter response....

For starters, let's not get into that whole "Uncle Scrooge" thing again, despite my removing the old politics stuff I do still remember this conversation, and I remember that we (or at least I) made it clear that nobody thinks companies put money in a "money bin,' but most democrats believe that you get a better result by giving those tax cuts to low income workers, who then spend it on the goods and services of those companies, so those companies still get there increase in capital which they can invest in expanding, since we know they don't put it in a money bin.. (HEY MIKEY, just wanted to get your attention cause this is where you stop listening) so the company still sees increases in profits, cash, capital, and all that, but meanwhile the low income people who were given the money first have already received the benefit of the good or service they purchased, thereby increasing their standard of living and increasing profits for companies so they can expand. I know we have discussed in the past how this is more a difference in opinion on what works better, so please do not bring up the "money bin" crap anymore, it's a stupid argument.

Secondly, If you want to see a socialistic tax refund you should be looking at President Bush's tax rebate checks which went to lower and middle income people (a physical check written and sent out, like what republicans are now trying to scare people into thinking Obama will do), and had a cut off for the wealthy if you remember... That refund (which was of course considered great by republicans because it was a "tax cut") was way more of a redistribution of wealth than anything in Obama's tax plan... Also McCain's $5,000 refundable tax credit is the same thing, it gives a refundable cash tax credit to people that is paid by others.

Last point I'll make on the Obama Tax Plan is that I encourage you too look it up, because it also includes incentives for small business which guys like Mikey think are the most important. Those incentives include.....

1.)Eliminating Capital Gains Taxes for Entrepreneurs and Investors in Small Businesses.
2.)Cutting Corporate Tax Rates for Corporations that Create Jobs in America.
3.)Offering a Small Business Health Care Tax Credit
4.)Making the Research and Development Tax Credit Permanent

Read the whole thing here, it's not even that long or hard to read...
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes/Fa ... _FINAL.pdf