immts007

or be smarter than picking someone related to the LAST big financial crisis/scandal which John McCain himself was implicated in. I'm wondering if people around here don't know who Charles Keating was or McCain's role in the Keating 5 or remember the S&L; crisis of the late 80's early 90's.

Wow, I always thought I was pretty good at "eyeballing", but this was harder than I thought... First try: I also vow to get down into the 2's

But I'm not excited about the 'guilt' by association so much as the sheer cosmic unbelievability and karmic payback of it all. In a nation of millions, Obama takes a question from a guy in a crowd. John McCain decides to try and use it to his advantage, and the guy turns out to be related to a scandal that brings one of McCain's greatest failings of character and judgement to the forefront of public conciousness. Absolutely priceless, if you ask me.

Hey Smallville, your candidate wants to buy up all the failed mortgages and give them back to homeowners at a loss to the taxpayer. What do you call that? To broadly accuse a candidate of being socialist because you don't like the way they prioritize spending is unfair and disingenuous, I think. Broadly defined, the term 'socialism' can be applied anywhere common efforts and monies are contributed to 'promote the general welfare'. Also: How come no one is commenting on the fact that "Joe the Plumber" is a Keating family member??? Don't you guys find the irony rich and creamy and delicious?

This is too much! You can't make this stuff up: Joe the Plumber is related to the Keating Family ... and John McCain was one of the Keating Five . Oh, apparently this story was broken by a very conservative blogger , in case some don't like the crooks and liars link. I think McCain is going to be very sorry he made Joe the focus of the debate last night. Absolutely unbelievable! Seriously, my head is spinning over how perfect this is...

I think Joe the plumber should pay his current taxes like everybody else. Also, I think this whole thing is bullshit, because if everything he has said about the company is true, he would receive a tax break , not an increase. The company he talks about does not make $250k in net profits . And even if it did, provided he had no other taxable income, he would only see an increase of $0 to $900. Hardly enough to make any significant difference with regards to his ability to hire new employess or run the business.

Man, I really don't want to be in the business of defending the destruction of government property and I'm not, I condemn the bombings... but DDBowdoin the above statement is completely over the board and untrue. McVeigh wanted to kill people and did -- he killed lots of them including small children. The Weather Underground wanted to kill NO ONE, and never did. Well, some of their own people died in trying to make bombs - perhaps a Darwin award is in order. In every case they sent warning far in advance so that the targets would be evacuated. Malicious destruction? Yes. Criminal? Certainly. The same as Timothy McVeigh? You have seriously got to be kidding.

I don't hear any new information in that report and just more dishonest spinning of the nature of the association. I've linked this before, but I think this fact check is useful to those trying to sort out this Ayers stuff: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...ill_ayers.html

I agree, and would add "grumpy" and "persnickety" to the adjectives. It is obvious that he has a personal dislike for Obama and he doesn't seem to be able to veil it. It turns people off. And the Luntz focus group on FOX news of all places was almost unanimous in saying that Obama won. Not a single person offered the opinion that McCain did.

find the quote with a reference.

except he never said that.

Dude the fact that it is an Al Jazeera report doesn't change a thing those people are saying. But, unfortunately... you are probably right. People aren't logical and all it takes is an arabic symbol for something to be dismissed out of hand.

Not likely... the title of this thread is "Racism in America?" and based on this footage from a Palin rally in Ohio, the answer is most certainly "yes":

lol. Is 56 considered 'middle-aged'?

I completely agree. My intent was not to defend either behavior, buy to point out hypocrisy as well as give an example of McCain's 'character' and explosive temper. But that's off-topic for this thread. Apologies.

yeah. Looks tough... but that's also part of the reason I'm interested. It sounds as though they give a really good whole body workout.

I play a 12° I have a friend who has a Tommy Armour something or other with 17° and believe it or not he usually hits it around 240 or 250.

Plus, maybe they got the idea calling Sarah Palin that word was okay with McCain given that he's referred to his as such in front of reporters and aides: reference: http://rawstory.com/news/2008/McCain...n_92_0407.html

Those infomercials are so tempting... Does anyone here own one or have any experience with them? They look like a lot of fun.

Oh come on, he's very funny at times. I think part of the problem is that there are a lot of folk around here who can't tell when he's joking

Julie, you win the prize in my book for best post ever on this board

I've heard it's gotten better. I'm remember going to Disneyland one time and feeling like I needed goggles to protect my eyes from the pollution-sting.

Yes I do. Fondly as a matter of fact. He was a good man and a decent president. Far better than the right-wing has tried paint him. He had only one term, following 8 years of Nixon/Ford. Events put in play before his administration led to an extreme energy crisis which contributed greatly to the inflation seen during his term. Unemployment was overall lower than in the 2 years of the Ford administration that went before him. He also, somewhat to his discredit I think -- given the longterm implications we are seeing now, began the deregulation that led to economic prosperity in the Reagan years. He started by deregulating the Airlines and moved on to trucking, oil, communications, etc... Why don't I ever hear conservatives give him credit for that, considering their fondness for degregulation and 'free' markets? Anyway, a picture is worth a 1000 words. We've already addressed the inflation, but pay attention to the spending, unemployment, and deficit in both the red and blue rows...

Nice way to to encourage a civil exchange, Smallville. Again, most of the "dribble" I've linked to here, is from decidedly conservative folk. Any form of taxation is really 'income redistribution' what I think bothers most conservatives is the prioritization of that redistribution. Only hardcore libertarians think we shouldn't contribute to our 'general welfare'. I've never understood why many wealthy conservatives don't see the benefit in helping to insure that vast majority of people who are the biggest market for consumer goods overall don't sink into economic despair like they are beginning to now. Past is prologue, and the last time we were in this situation was in 1929 when similar economic behaviors to what we've seen over the majority of the last 12 years led us to the brink. And what pulled us out of it and into prosperity? Roosevelt's New Deal which started in 1933. Was that Socialism? Non in any pure sense. Wealthy people still accumulated wealth, as they always have. Numbers tell the story without resorting to demeaning labels: Seriously, the data is out there. Go look at over all economic performance, job growth and general prosperity of the nation over the past 50 years and you'll see that Democratic admin's fare better in almost ever category from growth to spending to managing the deficit. You could start with the Economic Report of the President .

This thread isn't about 'celebrities' endorsing Obama, but rather famous and noteworthy conservatives. Did you read it through? So far, only Dennis Hopper is a 'celebrity'. Erik chose the name for the merged thread, not me. EDIT: he changed it... thanks, Erik!