i don't hate anyone. i don't respect mccain any longer. i don't love obama, either. i didn't vote for him in the indiana primary. i do feel he is the better of the two candidates, though. hell, if i had my way, ol' bill would still be in office without any term limits.

I just don't feel any need to assess her any further or give her the time of day...her actions speak loud enough for me. Like they saying goes "Your action speak so loudly, I can't hear a word your saying." I think people should lead by example...and she has so far done an appauling job from where I sit. I wouldn't invite her into my home.

Xiandi...by all means they "should" have a moral background...which you don't need religion to have...common sense...intelligence and a good heart can do that. But they are lead by money...greed and power...not morals. If they lead by morals we would not be in the shape we are in today. And if present day religions are any example of being moral...I'll pass. And unfortunately Xiandi...yes...I think the majority of religions that I know of are terrible...hypocritical...two faced...and should not be involved in politics.

Example of religions....priests are "suppose" to protect your children and teach them morals. They get caught mollesting them...and there are still some of them out there "teaching" your children instead of sitting in prison? And the churches knew this was going on yet did nothing.

Some muslims claim to not be part of the violence thats occuring in the world...yet I haven't heard a peep out of them yet...well...maybe a peep...but where's the outcry against this violence?...where's the help from them in stopping it?

As I said...people can believe in what they want in regards to religion if they feel some need to....but they should just keep it to themselves. I was raised a catholic until I reached the age of reason...then I saw it for what it was.To many religions....to many "gods" and no sign of any of them caring about they're "children"....just the old "Grand design" reason for not doing anything to help them...not really my idea of a god. I feel this country and the world be do much better without them in politics. I do understand people needing to believe in something like some grand design...I'm just not one of them...I believe in what I can see..feel and touch...and I consider myself a very moral person.

This is how "I" feel and live my life...I certainly don't expect anyone to agree with me.

Morals != religion.

I take exception to this as well. Hell, the "morals" of certain people pulling the religion card should seriously be examined (ask yourself...how many wars have been waged in the name or religion?). Example: anti-abortion people go nuts because people who perform abortions are "killing," and "thou shalt not kill." So what do they do about it? They BOMB the clinics and harrass the patients! How in the hell does that make any kind of rational or logical sense? "You murderer, that's a sin, so I'm gonna BOMB and terrorize you!" Uhhh hello?? What happened to "two wrongs don't make a right."

They (conservatives) are big proclaimers of "leave goverment out of our private lives" except when it comes to a woman controlling her own reproduction, and then they feel compelled to get into our business and push THEIR religious beliefs onto the rest of us. Thanks, but no thanks.

Really?  As for me, all I see in your "definition" is a thinly veiled attempt to claim that liberals are more hypocritical than conservatives.  And given the history of scandals in this country, recent and otherwise, that is clearly an unsustainable position.

So, while that may be your own personal odd definition it doesn't line up with Bill O'Reilly, Anne Coulter, Sean Hannity, the neocons like Wolfowitz, etc. etc. etc. Bush ran for President as a conservative and yet his actions have massively increased government, historically spent beyond our country's means, and launched a pre-emptive invasion nation-building war.  All of these are things conservatives did NOT support when he ran for office and don't support now, generally speaking.

I for one know we are all going to have to pay money to get out of this debt, no matter who wins the White House.  The only difference is that McCain's group is outright lying about it, the same way Bush did.  He lied to get into office, and then went and did everything he accused the Democrats of going to do.  So, even by your own definition, is Bush a REAL conservative?  And if he isn't, did you vote for him in 2000 and 2004 (especially) when people knew for sure he wasn't?  And if so, why, Brad?  Because it sure looks like the Democrats are a hell of a lot more fiscally conservative than the GOP this time around. 

And perhaps Joe Biden has given more to charity than the guy who makes donuts at the corner store.  Of what relevance, except to your ego, is this statement unless you back it up with facts that would indicate your relative INCOMES and EXPENSES (and those of your spouses and companies, etc.) so that we could see what % of disposable income we are talking about here? 

And what does that mean as far as "charity" really?  Joe could be giving NET less than you and yet a greater PERCENTAGE, who knows?  What is more charitable?  Giving $2,000 when rich or the last $20 in your pocket?  That's a very self-serving statement, Brad, and of little relevance with or without documentation.  For example, I donate to charities through the companies I have owned and my own charity is more along the lines of paying a stranger's rent or loaning a friend money and never asking for it to be repaid.  That doesn't show up in anyone's income or tax statement, and it isn't any more or less charitable that what you do.  They are all good, meaningful deeds.  So, what if Joe Biden donated his TIME to homeless vets or wrote and got passed a bill that gave millions to starving children around the world?  It seems to me as though, by applying your definition of charity to others, you are attempting simply to aggrandize your own personal definition of charity.

Really?  Because wasn't it the GOP that supported the removal of people from homes they've owned for decades just so their friends could re-develop the property into potentially profitable strip malls and outlet stores (during the great land grab rush over the past 10 years)?  Isn't that a transfer and confiscation of private property based on "greed" instead of "need"?

And now, if you look at it, those developments are DEAD and the people lost their homes AND everyone got screwed except the guys who collected fees on the front ends of all these deals.  I wonder if they were pro or against their own bailout?  And I wonder if they're registered Republicans.  Wanna bet on those odds?

And who's confiscating everyone's homes these days instead of negotiating new mortgages adjusted for the bursting credit-default-swap financing bubble?  I don't have any statistics to back this up, but my gut's telling me that all of those bankers and financial Friends of Bush, like Enron, are all good tax-paying members of the GoP.  So I guess their "need" for greed trumps everyone else's "need" for a roof.  Ahem.

I think I'll let the weight of overwhelming evidence of the widening gap between the rich and poor in this country speak for me.  You might as well argue against the melting polar ice caps.  You'd have just as much luck finding supporting evidence for your position. 

So, it's okay if YOU are selfish in voting with regards to your money, but that's a character flaw for all the rest of electorate? 

First, again you keep treating this as a pissing contest.  It's not.

Regardless, I believe that you're incorrect on both counts, and I'll use your own words to prove it to you. 

First, according to this article interviewing you about your company, (http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20080610/EMAIL01/576692664/1089) you very much mind paying taxes.  For example, what businessman would make the mistake of moving his company with only $18 million gross (you make personally a couple million net I'd guess) over $80,000 in local taxes?  However, I do think it would behoove your company to be near one of the centers of wealth and power (NYC, LA, or MS in Washington State)  Those MINOR tax savings should be a bonus and a checkmark in the pro column not a principal reason.

And BTW $18 million is a medium sized PROJECT in my neck of the woods.  You *might* pay more than me in taxes THIS year, but I've taken the last six months of this year off to write.  :) 

And I'd never make the egotistical mistake of assuming that I was the most successful person with access and interest in this thread.  I've personally pointed some very powerful men to developments here over the years and I have no idea if they still lurk. 

Again you are making an unwarranted assumption.  I'm fully aware that you have weathered storms and give you full props for that as a businessman.  I've been a multi-millionaire and also dead-broke many times over because I have a completely different temperment.  I salute your own definition of success and hope your company continues to do well under your stewardship.  I really do.

Ooh, I hadn't really considered the movie moguls since this was a conversation about Buffet/Gates types.  If you include them, I could throw one hell of a billionaire bash.  ;)  And no, if you know ANY billionaires personally, you'd know the last thing they want is their names bandied about.  You don't get to keep them as friends that way.

Regardless, there is an inherent snobbery in your comment about "movie moguls or something".  Since your company makes the majority of its income from entertainment related content I believe, I'm not sure why you'd diminish the financial achievements of say EA, LucasArts, Blizzard, Spielberg, etc.  To me, as long as they didn't make their money on the suffering of others, or inherited the money, I give props to ANY and all billionaires for their successful pursuit of the American Dream. 

Are you insane?!  Seriously, I take it all back.  You ARE paying more than me per year (whether or not I make more year by year, haha) and no wonder you are so tax fixated!  Dude, get yourself some A-list financial advice.  Seriously.  Hint:  You probably won't find it in Michigan.

I wasn't arguing that you, me, conservatives, the poor, or the middle class for that matter don't vote in their best interests as they see them.

I WAS arguing against your statement that a handful of people pay the majority of the total tax revenue. That is patently absurd, and also VERY subject to sliding-scale statistics, since the word "majority" can mean different things under different agendas.  For some, that might mean 51%, for others they would redefine is as "bulk".  It's a per capita vs. aggregate trap and thus meaningless.

Sorry for confusing the issue.

Regardless, who's getting the big trillion dollar handout from the government NOW?  Looks to me like it's the guys who have traditionally voted GOP...how does that square with you?  No one's bailing you or me out if we gamble and lose.

As were all your self-serving comments about your giving to charity, etc. etc. You can't have it both ways, amigo.  Not with me.

PS You think you might want to allocate a few programming hours to making this quote/response system a little easier to use and constructive?!  You and I have both had to spend a hell of a lot of time just to have a discussion that would have threaded much easier (re: Digg)!  And we both make far too much money per hour to be caught up in this sort of editorial minutiae. 

re: Morals and Religion

If Religion helps guide your moral compass, more power to you.

But every human being knows right from wrong at birth.  It's coded into our genetic makeup, as the Golden Rule is to the benefit of ourselves as individuals and to the continuation of our species.   So no one NEEDS a religion to tell them what is moral and what isn't. 

I have seen weakness and hypocrisy in so many, regardless of faith or lack of it, that a man's "professed" moral compass means NOTHING to me.

I judge all men on their ACTIONS.  And hold them accountable as I hold myself.  It has cost me wives, jobs, and fortunes, to not lie, cheat, or steal at the expense of others.  But when the shit hits the fan, even those I have made enemies of have laughed off those who have attempted to impugn my integrity.

There is great personal power in actually having honor and integrity.  How you get there is your own journey. 

Rest assured that anyone who tells you that religion is *required* to be a moral man is trying to sell you something, or just as often trying to justify to themselves what they have already been sold on. 

We need to start calling people out for the things they do.

When the first Bailout plan was presented, Nancy Pelosi grandstanded and hurt the feeling of some Repubs so those repubs in turn changed their votes at the last second causing more problems and opened the door for an additonal 150 billion in pork to be added to the bill.

Is this really what we want as our leaders? A bunch of people on their periods? Nancy Pelosi's strings should be removed so we can allow her to flop to the ground like the puppet she is. The 19 Repubs that changed their vote because they put their feelings ( party)  above the state of the Country should all be lined up and shot with pepper spray every morning until their terms are up.

Anyone that has been in the system for more than 4 years and still says Washington needs cleaning up is part of the problem. "Washington needs cleaning up" has become a catch phrase for all politicians. When someone says anything of the sort now, they lose all credibilty in my book. We should be legally allowed to slap them when they say it.

Poor Ron Paul, He is almost always right yet always made out to be the Kook by a tag team of Dems, Repubs, and Media.

Religion and politics don't mix.  Athiests have to take every stupid issue to court and in the end, the Constitution backs them. Democrats wing everything and many policies come around full circle because they can't see beyond their current mood.

If you don't watch the Daily show , you should.

A widening "gap", which has been shown to be incorrect, is not real signs of the GOP doing anything to the middle class.  People control their own wealth, not the federal government.

Conservatives want small government, it's the mudering of babies that some take offense to. 

Speaking as an Independent, my life philosophy is everybody has the right to live their life as they see fit, as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's right to do the same. In other words, ain't nobody's business!

Palin  is not running for president!  Which just reflects on the rest of the ignorance in your post as well.

IS - since he has not repudiated anything.  He may not be an active terrorist, but he is a terrorist.

And as they say, getting caught with your fingers in the cookie jar does not mean you stole cookies, but usually is enough evidence to support the charge.  David Hicks was not guilty by association, he IS the association.  Bad example.

Aren't you the one who argued that my objection to having the government take my family's property to give to other people is an example of being "self-centered"?

Sorry but you are a very typical example of the liberal philosophy: Political beliefs determine whether someone is self-centered or not. Not deeds.

You don't know anything about me other than that I provide these forums for you for free to discuss topics like this but you decide to call me self-centered purely because I don't believe it is the role of the federal government to confiscate property from one person to give to another.

My opinion of the GOP is pretty well known.  Rush Limbaugh insulted me on his show for a week by name (by handle anyway):

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_020808/content/Landmark_Rush_Monologue.guest.html

I'm the origin of the deragotry term "cut and run conservative".

I'm not happy with the Republicans either. But the answer isn't for my family to give up more of its earnings to pay for it. The answer is to cut spending.

Well, first of all, my response wasn't about my ego but refuting your statement that my beliefs are because I'm self-centered. I think I can do more good with my earnings than the federal government.

Secondly, Joe Biden gives far far less than the average American does and yet he believes we should support higher taxes out of "patriotism".

Third, if you can't participate in this discussion with some level of civility, you are free to go elsewhere. 

And lastly, if you aren't aware that the top 10% pay most of the federal income taxes, then there's not much more to discuss anyway.

http://townhall.com/columnists/LarryElder/2008/10/09/in_defense_of_the_rich

Bzzt!  Wrong.  Check out the first 10 years (that would be about 1788 to 1798).  And then tell us all what party Washington belonged to.

We're in the process of hiring more web developers.  Of course, if our taxes get raised, there's less money available to do that sort of thing.

After reading all the posts, I think back to one that Brad made.  And it appears to be true.  We see loons on both sides, saying things about both candidates that are just inflamatory.  That is to be expected.  it happens every year.  But JU has appeared to be at least a calm rational site when it comes to the rhetoric on both sides except when it comes to Palin.  Who truth be told made only 2 major mistakes in her life - became a republican, and agreed to run as VP.  I know, both hateful dispicable things to the enlightened literatti.

Like Brad, I dont like McCain or Obama.  And I will not vote for either.  And I am conservative.  But I dont see myself spewing the hatred about Obama on a personal level as I have seen spewed against Palin here.  Personally, I think Obama is no different than any other politician that has run for the office (at first, he did seem different - but then the process corrupted him).  Biden on the other hand is a old pol that has a lot of baggage that I do detest.  Yet I attack his baggage, not his family.

The same cannot be said for either Palin or McCain on this site.  It mattered not who they were, just what the letters behind their name was.  Most seem to pick up on allegations and run with them as facts, no matter how flimsy the evidence (if any at all) is.  And when disproven, that does not stop the attacks - they are just deflected or ignored.

I doubt it will matter, as liberals do have short memories (liberals in general, not referring to any here).  But the damage done to women by this year's political process by the liberals is embarrassing.  And lays bare their lies about being "pro-feminist".  No, they dont care a bit for the cause of feminism.  Only when it helps their cause.  And their supporters?  The same way.

The election will not turn on this hate being directed towards Palin.  many here still forget she is not the president candidate, but the VP candidate.  But it does demonstrate the true colors of liberals.  There are a lot of issues that are very germaine to this election that should be vetted in deciding who to vote for.  Sadly, virtually none of them have been discussed in the 200 odd posts (or the article itself) here.

And that goes for my posts as well.  And for that, I appologize.

I find this comment extraordinary.  The left is always ranting about the rich or well off not paying their fair share of taxes and yet you seem to take pride in finding high priced tax experts ( a luxury many cannot afford) to limit your payment as much as possible.  One can only surmise that you think you already pay your fair share.  Must be the "other" rich people who should pay more!

The comment about not being able to find good tax advice in Michigan leads me to believe that you are one of the intelligentiza that believes only the east or west coast has the talent and brain power and the rest of the country is just a vacuum.  Ahh, the eliteism shows itself clearly.

I would pay to see that!

Nope, I won't ever vote for him (takes quite a few years to get citizenship). And it's right there at the end of my message: "I know Obama, Biden and a lot of other politicians are probably much the same".

Petty, really? She's the one campaigning on a fiscal responsibility platform. And what about all those earmarks? She asked for quite a lot of them and now she's saying those are bad. Again, the problem is not the debt or the earmarks in themself, it's the gap between what she says now and her past actions. And what does her popularity has to do with that? You rightly pointed out that democrats are popular among non-tax paying voters, and this sure does not make their tax proposals any better.

There is another yahoo email she used, and thankfully was not hacked into. I'm not arguing that there's anything damaging to her reputation in here. The point is she has to use the state provided emails for conducting state business. It's not that hard, do not use non-secure private emails for state business! And she was found in violation of ethics rules. That's not bias, that's fact. Now, we can argue whether complying with state rules is important or not from an ethic viewpoint. Some won't find it to be a big deal and that's fine. But I do find it pretty important.

Highly biased, huh ok. I'm not saying that she does not want people to see she's incompetent, that would be biased. She did interviews and debates as mayor and governor, and none of those are bad. So, why do you think she doesn't want do take a few hours and do interviews? Every other candidate does. I don't understand her strategy here really. What would be an unbiased viewpoint according to you?

And I bet you would probably make them look like idiots. But you're not running for office, she does. If she's indeed qualified, there are plenty of journalists waiting to ask her questions... She did incredibly bad in her few interviews, and I think she needs to correct that perception. If she did not take much interest in it in the past, there is nothing wrong with that, but at least be humble about it.

If you had the possibility to meet with foreign leaders as part of your job, would you pass the opportunity? She had the money to travel, the credentials to meet with the right people and she sure wants to further her carreer. Why she didn't do it earlier I would like to know.

Indeed there are, but at least he's talking... And I didn't bring up the witchcraft thing, the various links to AIP, the fact that she seems to think God gave her a mission (scary to me for the potential implications). All those things are starting to surface and there is not enough information to really know if they are important or not (some of them will probably end up being just false accusations, others need some explanation from Palin). And yep, it's the same thing with Obama, ACORN and his past relationships with some people. 

And the original question was about Palin, still you bring up Obama all the time, as if the fact that he's done the same or worse would make her own actions look better. We can discuss Obama too, I have a long list of things I don't like about him. In fact, the list is probably longer since I actually know about his policies...

We'll agree to disagree on this one... but I liken it to my giving up drinking...I am a former drinker

Aw, now that's not nice... just cos he was playing catch the handgrenade with a Taliban general. hoping of course it would go off in the other guy's hand.

I have tried to go through this post with an open mind, very hard to do.

What I see here is that if we expect 'Fair & Balanced Reporting' from the media we all will be waitng for a long time.

Also, based on the recent campaign shouting, if we expect honest and truthful comments from either politicial candidates/parties, it will be snowing in that hot place before that happens.

Of course this is just my opinion, hopefully worth at least as much as everyone's own.

So being a drinker is now the equivalent of being a cop killer? Riiiight. Not exactly the best example you could make.