Crucify the man for trying some humor, geesh.

You see KFC, people are looking at it all wrong. Socialism is, at it's basis, not evil as it's made out to be. We've got socialism here in the US. Socialism in the US was originally intended as a leg up, and started around the 1850s. Check out my reply to lul in MasonMs thread.

( Link )

Here's the thread

After the first few minutes, we just couldn't watch it in my house. The mainstream media's love fest over Obama and all things Democrat is beyond the pale.....so dishonest.....take this outragreous 1 million dollar TV time slot and compare that to the media's inordinate howling over one of Palin's staffers buying $150,000 worth of clothes!

When I read this, I thought of a cartoon a friend recently sent me. It's Halloween and three little kids are out trick-or-treating with their goodies bags full.  At one house, a man greets them saying:

"Look how much candy you have" as he reaches into their bags and grabs a handful. "I'm going to take half and give it to the kids who were too lazy to go trick or treating." It shows one of the kids, thinking, O crap! A Democrat!

Obama and the Democrats Socialist leanings are what's real scary here.

On Obama's TV ad, did you see this news commentary by Calvin Woodward?

The spin and the facts.....

Obama's prime-time ad skips over budget realities

• Buzz Up
• Send
  • Email
  • IM
• Share
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Newsvine
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
• Print

Play Video Yahoo! News  – Highlights of Obama's TV ad

• Slideshow: Obama Infomercial
• Play Video Video: McCain Counterstrike FOX News
• Play Video Video: Will race play a factor in the election? WHAS TV11 Louisville

AP – In this still from video provided by the Obama Campaign, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack …

WASHINGTON – Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was less than upfront in his half-hour commercial Wednesday night about the costs of his programs and the crushing budget pressures he would face in office.

Obama's assertion that "I've offered spending cuts above and beyond" the expense of his promises is accepted only by his partisans. His vow to save money by "eliminating programs that don't work" masks his failure throughout the campaign to specify what those programs are — beyond the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

A sampling of what voters heard in the ad, and what he didn't tell them:

THE SPIN: "That's why my health care plan includes improving information technology, requires coverage for preventive care and pre-existing conditions and lowers health care costs for the typical family by $2,500 a year."

THE FACTS: His plan does not lower premiums by $2,500, or any set amount. Obama hopes that by spending $50 billion over five years on electronic medical records and by improving access to proven disease management programs, among other steps, consumers will end up saving money. He uses an optimistic analysis to suggest cost reductions in national health care spending could amount to the equivalent of $2,500 for a family of four. Many economists are skeptical those savings can be achieved, but even if they are, it's not a certainty that every dollar would be passed on to consumers in the form of lower premiums.

___

THE SPIN: "I also believe every American has a right to affordable health care."

THE FACTS: That belief should not be confused with a guarantee of health coverage for all. He makes no such promise. Obama hinted as much in the ad when he said about the problem of the uninsured: "I want to start doing something about it." He would mandate coverage for children but not adults. His program is aimed at making insurance more affordable by offering the choice of government-subsidized coverage similar to that in a plan for federal employees and other steps, including requiring larger employers to share costs of insuring workers.

___

THE SPIN: "I've offered spending cuts above and beyond their cost."

THE FACTS: Independent analysts say both Obama and Republican John McCain would deepen the deficit. The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates Obama's policy proposals would add a net $428 billion to the deficit over four years — and that analysis accepts the savings he claims from spending cuts. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, whose other findings have been quoted approvingly by the Obama campaign, says: "Both John McCain and Barack Obama have proposed tax plans that would substantially increase the national debt over the next 10 years." The analysis goes on to say: "Neither candidate's plan would significantly increase economic growth unless offset by spending cuts or tax increases that the campaigns have not specified."

___

THE SPIN: "Here's what I'll do. Cut taxes for every working family making less than $200,000 a year. Give businesses a tax credit for every new employee that they hire right here in the U.S. over the next two years and eliminate tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. Help homeowners who are making a good faith effort to pay their mortgages, by freezing foreclosures for 90 days. And just like after 9-11, we'll provide low-cost loans to help small businesses pay their workers and keep their doors open. "

THE FACTS: His proposals — the tax cuts, the low-cost loans, the $15 billion a year he promises for alternative energy, and more — cost money, and the country could be facing a record $1 trillion deficit next year. Indeed, Obama recently acknowledged — although not in his commercial — that: "The next president will have to scale back his agenda and some of his proposals."

 

Obama want's to take money from the rich, and spend it to do whatever he wants, and then leave us with a ten year pay-back plan for whatever he's done. In other words, make it harder to work for money, then make us pay for his playdate.

Looks like some did wait with baited breath.

Looks like some did wait with baited breath.

What I do find amusing is all the angst this causes among the right. Given that they've been ungracious winners for the past 8 years it's hardly surprising to find out that they’re such poor losers as well.

What is surprising is all the obvious effort folks here put into trying to convince others of the validity of their opinion. They can’t be that deluded that they believe anything they say will change anyone else’s mind. Most likely they’re merely trying to convince themselves that their opinion matters.

Look at it this way, the right is only happy when complaining so get ready for four years of fun. Let the whining and moaning begin. Oh nevermind, I see it’s already begun. 

Hmm, what would the republican version be I wonder...

It's Halloween and three little kids are out trick-or-treating with their goodies bags full.  At one house, a man greets them saying:

"Look how much candy you've extorted from others" as he reaches into his bag. "I'm going to take this gun and shoot you for such despicable behaviour". It shows one of the kids, thinking, O crap! A Republican!

Maudlin: Your analogy doesn't even make sense.

Republicans generally would prefer the government to keep its nose out of our business.

Speaking of cartoons....

I just saw one that had Obama congratulating himself on his collection of $150 million he raised in one month's time. 

He didn't look so smug when some of his moneybags were taken from him to give to John McCain who wasn't able to raise such a vast sum of money like Obama did.  He didn't like the "spreading of wealth" when it came to his own campaign moneybags. 

Maybe I'd believe him if he voluntarily gave up a portion of that $150 million either to McCain to even things out or take the $3-4 million he spent on that ridiculous half hour the other night and give to the poor or even his own brother living in poverty. 

I'm afraid his mouth doesn't match his actions.  And I've yet to see it happen at all. 

aren't you really speaking of the left?  The sour grapes of the left?  I've heard nothing but whining about Bush these last 8 years starting with the hanging chads in Florida. 

However I do have to admit that Bush leaves a legacy that will set the standard by which all future presidents will be measured, an all time record disapproval rating of 73%. Now *that's* impressive. Even Nixon couldn't break 70%.

Analogy? It was a republican version of the joke, it's not meant to be subjected to rigorous analysis or taken that seriously. Anyway the reasoning behind it is simple; Republicans favour gun ownership more than democrats, and also harsher criminal penalties/methods, on average. As for not being 100% applicable, are you arguing that all people not on high incomes are lazy, or that people who choose not to take part in legalised blackmail are lazy (which the original joke implied)?

The Republican analogy is more like this.  The kid takes the candy and then sets it on fire and asks for more.  The other kid says, oh crap he's a republican.

Agree that analogy doesn't particularly make sense.  

Although your point is also an interesting one.   You claim republicans would prefer to keep their nose out of other people's business, unfortunately their candidates do not appear to support this stance.   During the previous administration, monitoring of citizen activities reached unprecedented levels and the scope of authority for such matters increased considerably.   Justification of the necessity for such activities aside, the fact remains that the ability to keep their noses in other peoples businesses magnified considerably during the period of the Republican administration.  This appears to have enjoyed a significant amount of support from the Republican party as well as Republicans in general.

While old school republicanism would balk at this type of intrusion, the current party mix and philosophies are radically different than they were thirty years ago.

The right?  WHo has been crying for 8 years?

It will be good to have a president that can actually achieve an erection again.   Perhaps Palin could fill Monica's position.

Hopefully we won't be the ones getting screwed!

What else do you think he needs an erection for?  Not to duel with Chavez and Amidinijad (he has stated he will be the female in that relationship).

hmmmm I wonder if that has to do with the prophecy that says that the AC will have no desire for women? 

Better a feminine approach than that of an ostrich. ;p

*cough-Barney Frank-cough*

Republicans seem to be caught between a pair of rocks and a hard thing on this issue (pun intended) since the Republican Party is totally homophobic on the one hand while having no shortage of gay Republicans on the other. Mark Foley, Ted Haggard, Bob Allen, Glenn Murphy Jr. immediately come to mind along with the aforementioned Larry Craig. If the topic interested me sufficiently I'm sure I could come up with a few more names.

It appears that selected members of the holier than thou party have been spending a lot of time on their knees and it's hasn't been because they've been doing a lot of praying. It is fall, perhaps they're just bobbing for apples?

Q: How many Gay Republican politicians can you fit in the closet?

A: Apparently, all of them.