Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

gorgon wrote:Reds8n, criticizing the war is something done only by dangerously liberal, anti-American socialists who don't support our troops.

Oh you've met the French then ?

I got it never fear, although I am a dangerous nutjob to be fair.

Thanks anyway though Mr. 'Calvin. Brits stick together see.

vaguely at topic : Almost regardless of who wins it seems to me that the whole of the states is really polarised over this election, even more so than past ones. Fair to play to your current president I seem to recall him making an attempt after the last election to try and "reach out" and try to heal the rift a bit-- did it work at all ? Do people think the eventual victor will have to do the same ? I kind of wonder if that was perhaps what McCain was doing at those rallies the other week when he actually corrected some of the people there with regards to Obama being a Muslim/terrorist/a body snatcher etc.

reds8n wrote:

gorgon wrote:Reds8n, criticizing the war is something done only by dangerously liberal, anti-American socialists who don't support our troops.

Oh you've met the French then ?

I got it never fear, although I am a dangerous nutjob to be fair.

Thanks anyway though Mr. 'Calvin. Brits stick together see.

vaguely at topic : Almost regardless of who wins it seems to me that the whole of the states is really polarised over this election, even more so than past ones. Fair to play to your current president I seem to recall him making an attempt after the last election to try and "reach out" and try to heal the rift a bit-- did it work at all ? Do people think the eventual victor will have to do the same ? I kind of wonder if that was perhaps what McCain was doing at those rallies the other week when he actually corrected some of the people there with regards to Obama being a Muslim/terrorist/a body snatcher etc.

I would actually say that given the states Obama is winning/contesting, this race is actually less polarized than past elections. States that Bush won in 00 and 04 are turning blue, the electoral map is changing in ways we haven't seen in years. I feel the polarization you sense is due to the fundamentalists being washed from the system. The more McCain loses, the more culture war he attempts to ignite...but the polls strongly suggest the country is overwhelmingly rejecting it. If he continues at this pace, Texas will be a battleground state~

However, I do feel it's important Obama not only win the election...but win with authority. The greater his margin of victory, the more his political capital in the coming years...and regardless of the 60 seat Democratic congress...he'll need it to push his policies. I can't believe we are actually going to see Universal Healthcare in the next 4 years but it looks very likely!

Until word gets out of his baby eating antics anyway I suppose.

I guess a huge win would at the very least show that a sizable majority of americans back him at least. But whilst no campaign in any country anywhere has ever been dirt slinging free there seems to me to be an extra edge to the attacks and insults in this one. I recall Kerry being viewed as a coward or an elitist but I don't recall outright accusations of him being a terrorist/extremist in the same fashion.

reds8n wrote:Fair to play to your current president I seem to recall him making an attempt after the last election to try and "reach out" and try to heal the rift a bit-- did it work at all ?

The "attempt" amounted to "Now that I've won, and without losing the popular vote and needing the Supreme Court's help, everyone needs to get over their objections and fall into line." Rather amazingly... it didn't work.

AgeOfEgos wrote:I would actually say that given the states Obama is winning/contesting, this race is actually less polarized than past elections. States that Bush won in 00 and 04 are turning blue, the electoral map is changing in ways we haven't seen in years. I feel the polarization you sense is due to the fundamentalists being washed from the system. The more McCain loses, the more culture war he attempts to ignite...but the polls strongly suggest the country is overwhelmingly rejecting it. If he continues at this pace, Texas will be a battleground state~

I know you guys are probably tired of hearing me yammer on about the demographic challenges for the GOP in coming years, but this article from today sums it up pretty well. If you read down, it says Texas may be in play by 2016. Amazing stuff. We are living in very interesting political times.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27403090/

Regarding "healing the rift," every new president does it. It's a staple of inaugural addresses and such. Obviously, it doesn't really mean anything and the true believers on the other side will never change their minds.

While I think there is less polarization in this election in some ways, I also think there's a far-right element that will never accept Obama and hate him even more than the extreme left-wingers hate Bush. The Secret Service probably needs to be on its toes.

There's certainly a race element to this election which never occurred before.

To review the timeline:

Joe seeks out Obama at a campaign event.

Joe asks Obama what Joe intends to be a damning question, deliberately misrepresenting his own economic position and that of the business he works for to make it appear that he will be adversely affected by Obama's tax plan. Just watch the news footage- he deliberately used a number just over Obama's oft-stated tax increase cut off point.

Obama gives him an honest answer.

News organizations report on the incident, taking Joe's story at face value.

Conservative talk radio and blogs decide Joe is a hero, and celebrate him.

McCain campaign decides to make Joe a central feature of the final presidential debate. McCain talks at length about Joe. Obama speaks respectfully about and to Joe as well.

After debate, and McCain made an enormous deal out of him, media investigates the facts of Joe's story, and give him more airtime. Joe's description of his situation turns out not to be accurate, and ironically, his own reported income turns out to put him in a situation where he'd benefit more under Obama's tax plan. Joe Biden comments, noting that he doesn't know any plumbers making a quarter of a million dollars a year (Neither do I, and a good friend of mine is a plumber who is now starting up his own business).

Conservative blogs and radio decide that mainstream media and Obama campaign are "attacking" Joe because his story and the details of his life were questioned, nevermind that it was the McCain campaign that put him in the spotlight.

McCain campaign seizes on "spread the wealth" and ridiculously labels it a call to Socialism, blatantly ignoring Social Security and every other way we already
redistribute wealth in this country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_the_plumber

www.taxpolicycenter.org

djones520 wrote:1. You missread, that 50% is dollars, not people. 5% of this nation pays 50% of the taxes. And why don't you ask the people who are in that tax bracket, especially the majority of which are at that $250,000. Hell, I know a guy who only makes $100,000 a year, and he already pays 40% in taxes. That means he only brings home $60,000 a year out of what he earns. So what about those guys who go up higher on that scale and pay even more? I bet you'd be singing quite a differant tune if you where making $250,000 a year, giving 50% of it to the government, and are facing the prospect of giving more of it away.

2. And I'm not even going to bother touching this one. If you truly believe that he's going to cut spending when he's already proposed more then 1 trillion dollars in new projects, then there is not point continuing this discussion. He didn't earn the reputation as most Liberal Senator for voting to cut spending.

Ah, the top marginal rate in the US is 35% so he won’t be paying a top marginal rate of 40%, let alone an average rate of 40%. In fact, on $100,000 income he’ll be paying around $22,000 in taxes, an average rate of 22%. To pay $40,000 in taxes you’d need to be earning around $165,000, for an average rate of 24%. It sounds like you misunderstood your friend, quite badly. Unless you’re including state taxes or other taxes in there, in which case you’re being quite disingenuous.

Oh, and the 1 trillion in new projects is a rubbish number as well, by the way. It totals a number of multiple year projects, claims only the new costs on plans that replace old schemes, and ignores the self-funding elements of many of the projects. Don’t use it, it’s a lie.

The liberal senator thing is also a crock. There’s a conservative think tank that looks at the last year in voting records, and picks out the close bills (where parties will vote most closely along party lines) and declares those close bills the most clear right/left bills. Of course, the presidential candidates are campaigning and only return to vote on the close bills… a simple bit of maths later and you’ll see they’re only returning to vote along party lines on the close bills. Therefore, regardless of their actual position, the presidential candidate for each party is always found to be the most right and left wing. Kerry was the most liberal senator, as was Gore, and Clinton would have been if she had beaten Obama. I’m guessing this is your first election… either that or you’d remember the ‘most liberal senator’ crock that was repeated in the past.

Kilkrazy wrote:There's certainly a race element to this election which never occurred before.

seemingly so What a pair of twunts, hope they lock them away for a long time.

.... anyone any idea why 88 and 14 are important?

reds8n wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:There's certainly a race element to this election which never occurred before.

seemingly so What a pair of twunts, hope tehy lock tehm away for a long time.

.... anyone any idea why 88 and 14 are important?

Wikipedia is your friend...

Eighty-eight is used as code among Neo-Nazis to identify each other. H is the 8th letter of the alphabet, so 88 is taken to stand for HH which in turn means Heil Hitler. For example, the number is used in the song "88 rock`n`roll band" by the neo-Nazi group Landser.14 is used similarly, referring to the so-called "Fourteen Words", often found in combination with 88 (1488, 14/88, etc.). This form of the number has inspired the naming of the groups Column 88, Unit 88 and White Legion 88

and as for 14...

The Fourteen Words is a phrase used by white nationalists, Neo-Nazis, and others. It refers to both the 14-word slogan: "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children."[1], and the 14-word slogan: "Because the beauty of the White Aryan woman must not perish from the earth."[2] Both 14-word slogans were coined by David Lane, a member of the Neo-Nazi organization The Order. The first slogan was inspired by a statement, 88 words in length, quoted from Volume 1, Chapter 8 of Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf:

What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, the sustenance of our children and the purity of our blood, the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe. Every thought and every idea, every doctrine and all knowledge, must serve this purpose. And everything must be examined from this point of view and used or rejected according to its utility.

It can be combined with 88, as in 14/88 or 1488. The 8s stand for the eighth letter of the alphabet (H), with HH standing for Heil Hitler.[3] 88 can also stand for the book 88 Precepts by David Lane.[4]

I had seen 88 before referrenced on another website so I knew it had signifigence, nut I did not know about 14 untill reading about these dumb s