Will McCain be a good President?
- Thread starter goobear78
- Start date
- Status
LAJennifer
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2005
- Messages
- 2,031
The original article was posted a few months ago - many of us read it then.Date: 10/20/2008 4:00:18 PM
Author: zhuzhu
It is perfectly alright if people don''t like the opinions of those who holds opposing views. However it is in the interest of ''fairness'' that I suggest readers read both sides of scholarly views. I am glad to see that they certainly did!Date: 10/20/2008 3:46:00 PM
Author: goobear78
Date: 10/20/2008 3:43:54 PM
Author: mrssalvo
lucky..your response to zhuzhu''s post was MUCH less snarky than mine was going to be
Snark free zone, snark free zone!
Oh who am I kidding. Snark away. LOL.
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2008
- Messages
- 5,083
Sorry I reposted then. Reading every single post on this board is not in the cards for me. If I had known I would not have posted.Date: 10/20/2008 4:26:58 PM
Author: LAJennifer
The original article was posted a few months ago - many of us read it then.Date: 10/20/2008 4:00:18 PM
Author: zhuzhu
It is perfectly alright if people don''t like the opinions of those who holds opposing views. However it is in the interest of ''fairness'' that I suggest readers read both sides of scholarly views. I am glad to see that they certainly did!Date: 10/20/2008 3:46:00 PM
Author: goobear78
Date: 10/20/2008 3:43:54 PM
Author: mrssalvo
lucky..your response to zhuzhu''s post was MUCH less snarky than mine was going to be
Snark free zone, snark free zone!
Oh who am I kidding. Snark away. LOL.
LAJennifer
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2005
- Messages
- 2,031
Ksinger - no need to apologize. Thanks for re-posting it, as I believe there are quite a few posters (and lurkers) who might have missed it. I thought the article was excellent.Date: 10/20/2008 4:59:11 PM
Author: ksinger
Sorry I reposted then. Reading every single post on this board is not in the cards for me. If I had known I would not have posted.Date: 10/20/2008 4:26:58 PM
Author: LAJennifer
The original article was posted a few months ago - many of us read it then.Date: 10/20/2008 4:00:18 PM
Author: zhuzhu
It is perfectly alright if people don''t like the opinions of those who holds opposing views. However it is in the interest of ''fairness'' that I suggest readers read both sides of scholarly views. I am glad to see that they certainly did!Date: 10/20/2008 3:46:00 PM
Author: goobear78
Date: 10/20/2008 3:43:54 PM
Author: mrssalvo
lucky..your response to zhuzhu''s post was MUCH less snarky than mine was going to be
Snark free zone, snark free zone!
Oh who am I kidding. Snark away. LOL.
decodelighted
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2005
- Messages
- 11,534
More misogyny.
Jezebel's summary:
Mother Jones reports that John McCain recently picked former Navy Secretary John Lehman to head his transition team, despite the fact that, at the 1986 Tailhook meeting, John Lehman while Navy Secretary ate whipped cream out of a stripper's crotch(Ack! Yeast infection ahoy!) in front of bunch of his subordinates. McCain himself attended the 1987 and 1990 meetings, then condemned the 1991 meeting and swore that all the misogyny was previously consensual. Color us unsurprised that McCain thinks this guy is a good choice to help him make hiring decisions. [Mother Jones]
Source
So, heh, if there's one thing McCain & Palin agree on ... it's hiring male sexual harassers.
Jezebel's summary:
Mother Jones reports that John McCain recently picked former Navy Secretary John Lehman to head his transition team, despite the fact that, at the 1986 Tailhook meeting, John Lehman while Navy Secretary ate whipped cream out of a stripper's crotch(Ack! Yeast infection ahoy!) in front of bunch of his subordinates. McCain himself attended the 1987 and 1990 meetings, then condemned the 1991 meeting and swore that all the misogyny was previously consensual. Color us unsurprised that McCain thinks this guy is a good choice to help him make hiring decisions. [Mother Jones]
Source
So, heh, if there's one thing McCain & Palin agree on ... it's hiring male sexual harassers.
trillionaire
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2008
- Messages
- 3,881
It seems like everyone has given up on McCain, including his running mate. Now, she is starting her own campaign for 2012... *shudders*
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27285822/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27285822/
luckystar112
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2007
- Messages
- 3,962
FTA:
Palin also reaffirmed her view that Obama had been "palling around with terrorists" because of his association with Bill Ayers, a 1960s-era radical who helped found the violent Weather Underground group to protest the Vietnam war. The group was responsible for bombings of several government buildings.
Really AP? Is that all she said? Because the Christian Broadcast Network says she replied she would say it again because according to the information they have, the association was more than just a one or two time sitting on the board together. And that they know of more associations, events, meetings, discussions, emails, and calls---and she thinks that it is troubling. (I put this in my own words since it was in Palin-speak)
I''d be interested in that information.
APs version of what she said about the tone at their rallies:
"What we have heard through some mainstream media is that folks have hollered out some atrocious and unacceptable things like ''kill him,''" Palin said, referring to a Washington Post story two weeks ago about angry supporters at a Palin rally in Florida. "If I ever were to hear that standing up there at the podium with the mike, I would call them out on that, and I would tell these people, no, that''s unacceptable."
They left out a few things. Here is what she said:
Palin: Absolutely. But what we have heard through some mainstream media is that folks have hollered out some pretty atrocious and unacceptable things like "kill him" or some, we have not heard that. If I ever were to hear that standing up there at the podium with the mic, I would call ''em out on that, and I would tell these people, no, that''s unacceptable, let''s rise above that please. We haven''t heard that. What I have heard though is even in the other camp though some negativity that has been injected in the campaign with the candidate himself, with Barack Obama telling his supporter to get out there and quote "get in their face, argue with them." That, you know, that''s kind of inciting and a bit negative and John McCain and I will have nothing to do with that, but it is unacceptable if we were ever to hear the shout outs that are so negative that we have heard being reported, if I were to hear that I would say no, we don''t stand for that.
For more of her answers, go here.
Palin also reaffirmed her view that Obama had been "palling around with terrorists" because of his association with Bill Ayers, a 1960s-era radical who helped found the violent Weather Underground group to protest the Vietnam war. The group was responsible for bombings of several government buildings.
"I would say it again," she said.
Really AP? Is that all she said? Because the Christian Broadcast Network says she replied she would say it again because according to the information they have, the association was more than just a one or two time sitting on the board together. And that they know of more associations, events, meetings, discussions, emails, and calls---and she thinks that it is troubling. (I put this in my own words since it was in Palin-speak)
I''d be interested in that information.
APs version of what she said about the tone at their rallies:
"What we have heard through some mainstream media is that folks have hollered out some atrocious and unacceptable things like ''kill him,''" Palin said, referring to a Washington Post story two weeks ago about angry supporters at a Palin rally in Florida. "If I ever were to hear that standing up there at the podium with the mike, I would call them out on that, and I would tell these people, no, that''s unacceptable."
They left out a few things. Here is what she said:
Palin: Absolutely. But what we have heard through some mainstream media is that folks have hollered out some pretty atrocious and unacceptable things like "kill him" or some, we have not heard that. If I ever were to hear that standing up there at the podium with the mic, I would call ''em out on that, and I would tell these people, no, that''s unacceptable, let''s rise above that please. We haven''t heard that. What I have heard though is even in the other camp though some negativity that has been injected in the campaign with the candidate himself, with Barack Obama telling his supporter to get out there and quote "get in their face, argue with them." That, you know, that''s kind of inciting and a bit negative and John McCain and I will have nothing to do with that, but it is unacceptable if we were ever to hear the shout outs that are so negative that we have heard being reported, if I were to hear that I would say no, we don''t stand for that.
For more of her answers, go here.
movie zombie
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2005
- Messages
- 11,879
iheartscience
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2007
- Messages
- 12,111
Date: 10/20/2008 4:01:30 PM
Author: purrfectpear
Well, I do know some redneck-type Republicans that fit the above description to a T. In fact I know some that are real conspiracy nutcases here in the midwest.
However, the majority of Republicans that I know from where I actually live in SoCal, are not the lower income Obama-hating redneck sort. They are the well-to-do ''I got lots of money and I''m not giving YOU any'' conservative Republicans. They vote Republican because they want closed borders, deported illegal aliens, less social services/welfare, and they DO NOT WANT TO HEAR ANYTHING ABOUT SPREADING THE WEALTH
It''s really a financial decision for the majority of my Repub friends. Nothing more, nothing less.
As I make over six figures, I''m all for a ''little'' spreading of the wealth. I see nothing wrong with my paying a slightly higher percentage of taxes than those who make less than $100K. Of course we know what that makes me....the ''S'' word
I would prefer to see a flat tax based on income. Under $50K pay 10%. Between $50K and $100K pay 13%, and above $100K pony up 15% and shut up already. Most people would love to make $100K/year. I really don''t get why those who make more are so unwilling to share a little. It''s not like it''s gonna kill us.
Think of the money the Govt. could save. Who needs the IRS, just total up the gross income and pay your percentage.
Ditto to this, purrfect.
I think there''s truth in both articles, but most Republicans I know (and believe it or not I know a LOT!) fall into these two categories.
zhuzhu
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2006
- Messages
- 2,503
luckystar112
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2007
- Messages
- 3,962
Thanks for the reminder.Date: 10/20/2008 8:41:38 PM
Author: goobear78
Just reminder, this is about McCain and his possible presidency, not Obama or Palin. Thanks!
I am not voting for McCain for religious reasons, as I'm not a very religious person (I consider myself "spiritual").
I believe in small government. A large government scares the crap out of me. I think income redistribution or "spreading the wealth" is akin to throwing a blanket over a broken vase and calling it "fixed". While I think the government can and should be involved in other ways, I think the private sector is better way to go.
I think that taxing small businesses will kill our economy. Employers will shut businesses down, lay people off, send jobs overseas, or make the consumer eat the loss--all of which harm us, whether we get a tax credit or not. I am worried about how the burden on those in the top 5% is going to affect us below them.
Not to make this about Obama, but I heard on the news today that Obama is receiving $200,000 an hour in campaign contributions. He now has raised over 600 million dollars, and I believe he doesn't need it (McCain has just 37 million left to spend by Nov 4). I don't understand why his campaign is continuing to ask for contributions, and why Obama is accepting them. I can't help but wonder if that money would be of better use in other areas...such as charity, and helping the people he claims to represent instead of using it to get elected and using tax money for those causes.
While I'm talking about Obama (and I really didn't want to make this about him, but hey--I'm here), the Rev Wright issue bothered me in many ways, and still does. First, that this man was his mentor, and second, that when the going got tough he was quick to drop him. It says a lot about character to me.
Back to McCain, as Deco said in another thread, she would fair better under McCain's tax policy, but she feels that she is voting for the country, and not for herself. Similiarly, I would fair better under Obama, but I think McCain's policies are best for our country.
I think we need to decrease spending, not spend more. I'm for serious reform.
I trust McCain's judgment, experience, and intelligence on Foreign Policy. He understands that we need to win the war in Iraq, and that leaving now would be a mistake. I think he is better equipped in dealing with foreign leaders.
I think certain things should be left to the states. Gay marriage is one, abortion is another--just to name two. I agree with him that Supreme Court Justices should not legislate from the bench, and trust any nominations that he may have to make.
Those are just a few reasons...off the top of my head.
ETA: Sorry this is not a "yes" or "no" answer. I personally enjoy hearing people's reasoning, not what I already know.
trillionaire
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2008
- Messages
- 3,881
Date: 10/20/2008 9:54:51 PM
Author: luckystar112
Date: 10/20/2008 8:41:38 PM
Author: goobear78
Just reminder, this is about McCain and his possible presidency, not Obama or Palin. Thanks!
Thanks for the reminder.
I am not voting for McCain for religious reasons, as I''m not a very religious person (I consider myself ''spiritual'').
I believe in small government. A large government scares the crap out of me. I think income redistribution or ''spreading the wealth'' is akin to throwing a blanket over a broken vase and calling it ''fixed''. While I think the government can and should be involved in other ways, I think the private sector is better way to go.
I think that taxing small businesses will kill our economy. Employers will shut businesses down, lay people off, send jobs overseas, or make the consumer eat the loss--all of which harm us, whether we get a tax credit or not. I am worried about how the burden on those in the top 5% is going to affect us below them.
Not to make this about Obama, but I heard on the news today that Obama is receiving $200,000 an hour in campaign contributions. He now has raised over 600 million dollars, and I believe he doesn''t need it (McCain has just 37 million left to spend by Nov 4). I don''t understand why his campaign is continuing to ask for contributions, and why Obama is accepting them. I can''t help but wonder if that money would be of better use in other areas...such as charity, and helping the people he claims to represent instead of using it to get elected and using tax money for those causes.
While I''m talking about Obama (and I really didn''t want to make this about him, but hey--I''m here), the Rev Wright issue bothered me in many ways, and still does. First, that this man was his mentor, and second, that when the going got tough he was quick to drop him. It says a lot about character to me.
Back to McCain, as Deco said in another thread, she would fair better under McCain''s tax policy, but she feels that she is voting for the country, and not for herself. Similiarly, I would fair better under Obama, but I think McCain''s policies are best for our country.
I think we need to decrease spending, not spend more. I''m for serious reform.
I trust McCain''s judgment, experience, and intelligence on Foreign Policy. He understands that we need to win the war in Iraq, and that leaving now would be a mistake. I think he is better equipped in dealing with foreign leaders.
I think certain things should be left to the states. Gay marriage is one, abortion is another--just to name two. I agree with him that Supreme Court Justices should not legislate from the bench, and trust any nominations that he may have to make.
Those are just a few reasons...off the top of my head.
ETA: Sorry this is not a ''yes'' or ''no'' answer. I personally enjoy hearing people''s reasoning, not what I already know.
Respectfully, I understand, and even share your concerns about taxing small businesses, except that if most won''t be effected, it mitigates my concern. I am interested, however, in how you think that McCain''s trickle down economics approach will serve us better now than it has over the last 8 yrs with Bush?
luckystar112
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2007
- Messages
- 3,962
I think if the tax cuts are done right, they work. I was going to cite Reagan, but I found an article that explains it better than I ever could. HereDate: 10/20/2008 11:37:24 PM
Author: trillionaire
Date: 10/20/2008 9:54:51 PM
Author: luckystar112
Date: 10/20/2008 8:41:38 PM
Author: goobear78
Just reminder, this is about McCain and his possible presidency, not Obama or Palin. Thanks!
Thanks for the reminder.
I am not voting for McCain for religious reasons, as I''m not a very religious person (I consider myself ''spiritual'').
I believe in small government. A large government scares the crap out of me. I think income redistribution or ''spreading the wealth'' is akin to throwing a blanket over a broken vase and calling it ''fixed''. While I think the government can and should be involved in other ways, I think the private sector is better way to go.
I think that taxing small businesses will kill our economy. Employers will shut businesses down, lay people off, send jobs overseas, or make the consumer eat the loss--all of which harm us, whether we get a tax credit or not. I am worried about how the burden on those in the top 5% is going to affect us below them.
Not to make this about Obama, but I heard on the news today that Obama is receiving $200,000 an hour in campaign contributions. He now has raised over 600 million dollars, and I believe he doesn''t need it (McCain has just 37 million left to spend by Nov 4). I don''t understand why his campaign is continuing to ask for contributions, and why Obama is accepting them. I can''t help but wonder if that money would be of better use in other areas...such as charity, and helping the people he claims to represent instead of using it to get elected and using tax money for those causes.
While I''m talking about Obama (and I really didn''t want to make this about him, but hey--I''m here), the Rev Wright issue bothered me in many ways, and still does. First, that this man was his mentor, and second, that when the going got tough he was quick to drop him. It says a lot about character to me.
Back to McCain, as Deco said in another thread, she would fair better under McCain''s tax policy, but she feels that she is voting for the country, and not for herself. Similiarly, I would fair better under Obama, but I think McCain''s policies are best for our country.
I think we need to decrease spending, not spend more. I''m for serious reform.
I trust McCain''s judgment, experience, and intelligence on Foreign Policy. He understands that we need to win the war in Iraq, and that leaving now would be a mistake. I think he is better equipped in dealing with foreign leaders.
I think certain things should be left to the states. Gay marriage is one, abortion is another--just to name two. I agree with him that Supreme Court Justices should not legislate from the bench, and trust any nominations that he may have to make.
Those are just a few reasons...off the top of my head.
ETA: Sorry this is not a ''yes'' or ''no'' answer. I personally enjoy hearing people''s reasoning, not what I already know.
Respectfully, I understand, and even share your concerns about taxing small businesses, except that if most won''t be effected, it mitigates my concern. I am interested, however, in how you think that McCain''s trickle down economics approach will serve us better now than it has over the last 8 yrs with Bush?
As for your concerns about small businesses, I assume it has a lot to do with what one considers a "small business". Would you say less than 100 employees? Less than 50?
trillionaire
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2008
- Messages
- 3,881
zhuzhu
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2006
- Messages
- 2,503
Date: 10/20/2008 9:54:51 PM
Author: luckystar112
Date: 10/20/2008 8:41:38 PM
Author: goobear78
Just reminder, this is about McCain and his possible presidency, not Obama or Palin. Thanks!
Thanks for the reminder.
Not to make this about Obama, but I heard on the news today that Obama is receiving $200,000 an hour in campaign contributions. He now has raised over 600 million dollars, and I believe he doesn''t need it (McCain has just 37 million left to spend by Nov 4). I don''t understand why his campaign is continuing to ask for contributions, and why Obama is accepting them. I can''t help but wonder if that money would be of better use in other areas...such as charity, and helping the people he claims to represent instead of using it to get elected and using tax money for those causes.
Just because McCain is not nearly as successful in getting contribution fund as Obama, does not mean he is not asking..
http://www.johnmccain.com/landing/glc1.htm?sid=google&t=gelac
trillionaire
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2008
- Messages
- 3,881
another big republican defector...
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/10/20/ken_adelman_backing_obama.html
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/10/20/ken_adelman_backing_obama.html
luckystar112
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2007
- Messages
- 3,962
I guess you missed the point.Date: 10/21/2008 1:21:46 AM
Author: zhuzhu
Date: 10/20/2008 9:54:51 PM
Author: luckystar112
Date: 10/20/2008 8:41:38 PM
Author: goobear78
Just reminder, this is about McCain and his possible presidency, not Obama or Palin. Thanks!
Thanks for the reminder.
Not to make this about Obama, but I heard on the news today that Obama is receiving $200,000 an hour in campaign contributions. He now has raised over 600 million dollars, and I believe he doesn''t need it (McCain has just 37 million left to spend by Nov 4). I don''t understand why his campaign is continuing to ask for contributions, and why Obama is accepting them. I can''t help but wonder if that money would be of better use in other areas...such as charity, and helping the people he claims to represent instead of using it to get elected and using tax money for those causes.
Just because McCain is not nearly as successful in getting contribution fund as Obama, does not mean he is not asking..
http://www.johnmccain.com/landing/glc1.htm?sid=google&t=gelac
luckystar112
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2007
- Messages
- 3,962
From what I undersand....
McCain did not release them but he did allow a glimpse of 1,100 pages of medical records for a period of time, and did not allow photographs or photocopies.
Biden did not release his either, nor did he allow photographs or photocopies. It is also worth noting that his regular phsyician does not speak publicly about his clients, so the campaign hired another physician to address the media....a physician who has contributed $2,300 to the campaign.
Obama has not released his medical records either. Just a one-page summary from the campaign.
And of course, Palin has not released hers either.
In other words, they aren't telling us anything.
luckystar112
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2007
- Messages
- 3,962
trillionaire
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2008
- Messages
- 3,881
Date: 10/21/2008 1:46:43 AM
Author: luckystar112
From what I undersand....
McCain did not release them but he did allow a glimpse of 1,100 pages of medical records for a period of time, and did not allow photographs or photocopies.
Biden did not release his either, nor did he allow photographs or photocopies. It is also worth noting that his regular phsyician does not speak publicly about his clients, so the campaign hired another physician to address the media....a physician who has contributed $2,300 to the campaign.
Obama has not released his medical records either. Just a one-page summary from the campaign.
And of course, Palin has not released hers either.
In other words, they aren''t telling us anything.
I agree with all of the above, this is just the McCain thread, so the link was McCain focused. Further, I am a lot more concerned about McCain and his age and health history, followed by Obama''s, since they would be president. I think it should be REQUIRED as public information to have the full med histories of candidates released, but I also fear discrimination, so...
MoonWater
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2007
- Messages
- 3,158
Date: 10/20/2008 9:54:51 PM
Author: luckystar112
Not to make this about Obama, but I heard on the news today that Obama is receiving $200,000 an hour in campaign contributions. He now has raised over 600 million dollars, and I believe he doesn''t need it (McCain has just 37 million left to spend by Nov 4). I don''t understand why his campaign is continuing to ask for contributions, and why Obama is accepting them. I can''t help but wonder if that money would be of better use in other areas...such as charity, and helping the people he claims to represent instead of using it to get elected and using tax money for those causes.
You make the assumption that people would be willing to donate the same amount of money for any other cause than to get Obama elected. Or perhaps you think he can stop spending that money to get elected and should now use it anyway he chooses and thus he should donate it to charity or use it to fund government programs? How would you feel if you donated money for a specific purpose and that person took your money and spent it elsewhere, especially if they did it before completing the task for which you donated?
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2008
- Messages
- 5,083
** sniff sniff ** Hmmm....I seem to smell sour grapes around here somewhere...Date: 10/21/2008 8:49:52 AM
Author: MoonWater
Date: 10/20/2008 9:54:51 PM
Author: luckystar112
Not to make this about Obama, but I heard on the news today that Obama is receiving $200,000 an hour in campaign contributions. He now has raised over 600 million dollars, and I believe he doesn''t need it (McCain has just 37 million left to spend by Nov 4). I don''t understand why his campaign is continuing to ask for contributions, and why Obama is accepting them. I can''t help but wonder if that money would be of better use in other areas...such as charity, and helping the people he claims to represent instead of using it to get elected and using tax money for those causes.
You make the assumption that people would be willing to donate the same amount of money for any other cause than to get Obama elected. Or perhaps you think he can stop spending that money to get elected and should now use it anyway he chooses and thus he should donate it to charity or use it to fund government programs? How would you feel if you donated money for a specific purpose and that person took your money and spent it elsewhere, especially if they did it before completing the task for which you donated?
Just because you don''t believe he needs it and don''t understand, doesn''t make his asking for it wrong, or even suspect. Neither you nor I see the bills for what Obama''s campaign is attempting. One thing I do know, they are NOT taking anything for granted.
Date: 10/21/2008 1:46:43 AM
Author: luckystar112
From what I undersand....
McCain did not release them but he did allow a glimpse of 1,100 pages of medical records for a period of time, and did not allow photographs or photocopies.
Biden did not release his either, nor did he allow photographs or photocopies. It is also worth noting that his regular phsyician does not speak publicly about his clients, so the campaign hired another physician to address the media....a physician who has contributed $2,300 to the campaign.
Obama has not released his medical records either. Just a one-page summary from the campaign.
And of course, Palin has not released hers either.
In other words, they aren''t telling us anything.
Actually, that is incorrect, Biden released 49 pages of health documents and Obama released a one page document that is in in excellent health along the results lab tests and electrocardiograms from 2001, 2004 & 2007. Obama and Biden with have released more documents than McCain. You are correct that Palin refused to release hers. I wonder why?
This is taken from the NYT in depth article about MCain''s health, his records and the health records of the other nominees:
"Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, 65, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee, had emergency surgery in 1988 for an aneurysm in an artery in his brain and elective surgery for a second one. His campaign released 49 pages of medical records to The New York Times late last week showing that he was healthy, but the documents did not indicate whether he had had a test in recent years to detect any new aneurysm.
The two other nominees are younger and apparently in good health, but less is known about their medical history. Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, 47, the Democratic presidential nominee, released a one-page, undated letter from his personal physician in May stating that he was in “excellent” health. Late last week, his campaign released the results of standard laboratory tests and electrocardiograms from his checkups in June 2001, November 2004 and January 2007. The findings were normal.
Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, 44, Mr. McCain’s running mate, has released no medical information."
*The full article can be read on the NYT website at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/20/us/politics/20health.html?_r=1&bl&ex=1224734400&en=fea66d67165b8c74&ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin
luckystar112
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2007
- Messages
- 3,962
Haha..no sour grapes here. I''d think it was ridiculous if it was the other way around, too. Put I anticipated that response from you. I''ll address you both as to not make this thread all about Obama.Date: 10/21/2008 9:04:17 AM
Author: ksinger
** sniff sniff ** Hmmm....I seem to smell sour grapes around here somewhere...Date: 10/21/2008 8:49:52 AM
Author: MoonWater
Date: 10/20/2008 9:54:51 PM
Author: luckystar112
Not to make this about Obama, but I heard on the news today that Obama is receiving $200,000 an hour in campaign contributions. He now has raised over 600 million dollars, and I believe he doesn''t need it (McCain has just 37 million left to spend by Nov 4). I don''t understand why his campaign is continuing to ask for contributions, and why Obama is accepting them. I can''t help but wonder if that money would be of better use in other areas...such as charity, and helping the people he claims to represent instead of using it to get elected and using tax money for those causes.
You make the assumption that people would be willing to donate the same amount of money for any other cause than to get Obama elected. Or perhaps you think he can stop spending that money to get elected and should now use it anyway he chooses and thus he should donate it to charity or use it to fund government programs? How would you feel if you donated money for a specific purpose and that person took your money and spent it elsewhere, especially if they did it before completing the task for which you donated?
Just because you don''t believe he needs it and don''t understand, doesn''t make his asking for it wrong, or even suspect. Neither you nor I see the bills for what Obama''s campaign is attempting. One thing I do know, they are NOT taking anything for granted.
I got the idea when I first heard that Obama was making $200,000 an hour. I thought, "Wow". The next commercial was for breast cancer research, and I thought "Man....if only people were as willing to donate to breast cancer and other causes the way they donate to Obama". And then I thought about how McCain only has $37 million left to spend, and how Obama went against his word about public financing and raised $150 million alone in September. Then an Obama commercial flashes on my screen....one of about a hundred a day, and I think "Yeah, good luck getting Texas, buddy!".
It did lead me to speculate as to why he was spending money in states that he has no chance of winning, especially with all of the private organizations that are fighting for his cause anyway. While I think it is very smart that his campaign isn''t taking anything for granted, it also says quite a bit when he has to spend so much on advertising to sway votes. To me, that says that Obama is missing something in his message.
But to answer your question Moon, no, I wouldn''t think it was right of Obama to spend people''s money on other causes, especially not before he was elected. And as Ksinger said, I haven''t seen the bill. In summary, my point was that it is interesting how even with that huge monetary advantage, people are more willing to donate to his campaign than to charity. And so, either the Obama campaign is being a little greedy in accepting that money, or they''re nervous.
luckystar112
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2007
- Messages
- 3,962
My source was CNN, which states:
Parker spoke to reporters because Biden's physician, Dr. John Eisold, the official attending physician for Congress, does not discuss his patients publicly. Federal Election Commission records show Parker contributed $2,300 to Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign in the spring of 2008.
Biden's Republican counterpart, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, 44, has not released any medical information. Biden's running mate, Obama, 47, has not released records either; his campaign did release a one-page summary of those records, which concluded that he is in excellent health.
The campaign of Sen. John McCain has derided Obama for running "on a doctor's note." McCain, 72, this spring offered reporters a glimpse of more than 1,100 pages of medical records, many dealing with the removal of four melanomas, or skin cancers. Like Biden, McCain did not release those records and did not allow reporters to take pictures or make photocopies.
(So it appears that McCain did "not" release more records than Obama and Biden did "not" release.)
But the very first line of the CNN report that I linked, says "Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden, 65, released his medical records Monday..." So are they talking about to the press, or to the public? If it is to reporters, they all have except Palin, and if it is to the public, no one has.
Interestingly enough....while searching for that article I found this one from the AP, which states:
On Monday, the Democratic ticket released 49 pages of Biden's medical records — although crucial information was missing, including what if any recent exams Biden has undergone to ensure no further brain aneurysms. Also missing were the results of a 2001 colonoscopy, and a test of Biden's lung function earlier this year was illegible.
decodelighted
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2005
- Messages
- 11,534
I have never IN MY LIFE heard anyone call a candidate "greedy" for accepting DONATIONS. A candidate people feel passionate enough about to form crowds of 100,000+??? They can''t take anything for granted and THEIR SUPPORTERS DON''T WANT THEM TOO. Who knows what Bradley effect might take place in the voting booth. Is it really surprising that a campaign might take every legal, ethical opportunity to, uh, HELP THEIR CANDIDATE WIN?????
And your "greedy" argument only makes me wonder, why John McCain & his wife don''t, um, SELL ONE OF THEIR EIGHT HOUSES and donate the $$ to charity. Why do they need to accept ANY public or donated $$$. Since she''s a BILLIONAIRE???
luckystar112
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2007
- Messages
- 3,962
(Edited the first line because it's not a game I wish to play), but that's besides the point. Just wondering, how would you know if it was legal when Obama won't release the names of people that are contributing to his campaign? That is besides the point too. I could caps lock every other word of my original post to try to make the real point clearer, but I think I'll give up and let you all come to the defense and ignore what I meant. It's funner that way.
decodelighted
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2005
- Messages
- 11,534
- Status
300x240.png)