capital gains get taxed at a rate less than income. How can you say that that is causing for money to be sent oversees. You are arguing against both the capital gains tax and the income tax here.

Capital gains are lower than income for the pure reason of the US government wants to make is a public policy to encourage long-term investment.

9/16/2008 2:13:55 PM

Quote :

"Hahahaha I did all the work to compile why his parade of lies and smears are much much worse than Obama's...as well as the editorial reaction of what is clearly an outrageous bunch of bullshit. His whole campaign is propped up with this BS propaganda. Now you in some quick gesture are flexing the assertion that they are equivalent without a single shred of reasoning. Just to shoo me off. You again are just dismissing the argument I'm building pretending like it doesn't exist. Yes, that is brainless. It's all reflexes because you don't like having to look at your STRAIGHT TALKIN' (lol) buddy in a negative light."

All you have shown me is a bunch of people that don't like McCain's ads. That doesn't mean they are worse than Obama's.

9/16/2008 2:15:38 PM

You know it is bad when Richard Cohen jumps off the Double-speak express

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/15/AR2008091502406.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Quote :

"McCain has turned ugly. His dishonesty would be unacceptable in any politician, but McCain has always set his own bar higher than most. He has contempt for most of his colleagues for that very reason: They lie. He tells the truth. He internalizes the code of the McCains -- his grandfather, his father: both admirals of the shining sea. He serves his country differently, that's all -- but just as honorably. No more, though. I am one of the journalists accused over the years of being in the tank for McCain. Guilty. Those doing the accusing usually attributed my feelings to McCain being accessible. This is the journalist-as-puppy school of thought: Give us a treat, and we will leap into a politician's lap. Not so. What impressed me most about McCain was the effect he had on his audiences, particularly young people. When he talked about service to a cause greater than oneself, he struck a chord. He expressed his message in words, but he packaged it in the McCain story -- that man, beaten to a pulp, who chose honor over freedom. This had nothing to do with access. It had to do with integrity. McCain has soiled all that. His opportunistic and irresponsible choice of Sarah Palin as his political heir -- the person in whose hands he would leave the country -- is a form of personal treason, a betrayal of all he once stood for. Palin, no matter what her other attributes, is shockingly unprepared to become president. McCain knows that. He means to win, which is all right; he means to win at all costs, which is not. "

9/16/2008 2:20:07 PM

you are hopeless. not sure why i even honor your requests to back something up. i listed objective and concrete things he lied about, plus a list of multiple sources of editorials on how bullshit his campaign is. you aren't worth my time

9/16/2008 2:21:26 PM

I heard on the radio this morning, that while NOW (National Organization for Women) rarely endorses in general elections, NOW will be endorsing the Obama-Biden ticket today.

http://www.now.org/press/09-08/09-16.html

Quote :

"STATEMENT OF KIM GANDY Chair, National Organization for Women Political Action Committee (NOW PAC) September 16, 2008 It is with great enthusiasm that I announce today, on behalf of the nation's oldest and largest women's rights organization,that the National Organization for Women Political Action Committee (NOW PAC) proudly endorses Sen. Barack Obama for President of the United States. It is no coincidence that I am joined in this announcement by so many allied organizations that collectively represent a broad and diverse cross-section of U.S. women. From teachers to social workers, from business owners to college students, women in this country are lining up behind the candidate who is out there every day standing up -- clearly and consistently -- for women. Women of all ages, races and ethnicities are coming together in support of Sen. Obama and his pledge to fulfill this country's promise of equal opportunity for our daughters as well as all our sons. Although it is very unusual for us to endorse in a presidential election, this is an unprecedented candidate and an unprecedented time for our country. The NOW PAC reviewed Sen. Obama's record and public statements on issues that disproportionately affect the women of this nation, and I spoke with him at length about his commitment to women's equality. For example: On pay equity. Sen. Obama is a co-sponsor of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act, legislation to end wage discrimination against women. On reproductive rights. Sen. Obama is a co-sponsor of the Prevention First Act, to strengthen access to contraception and reproductive health care, and prevent unwanted pregnancies. He strongly supports Roe v. Wade and will oppose any efforts to overturn it. On violence against women. Sen. Obama supports the continued reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act -- of which Sen. Joe Biden is the chief sponsor -- as well as the Security and Financial Empowerment (SAFE) Act, which is legislation to provide legal, medical and financial support to victims of domestic violence. On the Supreme Court. Sen. Obama opposed the nominations of George Bush's extreme right-wing nominees to the Supreme Court, who have consistently ruled against women's rights, For more than a decade, Barack Obama has said "yes" to women's rights, while John McCain has consistently said "no" - NO to pay equity, NO to contraceptive access and reproductive rights, NO to appointing Supreme Court judges who will uphold women's rights and civil rights, NO to funding shelters and other anti-violence programs, and NO to supporting working moms and dads with policies that support work/life balance. NOW supported Sen. Hillary Clinton in the primary, and now we join with her in saying "NO" -- No Way, No How, No McCain! And we proudly stand arm-in-arm with her in putting our hopes and our dreams, our hard work and our hard-earned money, behind the next President of the United States -- Barack Obama, and his running mate, longtime friend and ally of women, Sen. Joe Biden. "

Considering their size, contact list, and respect among the community the represent, I think a lot of middle to left leaning women & Hillary supporters are going to lean Obama's way.

9/16/2008 2:26:37 PM

Kainen,

And I responded to the most popular example--that lied in the sex-ed ad. It is a simple, *demonstrable* fact that McCain did lie. You can see so yourself by looking at the text of the bill.

Your counter was "you're brainless and plenty of journalists agree with me." That isn't what I would call a quality argument.

And of course NONE of this even attempts to back up the assertion that had McCain indeed lied, that his lies are "worse" than Obama's.

So please don't go nailing yourself up on the cross on my account. If you want to ignore the text of the bill in question and insist that McCain lied and just repeat what everyone else is saying, that's fine. It's in the very "in" thing to do these days.

9/16/2008 2:29:46 PM

I cant imagine NOW endorsing obama. They sound very nonpartisan. LOL

Yeah, im not for either tax actually nuts.

So why double capital gains tax?

Capital gains tax doesnt necessarily have to be less than your income tax.. which is the point im getting at.

oh, btw, the fairpay act is a fucking disaster in the making. ANyone actually looked into that fucker? Probably not, but its got a nice title... thats all that matters. Maybe if they can put "children" in the title too.. would go along ways with some. LOL

[Edited on September 16, 2008 at 2:32 PM. Reason : .]

9/16/2008 2:30:20 PM

Quote :

"Capital gains tax doesnt necessarily have to be less than your income tax.. which is the point im getting at."

But it is. Are you suggesting that we drop the income tax to be at levels on par with capital gains?

9/16/2008 2:32:38 PM

Obama gaining in National Polls, McCain Slipping

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/obama_regaining_ground_in_nati.php

Obama Regaining Ground In National Tracking Polls
By Eric Kleefeld - September 16, 2008, 2:18PM
Here's a wrap-up of the four major national tracking polls for today, with all four of them showing either movement away from John McCain or toward Barack Obama since yesterday:

Gallup: McCain 47%, Obama 46%, with a ±2% margin of error. Yesterday, McCain was up 47%-45%.

Rasmussen: McCain 48%, Obama 47%, with a ±2% margin of error. yesterday, McCain was up 49%-47%.

Research 2000: Obama 48%, McCain 44%, with a ±3% margin of error. Yesterday, Obama was up 48%-45%

Hotline/Diageo: Obama 46%, McCain 42%, with a ±3.3% margin of error. Yesterday, Obama was up 44%-43%.

Adding these polls together and weighting them for larger sample sizes, the race is essentially a tie at Obama's 46.6% to McCain's 46.4% -- an improvement from yesterday, when the same math put McCain up by about a full percentage point.

9/16/2008 2:44:45 PM

Socks is unreachable, so I would simply ignore him. It's quite evident to most people regardless of their party affiliation that McCain's campaign attacks have much more lies within them than Obama’s. There is no need to spell this out for anyone who is incapable of objective review. Anyone that assumes that a wide array of news outlets from differing locations and backgrounds are all biased towards your particular candidate is bordering on insanity and paranoia. I'm not sure how anyone can truly believe such a wild idea, but those types of people tend to be stubborn, ignorant, and delusional in regards to much more than politics. Completely ignoring what Karl Rove said is probably the most surprising element of your responses Socks. I would of thought that even you would recognize his comments.

[Edited on September 16, 2008 at 2:54 PM. Reason : -]

9/16/2008 2:52:10 PM

Quote :

"What does e-mail have to do with being commander-in-chief? You'd have to think actual military experience would be more relevant to being in charge of the military than how many e-mails you send."

you mean like W. Bush being a Cheerleader? Or John Kerry serving? which is it?

9/16/2008 2:58:00 PM

what year is it?

9/16/2008 3:01:50 PM

Quote :

"It is a simple, *demonstrable* fact that McCain did lie. "

Glad you agree with me. Next.

Quote :

"It's in the very "in" thing to do these days."

I love how you think you can take an array of varied sources of journalism (all timed relative) and dismiss them away as a 'fad'. You know....cause of course it isn't because this is an issue that is widely apparent agreed upon....no no, must be a bandwagon.

Again, you are a waste of time.

9/16/2008 3:15:41 PM

Quote :

"what year is it?"

So the republican party doesn't believe in real values, only sophistry?

9/16/2008 3:16:50 PM

Sarah Palin stills supports one bridge to nowhere

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2008/09/palin_supports_600_million_oth.php

Quote :

""She clearly hasn't said 'no thanks' to this particular bridge," Claman said. "If money were not an issue and we had no limits, maybe we'd build a bridge. But this is not a pragmatic or efficient way to spend scarce resources.""

[Edited on September 16, 2008 at 3:22 PM. Reason : .]

9/16/2008 3:21:43 PM

Kainen,

My typo doesn't change the fact that it is a *demonstrable* fact that McCain DID NOT lie in the sex ad in any real sense. The text of the bill supports the allegation. At worst, you can say he left a false impression with the audience, which is not the same thing and now exclusive to McCain.

And any journalist who says otherwise simply has not read the original bill.

But since you don't really care about what was actually true, I can see why you would think it's a waste of your time.

9/16/2008 3:23:34 PM

If I'm hearing this correctly Palin today said she won't cooperate with the bipartisan legislature that brought forth the investigation of trooper gate, and will only consider cooperating with anyone if the investigation is moved a small personal board that she appoints the membership to.

Between this, NOW's endorsement of Obama today, and the economic issue resurgence while McCain claims it is strong, it looks like the Palin bounce is ending.

9/16/2008 3:24:28 PM

^^It is a demostrable fact that McCain did lie about the bill. The bill is not about teaching comprehensive sex education to children. The bill is about teaching age appropriate material to children, that is not comprehensible. Allen Keyes tried this back in 2004 and and was shown to be a lie just like today.

9/16/2008 3:29:40 PM

^^yeah, i hope so too, but we might see another one once she does a fair and balanced interview with sean hannity from the good people at fox news. i'm sure he'll treat her with the respect and deference she deserves. then it'll be back in the shadows until november 5th

[Edited on September 16, 2008 at 3:32 PM. Reason : ^]

9/16/2008 3:31:54 PM

Quote :

"Between this, NOW's endorsement of Obama today"

i heard the chairman of NOW on NPR this morning talking about this. They were acting like this is a big deal..... I have never heard of NOW before today. is this supposed to be a well-known group? Do millions of women just jump in line when NOW talks?

9/16/2008 3:33:45 PM

National Organization of Women is a large group.

9/16/2008 3:34:36 PM

They're the ones with the circular white and blue signs.

I guess the significance in them endorsing Obama is that they've never endorsed a candidate before. Although why they chose this election is a little puzzling. There's no way McCain is worse than Bush in any issue involving women.

I guess Bush never called his wife a trollop, though.

9/16/2008 3:40:56 PM

nutsmacker

Quote :

"It is a demostrable[sic] fact that McCain did lie about the bill. The bill is not about teaching comprehensive sex education to children."

That is the exact language used in the bill. "comprehensive sex education". And it didn't just teach kids about good touch bad touch. It also included teach children about HIV (not really a new thing, since even Captain Planet has done an episode on a guy with AIDS).

Like I said, you can say that ad was unfair. You can say it left a false impression with the audience. But it simply was not a lie. Unlike when Barry said that McCain wanted to be at war in Iraq for 100 years (100% pure grade bullshit that was not even open to interpretation). And of course that generated the same media uproar.

[Edited on September 16, 2008 at 3:54 PM. Reason : ``]

9/16/2008 3:54:05 PM

When Karl Rove calls that ad out as being a lie, you know it is bad. I guess your mancrush for McCain has completely made you immune to facts.

9/16/2008 3:55:41 PM

Quote :

"I have never heard of NOW before today. is this supposed to be a well-known group?"

Not so much to a post-college age males, but to Hillary voters, yeah they are going to be well known, and this is kind of a big deal.

^^^^Not just large, but:

"the nation's oldest and largest women's rights organization"

[Edited on September 16, 2008 at 3:56 PM. Reason : .]

9/16/2008 3:56:13 PM

nutsmacker,

haha Karl Rove never said that McCain was lying in that ad. And even if he did that wouldn't make it true. But like the pundits you and Kainen are trying to emulate, you're not checking your facts with the original source.

Ohhhh weelll.

[Edited on September 16, 2008 at 3:58 PM. Reason : ``]

9/16/2008 3:58:17 PM

Quote :

"Allies of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin asked a judge Tuesday to halt the state Legislature's investigation into the firing of her public service commissioner, calling the probe a "McCarthyistic" inquisition. The five Republican state lawmakers who filed suit say the leaders of the investigation "are unable to hold the balance between vindicating their own political interests and the interests of those who are being investigated." Palin, the Republican nominee for vice president, is battling allegations that she and her advisers pressured then-Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan to fire a state trooper going through a bitter custody dispute with her sister — and that Monegan was terminated when he refused. Palin says she fired Monegan over budget issues, and denies any wrongdoing. She originally pledged to cooperate with the investigation that a bipartisan commission of the state Legislature commissioned in July. But since becoming Sen. John McCain's running mate, campaign spokesmen have lashed out at the probe as "tainted" and "partisan." "

What are you hiding Palin????? I could have swore last week she agreed to cooperate with the probe. If republicans in congress can investigate Bill's BJ than surely even the possibility of an unethical firing of a high gov't official within your state for personnal reasons deserves some inquiry. I know right-wings have a big boner for Palin's platform and sound tough speeches, however, not even in office yet it seems to much shady speculations and skeletons have already been falling out. I do not see this woman helping to reunify our country in 2008.

9/16/2008 4:00:30 PM

Quote :

"nutsmacker, haha Karl Rove never said that McCain was lying in that ad. And even if he did that wouldn't make it true. But like the pundits you and Kainen are trying to emulate, you're not checking your facts with the original source. Ohhhh weelll."

I read the fucking bill, something the McCain camp was hoping no one would do, otherwise they would see that the ad is complete bullshit and attempting to scare soccer moms away from voting for Obama. Too bad it won't work, your sophistry aside.

9/16/2008 4:27:49 PM

^ specifics? No, I didn't think so. You didn't read anything. Oh well. You're not the only one. Kainen didn't read it either and he still sleeps at night.

9/16/2008 4:36:46 PM

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/off_base_on_sex_ed.html

Quote :

"The ad claims "Obama's one accomplishment" in the realm of education was "legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergarteners." It's true that the phrase "comprehensive sex education" appeared in the bill, but little else in McCain's claim is accurate. The ad refers to a bill Obama supported in the Illinois state Senate to update the sex education curriculum and make it "medically accurate." It would have lowered the age at which students would begin what the bill termed "comprehensive sex education" to include kindergarten. But it mandated the instruction be "age-appropriate" for kindergarteners when addressing topics such as sexually transmitted diseases. The bill also would have granted parents the opportunity to remove their children from the class without question: SB 99: However, no pupil shall be required to take or participate in any family life class or course on HIV AIDS or family life instruction if his parent or guardian submits written objection thereto, and refusal to take or participate in such course or program shall not be reason for suspension or expulsion of such pupil. The bill also called for all sex education course materials to include information that would help students recognize, among other activities, inappropriate touching, sexual assault and rape: SB99: Course material and instruction shall discuss and provide for the development of positive communication skills to maintain healthy relationships and avoid unwanted sexual activity. ... Course material and instruction shall teach pupils ... how to say no to unwanted sexual advances ... and shall include information about verbal, physical, and visual sexual harassment, including without limitation nonconsensual sexual advances, nonconsensual physical sexual contact, and rape by an acquaintance. The course material and instruction shall contain methods of preventing sexual assault by an acquaintance, including exercising good judgment and avoiding behavior that impairs one's judgment. The bill passed in the Health and Human Services Committee with Democrats, including Obama, voting along party lines in support of it. But the measure promptly stalled and died in the full Senate, and no action has been taken on it since late 2005. Obama is often quoted as saying that when it comes to sex education in public schools, “it’s the right thing to do ... to provide age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in schools,” placing an emphasis on the word "appropriate." But Obama has also said he does not support, "explicit sex education to children in kindergarten." In a debate with Republican Alan Keyes, against whom Obama was running for an open seat in the U.S. Senate in 2004, Obama made it clear that at least one reason he supported the bill was that it would help teach young kids to recognize inappropriate behavior and pedophiles: Keyes, Oct. 21, 2004: Well, I had noticed that, in your voting, you had voted, at one point, that sex education should begin in kindergarten, and you justified it by saying that it would be "age-appropriate" sex education. [It] made me wonder just exactly what you think is "age-appropriate." Obama: We have a existing law that mandates sex education in the schools. We want to make sure that it's medically accurate and age-appropriate. Now, I'll give you an example, because I have a six-year-old daughter and a three-year-old daughter, and one of the things my wife and I talked to our daughter about is the possibility of somebody touching them inappropriately, and what that might mean. And that was included specifically in the law, so that kindergarteners are able to exercise some possible protection against abuse, because I have family members as well as friends who suffered abuse at that age. So, that's the kind of stuff that I was talking about in that piece of legislation. Besides the Obama-Keyes race, this allegation also surfaced during this year's party primaries when Mitt Romney claimed Obama supported sex education for five-year-olds. (Obama misleadingly fired back that Romney supported the same policy.)"

9/16/2008 4:39:21 PM

Don't tell me what I have and haven't read. You are a huge bag of wind that thinks he is correct and everyone is wrong. I will now ignore you.

9/16/2008 4:40:04 PM

okay.

9/16/2008 4:44:16 PM

So I hear McCain invented the Blackberry

9/16/2008 6:17:06 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/16/mccain.blackberry/index.html

Quote :

"# Adviser calls BlackBerry a "miracle that John McCain helped create" # Obama camp labels BlackBerry comment "preposterous""

Quote :

"He admits he still doesn't know how to use a computer, can't send an e-mail. Still doesn't understand the economy"

9/16/2008 6:28:19 PM

yeah hi i cant use a computer because POW, HOW DARE YOU but watch me type some numbers on an even smaller keypad with my fingers

9/16/2008 6:33:58 PM

Quote :

"nutsmacker, haha Karl Rove never said that McCain was lying in that ad. And even if he did that wouldn't make it true. But like the pundits you and Kainen are trying to emulate, you're not checking your facts with the original source. Ohhhh weelll. "

Perhaps if responsible parenting taught children about STD's, safe sex, contraceptions, and the benefits of abstinence till marriage then this would not even be an issue. The gov't would not get involved and politicians would stop bring up a non-issue to distract the sheep of society from our real problems.

Instead on teh two extremes you got one group of shitty parents that provide a poor role model (a neighbor of mine has a 14 yr old girl yet has a live-in boyfriend and does drugs in the house; WHAT A GREAT ROLEMODEL!!)and take little interest in helping to raise a future productive citizen. On the other end we have Bible thumpers like Sarah Palin who live in an idealistic bubble where prayer and strict parenting means there kids are on the rightous path of abstience till marriage. What ends up happening though is when they get rebellious during the teen years either they go off the deep end or even while just "testing" the waters with sex are ignorant to safe sex behavior thus leaving the opportunity for disaster.

[b]OH's NO's regardless if i happen to disagree with McCain's economic policy (which i do support), his foreign stance (do not support), or energy policy which are the real issues; McCain will still get my vote because OBAMA WANTS TO TEACH 5 YR OLDS ABOUT SEX AND AIDS!!

If McCain wins the election its because our nation really is full of sheep. I know many of you on TWW probably have more net benefit from McCain, however, this is not true of a great deal of his middle/working/poor class supporters. If McCain loses the election it is because instead of continuing what made him a popular as asenator and won him the nomination, McCain's deplorable campaign the last couple months (bashing Obama, debating the non-issues, and buddying up with the neo-cons) and picking Palin.

[Edited on September 16, 2008 at 6:36 PM. Reason : a]

9/16/2008 6:35:09 PM

"I know many of you on TWW probably have more net benefit from McCain"

I don't know how accurate this chart is that I've been seeing around (or how much it represents new taxes vs repealing bush tax cuts for the wealthy), but I have a hard time believing that the majority of college students or recent grads are making now or will within the next 4 years be making enough to benefit more from a McCain tax plan.

9/16/2008 6:50:09 PM

Quote :

"If McCain wins the election its because our nation really is full of sheep."

That's funny... the word "sheep" was used to describe Obama supporters in this blog entry I came across earlier.

Quote :

"Stanley Kurtz's appearance on the Milt Rosenberg radio program in Chicago last night provided an unsettling look into the authoritarian tactics being employed by the Obama campaign to stifle and intimidate its critics. ... Evidently, much of Obama nation is composed of obedient and persistent sheep. They jammed all five studio lines for nearly the entire show while firing off dozens of angry emails. Many vowed to kick their grievances up the food chain to station management. After 90 minutes of alleged smear peddling, Milt Rosenberg (a well-respected host whose long-form interview show has aired in Chicago for decades) opened the phone lines, and blind ignorance soon began to crackle across the AM airwaves. The overwhelming message was clear: The interview must be put to an end immediately, and the station management should prevent similar discussions from taking place."

http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZmRhYmE3NzFlMTljNTdmZGQ3MjhkYTVjNzdmMjVhMzE

9/16/2008 7:02:19 PM

Funny, I thought they were just really motivated to get a good person into the White House.

9/16/2008 7:44:28 PM

sheep vs sheep

GO GO GADGET ROMANS

9/16/2008 7:45:32 PM

^^ did you even read it?

9/16/2008 7:57:19 PM

Until a stroke of intellectual honesty over takes them, I will not read the national review.

9/16/2008 7:58:52 PM

Senator Obama's remarks today regarding the financial issues this country is facing:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/amandascott/gG5XWF

Senator McCain's remarks today regarding the financial issues this country is facing:
http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/news/PressReleases/7b8e0118-8212-4ab7-bec6-e5677ff31faf.htm

After reading the two, it's more of the same: John McCain is talking about a plan and what to do; Barack Obama is talking about John McCain.

9/16/2008 8:33:00 PM

hahahaha yes.

that's why mccain said the fundementals of our economy are still strong on the day when lehmann bros collapsed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igAmVs0cvY8

9/16/2008 8:51:48 PM

we're like women's basketball in that way

9/16/2008 9:05:13 PM

Quote :

"That's funny... the word "sheep" was used to describe Obama supporters in this blog entry I came across earlier."

Not that McCain's policys could or could not be advantageous to the majority. By sheep I mean the shear magnitude who solely are making their voting decision not by analysis of the candidates history and platform; but by media bullshit, personal biases, media sensationalism, "good looks" as in Palin's case, and all the other bullshit that has nothing to do with being a great leader but encourages the masses to vote for them nonetheless. You are right this could apply to Obama as well. Either way its sad that our political process is nothing more than a popularity contest; in a way a bigger version of a High School Student Body President election.

9/16/2008 9:11:01 PM

My GOP boss makes that same argument, indicating that everyone is just voting for Obama because they're angry at the GOP and they aren't thinking about the issues.

9/16/2008 9:18:24 PM

k

[Edited on September 16, 2008 at 9:26 PM. Reason : k]

9/16/2008 9:25:46 PM

Quote :

"They aren't. It's another one of those "stretching of the truth," the McCain camp is pushing now."

Dude. They said he can't use a fucking computer. That's a little bit more than "stretching the truth." That's picking on a dude for a fucking disability that he incurred as a POW. that's quite low.

Quote :

"that's why mccain said the fundementals of our economy are still strong on the day when lehmann bros collapsed "

Key word there being "fundamentals." I doubt he is saying "everything is rosey right now!"

9/16/2008 11:23:39 PM

Quote :

"Dude. They said he can't use a fucking computer. That's a little bit more than "stretching the truth." That's picking on a dude for a fucking disability that he incurred as a POW. that's quite low."

To the extent of my understanding, McCain doesn't not use a computer because he's disabled, but because he's 73 years old.

I want to see him try to type. It would bring the lolz.

9/16/2008 11:31:30 PM