So- did the infomercial make you want to vote Obama? — Page 2

EDIT: And your comment about fat people not really being poor was vile. That's like saying, "See? Those little children with the big bellies in those third-world countries don't need food. They're already fat around the middle, so they must be getting all the food they need!"

Oh, please Besty. Seriously? That's what I was saying?

As for his totally positive campaign, you must not be watching him in Sarasota right now.

I honestly could CARE LESS if every single person in that video was an actor.

Those stories are rampant all over this damn country. Yes we are all well off in comparison to the rest of the world. The people that produced that video needed to nail it for the demo that would watch and they did.

They could go in ANY direction, if Obama wanted to show poor, starving, and seriously ill he could have. He could have shown schools that are falling apart, war torn maimed soldiers. He didn't.

Instead he showed us people that have lived better than the last 8 years and have HOPE of better times ahead. It's gold. Pure gold.

It was compelling, accurate and poignant, almost too Oprah. When I first heard he was doing it I thought he was going overboard. It is kind of a stretch but everyone knows unless it's on television it's not real. That was real enough for me.

You know what that half hour was? It was baseball. It was the art of the game, it was balletic beauty, it was a promise of success if we work together as a team. It's the game in which you use your head. It was America.

That half hour was baseball in a metier that has been dominated by football since the campaign to elect The Gipper in 1980. Football, with roiling testosterone and shouts of "attack! kill!" the other team and a template that's nothing but a war game. Football, with its foam rubber "We're #1" fingers and men who behave like steamrollers.

America needs baseball a helluva lot more than it needs anymore football right now.

---

jason, I think the distinction is that those making less than $200,000 a year will pay less in taxes, while taxes for those making between $200,001 and $250,000 will not change.

---

As I understand it, Obama's plan basically raises taxes for married couples filing jointly at $250K; individual at $200K.
Additionally, Biden mentioned a hike that happens at $150K, but I don't recall specifics.

I already voted. I am so happy.

---

Honestly, if I made 250 or 200 or hell, even 100,000 I'd be HAPPY to pay my fair share in taxes above whatever those making less make. When I'm struggling to make ends meet on a teacher's salary, the prissy whining from the elite about paying more in taxes really gets to me.

I was just concerned about what I saw as a change in what was being said and how that might cause controversy. Guess I just misunderstood the point...

---

For JB2, and others, from msnbc.com:
Surprise: Lean times may actually make you fat

---

JB2--You should post a pic so we can see how in-shape and gorgeous you are...you must be smoking hot to be typing noise about how other people look.

Republican arguments just don't hold water any longer. The days of single-minded all or nothing are fading. We've had time to see what ultimate conservative control can do. The Republican agenda has failed in every single gambit it sought out to change.

Apparently they are not going to ban gay marriage, or abortion or keep us safe or stabilize the economy. The only thing I've seen is the rich get richer and the decriminalization of semi-automatic handguns.


Obama came at the right time. He has the message we need. Ask not what your country can do for you, but what YOU can do for your country.

geraghty said it a long time ago - all of obama's statements come with an expiration date. all of them. you just have to wait for it. i'm betting that the $250k number will go out the window before the end of 2009. taxes are going up on everybody except those that pay no taxes. don't believe me? let's talk in a year.

now, that said, many people here (and on the left as a whole) think that is fine and dandy and believe that everyone ought to be paying much more than they are. but make no mistake, taxes are going up on everyone.

to those of you who throw around the 90's? check with your candidate because he was not real impressed with them. want to know what the country's gonna look like? look to the late 70's.

that was fun right? right?

---

Uh nobody said this is going to be a walk in the park. Not everyone can attain the almighty and illegal power of Cheney/Bush.


The solution from the Right is MORE OF THE SAME. The 70s? THEY SURE BEAT THE 30s!!!

John McCain wants to "win" this war in Iraq. What the fu$k could he mean by that? He also wouldn't mind getting into another war with Iran. Yes because our pocket-books could use another raping.

His energy solution is the same one we have now. Pretend we are going drill here and now. Instead do none of that because that's not what the oil companies want.

What takes the cake with someone who has said he knows nothing of economics is he picked a runningmate that can't tie her shoes! What kind of executive decision was that? Sarah Palin president? Is that what the right really wants?


Cher in 1999 "George Bush will have your grandparents eating dog food."

She was right then and she is right now. Papa you were wrong about Obama then and you are now. He will win and we are going to begin to repair this sinking ship.

"but make no mistake, taxes are going up on everyone."

I don't think it's right say this while leaving out the fact that there is a helluva deficit to make up thanks to the cut-taxes-but-spendmore-than-ever neocon agenda of the past 12 years. You remember, W's war?

Do you realize there was a much smaller gap between the health of black US citizens and whites in the late 70s compared to the enormous gaps today? I'm just pulling this as an example, but the Iran hostage crisis casts such a shadow over the late-70s and people's recollection of them, that there were a lot of things that were actually much better, if you can imagine using health indicators as a measure of a country's success as a whole. Which I realize most people do not. But it IS an indicator.

To pick one example that makes a salient point across several issues: tuberculosis was almost completely eliminated in the United States by the late-'70s. Syphilis too. But then The Gipper was elected because the white male elite in this country learned how to manipulate the white male non-elite and convinced them that Reagan was going to reattach their penises after theocrats in Iran emasculated them (symbolically, of course) by taking Americans hostage.

The Gipper, of course, systematically set out to dismantle a fairly successful public health infrastructure in this country, not limited to but including the public health nurses who made sure that people with tuberculosis took their medicine EVERY DAY for a year. Yes, that's expensive, but cheaper than the health care burden of an exploding tuberculosis epidemic. Which is of course what we got after said public health care system was decimated.

When you add in the exploding homeless population during Reagan's "I got mine, I don't care about you, greed is good, selfishness is normative" era you have a perfect storm for the resurgence of TB. Syphilis too.

So basically, when you elect people who hate government to the job of government, they will make sure it fails. (Most recently with Katrina and the great flu shot shortage of a couple years ago).

I don't mind paying more taxes if it means better healthy birthrates, the systematic work to eliminate communicable diseases, or any of the myriad things good government can do to help its citizens live healthier (which means more productive) lives.

I have a hard time listening to ardent Republicans complain about taxes when Dick Cheney's puppet and their circle of friends have run up the biggest deficit in history. We ALL have to pay that bill. And it's YOUR GUY who ran it up.

---