LOL. Shouldn't they surround his head with one of those environmental oil slick barriers, then? They could make it look like a hat, or somethin'. No one would notice.

The major media report only half the news. Why are they surprised they have only half the potential audience?

"How do you know he called her a pig?"

Because it was caught on tape, dufus, and I'm not deaf or blind. Sheeshhh! And the audience reaction showed that even his liberal audience got it.

Are you deaf? or blind? or simply just about the stupidest thing on this green Earth?

___________________________________ 

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber

We all saw it for ourselves.

BTW, McCain IS a liberal.

-Dave.

hey Joe, thanks for the argument.

You've got some good points here. To answer your concern about where I got this report, I got this account from FactCheck.org. (Now, FactCheck.org has been referenced/used several times in the last few days by NB staff--so, although somebody on the message board did question FactCheck.org's partisanship, since NB staff used it, I figured it might at least get the benefit of the doubt). The report can be found here: http://www.factcheck... (it's under "Tax Counter-Spin").

I'm not sure about the Urban-Brookings reports, but I think FactCheck.org used these two: McCain (http://www.taxpolicy...) and Obama (http://www.taxpolicy...). These reports are for 2009, and these projections are based on the candidates' platforms as explained by their economic advisors, which include rescinding/extending the Bush tax cuts. (That is, no one is saying, "well, he promised to cut this, so I trust him." They're running this by the numbers, not by the campaign promises.)

Now, to address your question about partisanship--I had a whole paragraph here about whether the Tax Policy Center was left or right, but ultimately partisanship only matters if we were talking about people's opinions. And here, the issue isn't "what do economists think about the numbers?" The issue here is, what are the numbers, and numbers don't lean left or right, yes? These are the numbers both campaigns gave.

I mean, if the Obama campaign said the moon was made of salsa and the McCain campaign said the moon was made of sour cream, you wouldn't want the news to say "Obama and McCain clash over Moon"--you'd want Neil Armstrong to come up and say, "Screw you guys, it's made of rock." (Either that or you'd want someone to make a burrito out of the moon.) That's not called partisanship, that's called stating the facts. And since this report has come out, neither campaign has complained about partisanship from the TPC, so here I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

I hope I've answered your doubts about the source of these numbers, but if you want to discuss this more, I'd be happy to. (I, for one, am sort of sick of all the name-calling and shouting, and welcome some discussion.)

So, back to my original question: how do you feel about McCain's tax cuts, which will keep more out of the pockets of the average American?

hey Dave, with Cool Arrow's helpful translation, I think I understand your point, but you still haven't answered my question as to what your source was--and this was a question, not a challenge or an invitation to argue.

You had some numbers in your previous post, and although we know there are three types of lies (lies, damn lies, and statistics), I'd still like to see the source of your numbers.

And knock it off with the name-calling, already.

The pose of "caring" isn't a "power play." I don't even think it's a pose. I think they believe it's a more caring way, that they feel that giving millions of dollars is a more caring way to help than just private donations. And help them feel morally superior. But the reality is that those dollars don't do the job, or don't get where they're needed. The references to the New Deal and the Great Society were just examples of how that approach has, by and large, failed. The solution to the libs is "we need to do more."

Example: My son attends a Catholic school. The building was built in the '60s. It's not falling apart, it's well-maintained. The parish is small, less than 1000 members. The school only has 160 students, K-8. The budget, including utilities, maintenance, salaries, everything, is slightly less than $1 million. That works out to about $6200 per pupil, partly subsidized by the Church, partly paid in tuition. They put out more than their share of HS valedictorians and salutetorians, with a few scholarships to Ivy League schools thrown in for good measure.

Schools in cities typically spend more per student (sometimes much more) with poorer results and poorer facilities. But they always say the solution is more money, and if you don't agree, you're "shortchanging the future," or some such malarkey. You don't "care" enough.

I doubt the corporate owners really much care about the politics pushed by their personalities. They just want to see a good, productive bottom line. And if Olbermann or Brokaw or Joy Behar is what it takes to get the numbers, they couldn't care less what they say to do it. They'll be protected by whoever is in control. Both sides play the corporate-lobbyist game, despite the popular conception otherwise.

I'll say it again: defining motive is a dicey game. If I see someone shoot another person, I may not know why they did it. I can't deny that they DID do it, however. NB exists to expose and discuss the bias in the MSM. It's their declared mission. If your question was meant to link lack of motive to a denial of bias, I think you're barking up the wrong tree.

I'm bushed. Lousy night, and the day ain't much better. And I've pretty much talked this subject out, speaking personally.

"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall

Sorry, bal, but I don't "hate" Obama; I just don't respect him or his history or his accomplishments. I can do that without hating him, and I think most folks here feel the same.

What is difficult is claiming it's a "coincidence" that the audience laughed the hardest at the infamous "nose-scratch." You're right, he was "jabbing" at Hillary... with a finger.

I don't think that the "lipstick on a pig" remark was consciously directed at Palin, but the audience obviously took it that way. Whereupon Obama should have made some kind of denial. Just like McCain was trashed for not upbraiding the woman who asked "how can we beat that bitch?" in re Hillary. Remember that one? You'd have thought McCain used the word.

Same rules all around, that's all I expect. But then, there'd be no need of NB, would there?

"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall