Questins for Obama

[Dakota Kid]

George Will is a genius.

Subject: "Questions for Obama"
>>
>> Leave it to George Will to cut through Obama's
>> flowery prose and ask the
>> tough questions!
>>
>> Newsweek Magazine May 5, 2008 issue of Newsweek
>> "Questions for Obama" by George F. Will
>> Senator, concerning the criteria by
>> which you will nominate judges,
>> you said: "We need somebody
>> who's got the heart, the empathy, to
>> recognize what it's like to be a
>> young teenage mom. The empathy to
>> understand what it's like to be
>> poor, or African-American, or gay, or
>> disabled, or old." Such
>> sensitivities might serve an admirable
>> legislator, but what have they to do
>> with judging? Should a judge side
>> with whichever party in a controversy
>> stirs his or her empathy? Is
>> such personalization of the judicial
>> function inimical to the rule of
>> law?
>>
>> Voting against the confirmation of
>> Chief Justice John Roberts, you
>> said: Deciding "truly difficult
>> cases" should involve "one's deepest
>> values, one's core concerns,
>> one's broader perspectives on how the
>> world works, and the depth and
>> breadth of one's empathy." Is that not
>> essentially how Chief Justice Roger
>> Taney decided the Dred Scott
>> case? Should other factors?say, the
>> language of the constitutional or
>> statutory provision at issue matter?
>>
>> You say, "The insurance
>> companies, the drug companies, they're not
>> going to give up their profits easily
>> when it comes to health care."
>> Why should they? Who will profit from
>> making those industries
>> unprofitable? When pharmaceutical
>> companies have given up their
>> profits, who will fund pharmaceutical
>> innovations, without which there
>> will be much preventable suffering and
>> death? What other industries
>> should "give up their
>> profits"?
>>
>> ExxonMobil's 2007 profit of $40.6
>> billion annoys you. Do you know that
>> its profit, relative to its revenue,
>> was smaller than Microsoft's and
>> many other corporations'? And that
>> reducing ExxonMobil's profits will
>> injure people who participate in
>> mutual funds, index funds and pension
>> funds that own 52 percent of the
>> company?
>>
>> You say John McCain is content to
>> "watch [Americans'] home prices
>> decline." So, government should
>> prop up housing prices generally? How?
>> Why? Were prices ideal before the
>> bubble popped? How does a senator
>> know ideal prices? Have you explained
>> to young couples straining to
>> buy their first house that declining
>> prices are a misfortune?
>>
>> Telling young people "don't
>> go into corporate America ," your wife,
>> Michelle, urged them to become social
>> workers or others in "the
>> helping industry," not "the
>> moneymaking industry." Given that the
>> moneymakers pay for 100 percent of
>> American jobs, in both public and
>> private sectors, is it not helpful?
>>
>> Michelle, who was born in 1964,
>> says that most Americans' lives
>> have "gotten progressively
>> worse since I was a little girl." Since
>> 1960, real per capita income has
>> increased 143 percent, life
>> expectancy has increased by seven
>> years, infant mortality has
>> declined 74 percent, deaths from
>> heart disease have been halved,
>> childhood leukemia has stopped being
>> a death sentence, depression has
>> become a treatable disease, air and
>> water pollution have been
>> drastically reduced, the number of
>> women earning a bachelor's degree
>> has more than doubled, the rate of
>> homeownership has increased 10.2
>> percent, the size of the average
>> American home has doubled, the
>> percentage of homes with air
>> conditioning has risen from 12 to 77,
>> the portion of Americans who own
>> shares of stock has quintupled ? Has
>> your wife perhaps missed some
>> pertinent developments in this country
>> that she calls "just downright
>> mean"?
>>
>> You favor raising the capital gains
>> tax rate to "20 percent or 25
>> percent." You say this will not
>> "distort" economic decision making.
>> Your tax returns on your 2007 income
>> of $4.2 million show that you
>> and Michelle own few stocks. Are you
>> sure you understand how
>> investors make decisions?
>>
>> During the ABC debate, you
>> acknowledged that when the capital
>> gains rate was dropped first to 20
>> percent, then to 15 percent,
>> government revenues from the tax
>> increased and they declined in the
>> 1980s when it was increased to 28
>> percent. Nevertheless, you said you
>> would consider raising the rate
>> "for purposes of fairness." How does
>> decreasing the government's
>> financial resources and punishing
>> investors promote fairness? Are you
>> aware that 20 percent of
>> taxpayers reporting capital gains in
>> 2006 had incomes of less than
>> $50,000?
>>
>> You favor eliminating the cap on
>> earnings subject to the 12.4
>> percent Social Security tax, which
>> now covers only the first
>> $102,000. A Chicago police officer
>> married to a Chicago public-school
>> teacher, each with 20 years on the
>> job, have a household income of
>> $147,501, so you would take another
>> $5,642 from them. Are they
>> undertaxed? Are they rich?
>>
>> This November , electorates in four
>> states will vote on
>> essentially this language: "The
>> state shall not discriminate against,
>> or grant preferential treatment to,
>> any individual or group on the
>> basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity
>> or national origin in the
>> operation of public employment,
>> public education or public
>> contracting." Three states,
>> California , Washington and Michigan
>> have enacted such language. You made
>> a radio ad opposing the
>> Michigan initiative. Why? Are those
>> states' voters racists?
>>
>> You denounce President Bush for
>> arrogance toward other nations.
>> Yet you vow to use a metaphorical
>> "hammer" to force revisions of
>> trade agreements unless certain
>> weaker nations adjust their labor,
>> environmental and other domestic
>> policies to suit you. Can you define
>> cognitive dissonance?
>>
>> You want "to reduce money in
>> politics." In February and March you
>> raised $95 million. See prior
>> question.
_________________
Back to top

[Dakota Kid]

Obama supporters? Where are you?

[SXSMITH]

Could you learn how to use MS Word and reformat this? It hurts my head to read short sentences with this ">>" crap in it.

[F4sSprintST]

Subject: "Questions for Obama"

Leave it to George Will to cut through Obama's flowery prose and ask the tough questions!

Newsweek Magazine May 5, 2008 issue of Newsweek "Questions for Obama" by George F. Will Senator, concerning the criteria by which you will nominate judges, you said: "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old." Such sensitivities might serve an admirable legislator, but what have they to do with judging? Should a judge side with whichever party in a controversy stirs his or her empathy? Is such personalization of the judicial function inimical to the rule of law?

Voting against the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts, you said: Deciding "truly difficult cases" should involve "one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy." Is that not essentially how Chief Justice Roger Taney decided the Dred Scott case? Should other factors?say, the language of the constitutional or statutory provision at issue matter?

You say, "The insurance companies, the drug companies, they're not going to give up their profits easily when it comes to health care." Why should they? Who will profit from making those industries unprofitable? When pharmaceutical companies have given up their profits, who will fund pharmaceutical innovations, without which there will be much preventable suffering and death? What other industries should "give up their profits"?

ExxonMobil's 2007 profit of $40.6 billion annoys you. Do you know that its profit, relative to its revenue, was smaller than Microsoft's and many other corporations'? And that reducing ExxonMobil's profits will injure people who participate in mutual funds, index funds and pension funds that own 52 percent of the company?

You say John McCain is content to "watch [Americans'] home prices decline." So, government should prop up housing prices generally? How? Why? Were prices ideal before the bubble popped? How does a senator know ideal prices? Have you explained to young couples straining to buy their first house that declining prices are a misfortune?

Telling young people "don't go into corporate America ," your wife, Michelle, urged them to become social workers or others in "the helping industry," not "the moneymaking industry." Given that the moneymakers pay for 100 percent of American jobs, in both public and private sectors, is it not helpful?

Michelle, who was born in 1964, says that most Americans' lives have "gotten progressively worse since I was a little girl." Since
1960, real per capita income has increased 143 percent, life expectancy has increased by seven years, infant mortality has declined 74 percent, deaths from heart disease have been halved, childhood leukemia has stopped being a death sentence, depression has become a treatable disease, air and water pollution have been drastically reduced, the number of women earning a bachelor's degree has more than doubled, the rate of homeownership has increased 10.2 percent, the size of the average American home has doubled, the percentage of homes with air conditioning has risen from 12 to 77, the portion of Americans who own shares of stock has quintupled ? Has your wife perhaps missed some pertinent developments in this country that she calls "just downright mean"?

You favor raising the capital gains tax rate to "20 percent or 25 percent." You say this will not "distort" economic decision making. Your tax returns on your 2007 income of $4.2 million show that you and Michelle own few stocks. Are you sure you understand how investors make decisions?

During the ABC debate, you acknowledged that when the capital gains rate was dropped first to 20 percent, then to 15 percent, government revenues from the tax increased and they declined in the
1980s when it was increased to 28 percent. Nevertheless, you said you would consider raising the rate "for purposes of fairness." How does decreasing the government's financial resources and punishing investors promote fairness? Are you aware that 20 percent of taxpayers reporting capital gains in
2006 had incomes of less than $50,000?

You favor eliminating the cap on earnings subject to the 12.4 percent Social Security tax, which now covers only the first $102,000. A Chicago police officer married to a Chicago public-school teacher, each with 20 years on the job, have a household income of $147,501, so you would take another $5,642 from them. Are they undertaxed? Are they rich?

This November , electorates in four states will vote on essentially this language: "The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting." Three states, California , Washington and Michigan have enacted such language. You made a radio ad opposing the Michigan initiative. Why? Are those states' voters racists?

You denounce President Bush for arrogance toward other nations. Yet you vow to use a metaphorical "hammer" to force revisions of trade agreements unless certain weaker nations adjust their labor, environmental and other domestic policies to suit you. Can you define cognitive dissonance?

You want "to reduce money in politics." In February and March you raised $95 million. See prior question.

This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from PaperCut - emailSTRIPPER - Print management, quotas, control, monitoring and accounting

[Trash]

Dakota's posting spam email again.

[Dakota Kid]

Originally Posted by SXSMITH

Could you learn how to use MS Word and reformat this? It hurts my head to read short sentences with this ">>" crap in it.

I think it just hurts you to read.

[psudy]

Thats exactly whats scary about him. He wants to enact all these policies he has absolutley no idea about, just because they look like the liberal thing to do on the surface.

[Trash]

Originally Posted by psudy

Thats exactly whats scary about him. He wants to enact all these policies he has absolutley no idea about, just because they look like the liberal thing to do on the surface.

How do we know it's a real article from Newsweek? It was from a spam email and looks like the typical right wing slapped together thing. I'll bet a fiver considering the source.

[Gaolee]

ben fu infested the original post, making it next to impossible to read anyway.

[Trash]

Originally Posted by Gaolee

ben

Originally Posted by Gaolee

fu infested t

he

Originally Posted by Gaolee

original post, making

it next to
i

Originally Posted by Gaolee

mpossible to read anyway.

[Dakota Kid]

Originally Posted by psudy

Thats exactly whats scary about him. He wants to enact all these policies he has absolutley no idea about, just because they look like the liberal thing to do on the surface.

Exactly right, sir.

[keystonejenks]

*clears throat*

This article is real and not spam mail. I shall present exhibit B

Questions For McCain
You say 'some greedy people' on Wall Street 'perhaps need to be punished.' So, government should treat greed as a crime?

George F. Will
NEWSWEEK
Updated: 1:17 PM ET May 10, 2008

Peripatetic John McCain, the human pinball, continues to carom around the country as his rivals gnaw on each other. Although action, not reflection, is his forte, perhaps he should go to earth somewhere, while the Democrats continue the destruction, and answer some questions, such as:

• You say you are not "ready to go to war with Iran," but you also say the "one thing worse" than "exercising the military option" is "a nuclear-armed Iran." Because strenuous diplomacy has not dented Iran's nuclear ambitions, is not a vote for you a vote for war with Iran?

• You say that although Russia has blocked "everything we have tried to do" through the United Nations, you are confident that a "league of democracies" that "control so much of the world's economy" can modify the behavior of Iran, which has "a lousy economy." Does that mean war can be avoided only if France, Germany, Japan and China, which have important commercial relations with Iran, impose severe sanctions, and they break Iran's nuclear ambitions?

• Your goal in Iraq is "success," which you define as "the establishment of a generally peaceful, stable, prosperous, democratic state." Would a "generally" peaceful, stable, prosperous but authoritarian state be unacceptable? Or a mildly prosperous and "generally" stable state but one with simmering violence—which describes a number of nations today, including Iraq? Does the task of making your four adjectives descriptive of Iraq require and therefore justify more years of military involvement in the suppression of groups that are manifestations of sectarianism, criminality and warlordism? What other nations should we police?

• In 1999, during U.S. intervention in the Balkans, you advocated mobilizing infantry and armored divisions to show Serbia's Slobodan Milosevic that there was "no self-imposed limit to our determination to liberate Kosovo from his tyranny." You described your policy as "rogue-state rollback" against those who threaten "our strategic interests and political values." How did Serbia threaten America's strategic interests? Are America's political values threatened by any state that does not practice them? If so, how long is your list of nations eligible for "rogue-state rollback"?

• You vow to nominate judges who "take as their sole responsibility the enforcement of laws made by the people's elected representatives." Their sole responsibility? Do you oppose judicial review that invalidates laws that pure-hearted representatives of the saintly people have enacted that happen to violate the Constitution? Does your dogmatic deference to popular sovereignty put you at odds with the first Republican president, who nobly insisted that there are some things the majority should not be permitted to do—hence his opposition to allowing popular sovereignty to determine the status of slavery in the territories? Do you also reject Justice Antonin Scalia's belief that the Constitution's purpose is "to embed certain rights in such a manner that future generations cannot readily take them away"? Does this explain your enthusiasm for McCain-Feingold's restrictions on political speech, and your dismissive reference to, "quote, First Amendment rights"? Would you nominate judges who, because they think those are more than "quote … rights," doubt McCain-Feingold's constitutionality?

• You say that even if global warming turns out to be no crisis (the World Meteorological Organization says global temperatures have not risen in a decade), even unnecessary measures taken to combat it will be beneficial because "then all we've done is give our kids a cleaner world." But what of the trillions of dollars those measures will cost in direct expenditures and diminished economic growth—hence diminished medical research, cultural investment, etc.? Given that Earth is always warming or cooling, what is its proper temperature, and how do you know?

• You propose a "cap and trade" system to limit the carbon dioxide that many companies can emit. Is not your idea an energy- rationing proposal akin to Bill Clinton's BTU tax?

• You say "some greedy people" on Wall Street "perhaps need to be punished." So, government should treat greed as a crime—as punishable? What other departures from virtue deserve punishment? How do you distinguish between greed and the socially useful pursuit of personal gain? Your top 20 contributors include this dozen: Merrill Lynch, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Credit Suisse, Lehman Brothers, Bank of New York Mellon, Morgan Stanley, Wachovia Group, Bridgewater Associates, Blackstone Group and Bear Stearns. Are any contributions from these financial institutions so tainted by greed that you are returning them?

• Having raised $95 million in February and March, Barack Obama is reconsidering whether to rely on taxpayer funding in the general election, which would limit him to spending only $84.1 million. You denounce Obama for this, but your adviser Charles Black says, "We could sit down in July or August and say, 'Hey, we're raising a lot of money and maybe we should forgo [taxpayer financing].' We don't have enough data." Really, how does your position differ from Obama's?

• More than 90 percent of taxpayers refuse to use the $3 checkoff on their tax forms to fund campaigns—even though doing so would not increase their tax bill. Given such annual landslide "votes" against taxpayer funding, why is relying on it more virtuous than Obama's expected reliance on voluntary contributions from dedicated individuals?

Just wondering.

[Dakota Kid]

I was wondering who would be on the ball and post.

Fair enough.

Makes it even more obvious how PO