# Obama Campaign Makes Fun of McCain's Disabilities



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

The Obama Campaign began running a new television commercial today, among other things mocking McCain because he supposedly can't use a computer or send email:






They omit to mention that the reason he can't is because of the injuries he suffered while being tortured as a POW:



> "In certain ways, McCain was a natural Web candidate. Chairman of the Senate Telecommunications Subcommittee and regarded as the U.S. Senate's savviest technologist, McCain is an inveterate devotee of email. His nightly ritual is to read his email together with his wife, Cindy. The injuries he incurred as a Vietnam POW make it painful for McCain to type. Instead, he dictates responses that his wife types on a laptop. "She's a whiz on the keyboard, and I'm so laborious," McCain admits."
> 
> --Forbes Magazine, 5/29/00
> https://www.forbes.com/asap/2000/0529/053_print.html





> "McCain gets emotional at the mention of military families needing food stamps or veterans lacking health care. The outrage comes from inside: McCain's severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes. Friends marvel at McCain's encyclopedic knowledge of sports. He's an avid fan - Ted Williams is his hero - but he can't raise his arm above his shoulder to throw a baseball."
> 
> --Boston Globe, 3/4/2000
> https://graphics.boston.com/news/politics/campaign2000/news/McCain_character_loyal_to_a_fault+.shtml


Obama's little techie people who spend all day on the internet looking for scandals to use against McCain/Palin obviously knew this, but it didn't stop Obama from churning out one of the most vile and misleading attack ads ever.

This is the lowest a political campaign has ever stooped.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

I am willing to give them the benefit of doubt on this one, after all Joe Biden didn't realize that a politician that he asked to stand up at a campaign event was in a wheelchair.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Come one guys. Obama is a serious candidate with serious solutions to what plagues this country. I particularly like these steps toward national security.


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

*I have servants to do my internets.*

*Yeah, because he was a POW. That's always the answer. Never mind that quadriplegics type and use the internet.*

"They go on for me," he said. "I am learning to get online myself, and I will have that down fairly soon, getting on myself." Apparently clicking on the right icon to connect is stymieing him. 
"I don't e-mail, I've never felt the particular need to e-mail," Mr. McCain said.

Huh, where's the handicap excuse? Oh, that was just made up after the ad? Lame excuse.


----------



## rgrossicone (Jan 27, 2008)

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> *Yeah, because he was a POW. That's always the answer. Never mind that quadriplegics type and use the internet.*
> 
> "They go on for me," he said. "I am learning to get online myself, and I will have that down fairly soon, getting on myself." Apparently clicking on the right icon to connect is stymieing him.
> "I don't e-mail, I've never felt the particular need to e-mail," Mr. McCain said.
> ...


ABSOLUTELY! What possible handicap would prevent someone from typing, using the internet, or reading an email. I can imagine it now...an important email at 3 in the morning, and McCain has his wife read it to him, and dictates a reply..."Take a note..."


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

I think the outrage would be a bit more legit if it was about his age which is what they were clearly going after. McCain has joked himself about not knowing how to use a computer, so he's opened himself up on this one.

But in general, the GOP is going to cry foul on anything, for any reason. Considering the massive amount of flak they're taking for last weeks ads which are pretty much all dishonest, I don't think people are going to feel too bad for McCain.

-spence


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

rgrossicone said:


> ABSOLUTELY! What possible handicap would prevent someone from typing, using the internet, or reading an email. I can imagine it now...an important email at 3 in the morning, and McCain has his wife read it to him, and dictates a reply..."Take a note..."


From the Boston Globe (March 4, 2000):

"McCain gets emotional at the mention of military families needing food stamps or veterans lacking health care. The outrage comes from inside: McCain's severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes. Friends marvel at McCain's encyclopedic knowledge of sports. He's an avid fan - Ted Williams is his hero - but he can't raise his arm above his shoulder to throw a baseball."

That report notwithstanding, I don't believe for a minute that the Obama camp knew that when they constructed the ad. Just like I don't believe that Obama remotely called Palin a pig. That said, both instances betray are certain surprising "amateurishness" for a campaign that was extraordinarily competent in the primary.


----------



## SkySov (Mar 17, 2008)

Mike Petrik said:


> From the Boston Globe (March 4, 2000):
> 
> "McCain gets emotional at the mention of military families needing food stamps or veterans lacking health care. The outrage comes from inside: McCain's severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes. Friends marvel at McCain's encyclopedic knowledge of sports. He's an avid fan - Ted Williams is his hero - but he can't raise his arm above his shoulder to throw a baseball."







































I have that problem with my OTR suits too. If I had McCain's money I'd get bespoke. Crazy bastard.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

The guy doesn't feel the need to use the internet or send email. It may surprise some of you that a world existed before the internet and email. I very much doubt that our present technology was present to those who made the first atomic bomb, or designed rocket for the moonshot, but somehow it got done. 

We have seen racial and class division and exploitation before. In this election we have also seen gender bias and this ad is nothing more than ageism. In the end I'm fine with it. I would rather my president not know how to email or use the internet than one who carouses with domestic terrorists, slum lords, racist preachers and who thinks that dancing on a dopey daytime talk show and put up a 3-point shot is qualification to be POTUS.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

SkySov said:


> I have that problem with my OTR suits too. If I had McCain's money I'd get bespoke. Crazy bastard.


Sorry but I don't get the point of your post.


----------



## rgrossicone (Jan 27, 2008)

Ageism? Nice. So if someone were to be fired from their job for refusing to respond to email communication with their superiors, or is constantly missing important meetings because the don't use email, then its ageism? Lets take it a step further...what about people who refuse to use the telephone because "the world was fine for the past few thousands of years without it". Its simple ignorance on his part...or even further, stupidity. Who wouldn't desire to use technology that has GREATLY improved the world we live in because its "fancy and new". I work with teachers who won't create a web page, even though a simple template is given to us, and students GREATLY benefit from it. Its stupid, and lazy.



pt4u67 said:


> The guy doesn't feel the need to use the internet or send email. It may surprise some of you that a world existed before the internet and email. I very much doubt that our present technology was present to those who made the first atomic bomb, or designed rocket for the moonshot, but somehow it got done.
> 
> We have seen racial and class division and exploitation before. In this election we have also seen gender bias and this ad is nothing more than ageism. In the end I'm fine with it. I would rather my president not know how to email or use the internet than one who carouses with domestic terrorists, slum lords, racist preachers and who thinks that dancing on a dopey daytime talk show and put up a 3-point shot is qualification to be POTUS.


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

*McCain is Mr. Pitt who sends Elaine Benes out to buy white socks.*

It is not ageism, as even geezers generally have figured it out by now. My boss is McCain's age, and has no computer at work. He can't reduce a copy or upload images from a camera, but he can log on and navigate the web.

It is being out of touch. Remember when Bush the Greater marveled at bar code scanners in 1991? Hilary having no clue what Red Bull was in 2008? Marie Antoinette saying 'Let them eat cake..." McCain is insulated from modern reality in the same way our non-reading current President is. This is not good.

It also really shows that the dog can't learn new tricks _at all_. How many hours of watching aides pull up websites does it take till you figure it out?


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

rgrossicone said:


> Ageism? Nice. So if someone were to be fired from their job for refusing to respond to email communication with their superiors, or is constantly missing important meetings because the don't use email, then its ageism? Lets take it a step further...what about people who refuse to use the telephone because "the world was fine for the past few thousands of years without it". Its simple ignorance on his part...or even further, stupidity. Who wouldn't desire to use technology that has GREATLY improved the world we live in because its "fancy and new". I work with teachers who won't create a web page, even though a simple template is given to us, and students GREATLY benefit from it. Its stupid, and lazy.


The last time I checked the president does not need to design web pages, create excel spreadsheets, respond to emails or any of the other pedestrian uses of a computer. Like any busy executive, he will have a staff to do that. I would rather my president's attention be turned towards greater issues than what his gmail user name should be.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> It is not ageism, as even geezers generally have figured it out by now. My boss is McCain's age, and has no computer at work. He can't reduce a copy or upload images from a camera, but he can log on and navigate the web.
> 
> It is being out of touch. Remember when Bush the Greater marveled at bar code scanners in 1991? Hilary having no clue what Red Bull was in 2008? Marie Antoinette saying 'Let them eat cake..." McCain is insulated from modern reality in the same way our non-reading current President is. This is not good.
> 
> It also really shows that the dog can't learn new tricks _at all_. How many hours of watching aides pull up websites does it take till you figure it out?


It has nothing to do with being out of touch. That is a sentiment harbored by those who are arrogant enough to think that that which they know is what everyone else should know. I'm actually glad HRC didn't know what Red Bull was. To be quite honest, although I have heard of it, I really don't know what Red Bull is. I don't think of myself as out of touch. Anyone time I hear a rapper on the radio I automatically think its P-Diddy.

The fact that McCain doesn't email or use a computer is of very little concern to me. Those are tools and for someone like him they probably don't matter to him. I'm sure next to some 14 year old kid you're a geezer who doesn't know the latest tech application.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

The president will have plenty of people to do his computer research for him. If it bothers you that he is "out of touch", you probably had other reasons not to vote for him anyway.


----------



## rgrossicone (Jan 27, 2008)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> The president will have plenty of people to do his computer research for him. If it bothers you that he is "out of touch", you probably had other reasons not to vote for him anyway.


You're 100% right. It just goes to further the stereotype that the GOP is not in touch with everyday Americans. They use religion to blind the working classes, and their economic policies to pocket who _really_ controls this country. Having just re-read this, I'm not sure if many Democrats wouldn't also fit into this stereotype.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Good Lord!

We need a President to deal with country and world issues and folks here are concerned because he doesn't surf the web!!

I'm glad you folks are focused on what's important.


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

*Yes a President befuddled by the world around him. That'll work.*



Relayer said:


> We need a President to deal with country and world issues ...


McCain is starting to learn about those too, and will have it down fairly soon. Till then, he has people to do it for him.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

There's some things that Obama can't do so why make fun of McCain?


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

rgrossicone said:


> You're 100% right. It just goes to further the stereotype that the GOP is not in touch with everyday Americans. *They use religion to blind the working classes, and their economic policies to pocket who really controls this country. *Having just re-read this, I'm not sure if many Democrats wouldn't also fit into this stereotype.


My friend agrees with you:


----------



## mommatook1 (Apr 17, 2008)

rgrossicone said:


> ... I'm not sure if many Democrats wouldn't also fit into this stereotype.


I am.


----------



## rgrossicone (Jan 27, 2008)

pt4u67 said:


> My friend agrees with you:


Thank you for the compliment. :icon_smile_big:.


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

Mike Petrik said:


> That report notwithstanding, I don't believe for a minute that the Obama camp knew that when they constructed the ad..


For what these people are paid, they probably know everything there is to know about John McCain. These people watch every hour of every interview and speech he's ever made for dirt to use against him. They made the ad anyways.

McCain's people do the same thing to Obama. Politics is a nasty, nasty business.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

rgrossicone said:


> Thank you for the compliment. :icon_smile_big:.


You're welcome. I'm glad you have a sense of humor.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> My friend agrees with you:


Now, let's take a break from the red-baiting and maybe you can answer a straightforward question: Is rgrossicone wrong in his observation? What would make you say so?


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

jbmcb said:


> For what these people are paid, they probably know everything there is to know about John McCain. These people watch every hour of every interview and speech he's ever made for dirt to use against him. They made the ad anyways.
> 
> McCain's people do the same thing to Obama. Politics is a nasty, nasty business.


Nasty, yes, but there are limits. Most folks, even in politics, do have a moral compass, and those that don't have a practical one. An ad that ridicules a man's physical disability is bad politics, and if that disability is the result of being tortured as a POW it is horribly bad politics. "These people" make mistakes -- plenty of them -- but they are not that stupid. In this case the mistake was not knowing a fact (which easily satisfies the definition of "innocent mistake"), not ridiculing McCain's disability, which would be worse than a mistake.

And I agree with the commentators who think how tech-savvy our president is is pretty unimportant.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> Now, let's take a break from the red-baiting and maybe you can answer a straightforward question: Is rgrossicone wrong in his observation? What would make you say so?


Fine. The comment about blinding people with religion is straight out of Marx. It implies: 1) those who are religious are gullible and monolithic, 2) that there is something inherently wrong with religion and those who value faith. The fact that you may disagree does not make it any less so. There is an objective truth Jack.


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

rgrossicone said:


> ABSOLUTELY! What possible handicap would prevent someone from typing, using the internet, or reading an email.


https://www.usnews.com/articles/news/2008/01/28/john-mccain-prisoner-of-war-a-first-person-account.html

It looks like his right hand is pretty messed up. His left hand may be as well. He probably got used to having assistants type up his correspondence or doing everything by telephone. Up until relatively recently knowing how to use a computer didn't enhance your life very much - I'm not surprised he never learned.

I don't see not knowing how to use a computer as a hindrance, as long as he doesn't claim to know anything about computers - like that Ted Stevens guy. The president is basically an uber-manager, he needs to know how to effectively manage and lead a large and complicated organization. PowerPoint skills aren't a prerequisite, I think.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> Fine. The comment about blinding people with religion is straight out of Marx. It implies: 1) those who are religious are gullible and monolithic, 2) that there is something inherently wrong with religion and those who value faith. The fact that you may disagree does not make it any less so. There is an objective truth Jack.


In other words, you are again saying this is straight out of Marx, but you don't say whether you think it is correct or incorrect.

Thank you.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> In other words, you are again saying this is straight out of Marx, but you don't say whether you think it is correct or incorrect.
> 
> Thank you.


Its not only incorrect, but baseless. Does the GOP platform appeal to Christian voters; perhaps more than that of the democrats. But the notion that they use "religion to blind the working class"? Its a baseless argument. Again Jack, you jump upon a baseless claim and then ask that it be debunked before any proof has been offered that it even has any merit. It represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the American electorate by liberal elites and its the reason why they have such trouble in nationwide elections.

Do liberals use any wedge issues to "blind the working class"?


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Does Obama have any disabilities,he never mentioned them.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> Do liberals use any wedge issues to "blind the working class"?


Mostly Social Security.

-spence


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

I think liberals have pretty consistently used "class war" issues over the last few election cycles. Attacking McCain for not knowing how many houses he owns- when the same could be said for Kerry in the last election. Things like windfall profits taxes- which are bad economic policy- are used to promote hatred of corporations. All of the nonsense about tax cuts for the rich, all of this has been at the center of the Democrat strategy since the 80s.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Spence said:


> Mostly Social Security.
> 
> -spence


And what an enlightened policy that has turned out to be. Reform of social security is an existential threat for liberals. Its the one issue they will not hold back on demagoguing and exploiting. If politics were a nuclear exchange, I believe it, more than the environment and abortion rights, would be the one they would push the button for.


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

*How come we never heard of this "handicap" before?*

I am incapable of pushing buttons due to um, you know ... I was a POW. Did I mention I was a POW? I can't use the mouse either! But I said I was learning, despite the newfound physical handicap.

BTW, McCain writes lefty.
Maybe his wife can round up $200 for a foot mouse.

Anyway, I'm fine with it as long as he stays out of policies concerning computers or the internet. Like cyberterrorism, domestic surveillance, telecommunications, etc.
.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

It has been discussed since at least 2000, I remember hearing about it in the 90s. After the 1992 VP debate when Admiral James Stockdale made reference to using a hearing aid he was ridiculed by many in the media. The reason Stockdale required a hearing aid was because he had his eardrum pierced while being tortured. He also had his arms pulled out of their sockets. At the time, McCain's torture was discussed as well, and I remember it being mentioned that he had difficulty combing his hair as a result.


In a 1993 stand-up routine, comedian Dennis Miller vehemently defended Stockdale's reputation:
Now I know Stockdale's name has become a buzzword in this culture for doddering old man, but let's look at the record, folks. The guy was the first guy in and the last guy out of Vietnam, a war that many Americans, including our present President, did not want to dirty their hands with. The reason he had to turn his hearing aid on at that debate is because those @#!$ animals knocked his eardrums out when he wouldn't spill his guts. He teaches philosophy at Stanford University, he's a brilliant, sensitive, courageous man. And yet he committed the one unpardonable sin in our culture: he was bad on television.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Terpoxon said:


> I think liberals have pretty consistently used "class war" issues over the last few election cycles. Attacking McCain for not knowing how many houses he owns- when the same could be said for Kerry in the last election. Things like windfall profits taxes- which are bad economic policy- are used to promote hatred of corporations. All of the nonsense about tax cuts for the rich, all of this has been at the center of the Democrat strategy since the 80s.


Funny how you conservatives only complain about a class war when we point out who's winning.

Oh, and the tax cuts for the rich thing? I guess we only had to talk about it once you Republicans started doing it.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

https://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19960809&slug=2343287

Here's a '96 article referring to McCain's shoulder being "painfully stiff."


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

https://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/22652.html

Jack, the top 1% of wage earners pay more in taxes than the bottom 90%. Like it or not, the wealthy (for lack of a better word) create jobs through investment, expansion, and the opening of businesses. High personal tax rates, corporate rates or capital gains taxes do nothing but stifle the economy. A few years back, the state of NJ had the brilliant idea of placing a luxury tax on the purchase of yachts. The result was that pretty much every place in NJ that sold yachts went out of business or relocated to Delaware where there is no sales tax. High tax rates drive businesses out. High personal tax rates just encourage people to leave- the reason that the Beatles and Rolling Stones and other British Rockers moved to the US in the 1970s was at least partially influenced by the amazingly high tax rates in Britain at the time (It's one for you, nineteen for me). Even with all the tax cuts for the rich over the years, they still bear the brunt of the tax burden.


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

Howard said:


> Does Obama have any disabilities,he never mentioned them.


Nicotine addiction.


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

*I'm typing with elnows at my side right now.*

We all know he can't raise his arms too high. This allusion to faulty hands is brand spankin' new to me. No proof or prior mention anywhere that I can find. Just made up... or hidden all these years?

I do suspect that Obama's closet smoking will become an issue, as the PC find smokers to be super-villains.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

Perhaps it's arthritis.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> We all know he can't raise his arms too high. This allusion to faulty hands is brand spankin' new to me. No proof or prior mention anywhere that I can find. Just made up... or hidden all these years?


Well you might find it if you read this thread. Wow.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> We all know he can't raise his arms too high. This allusion to faulty hands is brand spankin' new to me. No proof or prior mention anywhere that I can find. Just made up... or hidden all these years?


Are you suggesting that he is making it up? And what possible purpose would he have for putting forward that information. Those mocking McCain for "exploiting" his POW history need to make up their minds.

By they way Chatsworth, the reason it has never been alluded to before now is because of that dopey ad that tries to poke fun at McCain's age. That's what Obama gets for sipping the kool-aid before checking the flavor.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Those knocking McCain this way should stop and think that they are generating sympathy for McCain and harming their candidate. Even fair-minded younger people will realize this cynical truth.

I suppose that as a probable McCain voter, I should let the would-be humorists have their way.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

I never hear our leftist friends complain about the African American churches and their unwavering loyalty to the Democrats (and alot of good it has done them!) I am no fan of the Religious Right but the Religious Left, particularly among African Americans, is just as a corrosive influence on American politics. 

And Rgrossicone I know that you are a NYC public school teacher and probably a member of the NEA but in the real world its not a compliment to be compared to Lenin.

Karl


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> I do suspect that Obama's closet smoking will become an issue, as the PC find smokers to be super-villains.


Indeed. As an occasional cigar/pipe smoker (once a month or so), I often get the impression that if a truly unimpeachable definitive study was published that concluded that second-hand smoke was completely harmless, many (perhaps most) of the anti-smoking brigade would be genuinely dismayed by the good news. Quite disturbing actually.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

fenway said:


> Nicotine addiction.


So McCain should throw it back in his face.


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

*Straight talk, my foot*



Mike Petrik said:


> Well you might find it if you read this thread. Wow.


Ooh, missed that, thanks. But it raises a more serious issue:

2000:


> McCain is an inveterate devotee of email. His nightly ritual is to read his email together with his wife, Cindy. The injuries he incurred as a Vietnam POW make it painful for McCain to type. Instead, he dictates responses that his wife types on a laptop. "She's a whiz on the keyboard, and I'm so laborious," McCain admits.


2008:


> "I don't e-mail, I've never felt the particular need to e-mail," Mr. McCain said.


Was he lying then or is he lying now?


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

Is there a difference between emailing and needing to email?
Is it possible his attitude toward email has changed?


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> Ooh, missed that, thanks. But it raises a more serious issue:
> 
> 2000:
> 
> ...


Are you married, Chat? How long do you think that one's wife is going to take evening dictations for email? Seriously, why would McCain lie about this? And what does this have to do with the fact that the Obama campaign foolishly (though still I maintain innocently) ridiculed his inability to use a keyboard, which now seems indisputable. If you think this is serious, then that just betrays a hilarious lack of judgment.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Stay classy, Obama. This and related attacks are going to cost you the election.

Oh, and the fact you're an empty (though often nice) suit.


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

Pentheos said:


> Stay classy, Obama. This and related attacks are going to cost you the election.
> 
> Oh, and the fact you're an empty (though often nice) suit.


If an election campaign is won or lost on the basis of silly minutae of a silly ad, it will take away from my faith in people to choose their own leaders.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Terpoxon said:


> Is there a difference between emailing and needing to email?
> Is it possible his attitude toward email has changed?


Or maybe he changed his email address?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Beresford, I think you've misunderstood this. The film says that "He(McCain) says that he still doesn't know how to use a computer, that he can't send an e-mail"

It is quoting McCain himself, about the technical knoweldge he claims to lack. And as such has noting whatsoever to do with his disabilities.

James


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Beresford, I think you've misunderstood this. The film says that "He(McCain) says that he still doesn't know how to use a computer, that he can't send an e-mail"
> 
> It is quoting McCain himself, about the technical knoweldge he claims to lack. And as such has noting whatsoever to do with his disabilities.
> 
> James


No fair! You're trying to confuse them with the facts.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

:icon_smile::icon_smile::icon_smile: Yea, those pesky facts, why let them get in the way of a good conspiracy heh? :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> :icon_smile::icon_smile::icon_smile: Yea, those pesky facts, why let them get in the way of a good conspiracy heh? :icon_smile_big:


What conspiracy theory?

In any event, I think the uber-nuanced distinction drawn by the Earl is as lame as the Obama campaign's assertion that McCain's lack of email and Internet prowess is relevant to his qualifiations for office. That said though, the McCain campaign's suggestion that the Obama campaign's claim represents knowing insensitivity to McCain's war injuries is, in my view, even more lame. Both sides are trying to score stupid (which is not to say ineffective) political/debating points on this non-issue.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

There are no nuances or distinctions needed. You simply need to listen correctly to what is said in the film.

You know, reading between the lines doesn't always mean there is something there to read to begin with.

As for it being a non-issue, agreed. 

As for my conspiracy quote, that's called humour.


----------



## MikeMadison (May 14, 2008)

Howard said:


> So McCain should throw it back in his face.


McCain was a "two pack a day smoker for 25 years."

https://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/05/23/mccain.health.records/

So I don't think that'd be a smart angle to take, now that they've both quit.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

MikeMadison said:


> McCain was a "two pack a day smoker for 25 years."
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/05/23/mccain.health.records/
> 
> So I don't think that'd be a smart angle to take, now that they've both quit.


Barack Obama smoked cigarettes,I didn't know that.


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

*Maybe There's a Good Reason Not to Send E-Mails . . .*

"Hackers break into Sarah Palin's e-mail account"

https://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D938QN880&show_article=1


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Truly nasty and despicable. However, unfortunately, people who think they are helping McCain will do similar things.

Obama can't control everyone on his side, unfortunately. Neither can McCain control all the zealots who think they would help him. I'm personally more afraid of Obama's zealots, but they are all capable of being extremely destructive.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

The hacking incident is really disturbing. They posted her daughter's cell phone number on the screenshots. I haven't heard the Obama campaign denounce it yet, but I would expect them to do so.


----------



## johnm (Jul 12, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> The guy doesn't feel the need to use the internet or send email. It may surprise some of you that a world existed before the internet and email. I very much doubt that our present technology was present to those who made the first atomic bomb, or designed rocket for the moonshot, but somehow it got done.
> 
> We have seen racial and class division and exploitation before. In this election we have also seen gender bias and this ad is nothing more than ageism. In the end I'm fine with it. I would rather my president not know how to email or use the internet than one who carouses with domestic terrorists, slum lords, racist preachers and who thinks that dancing on a dopey daytime talk show and put up a 3-point shot is qualification to be POTUS.


No doubt people used to conduct business via telegram and got really bummed when the transatlantic cable was down but times have changed. Stop. The internet, and legislation regarding it and other modern forms of communication, are issues that both the president and legislature have to take up. if they're going to be decision makers, I'd prefer they be at least somewhat informed on it.

Of course I'm the grizzly old telecommunications guy and I just assume that the legislature is largely full of old men who don't know anything about the innertubes but that big telcom money still determines the future of legislation that will effect my business. I just cross my fingers and hope for no new laws.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Terpoxon said:


> https://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/22652.html
> 
> Jack, the top 1% of wage earners pay more in taxes than the bottom 90%.


This is simplicity at its best. Of course they pay more actual dollars in taxes. The real question is WHY do the top 1% pay taxes at a lower rate than the rest of us?

Here is a hint...the Bush tax cuts.

Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in the country as a result of President Bush's tax cuts, according to a new Congressional study. The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, also shows that tax rates for middle-income earners edged up in 2004, the most recent year for which data was available, while rates for people at the very top continued to decline.

Based on an exhaustive analysis of tax records and census data, the study reinforced the sense that while Mr. Bush's tax cuts reduced rates for people at every income level, they offered the biggest benefits by far to people at the very top - especially the top 1 percent of income earners. *Though tax cuts for the rich were bigger than those for other groups, the wealthiest families paid a bigger share of total taxes. That is because their incomes have climbed far more rapidly, and the gap between rich and poor has widened in the last several years. *

Tax cuts were much deeper, and affected far more money, for families in the highest income categories. Households in the top 1 percent of earnings, which had an average income of $1.25 million, saw their effective individual tax rates drop to 19.6 percent in 2004 from 24.2 percent in 2000. The rate cut was twice as deep as for middle-income families, and it translated to an average tax cut of almost $58,000.


----------



## a4audi08 (Apr 27, 2007)

NOUN. VERB. POW. 

If you can use a blackberry, you can use a frickin' computer.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

mrkleen said:


> This is simplicity at its best. Of course they pay more actual dollars in taxes. The real question is WHY do the top 1% pay taxes at a lower rate than the rest of us?
> 
> Here is a hint...the Bush tax cuts.
> 
> ...


Yeah, and? What portion of their income would you like to see wealthy people pay? They already pay the vast majority of taxes. As I have pointed out elsewhere, when wealthy people are faced with punitive taxation, they find ways of getting around it. One way is by leaving the country and going to some place that has lower taxes. British rock stars deserted England in large numbers because of high taxes in the 60s and 70s. Fundamentally I don't see a point in punishing people for being prosperous. Many people who do this seem to think that the wealthy somehow "cheated" in being wealthy. Many people get wealthy through hard work and ingenuity and I think they should be rewarded for it, rather than punished with higher taxes. What ever amount of tax revenue the government collects they still spend more, so there really isn't an argument that the government "needs" the money. Personally I think that society and the economy would be better off if people got to keep more of their own money.


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

*drop the phony outrage*



forsbergacct2000 said:


> Truly nasty and despicable.





Terpoxon said:


> The hacking incident is really disturbing.


https://gawker.com/5051193/sarah-palins-personal-emails
Uh, did you get to the part about her _continuing _to attempt to illegally hide evidence by using personal e-mail accounts for government business by using a second Yahoo! account after the first was discovered?

You're angry at those revealing her crimes, and not the criminal? Her arrogance and ignorance aren't disturbing?


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

Isn't that why we have a law enforcement apparatus? If she did something illegal then let the justice department handle it. How is this different than vigilanteism? If she did something wrong then she needs to be punished, but there is no need to post her daughter's cell phone number on the internet. And, let's be honest, the person who did it was looking for anything they could find that was damaging, they weren't doing it out of any zeal for justice. The investigation now seems to be focusing on the college aged son of a Democratic politician in Tennessee.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

Oh, and do you really want to categorize using a personal email address for business as criminal? Sounds like misfeasance at best.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

mrkleen said:


> This is simplicity at its best. *Of course they pay more actual dollars in taxes.* The real question is WHY do the top 1% pay taxes at a lower rate than the rest of us?


Are you serious? They pay in a higher bracket as it is. In the interest of tax fairness, we should reduce the burden on the rich and increase the share paid by those earning less than $50K/year. That way, they will pay more attention to re-electing tax hogs to represent them in congress.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

From the person claiming to be the hacker (who knows if it really is the guilty party):

I read though the emails… ALL OF THEM… before I posted, and what I concluded was anticlimactic, there was nothing there, nothing incriminating, nothing that would derail her campaign as I had hoped, all I saw was personal stuff, some clerical stuff from when she was governor…. And pictures of her family


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

Mike Petrik said:


> An ad that ridicules a man's physical disability is bad politics, and if that disability is the result of being tortured as a POW it is horribly bad politics. "These people" make mistakes -- plenty of them -- but they are not that stupid.


They aren't ridiculing his disability, they are ridiculing his inability to use modern technology. McCain seems to have been overusing his POW status a bit, so now when he attributes anything to that event, it seems disingenuous on his part. You're right that the media machines aren't stupid - and it's not an innocent mistake, it's amazingly cunning politicking.



> In this case the mistake was not knowing a fact (which easily satisfies the definition of "innocent mistake")


I don't think you realize - the political media machines have *hundreds of millions* of dollars. Obama's media people know everything there is to know about John McCain, and vice versa. There are no mistakes - every ad is carefully planned out and orchestrated months in advance, with plenty of cash to spare as new stuff comes up in the headlines.

The truth doesn't matter in politics, only the public's perception of the truth. The public thinks that John McCain is technologically inept, the reason or reality doesn't matter.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

jbmcb said:


> The public thinks that John McCain is technologically inept, the reason or reality doesn't matter.


I believe it's more like, incredibly, Obama is really hoping the public cares. You know he's desperately scraping the bottom of the issues barrel if it has come to this.

In reality, I don't think the majority of the public really cares if McCain can surf the net or check email. Sure, maybe some kids who think everybody lives by texting their friends and researching wikipedia for their next term paper may recoil horror. But even the majority of them probably realize that a President has more important things to do if they think about it for a moment.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Chats, keep up the nastiness. You and those like you will put McCain in the white house.

The nastiness wears out its welcome quickly. 

Far better to make reasoned arguments for your candidate and leave the negative stuff to the professionals.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Beresford said:


> "Hackers break into Sarah Palin's e-mail account"
> 
> https://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D938QN880&show_article=1


How do hackers get into these situations?


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

Howard said:


> How do hackers get into these situations?


1 - You're using a browser with an unpatched javascript vunlnerability
2 - You log into your yahoo email - it stores your credentials in a cookie on your hard drive
3 - You visit a website that has been comprimised (or read an email with malicious javascript)
4 - The javascript app looks for gmail and yahoo mail login cookies, and posts them to the attacker's website

They now have your login credentials for your online email.

That's why I use Firefox with the NoScript extention, that blocks ALL javascript unless I specifically allow it for a certain web site.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Terpoxon said:


> Yeah, and? What portion of their income would you like to see wealthy people pay?


Again, the question isnt what "portion" of their income I want to see them pay, the question is - why does Warren Buffet get taxed at 24% when his receptionist is taxed at 30%?


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

pt4u67 said:


> Are you serious? They pay in a higher bracket as it is.


WRONG.

Did you even read the article or study I posed from the Congressional Budget Office? Apparently not, as the facts clearly state that "Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in the country as a result of President Bush's tax cuts"


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

mrkleen said:


> WRONG.
> 
> Did you even read the article or study I posed from the Congressional Budget Office? Apparently not, as the facts clearly state that "Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in the country as a result of President Bush's tax cuts"


They still pay in a higher bracket than any others. They also shoulder a greater percentage of the total federal income tax burden.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

mrkleen said:


> Again, the question isnt what "portion" of their income I want to see them pay, the question is - why does Warren Buffet get taxed at 24% when his receptionist is taxed at 30%?


I've heard him say this before and it sounds like hot air. I'd like to see some proof of this. I know he is not talking about federal income tax. He is probably talking about the total tax burden.

By they way, why doesn't Warren just file his taxes using the a simple 1040 without itemizing? If he is so disheartened about how little he pays, let him simply pay more. I'd like to keep what I make thank you.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

pt4u67 said:


> They still pay in a higher bracket than any others.


You can say it as many times as you want, and you are still wrong.

_*From Market Watch - a division of the Wall Street Journal*_

A growing share of the income pie, plus decreasing tax rates to boot. Not a bad deal. Unfortunately, it's a deal that's enjoyed by just 1% of the richest Americans. That hallowed group saw its *average tax rate drop* to an 18-year low. That's the latest from the IRS' income statistics division.

https://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/tax-rate-americas-wealthiest-1/story.aspx?guid={7D8BD8F8-786A-4323-904D-366674474D20}


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

mrkleen said:


> You can say it as many times as you want, and you are still wrong.
> 
> _*From Market Watch - a division of the Wall Street Journal*_
> 
> ...


How is that relevant to my point? The top 1% still pay in a higher bracket and pay more in real dollars than others. That fact is indisputable.

By the way, what is so wrong with the wealthy paying the lowest taxes in 18 years? I'm sorry but I just don't see the point to this liberal tendency to play the class warfare game.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

mrkleen said:


> Again, the question isnt what "portion" of their income I want to see them pay, the question is - why does Warren Buffet get taxed at 24% when his receptionist is taxed at 30%?


Too keep the math simple, lets say that Warren Buffet makes a million dollars a year and his secretary makes $100,000. So she pays $30,000 and he pays $240,000. You make it sound like he is paying less somehow.

I am perfectly happy to concede that the whole tax system is overwrought and cumbersome. I'd prefer a simple flat tax- somewhere in the neighborhood of 15-20% with a significant exemption. As I had said several times in the various tax debate threads, I want people to keep as much of their money as possible.

The most important issue in all of this is being lost. The government inefficiently spends money on many programs which are wasteful and counterproductive. Before raising taxes on anyone the government needs to reevaluate their spending.

Years ago when I was teaching in public school, I was sitting in my departments office and my supervisor came in and asked me to help him pick out $5000 worth of stuff to buy. (It had to be done by the end of the day) My first suggestion was textbooks, which we needed badly, but I was told that we couldn't spend this money on books, only on technology related items. Well every teacher had a computer, and we weren't allowed to spend this money on computers for student use- that money came out of a different fund. All of the teachers had TVs and DVD players in their room- they probably got used less than 20 times a year. The department had two video projectors. We really didn't need anything that we could buy, and we couldn't buy anything that we really needed. So we ended up spending $5000 on stuff we didn't need, just so we could avoid having the tech budget slashed the next year. I would assume that in the workings of the federal government this happens on a daily, if not hourly, basis. From $40 bolts and $800 toilet seats to $3 million studies of the DNA of bears in Montana and $100 million in unused airline tickets the government wastes money in monumental proportions.

The government needs to make some real decisions about what we need, how to spend money efficiently and then came up with a tax rate to cover the bill. A big part of my objection to the current tax system is that the government voraciously collects taxes (don't forget that the US government makes more money on the sale of a gallon of gas than Exxon does) but we still overspend every year. Cut spending, starting with wasteful spending. I also fundamentally object to any American citizen having to pay more than 20% of their income in combined taxes. The government shouldn't ask you to work more than one day a week for their benefit.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Chats, keep up the nastiness. You and those like you will put McCain in the white house.
> 
> The nastiness wears out its welcome quickly.
> 
> Far better to make reasoned arguments for your candidate and leave the negative stuff to the professionals.


If it will put McCain in the white house, then by all means, keep it up.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

jbmcb said:


> 1 - You're using a browser with an unpatched javascript vunlnerability
> 2 - You log into your yahoo email - it stores your credentials in a cookie on your hard drive
> 3 - You visit a website that has been comprimised (or read an email with malicious javascript)
> 4 - The javascript app looks for gmail and yahoo mail login cookies, and posts them to the attacker's website
> ...


It's all Sarah Palin's fault for allowing herself to be hacked into.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

pt4u67 said:


> By the way, what is so wrong with the wealthy paying the lowest taxes in 18 years? I'm sorry but I just don't see the point to this liberal tendency to play the class warfare game.


The problem with this is simple. Reducing tax rates NEVER stimulates the economy enough to make up for the lack of revenue. In order for it to work and make sense, you have to also cut spending.

It is the basic failure of the trickle down theory. If you cut taxes, but continue on with a massive government - you run a deficit, which mortgages the future of our children and grandchildren.

When a Republican tells you they are the party of small government - they are simply talking a talk that they unfortunately do not walk.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

Mrkleen, 

Neither party has been serious about reducing the size of government for years. The democrats gave up on that idea in the 1930s, the Republicans made some efforts in the 80s and again in 1994, but have abandoned the idea. Both parties seem content to drive the country over the cliff with deficit spending. Regardless of the amount of money taken in, and regardless of which party is in control we have had 40 straight years of deficit spending.

If the government isn't going to be serious about controlling spending, then no level of taxation is going to be enough. They could tax every American at 99% and they would still overspend.

Since the government has failed in its responsibility to manage revenue and spending, I'd rather see people keep as much of their own money as possible.


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

Howard said:


> It's all Sarah Palin's fault for allowing herself to be hacked into.


That's quite a bit of extrapolation. It may be her fault, or her IT guys' fault, or Microsoft's, or the website that got hacked and had malicious code put on. Who knows how it happened, someone in her office could have just walked up to her computer and copied her mail while she was away.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

jbmcb said:


> That's quite a bit of extrapolation. It may be her fault, or her IT guys' fault, or Microsoft's, or the website that got hacked and had malicious code put on. Who knows how it happened, someone in her office could have just walked up to her computer and copied her mail while she was away.


According to a post by the hacker- who knows if it is the real person- he was able to get enough personal information about her from various news articles to answer the personal questions required by Yahoo to reset her password. Once he did that he was able to gain access. I would agree that she was probably didn't take enough measures to protect the information (then again, there are a lot of people that use the word "password" as their password). But, I think that blaming her is an overstatement- the hacker is to blame.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

jbmcb said:


> That's quite a bit of extrapolation. It may be her fault, or her IT guys' fault, or Microsoft's, or the website that got hacked and had malicious code put on. Who knows how it happened, someone in her office could have just walked up to her computer and copied her mail while she was away.


Please don't feed the animals!


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Terpoxon said:


> Mrkleen,
> 
> Neither party has been serious about reducing the size of government for years.
> 
> Since the government has failed in its responsibility to manage revenue and spending, I'd rather see people keep as much of their own money as possible.


Reduce size of government?! Biden would tell you in a heartbeat that that is unpatriotic!

The Democrat party philosophy of cradle-to-grave government responsibility for its people *demands* a constantly expanding government (I say constantly because even the American center & center-left can stomach only so much migration to ever more socialist policies over a given period of time, so it will take a while).

Unfortunately, the Republican leadership has the mindset that they must (in many cases) follow the lead of the Dems in this or run the of risk alienating so much of the American public that has been conditioned to believe that the government is there to provide for them, taking it from whomever they need to to get it.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

mrkleen said:


> The problem with this is simple. Reducing tax rates NEVER stimulates the economy enough to make up for the lack of revenue. In order for it to work and make sense, you have to also cut spending.
> 
> It is the basic failure of the trickle down theory. If you cut taxes, but continue on with a massive government - you run a deficit, which mortgages the future of our children and grandchildren.
> 
> When a Republican tells you they are the party of small government - they are simply talking a talk that they unfortunately do not walk.


Your analysis is absolutely correct, including your comments about the GOP over the past 8 years. Incidentally, over the past 8 years, it is the entitlements programs that have risen the greatest and discretionary spending that has dropped.

But your opening comment said it all. Spending must be cut. Unfortunately Sen. Obama and the congressional Dems will be like kids in a candy store if they get their way. Lawmakers should apply dictum "first, do no harm" whenever constructing tax policy, the harm being what may happen to the economy.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

pt4u67 said:


> But your opening comment said it all. Spending must be cut. Unfortunately Sen. Obama and the congressional Dems will be like kids in a candy store if they get their way. Lawmakers should apply dictum "first, do no harm" whenever constructing tax policy, the harm being what may happen to the economy.


 Ultimately we are in agreement about what it takes to get the country back on track - unfortunately we both know that neither party has the stomach to really tighten the spending belt and get back to sound economic principals. As for your fear about Obama, the facts actually say that over the last 50 years of administrations, the national debt has always grown more under Republicans. Dont know how the Republican Party continues to beat the drum that they are the party of fiscal restraint, but the facts clearly show the opposite is true.


----------



## 82-Greg (Apr 13, 2008)

Spence said:


> ... last weeks ads which are pretty much all dishonest... -spence


I'm shocked to learn that politicians' are lying!


----------

