The $5 million was a joke. A very obvious joke. Foser's introducing ambiguity where none exists.

Let the media handle playing dumb. Plenty else to attack McCain on.

The truth spoken in jest.

Much as BHOs "white greed" phrase lifted from Wright's sermon?

I don't understand right-winguistic so please explain further.

The truth spoken by fiat, perhaps. Or was BHO merely joking when he used Wright's phrase?

As MMFA already pointed out, Obama was quoting Wright...and then they left out the context in which that happened. The context is pretty important when you are claiming words "belong" to someone.

But really who cares? Hannity or some cultic pr*ck has already done a number on you.

Just as Shamity quoted (or played an audio snippet) to make his point, I believe BHO used that quote from Wright to express some of his feelings. Why else would he have used it? Greed is not above reproach or condemnation, it is, after all, one of the seven deadly sins. If BHO did not believe that quote from Wright to be true, why did he use it?

Are you getting frequent liar miles from the McCaign campaign to keep bringing up this Hannity smear?

I don't for the life of me know where you get lauded here for being a reasonable con.

He generally doesn't.

The truth spoken by fiat

I've never heard that expression before.  Did you just pull it out your ass?

Oscar, you're really becoming a bore.

You can sit there and toss out all the fake populism you want to. With your charges of hypocrisy, you sound as ridiculous as Hannity.

You cons are disgusting to me.

Republican policy benefits the few, the privileged, the elite all the while you skunks underhandedly manipulate the good nature of salt of the earth Americans with your, "libs hate America," cultural bs. Meanwhile, you can't stand it when a liberal makes good. You envious punks want to scream foul when a liberal wants to swing open wide the doors of opportunity for as many Americans as possible. I get it.

I know why.

Y'all don't want anybody but "the right kind of people," getting ahead and setting good examples for the rest of us. You love your elites, your strict social hierarchy, your moral order.

Fact is, Obama lifts up the common man. His American values of protection for working families through strong labor laws, yeah, I mean the fundamental human right to unionize, will rebuild the shrinking middle class. That and the the right to universal healthcare, investment in a green economy and the rehabilitation of our failing infrastructure will secure our future for decades to come.

You can worship at the Republican altar of market fundamentalism, but you need to stand up, dude. Wake up and stand up before Republicans ruin everything good about America.

Don't bother telling me, "well I never said anything of the sort," because you said it with any vote you ever gave a damned Republican.

Oh hell yes!

Great cut and paste!!!!!

At least I use my own words to cut and paste, you seem to get yours from Sean Hannity.

RH, seeing as how you seem to know me better than I do, please define the following for me, so that I know how to act: Elites, Social heirarchy, moral order.  I think you can come down from your ivory tower (the only round house I know) for a least long enough to enlighten me on myself.

You come here and spread Hannity smears and you think I'm going to answer to you? Screw that. Figure the shit out for yourself, just about everybody else here knows what I'm talking about.

And while you're at it, go read Corsi's book. You seem to be good at repeating right wing garbage.

What's the Shamity smear?  Did not BHO state the words used in the clip? Sure Shamity picks and chooses what he wants to make his point.  The question here is, did BHO pick and choose his words to make his point? And Corsi is not going to get very rich of book sales to me.

No. The point is you keep making hay off a phrase Hannity took out of context.

On the one hand, you want to say Hannity is off base. But on the other hand you want to continue his baseless assertion.

Which is Oscar? Or do you just want to have it both ways?

Get a spine homeboy.

 

Lifts up the common man how? Strong labor laws? When was the last time you saw a sweatshop? If you think unionization will help the common man you are wrong. All that does is raise the price of the product which hurts the common man. And going green raises the price of light bulbs, etc. I love your rants about a fair living wage. What exactly is a fair living wage? What if I have 8 kids as compared to 3? Should I get more compensation from my employer? Its nice to know people, such as yourself, are so generous with other people's money. Your as bad as Solon, and as "out of touch", too.

Blah, blah, blah, Dave.

We have sweat shops today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/27/us/27immig.html

"One, a Guatemalan named Elmer L. who said he was 16 when he started working on the plant’s killing floors, said he worked 17-hour shifts, six days a week. In an affidavit, he said he was constantly tired and did not have time to do anything but work and sleep. “I was very sad,” he said, “and I felt like I was a slave.”

If you think unions drive up consumer prices (typical con, only cares about money, not people) you can consider the converse; low wages takes money out of your pocket because that is money that working people don't have to put back in the economy.

And please, spare me the conflict meme about a green economy being at odds with costs. Just consider the price tag of the Iraq occupation. It has not as promised, brought down the cost of energy or paid for itself with oil profits. A sustainable green economy will make us less dependent on foreign oil and (if not given as a present to the energy lobby) put people to work, which will in turn, create a virtuous cycle and stimulate the economy with all those green collar jobs putting money back into circulation.

Your interests are not the working man's interests, Dave. That's been well established. We all know you're one of those cons who has been enriched by a market that rewards wealth, not labor.

But what's a living wage? It's a wage that is indexed to productivity of the American labor force, linked to profit sharing and keeps pace with inflation. If you can't get with that, just get out our way. Because folks, like you, who say we can't do that, need to get the hell out of the way of those of us who say, yes we can.

And I take the comparison to Solon as high praise. Thank you, very much. You have made my day.

As a former POW John McCain should not be making jokes... Perhaps the former POW should be counting his houses so he will not look like such a fool the next time someone asks him how many he has.

Jeez, please stop with all that POW stuff. McCain doesn't like to talk about it.

That's sarcasm, right?  Does anyone still buy the "Mccain is reluctant to talk about his war experience" meme?  Of course, we can't know for sure whether he likes to talk about it, per se; all we can do is examine his record to see whether he has.  A cursory examination thereof reveals that, whether he likes to or not, he and his campaign are more than willing to bring up his military service whenever it benefits him.

We actually had some trolls here trying to claim that Media Matters was off-base for saying that McCain liked talking about it. The fact that someone does something a lot doesn't mean that they like it!

Well, that's true, however the phrase "likes to talk about it" doesn't literally mean "likes" to talk about it. The phrase means 'talks about it a lot'.

Rudy Giuliani is nothing but "a noun, a verb, and 9/11."

John McCain is nothing but "a noun, a verb, and 'I was a POW.'"

Steve,

"after which he indicated a yearly salary of $5 million is the threshold for being rich"

Really? You don't actually believe that.... do you?

The fact that Grampy McSame married a women worth $100 million I can see how someone might come to think that another making $5 million a year is the threshold of being considered rich.

Depending on how ones lives their lives, you can be rich making $40,000 a year and be poor making $120,000 a year.... its all on how you spend your money....

I have zero sympathy for anyone making more than $150,000, let alone $5 million or $100 million and yet they find themselves thinking their poor or they don't make enough..... screw that!

I should give a damn on whether a rich guy has to drive a 3 year old Audi instead of a brand new Ferrari? Which is what this kind of 'joking' is all about!

McSame did not joke here.... and you know it Steve... he has proven himself to be so out of touch with us 'mythical' little people that after Obama and Biden take their oaths of office, Gramps may just need to retire and go hire more help to clean his 7 houses!

He can call up Lou Dobbs.... I'm sure he can find a few maids for him!

McCain's being out of touch has nothing to do with whether he was joking. He said "but seriously" right afterward. This is not a discussion.

McCain is the second weakest presidential candidate in history. We shouldn't have to spin to be able to bash the hell out of him.

I wonder if Donald Trump knows how many housing units he owns.  I understand that some of JSM (actually probably a corp owned by his wife's family, shades of jfk) units are income producing units rather that living quarters.  I heard the $5 Million remark during the Saddleback Forum (and the laugh and comment by JSM that followed).

The former POW, John McCain, is an old, rich, out of touch Republican dude who has so much money he doesn't even know how many houses he owns. It's difficult to believe that the former POW could actually relate to the economic problems facing avergae Americans...or even appreciate that economic problems exist.

If you, as a rich man, don't know how many places you could live in, then you're not like the guy on the street. McCain is trying to pretend that it's Obama who's not like the guy on the street, that Obama is the elitist one of the two candidates. They pulled the same crap with Bush and Kerry. Kerry had the facts on his side, and the false meme was spread, and the media lapped it up and passed it on, and Bush won on false premises.

I wonder if Donald Trump knows how many housing units he owns. 

Oscar, you're one of the few reasonable conservatives left at this site, and you have a pretty good sense of humor to boot, so I'd like to see you stick around.

But if you're trying to make the point that Grampy McCain is in touch with the average American by saying he's no different than Donald Trump, you may be a little out of touch yourself.

I wouldn't vote for Donald Trump either...and he's not even a former POW.

Sir (saluting the Colonel, a superior officer), I believe that any politican that has been in Washington over 15 years (with very few exceptions) has lost touch with the "common folk".  That's why I helped unelect a Representative from our District several years ago (who just happened to be Speaker of the House at the time). He had lost touch with his constituency.  I have never voted for an elected official over three times and for the most part, I have never voted for the same party over four times in a row.  I think our founding fathers expected people to serve a limited time in the Federal leadership and then go home and live like the rest of the people.  I don't believe that Congress was ever meant to be a full time occupation.  I read an article several years ago that stated (paraphrased as I don't have the article in front of me) "We elect people to go to Washingiton to do good, and most have done quite well, thank you." I am not anti-Government but I am for limited Government.

In thinking about it again, Trump was a bad example to use.  The point is that if the housing units are owned by a corporation that one has no hand or say in day-to-day operations and one doen't occupy the units individually on a regular basis, one may not know exactly how many units are owned (after all JSM has been busy with Senate Business and running for President (oops, I reversed those when considering the amount of time spent at each, sorry)).

If you, as a rich man, don't know how many places you could live in, then you're not like the guy on the street. McCain is trying to pretend that it's Obama who's not like the guy on the street, that Obama is the elitist one of the two candidates. - BottleBlonde / Friday August 22, 2008 10:23:18 PM EDT

JSM is not the "man on the street" and neither are any of those in Congress (with few exceptions) that have been there over 15 years.  BHO is the closest to a "man on the street" that we have seen run for President since Jimmy Carter.

I don't believe that Congress was ever meant to be a full time occupation.

The point wasn't even debated because Congress couldn't be a full time occupation in those times.  Congress only met I think once or twice a year because congressmen had to travel from all parts of the country on horseback.  And the only means of communication was letter writing which took weeks to deliver.

Still don't think it was meant to be a lifetime job (or lasting at least until one had every federal building in his/her district named after themselves).  For us to think that there are only about 1000 persons (incumbents + opponents) capable of directing the affairs of this nation is beyond the pale.

 -- I am not anti-Government but I am for limited Government. -- Oscar

Well said...

I have never been a proponent of term limits...but in today's environment I am leaning more and more that way. Our country and citizens have prospered mightily since the founding fathers wrote their brilliant documents...but in recent years that prosperity has come more and more in spite of our govt...rather than because of it.

I solidly support states rights...framed by federal guidelines. Today the federal govt. has usurped the rights of the state by inserting themselves in virtually every aspect of our lives. The states...led by weak legislators...went along like bumbling sheep...willing to be held hostage to federal funding...which is root of all corruption in our govt.

Sure it's great to drive on interstate roads...have mail delivered anywhere in the country...and living under the security of the worlds greatest military. Those benefits help all Americans...and they're not partisan issues.

There is nothing wrong with our system of govt.  What's wrong is the greed and corruption of our "elected" officials gaming the system.

Yeah, maybe it's time to set term limits and return to citizen statesmen...who serve for the good of the country...and then return home to work and live under the laws that they passed. 

Yes indeed, Oscar...there are more than 1000 men and women who are capable of performing effectively as elected leaders. 

I solidly support states rights

Words loved by bigots countrywide.

Dude, you're a little out to lunch if you think this country prospers in spite of government. Our government is there every step of the way enabling business to prosper. From bailouts for the mismanaged Bear Stearns and Fannnie/Freddie Mac to zoning laws and tax breaks that favor business. Protectionist subsidies float agri-giants. Our money is federally insured in our banking system.

Corporations have gotten a good deal and have squandered it. I'd say our government has managed to continue to serve the public good in spite of all the private sector failures and give-aways to big business. It's about time the working man gets some breaks to balance out corrupt pricks on Wall St.

If you want change, we already have term limits. It's called the vote. If you want change get rid of the lobbyists that started invading DC when the Reaganites tore down the walls of regulation that kept special interests from co-opting the peoples' voice.

And I've heard this junk before about, Oh I don't favor term limits, but...

It's always about the time the right is facing sweeping electoral defeat. What a freaking hoot you cats are.

As ever, wes. You remain a dishonest punk.

Denizen of the Ivory Tower, so you must be ok with the bailouts, etc?  A limited government would not bail out mis-managed private corps, would not provide subsidies to large corps, would have limited say in what I can or can not do with my property (within reason).  The way it is right now, no matter who is elected, the Federal Government will have more rather than less to say about the way I conduct my personal life in the next four years. The unelected (and therefore unaccountable) bureauacry is too big for that not to happen.

As an aside, if this election is going to be a sweeping defeat, how come that's not reflected in the polling we are seeing, from federal to local levels? 

"A limited government would not bail out mis-managed private corps, would not provide subsidies to large corps, would have limited say in what I can or can not do with my property (within reason). "

No. More like a truly free market wouldn't require it. If a business fails, it goes down in fair competition. But we don't have a fair competition in the market.

See, all these wanna be Wall St. pricks, like you (and I include you as one since you conflated your personal property and freedom with that of corporations), have been talking smack for decades that you don't need no government interference, legal or financial. Of course, that tune about no interference changes when they need a loan to get out of a jam. And if the collapse of these giants would have sent ripples of financial suffering through the streets and neighborhoods, then the right choice was made to bail them out. It was a perfect, but missed, opportunity to place conditions on these big money profligates

Just as government passes laws to protect us all from theft and violence, it has a role to play setting up market rules that make markets work for all. I mean if a company can't afford to pay fair wages and meet environmental standards, the don't need help. They need to get the hell out of the game because they drag us all down by making working people more vulnerable in an interdependent global market.

But I don't expect to convince you of anything, not when you're the type of guy who takes up Hannity's garbage attack lines and backs Wes' fake ass rationalism.

And polls? Whatever. Go live your life listening to polling data, I'll go work on listening to the candidates. If you want explanation for the polling data though, I'll tell you what I think. I think Democrats need to simplify our message and learn that it's hard for the opposition hits, hit back harder. It's hard to launch Rovian political attacks when they are picking up their teeth with broken fingers.

Roundhouse, I hope you have read my intro post, I am a mid/center Democrate, I work in orginizing Senator Obama volunteers in several states, mainly NJ where I live, but I find your message a tad offputting.

We need to make a very CLEAR message, one of returning the WH to a place of thought, bi-partisan efforts, action, responsivness, effectivness.

We need to clearly state to the American people that we, as Democrates do value the safty and security of America against future attacks, that we will hgunt down and kill those that mean America harm, that we will fix a broken health care system (WITHOUT gov total control), because whether we like it or not, most Americans DO NOT want "socilized" health care, I am a Democrate, and DO NOT DARE challenge me on that, I bet I have goiven more time and money and effort to DEFETING BUSH JR part 3 then maybe anyone on MMA... and I have a right to my opinions... I DO NOT WANT GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE, it has failed "almost" everywhere it has been tried, I HAVE DONE MY OWN HOMEWORK, I do not listen to the haters on ANY talk shows, I have read EU publications, have contact with many long time friends living abroad, my sister lives in Cnanda and had to have her baby in the States, so DO NOT lecture me that I am wrong, most gov run health care world systems have or are bankrupt, care has gone down, quality has gone down, services are rationed... You here at MMA are not being "fair" when or if you claim otherwise. What we MUST have is affordable coverage for ALL AMERICAN, starting with CHIPS expansion, making sure that we have provisions (this would help sell it to "middle americans") that do not vocaly support service to illeagl imagrents, funding for inner-city health services, more education on health care options...

These are the WINNERS, otherwise I feel my efforts are going to be needed again in 4 years to BEAT McDooDoo...

I don't care if you dislike my style. I'm not going to act dispassionate in order to make you feel better.

So now, put up or shut up, pal. Give us some proof to back your anecdotes about failed healthcare around the globe. In repeating the GOP meme of government healthcare, you may be a Democrat but you're no liberal.

And bipartisanship? Are you kidding me? That word is not even in the Republican lexicon. They had the chance to work with the opposition for six years and locked us out. They then had the opportunity work as bi-partisans for the last two years, instead they ran their block and blame strategies. No, those filthy Republican bastards need to sit in the corner until they can prove they can play by the rules.

I was hoping for more moderate discourse then from Roundhouse, mybe Mary can chime in, someoinethat won't call me a name. I've given more to the Democrate party then you'll ever know, and yet you disperage my points, it's no wonder us in the main stream middle of the Democrate party have issues with our fringe.

I explained to you that I have MANY friends that i talk to daily, weekly INCLUDING MY OWN SISTER you blow hard that had to have her BABY IN THE USA because she could NOT get the services in CNANDA. What would you like a "proof" jerk... Her Doctor was not avalible due to restrictions on his "gov's" guildlines of the time she could see him, also there were NO rooms when delivery time approached, many hospitals in her town had closed due to BUDGET issues.

So I have no proof...

I guess you win, your point, but I win the truth.

I think Democrats need to simplify our message and learn that it's hard for the opposition hits, hit back harder. It's hard to launch Rovian political attacks when they are picking up their teeth with broken fingers.

Should read,

I think Democrats need to simplify the message and learn that when the opposition hits, hit back harder. It's hard for them to launch Rovian political attacks when they're picking up their teeth with broken fingers.

Our government is there every step of the way enabling business to prosper.  -   Roundhouse

So it's only by the enabling power the government has so graciously bestowed upon our businesses that we stand a chance of running a successful operation??  All along here I thought the hard work I put into providing a good and competitive product would be all that I would need.  How foolish I have been. 

 

Then you have been fooled by the fictions of the free market.

How so, please explain. 

Markets are propped up by subsidies and business friendly tax breaks. Have you been paying attention at all?

In other words, in a truly free market, businesses would sink or swim on their own merit.

Thank you Mr Foser for pointing out something that needs to be mentioned again and again and again: the media is not interested in policies, only in gossip and meaningless trivia.

Mr. J,

Your article (as is all Media Matter productions) is great. They point out the obvious conservative bia that exists in the corporate media. However one common theme I find missing is why do the media have a right-wing bias. We all know they do, but why? How did this come about?

That bias exists even if the writer doesn't appear to have one. The referenced article is a clear example of that. The writer doesn't bother to actually reference to Dems and Reps positions on class and money for an obvious reason, because to do so would highlight's latter support for policies for the wealthy in this country.

What's needed (and I'm not sure if MM may be the right folks to study this), is why the corporate media is so entrenched with the right-wing, and has been for at least the last half-century.

I agree.  I think we have gotten away from the candidates' stances on the issues, which is what we really need to know.  A man is entitled to own what he wants and conduct his own personal business in whatever manner he wishes, within boundaries of course.

You provide a link to an article that is an immigration raid, rounded up 300 plus illegals, of which your boy Elmer is probably one, and tell me sweatshops exist? Elmer, in his mind, may feel like a slave, but in my mind he's a criminal. And the crap about them paying social security and getting nothing back is dwarfed by what illegals take from this country. If we actually had some stones, Elmer wouldn't be feeling like he's abused here. He'd be where he's supposed to be. Home. Find me a sweatshop with American citizens.

Unions do drive up costs of the products they manufacture. Paying somebody 5 bucks an hour in another country as opposed to 25 bucks an hour here is passed on to the consumer in the form of a higher price tag. That's why Walmart buys their stuff from China. Cheaper prices. I considered your converse and came up with people with less money will tend to shop at the places with lowest prices. Walmart will always do a booming business. Always.

 And I don't see how you can compare the price of the Iraq war with the price of a green economy. Strawman at best. If you have a problem with the cost of the war, I can understand that. But throwing the cost out there is meaningless. The "common man" still has to buy more expensive products (cars, lightbulbs, etc) due to people like yourself, who are pro union and/or green. Higher prices for the common man....gotta love it.

Can't say I'm surprised you don't see the commonality of exploitation, whether it's American citizens or not, we share a common humanity. Not surprised that you don't see the danger of this shit happening in our country. You're a sick bastard.

Oh what a patriot you are, Dave. You'd rather send jobs out of the country than pay a man a few dollars more so he can care for his family. I find it so disgustingly typical of economic royalist con men like you, Dave, to bat not an eye over passing costs onto consumers. Especially when government genuflects at the altar of tax breaks and zoning privileges for business. Government provides an educated workforce , a cost that would otherwise be passed onto employers. Governments provide roads for transport of goods and the transport people to work. Governments protect business assets through military, courts and banks. These are services that employers pay very little to maintain, yet refuse to acknowledge it in their book keeping and pass the savings onto consumers. Business gets break after break after break but it just isn't enough for market fundie jag offs like you. It's cool by you to pay CEO's 500 times more than the average employee and it's cool to pay CEO severance packages in perpetuity...but don't pay a family man a living wage, that would be too costly. Screw your greedy arrogance, Dave.

And Iraq is central to the energy debate as the invasion, despite claims to the contrary by conservatives, was about controlling the supply of energy. Call it a strawman if you want, it will not change reality. All that money and death swirling around the occupation of Iraq is money and lives that could have been invested in moving our country to a secure, sustainable green economy.

You're a lying jerk, Dave.

Roundhouse your my hero.  I agree with you wholeheartedly, just don't articulate it as well as you.  "Free" market my ass, the deck is stacked against the working man, there is a class war going on, but it seems that only one class is organized and fighting it.  We(the workers)create the wealth of the world but we don't share equally in the wealth we create,it's time for the sleeping giant to awake, it's time that we push aside those who try to weaken and confuse our drive to repeal "taft-Hartley" and "right to work" laws,and those who oppose "livable wage", and single payer universal healthcare(healthcare is a human right not the privalege of those who can pay).  This run to privatize everything has got to be defeated, and leave Social Security alone.  We have a fight  my friend lets unite and get to gettin!

Thanks congero. I have long admired your grit, so for you to give me such high praise means more to me than you can know.

You're right, we need to get on with it. The good news is that progressive grassroots organizations are coming together, united by their principles to push the next administration in a people first direction.

We need to get over this deference to corporate interests and wealthy elite and realize that we don't have to worry if they don't like what we're saying because there are a whole hell of a lot more of us then there is of them.

So what you're saying here, is that if you're here illegally, it's OK to exploit you, and make you work long hours with little pay and no benefits? Great stance you have there. Talk about bringing us back to the late 1800's and early 1900's. Ever read anything by Upton Sinclair? Might be time to crack open a few books and see that the situations are similar now as they were then, and we've supposedly progressed. OK. Sure.

And stop with this nonsense about illegals taking away from this country more than they put in. They put in (many or the majority of them) hard work, and build families and communities in this country. They also pay their fair share of taxes under fake SS numbers, and never see anything back from it. How do you think their employers get away with hiring illegals? They don't check their SS numbers, employ them, take out money from their paychecks, and it still gets dumped into the system, same as mine and yours. Sure, there are some folks who are here illegally working under the table, but probably no more, or no less than Americans who are also working under the table.

For you Mags

www.immigrationcounters.com

I don't that they pay that much in SS and taxes.