CynPro's Blog

VIDEO:
Ron Howard, Andy Griffith, and Henry Winkler support Obama.
What was that about Fonzie & Palin?

FOLLOW THE MONEY
Gambling tycoons support McCain,
fearing regulations under Obama
WATCH the VIDEO
Makes ya wonder, doesn't it...

Barack seemed determined to stay on topic and discuss the differences in their policies, even when McCain tried to blame Obama for the negative ads McCain's campaign put out, by stating that Obama wouldn't do town hall format campaigning that McCain favors.

In my opinion, there are other ways to compete, than running a negative campaign, if your opponent doesn't want to use your preferred format. I believe McCain's negative campaign strategy was a last ditch effort because McCain could not win if he stuck to talking about the real issues. He didn't have a winning economic strategy, and he had supported Bush in too many bad judgment calls.

Barack focused on education, jobs, healthcare, and tax breaks for average working Americans, and I believe that is what is important. That's what people want to hear about.

Sitting down at a table was good for McCain, since it seemed to quill his urge to roam aimlessly around the stage

.

TROOPERGATE - GUILTY - 10/10/08

SARAH PALIN was found GUILTY by the Alaskan legislature's
by-partisen committy (of 10 republicans and 4 democrats), 
of abusing her power as governor of Alaska by terminating
Water Monegan (Alaska's public safety commissioner) for
refusing to fire Sarah Palin's ex-brother-in-law. 

When the investigation began, Sarah said she would cooperate
but, after entering into the politican campaign, that changed.
McCain's campaign tried to squash many supeanas from going out.

Palin committed an ethical violation by using her husband, Todd,
to speak to over 16 state employees regarding her former brother
in-law (a state trooper) in her attempt to get him fired. She then
lied to the people of Alaska when asked about the situation.

Andy Martin - The Man Behind the Whispers About Obama

By JIM RUTENBERG
Published: October 12, 2008  

The most persistent falsehood about Senator Barack Obama’s
background first hit in 2004 just two weeks after the
Democratic convention speech that helped set him on the
path to his presidential candidacy: “Obama is a Muslim
who has concealed his religion.”   Andy Martin is known for filing many lawsuits.
  That statement, contained in a press release, spun a complex tale
about the ancestry of Mr. Obama, who is Christian.  

The press release was picked up by a conservative Web site,
FreeRepublic.com, and spread steadily as others elaborated on
its claims over the years in e-mail messages, Web sites
and books. It continues to drive other false rumors about
Mr. Obama’s background.  

Just last Friday, a woman told Senator John McCain at a
town-hall-style meeting, “I have read about him,” and
“he’s an Arab.” Mr. McCain corrected her.  

Until this month, the man who is widely credited with
starting the cyberwhisper campaign that still dogs Mr. Obama
was a secondary character in news reports, with deep explorations
of his background largely confined to liberal blogs.  

But an appearance in a documentary-style program on the
Fox News Channel watched by three million people last week
thrust the man, Andy Martin, and his past into the foreground.

The program allowed Mr. Martin to assert falsely and without challenge
that Mr. Obama had once trained to overthrow the government.  

An examination of legal documents and election filings,
along with interviews with his acquaintances, revealed
Mr. Martin, 62, to be a man with a history of scintillating
if not always factual claims. He has left a trail of animosity —
some of it provoked by anti-Jewish comments — among
political leaders, lawyers and judges in three states
over more than 30 years.  

He is a law school graduate, but his admission to the Illinois bar
was blocked in the 1970s after a psychiatric finding of
“moderately severe character defect manifested by well-documented
ideation with a paranoid flavor and a grandiose character.”

As polls have shown Obama steadily increasing his lead this week,
McCain's campaign ads have become extremely negative, and on
the trail, Sarah Palin has told some nasty lies about Obama.

McCain supporters have launched email and blog attacks containing
false statements leading people to believe that Senator Obama is
not a U.S. citizen, that his Hawaiian birth certificate is fabricated,
that he is a terrorist, that he is the anti-christ, and much more.

As a result, McCain's supporters (as a whole) have become much
more hostile in their reaction toward Obama. They seem to fear him
to the point that McCain, at recent rallies, stated that Barack Obama
is a decent family man, citizen, and that people should not fear
Obama if he became president.

Did McCain and his campaign go too far in their negative and false
claims about Obama, to the point that they have unwittingly
endangered Obama's life, should he become our next president?

What effect would it have on the republican party if they are viewed
as accomplices in something of this nature?

What would happen to McCain's career if he was seen by the public
as the instigator of such a tragedy?

Has the republican party realized they have gone too far in their
attempt to smear a good, intelligent American citizen who is fully
qualified to be president of the United States?

You could have knocked me over with a feather.
After all the nasty, dishonest attack ads McCain ran,
today, I saw the following on TV, then found the video.
McCain admits Obama is a good citizen. (See below)

FOX NEWS REPORTERS, Many bloggers have posted on your site,
that Barack Obama is not a U.S. citizen. Have any FOX NEWS REPORTERS
investigated this issue? Have they discovered the truth for bloggers who
are confused about this issue?  What facts do you know about Barack Obama?

I was pleasantly surprised that Sarah was able to speak coherently
during the debate with Joe. She was much better than in her interview
with Katie Couric. I was a bit disappionted that she failed to answer
some of the questions she was asked, and was unable to communicate
any differences between the Bush administration, and McCain-Palin.
That concerns me because the Bush policies have been such a disaster.

I think Joe did very well in the debate. He stayed on the issues, and even
answered the questions being asked. I imagine it was a little easier for
Joe to address about the questions since he had dealt first-hand with many
of the issues, where as Palin's inexperience restricted her responses to
topics she had been preped to talk about.

Sarah did far better than I expected, but Joe won the debate hands-down.

It struck me that a lot of people have been led to believe they are
in one economic class, when statistics tell a much different story.

This break in definitions may be causing confusion in understanding
what politicians are saying, so thought I'd post some info I picked up.

OUR ECONOMY
2007 Median annual household income was $50,233 (Census Bureau).

2007 Approximate percentage earnings:
68% earned under $25,000 yearly.
45% earned $50,000 yearly.
27% earned $75,000 yearly.
16% earned $100,000 yearly.
6% earned over $150,000 yearly.

Nothing set in stone. The following are like a loose rule-of-thumb.

Capitalist class - Top-level executives, high-rung politicians, heirs.
Ivy League education is common. Upper class 1% Top-level executives,
celebrities, heirs; income over $500,000 is common.

Super-rich - Multi-millionaires. Celebrities and powerful executives
politicians. Ivy League education common. Incomes commonly exceed $350,000.

Rich (5%) - Households with net worth of $1 million or more;
largely in the form of home equity. Most have college degrees.

Upper middle class (15%) - Highly educated (often with graduate degrees),
Most commonly salaried, Professionals & managers with household incomes
from the high 5-figure range and higher.

Middle class - College educated workers with incomes considerably
above-average and compensation. $100,000 yearly may be typical.

Lower middle class - Semi-professionals and craftsmen.
Average standard of living. Most have some college and are white collar.
Approximately $40,000 to $90,000 anually.

Working class (30%) - Clerical and most blue collar workers whose work is
highly routinized. Standard of living varies depending on number of income
earners, but is commonly just adequate. High school education.
Low job security. Common household incomes from $16,000 to $30,000.

Working poor - Service, low-rung clerical and some blue collar workers.
High economic insecurity and risk of poverty. Some high school education.

Lower class - Those who occupy poorly-paid positions or rely on government.
Some high school education.

Underclass (12%) - The poor with limited or no participation in the labor force.
Reliant on government. Some high school education. Those living below poverty.
Household income of $18,000 is typical.

McCain wrongfully twisted the intent of the legislation
(Obama supported), to make young children aware of
such things as inappropriate touching, in an attempt
to reduce child molestation and rape, teaching them
how to defend themselves against sexual predators.  

To sacrifice legislation which was introduced to help
reduce crimes against children just to take a swing
at your opponent is appalling. McCain sunk to a new low.

When will we see truthful disclosure of candidate's views
instead of these childish smears?   About McCain's

"sex education in kindergarten" politics.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/us/politics/11checkp
oint.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/09/mccain-ad-oba
mas-lone-edu_n_125205.html 
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/5992809.h
tml 
http://www.kansascity.com/445/story/789668.html 

Is it OK for McCain to say "lipstick on a pig",

but NOT OK for Obama to use that expression?

There is a very old expression,

"You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig".
That expression has been used as far back as

I can remember.  It means, you can dress something up,

but dressing it up won't change it.

When McCain was talking about Hillary's health plan, back in
Oct last year, McCain said Clinton's proposal was “eerily”
and went on to say, “I think they put some lipstick
on a pig, but it’s still a pig.”

McCain wasn't calling Clinton a pig. Was he?

Why whould anyone believe McCain didn't mean that
Hillary was a pig, but Obama meant Sarah was?

It's a commonly used expression, nothing more.
McCain and Obama have both used it.

On 08/16/08 Pastor Rick Warren asked McCain:
"Give me a number, give me a specific number.
Where do you move from middle class to rich?"   McCain said, "I don't want to take any money from the rich.
I want everybody to get rich.  So, I think if you are just
talking about income, how about $5 million?"   Hmmmm ... If McCain doesn't want to take any money
from the rich, WHERE do you think he plans to get it?   The unions are paid by the working cless to negotiate for them. The AFL-CIO supports Barack because he fights for workers. The AFL-CIO says: "Thompson and McCain are flat-out wrong when they allege Sen. Barack Obama’s proposed economic plan would raise taxes on millions of working families. In reality, his plan would give  tax cuts to nearly all working families.   Here's the numbers: http://blog.aflcio.org/2008/09/04/obamas-tax-plan-bet
ter-for-working-families-than-mccains/   Republicans believe that growth must start at the TOP and TRICKLE DOWN to the working class.  That way, workers stay hungry enough that they work as hard as possible. At the same time, it makes lots of money for the company.   That may sound like a good plan, but what happens when those companies decide to KEEP the extra money they got from special tax cuts & loopholes, instead of investing the extra money back into the company to grow more jobs?   We'll seen the amount of corporate corruption sky-rocket in recent years. We're not talking about the little mom & pop companies of yesterday, who actually cared about their employees.   What we have now, are a lot of big businesses who will do whatever it takes to keep their money in their pockets. They want multi-million dollar mansions, yachts, and planes.   We need a real change. "Trickle down" economics don't work.

ECONOMY: McCain Obama - Compare Differences
 
Both the Republican and Democratic parties want our economy to grow. 
McCain has stated (on camera) that he voted WITH Bush over 90% of the time.
But, those economic strategies have not worked for the average American.
 
So what are the real differences between McCain and Obama economic plans,
or between Republican and Democratic economic views?
 
The basic difference is that Republicans believe that growth must start
at the TOP and trickle down to the working class.  The idea is to keep the
working class hungry enough that they will working harder, which will 
mean higher profits for companies, and people at the top.
 
The problem is that people are (by nature) inclined to put their own interests first.
Everyone wants the best. It's just natural. But if only the rich are getting breaks,
and they want to keep the money they received as a result of those breaks, instead
of utilizing that money to grow the economy and provide more jobs for the working 
class, then what happens to the average working guy and his family?  They suffer.
 
People start to fall behind. Prices go up faster than their pay. They begin to rely
on credit cards and start racking up debt. Their credit score drops and the banks
take advantage of that opportunity to raise their interest rate, even if they have
never missed a payment, because their income to debt ratio changed.  When people
can't make the payments, they may rob from Peter to pay Paul, trying to catch up.
 
Now, maybe the company they work for decides to maximize company profits by
reducing over-time, or by reducing the number of employees...  Can you see where
this is leading?  It leads to higher unemployment, and homes in foreclosure, and
to families who can no longer afford proper food or health care.
The Republican plan is not working for average, hard working, American families.
 
Democrats believe that everyone should have equal opportunities for growth. 

They believe that the little guy is just as important as big corporations.
Obama believes in taking tax cuts away from the rich and closing tax loopholes
and helping the little guy. You see, it's the little guy who makes it possible for
the big guys to make a profit, or to make anything.  Without the little guys, 
who would support the big guys?  Democrats know we're all in this together.
You can't allow the top 1% to get so fat that there is nothing left for anyone else.
If the average Joe doesn't have money, where will the rich get their money from?
 
It is time for the economic pendulum to swing the other way.  The middle and
lower classes have been run into the ground.  WE NEED A CHANGE.  We must
rebuild our nation's infrastructure from the ground up, not from the top down.

We need Obama and Biden now.  We simply can not afford more of the same.

One way to avoid wars might be to elect beauty queens as heads of state in all countries.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WALIARHHLII

It would make as much sense as this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqLvBUSJucg&feature=
related

If they can't start a war, there would be no war.

 

After reading that Sarah Palin seemed amused and stated:
"They made us line up in bathing suits and turn our backs so
the male judges could look at our butts. I couldn't believe it!"

I had to wonder if she had ever seen a beauty pageant before
appearing as a contestant, and if so, why act surprised?
I'm a bit surprised she would do something that demeaning
to females, but that's her business and her choice.

Any thoughts?