Obama Fights Back and President Paris.
First, Paris Hilton has produced what has got to be a spectactular rebuttal to John McCain’s “Celebrity Ad.” Personally, I never found Paris to be “hot,” and I am probably the only straight male that does not find her attractive in the slightest (it must be that skanky quality to her, or knowing that a thousand men have already been there (ooh, is that sexist?)), but I do find this video hawt!
Here is the link to the Paris video. The You Tube video was removed, and wordpress won’t let me embed it.
It should be downright scary for right wingers that Paris Hilton has a more sound and substantive energy policy than they do.
Second, Obama is fighting back. His two Energy attack ads on McCain were good (not great), but his performance today at a town hall in Ohio, and his newly released response to McCain’s new attempt to savage his image as a “Maverick” are right on. I want to see more of this:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akjXqfvLu28[/youtube]
And here is the the video of Obama’s response to the “Maverick” McBush ad.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHN9bLCgF7k[/youtube]
She has awsome feet.
Love the response ad (why doesn’t Obama run more substantive ads desacribing his plans for health care, Iraq and the economy ? Wouldn’t that be as effective as anything else to fight against all the falsehoods repeated by McCain)
Interested with what Paris had to say though although I agree I don’t see the attractiveness in her (although I dont hate her like others do).
LOVE the “ignorance” line. LOVE it. This is what I love from him.
I don’t hate her either, I just do not understand why she is a celebrity. She has not worked a day in her life, has no skills, is living off her grandfather’s fortune, and somehow she is a celebrity.
In my mind, Paris Hilton is precisely why we need Inheritance Tax. But I digress.
Obama will be running those bio-substantive ads during his 5 million dollar ad buy during the Olympics.
GREAT clip of Obama. Good good stuff there. “They take pride in being ignorant.” He needs to edit that down to thirty seconds with all the good stuff and put that on primetime.
I was excited about that ad buy too until this morning they announecd McCain had done the same thing – and amped it up to 6M.
Which kind of mutes the advantage.
That said, that is because in a month, McCain will be then limited financially and Obama is going to swamp his ass. That’s why McCain is releasing so many ads now. He is trying to burn the money he has raised but can’t use after the convention.
Precisely.
Great piece that might help you understand why some of think the way we do about the emptyhead:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/05/opinion/05brooks.html
You are citing David Brooks? Why don’t you cite Bob Novak or George Will or any other conservative ding bat?
“citing”???
He’s not an encyclopedia.
Only liberal cite opinion as fact!
Brooks just wrote a nice piece. It may help you understand why some don’t think much of Barack “Skip” Obama.
In giving us nothing to debate, Obama has given us everything to doubt.
Prof P are you one of the proud?
I prefer the term “quietly smug.”
thought so.
Darn, youtube lifted the PH video. Anyone out there download it?
MJ – I just watched it this morning at 5.45.
DD – If you don’t think Hilton is hot, who is? (Sorry to jack the thread – but you can’t just throw aroung wild opinions and then not expect me to pry a bit.)
she’s sort of hot, and that video she has makes her hotter
Regarding Paris Hilton’s video:
Best. Political Satire. Ever.
I love the part where he was around when “beer was drank out of a bucket”
Angelina Jolie, Alyssa Milano, Jennifer Aniston are a few
DD, you and Brad Pitt have the same tastes in women. 🙂
“They take pride in being ignorant.”
I found that part hilarious considering Obama’s not in much of a position to be calling others “ignorant”
Oh really? Then explain the Republican lies about the tire gauges. That is not ignorant?
If only I looked like Brad Pitt….
OK DD – I can argue too much. Although the birds on your list are getting a bit long in the tooth, no? Numero uno right now is Megan Fox. Hands down, no argument.
I found that part hilarious considering Obama’s not in much of a position to be calling others “ignorant”
Stupidest. Statement. Ever.
Some details if you please to show Obama’s alleged ignorance.
Yeah, I have to update my hotties list. Angelina still makes it. I do prefer brunettes to bleach blonds, which probably explains my dislike of Paris.
Although I do like Katherine Heigl of Greys Anatomy. She hawt.
Mike W in #20 accuses Obama of being ignorant.
Let’s fact check:
McCain–5th from the bottom of his Annapolis graduating class (of 899).
Bush–worse grades than 79% of his freshmen classmates at Yale.
Barack Obama–President of the Harvard Law Review.
Mike W, where should we place you in this list?
I really like it when the Dem candidate for president calls Americans–who know tire pressure isn’t going to equal offshore drilling–ignorant. As Hugh Hewitt has said, please, please, PLEASE keep talking about tire pressure, Barack. It really makes you look oh, so smart.
Guns = Crime + Gun Control will reduce crime = ignorant.
Windfall profit taxes = lower gas prices = ignorance
The problem with education is lack of funding = ignorance
Drilling won’t lower prices = ignorance
Drilling won’t lower the price at the pump. It may maintain it for a while, but lower?
Comment in moderation.
Pandora,
You got statistics to back that up?
how about you show something that says it will sharon?
Sharon – Pandora’s comment goes against basic economics, especially with regards to oil, which is a futures market and inherently speculative.
Mere mention of supply issues or instablilty in the mideast is enough to immediately raise prices. Likewise, even the possibility of increasing supply has a positive effect on prices. Too bad our Democratic Congress (Pelosi….) and Obama don’t understand such simple concepts.
um, well it doesn’t actually mike. Supply and demand is only going to increase and 7 years from now when the oil hits the market the anticipated 2% bump we would see in supply will be gobbled up by our demand.
There isn’t even a gaurantee WE here in the US would see the oil. We don’t see the stuff coming out of Alaska.
You people really are sheep. The oil will go to whoever buys it. It’s not like Exxon is going to go, “Here you go US, all yours” wake up.
#34: Windfall profit taxes = lower gas prices = ignorance
Windfall profit tax > funding for alternative energy research > lower gas prices
To paraphrase the wise Mike W, ‘even the possibility of funded alternative energy research will have a positive effect on prices, too bad ignorant posters don’t understand such a simple concept.’
Nope, no statistics, just life experience. For instance, what consumable goods do you see dropping in price? Milk? Electricity?
Oh, it may lower a smidge, but go down to 3.00 a gallon – won’t happen. The bar’s been set and profits will be maintained. And in some ways it will be justified since oil supply is not unlimited.
Now, where are your statistics or reasoning?
Right now we (and the rest of the world) consume petroleum.
I’d love to see one of you libs try to explain to me how levying a new cost on the producers (via “Windfall profit taxes) is going to lower the price of oil.
When in history has levying a new tax on the producers of a product ever lowered the end price of said product?
Gas tax holiday = ignorance
isn’t the point supposed to be what is done with that money though mike?
“Nope, no statistics, just life experience. For instance, what consumable goods do you see dropping in price? Milk? Electricity?”
And who can we thank for rising food prices? Those lovable morons who decided it’d be a good idea to mandate the use of corn as fuel (and an inefficient fuel at that)
I don’t see the comments sharon
And who can we thank for rising food prices?
umm, gee I wonder…let me guess the Dem majority back in 2002 or 2004?
DTB – Again, tell me how levying a new tax on a product / the producer of a product is going to lower prices. Obama and his supporters must be ignorant of economics.
Guns = Crime + Gun Control will reduce crime = ignorant.
Windfall profit taxes = lower gas prices = ignorance
The problem with education is lack of funding = ignorance
Drilling won’t lower prices = ignorance
Policy differences are not ignorance.
Gun Control
What’s your definition of crime? Is it a crime committed with deadly force or does it include shoplifting. The United Statues is 7th in the world with gun-related homicides. We have a 2.97 / 100,000 firearm homicide rate compared to England’s 0.12. Clearly, gun control doesn’t work. 😉
Windfall Profits Tax
Obama’s windfall profit tax isn’t too lower prices, it is a plan to give an economic stimulus to those need it.
Offshore Drilling
Have you not been paying attention. Off-shore drilling will not lower prices of gasoline which has been admitted to and by the US government.
Education
Here is a clear policy division. I believe more money will lead to better education. I would love a day when we have 1 teacher for every 10 students, instead of 1 for every 25 or greater.
So, Mike W, please try again.
might want to stay away from the gun thing nem…just a warning
mw’s ability to reason is iffy at best. He likes to answer questions with questions. Then provide run on answers that answer the question in his mind but prove to be usually wrong.
I will give him credit though, he has stuck around longer than most
Obama and his supporters must be ignorant of economics
that’s pretty funny.
taxes BOO!
9/11 boo!
uppitty BOO!
ignorant BOO!
fist bump BOO!
I love the arguement that the woes of the economy aren’t really bush’s fault b/c the president doesn’t really have that kind of power.
but here we sit worrying about Obama getting elected.
why is that?
“hat’s your definition of crime? Is it a crime committed with deadly force or does it include shoplifting. The United Statues is 7th in the world with gun-related homicides. We have a 2.97 / 100,000 firearm homicide rate compared to England’s 0.12. Clearly, gun control doesn’t work. ”
I’m not going to get into a huge debate about this again, except to say you’re dead wrong. Also I was referring to “violent crime.” OVERALL homicide rate is what you look at, not the “firearm homicide rate” If “gun crime” decreases by 50% after you institute “gun control” but overall violent crime increases 200% (as we’ve seen in the UK, Australia etc.) you can hardly call gun control a success. Unless somehow the inclusion of a “gun” as the tool used makes a violent crime worse than one committed with some other weapon.
Hell, just look at the sweeping successes of gun control in Baltimore, Philly, D.C., Chicago, Illinois. I mean hell, you can’t carry a gun in those places, and clearly no one ever gets shot.
Japan has much higher suicide rates than the U.S., but they’d appear MUCH lower than ours if you restricted it to only “suicide by gun.” Again, it’s the overall suicide rate that’s relevant.
“He likes to answer questions with questions. ”
That’s because my question in comment #44 goes to the heart of the issue. Of course I already know you won’t answer it.
OVERALL homicide rate is what you look at, not the “firearm homicide rate”
Why not? You use the statistic that backs up your argument, and I’ll use mine. It doesn’t make either one of us ignorant.
Mike I’m not sure you realize I am in favor of raising taxes and causing MORE pain at the pump.
the only way we will break our addiction is to force people to pay more.
so I’m fine with it. I want change and Obama will get me closer to moving away from foreign oil and oil co’s in general than McCain will
oh and nemski,
The gun rights guys love the “japan arguement” it is a standard rebuttal.
DTB – Again, tell me how levying a new tax on a product / the producer of a product is going to lower prices. Obama and his supporters must be ignorant of economics.
No one has said it would lower gas prices. But please, keep on repeating it, it might become true.
Mike W, you called Obama ignorant because of four issues. I went through your issues one-by-one. and yet you won’t answer the most basic question:
Does policy difference define ignorance? Yes or no.
“OVERALL homicide rate is what you look at, not the “firearm homicide rate”
Why not? You use the statistic that backs up your argument, and I’ll use mine. It doesn’t make either one of us ignorant.”
Actually it does Nemski. Let’s say your town banned guns. 2 years later your gun-related homicide rate had fallen 50%, but the overall homicide rate actually ROSE 200% due to an increase in stabbing deaths. Is the town safer? Did the gun ban work? There were more homicides. Does it matter what tool the perpetrator used to commit those killings?
Mike W, so where is the correlation between knife attacks and gun control laws. Seems to be a leap in logic there.
Do you take into account the proliferation of drugs or the unemployment rate?
Mike W: Again, tell me how levying a new tax on a product / the producer of a product is going to lower prices. Obama and his supporters must be ignorant of economics.
Oil’s price rise through early July had the same economic impact as levying a new tax. Yet, producers have since lowered prices. Why? Economics. Supply remained the same and yet demand fell (we drove 4% fewer miles in 5/08 as 5/07 due to higher oil prices–the June and July numbers are not yet out). Economists (including those on Obama’s payroll) understand price elasticity. Mike, you may wish to visit an economic textbook for a refresher.
2008 has shown us that the demand for oil is not inelastic. Higher price for oil (due to any factor–global instability, increased hedge fund activity, new tax, hurricane in the Gulf, etc) can in time cause a reduction in demand, and if significant, this can lead to lower oil prices.
NYT columnist Thomas Friedman has proposed a $3 per gallon floor price for gas, to encourage Americans to continue to conserve (and keep their tires properly inflated ;-), even when/should gas prices otherwise fall below $3 a gallon. The new taxes raised can be used for research into alternative fuels, which will in time lower our use of and dependence upon fossil fuels (and, economically) lead to lower prices for these fuels.
“Does policy difference define ignorance? Yes or no.”
When history has proven those policies to be ineffective then yes, policy difference does define ignorance.
Obama sticks to the same failed policies of the past and fears certain “change” like widespread CCW laws, convinced that they’ll lead to “blood in the streets” when in fact those laws have had exactly the opposite effect.
Well, we’ve had 8 years of your “successful” policies… how’d that work out?
“Mike W, so where is the correlation between knife attacks and gun control laws. Seems to be a leap in logic there.”
No leap in logic, just simple understanding that focusing in on the object used won’t lower crime. Again, if gun crimes decreased but overall violent crime increased did gun control work? Did it make anyone safer? The huge increase in knife crime simply shows that violent crime is still occurring, (and there’s more of it) only a different tool is being used. Not to mention you’ve now disarmed potential victims, creating a more risk-free environment for criminals.
Oh God, won’t someone shoot me now.
Well, we’ve had 8 years of your “successful” policies… how’d that work out?
They’re not “my” policies. Not by a longshot. Changing to tried & failed policy of the past isn’t positive change, it’s regression.
“Oh God, won’t someone shoot me now.”
What I said was just too difficult for you huh?
Mike, then what the hell are your policies? Besides GUNS!
What I said was just too difficult for you huh?
Nope, just too ignorant.
“What I said was just too difficult for you huh?
Nope, just too ignorant.”
Ok, enlighten me then.
“Mike, then what the hell are your policies? Besides GUNS!”
Some things you’d like, some you wouldn’t. I’m pro-choice, pro-death penalty, pro school vouchers, anti illegal immigration, I’m against the War on Drugs, pro 10th Amendment etc. etc.
Oh, and another shining example of Obama’s ignorance. His speech about rural voters being “bitter” and “clinging to guns & religion” showed a profound ignorance of the values and culture of rural America.
http://anothergunblog.blogspot.com/2008/04/barack-obama-showing-more-of-his-true.html
http://anothergunblog.blogspot.com/2008/04/obama-offers-non-explanation.html
Living in Hockessin must give you great insight into “the values and culture of rural America”.
I unlike Obama, don’t write off their values and culture as “products of economically induced bitterness.”
You clearly didn’t read my linked posts Nemski, although ignoring arguments & facts is commonplace among some of the posters here.
PBaumbach – wonderful Idea! Let’s have have government set a price floor on gasoline. Government fixing prices is such an awesome idea! I mean why hasn’t anyone anywhere ever thought of that before as a solution to economic problems….
Nemski – Got a more substantive rebuttal than
“Oh God, won’t someone shoot me now?” Seems like if you’re going to say I’m wrong you should be able to elucidate some kind of reasoned and coherent thought explaining yourself.
You folks have a good track record of backing down when you can’t counter an argument or refute facts. ………Nemski?
Still waiting Nemski……