NationStates Jolt Archive

So, with the Democratic nomination now wrapped up, we can move on to Obama vs. McCain vs. everyone else running(who, sadly, as usual in American politics, do not mean a damn.)

As I've made clear in the past, I definitely support Obama. While I do not agree with his policies on everything--particularly when it comes to homosexual rights--I do find him a worthy person for the Presidency, certainly better than McCain.

THANK YOU TO ARRIDIA FOR PROVIDING THIS:

For the sake of information, these are the candidates:

The candidate of the Constitution Party is Chuck Baldwin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Baldwin).

The candidate of the Democratic Party is Barack Obama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama).

The candidate of the Green Party is still undecided.

The candidate of the Libertarian Party is Bob Barr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Barr).

The candidate of the New American Independent Party is Frank McEnulty.

The candidate of the Party for Socialism and Liberation is Gloria La Riva (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloria_La_Riva).

The candidate of the Prohibition Party is Gene Amondson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Amondson).

The candidate of the Republican Party is John McCain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain).

The candidate of the Socialist Party USA is Brian Moore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Moore_%28politician%29).

The candidate of the Socialist Workers Party is Roger Calero (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%B3ger_Calero).

There are also independent candidates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_third_party_presidential_candidates%2C_2008#Independents).

MODEDIT: This thread has been and will continue to be selectively edited by Ardchoille, displaying mod bias towards cats and bright colours, just because she can. Also because it was too long.

The rest of the original thread can be found here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=558767).

I say this year we mix things up by putting them into an arena and letting them fight it out gladiatorial style, vs each other... and some starving lions...

There's only one man that's Man enpugh to get my vote:

Vermin Love Supreme:
http://www.verminsupreme.com/pics/Vermin-horn.JPG

Presidential Candidate in 2008.

Or in his own words:

"Sometimes ...I wear a fake ass." -Vermin Love Supreme

On that note, is Obama a cat person or a dog person?

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/5984/blackcatqw4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

The new Mr. Bigglesworth?

I have posted his issues before and for the most part, I endorse them, especially universal healthcare and cutting defence funding.

Issues that Matter for 2008 (http://www.votenader.org/issues/)

The only real substantive issue I have with his policies is that he doesn't support nuclear power.

Way to follow directions. I got the answer I expected. You never campaign for anyone, just against-that didn't work for Kerry, it didn't work for Clinton, but hey, bang away. Wake me when you have an actual conviction about someone instead of just being 'anti.' Your 'conviction' for Clinton was unconvincing-for five months you failed to campaign for her, just against Obama. Boring.

I agree.

I remember seeing an interview with a Florida farmer once. He voted Bush twice because of his great leadership abilities. When asked what those were, he answered something akin to:

"He doesn't change his mind and follows through on his policies no matter what happens and what anybody says."

Stubbornness does not equal good leadership! When the path you're on leads you off the cliff - change directions!

-
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.

Why is that played as a bad thing? Adabtability and willingness to adjust policy based on new facts, new information, and new input, is a good trait for a politician. The stubbornness of Bush has been a serious problem.

So he's willing to learn from whoever is willing to share some wisdom regardless of their political affiliation?

You're right, we totally shouldn't elect Obama. He sounds far too competent for us.

Hey, I saw on the evening news today that Our Savior Obama is going to campaign at a NASCAR race. I hope he's ready... One expects that he has his immunizations and is prepared to talk to all those people that can only cling to religion and guns.

One expects that he has his immunizations and is prepared to talk to all those people that can only cling to religion and guns.

Oh, don't worry, I'm sure he can borrow some from McCain. He does need them for when he gives out speeches to the wretched people that never were in the Military.

I agree.

I remember seeing an interview with a Florida farmer once. He voted Bush twice because of his great leadership abilities. When asked what those were, he answered something akin to:

"He doesn't change his mind and follows through on his policies no matter what happens and what anybody says."

Stubbornness does not equal good leadership! When the path you're on leads you off the cliff - change directions!



Amen! Perhaps the worst legacy that Dubya has left us is this notion that an inability to change one's position no matter what evidence is presented is somehow admirable.

Hey, I saw on the evening news today that Our Savior Obama is going to campaign at a NASCAR race. I hope he's ready... One expects that he has his immunizations and is prepared to talk to all those people that can only cling to religion and guns.

are you allowed to take a gun to a nascar race??

are you allowed to take a gun to a nascar race??
Of course not. [Although the new laws in Georgia might allow it in the parking lot] The funny thing was watching the CNN news readers try to figure out what one would drink, wear, do, and say -- They were completely clueless and obviously had never been to anything any more informal than an opera matinee.

I just wanted to remind everyone that Our Savior was finally going to visit some of those people that he and the DNC had insulted.

Oh, don't worry, I'm sure he can borrow some from McCain. He does need them for when he gives out speeches to the wretched people that never were in the Military.
In the U.S, anyway, most of the problems with the military tend to be derived from the civilian oversight by professional politicians and career bureaucrats. The men and women in uniform are -- by and large -- very decent people.

*waits for some insignificant, but notorious exception to be raised*

Of course not. [Although the new laws in Georgia might allow it in the parking lot] The funny thing was watching the CNN news readers try to figure out what one would drink, wear, do, and say -- They were completely clueless and obviously had never been to anything any more informal than an opera matinee.

I just wanted to remind everyone that Our Savior was finally going to visit some of those people that he and the DNC had insulted.

So, you're now trying to defend a politician that wants to keep the US in its current economic pickle, keep Iraq in its current military rape, and pander to corporations by going "Dems are eggheads"? REALLY?

Regardless, whatever helps Obama get elected is fine by me.

In the U.S, anyway, most of the problems with the military tend to be derived from the civilian oversight by professional politicians and career bureaucrats. The men and women in uniform are -- by and large -- very decent people.

*waits for some insignificant, but notorious exception to be raised*

I never denied that. I pointed out that McCain touts his military experience as if it automatically made him more adequate to hold public office. As an example, when Obama raised a legitimate question on veteran's benefits, McCain tried to shut him up by claiming Obama "did not see fit to serve his coutry".

So, you have no point.

Of course not. [Although the new laws in Georgia might allow it in the parking lot] The funny thing was watching the CNN news readers try to figure out what one would drink, wear, do, and say -- They were completely clueless and obviously had never been to anything any more informal than an opera matinee.

I just wanted to remind everyone that Our Savior was finally going to visit some of those people that he and the DNC had insulted.

well now im wondering if it will be a random group or if its going to be a carefully selected group of "nascar fans for obama" people. (probably the latter but it would be cool if he didnt "bush" his groups)

Obama is courting voters in an election campaign!?! My god, the nerve...



Man, I can't wait for the conventions or the debates or something...this is just stupid.

I just wanted to remind everyone that Our Savior was finally going to visit some of those people that he and the DNC had insulted.
You mean, the ones who never understood what he was saying?

well now im wondering if it will be a random group or if its going to be a carefully selected group of "nascar fans for obama" people. (probably the latter but it would be cool if he didnt "bush" his groups)
I prefer to call it "Clintoning" the group, but it's the same and we'll just have to see.

I prefer to call it "Clintoning" the group, but it's the same and we'll just have to see.

i wonder how shocking it is to get out of the bubble of the whitehouse and find out how the public really feels about you.

I prefer to call it "Clintoning" the group, but it's the same and we'll just have to see.
Really? Because when Clinton did it (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/07/nascar-obama.html) it certainly wasn't a hand select crowd-
Bill Clinton tried that tack in September 1992, campaigning at the Southern 500 Stock Car race in Darlington, S.C., but drew jeers and catcalls and insults about his lack of Vietnam War service. That was the year Richard Petty was retiring, and the staunch Republican and racing icon told track officials he wouldn't drive the pace car -- part of his retirement-year sendoff -- if Clinton was in the parade.

Of course not. [Although the new laws in Georgia might allow it in the parking lot] The funny thing was watching the CNN news readers try to figure out what one would drink, wear, do, and say -- They were completely clueless and obviously had never been to anything any more informal than an opera matinee.

Of course. Because if one doesnt like watching cars drive around in circles for a hundred or two laps, we must be snobs.


*waits for some insignificant, but notorious exception to be raised*

Oh, you mean like every single comment youve ever made about Muslims, yes?

Oh, you mean like every single comment youve ever made about Muslims, yes?

In his defense, he hasn't made any lately.

Look at the link in my sig and there might be a clue as to why. ;)

In his defense, he hasn't made any lately.

Look at the link in my sig and there might be a clue as to why. ;)

Indeed. I was there for that.

You mean, the ones who never understood what he was saying?

Singing pearls before bored swine?

In his defense, he hasn't made any lately.

Look at the link in my sig and there might be a clue as to why. ;)
You still missed the point on that one completely. One doesn't represent many -- fine. One should require special treatment because of their religion -- not okay.

And there are still Muslims out there that are making claims that we (in the West) should conform to the outrageous tenants of their religion. It's just that most people do see the problem with that -- And most of y'all don't vote.

Of course. Because if one doesnt like watching cars drive around in circles for a hundred or two laps, we must be snobs.




Oh, you mean like every single comment youve ever made about Muslims, yes?
Well, it is the largest spectator sport in the US, so if the shoe fits...

Well, it is the largest spectator sport in the US, so if the shoe fits...

Even granting benefit of the doubt I can't figure out how that's supposed to work...

And, the distinction is dubious. According to this acadamic paper (http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/1/2/1/6/p12160_index.html?phpsessid=d0ac96383585657a2ee9f55c1b5756cc) (the only non-wiki source I could find) it's the second largest.

And I suppose that it's in how you compile the numbers. There is only one NASCAR Cup race each week, where all the players take the field as apposed to several football, baseball, basketball games that are played throughout the week. (Careful, I said Cup-top level race, not Nationwide or Craftsman Truck which generally accompany a Cup race, nor the ARCA or local NASCAR races), so it's a single event to watch rather than several spread out. So naturally you'll get more watching that one race than any watching a single football game, since in that way NASCAR does not compete with itself.

Further, the numbers that watch NASCAR do not measure up to even half of the population, so I'm not sure what you are implying by your 'million Elvis fans can't be wrong' logic here. Even at the largest, it's not most Americans-are you implying that most Americans are snobs because they don't watch a popular sporting event? Do you honestly think there is no air between NASCAR and the opera crowd? (it does make my friends "Too dumb for opera, too smart for NASCAR" shirt that much more perplexing.)

Or, are you just throwing things out like one of those wigglin' water sprinkler toys in the hopes that something you say, no matter how nonsensical, will stick somewhere?

You still missed the point on that one completely. One doesn't represent many -- fine. One should require special treatment because of their religion -- not okay.

And there are still Muslims out there that are making claims that we (in the West) should conform to the outrageous tenants of their religion. It's just that most people do see the problem with that -- And most of y'all don't vote.

There are. There are also still marines raping Japanese girls. I see a problem with both, and I still don't think one of them represents many. Now tell me, are we disagreeing in anything here?

He wasn't going to listen until McCain called him on the carpet about it.

Obama's website promised everyone out in 16 months, fuck the consequences.

Then McCain pointed out that Obama had never spoken to any commanders, and hadn't visited Iraq in years.

Obviously Obama isn't changing his mind because he's wiser - he's doing it because he got the idea from a Republican.

Oh, shocking. You're being dishonest again. Really, it's the last thing I expected from you.

It has ALWAYS been Obama's position that he would listen to the experts on just about every issue. The way he specifically presented it all along is that he would trust their expertise, but change their mission. So they would be working toward safely and quickly removing our troops while get the most value for the stabilization process.

In fact, I'm relatively sure you attacked him for saying that as if he were on the fence. And if you didn't, CH certainly did. Unlike the lunatics currently in office, Obama incorporates evidence into his decisions. The obvious result of this is that occasionally that requires one position to change.

I don't expect you to do that, but I'm glad Obama does.

I feel like a bad politico having not followed the election much in weeks...not that there really is anything to know about...

Well, the outcome of this election can change the course of the entire world. Sorry, Europe. You're fucked.

Is it ok if I'm still undecided?

Oh, shocking. You're being dishonest again. Really, it's the last thing I expected from you.

It has ALWAYS been Obama's position that he would listen to the experts on just about every issue. The way he specifically presented it all along is that he would trust their expertise, but change their mission. So they would be working toward safely and quickly removing our troops while get the most value for the stabilization process.

In fact, I'm relatively sure you attacked him for saying that as if he were on the fence. And if you didn't, CH certainly did. Unlike the lunatics currently in office, Obama incorporates evidence into his decisions. The obvious result of this is that occasionally that requires one position to change.

I don't expect you to do that, but I'm glad Obama does.

The plan that he still has posted on his campaign site calls for a withdrawal of 1-2 brigades every month -- to be completed by the end of "next year", ostensibly 2009. That does sound like immediate and without regard to consequences. At which point we would rely on hope and change to establish a democratic government in Iraq.

So which is it? Whatever he said in his last speech, or what he still has posted at his campaign site as his "plan". I suspect the speeches are just fluff. He certainly has a track record of voting for immediate withdrawals, regardless of the consequences. He probably counts on his likely voters NOT to visit his website and read his positions, huh?

Clearly Obama's spoken position is whatever it needs to be to get elected. Can we say 'triangulate'?

The plan that he still has posted on his campaign site calls for a withdrawal of 1-2 brigades every month -- to be completed by the end of "next year", ostensibly 2009. That does sound like immediate and without regard to consequences. At which point we would rely on hope and change to establish a democratic government in Iraq.

So which is it? Whatever he said in his last speech, or what he still has posted at his campaign site as his "plan". I suspect the speeches are just fluff. He certainly has a track record of voting for immediate withdrawals, regardless of the consequences. He probably counts on his likely voters NOT to visit his website and read his positions, huh?

Clearly Obama's spoken position is whatever it needs to be to get elected. Can we say 'triangulate'?

Where's the conflict? The 'plan' is to pull out a brigade a month, but he's willing to judge based on the evidence as it is presented.

The fact that anyone is even making out like this is a conflict, is evidence that the Bush-smear-machine is still the best (only?) weapon in the Republican arsenal.

Or, are you just throwing things out like one of those wigglin' water sprinkler toys in the hopes that something you say, no matter how nonsensical, will stick somewhere?

This.

The plan that he still has posted on his campaign site calls for a withdrawal of 1-2 brigades every month -- to be completed by the end of "next year", ostensibly 2009. That does sound like immediate and without regard to consequences. At which point we would rely on hope and change to establish a democratic government in Iraq.

So which is it? Whatever he said in his last speech, or what he still has posted at his campaign site as his "plan". I suspect the speeches are just fluff. He certainly has a track record of voting for immediate withdrawals, regardless of the consequences. He probably counts on his likely voters NOT to visit his website and read his positions, huh?

Clearly Obama's spoken position is whatever it needs to be to get elected. Can we say 'triangulate'?

Here's the cute part. Its actually two-fold, and one will prove the other.

John McCain changed changed every single one of his positions to get his base behind him. And he is getting a free pass. For him, there were no new facts, no experts waying in. Just pure, 100% getting more neo-con to win the rednecks and fundies, and then pretending thats how he's always thought.

So, it seems that changing ones mind, to conservatives at least, is only acceptable when Republicans do it. Its compremise or getting new facts then. If a democrat does it, hes a flip-flopper.

If a democrat does it, hes a flip-flopper.

And, more importantly - that's supposed to be "a bad thing" (tm).

Personally, if somoeone has a stupid idea, I want them to change it.

Is it ok if I'm still undecided?
Of course. It's always a good idea to take your time and really think things through. What would be bad is making an instinctive or impulsive decision, which it seems quite a number of people--even here--are making.

You still missed the point on that one completely. One doesn't represent many -- fine. One should require special treatment because of their religion -- not okay.

And there are still Muslims out there that are making claims that we (in the West) should conform to the outrageous tenants of their religion. It's just that most people do see the problem with that -- And most of y'all don't vote.

Right, so when one of the "agents of intolerance" claims we should live according to their crazy biblical tenants, what do we think then? Those same agents are merely foot soldiers for McCain now right? The problem with your premise is not that you are making an inaccurate claim regarding Muslim extremists. The problem is that you fail to see the links to other groups as well. There are crazy people everywhere.

So, it seems that changing ones mind, to conservatives at least, is only acceptable when Republicans do it.Bush: Like a rock, only dumber.

This.



Here's the cute part. Its actually two-fold, and one will prove the other.

John McCain changed changed every single one of his positions to get his base behind him. And he is getting a free pass. For him, there were no new facts, no experts waying in. Just pure, 100% getting more neo-con to win the rednecks and fundies, and then pretending thats how he's always thought.

So, it seems that changing ones mind, to conservatives at least, is only acceptable when Republicans do it. Its compremise or getting new facts then. If a democrat does it, hes a flip-flopper.
Interesting, but my post wasn't about McCain and I'm not going to make it so.

This is about Obama... With his non-existent record of successful legislation, as a US Senator, all we can do is see what he voted for or against. He has a pretty strong record of voting for immediate -- bar the consequences troop withdrawals. What military experts did he consult to arrive at that opinion? What new military experts is he going to consult with in order to more properly assess what to do after he's elected?

In fact, when has he ever consulted a military expert about the situation in Iraq?

I'm not calling him a flip-flopper, I'm calling him inexperienced, disinterested, uninformed, and indecisive.

Interesting, but my post wasn't about McCain and I'm not going to make it so.


Why would you? If you intend to pretend that one candidate is unsuited for the job because of his predicted tendency to change positions for political expedience, it would hardly serve your purposes to admit that the other horse in this race is at least as guilty.


This is about Obama... With his non-existent record of successful legislation, as a US Senator, all we can do is see what he voted for or against.


Which is... bad?


He has a pretty strong record of voting for immediate -- bar the consequences troop withdrawals. What military experts did he consult to arrive at that opinion?


Which experts do you need to consult to arrive at the conclusion that you don't like seeing people butchered for political expedience?


What new military experts is he going to consult with in order to more properly assess what to do after he's elected?

In fact, when has he ever consulted a military expert about the situation in Iraq?


You can't have been paying much attention to the current controversy. I believe the argument being made is that Obama has admitted that he might moderate (not renounce) his stance if the evidence suggests he should.


I'm not calling him a flip-flopper, I'm calling him inexperienced, disinterested, uninformed, and indecisive.

Since none of the candidates running have been president, they're all equally inexperienced for the job.

Since both major candidates have either talked about posture changes, or adopted posture changes, they're both equally 'indecisive'.

Both candidates are uninformed. Every candidate is expected to be uninformed. That's why a president has a staff.

'Disinterested' isn't a claim even worth dealing with.

So - what we are left with, then - is that Obama is no less qualified on any of the factors than his chief rival. I wonder why you consider them checkmarks against him then?

The plan that he still has posted on his campaign site calls for a withdrawal of 1-2 brigades every month -- to be completed by the end of "next year", ostensibly 2009. That does sound like immediate and without regard to consequences. At which point we would rely on hope and change to establish a democratic government in Iraq.

So which is it? Whatever he said in his last speech, or what he still has posted at his campaign site as his "plan". I suspect the speeches are just fluff. He certainly has a track record of voting for immediate withdrawals, regardless of the consequences. He probably counts on his likely voters NOT to visit his website and read his positions, huh?

Clearly Obama's spoken position is whatever it needs to be to get elected. Can we say 'triangulate'?

You realize that a current plan is the one based on the current evidence. Being that I was the most talented computer operator in my unit, I actually got to see a lot of the information as it was put to paper, so to speak. How many times do you think an officer had me draw out their plan, a plan that stayed the same for a long period of time, until we started to actually get to the point of exploring the plan in order to put it into affect and then made changes as made sense? This is common practice.

Rational people don't generally feel the need to add the caveat, but this could change if new information arrives, because that's what rational people do. It's absolutely a sad state of affairs in the US that we feel like candidates should hold such a position to be a given. What an embarassment to reasoned thought and debate.

This seems to be the place for a little update ...:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/05/us/politics/05memo.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin
“It’s a very delicate situation,” said Brian Jones, a former communications director for Mr. McCain’s campaign who also was a top communications strategist during Mr. Bush’s 2004 run for re-election. “Even though the president is the president, this is going to be John McCain’s convention, and you want it to be about John McCain and what his presidency would be.”

A convention is a pivot point, and the theatrics and imagery are often more important than the words. For Mr. McCain, of Arizona, the convention imagery will be especially important, because he must show that he wants to take the nation in a new direction, away from Mr. Bush, yet he cannot escape Mr. Bush’s dominance of Republican Party politics for the last eight years.
...
But one Republican close to Mr. McCain and Mr. Bush, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that the president would give “an important speech” but that a joint appearance was “highly unlikely.”
...
Most Republicans say Mr. Bush should play whatever role Mr. McCain wants him to.
http://www.newsfollowup.com/id/images_14/mccain_bush_hand_butt.jpg
Some, like Representative Dana Rohrabacher of California, simply wish Mr. Bush would keep out of it, though few would say so openly.

“I don’t think there are a lot of people who want to see him at the convention,” said Mr. Rohrabacher, who is especially irked with Mr. Bush for his stance on immigration. He said the president “should stay home from the Republican convention, and everybody would be better off.” (other than the Democrats)
...
So Republicans may just have to grit their teeth.

*Thanks be to LG.*

Mokay, so as someone who has not kept up with the race for a while, I figured it was a good idea to check up on what was going on, seeing as how D-day is 4 months away.

First off, a brief check of RCP. Every poll since 25 May has had Obama up. Even a Fox News one. Sweeeeeeet.

Second, a check on here. Two big issues seem to be the Republican convention and whether Bush should be there (*snigger*), and the very predicatble accusations of Obama flip-flopping.

Things are going as swimmingly as I could have hoped.

If there's been anything else, I'd love to be enlightened. Have I got it about right?

If there's been anything else, I'd love to be enlightened. Have I got it about right?

Ayup! Now we just need WYTYG to run ringside with the Round count.

Mokay, so as someone who has not kept up with the race for a while, I figured it was a good idea to check up on what was going on, seeing as how D-day is 4 months away.

First off, a brief check of RCP. Every poll since 25 May has had Obama up. Even a Fox News one. Sweeeeeeet.

Second, a check on here. Two big issues seem to be the Republican convention and whether Bush should be there (*snigger*), and the very predicatble accusations of Obama flip-flopping.

Things are going as swimmingly as I could have hoped.

If there's been anything else, I'd love to be enlightened. Have I got it about right?
Well, by some accounts Obama should be doing even better (though that seems really a bit like the adjusted expectations game that was played against both Obama and McCain in the primaries). While 5% is just outside most margin of errors, the fact that he's been pegged at 4 or 5% at every recent poll would be an indicator that that really is his lead. It also might indicate that those paying attention have made up their minds, and those who aren't haven't yet, so all the ballyhooing in the world is just for those who have already picked teams. Which is why I keep pinning for the conventions or the debates or something.

Although, Obama is doing what Obama did to win the primaries, going into the places where he's not supposed to win like Montana and building a base. That process is slow and undramatic except for the occasional poll that comes out of no where. McCain is scoffing at it now, but he may be forced to play a lot of catch up later because of it.

Well, by some accounts Obama should be doing even better (though that seems really a bit like the adjusted expectations game that was played against both Obama and McCain in the primaries). While 5% is just outside most margin of errors, the fact that he's been pegged at 4 or 5% at every recent poll would be an indicator that that really is his lead. It also might indicate that those paying attention have made up their minds, and those who aren't haven't yet, so all the ballyhooing in the world is just for those who have already picked teams. Which is why I keep pinning for the conventions or the debates or something.

Although, Obama is doing what Obama did to win the primaries, going into the places where he's not supposed to win like Montana and building a base. That process is slow and undramatic except for the occasional poll that comes out of no where. McCain is scoffing at it now, but he may be forced to play a lot of catch up later because of it.

Okie doke. Good to know. I must say, I'm pleased Obama is continuing his 50 state strategy. It seems somehow... more honest. And the fact that its kicking ass aswell is a great bonus.

Interesting, but my post wasn't about McCain and I'm not going to make it so.

This is about Obama... With his non-existent record of successful legislation, as a US Senator, all we can do is see what he voted for or against. He has a pretty strong record of voting for immediate -- bar the consequences troop withdrawals. What military experts did he consult to arrive at that opinion? What new military experts is he going to consult with in order to more properly assess what to do after he's elected?

In fact, when has he ever consulted a military expert about the situation in Iraq?

I'm not calling him a flip-flopper, I'm calling him inexperienced, disinterested, uninformed, and indecisive.

I take exception to this, and the author needs to research his facts.

Popularly discussed McCain "flip-flops":

1. Roe v. Wade. False. McCain has consistently opposed Roe v. Wade for many years, based primarily on his belief that abortion rights are a State issue rather than a Federal one.

2. Iraq. False. From the start, McCain supported the invasion, but warned that although the military side of hte operation would be challenging, it would be far more difficult to establish a viable government afterwards. Bush ignored him, but he is on the record having warned the current Administration to pay more attention to the civilian side of Iraq, almost from day one.

3. Offshore drilling. False. McCain has consistently described offshore drilling as a State issue. In light of the energy crisis, he has reversed his previously negative opinion on the subject, supporting calls for the States to allow more. However, his proposed policy has been consistent all the way through: let the States decide what happens to their natural resources.

4. Bush's tax-cuts. Half-true. Yes, McCain did reverse his stand on the Bush tax cuts, going from voting against them in the Senate to supporting and promising to extend them, but he did this some time ago.

Source: politifact.org - a nonpartisan fact-checking service. My "ratings" of these accusations are based upon my interpretation of the facts that PolitiFact cites, and may or may not reflect PolitiFact's own views.

Now shall we examine Barack Obama, and the lack of media scrutiny regarding his past with Tony Rezko, or perhaps the endorsement that he has won from Hamas? Maybe we should look at his excoriation of Bush's warrantless wiretapping, and the fact that he now supports a bill allowing Bush to carry on doing such wiretapping - just to make himself somehow acceptable to enough American people to get elected.

If you want to see media bias, I suggest that you look at Chris Matthews, who once remarked that he thought he had a crush on Barack Obama - while he was reporting. Not to mention that he openly stated - in the lead-up to Super Tuesday - that Hillary Clinton was nothing more than Bill's appendage!

Chris Matthews is just one example of a "newsman" who was bedazzled by Obama's fake charm, and helped people overlook his lack of substance, consistency, honesty, honour or virtue.

I take exception to this, and the author needs to research his facts.

Popularly discussed McCain "flip-flops":

1. Roe v. Wade. False. McCain has consistently opposed Roe v. Wade for many years, based primarily on his belief that abortion rights are a State issue rather than a Federal one.

2. Iraq. False. From the start, McCain supported the invasion, but warned that although the military side of hte operation would be challenging, it would be far more difficult to establish a viable government afterwards. Bush ignored him, but he is on the record having warned the current Administration to pay more attention to the civilian side of Iraq, almost from day one.

3. Offshore drilling. False. McCain has consistently described offshore drilling as a State issue. In light of the energy crisis, he has reversed his previously negative opinion on the subject, supporting calls for the States to allow more. However, his proposed policy has been consistent all the way through: let the States decide what happens to their natural resources.

4. Bush's tax-cuts. Half-true. Yes, McCain did reverse his stand on the Bush tax cuts, going from voting against them in the Senate to supporting and promising to extend them, but he did this some time ago.

Source: politifact.org - a nonpartisan fact-checking service. My "ratings" of these accusations are based upon my interpretation of the facts that PolitiFact cites, and may or may not reflect PolitiFact's own views.

Now shall we examine Barack Obama, and the lack of media scrutiny regarding his past with Tony Rezko, or perhaps the endorsement that he has won from Hamas? Maybe we should look at his excoriation of Bush's warrantless wiretapping, and the fact that he now supports a bill allowing Bush to carry on doing such wiretapping - just to make himself somehow acceptable to enough American people to get elected.

If you want to see media bias, I suggest that you look at Chris Matthews, who once remarked that he thought he had a crush on Barack Obama - while he was reporting. Not to mention that he openly stated - in the lead-up to Super Tuesday - that Hillary Clinton was nothing more than Bill's appendage!

Chris Matthews is just one example of a "newsman" who was bedazzled by Obama's fake charm, and helped people overlook his lack of substance, consistency, honesty, honour or virtue.

Hehe. Okay. I love that you think saying that he is consistent on all of those things is a good thing.

Is he also consistent that he doesn't want the benefits for war veterans to be too good because it will hurt retention (in other words, he doesn't want their non-military career options to be as good, lest they, you know, decide on whether or not to continue their service to their country rather than have no choice)?

Is he also consistent on his position that torture is acceptable?

Is he consistent on his position on Bush? A man he opposed when he was a Republican maverick but has supported in his votes for the past 7.5 years?

Has he been consistently a maverick? Remember when he used to decide issues based on their value rather than whether or not it would cater to the Republican base he needs to win the election?

Source: politifact.org - a nonpartisan fact-checking service. My "ratings" of these accusations are based upon my interpretation of the facts that PolitiFact cites, and may or may not reflect PolitiFact's own views.


That's classic. Best caveat ever. "Here's my source, may not represent actual source." Awesome.

Right. I'll take these one at a time, shall I?

1:

Hehe. Okay. I love that you think saying that he is consistent on all of those things is a good thing.

Is he also consistent that he doesn't want the benefits for war veterans to be too good because it will hurt retention (in other words, he doesn't want their non-military career options to be as good, lest they, you know, decide on whether or not to continue their service to their country rather than have no choice)?

Is he also consistent on his position that torture is acceptable?

Is he consistent on his position on Bush? A man he opposed when he was a Republican maverick but has supported in his votes for the past 7.5 years?

Has he been consistently a maverick? Remember when he used to decide issues based on their value rather than whether or not it would cater to the Republican base he needs to win the election?

I'm not saying that his positions on any given issues are the ones that I agree with. In many cases, I don't (eg: Roe v. Wade, Iraq, etc). However, to attack McCain for flip-flopping on these issues is a poor attack - it's not based in reality. The reality is that McCain has been consistent on these points. Consistently wrong (if that's what you believe him to be) is still contsistent.

2:

That's classic. Best caveat ever. "Here's my source, may not represent actual source." Awesome.

I was referencing the fact that PolitiFact awarded a "Half-True" to the charge that McCain flip-flopped on Roe v. Wade, based upon the fact that McCain once said that he thought it was a good ruling, and then immediately corrected himself, stating that he mis-spoke.

If it's OK to give a "False" to the charge that Obama threatened to bomb Pakistan (quote taken waaaaaaay out of context, and the "False" rating was accurate), it's OK to give a "False" to the charge that McCain was flip-flopping based on one hastily-retracted statement. Basically, I disagree with PolitiFact's rating of that statement, and wanted to not misrepresent my statement as being PolitiFact's.

3: I notice that no-one has seen fit to take me up on my points about Obama, or the collective bias of the media.

I notice that no-one has seen fit to take me up on my points about Obama, or the collective bias of the media.

Glad to oblige you.

(Kindly picture, fellow posters, a fighting game "speedster" character getting into fighting stance...)

Now shall we examine Barack Obama, and the lack of media scrutiny regarding his past with Tony Rezko, or perhaps the endorsement that he has won from Hamas? Maybe we should look at his excoriation of Bush's warrantless wiretapping, and the fact that he now supports a bill allowing Bush to carry on doing such wiretapping - just to make himself somehow acceptable to enough American people to get elected.

1- There was scrutiny. That they found nothing doesn't mean that there wasn't, it means they found nothing.

2- You're really gonna play the Hamas fake-guilt-by-association-for-morons card? Fine, but I'll let you know that most former and current members of the KKK will likely vote for McCain. So, now, unless you vote third-party, you're either supporting lynching black people or blowing up Israeli buses. At least under this thing you're somehow seeing fit to call your logic.

3- As for the wiretapping bill, I agree. Congratulations, you managed to scratch a point against me. However, the fact remains that McCain is still quite worse - being against torture then voting for it, claiming certain preachers are agents of intolerance and then seeking their endorsement, etc - and that, if you want to vote for a "consistent" candidate, you'll either have to pick the least inconsistent one between the two (Obama), or vote third party.

4- As for the "collective bias", the media has kept the spotlight on Obama's "lack of patriotism", there was the "terrorist fist jab" episode, the overblowing of just about anything that would hurt Obama, the vast majority of it by association. So, feel free to tell me all about the "collective media bias", as I could use a good laugh.

It does not do you any good to underestimate me.

Glad to oblige you.

(Kindly picture, fellow posters, a fighting game "speedster" character getting into fighting stance...)



1- There was scrutiny. That they found nothing doesn't mean that there wasn't, it means they found nothing.

2- You're really gonna play the Hamas fake-guilt-by-association-for-morons card? Fine, but I'll let you know that most former and current members of the KKK will likely vote for McCain. So, now, unless you vote third-party, you're either supporting lynching black people or blowing up Israeli buses. At least under this thing you're somehow seeing fit to call your logic.

3- As for the wiretapping bill, I agree. Congratulations, you managed to scratch a point against me. However, the fact remains that McCain is still quite worse - being against torture then voting for it, claiming certain preachers are agents of intolerance and then seeking their endorsement, etc - and that, if you want to vote for a "consistent" candidate, you'll either have to pick the least inconsistent one between the two (Obama), or vote third party.

4- As for the "collective bias", the media has kept the spotlight on Obama's "lack of patriotism", there was the "terrorist fist jab" episode, the overblowing of just about anything that would hurt Obama, the vast majority of it by association. So, feel free to tell me all about the "collective media bias", as I could use a good laugh.

It does not do you any good to underestimate me.

*imagines heikoku in his corner, barely winded, tapping his gloves together and bouncing up and down waiting for the bell to ring to start the next round*

*imagines heikoku in his corner, barely winded, tapping his gloves together and bouncing up and down waiting for the bell to ring to start the next round*

Boxer? Really? Ah well, was looking for more anime-ish/fighting-game-ish (King of Fighters, Street Fighter, etc) fighters, but I guess that will do. :p

http://www.buttafly.com/content/obama-quote-1.php

So, Heikoku, give us Obama's actual position on guns and gun laws, and make sure you keep it within the recent ruling by SCOTUS.

http://www.buttafly.com/content/obama-quote-1.php

So, Heikoku, give us Obama's actual position on guns and gun laws, and make sure you keep it within the recent ruling by SCOTUS.

You make a claim and try to "back it up" with a link to a bad humor site? Poor thing...

You make a claim and try to "back it up" with a link to a bad humor site? Poor thing...

I'm asking YOU to make a claim. Tell us, tell us - what's his exact position on guns, and has it ever changed?

Ron Paul 08!

Hope For America

Ron Paul 08!

Hope For America

see that speck on the horizon? that is the ron paul ship. it sailed long ago.

see that speck on the horizon? that is the ron paul ship. it sailed long ago.

what speck?

I'm asking YOU to make a claim. Tell us, tell us - what's his exact position on guns, and has it ever changed?

You're asking me to make a claim to defend what, exactly?

wow, with so many new posts in the US elections topic, yet not one of them mentions the recent 4th of July US Independence day.:confused: Just pointing out.

wow, with so many new posts in the US elections topic, yet not one of them mentions the recent 4th of July US Independence day.:confused: Just pointing out.

did something big happen over the 4th that i missed?

wow, with so many new posts in the US elections topic, yet not one of them mentions the recent 4th of July US Independence day.:confused: Just pointing out.

"Normally I'd put on a festive hat and celebrate the fact that the Earth has circled the Sun one more time; I really didn't think it was going to make it this year, but darn it if it wasn't the little planet that could all over again."

Man, John McCain needs to hire Mike Huckabee as a comedy coach.

This makes me not want to vote for McCain. A 61 yr old librarian kicked out of a public place and threatened with arrest simply for having a sign that says McCain = Bush Unbelievable.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/07/librarian-with-mccainbush-sign-kicked-out-of-public-campaign-event/

This makes me not want to vote for McCain. A 61 yr old librarian kicked out of a public place and threatened with arrest simply for having a sign that says McCain = Bush Unbelievable.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/07/librarian-with-mccainbush-sign-kicked-out-of-public-campaign-event/

You see, we see SEVERAL instances of Republicans pulling this crap, whereas one would be hard-pressed to find THREE instances of DEMOCRATS doing it.

You see, we see SEVERAL instances of Republicans pulling this crap, whereas one would be hard-pressed to find THREE instances of DEMOCRATS doing it.

I don't know if you really want to take up that challenge. Thing is, when you get volunteers running the crowd is that eventually one of them is going to be a total ass.

I'm not saying that the situation isn't bullshit, I'm just saying this probably isn't going to be one of those 'us them' kind of things you can stick your flag in.

If nothing else, it's a short countdown until someone brings up the Muslim women not being allowed behind Obama...

Wait, I just did it...crap...(at least they weren't threatened with arrest, but still...)

Wait, I just did it...crap...(at least they weren't threatened with arrest, but still...)

I see your point, but there's also the fact that Obama called them personally to apologize.

I see your point, but there's also the fact that Obama called them personally to apologize.

I still haven't seen him in a photo or TV op with any Muslims, have you?

Heh heh heh...

I still haven't seen him in a photo or TV op with any Muslims, have you?

Heh heh heh...

So, let me get this straight.

You attack him for "being a Muslim", spread rumors about him having been in a madrassa, and so on.

And then you turn around and attack him for not having photo ops with Muslims, that we both know would be used against him.

I'm done arguing with you. It's simply not worth it, you're so incoherent.

For that matter, are there any photo ops with McCain and Muslims?

So, let me get this straight.

You attack him for "being a Muslim", spread rumors about him having been in a madrassa, and so on.

And then you turn around and attack him for not having photo ops with Muslims, that we both know would be used against him.

I'm done arguing with you. It's simply not worth it, you're so incoherent.

For that matter, are there any photo ops with McCain and Muslims?

McCain doesn't have to be in photo ops with them. It's Obama who is claiming to be all inclusive, and has a majority of Muslims supporting him.

He's obviously thrown them under the bus, because he knows no matter how much he insults them (after all, he's only using them), they'll vote for him anyway.

So, no photo ops. Just a private apology for fucking them, and thanks for voting for Obama...

McCain doesn't have to be in photo ops with them. It's Obama who is claiming to be all inclusive, and has a majority of Muslims supporting him.

I decided to argue with you like you argue with me, DK.

So:

Ah, so you admit McCain isn't inclusive at all and will turn America into a state run by the KKK.

I decided to argue with you like you argue with me, DK.

So:

Ah, so you admit McCain isn't inclusive at all and will turn America into a state run by the KKK.

The last part doesn't follow.

Obama, on the other hand, has made it clear that he's inclusive of Muslims. Up to the point of then throwing them under the bus (it seems he does that to supporters who suddenly become inconvenient, like Rev Wright).

McCain throws people under the bus, but then he pulls them out again - maybe he's short on cash.

The last part doesn't follow.

Obama, on the other hand, has made it clear that he's inclusive of Muslims. Up to the point of then throwing them under the bus (it seems he does that to supporters who suddenly become inconvenient, like Rev Wright).

McCain throws people under the bus, but then he pulls them out again - maybe he's short on cash.

Like YOU ever cared that an argument YOU make doesn't follow.

Still on the "arguing like you", could McCain have been brainwashed into becoming a Manchurian Candidate when he was in the Hanoi Hilton?

A 61 yr old librarian kicked out of a public place and threatened with arrest simply for having a sign that says McCain = Bush Unbelievable.
Ironically proving that the librarian's sign was correct. :D

The last part doesn't follow.

Obama, on the other hand, has made it clear that he's inclusive of Muslims. Up to the point of then throwing them under the bus (it seems he does that to supporters who suddenly become inconvenient, like Rev Wright).

McCain throws people under the bus, but then he pulls them out again - maybe he's short on cash.

Hacky term of the 2008 election: "Throw them under the bus."

(really, some volunteers not letting them sit behind him at a rally, hardly 'bus throwing,' Mr. Armstrong would approve)

there are still Muslims out there that are making claims that we (in the West) should conform to the outrageous tenants of their religion.
TENANT: a renter
TENET: a firmly held belief
:headbang:
Sorry, the schoolmarm in me got irritated by that one,:headbang: especially since someone repeated it, and then I saw "experts waying in"...

I still haven't seen him in a photo or TV op with any Muslims, have you?

You mean like the photo he took with a woman in hijab the very next day before the news story about the women who were not allowed behind him came out?

The one I linked in the thread you started on it? The one that was mentioned in the article you linked about it?

You mean like the photo he took with a woman in hijab the very next day before the news story about the women who were not allowed behind him came out?

The one I linked in the thread you started on it? The one that was mentioned in the article you linked about it?

Ouch

I can't stand either McCain or Obama (surprise surprise) but if I had to choose I might actually end up going with McCain because I have absolutely no interest in giving Congress and the White House to the same party ever again as long as I live. Far be it from me to offer any statement that could even be conceived as a defense of the Bush Administration, but part of the reason why he was so damaging was because he had a Congress that wouldn't say "no" to him--Republican Senators and (most of) House Representatives seemed to labor under the impression that they weren't allowed to vote down Bush budgets. Same went for Clinton: he had a Democratic Congress for a bit, but the Republicans took Congress in relatively short order even though we decided to keep him in the White House (let's face it--Dole wasn't the best candidate). He was a better President for it, in my opinion: certainly clear ahead of Bush but likely only on virtue of an opposition Congress.

For all the cock sucking the media has done for Obama and (until recently) Clinton, they've managed (since both were Democrats) to overlook the fact that neither one is a particularly strong candidate. Obama has some decent rhetoric, but the Democrats always fail when they play identity politics.

Recently, The Economist ran an article that reviewed Clinton's campaign and enumerated her tactical errors. If any of you out there have a subscription to this publication, dig up the issue or two after: there's an excellent letter written by a Mark Richard of Columbus, OH (my father) who describes the underlying reasons for Hillary's failure: it wasn't because of any glaring political inadequacy--it was because of the basis of her campaign as an identity-based movement. I don't think Obama's prospects are very good for exactly the same reasons: no matter what he polls or what the media says, I'm just not sure this country is ready to elect a black (okay, half black) President.

About twenty-five or thirty years ago, there was a rash of black mayors elected throughout the country. It was the politically hip thing to do--after all, America was eager (rightly so) to establish itself as a progressive nation with new and better ideas for race and politics--we wanted to prove that our money was in fact where our mouth was, and our voters acted accordingly.

Then what? Then a whole bunch of them got kicked out because things were generally no different than they were under white leadership--in some cases worse. Even black-majority communities resumed electing white politicians--not because they were any better, but because after a few years we kind of said to ourselves "okay, enough of this shit about electing people because of what they are, let's get back to policy." It was like Affirmative Action on steroids.

Now I'm not saying a black man can't run the country--the white ones I've seen so far haven't done a terrific job either--but it's obvious that with Bush's sagging popularity, the Democratic Party took this opportunity to foist a black man and a woman upon us as serious contenders: they're clearly standing on (or more accurately "against") tradition rather than policy. This election isn't about running the country, it's about "making history," and for anyone who doubts this you need only watch or read transcripts of Hillary's speeches. Just like in 2000 and 2004, the Democrats think that their shit doesn't stink and that the GOP candidate doesn't have a chance in hell. Almost everyone I've spoken to is convinced Barack will win by a landslide and anyone who thinks otherwise is nuts. "Bollocks," says I, and I'll be laughing all the way to the bank when I collect all the bets I've placed on McCain. I don't really like him as much anymore (I supported him in the 2000 primary), but he'll still probably win.

Almost everyone I've spoken to is convinced Barack will win by a landslide and anyone who thinks otherwise is nuts. "Bollocks," says I, and I'll be laughing all the way to the bank when I collect all the bets I've placed on McCain. I don't really like him as much anymore (I supported him in the 2000 primary), but he'll still probably win.

If everyone you have spoken to believes Obama will win, doesn't that mean it is more likely Obama will win?

*snip*

Every politician plays identity politics - GwB didn't?

Barack Obama will most likely win not on policy per se but because he will simply generate more enthusiasm than John McCain.

There are 3 things that I see making or breaking either campaign.

1. Can Barack Obama maintain the level of enthusiasm from here to November enough - already there's a certain 'he's same-old' feeling coming across - personally I think he can, I think it's more that people are tired of the election process - if I was him, I'd take July off and go on holiday.

2. Will John McCain say something that truly turns off either side of his base, or both - he has real potential in this regard

3. Taxes, taxes, taxes - the thing I hear most often from Americans I speak to is: well, Barack Obama's all well and good but them's some taxes he's looking to place on us - I don't know if it's necessarily true but it's certainly a feeling.

These might all seem lightweight but, time and time again, people vote on either tradition or vary on gut perception for the most part.

Barack Obama's main issue is that he needs to win the General now, not just his own voter base of Democrats, for whom his policies are fine. The tide, I feel, is more one of waiting for him to slip up and the measure for that slip is dropping all the time.

I think it will be closer than people expect but I still think Barack Obama will take it, barring unforeseen circumstances.

If everyone you have spoken to believes Obama will win, doesn't that mean it is more likely Obama will win?

Dependso on his sample size and sampling methodology, really.

Dependso on his sample size and sampling methodology, really.

Which, given the anecdotal aspect of it is not likely to be all that fantastic.

But it's still a pretty good indicator.

Now, while I disagree with Melkor on a number of issues, he does have at least some what of a point, in that there IS a factor of Obama possibly being all talk no show. It's not as likely as some are playing it up to be, but it's likely enough for me to take notice.

Obama and McCain both suck. Both are bloodthirsty warmongers, although Obama is slightly less so. For all the harping about Obama being "antiwar," he's been extremely belligerent when it comes to Iran. He said he would not rule out military action. He would he would do everything in his power to prevent them from obtaining nuclear weapons. He has Tel Aviv's cock thrust as deeply down his throat as McCain does.

Here's a sample quote from the purported peace candidate (emphasis mine):

I have been proud to be a part of a strong bipartisan consensus that has stood by Israel in the face of all threats. That is a commitment – that is a commitment that both John McCain and I share because support for Israel in this country goes beyond Party....

I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon – everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon – everything.

Source (http://www.aipac.org/Publications/SpeechesByPolicymakers/PC_08_Obama.pdf)

Even though Iran poses no threat to the U.S., these two bastards are hell-bent on attacking them, even though our own intelligence agencies say Iran gave up its nuclear weapons program years ago.


In short, if you want peace, do not vote for either McCain or Obama.

Now, while I disagree with Melkor on a number of issues, he does have at least some what of a point, in that there IS a factor of Obama possibly being all talk no show. It's not as likely as some are playing it up to be, but it's likely enough for me to take notice.

That's a possibility with all politicians, though.

The only reason it's being played as much of a factor with Obama is the fact that some have gotten the sense that he isn't.

Obama and McCain both suck. Both are bloodthirsty warmongers, although Obama is slightly less so. For all the harping about Obama being "antiwar," he's been extremely belligerent when it comes to Iran. He said he would not rule out military action. He would he would do everything in his power to prevent them from obtaining nuclear weapons. He has Tel Aviv's cock thrust as deeply down his throat as McCain does.

There's a difference between warmongering and refusing to completely rule out military action. You'd be hard pressed to find a candidate who would do the latter, because it is too limiting and there can always be unforeseen circumstances that would change your mind on such an absolute.

The difference here is that Obama isn't saber rattling and looking to jump to military action. Instead, he is advocating opening up actual diplomatic relations with Iran and pursuing the goal that way - leaving military action as a true last resort.

There's a difference between warmongering and refusing to completely rule out military action. You'd be hard pressed to find a candidate who would do the latter, because it is too limiting and there can always be unforeseen circumstances that would change your mind on such an absolute.

The difference here is that Obama isn't saber rattling and looking to jump to military action. Instead, he is advocating opening up actual diplomatic relations with Iran and pursuing the goal that way - leaving military action as a true last resort.

Fair enough, but why is this even an issue? Iran has never threatened us.

Fair enough, but why is this even an issue? Iran has never threatened us.

Not directly, no. (at least not that I know of) But they have threatened Israel, with whom we have an alliance. Thus, if they start a war with Israel, we'll be involved. And, in truth, nuclear proliferation to any more countries can be seen as a bad thing. It's bad enough that anyone has them.

That said, I think we've had the wrong attitude towards Iran for quite some time now, for a number of reasons. We've largely dismissed them as evil and refused diplomatic relations for over 20 years and before that, we were mucking around trying to set them up as another lackey. I don't think that's ever going to accomplish much good.

And the younger generation of Iranians is tending towards less restrictive viewpoints. If we reach out to Iran now, we'll already have those diplomatic ties when the next generation takes over.

Fair enough, but why is this even an issue? Iran has never threatened us.

its an issue because george bush has made it an issue and no candidate for president can ignore it and expect to get elected.

Fair enough, but why is this even an issue? Iran has never threatened us.

Because Iran is a member of the Axis of Oil.

If everyone you have spoken to believes Obama will win, doesn't that mean it is more likely Obama will win?

Uh, no. It really doesn't, since I don't regularly converse with the other hundred or so million people that might vote in November. Everyone I talked to in 2004 said Kerry was a shoo-in. Nearly everyone I talked to in 2000 thought Bush didn't stand a chance.

Every politician plays identity politics - GwB didn't?
No, they don't, and Bush definitely did not play identity politics in either campiagn. How could he? "Vote for me because I'm a rich white man who didn't earn his own living and went to Yale as a part of Skull & Bones?" I'm sure that'd have won him a lot of votes.

Now, Barack isn't saying these things outright, but the implication is there and it's a big part of the reason why he will probably win just about every black vote in the country. Identity politics, for better or for worse, serves to alienate people who do not share that identity; granted, Obama has some good rhetoric, but that alone won't win him the race and any white man on the proverbial fence is likely to lean towards McCain because it's an easy, 'safe' choice and the public usually really likes safe choices. That said, I think it was pretty stupid for the GOP to run on the war and if they do manage to lose, that will be the reason for it.

You're correct that Obama's big obstacle now is winning the general public, but that you placed Taxes at #3 on your list is a bit disingenuous, unless you listed them in no particular order: Tax policy will make or break any campaign for either side, intent be damned. People are a lot more concerned about their pocketbooks (especially with gas at $4 a gallon) than just about anything else when it comes to politics--hell, when it comes to life in general.

You mention a couple of times that Obama has this tremendous amount of (media generated) enthusiasm, but that artificial enthusiasm is purely as a result of his identity and has nothing to do with policy; which should be more important to us at this point than anything else, considering the changes that need to be made to it. Obama speaks broadly of "change" but the only thing that would "change" with his presidency in the long run is the skin color of the man at the big desk in the Oval Office, and from where I sit that isn't a reason to vote for anybody. Obama is more or less your garden variety Democrat--all this nonsense about "change" is bullshit when the real word they should be using is "tinkering." Both the Republicans and the Democrats are treating this country's problems as accounting errors or procedural errors rather than a fundamental flaw in executive philosophy. Obama, for all his rhetoric, is no exception: nor was anyone else in the field this year except possibly Paul.

*dons the haz-mat suit and grabs a baseball bat*

I know this forum treats Paul like the antichrist (I guess the idea of following the Constitution is a little too "out there" for you guys) but it's true. No one is gonna change shit--it's all the same status-quo worshipping dreck we've seen for years now. Because he's black and the media loves him, Obama will probably continue to generate "enthusiasm" and he'll have plenty of ammunition to work with concerning the Iraq war and how ridiculous it was, but Obama isn't any less interventionist than the next politician--he might get us out of Iraq in a few years, but we'd turn around and slap boots on the ground in Darfur or god knows where within months or even weeks. If you're an interventionist and think that it's okay for us to have 700+ military bases abroad, then by all means vote for Obama or McCain: but if you're like me and think that's completely fuckin' ridiculous now that the cold war's been over for nearly 20 years, put your stock in a candidate who realizes it. America needs to stop acting like an Empire and needs to return to its roots as a Republic. We functioned better as the latter anyway.

No, they don't, and Bush definitely did not play identity politics in either campiagn. How could he? "Vote for me because I'm a rich white man who didn't earn his own living and went to Yale as a part of Skull & Bones?" I'm sure that'd have won him a lot of votes.

Homely, folksy man of America? He sure did play white politics, so well that people were fooled into thinking he was 'our man on a white horse from Texas' rather than Connecticut born, Skull & Bones boy as you say. He played your regular man with a lawnmower and played it extremely well. Inclusive identity politics works a charm.

(snip - McCain safe, taxes)

You mention a couple of times that Obama has this tremendous amount of (media generated) enthusiasm, but that artificial enthusiasm is purely as a result of his identity and has nothing to do with policy; which should be more important to us at this point than anything else, considering the changes that need to be made to it.

The enthusiasm point is merely about the young vote, if he can get enough under 30 years olds to vote, votes that would have pushed Kerry over the edge if they'd bothered to turn up, then he can win - can he maintain that enthusiasm - I suspect there's enough anger over the last 8 years that he can - little to do with policy.

EDIT: Additionally, I think the Internet will play a pivotal (possibly historic) part in galvanising young people to be aware of the debate and generate enthusiasm to vote - I think it's coming of age in terms of politics, as in it's affecting the mainstream rather than the fringe.

(snip - garden variety)

*dons the haz-mat suit and grabs a baseball bat*

I know this forum treats Paul like the antichrist (I guess the idea of following the Constitution is a little too "out there" for you guys)

Personally, I think treating the Constitution as though it's the word of God itself is the main problem with the US, where policy becomes about what a piece of paper written 200+ years ago is more important than what's actually required in the present day, when politicians are too cowardly to rule on abortion and leave it to unelected judges to try and wrangle some relevance out of this piece of paper.

(snip - Iraq/republic)

As much as I think a President should be, it's having great organisation and a clear, relevant to current time, agenda. I think GwB had the organisational skills of a muppet and I don't hold John McCain much higher. I think, at least, that Barack Obama has shown he can inspire and organise.

It's not always about what's desired but what's achievable and, I'm afraid, that rules out Ron Paul for me, unachievable, even beyond the idea that I don't really believe in his hands off approach. Civil rights would not have occurred if left up to the states.

I snip not out of disrespect but more out of either saving space or not looking to address the point.

You mention a couple of times that Obama has this tremendous amount of (media generated) enthusiasm, but that artificial enthusiasm is purely as a result of his identity and has nothing to do with policy;

If you don't share in that enthusiasm, what makes you think you know what causes it?

The media started paying attention to Obama because he was generating such enthusiasm. Are some people caught up in the cult of personality? I'm sure they are - but I don't think it's because of his ethnicity so much as the attitude he puts out there.

But to suggest that nobody can be enthusiastic about his policy - simply because you are not - doesn't make much sense.

I know this forum treats Paul like the antichrist (I guess the idea of following the Constitution is a little too "out there" for you guys) but it's true.

Actually, if he would follow the Constitution, instead of declaring everything that is an individual right in the realm of state authority, I'd have little problem with him. But it irks the hell out of me when someone pretends to be defending individual liberty by handing my state government the "right" to take my liberty away.

I'd still think some of his ideas were a little crackpot, but I also wouldn't expect him to get most of the extreme ones through Congress. It's the idea of him putting judges on the bench who would remove individual liberty to hand it over to the state that I have a problem with.

No one is gonna change shit--it's all the same status-quo worshipping dreck we've seen for years now. Because he's black and the media loves him, Obama will probably continue to generate "enthusiasm" and he'll have plenty of ammunition to work with concerning the Iraq war and how ridiculous it was, but Obama isn't any less interventionist than the next politician--he might get us out of Iraq in a few years, but we'd turn around and slap boots on the ground in Darfur or god knows where within months or even weeks.

If he recognizes some of the conflicts we've gotten into were unnecessary, he's quite obviously less interventionist than some politicians.

Is he completely non-interventionist? No. And you're right that if that is what you're looking for, you'll have a problem with Obama. But to pretend that there is no difference simply because he doesn't go as far as you would like is a bit silly.

If you don't share in that enthusiasm, what makes you think you know what causes it?
Because Obama is no different policy-wise than most other Democrats, and the long primary season with Clinton arose not out of a difference in policy, but because of character/background issues and (here we go with that word again) identity. People like to think that Obama is some kind of trailblazer politician when he really isn't--hell, Alan Keyes had 2 shots at the Republican nomination and he didn't get 1/10th of the coverage Obama gets. I know what causes it because I have a reasoning mind and I've been paying attention. I do not need to be a member of an organization or a devotee of a particular moral code to observe how it functions and what makes it stronger; I do not have to know how to make a blueberry pie to know a shitty one when I taste it.

The media started paying attention to Obama because he was generating such enthusiasm. Are some people caught up in the cult of personality? I'm sure they are - but I don't think it's because of his ethnicity so much as the attitude he puts out there.
No offense, but that's a load of malarkey: even if he had been "generating enthusiasm" on his own (which I can pretty much prove he didn't when I get home)*, it was identity > policy. The media picked up on Obama because he was a black politician with a real shot and a Democrat which makes a difference.

Don't believe me?

Remember the 2006 Tennessee Senate race between Corker and Ford? Ford's campaign (and the media) got all indignant about an ad his opponent aired alluding to Ford's alleged attendance of a party at the Playboy mansion--there was some near-nude white girl at the end blowing kisses saying something like "See you later, Harold!" or whatever--the media had a field day with it: the Republicans were "playing to racism" and the pseudo-sexual link between the scantily clad white woman and the black nominee was "hateful" and all that fun shit.

Well what about Obama girl? It's the same shit--only it's for the Democratic candidate--so there's no media shitstorm about how "wrong" it is to make sexual hints about white women and black men. The media, like most other bodies in society, will take or leave $CAUSES as they gain or lose relevance to their goals at hand.

But to suggest that nobody can be enthusiastic about his policy - simply because you are not - doesn't make much sense.
Don't be ridiculous--that's not what I said and if you have a neuron and an axon to rub together for warmth, you know it. The man is hardly any different from any other Democrat we've ever seen, so why all the hubub? The reasons should be pretty obvious: when he talks about "change" people believe it, largely because he is a) not Bush and b) not white. If the media had ignored him like they ignored Paul, you would see correspondingly less "enthusiasm."

Actually, if he would follow the Constitution, instead of declaring everything that is an individual right in the realm of state authority, I'd have little problem with him. But it irks the hell out of me when someone pretends to be defending individual liberty by handing my state government the "right" to take my liberty away.
The middle part of your first sentence makes absolutely no sense to me, you might want to dumb it down a shade because I haven't the foggiest idea what it means. Still, I'm curious about the end. Are you one of those people who thinks that States' Rights will lead to secession and barbed wire walls around states with lawless regions like the Old West? Because I think there is something of a broad line between that and "DRROONNNEEE THIS IS RIGHT MAKE LAW NOW DRROOONNNEEE" coming from Washington.

I'd still think some of his ideas were a little crackpot, but I also wouldn't expect him to get most of the extreme ones through Congress. It's the idea of him putting judges on the bench who would remove individual liberty to hand it over to the state that I have a problem with.
Again, I'm wondering where in his platform you're picking this stuff up. Still, I'd rather be harassed by a state that I could move out of than a country I can't: in a world where nothing is going to come out perfect, this strikes me as nitpicking. I don't really mean for this to turn into the new "Lets All Insult Paul and His Supporters Thread of the Week"--I disagree with him on a few things but my point is that he's the only one really looking at the bigger picture here, the only one treating this country's problems as the fundamental errors they are, rather than simply a series of bookkeeping errors or shoddy diplomacy. When Obama talks, I don't pick up on that from him. He talks like many Democrats have in the past, but because he's black he's "different" somehow.

Just remember this: last time we elected a Democratic President (Clinton) to preside over a Democratic Congress, the Dems lost Congress in 2 years. Before that, it hadn't happened since Carter, and then we ended up with Reagan in a few years. Assuming Barack will make similar policy decisions, you can expect a similar fate for the Democrats in the long run.

If he recognizes some of the conflicts we've gotten into were unnecessary, he's quite obviously less interventionist than some politicians.
That might make a difference to you, but it doesn't do much for me. That a President would start needless wars here and not there does not earn him any merit; the only foreign policy that I can reasonably endorse is one where we act within our established limits. I'm one of those crazy people who doesn't think it's our prerogative to police the world, and if that means I have to admit I'll not throw money at our government to stop $GENOCIDE simply for the sake of stopping it, then so be it.

Is he completely non-interventionist? No. And you're right that if that is what you're looking for, you'll have a problem with Obama. But to pretend that there is no difference simply because he doesn't go as far as you would like is a bit silly.
Begging your pardon, I didn't mean to imply that there was "no difference" although I can see how linking them in that context would be seen as lumping them together. You could probably do worse than McCain v Obama for our race this year, and either one is an improvement over what we have now, by my estimation.

Oh, and it's not about "going as far as (I) would like," it's about obeying our own goddamn rules! :p If you want a war and think there's a good reason for it, have Congress declare the damn thing, get in it, and win it. Not that I have infinite faith in Congress as a decision-making body, but that's another topic.

* Actually, fuck it, I can do it now (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iW5kOB1pmg), so long as you can choke back the propaganda (and I"m sorry it's propaganda but pretty much everything these days is) it makes some interesting observations. I don't know who this guy is or where he comes from, but the data he points to seems reasonable to me. Stick with it--the opening part is kinda not that relevant IMO--I'm not sure how important YouTube video counts are in all of this.

Because Obama is no different policy-wise than most other Democrats, and the long primary season with Clinton arose not out of a difference in policy, but because of character/background issues and (here we go with that word again) identity.

Of course Obama's policy views are similar to most Democrats. Why else would he be a member of the party?. But they aren't identical to the general party line., And his approach is often different. He seems more amenable to compromise and actually talking things through, instead of making it an us vs. them fight.

People like to try and paint him as super-liberal, but a little reading reveals that he's actually got a much more conservative bent than many Democrats. On issues like welfare, where many Democrats reflexively oppose any changes that might seem like budget cuts, Obama isn't afraid to acknowledge the flaws in the system. For someone who thinks the system shouldn't exist at all, this will seem like a minor difference. But for someone who thinks it should exist in a different way, this sort of thing can be big deal.

There was a lot of discussion of identity in the media, but most people seem to have seen that as a bunch of useless distraction from the real issues.

People like to think that Obama is some kind of trailblazer politician when he really isn't--hell, Alan Keyes had 2 shots at the Republican nomination and he didn't get 1/10th of the coverage Obama gets. I know what causes it because I have a reasoning mind and I've been paying attention. I do not need to be a member of an organization or a devotee of a particular moral code to observe how it functions and what makes it stronger; I do not have to know how to make a blueberry pie to know a shitty one when I taste it.

You do have to be someone else to know what their motives are, however. You have absolutely no way of knowing why, say, my husband is excited about Obama's candidacy without asking him (hint: it has nothing whatsoever to do with the color of his skin).

Your determination of what has gotten people excited is like you trying to say that blueberry pie tastes like shit to someone else. You don't have their taste buds, so you don't know what it tastes like to them. The blueberry pie that tastes like shit to you may very well taste great to them.

No offense, but that's a load of malarkey: even if he had been "generating enthusiasm" on his own (which I can pretty much prove he didn't when I get home)*, it was identity > policy. The media picked up on Obama because he was a black politician with a real shot and a Democrat which makes a difference.

Wait, the media picked up on Obama because he had a "real shot"? You mean because people were excited about him without media intervention?

And, like I said, while the media has been making a huge deal over Obama's ethnicity, most people seem to see it as a side issue at best. In fact, there was quite a bit of outrage over the media portraying the Democratic primary as a choice between a black man and a white woman, as if people should vote based on those traits.

Remember the 2006 Tennessee Senate race between Corker and Ford? Ford's campaign (and the media) got all indignant about an ad his opponent aired alluding to Ford's alleged attendance of a party at the Playboy mansion--there was some near-nude white girl at the end blowing kisses saying something like "See you later, Harold!" or whatever--the media had a field day with it: the Republicans were "playing to racism" and the pseudo-sexual link between the scantily clad white woman and the black nominee was "hateful" and all that fun shit.

Well what about Obama girl? It's the same shit--only it's for the Democratic candidate--so there's no media shitstorm about how "wrong" it is to make sexual hints about white women and black men. The media, like most other bodies in society, will take or leave $CAUSES as they gain or lose relevance to their goals at hand.

In other words, it isn't the "same shit." People who are racist generally have a huge problem with black men dating white women. So using an ad like the one described above could be (not necessarily, but I don't have enough faith in the Republican party to assume the best) meant to pander to those people. Even if it wasn't meant to be a racial issue, it was meant to insinuate sexual improprieties on his part. It was an attack.

On the other hand, a white woman who chooses to say she has a crush on a black man in support of him is rather different. It certainly isn't meant to pander to racists, unless it's supposed to be some sort of reverse psychology. And it was clearly geared towards the younger generation, where race-baiting is generally less successful. Since the reporting was about suspected race-baiting, and you really can't make that argument here, there should be no expectation for equivalent media coverage. It's a bit hard to argue that "I like this guy" is hateful (even for the media), don't you think?

Don't be ridiculous--that's not what I said and if you have a neuron and an axon to rub together for warmth, you know it. The man is hardly any different from any other Democrat we've ever seen, so why all the hubub?

Because he is different in some ways. If you don't think those differences are important, that's your business, but it doesn't mean they don't exist.

I have an equal problem with someone who would give the federal government more authority over my life as with someone who would give the state government such authority. But the fact that I see no value in the different stances there doesn't mean that they are actually no different.

The reasons should be pretty obvious: when he talks about "change" people believe it, largely because he is a) not Bush and b) not white. If the media had ignored him like they ignored Paul, you would see correspondingly less "enthusiasm."

Paul wasn't ignored. If anything, he got more media coverage than any other long-shot candidate.

The media generally focuses on people who poll well. Paul polled well on the internet - and that was reported. But he was generally never above 5% or so in less focused polls. IIRC, his overall polling numbers were similar to Gravel's, but he got much more media coverage than Gravel.

The middle part of your first sentence makes absolutely no sense to me, you might want to dumb it down a shade because I haven't the foggiest idea what it means. Still, I'm curious about the end. Are you one of those people who thinks that States' Rights will lead to secession and barbed wire walls around states with lawless regions like the Old West? Because I think there is something of a broad line between that and "DRROONNNEEE THIS IS RIGHT MAKE LAW NOW DRROOONNNEEE" coming from Washington.

No, I am someone who values individual rights over States' "rights". As a general rule, someone who argues States' "rights" is complaining, not about an issue of state vs. federal authority, but about one in which they think the states should have more authority over individuals than they currently do (or should keep such authority where they shouldn't have it).

Again, I'm wondering where in his platform you're picking this stuff up.

It isn't in his platform. His talk, of course, is all about individual liberty.

His action, on the other hand, makes it clear that he isn't. Look up the "We the People Act", for instance. This is a bill he has constantly tried to push through Congress. The basic gyst of it is that he wants to give states unchecked power to infringe upon freedom of religion, the right to privacy, and equal protection by removing all jurisdiction over state policy on these matters from the federal courts.

Still, I'd rather be harassed by a state that I could move out of than a country I can't: in a world where nothing is going to come out perfect, this strikes me as nitpicking.

I see little difference between the two. A government infringing upon individual liberty is a government infringing upon individual liberty. I don't really care if it's the people in the state capital or Washington, DC doing it. In fact, I don't care if it's the county or city government doing it. It is a problem at all levels.

If anything, I tend to find it more worrying at more local levels, for much the same reason that I would be more worried about someone standing right next to me with a pistol held to my head than I would about someone with the same weapon a mile away. It's easier to pass and enforce such laws at a more local level.

On top of that, I see a problem with the authority being there, whether they are using it or not. If history has shown us anything, it is that authority will be abused. If a state has the authority to infringe upon my rights, that is a problem unto itself, even if that particular state is not currently doing so. I would feel only marginally safer in such a state than in one that currently had such laws.

I don't really mean for this to turn into the new "Lets All Insult Paul and His Supporters Thread of the Week"--I disagree with him on a few things but my point is that he's the only one really looking at the bigger picture here, the only one treating this country's problems as the fundamental errors they are, rather than simply a series of bookkeeping errors or shoddy diplomacy. When Obama talks, I don't pick up on that from him. He talks like many Democrats have in the past, but because he's black he's "different" somehow.

I disagree. It seems to me that Paul's policies are reactionary. Like people who want to return to the supposedly idyllic 50's, he's imagining an idyllic time when our government system ran very well and wants to "return" to it.

In truth, I think there have always been problems with the system. Some have been solved. Some have gotten worse or become problems more recently. But we've never had some sort of perfect system of government that wasn't stepping out of line in some way or another.

Just remember this: last time we elected a Democratic President (Clinton) to preside over a Democratic Congress, the Dems lost Congress in 2 years. Before that, it hadn't happened since Carter, and then we ended up with Reagan in a few years. Assuming Barack will make similar policy decisions, you can expect a similar fate for the Democrats in the long run.

*shrug*

I don't really care much about party affiliation. I vote for the candidate, with the letter next to their name being largely an afterthought unless I'm deciding which primary to vote in.

I don't see an inherent problem with the executive and legislative branches being in control of different parties (other than the level of control parties hold in general, but that's a different issue entirely). If anything, I think that can be a good situation.

That might make a difference to you, but it doesn't do much for me.

Indeed. But the fact that it doesn't matter to you doesn't make it nonexistent.

That a President would start needless wars here and not there does not earn him any merit; the only foreign policy that I can reasonably endorse is one where we act within our established limits.

"Needless" is often a matter of opinion. Then the question boils down to whether or not you see the war in question as necessary, and there will be disputes on that count in any conflict.

One thing I do like about Obama on this count is his realization that our meddling in other countries has quite often been the major reason for the regimes we have a problem with. If we didn't directly put them in power, our foreign policy decisions often set up the conditions under which they came to power. (IIRC, this is something Paul has said as well).

Begging your pardon, I didn't mean to imply that there was "no difference" although I can see how linking them in that context would be seen as lumping them together. You could probably do worse than McCain v Obama for our race this year, and either one is an improvement over what we have now, by my estimation.

I'm iffy on whether or not McCain is an improvement, largely because I'm not sure which McCain is the one we'd actually have if he got elected - the neo-con who largely kisses Bush's ass, or the "maverick" who is willing to buck the party faithful on some issues. But he'd probably at least be a little bit of an improvement, so I'll agree with you here.

Oh, and it's not about "going as far as (I) would like," it's about obeying our own goddamn rules! :p If you want a war and think there's a good reason for it, have Congress declare the damn thing, get in it, and win it. Not that I have infinite faith in Congress as a decision-making body, but that's another topic.

I agree. But this is a matter of procedure, rather than one of whether or not we get into those conflicts at all. You could have a president who thinks we should fight in every single conflict on the planet but who would adhere to the rule that Congress must declare it and try and convince them to do so. That wouldn't be someone I'd want in office.

Granted, I also don't want someone like Bush, who thinks "ZOMG NATIONAL SECURITY!" is a good reason for the legislature to start handing over such power the executive.

* Actually, fuck it, I can do it now (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iW5kOB1pmg), so long as you can choke back the propaganda (and I"m sorry it's propaganda but pretty much everything these days is) it makes some interesting observations. I don't know who this guy is or where he comes from, but the data he points to seems reasonable to me. Stick with it--the opening part is kinda not that relevant IMO--I'm not sure how important YouTube video counts are in all of this.

There are a couple of problems with the analysis:

1) The assumption that internet interest equates to overall interest. While you would expect searches for things that people overall are interested in to correlate to the time points in which they are more relevant (ie. sports), you can't turn that around and assume that interests of the people who happen to use the internet a great deal equate to the interests of the population as a whole.

2) The assumption that anyone searching for or making a video about a candidate supports that candidate. I've done plenty of searches related to Ron Paul, but I am hardly a supporter. And I've seen plenty of videos about candidates that are actually negative. In the case of Ron Paul (and Hillary Clinton, for that matter), it would seem that extreme negative reaction to the candidate has been similar in prevalence to extreme positive reaction. Either set would likely involved in such searches.

3) The assumption that # of searches or videos is directly proportional to # of people interested. I don't know about you, but there are things I've searched for many times, often repeating the exact same search to find an webpage I had seen before.


Meanwhile, nothing about this demonstrates that enthusiasm for Obama was media-generated. If anything, it demonstrates that enthusiasm and media coverage are not necessarily linked. The person in the video assumes that the beginning of the media's "lovefest" was the cause of the jump in internet activity - he has not demonstrated. And given that the jump was around the beginning of 2008, while there was a great deal of enthusiasm and Obama was pulling in huge numbers of supporters at rallies throughout 2007, I don't think it's very relevant anyways.

Obama: "ZOMG NATIONAL SECURITY!"

**votes for the FISA bill, giving telecoms immunity from lawsuits**

**throws his core supporters under the bus**

**pisses off a major group of core supporters**

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/7/9/112658/1700

Actually, fuck it, I can do it now (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iW5kOB1pmg), so long as you can choke back the propaganda (and I"m sorry it's propaganda but pretty much everything these days is) it makes some interesting observations. I don't know who this guy is or where he comes from, but the data he points to seems reasonable to me. Stick with it--the opening part is kinda not that relevant IMO--I'm not sure how important YouTube video counts are in all of this.

Interesting video but I'm not sure it falls into a cause and effect trap.

Here, Ron Paul had his Internet strategy in place by mid-2007 at least, pouring out information and gathering support.

http://www.bivingsreport.com/2007/ron-paul-and-distributed-online-campaigning/

Hillary Clinton hardly had an Internet strategy at all throughout the entire campaign, this entire article (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/08/clinton200808?currentPage=1) is an interesting read in itself but...

Why hadn’t they been using the Internet all along as a bulging cash register the way the Obama forces were doing? Hillary’s team had held a retreat in the fall of ’07 to huddle with propeller heads from Google and Yahoo, hoping to update their Internet savvy, but basically gave up on trying. “We tried direct mail but we couldn’t come close to him,” admits one member of Clinton’s brain trust. “Obama tapped a different sensibility. They had a more, uh, viral [i.e., spreads by itself] campaign.” The very word “viral” in his mouth sounded foreign.

In terms of postings, take a look at the difference in views on those videos, at most Ron Paul gets about 1.5 million, Barack Obama gets more than 10 million - though this might be a cause and effect issue in itself, point is that looking at one aspect of Youtube and/or Google doesn't mean too much.

Google trends is a little harder to overcome. I'd say, though this is open for debate, that mainstream interest in the primaries didn't really start until early December '07 and therefore all interest rose, the in-place Ron Paul support were the most vocal online - something I think was, to some extent, cause of the backlash, they were annoying - and so it creates a skewed example.

Fair enough, the mainstream media is much to blame for concentrating on those most likely to be winners, contributing to the two-party system, but, again, that's a question of cause and effect.

**throws his core supporters under the bus**

For the love of Jeff, stop (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/30/AR2008043003607.html) the madness! (http://www.newsweek.com/id/124292)

At this point it's even a hack way of saying, "I'm a hack!"

Boxer? Really? Ah well, was looking for more anime-ish/fighting-game-ish (King of Fighters, Street Fighter, etc) fighters, but I guess that will do. :pNope. Thumb-wrestler, really. :p

I know this forum treats Paul like the antichrist

If we dislike him it's a combination of not being libertarian, finding various inconsistencies in arguments, and the fact that a number of libertarians on the internet have made him out to be the libertarian Messiah who has come to lead us to the Promise Land.*

*Yes, I know I mixed religious metaphors here.

(I guess the idea of following the Constitution is a little too "out there" for you guys) but it's true.

Ron Paul picks and chooses what he follows in the Constitution. He tried to amend and expressed interest in various amendments of it. He also doesn't seem to realize the fact that the 14th amendment puts Constitutional restraints on the states as well.

Still, I'd rather be harassed by a state that I could move out of than a country I can't: in a world where nothing is going to come out perfect, this strikes me as nitpicking.

Due to the fact that you can move out of the country, the US does not ban emmigration after all I find your comment odd. The world is not perfect, There are many barriers to moving(including finances, leaving behind friends and family, language barriers, cultural difference, the fact that all or next to all countries limit immigration, ect), but but saying you can't strikes me as nitpicking.

Okay, I'm on my way back home today so bear with me: I'm driving from Knoxville TN back to Columbus OH, and then I'm turning around at 10am tomorrow morning to go to DC with my dad and brother--I can't say as I'll have a terrific amount of opportunities to write the point-by-point monstrosities of a post that I usually do.

But Dem, dammit, you're missing the point. I'm not trying to talk anyone out of voting for Obama--if you think that he's the guy for the job then vote for him: if you're not going to listen to whackjobs like me you don't even need to make a pretense of it--it's obvious you're not. All I'm saying is that we've seen "different" Democratic politicians in the past who didn't glue themselves to the party line (very few people do these days--it's too polarizing) and that hasn't made much of a difference lately. Surprise, surprise, Obama comes along and suddenly we're rattling off adjectives that describe many Democratic politicians and pretending that they and not race make all the difference in Obama's campaign. Here's a brief exercise to illustrate my point: Imagine what would happen to this year's race if John McCain picked up Colin Powell or Alan Keyes as a running mate.

You appear to be challenging my assessments by saying that it was the media who reacted to Obama's odds rather than the other way around. People in this country do not, by and large, spend huge amounts of time familiarizing themselves with junior Senators from other states--they rely on news media to present the information to them. The media made Barack Obama a household name--two years ago you wouldn't know who he was. I don't know whether you're ignoring it on purpose or not but the media can and very often does either create or direct political movements, and their support can often make or break a candidacy.

Moving right along, I was dismayed that you missed the obvious double standard in the Ford/Obama girl comparison: either you're less than familiar with the media's coverage of the "scandal" or you're ignoring it on purpose--no one cared at the time that it was an "attack," any sane person would expect that in a campaign--what they protested was specifically the sexual link between a black man and a white woman. These complaints did not arise from 'white trash' rednecks, they came from the "intellectual" media because it was seen as 'playing on racist fears,' a complaint you echoed almost verbatim. If it's "wrong" or "unethical" for that link to be made or even alluded to, it shouldn't matter who is doing it--but surprise, surprise: it damn well does.

From there you basically go on an anti Ron Paul tirade like the couple of posters after you (I'm shocked!) and discredit the very portion of the video I had mentioned as being dubious. I could maybe care less about the number of youtube video postings--what that video was meant to point out was the blatantly preferential media coverage and how it corresponded to interest via internet searches. I didn't pretend for either to be the be-all-end-all of establishing a candidate's popularity: after all, web searches can be executed by non voters, internationals, kids, etc--the point is that Paul's interest was self generated and say what you want about the numbers or the trends; he took better advantage of the web than any of the other candidates did.

As usual, the very mention of Paul has changed the subject of this thread completely, and just about everyone who has posted since I did has devoted the lion's share of their effort bashing him, which is missing the forest for the trees. I mention Paul only in the context of relevant media coverage, of which he received almost zero--what I'm really talking about here is the "Obama-mania" generated by equal parts media enthusiasm and sagging Presidential opinion ratings.

I'm not saying "No one is enthusiastic" about his campaign (a predictable and flimsy straw man if ever I saw one); I'm simply saying that if the man woke up white tomorrow he'd be the same as any other democratic politician we've elected in the last 25 or so years; and the media as well as the rest of us might not even look at him twice. People will hammer their palms to their ears and say "LALALALA RACE DOESN'T MATTER TO MEEEE" but on a lot of levels, it still does for many of us--both in a "positive" and "negative" way. America isn't so much racist anymore as it is desperate to prove how not-racist it is, and in so doing we manage to ignore or overlook a lot of important things.

On the one hand that's not terribly bad in this case--you could probably do a lot worse than Obama as far as Democratic nominees goes--and he does have some other qualities that tend to endear candidates to the media: he's from a somewhat rough area of the country but has an educated background and speaks clearly and lucidly: they eat that shit up. I won't say it's all about race alone, but it's definitely in the mix and it seems like some of us have our heads in the sand about it.

For the love of Jeff, stop (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/30/AR2008043003607.html) the madness! (http://www.newsweek.com/id/124292)

At this point it's even a hack way of saying, "I'm a hack!"

Do you have a problem with the truth? That Obama is saying he's the agent of change, and then he votes FOR everything that Bush is wanting in the way of suspending your civil liberties?

Not to mention a lot of other Democrats who rode into the House and Senate on the promise of "CHANGE!" and also voted for the FISA bill, complete with immunity for telecoms?

What part of THAT is a "hack"? Are you in complete denial? Is that it?

As usual, the very mention of Paul has changed the subject of this thread completely, and just about everyone who has posted since I did has devoted the lion's share of their effort bashing him, which is missing the forest for the trees.

People on an internet forum changed the topic in a thread. I for one am shocked. Shocked I tells ya.

Do you have a problem with the truth? That Obama is saying he's the agent of change, and then he votes FOR everything that Bush is wanting in the way of suspending your civil liberties?

Not to mention a lot of other Democrats who rode into the House and Senate on the promise of "CHANGE!" and also voted for the FISA bill, complete with immunity for telecoms?

What part of THAT is a "hack"? Are you in complete denial? Is that it?

Learn to follow links.

Learn to follow links.

Change you can believe in! NOT!

On the one hand that's not terribly bad in this case--you could probably do a lot worse than Obama as far as Democratic nominees goes--and he does have some other qualities that tend to endear candidates to the media: he's from a somewhat rough area of the country but has an educated background and speaks clearly and lucidly: they eat that shit up. I won't say it's all about race alone, but it's definitely in the mix and it seems like some of us have our heads in the sand about it.

If race or gender where the all fire motor behind the Democrats, then Carol Mosley Braun would have been their nominee four years ago, she's a two-fer!

And the Republicans already tried to trump 'identity' politics with Alan Keyes and Obama trounced him.

It's not that we're ignoring race--it's that we're disputing where to put it in the scale.

Change you can believe in! NOT!
So, you don't know how it works? You have this thing attached to your computer, kind of looks like a little plastic mouse. It's got buttons on it. When you move it, there's this little arrow on your screen that moves-you move that little arrow over to underlined words in the post and that arrow turns into a hand. When that happens, you click the button on the 'mouse' on the left and it 'links' or opens another window (or tab, presuming you're at least a partially evolved internet user, but clearly we can make no assumptions). In this new window or tab will be words, words that explain context so you don't look like a total moron by responding to the wrong argument.

You wouldn't want to look like a total moron, now, would you?

EDIT: And seriously, "affirmative statement, NOT!"? Really? Really?

So, you don't know how it works? You have this thing attached to your computer, kind of looks like a little plastic mouse. It's got buttons on it. When you move it, there's this little arrow on your screen that moves-you move that little arrow over to underlined words in the post and that arrow turns into a hand. When that happens, you click the button on the 'mouse' on the left and it 'links' or opens another window (or tab, presuming you're at least a partially evolved internet user, but clearly we can make no assumptions). In this new window or tab will be words, words that explain context so you don't look like a total moron by responding to the wrong argument.

You wouldn't want to look like a total moron, now, would you?

EDIT: And seriously, "affirmative statement, NOT!"? Really? Really?

I read your links. They have nothing to do with the TRUTH that Obama voted for Bush's FISA bill, that a lot of Democrats did, and that Obama is NOT "change you can believe in".

Posting links to crap about "under the bus" is a meaningless distraction from the TRUTH, which you seem to want to AVOID because it makes you look like you'll vote for anyone who SAYS they'll CHANGE but really will TAKE YOUR CIVIL LIBERTIES JUST LIKE BUSH.

EDIT: And seriously, "affirmative statement, NOT!"? Really? Really?

It's almost as if the poster has a strong familiarity with the "K-12 playground" school of debate.

It's almost as if the poster has a strong familiarity with the "K-12 playground" school of debate.

I'm not going to argue about "under the bus" when people are DELIBERATELY ignoring the content - that Obama is fucking you while telling you he's never going to fuck you like Bush did.

Obama just DID fuck you.

I read your links. They have nothing to do with the TRUTH that Obama voted for Bush's FISA bill, that a lot of Democrats did, and that Obama is NOT "change you can believe in".

Posting links to crap about "under the bus" is a meaningless distraction from the TRUTH, which you seem to want to AVOID because it makes you look like you'll vote for anyone who SAYS they'll CHANGE but really will TAKE YOUR CIVIL LIBERTIES JUST LIKE BUSH.

Alright, I tried. Hack away.

Obama does not have the experience that I would like to see in a President. The whole "change" thing is bogus unless people really want to revert back to the failed Democrat policies of the 60's and 70's (tax and spend) that the voters have rejected over the past 40 years. On top of that, Obama has a well established partisan and liberal voting record that is always in the high 90's. That is out of synch with the average American.

His economic policy ideas are a little out of whack. He has a bold agenda that will cost alot of money. Where is he going to get it? We know that raising the corporate tax loses business and industry to tax-friendlier countries. We know that a tax increase on the wealthy will lead to a reduction in tax revenue from that group. We know that a tax-cut for the middle-class will lead to decreased revenue. We know that if he were to withdraw from Iraq, that that would not increase revenue because it is all borrowed (and it is costly to do a pullout, adding to the borrowing). Where is he going to get the money? He is going to look to the middle-class because he has nowhere else to look. Where is the "change" in that?

Nope. Thumb-wrestler, really. :p

Must you really humiliate me so? :p

Alright, I tried to divert attention from the fact that Obama voted for the FISA bill. Obama is not the agent of change he claims to be.

Fixed.

Fixed.

Wow, 'fixed' too? Got any others, maybe a demotivational poster or something? These are all so fresh...

I read your links. They have nothing to do with the TRUTH that Obama voted for Bush's FISA bill, that a lot of Democrats did, and that Obama is NOT "change you can believe in".

So:

Obama before the FISA bill: "Ebil undercoverz m0zlem manchoorean candidat0rz!!!1!1!!ONE!1!"

Obama after the FISA bill: "One vote provez Obama's not changerz! McCain, that voted for it as well, and follows Bush nearly verbatim, is changerz!!"

And if he voted against it you'd still be going "Ebil undercoverz m0zlem manchoorean candidat0rz!!!1!1!!ONE!1!". So there's really no point in talking to you, as you clearly pick between two wrong views of Obama because you don't want him in the White House.

I'll ignore evidence when it suits me and distort it when I can't ignore it.

Fixed.

Now argue your point of view instead of acting like a twelve-year old. I came here for a decent discussion, and if I have to train you to give it to me, I will.

I'm not going to argue about "under the bus" when people are DELIBERATELY ignoring the content - that Obama is fucking you while telling you he's never going to fuck you like Bush did.

Obama just DID fuck you.

You're claiming that ONE VOTE proves that while not making the same claim about McCain, that voted for Bush nearly EVERYTIME.

I'm not going to argue about "under the bus" when people are DELIBERATELY ignoring the content - that Obama is fucking you while telling you he's never going to fuck you like Bush did.

Obama just DID fuck you.

The problem for Barack Obama is that he raised such hopes during the primaries, hopes that some people questioned as to whether they could be maintained.

Clearly they aren't.

Doesn't mean he's fucking with anyone, I doubt he's doing anything aside from coming to terms with reality, he's merely having to climb down, it's a real danger to be sure. Yet those hopes were not raised by him alone, they had investment from those who supported him and it's as much a responsibility for them to place those hopes in context as it is for him.

People can point to John McCain's changing viewpoints over the years but then I'm not sure he promised to be different, to not compromise when compromise was necessary, to 'yes we can' when it's simply not feasible in reality.

Despite all this, despite the pedestal upon which Barack Obama has been placed, a pedestal perhaps now unreachable, the fact remains that he's a far better candidate than John McCain. He's better in organisation, he's better in strategic thinking and he's better as simply something young and fresh rather than old and bewildered.

The real danger is that supporters of Barack Obama do not recognise this fundamental fact and argue on deeds rather than aims.

Low tax, high spend politics is not working for the American economy. Given infrastructure problems highlighted by Katrina among others, low spend is not a solution for now either.

Will the elite opinion makers, media owners and more recognise this? Can Barack Obama call for hope bounded by reality yet still retain crucial votes despite their support or not?

Possibly not, he needs to reach across the divide.

Yet the youth vote will be crucial and, to some extent, you're right in that people are defending beyond defense, beyond basic truths and that's a dangerous position to take, it's an inexperienced position to take, something for which youth is susceptible and, when youth feels betrayed, they can give up out of ego rather than remembering why they held that hope in the first place.

Barack Obama stands for something better than John McCain, he has clear intelligence and greater ideals. If anything, a president stands for the ideals of a nation rather than being the end all of legislation, which is still something that needs to be fought over. What does America want to represent over the next 4 years, how and by whom does it want to be represented?

John McCain?

On a side note, I'm of the opinion that you're posting with some intelligence, not for your posts per se but more for the fact that you've held indefensible positions to the point where people naturally react against anything you say - this helps when your posts have a slight basis in reality since people react against you rather than the points - I'm not sure I should grant you the smarts yet, regardless, people should be wary whether you're consciously doing this or not.

Most Dems don't like the FISA bill decision that grants immunity to the phone companies who may have broken the law by working with the Bush administration to do warrantless wiretaps.

Obama himself doesn't like it and tried to get it removed from the bill, but as he explained and I agree - it's important to get it passed so that the FISA court again has authority over further wiretaps. The Bush admin had to be stopped in their trampling of peoples rights using loopholes.

Is that what you are truly upset about DK? That the FISA court has to be involved again? I think I remember you arguing in favor of warrantless wiretaps before so I must assume that is why you are against Obamas vote for a FISA bill.

Obama maybe have voted for a bill that he wasn't fully comfortable with but he has been touted as the man who will compromise and this vote is proof of it. Please explain to me what is so bad about compromise.

So to reiterate....
FISA court involvement in all wiretaps NOW > phone company immunity for past actions

That is why Obama voted the way he did.

Snip.

Every now and then posts like these help me remember that I'm not the only good arguer here.

McCain campaign distances itself from calling Americans whiners (http://www.washtimes.com/news/2008/jul/10/mccain-camp-distances-itself-whiner-comments/)


That's right - STFU America, and quit whining about how the last 7 1/2 years of Bush's corrupt policies have put the economy in the toilet!

Every now and then posts like these help me remember that I'm not the only good arguer here.

Thanks but I am rarely serious so posts like that one are few and far between. Also, I look up to many peoples debate abilities on this board which are far better than mine. I can barely make a cohesive point, so surely you have seen stuff from those like CTOAN, Free Soviets, Gautier, Gravlen and others who regularly trounce their opponents.

Sometimes I just get sick of seeing the merry go round DK puts people on and feel the need to throw a wrench in there. I'm not so sure I succeed but I cross my fingers and hope.

I think the main point to take away from the FISA vote is that Obama is doing what he thinks is best even if it is politically damaging and makes those in his own party angry. That takes guts and character that we don't see in many politicians, and it's not the first time we've seen these types of votes from Obama.

McCain campaign distances itself from calling Americans whiners (http://www.washtimes.com/news/2008/jul/10/mccain-camp-distances-itself-whiner-comments/)


That's right - STFU America, and quit whining about how the last 7 1/2 years of Bush's corrupt policies have put the economy in the toilet!


And McCain wants to continue those policies working on the broken clock theory.

McCain campaign distances itself from calling Americans whiners (http://www.washtimes.com/news/2008/jul/10/mccain-camp-distances-itself-whiner-comments/)


That's right - STFU America, and quit whining about how the last 7 1/2 years of Bush's corrupt policies have put the economy in the toilet!

And yet precious little outcry from the media...

And McCain wants to continue those policies working on the broken clock theory.

Bush isn't a broken clock. He's a clock that got its hands broken off, the face painted over with characters from Scooby-Doo, and then got raped somehow.

Bush isn't a broken clock. He's a clock that got its hands broken off, the face painted over with characters from Scooby-Doo, and then got raped somehow.

but the clock still works? Perhaps a Timex.

but the clock still works? Perhaps a Timex.

Okay: "And then it got broken.".

:p

But Dem, dammit, you're missing the point. I'm not trying to talk anyone out of voting for Obama--if you think that he's the guy for the job then vote for him: if you're not going to listen to whackjobs like me you don't even need to make a pretense of it--it's obvious you're not. All I'm saying is that we've seen "different" Democratic politicians in the past who didn't glue themselves to the party line (very few people do these days--it's too polarizing) and that hasn't made much of a difference lately. Surprise, surprise, Obama comes along and suddenly we're rattling off adjectives that describe many Democratic politicians and pretending that they and not race make all the difference in Obama's campaign. Here's a brief exercise to illustrate my point: Imagine what would happen to this year's race if John McCain picked up Colin Powell or Alan Keyes as a running mate.

I didn't say you were trying to convince me otherwise. What I take offense to is you making assumptions about the reasons that people support Obama.

I don't support Obama because of the color of his skin. If McCain happened to be black, I still wouldn't support him. Ethnicity is essentially irrelevant here.

I think the attention Obama has gotten is, not because there's never been another Democrat similar to him, but because he was good at putting that out there and getting people to organize behind him. That likely has more to do with years of community organizing than it does with the color of his skin.

It's interesting to note that Obama actually didn't get a great deal of support from the black community as a whole until after he began winning primary contests. Much of his support before the primaries (and continuing as they went on) has been from young people - a generation in which race and gender issues tend to be viewed quite differently.

You appear to be challenging my assessments by saying that it was the media who reacted to Obama's odds rather than the other way around. People in this country do not, by and large, spend huge amounts of time familiarizing themselves with junior Senators from other states--they rely on news media to present the information to them. The media made Barack Obama a household name--two years ago you wouldn't know who he was. I don't know whether you're ignoring it on purpose or not but the media can and very often does either create or direct political movements, and their support can often make or break a candidacy.

Actually, I did know who Obama was 2 years ago. Did everyone? No, not really. Like you said, people don't really look into junior senators from other states very much. But they do look into presidential candidates - especially ones who already have enough support in 9 months before the primary to be holding rallies that attract 20,000 people early in the morning on a Saturday. (April 14, 2007) - This is also, by the way, 9 months before the media jump in Obama coverage.

Moving right along, I was dismayed that you missed the obvious double standard in the Ford/Obama girl comparison: either you're less than familiar with the media's coverage of the "scandal" or you're ignoring it on purpose--no one cared at the time that it was an "attack," any sane person would expect that in a campaign--what they protested was specifically the sexual link between a black man and a white woman. These complaints did not arise from 'white trash' rednecks, they came from the "intellectual" media because it was seen as 'playing on racist fears,' a complaint you echoed almost verbatim. If it's "wrong" or "unethical" for that link to be made or even alluded to, it shouldn't matter who is doing it--but surprise, surprise: it damn well does.

Actually, you miss the point. It isn't who does it that matters. It's why they do it.

The claim was never that there was something wrong with there being a sexual link between a black man and a white woman. In fact, [b]that[/n] idea is racist. The claim was that the Republicans were using that link specifically to appeal to racists - that they were trying to use racism to their advantage.

Since there is no reason to believe that Obama girl is trying to incite racism or use it to her advantage, there is no double standard.

From there you basically go on an anti Ron Paul tirade like the couple of posters after you (I'm shocked!) and discredit the very portion of the video I had mentioned as being dubious.

You call that a tirade? You asked me to explain a comment I had made. I did.

Meanwhile, I discredited all of the video. What I said applies to both the youtube and internet search numbers.

I could maybe care less about the number of youtube video postings--what that video was meant to point out was the blatantly preferential media coverage and how it corresponded to interest via internet searches. I didn't pretend for either to be the be-all-end-all of establishing a candidate's popularity: after all, web searches can be executed by non voters, internationals, kids, etc--the point is that Paul's interest was self generated and say what you want about the numbers or the trends; he took better advantage of the web than any of the other candidates did.

The problem is that you have done nothing to demonstrate that Obama's interest wasn't self-generated. Correlation does not demonstrate causation.

And, as I already said, given the fact that he was already pulling in thousands (and tens of thousands) of people for rallies long before the jump in media coverage, it's silly to suggest that the media jump somehow created interest in him.

And part of my problem with the video was the assumption that either measure is really a good indication of overall interest or, more importantly, positive interest. Internet polling quite often attracts a very different demographic and produces quite different results when compared to more generalized polling. Why should we expect that internet traffic would demonstrate overall interest any better?

I'm not saying "No one is enthusiastic" about his campaign (a predictable and flimsy straw man if ever I saw one); I'm simply saying that if the man woke up white tomorrow he'd be the same as any other democratic politician we've elected in the last 25 or so years; and the media as well as the rest of us might not even look at him twice.

You may not be saying that no one is enthusiastic about his campaign, but you do seem to be saying (and you repeat it here) that the main reason for that enthusiasm is the color of his skin.

And I'm saying that I disagree. You may think that people are excited only about the color of his skin and not about his actual policies and the campaign he has run, but that isn't what I see.

Are some people excited about him because of his ethnicity? Of course. And some people are absolutely opposed to him because of it. But I don't think that's the majority of what got him where he is.

Obama does not have the experience that I would like to see in a President. The whole "change" thing is bogus unless people really want to revert back to the failed Democrat policies of the 60's and 70's (tax and spend) that the voters have rejected over the past 40 years.

As opposed to the spend, spend, spend, spend policies of the Republicans?

McCain campaign distances itself from calling Americans whiners (http://www.washtimes.com/news/2008/jul/10/mccain-camp-distances-itself-whiner-comments/)


That's right - STFU America, and quit whining about how the last 7 1/2 years of Bush's corrupt policies have put the economy in the toilet!
Let's all demand that McCain throw that guy under the bus!

People can point to John McCain's changing viewpoints over the years but then I'm not sure he promised to be different, to not compromise when compromise was necessary, to 'yes we can' when it's simply not feasible in reality.

Obama never promised not to compromise. Quite the opposite, in fact. He made it clear that he expected to work with Republicans, rather than against them.

That said, I agree with much of what you said - with one exception. I don't think it's Obama himself who built the pedestal of which you speak. I think it was supporters who were so excited about having a a candidate they felt they could support that they tried to make him into some idyllic, perfect candidate.

Obama has always talked about compromise, about pragmatism, etc. He has made it clear that many of the things to which he says "yes we can" won't be achieved right away - they are future goals that we should be working towards and there is a long, hard road between now and then.

Much of that got ignored by many people. And now that they can no longer ignore it, they want to say it is a change.

But it isn't everyone. I actually heard him described as a rally as a "modern day Joshua, ready to lead us into the promised land of peace and prosperity." It made me giggly. And I'm glad to say I wasn't alone in giggling.

two years ago you wouldn't know who he was
I knew he was four years ago, and like many people who watched the Dem convention, wished he had been the nominee rather than Kerry, all the way back then.

As amusing as the insults to Kimchi are--that is, not at all--I'd like it if you guys would actually answer his claim. It is hypocritical on Obama's part in a way that makes me particularly angry. Not because I expected any real difference on this, but because I happen to think the decision to protect telecoms companies was an extremely poor one.

I knew he was four years ago, and like many people who watched the Dem convention, wished he had been the nominee rather than Kerry, all the way back then.

Clearly this was because he was black, though?

I mean, if he had been a white guy, you wouldn't have been impressed by his speech, right?

As amusing as the insults to Kimchi are--that is, not at all--I'd like it if you guys would actually answer his claim. It is hypocritical on Obama's part in a way that makes me particularly angry. Not because I expected any real difference on this, but because I happen to think the decision to protect telecoms companies was an extremely poor one.

SB did answer it. Obama felt that going without any FISA bill at all was more dangerous than passing one that included immunity for the telecom companies. It isn't that he suddenly decided he liked the idea - it's more that it appeared that they wouldn't get rid of it and still pass a FISA bill.

I'm not well informed enough on the other details of the bill to know if I agree or not, but I can see the logic in that. Very rarely are legislators presented with a bill that is exactly what they'd like to see. The question often comes down to: "Does the good outweigh the bad?"

As amusing as the insults to Kimchi are--that is, not at all--I'd like it if you guys would actually answer his claim. It is hypocritical on Obama's part in a way that makes me particularly angry. Not because I expected any real difference on this, but because I happen to think the decision to protect telecoms companies was an extremely poor one.

as far as im concerned it goes into the "i wish he hadnt done that" bin. its disappointing but not enough to make me stop supporting him and move over to john mccain.

Thanks but I am rarely serious so posts like that one are few and far between. Also, I look up to many peoples debate abilities on this board which are far better than mine. I can barely make a cohesive point, so surely you have seen stuff from those like CTOAN, Free Soviets, Gautier, Gravlen and others who regularly trounce their opponents.

*Random flufflage* :fluffle::fluffle:


Um...

So how 'bout them Dodgers!?



It might have been mentioned, but how about the "comedy" lately?

Jesse Jackson (http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/tv/la-et-jackson11-2008jul11,0,1647731.story) whispering that Obama was "talking down to black people" and that he wanted to "cut his nuts off."

Much fun :p

*Random flufflage* :fluffle::fluffle:


Um...

So how 'bout them Dodgers!?



It might have been mentioned, but how about the "comedy" lately?

Jesse Jackson (http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/tv/la-et-jackson11-2008jul11,0,1647731.story) whispering that Obama was "talking down to black people" and that he wanted to "cut his nuts off."

Much fun :p

A bit on the blue side. I liked Obama's "America does not need another Dr. Phil" better.

Plus Jackson said his remarks were crude. No shit! REALLY? :p

It might have been mentioned, but how about the "comedy" lately?

Jesse Jackson (http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/tv/la-et-jackson11-2008jul11,0,1647731.story) whispering that Obama was "talking down to black people" and that he wanted to "cut his nuts off."

Much fun :p

well ya know, jesse has that "extra" child by an employee from a few years ago. he DID support the child--out of the funds of his rainbow coalition charity--but he may well have taken obama's anti-children-outside-of-marriage comments personally.

well ya know, jesse has that "extra" child by an employee from a few years ago. he DID support the child--out of the funds of his rainbow coalition charity--but he may well have taken obama's anti-children-outside-of-marriage comments personally.

Maybe. I only wish McCain would take something Obama says personally in a debate and go "I feel like ripping off your balls"... :p

As amusing as the insults to Kimchi are--that is, not at all--I'd like it if you guys would actually answer his claim. It is hypocritical on Obama's part in a way that makes me particularly angry. Not because I expected any real difference on this, but because I happen to think the decision to protect telecoms companies was an extremely poor one.
I already did, over a week ago when he first signaled his intent. If I thought DK had any intention of actual discussion it'd be a different story. But we've known him for years now and know better than to expect anything other than the same old tired shit. At least we can prod him into getting some new material.

To re-iterate what I said, again, a long time ago when this story was still fresh, yes, I disagree with the decision. It's too much of a protectionist compromise and it stands in the way of the ability to find out the extent to which the administration broke the law. So I disagree with the vote.

However, it's not a deal breaker. The 'messiah' complex is a construction of Obama's opponents, as much as they'd like to make it seem like it's from his actual supporters. He doesn't walk on water, he doesn't cure blindness, and he's not going to feed us all from a loaf of bread and a basket of fish. He's going to make decisions that I don't agree with. You'd have to be a total moron to assume that you're going to get a politician that you agree with all of the time. The distinction with Obama was that he was, and still is, a politician that I can disagree with. This is a sharp distinction over the current administration.

He's not coming out and questioning our patriotism for not agreeing with him. He's explaining that he believes (even if I disagree) that this was the best compromise. The situation isn't as straight forward as any of us like-Bush was going to veto any bill that didn't have the immunity, they didn't have enough votes to override the veto. They could make a stand, but ultimately it would have meant continued over-sight and they didn't have the numbers to win the stand off. From a cynical stand point you can say, "Well, he wasn't going to get what he wanted, the bill was going to pass with or without him, a no vote is just going to be hung on him as obstructionist to national security. The people that are going to hang him for a yes vote are more likely to see the long view than the people that are going to hang him for the no vote, and since it's going one way regardless, it's best just to make the safe vote." And for me that's true-I do look at the long view. I'm not sold out because I didn't decide to support him on a single issue. He never billed himself as 'uncomprimising,' in fact that was Clinton who billed herself that way, that she would 'fight them all the way.' I didn't want that and I didn't get that, and now I'm supposed to be upset? I'm not. He's going to make decisions that I think are bullshit. It's going to happen. He's also going to and has make decisions that I think are right. McCain is going to make far far more decisions I think are bullshit and the rational used to make those decisions I also think are bullshit.

I'm not going to defend him at every turn, and I haven't. If you've been paying attention, you know that. But this just isn't a deal breaker.

And I've been more than willing to discuss this, because I have discussed this-back when it was brought up over a week ago without hackneyed hyperbole. With DK, the best we can hope for is that maybe one day he won't just be a fucking parrot, or at least parrot some fresh material. So sorry if I didn't entertain you, but then I didn't charge admission, either.

A bit on the blue side. I liked Obama's "America does not need another Dr. Phil" better.

Plus Jackson said his remarks were crude. No shit! REALLY? :p

He also said he doesn't really believe that. He thought nobody was listening.

I'm not sure how the one follows from the other. =)

Dem, I'm reading the "We the People" act as we speak and your attacks on it strike me as completely and utterly without merit; you paint it in an overwhelmingly alarmist tone when all it really says is that the Supreme Court shouldn't hear cases it's not meant to hear. The issues restricted from the courts are issues covered by the damned Bill of Rights and should not be subject to vagaries in judicial decisionmaking.

The Justice System of the United States is (by virtue of its function) the only non-Democratic branch of our government and it should be restrained as such. Paul wants to keep those issues out of the courts because frankly, they're for the people to decide via Congress, not for judges in courtrooms. :headbang:

And this:

I didn't say you were trying to convince me otherwise. What I take offense to is you making assumptions about the reasons that people support Obama.

...only reinforces my suspicions that you're taking all of this entirely too personally. I'm not talking about you or your friends or whatever--I don't know you--I'm talking about the American voting public and why it likely won't do the things that the NS General opinion boards would regard as the "correct" thing to do. Trust me, I remember pre-election '04. "This time we've got him," was the vibe. "Kerry's not great but surely the people we'll see he means well and is better than Bush!"

I don't support Obama because of the color of his skin. If McCain happened to be black, I still wouldn't support him. Ethnicity is essentially irrelevant here.
Ugh...

When you say "Ethnicity is essentially irrelevant here" you're probably talking about yourself, because the same statement cannot possibly also be applied to the American public at large. You have assumed from the start (somehow) that everything I've posted was an attack on your reasons/preferences/hangups/etc (I don't really care if race is one of them).

This whole context-dropping thing was an annoying habit of posters here that was the main reason for my eventual exit. Why I'm coming back for more I haven't the slightest.

Actually, I did know who Obama was 2 years ago. Did everyone? No, not really. Like you said, people don't really look into junior senators from other states very much. But they do look into presidential candidates - especially ones who already have enough support in 9 months before the primary to be holding rallies that attract 20,000 people early in the morning on a Saturday. (April 14, 2007) - This is also, by the way, 9 months before the media jump in Obama coverage.
Whoopee. A well-spoken, educated Democrat from a big city invokes Lincoln and draws 20k in a region not more than a few hours drive from the Democratic romping grounds of New England. I never said he didn't have pre-existing popularity (merely that he wasn't a "household name") nor does he lack charisma or eloquence (hence a Senate seat and a serious Presidential bid). Are these the only things you need to win? No. Could he get by without any one of those things? Probably not (race aside!). The current office holder eked by with less, but he was from a known family and had a background in the executive branch.

If the man didn't know how to draw a movement, he wouldn't have won a senate seat in Illinios; or pretty much any state except maybe Wyoming :p The fact that people do in fact like him is not some kind of devastating blow to my thesis that the Democratic party (and frequently the voting public) has racial hangups whether they will admit it or not.

White-wash Obama and he's no different than Democratic politicians who have disillusioned voters in the past. Fact.

From the above statement you seem to have gleaned that I regard Obama's race as the main reason for his success, and I'm not sure I said that exactly but from the way you've been talking we can at least get away with saying it's probably a fair bit higher on my list than yours.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's the main reason for his success, I'm only saying that it has helped him. Since I'm generally opposed to that stripe of politician to begin with I guess I can understand why you'd see this as an attempt to write him off entirely on that issue alone. I have plenty of other problems with his policy and the DNC in general--I dunno, maybe it's my fault for not starting there, but you know me--I can never resist prodding the beehive. I generally assume the basic stuff has been covered by the time I show up :p

I read your links. They have nothing to do with the TRUTH that Obama voted for Bush's FISA bill, that a lot of Democrats did, and that Obama is NOT "change you can believe in".

Posting links to crap about "under the bus" is a meaningless distraction from the TRUTH, which you seem to want to AVOID because it makes you look like you'll vote for anyone who SAYS they'll CHANGE but really will TAKE YOUR CIVIL LIBERTIES JUST LIKE BUSH.
Again I find myself agreeing with you, although for entirely different reasons.

Again I find myself agreeing with you, although for entirely different reasons.

Yeah. Because you hate Obama for "stealing" the nomination from Hillary while winning fair and square against her attempts to cheat. I, for one, welcome the fact that her dreams are forever crushed.

Yeah. Because you hate Obama for "stealing" the nomination from Hillary while winning fair and square against her attempts to cheat. I, for one, welcome the fact that her dreams are forever crushed.
I have told you before and I will tell you one more time again......I don't hate Obama. I have an extreme dislike for his politics.

I think Obama is trying to cherry pick his way to the White House and I think this article accurately sums it up:

But at least conservatives and liberals have discovered one thing they can agree on: that Barack Obama is a cynical opportunist, a flip-flopper and a shape-changer, a man who brushes aside his principles with the same nonchalance that lesser mortals reserve for their dandruff.

Bob Herbert of the New York Times worries that Mr Obama is “not just tacking gently to the centre. He’s lurching right when it suits him, and he’s zigging with the kind of reckless abandon that’s guaranteed to cause disillusion, if not whiplash.” Some 22,000 people have protested on his website about his change of heart on wiretapping. A group called “Recreate68” promises to complain about his move to the centre at the Democratic convention in Denver in August.

For its part, the right has discovered that Mr Obama is not a “hard left” liberal, as it had previously thought, but a standard-issue politician who will “say and do anything to get elected”. Charles Krauthammer calls him a “man of seasonal principles”.
New and improved (http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11707123)?

More like....same old...same old.

I have told you before and I will tell you one more time again......I don't hate Obama. I have an extreme dislike for his politics.

I think Obama is try to cherry pick his way to the White House and I think this article accurately sums it up:


New and improved (http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11707123)?

More like....same old...same old.

Both you and the author of the article can answer to Sumamba Buwhan's post.

As for being willing to hand McCain the presidency just to keep Obama off the White House, all the while you're a liberal, that's proof enough that you hate Obama. Hell, I wish nothing but ill upon Hillary, I hope her loss becomes a long-running psychological trauma, I hope she gets clinically depressed, to the point of a botched suicide attempt that leaves her with locked-in syndrome, depressed and unable to move, for the rest of her existence. THAT'S how much I HATE HER, and I'd STILL root for her against McCain.

Dem, I'm reading the "We the People" act as we speak and your attacks on it strike me as completely and utterly without merit; you paint it in an overwhelmingly alarmist tone when all it really says is that the Supreme Court shouldn't hear cases it's not meant to hear. The issues restricted from the courts are issues covered by the damned Bill of Rights and should not be subject to vagaries in judicial decisionmaking.

The Bill of Rights doesn't keep government - at any level - from making laws that violate the restrictions it places. What it does is give the courts the guideline by which such laws can be declared unconstitutional (or not, depending on the law). Nothing in the Constitution keeps Congress (or a state legislature) from passing a law that, for instance, declares a state religion. And that is where the courts come in. They can provide a check on the legislative branch by declaring the law unconstitutional.

If the courts cannot even hear the case, citizens in the minority have no way to challenge unconstitutional laws and ensure that the Constitution is enforced.

This law would keep the courts from hearing exactly the sorts of cases they should hear - ones in which the constitutionality of a law is challenged.

The Justice System of the United States is (by virtue of its function) the only non-Democratic branch of our government and it should be restrained as such. Paul wants to keep those issues out of the courts because frankly, they're for the people to decide, not for judges in courtrooms to decide. :headbang:

Matters of rights are not for the people to decide - not unless the Constitution is amended to that effect and those rights are effectively removed (or unless, by "people" you mean "individuals"). They are rights that the government is forbidden to violate - even with a majority vote. When such laws are passed, the government has stepped outside of its bounds.

Keeping these things out of the courts keeps people from challenging unconstitutional laws - laws that would thus stay on the books until the majority decide on their own to stop violating the rights of others.

...only reinforces my suspicions that you're taking all of this entirely too personally. I'm not talking about you or your friends or whatever--I don't know you--I'm talking about the American voting public and why it likely won't do the things that the NS General opinion boards would regard as the "correct" thing to do. Trust me, I remember pre-election '04. "This time we've got him," was the vibe. "Kerry's not great but surely the people we'll see he means well and is better than Bush!"

You're talking about people who are enthusiastic supporters of Barrack Obama. That is a group that includes me. It includes many people I've talked to and many more I've read about.

I don't believe that the bulk of the enthusiasm behind Obama is a product of his ethnic background or that its even a major issue for most supporters. And when the media tried to portray the Democratic presidential primary as a decision between the "first woman" and the "first black", there was outcry from people who (rightfully) pointed out that such considerations were a distraction from the relevant issues.

Ugh...

When you say "Ethnicity is essentially irrelevant here" you're probably talking about yourself, because the same statement cannot possibly also be applied to the American public at large.

Why not? Is it inherently impossible for the people to whom it is a major factor to be in the minority?

Whoopee. A well-spoken, educated Democrat from a big city invokes Lincoln and draws 20k in a region not more than a few hours drive from the Democratic romping grounds of New England.

We're talking about Atlanta, GA. How many hours are a "few" to you?

White-wash Obama and he's no different than Democratic politicians who have disillusioned voters in the past. Fact.

Again with the "no difference" thing. As I said before, differences you find irrelevant may be quite important to others.

I can honestly say that I haven't a Democratic candidate in a national or statewide race I'd feel comfortable voting for (rather than voting against the other guy) until now. And I'm not the only one who feels that way.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's the main reason for his success, I'm only saying that it has helped him.

From exit poll results, I'd say the opposite is more likely overall. While its certainly true that not everyone for whom it is a factor will admit it, there is less stigma attached to a yes answer for supporting a black man than for voting against him. Yet Clinton overall had more votes from people saying that race was an issue (as well as sex, for that matter).

But you did seem to be saying that race and media bias were the major factors in his success. I apologize if I misunderstood.

We're talking about Atlanta, GA. How many hours are a "few" to you?

okay, I see what I did now--I was off by 3 days. Still... point stands :p He was charismatic enough to deserve the attention he got as a result, but anyone who thinks his race didn't help him probably isn't looking closely enough.

Still, GA is about 30% black--over twice the national average. Still not exactly in awe of the turnout--it shows he knows what he's doing, but then again I never really said he didn't.

What? (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/tracker/dates/2007/apr/17/)

Looking back on it, I can't even find where I dug up references to a speech in Philly which is kind of odd, but I suppose the Post will do for now. Maybe he flew to GA later or whatever, but my point still stands--the man won a Senate seat so pointing to his popularity as some kind of surprise is somewhat yawn-inducing to say the least (and, again, it fails to dismantle my thesis that his ethnicity has helped him). I'll try again to find out where I got that from, but the first source I looked up for that date said Philly, and now this. Maybe it happened like you said, but if it was such a huge deal, it probably would've been appended on the Post later on. Sure you've got the right date?

Your link is the 17th. The event I was talking about was the 14th.

This is about a later event, but it mentions the April one - http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/shared-blogs/ajc/politicalinsider/entries/2007/08/31/obama_wants_another_boom_event.html

This mentions the event directly:
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/04/14/obama_delivers_goosebumps.php

I'm a little confused here. You've been talking a great deal about enthusiasm for Obama being media-induced and you posted a video that talked about a jump in media coverage as compared to a jump in internet traffic on Obama in early 2008 as being an indicator of that. It was in response to that portion of the discussion that I mentioned the Atlanta rally - as evidence that there was a great deal of enthusiasm well before the jump in media coverage.

Now, large numbers of supporters showing up for a candidate (ie. a show of enthusiasm) at that point isn't a surprise? Does this mean you concede that he did have a great deal of self-generated enthusiasm before the media "lovefest", as it was called in the video?

I was editing when you posted, methinks--I realized I fucked up the date, I think it was a mistype on my part. Whatever--people got interested in him, that's okay. Still think he's shit for the job and I don't really think you're expecting to change my mind there.

Both you and the author of the article can answer to Sumamba Buwhan's post.
I don't think so.

As for being willing to hand McCain the presidency just to keep Obama off the White House, all the while you're a liberal, that's proof enough that you hate Obama.
It would appear at this time that Nader is the better "liberal" candidate.

Hell, I wish nothing but ill upon Hillary, I hope her loss becomes a long-running psychological trauma, I hope she gets clinically depressed, to the point of a botched suicide attempt that leaves her with locked-in syndrome, depressed and unable to move, for the rest of her existence. THAT'S how much I HATE HER, and I'd STILL root for her against McCain.
These continued dramatic overplayed displays of emotion do nothing to enhance your argument or sell your candidate. You should quit while you are behind.

I don't think so.


It would appear at this time that Nader is the better "liberal" candidate.


These continued dramatic overplayed displays of emotion do nothing to enhance your argument or sell your candidate. You should quit while you are behind.

1- Because you can't make a counterpoint. Got it.

2- Maybe. He's not the better "liberal" candidate with a booklet's chance in a supernova of getting elected, though, and you know it.

3- YOU failed to sell YOUR candidate, a fact which showed on June 3. My candidate is ahead. YOU are acting as if that cursed hag had the election stolen from her by Obama, so not only I don't have any reason to take suggestions from you, you're also showing a lot of willingness to flat-out ignore reality.

I was editing when you posted, methinks--I realized I fucked up the date, I think it was a mistype on my part. Whatever--people got interested in him, that's okay. Still think he's shit for the job and I don't really think you're expecting to change my mind there.

yeah i would be surprised if you came on here and confessed to being an obamaniac.

i would be surprised if your reasons for disliking him reflected anything but your dislike of his policies.

but i do think you let your disgust at democratic party policies color your interpretation of why anyone would like obama.

people--the people who actually bother to go out and vote in the primaries--like obama both for his policies and the way he expresses his support for those policies. youll note that his policies are not out of the mainstream of the democratic party. you might also note that he was not the only "first" in the field. that very much dilutes the notion that he is popular because he is black--there was also the first strong woman candidate and the first strong hispanic candidate. (richardson being strong in qualifications but not strong in support). people went with obama because they LIKE him.

his race is of limited gain and detriment for him.

there ARE american who wont vote for him because he is black. the only group of those that matters are those who are not conservative republicans (since those people would never vote for a democrat anyway). i dont know how big that group is or where they might make a difference in the election.

there ARE americans who will vote for him because he is black. im thinking that the biggest group of these are black, black/bi-racial, and those from mixed race families (meaning a white person married to a black person, for example). this could be a much bigger factor in southern states with a substantial black population that doesnt usually bother to vote. if every potential black voter comes out to vote for the black man they could swing a solid republican state to the democratic column. its pretty irrelevant in states like massachusetts where every black voter voting for obama wont change anything.

for the rest of us, we like obama. he is a good speaker. he seems to be a man of good character. but most of all we like democratic policies. he's a charismatic candidate who wants what we want. who wouldnt support him in those circumstances?

1- Because you can't make a counterpoint. Got it.
Firstly, you didn't mention which post, secondly, you didn't mention which part or parts of his post I should "answer to", thirdly, you didn't provide a link, and fourthly, I was debating your point not his. How convoluted is that?

2- Maybe. He's not the better "liberal" candidate with a booklet's chance in a supernova of getting elected, though, and you know it.
In a democracy one has choices. Are you suggesting that one should not vote for the candidate of his choice simply because they cannot get elected?

My candidate is ahead.
At the moment he is. I don't think he will be at the end.

YOU are acting as if that cursed hag had the election stolen from her by Obama, so not only I don't have any reason to take suggestions from you,
Your petty attitude towards Hillary and her supporters doesn't impress, and is more likely to harm your candidate then help him. Carry on.

you're also showing a lot of willingness to flat-out ignore reality.
What? Your reality or mine? :D

Firstly, you didn't mention which post, secondly, you didn't mention which part or parts of his post I should "answer to", thirdly, you didn't provide a link, and fourthly, I was debating your point not his. How convoluted is that?


In a democracy one has choices. Are you suggesting that one should not vote for the candidate of his choice simply because they cannot get elected?


At the moment he is. I don't think he will be at the end.


Your petty attitude towards Hillary and her supporters doesn't impress, and is more likely to harm your candidate then help him. Carry on.


What? Your reality or mine? :D

1- The post in which Obama's reason to let the issue go was shown.

2- With no runoff and with what's at stake? Yes. They have every right to, but they shouldn't.

3- You have made no argument to support this opinion.

4- My attitude towards her was fueled by the actions of her supporters, which were, in turn, incited by her. If THEY react to MY reaction, not Obama's, to THEIR shrill victim-baiting by not voting for Obama, they are morons and wouldn't vote for Obama anyways. But feel free to keep pretending Hillary or her supporters didn't do anything to elicit this reaction from me.

5- Ours, which you are keen on ignoring.

I was editing when you posted, methinks--I realized I fucked up the date, I think it was a mistype on my part. Whatever--people got interested in him, that's okay. Still think he's shit for the job and I don't really think you're expecting to change my mind there.

No, I'm definitely not expecting that. =)

I'd actually be incredibly surprised if you supported either of the two major candidates.

No, I'm definitely not expecting that. =)

I'd actually be incredibly surprised if you supported either of the two major candidates.

A reasonable reaction :p

I'd vote for Obama if we had a Republican Congress--although it occured to me on the way back home today that with ratings in the basement, we might have one in a couple of years.

Still, I liked McCain a lot more in the 2000 primaries when he actually had something resembling a backbone--I can't see myself voting for him. With a gun to my head I might even take Barack over McCain--but I still don't necessarily think he's the best man for the job.

1- The post in which Obama's reason to let the issue go was shown.
I did indirectly respond to that post through the article that I posted.

2- With no runoff and with what's at stake? Yes. They have every right to, but they shouldn't.
Many times I have voted for people or a party that didn't have a ghost chance in hell of winning, but I did exercise my democratic right. I have also witnessed that same party eventually win a majority government. Go figure. :D

3- You have made no argument to support this opinion.
Yes I have....many times.

4- My attitude towards her was fueled by the actions of her supporters, which were, in turn, incited by her. If THEY react to MY reaction, not Obama's, to THEIR shrill victim-baiting by not voting for Obama, they are morons and wouldn't vote for Obama anyways. But feel free to keep pretending Hillary or her supporters didn't do anything to elicit this reaction from me.
If enough Obama supporters express such hardcore opinions openly, you can bet that it will have a negative effect at the ballot box.

5- Ours, which you are keen on ignoring.
Who is "ours"? Certainly you cannot be lumping yourself in with pro Obama Americans? I truly believe that the election in the US will certainly be far more consequential for Americans and Canadians than it will be for the average Brazilian.

I did indirectly respond to that post through the article that I posted.


Many times I have voted for people or a party that didn't have a ghost chance in hell of winning, but I did exercise my democratic right. I have also witnessed that same party eventually win a majority government. Go figure. :D


Yes I have....many times.


If enough Obama supporters express such hardcore opinions openly, you can bet that it will have a negative effect at the ballot box.


Who is "ours"? Certainly you cannot be lumping yourself in with pro Obama Americans? I truly believe that the election in the US will certainly be far more consequential for Americans and Canadians than it will be for the average Brazilian.

1- Riiiiight...

2- We have no time for "eventually" right now.

3- No, you haven't. You have TRIED to.

4- Enough Clinton supporters alienated plenty of Obama supporters enough for this reaction to happen.

5- Oh, really? When was the last time the US supported a dictatorship in your country, hell, in your region of the continent? When was the last time an American newspaper called for a re-run of such a coup? Let me give you a hint: 1964 and 2002, respectively, and that's for Brazil alone. So you go right ahead and tell me the election between Obama and a guy whose party might very well support this kind of crap (as it did when Venezuela suffered a coup) matters less to us. You can claim it'll be more consequential to Americans, but not Canadians, until the US actually props up a puppet regime in your country.

Primary is over, kids.

I already did, over a week ago when he first signaled his intent. If I thought DK had any intention of actual discussion it'd be a different story. But we've known him for years now and know better than to expect anything other than the same old tired shit. At least we can prod him into getting some new material.

To re-iterate what I said, again, a long time ago when this story was still fresh, yes, I disagree with the decision. It's too much of a protectionist compromise and it stands in the way of the ability to find out the extent to which the administration broke the law. So I disagree with the vote.

However, it's not a deal breaker. The 'messiah' complex is a construction of Obama's opponents, as much as they'd like to make it seem like it's from his actual supporters. He doesn't walk on water, he doesn't cure blindness, and he's not going to feed us all from a loaf of bread and a basket of fish. He's going to make decisions that I don't agree with. You'd have to be a total moron to assume that you're going to get a politician that you agree with all of the time. The distinction with Obama was that he was, and still is, a politician that I can disagree with. This is a sharp distinction over the current administration.

He's not coming out and questioning our patriotism for not agreeing with him. He's explaining that he believes (even if I disagree) that this was the best compromise. The situation isn't as straight forward as any of us like-Bush was going to veto any bill that didn't have the immunity, they didn't have enough votes to override the veto. They could make a stand, but ultimately it would have meant continued over-sight and they didn't have the numbers to win the stand off. From a cynical stand point you can say, "Well, he wasn't going to get what he wanted, the bill was going to pass with or without him, a no vote is just going to be hung on him as obstructionist to national security. The people that are going to hang him for a yes vote are more likely to see the long view than the people that are going to hang him for the no vote, and since it's going one way regardless, it's best just to make the safe vote." And for me that's true-I do look at the long view. I'm not sold out because I didn't decide to support him on a single issue. He never billed himself as 'uncomprimising,' in fact that was Clinton who billed herself that way, that she would 'fight them all the way.' I didn't want that and I didn't get that, and now I'm supposed to be upset? I'm not. He's going to make decisions that I think are bullshit. It's going to happen. He's also going to and has make decisions that I think are right. McCain is going to make far far more decisions I think are bullshit and the rational used to make those decisions I also think are bullshit.

I'm not going to defend him at every turn, and I haven't. If you've been paying attention, you know that. But this just isn't a deal breaker.

And I've been more than willing to discuss this, because I have discussed this-back when it was brought up over a week ago without hackneyed hyperbole. With DK, the best we can hope for is that maybe one day he won't just be a fucking parrot, or at least parrot some fresh material. So sorry if I didn't entertain you, but then I didn't charge admission, either.

I apparently haven't been paying attention. Thank you for your response. You're right, too.

1- Riiiiight...
Think what you will. <shrug>

2- We have no time for "eventually" right now.
We? Again, methinks you have accidently misplaced yourself. You have "no time" for democracy? Pity.

3- No, you haven't. You have TRIED to.
Again, more <shrug>.

4- Enough Clinton supporters alienated plenty of Obama supporters enough for this reaction to happen.
And the best way to unite the party is to carry petty, hateful grudges?

5- Oh, really? When was the last time the US supported a dictatorship in your country, hell, in your region of the continent? When was the last time an American newspaper called for a re-run of such a coup? Let me give you a hint: 1964
1964 was ummmm 44 years ago.

and 2002,
Which American newspaper called for a coup in Brazil in 2002? "Source or it didn't happen."

So you go right ahead and tell me the election between Obama and a guy whose party might very well support this kind of crap (as it did when Venezuela suffered a coup) matters less to us.
Source that Republicans "might very well support" a coup in Brazil.

You can claim it'll be more consequential to Americans, but not Canadians, until the US actually props up a puppet regime in your country.
I do believe that the current economic climate in the US and Canada, and the ongoing war in Afghanistan is certainly more consequential than what may or may not happen to Brazil as a result of a US election.

Think what you will. <shrug>


We? Again, methinks you have accidently misplaced yourself. You have "no time" for democracy? Pity.


Again, more <shrug>.


And the best way to unite the party is to carry petty, hateful grudges?


1964 was ummmm 44 years ago.


Which American newspaper called for a coup in Brazil in 2002? "Source or it didn't happen."


Source that Republicans "might very well support" a coup in Brazil.


I do believe that the current economic climate in the US and Canada, and the ongoing war in Afghanistan is certainly more consequential than what may or may not happen to Brazil as a result of a US election.

Oh boy. Yeah, I said people had the right to vote for who they wanted. I then said they would be better served by voting for a certain candidate that would work better for their purposes. That's how undemocratic I am. As well as how undemocratic just about every political campaign on Earth is.

The best way to unite the party would be not to divide it in the first place. The blame of which falls squarely on Hillary.

And the last coup the US supported in your country was NEVER.

Okay, I tried to find the link to the English version (which I did see once) but it's inactive. You can always copy it and babelfish this, though: http://www.abknet.de/wtimes.htm

Related articles:
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/7/2/161550.shtml
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:W5MrIrSXsVIJ:www.highclearing.com/index.php/archives/2002/10/29/1423+%22constantine+menges%22+Brazil&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=17&gl=br&client=firefox-a
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=30CB5147-0010-4B6A-BA23-02EC577E8DD7
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2003/aug/05/20030805-084101-6466r/
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-2076877/Brazil-s-gathering-clouds-COMMENTARY.html (This Goliath site had a few others, but these are excerpts. Still, they prove my point.)

As for the support for the Venezuela coup, that DID happen. Or you want source as well?

Let's all demand that McCain throw that guy under the bus!

It's Phil Gramm. Look up how he came to the GOP...

It might have been mentioned, but how about the "comedy" lately?

Jesse Jackson (http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/tv/la-et-jackson11-2008jul11,0,1647731.story) whispering that Obama was "talking down to black people" and that he wanted to "cut his nuts off."

Much fun :p

Indeed. I'm curious as to what else he said, that was worse...


O'Reilly told viewers that the network had decided to air only portions of what Jackson had said, saying there was "more damaging" material.

Shine declined to comment on what else Jackson said, adding that news executives were in discussions about whether to air more of the tape.

And the best way to unite the party is to carry petty, hateful grudges?

You seem to confuse the supporters of your former candidate, who carry petty, hatelful grudges...

On that topic, she can add money grubbing at the expense of defeating McCain to her list of faults...

The bitterness in the Clinton camp about the primary battle is well known, but several Clinton donors and campaign officials said a deeper issue remained unsettled: The belief — or, perhaps, the perception — that Mr. Obama and his aides are half-hearted in their efforts to help Mrs. Clinton and include her top donors on his leadership team.

Some of them griped that major Clinton donors were not being invited to crucial fund-raising meetings; were not being made to feel that they would receive credit for helping Mr. Obama win in November; and were not being given titles within the Obama campaign. An Obama aide said it was still early in the integration process of the two campaigns; he also added that the Obama operation was not as title-driven as the Clinton operation, which had various donors serving as “chairs,” “co-chairs” and “Hillraisers.”

Clinton donors and campaign officials say they remain surprised — and, among some, offended — that Mr. Obama has refused to ask his entire list of donors, more than 1.5 million people, to send $5, $10 or more to chip away at Mrs. Clinton’s debt. (Obama officials said they did not want to distract their donors for the main task at hand, raising money to defeat Mr. McCain.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/09/us/politics/09debt.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Yes, that's the way to get what you want... run a nasty campaign, and when you loose, whine and beg for the winning side to help you out in a way that will damage their chances of beating the next opponent... :rolleyes:

Obama has always talked about compromise, about pragmatism, etc. He has made it clear that many of the things to which he says "yes we can" won't be achieved right away - they are future goals that we should be working towards and there is a long, hard road between now and then.

Indeed, you might be interested in this article (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/10/opinion/edcollins.php?page=1) as it essentially agrees with your point. Link provided but some excerpts...

I know, I know. You're upset. You think the guy you fell in love with last spring is spending the summer flip-flopping his way to the right. Drifting to the center. Going all moderate on you. So you're withholding the love. Also possibly the money.

I feel your pain. I just don't know what candidate you're talking about.

It's not his fault that we missed the message - although to be fair, he did make it sound as if getting rid of the "old politics" involved driving out the oil and pharmaceutical lobbyists rather than splitting the difference on federal wiretapping legislation. But if you look at the political fights he's picked throughout his political career, the main theme is not any ideology.

It's that he hates stupidity. "I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war," he said in 2002 in his big speech against the invasion of Iraq. He did not, you will notice, say he was against unilateral military action or pre-emptive attacks or nation-building.

He was anti-dumb.

Most of the things Obama's taken heat for saying this summer fall into these two familiar patterns - attempts to find a rational common ground on controversial issues and dumb-avoidance.

On the common-ground front, he's called for giving more federal money to religious groups that run social programs, but only if the services they offer are secular. People can have guns for hunting and protection, but we should crack down on unscrupulous gun sellers. Putting some restrictions on the government's ability to wiretap is better than nothing, even though he would rather have gone further.

Dumb-avoidance would include his opposing the gas-tax holiday, backtracking on the anti-Nafta pandering he did during the primary and acknowledging that if one is planning to go all the way to Iraq to talk to the generals, one should actually pay attention to what the generals say.

Touching both bases are Obama's positions that 1) if people are going to ask him every day why he's not wearing a flag pin, it's easier to just wear the pin, for heaven's sake, and 2) there's nothing to be gained by getting into a fight over whether the death penalty can be imposed on child rapists.

Meanwhile, Obama has made it clear what issues he thinks all this cleverness and compromising are supposed to serve: national health care, a smart energy policy and getting American troops out of Iraq.

He has tons of other concerns, but those seem to be the top three.

A reasonable reaction :p

I'd vote for Obama if we had a Republican Congress--although it occured to me on the way back home today that with ratings in the basement, we might have one in a couple of years.

Still, I liked McCain a lot more in the 2000 primaries when he actually had something resembling a backbone--I can't see myself voting for him. With a gun to my head I might even take Barack over McCain--but I still don't necessarily think he's the best man for the job.

We can definitely agree on the idea that McCain seemed like a better candidate back in 2000. At one point, I was actually very much hoping for a McCain vs. Obama race because I thought it would be one in which I'd actually be choosing between two decent candidates rather than looking for the lesser evil.

But I don't see McCain that way anymore. =(

We can definitely agree on the idea that McCain seemed like a better candidate back in 2000. At one point, I was actually very much hoping for a McCain vs. Obama race because I thought it would be one in which I'd actually be choosing between two decent candidates rather than looking for the lesser evil.

But I don't see McCain that way anymore. =(

At one point I was hoping for a time machine, so we could snatch McCain of 2000 and give him the VP slot.

But alas, poor John...

McCain is too much of a :sniper: war guy, when we'll have world peace with a guy like him being the leader of the world's police...

I'll vote Obama if I live in the US of A and old enough to vote

Uhhh. Yeah. I voted for Obama. I didn't vote for any of the non-major parties because they never get elected, and while it is a useful way to steal votes from those you don't like, I wanted my vote to go towards the guy I most agree with.

Okay, I tried to find the link to the English version (which I did see once) but it's inactive. You can always copy it and babelfish this, though: http://www.abknet.de/wtimes.htm

Related articles:
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/7/2/161550.shtml
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:W5MrIrSXsVIJ:www.highclearing.com/index.php/archives/2002/10/29/1423+%22constantine+menges%22+Brazil&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=17&gl=br&client=firefox-a
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=30CB5147-0010-4B6A-BA23-02EC577E8DD7
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2003/aug/05/20030805-084101-6466r/
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-2076877/Brazil-s-gathering-clouds-COMMENTARY.html (This Goliath site had a few others, but these are excerpts. Still, they prove my point.)
I certainly have no desire to hijack this thread, but it would appear that the links you provided do not support your claims that:

1. the US supported a dictatorship in your country

2. an American newspaper called for a re-run of such a coup

3. a guy (McCain) whose party might very well support this kind of crap
What the articles did provide was information on a group called Foro de São Paulo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foro_de_S%C3%A3o_Paulo), and its' Communist affiliations. And makes a broad claim that:

The Forum of Sao Paulo is Fidel's worldwide alliance, and its members are quite a rogue's gallery. In addition to the heads of state mentioned above, the Forum also includes the Provisional IRA, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the Ba'ath Party, and representatives from Libya, the Tupac Amaru guerrillas in Peru and assorted other terrorist organizations. Also represented are the communist parties of the remaining "dead-enders" of the communist world -- China, Laos, Vietnam and North Korea.
An even broader claim:

Most Americans are unaware that the tri-border area of South America -- the region in which Brazil, Paraguay and Argentina come together -- has become a major center for Middle Eastern terrorists, including Hamas and Hezbollah. Employing a combination of criminal activities, including counterfeiting U.S. currency, manufacturing fake software, arms running, drug trafficking and other activities, Hezbollah alone has raised an estimated $50 million from this region in the last several years.
Do you support this kind of activity in your country/region?

As opposed to the spend, spend, spend, spend policies of the Republicans?

Obama is very likely to spend more money than Bush ever did.

Increase taxes on the wealthy=decrease in tax revenues.
Increase corporate tax=loss of jobs=decrease in tax revenues.
Decrease taxes for the middle class=decrease in revenue.

Where is he going to get the money to pay for everything? He won't get it by withdrawing from Iraq because that is borrowed. Democrats in Congress will not support deep cuts in military spending and Obama and the Democrats would not want to cut social spending. What is left? He will have to raise taxes. Why can't he just be honest with the people and tell them? Because his numbers would tank almost immediately.

If he doesn't raise taxes, the debt will double under Obama.

I don't see the change that he speaks of.

Snip.

What kind of activity, the REAL Foro de São Paulo or the Foro de São Paulo as imagined by the writers of this article? My point was that yes, what the US does has a lot of impact here. I proved it by pointing out the coup in Venezuela and the fact that many people still think Kissinger is an acceptable person to continue to exist!

Olavo de Carvalho is an insane right-wing moron that thinks Bush had it right and that also seems to think Kissinger should be allowed the benefits that a person has!

Okay, okay. CH, Heikoku, you've both made your points. If there's any more to say on that topic, please say it in another thread.

Obama is very likely to spend more money than Bush ever did.

Perhaps. But he supports making sure that any increases in spending are paid for, either by cuts in other areas or by increases in revenue.

The Bush presidency has created more debt than any other presidency before him. The Republicans are supposed to be "fiscal conservatives" but what they do is lots and lots of debt spending. Only Democrats these days (for the most part) seem to be interested in paying for what we spend.

I don't like to see too much government spending (at least not in areas I disagree with - like most people), but I can respect someone who wants to spend more, but actually pay for it than I can someone who just wants to continue increasing the debt.

Okay, okay. CH, Heikoku, you've both made your points. If there's any more to say on that topic, please say it in another thread.

Ok, my apologies.

Could you create it or should I?

Perhaps. But he supports making sure that any increases in spending are paid for, either by cuts in other areas or by increases in revenue.

The Bush presidency has created more debt than any other presidency before him. The Republicans are supposed to be "fiscal conservatives" but what they do is lots and lots of debt spending. Only Democrats these days (for the most part) seem to be interested in paying for what we spend.

He cannot cut enough spending to pay for his agenda and his campaign proposals will lead to decreased revenue.

Either way, he is lying to the people. He will either not pursue the agenda he speaks off or will raise taxes on the middle class. Sort of sounds like politics as usual. Where's the change?

He cannot cut enough spending to pay for his agenda and his campaign proposals will lead to decreased revenue.

Either way, he is lying to the people. He will either not pursue the agenda he speaks off or will raise taxes on the middle class. Sort of sounds like politics as usual. Where's the change?

He leaves Iraq and the US stops being the number one threat to world peace it turned into under Bush. That's good enough for me.

He cannot cut enough spending to pay for his agenda and his campaign proposals will lead to decreased revenue.

Either way, he is lying to the people. He will either not pursue the agenda he speaks off or will raise taxes on the middle class. Sort of sounds like politics as usual. Where's the change?
Yeah, just watching the 2001/2003 tax cuts expire will cause a recession all of it's own. That's going to be a $300 billion tax INCREASE in 2011 -- no matter what the Democrats would like to call it.

And one other thing to think about. The death tax disappears completely in 2010. Yet, it would be reinstated in the tax increases the following year... Makes for some potentially interesting family dynamics on New Year's Eve 2010, doesn't it?

He leaves Iraq and the US stops being the number one threat to world peace it turned into under Bush. That's good enough for me.
I think we've figured out your issue. What happens when the US can't prop up the rest of the world because it's bankrupt?

I think we've figured out your issue. What happens when the US can't prop up the rest of the world because it's bankrupt?

I don't know, what happens when the US stops invading random hapless countries, supporting the couping out of people it doesn't like, and playing world police?

I'm pretty sure Obama's plan doesn't pay for itself, and I'm also pretty sure McCain's doesn't either. In fact, this analysis (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=411693) says McCain's going to end up needing to find more to cut, but whoever gets elected is going to be in the red for at least a year or two.

What kind of activity, the REAL Foro de São Paulo or the Foro de São Paulo as imagined by the writers of this article? My point was that yes, what the US does has a lot of impact here. I proved it by pointing out the coup in Venezuela and the fact that many people still think Kissinger is an acceptable person to continue to exist!

Olavo de Carvalho is an insane right-wing moron that thinks Bush had it right and that also seems to think Kissinger should be allowed the benefits that a person has!
The fact remains that you did not prove your point and the sidetracking about a coup in Venezuela and opinions on Kissinger do nothing to support your claims about Brazil.

The fact remains that you did not prove your point and the sidetracking about a coup in Venezuela and opinions on Kissinger do nothing to support your claims about Brazil.

And the fact remains that even discounting that (and there was an article in the Washington Times in 2002 calling us a "new axis of Evil"), I am right: The US election matters to Brazil just as much, if not more, than it matters to Canada. Because we have just as many economic ties with them and because the US has a history of couping out people it didn't like here or otherwise supporting this, as recently as the 2000s. Something which you, a Canadian that never had a relative or acquaintance get electrodes connected to their testicles (vagina or nipples for women, the Military here was egalitarian after all, well, not so much as it did include rape in the case of the females, all under American support, TYVM) and then turned on, are lucky enough not to be involved in.

The point I tried to make here is: Yes, my country has every interest in the outcome of this election, and yes, every bit as much interest as yours.

He cannot cut enough spending to pay for his agenda and his campaign proposals will lead to decreased revenue.

Both matters that are disputed.

Either way, he is lying to the people. He will either not pursue the agenda he speaks off or will raise taxes on the middle class. Sort of sounds like politics as usual. Where's the change?

Or, you know, he disagrees with you on the results of his proposals.

No, it is not in dispute. Look at independent figures on the cost of his proposals. As for the decrease in revenue, that can be seen by looking at tax revenue over the past 30 years.

The results of his proposals are not going to happen overnight. Don't expect that. It takes time. Unfortunately most costs need to be appropriated up front.....unless he is going to borrow and increase the debt.

No, it is not in dispute.

These things are always in dispute. Some people figure it one way, others another.

Economic predictions are much like statistics, people use them to demonstrate whatever they want.

The results of his proposals are not going to happen overnight.

They rarely do, although people always seem to expect them to.

Perhaps. But he supports making sure that any increases in spending are paid for, either by cuts in other areas or by increases in revenue.

The Bush presidency has created more debt than any other presidency before him. The Republicans are supposed to be "fiscal conservatives" but what they do is lots and lots of debt spending. Only Democrats these days (for the most part) seem to be interested in paying for what we spend.

I don't like to see too much government spending (at least not in areas I disagree with - like most people), but I can respect someone who wants to spend more, but actually pay for it than I can someone who just wants to continue increasing the debt.

Hmm, When did democrats run a balanced budget? And why would you expect them to now?

Hmm, When did democrats run a balanced budget? And why would you expect them to now?

The last time we had a balanced budget - in fact, a surplus to pay off debt - was under a Democratic president.

As for expectations, that's another story. I'd like to expect politicians to do do what they say they will. I'm usually disappointed by that. But then I figure they've had their chance and work to vote them out the next time around.

Must you really humiliate me so? :pHey, *i* can't do it. I just may be one of the people who look up to people like that! :)

The last time we had a balanced budget - in fact, a surplus to pay off debt - was under a Democratic president.


With a Republican Congress and an economy fueled by something entirely out of his control.

Really, you can't credit Clinton all that much for the surplus. He deserves some, yes, but not as much as you're suggesting he should be given. (Note, however, that that does not necessarily invalidate your point; I'm simply quibbling over details here.)

Hmm, When did democrats run a balanced budget? And why would you expect them to now?

that question (and its implication that the other party is a better bet in that regard) hasnt been anything by laughable in a long long time.

i dont think that a balanced buget is in the cards anytime soon. our national finances are too out of whack to be quickly and easily fixed. we are more like the family whose credit card debt is equal to their yearly income. no matter how much you want to pay it off, its going to take a good many years to do it.

With a Republican Congress and an economy fueled by something entirely out of his control.

Really, you can't credit Clinton all that much for the surplus. He deserves some, yes, but not as much as you're suggesting he should be given. (Note, however, that that does not necessarily invalidate your point; I'm simply quibbling over details here.)

No, I wouldn't say it was all or even mostly Clinton's doing. But he did push for it, as did some Democrats in Congress. And when Bush came in with essentially the same conditions and that Republican Congress, he pushed for a budget that dumped the surplus into tax cuts at the upper income levels and went back to debt spending. They passed it.

that question (and its implication that the other party is a better bet in that regard) hasnt been anything by laughable in a long long time.

i dont think that a balanced buget is in the cards anytime soon. our national finances are too out of whack to be quickly and easily fixed. we are more like the family whose credit card debt is equal to their yearly income. no matter how much you want to pay it off, its going to take a good many years to do it.

Theres nothing laughable about the question. There doesn't seem to be any mention so far, on either side of a plan to run a balanced budget. I was just trying to point out that if you want a balanced budget the democrats probably won't be the ones to give it to you (not that the republicans will be either, the way they handled 2000-2004). So yea, probably just not going to happen.

Also, I hope that our gov't got a better rate than one would expect from a credit card... A better analogy might be like we bought a house and we're thinking of renting a nice place by the beach on top of it. maybe next year we can buy another house.

Theres nothing laughable about the question. There doesn't seem to be any mention so far, on either side of a plan to run a balanced budget. I was just trying to point out that if you want a balanced budget the democrats probably won't be the ones to give it to you (not that the republicans will be either, the way they handled 2000-2004). So yea, probably just not going to happen.

Also, I hope that our gov't got a better rate than one would expect from a credit card... A better analogy might be like we bought a house and we're thinking of renting a nice place by the beach on top of it. maybe next year we can buy another house.

as long as we understand that its not that the democrats are less likely than the republicans to balance the budget, im fine with it.

im not particularly optimistic that the overwhelmingly democratic congress teamed with a democratic president is going to do right by the country financially. i am resigned to screaming about it when the time comes.

Theres nothing laughable about the question. There doesn't seem to be any mention so far, on either side of a plan to run a balanced budget.

It has been mentioned. The questions are whether or not the proposals would actually work and which, if any, candidates are really trying.

It has been mentioned. The questions are whether or not the proposals would actually work and which, if any, candidates are really trying.

Yeah, I had heard a little, but there didn't seem to be any serious, commitment to keeping a balanced budget. Even if they were to "commit" to doing so it seems unlikely that they would follow through. I am a bit interested to see what they plan to do in detail might be interesting.

It seems to me that things usually turn out a little better if each side has a say- one in legislative, one in executive, that way they can't run amok with spending. Apparently they can't be trusted with both congress and the presidency, which is what makes this election scary to me because it seems that the democrats might take majorities in both houses of congress and the presidency.

Yeah, I had heard a little, but there didn't seem to be any serious, commitment to keeping a balanced budget. Even if they were to "commit" to doing so it seems unlikely that they would follow through. I am a bit interested to see what they plan to do in detail might be interesting.

It seems to me that things usually turn out a little better if each side has a say- one in legislative, one in executive, that way they can't run amok with spending. Apparently they can't be trusted with both congress and the presidency, which is what makes this election scary to me because it seems that the democrats might take majorities in both houses of congress and the presidency.

The last time that happened in this country, we got WorkChoices. It was something most of the country didn't want, and ended up destroying the government and allowed the opposition to win the election.

Given the two year Senate terms in the States, I have hope that something similar would happen there: If the Dems did something unpopular, they would pay for it. I can only hope...

Do you think John McCain is to old to be elected to office? Does Barack Obama any better then McCain or all they both fucked up?:confused:

Yet another post that ignores the sticky election thread.

Yet another post that ignores the sticky election thread.

sticky what?

Yes. He's too old.

The government are trying to make ageism as bad as racism and are making loads of equal opportunity laws for old people, like old people not being allowed not be hired because of there age. I'd laugh if John Mccain only got the job as President because of "Equal opportunities for the elderly".

Yes. He's too old.

And your just to young boyoh!

Yes. He's too old.

Well, if Morgan Freeman were running for office, you would probably vote for him, and he's as old as dirt.

sticky what?

Situational awareness of a fucking rock...

And your just to young boyoh!

15 is not young

Situational awareness of a fucking rock...

...:p

15 is not young

Well 15 is fifteen years older than young! And young is fifteen years to late to be old!

And your just to young boyoh!

That isn't why I'm not running. I'm not running because there are these photos on the internet... you know, let's get back to the topic at hand. ;)

They should have an age limit in goverment!! If that was so most of the congress would be gone!!

Well, if Morgan Freeman were running for office, you would probably vote for him, and he's as old as dirt.

Morgan Freeman is younger. :p


Beisdes, He was Electric Company's Easy Reader:

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

Now you want to vote for him too, don't you? Admit it!!!

Morgan Freeman is younger. :p


Beisdes, He was Electric Company's Easy Reader:

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

Now you want to vote for him too, don't you? Admit it!!!

Yuck that was awfull:eek:

Yuck that was awfull:eek:

You're just not funky enough for Easy Reader. :p

yes he is too old and it shows more every day.

Morgan Freeman is younger. :p


Beisdes, He was Electric Company's Easy Reader:

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

Now you want to vote for him too, don't you? Admit it!!!

I would vote for Morgan Freeman long before voting for Obama.

They should have an age limit in goverment!! If that was so most of the congress would be gone!!If there's a person that can get elected to Congress, and do their job well, it shouldn't matter if they're 40 or 140...

Do you think John McCain is to old to be elected to office? Does Barack Obama any better then McCain or all they both fucked up?:confused:
I think the problem is that everyone is only focusing on Democrat or Republican. as long as we keep switching between the two, the situation really won't change.

Morgan Freeman is younger. :p


Beisdes, He was Electric Company's Easy Reader:

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

Now you want to vote for him too, don't you? Admit it!!!

hell yeah! or at least make him head of the Dept of Education!

Yeah, I had heard a little, but there didn't seem to be any serious, commitment to keeping a balanced budget. Even if they were to "commit" to doing so it seems unlikely that they would follow through. I am a bit interested to see what they plan to do in detail might be interesting.

It seems to me that things usually turn out a little better if each side has a say- one in legislative, one in executive, that way they can't run amok with spending. Apparently they can't be trusted with both congress and the presidency, which is what makes this election scary to me because it seems that the democrats might take majorities in both houses of congress and the presidency.

Tax-and-spend is still better than just spend-and-spend..

Well, I will concede that McCain is too old when his 94 (and still healthy) mother dies and you concede that Barack is too young and inexperienced.

Well, if Morgan Freeman were running for office, you would probably vote for him, and he's as old as dirt.

He can't run, he was already President (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Impact_(film)) ;)

No, McCain isn't too old to be president...

He's just wrong on far too many things to make a good one.

I'm pretty sure he's too old to go clubbing, or go on an 18-30 holiday, or stay up all night shotgunning beers.

Given the two year Senate terms in the States, I have hope that something similar would happen there: If the Dems did something unpopular, they would pay for it. I can only hope...

Actually it's two year in the House. Senators are up for reelection every 6 years.

But it's staggered so that there are some senators up for reelection every 2 years - just not all of them.

Doesn't matter either way, as long as he doesn't get elected

Why is his age a problem? It's not like he has dementia.

Why is his age a problem? It's not like he has dementia.

Exactly.

Also, how is this (under the current US laws) any different from asking whether Barack is too black.

Also, how is this (under the current US laws) any different from asking whether Barack is too black.

To be fair, age could impact one's ability to be president if it caused health problems or memory problems or something, whereas there isn't really any way at all that race could impact one's competency for the job.

To be fair, age could impact one's ability to be president if it caused health problems or memory problems or something, whereas there isn't really any way at all that race could impact one's competency for the job.

McCain is perfectly healthy, and has the physicals to show it. His ninety-four year old mother is perfectly healthy, and has the physicals to show it. Health is genetic, and McCain lives a healthy lifestyle (the man still jogs for chrissakes!) so the danger of him being unfit for command is slim to none.

McCain is perfectly healthy, and has the physicals to show it. His ninety-four year old mother is perfectly healthy, and has the physicals to show it. Health is genetic, and McCain lives a healthy lifestyle (the man still jogs for chrissakes!) so the danger of him being unfit for command is slim to none.

Which is why I made an earlier post saying his age doesn't make him unfit to be president; being wrong on just about everything does. ;)

I was just saying that comparing "too old" and "too black" seems a bit wrong to me.

Which is why I made an earlier post saying his age doesn't make him unfit to be president; being wrong on just about everything does. ;)

I was just saying that comparing "too old" and "too black" seems a bit wrong to me.

According to the civil rights laws in place in our country at this time it is no different.

Yet another post that ignores the sticky election thread.
Which is a general thread on the election and hard to get a particular point discussed by everyone. This thread however is made for a specific purpose and has a poll. I fail to see your point.

Edit: Yes I'm aware this was talked about in the sticky, maybe I see your point a little...in the distance...with a telescope

The polls recently have been very puzzling. The national polls are almost all very close, but the state polls, even in swing states, tend to have Obama with a rather large lead.

The polls recently have been very puzzling. The national polls are almost all very close, but the state polls, even in swing states, tend to have Obama with a rather large lead.
There's a couple of factors that go into that. Nationally, Obama is getting slammed from his roots and from McCain, and the stories have been fueling that fire. So a national poll is going to reflect that.

On top of that, a lot of statewide polls are stale, especially if you're looking at electoral-vote.com, so they don't reflect the 'up to the minute' information that might mean he's either not doing as well or maybe better, depending.

On the other hand, Obama is doing what he did in the primaries, he's targeting his campaigning and building his base in places not expected. Like Montana, where he's turned the polling around in that state recently. So, in the places where he has been focusing his campaign he's been building support while the overall national support may appear to be waining. It's an acknowledgment that that the election is November, not August, and that what matters is electoral college votes. McCain might appear to being doing well now, but should Obama's strategy work out, he'll find himself playing a difficult game of catch up come October, in his own backyard no less.

Now, this could all fail-the base he's building now could prove to be not strong enough, he could blow out all his support with a blunder of something of the kind between now and then. All sorts of things can happen. But that's whats happening right now.

If I could vote, it would be for McCain, 3 more years...

There's a couple of factors that go into that. Nationally, Obama is getting slammed from his roots and from McCain, and the stories have been fueling that fire.

I hardly think that McCain's efforts so far (which seem feeble enough) can be called "slamming".

Which is a general thread on the election and hard to get a particular point discussed by everyone. This thread however is made for a specific purpose and has a poll. I fail to see your point.

Edit: Yes I'm aware this was talked about in the sticky, maybe I see your point a little...in the distance...with a telescope

It's a point constantly hammered home by the mods, not me.

I may have missed this being mentioned if it was, but challenges to McCain's elig ibility have been brought up again...

A Hint of New Life to a McCain Birth Issue

By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: July 11, 2008

In the most detailed examination yet of Senator John McCain’s eligibility to be president, a law professor at the University of Arizona has concluded that neither Mr. McCain’s birth in 1936 in the Panama Canal Zone nor the fact that his parents were American citizens is enough to satisfy the constitutional requirement that the president must be a “natural-born citizen.”


The analysis, by Prof. Gabriel J. Chin, focused on a 1937 law that has been largely overlooked in the debate over Mr. McCain’s eligibility to be president. The law conferred citizenship on children of American parents born in the Canal Zone after 1904, and it made John McCain a citizen just before his first birthday. But the law came too late, Professor Chin argued, to make Mr. McCain a natural-born citizen.

“It’s preposterous that a technicality like this can make a difference in an advanced democracy,” Professor Chin said. “But this is the constitutional text that we have.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/us/politics/11mccain.html?bl&ex=1215921600&en=586df8e7d68e636f&ei=5087

I may have missed this being mentioned if it was, but challenges to McCain's elig ibility have been brought up again...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/us/politics/11mccain.html?bl&ex=1215921600&en=586df8e7d68e636f&ei=5087

Precedent. Awesome. President Arnie, here we come.

Why is his age a problem? It's not like he has dementia.

Perhaps it should matter? Human brain function changes with time, and it's pretty much a downhill path. Sure, he has 'experience', and has coping mechanisms to circumnavigate lost funtionality - but shouldn't mental deterioration be considered a reasonable concern?

Perhaps it should matter? Human brain function changes with time, and it's pretty much a downhill path. Sure, he has 'experience', and has coping mechanisms to circumnavigate lost funtionality - but shouldn't mental deterioration be considered a reasonable concern?

If you're billing John McCain's age as a virtue, then you should be expected to defend him against the possibility of senility. But his campaign isn't really doing that, and he has shown no signs that he will become less functional in the next four years. (Unless you count his seeming deterioration into a more conservative politician, but I attribute that to non-biological causes.)

Why is his age a problem? It's not like he has dementia.

you know how you have to go and handle simple things on the computer for your grandma all the time, because the world today moves too fast for her to keep up? that.

however, mccain is aware of the internet

50 Obama lies

1.) Selma Got Me Born –
LIAR, your parents felt safe enough to have you in 1961 – Selma had no effect on your birth. Selma was in 1965.

2.) Father Was A Goat Herder –
LIAR, he was a privileged, well educated youth, who went on to work with the Kenyan Government.

3.) Father Was A Proud Freedom Fighter –
LIAR, he was part of one of the most corrupt and violent governments Kenya has ever had.

4.) My Family Has Strong Ties To African Freedom –
LIAR, your cousin Raila Odinga has created
mass violence in attempting to overturn a legitimate election in 2007, in Kenya. It is the first widespread violence in decades.

5.) My Grandmother Has Always Been A Christian
LIAR, she does her daily Salat prayers at 5am according to her own interviews. According to the
New York Times: "I am a strong believer of the Islamic faith," Ms. Obama, 85, said in a recent
interview in Kenya.' Not to mention, Christianity wouldn't allow her to have been one of 14 wives to 1 man.

6.) My Name is African Swahili –
LIAR, your name is Arabic and 'Baraka'
(from which Barack came) means 'blessed' in that language. Hussein is also Arabic and so is Obama.

7.) I Never Practiced Islam –
LIAR, you practiced it daily at school, where you were registered as a Muslim and kept that faith for 31 years, until your wife made you change, so you could run for
office.

8. ) My School In Indonesia Was Christian -
LIAR, you were registered as Muslim there and got in trouble in Koranic Studies for making faces (check
your own book).

9.) I Was Fluent In Indonesian –
LIAR, not one teacher says you could speak the language.

10.) Because I Lived In Indonesia, I Have More Foreign Experience –
LIAR, you were there from the ages of 6 to 10, and couldn't even speak the language. What did you learn?

11.) I Am Stronger On Foreign Affairs –
LIAR, except for Africa (surprise) and the Middle East (bigger surprise), you have never been anywhere else on the planet and thus have NO experience with our closest allies. You seek to disarm America while our avowed enemy, Iran, will not subject itself to a nuclear ban. Top Hamas politica l adviser Ahmed
Yousef said the Hamas terrorist group 'supports
Obama's foreign policy vision'.

12.) I Blame My Early Drug Use On Ethnic Confusion -
LIAR, you were quite content in high school to be Barry Obama, no mention of Kenya and no mention of struggle to identify - your classmates said you were
just fine.

13.)An Ebony Article Moved Me To Run For Office –
LIAR, Ebony has yet to find the article you
mention in your book. It doesn't, and never did,
exist.

14.) A Life Magazine Article Changed My Outlook On Life –
LIAR, Life has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn't, and never did, exist.

15.) I Won't Run On A National Ticket In '08 -
LIAR, here you are, despite saying, live on TV, that you would not have enough experience by then, and
you are all about having experience first.

16.) Present Votes Are Common In Illinois -
LIAR, they are common for YOU, but not many others have 130 NO V OTES.

17.) Oops, I Misvoted –
LIAR, only when caught by church groups and Democrats, did you beg to change your misvote.

18.) I Was A Professor Of Law –
LIAR you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.

19.) I Was A Constitutional Lawyer –
LIAR , you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.

20.) Without Me, There Would Be No Ethics Bill
LIAR , you didn't write it,introduce it, change it,
or create it.

21.) The Ethics Bill Was Hard To Pass –
LIAR , it took just 14 days from start to finish.

22.) I Wrote A Tough Nuclear Bill –
LIAR , your bill was rejected by your own party for its pandering and lack of all regulation - mainly because of your Nuclear Donor, Exelon, from which David Axelrod came.

23.) I Have Released My State Records –
LIAR , as of March, 2008, state bills you sponsored or voted for have yet to be released, exposing all the special interests pork hidden within.

24.) I Took On The Asbestos Altgeld Gardens Mess –
LIAR , you were part of a large group of
people who remedied Altgeld Gardens. You failed to mention anyone else but yourself, in your books.

25.) My Economics Bill Will Help America -
LIAR , your 111 economic policies were just combined into a proposal which lost 99-0, and even YOU voted
against your own bill.

26.) I Have Been A Bold Leader In Illinois -
LIAR , even your own supporters claim to have not seen BOLD action on your part.

27.) I Passed 26 Of My Own Bills In One Year -
LIAR , they were not YOUR bills, but rather handed to you, after their creation by a fellow Senator, to
assist you in a future bid for higher office.

28.) No One Contacted Canada About NAFTA -
LIAR , the Candian Government issued the names and a memo of the conversation your campaign had with
them.

29.) I Am Tough On Terrorism –
LIAR , you missed the Iran Resolution vote on terrorism
And your good friend Ali Abunimah supports the destruction of Israel. You state you will open friendly communication with the Leader of Iran who is attempting to develop nuclear weapons to destroy us, but refuse to speak to FOX news. You are
against provisions of the Patriot act which would all wiretapping of the phones of suspected terrorists in the USA.

30.) I Am Not Acting As President Yet –
LIAR ,after the NAFTA Memo, a dead terrorist in the FARC, in Colombia, was found with a letter stating how You and he were working together on getting FARC
recognized officially.

31.) I Didn't Run Ads In Florida –
LIAR , you allowed national ads to run 8-12 times per day for two weeks - and you still lost.

32.) I Won Michigan - ,
LIAR no you didn't.

33.) I won Nevada –
LIAR , no you did not.

34.) I Want All Votes To Count –
LIAR, you said let the delegates decide.

35.) I Want Americans To Decide –
LIAR , you prefer caucuses that limit the vote,
confuse the voters, force a public vote, and only operate during small windows of time.

36.) I passed 900 Bills in the State Senate -
LIAR , you passed 26, most of which you didn't write yourself.

37.) My Campaign Was Extorted By A Friend -
LIAR , that friend is threatening to sue if you do not stop saying this. Obama has stopped saying this.

38.) I Believe In Fairness, Not Tactics -
LIAR , you used tactics to eliminate Alice Palmer from running against you.

39.) I Don't Take PAC Money –
LIAR , you take loads of it.

40.) I don't Have Lobbysists –
LIAR , you have over 47 lobbyists, and counting.

41.) My Campaign Had Nothing To Do With The 1984 Ad –
LIAR , your own campaign worker made the ad
on his Apple in one afternoon.

42.) My Campaign Never Took Over MySpace -
LIAR , Tom, who started MySpace issued a warning about this advertising to MySpace clients.

43.) I Inspire People With My Words –
LIAR you inspire people with other people's words.

44.) I Have Passed Bills In The U.S. Senate -
LIAR , you have passed A BILL in the U.S. Senate - for Africa, which shows YOUR priorities.

45.) I Have Always Been Against Iraq –
LIAR , you weren't in office to vote against it AND you have voted to fund it every single time, unlike Kucinich, who seems to be out gutting you Obama. You also seem to be stepping back from your departure date - AGAIN.

46.) I Have Always Supported Universal Health Care –
LIAR , your plan leaves us all to pay the
15,000,000 who don't have to buy it.

47.) I Only Found Out About My Investment
Conflicts Via Mail –
LIAR , both companies you site as having sent you letters about this conflict have no record of any such letter ever being created or sent.

48.) I Am As Patriotic As Anyone –
YOU LIAR, you won't wear a flag pin and you don't even know how to put your hand
over your heart during the National Anthem.

There is a Cuban Flag with Che Guevara Displayed at Barack Obama Campaign Office which you allow
to be displayed.

You voted against making English the official language of the United States.

You voted to give illegal aliens social security benefits, Which would bankrupt the social security system for
Americans legally paying into it.

49.) My Wife Didn't Mean What She Said About Pride In Country –
LIAR your wife's words follow lock-step in the vain of Rev. Wright and Louis Farrahkan, in relation to their contempt and hatred of America.

50.) Wal-Mart Is A Company I Wouldn't Support
LIAR , your wife has received nearly a quarter of a million dollars through Treehouse, which is connected
to Wal-Mart.

you know how you have to go and handle simple things on the computer for your grandma all the time, because the world today moves too fast for her to keep up? that.

however, mccain is aware of the internet

Didn't he say he was aware of it... but doesn't know how to use it, or something?

If you're billing John McCain's age as a virtue, then you should be expected to defend him against the possibility of senility. But his campaign isn't really doing that, and he has shown no signs that he will become less functional in the next four years. (Unless you count his seeming deterioration into a more conservative politician, but I attribute that to non-biological causes.)

If Obama's youth is an issue, then McCain's age must be an issue, surely? Republicans can't keep calling him inexperienced, without expecting some kind of flipside reaction. If they're going to keep touting McCain's experience, they (similarly) have to expect the other face of that coin to be exposed. No one gets 'experienced' without having to be around for a while. The more 'experienced' he is, the older he must be.

To me, it's worth bearing in mind that he's going to be a fraction older than Reagan was, in the same situation. And we all know how that turned out.

50 Obama lies
...to Wal-Mart.

If you're going to spam us with stuff you found on some other site, you should really at least cite your source.

Of course, even that might not actually support any of the claims. In other words - this post isn't worth a real response.

If you want to re-write it in your own words, credit your sources.. or, at least, show some evidence, you might get a response. As it is - this is spam.