NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, so, guys, you know that Obama informercial? The one that has had ad time bought on a lot of networks?

We've got Dish Network(satellite television) and so since Obama was on the Daily Show tonight I decided to head in and watch it, and I saw this:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v625/PIcaRDMPC/IMG_0023-1.jpg

That's right. Obama has an ENTIRE CHANNEL ON DISH NETWORK. Holy shit.

Is there a big movement for AI rights?

Well, no, but there will be once sentient A.I.s start appearing, which is only a matter of time.

Okay, so, guys, you know that Obama informercial? The one that has had ad time bought on a lot of networks?

We've got Dish Network(satellite television) and so since Obama was on the Daily Show tonight I decided to head in and watch it, and I saw this:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v625/PIcaRDMPC/IMG_0023-1.jpg

That's right. Obama has an ENTIRE CHANNEL ON DISH NETWORK. Holy shit.


Why doesnt he just buy the country?

LOL I missed it. But I DVRed it. I thought it was good. Obama didn't focus on himself so much, he focused on people from all across the country. I think that was well done. If anything else, it gets people to stop thinking of 'Joe the 'fake' Plumber' and on to the lives of honest to goodness people, and their struggles to exist.

Of course it was a rehash of all the things he's promised over the campagne cycle, but that's a given. I liked it better than Palin's 'paling around with terrorist remarks' or McCain's other mindless attacks. Obama spoke about people, not about character, and in this election I feel that matters the most. I am sick and tired of the character assination attempts the Republicans have done on canidates. From McCain's attacks on Obama to the recent attack from Sen. Dole on Hagen. I am not sure about a lot of Americans but I want meat and potates issues, that focus on the economy, not flim-flam that the Republicans have sold and I think Obama has won on that hands down.

Anyway the commerical hit the mark with me. Of course with hard-hearted Republicans I doubt it's going to make the mark. But the guess is good on how this is going to hit the undecideds, the inependants, and others who are on the fence.

Well that is who the ad is really aimed for those undecided voters. And I think from memory there is a about 6% of the populations still undecided. I'm sure I will be corrected with this figure, but I can't find the article (from today's paper) that said this.

EDIT: Just found it: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24574610-26397,00.html

Because he has a good PR team, and he was a good chance to win a few medals. Not to mentoin when doing a sports report they actually have to report on sports sometimes. I started a thread on the Olympics because I thought it was something people might want to talk about.

Well I orginally posted this because a question was asked something along the lines of "this just makes you feel good doesn't it?" I replied to the question and then people wanted to know why I felt like that.

STOPPIT! And Jocabia, stop encouraging him. Blimey, you can't find enough to discuss that's actually on the topic, you have to wander off into these leafless and arid byways? Back on track!

(BTW, Jocabia, if you make some awful American joke about "track and field" -- we call it "athletics" -- you're toast, you hear me, toast!)

(BTW, Jocabia, if you make some awful American joke about "track and field" -- we call it "athletics" -- you're toast, you hear me, toast!)

...with Vegemite on it, and that really is the worst kind of toast.

...and in terms of the history of aboriginals, you don't think it was significant?

I remember reading about the aftermath of 9/11, that it created a shared sense of being American - people talked about the huge improvement in race relations, all relations, in NYC after the event.

Perhaps it was just a nod of the head, an 'are you okay', a shared sense of responsibility to each other and the most noted point was that this was occurring between black and white, rich and poor.

Everyone became a little more human, perhaps just for a little while.

Events like these, the election of America's first black president, are significant and this woman epitomizes why, just as the Cathy Freeman story released such positive feelings in Australia.

Well you could make something of that if you wanted to she had already won silver in Atlanta but she wasn't the first Aboriginal to win an Olympic gold either that title went to Nova Peris-kneebone in Atlanta (if anything she should have got more coverage than Freeman). I think one of the main things that brought a lot of Australians together was not just Freeman (she was a small part of it) but the fact that it was being held in Australia and that we were performing well across almost all sports not to mention the sense of pride love of the country that was washing through ithe country at the time.

there is a about 6% of the populations still undecided.
I'm sure it's been said already, but:
How The Hell Can Anyone Still Be Undecided?

what is so hard to distinguish between the two?

one's black, one's white
one's young, one's old
one's got an intelligent veep, one's got a grinning imbecile
one wants to leave the Iraq, one wants to stay there 100 years
one has a clue about the economy, one doesn't
one favours abortion rights, one doesn't
one supports gay marriages, one doesn't
one wants alternative energy, one wants to drill, drill, drill
one didn't support George Bush, one did

They're different you morons, now make up your mind and vote!

How do these people even get up in the morning, let alone dress themselves? (which leg shall I put through my trousers first today...uh..emm..um..left..No! right...No! left...uhhh...how many choices do I have?)

on the plus side: 6% undecided - that means if all voted for McCain, he'd still lose.

STOPPIT! And Jocabia, stop encouraging him. Blimey, you can't find enough to discuss that's actually on the topic, you have to wander off into these leafless and arid byways? Back on track!

(BTW, Jocabia, if you make some awful American joke about "track and field" -- we call it "athletics" -- you're toast, you hear me, toast!)

I'll track your field.

(BTW, Jocabia, if you make some awful American joke about "track and field" -- we call it "athletics" -- you're toast, you hear me, toast!)
That game is awesome...I was more of a wallet user than a comb user...


What?

That game is awesome...I was more of a wallet user than a comb user...


What?

Dude, the best bit was the tapping the buttons super fast and someone hit the jump button for you. Teamwork. Sweet.

Okay, so, guys, you know that Obama informercial? The one that has had ad time bought on a lot of networks?

We've got Dish Network(satellite television) and so since Obama was on the Daily Show tonight I decided to head in and watch it, and I saw this:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v625/PIcaRDMPC/IMG_0023-1.jpg

That's right. Obama has an ENTIRE CHANNEL ON DISH NETWORK. Holy shit.

Seen it. I saw that I was like isn't that 'nifty' LOL

I have Dish as well. But my mom tends to watch more CNN than anything else.

I'm sure it's been said already, but:
How The Hell Can Anyone Still Be Undecided?

what is so hard to distinguish between the two?

one's black, one's white
one's young, one's old
one's got an intelligent veep, one's got a grinning imbecile
one wants to leave the Iraq, one wants to stay there 100 years
one has a clue about the economy, one doesn't
one favours abortion rights, one doesn't
one supports gay marriages, one doesn't
one wants alternative energy, one wants to drill, drill, drill
one didn't support George Bush, one did

They're different you morons, now make up your mind and vote!

How do these people even get up in the morning, let alone dress themselves? (which leg shall I put through my trousers first today...uh..emm..um..left..No! right...No! left...uhhh...how many choices do I have?)

on the plus side: 6% undecided - that means if all voted for McCain, he'd still lose.

Why should that matter in deciding?

The others may be what people care about and both may have different ideals that the voter supports. Do they value gay marriage over drilling more or vice-versa. It could be hard to decide for these people or maybe they don't want to say anything and will just pick at random on the day.

Dude, the best bit was the tapping the buttons super fast and someone hit the jump button for you. Teamwork. Sweet.

With the wallet you could have a hand free to hit the jump button, and if you're left handed and playing the Player 1 spot it means you have your elbow up to 'interfere' with the other player...not that I would do such a thing...<.<>.>

Why should that matter in deciding?

The others may be what people care about and both may have different ideals that the voter supports. Do they value gay marriage over drilling more or vice-versa. It could be hard to decide for these people or maybe they don't want to say anything and will just pick at random on the day.

Or they could be just deciding to stay home and are perhaps anti-establishment people. I know a few that don't care shit about voting. They just want to be left alone. Sad but true.

Or they could be just deciding to stay home and are perhaps anti-establishment people. I know a few that don't care shit about voting. They just want to be left alone. Sad but true.

Yeah that's true but are they counted as undecided in the polls?

Silly is the point. I thoroughly enjoy the people who post for pages to prove how little they care and how silly we all are for understanding a particular struggle. Notice the circle he's painted. First, he can't understand how it's touching. Then he describes exactly how it is touching. Now we're back to how he can't understand.


It sounds to me like there's a lot of touching going on here. Lets be careful now that none of it is bad touching.

Yeah that's true but are they counted as undecided in the polls?

No idea, but if they are given a phone survey and they hang up or say they don't want either canaidate. I guess statstically they are probably put in the undecided/other bracket. But I am not really sure where they fit in a survey.

But there is also a good chance that the undecideds may stay home and not vote, since at this time, if they haven't made up their mind, they may decide snce they don't know who to vote for they may stay home. Could these be the people who are Republican and don't want to vote for McCain because of him being too much like Bush? And they don't want to vote for the Democratic caniadate. Or are these people who just don't believe in either Republican or Democrat canidate and don't know enough about any of the third party canidates to make an informed decision. At anyrate, it's hard to say at this late date whether or not this bloc will actually make a diffrence or whether they won't.

No idea, but if they are given a phone survey and they hang up or say they don't want either canaidate. I guess statstically they are probably put in the undecided/other bracket. But I am not really sure where they fit in a survey.

But there is also a good chance that the undecideds may stay home and not vote, since at this time, if they haven't made up their mind, they may decide snce they don't know who to vote for they may stay home. Could these be the people who are Republican and don't want to vote for McCain because of him being too much like Bush? And they don't want to vote for the Democratic caniadate. Or are these people who just don't believe in either Republican or Democrat canidate and don't know enough about any of the third party canidates to make an informed decision. At anyrate, it's hard to say at this late date whether or not this bloc will actually make a diffrence or whether they won't.

Yeah well maybe I don't know, but surely those that say they aren't interested or just hang up shouldn't be counted at all.

The undecided may not decide to rock up, I think the article I linked said something about how those undecided may just turn up on the day and choose one at random because they just don't know.

As for whether they will have an effect or not really depends on how accurate the polls are and where these undecided voters are. If they are in a safe state then it wouldn't matter if they are in a close state then they may have an impact even more so if the polls are to lenient towards a candidate.

That game is awesome...I was more of a wallet user than a comb user...


What?

A brilliant offering from the Konami stable. I used a carpenter's pencil.

No idea, but if they are given a phone survey and they hang up or say they don't want either canaidate. I guess statstically they are probably put in the undecided/other bracket. But I am not really sure where they fit in a survey.

But there is also a good chance that the undecideds may stay home and not vote, since at this time, if they haven't made up their mind, they may decide snce they don't know who to vote for they may stay home. Could these be the people who are Republican and don't want to vote for McCain because of him being too much like Bush? And they don't want to vote for the Democratic caniadate. Or are these people who just don't believe in either Republican or Democrat canidate and don't know enough about any of the third party canidates to make an informed decision. At anyrate, it's hard to say at this late date whether or not this bloc will actually make a diffrence or whether they won't.
either they dont want to talk about who they are voting for to annoying strangers on the phone....but dont like hanging up on them

or they just wanted to talk to someone and there was the nice stranger on the phone calling...

or they dont want to tell the annoying stranger on the phone that they really dont intend to vote because it makes them look like bad citizens.

or they are idiots who are going to wait until the 4th and then vote for whoever's lawnsign is closest to the precinct they vote in.

LOL I missed it. But I DVRed it. I thought it was good. Obama didn't focus on himself so much, he focused on people from all across the country. I think that was well done. If anything else, it gets people to stop thinking of 'Joe the 'fake' Plumber' and on to the lives of honest to goodness people, and their struggles to exist.

Of course it was a rehash of all the things he's promised over the campagne cycle, but that's a given. I liked it better than Palin's 'paling around with terrorist remarks' or McCain's other mindless attacks. Obama spoke about people, not about character, and in this election I feel that matters the most. I am sick and tired of the character assination attempts the Republicans have done on canidates. From McCain's attacks on Obama to the recent attack from Sen. Dole on Hagen. I am not sure about a lot of Americans but I want meat and potates issues, that focus on the economy, not flim-flam that the Republicans have sold and I think Obama has won on that hands down.

Anyway the commerical hit the mark with me. Of course with hard-hearted Republicans I doubt it's going to make the mark. But the guess is good on how this is going to hit the undecideds, the inependants, and others who are on the fence.

I was a little disappointed that the ad was all show and no substance. I had been hoping for more details about his policy proposals.

However, one thing it did and did very, very well, in my opinion, was drive a stake through the heart of the McCain camp's vicious claims that Obama isn't supported by "real Americans," or that he doesn't understand what "real Americans" believe or are coping with. It painted a very good, classic, Norman Rockwell idea of the kinds of people Obama is talking to and about, and who are supporting him, that will be very hard for the rightwing to keep on demonizing. The people whose stories he highlighted and who gave testimonials about him did not create an image of rabid socialist terrorists just champing at the bit to beat us all to death with Qurans while emptying our wallets to give money to our enemies. I also very much enjoyed the parade of high ranking politicians and experts from both sides of the political spectrum who repeated their endorsements of Obama during it.

I was hoping to hear more about his plans, but I'm satisfied that the ad turned out to be a solid, unanswered and, I think, unanswerable political move.

I'm sure it's been said already, but:
How The Hell Can Anyone Still Be Undecided?

what is so hard to distinguish between the two?

one's black, one's white
one's young, one's old
one's got an intelligent veep, one's got a grinning imbecile
one wants to leave the Iraq, one wants to stay there 100 years
one has a clue about the economy, one doesn't
one favours abortion rights, one doesn't
one supports gay marriages, one doesn't
one wants alternative energy, one wants to drill, drill, drill
one didn't support George Bush, one did

They're different you morons, now make up your mind and vote!

How do these people even get up in the morning, let alone dress themselves? (which leg shall I put through my trousers first today...uh..emm..um..left..No! right...No! left...uhhh...how many choices do I have?)

on the plus side: 6% undecided - that means if all voted for McCain, he'd still lose.
Dave Sedaris writing in the New Yorker a while ago (sorry I don't have the link handy atm) said that being undecided at this point in this elections is like being a passenger on a plane, and when the flight attendant comes round to take dinner orders and offers you a choice between chicken and a tray full of shit with broken glass in it, you hesitate and then ask how the chicken is prepared.

Dave Sedaris writing in the New Yorker a while ago (sorry I don't have the link handy atm) said that being undecided at this point in this elections is like being a passenger on a plane, and when the flight attendant comes round to take dinner orders and offers you a choice between chicken and a tray full of shit with broken glass in it, you hesitate and then ask how the chicken is prepared.

lol, you could still chose neither though if you don't like how the chicked is prepared just don't complain when your hungry.

Dave Sedaris writing in the New Yorker a while ago (sorry I don't have the link handy atm) said that being undecided at this point in this elections is like being a passenger on a plane, and when the flight attendant comes round to take dinner orders and offers you a choice between chicken and a tray full of shit with broken glass in it, you hesitate and then ask how the chicken is prepared.

That would be this Shouts & Murmurs (http://www.newyorker.com/humor/2008/10/27/081027sh_shouts_sedaris) piece. I think it's funnier if you know what his voice sounds like and can imagine him reading it.

on the plus side: 6% undecided - that means if all voted for McCain, he'd still lose.

I saw something last night (might have been on the Daily Show) that showed 5% "unknown or undecided" in the exit polls. That means that 30 seconds after casting the ballot, they didn't know who they voted for.

It was a funny line, but I think that almost all the so-called undecided voters are people who just don't like talking to pollsters. Either that, or it's the default response by the poll taker to an incomplete response. It's a statistical anomaly, and I'm not paying attention to 'undecided' anymore.

That would be this Shouts & Murmurs (http://www.newyorker.com/humor/2008/10/27/081027sh_shouts_sedaris) piece. I think it's funnier if you know what his voice sounds like and can imagine him reading it.
Thanks for the link. It's a good piece.

I saw something last night (might have been on the Daily Show) that showed 5% "unknown or undecided" in the exit polls. That means that 30 seconds after casting the ballot, they didn't know who they voted for.

It was a funny line, but I think that almost all the so-called undecided voters are people who just don't like talking to pollsters. Either that, or it's the default response by the poll taker to an incomplete response. It's a statistical anomaly, and I'm not paying attention to 'undecided' anymore.

the one place to look out for is 'undecided' african-american voters. they almost certainly just aren't comfortable talking to pollsters, and just as certainly will be going for obama by at least 4-1. so in some races obama (and democrats more generally) is going to pick up a couple points for sure.

I was a little disappointed that the ad was all show and no substance. I had been hoping for more details about his policy proposals.

However, one thing it did and did very, very well, in my opinion, was drive a stake through the heart of the McCain camp's vicious claims that Obama isn't supported by "real Americans," or that he doesn't understand what "real Americans" believe or are coping with. It painted a very good, classic, Norman Rockwell idea of the kinds of people Obama is talking to and about, and who are supporting him, that will be very hard for the rightwing to keep on demonizing. The people whose stories he highlighted and who gave testimonials about him did not create an image of rabid socialist terrorists just champing at the bit to beat us all to death with Qurans while emptying our wallets to give money to our enemies. I also very much enjoyed the parade of high ranking politicians and experts from both sides of the political spectrum who repeated their endorsements of Obama during it.

I was hoping to hear more about his plans, but I'm satisfied that the ad turned out to be a solid, unanswered and, I think, unanswerable political move.


I actually disagree, but only partially. Everything Obama stated in this ad had been mentioned in the debates. So if you feel the debates didn't answer your questions, then I suppose it didn't.

But having the people talk about their needs and worries sort was a nice touch. Obama is basically saying I care about you. And that was a nice way to go about it.

On another note, do you think if McCain had had the funds, would he have done the same thing? I think he would have. Would have been intresting to see Joe the Plumber. :p

I actually disagree, but only partially. Everything Obama stated in this ad had been mentioned in the debates. So if you feel the debates didn't answer your questions, then I suppose it didn't.

But having the people talk about their needs and worries sort was a nice touch. Obama is basically saying I care about you. And that was a nice way to go about it.

On another note, do you think if McCain had had the funds, would he have done the same thing? I think he would have. Would have been intresting to see Joe the Plumber. :p

Oh, I don't have any questions. I'm just curious. It's like, "Okay, I'm buying this. Now show me every detail of how it works, because I can't wait to get my hands on it." :D

And no, to be honest, I don't think McCain would have done the same thing. I don't think it would have occurred to his campaign managers that it would have been a good idea. I'm just guessing from everything else they've done.

oh my

the economist has endorsed obama.

"The Economist does not have a vote, but if it did, it would cast it for Mr Obama. We do so wholeheartedly: the Democratic candidate has clearly shown that he offers the better chance of restoring America’s self-confidence. But we acknowledge it is a gamble. Given Mr Obama’s inexperience, the lack of clarity about some of his beliefs and the prospect of a stridently Democratic Congress, voting for him is a risk. Yet it is one America should take, given the steep road ahead."

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12516666&source=features_box_main

oh my

the economist has endorsed obama.

"The Economist does not have a vote, but if it did, it would cast it for Mr Obama. We do so wholeheartedly: the Democratic candidate has clearly shown that he offers the better chance of restoring America’s self-confidence. But we acknowledge it is a gamble. Given Mr Obama’s inexperience, the lack of clarity about some of his beliefs and the prospect of a stridently Democratic Congress, voting for him is a risk. Yet it is one America should take, given the steep road ahead."

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12516666&source=features_box_main

I just contacted Ronald Regan during a séance and he has confirmed that hell has frozen over.

Joe the Plumber Misses Rally, Confuses McCain (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/10/showless-joe-mc.html)

Brilliant! :D

Joe the Plumber Misses Rally, Confuses McCain (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/10/showless-joe-mc.html)

Brilliant! :D

Too funny. Um...well...you're ALL Joe the Plumbers! Yeah, that's the ticket...

Too funny. Um...well...you're ALL Joe the Plumbers! Yeah, that's the ticket...

You're ALL fakers ?
Why thank you mister McCain !

oh my

the economist has endorsed obama.

"The Economist does not have a vote, but if it did, it would cast it for Mr Obama. We do so wholeheartedly: the Democratic candidate has clearly shown that he offers the better chance of restoring America’s self-confidence. But we acknowledge it is a gamble. Given Mr Obama’s inexperience, the lack of clarity about some of his beliefs and the prospect of a stridently Democratic Congress, voting for him is a risk. Yet it is one America should take, given the steep road ahead."

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12516666&source=features_box_main

BUWHAHAHA!!!

SUCK IT REPUBLICANS!

This, of course, also means TAI will be voting for Obama now;)

Dave Sedaris writing in the New Yorker a while ago (sorry I don't have the link handy atm) said that being undecided at this point in this elections is like being a passenger on a plane, and when the flight attendant comes round to take dinner orders and offers you a choice between chicken and a tray full of shit with broken glass in it, you hesitate and then ask how the chicken is prepared.

Clearly this Dave Sedaris is a racist, because he implied that Obama is chicken, a stereotypical black food.

What's next? Is Biden going to be collard greens and chitterlings?

BUWHAHAHA!!!

SUCK IT REPUBLICANS!

This, of course, also means TAI will be voting for Obama now;)

Pfft, like TAI is going to vote for Blacky McBlack. Racist, remember?

I was a little disappointed that the ad was all show and no substance. I had been hoping for more details about his policy proposals.

However, one thing it did and did very, very well, in my opinion, was drive a stake through the heart of the McCain camp's vicious claims that Obama isn't supported by "real Americans," or that he doesn't understand what "real Americans" believe or are coping with. It painted a very good, classic, Norman Rockwell idea of the kinds of people Obama is talking to and about, and who are supporting him, that will be very hard for the rightwing to keep on demonizing. The people whose stories he highlighted and who gave testimonials about him did not create an image of rabid socialist terrorists just champing at the bit to beat us all to death with Qurans while emptying our wallets to give money to our enemies. I also very much enjoyed the parade of high ranking politicians and experts from both sides of the political spectrum who repeated their endorsements of Obama during it.

I was hoping to hear more about his plans, but I'm satisfied that the ad turned out to be a solid, unanswered and, I think, unanswerable political move.

The problem is that the most recent iteration of this kind of thing is still going to haunt any current attempt, and that's Ross Perot's series of flip charts. That they made an emotional connection rather than a clinical one (also remember the criticism of Kerry's dry nature) was likely a very deliberate decision.

Pfft, like TAI is going to vote for Blacky McBlack. Racist, remember?
But...but... the Economist sez... :eek:

The problem is that the most recent iteration of this kind of thing is still going to haunt any current attempt, and that's Ross Perot's series of flip charts. That they made an emotional connection rather than a clinical one (also remember the criticism of Kerry's dry nature) was likely a very deliberate decision.
To be honest, I'm not so sure a lot of people will remember Perot's flip charts as readily as you just did. And if they do, I don't think Obama's little power point presentation will come off badly by comparison. But whatever. I actually almost wish he hadn't done it at all, but since he has done it, I don't think it was bad.

But...but... the Economist sez... :eek:
Clearly, the Economist has been taken over by those damned darkies.
To be honest, I'm not so sure a lot of people will remember Perot's flip charts as readily as you just did. And if they do, I don't think Obama's little power point presentation will come off badly by comparison. But whatever. I actually almost wish he hadn't done it at all, but since he has done it, I don't think it was bad.

I know I don't remember Perot's flip charts.

But then I was five in 1992...

Why was Perot so popular anyway? From everything I can find, he sounds like a Kerry-esque Ron Paul, and without even the internet to try to help prop him up.

Clearly, the Economist has been taken over by those damned darkies.


I know I don't remember Perot's flip charts.

But then I was five in 1992...

Why was Perot so popular anyway? From everything I can find, he sounds like a Kerry-esque Ron Paul, and without even the internet to try to help prop him up.

Actually, at the time, he came across as more of a Warren Buffet type -- super-competent private sector success story; no bullshit attitude; a record of getting shit done on time and within budget -- and that appealed to a lot of people who felt fed up with government waste and corruption. But, like Sarah Palin, the more you heard from him, the less he seemed able to deliver what a country needs from government. So he didn't accomplish much that way.

Actually, at the time, he came across as more of a Warren Buffet type -- super-competent private sector success story; no bullshit attitude; a record of getting shit done on time and within budget -- and that appealed to a lot of people who felt fed up with government waste and corruption. But, like Sarah Palin, the more you heard from him, the he seemed able to deliver what a country needs from government. So he didn't accomplish much that way.
Oh, I see...no wonder he seemed so appealing.

It'd be nice if we could have someone that competent with economic matters who is also a full out social liberal...always seems that in this country, it's either you're handed a centrist who can do everything pretty well, a social liberal who can't do anything right, or economic geniuses who want to slam down on civil liberties.

I want to have my cake and eat it too, damn it!

Actually, at the time, he came across as more of a Warren Buffet type -- super-competent private sector success story; no bullshit attitude; a record of getting shit done on time and within budget -- and that appealed to a lot of people who felt fed up with government waste and corruption. But, like Sarah Palin, the more you heard from him, the less he seemed able to deliver what a country needs from government. So he didn't accomplish much that way.

And he still pulled 19% of the vote, and handed the election to Bill Clinton.

To be honest, I'm not so sure a lot of people will remember Perot's flip charts as readily as you just did. And if they do, I don't think Obama's little power point presentation will come off badly by comparison. But whatever. I actually almost wish he hadn't done it at all, but since he has done it, I don't think it was bad.
Well, if they didn't TV would be there to remind them. All the pre-show commentary contained at least a little reference to Perot's spots. Power point might have come across a bit like some other prominent Democrat's recent high profile presentation.
Actually, at the time, he came across as more of a Warren Buffet type -- super-competent private sector success story; no bullshit attitude; a record of getting shit done on time and within budget -- and that appealed to a lot of people who felt fed up with government waste and corruption. But, like Sarah Palin, the more you heard from him, the less he seemed able to deliver what a country needs from government. So he didn't accomplish much that way.
Not to mention his complete nut bag turns like, "The Republican's are threatening to disrupt my daughter's wedding" and his "I'm out of the race, I'm back in it again" swatting at invisible bats antics. He was intriguing at first, but was ultimately just a colloquialism machine.

Actually, at the time, he came across as more of a Warren Buffet type -- super-competent private sector success story; no bullshit attitude; a record of getting shit done on time and within budget -- and that appealed to a lot of people who felt fed up with government waste and corruption. But, like Sarah Palin, the more you heard from him, the less he seemed able to deliver what a country needs from government. So he didn't accomplish much that way.

that and I think alot of people liked him because he financed his campaign all with his own money.

I just made a phone call to Elizabeth Dole's Raleigh, NC office. Had a pleasant five minute chat with one of her staffers about why I wasn't voting for his candidate, and why this ad prompted me to change my party affiliation from registered Republican to Independent.

He and I were both pleasant throughout as I expressed my dissatisfaction and wished that I could tell Senator Dole directly rather than burn up the ears of a staffer. His unapologetic defense was that none of it was made up, though he wasn't able to counter my charges that it was misleading at best to show Kay Hagan's photo while some other female voice stated "there is no God".

He did confirm that the office had received numerous calls on both sides of the issue, and that my ire wasn't uncommon. Maybe the RNC will learn something from this by 2012. They'll have plenty of time to study, since Dole's gonna get creamed over this one.


In researching this issue I ran across this excellent Get Out the Vote (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQvw8rvcQxg) commercial for North Carolina voters. Check it out!

Fantastic! :D

Both the vid and your actions. But especially what you did. I want them to feel how such stupidity backfire. I want them to wake up after the election and know that they ruined it for themselves. I want to see an end to such fucktardedness - and you helped us get one step closer to making that a reality.

*Sniffles*

Fantastic! :D

Both the vid and your actions. But especially what you did. I want them to feel how such stupidity backfire. I want them to wake up after the election and know that they ruined it for themselves. I want to see an end to such fucktardedness - and you helped us get one step closer to making that a reality.

*Sniffles*

AhahahahatheGOPadmittingresponsibilityfortheiractionsahahahaha

I went canvausing today. Which was slighly a brave thing to do, as I got food posioning last night, long story, but it deals with a candy apple. But I decided to get up off my butt and canvus. Surprizingly enough, I felt slightly better when I was canvusing. My mind getting off my wretched condition. :p

Anyway, I stopped off at one house, the family was black. I asked them if the person was avaliable on my list and they said they had registered to vote, they went to early vote and were promptly said they were not registered. And all five of them wanted to vote for Obama. I told them that I had the name of this person on my list in my precinct and said that she should be registered. I said I would tell the campagine headquarters about this and see if there was something that can be done. All I can say is, they probably registered and someone chunked their registrations in the garabage.The sick things people do to supress the vote. Never mind voting machine problems, this is another problem all in itself. I told the headquarters and they said there was a phone number about this, and they marked it up.

AhahahahatheGOPadmittingresponsibilityfortheiractionsahahahaha

Admitting it? http://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/html/emoticons/mellow.gif

No, I just want them to know, in their hearts, that they sunk themselves...

I went canvausing today. Which was slighly a brave thing to do, as I got food posioning last night, long story, but it deals with a candy apple. But I decided to get up off my butt and canvus. Surprizingly enough, I felt slightly better when I was canvusing. My mind getting off my wretched condition. :p

Anyway, I stopped off at one house, the family was black. I asked them if the person was avaliable on my list and they said they had registered to vote, they went to early vote and were promptly said they were not registered. And all five of them wanted to vote for Obama. I told them that I had the name of this person on my list in my precinct and said that she should be registered. I said I would tell the campagine headquarters about this and see if there was something that can be done. All I can say is, they probably registered and someone chunked their registrations in the garabage.The sick things people do to supress the vote. Never mind voting machine problems, this is another problem all in itself. I told the headquarters and they said there was a phone number about this, and they marked it up.

Excellent work!
The GOP will stop at nothing to steal the election, so keep fighting the good fight!

ohmygod ARIZONA is a toss up!

speaking of which... (http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/sprinttotheoval/archive/2008/10/29/raising-arizona.aspx)

Running against any other GOP candidate, the state of Arizona would be a natural battleground for Barack Obama, alongside other Western states that lean toward him, like New Mexico, Colorado and Nevada. But with John McCain as the Republican nominee, a serious push to win Arizona was off the table.

Until now.

Obama’s senior aides are intrigued by several late polls that show a narrowing of the presidential contest in Arizona. Most recently, on Tuesday a Cronkite-Eight poll (named for Arizona State University's journalism school and the local PBS channel) showed the state a statistical tie, with the Arizona senator just 2 points ahead of Obama. That poll suggests Arizona is too close to call, with Obama making significant gains among women and independents.

The campaign is now seriously examining a late surge into the state. That may include ramping up TV advertising, on-the-ground staff or even deploying the candidate to stop there. Obama is scheduled to make a Western swing late this week, making an Arizona visit possible.

Just thought I'd share this random bit of news. Joe the Plumber, that "every" man that McCain can't stop talking about, is working on getting out of the plumbing business and becoming a country music singer (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/15072.html).

See, McCain's got celebrity endorsements too! Take that Obama!

EDIT: I don't know why this was so surprising to me. I mean, the guy clearly doesn't have a regular job if he can just stop working to campaign as much as he has been.

speaking of which... (http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/sprinttotheoval/archive/2008/10/29/raising-arizona.aspx)

Only because McCain has run a sleeaze campagne. That does not impress women or independants. Plus his embraceing the mainstream Republican base doesn't win the people who saw him as a maverick when they voted for him as a senator.

I don't think Obama will carry Arizona, but I do find it a sad state of affairs that Sen. McCain can't compleatly write off his state as safe and in his pocket.

Anyway, I stopped off at one house, the family was black. I asked them if the person was avaliable on my list and they said they had registered to vote, they went to early vote and were promptly said they were not registered. And all five of them wanted to vote for Obama. I told them that I had the name of this person on my list in my precinct and said that she should be registered. I said I would tell the campagine headquarters about this and see if there was something that can be done. All I can say is, they probably registered and someone chunked their registrations in the garabage.The sick things people do to supress the vote. Never mind voting machine problems, this is another problem all in itself. I told the headquarters and they said there was a phone number about this, and they marked it up.

One thing that may have happened if they went to vote early is that the poll worker was looking only at the main list, whereas many new voters are listed on supplemental lists because the main lists got printed before all the new registrations were processed. (The Chicago Board of Elections has been reminding Chicagoans of this, so I'm guessing this happened in other places around the country as well.)

I think there should be more basic voter education in this country. Not partisan stuff, just "this is how the process works" stuff. The local news stations should run specials or something.

Just thought I'd share this random bit of news. Joe the Plumber, that "every" man that McCain can't stop talking about, is working on getting out of the plumbing business and becoming a country music singer (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/15072.html).

See, McCain's got celebrity endorsements too! Take that Obama!

EDIT: I don't know why this was so surprising to me. I mean, the guy clearly doesn't have a regular job if he can just stop working to campaign as much as he has been.
joe better get his cd released by monday or he'll miss his window of opportunity and sink back into the oblivion he deserves.

Wow.

Having just seen the Obama infomercial, I stand impressed. That's a damned fine piece of propaganda! And the worst part is that it works! At least on me - though I had decided that I support Obama, any doubt has been swept away by this lovely propaganda!

Strange how, in the last days before the election, it's Obama that's talking about the contents of his policies while McCain is still stuck in fear mode, talking about why you shouldn't vote for Obama but not spending much time talking about his own policies.

Things certainly have changed in the last two months...

Just thought I'd share this random bit of news. Joe the Plumber, that "every" man that McCain can't stop talking about, is working on getting out of the plumbing business and becoming a country music singer (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/15072.html).

See, McCain's got celebrity endorsements too! Take that Obama!

EDIT: I don't know why this was so surprising to me. I mean, the guy clearly doesn't have a regular job if he can just stop working to campaign as much as he has been.
I'm reminded of Lonesome Rhodes...

Lonesome Rhodes, for those who don't know, is the name of the character played by Andy Griffith in the 1957 Elia Kazan film, A Face in the Crowd (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050371/). The movie tells the story of Rhodes as he is discovered by a radio documentarian in a rural jail. His folksy wisdom soon earns him a following that is exploited by the people around. His popularity is snowballed until he and his handlers start to fancy him a king-maker and he becomes corrupted with his own power.

There are two reads to this-that Rhodes was an essentially good man who was corrupted, or Rhodes was a mean man that a cult could conceal for only so long. The movie certainly leans on the former, with Walter Mathau's line, "You gotta be a saint to stand all the power that little box(TV) can give you." For the purpose of this discussion, it doesn't really mater.

By now, I'm sure, it's obvious why I'm bringing this up. Just about every one has talked Joe Wurzelbacker in some capacity or another by now, to the point that I don't have to give any background on it. But it's exactly that kind of attention that brings me to mention him and one of my favorite movies.

Since Joe's debut in the final election he has had what could be considered a predictable arc. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14104723&postcount=417) The media camped out on the man's lawn and mined him for every opinion he might have. Lou Dobbs has endorsed the man for the Senate. He has a book, publicist, and is even considering a album. And Joe is on the campaign trail. Consider for a moment this scene from A Face in the Crowd-

Lonesome Rhodes: This whole country's just like my flock of sheep!
Marcia Jeffries: Sheep?
Lonesome Rhodes: Rednecks, crackers, hillbillies, hausfraus, shut-ins, pea-pickers - everybody that's got to jump when somebody else blows the whistle. They don't know it yet, but they're all gonna be 'Fighters for Fuller'. They're mine! I own 'em! They think like I do. Only they're even more stupid than I am, so I gotta think for 'em. Marcia, you just wait and see. I'm gonna be the power behind the president - and you'll be the power behind me!



Elsewhere I had compared a media figure (Steven Colbert) to Rhodes (and Howard Beale and Brian from Life of Brian) I gave the figure credit for having enough of a sense of irony and self awareness to not be consumed by it, Howard Beale style. I don't know that it is true of our friend Joe.

There are two paths for Joe now, depending on how the person who thrust him into the spot light fares next Tuesday-he will either be the everyman kingmaker that saved the day for McCain or an Alamo-like symbol for a party looking to create a new identity after a devastating loss.

Either way, he is a product of the machine now, and the machine is not kind. The Lou Dobbs (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0810/20/ldt.01.html) Chris Crocker-esque (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmvkRoEowc) defense of Joe will only last so long. We won't need a Mel Miller to flick on a camera feed to let us know the real Wurzelbacker.

A Face in the Crowd contains one of the best and prophetic monologues at the end of the film after Rhodes is exposed for the bastard he has become (or always was)-

Lonesome Rhodes: Listen, I'm not through yet. You know what's gonna to happen to me?
Mel Miller: Suppose I tell you exactly what's gonna happen to you. You're gonna be back in television. Only it won't be quite the same as it was before. There'll be a reasonable cooling-off period and then somebody will say: "Why don't we try him again in a inexpensive format. People's memories aren't too long." And you know, in a way, he'll be right. Some of the people will forget, and some of them won't. Oh, you'll have a show. Maybe not the best hour or, you know, top 10. Maybe not even in the top 35. But you'll have a show. It just won't be quite the same as it was before. Then a couple of new fellas will come along. And pretty soon, a lot of your fans will be flocking around them. And then one day, somebody'll ask: "Whatever happened to, a, whatshisname? You know, the one who was so big. The number-one fella a couple of years ago. He was famous. How can we forget a name like that? Oh by the way, have you seen, a, Barry Mills? I think he's the greatest thing since Will Rogers."



After that, Miller calls to the applause machine operator to leave Rhodes with his canned audience.

That was fifty years ago. Before we went from three channels to hunderds. Before the internet and Web 2.0. Miller's life cycle still exists, but it now has an almost Moore's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%E2%80%99s_law) quality to it. He has to strike while the iron is hot because it cools quickly these days. It's not there is a lack of precedent, former Survivor contestants co-host shows, former reality show subjects host other reality shows as the monster eats itself.

But cynicism aside, we are a content hungry audience and novelty only will get you so far.

I don't know that Joe is ready for his own spotlight, much less his future as a footnote in presidential elections. It's easy to imagine your life as a kingmaker, not always as easy to imagine your life as an answer to a Trivial Pursuit question.

I'm reminded of Lonesome Rhodes...

Lonesome Rhodes, for those who don't know, is the name of the character played by Andy Griffith in the 1957 Elia Kazan film, A Face in the Crowd (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050371/). The movie tells the story of Rhodes as he is discovered by a radio documentarian in a rural jail. His folksy wisdom soon earns him a following that is exploited by the people around. His popularity is snowballed until he and his handlers start to fancy him a king-maker and he becomes corrupted with his own power.

There are two reads to this-that Rhodes was an essentially good man who was corrupted, or Rhodes was a mean man that a cult could conceal for only so long. The movie certainly leans on the former, with Walter Mathau's line, "You gotta be a saint to stand all the power that little box(TV) can give you." For the purpose of this discussion, it doesn't really mater.

By now, I'm sure, it's obvious why I'm bringing this up. Just about every one has talked Joe Wurzelbacker in some capacity or another by now, to the point that I don't have to give any background on it. But it's exactly that kind of attention that brings me to mention him and one of my favorite movies.

Since Joe's debut in the final election he has had what could be considered a predictable arc. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14104723&postcount=417) The media camped out on the man's lawn and mined him for every opinion he might have. Lou Dobbs has endorsed the man for the Senate. He has a book, publicist, and is even considering a album. And Joe is on the campaign trail. Consider for a moment this scene from A Face in the Crowd-

Lonesome Rhodes: This whole country's just like my flock of sheep!
Marcia Jeffries: Sheep?
Lonesome Rhodes: Rednecks, crackers, hillbillies, hausfraus, shut-ins, pea-pickers - everybody that's got to jump when somebody else blows the whistle. They don't know it yet, but they're all gonna be 'Fighters for Fuller'. They're mine! I own 'em! They think like I do. Only they're even more stupid than I am, so I gotta think for 'em. Marcia, you just wait and see. I'm gonna be the power behind the president - and you'll be the power behind me!



Elsewhere I had compared a media figure (Steven Colbert) to Rhodes (and Howard Beale and Brian from Life of Brian) I gave the figure credit for having enough of a sense of irony and self awareness to not be consumed by it, Howard Beale style. I don't know that it is true of our friend Joe.

There are two paths for Joe now, depending on how the person who thrust him into the spot light fares next Tuesday-he will either be the everyman kingmaker that saved the day for McCain or an Alamo-like symbol for a party looking to create a new identity after a devastating loss.

Either way, he is a product of the machine now, and the machine is not kind. The Lou Dobbs (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0810/20/ldt.01.html) Chris Crocker-esque (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmvkRoEowc) defense of Joe will only last so long. We won't need a Mel Miller to flick on a camera feed to let us know the real Wurzelbacker.

A Face in the Crowd contains one of the best and prophetic monologues at the end of the film after Rhodes is exposed for the bastard he has become (or always was)-

Lonesome Rhodes: Listen, I'm not through yet. You know what's gonna to happen to me?
Mel Miller: Suppose I tell you exactly what's gonna happen to you. You're gonna be back in television. Only it won't be quite the same as it was before. There'll be a reasonable cooling-off period and then somebody will say: "Why don't we try him again in a inexpensive format. People's memories aren't too long." And you know, in a way, he'll be right. Some of the people will forget, and some of them won't. Oh, you'll have a show. Maybe not the best hour or, you know, top 10. Maybe not even in the top 35. But you'll have a show. It just won't be quite the same as it was before. Then a couple of new fellas will come along. And pretty soon, a lot of your fans will be flocking around them. And then one day, somebody'll ask: "Whatever happened to, a, whatshisname? You know, the one who was so big. The number-one fella a couple of years ago. He was famous. How can we forget a name like that? Oh by the way, have you seen, a, Barry Mills? I think he's the greatest thing since Will Rogers."



After that, Miller calls to the applause machine operator to leave Rhodes with his canned audience.

That was fifty years ago. Before we went from three channels to hunderds. Before the internet and Web 2.0. Miller's life cycle still exists, but it now has an almost Moore's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%E2%80%99s_law) quality to it. He has to strike while the iron is hot because it cools quickly these days. It's not there is a lack of precedent, former Survivor contestants co-host shows, former reality show subjects host other reality shows as the monster eats itself.

But cynicism aside, we are a content hungry audience and novelty only will get you so far.

I don't know that Joe is ready for his own spotlight, much less his future as a footnote in presidential elections. It's easy to imagine your life as a kingmaker, not always as easy to imagine your life as an answer to a Trivial Pursuit question.

Quoted for... awesome.

Wow.

Having just seen the Obama infomercial, I stand impressed. That's a damned fine piece of propaganda! And the worst part is that it works! At least on me - though I had decided that I support Obama, any doubt has been swept away by this lovely propaganda!

Strange how, in the last days before the election, it's Obama that's talking about the contents of his policies while McCain is still stuck in fear mode, talking about why you shouldn't vote for Obama but not spending much time talking about his own policies.

Things certainly have changed in the last two months...
ive been tuning in to conservative talk radio the past week or so and NO ONE talks about mccain and what he would do as president.

its all "dont vote for obama, he's too scary"

aww, poor guy. the knives really have come out:

http://www.jedreport.com/pics/McCainD-AZ.jpg

I'm reminded of Lonesome Rhodes...

Lonesome Rhodes, for those who don't know, is the name of the character played by Andy Griffith in the 1957 Elia Kazan film, A Face in the Crowd (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050371/). The movie tells the story of Rhodes as he is discovered by a radio documentarian in a rural jail. His folksy wisdom soon earns him a following that is exploited by the people around. His popularity is snowballed until he and his handlers start to fancy him a king-maker and he becomes corrupted with his own power.

There are two reads to this-that Rhodes was an essentially good man who was corrupted, or Rhodes was a mean man that a cult could conceal for only so long. The movie certainly leans on the former, with Walter Mathau's line, "You gotta be a saint to stand all the power that little box(TV) can give you." For the purpose of this discussion, it doesn't really mater.

By now, I'm sure, it's obvious why I'm bringing this up. Just about every one has talked Joe Wurzelbacker in some capacity or another by now, to the point that I don't have to give any background on it. But it's exactly that kind of attention that brings me to mention him and one of my favorite movies.

Since Joe's debut in the final election he has had what could be considered a predictable arc. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14104723&postcount=417) The media camped out on the man's lawn and mined him for every opinion he might have. Lou Dobbs has endorsed the man for the Senate. He has a book, publicist, and is even considering a album. And Joe is on the campaign trail. Consider for a moment this scene from A Face in the Crowd-

Lonesome Rhodes: This whole country's just like my flock of sheep!
Marcia Jeffries: Sheep?
Lonesome Rhodes: Rednecks, crackers, hillbillies, hausfraus, shut-ins, pea-pickers - everybody that's got to jump when somebody else blows the whistle. They don't know it yet, but they're all gonna be 'Fighters for Fuller'. They're mine! I own 'em! They think like I do. Only they're even more stupid than I am, so I gotta think for 'em. Marcia, you just wait and see. I'm gonna be the power behind the president - and you'll be the power behind me!



Elsewhere I had compared a media figure (Steven Colbert) to Rhodes (and Howard Beale and Brian from Life of Brian) I gave the figure credit for having enough of a sense of irony and self awareness to not be consumed by it, Howard Beale style. I don't know that it is true of our friend Joe.

There are two paths for Joe now, depending on how the person who thrust him into the spot light fares next Tuesday-he will either be the everyman kingmaker that saved the day for McCain or an Alamo-like symbol for a party looking to create a new identity after a devastating loss.

Either way, he is a product of the machine now, and the machine is not kind. The Lou Dobbs (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0810/20/ldt.01.html) Chris Crocker-esque (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmvkRoEowc) defense of Joe will only last so long. We won't need a Mel Miller to flick on a camera feed to let us know the real Wurzelbacker.

A Face in the Crowd contains one of the best and prophetic monologues at the end of the film after Rhodes is exposed for the bastard he has become (or always was)-

Lonesome Rhodes: Listen, I'm not through yet. You know what's gonna to happen to me?
Mel Miller: Suppose I tell you exactly what's gonna happen to you. You're gonna be back in television. Only it won't be quite the same as it was before. There'll be a reasonable cooling-off period and then somebody will say: "Why don't we try him again in a inexpensive format. People's memories aren't too long." And you know, in a way, he'll be right. Some of the people will forget, and some of them won't. Oh, you'll have a show. Maybe not the best hour or, you know, top 10. Maybe not even in the top 35. But you'll have a show. It just won't be quite the same as it was before. Then a couple of new fellas will come along. And pretty soon, a lot of your fans will be flocking around them. And then one day, somebody'll ask: "Whatever happened to, a, whatshisname? You know, the one who was so big. The number-one fella a couple of years ago. He was famous. How can we forget a name like that? Oh by the way, have you seen, a, Barry Mills? I think he's the greatest thing since Will Rogers."



After that, Miller calls to the applause machine operator to leave Rhodes with his canned audience.

That was fifty years ago. Before we went from three channels to hunderds. Before the internet and Web 2.0. Miller's life cycle still exists, but it now has an almost Moore's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%E2%80%99s_law) quality to it. He has to strike while the iron is hot because it cools quickly these days. It's not there is a lack of precedent, former Survivor contestants co-host shows, former reality show subjects host other reality shows as the monster eats itself.

But cynicism aside, we are a content hungry audience and novelty only will get you so far.

I don't know that Joe is ready for his own spotlight, much less his future as a footnote in presidential elections. It's easy to imagine your life as a kingmaker, not always as easy to imagine your life as an answer to a Trivial Pursuit question.

:fluffle:

aww, poor guy. the knives really have come out:

http://www.jedreport.com/pics/McCainD-AZ.jpg

The question is: did Faux News do that because they figure McLame is toast, or because they were hoping to confuse the gulible about who was the Democrats' candidate?

aww, poor guy. the knives really have come out:

http://www.jedreport.com/pics/McCainD-AZ.jpg

Funny.

Wow.

Having just seen the Obama infomercial, I stand impressed. That's a damned fine piece of propaganda! And the worst part is that it works! At least on me - though I had decided that I support Obama, any doubt has been swept away by this lovely propaganda!

Strange how, in the last days before the election, it's Obama that's talking about the contents of his policies while McCain is still stuck in fear mode, talking about why you shouldn't vote for Obama but not spending much time talking about his own policies.

Things certainly have changed in the last two months...
Oh, I don't think that's so strange, considering how well McCain's policies have been received so far. I'd say, at this point, the less time McCain spends drawing attention to himself, the better for him.

The question is: did Faux News do that because they figure McLame is toast, or because they were hoping to confuse the gulible about who was the Democrats' candidate?

Note the "nominee". This was back during the primary.

aww, poor guy. the knives really have come out:

http://www.jedreport.com/pics/McCainD-AZ.jpg

Wow, thats just fail.

<snip the brilliance>

I don't know that Joe is ready for his own spotlight, much less his future as a footnote in presidential elections. It's easy to imagine your life as a kingmaker, not always as easy to imagine your life as an answer to a Trivial Pursuit question.
I think even more people imagine themselves as Lonesome Rhodes at his high point nowadays than back then, thanks to the media boom and the media access boom. Warhol was right -- everyone will be famous for 15 minutes. But most people only hear that sentence up to the "famous" part. They forget about the "15 minutes" part.

Funny, but once upon a time, it was mild joke that you'd know you'd really made it if you became a clue on "Jeopardy!" It seems that in the US media universe, "Jeopardy!" is the measure of fame while Trivial Pursuit is the measure of "has-been."

Note the "nominee". This was back during the primary.

No it wasn't. Note the McCain Palin shirt.

I think even more people imagine themselves as Lonesome Rhodes at his high point nowadays than back then, thanks to the media boom and the media access boom. Warhol was right -- everyone will be famous for 15 minutes. But most people only hear that sentence up to the "famous" part. They forget about the "15 minutes" part.

Funny, but once upon a time, it was mild joke that you'd know you'd really made it if you became a clue on "Jeopardy!" It seems that in the US media universe, "Jeopardy!" is the measure of fame while Trivial Pursuit is the measure of "has-been."

It can be argued that Web 2.0 (I feel like a tool whenever I use that term...) is the realization of Warhol's prediction. The implication, I'd agree, of 'everyone' and 'fifteen minutes' is often lost. If everyone is famous, and only for fifteen minutes, fame is essentially meaningless.

I'm going to put words in Warhol's mouth here, but what I read into that prediction is the crumbling criteria for fame and with it it's significance. (there are cynical arguments about whether fame means anything at all, that's a different discussion) If fame is being a dufuss with a pretend light saber, or dressing up like a character from Tron, or come in fourth in a reality show that's in a season so sagged that people wouldn't be sure it's still on, then 'fame' is little more than waiting for the woman on Romper Room to 'see' you with her magic magnifier. (my name was rare when I was a kid, so she never saw me...now every third kid has my name, I bet she'd see me now...dagnabit)

But I don't think that we've adjusted our expecations for fame to fame's new shelf life. People still crawl over each other for that brief spotlight as if it is an end unto itself. Has True Hollywood Stories/Behind the Music/WHere are they nows? taught us nothing? And that's for people with 'traditional' fame.

Note the "nominee". This was back during the primary.

pic was taken from the jed report (http://www.jedreport.com/2008/10/john-mccains-last-best-hope.html), and its pretty recent

No it wasn't. Note the McCain Palin shirt.

Shit, you're right. My bad.

Lou Dobbs has endorsed the man for the Senate.


Really? Really?


God, Lou Dobbs is a fucking retard.

Really? Really?


God, Lou Dobbs is a fucking retard.

I wish I had found the transcript for that specific show, but yeah-he said congress needs more Joes and that he should run.

I wish I had found the transcript for that specific show, but yeah-he said congress needs more Joes and that he should run.

Congress needs more liars and idiots?

And Joe's name is Sam.:p

It can be argued that Web 2.0 (I feel like a tool whenever I use that term...) is the realization of Warhol's prediction. The implication, I'd agree, of 'everyone' and 'fifteen minutes' is often lost. If everyone is famous, and only for fifteen minutes, fame is essentially meaningless.

I'm going to put words in Warhol's mouth here, but what I read into that prediction is the crumbling criteria for fame and with it it's significance. (there are cynical arguments about whether fame means anything at all, that's a different discussion) If fame is being a dufuss with a pretend light saber, or dressing up like a character from Tron, or come in fourth in a reality show that's in a season so sagged that people wouldn't be sure it's still on, then 'fame' is little more than waiting for the woman on Romper Room to 'see' you with her magic magnifier. (my name was rare when I was a kid, so she never saw me...now every third kid has my name, I bet she'd see me now...dagnabit)

But I don't think that we've adjusted our expecations for fame to fame's new shelf life. People still crawl over each other for that brief spotlight as if it is an end unto itself. Has True Hollywood Stories/Behind the Music/WHere are they nows? taught us nothing? And that's for people with 'traditional' fame.
From what I know of Warhol and his work, I don't think he thought fame had any significance except as a barometer of the whims of the consuming public. I think he thought that, for the people who make celebrities into celebrities -- the audience, the gossip page readers, the Joe the Plumbers -- that spotlight IS the end unto itself, and that he thought the public adulation would turn to fame itself, to the spotlight itself, rather than to the people standing in its light. I think that Warhol -- who worked intimately with celebrities, who based much of his work on the idea of celebrity and public image, who invented himself as a fake-person celebrity, and whose main artistic training was in advertising -- did think that ultimately the ego-trip of people who live vicariously through the exploits of celebrities would eventually stop imagining they could get close to fame and start wondering why they couldn't have some of that fame-glow themselves. It was only a matter of time before Mr./Mrs. Average American would seek to grab the mike and the spotlight away from the stars and icons. And that the media would be only too happy to give them that attention, as long as they'd pay for it -- which they most certainly would.

And I think Warhol was right.

Bitter and bitchy, but right.

Joe the Plumber is the new "Meet John Doe" of America's sense of self.

"There's nothing wrong with wearing a veil and listening to metal." -- girl at concert in Iraq.

I have Rachel Maddow's show on while I'm on NSG and warming up soup, and she just did a report that heavy metal has returned to Iraq.

Yes, that's right, returned.

Apparently, an Iraqi metal band that was forced by Saddam to run away to Turkey has finally returned and just given their first outdoor concert in years at a hotel on the banks of the Euphrates. All the old fogies are scandalized because they wear black like the Mahdi Army (one side of the hostilities) and have scraggly goatees like al-qaida (the other side of the hostilities) and they use a prop dog-faced zombie corpse in their stage set and are very loud.

Maybe it was worth it after all...

Maybe it was worth it after all...

I need to hear the band before I decide.


I mean, if they were metalcore, Id force them out of the country too.

Is there anyone not endorsing Obama?
Francis Fukuyama Endorses Obama (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/30/francis-fukuyama-endorses_n_139139.html)

Francis Fukuyama, to quote wiki, was a "key Reagan Administration contributor to the formulation of the Reagan Doctrine, Fukuyama is an important figure in the rise of Neoconservatism. He was active in the Project for the New American Century think tank starting in 1997, and as a member co-signed the organization's letter recommending that President Bill Clinton support Iraqi insurgencies in the overthrow of then-President of Iraq, Saddam Hussein. He was also among forty co-signers of William Kristol's September 20, 2001 letter to President George W. Bush after the September 11, 2001 attacks that suggested the U.S. 'capture or kill Osama bin Laden, and to destroy his network of associates', and 'provide full military and financial support to the Iraqi opposition' for the purpose of removing Saddam Hussein from power 'even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack.'"

One of the orginals neo-cons coming out against McCain. He'll be holding his next rally in a phone booth at this rate.

I need to hear the band before I decide.


I mean, if they were metalcore, Id force them out of the country too.
Good point. I notice the sound was turned down WAY low in Maddow's report.

FUKUYAMA jumped ship!? Ye freaking gods! :eek2:

FUKUYAMA jumped ship!? Ye freaking gods! :eek2:

Especially since they were hoping he'd change his business cards to read FUKUBAMA.

I"m gonna paraphrase Stephen Colbert here a bit: What McCain needs to do right now is show that he's connected to the mainstream, he needs to do something that shows he's in touch with what the American people want. I know, he should endorse Obama!"

aww, poor guy. the knives really have come out:

http://www.jedreport.com/pics/McCainD-AZ.jpg

If you can't beat them, join them.

I"m gonna paraphrase Stephen Colbert here a bit: What McCain needs to do right now is show that he's connected to the mainstream, he needs to do something that shows he's in touch with what the American people want. I know, he should endorse Obama!"

He might as well jump on the bandwagon everybody else seems to be doing it.

From what I know of Warhol and his work, I don't think he thought fame had any significance except as a barometer of the whims of the consuming public. I think he thought that, for the people who make celebrities into celebrities -- the audience, the gossip page readers, the Joe the Plumbers -- that spotlight IS the end unto itself, and that he thought the public adulation would turn to fame itself, to the spotlight itself, rather than to the people standing in its light. I think that Warhol -- who worked intimately with celebrities, who based much of his work on the idea of celebrity and public image, who invented himself as a fake-person celebrity, and whose main artistic training was in advertising -- did think that ultimately the ego-trip of people who live vicariously through the exploits of celebrities would eventually stop imagining they could get close to fame and start wondering why they couldn't have some of that fame-glow themselves. It was only a matter of time before Mr./Mrs. Average American would seek to grab the mike and the spotlight away from the stars and icons. And that the media would be only too happy to give them that attention, as long as they'd pay for it -- which they most certainly would.

And I think Warhol was right.

Bitter and bitchy, but right.

Joe the Plumber is the new "Meet John Doe" of America's sense of self.

I have to admit that I don't know that much about Andy Warhol. From what you say it seems like I was at least close in my assessment of what he was going for in the '15 minutes' prediction. Thanks for that, you've actually made him a slightly more intriguing to me.

I"m gonna paraphrase Stephen Colbert here a bit: What McCain needs to do right now is show that he's connected to the mainstream, he needs to do something that shows he's in touch with what the American people want. I know, he should endorse Obama!"

And when Obama says "You, uh...you're...endorsing me?", McCain will respond with "You just dont' get it."

Too funny. Um...well...you're ALL Joe the Plumbers! Yeah, that's the ticket...

Isn't that the point? I thought he was using Joe the plumber as a metaphor for all hardworking middle class Americans.

Isn't that the point? I thought he was using Joe the plumber as a metaphor for all hardworking middle class Americans.

Who dont really work that hard, dont hold the job they say they hold, and dont even have the same name they claim to know.

Who dont really work that hard, dont hold the job they say they hold, and dont even have the same name they claim to know.
And are not planning to nor have the resources to buy the business they say they are about to buy, which isn't for sale and isn't worth what they say it is. And who are worried about being over-taxed, even though they never pay their taxes anyway. And who have publicists to manage their public images. And who are looking for record deals.

And are not planning to nor have the resources to buy the business they say they are about to buy, which isn't for sale and isn't worth what they say it is. And who are worried about being over-taxed, even though they never pay their taxes anyway. And who have publicists to manage their public images. And who are looking for record deals.

:confused:

All middle class Americans are doing this? Or just the character he uses to give some physical appearance to his metaphor?

:confused:

All middle class Americans are doing this? Or just the character he uses to give some physical appearance to his metaphor?

Just Samuel "Joe" The Plumber

Just Samuel "Joe" The Plumber

Fair enough, but why did he have to use a physical person anyway? Couldn't he have just continued with the metaphor? Or are Americans so low brow that they need to be able to see something to give it weight?

The whole thing of making a person play a character is... I just don't like. It reminds me of a what a media outlet and also a certain shitty politician (who managed to get 20% of the vote somehow despite being a total douche bag) here has done and the whole thing seems to try and appeal to the lower middle class that thrives on cheap gimmicks like this.

:confused:

All middle class Americans are doing this? Or just the character he uses to give some physical appearance to his metaphor?

If you choose to turn a person into a metaphor, then that person is part of the metaphor.

Imagine I said, gosh, you have John McCain's hair.
Your reply is, WTH? I'm not balding.

Is that a reasonable reply? I might have meant you're hair is white. Or I might have meant that it's straight. Right?

You can't use a person as a metaphor and expect people to ignore who that person is.

FEELINGS ABOUT ELECTION OF OBAMA
(Likely Voters)
Obama McCain
Voters Voters
Excited 49% 1%
Optimistic/not excited 40 5
Concerned/not excited 9 37
Scared 1 57

FEELINGS ABOUT ELECTION OF MCCAIN
(Likely Voters)
Obama McCain
Voters Voters
Excited 1% 22%
Optimistic/not excited 10 59
Concerned/not excited 42 18
Scared 47 0

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/Oct08e-all.pdf

Notice what that said? One candidate is motivating people into being excited about the outcome. The other is making people afraid of the outcome. That's not change. That's more of the same.

Notice what that said? One candidate is motivating people into being excited about the outcome. The other is making people afraid of the outcome. That's not change. That's more of the same.

You use a Mcain cliche to prove your point oh what wit.

Just Samuel "Joe" The Plumber

There are a lot of people who, for whatever reason, go by their middle name instead of their first to the point where in casual contact you would introduce yourself with that name. I don't think it is nefarious or deceitful. Hell, sometimes I hang around with a guy who introduces himself as "Buzzard" and there were people who used to introduce me as "Walrus." Being misleading to add a 'personal' touch to "You're going to raise taxes on small business" question is one thing, I don't know that we make ourselves look all that good when we make any sort of deal out of whether or not he prefers to go by his first name or his middle name as it's really inconsequential and tells us nothing more than he like's "Joe" over "Samuel."

There are a lot of people who, for whatever reason, go by their middle name instead of their first to the point where in casual contact you would introduce yourself with that name. I don't think it is nefarious or deceitful. Hell, sometimes I hang around with a guy who introduces himself as "Buzzard" and there were people who used to introduce me as "Walrus." Being misleading to add a 'personal' touch to "You're going to raise taxes on small business" question is one thing, I don't know that we make ourselves look all that good when we make any sort of deal out of whether or not he prefers to go by his first name or his middle name as it's really inconsequential and tells us nothing more than he like's "Joe" over "Samuel."

Word.

There are a lot of people who, for whatever reason, go by their middle name instead of their first to the point where in casual contact you would introduce yourself with that name. I don't think it is nefarious or deceitful. Hell, sometimes I hang around with a guy who introduces himself as "Buzzard" and there were people who used to introduce me as "Walrus." Being misleading to add a 'personal' touch to "You're going to raise taxes on small business" question is one thing, I don't know that we make ourselves look all that good when we make any sort of deal out of whether or not he prefers to go by his first name or his middle name as it's really inconsequential and tells us nothing more than he like's "Joe" over "Samuel."

I know, its just one more peice of the hilarious shit sandwitch.

I know, its just one more peice of the hilarious shit sandwitch.

But it isn't. It undermines the argument. It's petty and immature.

Wait, lemme guess, Jimmy did it first?

But it isn't. It undermines the argument. It's petty and immature.

Wait, lemme guess, Jimmy did it first?

Get overself Joc. Your "holier then thou" attitude got old fast.

There are a lot of people who, for whatever reason, go by their middle name instead of their first to the point where in casual contact you would introduce yourself with that name. I don't think it is nefarious or deceitful. Hell, sometimes I hang around with a guy who introduces himself as "Buzzard" and there were people who used to introduce me as "Walrus." Being misleading to add a 'personal' touch to "You're going to raise taxes on small business" question is one thing, I don't know that we make ourselves look all that good when we make any sort of deal out of whether or not he prefers to go by his first name or his middle name as it's really inconsequential and tells us nothing more than he like's "Joe" over "Samuel."

Fair enough Walrus :p
I hope that is a nickname rather than a middle name.

FEELINGS ABOUT ELECTION OF OBAMA
(Likely Voters)
Obama McCain
Voters Voters
Excited 49% 1%
Optimistic/not excited 40 5
Concerned/not excited 9 37
Scared 1 57

FEELINGS ABOUT ELECTION OF MCCAIN
(Likely Voters)
Obama McCain
Voters Voters
Excited 1% 22%
Optimistic/not excited 10 59
Concerned/not excited 42 18
Scared 47 0

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/Oct08e-all.pdf

Notice what that said? One candidate is motivating people into being excited about the outcome. The other is making people afraid of the outcome. That's not change. That's more of the same.

I realize that it's a 10% difference, but with 47% of Obama supporters indicating that they're scared of a McCain presidency, it seems a bit off to try to use those numbers to suggest that McCain is the only one out there making people "afraid of the outcome".

I'm not disagreeing that McCain's approach is different, and that part of his strategy may be to promote fear of his opponent rather than support of himself, but I don't see that in those numbers.

An infomercial on behalf of Mr. Obama was a smashing ratings success on Wednesday night, proving to be more popular than even the final game of the World Series — and last season’s finale of “American Idol.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/31/us/politics/31rate.html?ref=politics

I think its safe to say the Obamamercial exceed what was probably even his expectations? I mean, more popular than the World Series?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/31/us/politics/31rate.html?ref=politics

I think its safe to say the Obamamercial exceed what was probably even his expectations? I mean, more popular than the World Series?

Unbelievable, though it was on seven channels right?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/31/us/politics/31rate.html?ref=politics

I think its safe to say the Obamamercial exceed what was probably even his expectations? I mean, more popular than the World Series?

Why wouldn't he expect it to be more popular than rounders?:confused:

Unbelievable, though it was on three channels right?

More than that.

I realize that it's a 10% difference, but with 47% of Obama supporters indicating that they're scared of a McCain presidency, it seems a bit off to try to use those numbers to suggest that McCain is the only one out there making people "afraid of the outcome".

I'm not disagreeing that McCain's approach is different, and that part of his strategy may be to promote fear of his opponent rather than support of himself, but I don't see that in those numbers.

Nothing like ignoring half of what I said, huh? Only one side has big excitement numbers. Obama has MUCH higher excitement numbers and noticably lower fear numbers. That's the relevance.

McCain's campaign is driven by fear, not excitement for his Presidency. That's very telling.

More than that.

Yeah I know I changed it once I continued to read the article

Maybe the channels should have Obama apperaing in their shows if they want a quick ratings boost.

"I'm Barack Obama, and I approved this Golden Girls rerun."

Get overself Joc. Your "holier then thou" attitude got old fast.

Well, gee, that was almost an on-topic reply, right?

Do you have anything relevant? I take you can't actually defend the point you chose to defend, huh?

I am "holier than thou". Frankly, I'm "holier than anyone" who focuses on something as absurd as Joe being the name of a person but not the FIRST name, which would be relevant if he said "Joe's my first name."

There are a lot of people who, for whatever reason, go by their middle name instead of their first to the point where in casual contact you would introduce yourself with that name. I don't think it is nefarious or deceitful. Hell, sometimes I hang around with a guy who introduces himself as "Buzzard" and there were people who used to introduce me as "Walrus." Being misleading to add a 'personal' touch to "You're going to raise taxes on small business" question is one thing, I don't know that we make ourselves look all that good when we make any sort of deal out of whether or not he prefers to go by his first name or his middle name as it's really inconsequential and tells us nothing more than he like's "Joe" over "Samuel."

My mom does that. She goes by Jean instead of Sarah about 99% of the time. Even my dad calls her Jean.

(Interestingly enough--though I'm not sure if this is true legally or just that it was meant this way--it's short for Eugenia.)

Well, gee, that was almost an on-topic reply, right?

Do you have anything relevant? I take you can't actually defend the point you chose to defend, huh?

I am "holier than thou". Frankly, I'm "holier than anyone" who focuses on something as absurd as Joe being the name of a person but not the FIRST name, which would be relevant if he said "Joe's my first name."

This.

Stop attacking this well known NSG poster's character, guys. He's not a holier-than-thou angry man. He's honestly enjoying debate most of the time.

In fact, I'll betchu he's laughing right now.

Nothing like ignoring half of what I said, huh? Only one side has big excitement numbers. Obama has MUCH higher excitement numbers and noticably lower fear numbers. That's the relevance.

McCain's campaign is driven by fear, not excitement for his Presidency. That's very telling.

I'm not ignoring or challenging your interpretation of the "excitement" numbers. It's so self evident that I didn't feel like I needed to address it. But sure, I was ignoring it.

I was merely pointing out that it's quite a leap to look at the "fear" numbers there and say that the "McCain campaign is driven by fear". Well, ok, maybe you can say that. But if you want to make that argument based on those numbers then you're basically conceding that Obama's campaign is driven, in part, by fear as well. After all, 47% is a pretty high value. That's a lot of fearful voters on the Obama side, and I'd probably count myself among them.

Well, gee, that was almost an on-topic reply, right?


And your comment was totally on topic, right? You have this really nasty habit of attacking people for things you do all the time.

Do you have anything relevant?

Quite a bit relevent to say, actually.

I take you can't actually defend the point you chose to defend, huh?

You can "take it" however you want, I honostly couldnt care any less. If I bother you that much, put me on ignore. Ill try really hard not to lose sleep over it.

I am "holier than thou". Frankly, I'm "holier than anyone" who focuses on something as absurd as Joe being the name of a person but not the FIRST name, which would be relevant if he said "Joe's my first name."

I made a joke about it. Ive touched on why hes a moron outside of his name before, but you seem to only read the posts that you consider "inferior" so you can be a condescending ass and inflate your own ego.

If you really were so committed to staying "on topic", you wouldnt have responded to my earlier comment. But Jimmy did it first, right?

This.

Stop attacking this well known NSG poster's character, guys. He's not a holier-than-thou angry man. He's honestly enjoying debate most of the time.

In fact, I'll betchu he's laughing right now.

Oh, he's got a fan club now?


Ill call it as I see it. I have yet to see Joc "debate" without doing every negative tactic he critisizes everyone else for, and then claiming to be above them.

You can "take it" however you want, I honostly couldnt care any less.

Yeah... doesn't seem that way. Chillax.

Oh, he's got a fan club now?

http://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/uploads/ipbfree.com/generalitemafia/emo-lolani.gif
I'm his friend, dippy.

Ill call it as I see it. I have yet to see Joc "debate" without doing every negative tactic he critisizes everyone else for, and then claiming to be above them.
Oh, he'll use some negative tactics on occasion--and I've called him on it more than once--but he doesn't do it anywhere near as often as you suggest, and further, consider who's talking, I don't think you really have the right to say anything about "negative tactics."

http://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/uploads/ipbfree.com/generalitemafia/emo-lolani.gif
I'm his friend, dippy.

Oh, he'll use some negative tactics on occasion--and I've called him on it more than once--but he doesn't do it anywhere near as often as you suggest, and further, consider who's talking, I don't think you really have the right to say anything about "negative tactics."

See, I can actually debate without insulting my opponents intellegence.*


Meh, whatever, this topic isnt about me or Joc. Im done with the hijack.


*- Just because I can, doesnt mean I always do.

Questions from an outsider?

When were Obama, McCain and Biden elected as senators? Are they up for re-election on Tuesday? Can an American run for two offices at once?

When were Obama, McCain and Biden elected as senators? Are they up for re-election on Tuesday?

Obama- 2004, sworn in 2005

McCain-2005

Biden- Biden would be up for reelection if he wasnt dropping it to be VP.


Can an American run for two offices at once?

No.

Obama- 2004, sworn in 2005

McCain-2005



So the loser could go back to the senate. Thanks.

Biden- Biden would be up for reelection if he wasnt dropping it to be VP.

Actually Biden IS running for re-election to the senate. Delaware law makes it perfectly permissible to run for two federal offices simultaniously. However, the Constitution forbids holding office in two branches at the same time. Should Biden win his campaign for senate re-election, and the democratic ticket win the presidential race, Biden must resign from one, or the other positions.

It's fairly obvious that should he win both (and for what it's worth, he's projected to win his Senate seat handily) he will chose to be vice president, at which point the Delaware governor (who is a democrat, running for re-election herself, but is practically certain to win) would appoint a replacement for his senate seat.

For what it's worth, Lieberman did the same thing in 2000, though, obviously, while winning his senate race, lost the VP spot. So, yes, you certainly CAN run for two different offices at the same time. You can only HOLD one however. It's a matter of state law what each state allows. But at least Delaware and Connecticut allow it, sinc both Biden and Lieberman simultaniously ran for senate and VP.

Actually Biden IS running for re-election to the senate. Delaware law makes it perfectly permissible to run for two federal offices simultaniously. However, the Constitution forbids holding office in two branches at the same time. Should Biden win his campaign for senate re-election, and the democratic ticket win the presidential race, Biden must resign from one, or the other positions.

It's fairly obvious that should he win both (and for what it's worth, he's projected to win his Senate seat handily) he will chose to be vice president, at which point the Delaware governor (who is a democrat, running for re-election herself, but is practically certain to win) would appoint a replacement for his senate seat.

For what it's worth, Lieberman did the same thing in 2000, though, obviously, while winning his senate race, lost the VP spot. So, yes, you certainly CAN run for two different offices at the same time. You can only HOLD one however. It's a matter of state law what each state allows. But at least Delaware and Connecticut allow it, sinc both Biden and Lieberman simultaniously ran for senate and VP.

Interesting. It seems a tad dishonest to me. Methinks Biden and the Delaware Governor should indicate who will be appointed to the senate if the Democrats win all three contests.

And your comment was totally on topic, right? You have this really nasty habit of attacking people for things you do all the time.

The topic wasn't whether or not his name is Joe and whether it's honest to attack for his middle name? Really? Hmmm..
Quite a bit relevent to say, actually.

And, yet, rather than do so, you chose to cry about how mean I am. You got out on nonsense and you're pissed. I get it. But do you really think attacking me is helping your cause? You think people can't see through that?

I asked in the post you're replying to, I'll ask again... do you have anything relevant to attacking Joe for calling himself Joe?
You can "take it" however you want, I honostly couldnt care any less. If I bother you that much, put me on ignore. Ill try really hard not to lose sleep over it.

I love when people demonstrate how little they care by writing a long post. Very convincing.

Again, since you're not sleeping anyway, you got any thing relevant to say to the topic? We can talk about me if you like, but you have a bit of an advantage. I don't really take much notice of you. I've seen your arguments, but since you're currently not making any...
I made a joke about it. Ive touched on why hes a moron outside of his name before, but you seem to only read the posts that you consider "inferior" so you can be a condescending ass and inflate your own ego.
His name has no relevance. Not only does it have no relevance, but you keep bringing up something that's blatantly false. Joe is his name. It's simply not his first name.

I respond to the posts that are wrong, because I'm not a cheerleader. It doesn't help me that you're wrong. It doesn't help you. I just makes you wrong. When you say his name isn't Joe, you're definitely incorrect.
If you really were so committed to staying "on topic", you wouldnt have responded to my earlier comment. But Jimmy did it first, right?

I responded by addressing the topic. I'm still addressing the topic. I'm asking you to say something relevant. Feel free to start.
Oh, he's got a fan club now?

Of course, I do.
Ill call it as I see it.

Given that "calling it as you see it" includes lying and saying Joe is not Joe's name, I'll take that with a grain of salt.
I have yet to see Joc "debate" without doing every negative tactic he critisizes everyone else for, and then claiming to be above them.
Sure, I'm negative, but I'm still debating, not putting up posts with no content and nothing to add. I'm not criticizing you for going negative. I'm criticizing you for ignoring the point to cry about how I hurt your feelings.

Again, anything relevant to say or are we done with the "Jocabia was mean to me" rant.

See, I can actually debate without insulting my opponents intellegence.*


Meh, whatever, this topic isnt about me or Joc. Im done with the hijack.


*- Just because I can, doesnt mean I always do.
I didn't complain about anyone being negative, you did. I pointed out you were wrong, and when you started crying, I pointed out that your feelings being hurt because you're wrong is not relevant to the topic. If you feel like your intelligence was insulted by the fact that you made a false claim, well, how is that my problem?

Interesting. It seems a tad dishonest to me. Methinks Biden and the Delaware Governor should indicate who will be appointed to the senate if the Democrats win all three contests.

well to make this whole greek opera even more amusing, the Delaware governor is ALSO up for re-election.

Whoever WINS will be the one who gets to appoint a new senator.

BUWHAHAHA!!!

SUCK IT REPUBLICANS!

This, of course, also means TAI will be voting for Obama now;)

Pfft, like TAI is going to vote for Blacky McBlack. Racist, remember?

But...but... the Economist sez... :eek:

You're expecting TAI to vote for a left-leaning minority with a Muslim in his family history? Really now?

:tongue:

Knights of Liberty, Jocabia, and anyone else involved in this little pissing match ...

Knock it off or take it to telegrams. I've invested 4377 posts worth of reading this thread, and I'm not interested in your personal drama. Neither is anyone else.

well to make this whole greek opera even more amusing, the Delaware governor is ALSO up for re-election.

Whoever WINS will be the one who gets to appoint a new senator.

Has anyone given an indication of who might be appointed? If I were a voter in Delaware I would like to know for whom I was voting.

well to make this whole greek opera even more amusing, the Delaware governor is ALSO up for re-election.

Whoever WINS will be the one who gets to appoint a new senator.

So if a Republican becomes the Governor and a Democrat resigns his post by being elected to the Presidency or Vice Presidency, then a Republican gets the seat because the Democrat was popular enough to be put in the White House?

So the loser could go back to the senate. Thanks.

Yes.

Actually Biden IS running for re-election to the senate. Delaware law makes it perfectly permissible to run for two federal offices simultaniously. However, the Constitution forbids holding office in two branches at the same time. Should Biden win his campaign for senate re-election, and the democratic ticket win the presidential race, Biden must resign from one, or the other positions.

It's fairly obvious that should he win both (and for what it's worth, he's projected to win his Senate seat handily) he will chose to be vice president, at which point the Delaware governor (who is a democrat, running for re-election herself, but is practically certain to win) would appoint a replacement for his senate seat.

For what it's worth, Lieberman did the same thing in 2000, though, obviously, while winning his senate race, lost the VP spot. So, yes, you certainly CAN run for two different offices at the same time. You can only HOLD one however. It's a matter of state law what each state allows. But at least Delaware and Connecticut allow it, sinc both Biden and Lieberman simultaniously ran for senate and VP.


Fair enough, this was something I overlooked.

The topic wasn't whether or not his name is Joe and whether it's honest to attack for his middle name? Really? Hmmm..

And, yet, rather than do so, you chose to cry about how mean I am. You got out on nonsense and you're pissed. I get it. But do you really think attacking me is helping your cause? You think people can't see through that?

I asked in the post you're replying to, I'll ask again... do you have anything relevant to attacking Joe for calling himself Joe?

I love when people demonstrate how little they care by writing a long post. Very convincing.

Again, since you're not sleeping anyway, you got any thing relevant to say to the topic? We can talk about me if you like, but you have a bit of an advantage. I don't really take much notice of you. I've seen your arguments, but since you're currently not making any...

His name has no relevance. Not only does it have no relevance, but you keep bringing up something that's blatantly false. Joe is his name. It's simply not his first name.

I responded by addressing the topic. I'm still addressing the topic. I'm asking you to say something relevant. Feel free to start.

Of course, I do.

Given that "calling it as you see it" includes lying and saying Joe is not Joe's name, I'll take that with a grain of salt.

Sure, I'm negative, but I'm still debating, not putting up posts with no content and nothing to add. I'm not criticizing you for going negative. I'm criticizing you for ignoring the point to cry about how I hurt your feelings.

Again, anything relevant to say or are we done with the "Jocabia was mean to me" rant.

:rolleyes:

For what its worth, I didnt know his middle name was Joe. I thought it wa a "call sign" of sorts that the McCain campaign had given him to make him seem more like an "average" guy.

But, since you cant seem to drop this, Ill humor you. Sam, Joe, whatever, is an idiot for the following reasons:

1. He is not really a plumber
2. He is not in any position to buy the business he said he was going to be buying.
3. Said business doesnt make $250,000
4. Under Obama's plan, Joe would see a tax cut, rather than see his taxes rise like he has been claiming
5. He agreed that a vote for Obama would be a vote for "the death of Israel"
6. He hasnt been paying his taxes
7. He is not registered to vote

There is a lot wrong with your post, like that you think I take whats said on NSG seriously enough for it to ever "hurt my feelings", but I dont want to prepetuate this hijack.

Now, I think maybe you should post something relevent rather then talk about how much of an idiot I am, fair enough?

You're expecting TAI to vote for a left-leaning minority with a Muslim in his family history? Really now?

:tongue:

Not all of us think TAI is racist. Borderline Xenophobic, yes. Racist? I dont think so.

Not all of us think TAI is racist. Borderline Xenophobix, yes. Racist? I dont think so.

Even discounting Obama's ethnicity (and disregarding the ever popular Muslim = Arab generalization) the fact that Obama is a Democrat (i.e. LEFTIST!!!!!) and his father was a lapsed Muslim (i.e. OMG 3B1L M0ZL3M!!!!!!) still makes the idea of TAI voting for him unlikely.

:tongue:

So if a Republican becomes the Governor and a Democrat resigns his post by being elected to the Presidency or Vice Presidency, then a Republican gets the seat because the Democrat was popular enough to be put in the White House?

Essentially, yes. The governor gets to appoint the replacement

Has anyone given an indication of who might be appointed? If I were a voter in Delaware I would like to know for whom I was voting.

They tend to be hush hush about it. Blagojevich hasnt said who hed appoint either.

But, considering its good old Blagojevich making the appointment, it will probably someone grossly incompetent.

Sean Madigan is pretty popular and wouldnt be a bad choice, but since him and Rod dont get along, its not likely.

Even discounting Obama's ethnicity (and disregarding the ever popular Muslim = Arab generalization) the fact that Obama is a Democrat (i.e. LEFTIST!!!!!) and his father was a lapsed Muslim (i.e. OMG 3B1L M0ZL3M!!!!!!) still makes the idea of TAI voting for him unlikely.

:tongue:

I agree he wont vote for him because hes a democrat, the comment I made about TAI voting for him because the Economist endorsed him was a joke made due to TAI's love of The Economist.

I agree he wont vote for him because hes a democrat, the comment I made about TAI voting for him because the Economist endorsed him was a joke made due to TAI's love of The Economist.

More likely he'll cancel his subscription and denounce it suddenly as Leftist Rag.

For what its worth, I didnt know his middle name was Joe. I thought it wa a "call sign" of sorts that the McCain campaign had given him to make him seem more like an "average" guy.

But, since you cant seem to drop this, Ill humor you. Sam, Joe, whatever, is an idiot for the following reasons:

1. He is not really a plumber
2. He is not in any position to buy the business he said he was going to be buying.
3. Said business doesnt make $250,000
4. Under Obama's plan, Joe would see a tax cut, rather than see his taxes rise like he has been claiming
5. He agreed that a vote for Obama would be a vote for "the death of Israel"
6. He hasnt been paying his taxes
7. He is not registered to vote

There is a lot wrong with your post, like that you think I take whats said on NSG seriously enough for it to ever "hurt my feelings", but I dont want to prepetuate this hijack.

Now, I think maybe you should post something relevent rather then talk about how much of an idiot I am, fair enough?

I never called you an idiot. I can't help it if being shown you're wrong means that to you, but this is a debate forum. You're going to be shown your wrong.

The fact is... Joe is his name. The reply you go was that Joe is his name and that saying it isn't hurts your argument. It has nothing to do with you intelligence or anything else. It has to do with whether or not Joe is his name. It isn't. If you realized that before people brought it up, then you should have just let it lie. If you didn't, you should have simply admitted you were wrong. Attacking me has no bearing on the validity of your argument.

Yup, and the reason I didn't protest anytime anyone else brought that up is because I agree with all 7 of those. As a metaphor, he makes McCain look really silly. McCain seems to have a habit of choosing people to save his campaign who are just bound and determined to make McCain look like he doesn't have a clue what vetting is for.

Joe is a great metaphor for the McCain campaign. He's not what he says he is. The "slights" he finds offense about are not actually anything relevant to him or his complaints. He speaks in soundbites. He'll lie to make it seem like some story he's telling has something to do with one issue or another when it doesn't. And he'll get caught doing all that.

You are correct in saying there is plenty to make fun of about Joe and the McCain campaign resting their final week on him. That's the particular reason why CTOAN mentioned we should bring THAT up.

More likely he'll cancel his subscription and denounce it suddenly as Leftist Rag.

That would make me happy, considering my disdain for The Economist.

Yup, and the reason I didn't protest anytime anyone else brought that up is because I agree with all 7 of those. As a metaphor, he makes McCain look really silly. McCain seems to have a habit of choosing people to save his campaign who are just bound and determined to make McCain look like he doesn't have a clue what vetting is for.

Joe is a great metaphor for the McCain campaign. He's not what he says he is. The "slights" he finds offense about are not actually anything relevant to him or his complaints. He speaks in soundbites. He'll lie to make it seem like some story he's telling has something to do with one issue or another when it doesn't. And he'll get caught doing all that.


Ignoring the first half, because its you still going on about how superior you are and making it personal even after a Mod told you to drop it, Ill focus on this. McCain's campaign is only were it is because of the idiots he has been choosing to thrust into the spotlight. I really am curious who keeps telling him these are good ideas and if they want him to lose.

In a way, the "Joe the Plumber" campaign is the best example of John McCain's campaign. Are you like Joe? Are you a real american? Are you someone with such a poor grasp of economic principles that you think that you'd benefit under my plan?

Than vote McCain!

In a way, the "Joe the Plumber" campaign is the best example of John McCain's campaign. Are you like Joe? Are you a real american? Are you someone with such a poor grasp of economic principles that you think that you'd benefit under my plan?

Than vote McCain!

Essentially, thats just it. McCain's campaign seems to rely on people not looking into the facts and the research.

Is it just me or is this a standard Republican tactic lately?

Since when was democracy founded on misinformation?

In a way, the "Joe the Plumber" campaign is the best example of John McCain's campaign. Are you like Joe? Are you a real american? Are you someone with such a poor grasp of economic principles that you think that you'd benefit under my plan?

Than vote McCain!

Essentially, thats just it. McCain's campaign seems to rely on people not looking into the facts and the research.

Is it just me or is this a standard Republican tactic lately?

Since when was democracy founded on misinformation?

The McCain Campaign has turned into an anti-intellectual uprising pretty much.

Do the Republicans really want to lose? Would that explain why they seem to be doing such a "horrible job"?
It's all very...murky, to me.

The McCain Campaign has turned into an anti-intellectual uprising pretty much.

But hasnt this been a Republican tactic for the last 8 years?

The Republicans seem to bank on making everyone think the educated are out to take their money, guns, and bibles, and cant be trusted. Therefore, they shouldnt do any research or listen to the experts on how terrible someones plan is because those people who know the truth cant be trusted, and arent really telling the truth.

But hasnt this been a Republican tactic for the last 8 years?

The Republicans seem to bank on making everyone think the educated are out to take their money, guns, and bibles, and cant be trusted. Therefore, they shouldnt do any research or listen to the experts on how terrible someones plan is because those people who know the truth cant be trusted, and arent really telling the truth.

Of course with the economy in the shitters, even the most spiteful underachiever can see that the guy you can have beer with isn't the most qualified to run the business. Or at least run it anywhere besides into the ground.

The McCain Campaign has turned into an anti-intellectual uprising pretty much.

Here's the thing. Both Obama and I attended the same lawschool. Now, there are two types of people who go to Harvard Law.

There are people who work very hard, get very lucky, then spend three years feeling like their drowning under the weight of it.

That was me.

Then there are people who go to Harvard Law, because there's no better place for them to go.

That's Obama.

THis stupid idea of being an "elitist". LIke the president should be a guy you want a beer with. I don't want a beer with Obama (ok, that would be pretty cool), I don't want to hang with him. I don't want to call him up at night and go shoot pool. He is running for president of the fucking united states. Leader of the free world, in charge of the nation with the biggest economy on the planet, commander in chief of the most powerful military might the world has ever seen.

I want the most elite son of a bitch you can find.

THis stupid idea of being an "elitist". LIke the president should be a guy you want a beer with. I don't want a beer with Obama (ok, that would be pretty cool), I don't want to hang with him. I don't want to call him up at night and go shoot pool. He is running for president of the fucking united states. Leader of the free world, in charge of the nation with the biggest economy on the planet, commander in chief of the most powerful military might the world has ever seen.

I want the most elite son of a bitch you can find.

Pretty much. I never got the "vote for the guy you can have a beer with" line. I have a lot of drinking buddies. I wouldnt want 90% of them in charge of a picnic, let alone the fucking United States.

If I voted for the guy Id like to hang out with, Id have voted for Huckster (because hes fucking hilarious). Too bad I disagree with him on virtually everything.

In a way, the "Joe the Plumber" campaign is the best example of John McCain's campaign. Are you like Joe? Are you a real american? Are you someone with such a poor grasp of economic principles that you think that you'd benefit under my plan?

Than vote McCain!

Right, that's my point. He chose him to represent his ideal voter and he managed to stumble accidentally on a perfect example. That's what's so funny about his campaign. It's like watching a car wreck.

Right, that's my point. He chose him to represent his ideal voter and he managed to stumble accidentally on a perfect example. That's what's so funny about his campaign. It's like watching a car wreck.

I actually think we have the media to thank for the sinking of McCains campaign to such an extent. Theyve really gone after the truth in this election. They grew some balls.

And, McCain used to be a media darling. I guess if so insult someone so much, they stop making you their ally and pet and start treating you like the enemy. Go figure.

Here's the thing. Both Obama and I attended the same lawschool. Now, there are two types of people who go to Harvard Law.

There are people who work very hard, get very lucky, then spend three years feeling like their drowning under the weight of it.

That was me.

Then there are people who go to Harvard Law, because there's no better place for them to go.

That's Obama.

THis stupid idea of being an "elitist". LIke the president should be a guy you want a beer with. I don't want a beer with Obama (ok, that would be pretty cool), I don't want to hang with him. I don't want to call him up at night and go shoot pool. He is running for president of the fucking united states. Leader of the free world, in charge of the nation with the biggest economy on the planet, commander in chief of the most powerful military might the world has ever seen.

I want the most elite son of a bitch you can find.

To quote Jon Stewart, "If you do a good enough job, they carve your face into a mountain."

I actually think we have the media to thank for the sinking of McCains campaign to such an extent. Theyve really gone after the truth in this election. They grew some balls.

And, McCain used to be a media darling. I guess if so insult someone so much, they stop making you their ally and pet and start treating you like the enemy. Go figure.

No, they haven't. At all. They've done what they always do. They report on what people want to see. There was a bias. It was an obvious bias. That bias was toward making money.

But there were tons of things they could have gone after harder. McCain's association with Khalidi, for example, was only mentioned by the most leftist reporters despite the fact that McCain was attacking Obama for having a much less clear relationship. On the Obama side, they've certainly ignored some gaffs on his side that would have been jumped on, on the McCain side.

But the why isn't that they're biased by their political position. The media used to love McCain. They were biased by the fact that one campaign looked like a reality TV show and the other manages to squash any story on them in short order. Frankly, the money was in showing the guy running around with no shoes or shirt drooling on himself because he's so drunk and bleeding all over cuz his wife just hit him with a spatula, while the police try to calm him down so they can arrest him for getting his ass kicked on national television. How's that for a metaphor? Sure, I could have said it's a car wreck, but that wouldn't be like me.

To quote Jon Stewart, "If you do a good enough job, they carve your face into a mountain."

And your supporters carve your initials into some poor 20 year old.

Has this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxlwYP0HNdc) been mentioned before?

Right, that's my point. He chose him to represent his ideal voter and he managed to stumble accidentally on a perfect example. That's what's so funny about his campaign. It's like watching a car wreck.

I almost feel bad for McCain, it seems every time he picks a goose that will lay the golden egg it just...lays an egg.

Sarah Palin was supposed to galvanize the base, show what a progressive thinker McCain is. Instead he got an incompetent who has everyone going "so this is the kind of instinct based maverick like decision making we can expect from you?"

He tried to make his "I'm suspending my campaign" into a defining moment of leadership, instead it made him look indecisive and unable to multi-task.

Then he picks this "joe the plumber" to hang his campaign on, and, much like Palin, once america got an actual LOOK at Joe, Obama was basically able to pull the comeback of "yeah, this is who supports McCain, people who don't know any better".

McCain has TRIED, but a combination of just poor planning, an inability to vet, and an opponent who is made of fucking Teflon, it just hasn't worked for him.

And your supporters carve your initials into some poor 20 year old.

In reverse so you can see it perfectly in a mirror!

To quote Jon Stewart, "If you do a good enough job, they carve your face into a mountain."

F**k, that must hurt.

No, they haven't. At all. They've done what they always do. They report on what people want to see. There was a bias. It was an obvious bias. That bias was toward making money.

But there were tons of things they could have gone after harder. McCain's association with Khalidi, for example, was only mentioned by the most leftist reporters despite the fact that McCain was attacking Obama for having a much less clear relationship. On the Obama side, they've certainly ignored some gaffs on his side that would have been jumped on, on the McCain side.

But the why isn't that they're biased by their political position. The media used to love McCain. They were biased by the fact that one campaign looked like a reality TV show and the other manages to squash any story on them in short order. Frankly, the money was in showing the guy running around with no shoes or shirt drooling on himself because he's so drunk and bleeding all over cuz his wife just hit him with a spatula, while the police try to calm him down so they can arrest him for getting his ass kicked on national television. How's that for a metaphor? Sure, I could have said it's a car wreck, but that wouldn't be like me.


I should maybe clarify when I say "media". I dont really pay attention to CNN, Fox, MSNBC, ect. I read the New York Times (and am not going to pretend its unbiased), listen to NPR, stuff like that. So to me, Ive heard a lot about McCain's sleevey connections.

You could very well be right. I just wouldnt know, as I havent been paying attention to the 24 hours news networks.

What I have seen is people dissecting Palin. Calling McCain on his policy BS. Calling him on his lies about Obama's connections and his policies.

Factcheck seems to be a lot more popular this year as well. I think that has helped.

I almost feel bad for McCain, it seems every time he picks a goose that will lay the golden egg it just...lays an egg.

Sarah Palin was supposed to galvanize the base, show what a progressive thinker McCain is. Instead he got an incompetent who has everyone going "so this is the kind of instinct based maverick like decision making we can expect from you?"

He tried to make his "I'm suspending my campaign" into a defining moment of leadership, instead it made him look indecisive and unable to multi-task.

Then he picks this "joe the plumber" to hang his campaign on, and, much like Palin, once america got an actual LOOK at Joe, Obama was basically able to pull the comeback of "yeah, this is who supports McCain, people who don't know any better".

McCain has TRIED, but a combination of just poor planning, an inability to vet, and an opponent who is made of fucking Teflon, it just hasn't worked for him.

I hate to say it, but I think he's just gotten old. He was so much tighter in 2000. His decisiveness made him seem strong, now it made him seem erratic. His laugh, his friendliness, use to make him likeable but it became creepy. He really just seems like he's trying to keep his wits. He looks uncomfortable and just out of his league.

Obama changed the rules. He's brilliant. He studied. He watched "slick" Willie and became "Teflon" Barry. He learned what works and he adjusted brilliantly. His early campaign was a rough in comparison. The "Teflon" thing bothers me because it sounds effortless. It wasn't. This guy is driven and he's doesn't have his finger on the pulse of the nation, he put his hands on our chests and heard not just the pulse, but listened for murmurs. If Teflon not only caused eggs not to stick, but actually slapped away the butter when you tried to put it in the pan, that's Obama.

I feel sorry for him, because if he'd won in 2000, he'd almost assuredly not squandered the good will fo 9/11. He'd have likely run a good war in Afghanistan. We wouldn't be in Iraq. And he'd be calling moutain carvers. I really believe that. The Republicans messed up their brand twice with McCain. Unfortunately, the guy hit his time to be President and the exact wrong time.

I feel sorry for him, because if he'd won in 2000, he'd almost assuredly not squandered the good will fo 9/11. He'd have likely run a good war in Afghanistan. We wouldn't be in Iraq. And he'd be calling moutain carvers. I really believe that. The Republicans messed up their brand twice with McCain. Unfortunately, the guy hit his time to be President and the exact wrong time.

The Republican party would also not be a synonym for incompetence, corruption, violation of the constitution, and hate.

“This is by far the largest number of early voters that we have ever seen,” said Burk, the Washoe County registrar. “Nothing else comes close.”

The strong Democratic turnout has Republicans mulling possible legal challenges. “We question whether these are valid registrations,” said Smith, the Washoe County GOP chairwoman.

While talking to Smith, she was interrupted by a cell phone call, which she inadvertently put on the speakerphone. It was the state GOP executive director Zachery Moyle, and the two discussed what could be done about the tsunami of Democratic Party registrations.

“I’m looking for people to sign on to a lawsuit,” Moyle said to Smith, who fumbled with the phone while turning off the speaker. “You didn’t hear that,” she said glancing in my direction.
See, things like this (http://washingtonindependent.com/15662/democratic-surge-in-nevada) make me want to set things on fire...

I want the most elite son of a bitch you can find.

Its spelled "leet", you Harvard fop.

Jeez, maybe if you'd gone to Yale, you could spell.

See, things like this (http://washingtonindependent.com/15662/democratic-surge-in-nevada) make me want to set things on fire...

Well, of course they were improperly registered. Real Americans wouldnt vote Democrat.


Really, any law suit, I think, will just make the Republican party look racist, childish, petty, and damage their credibility further.


Their best bet is just to accept the results of Nov. 4th graciously and gear up for the House elections in 2010, the midterm elections, and 2012.

But they wont do that.

Its spelled "leet", you Harvard fop.

Jeez, maybe if you'd gone to Yale, you could spell.

Silly person. It's 1337! Not that "leet" mess.

Well, of course they were improperly registered. Real Americans wouldnt vote Democrat.


Really, any law suit, I think, will just make the Republican party look racist, childish, petty, and damage their credibility further.


Their best bet is just to accept the results of Nov. 4th graciously and gear up for the House elections in 2010, the midterm elections, and 2012.

But they wont do that.
If the Democrats get a super majority it will be harder for the Republicans to take a giant steaming shit on the floor of congress and blame it on the Democrats. Waters naturally recede, but they face an even greater horror than losing this time around, they face the possibility that what the Democrats do in power for the next two years works.

If the Democrats get a super majority it will be harder for the Republicans to take a giant steaming shit on the floor of congress and blame it on the Democrats. Waters naturally recede, but they face an even greater horror than losing this time around, they face the possibility that what the Democrats do in power for the next two years works.

Those nasty democrats might even *gasp* start obeying the constitution!

THis stupid idea of being an "elitist". LIke the president should be a guy you want a beer with. I don't want a beer with Obama (ok, that would be pretty cool), I don't want to hang with him. I don't want to call him up at night and go shoot pool. He is running for president of the fucking united states. Leader of the free world, in charge of the nation with the biggest economy on the planet, commander in chief of the most powerful military might the world has ever seen.

I want the most elite son of a bitch you can find.

^This we want someone who can be a leader, but Neo not all elitists would make good leaders.

So you to went to the same Law school hey? You're just supporting him because of that I bet if he went to Yale you would be dead set against him :p

But all jokes aside Neo, what did you mean there was no better place for him to go?

But all jokes aside Neo, what did you mean there was no better place for him to go?

Harvard Law is (all though my cousin would disagree) the best of the best. If you are the most talented, going anywere else would be doing a disservice to yourself, because you wouldnt be living up to your own potential.

Harvard Law is (all though my cousin would disagree) the best of the best. If you are the most talented, going anywere else would be doing a disservice to yourself, because you wouldnt be living up to your own potential.

Ah ok yes I was reading it as something different. So does Neo mean he didn't deserve to be there and just manged to get in some how?

Ah ok yes I was reading it as something different. So does Neo mean he didn't deserve to be there and just manged to get in some how?

No, he said that Obama had to go there, because he was so bright that going anywere else would be doing himself a disservice.


I dont know how you got the above out of Neo's comment...

No, he said that Obama had to go there, because he was so bright that going anywere else would be doing himself a disservice.


I dont know how you got the above out of Neo's comment...

I think he was making two points: the one you have clarified and, also, that he felt he was out of his depth.

No, he said that Obama had to go there, because he was so bright that going anywere else would be doing himself a disservice.


I dont know how you got the above out of Neo's comment...

Well Neo said there were two types of people that attended those like Obama who had no where else to go but Harvard Law and those like him who worked hard and got lucky to attend.

Personally, I think if you worked hard and was able to get into the best of the best then I think you would deserve to be there anyway.

Well Neo said there were two types of people that attended those like Obama who had no where else to go but Harvard Law and those like him who worked hard and got lucky to attend.

He was highlighting the difference between natural ability and hard work.


All though I dont think anyone means to deny Neo's natural ability.

He was highlighting the difference between natural ability and hard work.

All though I dont think anyone means to deny Neo's natural ability.

Ah yes of course. I am slow today but it is Friday afternoon so that is to be expected.

Ah yes of course. I am slow today but it is Friday afternoon so that is to be expected.

It's the Cup weekend here & I'm taking Monday off. My brain's in holiday mode already.

Ah yes of course. I am slow today but it is Friday afternoon so that is to be expected.

I, on the other hand, am way to sharp and on the ball for it being 1 am. Im going to bed:p

It's the Cup weekend here & I'm taking Monday off. My brain's in holiday mode already.

It's alright for some hey? :p Monday and Tuesday off and Wednesday afternoon off. Are you guys hiring?

I, on the other hand, am way to sharp and on the ball for it being 1 am. Im going to bed:p

lol, well good night then KoL.

It's alright for some hey? :p Monday and Tuesday off and Wednesday afternoon off. Are you guys hiring?



lol, well good night then KoL.

Your taxes at work!

Just kidding. I'm taking annual leave.

See, things like this (http://washingtonindependent.com/15662/democratic-surge-in-nevada) make me want to set things on fire...
I'm only surprised that they're surprised Obama is doing so well. It's been covered quite extensively the changes to Nevada and how that - and Obama's tactics - could pay off for him.

I posted an earlier story about this:
http://www.forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14130697&postcount=3509

mmm. link not working anymore. Here's same story, different paper:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10539249

Barring GOP voter fraud, it's looking more and more like Nevada will go Blue. Especially seeing the number of 3rd party (mostly Libertarian) voters there. I'll not be surprised to see a big vote for Barr in Nevada as all those Libertarians + dissatisfied GOP supporters opt for him. All those people who can't stand McCain but refuse to vote for Obama.
That's what I'm hoping for anyway.

Four days until election! *Shudders to think*

Some videos about the election campaign that may interest you:
http://www.mnftiu.cc/videos/
I especially recommend "Bailout" and "Sarah Palin and the Rape Kits."

I'm only surprised that they're surprised Obama is doing so well. It's been covered quite extensively the changes to Nevada and how that - and Obama's tactics - could pay off for him.

Barring GOP voter fraud, it's looking more and more like Nevada will go Blue. Especially seeing the number of 3rd party (mostly Libertarian) voters there. I'll not be surprised to see a big vote for Barr in Nevada as all those Libertarians + dissatisfied GOP supporters opt for him. All those people who can't stand McCain but refuse to vote for Obama.
That's what I'm hoping for anyway.

*sighs* Depends on what section of Nevada you're in. I expect a lot of Northern voters may swing either way. But there is a lot of disastifaction for the Republican brand. A wonderful governor, who thinks the best way to do things is not to raise taxes but to cut the funding on education. So a lot of angry students and teachers. I am upset that for one class at the university, the quizes and notes are read off an overhead projector rather than being hand out on in a paper format. It's a way to save money on the paper. It reminds me that the state is in a budget crises and that the governor doesn't give a damn about education. When ever there is a funding problem the first thing to get axed is Education.

And then there is the mess in Congressional district 3, my district with Titus and Porter. I am mostly angry at Titus for not being as strong as Obama is with fighting back against the smears Porter has been spreading. But he's far from a saint, he's about as slimely as polticians come and has voted 95% of the time with Bush. Who knows how that race will turn out. Sadly I think Porter will win because of the lack of defense from Titus.

But this is from my area, Clark county. It's hard to say how the North will go.

Essentially, thats just it. McCain's campaign seems to rely on people not looking into the facts and the research.

Is it just me or is this a standard Republican tactic lately?

Since when was democracy founded on misinformation?
when im feeling my most cynical i analyse it this way:

the republican strategy to win is

1) pander to the republican base

2) convince the stupid people to be scared of the other guy

3) suppress the vote.

hmmmm is reality biased toward cynicism?

when im feeling my most cynical i analyse it this way:

the republican strategy to win is

1) pander to the republican base

2) convince the stupid people to be scared of the other guy

3) suppress the vote.

hmmmm is reality biased toward cynicism?

Murphy's law Ashmoria. Murphy's law and the democratic process.

DO THEY EVEN LISTEN TO WHAT THEY SAY?

i was listening to sarah palin give a speech that is on tv now...

she said that the mccain administration is going to double the child tax credit then went on to DIS the idea of tax credits (obamas) because they are just the way of redistributing the wealth according to some politicians priorities.

they are obviously pandering for the stupid vote.

DO THEY EVEN LISTEN TO WHAT THEY SAY?

i was listening to sarah palin give a speech that is on tv now...

she said that the mccain administration is going to double the child tax credit then went on to DIS the idea of tax credits (obamas) because they are just the way of redistributing the wealth according to some politicians priorities.

they are obviously pandering for the stupid vote.

in her specific case, i'm nearly positive that she is the stupid base. people have remarked on her republican-prized ability to blatantly lie with a "you betcha!" and a come hither wink for the cheeto-stained set, but i'm not so sure that's what's at work. i think she is one of the authoritarian follower set, mentally unable to put ideas together and thus unconcerned by contradiction and incoherence. she's not doing it to manipulate others to fulfill her master plans, she's just bought in to all the stupid shit inherent in the conservative movement.

DO THEY EVEN LISTEN TO WHAT THEY SAY?

i was listening to sarah palin give a speech that is on tv now...

she said that the mccain administration is going to double the child tax credit then went on to DIS the idea of tax credits (obamas) because they are just the way of redistributing the wealth according to some politicians priorities.

they are obviously pandering for the stupid vote.

Is it pandering to the stupid vote if the panderers themselves are stupid? I didn't used to think they were, but seriously, when they say these things...it's hard to believe they're as smart as we've been giving them credit for.

OK I've just heard on the radio that there is evidence that Saudi Arabia paid for Obama's harvard college education.

Anyone else heard this?
have you seen any facts about it?

I know ann coulter railing on about it...but she's always railing on about something...she said that they are keeping it under wraps until after the election...

OK I've just heard on the radio that there is evidence that Saudi Arabia paid for Obama's harvard college education.

Anyone else heard this?
have you seen any facts about it?

I know ann coulter railing on about it...but she's always railing on about something...she said that they are keeping it under wraps until after the election...

:rolleyes:


Were you listening to Limbaugh or Hanity?

No, its not true. He had student lones. That he just now finished paying off.

Its cute that whatever right wing nutter you were listening to is saying "OMG OBAMA AND SAUDI ARABIA ARE FRIENDS!!!!!" when our current president is pretty much their bitch...

Its cute that whatever right wing nutter you were listening to is saying "OMG OBAMA AND SAUDI ARABIA ARE FRIENDS!!!!!" when our current president is pretty much their bitch...

/threadwin :D

See, things like this (http://washingtonindependent.com/15662/democratic-surge-in-nevada) make me want to set things on fire...
Makes me want to cry. And then I made it worse by following links from that article and landing here (http://washingtonindependent.com/5715/purging-the-poor) and here (http://washingtonindependent.com/5411/lose-your-house-lose-your-vote):

The chairman of the Republican Party in Macomb County, Mich., a key swing county in a key swing state, is planning to use a list of foreclosed homes to block people from voting in the coming election as part of the state GOP’s effort to challenge some voters on Election Day.

“We will have a list of foreclosed homes and will make sure people aren’t voting from those addresses,” party chairman James Carabelli told Michigan Messenger in a telephone interview earlier this week. He said the local party wanted to make sure that proper electoral procedures were followed…

The articles are from September, though, so I hope the media attention kept them from ever actually doing that. Jesus.

OK I've just heard on the radio that there is evidence that Saudi Arabia paid for Obama's harvard college education.

i think you want this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=570743)

The articles are from September, though, so I hope the media attention kept them from ever actually doing that. Jesus.

yeah, there was a lawsuit, and some crying about how they weren't really going to do it anyways. i think a federal judge stepped in and told the republicans to knock it off. they've actually been prety good about that around the country this year. i guess the obviously coordinated republican attack on democracy has gotten to be too much for the judicial branch.

Its cute that whatever right wing nutter you were listening to is saying "OMG OBAMA AND SAUDI ARABIA ARE FRIENDS!!!!!" when our current president is pretty much their bitch...
Yeah, no shit. Cognitive dissonance much? But then, it goes just perfectly with Ashmoria's post.

i think you want this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=570743)
:tongue:
yeah, there was a lawsuit, and some crying about how they weren't really going to do it anyways. i think a federal judge stepped in and told the republicans to knock it off. they've actually been prety good about that around the country this year. i guess the obviously coordinated republican attack on democracy has gotten to be too much for the judicial branch.
Oh good. Thanks. I was too scared to google for it.

Is it pandering to the stupid vote if the panderers themselves are stupid? I didn't used to think they were, but seriously, when they say these things...it's hard to believe they're as smart as we've been giving them credit for.
its just so ..... crazy stupid.

they go after obama on his radical connections when they have as many radical connections

they go after obama for his crazy preacher when they have as many crazy preachers

they go after obama for going to dinner with mr khalidi when they gave khalidi half a million dollars.

they dis the idea of windfall profits taxes when they instituted a windfall profits tax.

they dis the idea of redistribution of wealth when they redistribute wealth.

they accuse obama of class warfare when what they do can only be called class warfare.

its just so ..... crazy stupid.

they go after obama on his radical connections when they have as many radical connections

they go after obama for his crazy preacher when they have as many crazy preachers

they go after obama for going to dinner with mr khalidi when they gave khalidi half a million dollars.

they dis the idea of windfall profits taxes when they instituted a windfall profits tax.

they dis the idea of redistribution of wealth when they redistribute wealth.

they accuse obama of class warfare when what they do can only be called class warfare.
Which is why I found it so endlessly frustrating that Obama was apparently constrained by the "Don't look like an angry black man!" thing that he didn't even refute all the lies they threw at him and didn't turn them right around at them.

its just so ..... crazy stupid.

they go after obama on his radical connections when they have as many radical connections

they go after obama for his crazy preacher when they have as many crazy preachers

they go after obama for going to dinner with mr khalidi when they gave khalidi half a million dollars.

they dis the idea of windfall profits taxes when they instituted a windfall profits tax.

they dis the idea of redistribution of wealth when they redistribute wealth.

they accuse obama of class warfare when what they do can only be called class warfare.



Wasnt it Olberman who said that anything McCain/Palin accuse Obama of theyve already done first and most likely worse?

Wasnt it Olberman who said that anything McCain/Palin accuse Obama of theyve already done first and most likely worse?

Indeed it was.

Wasnt it Olberman who said that anything McCain/Palin accuse Obama of theyve already done first and most likely worse?
olbermann is good at revealing that stuff.

with his sad puppy dog eyes looking so hurt that they would say bad things about obama.

:rolleyes:


Were you listening to Limbaugh or Hanity?

No, its not true. He had student lones. That he just now finished paying off.

Its cute that whatever right wing nutter you were listening to is saying "OMG OBAMA AND SAUDI ARABIA ARE FRIENDS!!!!!" when our current president is pretty much their bitch...


thats what I thought, ESPECIALLY since I couldn't find anything about it anywhere else...it was a republican guy yeah, he had ann coulter and his show for heaven's sakes...until I heard that it was ann coulter I was like maybe, but thatn I was like uh...no:):)

:rolleyes:


Were you listening to Limbaugh or Hanity?

No, its not true. He had student lones. That he just now finished paying off.

Its cute that whatever right wing nutter you were listening to is saying "OMG OBAMA AND SAUDI ARABIA ARE FRIENDS!!!!!" when our current president is pretty much their bitch...


Too true, Bush is so cozy with them I remember that Bush called Prince Bandar.

Bandar Bush. Course the right wingers might disagree because I found that out from Michael Moore. lol :p

its just so ..... crazy stupid.

they go after obama on his radical connections when they have as many radical connections

they go after obama for his crazy preacher when they have as many crazy preachers

they go after obama for going to dinner with mr khalidi when they gave khalidi half a million dollars.

they dis the idea of windfall profits taxes when they instituted a windfall profits tax.

they dis the idea of redistribution of wealth when they redistribute wealth.

they accuse obama of class warfare when what they do can only be called class warfare.
That's another thing that astonishes me -- how can people that stupid also get that crazy? Don't you need a mind that at least once worked right in order to have a deranged mind?

Reagan chief of staff: McCain’s interview with Palin was easier than getting a job at McDonald’s (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/31/duberstein-palin/).

Interviewed on MSNBC today, former Reagan chief of staff Ken Duberstein criticized Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) for choosing Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate:
I think it has very much undermined the whole question of John McCain’s judgment. You know what most Americans I think realized is that you don’t offer a job, let alone the vice presidency, to a person after one job interview. Even at McDonald’s, you’re interviewed three times before you get a job.
On whether Palin is ready to be president “in an emergency on day one,” Duberstein noted, “People have resoundingly said ‘don’t think so.’”

Makes me want to cry. And then I made it worse by following links from that article and landing here (http://washingtonindependent.com/5715/purging-the-poor) and here (http://washingtonindependent.com/5411/lose-your-house-lose-your-vote):



The articles are from September, though, so I hope the media attention kept them from ever actually doing that. Jesus.Yes. The Michigan Republicans got slapped down, hard, on that.

Reagan chief of staff: McCain’s interview with Palin was easier than getting a job at McDonald’s (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/31/duberstein-palin/).

Interviewed on MSNBC today, former Reagan chief of staff Ken Duberstein criticized Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) for choosing Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate:
I think it has very much undermined the whole question of John McCain’s judgment. You know what most Americans I think realized is that you don’t offer a job, let alone the vice presidency, to a person after one job interview. Even at McDonald’s, you’re interviewed three times before you get a job.
On whether Palin is ready to be president “in an emergency on day one,” Duberstein noted, “People have resoundingly said ‘don’t think so.’”

Ouch.

Reagan chief of staff: McCain’s interview with Palin was easier than getting a job at McDonald’s (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/31/duberstein-palin/).

Interviewed on MSNBC today, former Reagan chief of staff Ken Duberstein criticized Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) for choosing Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate:
I think it has very much undermined the whole question of John McCain’s judgment. You know what most Americans I think realized is that you don’t offer a job, let alone the vice presidency, to a person after one job interview. Even at McDonald’s, you’re interviewed three times before you get a job.
On whether Palin is ready to be president “in an emergency on day one,” Duberstein noted, “People have resoundingly said ‘don’t think so.’”

When I was younger, I worked at a McDonald's and they hired me after a short conversation - and told me to fill out the form so they would have the paperwork. No second or third interview.

As for every other job I've worked - up to and including the present job - there was one interview. There were also background investigations by private detectives who verified by personal interview with former employers everything on my resume.

When I was younger, I worked at a McDonald's and they hired me after a short conversation - and told me to fill out the form so they would have the paperwork. No second or third interview.

As for every other job I've worked - up to and including the present job - there was one interview. There were also background investigations by private detectives who verified by personal interview with former employers everything on my resume.

He worked at the top secret McDonald's. Every job I've had was one interview with a rather lengthy "probationary" period wherein they could fire you at a whim and paid you less.

When I was younger, I worked at a McDonald's and they hired me after a short conversation - and told me to fill out the form so they would have the paperwork. No second or third interview.

As for every other job I've worked - up to and including the present job - there was one interview. There were also background investigations by private detectives who verified by personal interview with former employers everything on my resume.

It's a bit misleading. McDonald's has changed their hiring policy since you were younger, but to say they do 3 interviews isn't quite accurate. They do two interviews and a background check. They changed their policy when an internal audit showed they were employing repeat sex offenders regularly.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3190/is_22_40/ai_n16440084/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1

As if Palin would even be qualified to make french fries.

Is there anyone not endorsing Obama?
Francis Fukuyama Endorses Obama (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/30/francis-fukuyama-endorses_n_139139.html)

O.o

Though maybe Obama should turn it down...

ive been tuning in to conservative talk radio the past week or so and NO ONE talks about mccain and what he would do as president.

its all "dont vote for obama, he's too scary"

That seems to be all they're focusing on. He's different, scary, and a possible terrorist/socialist/communist/satanist/witch/supervillain/evil genious/monster under your bed come to steal your dreams.

It makes me angry that it works even a little!

http://idle.slashdot.org/idle/08/10/30/1425224.shtml

Horde votes Obama. Clearly, Obama is evil. Or something.

Here's the thing. Both Obama and I attended the same lawschool. Now, there are two types of people who go to Harvard Law.

There are people who work very hard, get very lucky, then spend three years feeling like their drowning under the weight of it.

That was me.

Then there are people who go to Harvard Law, because there's no better place for them to go.

That's Obama.

THis stupid idea of being an "elitist". LIke the president should be a guy you want a beer with. I don't want a beer with Obama (ok, that would be pretty cool), I don't want to hang with him. I don't want to call him up at night and go shoot pool. He is running for president of the fucking united states. Leader of the free world, in charge of the nation with the biggest economy on the planet, commander in chief of the most powerful military might the world has ever seen.

I want the most elite son of a bitch you can find.
I agree, though he must retain some form of humanity. He can't be out of touch with the populace. No "Let them eat cake" elite, nor any type of Bush-like "Bubble".

I believe that Obama isn't. He sees what the problems for the average person are, and he can relate to it.

I almost feel bad for McCain, it seems every time he picks a goose that will lay the golden egg it just...lays an egg.

Sarah Palin was supposed to galvanize the base, show what a progressive thinker McCain is. Instead he got an incompetent who has everyone going "so this is the kind of instinct based maverick like decision making we can expect from you?"

He tried to make his "I'm suspending my campaign" into a defining moment of leadership, instead it made him look indecisive and unable to multi-task.

Then he picks this "joe the plumber" to hang his campaign on, and, much like Palin, once america got an actual LOOK at Joe, Obama was basically able to pull the comeback of "yeah, this is who supports McCain, people who don't know any better".

McCain has TRIED, but a combination of just poor planning, an inability to vet, and an opponent who is made of fucking Teflon, it just hasn't worked for him.
McCain let his campaign push Palin on him. Bad leadership there.

As for the rest: I'm surprised that the numbers for McCain are so high. This race should be over, yet he's still in it somewhat. I don't really understand that.

Wasnt it Olberman who said that anything McCain/Palin accuse Obama of theyve already done first and most likely worse?
The image has been carefully stitched together, one hypocritical kvetch at a time. If John McCain complains about Sen. Obama, you can count on it, whatever it is; John McCain or Sarah Palin have done it more, or earlier, or worse, or more obviously.

When I was younger, I worked at a McDonald's and they hired me after a short conversation - and told me to fill out the form so they would have the paperwork. No second or third interview.

As for every other job I've worked - up to and including the present job - there was one interview. There were also background investigations by private detectives who verified by personal interview with former employers everything on my resume.

Which year did you run for VP?

Because, otherwise, it's not going to be exactly relevent, now, is it?

You know - with the whole thing being about the CONTRAST between a job at McD's, and being the second-in-command of the largest standing military in recorded history, etc.

Well I did another day of canvusing for Obama. Most people were not home so depending on how they stood on the sheet, we (my mom and I) left literature. Others who were there who said they voted and we felt seemed to be friendly to the cause, we reminded them of the rally with Obama tomorrow.

The sweetest woman was an Asian woman who said they planned to Early vote today on the last day, and she was so sweet. She said her husband was sleeping as he works graveyard and said she was voting Obama because as she stated, "We need change...."

And then we found two Democrats on our list, one said, we voted but not for him. And then one said, we early voted, we voted for McCain. *sighs*

And then we had one guy who seemed against the whole lot. Probably Libertarian or Independant and against the whole poltical climate. We just urged him to vote anyway. Figured voting is better than nothing.

But despite the few oddballs, everyone we talked to seemed receptive, so I suppose that is a good thing.

Somehow I have a good feeling about how my little segement of canvusing in Nevada is turning out.

http://idle.slashdot.org/idle/08/10/30/1425224.shtml

Horde votes Obama. Clearly, Obama is evil. Or something.

And Alliance went mostly McCain. I dunno what that says about the supposed good and bad side really.

Which year did you run for VP?

Because, otherwise, it's not going to be exactly relevent, now, is it?

You know - with the whole thing being about the CONTRAST between a job at McD's, and being the second-in-command of the largest standing military in recorded history, etc.

I think he was pointing out the comparison was inaccurate. Not that a VP should be picked after one interview.

And Alliance went mostly McCain. I dunno what that says about the supposed good and bad side really.

The Alliance is full of brainless douches who picked the "Pretty" character races. The horde are the "ugly" races. The McCain ticket has a moderately attractive female on it. Do the math.

The Alliance is full of brainless douches who picked the "Pretty" character races. The horde are the "ugly" races. The McCain ticket has a moderately attractive female on it. Do the math.

That and from my limited WoW experiance, Alliance tend to be filled with immature 12 year olds.

And Alliance went mostly McCain. I dunno what that says about the supposed good and bad side really.

Ladies and gentleman, the leaders of the planet Earth.

And Alliance went mostly McCain. I dunno what that says about the supposed good and bad side really.

Well, it was apparently a near-split in Ally.

I think it means Ally are more authoritarian. =)

Also, Horde isn't really bad. Well, except the undead. They're pretty evil.

http://idle.slashdot.org/idle/08/10/30/1425224.shtml

Horde votes Obama. Clearly, Obama is evil. Or something.

That is unbelievably awesome.

I did an informal survey of CoH players a few days back, and found that Heroes overwhelmingly back Obama. I have yet to run a comparison test on villain-side.

Biden- Biden would be up for reelection if he wasnt dropping it to be VP.
He IS up for re-election. Delaware voters get to vote for him twice. If he wins both offices, he will (we presume!) choose the Vice Presidency. The governor will pick a replacement for his Senate seat, and his son Beau Biden is thought to be the favored candidate.

I think he was pointing out the comparison was inaccurate. Not that a VP should be picked after one interview.

I think he missed the point. EVen if McD's only gives one interview, you expect the position of VP to be treated as slightly more significant than flipping burgers.

Some McD's multiple-interview (I know my wife got two interviews when she worked there), but McCain screens once? So - EITHER McDonalds ONLY screen as much as McCain's campaign does, OR they screen more - that's the point.

Well, it was apparently a near-split in Ally.

I think it means Ally are more authoritarian. =)

Also, Horde isn't really bad. Well, except the undead. They're pretty evil.

Undead are not evil. They're just paranoid. The genocide plan is for self defense purposes only!

http://idle.slashdot.org/idle/08/10/30/1425224.shtml

Horde votes Obama. Clearly, Obama is evil. Or something.

And Alliance went mostly McCain. I dunno what that says about the supposed good and bad side really.

Well, it was apparently a near-split in Ally.

I think it means Ally are more authoritarian. =)

Also, Horde isn't really bad. Well, except the undead. They're pretty evil.

Well, I guess if you think about Warcraft lore from, especially WC3 onwards, this makes sense. The Alliance is largely presented as this fairly xenophobic/racist, old-fashioned entity that started out to defend freedom, but became mired in internal politics and disorganization.

The Horde, in Wacraft 3, are mostly trying to be free, and largely want to be left to their own devices (so much so that they flee across the sea). They're largely honorable and they have little problem taking in those who are very different from them (such as the Tauren.)

Sure, it's not a perfect fit, but...

Well, I guess if you think about Warcraft lore from, especially WC3 onwards, this makes sense. The Alliance is largely presented as this fairly xenophobic/racist, old-fashioned entity that started out to defend freedom, but became mired in internal politics and disorganization.

The Horde, in Wacraft 3, are mostly trying to be free, and largely want to be left to their own devices (so much so that they flee across the sea). They're largely honorable and they have little problem taking in those who are very different from them (such as the Tauren.)

Sure, it's not a perfect fit, but...

But mosty, its because the Alliance is made up mostly of 12 year olds and immature pricks.

But mosty, its because the Alliance is made up mostly of 12 year olds and immature pricks.

That too. I used to play WoW. I'd always played as Horde, having taking a liking to them in WC3...
I thought Barrens chat was bad...

Then I tried Alliance.
Ugh.

That too. I used to play WoW. I'd always played as Horde, having taking a liking to them in WC3...
I thought Barrens chat was bad...

Then I tried Alliance.
Ugh.

The Alliance, it's ALL Barrens chat.

That too. I used to play WoW. I'd always played as Horde, having taking a liking to them in WC3...
I thought Barrens chat was bad...

Then I tried Alliance.
Ugh.

I mean, to be fair, WoW is evil, but some WoW players are truely insufferable.


And they usually play alliance.

http://www.gallup.com/Home.aspx

Obama is waaay ahead at the mo, which is good for me, because it means the chances of me getting bombed by an angry Islamic terrorist will be low is he gets in. No invasion of Iran ftw. Although I don't know if Brown will be as follow-y as Blair was.

http://www.gallup.com/Home.aspx

Obama is waaay ahead at the mo, which is good for me, because it means the chances of me getting bombed by an angry Islamic terrorist will be low is he gets in. No invasion of Iran ftw. Although I don't know if Brown will be as follow-y as Blair was.
how many names did you try before you decided to go with that one?

how many names did you try before you decided to go with that one?

Don't pick at the scars of the endless hitting of 'submit' only to be rejected...unless you've been beaten by it you just don't know...YOU JUST DON'T KNOW!


Sorry...I have to...it's just, there's something in my eye...

Out of nowhere, Nader steals the "Best Political Ad '08" Award.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/10/31/1621521.aspx?GT1=43001

Sorry, Mike Gravel - the Halo ad was awesome, but this might just be better.

My dad is not known for his good jokes, but he had a good one:

If McCain loses, Sarah Palin will run with Joe the Plumber in 2012, and their bumpers stickers will read "Dumber and Plumber."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/01/us/politics/01angst.html?hp


I think they interviewed CToaN for this. :p

Out of nowhere, Nader steals the "Best Political Ad '08" Award.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/10/31/1621521.aspx?GT1=43001

Sorry, Mike Gravel - the Halo ad was awesome, but this might just be better.

Scare-mongerer! :p

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/01/us/politics/01angst.html?hp


I think they interviewed CToaN for this. :p

More like Cruci. These people need to chillax.

Don't pick at the scars of the endless hitting of 'submit' only to be rejected...unless you've been beaten by it you just don't know...YOU JUST DON'T KNOW!


Sorry...I have to...it's just, there's something in my eye...
oh im sorry i didnt mean to bring up such a painful episode...

have you had PTSD treatment for this?

More like Cruci. These people need to chillax.

Hell, no they don't!

Give them MORE coffee!

We need a scared democrat majority before the voting deadline, not a comfortable one.


(But, yeah - more like me than CToaN) :p

Scare-mongerer! :p

Hey, if a zombie invasion won't get out the vote, nothing will... :D

Hell, no they don't!

Give them MORE coffee!

We need a scared democrat majority before the voting deadline, not a comfortable one.


(But, yeah - more like me than CToaN) :p
If it gets more people voting for Obama, then okay, but only so long as people don't go overboard.

Hey, if a zombie invasion won't get out the vote, nothing will... :D

SSSH! We don't use the zed word!

Hell, no they don't!

Give them MORE coffee!

We need a scared democrat majority before the voting deadline, not a comfortable one.

We need the voters swarming the stations like Agent Smith.

If it gets more people voting for Obama, then okay, but only so long as people don't go overboard.


How, exactly?

How does one go overboard... voting?

Fill in too many forms? Give to long an answer in the exit poll? Vote twice?

:)


SSSH! We don't use the zed word!

Jew?

How, exactly?

How does one go overboard... voting?

Fill in too many forms? Give to long an answer in the exit poll? Vote twice?

:)
I was thinking more along the lines of "Cause fights at polling places and deny Democrats the chance to vote because of their stupidity" but you're probably more correct.



Jew?

Whut?

Whut?

Too much Southpark.

Umm you all do know that there are more than two persons on that list... Who would condiser voting for Cynthia McKinney (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynthia_McKinney)?

Four days until election! *Shudders to think*

And what I shudder about is that there are only two years till this circus starts again.

But a serious question for people, when Obama wins and the nomination for the Democratic ticket comes up does he automatically get the nomination or does he have to do it again?

Are the rules the same for the Republicans?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/01/us/politics/01angst.html?hp


I think they interviewed CToaN for this. :p

Hell, no they don't!

Give them MORE coffee!

We need a scared democrat majority before the voting deadline, not a comfortable one.


(But, yeah - more like me than CToaN) :p

I think he's referring to my occasionally mentioned concern that a sense of inevitability from the polls will end up depressing turn out as Obama supporters go on cruise control and he doesn't get the turn out he needs in order to convert those poll numbers into poll wins. Because we've learned in the last two that close isn't enough. And I'm definitely one of those cats, I wake up and look straight at the polls, fuck the coffee, and I'm just as prone to going "Fuck" if they're up as if they're down. If they're down crap, it's close enough to steal or be within the margin of error and I do think in the last three days there will be a break for McCain. If it's up I'm afraid that Obama supporters will start to go on cruise control. I can't be pleased.

And what I shudder about is that there are only two years till this circus starts again.

But a serious question for people, when Obama wins and the nomination for the Democratic ticket comes up does he automatically get the nomination or does he have to do it again?

Are the rules the same for the Republicans?

Technically he has to do it again, but often it's a formality. However, if he face plants then he might receive a challenge like Ted Kennedy did to Carter in 1980. So if Obama's presidency is a trainwreck, expect a Clinton rematch that he might not actually survive.

Don't start licking your lips over that prospect, it would have to be one mother of a train wreck.

Technically he has to do it again, but often it's a formality. However, if he face plants then he might receive a challenge like Ted Kennedy did to Carter in 1980. So if Obama's presidency is a trainwreck, expect a Clinton rematch that he might not actually survive.

Don't start licking your lips over that prospect, it would have to be one mother of a train wreck.

Wasn't licking my lips mate, I was wondering what the rules were. Does the same go for the Republicans?