NationStates Jolt Archive

Too much Southpark.

nonono, not nearly enough.
I find it's only funny in small doses. but it is funny nevertheless.:wink:

How long before we see McCain's Campaign use this (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iVVj5SjAgqpjIbqdmcOB74FtqRIAD94669900) in an attack ad....


I am guessing the night before the election.

How long before we see McCain's Campaign use this (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iVVj5SjAgqpjIbqdmcOB74FtqRIAD94669900) in an attack ad....


I am guessing the night before the election.

"OMG OBAMA HARBORZ ILLEGAL MOZLEMZ!!!!!11111One"

"OMG OBAMA HARBORZ ILLEGAL MOZLEMZ!!!!!11111One"

"See! He IS a terrorist Muslim radical far-left socialist communist liberal illegal! JUST AS WE SAID!"

you are SO far behind the curve.

no only is she his illegal aunt but

she cant be his aunt because obama's real father is....




wait for it....




MALCOM X!

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/10/how-could-stanl.html

you are SO far behind the curve.

no only is she his illegal aunt but

she cant be his aunt because obama's real father is....

wait for it....

MALCOM X!

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/10/how-could-stanl.html

lol, i like the part where it says he is a socialist/communist. I suspect someone pining for the old cold war propaganda.

Are there communists under your bed?
Use Flash detergent,
Flash,
It does the hard work so you don't have to scrub and scrape away those evil red stains on the carpet.
Communist governments vote for you!:D

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)?

I would consider it.

There's a lot of good to be found in the Green Party manifesto.

nonono, not nearly enough.
I find it's only funny in small doses. but it is funny nevertheless.:wink:

AAAAH youre back too!

I went to the Henderson Rally for Obama today. Loved every moment of it. A last I finally got to see him well mostly hear as he was a long slender stick, in the backgroud. LOL

Anyway I enjoyed his speech. The moment that touched my Mom the most was when Obama stated that McCain has called him everything under the sun except.... a child of God.

That moved her a lot. Anyway, we were really glad to see him three days before the election.

I would consider it.

There's a lot of good to be found in the Green Party manifesto.

True. I voted Green in the '06 Congressional and Gubenatorial races.

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

Yes, the rules are the same. In fact, a situation similar to Carter/Kennedy happened to the GOP four years earlier when Reagan challenged incumbent President Gerald Ford for the nomination.

Here's something interesting. Palin fooled by Quebecois comedians. (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24589351-12335,00.html) Not huge news, of course, but kinda funny nonetheless.

What am I gonna do once this is all over? I'll have to find a new drug of choice. This presidential campaign has been like crack. Expensive, illegal, horribly addictive and family destroying. But soooooo good :wink:

I support McCain.

Here's something interesting. Palin fooled by French comedians. (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24589351-12335,00.html) Not huge news, of course, but kinda funny nonetheless.

Quebecois comedians, actually. Quite different.

I support McCain.

You don't have to whisper it, we're going to disagree with you, not beat you up.

Anyway I enjoyed his speech. The moment that touched my Mom the most was when Obama stated that McCain has called him everything under the sun except.... a child of God.

Wow. Thats actually a political masterstroke right there.

You don't have to whisper it, we're going to disagree with you, not beat you up.

Speak for yourself. Im on my way to his house right now with a tire iron.

I just read this and thought it was kinda fucked up. Seriously now, is this what we've come to?

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081101/POLITICS01/811010422

You don't have to whisper it, we're going to disagree with you, not beat you up.

I know. But the majority of the people on this forum are extremely sharp-witted, and they have come up with some ingenious posts. I was merely testing the waters.

Seeing that the waters are temperate, I would like to say right now my only regret is that I can't vote this year (still 17). Nonetheless, I am in support of McCain for President (I wish he would have chosen a much more qualified VP though, like...anyone else.)

I do think Obama has made some good points, and he's right in one way: Taxes have to go up somewhere.

All I know is that the next president will have to increase taxes and decrease spending at some point, no matter how unpopular it is. Although I am conservative both economically and socially, I do think that taxes on the wealthy will need to be raised, not necessarily to spread the wealth, but to get us on the path to a budget surplus.

What fusturates me is that neither of the candidates (that stand a good chance of winning) have budget plans that will start slowing down the increase in the budget deficit.

I just read this and thought it was kinda fucked up. Seriously now, is this what we've come to?

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081101/POLITICS01/811010422

All the sensible members of the Republican party have set adrift on the lifeboats, leaving only the anti-intellectual religious spiteful kooks on board the S.S. McCaintanic.

Her next door neighbor Gregory Bowens, who has an Obama sign propped in his front yard, said when he heard about his neighbor's actions he put up posters proclaiming "Obama 4 Peace" and "candy for all." He encouraged trick-or-treaters denied next door to scrawl positive messages about Obama or anything else on his driveway.

"The truth is it was a very mean thing to do," Bowens said. "I thought I should do something positive."

Note how this mirrors the two presidential campaigns and their focus.

I support McCain.
oh you poor thing.

Quebecois comedians, actually. Quite different.

Whoops... Quite different indeed. Seems I should really learn to read. Sorry, Quebecians. And French, I suppose.

I just read this and thought it was kinda fucked up. Seriously now, is this what we've come to?

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081101/POLITICS01/811010422

What a ****. I hope she has a stroke.


Yes, Im wishing pain on her. You dont treat little kids like dirt, especially when they dont even understand why your doing it.


Peice of shit. Im genuinly angry. I may retract my wish after I cool off.


Her neighbor, however, is awesome. Excellent way to handle that situation. Id have given the kids that were turned away double the candy.

I just read this and thought it was kinda fucked up. Seriously now, is this what we've come to?

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081101/POLITICS01/811010422

This is really sad. While it is fair to have people disagree with each other, that doesn't mean they should deny children (who have no say in their parents' beliefs, for the most part. Even if they did, it's still wrong.) the tradition of trick-or-treat. How shameful.

What a ****. I hope she has a stroke.


Yes, Im wishing pain on her. You dont treat little kids like dirt, especially when they dont even understand why your doing it.


Peice of shit. Im genuinly angry. I may retract my wish after I cool off.

Why take a play from the Heikoku/Phelps playbook of wishing death on your opponents when you'll be laughing at her reaction if Obama wins by a landslide?

What a ****. I hope she has a stroke.


Yes, Im wishing pain on her. You dont treat little kids like dirt, especially when they dont even understand why your doing it.


Peice of shit. Im genuinly angry. I may retract my wish after I cool off.

I agree, although not to your extreme. They are just little kids.

Why take a play from the Heikoku/Phelps playbook of wishing death on your opponents when you'll be laughing at her reaction if Obama wins by a landslide?

Im sorry. I dont really mean it. Its just, little kids are my weakness. And people who are mean to little kids earn my ire. Immediatly.

Why take a play from the Heikoku/Phelps playbook of wishing death on your opponents when you'll be laughing at her reaction if Obama wins by a landslide?

Although I am a McCain supporter, you should have said "When Obama wins by a landslide."

Im sorry. I dont really mean it. Its just, little kids are my weakness. And people who are mean to little kids earn my ire. Immediatly.

It's quite fine. You were just speaking in defense of the helpless.

And before accusations of "evil liberal media made up this story" let me inform everyone that the Detroit News, being the conservative of the two Detroit papers, endorsed McCain.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081023/OPINION01/810230337/1008

I know. But the majority of the people on this forum are extremely sharp-witted, and they have come up with some ingenious posts. I was merely testing the waters.

Seeing that the waters are temperate, I would like to say right now my only regret is that I can't vote this year (still 17). Nonetheless, I am in support of McCain for President (I wish he would have chosen a much more qualified VP though, like...anyone else.)

I do think Obama has made some good points, and he's right in one way: Taxes have to go up somewhere.

All I know is that the next president will have to increase taxes and decrease spending at some point, no matter how unpopular it is. Although I am conservative both economically and socially, I do think that taxes on the wealthy will need to be raised, not necessarily to spread the wealth, but to get us on the path to a budget surplus.

What fusturates me is that neither of the candidates (that stand a good chance of winning) have budget plans that will start slowing down the increase in the budget deficit.

First of all, I hope you stick around. You seem like one of the few conservatives willing to present a decent argument, and we need those. There'll be a few people who'd love to debate with you in a reasonable (if "sharp-witted" way). Personally, I'm not one of them.

Secondly, I do just have a small question. You mention that you're socially conservative. Does this mean that you are in favour of traditional freedoms and liberties, or are you more in favour of stricter governmental controls? Just a clarification question, which will, depending on your answer, lead to a further question.

Doesn't the trick-or-treat tradition state that, if you don't give a treat, you'll get a trick? That petty bitch deserved to get her house soaped and egged, all her shrubs TP'd, and if there were any enterprising older young folks around, her car dismantled and reassembled on top of a nearby building.

Kudos to her neighbor for (a) making it up to the kids, and (b) demonstrating moral superiority over someone with mold growing in their soul -- which he will be able to hold over her for years to come.

Doesn't the trick-or-treat tradition state that, if you don't give a treat, you'll get a trick? That petty bitch deserved to get her house soaped and egged, all her shrubs TP'd, and if there were any enterprising older young folks around, her car dismantled and reassembled on top of a nearby building.

Kudos to her neighbor for (a) making it up to the kids, and (b) demonstrating moral superiority over someone with mold growing in their soul -- which he will be able to hold over her for years to come.

Yeah, I would have given that bitch what for, if I lived nearby. Unforunately, I live in Nebraska, and we don't see shit like that happen.

I agree that the neighbor deserves much applause. Politics should not extend its branches to Halloween.

I know. But the majority of the people on this forum are extremely sharp-witted, and they have come up with some ingenious posts. I was merely testing the waters.

Seeing that the waters are temperate, I would like to say right now my only regret is that I can't vote this year (still 17). Nonetheless, I am in support of McCain for President (I wish he would have chosen a much more qualified VP though, like...anyone else.)

I do think Obama has made some good points, and he's right in one way: Taxes have to go up somewhere.

All I know is that the next president will have to increase taxes and decrease spending at some point, no matter how unpopular it is. Although I am conservative both economically and socially, I do think that taxes on the wealthy will need to be raised, not necessarily to spread the wealth, but to get us on the path to a budget surplus.

What fusturates me is that neither of the candidates (that stand a good chance of winning) have budget plans that will start slowing down the increase in the budget deficit.
I'm sorry, but this post does not actually tell me WHY you are supporting McCain.

I mean, several well known conservatives have endorsed Obama on the same grounds that you describe -- the unfortunate need for taxes and McCain's bad choice of Palin for his running mate. So, if you agree on those points with conservatives who have chosen -- this time -- to vote for the other candidate, I wonder why you still support McCain. What is it about him that you like better?

Doesn't the trick-or-treat tradition state that, if you don't give a treat, you'll get a trick? That petty bitch deserved to get her house soaped and egged, all her shrubs TP'd, and if there were any enterprising older young folks around, her car dismantled and reassembled on top of a nearby building.

Kudos to her neighbor for (a) making it up to the kids, and (b) demonstrating moral superiority over someone with mold growing in their soul -- which he will be able to hold over her for years to come.

Yeah, back when I was young enough to trick or treat, we just egged the fuck out of your house.

Yeah, back when I was young enough to trick or treat, we just egged the fuck out of your house.
Seriously, what has this country come to when even little kids don't understand the principle of extortion anymore? ;)

First of all, I hope you stick around. You seem like one of the few conservatives willing to present a decent argument, and we need those. There'll be a few people who'd love to debate with you in a reasonable (if "sharp-witted" way). Personally, I'm not one of them.

Secondly, I do just have a small question. You mention that you're socially conservative. Does this mean that you are in favour of traditional freedoms and liberties, or are you more in favour of stricter governmental controls? Just a clarification question, which will, depending on your answer, lead to a further question.

Well, I think that in some cases, yes, stricter government control is necessary. I have changed my mind on what should be controlled over these past few years (Gay marriage used to be a big "No" in my mind. Now, I honestly don't care. There are greater issues at hand. Abortion, on the other hand, is important to me. I think abortion must be made illegal, excepting cases of incest, rape, or where the mother's life is endangered.) Looking at this view, it is almost hypocritical of myself to say I'm conservative and then support more government control.

I will not be able to answer your next question immediately, as I am having friends over to watch the Nebraska vs. Oklahoma football game (Go Huskers!)

I'm sorry, but this post does not actually tell me WHY you are supporting McCain.

I mean, several well known conservatives have endorsed Obama on the same grounds that you describe -- the unfortunate need for taxes and McCain's bad choice of Palin for his running mate. So, if you agree on those points with conservatives who have chosen -- this time -- to vote for the other candidate, I wonder why you still support McCain. What is it about him that you like better?

I do think that McCain offers a better foreign policy than Obama, and I don't think Obama's huge spending in healthcare is prudent at this time. This actually was virtually the first election for me where it was at times difficult for me to decide what candidate is best for this nation.

Well, I think that in some cases, yes, stricter government control is necessary. I have changed my mind on what should be controlled over these past few years (Gay marriage used to be a big "No" in my mind. Now, I honestly don't care. There are greater issues at hand. Abortion, on the other hand, is important to me. I think abortion must be made illegal, excepting cases of incest, rape, or where the mother's life is endangered.) Looking at this view, it is almost hypocritical of myself to say I'm conservative and then support more government control.

I will not be able to answer your next question immediately, as I am having friends over to watch the Nebraska vs. Oklahoma football game (Go Huskers!)
Oh, I wonder if I've ever seen you in an abortion thread?

Don't talk about it now, though. Guaranteed threadjack from hell.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/02/us/politics/02campaign.html?ref=politics


OH NOES OBAMAS AUNT MIGHT BE ILLEGAL AND TAKIN ER JERBS!!!!!


Seriously....?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/02/us/politics/02campaign.html?ref=politics


OH NOES OBAMAS AUNT MIGHT BE ILLEGAL AND TAKIN ER JERBS!!!!!


Seriously....?
Worst October surprise ever.

I just read this and thought it was kinda fucked up. Seriously now, is this what we've come to?

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081101/POLITICS01/811010422

Wow, what a ****.

Worst October surprise ever.

I know right? Thats the best theyve got?

I do think that McCain offers a better foreign policy than Obama, and I don't think Obama's huge spending in healthcare is prudent at this time. This actually was virtually the first election for me where it was at times difficult for me to decide what candidate is best for this nation.
Well, of course, either candidate's spending plans, once they get into office, will have to be adjusted to economic conditions which did not exist (at least not so obviously) when they made their policy plans. I am not 100% convinced that Obama's plans will make a postiive difference, though I am close to 100% sure McCain's plan will make a negative difference.

But what is it about McCain's foreign policy plans that you like better than Obama's? As far as I can tell, McCain's rhetoric on Iraq is more hawkish sounding than Obama's but their plans are not significantly different. I have not heard McCain talk about paying more attention to Afghanistan, as Obama has, and that is something I feel needs to be done. I have heard McCain make belligerent noises about Iran, which is something I dislike very, very strongly. And Obama's rhetoric about diplomacy sounds to me like merely a return to the pre-Bush-II way of doing things that served us very well for more than a century.

I know right? Thats the best theyve got?
To be fair, McCain's campaign has belatedly learned when something is poison-
The reports about Ms. Onyango came on the last weekend of the hard-fought presidential campaign. Tucker Bounds, a spokesman for Senator John McCain, the Republican nominee, said his campaign had no comment.

Doesn't the trick-or-treat tradition state that, if you don't give a treat, you'll get a trick? That petty bitch deserved to get her house soaped and egged, all her shrubs TP'd, and if there were any enterprising older young folks around, her car dismantled and reassembled on top of a nearby building.

Kudos to her neighbor for (a) making it up to the kids, and (b) demonstrating moral superiority over someone with mold growing in their soul -- which he will be able to hold over her for years to come.

Yeah, it's a pity Devil's Night occurs prior to Halloween.

Well, I think that in some cases, yes, stricter government control is necessary. I have changed my mind on what should be controlled over these past few years (Gay marriage used to be a big "No" in my mind. Now, I honestly don't care. There are greater issues at hand. Abortion, on the other hand, is important to me. I think abortion must be made illegal, excepting cases of incest, rape, or where the mother's life is endangered.) Looking at this view, it is almost hypocritical of myself to say I'm conservative and then support more government control.

I will not be able to answer your next question immediately, as I am having friends over to watch the Nebraska vs. Oklahoma football game (Go Huskers!)

Ok, well, I know you'll be gone for a bit, but that's cool. Unfortunately, you took the wind out of my sails here, I was going to point it the hypocricy of the modern social conservative movement... wanting to protect your freedoms whilst at the same time restricting them. Support for gun rights as a freedom, yet also support for tortue, etc. But since you've admitted that, the point kinda falls flat...

Anyway, with regards to the McCain foreign policy, do I take it then that you are more of an interventionist on an international level? You feel that strength and military power should be wielded to fix problems?

Ok, that's fine. What're your thoughts on, say, Zimbabwe? Is intervention necessary there? What about the DRC? Should you have gone into Rwanda?

Or are you more about being hard-line to defend your country from external and internal threats? How then does McCain's hawkish stance on Russia help, given their obvious military capabilities?

Just a few friendly questions :)

Yeah, it's a pity Devil's Night occurs prior to Halloween.Huh. Learn something new every day. I thought you were referring to Walpurgis Night (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walpurgis_nacht), which is both prior to and after Halowe'en, on account of being on the opposite end of the year. It's customary to egg houses and whatnot in Bavaria on that night.

Huh. Learn something new every day. I thought you were referring to Walpurgis Night (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walpurgis_nacht), which is both prior to and after Halowe'en, on account of being on the opposite end of the year. It's customary to egg houses and whatnot in Bavaria on that night.

It very likely originated with a similar thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil%27s_Night

It very likely originated with a similar thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil%27s_NightMost likely. Beltane and Samhain are at opposite ends of the year for a reason.

I just read this and thought it was kinda fucked up. Seriously now, is this what we've come to?

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081101/POLITICS01/811010422

What a sad pathetic lady. I ponder whether this lady is or isn't a God fearing Christian. A true Christian wouldn't do such a thing to children. *sighs* For shame on making little children cry.

What a sad pathetic lady. I ponder whether this lady is or isn't a God fearing Christian. A true Christian wouldn't do such a thing to children. *sighs* For shame on making little children cry.

http://www.joeydevilla.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/think_of_the_children.jpg

http://www.joeydevilla.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/think_of_the_children.jpg

Heh, the point is not to make children hate others. And all this woman is doing is spreading seeds of hate. Ironically the Republican party seems to be good for disminating hate, anger, and bigotry.

Heh, the point is not to make children hate others. And all this woman is doing is spreading seeds of hate. Ironically the Republican party seems to be good for disminating hate, anger, and bigotry.

I'm not quite sure how that's ironic. More the status quo.

I'm not quite sure how that's ironic. More the status quo.

It's ironic seeing how they are suppose to be the moral majority, the Christian Conservatives etc. *Sighs* I hate hypocrites more than anything.

I support McCain.
Good for you. As long as it's not for some stupid reason like how Obama is a scary communist muslim who'll set fire to the White House the moment he's let inside the Oval Office, you can say it loudly :wink:

http://www.joeydevilla.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/think_of_the_children.jpg

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/Gravlen/NSG/motivator9465337.jpg

Good for you. As long as it's not for some stupid reason like how Obama is a scary communist muslim who'll set fire to the White House the moment he's let inside the Oval Office, you can say it loudly :wink:
He seems like he's not the "Obama is an evil Islamo-commie-fascist terrorist paller who will get his pal Ludacris to help him paint (http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/5931/allsingingalldancingtvgr6.jpg) his new home black"



http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/Gravlen/NSG/motivator9465337.jpg
You have outclassed me, sir.

Orright, fess up. Which one of you sarky blighters is writing one-liners for Obama? :tongue:

Cheney endorses McCain

Update: Obama responded by saying, "I'd like to congratulate Senator McCain on this endorsement because he really earned it."

(my bold)

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/11/01/cheney_endorses_mccain.html

Orright, fess up. Which one of you sarky blighters is writing one-liners for Obama? :tongue:



(my bold)

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/11/01/cheney_endorses_mccain.html
lol

does cheney LIKE mccain? at least bush has the good sense to stay out of it.

lol

does cheney LIKE mccain? at least bush has the good sense to stay out of it.

Instead of shooting McCain in the face, Cheney shoots him in the foot instead with the endorsement.

:D

Instead of shooting McCain in the face, Cheney shoots him in the foot instead with the endorsement.

:D
thats what im thinking.

isnt it bad enough that more people hate mrs palin than love her? isnt it bad enough that every time he looks down he sees the dogpoo that is george bush sticking to the bottom of his shoe? does cheney have to make it worse by clinging to him too?

which is more damaging, the cheney endorsement or the alqaeda endorsement?

Orright, fess up. Which one of you sarky blighters is writing one-liners for Obama? :tongue:



(my bold)

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/11/01/cheney_endorses_mccain.html

ouch.

thats what im thinking.

isnt it bad enough that more people hate mrs palin than love her? isnt it bad enough that every time he looks down he sees the dogpoo that is george bush sticking to the bottom of his shoe? does cheney have to make it worse by clinging to him too?

which is more damaging, the cheney endorsement or the alqaeda endorsement?

If that's the case, then that's pretty politically astute of Dick Cheney to realize just how toxic he is and to use that against McCain.

which is more damaging, the cheney endorsement or the alqaeda endorsement?
I believe this will go down as the big after-the-fact question for the RNC on this campaign.

I'm starting to second guess my belief that curses don't work, because the way McCain's year has been going, it's like every curse I ever put on the Republican party (on the assumption it was just talk) is coming true. :D

I believe this will go down as the big after-the-fact question for the RNC on this campaign.

I'm starting to second guess my belief that curses don't work, because the way McCain's year has been going, it's like every curse I ever put on the Republican party (on the assumption it was just talk) is coming true. :D

If that's the case Palin should get a refund for her witch protection...

If that's the case Palin should get a refund for her witch protection...
she may come out of this just fine.

she may come out of this just fine.
She will if she has anything to say about it. (I still say McCain better be watching his back.)

And I'd like to point out McCain himself did not get any of the anti-hoodoo mojoification, as far as we know. Just saying.

(Bible Spice stricks me as the kind of person who protects herself, not her team.)

I just read this and thought it was kinda fucked up. Seriously now, is this what we've come to?

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081101/POLITICS01/811010422

Adults can be stinky poopy heads!

I just read this and thought it was kinda fucked up. Seriously now, is this what we've come to?

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081101/POLITICS01/811010422

She also has a choice. She gets "trick", now, doesn't she? At some point in time, she will have to leave the house to run errands while the kids have time on their hands.

She also has a choice. She gets "trick", now, doesn't she? At some point in time, she will have to leave the house to run errands while the kids have time on their hands.

Screw that. She would have received slashed tires and broken windows in my neighborhood.

edit: argh, you changed your post

Screw that. She would have received slashed tires and broken windows in my neighborhood.

As I said, "trick".

(This woman pissed me off to no end. And we don't even have a Halloween tradition in Brazil.)

Edit: Changed, yes, but the spirit is still there.

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=QbEwKcs-7Hc&eurl=http://www.dailykos.com/

Sarah Palin gets PRANKED!

(Bible Spice stricks me as the kind of person who protects herself, not her team.)

Bible Spice, haha nice call.

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=QbEwKcs-7Hc&eurl=http://www.dailykos.com/

Sarah Palin gets PRANKED!

the comments are priceless.

Yeah, it's a pity Devil's Night occurs prior to Halloween.

Devils fucking night <takes a drag off a cigarette>

What's the point of Cheney's endorsement a mere 4 days before the election? Really?

What's the point of Cheney's endorsement a mere 4 days before the election? Really?

Cheney likes to shoot people in the face? :confused:

Cheney likes to shoot people in the face? :confused:

Given the wholehearted endorsement of McCain, we'll be lucky if Cheney shooting him in the face involves any firearms at all.

:eek:

Well, of course, either candidate's spending plans, once they get into office, will have to be adjusted to economic conditions which did not exist (at least not so obviously) when they made their policy plans. I am not 100% convinced that Obama's plans will make a postiive difference, though I am close to 100% sure McCain's plan will make a negative difference.

But what is it about McCain's foreign policy plans that you like better than Obama's? As far as I can tell, McCain's rhetoric on Iraq is more hawkish sounding than Obama's but their plans are not significantly different. I have not heard McCain talk about paying more attention to Afghanistan, as Obama has, and that is something I feel needs to be done. I have heard McCain make belligerent noises about Iran, which is something I dislike very, very strongly. And Obama's rhetoric about diplomacy sounds to me like merely a return to the pre-Bush-II way of doing things that served us very well for more than a century.
I do think that currently the war in Iraq is in its best stages: Troop deaths are extremely low right now, in fact, no troops died in October in Baghdad. I see that with McCain, we finish the fight within the next year with no uprisings once we leave. At that point, we can truly divert our attention to Afghanistan, without the ugly specter of Iraq following us.

Also, I believe that John McCain's experience would be more effective in foreign policy. (Yes, I know Joe Biden has incredible experience in that area, and I commend him for it. However, I am not sure how much power he would wield in the White House, because I doubt Obama would take the Bush route and give his VP more power, he wants to distance himself from Bush.)

Of course, I could be wrong. Obama could be an excellent diplomat and commander.

I do have to bring up one thing in your argument, when you said that the United States had a policy of mainly diplomacy before Bush. There have been plenty of cases where the United States did not use diplomacy and just went in.

Given the wholehearted endorsement of McCain, we'll be lucky if Cheney shooting him in the face involves any firearms at all.

:eek:

Cheney endorsed McCain? What an unnecessary and frankly unwanted endorsement.

What's the point of Cheney's endorsement a mere 4 days before the election? Really?

Ever played Mortal Combat? Know what a "fatality" is?;)

Ever played Mortal Combat? Know what a "fatality" is?;)

Obama Wins: Popularity.

Devils fucking night <takes a drag off a cigarette>

Only if you use the cherry to burn down abandoned buildings in Detroit.

edit:

Also, I saw this Youtube of the local news report on that woman refusing candy to children.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NGAYR7RHfQ&eurl=http://www.michiganliberal.com/

Also, I saw this Youtube of the local news report on that woman refusing candy to children.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NGAYR7RHfQ&eurl=http://www.michiganliberal.com/

Yet more evidence that many of these 'Republicans' are actually Democrats who have infiltrated the party to destroy it from the inside. You know, like Sarah Palin.

I do think that currently the war in Iraq is in its best stages: Troop deaths are extremely low right now, in fact, no troops died in October in Baghdad. I see that with McCain, we finish the fight within the next year with no uprisings once we leave. At that point, we can truly divert our attention to Afghanistan, without the ugly specter of Iraq following us.
Sorry, but I could not disagree with you more. Do you honestly believe that we would be able to leave Iraq in one year "with no uprisings once we leave"? And how would you be able to guarantee that then? Does your measure of success in war include predictions of the future, too? I'm sorry, but that just sounds like more of the pie-in-the-sky fantastic promises we've been hearing for 8 years. In addition, if conditions on the ground in Iraq are so good that we could leave in one year with nothing but peace left in our wake, then what makes you think Obama could not manage the same exit? Or is it your contention that McCain has some secret power or formula -- it must be secret because I certainly have never seen him demonstrate or even talk about it except to say that he "knows how" to get out of Iraq (and well, hell, who doesn't? It's called leaving) -- some personal ability that makes McCain the one and only person who can establish peace in Iraq in one year?

Further, precisely which personnel and equipment are you then going to neatly switch over to Afghanistan? The ones that have already been damaged and depleted by Iraq?

In my opinion, the Iraq war was never anything but a distraction from our real business, and a bloody and brutally costly distraction at that. While we have frittered away human lives by the 1000s, as well as hundreds of billions of dollars worth of money and equipment in Iraq, leaving us in a far weaker position to press new action, our real direct enemy -- al-qaida -- and a far more dangerous regional enemy -- radical Islamist fundamentalists, embodied locally in the Taliban -- have been gaining strength and funds, positioning themselves strategically, and are already beginning to launch new attacks against US troops who are under-equipped and under-manned.

While you sit around and wait for peace in Iraq, we stand to lose a devastating defeat in Afghanistan, not to mention further weaken our position relative the region while allowing the enemies of what allies we have left to grow. And from what I hear in public statements from the commanders in Afghanistan, that could happen a hell of a lot sooner than your one year deadline.

Also, I believe that John McCain's experience would be more effective in foreign policy.
Precisely what foreign policy experience does McCain have? If you are referring to his war record, neither being a pilot nor being a prisoner gives a person experience in dealing with foreign governments politically.

(Yes, I know Joe Biden has incredible experience in that area, and I commend him for it. However, I am not sure how much power he would wield in the White House, because I doubt Obama would take the Bush route and give his VP more power, he wants to distance himself from Bush.)
So, in other words, you think Obama won't be as good because he'll be different from Bush? :tongue:

And I notice you are basing this objection on a mere speculation about how you think Obama will choose to be different from Bush. However, your choice of point of difference seems self-serving to me -- as if you chose it merely so you could make this one particular objection.

Tell me this: Why would Obama have picked Biden as his VP, if he did not intend to use his talents? It could not have been just to look good for the campaign and win votes. Biden is a problematical public figure, notorious for causing embarrassment with the way he runs his mouth in the media. Just look at how little we have seen of Biden in this campaign, and when he has appeared he has said things that he has had to spend at least a week explaining. There are other, far smoother, politicians Obama could have tapped for VP, but he chose Biden who has two skills for which he is rightly known and second to none -- his abilities in foreign policy development and diplomacy, and his ability to make deals across party lines on Capitol Hill. Biden is the best possible choice for a president who intends to be proactive in foreign affairs and in getting legislation moved through Congress, but he is piss poor as political window dressing. So why would anyone have taken him on, if they did not intend to use him in foreign affairs and dealing with Congress?

Yet your argument rests on an assumption that Obama will choose not to use the most powerful political weapon in his newly assembled arsenal, just so he can appear to be different from Bush -- and appear so after the election, when it will no longer matter so much.

Sorry, I don't buy it.

Of course, I could be wrong. Obama could be an excellent diplomat and commander.
Considering that your objections on those grounds are apparently based solely on groundless speculation, I would say you very well could be wrong. As wrong as I might turn out to be if I predicted who would win the next mega-millions lottery just by imagining a name.

I do have to bring up one thing in your argument, when you said that the United States had a policy of mainly diplomacy before Bush. There have been plenty of cases where the United States did not use diplomacy and just went in.
No I didn't. I said we had such diplomacy in our foreign policy and that it served us well. Kindly show me where I said US foreign policy was "mainly" that.

Orright, fess up. Which one of you sarky blighters is writing one-liners for Obama? :tongue:



(my bold)

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/11/01/cheney_endorses_mccain.html

Awesome! You can almost hear the rimshot!:D

Yet more evidence that many of these 'Republicans' are actually Democrats who have infiltrated the party to destroy it from the inside. You know, like Sarah Palin.

It can't be a coincidence that the kind neighbor was a black man. It's clearly cleverly crafted propaganda.

Only if you use the cherry to burn down abandoned buildings in Detroit.

edit:

Also, I saw this Youtube of the local news report on that woman refusing candy to children.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NGAYR7RHfQ&eurl=http://www.michiganliberal.com/

I found this on You Tube about her. Amazing what the age of technology can do. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JF1tFOC05h8

I found this on You Tube about her. Amazing what the age of technology can do. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JF1tFOC05h8

Cute, doubt it's true, but still hilarious.

Cute, doubt it's true, but still hilarious.

I doubt it's validity as well. But there is always that small 'what if it is..." factor. And we all know their are Republicans out there that are pretty crazy.

Ever played Mortal Combat? Know what a "fatality" is?;)

Mortal Kombat.

Sorry, the video game nerd in me just had to.

Mortal Kombat.

Sorry, the video game nerd in me just had to.

Heh (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-_Dhb9YyPs)

Only if you use the cherry to burn down abandoned buildings in Detroit.

edit:

Also, I saw this Youtube of the local news report on that woman refusing candy to children.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NGAYR7RHfQ&eurl=http://www.michiganliberal.com/

On Fox, no less.

How far over the line do you have to be before Fox calls you on it?

The new "Wassup" ad ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qq8Uc5BFogE

Wasn't licking my lips mate, I was wondering what the rules were. Does the same go for the Republicans?It is not as rare as you might think for an incumbent President to be challenged for the renomination of his party. Besides Carter challenged by Kennedy in 1980, Ford challenged by Reagan in 1976: Johnson was challenged by Gene McCarthy in 1968, barely won the New Hampshire primary and decided to drop out; Truman was challenged by Estes Kefauver in 1952, actually lost the New Hampshire primary, and dropped out; Taft was challenged by ex-President and former mentor Teddy Roosevelt in 1912, got the Republican nomination but Teddy ran 3rd-party, splitting the vote so that Wilson got in (Taft finished a distant third); Chester Alan Arthur was knocked out early in 1892; and John Tyler, a Democrat who had run for VP on the Whig ticket, and got to be President when William Henry Harrison famously caught the flu on Inauguration Day and died in four weeks for the shortest Presidency ever, had the unique experience of being denounced as a traitor by both parties, failing to get on the ballot in most states, and conceding in September.

It is not as rare as you might think for an incumbent President to be challenged for the renomination of his party. Besides Carter challenged by Kennedy in 1980, Ford challenged by Reagan in 1976: Johnson was challenged by Gene McCarthy in 1968, barely won the New Hampshire primary and decided to drop out; Truman was challenged by Estes Kefauver in 1952, actually lost the New Hampshire primary, and dropped out; Taft was challenged by ex-President and former mentor Teddy Roosevelt in 1912, got the Republican nomination but Teddy ran 3rd-party, splitting the vote so that Wilson got in (Taft finished a distant third); Chester Alan Arthur was knocked out early in 1892; and John Tyler, a Democrat who had run for VP on the Whig ticket, and got to be President when William Henry Harrison famously caught the flu on Inauguration Day and died in four weeks for the shortest Presidency ever, had the unique experience of being denounced as a traitor by both parties, failing to get on the ballot in most states, and conceding in September.

Thank you for saying nearly the same thing I did yesterday, even if you were more detailed.:(

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14156975&postcount=4511

It is about time to make a choice. Not easy, and it will certainly be the one least likely to do lasting damage. So how to decide...

Experience of life's adversities: No doubt about it. Point to McCain.

Veep choice: Obama picks a classic beltway insider, flouting his talk of change. McCain picks a complete outsider, but with some state executive branch experience. Point to McCain.

Iraq: Obama will cut and run, especially when he needs funding for his programs. McCain will probably continue to slowly withdraw. Point to McCain.

Domestic policy: Either faces extreme problems with economy and hence tax revenue. Obama cannot implement his policies without a significant tax increase. McCain at least won't do anything too wild on the expenditure side. Point toMcCain.

Foreign Policy: Obama is completely untried, but talks a good talk and may listen to his advisers. McCain likely to be rather dogmatic and hawkish. Even.

Walking the Walk: Obama has repudiated a life long religious influence and has some very suspect fellow travellers. McCain is a bit hit or miss on consistency. Point to McCain.

Response to terrorist challenge: Obama is an unknown. McCain is a bit erratic. Even.

Work with Democratic house and senate: Obama will fold under pressure and move to the far left. McCain will bluster and try to hold a middle position. Point to McCain.

Supreme Court appointments: Obama is unknown but likely to move court far to the left. McCain will try to maintain current position but will be fustrated by democratically controlled senate. Point to McCain.
Most of the poins are razor thin and it really is a choice of the lesser of two evils. But for me, it looks like McCain on Tuesday.

Whoever you prefer, please vote!!!!

You pretend to being faced with a difficult decision that you've already made your mind up about. You may have done an (barely) adequate job of explaining why you plan to vote for McCain, but if you were truly undecided as you implied, you would have at least made an attempt to list pros and cons of both candidates. You didn't do that. Your post was intellectually dishonest.

This is bullshit and you know it. You were going to vote for McCain the entire time. It even sounds like you're on his campaign.

You didn't do that. Your post was intellectually dishonest.Seconded. You've misrepresented Obama very badly.

This is bullshit and you know it. You were going to vote for McCain the entire time. It even sounds like you're on his campaign.

Claiming Palin to be a good VP choice was a dead giveaway.

Don't just scream, point out the errors. For example, I never said Palin was good, I simply said she has some state executive branch experience. Like I said it's the lesser of two evils...

If there is an error, point it out. If you just don't like my analysis, at least say that your analysis is different than mine and tell me, with simple justification, why yours is better.

FWIIW, I'm a lifelong independent and have yet to vote a staight ticket

In any case, please vote on Tuesday.

The new "Wassup" ad ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qq8Uc5BFogE

Great ad. Funny as hell. But the end made me well it made me want to cry. I guess I am sentimental.

Just merged The TransPecos's "And the Balance Tilts Towards ..." thread with this one because it was covering the same ground. His posts bookend the content -- the six posts before the one by Tygereyes.

Experience of life's adversities: No doubt about it. Point to McCain.
Are you fucking kidding me?

He's the son of an admiral, who wasn't cut from his post as a fighter pilot because of his connections, despite being shite. His wife is a multi-millionaire and he has been living pretty well outside of his spell in a POW camp. And that's not "life's adversities" - close to 100% of people will never be POWs in America.

Compare this to a black man who had to work for his life, doubtless in the face of pretty deep prejudice, and who was fairly MC until the last 10 or so years. That's a shitload closer to life's genuine, common adversities than being a POW.

Fairly obviously Obama.
Veep choice: Obama picks a classic beltway insider, flouting his talk of change. McCain picks a complete outsider, but with some state executive branch experience. Point to McCain.
On the other hand she is a nutter. Even..
Iraq: Obama will cut and run, especially when he needs funding for his programs. McCain will probably continue to slowly withdraw. Point to McCain.
L'un ou l'autre, ça fait rien, they're both leaving, and at least Obama has the patience to talk to Iran and other Dodgy Bastard Countries Full of Baddies. Point to Obama.
Domestic policy: Either faces extreme problems with economy and hence tax revenue. Obama cannot implement his policies without a significant tax increase. McCain at least won't do anything too wild on the expenditure side. Point toMcCain.
The war in Iraq is very expensive, probably about even.
Foreign Policy: Obama is completely untried, but talks a good talk and may listen to his advisers. McCain likely to be rather dogmatic and hawkish. Even.
No, once again it's Obama's point. Guy with PTSD and a VP who probably believes that the Rapture will be upon us before her first term is over is not equal to "guy who will give the US a tabula rasa to a certain extent on the world stage".
Walking the Walk: Obama has repudiated a life long religious influence and has some very suspect fellow travellers. McCain is a bit hit or miss on consistency. Point to McCain.
No, it's pretty even.
Response to terrorist challenge: Obama is an unknown. McCain is a bit erratic. Even.
I was unaware that McCain had actually done anything on this, but aye, even.
Work with Democratic house and senate: Obama will fold under pressure and move to the far left.
He's already the most liberal guy there IIRC, surely he'll about stay the same, no?
McCain will bluster and try to hold a middle position. Point to McCain.
No, he will just get his shit tanked.

"Pass this"
"No you are a Republican and we hate those because they made us look stupid 2000-2008"
QUOTE]Supreme Court appointments: Obama is unknown but likely to move court far to the left. McCain will try to maintain current position but will be fustrated by democratically controlled senate. Point to McCain.[/QUOTE]
What?

"The same will happen with both, point to McCain". No. Even.

It is about time to make a choice. Not easy, and it will certainly be the one least likely to do lasting damage. So how to decide...

Experience of life's adversities: No doubt about it. Point to McCain.

Fair point. But having suffered personal adversity does not automatically transfer into leadership ability, or every prisoner of war would automatically be qualified for the Presidency. In fact, if it results in something like post traumatic stress disorder (or a sever temper), it can be a negative.

Veep choice: Obama picks a classic beltway insider, flouting his talk of change. McCain picks a complete outsider, but with some state executive branch experience. Point to McCain.

Please defend the claim that Biden is "a classic beltway insider". Just being in Washington a long time doesn't count, or how does McCain get to use the mavrik label? Look at how Biden has actually acted. As he run with the heard, or shown signs of corruption? Has he followed his conscience?

Iraq: Obama will cut and run, especially when he needs funding for his programs. McCain will probably continue to slowly withdraw. Point to McCain.

"Cut and run" is just a Republican catch phrase, a meaningless slogan intended to rally loyalty, not provoke thought.

Obama has said it would take over a year to withdraw, I believe, and didn't he also say that some troops would be left in Kuait to respond to any new crisis? In any case, the Iraqi government wants us out, so unless we're going to remove the government again, I don't see we have much choice.

Then their's the economic reality, and the troop shortages. We need more troops in Afghanistan, and where are they to come from? Would you prefer conscription? Do you think victory only matters in Iraq? What if a new crisis emerges? One thing a leader does is learn to prioritize, and while a complete pull out would be disastrous, and their will be consequences even for Obama's plan, this is one case where what the President can do may be more important than what he wants to do. "Discretion is the better part of valor."

Domestic policy: Either faces extreme problems with economy and hence tax revenue. Obama cannot implement his policies without a significant tax increase. McCain at least won't do anything too wild on the expenditure side. Point toMcCain.

A lot of Obama's proposed expenditures are probably nessissary. Unless you think children should be without health care? Or that Afghanistan doesn't matter? McCain will have big expenses too (like Iraq). They'll just be different ones. Not nice, but that's how it is.

Obama has said that he will not raise taxes on most Americans, but rather raise taxes on the rich back to Clinton era levels (back when the economy was doing well). He will also save money through a lesser involvement in Iraq, which harkening back to my earlier point is a possible argument for pulling out. So according to him, it won't be a big hike in taxes. Why should McCain's word be considered more sacrosanct?

Of course, weather circumstances will allow either candidate to keep all their promises remains to be seen.

Foreign Policy: Obama is completely untried, but talks a good talk and may listen to his advisers. McCain likely to be rather dogmatic and hawkish. Even.

Not completely untried. Unless executive experience is the only kind that counts? He's worked on foreign policy in the Senate. McCain's done the same, just for a bit longer.

In any case, given America's crippled economy and troop shortages, McCain's hawkishness is a very big concern. Iran would make Iraq look like a cake walk.

Walking the Walk: Obama has repudiated a life long religious influence and has some very suspect fellow travellers. McCain is a bit hit or miss on consistency. Point to McCain.

McCain had a prominent supporter in the Religious Right who saw the Holocaust as part of God's Plan. And then their's Palin's seperatist links. He who lives in a glass house should not cast stones.

As for Rev Wright, Obama had a friend who's views he didn't agree with. Most of us have. Obama stood by that friend, as most of us probably would, until Wright started talking shit about him in public. He then responded like most people who's friend stabs them in the back. What's suspicious about that?

Response to terrorist challenge: Obama is an unknown. McCain is a bit erratic. Even.

Obama would have focussed on the source of the actual attack until we caught its mastermind, rather than pissing away time, troops, and money in an ill-timed, dishonestly justified, and poorly planned war.

Work with Democratic house and senate: Obama will fold under pressure and move to the far left. McCain will bluster and try to hold a middle position. Point to McCain.

What pressure? America as a whole is to the right of him.

Besides, when has Obama folded to the far left in the past? Any folding I've seen has been to the right, ie, the concessions on drilling and warrentless wire tapping.

McCain folded on immigration, on campaign finance reform, on his dislike of the Religious Right, and on Waterbording I believe as well. He has frequently sold out to the far right, which is a far more powerful force in America than the far left.

Supreme Court appointments: Obama is unknown but likely to move court far to the left. McCain will try to maintain current position but will be fustrated by democratically controlled senate. Point to McCain.

Obama will appoint justices to the left, McCain to the right.

Currently, the Court is split: 4 left, 4 right, 1 swing vote. A couple retirements, and the next President will decide through what lense our laws are interpreted for the next 20 years. The religious right, who's support McCain has consistently courted throughout this campaign, has been rather vocal about its goal to put Justices on the Court who hold a more Biblically-based view of the law.

If you want an erosion of the Constitutional seperation of Church and State, McCain's your man. If not, I hope you will give further consideration to Obama.

Most of the poins are razor thin and it really is a choice of the lesser of two evils. But for me, it looks like McCain on Tuesday.

Obama knows some nuts. So does McCain. So do most of us. But on the issues, Obama is no more socialist than Clinton, while McCain is a Bush level hawk at least. Yes, they have their flaws, and no, I wouldn't trust either as far as I could kick them, but after McCain's open courting of and endorsement by the Bush crowd, he's by far the bigger risk.

He's already the most liberal guy there IIRC, surely he'll about stay the same, no?

Fair sure that's a McCain camp lie they like to repeat. He's no more liberal than Hillary.

Currently, the Court is split: 4 left, 4 right, 1 swing vote. A couple retirements, and the next President will decide through what lense our laws are interpreted for the next 20 years. The religious right, who's support McCain has consistently courted throughout this campaign, has been rather vocal about its goal to put Justices on the Court who hold a more Biblically-based view of the law.

If you want an erosion of the Constitutional seperation of Church and State, McCain's your man. If not, I hope you will give further consideration to Obama.And if you want the end of the 2nd amendment vote Obama. Want the Feds to take over powers very clearly delegated to the states (10th Amendment) vote for Obama, abuse of the 16th amendment go ahead vote Obama, *never ending rant*.

And if you want the end of the 2nd amendment vote Obama. Want the Feds to take over powers very clearly delegated to the states (10th Amendment) vote for Obama, abuse of the 16th amendment go ahead vote Obama, *never ending rant*.

That's cute.

It is about time to make a choice. Not easy, and it will certainly be the one least likely to do lasting damage. So how to decide...

I might as well pick at this post as well.

Experience of life's adversities: No doubt about it. Point to McCain.

And you think Obama hasn't had his share of life's adversties? Everyone has adversities. Just because McCain is older and was a POW doesn't mean his adversities are greater or less than someone elses. True, he was beaten hard and suffered from the war in Vietnam. But it's the whole walk a mile in someone's elses shoes factor.

Veep choice: Obama picks a classic beltway insider, flouting his talk of change. McCain picks a complete outsider, but with some state executive branch experience. Point to McCain.

Palin has some experience. But do you really think she's ready for the top seat if McCain croaks or can't fullfill his duties due to age or sickness. A lot of pundents don't believe she can. She could fill the position, but I expect an average to mediocre preformance from her, as she barely understands the executive functions at the National level.

Iraq: Obama will cut and run, especially when he needs funding for his programs. McCain will probably continue to slowly withdraw. Point to McCain.

The war in Iraq was filled out on false intellegence. It made Colin Powell look like an idiot with his arguments in the UN. I don't blame Powell on it, but the fault of the Bush adminstration. And you really know how much money our government is spending for military funding? I doubt you know. Russia doesn't even have as much funding as we do. We could cut some of that funding back, and it wouldn't have that much of an effect as you think.

And agreed that the whole 'cut and run' wording is just Republican buzz words.

Domestic policy: Either faces extreme problems with economy and hence tax revenue. Obama cannot implement his policies without a significant tax increase. McCain at least won't do anything too wild on the expenditure side. Point toMcCain.

FALSE. McCain says he will freeze expenditures. What does that mean? Does he plan on cutting Social Security? Finaical aid for school? Civil service pensions? Military pay? McCain states he isn't going to touch miltary expendatures. So I am willing to bet that social programs that people really do need in this economic times will get cut even more. People don't need to be cut on those things, espically pensions and Social Security. That's money. Maybe it's not a lot, but it does stimulate the economy in it's own small way.

Foreign Policy: Obama is completely untried, but talks a good talk and may listen to his advisers. McCain likely to be rather dogmatic and hawkish. Even.

McCain's hawkishness is not something I welcome. It in fact almost matches dead even with Bush's impulsiveness. Obama if president won't be walking the foreign policy trail alone. He'll have advisors. He even has the support of former Sec. of State. Madaline Albright. Can't say the same for McCain.

Walking the Walk: Obama has repudiated a life long religious influence and has some very suspect fellow travellers. McCain is a bit hit or miss on consistency. Point to McCain.

Seperation of Church and State please. Religion I do grant is a good thing to have. But it's not the end all be all toward governmental leadership.

Response to terrorist challenge: Obama is an unknown. McCain is a bit erratic. Even.

Agreed, just slightly. But McCain is way too Hawkish on things. Too much like Bush. I give a slight tilt towards Obama, because I'd like to see someone who isn't going to just rattle a saber all the time.

Work with Democratic house and senate: Obama will fold under pressure and move to the far left. McCain will bluster and try to hold a middle position. Point to McCain.

McCain has already folded to the Republican base. I use to admire the man 8 years ago but his positions show a man who has folded to a position to do anything to get elected. Don't assume that Obama will always kowtow to the Democratic far left.

Supreme Court appointments: Obama is unknown but likely to move court far to the left. McCain will try to maintain current position but will be fustrated by democratically controlled senate. Point to McCain.

And what about the whole thing about trying to appeal Roe V. Wade? Do you want a court giving the moral majority/minority telling others how to morally live.

Most of the poins are razor thin and it really is a choice of the lesser of two evils. But for me, it looks like McCain on Tuesday.

You're just spouting Republican mantras so it seems you've already made up your mind way ahead of time.

And if you want the end of the 2nd amendment vote Obama. Want the Feds to take over powers very clearly delegated to the states (10th Amendment) vote for Obama, abuse of the 16th amendment go ahead vote Obama, *never ending rant*.

Do you have even a cursory understanding of American civics? Obama is no more capable of removing a Constitutional Amendment than McCain or any other president. I know fear-mongering is a favorite tactic of those on the right, but you could at least to pretend to understand how the US government works.

Do you have even a cursory understanding of American civics? Obama is no more capable of removing a Constitutional Amendment than McCain or any other president. I know fear-mongering is a favorite tactic of those on the right, but you could at least to pretend to understand how the US government works.

Trying to appeal a constitutional admendment would be, I expect, as hard as trying to ratify a new one. Take a gander at the ERA, it never got off the ground.

Supreme Court appointments: Obama is unknown but likely to move court far to the left.
Just wanted to point out that Obama graduated magna cum laude in 1991 with a Juris Doctor from Harvard; served as President of Harvard Law Review (considered the highest post attainable at the best law school in the nation); and spent ten years teaching constitutional law at University of Chicago law school. If that's unknown, it's only because you haven't taken 30 seconds to look up even the basics of his biography. McCain on the other hand has zero grounding in constitutional law, apart from what he's picked up in his Senate career.

If you're looking for someone to interpret constitutional law, you ask someone who knows the Constitution. I'd give that point to Obama in a heartbeat.

Veep choice: Obama picks a classic beltway insider, flouting his talk of change. McCain picks a complete outsider, but with some state executive branch experience. Point to McCain.

If I were eligible to vote in your election, and had been undecided at the outset, the addition of Sarah Palin to the Republican ticket would have tipped the balance for me on its own. I simply cannot understand people celebrating the sort of ignorance that I perceive her to represent. Like a lot of the people I speak to socially over here, I didn't really know who she was when she was nominated and so I was slightly incredulous about the whole thing when her profile started getting reported all over the place. Perhaps I was naive. Perhaps I'd simply wanted to think that the clichéd thick as nails, loud, proud, huntin', good ol' USofA lovin', unapologetically creationist and Rapture-ready apocalyptic fantasist was just a cruel caricature of Republicanism. And yet there she was.

I've yet to hear or read a single thing that gives me any confidence whatsoever that she has any grounding in reality or that she even understands the world that she'd have to deal with if John McCain wins the election. The sort of "dumbing down" that she gave away in her comments about scientific research last week (the "(t)hings like fruit fly research in Paris, France. I kid you not." one, whenever that was) was just the icing on the cake. It appears to me to display either wilful ignorance on her part or an attempt to appeal to the knee-jerk reactions of people who don't understand how research works. A small issue to some, no doubt, but to me it betrays the paucity of understanding (born of anti-intellectualism) that she represents. Perhaps it makes me elitist, but I simply do not ever want to encourage that sort of mindset or place it anywhere near a position of global political power.

I'm not once of those who see Obama as some kind of messianic figure but, to this particular outsider, he does appear to be the lesser of the two evils. On top of that, and just to further cement my elitism, he just seems to me to be smarter, and I passionately believe that it's a good overall strategy, in any endeavour, for those with the most raw intelligence (in whatever particular area) to be the ones in charge. Your scientists seem mainly to agree with me, from all that I've read.

Also, I hope you get a good turnout for this election - the higher the better. :)

And if you want the end of the 2nd amendment vote Obama. Want the Feds to take over powers very clearly delegated to the states (10th Amendment) vote for Obama, abuse of the 16th amendment go ahead vote Obama, *never ending rant*.

LOL.

Setting aside that your summary of Obama's positions are bullshit, let's see just some of the Constitutional protections that are likely in danger under McCain/Palin:

Right to habeas corpus (Article I, Sec. 9)
First Amendment - Free speech & free press
First Amendment -Separation of Church and State
Fourth Amendment - Search and Seizure
Fifth Amendment - Rights of Persons
Sixth Amendment - Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions
Ninth Amendment - Unenumerated Rights
Fourteenth Amendment - Rights Guaranteed, Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process and Equal Protection

It is about time to make a choice. Not easy, and it will certainly be the one least likely to do lasting damage. So how to decide...

Experience of life's adversities: No doubt about it. Point to McCain.

Veep choice: Obama picks a classic beltway insider, flouting his talk of change. McCain picks a complete outsider, but with some state executive branch experience. Point to McCain.

Iraq: Obama will cut and run, especially when he needs funding for his programs. McCain will probably continue to slowly withdraw. Point to McCain.

Domestic policy: Either faces extreme problems with economy and hence tax revenue. Obama cannot implement his policies without a significant tax increase. McCain at least won't do anything too wild on the expenditure side. Point toMcCain.

Foreign Policy: Obama is completely untried, but talks a good talk and may listen to his advisers. McCain likely to be rather dogmatic and hawkish. Even.

Walking the Walk: Obama has repudiated a life long religious influence and has some very suspect fellow travellers. McCain is a bit hit or miss on consistency. Point to McCain.

Response to terrorist challenge: Obama is an unknown. McCain is a bit erratic. Even.

Work with Democratic house and senate: Obama will fold under pressure and move to the far left. McCain will bluster and try to hold a middle position. Point to McCain.

Supreme Court appointments: Obama is unknown but likely to move court far to the left. McCain will try to maintain current position but will be fustrated by democratically controlled senate. Point to McCain.
Most of the poins are razor thin and it really is a choice of the lesser of two evils. But for me, it looks like McCain on Tuesday.

Whoever you prefer, please vote!!!!

Tell me, do you know anything? Because from the looks of this post, you dont.

And what world do you live in were McCain wont fold to the far right, since you know, he already did.

I'm a lifelong independent ...
Who just decided to read the RNC talking points to us again for...what? Old times' sake? Because they'll be out-of-print collector's items soon?

Well, let's take a look at your scoreboard:

It is about time to make a choice. Not easy, and it will certainly be the one least likely to do lasting damage. So how to decide...

Experience of life's adversities: No doubt about it. Point to McCain.
Wrong. Experiencing life's adversities is NOT relevant to being president of a nation. Any idiot can experience life's adversities, just like any idiot can crash multiple planes. It doesn't make that idiot competent to handle heavy responsibility.

Point NOT to McCain on the grounds that his experiences of adversity are irrelevant to his presidential qualifications.

Veep choice: Obama picks a classic beltway insider, flouting his talk of change. McCain picks a complete outsider, but with some state executive branch experience. Point to McCain.
I see, so you'd give McCain the point because he picked an incompetent with barely a year and a half of state executive experience (she was governor only 18 months) who has show repeatedly that she has not the slightest understanding of anything that happens outside Alaska. And you would take it away from Obama because he picked a seasoned professional who has a long (many years) and proven track record in precisely the kinds of work the next administration is going to have to be ready to hit the ground running on from day one.

Hehe, yeah, cute. Also, "flouting his talk of change" is an established RNC talking point, which, in case you didn't know this, subtracts content from your statements. Strange but true phenomenon -- an argument based on a talking point always ends up being an empty one.

So, since I'm more interested in putting a REAL administration in place than in making fake arguments based on fake points, I'll give that point to the guy whose VP has a good chance of actually being good for the country over the one who picked a superstitious, ego-tripping, uninformed pageant queen who seems almost to think the VP job comes with a tiara and a scholarship.

Point NOT to McCain.

Iraq: Obama will cut and run, especially when he needs funding for his programs. McCain will probably continue to slowly withdraw. Point to McCain.
"Cut and run" is another RNC talking point, indicating that this is another empty argument. And indeed, it is, as shown by the fact that you have no argument to make about connecting funding for Obama's programs to the running of the war -- especially since Obama himself has made it fairly clear that he intends to (a) edit his programs to suit economic reality and (b) fund his programs by (i) cutting others and (ii) rolling back Bush's tax cuts for corporations and high-income citizens.

Plus your equally off-hand and unsupported remark about what McCain will "probably" do indicates that you have no idea what McCain plans to do. Not surprising, since he has seen fit to keep his war plans a big secret.

So, point NOT to McCain.

Domestic policy: Either faces extreme problems with economy and hence tax revenue. Obama cannot implement his policies without a significant tax increase. McCain at least won't do anything too wild on the expenditure side. Point toMcCain.
So, your argument is that McCain is better because he won't actually do anything on the domestic front on account of he won't have any money?

Hehe, another adorable attempt, but no. Obama will be rolling back specific tax cuts on corporations and wealthy people. He says he wants to get tax rates back to what they were before Bush implemented his tax cuts. If he does that, I doubt many people will suffer significantly, as the rich did pretty well in the 90s. Economic reality requires increased taxes, at least to some degree. Even many in the RNC have admitted as much.

Also, that "anything too wild" crack is very amusing. Apparently seeking to balance the budget by readjusting taxes is "too wild" for you? Your nerves must suffer terribly, as the government has done exactly that many, many times.

Point NOT to McCain on the grounds that not having a domestic policy is not going to work.

Foreign Policy: Obama is completely untried, but talks a good talk and may listen to his advisers. McCain likely to be rather dogmatic and hawkish. Even.
Hardly even. Dogma and hawkishness is exactly what got us into the foreign relations mess we are in right now. Listening to qualified advisors (like Biden) will be a positive change. Obama wins this one for having the better approach.

Walking the Walk: Obama has repudiated a life long religious influence and has some very suspect fellow travellers. McCain is a bit hit or miss on consistency. Point to McCain.
Apparently you can't talk and walk at the same time. What the hell is the above jumble of non sequiturs even supposed to mean?

Point NOT to McCain on the grounds that you are so lacking an argument on this point that you can't even write coherently.

Response to terrorist challenge: Obama is an unknown. McCain is a bit erratic. Even.
Wrong. Unknown is not "even" with known-to-be-erratic, especially as erratic is a negative trait. If McCain is known to have a temperament trait that is bad for dealing with national security, then Obama gets that point as you cannot point to any trait of his that is known to bad for national security.

Work with Democratic house and senate: Obama will fold under pressure and move to the far left. McCain will bluster and try to hold a middle position. Point to McCain.
Another RNC talking point: "move to the far left" renders your argument empty. Obama so far has not folded to any pressure, as far as anyone knows, whereas we have for several years now watched McCain fold to the pressure of the far right, to the point where he has switched positions on some issues so many times even he can't keep them straight from one Q/A session to another.

Also, how is blustering and trying to hold a position an indicator of being able to work with a Demcratic house and senate?

Point NOT to McCain on the grounds that your prediction of what he will do in the future is not a rosy one.

Supreme Court appointments: Obama is unknown but likely to move court far to the left. McCain will try to maintain current position but will be fustrated by democratically controlled senate. Point to McCain.
Another point on which you try to give McCain the win on the grounds that he will fail?

Hehe, yeah, uh, no. Point NOT to McCain.

Most of the poins are razor thin and it really is a choice of the lesser of two evils. But for me, it looks like McCain on Tuesday.
I'd be willing to bet it has looked like McCain for you ever since he won the Republican nomination.

Whoever you prefer, please vote!!!!
Don't worry. I shall.

Just wanted to point out that Obama graduated magna cum laude in 1991 with a Juris Doctor from Harvard; served as President of Harvard Law Review (considered the highest post attainable at the best law school in the nation); and spent ten years teaching constitutional law at University of Chicago law school. If that's unknown, it's only because you haven't taken 30 seconds to look up even the basics of his biography. McCain on the other hand has zero grounding in constitutional law, apart from what he's picked up in his Senate career.

If you're looking for someone to interpret constitutional law, you ask someone who knows the Constitution. I'd give that point to Obama in a heartbeat.

But Obama wouldn't appoint himself to the Supreme Court.

I found this on You Tube. You might like it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vn55ZdmBPJ4

Anyway I thought it was cute.

But Obama wouldn't appoint himself to the Supreme Court.
The point, BE, is that Obama demonstrates by his work history that he understands the Constitution, that he values the Constitution, that he understands the US legal system and Constitutional issues. Thus, it is fair to surmise that he is likely to nominate judges for the SC who are competent, and that he is less likely to put potential justices through a political litmus test, the way the outgoing administration did.

But Obama wouldn't appoint himself to the Supreme Court.

No, but it does mean hes more qualified to pick good judges.

I found this on You Tube. You might like it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vn55ZdmBPJ4

Anyway I thought it was cute.

Then again the Red Staters probably do think of hope as a venereal disease.

The point, BE, is that Obama demonstrates by his work history that he understands the Constitution, that he values the Constitution, that he understands the US legal system and Constitutional issues. Thus, it is fair to surmise that he is likely to nominate judges for the SC who are competent, and that he is less likely to put potential justices through a political litmus test, the way the outgoing administration did.

Well you can have good judges that have had similar experience and education on constitutional law yet both could come to different outcomes. How many of the judges appointed by the current administration were not competent? When I am asking that I do not mean to take their political ideologies into the answer.

Well you can have good judges that have had similar experience and education on constitutional law yet both could come to different outcomes. How many of the judges appointed by the current administration were not competent? When I am asking that I do not mean to take their political ideologies into the answer.

Okay, you honestly don't know what you're talking about. It's one thing to argue about judges from Clinton or Bush Sr. or Reagan, but Bush Jr. famously attempted to appoint a totally incompetent judge.

Then again the Red Staters probably do think of hope as a venereal disease.

There too busy thinking Obama will kill them in their sleep. ROFL :p

Okay, you honestly don't know what you're talking about. It's one thing to argue about judges from Clinton or Bush Sr. or Reagan, but Bush Jr. famously attempted to appoint a totally incompetent judge.

Did you miss the question mark? Where I asked what judges the current administraion appointed were incompetent. But does that mean my other statement is false?

*sigh*

It is about time to make a choice. Not easy, and it will certainly be the one least likely to do lasting damage. So how to decide...

Experience of life's adversities: No doubt about it. Point to McCain.


Everybody has adversity in their life. Some more so then others. The fact some people faced some rather ugly things hardly declares them fit to lead a nation.

What adversity did McCain face? A POW sure. However, if it wasn't for the fact his granddad was a famous admiral and the fact his father was an admiral(at least I think he was at the time), he would have washed out for the simple fact he was a spoiled brat screw up. Why is it a man can loose two planes for reckless daredeviling and still remain a pilot? (Worthless info: His father and grandfather were the first father/son admirals in the US navy).

Did his life get harder after he married a ton of money?

Being a POW is indeed rough. We can only imagine what it is like. However, that really doesn't make you a good leader.

Veep choice: Obama picks a classic beltway insider, flouting his talk of change. McCain picks a complete outsider, but with some state executive branch experience. Point to McCain.


:D Please. Palin? :D :D :D :D For an "outsider maverick" she sure has the same failings of the insiders. Never mind the fact her state has only 6-7 hundred thousand people. There are mayors that deal with populations in the millions.

Palin probably sunk McCain. I know die hard republicans that are not going to vote for him simply because of the idea if he dies in office, palin would take over.

If McCain had picked Romney, the race would probably be far closer then it is now....

Iraq: Obama will cut and run, especially when he needs funding for his programs. McCain will probably continue to slowly withdraw. Point to McCain.

Cut and Run? Are you reading Republican campaign literature?

Domestic policy: Either faces extreme problems with economy and hence tax revenue. Obama cannot implement his policies without a significant tax increase. McCain at least won't do anything too wild on the expenditure side. Point to McCain.

Sure let's keep the same policies in place as they have done soooo well.

Foreign Policy: Obama is completely untried, but talks a good talk and may listen to his advisers. McCain likely to be rather dogmatic and hawkish. Even.

Untried is hardly a tool of measurement. So McCain was in a foreign war. How exactly does that make him an expert in foreign politics? The fact he is dogmatic and hawkish would make him a problem especially in a time to talk.

The Republicans of late love to bring of the image of Teddy but they forget his message of speaking softly and carrying a big stick.

Walking the Walk: Obama has repudiated a life long religious influence and has some very suspect fellow travellers. McCain is a bit hit or miss on consistency. Point to McCain.

Eh? McCain has been going for things he stood against.

Response to terrorist challenge: Obama is an unknown. McCain is a bit erratic. Even.

I have a feeling Obama will try a coalition of nations to deal with International terrorism. McCain will continue the shrub doctrine.

Work with Democratic house and senate: Obama will fold under pressure and move to the far left. McCain will bluster and try to hold a middle position. Point to McCain.

Oh please McCain is no independent and he is not going to hold the middle position.

Supreme Court appointments: Obama is unknown but likely to move court far to the left. McCain will try to maintain current position but will be fustrated by democratically controlled senate. Point to McCain.


What? Obama is a Constitutional law professor. He ran the Harvard Law Review. I would trust his view of the Constitution far more then McCain.

McCain has already said he would appoint Judges that would "follow" the Constitution to the letter which is a nice way of saying he would appoint ideologues to serve the desires of the religious conservatives.

Most of the poins are razor thin and it really is a choice of the lesser of two evils. But for me, it looks like McCain on Tuesday.

Whoever you prefer, please vote!!!!

Lessor of two evils? Sorry I think you decided on McCain without even looking at Obama.

Well you can have good judges that have had similar experience and education on constitutional law yet both could come to different outcomes. How many of the judges appointed by the current administration were not competent? When I am asking that I do not mean to take their political ideologies into the answer.
A lot of people have expressed doubts as to the competency of Scalia lately and a few others at other times. Remember, being competent to be a judge, does not necessarily make you competent to be a Supreme Court Justice.

It is my opinion that a judge who would place his/her personal political opinions ahead of his/her duty to the law is not competent to sit on the highest court in the US.

Without personally expressing any views about Scalia's professional qualifications, THAT is the reason I consider him to be an insult to the SC. He acts as an idealogue and a party apparatchik before he acts as a judge.

Many of the current justices were chosen for their politics rather than their legal qualifications. It is hoped that a Constitutional law attorney like Obama will have a good enough understanding of the US legal system to understand why that is a bad thing. There is a chance that he will have to nominate at least one SC justice, if he wins. Because of his background, I feel confident that he will nominate judges based on their skills and their dedication to the law, and thus, hopefully, start the process of de-politicizing the Supreme Court.

Well you can have good judges that have had similar experience and education on constitutional law yet both could come to different outcomes. How many of the judges appointed by the current administration were not competent?

None.

Obama will win. McCain cannot win. If he does, the world will end. PERIOD.

A lot of people have expressed doubts as to the competency of Scalia lately and a few others at other times. Remember, being competent to be a judge, does not necessarily make you competent to be a Supreme Court Justice.

It is my opinion that a judge who would place his/her personal political opinions ahead of his/her duty to the law is not competent to sit on the highest court in the US.

Without personally expressing any views about Scalia's professional qualifications, THAT is the reason I consider him to be an insult to the SC. He acts as an idealogue and a party apparatchik before he acts as a judge.

Many of the current justices were chosen for their politics rather than their legal qualifications. It is hoped that a Constitutional law attorney like Obama will have a good enough understanding of the US legal system to understand why that is a bad thing. There is a chance that he will have to nominate at least one SC justice, if he wins. Because of his background, I feel confident that he will nominate judges based on their skills and their dedication to the law, and thus, hopefully, start the process of de-politicizing the Supreme Court.

Well I to hope that any judges he appoints does not have any ideology behind their decision, and that he does de-politicise the SC.

This ad by Obama is awesome!
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=cfjQujYrfEk

Well, my father and most of the 70,000 Americans that live here are voting for Obama. :wink:

Well I to hope that any judges he appoints does not have any ideology behind their decision, and that he does de-politicise the SC.

They dont need to have an ideology if theyre competent. Facts, reality, and even the Constitution have a liberial base.

They dont need to have an ideology if theyre competent. Facts, reality, and even the Constitution have a liberial base.

Hmm, tell me KoL do you think two judges with the same experience level of education and compentency could come to different rulings?

Supreme Court appointments: Obama is unknown

I am going to echo what has been said here. To anyone who has made any effort, Obama's legal positions are not in any way "unknown". From his published articles from his law school days, to his two books he has written about himself, to his ten years as a professor Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago law school, if anyone in any way cared to learn about Obama's position on the law, it's right there in front of you.

Now I'm not going to tell you not to vote for McCain, that's your right. I'm also not going to be so arrogant to assume that if you had done your research, you'd change your mind. I don't know you. Maybe if you had done your homework you'd still come out the same way. I can't say.

What I can say, however, is that you tried to present yourself as someone who made the choice based on reason and research, but you have not. It's clear you have not done any substantive learning about these two candidates and just made up your mind, and tried, after the fact, to create an image that you have researched their opinions thoroughly, and decided, based on that educated, researched opinion, that you're voting for mcCain.

That is a lie.

http://www.moltz.net/~john/images/struggle.jpg





...

sorry...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article5062889.ece
I just love that last paragraph.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article5062889.ece
I just love that last paragraph.

Oh Karl, he doesn't realize that America doesn't have liberals. We have right wingers and moderates.


http://www.brainfall.com/quizzes/are-you-more-qualified-than-sarah-palin/

You are 83% more qualified than Sarah Palin. You're no short-term political stunt, you're the real deal, the VP the American people deserve. I guess your phone was off the hook when John McCain was calling around looking for a running mate... must've been one of those pesky robo-calls.

http://www.moltz.net/~john/images/struggle.jpg
sorry...

I had to laugh out loud at this one

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article5062889.ece
I just love that last paragraph.

I find it amazing that he thinks $2.4 billion is part of the reason why it is a good race.

http://www.brainfall.com/quizzes/are-you-more-qualified-than-sarah-palin/

You are 83% more qualified than Sarah Palin. You're no short-term political stunt, you're the real deal, the VP the American people deserve. I guess your phone was off the hook when John McCain was calling around looking for a running mate... must've been one of those pesky robo-calls.

There was this question

Which of these news sources have you most recently read from?

Where was the choice that said: All of them.

You are 75% more qualified than Sarah Palin. Sure, your resume is missing a few things, but you've got the experience where it counts. You know that the hard-working men and women of America deserve a government that will work for them, and that there's nothing "average" about a plumber that makes $200,000 per year.

Yeah, I'm still young and I don't have any government executive experience.

But I would say I'm less qualified than Palin as I am not a US citizen that stops everything right there.

You are 92% more qualified than Sarah Palin. You're no short-term political stunt, you're the real deal, the VP the American people deserve. I guess your phone was off the hook when John McCain was calling around looking for a running mate... must've been one of those pesky robo-calls.

So if Obama wins, and he becomes President, then will he be keeping the Black man down, or will they finally stop the silly "The man is keeping me down!" crap?

Sheeee....

You are 100% more qualified than Sarah Palin. You're no short-term political stunt, you're the real deal, the VP the American people deserve. I guess your phone was off the hook when John McCain was calling around looking for a running mate... must've been one of those pesky robo-calls.

Might be that the US should start to seek its VPs in Europe?

So if Obama wins, and he becomes President, then will he be keeping the Black man down, or will they finally stop the silly "The man is keeping me down!" crap?

"The Man" has never been the president.

So if Obama wins, and he becomes President, then will he be keeping the Black man down, or will they finally stop the silly "The man is keeping me down!" crap?
Don't be silly. There's a whole industry built around that... What would Queasy Mfume and the NAACP do? Bake sales and quilting bees?

Don't be silly. There's a whole industry built around that... What would Queasy Mfume and the NAACP do? Bake sales and quilting bees?

Got a problem with bake sales? :mad:

:D

You are 75% more qualified than Sarah Palin. Sure, your resume is missing a few things, but you've got the experience where it counts. You know that the hard-working men and women of America deserve a government that will work for them, and that there's nothing "average" about a plumber that makes $200,000 per year.

Couldn't run for VP or President anyway, I am too young. The only position I could run for would be Congressman anyway.

You are 92% more qualified than Sarah Palin. You're no short-term political stunt, you're the real deal, the VP the American people deserve. I guess your phone was off the hook when John McCain was calling around looking for a running mate... must've been one of those pesky robo-calls.
This is pathetic because I sure as shit wouldn't put me in the White House.

This is pathetic because I sure as shit wouldn't put me in the White House.


LOL. My dad shakes his head at this moment in time and asks, why the hell would anyone want to be president right now. He has a point. Why would you want to lead a country that has record deficits. A mess in Iraq and other countries. The economic crisis and the mortgauge crisis. Doesn't sound fun at all. McCain and Obama, must be crazy. Why would you want to be leader of all that?

This is pathetic because I sure as shit wouldn't put me in the White House.

Why?

LOL. My dad shakes his head at this moment in time and asks, why the hell would anyone want to be president right now. He has a point. Why would you want to lead a country that has record deficits. A mess in Iraq and other countries. The economic crisis and the mortgauge crisis. Doesn't sound fun at all. McCain and Obama, must be crazy. Why would you want to be leader of all that?
Obama was asked that by, I think, Rachel Maddow, and he said that if you went into politics hoping to make a difference, now's your time. The country is in a mess and if a person went into politics hoping to be able to fix social problems or even just keep the country stable and functioning, well, that's exactly what we need right now, so it's no time for the people who said they wanted to do that to run and hide.

Why?
Because I don't want to make a difference. :p

To be serious, I don't have the team-player temperament for it. Also, I lack what I consider the required grounding in world and national affairs, making me not competent to step right into high office. I know that about myself. So even though I know more than Caribou Barbie, I don't know enough to qualify me for the VP or any cabinet position, according to my own standards.

Because I don't want to make a difference. :p

To be serious, I don't have the team-player temperament for it. Also, I lack what I consider the required grounding in world and national affairs, making me not competent to step right into high office. I know that about myself. So even though I know more than Caribou Barbie, I don't know enough to qualify me for the VP or any cabinet position, according to my own standards.

Righto, then. I understand.

Because I don't want to make a difference. :p

To be serious, I don't have the team-player temperament for it. Also, I lack what I consider the required grounding in world and national affairs, making me not competent to step right into high office. I know that about myself. So even though I know more than Caribou Barbie, I don't know enough to qualify me for the VP or any cabinet position, according to my own standards.

Well no shame in not wanting to be president or VP. I consider myself a loner, and team playing is not my speciality either. I hate it when my professors assign me to people to work with on assignments. I don't like working with people, they never seem to pull their own weight and I get stuck with the bulk of the assignments.

Fair sure that's a McCain camp lie they like to repeat. He's no more liberal than Hillary.

In many ways, he's not even as liberal as Hillary. Anyone who really looks into Obama's policies would find that he's a lot more conservative than the Republicans would like to admit.


And if you want the end of the 2nd amendment vote Obama.

Really? I haven't seen any evidence of this. Do you have some?

Want the Feds to take over powers very clearly delegated to the states (10th Amendment) vote for Obama,

Why do states' "rights"ers so often skip over the 9th and 14th Amendments? And why is it that reserving power for the individual is so often painted as an increase in federal power?

abuse of the 16th amendment go ahead vote Obama, *never ending rant*.

Abuse of the 16th amendment, eh? How so?

Why do states' "rights"ers so often skip over the 9th and 14th Amendments? And why is it that reserving power for the individual is so often painted as an increase in federal power?


Well, obviously, because individuals often will not do what the states-rights'ers wish they would (you know like stay pregnant and not be gay, etc.), so they need the state to force the individuals to conform. And then when the individuals turn to the fed to make the states get off their necks (like with that whole desegregation thing), well that's just not fair, is it? To the states-rights'ers, I mean. It reminds them that the power of the state is not the highest power -- the individual is, and the fed is our tool, and every time we exercise it, it and we get stronger. Than the states. So naturally, every time they lose the game, they have to complain about how wrong that is and how the tool/tactic we use isn't one we should have used. (I guess they'd rather we used one that doesn't work.)

Something like that.

Abuse of the 16th amendment, eh? How so?

He's going to, OMG!, he's going to TAX PEOPLE! Oh noez! :eek:

Abuse of the 16th amendment, eh? How so?
He's going to use it!

100% more qualified than Palin, bitches.

You are 100% more qualified than Sarah Palin. You're no short-term political stunt, you're the real deal, the VP the American people deserve. I guess your phone was off the hook when John McCain was calling around looking for a running mate... must've been one of those pesky robo-calls.

Ha!

Of course, I'm (a) too young and (b) completely and utterly uninterested in being a politician.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/election2008.aspx



Gallups final election prediction....55%-44%.


Yeah, bab-ay, yeah.

And on fivethiryeight, Obama is starting to swing Florida his way again:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

http://www.gallup.com/poll/election2008.aspx



Gallups final election prediction....55%-44%.


Yeah, bab-ay, yeah.

And on fivethiryeight, Obama is starting to swing Florida his way again:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

While TIPP has Obama winning, I think they're far, far more accurate than Gallup.

I actually would like a Democrat majority in both Houses, and Obama in the White House.

At that point, any failure to pass any bill, any failure of the government to take necessary action, or the willful negligence or stupidity of the government could never be blamed on a Republican.

Quite unlike any situation where government is divided - in such a situation you can always blame one side or the other. Here, the Republicans can take a permanent vacation, and watch the fireworks.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/election2008.aspx



Gallups final election prediction....55%-44%.


Yeah, bab-ay, yeah.

And on fivethiryeight, Obama is starting to swing Florida his way again:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

While I'd love it to be true, an 11 point margin is just too much, it would be beyond anything we could ever expect. an 11 point victory is in solid "OMFG landslide!" territory and that's not going to happen.

Obama will win in my estimate by about 5.5%.

While TIPP has Obama winning, I think they're far, far more accurate than Gallup.

I actually would like a Democrat majority in both Houses, and Obama in the White House.

At that point, any failure to pass any bill, any failure of the government to take necessary action, or the willful negligence or stupidity of the government could never be blamed on a Republican.

Quite unlike any situation where government is divided - in such a situation you can always blame one side or the other. Here, the Republicans can take a permanent vacation, and watch the fireworks.

TIPP? Neo would know better than me because he has a thread about it, but isnt TIPP that super intellectually dishonost poll that had 75% of the youth voting McCain at one point, and had McCain up until last week??


Wasnt it the champion poll of the right? Or am I thinking of a different poll?

TIPP? Neo would know better than me because he has a thread about it, but isnt TIPP that super intellectually dishonost poll that had 75% of the youth voting McCain at one point, and had McCain up until last week??


Wasnt it the champion poll of the right? Or am I thinking of a different poll?

TIPP was the most accurate poll in the last election. Hardly dishonest.

TIPP was the most accurate poll in the last election. Hardly dishonest.

So, if I am thinking of the right poll, you think that 75% of the youth voting McCain was accurate?

So, if I am thinking of the right poll, you think that 75% of the youth voting McCain was accurate?

Show me where

http://www.tipponline.com/

says 75% of youth. I don't see them saying it.

Most Accurate Pollster of Election 2004
Final Certified Results Reveal TIPP as the Most Accurate Pollster of Election 2004

An analysis of the presidential election's final certified results shows that TIPP's daily tracking polls proved to be the most accurate in terms of predicting the winner and his margin of victory.

Among the four national daily tracking polls, TIPP came closest to projecting Bush's actual margin of victory (2.1% projected vs. 2.5% actual).

TIPP also outperformed a field of 11 other national, non-tracking pre-election polls, coming within just four-tenths of a percentage point to predicting Bush’s actual margin of victory (2.1% projected vs. 2.5% actual).

TIPP predicted the winner of the election in several pre-election venues, including CNBC’s Kudlow and Cramer and in the pages of Investor’s Business Daily.

"We developed strong tracking metrics and voter models that allowed us to accurately predict the election's outcome,” said Raghavan Mayur, president of TIPP. "These metrics enabled us to minimize error and capture trends as they developed. We had our finger on the pulse of America throughout all of its palpitations."

TIPP? Neo would know better than me because he has a thread about it, but isnt TIPP that super intellectually dishonost poll that had 75% of the youth voting McCain at one point, and had McCain up until last week??

you're conflating two polls. It was Tipp that, in their narrower results, showed the 18-24 demographic voting for McCain by 75% (it's worth noting that in thier breakdowns when such a result is more in line with what you'd expect, Obama is shown to be around 4-6%).

Though for what it's worth, since Tipp began publishing for this election on October 13th, it has not once shown McCain in the lead.

There was a one day sampling at Zogby, a one day part of a 3 day poll, that showed a McCain +1 result, but if you look at the overall trend at Zogby, it didn't do much for him. With the exception of a one day result (which by the way was Friday, and Halloween) by Zogby which showed a tiny McCain lead (I won't even get into the problems of discussing a one day result of a 3 day sample) I am unaware of any poll that has shown him to be in the lead at any time in October.

you're conflating two polls. It was Tipp that, in their narrower results, showed the 18-24 demographic voting for McCain by 75% (it's worth noting that in thier breakdowns when such a result is more in line with what you'd expect, Obama is shown to be around 4-6%).

Though for what it's worth, since Tipp began publishing for this election on October 13th, it has not once shown McCain in the lead.

There was a one day sampling at Zogby, a one day part of a 3 day poll, that showed a McCain +1 result, but if you look at the overall trend at Zogby, it didn't do much for him. With the exception of a one day result (which by the way was Friday, and Halloween) by Zogby which showed a tiny McCain lead (I won't even get into the problems of discussing a one day result of a 3 day sample) I am unaware of any poll that has shown him to be in the lead at any time in October.


Aight.

Show me where

'k (http://www.ibdeditorials.com/Polls.aspx?id=309635713550536).

While I'd love it to be true, an 11 point margin is just too much, it would be beyond anything we could ever expect. an 11 point victory is in solid "OMFG landslide!" territory and that's not going to happen.

Obama will win in my estimate by about 5.5%.
We are in "OMFG landslide!" territory and have been for a long time. McCain voters are all, "meh, maybe I'll bother maybe I won't" while Obama voters are all Ecrasez l'infame!
The Republican party does not just to be defeated: it needs to be thrashed, soundly, and I have faith that it will be.

'k (http://www.ibdeditorials.com/Polls.aspx?id=309635713550536).

You'll note that at no time I've said that McCain was leading.

I think some here are kneejerking themselves into a masturbatory orgasm...

You'll note that at no time I've said that McCain was leading..

That's very nice, but that wasn't what was asked of you. You said you believe TIPP to be the most accurate pollster. It was brought to your attention that Tipp's internals this season have been so screwy and inconsistant as to, at one point, show McCain leading with 75% amongst the youth vote (ages 18-24).

You challenged that, asking "show me where" and I obliged.

Now, I'll ask the question that was already asked. Now that proof has been provided, is it still your contention that the most accurate pollster out there is one that, as early as a week ago, showed McCain capturing 75% of the youth vote?

Yes or no?

That's very nice, but that wasn't what was asked of you. You said you believe TIPP to be the most accurate pollster. It was brought to your attention that Tipp's internals this season have been so screwy and inconsistant as to, at one point, show McCain leading with 75% amongst the youth vote (ages 18-24).

You challenged that, asking "show me where" and I obliged.

Now, I'll ask the question that was already asked. Now that proof has been provided, is it still your contention that the most accurate pollster out there is one that, as early as a week ago, showed McCain capturing 75% of the youth vote?

Yes or no?

I still think it's the most accurate on the overall result.

You'll notice that the overall result doesn't appear to be unbelievable, and is pretty close to your own prediction (closer than Gallup, that's for sure).

I still think it's the most accurate on the overall result.

You'll notice that the overall result doesn't appear to be unbelievable, and is pretty close to your own prediction (closer than Gallup, that's for sure).

a blind squirrel can occassionally find a nut. The fact that their numbers, in aggregate, seem to be in line with what I believe doesn't show them in any way to be reaching those numbers from any valid scientific methodology. For example, while pretty much every poll has shown little fluctuation, Tipp showed Obama losing two and a half points in one day, and this is following a 3.5 point gain over the course of a week.

Those numbers just don't make sense and are not consistent with anything else I've seen. Even battlegrounds with their nonsensical closeness a little while ago, have backed off to an Obama +5 (just as I said they would)

a blind squirrel can occassionally find a nut. The fact that their numbers, in aggregate, seem to be in line with what I believe doesn't show them in any way to be reaching those numbers from any valid scientific methodology. For example, while pretty much every poll has shown little fluctuation, Tipp showed Obama losing two and a half points in one day, and this is following a 3.5 point gain over the course of a week.

Those numbers just don't make sense and are not consistent with anything else I've seen. Even battlegrounds with their nonsensical closeness a little while ago, have backed off to an Obama +5 (just as I said they would)

We'll see. The reputations of polling organizations and media pundits are riding on the election.

You'll note that at no time I've said that McCain was leading.

I think some here are kneejerking themselves into a masturbatory orgasm...

I'll have to try that some time.

We'll see. The reputations of polling organizations and media pundits are riding on the election.

Are they really? Because we know there'll be made up shit again in four years like this year when we hear people try to consol themselves with "OMG! The polls had Kerry ahead this time last year (never mind that they didn't) and were so inaccurate (when they were overall within the margin of error)!"

I found this on You Tube. You might like it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vn55ZdmBPJ4

Anyway I thought it was cute.

More importantly - that looked like film-maker and actress Amber Benson, at about 2 or 3 second in. I'd vote for Obama based just on that.

It is about time to make a choice. Not easy, and it will certainly be the one least likely to do lasting damage. So how to decide...

Experience of life's adversities: No doubt about it. Point to McCain.

Veep choice: Obama picks a classic beltway insider, flouting his talk of change. McCain picks a complete outsider, but with some state executive branch experience. Point to McCain.

Iraq: Obama will cut and run, especially when he needs funding for his programs. McCain will probably continue to slowly withdraw. Point to McCain.

Domestic policy: Either faces extreme problems with economy and hence tax revenue. Obama cannot implement his policies without a significant tax increase. McCain at least won't do anything too wild on the expenditure side. Point toMcCain.

Foreign Policy: Obama is completely untried, but talks a good talk and may listen to his advisers. McCain likely to be rather dogmatic and hawkish. Even.

Walking the Walk: Obama has repudiated a life long religious influence and has some very suspect fellow travellers. McCain is a bit hit or miss on consistency. Point to McCain.

Response to terrorist challenge: Obama is an unknown. McCain is a bit erratic. Even.

Work with Democratic house and senate: Obama will fold under pressure and move to the far left. McCain will bluster and try to hold a middle position. Point to McCain.

Supreme Court appointments: Obama is unknown but likely to move court far to the left. McCain will try to maintain current position but will be fustrated by democratically controlled senate. Point to McCain.
Most of the poins are razor thin and it really is a choice of the lesser of two evils. But for me, it looks like McCain on Tuesday.

Whoever you prefer, please vote!!!!

This looks like a copy-and-paste job. I saw a circulated email that looked almost identical to this...

Thanks for reposting propaganda.

Are they really? Because we know there'll be made up shit again in four years like this year when we hear people try to consol themselves with "OMG! The polls had Kerry ahead this time last year (never mind that they didn't) and were so inaccurate (when they were overall within the margin of error)!"

Speaking of which where is our little Canuck? He's been shy since not long after the Republican convention.

Show me where

http://www.tipponline.com/

says 75% of youth. I don't see them saying it.

I just have to point out - as counter-intuitive as it may sound, being closest to the actual result last time... doesn't say anything to the quality of the polls. Indeed, it COULD mean that they do really shitty polls - because GOOD polling might have indicated a trend other than the official final result.

a blind squirrel can occassionally find a nut. The fact that their numbers, in aggregate, seem to be in line with what I believe doesn't show them in any way to be reaching those numbers from any valid scientific methodology. For example, while pretty much every poll has shown little fluctuation, Tipp showed Obama losing two and a half points in one day, and this is following a 3.5 point gain over the course of a week.

And to add to the "WTF is TIPP thinking" trend, on Saturday it had Obama at 4.5, yesterday 2.1, then today back up to 4.5 again. A two and a half point loss in ONE DAY, followed immediately by an equal two and a half point gain the next.

So, if I am thinking of the right poll, you think that 75% of the youth voting McCain was accurate?

Isn't this where we ask you for a source? I won't hold my breath...

Isn't this where we ask you for a source? I won't hold my breath...

Neo already gave it. Nice try smartass.

It would behoove you to actually read before you try and talk shit. Because otherwise you just look sillier than you already do on a regular basis.

Is someone cranky that we dont just take him at his word?

We'll see. The reputations of polling organizations and media pundits are riding on the election.
One thing that was consistent throughout the primaries was the inconsistency and inaccuracy of polls. Anyone remember Hillary winning New Hampshire in a completely unpredicted victory?

Don't argue the wrong thing -- I'm about 90 percent certain that Obama will win, but I'm just as certain that the polls won't have predicted the margin. But there is that come-from-nowhere win in New Hampshire to consider... Every single poll missed that win.

Neo already gave it. Nice try smartass.

It would behoove you to actually read before you try and talk shit. Because otherwise you just look sillier than you already do on a regular basis.

Is someone cranky that we dont just take him at his word?
Good thing you have someone to bail you out of the hard spots. I shouldn't gloat too much, considering the utter nonsense that I see you write.

Good thing you have someone to bail you out of the hard spots

Heh yeah... Neo Art bailed KoL, by deliberately posting a link supporting their argument. Then he used his magic powers to make you ignore said link. It was a clever plan, and only required telepathy, mind-control, and time travel!

Or, you know, you just ignored a link, and then rudely demanded for it.

Good thing you have someone to bail you out of the hard spots. I shouldn't gloat too much, considering the utter nonsense that I see you write.

Considering I was at class when I was asked for a source, one can hardly say he "bailed me out" since not only were we arguing the same thing, but I directly asked Neo Art in my post if I was thinking of the right poll.

Are you just going to troll me now? I get it, youre pissy that you acted all high and mighty and I pointed out to you that you missed what you were condescendingly asking for. Ive also caught you in outright bullshit before and asked you to bac it up, and you couldnt. Rather than be a grown up and just get over it and say things based in reality from now you, you just go around launching into tirades attacking me and tell me I write "utter nonsense" (which is curious, because everyone you ask me to back it up, I actually can).

If I bother you that much, you have an ignore function. But Im not going to stop asking you for sources because it makes you grouchy.

Good thing you have someone to bail you out of the hard spots. I shouldn't gloat too much, considering the utter nonsense that I see you write.

With a downcast glance at my signature I have to say; Mr. Pot, say hello to Mr. Kettle, play nice.

Heh yeah... Neo Art bailed KoL, by deliberately posting a link supporting their argument. Then he used his magic powers to make you ignore said link. It was a clever plan, and only required telepathy, mind-control, and time travel!

Or, you know, you just ignored a link, and then rudely demanded for it.

My mind control powers have grown strong indeed.

With a downcast glance at my signature I have to say; Mr. Pot, say hello to Mr. Kettle, play nice.

^This.

Also, of course, KoL, Myrmidonisia, cut it out.

so i vote that we need a fresh thread for tomorrow. this one is old and smells funny.

also, we should call it "tuesday pancake rain and other election day stories"

Do you have even a cursory understanding of American civics? Obama is no more capable of removing a Constitutional Amendment than McCain or any other president. I know fear-mongering is a favorite tactic of those on the right, but you could at least to pretend to understand how the US government works.So it is. So it is. Yet, it is foolish for a person to not realize that there are ways around the Constitution, such as Lincoln not giving citizens of the U.S. the right of habeas corpus and freedom of speech during the American civil war.

It should be noted I like to play with the minds of others and go on random rants for kicks and giggles.

I heard a funny joke today. Forgive me if this has been posted before.

Q: What's the difference between Sarah Palin's mouth and vagina?

A:Only some of what comes out of her vagina is retarded.

What the hell did Obama mean when he said that the fundamentals of the US economy are weak? What... capitalism is weak?

What the hell did Obama mean when he said that the fundamentals of the US economy are weak?

have you not been paying attention?

have you not been paying attention?

Well, the fundamentals of the US economy is free market. How can anybody say that capitalism is weak?

Well, the fundamentals of the US economy is free market. How can anybody say that capitalism is weak?

because, frankly, it is. at least as regards doing what economies are for.

Well, the fundamentals of the US economy is free market. How can anybody say that capitalism is weak?

A: Very easily. One opens one's mouth and forms the words with one's tongue and lips, passing air over them from one's lungs.

B: He probably meant something else when he talked about fundamentals, like say the BANKING SYSTEM or the STOCK MARKET or the HOUSING MARKET. Y'know, one of those fundamental cornerstones of our economy.

Obama's grandmama died this morning. :(

Let's hope it doesn't affect him too much for his last few hours of campaigning and that he'll have time to grieve.

Well, the fundamentals of the US economy is free market.

It is?

So where does the socialization of losses fall under the free market umbrella?

McCain wants to put more nuclear power plants in states with water wars going on. Nuke plants need water and the droughts in America are starting to be like the ones in Australia.

B: He probably meant something else when he talked about fundamentals, like say the BANKING SYSTEM or the STOCK MARKET or the HOUSING MARKET. Y'know, one of those fundamental cornerstones of our economy.

manufacturing, consumer spending, employment rates...
is there anything that looks good currently?

so i vote that we need a fresh thread for tomorrow. this one is old and smells funny.

also, we should call it "tuesday pancake rain and other election day stories"

NOOOOOOOO. We're one of the biggest threads of all time.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/11/electoral-map-o.html


According to the research of compiled state polls by Karl Rove & Co., the hypothetical electoral college numbers suggest an Obama win over the Republican ticket of John McCain and Sarah Palin of 338 electoral votes to 200.

NOOOOOOOO. We're one of the biggest threads of all time.

and it smells extra funny because of it

NOOOOOOOO. We're one of the biggest threads of all time.

5,000 posts or bust!

We'll see. The reputations of polling organizations and media pundits are riding on the election.

You don't know how rational polling works, do you? It doesn't matter if they're "right". It matters if their methodology was accurate.

For example, let's say a pollster, let's call them Shwipp, were to have a sampling that doesn't match the general demographics by, let's say, not actually polling a reasonable number of youths. In that example, it wouldn't matter if their final result actual matched perfectly with overall outcome if their demographic assumptions were invalid.

Similarly, if another pollster assumed the percentage of Dems and percentage of Republicans would match 2004 against all evidence, they'd have flawed methodology no matter how close there were to the actual result.

You don't suddenly have good methodology after the fact. Methodology is defined by the landscape. Your failure to address this is demonstrable. TIPP's failure is pretty obvious to anyone with a passing understanding of science. They've admitted they have their finger on the scale. They didn't find anything wrong with their methodology until AFTER people gave them a hard time for obviously ridiculous results.

Well, the fundamentals of the US economy is free market. How can anybody say that capitalism is weak?

I know you're banned for 24 hours, but the US economy is not completely free market. $700 billion taxpayer-funded corporate bailouts should make that painfully obvious to even the most moronic.

I know you're banned for 24 hours, but the US economy is not completely free market. $700 billion taxpayer-funded corporate bailouts should make that painfully obvious to even the most moronic.
Hell, the lack of a free market starts with the Fed. If the Fed hadn't kept interest rates artificially low, there would never have been the great impetus to buy and build houses and lenders the motivation to make less than well secured loans.

But it's the idea that we need the Fed at all that is counter to the free market.

Hell, the lack of a free market starts with the Fed. If the Fed hadn't kept interest rates artificially low, there would never have been the great impetus to buy and build houses and lenders the motivation to make less than well secured loans.


Because, as everyone knows, there were no houses, no building, no buying, and no lending, before The Fed.


But it's the idea that we need the Fed at all that is counter to the free market.

Which is a good thing.

have you not been paying attention?
It's Ferrous Oxide you're talking to here. When has he ever paid attention?
The man's got the attention span of a goldfish!

oh..shiny red car going past! wheee!
wait, what was I talking about?

Hell, the lack of a free market starts with the Fed. If the Fed hadn't kept interest rates artificially low, there would never have been the great impetus to buy and build houses and lenders the motivation to make less than well secured loans.

But it's the idea that we need the Fed at all that is counter to the free market.

Interest rates didn't cause lending institutions to float bad loans and then package those loans as a securities that could be purchased by stockholders. The fed also didn't do these things. We have the fed for them to control monetary policy to avoid the wonderful "free market" experience of the Great Depression. This had more to do with the banks taking excessive risks and losing on their bets. Now, if we lose money on our stocks the government isn't going to bail us out because we took a large risk. The government only does that with the big fish. The little fish can fry in the pan until they burn to a crisp.

While TIPP has Obama winning, I think they're far, far more accurate than Gallup.

I actually would like a Democrat majority in both Houses, and Obama in the White House.

At that point, any failure to pass any bill, any failure of the government to take necessary action, or the willful negligence or stupidity of the government could never be blamed on a Republican.

Quite unlike any situation where government is divided - in such a situation you can always blame one side or the other. Here, the Republicans can take a permanent vacation, and watch the fireworks.

like the situation that caused the reflux against Republicans right now?

Hell, the lack of a free market starts with the Fed. If the Fed hadn't kept interest rates artificially low, there would never have been the great impetus to buy and build houses and lenders the motivation to make less than well secured loans.

But it's the idea that we need the Fed at all that is counter to the free market.
Didn't we have constant bank failures every few years or so for a long time before we finally adopted the Fed?

I seem to remember learning something like that in history class...

For the record, I love you guys. All of you.


But if I find out any of you fuckers didnt vote, Ill hunt you down and gut you like a fish. Then, Ill impale your corpse in front of my appartment building. Finally, Ill enslave your soul and force it do to my taxes for all of eternity

Im so fucking serious.




































;)

But if I find out any of you fuckers didnt vote, Ill hunt you down and gut you like a fish.

Pfft, I voted weeks ago. Absentee, baby.

For the record, I love you guys. All of you.


But if I find out any of you fuckers didnt vote, Ill hunt you down and gut you like a fish. Then, Ill impale your corpse in front of my appartment building. Finally, Ill enslave your soul and force it do to my taxes for all of eternity

Im so fucking serious.




































;)

This is almost tempting. Then I remember how my family and I have fought for this glorious right and think better of it. Damn you KOL for not letting me ruin your day.

This is almost tempting. Then I remember how my family and I have fought for this glorious right and think better of it. Damn you KOL for not letting me ruin your day.

nah nah nah nah nah nah neener neener neener :p

For the record, I love you guys. All of you.


But if I find out any of you fuckers didnt vote, Ill hunt you down and gut you like a fish. Then, Ill impale your corpse in front of my appartment building. Finally, Ill enslave your soul and force it do to my taxes for all of eternity

Im so fucking serious.




































;)I'mma be the guy wearing the shirt that says, "Too young to vote this year. Leave me alone you bastards!"
:D

like the situation that caused the reflux against Republicans right now?

Shhh, don't pop Hotwife?DK's little soap bubble. It doesn't handle things like personal responsibility and causality well.

Shhh, don't pop Hotwife?DK's little soap bubble. It doesn't handle things like personal responsibility and causality well.

I don't know. I guess I just wanted to point out that the wish he had has already happened right now. My hope is that the Republican party will see a rebirth in the near future. After 8 years of being under the helm on GWB they need to get back to basics.

I don't know. I guess I just wanted to point out that the wish he had has already happened right now. My hope is that the Republican party will see a rebirth in the near future. After 8 years of being under the helm on GWB they need to get back to basics.

I would say that more than rebirth, it needs to give up the ghost and reform itself as something else while ejecting the corruption ridden old guard, the fundamentalist crazies and the Rovian types.

Maybe that way, it would be able to present itself as a political party once again and not a party of self serving zealots.

For the record, I love you guys. All of you.


But if I find out any of you fuckers didnt vote, Ill hunt you down and gut you like a fish. Then, Ill impale your corpse in front of my appartment building. Finally, Ill enslave your soul and force it do to my taxes for all of eternity

Im so fucking serious.




































;)

Ahem, I didn't vote. Yes, I'm serious. I tried to vote early twice, but it turns out that I had to change my address earlier than I thought because I misread the rules. Yeah, I suck like that.

If IL goes red, I'll stab myself.

But if I find out any of you fuckers didnt vote, Ill hunt you down and gut you like a fish. Then, Ill impale your corpse in front of my appartment building. Finally, Ill enslave your soul and force it do to my taxes for all of eternity

http://sinfest.net/comikaze/comics/2008-11-04.gif

Happy ;) ?

Welp, Obama has won the earliest votes on the start of Election Day.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081104/ap_on_el_pr/new_hampshire_first_votes

Let's see how this goes.

Applogies for the rant and slight hijack of the thread. But I am mad. I am a Christian and do belong to some religous forums. But this smacks really hard. I recieved this as one of my messages. The irrational side of me wants to kick back and say that these people are blind egotistical fools that don't know what the hell they are saying. But the rational side of me, tells me to take a breath and breath and to ignore the whole thing. But I am still angry. Anyway this is what I got in my mailbox. Feel free to scoff at it as I am.

NOV. 2, 2008 With the most life altering choice in our Nation’s History before us, join with us as we renew our dedication to these same principles that established our country 233 years ago, on July 4, 1776:



Re-Declaration of Independence to Save Our United States and The Constitution

Declaration 1:

“We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness . . .”



ð Not rights to health care, or rights to property, or rights to welfare---rather the opportunity to obtain them, not to receive them at birth or at citizenship, or as an illegal alien.

ð The Right to Life, the Right to Freedom of Choice in School, Jobs, Creating Small Businesses on a fair playing field

ð The Right to Pursue Our Dreams without Government Bureaucracy at every step and turn; return the bulk of these Rights to the People or their States



Declaration 2:

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should NOT BE CHANGED for light and transient causes . . .”



ð Such as dumping the checks and balances of the 2 party system the middle of last century in favor of a dominating, ruling party of unchecked power, which claims they are the PARTY of CHANGE-- when they have controlled the helm most of the past 7 decades.

ð When this is applied to 100 metropolitan city areas of the United States , 70 of them have been ruled for 2-3 generations by Democratic Mayors and City Councils. It is only a minority of city regions of the country that have had shared or Republican city leadership in our entire lifetimes!



ð Since the Great Depression, Democrats have occupied the White House 40 years in 6 administrations, and the Republicans have occupied the White House 36 years in 6 administrations. How can the Democrat Leadership of both Houses of Congress, which controls the Budget, Committees and Legislative Agenda, be construed as the Republicans “Control” the government. Pres. Bush is the minority! Every monster bail out or tax and spend bill is brought to the floor by the Democrat Party of Control!



ð From 1955--1995, The Democratic Party has controlled BOTH houses of Congress except for the Senate, beginning in 1980-86. The House of Representatives has been controlled by the Democrats continuously except from 1994 to 2006—a total of 42 years of the past 54 years! The Senate was controlled by Democrats during all but 14 of the same 54 years! (1980-86, 1996-2001; 2004-06) To presume that generation after generation of this nation’s problems since the Depression have been under the leadership of Republicans is ficticious! The Democrats have set the agenda for most of the CHANGE and GIGANTIC GROWTH OF GOVERNMENT for most of our citizens’ lifetimes! Not just the past two years!



Declaration 3:

“When a long train of abuses, and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces (proves beyond any doubt) a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security . . .”



ð Therefore, in proper historical perspective, the Democrat Party has been the self-proclaimed party of change and in charge. It has become a “heavy and oppressive cause” reducing government to Despotism with their Socialistic Leadership, and it is the right of the people, the Citizens, to throw off such Government and to return to the Principles of the Constitution.



è Everyone of you who can see clearly this greatest conflict in our nation’s history,

RISE UP AND THROW OF SUCH GOVERNMENT BY VOTING FOR REPUBLICANS

è in your congressional, state, senatorial, and presidential ballots.

---the TRUE PARTY OF FREEDOM & LIBERTY, born in Ripon , Wisconsin 1844, and the Party that led the Abolishment of Slavery.



For those of you desiring to note further oppressions enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, substitute the Party of Power (Democrats and Candidate Obama) for the Tyrant, King George, and you will be amazed at the similarities:



ð “. . . for that purpose, obstructing the Laws of Naturalization of Foreigners . . .”

(not applying the Immigration Laws as Written, by Enforcing them)



“. . . has made Judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their

offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries . . .”

(not interpreting the law, making it by rulings, and Congress not permitting

Pres. Bush to appoint & approve Fed. Judges till they regain White House)



“. . . has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers

to harass our people, and eat out their substance . . .”

(talk about imposing more taxes, creating more government departments,

millions of career government employees which did not exist 3 generations

ago, and who never do as great a job as the private sector)



“. . . for imposing taxes on us without our Consent . . .”

(I have heard most people complain of tax burdens going up most of my

life; in 1950, taxes were approximately 2% or every dollar, now taxes are

nearly 50% of every dollar of the average American—25 times increase

proportionately! ! !



thoughtfully composed by Kevin Branham--Fundamenta list Republican, Conservative, Constitutionalist, in Wisconsin , with permission to pass this on to all True Americans


:mad: :mad: :mad:

Obama won a landslide...in a small little town in New Hampshire. :D

http://sinfest.net/comikaze/comics/2008-11-04.gif


OMG! I didn't study either! What am I going to do??????? :eek:

OMG! I didn't study either! What am I going to do??????? :eek:

Vote Obama. You're being forced too. *Nods*

Vote Obama. You're being forced too. *Nods*

And because if I don't someone might carve an upside down "B" in my face? :p

Applogies for the rant and slight hijack of the thread. But I am mad. I am a Christian and do belong to some religous forums. But this smacks really hard. I recieved this as one of my messages. The irrational side of me wants to kick back and say that these people are blind egotistical fools that don't know what the hell they are saying. But the rational side of me, tells me to take a breath and breath and to ignore the whole thing. But I am still angry. Anyway this is what I got in my mailbox. Feel free to scoff at it as I am.

:mad: :mad: :mad:

You actually read spam?

:mad: :mad: :mad:
Those last two words are kind of irritating.

Here's a weird endorsment-

"...the most important reasons I'm speaking out for Barack Obama are named Robert and Meredith, my two children. My wife Lisa and I talked it over, and honestly, we know in our gut that their future is more secure if Barack Obama is president. At the end of the day, there's just nothing more important than that."
Now, you might be asking yourself, "Who the fuck is Junior Johnson?" and even thinking to yourself, "This better be good, like some insider or behind the scenes important person or something."

First, why you...and second, no, he's not. Shut up.

He's in fact an early NASCAR pioneer, and arguably it's first superstar. Also the guy who packaged the series to sponsors to create an overall championship (originally to Winston cigarettes).

Disclaimer, then the silly.

No, I don't think anyone really should base their decisions on the endorsements of aged racing icons. It's just that NASCAR even now is the lilliest of the whitest sports, and in the 50s and 60s when Johnson was racing...crossing bounds, that's what I'm sayin'...

The silly-

Johnson was a 'bad boy' of racing and was an unrepentant moonrunner. OMG! Obama palls around with illegal moonshine runners! (he was pardoned by Ronald Reagan, the first president to attend a NASCAR race.)

Of course, "The King" Richard Petty endorsed McCain- (http://goodtimepolitics.com/2008/10/11/richard-petty-widely-known-as-the-greatest-driver-in-nascar-history-is-endorsing-john-mccain-for-president/)
“What we need right now in these uncertain times is a steady hand on the wheel — a leader we can trust to put country first, ahead of politics,” Petty said. “John McCain has always done that, and if you need proof, think about the sacrifices he made for America. I don’t think there is any question that John McCain is a proud American and he has done more to better America than anyone.

And that's the completely irrelevant NASCAR endorsement report...

I voted for Nader. Not because I want him to win, but because I want the Independent party to get enough votes for matching funds. My home state always goes democrat, so my vote won't change the outcome.

Applogies for the rant and slight hijack of the thread. But I am mad. I am a Christian and do belong to some religous forums. But this smacks really hard. I recieved this as one of my messages. The irrational side of me wants to kick back and say that these people are blind egotistical fools that don't know what the hell they are saying. But the rational side of me, tells me to take a breath and breath and to ignore the whole thing. But I am still angry. Anyway this is what I got in my mailbox. Feel free to scoff at it as I am.




:mad: :mad: :mad:

Income taxes in the 1950s capped at 88%. 2% on every dollar is bullshit.

You actually read spam?

Yea I knew I was asking for it. And I had steeled myself to be quite angry at the whole thing. It just makes me a bit angry and annoyed that people just don't seem to understand.

While I am on record admitting defeat, Miami Shores proudly votes for President John McCain and Vice President Sarah Palin. My Dog Lobo also voted proudly for John McCain and Sarah Palin. God Bless the USA, we are going to need it once that Liberal Leftist Obama becomes President with a majority in the House and Senate. Remember whatever you may think of me and my vote, it is my democratic right to vote for McCain Palin, just as it is your right to vote for Obama.

with a majority in the House and Senate.

super-majorities

While I am on record admitting defeat, Miami Shores proudly votes for President John McCain and Vice President Sarah Palin. My Dog Lobo also voted proudly for John McCain and Sarah Palin. God Bless the USA, we are going to need it once that Liberal Leftist Obama becomes President with a majority in the House and Senate. Remember whatever you may think of me and my vote, it is my democratic right to vote for McCain Palin, just as it is your right to vote for Obama.
by voted for McCain, I am to take your dog took an almighty shit on your sofa?
It's the dog equivalent of voting for McCain afterall.

Income taxes in the 1950s capped at 88%. 2% on every dollar is bullshit.

Spam lied to us? TEH HORRORER!

Income taxes in the 1950s capped at 88%.

oh noes, teh socialist - mccarthy was right!!!!!!1!!

For the record, I love you guys. All of you.


But if I find out any of you fuckers didnt vote, Ill hunt you down and gut you like a fish. Then, Ill impale your corpse in front of my appartment building. Finally, Ill enslave your soul and force it do to my taxes for all of eternity

Im so fucking serious.

Take a number, KoL. I've already got dibs on their hides.

My Dogs Lobo s" who passed away years ago voted Proudly for President John McCain and Vice President Sarah Palin, lol. Rest in peace and thanks for your votes my loyal friends.

My second Lobo was a large boned pure bred Gernan Sheppard as well as my first Lobo. A police officer friend of mine in Miami who worked with police dogs directly imported from Germany got one for me. Lobo-Wolf.

After Lobo II passed away I burried him in the back yard and marked his grave. I cried many times near his grave. I dreamed my wife dug him out of his grave. Lobo came out nice and healthy running around the yard wagging his tail happy to see us all. After the dream I removed the marker. I still honor their memory as part of my e-mail. i decided not to have anymore dogs is to painful when you have to let them go. Rest in peace my loyal friends.

I think admitting to voter fraud is now the stupidest thing anyone on this forum has done.

I think admitting to voter fraud is now the stupidest thing anyone on this forum has done.

Repeatedly

Additionally, he prematurely called him President. This is the political equivalent of putting your hands on the conference championship trophy; a jinx that will forbid you the Stanley Cup.

Additionally, he prematurely called him President. This is the political equivalent of putting your hands on the conference championship trophy; a jinx that will forbid you the Stanley Cup.

Is this the same jinx that follows if you say Macbeth before preforming it? :p

Is this the same jinx that follows if you say Macbeth before preforming it? :p

It's a similar permutation, yes.

It's a similar permutation, yes.

Good. I hope McCain says President Obama twenty times over today and tomorrow too.

:)

Good. I hope McCain says President Obama twenty times over today and tomorrow too.

:)

It's not a jinx if you're doing it that way, sorry.