2008 U.S. Presidential Election Mega thread

[Paul McEnery]

I'll give you a nickel for every official state sanctioned count that ever showed him in the lead in popular votes in Florida.

And that right there is the hidden dishonesty.

Because EXACTLY THE ISSUE TAKEN OFF THE TABLE BY THE SUPREME COURT was whether there should be a further state-sanctioned count.

[Paul McEnery]

Never happen. Her husband was impeached and disbarred for lying under oath and suborning perjury, she defended him. They are married politically as well as legally.

If she had divorced him, perhaps.

Oh, hey, wait a sec.

I thought we were supposed to believe that Clinton suffered no shame or punishment through the impeachment.

Surely you're not turning that back around, are you?

[Paul McEnery]

When you settle for the lesser of two evils, what you end up with is both lesser and evil.

It's because Americans as a whole have no imagination that things could be otherwise, that we're saddled with such terrible candidates, and terrible presidents.

The biggest tragedy is that the best we can do, as a nation, is to look for the guy liable to fuck up the least. That ain't gonna change overnight. I do hope it CAN change.

I don't think so at all, actually.

We have to look at this as an economy of scale.

Let's look at some other marketing first, though. VHS beat Beta-Max, but Beta-Max was the better product. We're going through the same nonsense over Blue Ray and High-Definition, but this time nobody cares, because we know that both of them are obsolete before they even started, because solidstate hard disk with streamed media is the solution that has already won.

Now we can complain that VHS was the lesser evil if we like, but there's not much point. The point is to innovate until you get an actual good solution.

So the point is, voting between two candidates for President is a lot like caring about VHS vs. BetaMax (I can't even remember if it's got a hyphen or not). They're two 20th Century concepts that are falling over already. Nevertheless, the current shape of the market says that one of the two will dominate -- because politics in America is exactly market politics in the same way that the culture of America is business.

Going sideways again, Presidential candidates are like washing powders. You have to market them to the majority of Americans, not to minority interests. This inevitably means one of two things: either you'll end up with a splendid mediocrity who occupies the centre, or you'll end up with a right wing extremist who faked being a splendid mediocrity.

Clinton and Obama are both splendid mediocrities. That's their job. It's a category error to worry about them not being Nader enough, and one that Nader himself makes. That's not what the election is about. The election is about whether people want an orange box for their washing powder or a blue box for their washing powder. Ralph is mistakenly trying to sell people an entirely different product.

And you know, Ralph is a great Ralph, but he'd be a terrible president, in the same way that I wouldn't want Johnny Cash singing opera.

Sure, we want politics in America to change, but that ain't how it actually can change, any more than you can retrofit an SUV as a hang-glider.

[Buzz Dixon]

Though of course Wahabism is far from the only armed man willing to kill civilians to get its way.

Perhaps we might want to divide the world less between the Israelis and the Americans on the one hand and the Muslims on the other. Perhaps we ought to divide the world into armed bastards who kill children to get their way, and the rest of us.

Because every time you say it's just the Wahabists, you're as good as pulling the trigger yourself.Point taken; I picked Wahabism because it is currently the ideology that Islamic terrorists are proclaiming and they are the ones instigating the violence.

[Buzz Dixon]

And that right there is the hidden dishonesty.

Because EXACTLY THE ISSUE TAKEN OFF THE TABLE BY THE SUPREME COURT was whether there should be a further state-sanctioned count.=ahem= It didn't get to the Supreme Court until AFTER Florida had two official recounts.











































...none of which Gore won.

[Buzz Dixon]

Oh, hey, wait a sec.

I thought we were supposed to believe that Clinton suffered no shame or punishment through the impeachment.

Surely you're not turning that back around, are you?I never said that. I said his desire to escape shame was not legally sufficient to excuse a felony. And he was punished insofar as he lost his license to practice law as well as the civil suit against him.

Not to mention the only quotes from him that anybody remembers are:

"I never inhaled"

"I did not have sex with that woman."

"That depends on what your definition of the word 'is' is."

On the last one alone, anyone who did not repudiate him at that point is unfit for any judiciary post.

[Corrina]

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/12VOTE.html?ex=1212984000&en=42a87a07d4ee3ab5&ei=5070

The paragraph that interests me:
But the consortium, looking at a broader group of rejected ballots than those covered in the court decisions, 175,010 in all, found that Mr. Gore might have won if the courts had ordered a full statewide recount of all the rejected ballots.

---Now, if you read the whole article, it states at the beginning that Bush still would have won if those ballots disputed in the court decisions were counted.

What has never been established is what would have happened if a full statewide recount were done. The best that can be said is that it's a tie.

I accept the Supreme Court's decision. I don't like it but we're a nation of laws and I accept it. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean I can't hold the opinion that if a FULL statewide recount were done, Gore would have won.

However, what concerns me more right now is this election: what's been done to make sure ballots in all states are properly counted? I would be very curious to know that.

[JamesRitcheyIII]

And you kill killers with other killers. If Wahabism was willing to confine itself to pure intellectual debates to win the hearts and minds of Islamic believers and convert others, that would be perfectly all right. The fact that Islamic terrorists willing to plant car bombs in markets crowded with women and children means they are beyond the pale and should be eliminated as swiftly as possible.

If we can catch 'em without killing 'em, fine. But if one encourages others to blow themselves up and kill innocent civilians to promote Wahabism, feign no surprise when the U.S. and/or the Israelis come a'calling.


Sure, kill the killers, imprison the evildoers. I'm all for it--but do it with the same nobility and conscience that we'd like to be afforded ourselves. It looks better, we not only reverse negative perceptions and recruitment by religions bigots, we feel better. Our actions are perceived as noble, even by our enemies. You don't defeat benighted ideas with guns--you defeat them with enlightened behavior and example. Doing away with Habeas Corpus for people with brown skin with Arab-sounding names is without honor and cowardly--in a country that has 2/3rds of the lawyers in the world, the administration are too big of pussies to think we couldn't actually punish those guilty? There is serious doubt as to the guilt of many of them, and not only outside of our country. Who would know? I wonder how many of the Japanese Americans held in detention in WWII were guilty? What's that quote--? Repeating the same mistakes and expecting a different outcome each time being the very definition of insanity? Another is "Work smart, not hard.".

As far as the other shit, if Iraq had had a standing army of a million, we'd have gotten our asses handed to us before that 'Mission Accomplished' sign went up. The enemy knew what was happening around them, Abu Graib--people fucking randomly being taken from their homes and put into detention. Our behavior was the best recruitment poster Al Qaida could have had. 'Facts on the ground', as they say. Another fact, is that Saddam, begged, pleaded with the administration not to do this, offered any concession--including immediate general elections with his name off the ballot. Go figure.

Behaving with nobility to all men, even 'The Barbarians', is a better strategy for winning wars than a satellite link targeting system, long term. No amount of bigoted slander and rabble-rousing can stand long against common human decency, exhibited. Hopefully, you wouldn't set a bag of shit on fire on your neighbor's front porch, or shoot his dog as a warning, as a method of securing use of his lawnmower. Negativity begets negativity, and you can't win a war of ideas with guns.

The whole fucking east see us the guy with a BAAAD reputation who comes uninvited with a sidearm to the BYOB party, and who drinks everybody's beer (having brought none). After everyone has left he asks if he could sleep in the spare bedroom for a few weeks until he gets on his feet--while counting out a wallet full of 100 dollar bills. He then keeps talking about how much better his house in Brooklyn was than this dump, makes comments that come off as racist--directed at you, and 'politely' suggests changes, while cleaning his vintage Luger.

[LtMarvel]

Both, since excusing #42 for multiple felonies only sent a signal to #43 that he would not be held accountable.

Think about it: If the Senate had done its duty and removed #42 for lying under oath and suborning perjury, it would have set a standard that subsequent presidents would have been acutely aware of.

And as for the lawsuit itself, remember #42 wasn't being sued because he harassed Ms Jones, he was being sued because he refused to support her testimony that they had not had sex. #42 could have issued a statement saying he did not have sex with her but could not corroborate the other portions of her story, he could have refused to testify at all and would have received only an $80,000 judgment against him (the maximum allowed by Arkansas law in a default).

Instead, he chose to drag the whole country into his sociopathic psychodrama, dodging repeated attempts at an out of court settlement. The man clearly has mental and emotional problems, and the fact that Hillary supported in running for public office instead of getting him the professional help he so desperately needs is just one of many excellent reasons why she should never be president.
It was a meritless* lawsuit funded by enemies of Clinton. If Bill Clinton had a different job, the suit would have never been funded. The impeachment itself was widely decried by historians (nowhere close to level of crime called for in the US Constitution).

I don't blame Clinton for not wanting to reward these people. It may have been a mistake, but I understand the principle.

*As ruled by the judge.

The current Bush/Cheney administration decried the loss of executive power, and have pulled every trick in the book to try to strengthen the Presidency. I find it hard to believe that an impeached President would have even slowed this President down.

I suspect that the voting population would have be so upset over the impeachment that Gore would have been reelected President easily over Bush.

[LtMarvel]

I should also note that more people voted for Gore than Bush in Florida.

[section 8]

In Fl only one vote counted
Katleen Harris'

[Charles RB]

You don't vote because someone has earned your support.

The general principle is that is why you vote for them. That's why the candidates go around visiting places, talking to groups, replying to mail (well, getting interns to do it), stating their policies on Issue X, having marketing people et al, et al. Simply going "I'm less likely to be evil than the current guy!" didn't get the Democrats anywhere in 2004, or the Lib Dems anywhere in 2001 or 2005 (the useless sods).

Though I agree massively on the "probs with the Nader argument" post.

We're going through the same nonsense over Blue Ray and High-Definition, but this time nobody cares, because we know that both of them are obsolete before they even started, because solidstate hard disk with streamed media is the solution that has already won

Well, I & others I know don't care because we're perfectly happy with DVDs and don't want to have to replace our DVD collections.

And you kill killers with other killers.

It should be noted we also make deals with killers, both in a general sense and in Iraq & Afghanistan where we're dealing with some of the militias as allies. (I personally think that's the wrong move in those countries though - the domestic governments are shaky, especially in Iraq, and this just undercuts them.)


Win over independents and Republicans if possible while ensuring you don't lose any of your base (this will be key in the coming months)

How do you win the Republicans over without losing your base though? I'd assume you'd focus on economic issues, and maybe Iraq if you could find a way to sell phased withdrawals to them as not "cutting & running".

[Paul McEnery]

The general principle is that is why you vote for them. That's why the candidates go around visiting places, talking to groups, replying to mail (well, getting interns to do it), stating their policies on Issue X, having marketing people et al, et al. Simply going "I'm less likely to be evil than the current guy!" didn't get the Democrats anywhere in 2004, or the Lib Dems anywhere in 2001 or 2005 (the useless sods).

Hang on.

That's what I said.

Which is different from being "entitled" to a vote. Which is the same thing that is sinking the UK Labour Party right now, as it sank the Tories before.

So I'm probably (after all) saying something very similar to Pink Bat, but just seeing it from a different angle.


Well, I & others I know don't care because we're perfectly happy with DVDs and don't want to have to replace our DVD collections.

How last century is that!


How do you win the Republicans over without losing your base though? I'd assume you'd focus on economic issues, and maybe Iraq if you could find a way to sell phased withdrawals to them as not "cutting & running".

The job's already done. 60 some percent want out. I'm assuming that some of them must be Republicans.

Phased and careful withdrawal is currently the thought of the day. Can't just stay forever, have to ease out of there to avoid the whole thing going Ker-Plunk.

Which (as one might expect) is exactly the policy Obama committed to.

[Charles RB]

Hang on.

That's what I said.

Sorry, must've misread.

[rick]

Not holding back isn't working either, and I don't recall it working back in 2004 either. I do recall it pissing people off (as it's done here) and make them dig in, the opposite result of what you were going for.


I was 100% correct in 2004 about what would happen if the Republicans were re-elected and I am 100% right about what will happen if the Republicans win now.

So while I guess I could try a little diplomacy, the truth is that when I see people make a free decision to support evil and to do it for no reason other than spite, I just find it next to impossible not to treat them like the bad citizens they are.

Honestly, I wish I could find it in myself to pat Dazz on the back, tell him that I understand his disappointment and then try to gently move him back toward doing what is right.

But my problem here is that Dazz is not an idiot.

I’ve been in enough discussions with him to know without any doubts that he understands what the next election means.

And to see someone who knows the stakes, but is still willing, just because his first choice didn’t get the nomination, to ignore the actual repercussions of what a Republican victory means, and to turn his back on the only real hope of resorting our rights and liberties, let alone save a few thousand more American lives and God only knows how many more Iraqis, it’s just real hard not to treat him with the utter contempt that he’s earned.

Still, you are quite correct that I am not helping him to see the “error” of his ways, so I will stop figuratively hitting him upside the head about it and let the more diplomatic folks out here try to convince him.

But for all of you people out there who think that we should all be friendly and nice about the election, just keep in mind what being polite, decent and above the tactics of the other side got us last time.

So I will say it one more time.

You are either for the war or against it.

You are either for the Constitution or against it.

There is no middle ground, there is no diplomatic choice.

You are either one or the other and there is no space in-between.

[section 8]

anyway, to change the subject a bit.

Obama's VP running mate will likely be Bill Richardson,
For those of you who do not know, Richardson jumped ship from supporting Clinton to endorsing Obama, this is a violation of the second unwritten rule of politics, "dance with the one who brought you to the ball" (the First being "Do not get caught")

either Richardson was dumb enough, to break it simply because he likes Obama,

Or he was smart enough to see Obama would get the nomination,

Or most likely he was promised a VP spot, or at least a cabinate position.

If Obama Does not choose Richardson or Clinton, he will choose John Edwards,
Edwards has a relatively clean and respectible career in politics, and would appeal to McCains Target Demographic, garnering more undecided, and "swing" votes for Obama in the general election.

[Adam C]

And you kill killers with other killers. If Wahabism was willing to confine itself to pure intellectual debates to win the hearts and minds of Islamic believers and convert others, that would be perfectly all right. The fact that Islamic terrorists willing to plant car bombs in markets crowded with women and children means they are beyond the pale and should be eliminated as swiftly as possible.


...but if you back military strength WITH genuinely American ideas like honor, respect of other sovereignties and equal justice for all men...

Note that he's not ruling out military strength so much as advocating re-centering American foreign policy along ethical lines as the most productive way to achieve the long-term goal of defeating extremism in the Middle East.

[rick]

anyway, to change the subject a bit.

Obama's VP running mate will likely be Bill Richardson....


And to go along with that change of subject, I think that you are very likely right, and I also think it would be a good choice.

Obama is farily weak among Latino voters, plus Richardsons relative popularity in Western States like Colorado, New Mexico and yes, even Arizonia, could actually be of real help on election day.

[Samurai]

So I will say it one more time.

You are either for WINNING the war or against WINNING it. (If you are for winning it, vote McCain. If you are for losing, vote Obama)

You are either for the Constitution or against it. (If you are for upholding the Constitution, and judges who will do the same, vote McCain. If you think the Constitution is a quaint atavism to be ignored when needed and want judges that believe the same, vote Obama)

There is no middle ground, there is no diplomatic choice.

You are either one or the other and there is no space in-between.

I clarified it for you...

[section 8]

And to go along with that change of subject, I think that you are very likely right, and I also think it would be a good choice.

Obama is farily weak among Latino voters, plus Richardsons relative popularity in Western States like Colorado, New Mexico and yes, even Arizonia, could actually be of real help on election day.

i dont know Bill hails from New Mexico

have you been there lately?

[rick]

I clarified it for you...


Ah Sam, you know I've been trying to not argue with you.

But you can't win a war that has shifting objectives.

[rick]

i dont know Bill hails from New Mexico

have you been there lately?


Yeah, one of my Daughters and the Grandkid lives in Albuquerque.

The place leaves me less than impressed.

Still keep in mind I did say "relative" popularity.

[section 8]

Yeah, one of my Daughters and the Grandkid lives in Albuquerque.

The place leaves me less than impressed.

Still keep in mind I did say "relative" popularity.

either way put me down as predicting Richardson or Edwards For Obama.

As for McCain, i'm gonna guess Gulliani, or Romney.

[rick]

either way put me down as predicting Richardson or Edwards For Obama.

As for McCain, i'm gonna guess Gulliani, or Romney.

I doubt it would be Rudy.

He's more "liberal" than McCain is and for the Sen to get the kind of votes he needs, he's going to need someone a bit more conservative.

I'm, betting he goes for someone younger and from the South, such as Rep. Patrick McHenry or very possibly Lousiana Governor Bobby Jindal.

[Charles RB]

I clarified it for you...

Why should we believe McCain will "win it"?

[Crowley]

I clarified it for you...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKFL-Mz4rto

[Samurai]

John Bolton on "Obama the Naive":

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-bolton5-2008jun05,0,5282011.story

Obama the naive
His views on world affairs ignore history and imperil the U.S. and our allies.
By John R. Bolton
June 5, 2008


Barack Obama's willingness to meet with the leaders of rogue states such as Iran and North Korea "without preconditions" is a naive and dangerous approach to dealing with the hard men who run pariah states. It will be an important and legitimate issue for policy debate during the remainder of the presidential campaign.

Consider his facile observations about President Kennedy's first meeting with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev, in Vienna in 1961. Obama saw it as a meeting that helped win the Cold War, when in fact it was an embarrassment for the American side. The inexperienced Kennedy performed so poorly that Khrushchev may well have been encouraged to position Soviet missiles in Cuba in 1962, thus precipitating one of the Cold War's most dangerous crises.

Such realities should cause Obama to become more circumspect, minimizing his off-the-cuff observations about history, grand strategy and diplomacy. In fact, he has done exactly the opposite, exhibiting so many gaps in his knowledge and understanding of world affairs that they have not yet received the attention they deserve. He consistently reveals failings in foreign policy that are far more serious than even his critics had previously imagined.

Consider the following statement, which was lost in the controversy over his comments about negotiations: "Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. ... Iran, they spend 1/100th of what we spend on the military. If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance."

Let's dissect this comment. Obama is correct that the rogue states he names do not present the same magnitude of threat as that posed by the Soviet Union through the possibility of nuclear war. Fortunately for us all, general nuclear war never took place. Nonetheless, serious surrogate struggles between the superpowers abounded because the Soviet Union's threat to the West was broader and more complex than simply the risk of nuclear war. Subversion, guerrilla warfare, sabotage and propaganda were several of the means by which this struggle was waged, and the stakes were high, even, or perhaps especially, in "tiny" countries.

In the Western Hemisphere, for example, the Soviets used Fidel Castro's Cuba to assist revolutionary activities in El Salvador and Nicaragua. In Western Europe, vigorous Moscow-directed communist parties challenged the democracies on their home turfs. In Africa, numerous regimes depended on Soviet military assistance to stay in power, threaten their neighbors or resist anti-communist opposition groups.

Both sides in the Cold War were anxious to keep these surrogate struggles from going nuclear, so the stakes were never "civilizational." But to say that these "asymmetric" threats were "tiny" would be news to those who struggled to maintain or extend freedom's reach during the Cold War.

Had Italy, for example, gone communist during the 1950s or 1960s, it would have been an inconvenient defeat for the United States but a catastrophe for the people of Italy. An "asymmetric" threat to the U.S. often is an existential threat to its friends, which was something we never forgot during the Cold War. Obama plainly seems to have entirely missed this crucial point. Ironically, it is he who is advocating a unilateralist policy, ignoring the risks and challenges to U.S. allies when the direct threat to us is, in his view, "tiny."

What is implicit in Obama's reference to "tiny" threats is that they are sufficiently insignificant that negotiations alone can resolve them. Indeed, he has gone even further, arguing that the lack of negotiations with Iran caused the threats: "And the fact that we have not talked to them means that they have been developing nuclear weapons, funding Hamas, funding Hezbollah."

This is perhaps the most breathtakingly naive statement of all, implying as it does that it is actually U.S. policy that motivates Iran rather than Iran's own perceived ambitions and interests. That would be news to the mullahs in Tehran, not to mention the leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah.

It is an article of faith for Obama, and many others on the left in the U.S. and abroad, that it is the United States that is mostly responsible for the world's ills. In 1984, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Jeane Kirkpatrick labeled people with these views the "San Francisco Democrats," after the city where Walter Mondale was nominated for president.

Most famously, Kirkpatrick forever seared the San Francisco Democrats by saying that "they always blame America first" for the world's problems. In so doing, she turned the name of the pre-World War II isolationist America First movement into a stigma the Democratic Party has never shaken.

This is yet another piece of history that Obama has ignored or never learned. There may be one more piece of history worthy of attention: In 1984, Mondale went down to one of the worst electoral defeats in American political history. We will now see whether Obama follows that path as well.

John R. Bolton is the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. He is now a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of "Surrender Is Not an Option."

[Adam C]

John Bolton on "Obama the Naive":

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-bolton5-2008jun05,0,5282011.story

Y'know you really should co-ordinate your propaganda with Bri, because he already posted that bit of self-serving, fatuous nonsense to overwhelming indifference. Just thought you should know.

[Crowley]

Yeah meeting with enemies is always a bad idea:
http://pastorsteveweaver.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/reagan-gorbachev.jpg

[section 8]

I doubt it would be Rudy.

He's more "liberal" than McCain is and for the Sen to get the kind of votes he needs, he's going to need someone a bit more conservative.

I'm, betting he goes for someone younger and from the South, such as Rep. Patrick McHenry or very possibly Lousiana Governor Bobby Jindal.

or Linsey Ghram, or Mark Sanford ( quite possibly Sanford)

[Kyuubi]

John Bolton on "Obama the Naive":

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-bolton5-2008jun05,0,5282011.story



You are evil like a Hobbit.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

I clarified it for you...

Interesting how that logic can cut both ways.

[Samurai]

Yet another former terrorist turns out to be friends and have business dealings with Obama: Rashid Khalidi.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/07/video-hannity-on-the-obama-khalidi-connection/

[Samurai]

You are evil like a Hobbit.

Hobbits aren't evil at all! They're harmless little fuzzballs... :)

[Paul McEnery]

Yet another former terrorist turns out to be friends and have business dealings with Obama: Rashid Khalidi.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/07/video-hannity-on-the-obama-khalidi-connection/

Is it a bannable offence to falsely accuse people of being terrorists? Because I think it should be.

And we're not in non-moderated territory here.

[king mob]

John Bolton on "Obama the Naive":

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-bolton5-2008jun05,0,5282011.story


Do you really think that an unpleasant lying bastard like Bolton is right about anything?

[king mob]

Yet another former terrorist turns out to be friends and have business dealings with Obama: Rashid Khalidi.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/07/video-hannity-on-the-obama-khalidi-connection/

Yes, you wouldn't want anyone serving in an American government who has dealings with terrorists.

http://www.bhopal.net/otherbhopals/archives/saddam+rumsfeld.jpg

[cactusmaac]

Why would Hillary want a cabinet position where she can be fired and must take orders over a safe Senate seat where she has her own power? Granted, not as much as President, but still.....

Your power in the Senate is determined by your seniority and Hillary's only been there for eight years. You can get more done by having a Cabinet position. Jon Corzine even quit the Senate to run as Governor because he realised it would take decades to get anywhere. Hillary probably only ran for Senate as a springboard to the presidency.

[Corrina]

Is it a bannable offence to falsely accuse people of being terrorists? Because I think it should be.

And we're not in non-moderated territory here.

We are. Kevin asked Gail for an unmoderated election thread and he got it.

[Charles RB]

I'm not even touching Samurai's post because... well, fucking HELL.

[Adam C]

I'm not even touching Samurai's post because... well, fucking HELL.

Considering that relying on Daniel Pipes as a source for anything remotely related to Muslims is like asking a member the KKK about blacks...yeah.

[the4thpip]

When you settle for the lesser of two evils, what you end up with is both lesser and evil.


That's cute. It's also dangerous, bizarro-world bull shit thinking that led to countless deaths in Iraq.

[KevinTBrown]

And McCain's anger issues come to the forefront: http://dyn.politico.com/members/forums/thread.cfm?catid=1&subcatid=2&threadid=874603


EDITED TO ADD:

Here's the Washington Post article mentioned in that previous link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/19/AR2008041902224_pf.html

I also find this piece in the Politco article somewhat amusing:
McCain and his campaign are unhappy, this source suggested, at where they find themselves heading into the general election.

“They’re mad at the situation and at a candidate who they correctly feel hasn’t earned his place in history, much less the right to run for president.”

"Correctly feel"? :rolleyes:

[Michael P]

Here I was under the impression that the right to run for President was conferred upon anyone who was a natural-born citizen, a permanent resident for at least 14 years, and at least 35 years old.

[rick]

Yet another former terrorist turns out to be friends and have business dealings with Obama: Rashid Khalidi.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/07/video-hannity-on-the-obama-khalidi-connection/


It makes perfect sense that this hit piece is off of a web site named Hot Air.

I guess that this is going to be a Islamofascist week instead of a Crazy Nigger one?

While I do know that this kind of red meat propaganda plays well with the base, I’m actually kind of doubtful about what kind, if any, impact this kind of silliness has on that 2 or 3 percent that will actually swing the election in most states.

Still, Obama must be really scary to the Right that they are so willing to dive into straight out racist behavior in their attempts to weaken him. Granted nobody anywhere near the actual McCain campaign would have any fingerprints on it, but it’s really good to see you guys are afraid.

I like that.

[Sabrinaset]

http://www.cagle.com/working/080606/matson.jpg

[Crowley]

Yet another former terrorist turns out to be friends and have business dealings with Obama: Rashid Khalidi.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/07/video-hannity-on-the-obama-khalidi-connection/

wow what a bunch of bullshit.

[JamesRitcheyIII]

And McCain's anger issues come to the forefront: http://dyn.politico.com/members/foru...hreadid=874603 (http://dyn.politico.com/members/forums/thread.cfm?catid=1&subcatid=2&threadid=874603)


EDITED TO ADD:

Here's the Washington Post article mentioned in that previous link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...902224_pf.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/19/AR2008041902224_pf.html)

I also find this piece in the Politco article somewhat amusing:
Quote:
"McCain and his campaign are unhappy, this source suggested, at where they find themselves heading into the general election.

“They’re mad at the situation and at a candidate who they correctly feel hasn’t earned his place in history, much less the right to run for president.”
"Correctly feel"? :rolleyes:

I'm glad that the Right are policing our feelings, now. Thank Jah that 'free will' BS is over.
Maybe call it 'Gut Correctness'--? :smile:

Obama not only has the right to run for office, he's likely our only logical choice for repairing the corrupt debacle that Washington has become, in our lifetimes.

McCain's speech the other day really made him look like a smarmy, 'Tenured' political fat-cat, a real Boss Tweed, or--more worthy of Claude Rains role--Senator Paine--in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington", since he is in the corporate/big oil/big arms pocket. Bunch of parallels in that movie, actually...

I think it would be a good first step to replacing the career politicians who are out of touch with the common American, with men and women of conscience, who see the big picture, and value all lives.

[KevinTBrown]

http://www.cagle.com/working/080606/matson.jpg

Yeah, it's funny.... but now it's time to move away from Clinton and on to the General Election. :smile:

[Pink Bat Maxine]

That's cute. It's also dangerous, bizarro-world bull shit thinking that led to countless deaths in Iraq.

Because You Say So, of course.

[Nick Soapdish]

You should feel the guilt. You failed to recogonize the danger that is GW Bush with the title POTUS.

Nuh-uh. I don't believe in voting solely to keep somebody out of office. He was obviously a poor candidate, but 9/11 and the spinelessness of the Democrats in Congress is what made him dangerous.

Yeah, but rather than just say 'Nader Bad', let's look at how and why there were people disenfranchised enough for Gore to lose them.... in indeed, they ever would have voted for Gore in the first place, which many say they would not have.


He was holding off on a position about an airport in Homestead near the Everglades, hoping that he could keep environmentalist support and get some Cuban-American support since they were the primary inhabitants of the Eight-and-a-Half-Mile Area, a section that was outside of the flood protection zone and was not initially guaranteed to be protected from being built in a floodplain.

There had been a plan to buy the homeowners out, but there was also a plan to build an airport in the area which would mandate flood protection in the area and allow the homeowners to keep their land and get flood protection.

Gore killed a pro-airport study so he figured that he had the support and could waffle on it. But people weren't buying it and he had to cancel a few rallies on his environmental record in South Florida out of fear of it getting protested. Nader took pains to campaign against Gore on the issue.

I think that Gore's attempt to have it both ways did cost him votes (some estimate 10,000 on the airport issue alone) and he didn't get any Cuban-American votes.

Four days before Clinton left office, the administration announced its decision on the airport and rejected it.

After the election, he did

[Sabrinaset]

Because You Say So, of course.

Funny, I was about to say that to KevinTBrown!

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Funny, I was about to say that to KevinTBrown!

I'll get some tee-shirts printed up with that on it.

[KevinTBrown]

Ah yes, the love. :smile:

[Pink Bat Maxine]

We are. Kevin asked Gail for an unmoderated election thread and he got it.

Wait.....





This shit's unmoderated?



*ahem*

Y'ALL ARE POOPHEADS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

...ahhh, that feels good.

[rick]

Because You Say So, of course.


No, it's because its true.

[Crowley]

Because You Say So, of course.

Well... not because he said so... but because IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

You can vote for whomever you want, but you can't deny the consequences of poor choices.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

No, it's because its true.

And it's true....... Because You Say So.

Whatever, Rick. You got only one way you wanna see things, and nobody's gonna crack open that closed mind. So I'll go on betraying the United States Of America by thinking for myself, thanks. Someone's gotta.

[rick]

And it's true....... Because You Say So.

Whatever, Rick. You got only one way you wanna see things, and nobody's gonna crack open that closed mind. So I'll go on betraying the United States Of America by thinking for myself, thanks.


Don't twist my words Maxine, it makes you look like a Republican.

It is really simple, you are either for the war or against it. You are either for the constitution or against it.

If you vote for the Republicans or even for a third party candidate this election, you are voting to support the war and to shred the constitution.

It isn't about thinking for yourself. It's about thinking for yourself and then making the choice that betrays everything you have always said that you believe in.

You might not like that I’m in your face about it, but you also have not written a single thing to demonstrate that what I am saying is not the truth.

[Dazzler]

This has now become about debating the voter instead of the candidate. For every one thing said about Barack Obama being the right choice, five things are said about not voting for him being UnAmerican.

It's ridiculous.

--Dazz

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Don't twist my words Maxine, it makes you look like a Republican.

It is really simply, you are either for the war or against it. You are either for the constitution or against it.

If you vote for the Republicans or even for a third party candidate this election, you are voting to support the war and to shred the constitution.

It isn't about thinking for yourself. It's about thinking for yourself and then making the choice that betrays everything you have always said that you believe in.

You might not like that I’m in your face about it, but you also have not written a single thing to demonstrate that what I am saying is not the truth.

Because in your world Democrats=The Protectors of the Constitution and Republicans=The Defilers Of The Constitution.

In your world, Obama will correct all wrongs. Because he says he is.

But the defiling of the constitution and the war come about as a result of Corporate ownership of the election process, and they donate to both major parties alike. Yeah, Obama wants to pull out 'combat troops' which he will then replace with, what's he calling them.... support troops? And the killing will continue unabated. And the war continues. The rich continue to get rich, and the poor get fucked. Voting for Obama is voting to enable the continuance of war and imperialism. Your naivity makes it easier to be taken advantage of.

He's gonna support the constitution? Every president says they're gonna. It's part of the oath of office. Historically, very few do, and it doesn't fall along party lines either.

The only political constant in my lifetime has been the division between rich and poor, and the power of the corporation over the power of the individual.

Obama wants my vote? He needs to prove that 'Change I can believe in' is a reversal of this trend. And he needs to work on the underlying issues that undercut our democracy, and have been for at least the last quarter century. 'Cause if he doesn't do this, then there's gonna be a next war, and a next one, and one after THAT that is waged to plunder natural resources from a region, and spread the power of corporate interests. And those who vote Obama will be JUST as guilty.

(Which is to say, not guilty; the guilt for a crime falls squarely on the shoulders of the CRIMINAL.)

So yeah, Obama? He has a way to go. His whole not-taking-donations-from-PACs is a great first step, but he's got more work to do.

[Crowley]

okay this is becoming tedious and I don't want to run the "pink bat & dazz vs. everybody" show again.

I hope you both change your minds but ultimately this has become circular with no real reason or logic being applied.

[Crowley]

Yet another former terrorist turns out to be friends and have business dealings with Obama: Rashid Khalidi.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/07/video-hannity-on-the-obama-khalidi-connection/

He also has ties to Commie sympathizer Santa Claus:

http://cache.jezebel.com/assets/resources/2008/03/slide5-barry.jpg

[Paul McEnery]

This has now become about debating the voter instead of the candidate. For every one thing said about Barack Obama being the right choice, five things are said about not voting for him being UnAmerican.

It's ridiculous.

--Dazz

And about bloody time is my point of view. Because last I looked, this was still a democracy, and not just for the people but by the people. I mean, I know that voting for a President is just like ratifying a King for four years, and that's why the office should be eliminated, but until that happens...

[KevinTBrown]

We are. Kevin asked Gail for an unmoderated election thread and he got it.
Yep.

I just looked back at my original post when I started this thread and I saw I was not as clear as I should been.

We are unmoderated here. Once the election is over and done with the Mods can do with this thread what they will. Keep it open, lock it, merge it with the other political thread.

[Paul McEnery]

Because in your world Democrats=The Protectors of the Constitution and Republicans=The Defilers Of The Constitution..

Essentialist thinking.

Current state of play in the real world is that the Republican Party is under the control of far right extremists, and McCain is cap-in-hand to genocidal maniacs and has all but committed us to a war in Iran.

I mean, sure, it's time for Obama to get more specific in public about his policies, but I've already heard in his Minnesota speech the broad strokes that I want attended to -- healthcare, out of Iraq, environment, energy policy. It doesn't go as far as I want, but I don't expect it to, because I'm a sight more radical than the average voter.

Whereas McCain has always been a reactionary, whose approach to almost every vote has been against my interests, and is now owned by his own party's extremists.

That's a pretty clear cut choice to me.

[Paul McEnery]

Nuh-uh. I don't believe in voting solely to keep somebody out of office. He was obviously a poor candidate, but 9/11 and the spinelessness of the Democrats in Congress is what made him dangerous.

Yeah, but that's not really true.

Yes, 9/11 gave him the means and opportunity, but the motive was already there. What we voted for with Bush was actually Team Cheney and the PNAC. And they were always dangerous.

And they still are.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Essentialist thinking.

Current state of play in the real world is that the Republican Party is under the control of far right extremists, and McCain is cap-in-hand to genocidal maniacs and has all but committed us to a war in Iran.

I mean, sure, it's time for Obama to get more specific in public about his policies, but I've already heard in his Minnesota speech the broad strokes that I want attended to -- healthcare, out of Iraq, environment, energy policy. It doesn't go as far as I want, but I don't expect it to, because I'm a sight more radical than the average voter.

Whereas McCain has always been a reactionary, whose approach to almost every vote has been against my interests, and is now owned by his own party's extremists.

That's a pretty clear cut choice to me.

Perhaps when he fills in the broad strokes, I'll agree with you on this candidate.

Until then, I'm not gonna project what I wanna see onto Obama. I wanna see him clarify it himself.

[Paul McEnery]

Because You Say So, of course.

I think it's self-evident from the premises that what you actually get is less evil.

And the system is set up so that those are our real choices.

[Paul McEnery]

We are. Kevin asked Gail for an unmoderated election thread and he got it.

Well damn.

Not that I think that sort of thing should be protected even in non-moderated territory.

[Crowley]

John Bolton on "Obama the Naive":

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-bolton5-2008jun05,0,5282011.story

James Baker Secretary of State under George H.W. Bush:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYC3jVaDDEg

"Diplomacy involves talking to your enemies. You don't reward your enemies necessarily by talking to them if you are tough and you know what you are doing. You don't appease them. Talking to an enemy is not in my view appeasement."

Republican Senator Chuck Hagel:


Chuck Hagel is quickly becoming Barack Obama's answer to Joe Lieberman.

The Republican Senator from Nebraska was a political thorn in McCain's side on Tuesday night, repeatedly lavishing praise on the presumptive Democratic candidate and levying major foreign policy criticisms at the GOP nominee and the Republican Party as a whole. At one point, Hagel even urged the Arizona Republican to elevate his campaign discourse to a higher, more honest level.

"We know from past campaigns that presidential candidates will say many things," Hagel said of some of McCain's recent rhetoric, namely his policy on talking to Iran. "But once they have the responsibility to govern the country and lead the world, that difference between what they said and what responsibilities they have to fulfill are vastly different. I'm very upset with John with some of the things he's been saying. And I can't get into the psychoanalysis of it. But I believe that John is smarter than some of the things he is saying. He is, he understands it more. John is a man who reads a lot, he's been around the world. I want him to get above that and maybe when he gets into the general election, and becomes the general election candidate he will have a higher-level discourse on these things."

Hagel, speaking to a small gathering at the residence of the Italian ambassador, took umbrage with several positions taken by the McCain campaign, including the Arizona Senator's criticism of Obama for pledging to engage with Iran. Engagement is not, and should not be confused for, capitulation, he argued.

"I never understand how anyone in any realm of civilized discourse could sort through the big issues and challenges and threats and figure out how to deal with those without engaging in some way...."

Hagel then offered a wry tweak of his GOP colleague. "I am confident that if Obama is elected president that is the approach we will take. And my friend John McCain said some other things about that. We'll see, but in my opinion it has to be done. It is essential."

Hagel, who sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, went on to belittle the tendency for some within his own party to disparage those who tout diplomacy. "You take some risks in talking about this," he said, "especially in the Congress, because you can immediately be branded as an appeaser."

And when asked to respond to rumors circulating within political circles that the Bush administration was ginning up the possibility of war with Iran, the Senator even raised the specter of impeachment.

"You've got the power of impeachment, now that is a very defined measure if you are willing to bring charges against the president at all. You can't just say I disagree with him, let's impeach him," said Hagel. An attack on Iran without Congress' consent, he added, "would bring with it... outstanding political consequences, including for the Republican Party."

Finally, he charged that if the preeminent foreign policy objective is to achieve security in Israel and stability within the broader Middle East, then the Bush track -- which McCain has endorsed -- is ill-advised.

"If you engage a world power or a rival, it doesn't mean you agree with them or subscribe with what they believe or you support them in any way," he said. "What it does tell you is that you've got a problem you need to resolve. And you've got to understand the other side and the other side has got to understand you."

Much of Hagel's address, hosted by the Ploughshares Fund, was spent weaving between Obama praise and McCain quips. He urged the media, for example, to focus on important policy issues an "not just why Barack [doesn't] wear flag pins on his lapel."

Asked whether he would be open to serving as Secretary of Defense in a hypothetical Obama administration, Hagel demurred. But in the process, he praised the Illinois Democrat for being open to a bipartisan cabinet.

"Take me out of the equation," he said, "I do think that the next president and Obama has talked about this, and McCain not as much, I think he is going to have to put together a very wide, smart, experienced, credible, bipartisan cabinet. And that is going to be required absolutely."

[Pink Bat Maxine]

I think it's self-evident from the premises that what you actually get is less evil.

And the system is set up so that those are our real choices.

Then the system is flawed. Which means that, in addition to our voting, we need to look at how we can work toward changing the system.

And really, what makes the system work as it does? The main thrust is that it's because we think it has to. It's the Catch-22 of 'I won't vote third party, because third party candidates won't be elected, but they won't be elected because not enough people vote for them. Because they don't think they'll be elected." That's circular logic..... it's also a reality of today's political climate, but it's not one that'll be changed if everyone thinks nothing can ever be done to change it.

I don't think this has to be so. I think it WILL, for a long, long, LONG time. But I do believe change will be possible, because it is necessary.

[Dazzler]

And about bloody time is my point of view. Because last I looked, this was still a democracy, and not just for the people but by the people. I mean, I know that voting for a President is just like ratifying a King for four years, and that's why the office should be eliminated, but until that happens...

Because that tactic worked so well in 2000 and 2004. Sure, I get that it's a "totally different animal" when Bush supporters are saying vote for Bush or the gays and the atheists will ruin the country than it is when Obama supporters say vote for Obama or you're condoning murder and endless war!

I'm still waiting for someone to explain how Obama's plan to withdraw troops only to ship more troops in under a different pretense helps alleviate that. I'm also waiting for someone to tell me how it's different when his political adviser has been quoted as saying that his plan to withdraw troops within 16 months is simply "a best case scenario" that "would have to be revisted" when he's in office. Sounds to me like "revisited" means, "we're making no promises." AND Barack Obama himself has stated that there's no guarantee that American troops would be out of Iraq during his first term. Any way you slice it, that means four more years of conflict.

There's a lot being assumed about his Iraq plans that don't mesh with the actuality of the situation.

--Dazz

[Crowley]

this is what was enabled:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQqCoPxNVQs

[Paul McEnery]

Then the system is flawed. Which means that, in addition to our voting, we need to look at how we can work toward changing the system.

Oh God yes. Unfortunately, that's a slow old business. It's taken us a long time to get to having the single transferable vote for Mayor in San Francisco. It'll take a bit longer to get that for Governor -- even though something quite like it worked really well in the recall election. Getting that for President will take longer still.

So, in the meantime, we're stuck with a real world choice that we don't particularly like between a middle of the road guy and a hard right guy who's gone over to the far right.

In general, a big country like this, any office like the Presidency is going to tend towards the centre anyway, just by statistics. Which is why the Karl Rove tactic is to pretend that the far right guy is "moderate" and the centre guy is -- well, any smear will do.

Although the way "liberal" has become a smear, when "liberal" simply means the values that are enshrined in the Constitution kinda chafes my butt.

And really, what makes the system work as it does? The main thrust is that it's because we think it has to.

A well constructed system works regardless of our belief. Machine politics doesn't care if you believe in it, the same way a bus doesn't care if you believe in it. For instance, the San Francisco machine picked Gavin for mayor about two years before the campaign. We did very nearly derail him -- but the progressives didn't have their own machine, so even though Gonzo won on the day, he missed out on the postal vote.

We got the same this election. Clinton's organization was crap, Obama's was thorough, and if it had been the other way round, Clinton would have won. Elections are mostly about organization, and not about ideas.

That's not how it should be, and that's why I'd debate the voter rather than the candidate.

Because you're right. The candidates should be reflecting the interests of the voters, and the people should be engaged in the issues. Although perhaps its as well that they aren't in a climate where the best lack all conviction while the worst are full of a passionate intensity.

I don't think it has to. I think it WILL, for a long, long, LONG time. But I do believe change will be possible, because it is necessary.
Change is already underway. But most people -- and I include myself -- aren't that interested in the hard graft of making it happen. That involves getting on the school board, on local planning committees, and so on.

[Sabrinaset]

Don't twist my words Maxine, it makes you look like a Republican.

Riiiiiick .... *wags fingers*

It is really simple, you are either for the war or against it. You are either for the constitution or against it.

I think I finally figured out what's bothering me here. This sounds waaaay too close to W saying "You're either with us or against us" for my comfort.

because I'm a sight more radical than the average voter.


Really ...?!? :tongue:

[Corrina]

Yep.

I just looked back at my original post when I started this thread and I saw I was not as clear as I should been.

We are unmoderated here. Once the election is over and done with the Mods can do with this thread what they will. Keep it open, lock it, merge it with the other political thread.

Otherwise, I would have bitch-stomped all over the place a long while back.

But I mean 'bitch' in a good way. :)

Anywho, good speech by Hillary yesterday, kudos to Obama for not getting all nasty and letting her take a breather long enough to do the right thing.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Riiiiiick .... *wags fingers*



I think I finally figured out what's bothering me here. This sounds waaaay too close to W saying "You're either with us or against us" for my comfort.


Are you betraying the United States of America here, Sabrina?

http://www.jour.sc.edu/pages/wigginsweb/mccarthy.jpg

....Where's a HUAC when you need one?

[Crowley]

Are you betraying the United States of America, here, Sabrina?

http://www.jour.sc.edu/pages/wigginsweb/mccarthy.jpg

....Where's a HUAC when you need one?

oy...

I'll let others point out how you've just done the Loop De Loop of Irony.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

oy...

I'll let others point out how you've just done the Loop De Loop of Irony.

Naw, feel free to take a crack at it, Crowley.

[Crowley]

Well firstly... McCarthy wasn't part of HUAC. The H stands for House, McCarthy was part of the Senate.

and... fuck it, whoever else wants a go can take it, I feel like I could type my fingers numb and it'd never sink in, Not an insult... I just understand how passion can blind.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Well firstly... McCarthy wasn't part of HUAC. The H stands for House, McCarthy was part of the Senate.

Fair point. Mea culpa.

I just understand how passion can blind.

This, at least, seems readily apparent.

[Crowley]

This, at least, seems readily apparent.
Yeah but it's definitely cutting both ways... which ultimately I think could turn out to be a good thing.

[Infra-Man]

How do you win the Republicans over without losing your base though? I'd assume you'd focus on economic issues, and maybe Iraq if you could find a way to sell phased withdrawals to them as not "cutting & running".

That's part of it. There's some polling that shows a vast majority of Americans (70% or more, if I remember right) think the country is going in the wrong direction. If the Democrats can convince dissatisfied moderate Republicans that the Democratic candidate in their city, district, or state has better platforms than the Republican candidate, that can help secure some extra votes while not alienating the moderate or activist Democratic base. This also applies to the presidential election, of course.

This actually made me think of another strategy that the Democrats may employ this election: registering new young voters to build a new party base. I remember hearing a news story that noted how many people who became politically aware during FDR's administration were more likely to remain lifelong Democrats. Those who became politically aware during Regan's terms were likely to stick with the Republican party.

Perhaps the Democrats can attempt to create its new party base of young voters in this election, though this really depends on how the youth vote gets mobilized. You keep hearing about the under-30s being a key demographic, but let's face it, most of them don't really care about politics, let alone show up to the polls.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Well, I'm done Betraying the United States of America for the moment.

I haven't been doing nearly enough Undermining the Sanctity of Marriage this week!

[Royal]

You keep hearing about the under-30s being a key demographic, but let's face it, most of them don't really care about politics, let alone show up to the polls.

They care, their issues aren't really covered by canidates. And when the politicians do reach out to them, it's usually on some inane issue like the enviroment.

Keep in mind, there was a huge increase in youth vote in 2004, but was eclypsed by the somehow larger evengelical vote.

[Infra-Man]

I got a pocket with two pennies so I might as well chime in on the "with us or against us" thing concerning voting for Obama.

I'd never frame an argument like that since it strikes me as hyperbolic and is worded as if it were a false dichotomy. You can vote for whoever you want and though people can try to convince you to support one candidate over another, in the end the vote is your own.

However, I will question the motives of people voting against Obama because they are scorned that their candidate of choice did not win; particularly when they intend to cast their revenge-vote for someone who holds few (if any) of their political views. I find it petulant, and in some ways it's as puerile as Rush Limbaugh's operation chaos (I say "in some ways" because the situations aren't entirely analogous).

Like I mentioned before, it's your own vote and you can do what you wish; and if you actually agree with McCain's policies, then back McCain (the same of course goes with Obama or a third-party candidate like Barr or Nader). But while you can do what you will with your vote, I will still not comprehend the irrational vitriol some people hold for Obama. In some cases (not all) the reasoning is essentially "I will not vote for Obama because he is not Hillary Clinton." Yeah, it's frustrating that the person you supported didn't get the nom, but to vote against one's economic and social interests simply out of revenge strikes me as odd.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

I got a pocket with two pennies so I might as well chime in on the "with us or against us" thing concerning voting for Obama.

I'd never frame an argument like that since it strikes me as hyperbolic and is worded as if it were a false dichotomy. You can vote for whoever you want and though people can try to convince you to support one candidate over another, in the end the vote is your own.

However, I will question the motives of people voting against Obama because they are scorned that their candidate of choice did not win; particularly when they intend to cast their revenge-vote for someone who holds few (if any) of their political views. I find it petulant, and in some ways it's as puerile as Rush Limbaugh's operation chaos (I say "in some ways" because the situations aren't entirely analogous).

Like I mentioned before, it's your own vote and you can do what you wish; and if you actually agree with McCain's policies, then back McCain (the same of course goes with Obama or a third-party candidate like Barr or Nader). But while you can do what you will with your vote, I will still not comprehend the irrational vitriol some people hold for Obama. In some cases (not all) the reasoning is essentially "I will not vote for Obama because he is not Hillary Clinton." Yeah, it's frustrating that the person you supported didn't get the nom, but to vote against one's economic and social interests simply out of revenge strikes me as odd.

Infra, this is a very reasoned and reasonable post.
The most important thing to remember is that it's June now, and November is still far off. So what people think /today/..... and people are always disappointed when their primary candidate loses.... isn't necessarily what they're going to think on the day they go into the voting booth.

Give the dust a chance to settle, I say.

[Infra-Man]

They care, their issues aren't really covered by canidates. And when the politicians do reach out to them, it's usually on some inane issue like the enviroment.

Keep in mind, there was a huge increase in youth vote in 2004, but was eclypsed by the somehow larger evengelical vote.

Well, the environment isn't really an inane issue. I think that's an important issue for everyone regardless of age.

I guess this comes down to the main issue about the under-30 demographic, then: what the heck are the key issues for that demographic if they aren't things like the economy, health care, the environment, education, the War in Iraq, gas prices, reproductive rights, job outsourcing, social security, ethics reform in government, the housing crisis, etc.?

One of my roommates is among the under-30 voters who pretend they care about issues but don't care. She makes a big stink when people undervalue the under-30 demographic, but she doesn't follow politics, doesn't keep up with current events, and even asks stuff like "Why should I even care about what happens to social security?" Is it a question of trying to re-gear the message of these important issues so that people understand their importance?

I remember hearing that in 2004, the Democrats won the youth vote (think they got 54%), and yeah, the evangelicals did help re-elect Bush. That's a pretty good sign for the Democrats this election. Since Obama does tend to appeal to the under-30 voter, maybe he can draw in new young voters in some way.

[Infra-Man]

Infra, this is a very reasoned and reasonable post.
The most important thing to remember is that it's June now, and November is still far off. So what people think /today/..... and people are always disappointed when their primary candidate loses.... isn't necessarily what they're going to think on the day they go into the voting booth.

Give the dust a chance to settle, I say.

Yeah, very true. Not only is it only June, it's less than a week after the end of a hard-fought primary season. If this lasts through July and into August, that'll be a better time for worrying.

[Michael P]

Well damn.

Not that I think that sort of thing should be protected even in non-moderated territory.

Look at it this way, Paul: You're fully free to call Samurai a lying, slimy sod for doing so.

[rick]

Because in your world Democrats=The Protectors of the Constitution and Republicans=The Defilers Of The Constitution.


Maxine, you know perfectly well that the Democrats are far from perfect.

But you also know perfectly well that the Republicans have spent the last eight years getting Iraqi citizens and American kids killed, getting Arabs tortured, and completely ignoring any semblance of the law.

And you know perfectly well that the Republican nominee has pledged to continue those policies

You know this.

It isn’t something in doubt or unambiguous in any way.

None of us have forgotten that you have bitched about the Republicans crimes along with the rest of us for a couple of years now.

You know what the deal is, you really and truly do.

So why in the world are you acting like you just fell off the turnip truck and never heard about the world of politics before?

Is Obama perfect?

Of course not.

But unlike Sen. McCain, Sen. Obama is not going around promising to continue the failed policies of the last eight years.

You have tried, in what I have to say was a pretty pathetic manner to somehow show us that just because Obama has said he believed something and then backed it up with his votes that he actually might be lying.

But so far reality has not shown a single example to back up your paranoia, and meanwhile Sen. McCain is straight up saying that he will continue the war, continue the renditions, the torture and the continued attempt to place the Executive branch above the law.

And again, you know all of this is true.

So you can sit there with that big ol’ bug up your butt about the fact that I’m being mean to you and Dazz about it, but the truth is the truth.

And you know it.

[rick]

Well, I'm done Betraying the United States of America for the moment.

I haven't been doing nearly enough Undermining the Sanctity of Marriage this week!


Don't forget, that you aren't just betraying your country, but you are betraying yourself too.

After all, rather than vote for the candidate that actually believes that you should have rights as the woman you are, out of spite, you'd rather see someone elected who thinks of you as just another guy in a dress.

[Infra-Man]

And you know, Ralph is a great Ralph, but he'd be a terrible president, in the same way that I wouldn't want Johnny Cash singing opera.

I've been saying this to people since the 2000 election and the Florida kerfuffle:

Ralph Nader should not run for president again but should instead become a voter advocate. He should organize nationwide non-partisan groups to help ensure fair, transparent, and ethical elections at local and national levels. He's spent years of his life ensuring the safety of citizens from poorly manufactured products, he should now spend time ensuring that each citizen's vote is safe from those who'd tamper with democracy.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

So you can sit there with that big ol’ bug up your butt about the fact that I’m being mean to you and Dazz about it, but the truth is the truth.

In fairness, I'm not sitting with a bug up my butt so much as mocking you.

'Cause honestly, that's the only way to respond to your Coultereque, McCarthyist rhetoric. When you tell me what I know and believe, sorry; you're opening yourself to my scorn.

It's laughable. You're being laughable. So I'mma laugh.

[Crowley]

Maxine, you know perfectly well that the Democrats are far from perfect.

But you also know perfectly well that the Republicans have spent the last eight years getting Iraqi citizens and American kids killed, getting Arabs tortured, and completely ignoring any semblance of the law.

And you know perfectly well that the Republican nominee has pledged to continue those policies

You know this.

It isn’t something in doubt or unambiguous in any way.

None of us have forgotten that you have bitched about the Republicans crimes along with the rest of us for a couple of years now.

You know what the deal is, you really and truly do.

So why in the world are you acting like you just fell off the turnip truck and never heard about the world of politics before?

Is Obama perfect?

Of course not.

But unlike Sen. McCain, Sen. Obama is not going around promising to continue the failed policies of the last eight years.

You have tried, in what I have to say was a pretty pathetic manner to somehow show us that just because Obama has said he believed something and then backed it up with his votes that he actually might be lying.

But so far reality has not shown a single example to back up your paranoia, and meanwhile Sen. McCain is straight up saying that he will continue the war, continue the renditions, the torture and the continued attempt to place the Executive branch above the law.

And again, you know all of this is true.

So you can sit there with that big ol’ bug up your butt about the fact that I’m being mean to you and Dazz about it, but the truth is the truth.

And you know it.
Also unlike McCain, he just gave lobbyists a giant kick in the ass... and he's NOT even in office yet.

[Crowley]

In fairness, I'm not sitting with a bug up my butt so much as mocking you.

'Cause honestly, that's the only way to respond to your Coultereque, McCarthyist rhetoric. When you tell me what I know and believe, sorry; you're opening yourself to my scorn.

It's laughable. You're being laughable. So I'mma laugh.

http://www.thesunblog.com/sports/ostrich.gif

[Pink Bat Maxine]

http://www.thesunblog.com/sports/ostrich.gif

Because it's unreasonable that someone should disagree with you politically.

[rick]

In fairness, I'm not sitting with a bug up my butt so much as mocking you.

'Cause honestly, that's the only way to respond to your Coultereque, McCarthyist rhetoric. When you tell me what I know and believe, sorry; you're opening yourself to my scorn.

It's laughable. You're being laughable. So I'mma laugh.


You are choosing to betray everything you say you believe in and you think I'm the one with the problem.


Oh Maxine, you don't get just how sad you've become do you? :frown:

[rick]

Because it's unreasonable that someone should disagree with you politically.


The problem is that it's unreasonable that you and Dazz should disagree with yourselves politically.

[Charles RB]

Barack Obama himself has stated that there's no guarantee that American troops would be out of Iraq during his first term.

Well, no. There isn't. The only guarantee of all troops being out within four years, starting with Iraq as it is now, would be if Ron Paul took office as he wants to withdraw troops from everywhere.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

You are choosing to betray everything you say you believe in and you think I'm the one with the problem.


Oh Maxine, you don't get just how sad you've become do you? :frown:

My favorite part is that you keep just saying the same thing over and over, and not really, like.... addressing anything anyone says. Ever. Your entire argument is "You believe this, and you're betraying yourself, I know it and you know it." But it's words without substance. Anyone tries to address what you ask, you reply with 'You know that's not true.' No actual addressing of any opinions, certainly no acknowledgement that not everyone thinks like you do. Not one dollop of logic nor debate. Just the black-and-white 'You know better'. No attempt to understand, nor to open your mind. And I'm sad?

Keep the faith, though! I'm off to light a candle at my shrine to Benedict Arnold and Julius & Ethel Rosenberg.

[Charles RB]

This actually made me think of another strategy that the Democrats may employ this election: registering new young voters to build a new party base.

Well, I like to think the last eight years would've politicised this generation of American (and British voters), but that might be because I became more politicised then & talked to people. The trick here, and the UK government commissioned studies after the 2001 election which stated this, is to convince young voters that their vote does matter and that politics affects their lives & meets their concerns.

Which is a tough 'un to pull off.

And when the politicians do reach out to them, it's usually on some inane issue like the enviroment.

Based on that whole "massive flooding" thing from 2007 here and things like climate & environment affecting our food and living space, I wouldn't call it "some inane issue".

You are choosing to betray everything you say you believe in and you think I'm the one with the problem.

Oh Maxine, you don't get just how sad you've become do you? :frown:

As I said before - you're not actually convincing her to vote Obama this way, you're getting her less likely to do so.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

As I said before - you're not actually convincing her to vote Obama this way, you're getting her less likely to do so.

I think it was you who said 'You're voting for the man, not his supporters.'

That's exactly right, and a good point.
As I've said, I'm open to being won over by Obama, but I wanna see more from him before election day.

But you know, I'm betraying my country for not taking a loyalty oath NOW, and you know, opting to exercise my rights as a citizen.

Screw THAT.

But I'll still give him a fair shake to win me over. That's fair, isn't it?

[rick]

As I said before - you're not actually convincing her to vote Obama this way, you're getting her less likely to do so.


She's already made the decision to vote with her emotions instead of her mind without any help from me.

I'm just going to make sure she understands what that actually means.

[Sabrinaset]

This actually made me think of another strategy that the Democrats may employ this election: registering new young voters to build a new party base.

Well lets face it, if P. Diddy and Paris Hilton couldn't get the youth to vote in 2004, who else can? :tongue:

[Pink Bat Maxine]

[never mind]

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Well lets face it, if P. Diddy and Paris Hilton couldn't get the youth to vote in 2004, who else can? :tongue:

Wait, what? Paris Hilton tried to rock the vote?

[Crowley]

oh that John McCain... what character.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1024927/The-wife-John-McCain-callously-left-behind.html
McCain likes to illustrate his moral fibre by referring to his five years as a prisoner-of-war in Vietnam. And to demonstrate his commitment to family values, the 71-year-old former US Navy pilot pays warm tribute to his beautiful blonde wife, Cindy, with whom he has four children.

But there is another Mrs McCain who casts a ghostly shadow over the Senator’s presidential campaign. She is seldom seen and rarely written about, despite being mother to McCain’s three eldest children.

And yet, had events turned out differently, it would be she, rather than Cindy, who would be vying to be First Lady. She is McCain’s first wife, Carol, who was a famous beauty and a successful swimwear model when they married in 1965.

She was the woman McCain dreamed of during his long incarceration and torture in Vietnam’s infamous ‘Hanoi Hilton’ prison and the woman who faithfully stayed at home looking after the children and waiting anxiously for news.

But when McCain returned to America in 1973 to a fanfare of publicity and a handshake from Richard Nixon, he discovered his wife had been disfigured in a terrible car crash three years earlier. Her car had skidded on icy roads into a telegraph pole on Christmas Eve, 1969. Her pelvis and one arm were shattered by the impact and she suffered massive internal injuries.

When Carol was discharged from hospital after six months of life-saving surgery, the prognosis was bleak. In order to save her legs, surgeons had been forced to cut away huge sections of shattered bone, taking with it her tall, willowy figure. She was confined to a wheelchair and was forced to use a catheter.

Through sheer hard work, Carol learned to walk again. But when John McCain came home from Vietnam, she had gained a lot of weight and bore little resemblance to her old self.

Today, she stands at just 5ft4in and still walks awkwardly, with a pronounced limp. Her body is held together by screws and metal plates and, at 70, her face is worn by wrinkles that speak of decades of silent suffering.

For nearly 30 years, Carol has maintained a dignified silence about the accident, McCain and their divorce. But last week at the bungalow where she now lives at Virginia Beach, a faded seaside resort 200 miles south of Washington, she told The Mail on Sunday how McCain divorced her in 1980 and married Cindy, 18 years his junior and the heir to an Arizona brewing fortune, just one month later.

[Sabrinaset]

Wait, what? Paris Hilton tried to rock the vote?

The funny thing is, she was part of "Vote or Die" ... and didn't even register to vote herself! http://www.msnpro.com/emoticons/hellokitty/giggle.gif

[Michael P]

Well, at least he tried to hold it together for seven years (or some portion thereof), but yeesh.

I feel bad for his two younger kids. Their mom's about to be raked through all kinds of mud.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

The funny thing is, she was part of "Vote or Die" ... and didn't even register to vote herself! http://www.msnpro.com/emoticons/hellokitty/giggle.gif

You know, I'm beginning to be swayed by this theory you're putting forth about blondes being dumb....

[Corrina]

I don't want to vote for McCain but he didn't divorce his wife when he returned, that took seven years.

A lot of stuff had happened to both of them. No doubt they were completely different people than when they married.

A lot of people won't get a divorce unless they have a place to jump. McCain obviously waited until he had a nice cushy one. A beautiful, rich, cushy one. Nasty move, yes. Makes me think badly of him, yes.

But I don't know all about the marriage. The injuries and recovery could have turned her into someone impossible to live with. People can get bitter. Or maybe McCain is just that shallow "I married a beautiful woman, you're not, so I'll find another one."

But I don't feel like I have enough information to really judge this one, unless her kids or friends or, hell, unless I have more from her on the chronology of the divorce.

[Infra-Man]

Well lets face it, if P. Diddy and Paris Hilton couldn't get the youth to vote in 2004, who else can? :tongue:

Haha. God, those ads and that advocacy campaign was bonafide, certified retarded on a stick.

"Vote or die" = epic idiotic fail

It's like hiring Jessica Simpson and Kevin Federline as spokespeople for a literacy campaign.


I'd rather they have other "get-out-the-youth-vote" slogans that are equally ineffective but not as innocuous as "Rock the vote", like:

"Politics is all about your future, stupid."

"Politics fucking matters."

"That show you're watching and the vote you cast by phone won't help you when you retire. Vote for something that matters."

"There's nothing worse than an clueless mook with a vote."

"I want you to take shit seriously for once." (to go on a poster w/ Uncle Sam on it)

"That's Uncle Sam, in case you don't know. He's a symbol of the United States." (this poster consists of an arrow pointing left and is placed to the right of the above-cited Uncle Sam poster)

[Charles RB]

As I've said, I'm open to being won over by Obama, but I wanna see more from him before election day.


Well, that is his job in the election run-up, so I'd assume you will.

Though I now have a mental image of Obama personally visiting your house.

oh that John McCain... what character.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1024927/The-wife-John-McCain-callously-left-behind.html

I doubt this has any bearing on what kind of President he'd be 28 years later. (Though it does piss on his "moral values" stance)

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Well, that is his job in the election run-up, so I'd assume you will.

Though I now have a mental image of Obama personally visiting your house.

Well he'd better not pop in without warning! I'd need some time to tidy up! :eek:

[section 8]

I now have a mental image of Obama personally visiting your house.


count the silverwear before he leaves

[PatrickG]

A lot of people won't get a divorce unless they have a place to jump. McCain obviously waited until he had a nice cushy one. A beautiful, rich, cushy one. Nasty move, yes. Makes me think badly of him, yes.


I agree with the bulk of your post. It was a seemingly nasty move that's hard to read/judge from the outside.

But the line about people not getting a divorce unless they have a place to jump speaks volumes about what I see as being wrong with both marriage and divorce in this country.

I've seen too many GOOD people lose their friends, their jobs, their lives... all because they couldn't stand being alone. All too often, people will fixate on the nearest seemingly available example of their sexual preference rather than face the vast and scary prospect of being comfortable with one's self first.

If morality were to be legislated (and I don't advocate legislating morality), I think everybody ought to spend at least five years of their adult life single. I also think everybody ought to work at least 6 months in a menial food service job.

[section 8]

I hold a glass to a door for no one

[Crowley]

count the silverwear before he leaves

really? is this where we want to go?

[Charles RB]

I also think everybody ought to work at least 6 months in a menial food service job.

I wouldn't wish that on... well, okay, I'd wish it on a lot of people. Suffer, Cabinet, suffer.

[Infra-Man]

really? is this where we want to go?

His comment was facetious and, I'll admit it, I chuckled and winced.

[Crowley]

Perhaps the Democrats can attempt to create its new party base of young voters in this election, though this really depends on how the youth vote gets mobilized. You keep hearing about the under-30s being a key demographic, but let's face it, most of them don't really care about politics, let alone show up to the polls.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/06/new.voters.ap/
two excerpts:

Voter excitement, always up before a presidential election, is pushing registration through the roof this year -- with more than 3.5 million people rushing to join in the historic balloting, according to an Associated Press survey.

Not all of the registrants are new to politics. A newly registered voter might be one who has moved to a new state. But the onslaught of registrations has overwhelmed election organizers, resulting in a mix of both excitement and anxiety as they prepare to count ballots cast by millions of new registrants.

So many new voters have been registered that the poll workers may be overwhelmed in November

[Sabrinaset]

I wouldn't wish that on... well, okay, I'd wish it on a lot of people. Suffer, Cabinet, suffer.

Well, I dunno about everyone else, but I actually think I'm a better person for having been a waitress for several years. Hey, Dazz was a waiter too! We win!

I'm also fairly sure that if Howyadoin or Cam63 were here, they'd be PROUD of McCain for marrying a beer heiress! I mean, no wonder Kerry lost ... what did he marry into? Ketchup!

[Dazzler]

Well, I dunno about everyone else, but I actually think I'm a better person for having been a waitress for several years. Hey, Dazz was a waiter too! We win!

LOL.
Albeit an EVIL one.

If anybody want to see how shitty people really are, then become a server. You get to see the true face of America.

Still, we are so full of win it hurts.

--Dazz

[section 8]

really? is this where we want to go?

Well he IS a politician.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

LOL.
Albeit an EVIL one.

If anybody want to see how shitty people really are, then become a server. You get to see the true face of America.

Still, we are so full of win it hurts.

--Dazz

Yeah, well, I was a dish washer.

That don't make you better. It just makes you bitter.

[Dazzler]

Yeah, well, I was a dish washer.

That don't make you better. It just makes you bitter.

Oh yes, I remember the dish washers vividly. I used to score drugs off of them through the hot window. And they were all hecka lesbian.

--Dazz

[Sabrinaset]

Yeah, well, I was a dish washer.

That don't make you better. It just makes you bitter.

Please! Dishwashers stay in the back and are protected by a wall of cooks!

I was on the front lines!

[Dazzler]

Please! Dishwashers stay in the back and are protected by a wall of cooks!

I was on the front lines!

Sing it sister. One mistake in the back and it's your ass on the front.

--Dazz

[section 8]

His comment was facetious and, I'll admit it, I chuckled and winced.

Thank you its nice for once not to have to EXPLAIN to people when i'm being facetious

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Please! Dishwashers stay in the back and are protected by a wall of cooks!

I was on the front lines!

Yeah, well. It was a nursing home, not a restraunt.

Although, going upstairs and seeing all the old people parked in front of a Whitesnake video, looking utterly horrified but physically unable to change it is the kind of experience in this life that you can't buy, only experience.

[Dazzler]

Yeah, well. It was a nursing home, not a restraunt.

Although, going upstairs and seeing all the old people parked in front of a Whitesnake video, looking utterly horrified but physically unable to change it is the kind of experience in this life that you can't buy, only experience.

I simply must experience that before I die.

It's now my quest.

--Dazz

[section 8]

I Enlisted, to become a Machine Gunner in the 82nd Airborne, but a bad knee kept me out.

But I did grow up in a rough neighborhood, does that count?

[Corrina]

I think everybody ought to spend at least five years of their adult life single. I also think everybody ought to work at least 6 months in a menial food service job.

Been there, done that. Totally agree with you.

[Charles RB]

Well, I dunno about everyone else, but I actually think I'm a better person for having been a waitress for several years.

I've worked as a trainee waiter and kitchen staff, the latter just made me more bitter and grumpy. (The former made me go "aarrrrg" as I tried to remember where each button on the fancy electronic till was and which table was where)

[Royal]

I guess this comes down to the main issue about the under-30 demographic, then: what the heck are the key issues for that demographic if they aren't things like the economy, health care, the environment, education, the War in Iraq, gas prices, reproductive rights, job outsourcing, social security, ethics reform in government, the housing crisis, etc.?


Economy is one, but it should be thought out differently. Tuitions, Min. Wage, Food and Gas matters. The youth want to get on their feet, but it's getting harder for them to do so. There have been more and more college students living with their parents simply because rental costs are getting to expensive. And now, they're the ones getting gyped on stimulus because of them doing so. Job quality and quantity is also needed

The War is a given.

Killing 'Abstenence Only' sex ed.

Net Nutrality is a real big issue. Regulation the playground of ideas to those who can pay the most is a sin and stymies economic and artistic growth.

[section 8]

Been there, done that. Totally agree with you.

Forget that, they should work at the office of voter registration and elections.
You think War is hell, try politics.

[Royal]

Based on that whole "massive flooding" thing from 2007 here and things like climate & environment affecting our food and living space, I wouldn't call it "some inane issue".


Well before Katrina, Gore, etc. it was more of a "bone" issue to show informed youth voters how much they "cared". While it is a real important issue now, I still have a feeling it still will be a "bone" issue.

[Buzz Dixon]

re inexperience:

George W. Bush was 48 when he ran for governor of Texas. He served as the governor of Texas from 1995 to 2000, and was elected in 2000 to the presidency at age 54. He had a total of five years experience in elected office, at that only at a state level.

Barack Obama was 36 when he was elected to the Illinois state senate in 1997; he served until 2004. He was elected to the senate in 2004. He has a total of eleven years experience in elected office, four at the federal level, seven at the state level. He is 47 years old.

No one is allowed to criticize Obama's "inexperience" unless they can document they also opposed Bush's inexperience.

[FalconX2000]

I went to an all boys primary school. Bullying and fighting was common and my temper had no fuse if I sensed the antogniser wanted me angry. Despite having plenty of enemies since I had no tolerance for teasing, I was top dog by primary 5. It did me good to go to a different secondary school and develop in a different environment though.

[Infra-Man]

re inexperience:

George W. Bush was 48 when he ran for governor of Texas. He served as the governor of Texas from 1995 to 2000, and was elected in 2000 to the presidency at age 54. He had a total of five years experience in elected office, at that only at a state level.

Barack Obama was 36 when he was elected to the Illinois state senate in 1997; he served until 2004. He was elected to the senate in 2004. He has a total of eleven years experience in elected office, four at the federal level, seven at the state level. He is 47 years old.

No one is allowed to criticize Obama's "inexperience" unless they can document they also opposed Bush's inexperience.

How Good Are Experienced Presidents? (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Info/experience.html)

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Images/Scatterplot-rank-vs-experience-labeled.jpg

[LtMarvel]

Please! Dishwashers stay in the back and are protected by a wall of cooks!

I was on the front lines!
You were the waitress whose sleeve was mysteriously covered by food, weren't you?

[Infra-Man]

So many new voters have been registered that the poll workers may be overwhelmed in November

That's good news for the Democrats come November. If they can consolidate their base, pick up some independents and disaffected Republicans, and get everyone to the polls, they can pick up a stronger majority in the House, a strong majority in the Senate, and put Obama in the White House.

Economy is one, but it should be thought out differently. Tuitions, Min. Wage, Food and Gas matters. The youth want to get on their feet, but it's getting harder for them to do so. There have been more and more college students living with their parents simply because rental costs are getting to expensive. And now, they're the ones getting gyped on stimulus because of them doing so. Job quality and quantity is also needed

The War is a given.

Killing 'Abstenence Only' sex ed.

Net Nutrality is a real big issue. Regulation the playground of ideas to those who can pay the most is a sin and stymies economic and artistic growth.

I gotcha. It's a matter of showing the under-30s why certain issues matter to them at a concrete, personal level rather than at a more abstract level.

It'll be interesting to see if politicians start tapping the grassroots and netroots in their party to help mobilize the politically savvier members of this voting block. Though I wonder how it is that they can pick up the member of the under-30s who aren't as politically engaged. Is that where personality kicks in as opposed to policy? If some political analyst/campaign adviser figures out the surefire way to attract the under-30s, that person's set for life.

[KevinTBrown]

I doubt this has any bearing on what kind of President he'd be 28 years later. (Though it does piss on his "moral values" stance)
Definitely does that....

Which will be real interesting since the Republicans the last few general elections have taken "the high road" in terms of being moral.

[section 8]

No one is allowed to criticize Obama's "inexperience" unless they can document they also opposed Bush's inexperience.

Did the mods make this rule? or are you blowing smoke?

I DID site Bushes inexperiance as one of my reasons for not voting for him in 2000, But alas, i did not put it in writting, and didn't have a Notary on hand even if i did, so i cant "Document it" ( Since at the time I worked at the VR office i wouldn't have anyway, they are strict about that sort of thing)

so your saying with eleven years, vrs five years Obama will only be a 55% improvement over Bush?

I now invoke the name of Jimmy Carter, Well meaning, but unable to accomplish anything because of his lack of experiance, the GOP cut him off at the knees.

Carter may also be proof that Obama very well may be the next president, the GOP has a record of all but conceeding to a seemingly harmless, in experianced, Idealest. to play Caretaker of the white house untill the next election when the nations memories of how the republicans Fucked us isn't as fresh.

[Crowley]

re inexperience:

George W. Bush was 48 when he ran for governor of Texas. He served as the governor of Texas from 1995 to 2000, and was elected in 2000 to the presidency at age 54. He had a total of five years experience in elected office, at that only at a state level.

Barack Obama was 36 when he was elected to the Illinois state senate in 1997; he served until 2004. He was elected to the senate in 2004. He has a total of eleven years experience in elected office, four at the federal level, seven at the state level. He is 47 years old.

No one is allowed to criticize Obama's "inexperience" unless they can document they also opposed Bush's inexperience.
I tried to hammer this home as well:
http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=6541040&postcount=249


I have a lovely issue of TIME magazine right here that is all about the experience of Barack Obama.
With the exception of Hillary prior to becoming President the following have less experience in total years in political office than Barack Obama who has 3 years in the Senate and 7 years in the House of Representatives:

Hillary Clinton : 7 Years in the Senate
George W. Bush : 6 years as governor
Ronald Reagan
Jimmy Carter
Dwight Eisenhower
FDR
Herbert Hoover
Woodrow Wilson
William H. Taft
Theodore Roosevelt
Grover Cleveland
Chester A. Arthur
Ulysses S. Grant
Abraham Lincoln (10 years experience, but none in the Senate, compared with the 30 plus years of his predecessor)
Zachary Taylor
Andrew Jackson

43 presidents and he's more experienced that 13 of them.

[section 8]

Hilary Was never President

And siting Jackson, Carter, and Arthur isn't saying much

Not to Mention Regean And Dubya

[Sabrinaset]

I now invoke the name of Jimmy Carter, Well meaning, but unable to accomplish anything because of his lack of experiance, the GOP cut him off at the knees.

They did? Tell me, which part of Congress did the Republicans control during Carter's term?

[section 8]

They did? Tell me, which part of Congress did the Republicans control during Carter's term?

Influance has many forms, Congress is but one

[Sabrinaset]

Influance has many forms, Congress is but one

That's not really telling me much ... lemee guess: You're gonna say the Swiftboaters? Talk Radio? Rush Limbaugh? :p

[Crowley]

Hilary Was never President

And siting Jackson, Carter, and Arthur isn't saying much

Not to Mention Regean And Dubya

that's why it says "With the exception of Hillary" as it was comparing each to Barack Obama.

And how did the GOP cut him off at the knees? He created the Departments of Energy and Education and the majority of House and Senate were Democrats.

But here's a riddle... What do Vietnam and Carter's approval rating have in common?

[section 8]

Dude, the biggest thing cutting off Jimmy Carter at the knees was Jimmy Carter. But okay, tell us what these things the Republicans did were. I mean, especially when you consider they were at their weakest after Watergate and all ...

Kinda my point, Carter was damn near handed the whitehouse by the GOP because he was no threat, and it worked the republicans came back with their Reagan Revolution,

after Reagan and bush got done raping us, they did the same for Clinton, but he turned out to be more competant than they realised.

See a pattern?

[Crowley]

That's not really telling me much ... lemee guess: You're gonna say the Swiftboaters? Talk Radio? Rush Limbaugh? :p

psst... HE DOESN'T KNOW.

Carter wasn't cut off at the knees by the GOP anymore than Hippies ended Vietnam...
As Deepthroat said "follow the money"

[Crowley]

Kinda my point, Carter was damn near handed the whitehouse by the GOP because he was no threat, and it worked the republicans came back with their Reagan Revolution,

after Reagan and bush got done raping us, they did the same for Clinton, but he turned out to be more competant than they realised.

See a pattern?

You know why Clinton won the White House in 1992?
Ross Perot who chipped away almost 20% of the vote.

Had NOTHING to do really with Clinton's competence.

[section 8]

that's why it says "With the exception of Hillary" as it was comparing each to Barack Obama.?

sorry i was coughing up my liver and trying to read your post at the same time.

And how did the GOP cut him off at the knees? He created the Departments of Energy and Education and the majority of House and Senate were Democrats?

The Depot. of Energy was a good idea, but then he told the American people to put on a sweater and cut of thier heaters, in the parts of the nation where the winters get thirty below that's not a good idea, kind of an amature mistake

the Depot of Edu. is proving more of a liability rthan asset, it DID pave the way for bushes no child left behind bullshit. but that depends on your area code i guess,

But here's a riddle... What do Vietnam and Carter's approval rating have in common?

Embarassment?

[section 8]

psst... HE DOESN'T KNOW.

Tsk Tsk Crow.
I thought we were having a mature conversation, thus far you had impressed, and surprised me with your ability to do so.............well thats over

[Crowley]

Your contributions have been lacking... if you're going to adopt the right wing talking points on history at very least try to be somewhat accurate.

Ironic that you've been parroting the nonsense that Obama's campaign and stances have been pure surface with no substance when oftentimes your answers to questions posed to you are in fact... just that.

the answer to the riddle was "War Debt" it's damage to the economy and the economic stagnation was such that when the Energy Crisis hit it made it all the worse.

And War Debt is the same reason we have to end the war in Iraq. We can't afford it.

[Sabrinaset]

Kinda my point, Carter was damn near handed the whitehouse by the GOP because he was no threat, and it worked the republicans came back with their Reagan Revolution,

after Reagan and bush got done raping us, they did the same for Clinton, but he turned out to be more competant than they realised.

See a pattern?

Uhm, no. I see you not answering the question though. Look ... you said the reason Carter failed was because the Republicans were cutting him off at the knees. Now, HOW did they do that during Carters term? How could they? In what specific way did they cut him down? In fact, didn't he have a great deal of trouble with Congress despite them being in the same party, something about Carter interfering with Congressional pork to the point where even Tip O'Neill thought Carter was screwing up? No wait ... maybe it was the stagflation that occured under his term? How did the Republicans mastermind that to make Carter look bad?

IIRC, Carter won a pretty close race with Ford, so it wasn't like they didn't TRY to keep the White House at least. And let's face it, The Reagan Revolution won because Reagan was offering hope, and Carter, malaise. Heck, I just asked Daddy about it and he tells me almost everyone he knew couldn't wait to vote against Carter, especially when you consider how weak the US looked after the Hostage and Energy Crisis. Carter wasn't a very strong leader.

So again ... tell me how the Republicans cut Carter off at the knees. Who exactly did it, and what did they do?

psst... HE DOESN'T KNOW.

Carter wasn't cut off at the knees by the GOP anymore than Hippies ended Vietnam...
As Deepthroat said "follow the money"

Yeah, I know, but it's fun to ask anyways. I mean, if you're going to hate Republicans, hate them for what they've done, don't, you know ... make up stuff. That's just wrong.

[Sabrinaset]

The Depot. of Energy was a good idea, but then he told the American people to put on a sweater and cut of thier heaters, in the parts of the nation where the winters get thirty below that's not a good idea, kind of an amature mistake

the Depot of Edu. is proving more of a liability rthan asset, it DID pave the way for bushes no child left behind bullshit. but that depends on your area code i guess,

Okay, I get it now. Two federal level departments which were Carters ideas and which were approved, presumably, by both the House and Senate which were both under Democrat control, and by Carter telling people to wear sweaters, that was how the Republicans cut Carter off at the knees. And the Republicans LET Jimmy create the Department of Education KNOWING W would start No Child Left Behind!

Well, of course! NOW it makes perfect sense!!! The Republicans FORCED Jimmy to wear those sweaters! They're psychic, too!

Who needs hallucinogens when you have Section 8?

[section 8]

dropping out of a war because it's too costly, well "freedom isnt Free" as they say we started this mess might as well stick around to see a return on our investment. Or we could write it off as a total loss, as we did with Vietnam.

but as i said before we arn't there to play soccer, we are trying to p-reserve life, and help them build stability, if we leave now the number of things that could go wrong are myriad

under a new president, God help me i'm optimistic enough to think we might be able to turn this war around, assuming the new President can go before the UN and say " that last guy (Bush) fucked up, he made a mess, but if you help me i will be willing to accept responsibilty for cleaning it up" with the UN's assistance Surprise! less debt is added to the total.

[CutterMike]

(...)
so your saying with eleven years, vrs five years Obama will only be a 55% improvement over Bush?
(...)

Ummm... 11 is 220% of 5.

...Although, granted; being 220% better than Dubya STILL isn't saying all that much.:biggrin:

[section 8]

Ummm... 11 is 220% of 5.

...Although, granted; being 220% better than Dubya STILL isn't saying all that much.:biggrin:

there is a penaltyu for Bush's TX to Obamas Chigago

Chi-Town is great TX is a shit hole

(in if you dont buy that, then i suck at %)

[Sabrinaset]

dropping out of a war because it's too costly, well "freedom isnt Free" as they say we started this mess might as well stick around to see a return on our investment. Or we could write it off as a total loss, as we did with Vietnam.

but as i said before we arn't there to play soccer, we are trying to p-reserve life, and help them build stability, if we leave now the number of things that could go wrong are myriad

under a new president, God help me i'm optimistic enough to think we might be able to turn this war around, assuming the new President can go before the UN and say " that last guy (Bush) fucked up, he made a mess, but if you help me i will be willing to accept responsibilty for cleaning it up" with the UN's assistance Surprise! less debt is added to the total.

there is a penaltyu for Bush's TX to Obamas Chigago

Chi-Town is great TX is a shit hole

(in if you dont buy that, then i suck at %)

Man, I haveta ask ... are you drunk?

[section 8]

Man, I haveta ask ... are you drunk?

Why? Would your posts make more sence if i were?

[Cam63]

Well, I'm done Betraying the United States of America for the moment.

I haven't been doing nearly enough Undermining the Sanctity of Marriage this week!

Keep up the good work, Agent PB-007.

[Sabrinaset]

Why? Would your posts make more sence if i were?

Dude, my posts NEVER make sense! In fact, that's how we define insanity at YABS ... if you're making less sense than me, you're insane! And right now, you're making me look downright normal.

Now, one more time, from the top ... WHICH Republicans cut Carter off at the knees during his term, and HOW did they do it?

Oh, and everyone else ... don't help him. I wanna see if he can figure it out himself. That goes DOUBLE for you, McEnery!

[Cam63]

oh that John McCain... what character.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1024927/The-wife-John-McCain-callously-left-behind.html

Whoa... That was damn harsh of him...

[Buzz Dixon]

I DID site Bushes inexperiance as one of my reasons for not voting for him in 2000, But alas, i did not put it in writting, and didn't have a Notary on hand even if i did, so i cant "Document it"Your word is good enough.

[Buzz Dixon]

Kinda my point, Carter was damn near handed the whitehouse by the GOP because he was no threat, and it worked the republicans came back with their Reagan Revolution,Ford lost re-election because he pardoned Nixon, even then it was pretty close.

Carter was a micro-manager, he lacked what others have referred to as "the vision thing." He scolded America instead of challenging us. Throw in a few crazy relatives and a stalled out economy, and it's small wonder Reagan beat him.

As one of the jokes of the era went, the biggest difference between Carter and Reagan was that Reagan could act like a President.

[Crowley]

dropping out of a war because it's too costly, well "freedom isnt Free" as they say we started this mess might as well stick around to see a return on our investment. Or we could write it off as a total loss, as we did with Vietnam.

but as i said before we arn't there to play soccer, we are trying to p-reserve life, and help them build stability, if we leave now the number of things that could go wrong are myriad

under a new president, God help me i'm optimistic enough to think we might be able to turn this war around, assuming the new President can go before the UN and say " that last guy (Bush) fucked up, he made a mess, but if you help me i will be willing to accept responsibilty for cleaning it up" with the UN's assistance Surprise! less debt is added to the total.

FYI: Your concept of how this all works is WAY the fuck off.

[section 8]

FYI: Your concept of how this all works is WAY the fuck off.

enlighten me

[section 8]

further more why is it anytime i disagree with one of you YABSters you assume i am ignorant

let me give you a brief history on ol' section 8

My fathers Family three generations ( to date) of honerable Military service.

My mothers family two generations (and cousins by the dozens) working in politics.

I myself am an injury away from BEING in Iraq ( so it isn't like i'm not willing to put my money where my mouth is)
and i've worked in politics for some years (two professionally and several on a "Volunteer basis)

So, Crow i gotta ask,
When was the last time you lived on a military base? and How politicaly aware were you before Obama charmed your ass off the couch?

[glue]

How politicaly aware were you before Obama charmed your ass off the couch?

That made me smile.

[Gail Simone]

I don't assume you're ignorant, Section 8.

I don't get it, you say this stuff a lot, but you seem to have been accepted right away. I enjoy your posts, others do too, what's the problem?

[section 8]

I am very paranoid

a Military/ political Family will do that to anyone.

[Gail Simone]

Well, LIGHTEN UP, SOLDIER.

:)

Relax, you're among friends. We don't all have to agree on every single thing.

Gail

[Crowley]

further more why is it anytime i disagree with one of you YABSters you assume i am ignorant

let me give you a brief history on ol' section 8

My fathers Family three generations ( to date) of honerable Military service.

My mothers family two generations (and cousins by the dozens) working in politics.

I myself am an injury away from BEING in Iraq ( so it isn't like i'm not willing to put my money where my mouth is)
and i've worked in politics for some years (two professionally and several on a "Volunteer basis)

So, Crow i gotta ask,
When was the last time you lived on a military base? and How politicaly aware were you before Obama charmed your ass off the couch?


Dude all you gotta do to find out how politically active I was before you ran over this way is by clicking "find all posts by." Just a touch of research.

Three generations of family in political media, including my dad who's a vet and has been a political editor for 30 years. You ever watch the video where Bush says "Strategery"? My uncle is right behind him in the aviator glasses grinning.
His photo credit:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/09/us/politics/09repubs.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

His twin, my other uncle is a political cartoonist and has been featured nationally in papers.
My cousin works in the Senate.

Oh and my stepmom was awarded a presidential medal a mere 3-4 months ago:
http://www.usafreedomcorps.gov/about_usafc/newsroom/local_vols_dynamic.asp?ID=1816

Some families go crazy for football... my family's sport of choice is politics. I've been active my whole life... and by whole life I mean I have baby photos in front of Watergate, met governor Bob Graham when I was a kid and met Jeb Bush in 98, also ran into Mark Foley (of all people) in 02.

I've been in protests, phonebanked, etc, etc... I worked for 5 years in the housing projects in Florida.

There is no couch. Literally.
Didn't have one until last year and it's a futon anyway.

But more than that... I read. I listen. I stay informed. Without which all that I listed above... is meaningless.

Which by the way... sometimes you're very insightful and clever, but it's painful when you're just being contrary and not providing any facts to back up your opinions... or horribly misstating history.

[PatrickG]

dropping out of a war because it's too costly, well "freedom isnt Free" as they say we started this mess might as well stick around to see a return on our investment. Or we could write it off as a total loss, as we did with Vietnam.

A popular saying in Intellectual Property is that there are two kinds of freedom: Free as in beer and free as in speech.

Freedom is not "free as in beer". Freedom is, pretty much by definition, "free as in speech".

Freedom exists when it is exercised by people willing to pay the price for it.

I don't buy that freedom can be "purchased" for another person. You can make freedom easier for a person to exercise but it's ultimately got to be something that person is willing to pay a price for. Soldiers who die in a "just war" make it easier for citizens to exercise their freedom by combatting influences which would disrupt that freedom -- but even then it's the duty of the folks back home to exercise their freedoms and demand their freedoms from their own government.

The Iraqi people didn't want freedom on the scale necessary for them to be free. Some of them did but not enough of them did.

If our goal was a free and Western-style democratic state in Iraq, we screwed up BIG TIME by painting ourselves as liberators.

In the American revolution, we had French and Hessian allies. And realistically, most colonists did not want independence and of those that did, there was serious debate as to how much freedom they DID want.

But the American Revolution was successfully sold as a revolt by the native people even though it was staged by a minority and relied on foreign troops.

Iraq, as near as I see it, doesn't have a George Washington or Charles de Gaulle.

For a free Iraq to work, we really needed to back an internal faction coalition, even if only as a posterchild for our campaign. This would give them the necessary illusion of sovereignty to build a REAL sovereignty around.

Instead, we forced our way in Iraq, took both initiative and credit -- which we NEEDED to give to native Iraqis, and created a beholden welfare state with no sense of national identity.

[section 8]

*RE Crowley*
then niether of us is in any position to question the others credibility.
(no wonder we cant get along, were too fucking alike)

can we continue disussing the matter like adults now?

[section 8]

A popular saying in Intellectual Property is that there are two kinds of freedom: Free as in beer and free as in speech.

Freedom is not "free as in beer". Freedom is, pretty much by definition, "free as in speech".

Freedom exists when it is exercised by people willing to pay the price for it.

I don't buy that freedom can be "purchased" for another person. You can make freedom easier for a person to exercise but it's ultimately got to be something that person is willing to pay a price for. Soldiers who die in a "just war" make it easier for citizens to exercise their freedom by combatting influences which would disrupt that freedom -- but even then it's the duty of the folks back home to exercise their freedoms and demand their freedoms from their own government.

The Iraqi people didn't want freedom on the scale necessary for them to be free. Some of them did but not enough of them did.

If our goal was a free and Western-style democratic state in Iraq, we screwed up BIG TIME by painting ourselves as liberators.

In the American revolution, we had French and Hessian allies. And realistically, most colonists did not want independence and of those that did, there was serious debate as to how much freedom they DID want.

But the American Revolution was successfully sold as a revolt by the native people even though it was staged by a minority and relied on foreign troops.

Iraq, as near as I see it, doesn't have a George Washington or Charles de Gaulle.

For a free Iraq to work, we really needed to back an internal faction coalition, even if only as a posterchild for our campaign. This would give them the necessary illusion of sovereignty to build a REAL sovereignty around.

Instead, we forced our way in Iraq, took both initiative and credit -- which we NEEDED to give to native Iraqis, and created a beholden welfare state with no sense of national identity.

I agree compleatly
tho i think you missed my pun on the word free.

[Cam63]

The beers are on the bar.

[PatrickG]

Incidentally... I genuinely believe that freedom cannot take root in Iraq as it presently exists until the state there collapses and is re-formed by Iraqis.

Then we can back the faction(s) most likely to support freedom. But we can't give them freedom.

And yes, I know letting the Iraqi state collapse will cost a LOT of lives. But I don't see a choice and I blame every casualty on the people who thought we could build a state there.

The Brits couldn't do it with Israel and we can't do it in Iraq. Israel stands today only because the Israelis are damn tough... and because they're just crazy enough that the West will step in to do their dirty work because we know Israel will do the job much dirtier if we allow them to.

In a lot of ways, I see our support of Israel as being a kind of humanitarian blackmail. We don't want to see Iran's civilians, for example, get nuked. So we play along with Israel and do their work for them.

I'd say they're probably our most hostile ally... and they've created a political climate where disagreeing with them is perceived as racist and where they have one of the biggest lobbies in American politics.

But you say something like this and it gets confused with crackpot theories about a zionist illuminatti. I don't think Jews run the world. I also don't think that Israel = Judaism. I DO think Israel wants us by the balls and skirts provoking WWIII because they know we'll do whatever they want to avoid that.

And we're creating a similarly problematic state in Iraq where we're forced to act as their millitary.

[Crowley]

Sure section... but do me a favor and start researching a bit. I get it wrong too when I guess, and sometimes even when I don't.

Really astute observation Patrick. Reminds me of this

General Maxwell Taylor, one of the principal architects of the Vietnam war, noted "first, we didn't know ourselves. We thought that we were going into another Korean war, but this was a different country. Secondly, we didn't know our South Vietnamese allies … And we knew less about North Vietnam. Who was Ho Chi Minh? Nobody really knew. So, until we know the enemy and know our allies and know ourselves, we'd better keep out of this kind of dirty business. It's very dangerous."

and the fact that lessons from Gulf War I:
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?pubID=182
were just ignored...

written in 2003:
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB182.pdf

reads like a crystal ball...

[PatrickG]

Incidentally... I genuinely believe that freedom cannot take root in Iraq as it presently exists until the state there collapses and is re-formed by Iraqis.

Then we can back the faction(s) most likely to support freedom. But we can't give them freedom.

And yes, I know letting the Iraqi state collapse will cost a LOT of lives. But I don't see a choice and I blame every casualty on the people who thought we could build a state there.

The Brits couldn't do it with Israel and we can't do it in Iraq. Israel stands today only because the Israelis are damn tough... and because they're just crazy enough that the West will step in to do their dirty work because we know Israel will do the job much dirtier if we allow them to.

In a lot of ways, I see our support of Israel as being a kind of humanitarian blackmail. We don't want to see Iran's civilians, for example, get nuked. So we play along with Israel and do their work for them.

I'd say they're probably our most hostile ally... and they've created a political climate where disagreeing with them is perceived as racist and where they have one of the biggest lobbies in American politics.

But you say something like this and it gets confused with crackpot theories about a zionist illuminatti. I don't think Jews run the world. I also don't think that Israel = Judaism. I DO think Israel wants us by the balls and skirts provoking WWIII because they know we'll do whatever they want to avoid that.

And we're creating a similarly problematic state in Iraq where we're forced to act as their millitary.

[section 8]

Sure section... but do me a favor and start researching a bit. I get it wrong too when I guess, and sometimes even when I don't.

Really astute observation Patrick. Reminds me of this



and the fact that lessons from Gulf War I:
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?pubID=182
were just ignored...

written in 2003:
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB182.pdf

reads like a crystal ball...

our biggest mistake in Gulf War I?
pulling out.
( i think it was cuz G.H.W.Bush was up for Re Election)

[section 8]

[QUOTE=Crowley;6988713]Sure section... but do me a favor and start researching a bit. I get it wrong too when I guess, and sometimes even when I don't.
QUOTE]

i said like adul- nevermind close enough.

[section 8]

Incidentally... I genuinely believe that freedom cannot take root in Iraq as it presently exists until the state there collapses and is re-formed by Iraqis.

Then we can back the faction(s) most likely to support freedom. But we can't give them freedom..

good point and we probably should but the last time we did we created our current enemy, and not even a politician wants that on their conscience. se if iraq does collapse on it's own it likely will be on its own indeed. except for Blackwater.

[the4thpip]

Whoa... That was damn harsh of him...

Well, considering how he talks to the current wife (http://rawstory.com/news/2008/McCain_temper_boiled_over_in_92_0407.html), she is probably better off.

[the4thpip]

further more why is it anytime i disagree with one of you YABSters you assume i am ignorant



I don't know about the others, but for me it's the spelling. For example, it's "cite" (as in citation), not "site." Neither, not niether (are you using Firefox? It has a nifty spell checker). And the punctuation. My god, the punctuation.

But don't mind me. I'm a grammar nazi. And we beat Poland last night. In soccer.

[Samurai]

Well, LIGHTEN UP, SOLDIER.

:)

Relax, you're among friends. We don't all have to agree on every single thing.

Gail

Well, you do unless you're willing to be a "bad American", apparently...

[the4thpip]

Well, you do unless you're willing to be a "bad American", apparently...

Let me explain something about your language to you.
"Not having to agree on every little thing" is not the same thing as "everything is open to debate."

When it comes to basic human rights being flushed down the toilet, some of us won't even argue about possible merits of that.

[kingdom2000]

I think Iraq needs to collapse. What replaces it may be stronger (like after our Civil War, thank god no one felt a need to stop us from having ours) or weaker but sadly this hanging out and just hoping some kind of magic occurs and "fixes" everything is the very definition of insane ("doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results").

If the people's political will isn't there, if the leadership isn't there, you can throw all the money, soldiers, and sadly the dead at the problem and the result will be the same, which is no progress. Iraq has neither. It shows no sign of getting either and just waiting it out is simply getting good people killed.

As its been pointed out many times, until Bush and Iraq, Democracy never had to forced on a people through invasion and occupation. Its ironic that those that feel they support the ideal of freedom and democracy the most are the ones that fail the recognize that basic fact.

[cactusmaac]

I think Iraq needs to collapse. What replaces it may be stronger (like after our Civil War, thank god no one felt a need to stop us from having ours) or weaker but sadly this hanging out and just hoping some kind of magic occurs and "fixes" everything is the very definition of insane ("doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results").



Iraq potentially has the biggest oil reserves in the world and borders Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iran. Letting it collapse when oil looks set to zoom past $6 would be an election-killer for whoever becomes president.

[section 8]

I don't know about the others, but for me it's the spelling. For example, it's "cite" (as in citation), not "site." Neither, not niether (are you using Firefox? It has a nifty spell checker). And the punctuation. My god, the punctuation.

But don't mind me. I'm a grammar nazi. And we beat Poland last night. In soccer.

I did not grow up with a CPU i was around fifteen the first time i used one, and in some cases i realy dont give a fuck about spelling or gramar.

So i can't type, big deal, can you spotweld?

[section 8]

Iraq potentially has the biggest oil reserves in the world and borders Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iran. Letting it collapse when oil looks set to zoom past $6 would be an election-killer for whoever becomes president.

not to mention what could happen if that oil money fell into Iran or Turkey's hands.

[Corrina]

Ford lost re-election because he pardoned Nixon, even then it was pretty close.

Carter was a micro-manager, he lacked what others have referred to as "the vision thing." He scolded America instead of challenging us. Throw in a few crazy relatives and a stalled out economy, and it's small wonder Reagan beat him.

As one of the jokes of the era went, the biggest difference between Carter and Reagan was that Reagan could act like a President.

The Iranian hostage crisis. Where he managed to make America look incompetent on a global scale.

If there's one thing Americans really hate, it's a loser. And Carter lost to a bunch of crazy Iranian students. (At least, that was definitely the perception. Don't want to argue the point.)

W. is a loser too, because he's not winning the war. In 2004, Americans were willing to not see that. They do now. But it's not Bush Obama is running against.

[section 8]

The Iranian hostage crisis. Where he managed to make America look incompetent on a global scale.

If there's one thing Americans really hate, it's a loser. And Carter lost to a bunch of crazy Iranian students. (At least, that was definitely the perception. Don't want to argue the point.)
.

not to mention sending the message to that part of the world that "terrorism works".

[Charles RB]

not to mention what could happen if that oil money fell into Iran or Turkey's hands.

We'd buy oil from Iran and Turkey, so we'd all suddenly be a lot nicer to Iran ala Saudi Arabia, and the EU would be a lot more eager for Turkey to join it.

I'm not actually that bothered by the idea of Turkey having more oil, more that to get it they'd have to seize part of Iraq and kill a whole bunch of people in the process.

not to mention sending the message to that part of the world that "terrorism works".

Terrorism is a military tactic, and it can work and has worked.

[section 8]

Don't pretend Iran is Just another country. these jerks have been trying to push us into attacking with them since the Iraq war started. maybe to start a "holy war" maybe because they know their lives would improve afterward:biggrin:

But Iran is dangerous

[Charles RB]

these jerks have been trying to push us into attacking with them since the Iraq war started.

How did they do this? The nearest example I can think of is when the Revolutionary Guard captured British navy personell while the government was coincidentally unable to take calls, but that was less "come attack us UK!" and more "stay the FUCK out of that stretch of water, it's OURS". (They view it as theirs anyway, we view it as Iraq's)

[Infra-Man]

Man, I haveta ask ... are you drunk?

Okay, sorry, but I lol'd.

And section8, I will say two things. One, there's no need to show any unreasonable animosity towards anyone. Two, I agree with the4thpip about spelling and punctuation. Sometimes it's hard for me to decipher your posts.

Anyways, having not lived through the Carter years and only read about them, it seems like it was Carter's own fault for being an ineffective president, not the fault of the GOP. The crap economy he was dealing with didn't help either nor did the Iranian hostage crisis or the energy crisis. He was inept at playing the cards he was dealt.

If it was the GOP's fault for his ineffectiveness, I don't think Ted Kennedy would have run for president against Carter. Instead, Kennedy would have been a vocal backer of Carter that election year.

[Infra-Man]

Some political activists worry that the Denver police will use the brown note to deter protesters at the Democratic National Convention.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_9482317

Full text of article below

What we don't know won't hurt?
By Susan Greene
Denver Post Columnist

Beware of the Brown Note.

That's the word among some political activists as the Democratic National Convention nears.

As legend has it, the Brown Note is an infrasonic frequency believed to resonate through human body parts and cause a loss of bowel control. Some protesters are convinced that Denver police will amplify such low frequencies to subdue them in August.

"They'll bring out all the technologies they can get their hands on," says activist Ben Yager. "I wouldn't put anything past police in terms of crowd control."

Sounds paranoid?

Maybe. But Mayor John Hickenlooper's administration is only fueling conspiracy theories by refusing to disclose what equipment it's buying with $18 million in federal money. Even after being sued last week, the city insists on keeping its list a secret.

"Commenting on specific security preparations is not helpful to ensuring their effectiveness," says city spokeswoman Sue Cobb.

In May, council members gave their nod to major expenditures such as a new SWAT vehicle, communications equipment and an amplification system. Rather than any serious discussion about why such big-ticket items may be needed, the council's safety committee instead chose to crack jokes.

"I'm not quite sure I know what a SWAT vehicle is all about," said Councilwoman Jeanne Faatz.

"Can we use it for insects?" quipped Councilman Doug Linkhart to much guffawing.

The city flat-out refuses to say how it plans to use the $385,000 amplification system that council members approved with little public discussion. That's why activists like Yager are buzzing about the Brown Note, real or imagined, and sonic weapons that cities such as New York have mounted on SWAT trucks to control protesters.

The source of much chatter is Glenn Spagnuolo, co- founder of the Re-create 68 activist alliance and who claims to have inside information about the Police Department's cache of so-called less-lethal weapons — a term as absurd as "low-fat Oreo."

As Spagnuolo tells it, the list includes new Taser guns that stun people for 20 seconds (as if the 5 seconds in the good old days wasn't long enough).

Activists also prognosticate that Denver will dispatch the mother of all less-lethal weapons — a microwave ray gun said to cause a burning sensation in the skin. The Pentagon hasn't used the system in Iraq, lest it be accused of torture. Lefty activists speculate that Raytheon is seeking to test a limited-range civilian version for domestic crowd control in Denver this summer.

"That, we think, is not a conspiracy theory," says Re-create 68 co-founder Mark Cohen, 62, who cut his teeth in activism when the highest technology that protesters feared was wooden billy clubs.

In a letter to the city Tuesday, Hickenlooper touted the convention as a "tremendous marketing opportunity" for Denver. Being the skilled marketer that he is, you would think the mayor would be the first to put an end to wild speculation about his police and their new bowel-moving sci-fi toys.

Unless, of course, it's true.

In which case I would remind the mayor that we aren't hosting a war but a convention — and a purportedly democratic one in a time of turmoil and widespread distrust of government and its all-too- heavy hand and secretive ways.

[Corrina]

I did not grow up with a CPU i was around fifteen the first time i used one, and in some cases i realy dont give a fuck about spelling or gramar.

So i can't type, big deal, can you spotweld?

But he can converse in a second language with proper spelling and grammar. (Pip is German.)

I'm figuring he thinks if he can spell and capitalize right, so you can you.

Like it or not, the misspellings and lack of capitalization can make anyone seem ignorant, even if they're not. If you want your words to be taken seriously, take words seriously.

[the4thpip]

I did not grow up with a CPU i was around fifteen the first time i used one, and in some cases i realy dont give a fuck about spelling or gramar.

So i can't type, big deal, can you spotweld?

I'm more of a dogwelder than a spotwelder.

We are not doing metalwork together. We are communicating. Just like welding, it's better when it's done right.

[Michael P]

Some political activists worry that the Denver police will use the brown note to deter protesters at the Democratic National Convention.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_9482317

Full text of article below

Some political activists are fucking idiots.

[Usernamessd]

The Iranian hostage crisis. Where he managed to make America look incompetent on a global scale.

If there's one thing Americans really hate, it's a loser. And Carter lost to a bunch of crazy Iranian students. (At least, that was definitely the perception. Don't want to argue the point.)

W. is a loser too, because he's not winning the war. In 2004, Americans were willing to not see that. They do now. But it's not Bush Obama is running against.

Wow and i didn't think there were more fucked up people then 'Bush supporters' in 2008.

How do you win an 'Invasion' of Iraq?

[Infra-Man]

Some political activists are fucking idiots.

Yup, that sums it up.

[Buzz Dixon]

Wow and i didn't think there were more fucked up people then 'Bush supporters' in 2008.

How do you win an 'Invasion' of Iraq?By having a stabilized country with no acts of terrorism, viz. Germany, Italy, and Japan after WWII.

One key difference is that in WWII, with the imprecise weapons guidance systems of the time, it pretty much boiled down to waging war on entire civilian populations, carpet/fire-bombing cities, blowing up dams, etc. By the time the war ended everybody was pretty much sick of it and even Germany and Japan, the two most militaristic societies involved in the conflict, really didn't have the stomach for wide spread resistance.

In Iraq, the weapons systems were much more precise, far less collateral damage (which is not the same thing as saying there was none), and a great many people did not need to suffer through years of hellish attacks before the conflict ended. Hence, there was more fight left in parts of the surviving population than in Germany or Japan.

[Buzz Dixon]

The thing about Iran, North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela is that all four countries are poised to swing against their current regimes once something gets the ball rolling. There is little love the for ayatollahs of Iran among the general populace, but the general populace believes the ayatollahs are a democratically elected government. The Venezuelans are chaffing under Hugo Chavez and given a chance will probably show him the door. There are already signs the Cuban government is starting to loosen up in anticipation of normalization of relations with the U.S. when Fidel finally bites the big green weenie (and I seriously doubt Castroism will long survive him, particularly in the face of normalized relations with the U.S. and millions of Cubans living here). It's been reported North Korea is rationing food among the top party cadre, so don't be surprised if Kim Il Jong gets treated to a Nicolai Ceausescu style going away party real soon.

[Charles RB]

The thing about Iran, North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela is that all four countries are poised to swing against their current regimes once something gets the ball rolling.

Which does beg the question of what would replace them. While I can see Cuba becoming a stable democracy, I don't know what would happen in North Korea but I'm assuming it won't be nice.

[section 8]

How did they do this? The nearest example I can think of is when the Revolutionary Guard captured British navy personell while the government was coincidentally unable to take calls, but that was less "come attack us UK!" and more "stay the FUCK out of that stretch of water, it's OURS". (They view it as theirs anyway, we view it as Iraq's)

First that was not an isolated incident there have been several reports by Navy personel other times when they pulled the same stunt

insurgents have been found to be using Iranian weapons, either Iran is supplying them or looking the other way while they are being stolen

Iranian Military personel have been captured WITH Iraqi insurcgents

and their wack job president likes to let his mouth write checks his ass can't cash

[section 8]

I'm more of a dogwelder than a spotwelder.

We are not doing metalwork together. We are communicating. Just like welding, it's better when it's done right.

can you understand these words on your screen?

Quit your bitchin.

[Charles RB]

First that was not an isolated incident there have been several reports by Navy personel other times when they pulled the same stunt

Wait, how do you mean? Same stunt as in actually boarding a vessel to capture the seamen, or as in threatening boats to leave that stretch of water? (Either way wouldn't mean they want to actually go to war, it means they want us to not be in water they consider theirs)

insurgents have been found to be using Iranian weapons, either Iran is supplying them or looking the other way while they are being stolen

Remember this, though I don't remember hearing that they're still doing it (they could've decided the strategy wasn't working the way they wanted). They have been doing official diplomatic visits and loaning money recently, remember.

Iranian Military personel have been captured WITH Iraqi insurcgents

I don't remember that - when did that happen?

and their wack job president likes to let his mouth write checks his ass can't cash

Mm, but a politician saying he'll do things is not the same thing as him actually going to do things. In the case of "rarr hit Israel!" rhetoric, they outright can't - they'd be bombed to fuck by Tel Aviv. You don't fuck with Israel if you're a state.

[Ninja Kris]

can you understand these words on your screen?

Quit your bitchin.

Thought you "one of the few YABSters who doesn't take himself so seriously its sickening"

Looks like you do.

[Infra-Man]

Had a question about this year's election coverage.

For those who watch NBC's and/or MSNBC's coverage: Has anyone else developed a crush/man-crush on NBC political director Chuck Todd?

That guy rules.

[cactusmaac]

By having a stabilized country with no acts of terrorism, viz. Germany, Italy, and Japan after WWII.

One key difference is that in WWII, with the imprecise weapons guidance systems of the time, it pretty much boiled down to waging war on entire civilian populations, carpet/fire-bombing cities, blowing up dams, etc. By the time the war ended everybody was pretty much sick of it and even Germany and Japan, the two most militaristic societies involved in the conflict, really didn't have the stomach for wide spread resistance.

In Iraq, the weapons systems were much more precise, far less collateral damage (which is not the same thing as saying there was none), and a great many people did not need to suffer through years of hellish attacks before the conflict ended. Hence, there was more fight left in parts of the surviving population than in Germany or Japan.

A key difference is the presence of oil. All the different factions know the US will eventually go away so they need to jockey for maximum position to be best placed to get their hands on oil revenues.

The thing about Iran, North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela is that all four countries are poised to swing against their current regimes once something gets the ball rolling. There is little love the for ayatollahs of Iran among the general populace, but the general populace believes the ayatollahs are a democratically elected government. The Venezuelans are chaffing under Hugo Chavez and given a chance will probably show him the door. There are already signs the Cuban government is starting to loosen up in anticipation of normalization of relations with the U.S. when Fidel finally bites the big green weenie (and I seriously doubt Castroism will long survive him, particularly in the face of normalized relations with the U.S. and millions of Cubans living here). It's been reported North Korea is rationing food among the top party cadre, so don't be surprised if Kim Il Jong gets treated to a Nicolai Ceausescu style going away party real soon.


Iranians aren't going to rebel against the current system although that doesn't mean Ahmedinejad is going to be around forever. Cuba and North Korea will soften but the elite is too well-entrenched for any wholesale change.

[section 8]

But he can converse in a second language with proper spelling and grammar. (Pip is German.)

I'm figuring he thinks if he can spell and capitalize right, so you can you.

Like it or not, the misspellings and lack of capitalization can make anyone seem ignorant, even if they're not. If you want your words to be taken seriously, take words seriously.

my family used to be stationed in Mainz, i learned to swear in german and tell someone "i'm sorry you have the wrong number" but that's about it

my point is typing is a skill, not a requirement for living,

i don't believe my opinion should be nul, and void over type-os
and i dont remember having to answer to Pip anyway

[Infra-Man]

my family used to be stationed in Mainz, i learned to swear in german and tell someone "i'm sorry you have the wrong number" but that's about it

my point is typing is a skill, not a requirement for living,

i don't believe my opinion should be nul, and void over type-os
and i dont remember having to answer to Pip anyway

And the point is that poor grammar, poor spelling, and poor punctuation may give people an impression about you that you do not intend.

While typing may not necessarily be a requirement for living, it is a requirement for articulating one's opinion on a message board. And since this is a message board and there are no actual face-to-face discussions, poor spelling and grammar can often undermine the content of one's own opinion.

[Buzz Dixon]

Which does beg the question of what would replace them. While I can see Cuba becoming a stable democracy, I don't know what would happen in North Korea but I'm assuming it won't be nice.Same thing that happened to East Germany: Total collapse followed by absorption by their richer, more stable siblings. South Korean industrialists are itching to get at a cheap new labor market.

[Crowley]

my family used to be stationed in Mainz, i learned to swear in german and tell someone "i'm sorry you have the wrong number" but that's about it

my point is typing is a skill, not a requirement for living,

i don't believe my opinion should be nul, and void over type-os
and i dont remember having to answer to Pip anyway
Respect is a two way street. You're demanding respect from others but not wanting to show courtesy by spelling and using proper grammar or using citations and links to back up your posting.

And y'know stop shoving your resume in everyone's face and trying to engage everyone into a polemic...

[TCJohnson]

Respect is a two way street. You're demanding respect from others but not wanting to show courtesy by spelling and using proper grammar or using citations and links to back up your posting.

And y'know stop shoving your resume in everyone's face and trying to engage everyone into a polemic...

And in another thread accusing us of being like a special education class.

[section 8]

Respect is a two way street. You're demanding respect from others but not wanting to show courtesy by spelling and using proper grammar or using citations and links to back up your posting....
no I just dont have as much free time as you. and i'm not so deparete to have folks believe me that i'd surf the news sites to find links to "back up" my postings. what good would that do? any fuck-wit can edit Wikipedia to suit their agenda.
And y'know stop shoving your resume in everyone's face and trying to engage everyone into a polemic...
I earned my Resume' both strentghs and shortcomings,

[cactusmaac]

Same thing that happened to East Germany: Total collapse followed by absorption by their richer, more stable siblings. South Korean industrialists are itching to get at a cheap new labor market.

Really? I thought South Koreans are somewhat horrified by how expensive reunification has been for the West Germans.

[Charles RB]

I'd heard that too, but about your average South Korean civvie on the street (though not the older generations) rather than industralists. They could want it for cheap labour, I dunno.

[Buzz Dixon]

Really? I thought South Koreans are somewhat horrified by how expensive reunification has been for the West Germans.Sometimes ya gotta take the bitter with the sweet. For one thing, there is a much greater yearning for reunification among South Koreans than there had been with the West Germans. There will doubtlessly be a lot of expenses involved, but there will also be money making opportunities. A cheap, well-educated work force will make reunification more palatable despite the expense.

[Tetsuo_man]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1024927/The-wife-John-McCain-callously-left-behind.html

[section 8]

Adolf Hitler reportedly never so much as looked at another woman while he was with Eva Braun

just a fun little fact for ya (should i post a link?)

[section 8]

And in another thread accusing us of being like a special education class.

so what? you're going to follow me to other threads parroting that post?

did you ever stop to ask yourself why i used a white format for that part of the post?

[GozertheGozarian]

no I just dont have as much free time as you. and i'm not so deparete to have folks believe me that i'd surf the news sites to find links to "back up" my postings. what good would that do? any fuck-wit can edit Wikipedia to suit their agenda.

I earned my Resume' both strentghs and shortcomings,
You're not going to find many to give your opinions or views much credit with that attitude.

[Tetsuo_man]

Adolf Hitler reportedly never so much as looked at another woman while he was with Eva Braun

just a fun little fact for ya (should i post a link?)

Hitler was also a vegetarian.

[KevinTBrown]

Respect is a two way street. You're demanding respect from others but not wanting to show courtesy by spelling and using proper grammar or using citations and links to back up your posting.

And y'know stop shoving your resume in everyone's face and trying to engage everyone into a polemic...
Might as well talk to the wall.

[TCJohnson]

did you ever stop to ask yourself why i used a white format for that part of the post?

Because you were trying to be clever and insult people on this board without them knowing it?

[CutterMike]

Hitler was also a vegetarian.

...didn't drink or smoke, either.

[Tetsuo_man]

also on hitler
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/07/30/1027926884501.html

[Briareos]

How anyone could think of voting for a racist such as Obama is a mystery to me...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI77cU3jsFs

[the4thpip]

can you understand these words on your screen?

Quit your bitchin.

I said dogwelder. Not bitchwelder. I'm gay, I don't do females.

[Paul McEnery]

We've got six more months of this "I know I am, but what are you?"

Joy joy joy.

[the4thpip]

And the point is that poor grammar, poor spelling, and poor punctuation may give people an impression about you that you do not intend.


Exactly. I did not bring up his piss-poor spelling until he asked why he wasn't taken seriously.

[darkhanamaru]

Wow. the level of discussion here has risen to an all-time high.


only five more months to go. may they go fast.

[Buzz Dixon]

...didn't drink or smoke, either.No wonder he was so mean!

[Buzz Dixon]

How anyone could think of voting for a racist such as Obama is a mystery to me...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI77cU3jsFs

If you really think that's racist, I've got a bridge in Florida I'd like to sell ya.

Made out of solid gold bricks, too.

[Tetsuo_man]

http://www.haroldmansfield.com/tag/two-chicks-chatting/

[Buzz Dixon]

Exclusive! Secret footage of Obama and Clinton's meeting!

http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/opinion/walthandelsman/blog/2008/06/animation_the_hillarybarack_me.html

[Sabrinaset]

*RE Crowley*
then niether of us is in any position to question the others credibility.
(no wonder we cant get along, were too fucking alike)

can we continue disussing the matter like adults now?

Well, I'm fine with that!

Now ... in a previous post, you stated that Carter was cut off at the knees by the Republican Party. Could you please state which Republicans during Carter's term did that, how they did it, and when? Thanks!

[the4thpip]

Well, I'm fine with that!

Now ... in a previous post, you stated that Carter was cut off at the knees by the Republican Party. Could you please state which Republicans during Carter's term did that, how they did it, and when? Thanks!

I thought he meant "niece" when he wrote "knees."

[Crowley]

How anyone could think of voting for a racist such as Obama is a mystery to me...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI77cU3jsFs

quotes taken out of context.
It's transparent and ridiculous Bri.

But hey here's a quote in context:

"I hate the gooks."
-John McCain

[rick]

How anyone could think of voting for a racist such as Obama is a mystery to me...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI77cU3jsFs

Yeah, I can see how you wouldn't feel comfortable voting for someone who wasn't a racist.

Maybe you should buy a sheet and a pointy hood?

[Crowley]

aaaand Fox News jumps yet another shark:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_vmQrTi3aM

[kingdom2000]

ah yes, the "terrorist fist jab" that gets mentioned in the teaser but never explained or followup in the show. More of Fox News stealth bombing. The silly thing is they are just talking to a bunch of Bri, you know the already converted. Of course all of them think he is a muslim out to blow up the US.

But if they want to hit the undecided, they need to be less transparent cause I don't think they take to well (i hope) to that level of silliness. Can you imagine the shit storm that the repubs would raise if CNN had aired that exact same teaser in referencing McCain?