2008 U.S. Presidential Election Mega thread

[FalconX2000]

JFK's Dad hired ghost-writers to write his books. He was pretty average in terms of brains. Lyndon Johnson went to teacher's college. He was probably just behind Harding as being the least intellectually gifted president of the twentieth century.

It depends what you define yourself to be intellectually gifted at. Reagan and Kennedy were extraordinarily gifted communicators. They could wrap their heads around ideas and then explain them in a way that allowed everyone else to do so as well (to the benefit of their own agenda of course). They largely had great judgement at foreign policy.

LBJ was a genius at playing psychology. He knew how people thought and he used that to manage his people extraorindarily effectively.

[Red Jack]

I didn't. Really.

I mean, the experience with tequila was/is bad enough. :)
I didn't need to see what the harder stuff did.

However, I don't think it disqualifies him as a candidate at all, given that it's completely past and he obviously doesn't have a problem anymore. And that he's come to grips with *why* he acted out, which seems key.

My mind is warped enough. I would be terrified to see it on drugs of any sort and always have been terrified of that.

besides, Life is plenty interesting enough as is.

[cactusmaac]

It depends what you define yourself to be intellectually gifted at. Reagan and Kennedy were extraordinarily gifted communicators. They could wrap their heads around ideas and then explain them in a way that allowed everyone else to do so as well (to the benefit of their own agenda of course). They largely had great judgement at foreign policy.

LBJ was a genius at playing psychology. He knew how people thought and he used that to manage his people extraorindarily effectively.

You're widening the definition to the point of uselessness. Being good at mind games and being a good speaker aren't the same as being brainy.

[darkhanamaru]

It pains me that Obama had to do this today but it is true, Republicans outspend Democrats. Until we have true campaign finance reform and run our elections like other countries with only public money, we will always have this type of brinkmanship.

June 20, 2008
Obama Forgoes Public Funds in First for Major Candidate
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and JEFF ZELENY

WASHINGTON — Senator Barack Obama announced on Thursday that he would not participate in the public financing system for presidential campaigns. He argued that the system had collapsed, and would put him at a disadvantage running against Senator John McCain, his likely Republican opponent.

With his decision, Mr. Obama became the first candidate of a major party to decline public financing — and the spending limits that go with it — since the system was created in 1976, after the Watergate scandals.

Mr. Obama made his announcement in a video message sent to supporters and posted on the Internet. While it was not a surprise — his aides have been hinting that he would take this step for two months — it represented a turnabout from his strong earlier suggestion that he would join the system. Mr. McCain has been a champion of public financing of campaign throughout his career.

“The public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who’ve become masters at gaming this broken system,” he said. “John McCain’s campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs. And we’ve already seen that he’s not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations.”

Mr. Obama had pledged to meet with Mr. McCain following the primaries to attempt to work out an agreement on financing. That meeting never took place, aides to Mr. Obama said, because a meeting between lawyers for the two sides was not fruitful. “It became clear to me that there wasn’t any basis for future discussion,” said Robert Bauer, the general counsel for Mr. Obama’s campaign.

Told on Thursday morning of Mr. Obama’s decision to opt out of public financing, Charlie Black, a senior adviser to Mr. McCain, charged that Mr. Obama had “broken his word.” Mr. Black reacted to the news after a reporter showed him the Obama campaign’s statement on a Blackberry in the lobby of the Chicago hotel where the McCain campaign was staying.

Jill Hazelbaker, the McCain campaign’s communications director, said later on a conference call with reporters: “The true test of a candidate for President is whether he will stand on principle and keep his word to the American people. Barack Obama has failed that test today, and his reversal of his promise to participate in the public finance system undermines his call for a new type of politics.” She added, “This decision will have far-reaching and extraordinary consequences that will weaken and undermine the public financing system.”

In fact, Mr. Obama stopped short of making a flat promise to participate in the public financing system. Asked in a questionnaire whether he would take part if his opponents did the same, Mr. Obama wrote yes. But he added, “If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.”

Mr. Obama has since said that he would only agree to such a deal if Mr. McCain agreed to curtail spending by the Republican Party and independent groups.

Mr. Obama’s campaign has been notable this year for its success in raising money; he outstripped his Democratic opponents in the primary and seemed well-positioned to out-raise Mr. McCain.

Under the federal presidential financing system, a candidate this year would be given $84.1 million from the Treasury to finance a general election campaign. In exchange, the candidate is barred from accepting private donations, or from spending more than the $84.1 million.

All indications this year are that Mr. Obama will have no problem raising more than that amount for the general election; he raised $95 million in February and March alone, most of it, as his aides noted Thursday, in small contributions raised on the Internet. More than 90 percent of the campaign’s contributions were for $100 or less, said Robert Gibbs, the communications director to Mr. Obama.

That said, the Republican National Committee — which does not operate under the same contribution limits as the candidates — has proved to be much more successful than the Democratic National Committee in raising funds.

Mr. Black said that the McCain campaign’s fundraising was improving, and that its efforts to raise money in conjunction with the Republican National Committee and several state parties working to elect Mr. McCain — which allows donors to contribute far more than the $2,300 limit that they can give to presidential campaigns alone — was yielding results.

“I assume he’s going to outspend us,” Mr. Black said of Mr. Obama, but he added that the money advantage would prove to be less important than it appeared: “We don’t have to spend as much as he does to win.” he said.

For his part, Mr. Obama portrayed the decision to opt out of public financing as one that would limit the influence of special interests in the campaign.

“Instead of forcing us to rely on millions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs, you’ve fueled this campaign with donations of $5, $10, $20, whatever you can afford,” he told his supporters in the video message. “And because you did, we’ve built a grassroots movement of over 1.5 million Americans.”

[cactusmaac]

It pains me that Obama had to do this today but it is true, Republicans outspend Democrats. Until we have true campaign finance reform and run our elections like other countries with only public money, we will always have this type of brinkmanship.
”

He's most likely avoiding public funding so he can spend in excess of the $84m limit.

[Typo Lad]

I just read an article (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/06/obama-to-break.html) about this, which notes it runs counter to what he said he'd be doing.

[FalconX2000]

You're widening the definition to the point of uselessness. Being good at mind games and being a good speaker aren't the same as being brainy.

Then how bout you define what you think being brainy means? I'll answer when I wake up.

[FalconX2000]

-Snip-

This isn't surprising. It was clear Obama was going this direction since March I believe. That was when he was questioned again about the financing thing and he gave the answer about talking to the McCain campaign about it.

What Obama's campaign says is true, though I'm under no illusions its first and foremost because he's the one with the money.

[JamesRitcheyIII]

I guess the only part I understood was the part where you said "but our economy seems to fare better under the auspices of intellectually gifted individuals as President." Well, fine ... Reagan must have been smarter than Carter under your statement. I mean, those ARE your words, right? No wait ... one of them wife-beatin' scum-suckin' Conservatives musta done changed yer post, cuz we-all knows Carter done had a better ecomony than that thar Reagan.

I'm sorry--let me translate: Carter was high-functioning, but lacked social skills, making the poor decision not to delegate authority as a result--and thus making a bad situation worse, while Reagan wasn't likely to do well on Jeopardy, but was a gifted orator, backed by people intent on making the playing field more beneficial to the wealthy--selling the twice-disproven fantasy that 'trickle-down effect' would save us all. You don't remember how bad the first Bush presidency was, do you? There was another recession, and it was the same people in charge under Reagan.

Why the bizarre overreaction and condescension? Oh, yeah--Reagan Youth. I remember you well...

[darkhanamaru]

He's most likely avoiding public funding so he can spend in excess of the $84m limit.

yes i know. that was my badly worded point. he has to not take public money for the republicans will outspend in soft money as it is.

[Tetsuo_man]

I'm sorry--let me translate: Carter was high-functioning, but lacked social skills, making the poor decision not to delegate authority as a result--and thus making a bad situation worse, while Reagan wasn't likely to do well on Jeopardy, but was a gifted orator, backed by people intent on making the playing field more beneficial to the wealthy--selling the twice-disproven fantasy that 'trickle-down effect' would save us all. You don't remember how bad the first Bush presidency was, do you? There was another recession, and it was the same people in charge under Reagan.

Why the bizarre overreaction and condescension? Oh, yeah--Reagan Youth. I remember you well...

This reminds me of a conversation i had with a friend who claimed that the prosperity of the ninties was because of reganomics. I didn't have the heart to say yeah it took twelve years incuding a recession for reaganomics to finally work seemed to be a strech.

[JamesRitcheyIII]

This reminds me of a conversation i had with a friend who claimed that the prosperity of the ninties was because of reganomics. I didn't have the heart to say yeah it took twelve years incuding a recession for reaganomics to finally work seemed to be a strech.

Those shiny-eyed true-believers are creepy (to say the very least), and scare the fuck out of me. Like robots with anger management issues--as if they would crack if given the wrong input...:biggrin:

[Paul McEnery]

This isn't surprising. It was clear Obama was going this direction since March I believe. That was when he was questioned again about the financing thing and he gave the answer about talking to the McCain campaign about it.

What Obama's campaign says is true, though I'm under no illusions its first and foremost because he's the one with the money.

Really?

And not, for example, that McCain didn't spend within the limits even in the Republican nomination campaign, and chose to spend past the limits after he had already won?

[Buzz Dixon]

A squirrel-eating bible-thumper is someone who can best woo independant voters?Meat is meat. If you're a vegan, you can criticize him for eating squirrels only if you criticize everyone else for eating beef, pork, chicken, etc.

If you're not a vegan...

[LtMarvel]

What's your criteria for calling FDR intellectually gifted? His career at Harvard resembled Bush's at Yale i.e. lots of socialising and partying but little indication of being an outstanding student.



Hoover was one of the most gifted engineers in the world and helped translate De Re Metallica from the classical Latin. Wilson, Madison, Taft, Adams and Nixon ranked among the smartest men to become President but none would be confused with being great ones.
All of which would be compared favorably to the current president.

[Buzz Dixon]

re: "gifted intellects"

I've been exposed to a lot of 'em in my lifetime and I gotta say so-called "smart" people can be just as stupid about stuff as the average citizen. Everybody has big gaping blind spots in their intellectual abilities, but the person of average intellect is more likely to realize such blind spots exist while the so-called smart people think they know it all.

It's like the old joke about Mensa: It's the organization for people not smart enough not to join an organization like Mensa.

[Sabrinaset]

Why the bizarre overreaction and condescension? Oh, yeah--Reagan Youth. I remember you well...


Well now, in my defense, all I did was use your own words against you, it's not MY fault you had to backtrack. Now really, if you want to see an example of bizarre overreaction and condescension, you should talk to the guy who wrote this (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=7021932&postcount=327) post.

[JamesRitcheyIII]

Meat is meat. If you're a vegan, you can criticize him for eating squirrels only if you criticize everyone else for eating beef, pork, chicken, etc.

If you're not a vegan...

My half-Cherokee grandmother made Squirrel and Dumplings as often as anyone in the family hunted them. It was an old family recipe.

That was a poor choice of insult, since I turned out OK, politically (on the side of The Enlightenment). :biggrin:

While I haven't had it since my grandma died in '77, no one should knock it until they've tried it--tastes like duck, and significantly better than chicken!

[JamesRitcheyIII]

Well now, in my defense, all I did was use your own words against you, it's not MY fault you had to backtrack. Now really, if you want to see an example of bizarre overreaction and condescension, you should talk to the guy who wrote this (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=7021932&postcount=327) post.

That was meant as a clever and humorous response to someone calling a decision based on Canadian Civil Rights legislation 'facist'--like when O'Reilly or Limbaugh call Liberals Nazis, it's a misapprehension of 'left and right', meant to inflame. In totalitarianism, Right is Nazi or Fascist--reactionary, and Left is Commie or Marxist--Radical.

I'm sorry if you answered yes to everything in my questionaire, and then clicked on Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism
By Dr. Lawrence Britt (http://www.rense.com/general37/char.htm) --but it was meant as pure satire.

[Sabrinaset]

That was meant as a clever and humorous response to someone calling a decision based on Canadian Civil Rights legislation 'facist'--like when O'Reilly or Limbaugh call Liberals Nazis, it's a misapprehension of 'left and right', meant to inflame. In totalitarianism, Right is Nazi or Fascist--reactionary, and Left is Commie or Marxist--Radical.

You know, since you never really responded when people were posting if you were gunna accuse conservatives when they were gunna stop beating their wives, you'll forgive me if no one seemed to take it as a joke. I mean, it was about as humorous as me saying, oh ...

So, CBR Liberals:

http://www.theodoresworld.net/pcfreezone/vile5.jpg

...why IS it you support our troops killing their superior officers? Do you feel bad that you hate the brave people serving in the military? Why do you hate them so much?

Well, I'm sure all the CBR liberals took that just as a joke as well, right?

I'm sorry if you answered yes to everything in my questionaire, and then clicked on Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism
By Dr. Lawrence Britt (http://www.rense.com/general37/char.htm) --but it was meant as pure satire.

Nice, if simplistic, way of implying that I said yes to all those questions. Sadly, I didn't answer yes to anything once I realized it was a hate-filled screed posted by someone who doesn't appear to realize that at least three conservatives on the board that I know of ... MacQuarrie, myself, and I think Stamen, quit the Republican Party when we realized it wasn't really Conservative at all.

In fact, the way you discuss conservatives, the apparent hatred and disdain of those who think differently than you, or dare to have a different worldview ... I have to conclude that the only ones you "know" are either on TV ... or Briareos.

[JamesRitcheyIII]

You know, since you never really responded when people were posting if you were gunna accuse conservatives when they were gunna stop beating their wives, you'll forgive me if no one seemed to take it as a joke. I mean, it was about as humorous as me saying, oh ...



Well, I'm sure all the CBR liberals took that just as a joke as well, right?

I don't remember commenting on that, or posting it. Wasn't it that Anarchist group--? Those guys in Ski masks, right? Like when CIA used to run PsyOps on radical groups, pretending to be members--?

It does remind me of how my friend Big Ron got kicked out of the Marines in 'Nam--he shot his Lieutenant in the ass, because he ordered the troop to burn a village full of women and kids. He was head-hunted for the CIA within a week--so I know a lot more about our intelligence history than your average bear. In your world, conscience and obedience never conflict, do they? Ron was/is a Conservative, and frankly did shit he was repentant for by the time he retired the CIA. The old boy flew Air America.

Nice, if simplistic, way of implying that I said yes to all those questions. Sadly, I didn't answer yes to anything once I realized it was a hate-filled screed posted by someone who doesn't appear to realize that at least three conservatives on the board that I know of ... MacQuarrie, myself, and I think Stamen, quit the Republican Party when we realized it wasn't really Conservative at all.

In fact, the way you discuss conservatives, the apparent hatred and disdain of those who think differently than you, or dare to have a different worldview ... I have to conclude that the only ones you "know" are either on TV ... or Briareos.

Bree, Bree, BREEEEEEE...this jumps to the foregone conclusion that I hate anybody--and while I know that certain types of people with tribal-thinking as their guide think all liberals lie, I'm of a peculiar spiritual-religious faction that says "Nosce te ipsum (Know Thyself)", and that actively hating anyone is a form of self-destruction--a crutch from being able to think, worse than Crack.

I don't hate people--was raised by conservatives who think like you do, and I actually love them. I think Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul are awesome people--I just think they're wrong about what's best for America.

I didn't see later comments, after the 'wife-beating' thing, which I didn't think was a very good apprehension of what I was asking--what did I miss? I don't see how I even implied anything about beating wives--just that what Americans call Conservatism these days has no fundamental difference with Germany or Italy in the Thirties. I don't hate people, I hate 'Pole up your ass' behavior.

Which questions in my post are you violently opposed to or upset about? As I said truthfully, it was meant as humorous--the fact that you found no humor is quite telling. If you reacted so viscerally to something so deliberately light-hearted, maybe re-examine your belief system (Nosce te Ipsum)--but don't hate the player, hate the game.

[Buzz Dixon]

So apparently McCain is P.O.ed that Obama is raising so much money from the private sector in the form of Internet micro-payments that he can forego federal matching funds, basically giving him an unlimited spending ceiling.

Man, if that doesn't sum up this election in terms of visionary outlooks, I don't know what does.

[Red Jack]

So apparently McCain is P.O.ed that Obama is raising so much money from the private sector in the form of Internet micro-payments that he can forego federal matching funds, basically giving him an unlimited spending ceiling.

Man, if that doesn't sum up this election in terms of visionary outlooks, I don't know what does.

You know what I love about YABS (and, sadly for some, why I don't leave?)?

At any given time, on any given issue, people who should (and would) otherwise disagree somehow end up on the same side.

Y'all is crazy.

[Sabrinaset]

I didn't see later comments, after the 'wife-beating' thing, which I didn't think was a very good apprehension of what I was asking--what did I miss? I don't see how I even implied anything about beating wives

The part I bolded is willful obtusism. Gimme a break, you know it's a figure of speech.

Almost right after that post, btw ...

Oh come on. You may as well have asked when they were going to stop beating their wives.

Which questions in my post are you violently opposed to or upset about? As I said truthfully, it was meant as humorous--the fact that you found no humor is quite telling. If you reacted so viscerally to something so deliberately light-hearted, maybe re-examine your belief system (Nosce te Ipsum)--but don't hate the player, hate the game.

I "violently" disagreed with your post? Ooookay ... so how did I do that? Hmm ... oh, second implication there, I didn't find it amusing, so there must be something wrong with me. I need to re-examine my belief system ... Uh-HUH. More sly little comments there ... But, okay, let's go over a few of them in that post of yours ...

Just some questions I found:

2 Do you hate folks who whine about human rights?
Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, have you been persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need"--? Do you tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, or long incarcerations of prisoners?

"Why do you Conservatives hate people who whine about Human Rights? Why do you Conservatives approve of torture. Nice overgeneralization. Oh, that's a laugh riot right there.

3 Do you feel part of a movement rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; illegal immigrants; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.--?

"Do you conservatives like being in a movement to eliminate the different among us based on race, religion, or beliefs" Why are all you conservatives recists and bigots? Funny stuff.

9 Are you fine with corporations and the wealthy getting whatever they want, without limit--governmentally mandated, even--at the expense of the poor, working and middle class families? ...10 Do you think unions and employee protection from wrongful behavior by employers should be curtailed?

Why do you Conservatives feel that the helpless should be screwed? And you wonder how someone can compare your questionairre to a constant "When did you stop beating your wife" series of questions? *shrugs*

13 Do you think corruption and cronyism of the government isn't that important, as long as your shared political agenda is enforced?

This isn't humor ... this is a gross mischaracterization of what Conservatives believe, and I'm finding it incredible that you're being completely disingenuous about being called out on it. Or ... maybe I shouldn't.

Oh ... Do you feel bad that all Liberals salivate over the thought of every single woman having abortions? Do you live for the day when children as young as 10 are having abortions, and not even informing their parents? Why do Liberals love raising taxes? Why is it Liberals whine when the people who work in this country want their taxes lowered? Why do Liberals think that breaking the law is okay as long as someone on their side does it?

What? It's funny, right? You don't find it funny? Man, is there something wrong with you.

[KevinTBrown]

So apparently McCain is P.O.ed that Obama is raising so much money from the private sector in the form of Internet micro-payments that he can forego federal matching funds, basically giving him an unlimited spending ceiling.

Man, if that doesn't sum up this election in terms of visionary outlooks, I don't know what does.
You can look at it in 2 ways:

By doing this, Obama has no ceiling and can spend whatever he wants.

OR

Obama has no need for the money, so why have the tax-payers foot the bills?



Optimist in me wants to go with #2; realist in me knows it's #1.

Either way, it's still a good move by Obama, IMO.

[Buzz Dixon]

You can look at it in 2 ways:

By doing this, Obama has no ceiling and can spend whatever he wants.

OR

Obama has no need for the money, so why have the tax-payers foot the bills?



Optimist in me wants to go with #2; realist in me knows it's #1.

Either way, it's still a good move by Obama, IMO.Andrew Sullivan has observed that no small part of Obama's political savvy is in knowing how to avoid "either/or" in favor of "both/and".:biggrin:

[Paul McEnery]

The part I bolded is willful obtusism. Gimme a break, you know it's a figure of speech.

Almost right after that post, btw ...





I "violently" disagreed with your post? Ooookay ... so how did I do that? Hmm ... oh, second implication there, I didn't find it amusing, so there must be something wrong with me. I need to re-examine my belief system ... Uh-HUH. More sly little comments there ... But, okay, let's go over a few of them in that post of yours ...



"Why do you Conservatives hate people who whine about Human Rights? Why do you Conservatives approve of torture. Nice overgeneralization. Oh, that's a laugh riot right there.



"Do you conservatives like being in a movement to eliminate the different among us based on race, religion, or beliefs" Why are all you conservatives recists and bigots? Funny stuff.



Why do you Conservatives feel that the helpless should be screwed? And you wonder how someone can compare your questionairre to a constant "When did you stop beating your wife" series of questions? *shrugs*



This isn't humor ... this is a gross mischaracterization of what Conservatives believe, and I'm finding it incredible that you're being completely disingenuous about being called out on it. Or ... maybe I shouldn't.

Oh ... Do you feel bad that all Liberals salivate over the thought of every single woman having abortions? Do you live for the day when children as young as 10 are having abortions, and not even informing their parents? Why do Liberals love raising taxes? Why is it Liberals whine when the people who work in this country want their taxes lowered? Why do Liberals think that breaking the law is okay as long as someone on their side does it?

What? It's funny, right? You don't find it funny? Man, is there something wrong with you.

See, this is why I'd like us to use "fascist" to mean "the far right" and "conservative" to mean "conservative" so we don't wind up in confusions like the above.

[Charles RB]

Technically, every year we don't put an embassy in Jerusalem (which is huge) we're breaking US law. Fascinating, really.

What was the reason for even passing that law?

[Paul McEnery]

What was the reason for even passing that law?

Ooh, ooh, I think I know this one.










There is not a John Goodman stern face smiley to convey the emotion behind this statement. So go watch Big Lebowski again. You know you want to.

[Samurai]

This isn't humor ... this is a gross mischaracterization of what Conservatives believe, and I'm finding it incredible that you're being completely disingenuous about being called out on it. Or ... maybe I shouldn't.

Oh ... Do you feel bad that all Liberals salivate over the thought of every single woman having abortions? Do you live for the day when children as young as 10 are having abortions, and not even informing their parents? Why do Liberals love raising taxes? Why is it Liberals whine when the people who work in this country want their taxes lowered? Why do Liberals think that breaking the law is okay as long as someone on their side does it?

What? It's funny, right? You don't find it funny? Man, is there something wrong with you.
Quoted for truth... you tell'em Bree.

[JamesRitcheyIII]

The part I bolded is willful obtusism. Gimme a break, you know it's a figure of speech.

Almost right after that post, btw ...

I was being 'deliberately obtuse', because I don't see how the fuck I'm responsible for what someone posts after me--we're not unified like you 'right-thinkin'', collectivist-types, and consider ourselves individuals--we OFTEN disagree. I'm not talking about all conservatives, anyway, just folk with those irremovable poles I mentioned--clowns into censorship, and whatnot. 'moderate' or right.

I "violently" disagreed with your post? Ooookay ... so how did I do that? Hmm ... oh, second implication there, I didn't find it amusing, so there must be something wrong with me. I need to re-examine my belief system ... Uh-HUH. More sly little comments there ... But, okay, let's go over a few of them in that post of yours ...

Missphrased maybe--what I meant to say was that you passive-argressively made a bunch of snotty remarks all day, and then looked back a few days for a rationalization as to why you hate liberals (me specifically), including saying (bizarrely) that I hate Conservatives, in a form of 'Conversion-Reaction'. Like you caught me doing something sooo typically liberal, and thus wrong.
"Forgive them what they do..."

"Why do you Conservatives hate people who whine about Human Rights? Why do you Conservatives approve of torture. Nice overgeneralization. Oh, that's a laugh riot right there.


Overgeneralization--is that like being too pregnant?

I asked a question, I didn't accuse anyone, and anyone could have said 'yes' or 'no'.

"Do you conservatives like being in a movement to eliminate the different among us based on race, religion, or beliefs" Why are all you conservatives recists and bigots? Funny stuff.

Again, that's not what I said, it's what you misapprehended as a statement--despite being an OBVIOUS question, that you could say 'yes' or 'no' to. If I'd asked something unrealistic, like 'do you think female babies should be drowned at birth, as they do in some backward nations?', you'd have actual reason to be upset--but my impassivity was deliberate, as to add to the humor. My humor is very black, indeed, granted...

Why do you Conservatives feel that the helpless should be screwed? Yes--I do believe that. Say something to change my mind. And you wonder how someone can compare your questionairre to a constant "When did you stop beating your wife" series of questions? *shrugs*

I don't mind-control people--and his comment was meant as a jest, as well--as far as I can tell. This 'joke'-thing I'm talking about is a process in which someone can often exaggerate aspects of something, a behavior, a situation, while still stating an underlying truth in subtext. Sometimes they aren't funny to someone they hit 'too close to home' for.

This isn't humor ... this is a gross mischaracterization of what Conservatives believe, and I'm finding it incredible that you're being completely disingenuous about being called out on it. Or ... maybe I shouldn't.

Oh ... Do you feel bad that all Liberals salivate over the thought of every single woman having abortions? Do you live for the day when children as young as 10 are having abortions, and not even informing their parents? Why do Liberals love raising taxes? Why is it Liberals whine when the people who work in this country want their taxes lowered? Why do Liberals think that breaking the law is okay as long as someone on their side does it?
I'm the wrong person to ask--a small government liberal, who wants to reduce our nuclear weapons numbers to the size of our biggest competitor, and feed the population of Earth, develop alternative fuels, explore the universe--become a 'Type One Civilization'--live up to our potential, with the money. It's why I call myself a Liberaltarian, quite a lot. Nobody is talking about raising taxes anymore--except ON the aristocrats. I'm farther to the right than you on taxes--I believe the current Tax Code is illegal, and needs not reform, but overhaul, so that everyone pays their share, but no more or less. I don't believe giving 2.5 cents on the dollar of my tax money to my government to feed children (70% of those on welfare) and the disadvantaged to mean I hate Jesus.
I fucking hate abortion, but don't believe it's the government's fucking business what me or you do with our bodies, I don't believe that a baby can live on it's own before the third trimester, and that 'unborn baby murder' could be combated with sex education, the way non-uptight, non-sexually-repressed countries do it, to great effect.

What? It's funny, right? You don't find it funny? Man, is there something wrong with you. Little argument, there--I'm PROUD not to think like you--but why do I feel I'm caught in some analogued forum variation of "Good Morning, Vietnam"--?

So--those 'Statements' bother you--but you have no issues with 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 14?

[Joe Rice]

Lyndon Johnson went to teacher's college. He was probably just behind Harding as being the least intellectually gifted president of the twentieth century.

Explain why those two sentences go in that order for you.

[Paul McEnery]

Explain why those two sentences go in that order for you.

See, if you hadn't only gone to teacher's college, you'd have gotten that the first time. :tongue:

[cactusmaac]

Then how bout you define what you think being brainy means? I'll answer when I wake up.

Intellectual capacity. That's expressed both as pure intelligence and by intellectual curiosity.

This reminds me of a conversation i had with a friend who claimed that the prosperity of the ninties was because of reganomics. I didn't have the heart to say yeah it took twelve years incuding a recession for reaganomics to finally work seemed to be a strech.

He was right. Clinton, Rubin, Summers and the Republican congress mostly stuck to Reaganomics or more properly, Chicago school economics.

Inflation was kept low, top marginal rates on tax were raised in '93 but kept significantly below the Carter-era rates. The top rate on capital gains was cut in '97 under pressure from Congress. Clinton and Gore got NAFTA passed which Bush I had initially pushed for. Spending was kept low thanks to Congress pushing for budget cuts, the end of the Cold War resulting in defence spending being cut way back and Clinton's own deficit hawkishness. The banking sector was deregulated.

Other than the peso bailout in '94, it was textbook Republican economic policy - low taxes, low inflation, low spending, free trade and deregulation.

[Joe Rice]

Intellectual capacity. That's expressed both as pure intelligence and by intellectual curiosity.


Defined as what? I mean, the human brain does not just work in any one single way. As the theory of multiple intelligences shows, there are several ways for a human brain to be intelligent.

[Major Comma]

If Obama is elected president can he reject public financing for his reelection campaign?

[cactusmaac]

All of which would be compared favorably to the current president.

True but we're not discussing him.

Explain why those two sentences go in that order for you.

I assumed that if he was really smart, he'd have gotten a scholarship somewhere better. Further reading shows his early life was blighted a lack of drive and he was actually a really smart guy. So he should be reclassified as another president who was very bright but met with only mixed success.

[Paul McEnery]

Defined as what? I mean, the human brain does not just work in any one single way. As the theory of multiple intelligences shows, there are several ways for a human brain to be intelligent.

Seconded.

Perhaps what we're groping towards is the sense that social intelligence is more valued than, er, intermalectual intelligence for a job like that. But I'd suggest we're looking for a well-rounded person who has a solid academic grounding as well as a practical intelligence.

[Joe Rice]

I assumed that if he was really smart, he'd have gotten a scholarship somewhere better. Further reading shows his early life was blighted a lack of drive and he was actually a really smart guy. So he should be reclassified as another president who was very bright but met with only mixed success.

There's nothing better than a teacher's college if you want to go to teacher's college. An Ivy League education doesn't say much for one's intelligence anymore, as our current president shows.

[Darrell D.]

Funny article I found, and by funny I mean horrifying.

http://gawker.com/tag/bad-ideas/?i=5016520&t=the-racist-barack-obama-monkey-puppet


A toy being sold over the internet by a Utah couple is causing an uproar from supporters of democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. It’s a sock monkey wearing a suit with a lapel pin for Obama. Supporters of Obama have been filling online forums and blogs with angry words over what they see as the degrading depiction of a black man as a monkey.

[kingdom2000]

Hiliarous reading (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/19/obama.public.financing/index.html) about McCain's reaction to Obama not using public financing. I think the man is seriousily pissed because he know he has no choice but to use it, which puts a ceiling and therefore a budget on his campaign while Obama will not have such a limitation. Two quotes in particular amused me.

1) McCain said that Obama's move to drop out of the system "should be disturbing to all Americans" and that he may decide to opt out, too.
So its disturbing, so beyond the pale...that he may do it too.

2) "Sen. Obama's reversal on public financing is one of a number of reversals ... that he has taken,"

This from captain flip flop who has reversed his stance on everything he apparently held dear in an effort to get the base on his side. Shoot as the first quote shows, he can't even make a statement that isn't inherently contradictory.

The man's ability to lie even to himself is starting to reach Bushian levels. But then he is McSame so I shouldn't be surprised.

[KevinTBrown]

All this talk about our current President going to an Ivy League college.... So what? He was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. His family had the money to send him wherever he wanted to go. And his GPA was 2.35, which is a solid C.

He went there, he didn't succeed there.




Obama EARNED his way there by getting great grades. No one GAVE it to him. And he didn't go to Harvard immediately. He went to a junior college for 2 years, then transfered to Columbia in NY earning his BA. He then worked as community organizer for three years. It was 1988 when he finally got into Harvard and he graduated magna cum laude.... in '91. And his GPA was 3.9.



So just because the current President WENT to a Ivy League school, that's no comparison to Obama.

[cactusmaac]

Defined as what? I mean, the human brain does not just work in any one single way. As the theory of multiple intelligences shows, there are several ways for a human brain to be intelligent.

General intelligence (g), the stuff that gets measured on any IQ test. It's the single measure most strongly correlated with achievement, reasoning, learning and intellectual curiosity.

[Kevinroc]

Some think Obama can win the popular vote but lose the electoral college.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11182.html

[darkhanamaru]

There's nothing better than a teacher's college if you want to go to teacher's college. An Ivy League education doesn't say much for one's intelligence anymore, as our current president shows.

Actually, W shows what a previous Ivy League education was worth. I would say the classes have improved in quality since then as competition for those spaces has opened up.

[Joe Rice]

General intelligence (g), the stuff that gets measured on any IQ test. It's the single measure most strongly correlated with achievement, reasoning, learning and intellectual curiosity.

Not by current research or thinking, which puts an IQ test not too highly in any real measurement sense. It's but one small facet of human intelligence, and not a very telling one.

[cactusmaac]

All this talk about our current President going to an Ivy League college.... So what? He was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. His family had the money to send him wherever he wanted to go. And his GPA was 2.35, which is a solid C.

He went there, he didn't succeed there.


Yeah, but he also passed the Harvard MBA which even back then was a notoriously demanding course with no tolerance for gentlemen slackers. If you fell behind on the grading curve, you weren't allowed to graduate.

Bush doesn't lack intelligence, in raw intelligence terms he's probably smarter than anybody at CBR. His flaws come from his unwillingness to master detail, acknowledge nasty facts and to be sufficiently questioning. That's due to his temperament and personality not his brains.

[Sabrinaset]

I was being 'deliberately obtuse', because I don't see how the fuck I'm responsible for what someone posts after me--we're not unified like you 'right-thinkin'', collectivist-types, and consider ourselves individuals-- ...

Again, there you go with the overgeneralizations ... and goalpost moving. No one ever said you were responsible for what someone else said. I said someone else did note that that was what you were doing, and I agree. And you're going on with "But what I said ... that was just a joke!" It's pretty disingenuous. I ought to start saying "Liberals don't give a damn about crime victims, just the perpetrators. Liberals love criminals, not the victims ..." and when someone calls me on it, just say, "Oh, that was just a joke!" That's what you sound like.

So--those 'Statements' bother you--but you have no issues with 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 14?

Nah, I could have gone on about all of them, but I really thought I'd already spent too much time on it as it was. I actually had written responses up to 7, then I thought, "Aw, screw it, this post is way too long as it is," and just kept it to the ones I thought were the most egregious of yours. Just like I'm not bothering to respond to the rest of your post, not because I agree with it, but because it's not worth the energy to tell you you're wrong. Basic Law of Diminishing Returns. You wouldn't get it, just like you obviously didn't get ... and are probably going out of your way NOT to get ... that the paragraph about liberals loving abortions and suchlike was a parody of your post. Not surprisingly, when faced with a mirror version of your post, you don't like it. Perhaps YOU should start reconsidering YOUR posting style?

[cactusmaac]

Not by current research or thinking, which puts an IQ test not too highly in any real measurement sense. It's but one small facet of human intelligence, and not a very telling one.

So you'd be OK with somebody with low IQ performing an operation on you, handling your court case or managing your finances?

I'm familiar with the debates surrounding IQ and thus far the evidence would appear to favour Jensen rather than Sternberg.

[Paul McEnery]

So you'd be OK with somebody with low IQ performing an operation on you, handling your court case or managing your finances?

I'm familiar with the debates surrounding IQ and thus far the evidence would appear to favour Jensen rather than Sternberg.

I wouldn't want anyone near me with a scalpel whose only qualification was their IQ test, that's for sure.

[Joe Rice]

So you'd be OK with somebody with low IQ performing an operation on you, handling your court case or managing your finances?

I'm familiar with the debates surrounding IQ and thus far the evidence would appear to favour Jensen rather than Sternberg.

Had they the professional credentials necessary for such endeavors, what one standardized test designed for a very specific type of intelligence says wouldn't mean shit to me, no. IQ say next to nothing in any real context. Intelligence and how the brain works is something I work with every day. But then, my master's is only in education so maybe I'm stupid after all.

[Paul McEnery]

Had they the professional credentials necessary for such endeavors, what one standardized test designed for a very specific type of intelligence says wouldn't mean shit to me, no. IQ say next to nothing in any real context. Intelligence and how the brain works is something I work with every day. But then, my master's is only in education so maybe I'm stupid after all.

Not this early in the evening, you're not.

[cactusmaac]

And you're not going to get professional credentials unless you have reasonable IQ to begin with. That is why demand college degrees and high scores on MSATs, LSATs etc. They're designed to filter out the less intelligent.

[Samurai]

Intellectual capacity. That's expressed both as pure intelligence and by intellectual curiosity.



He was right. Clinton, Rubin, Summers and the Republican congress mostly stuck to Reaganomics or more properly, Chicago school economics.

Inflation was kept low, top marginal rates on tax were raised in '93 but kept significantly below the Carter-era rates. The top rate on capital gains was cut in '97 under pressure from Congress. Clinton and Gore got NAFTA passed which Bush I had initially pushed for. Spending was kept low thanks to Congress pushing for budget cuts, the end of the Cold War resulting in defence spending being cut way back and Clinton's own deficit hawkishness. The banking sector was deregulated.

Other than the peso bailout in '94, it was textbook Republican economic policy - low taxes, low inflation, low spending, free trade and deregulation.

Right, just as high taxes, high inflation, high govt spending, restricted trade, and reams of red tape regulations are the textbook Democrat economic policy. That 1 or 2 of them are happening now under Bush just goes to show Bush's liberal side, same as he does on immigration and some other issues. Bush is not conservative enough on several important issues, which is why he has lost the support of a fair amount of his base. And yet he'll never win over the left with his more liberal policies and stances either.

[Joe Rice]

And you're not going to get professional credentials unless you have reasonable IQ to begin with. That is why demand college degrees and high scores on MSATs, LSATs etc. They're designed to filter out the less intelligent.

If you have a MR level of IQ, then, no, you're not going to be a doctor. Other than that, it doesn't tell you shit. A mid-range IQ could be a great doctor and a high range IQ could be an absolute worthless doctor. IQ is not indicative of anything useful at all. That's just the way it goes. The human brain has too many ways of learning to put much weight in that particularly narrow band.

[JamesRitcheyIII]

Again, there you go with the overgeneralizations ... and goalpost moving. No one ever said you were responsible for what someone else said. I said someone else did note that that was what you were doing, and I agree. And you're going on with "But what I said ... that was just a joke!" It's pretty disingenuous. I've got no reason to lie--'Know Thyself"--do you think I respect your feelings? I ought to start saying "Liberals don't give a damn about crime victims, just the perpetrators. Liberals love criminals, not the victims ..." and when someone calls me on it, just say, "Oh, that was just a joke!" That's what you sound like.

A joke you didn't get, apparently.

I laughed my ass off.



Nah, I could have gone on about all of them, but I really thought I'd already spent too much time on it as it was. I actually had written responses up to 7, then I thought, "Aw, screw it, this post is way too long as it is," and just kept it to the ones I thought were the most egregious of yours. Just like I'm not bothering to respond to the rest of your post, not because I agree with it, but because it's not worth the energy to tell you you're wrong. Basic Law of Diminishing Returns. You wouldn't get it, just like you obviously didn't get ... and are probably going out of your way NOT to get ... that the paragraph about liberals loving abortions and suchlike was a parody of your post. Not surprisingly, when faced with a mirror version of your post, you don't like it. Perhaps YOU should start reconsidering YOUR posting style?

Oh--i thought you were trying to say "I'm right, and you're wrong!", in a few thousand words, by repeating angry shit I don't care about, until it somehow miraculously comes true. What part of this did I miss? You 'beat it out of me'--you claim belief in an ideology I consider totally benighted, and frankly, evil in it's ignorance-but I don't remember saying anything about feeding you to lions, and your behavior has been unwarranted.

I didn't consider your faux-cleverness 'til you mentioned it, after all the passive-agressive redneck talk that seemed almost deliberately inciteful, and 'ragey' gibberish, but thanks for informing me. You're a card, you are!

[Sabrinaset]

*snip*

Uh .... whatever.

Oh ... and since I just noticed you did this after I posted ...

I've got no reason to lie--'Know Thyself"--do you think I respect your feelings?

I didn't say you were lying. I said you were being disingenuous. You posted something that was a gross, inaccurate overgeneralization, and now you're trying to justify it by saying it was "just a joke." as a means of covering yourself. And I don't care what you think about my feelings. I mean ... who are you that I should care?

Like I said ... whatever.

[KevinTBrown]

Yeah, but he also passed the Harvard MBA which even back then was a notoriously demanding course with no tolerance for gentlemen slackers. If you fell behind on the grading curve, you weren't allowed to graduate.

Bush doesn't lack intelligence, in raw intelligence terms he's probably smarter than anybody at CBR. His flaws come from his unwillingness to master detail, acknowledge nasty facts and to be sufficiently questioning. That's due to his temperament and personality not his brains.

Great point!!!!





But Bush went to Yale, not Harvard.........



(Harvard Business school later on though)

[Typo Lad]

What was the reason for even passing that law?

Long story, but basically it was a law stating that the US would recognize Israel's capital as where Israel said it was, rather than ignoring it.

Note that the law does not say "undivided"

[Sabrinaset]

Long story, but basically it was a law stating that the US would recognize Israel's capital as where Israel said it was, rather than ignoring it.

Note that the law does not say "undivided"

Enlighten me. What's the problem with that?

[Typo Lad]

Enlighten me. What's the problem with that?
The problem isn't with the law. The problem is that despite it passing, it's been consistently ignored for well over a decade now. We still have an embassy in Tel Aviv and a consulate in Jerusalem.

It was insulating to not recognize it as the capital, but it's worse to pass a law saying we will and then ignore said law.

[Crowley]

those Bear Stearns assholes got perp walked today:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRs3s5VgRHY

And McCain is connected to all this:
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_3314.shtml

And how McCain's Cheif economic advisor helped run up gas prices through deregulation:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/25130683#25252591

McCain advisors created and defend 'Enron loophole'
06/19/2008 @ 9:43 am
Filed by David Edwards and Muriel Kane

Keith Olbermann delivered a special report Wednesday on the "Enron loophole" -- a regulatory gap that is the single greatest cause of out-of-control gasoline prices -- and how McCain's leading advisors created that loophole and continue to defend it.
Advertisement

People who deal in oil routinely use "futures" -- agreements in advance on prices and delivery dates -- to deal with fluctuations in the market. However, deregulation has allowed commodity speculators to take over this system of futures and use it for their own profit, running up the price of oil in a speculative bubble.

According to Olbermann, the story of $4 a gallon gas begins during the presidency of George H.W. Bush, when former Enron CEO Ken Lay started speculating on energy futures. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) gave Enron free rein, and when Bill Clinton was elected in 1992, CFTC Chairwoman Wendy Gramm moved to lock in the commission's informal position on Enron as official policy. Gramm then joined Enron's board of directors, earning more than $900,000 over the next decade.

In December 2000, during the chaos following the presidential election, Enron got a law passed containing an amendment known as the "Enron loophole," deregulating not just single trades but entire markets. This made it possible for Enron to artificially create the California energy crisis -- and left Enron employees chortling over how they had fucked over "Grandma Millie."

The Enron loophole applied not just to electricity, but to all energy sources, which is why speculators have now been able to take over the oil market. Two weeks ago, the Senate Commerce Committee heard testimony from a former CFTC director that "the speculators are not just placing bets in these futures markets, they're saying, 'Gosh, I can control the price of heating oil.' ... Morgan Stanley is the biggest heating oil owner in New England."

If the Enron loophole is removed, said this director, "you get at least a 25% drop in the cost of oil ... some people estimate 50%."

John McCain voted to close the Enron loophole in 2002 and 2003, saying at the time that "we're all tainted" by Enron's money. But, notes Olbermann, "for most of this campaign, McCain has offered explanations other than the influence of speculators, and remedies other than regulation." If the Enron loophole is not closed, even alternative energy sources will do little to reduce prices, because speculators will be able to immediately take those over as well.

"John McCain doesn't talk about the Enron loophole any more," reports Olbermann. "What changed? Since 2006, John McCain's top economic advisor has been former Texas Senator Phil Gramm, husband of the former CFTC head who then joined Enron."

"It was Graham who passed the Enron loophole ... with no hearings, no debate," Olberman emphasizes. "It was Graham who stopped Democrats from closing the Enron loophole. ... Graham lobbied Congress about commodity trading rules in 2006."

In addition, McCain's senior advisor, Charlie Black, was a lobbyist for the act containing the Enron loophole in 2000, and McCain's finance co-chair, Wayne Berman, has lobbied more recently against legislation to prevent price gouging.

Olbermann acknowledges that McCain is now saying, "We must reforms the laws and regulations governing the oil futures market." However, McCain has not yet specifically mentioned the Enron loophole, and he still has Gramm and Berman and Black running his campaign and writing his economic policies




more flip flops from McCain:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c

[Sabrinaset]

The problem isn't with the law. The problem is that despite it passing, it's been consistently ignored for well over a decade now. We still have an embassy in Tel Aviv and a consulate in Jerusalem.

It was insulating to not recognize it as the capital, but it's worse to pass a law saying we will and then ignore said law.

Well ... why ARE we ignoring it? The only reason I can think of is that moving really sucks.

[Typo Lad]

Well ... why ARE we ignoring it? The only reason I can think of is that moving really sucks.
We've had a decade, and we don't even have to move. All we would have to do is re-purpose the consulate as an embassy.

I can ask wiser people than i why it's ignored. My guess is political expediency.

[FalconX2000]

Really?

And not, for example, that McCain didn't spend within the limits even in the Republican nomination campaign, and chose to spend past the limits after he had already won?

Your point has no relevance to mine.

I am aware McCain's position on this issue isn't saintly by any stretch. In money issues overall he's dirtier than Obama anyway with not just working lobbyists, but particularly unsavoury ones to boot. I also believe that Obama's system is superior to the fixed amount amount of money public financing system.

This has no relevance to my stating that it was obvious for a long time that Obama would not be accepting the public finance money. Nor does it have any relevance to my stating that his doing so was motivated primarily because he is raising way more money than McCain through this method. If Obama were the poorer candidate, he would be embracing conventional public financing and calling McCain out on it if the Republican opted out.

[KevinTBrown]

I'm still trying to figure out why people are upset and/or blasting Obama for NOT accepting public finance money..... I mean, he's essentially telling the taxpayers he does not want them to pay for his running.

[FalconX2000]

Intellectual capacity. That's expressed both as pure intelligence and by intellectual curiosity.

But intelligent at what? Are you thinking about Einstein's mathematical ability? He would have made a horrible politician because he lacked guile. If you're talking about the inclination try to understand the world around them, then Kennedy and LBJ were both brainier than Carter.

Carter worked with the hard facts he knew and little else. Was that the 'smart' thing to do?

[FalconX2000]

I'm still trying to figure out why people are upset and/or blasting Obama for NOT accepting public finance money..... I mean, he's essentially telling the taxpayers he does not want them to pay for his running.

Fixed for you. You've got to remember to include important defining words like that.

I have no problem with it whatsoever. Obama realised the scale of the problems of the public finance system as he went along and thus backtracked through the wiggle room he wisely left himself earlier.

The internet age means this system is actually superior to the public finance system and I think all candidates should use it. The conventional political wisdom has somehow become though that public financing is more 'fair', so Obama will take an initial political hit from it since, like so many of his other positions, it's correct but harder to explain to low info voters.

[Paul McEnery]

Your point has no relevance to mine.

I am aware McCain's position on this issue isn't saintly by any stretch. In money issues overall he's dirtier than Obama anyway with not just working lobbyists, but particularly unsavoury ones to boot. I also believe that Obama's system is superior to the fixed amount amount of money public financing system.

This has no relevance to my stating that it was obvious for a long time that Obama would not be accepting the public finance money. Nor does it have any relevance to my stating that his doing so was motivated primarily because he is raising way more money than McCain through this method. If Obama were the poorer candidate, he would be embracing conventional public financing and calling McCain out on it if the Republican opted out.

Whether Obama meant to all along or not, he'd be a fool to hamstring himself against an opponent who clearly won't.

[Major Comma]

Sorry, but I am still curious.
If Obama were elected president would he be legally oligated to accept public funding for his reelection campaign?
Has any president chosen to use private funds over pulbic funding?
if not, why not?

[FalconX2000]

Whether Obama meant to all along or not, he'd be a fool to hamstring himself against an opponent who clearly won't.

Yes, he would be foolish to do that. It's smart business and to my mind loses no ground morally due to reasons already stated by others and me earlier. It will be perceived with an initial loss of moral ground by the general public however.

[FalconX2000]

Sorry, but I am still curious.
If Obama were elected president would he be legally oligated to accept public funding for his reelection campaign?
Has any president chosen to use private funds over pulbic funding?
if not, why not?

Public financing was set up so that candidates would not rely on special interest groups to raise large amounts of money for them from big money donors for them. These special interest groups would have a disproportionate say in how the government is run after the election if the candidate foregoed public financing.

The difference is that Obama doesn't rely so heavily on those special interests either. Through use of the Internet, he has attracted 1.5 million different donors so far, and each has contributed small amounts which means that they can keep giving and giving through the campaign.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

The thing about advantages, as I see them.....

Having an advantage in one area does not negate having a disadvantage in another area, and vice versa. So, yes; it's possible for Obama to have had an advantage in one area, and that doesn't negate at all disadvantages he had in other areas. Most of our lives are a mixture of advantage and disadvantage, so really, acknowledging that he had the the resources to get a scholorship and obtain a superior education pre-college does not negate the disadvantage of being biracial in an unaccepting culture.

[Buzz Dixon]

If Obama is elected president can he reject public financing for his reelection campaign?Yes, each campaign is regarded as independent of any previous campaign.

[Buzz Dixon]

But intelligent at what? Are you thinking about Einstein's mathematical ability? He would have made a horrible politician because he lacked guile. If you're talking about the inclination try to understand the world around them, then Kennedy and LBJ were both brainier than Carter.

Carter worked with the hard facts he knew and little else. Was that the 'smart' thing to do?Carter was a nuclear sub commander, a job for which he may have been ideally suited.

As the captain, he had to have a working knowledge of every system aboard the boat. He had to be able to mediate differences among his crew, but he had the luxury of being the ultimate authority onboard with a much bigger exterior authority backing up his decisions. While he had an enormous amount of autonomy, he was also constrained by the limits of his mission.

LBJ's tragedy was that he was a competent corrupt politician who by quirk of fate ended up as president which gave him delusions of greatness. Had he limited himself to being a competent corrupt president instead of the founder of the Great Society, he would have probably won a second term easily and been remembered fondly to this day.

[Buzz Dixon]

So you'd be OK with somebody with low IQ performing an operation on you, handling your court case or managing your finances?

I'm familiar with the debates surrounding IQ and thus far the evidence would appear to favour Jensen rather than Sternberg.It's better to be lucky than good...or smart.

[Sabrinaset]

Carter was a nuclear sub commander, a job for which he may have been ideally suited.

As the captain, he had to have a working knowledge of every system aboard the boat. He had to be able to mediate differences among his crew, but he had the luxury of being the ultimate authority onboard with a much bigger exterior authority backing up his decisions. While he had an enormous amount of autonomy, he was also constrained by the limits of his mission.

LBJ's tragedy was that he was a competent corrupt politician who by quirk of fate ended up as president which gave him delusions of greatness. Had he limited himself to being a competent corrupt president instead of the founder of the Great Society, he would have probably won a second term easily and been remembered fondly to this day.

Carter is a pretty good example of someone hitting his head on the Peter Principle.

As far as LBJ, I'd disagree with you and say it was his insistence on fighting the Vietnam War, not his Great Society, that did him in.

[Major Comma]

Thank you Buzz.
I appreciate an answer to my question.

[FalconX2000]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/25268251#25252591

Keith Olbermann came up with an extraorindarily competent piece showing just how bad McCain's ties to oil and lobbying are. Unfortunately, the story is so complicated that its unlikely to stick too heavily due to some viewers finding that trying to comprehend it gives them a headache and change channels to American Gladiator.

[LtMarvel]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/25268251#25252591

Keith Olbermann came up with an extraorindarily competent piece showing just how bad McCain's ties to oil and lobbying are. Unfortunately, the story is so complicated that its unlikely to stick too heavily due to some viewers finding that trying to comprehend it gives them a headache and change channels to American Gladiator.
It's not that hard.

"Who is to blame for gas being $1 - $2/gallon higher than it should?"

<Points to McCain's chief economic advisor>

"That man."

<Pause for audience gasp>

"It was a loophole that he created and put in a bill that became law."

[Crowley]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/25268251#25252591

Keith Olbermann came up with an extraorindarily competent piece showing just how bad McCain's ties to oil and lobbying are. Unfortunately, the story is so complicated that its unlikely to stick too heavily due to some viewers finding that trying to comprehend it gives them a headache and change channels to American Gladiator.

Beatcha to it! :wink:

http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=7048724&postcount=2062

Yeah McCain's ties to Enron are pretty disgusting for Mr. Straight Talk.

[Crowley]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/25268251#25252591

Keith Olbermann came up with an extraorindarily competent piece showing just how bad McCain's ties to oil and lobbying are. Unfortunately, the story is so complicated that its unlikely to stick too heavily due to some viewers finding that trying to comprehend it gives them a headache and change channels to American Gladiator.

Beatcha to it! :wink:

http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=7048724&postcount=2062

Yeah McCain's ties to Enron are pretty disgusting for Mr. Straight Talk.

[Red Jack]

Carter was a nuclear sub commander, a job for which he may have been ideally suited.

As the captain, he had to have a working knowledge of every system aboard the boat. He had to be able to mediate differences among his crew, but he had the luxury of being the ultimate authority onboard with a much bigger exterior authority backing up his decisions. While he had an enormous amount of autonomy, he was also constrained by the limits of his mission.

LBJ's tragedy was that he was a competent corrupt politician who by quirk of fate ended up as president which gave him delusions of greatness. Had he limited himself to being a competent corrupt president instead of the founder of the Great Society, he would have probably won a second term easily and been remembered fondly to this day.

Hm.

I'd say it was his terror of being the first President to lose a war that did him in. The Great Society was a stellar idea and let's not forget that Civil Rights legislation. Mrs. Clinton was right about that.

[cactusmaac]

But intelligent at what? Are you thinking about Einstein's mathematical ability? He would have made a horrible politician because he lacked guile. If you're talking about the inclination try to understand the world around them, then Kennedy and LBJ were both brainier than Carter.

Carter worked with the hard facts he knew and little else. Was that the 'smart' thing to do?

The debate started off by the assertion that the country did better under more intellectually capable presidents. Intellectual capacity is generally seen as being analagous to academic capability.

Carter was a nuclear sub commander, a job for which he may have been ideally suited.

As the captain, he had to have a working knowledge of every system aboard the boat. He had to be able to mediate differences among his crew, but he had the luxury of being the ultimate authority onboard with a much bigger exterior authority backing up his decisions. While he had an enormous amount of autonomy, he was also constrained by the limits of his mission.

LBJ's tragedy was that he was a competent corrupt politician who by quirk of fate ended up as president which gave him delusions of greatness. Had he limited himself to being a competent corrupt president instead of the founder of the Great Society, he would have probably won a second term easily and been remembered fondly to this day.

Carter was training to be a nuclear sub commander but never served on one. He quit the Navy when his father died to run the family business.

[FalconX2000]

The debate started off by the assertion that the country did better under more intellectually capable presidents. Intellectual capacity is generally seen as being analagous to academic capability.



Carter was training to be a nuclear sub commander but never served on one. He quit the Navy when his father died to run the family business.

If that's your definition of intellectual then I have nothing to discuss. I don't make a habit of remembering which president went to which school and what scores he got.

McCain was 894th in his class of 899 at the United States Naval Academy. He got there as much because he kept clashing with higher authority as it was his lack of effort in subjects he disliked, such as maths.

[FalconX2000]

It's not that hard.

"Who is to blame for gas being $1 - $2/gallon higher than it should?"

<Points to McCain's chief economic advisor>

"That man."

<Pause for audience gasp>

"It was a loophole that he created and put in a bill that became law."

That's like saying there's a spy in a spy thriller. It really oversimplifies the story.

[Charles RB]

As far as LBJ, I'd disagree with you and say it was his insistence on fighting the Vietnam War, not his Great Society, that did him in.

The way I understand it, his plans for a Great Society stalled because of the Vietnam War. (The Watts Riot and it successors, which LBJ didn't understand the reasons behind and couldn't handle, didn't help either)

[Joe Rice]

The debate started off by the assertion that the country did better under more intellectually capable presidents. Intellectual capacity is generally seen as being analagous to academic capability.


Within lazy and/or uninformed circles.

[cactusmaac]

If that's your definition of intellectual then I have nothing to discuss. I don't make a habit of remembering which president went to which school and what scores he got.

McCain was 894th in his class of 899 at the United States Naval Academy. He got there as much because he kept clashing with higher authority as it was his lack of effort in subjects he disliked, such as maths.

Capability is different from achievement. McCain has an IQ of 133 and could have left with a much higher ranking if he'd put the effort in. If 894th was the best he could do after putting all his effort in, that would be cause for concern.

LBJ failed because his strategy for Vietnam just wasn't going to work. The social unrest caused by the war capsized his domestic agenda and lost the Democrats' their credibility on national security. LBJ relied on the US military's default strategy which was essentially the same as Grant's in the Civil War: amass a large amount of firepower and obliterate the enemy. However that was not going to work unless like Grant, the US had assembled a force large enough to invade and occupy North Vietnam. That wasn't going to happen because it would have invited a war with China. A stalemate like in Korea would not have worked because Vietnamese geography was too different. The emphasis needed to be on counter-insurgency as opposed to conventional warfare.

[FalconX2000]

Capability is different from achievement. McCain has an IQ of 133 and could have left with a much higher ranking if he'd put the effort in. If 894th was the best he could do after putting all his effort in, that would be cause for concern.

LBJ failed because his strategy for Vietnam just wasn't going to work. The social unrest caused by the war capsized his domestic agenda and lot the Democrats' their credibility on national security LBJ relied on the US military's default strategy which was essentially the same as Grant's in the Civil War: amass a large amount of firepower and obliterate the enemy. However that was not going to work unless like Grant, the US had assembled a force large enough to invade and occupy North Vietnam. That wasn't going to happen because it would have invited a war with China. A stalemate like in Korea would not have worked because Vietnamese geography was too different. The emphasis needed to be on counter-insurgency as opposed to conventional warfare.

I really have no idea where the intellectual argument has gone to, so I'll leave it at that.

I think we all agree LBJ's pursuit of the Vietnam War was his greatest downfall (not that people like Michael Dukakis didn't make it worse).

[the4thpip]

Another major Hillary Democrat supporting McCain:

http://www.truthcaucus.com/2008/06/11/iowa-hillary-youth-chairs-endorse-mccain

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/20080620/stt080619.gif

[the4thpip]

He's most likely avoiding public funding so he can spend in excess of the $84m limit.

That's, er, good for the economy. :eek:

[Samurai]

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/20080620/stt080619.gif

Yeah, right... because unlike all the other far more conservative Presidents we've had since Roe v Wade passed, the liberal McCain will actually overturn it and outlaw abortion... :rolleyes:

[Joe Rice]

Yeah, right... because unlike all the other far more conservative Presidents we've had since Roe v Wade passed, the liberal McCain will actually overturn it and outlaw abortion... :rolleyes:

Liberal my ass.

[the4thpip]

Yeah, right... because unlike all the other far more conservative Presidents we've had since Roe v Wade passed, the liberal McCain will actually overturn it and outlaw abortion... :rolleyes:

It's not really up to the president to do that, as you should know, being such a flag waving American and all. It's up to the Supreme Court. And there are more judges on that court now who are willing to overturn Roe v Wade than ever since the original judgment was passed, so 4 more years of Republican presidency could very well spell the end of reproductive rights in the US considering the age of some of the more liberal judges.

[Infra-Man]

Yeah, right... because unlike all the other far more conservative Presidents we've had since Roe v Wade passed, the liberal McCain will actually overturn it and outlaw abortion... :rolleyes:

The president can't overturn Roe v. Wade because that's not part of the executive branch's powers.

However, The Supreme Court can, and didn't John McCain say he was committed to appointing more socially conservative judges to The Supreme Court?


EDIT:
Ahh, pip beat me to it. Good on ya.

[Dreadstar]

...and didn't John McCain say he was committed to appointing more socially conservative judges to The Supreme Court?

I honestly don't know. Did he?

This is one of those situations where you should provide corroboration. Otherwise it's just innuendo.

[TCJohnson]

WASHINGTON - John McCain made a play to the GOP's right wing yesterday, vowing to appoint conservative judges like Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel Alito and blasting Democratic rivals Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton for voting against them.

In a speech his campaign billed as a major address on the judiciary, McCain delivered a harsh critique of "judicial activists" who over step their Constitutional bounds. He also lambasted Democrats for blocking GOP nominees to the bench by turning the confirmation process into a "gauntlet of abuse."

McCain said the difference between the parties on the courts is a defining issue for the November election. Experts expect as many as two to four vacancies on the Supreme Court, and who fills them could shift the court to the right or left for a generation.

McCain set out his own standards for his judicial picks. "I will look for accomplished men and women with a proven record of excellence in the law, and a proven commitment to judicial restraint," he said.


http://www.newsday.com/services/newspaper/printedition/wednesday/nation/ny-usmcca075676363may07,0,386053.story

[Dreadstar]

http://www.newsday.com/services/newspaper/printedition/wednesday/nation/ny-usmcca075676363may07,0,386053.story

Very good.

Sometimes the corroboration is more enlightening than the accusation, so it's always best to get it nailed down.

Way too many folk who love to play the vague accusation and spin game around here anymore.

[the4thpip]

Very good.

Sometimes the corroboration is more enlightening than the accusation, so it's always best to get it nailed down.

Way too many folk who love to play the vague accusation and spin game around here anymore.

Some people might say you have done things of a roughly similar nature.



















:wink:

[Infra-Man]

Very good.

Sometimes the corroboration is more enlightening than the accusation, so it's always best to get it nailed down.

Way too many folk who love to play the vague accusation and spin game around here anymore.

Was that a jab at me?

[Dreadstar]

Some people might say you have done things of a roughly similar nature.

Feel free to point one out, and I'll own up to to. I'm easy.













EDIT OH GODDAMNIT, I missed the joke. Good one, my bad.

[Dreadstar]

Was that a jab at me?

Nope.
.....

[Infra-Man]

Nope.
.....

Keen. I agree, though. I should have cited a source about McCain's intentions.

[Paul McEnery]

I honestly don't know. Did he?

This is one of those situations where you should provide corroboration. Otherwise it's just innuendo.

If one defines "innuendo" to mean "making plain statements without factual corroboration".

If you don't, the statement "otherwise it's just innuendo" is an instance of innuendo.

[FalconX2000]

Beatcha to it! :wink:

http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=7048724&postcount=2062

Yeah McCain's ties to Enron are pretty disgusting for Mr. Straight Talk.

Crap, nice work Crowley. Sorry I missed it.

[Crowley]

Crap, nice work Crowley. Sorry I missed it.

No worries... I'm glad we doubled up on it... it needs discussion and LOTS of ATTENTION.

[kingdom2000]

No worries... I'm glad we doubled up on it... it needs discussion and LOTS of ATTENTION.

Sadly its not getting much. You know the press, if it takes more then a sentence to explain they can't be bothered. Not sexy and simple enough for the common folk.

[Paul McEnery]

Sadly its not getting much. You know the press, if it takes more then a sentence to explain they can't be bothered. Not sexy and simple enough for the common folk.

McCain Sucks Money From Big Oil's Stopcock.

How's that?

Or: From Your Gas Station to McCain's Pocket.

I like that one.

[Kevinroc]

A new Newsweek poll has Obama leading McCain by 15 points.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/142465

[KevinTBrown]

A new Newsweek poll has Obama leading McCain by 15 points.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/142465

Don't trust it.

Newsweek had Kerry ahead by 6 points in the same poll at the same time of year in '04.


However, I would take the averages the Real Clear Politics keep posting. Obama's ahead by about 5.5 points.

[Paul McEnery]

A new Newsweek poll has Obama leading McCain by 15 points.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/142465

But the four point margin of error puts him pretty much where he was before.

Which was, if memory serves, 48% with a two point margin of error. Not much different from 51% with a four point margin.

And McCain is down to 36 (four point) from 42 (two point).

So let's split the difference and say the previous poll was too tight, and this one too generous, and we've got a reasonable 39 plays 49 ten point split.

What I expect is for Obama to peak at 56%, because there's 30% of this country that ain't ever going to vote for him; and I don't rightly expect the rational conservatives to just roll over, and nor should they (though God knows McCain is trying to push them away -- and if 36% is all he's polling in all truth, that's not too many of them he's hanging on to).

[Sabrinaset]

Has Paul McEnery become a bookie? Why haven't we gotten the point spread yet?

[KevinTBrown]

Has Paul McEnery become a bookie? Why haven't we gotten the point spread yet?

No point spread, but last time I looked Obama was at -230 and McCain at +160.

:tongue:

[Paul McEnery]

Has Paul McEnery become a bookie? Why haven't we gotten the point spread yet?

I'll spread my points when you pony up!

Oh, and here's William Hills's odds:

Barack Obama 1/2
John McCain 6/4
Bob Barr 100/1
Ralph Nader 100/1
Wayne Root 100/1

And if I read the odds correctly, that's three times more likely Obama wins.

Bearing in mind the bookies want to make some money...

[Nick Soapdish]

In other news, irrational people often say and do irrational things. Those silly kids.

These are "top Hillary supporters"?

I guess a co-chair for a state student group might make it in the top few hundred. If we assume that students are actually going to vote like they always say that they will and never do.

I guess the only part I understood was the part where you said "but our economy seems to fare better under the auspices of intellectually gifted individuals as President." Well, fine ... Reagan must have been smarter than Carter under your statement. I mean, those ARE your words, right? No wait ... one of them wife-beatin' scum-suckin' Conservatives musta done changed yer post, cuz we-all knows Carter done had a better ecomony than that thar Reagan.

It's a generality. "Seems to".

It doesn't mean that it always holds true.

Meat is meat. If you're a vegan, you can criticize him for eating squirrels only if you criticize everyone else for eating beef, pork, chicken, etc.

If you're not a vegan...

Soylent green is people!

Actually, I think that you can still criticize some meat eaters over others. Some take more energy to produce (like beef). And some are less humane, like veal.

But I'm actually a vegetarian (not vegan). And I'd have less of a problem with somebody eating squirrel.

General intelligence (g), the stuff that gets measured on any IQ test. It's the single measure most strongly correlated with achievement, reasoning, learning and intellectual curiosity.

Which still makes it a pretty poor test. Height is probably the single measure most strongly correlated with earnings. (Men are generally taller than women. Adults are taller than kids. And of course, the ever important professional basketball player demographic.) It doesn't mean that it's a good measure.

And as others have already noted, IQ doesn't translate into academic performance which is what you were criticizing LBJ for. Albert Einstein was thought to be stupid at an early age (and no, I'm not repeating the myth that he failed math).

I think that Joe Rice covered most of the rest better than I could.

[JamesRitcheyIII]

Uh .... whatever.

Oh ... and since I just noticed you did this after I posted ...



I didn't say you were lying. I said you were being disingenuous. You posted something that was a gross, inaccurate overgeneralization, and now you're trying to justify it by saying it was "just a joke." as a means of covering yourself. And I don't care what you think about my feelings. I mean ... who are you that I should care?

Like I said ... whatever.

dis·in·gen·u·ous> adjective
lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere: Her excuse was rather disingenuous.

As you've pointed out, I'm crazy, by your standard (and undoubtedly a few others). I have no barrier between what I think, and what I write. I'm not afraid to say anything to anyone, if I feel I'm right and don't believe in sparing someone's feelings, if it is detrimental to their personal growth. I'm not pretending that my questions, based on Britt's 14 Defining Characteristics of Fascism (http://www.rense.com/general37/fascism.htm) didn't strike me as totally fucking hilarious while I was doing it. Yours was the first response, that addressed the actual content (however rage- or 'punching bag'--motivated), so I said, 'Oh, yeah--that was a joke!". I said that, because it really was! Some brainwash victim saying it wasn't funny doesn't render it not a joke. It does mean it was a very black joke, that had enough truth in it to piss you off.

I find it interesting that in the thread you are just so upset about my horribly rude comments, we have exchanges within a page or two, and there is no mention, even almost comical exchange--but when I ask you about why you might be casting nasty aspersions on my intellect, due to my southern heritage, by doing obnoxiously inaccurate attempts at rural colloquialisms (something anyone who's met me can verify I don't sound like--more midwestern-meets Brooklyn by way of L.A.--with big words), you had to come up with the expedient rationalization you can find. Talk about disingenuous...

I've never met a white person that I didn't know before, who called themselves a Conservative, who, if they didn't know me, didn't eventually use the "N"-word privately with me, as if I'm in their 'club'. It's sickening--and I've dumped very attractive women, and quit jobs over that shit. Not just a 'southern' thing, either. It's like 'white supremacist-LITE'. While I can't judge all conservative people by the ones I've met face to face (outside of my family who are mostly very decent people--the BAD ones I've got trained not to say that shit), I'm not going to be polite about my view of your belief system, and my humor can be very scathing. if I've offended anyone but you, I apologize, but frankly, you were just looking for an excuse to go into 'Rage-aholic' phase, so you aren't important to me.

All I heard from you (paraphrased) was "blubberblubberblubber---I've never been so insulted in my life", but not really addressing the questions beyond that, while line for line, I see no philosophical difference between Fascism and the Conservative Agenda, USA, circa 2008, and with convincing argument, I'm sure many here could alter my perceptions about it.. but you closed any rational possibility of meaningful discourse before you even addressed me directly in this thread.

[Sabrinaset]

Some brainwash victim saying it wasn't funny doesn't render it not a joke.

Oooo. I was insulted by James. Oh. Ow.

I find it interesting that in the thread you are just so upset about my horribly rude comments, we have exchanges within a page or two, and there is no mention, even almost comical exchange--but when I ask you about why you might be casting nasty aspersions on my intellect, due to my southern heritage, by doing obnoxiously inaccurate attempts at rural colloquialisms (something anyone who's met me can verify I don't sound like--more midwestern-meets Brooklyn by way of L.A.--with big words), you had to come up with the expedient rationalization you can find. Talk about disingenuous...

It didn't come up because it wasn't relevent until then. And as far as being upset with Southern-speak ... (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=7016339&postcount=1669) Don't see why speaking that way should bother someone who discussed Conservatives hating them "book-smart intullekshuls". Dude, if you can't take it, don't dish it out. Or, to put it yet another way ... do you think I respect your feelings?

I've never met white person that I didn't know before, who called themselves a Conservative, who, if they didn't know me, didn't eventually use the "N"-word privately with me, as if I'm in their 'club'. It's sickening--and I've dumped very attractive women, and quit jobs over that shit. Not just a 'southern' thing, either. It's like 'white supremacist-LITE'. While I can't judge all conservative people by the ones I've met face to face (outside of my family who are mostly very decent people--the BAD ones I've got trained not to say that shit), I'm not going to be polite about my view of your belief system, and my humor can be very scathing. if I've offended anyone but you, I apologize, but frankly, you were just looking for an excuse to go into 'Rage-aholic' phase, so you aren't important to me.

Don't flatter yourself, you haven't gotten anywhere near feelings of rage from me. Maybe pity, although right now, it's more like the sort of amusement I feel when I see a new strep slide. Loeb and Mad on Ultimates is the closest I've gotten to anger lately. Again, who are you that I should feel anger at you? And you don't really know my belief system, what you're read of mine here is a parody of *yours* ... Playing the victim won't work either. But honestly, your race is irrelevant to me as far as why I find your posts of poor quality, because they'd be sorry at any color.

[JamesRitcheyIII]

Oooo. I was insulted by James. Oh. Ow.



It didn't come up because it wasn't relevent until then. And as far as being upset with Southern-speak ... (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=7016339&postcount=1669) Don't see why speaking that way should bother someone who discussed Conservatives hating them "book-smart intullekshuls". Dude, if you can't take it, don't dish it out. Or, to put it yet another way ... do you think I respect your feelings?



Don't flatter yourself, you haven't gotten anywhere near feelings of rage from me. Maybe pity, although right now, it's more like the sort of amusement I feel when I see a new strep slide. Loeb and Mad on Ultimates is the closest I've gotten to anger lately. Again, who are you that I should feel anger at you? And you don't really know my belief system, what you're read of mine here is a parody of *yours* ... Playing the victim won't work either. But honestly, your race is irrelevant to me as far as why I find your posts of poor quality, because they'd be sorry at any color.

If you're not angry, why so relentlessly insulting? As far as the 'quality' of my posts, it's revealing that you'd post a racially motivated remark, in describing the inferiority of my posts, and while I'm certain the very few 'enemies' I've made here would agree, those I enjoy talking to (the bright and non- mean-spirited shits) don't seem to have a problem with my posting style, You don't exactly come off as a Rocket Scientist, so I consider the source. I wasn't looking for pity, just explaining, that you instigated this bullshit, not me, no matter how you fabricate cause and 'Retcon' things--something so a part of the Republican brain, the penchant for shallow-self-delusion, that you may not ever realize it.

We've established in a few thousand words that we each don't care about the other. Why don't you put my posts on 'ignore'--? I don't like listening to you GIGO Prinicple, closet Aryan Nation crap, any more than you like my 'What's so Funny 'Bout Peace, Love and Understanding' drivel.

I do know your beliefs, I've dealt with them my entire life--you call yourself a Conservative--in 'modern-speak' that means Ultra-Conservative. Barry Goldwater or Reagan would be Moderate Democrats, today, Eisenhower a Marxist, this country has swung so far to the Right.

[Sabrinaset]

I respond to your posts because it's amusing ... and when it isn't amusing anymore, I'll stop. I don't think of you as an "enemy". Again ... why should I? Are you that important? Not at all. But I mean sure, I really wanna get back to the issues, so feel free to ignore me.

I should point out that you're the one who brought up the race card. Up until that point, I neither knew (nor cared) what race you are. And I still don't. You completely missed the point ...again. It's irrelevant what race you are, your posts are full of overgeneralizations that you're trying to pass off as humor. You could be of any race, and I'd still find your posts suspect.

Closet Aryan Nation ... Hahahaha :biggrin:

And nah, I'm a Conservative in that I want the government reduced, taxes lowered, the government off our backs, am pro-gun and pro-life. And pro-gay rights. Beyond that, I'm ambivalent on the issues, but probably veering off between Libertarianism and Anarchism. Paul McEnery keeps saying BlairH and I are Classic Liberals, but he'd have to explain that.

[Sabrinaset]

ANYWAYS, since we're moving on ... here's some more news stories ...

Semi-Election Related: Bush has only himself to blame for mistrust. (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080621/D91E6PFG0.html)

McCain meets with Hispanic Leaders. (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080620/D91DI6LO0.html)

Obama says to watch out for Republican smear attacks (http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2040982720080620?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&rpc=22&sp=true) ... although they did tend to backfire when the Clinton campaign did them. Does NO ONE learn from history?

[Samurai]

If you're not angry, why so relentlessly insulting? As far as the 'quality' of my posts, it's revealing that you'd post a racially motivated remark, in describing the inferiority of my posts, and while I'm certain the very few 'enemies' I've made here would agree, those I enjoy talking to (the bright and non- mean-spirited shits) don't seem to have a problem with my posting style, You don't exactly come off as a Rocket Scientist, so I consider the source. I wasn't looking for pity, just explaining, that you instigated this bullshit, not me, no matter how you fabricate cause and 'Retcon' things--something so a part of the Republican brain, the penchant for shallow-self-delusion, that you may not ever realize it.

We've established in a few thousand words that we each don't care about the other. Why don't you put my posts on 'ignore'--? I don't like listening to you GIGO Prinicple, closet Aryan Nation crap, any more than you like my 'What's so Funny 'Bout Peace, Love and Understanding' drivel.

I do know your beliefs, I've dealt with them my entire life--you call yourself a Conservative--in 'modern-speak' that means Ultra-Conservative. Barry Goldwater or Reagan would be Moderate Democrats, today, Eisenhower a Marxist, this country has swung so far to the Right.

How backwards can you be? This country has swung far to the left, not the right. JFK would be a Republican today. The Democrats used to be fairly principled people willing to defend this country, but the Democrat Party shifted to the far left, "Blame America First" radical crowd, leaving Dems who didn't change, like Lieberman and Zell Miller, in their dust.

No one 50 years ago would have seriously considered "The right to kill your unborn baby, upto even 9 months of pregnancy", a constitutional right.

No one 50 years ago would have seriously considered gay marriage something that had to be publicly recognized and given rights and protections.

No one 50 years ago would have believed that millions of illegal aliens would flood into the country and march down our streets waving their flags, or burning ours, and saying we need to grant them all amnesty, and have politicians from both parties scramble over each other to grant it in hopes of garnering favor with the millions of new voters.

No one 50 years ago would have believed there would be demonstrations by radical socialist groups in our own country calling for the defeat and surrender of our own troops, and gleefully hoping for the death of our President.

This country hasn't moved to the right at all, it's rushing headlong and blindly to the left. It's just that those who remain on the right look more out of place right now due to that shift.

[JamesRitcheyIII]

I respond to your posts because it's amusing ... and when it isn't amusing anymore, I'll stop. I don't think of you as an "enemy". Again ... why should I? Are you that important?

I should point out that you're the one who brought up the race card. Up until that point, I neither knew (nor cared) what race you are. And I still don't. You completely missed the point ...again. It's irrelevent what race you are, your posts are full of overgeneralizations that you're trying to pass off as humor. You could be of any race, and I'd still find your posts suspect. Hmm..suspicion...hy is that not a big shock? Actually, my posts are chocked full of Super-Duper, Extreme, Megalo-Overgeneralizations--until you actually pay attention to them. They're rife with vagueries, certainly, and more apparently with subtle humor that you don't get. I find you unsophisticated, and angry about it.

"Closet Aryan Nation ... Hahahaha :biggrin:" , she said with a >WINK< and a >NUDGE<.

And nah, I'm a Conservative in that I want the government reduced, taxes lowered, the government off our backs, am pro-gun (I'M pro-gun these days--because I don't think only conservatives should have them) and pro-life. And pro-gay rights. Beyond that, I'm ambivilent on the issues, but probably veering off between Libertarianism and Anarchism. Paul McEnery keeps saying I'm a Classic Liberal, but he'd haveta explain that.
Waffler! I guess we're not so different politically, except for you calling yourself a Conservative--which is the polar opposite of Anarchist. Good you don't want cameras in all the bedrooms, at least. 'Classic Liberal' is a phrase that Big Business, Laissez-Faire Libertarians use to describe why they left 'modern' Liberals, to justify free trade and massive corporate deregulation--the reason we're in the shit we are right now. Some romantic notion of Freebooters on the High Sea mashed together with pseudo-Darwinian 'Eat or Be Eaten', Objectivist crap--that resembles little the socially liberal, pro-entepreneurial spirit of those called 'liberal', in the 1800's. Don't take my word for it--verify. 'Classic Liberalism' didn't last very long--in fact, the word 'Liberal' has a much-longer association with the concept of 'The Libertine'--a morally bankrupt person.

Well, Armageddon's cummin', so you better figger out what you is, an' choose sides! Just keep that Flaming Sword away from my Blue Suede Shoes! :biggrin:

PEACE!

[Sabrinaset]

Hmm..suspicion...hy is that not a big shock?

Suspect (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suspect), not suspicion.

Main Entry: 1sus·pect
Pronunciation: \ˈsəs-ˌpekt, sə-ˈspekt\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin suspectus, from past participle of suspicere
Date: 14th century
1 : regarded or deserving to be regarded with suspicion : suspected <investigates suspect employees>
2 : doubtful, questionable <whose skills are suspect — Peter Vecsey>

I find you unsophisticated, and angry about it.

Feel free to feel that way. You could well be right on the unsophisticated part, but angry about it? Nah ... that would be a waste of energy.

she said with a >WINK< and a >NUDGE<.

Okay. If you're going to make the implication that I'm a closet aryan nation sympathiser or something, it's up to you to prove it.

[JamesRitcheyIII]

How backwards can you be? This country has swung far to the left, not the right. JFK would be a Republican today. The Democrats used to be fairly principled people willing to defend this country, but the Democrat Party shifted to the far left, "Blame America First" radical crowd, leaving Dems who didn't change, like Lieberman and Zell Miller, in their dust.

No one 50 years ago would have seriously considered "The right to kill your unborn baby, upto even 9 months of pregnancy", a constitutional right.

No one 50 years ago would have seriously considered gay marriage something that had to be publicly recognized and given rights and protections.

No one 50 years ago would have believed that millions of illegal aliens would flood into the country and march down our streets waving their flags, or burning ours, and saying we need to grant them all amnesty, and have politicians from both parties scramble over each other to grant it in hopes of garnering favor with the millions of new voters.

No one 50 years ago would have believed there would be demonstrations by radical socialist groups in our own country calling for the defeat and surrender of our own troops, and gleefully hoping for the death of our President.

This country hasn't moved to the right at all, it's rushing headlong and blindly to the left. It's just that those who remain on the right look more out of place right now due to that shift. I hope you're right--because your ideas haven't been good for Democracy, or Liberty.
50 years ago, no--we were in a HUGE reactionary 'fit'--run by people like you. 60-70 years ago--until Roosevelt cracked down on anti-war protests? Commies marched in the streets--and there was a HUGE polarization in this country against Hate groups, whose numbers swelled in the 'Thirties.
Is that what the official party line is telling you, these days? There's a reason many of Reagan's staff are coming out against your hero, Dubya's policies--they're NAZI as HELL, like someone memorized all The John Birch Society Literature, and formed a government around that racist bullshit..

[kingdom2000]

Hmm so Sam really does want it to be the 50s again. Sigh its really really sad that period of time is considered the hallmark of American perfection by conservatives. And btw, security by any means necessary (which conservatives seem to universally approve of) is the antithesis of smaller government.

[Red Jack]

How backwards can you be? This country has swung far to the left, not the right. JFK would be a Republican today. The Democrats used to be fairly principled people willing to defend this country, but the Democrat Party shifted to the far left, "Blame America First" radical crowd, leaving Dems who didn't change, like Lieberman and Zell Miller, in their dust.

No one 50 years ago would have seriously considered "The right to kill your unborn baby, upto even 9 months of pregnancy", a constitutional right.

No one 50 years ago would have seriously considered gay marriage something that had to be publicly recognized and given rights and protections.

No one 50 years ago would have believed that millions of illegal aliens would flood into the country and march down our streets waving their flags, or burning ours, and saying we need to grant them all amnesty, and have politicians from both parties scramble over each other to grant it in hopes of garnering favor with the millions of new voters.

No one 50 years ago would have believed there would be demonstrations by radical socialist groups in our own country calling for the defeat and surrender of our own troops, and gleefully hoping for the death of our President.

This country hasn't moved to the right at all, it's rushing headlong and blindly to the left. It's just that those who remain on the right look more out of place right now due to that shift.

I feel sorry for you that you hold this view. The thing you're angry about is capitalism. Or, rather,the slimy, secret, stab-you-in-the-neck-because-I-can-get-a-dime-out-of-the-blood spray sort of capitalism that is currently running roughshod over our Constitution and our daily lives.

Our borders are porous because some wealthy people enjoy slave labor and that is currently even more illegal in this country than employing desperate illegal aliens.

We started that abomination in the the desert because we were terrified and angry and a complete piece of crap lied to us over and over to convince us that getting bunches of our kids killed for nothing was a good plan. We lost that "war" with the first shot we fired.

This is not a liberal nation and those people currently calling themselves "conservative" in the media and, most notably, on the radio, aren't. They are bigots and fear mongers and they work, not for your benefit or even for the benefit of those whose values they claim to share but simply for their own self enrichment. Scratch any random one of those people and you will find a backstabbing, lawbreaking soulless bastard.

I dislike people like Jesse Jackson because they exist on the ashes of someone else's blood, sacrifice and accomplishment and, worse, their hopes and aspirations. But I hate people like Bush the Lesser and Limbaugh more because they are in the way of what this country could be. And they know it.

Your president made perhaps the biggest blunder of our collective history on 9/12. Instead of using that national tragedy, that shock and gut wrenching hurt that we all felt to bind us, to help us put aside the last of the prejudices that had been wrecking this experiment, he grabbed hold of the fear and anger and xenophobia and used it to make himself and his cronies incrementally richer. And that is all he and his parrots have done since. We were all Americans that day. Bush could have had us do anything. Cure cancer or aids, come up with clean fuels, build a city on the moon and we would have done it. Instead? Well, you see instead. It comes home in a body bag that none of us get to look at because seeing might make us feel bad about our part in that horror our president's lie created. Our "liberal" media colludes on that instead of challenging it.

They don't care about you, Sam. They don't care about you or your values or your God. Not even a little bit. They don't care about this country. They care about "markets." The care about another pile of cash to match the sixty they've got. That's it.

No one is saying the dems are saints or that "liberalism" (whatever that even means anymore) is invariably the best filter through which to view every event but, Jesus, aren't you dead sick of these bastards raping the environment, poisoning your kids, getting the next generation killed in useless warfare and letting the greatness of this nation's infrastructure (built by hands of all colors, genders and creeds) fall into ruin?

Aren't you sick of being manipulated and lied to so that some guy you'll never meet and who wouldn't stop to see if you were okay after hitting you with his Hummer, gets one more crystal chandellier for his fifth mansion?

I'm an American. It hits me in my soul to see these bastards lead guys like you around by the nose by speaking to what's worst in you. Because I know you're an American too and you want this place to live up to its promise as much as I do. That promise has nothing to do with markets or everybody singing in the same church choir or, god forbid, being the same color.

You know what this is supposed to be. You know what the experiment is meant to prove and it is nothing to do with getting rich.

At the end of the day, you have to call the spade a shovel, man. Really. It's not just words and choosing up team colors.

This is the best place human beings ever invented, despite the slavery and the genocide, despite the insane hypocrisy over faith and gender. It's still the absolute best idea humans have ever had, bar none.

And these guys are killing it in favor of a buck.

You should be more angry than I am. I'm mostly ignored by The Powers That Be. They have been grifting you and those like you for almost a century now. More.

Wake up, man. Really. We need you.

[LtMarvel]

The whole world moves to the left. 100 years ago women couldn't vote. 100 years before that, slavery was perfectly legal (Hells bells, Missippi ratified the amendment abolishing slavery in 1995). Mixed race marriages were illegal in most states 40 years ago. Remember segregation?

The fight for human rights, in short, is a constant move to the left. There is no stopping that movement.

Everyone should take these liberal positions so they won't sound like fuddy duddy old bigots by their great grandchildren. ;)

[LtMarvel]

I dislike people like Jesse Jackson because they exist on the ashes of someone else's blood, sacrifice and accomplishment and, worse, their hopes and asipirations.
I like a lot of your post, but I disagree on the above statement. Jackson went into hostile countries to try and get Americans being held there freed. I may not agree with everything he has said and done, but he definitely is a person who is trying to make the world better.

[JamesRitcheyIII]

Suspect (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suspect), not suspicion.





Feel free to feel that way. You could well be right on the unsophisticated part, but angry about it? Nah ... that would be a waste of energy.



Okay. If you're going to make the implication that I'm a closet aryan nation sympathiser or something, it's up to you to prove it.

Dear Ilsa, She-Wolf of the S.S.,

A joking Implication isn't accusation. Get a sense of humor--after you realize that every time you call yourself a Conservative, a big Swastika-Encrusted Cross, or a Wild West Villain stealing honest rancher's land by killing them flashes in my head. I don't pretend I don't have prejudices against smarmy people with anger management issues who use that word to describe themselves, based on TOO MUCH personal interaction. Any liberal who tells you different is trying to get into your pants.

SINcerely, Lucifer.

[Sabrinaset]

Hmm so Sam really does want it to be the 50s again. Sigh its really really sad that period of time is considered the hallmark of American perfection by conservatives. And btw, security by any means necessary (which conservatives seem to universally approve of) is the antithesis of smaller government.

How many times do I gotta tell you that Conservatives =/= The Bush Administration? Why do you think I'm an Independant and MacQ is a Bull Moose and Stamen is ... uhm, whatever he is?

Okay, serious question, Kingdom ... you bring up smaller government a lot ... is this part of a conservative streak in you? I mean, given the choice between enlarging the government or shrinking it, what do YOU want?

[the4thpip]

post nomination win bounce... it'll wear off.

The opposite is happening. Newest Newsweek poll (http://www.newsweek.com/id/142469)has Obama a whopping 15 points ahead of McSame.

The same poll shows an 80% dissatisfaction with how things are going in the US right now.

[Sabrinaset]

The opposite is happening. Newest Newsweek poll (http://www.newsweek.com/id/142469)has Obama a whopping 15 points ahead of McSame.

The same poll shows an 80% dissatisfaction with how things are going in the US right now.

I think McEnery covered this previously ... but you know, we really ought to start a pool.

I say Obama 56% to 44% McCain.

[the4thpip]

I think McEnery covered this previously ... but you know, we really ought to start a pool.

I say Obama 56% to 44% McCain.

Yeah, I just saw that it got posted while I was sleeping.

But this one is more interesting anyway:

The Rasmussen Reports Balance of Power Calculator (see methodology below) shows Barack Obama leading in states with 200 Electoral College votes while John McCain leads in states with 174 votes. When leaners are included, Obama leads 284-240. On Friday, June 20, Colorado moved from Leans Democratic to Toss-Up but Ohio did the reverse, moving from Toss-Up to Leans Democratic.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_electoral_college_update

[Sabrinaset]

So are we gonna do the Presidential Pool using electoral votes or percentage of votes cast? And who's gonna be in charge? I guess my mailbox is kinda empty ...

[Paul McEnery]

How backwards can you be? This country has swung far to the left, not the right. JFK would be a Republican today. The Democrats used to be fairly principled people willing to defend this country, but the Democrat Party shifted to the far left, "Blame America First" radical crowd, leaving Dems who didn't change, like Lieberman and Zell Miller, in their dust.

No one 50 years ago would have seriously considered "The right to kill your unborn baby, upto even 9 months of pregnancy", a constitutional right.

No one 50 years ago would have seriously considered gay marriage something that had to be publicly recognized and given rights and protections.

No one 50 years ago would have believed that millions of illegal aliens would flood into the country and march down our streets waving their flags, or burning ours, and saying we need to grant them all amnesty, and have politicians from both parties scramble over each other to grant it in hopes of garnering favor with the millions of new voters.

No one 50 years ago would have believed there would be demonstrations by radical socialist groups in our own country calling for the defeat and surrender of our own troops, and gleefully hoping for the death of our President.

This country hasn't moved to the right at all, it's rushing headlong and blindly to the left. It's just that those who remain on the right look more out of place right now due to that shift.

Yes they would.

And the people who would were real Americans.

Not screaming fascists like you.

I've quoted this post just to make sure that the next time you pretend to be anything like a human being to gain people's confidence, you'll have this to deal with.

[kingdom2000]

How many times do I gotta tell you that Conservatives =/= The Bush Administration? Why do you think I'm an Independant and MacQ is a Bull Moose and Stamen is ... uhm, whatever he is?

Okay, serious question, Kingdom ... you bring up smaller government a lot ... is this part of a conservative streak in you? I mean, given the choice between enlarging the government or shrinking it, what do YOU want?

That’s the problem, this belief that only conservatives want a smaller government. What I want and I think most of the country wants is an efficient and more effective government. By default you achieve that you get a smaller government. What conservatives want is smaller for smaller's sake and damn the consequences. No thought behind it, just role it back to such and such year.

What really amuses me about you is how you act like "your" republican party has existed in the last 30-40 years. Absolutely nothing you consider worthy aspects of the repub party has existed in our lifetimes. They have never shrunk government. They have never spent responsibly. They don't look out for the public interest. They don't concern themselves with the consequences of business. Their idea of protecting the people is creating boogeymen for them to fear and then using that to create laws (or outright abusing them) to spy on people.

That isn't a "Bush" thing. That’s a "look at history over the last 30-40 years" thing and who led the charge on some of the worse points of history (and fear mongering) in this country. Bush is simply one of the worst examples of an infection that the Republican Party has had for a very very long time.

So I ask, where have you been...for your entire life to just NOW reach the conclusion that the Republican Party is broken.

[kingdom2000]

I think McEnery covered this previously ... but you know, we really ought to start a pool.

I say Obama 56% to 44% McCain.

I think its 49.5% to 50.5% McCain. I still say there are a lot more people (of all races) that will not vote for a black man then any poll will find and the small percentage lead Obama has isn't enough to overcome that deficit.

[Samurai]

I feel sorry for you that you hold this view. The thing you're angry about is capitalism. Or, rather,the slimy, secret, stab-you-in-the-neck-because-I-can-get-a-dime-out-of-the-blood spray sort of capitalism that is currently running roughshod over our Constitution and our daily lives.

Our borders are porous because some wealthy people enjoy slave labor and that is currently even more illegal in this country than employing desperate illegal aliens.

We started that abomination in the the desert because we were terrified and angry and a complete piece of crap lied to us over and over to convince us that getting bunches of our kids killed for nothing was a good plan. We lost that "war" with the first shot we fired.

This is not a liberal nation and those people currently calling themselves "conservative" in the media and, most notably, on the radio, aren't. They are bigots and fear mongers and they work, not for your benefit or even for the benefit of those whose values they claim to share but simply for their own self enrichment. Scratch any random one of those people and you will find a backstabbing, lawbreaking soulless bastard.

I dislike people like Jesse Jackson because they exist on the ashes of someone else's blood, sacrifice and accomplishment and, worse, their hopes and aspirations. But I hate people like Bush the Lesser and Limbaugh more because they are in the way of what this country could be. And they know it.

Your president made perhaps the biggest blunder of our collective history on 9/12. Instead of using that national tragedy, that shock and gut wrenching hurt that we all felt to bind us, to help us put aside the last of the prejudices that had been wrecking this experiment, he grabbed hold of the fear and anger and xenophobia and used it to make himself and his cronies incrementally richer. And that is all he and his parrots have done since. We were all Americans that day. Bush could have had us do anything. Cure cancer or aids, come up with clean fuels, build a city on the moon and we would have done it. Instead? Well, you see instead. It comes home in a body bag that none of us get to look at because seeing might make us feel bad about our part in that horror our president's lie created. Our "liberal" media colludes on that instead of challenging it.

They don't care about you, Sam. They don't care about you or your values or your God. Not even a little bit. They don't care about this country. They care about "markets." The care about another pile of cash to match the sixty they've got. That's it.

No one is saying the dems are saints or that "liberalism" (whatever that even means anymore) is invariably the best filter through which to view every event but, Jesus, aren't you dead sick of these bastards raping the environment, poisoning your kids, getting the next generation killed in useless warfare and letting the greatness of this nation's infrastructure (built by hands of all colors, genders and creeds) fall into ruin?

Aren't you sick of being manipulated and lied to so that some guy you'll never meet and who wouldn't stop to see if you were okay after hitting you with his Hummer, gets one more crystal chandellier for his fifth mansion?

I'm an American. It hits me in my soul to see these bastards lead guys like you around by the nose by speaking to what's worst in you. Because I know you're an American too and you want this place to live up to its promise as much as I do. That promise has nothing to do with markets or everybody singing in the same church choir or, god forbid, being the same color.

You know what this is supposed to be. You know what the experiment is meant to prove and it is nothing to do with getting rich.

At the end of the day, you have to call the spade a shovel, man. Really. It's not just words and choosing up team colors.

This is the best place human beings ever invented, despite the slavery and the genocide, despite the insane hypocrisy over faith and gender. It's still the absolute best idea humans have ever had, bar none.

And these guys are killing it in favor of a buck.

You should be more angry than I am. I'm mostly ignored by The Powers That Be. They have been grifting you and those like you for almost a century now. More.

Wake up, man. Really. We need you.
A nice speech... I can see you put a lot of time and effort into it. But you made some fundamental mistakes and wrong assumptions.

First, you mentioned they don't care about "my God". I'm agnostic, not religious at all. I know many conservatives are religious, but I'm not one of them.

Second, you seem to think I universally support Bush. I don't. I've pointed out many times where I disagree with him or McCain, or any other conservative or Republican. I go issue by issue... some they agree with me on, others they don't. I probably disagree with a good 40-50% of McCain's stated policies, on everything from higher energy taxes to amnesty to curtailing the 1st Amendment (all of those are things McCain supports that I don't). The problem is, issue by issue, I disagree with Obama 80-90% of the time. So, while McCain certainly wouldn't be my choice of a candidate, the only other viable option is far worse. And I'm not going to waste my vote on a 3rd party unless McCain jumps the shark and becomes as nutty as Obama, in which case I'd no longer care who won.

I disagree with your assessments of why we went into Iraq, but I'm not going to make a big debate over that point, as it isn't the focuis of this thread. Suffice to say there are greedy folks looking out for their own self interests in both parties, and the Democrats can't for a second claim to be any better than the Republicans when it comes to that. The liberal media is just more apt to cover up or underplay their connections and dealings. You should look up some of the things William Jefferson of Louisiana or Feinstein of CA have done to line their own pockets or those of friends, not to mention Bill Clinton (and Brother in law) selling Presidential pardons to the highest bidders and lining their pockets with the payoffs while crooks and terrorists walked free for a few hundred thou each.

Yes, I am angry about some of the things going on in this country, but not all of them are things you'd probably agree with. I'm angry the Dems are (and long have been) preventing drilling for oil in Alaska and off the coasts, and prevented any refineries from being built in America for more than 30 years, so that we can reduce our dependence on foreign oil and lower the price of gas. And it would give us more time to perfect alternative energy sources and fuels, rather than creating disastrous consequences like ethanol production jumping the price of corn and causing poor people around the world to starve. (Oh, and mark my words, in a few years, when all these CFL bulbs now required by law start burning out and getting thrown in the trash, with their mercury spreading out into landfills and water supplies, people will be wondering why the hell we let it happen...)

Obama is pulling the wool over your eyes. He's a politician, saying anything and everything he needs to win, and so many gullible folks seem to be taking to him like it's the 2nd coming. He's a liar, he has hung around with some of the scummiest people in this country (and other countries), and he is dangerously naive and inexperienced. What's more, his radical policies are far out of step with most of the people of this country... it's just that he seldom states just what policies he's for, and later often contradicts himself in a day or 2. He's fooled a lot of people, and if he's elected, I can almost guarantee that the "divisiveness" of the Bush Presidency will pale by comparison. If he's elected, I can only hope he isn't able to permanently ruin this country before saner souls can take the reins again.

And really, McCain will bear some very close watching and public pressure as well, if he's elected, to prevent him from doing some of the damaging things he supports or has supported in the past. But his experience and centrist positions on many issues (veering left or right on certain ones) makes him a far safer choice for President than Obama.

You're right, I love this country. I want to see it grow and prosper. We simply disagree on the best way to achieve that. I'm not for "the rich getting richer"... I'm poor myself, and my family always has been. But I'm also not for class warfare and punitive wealth redistribution that cripples the economy by driving rich people to move their money and businesses to other countries.

I'm for free speech and expression, as well as the right to bear arms.

I'm for preserving the rule of law for our citizens, but not unprecedentedly extending it to foreign terrorists/POWs/enemy combatants captured and held overseas and requiring civilian legal systems and evidence requirements when of course none of that was followed when they were captured (nor should it have been... this is a war, not a police investigation, and it shouldn't now be turned into one).

I'm for smaller, generally less intrusive government, and lower taxes. Waste should be cut, pork barrel spending viciously curtailed, and power moved back to the people or the states and local governments when possible. Yeah, I know none of that has happened lately.

I'm for welcoming legal immigrants and helping them to adjust, learn the language, etc. I'm completely opposed to people sneaking across the border because they don't feel like doing it the legal way, and then marching in our streets demanding rights.

I'm for judges that uphold the law, not reinterpret it because it doesn't fit their political agenda.

Just because I'm not happy with a lot of stuff going on right now doesn't mean I'm voting Democrat... how would Obama help with these issues?

[Red Jack]

A nice speech... I can see you put a lot of time and effort into it. But you made some fundamental mistakes and wrong assumptions.

First, you mentioned they don't care about "my God". I'm agnostic, not religious at all. I know many conservatives are religious, but I'm not one of them.

Second, you seem to think I universally support Bush. I don't. I've pointed out many times where I disagree with him or McCain, or any other conservative or Republican. I go issue by issue... some they agree with me on, others they don't. I probably disagree with a good 40-50% of McCain's stated policies, on everything from higher energy taxes to amnesty to curtailing the 1st Amendment (all of those are things McCain supports that I don't). The problem is, issue by issue, I disagree with Obama 80-90% of the time. So, while McCain certainly wouldn't be my choice of a candidate, the only other viable option is far worse. And I'm not going to waste my vote on a 3rd party unless McCain jumps the shark and becomes as nutty as Obama, in which case I'd no longer care who won.

I disagree with your assessments of why we went into Iraq, but I'm not going to make a big debate over that point, as it isn't the focuis of this thread. Suffice to say there are greedy folks looking out for their own self interests in both parties, and the Democrats can't for a second claim to be any better than the Republicans when it comes to that. The liberal media is just more apt to cover up or underplay their connections and dealings. You should look up some of the things William Jefferson of Louisiana or Feinstein of CA have done to line their own pockets or those of friends, not to mention Bill Clinton (and Brother in law) selling Presidential pardons to the highest bidders and lining their pockets with the payoffs while crooks and terrorists walked free for a few hundred thou each.

Yes, I am angry about some of the things going on in this country, but not all of them are things you'd probably agree with. I'm angry the Dems are (and long have been) preventing drilling for oil in Alaska and off the coasts, and prevented any refineries from being built in America for more than 30 years, so that we can reduce our dependence on foreign oil and lower the price of gas. And it would give us more time to perfect alternative energy sources and fuels, rather than creating disastrous consequences like ethanol production jumping the price of corn and causing poor people around the world to starve. (Oh, and mark my words, in a few years, when all these CFL bulbs now required by law start burning out and getting thrown in the trash, with their mercury spreading out into landfills and water supplies, people will be wondering why the hell we let it happen...)

Obama is pulling the wool over your eyes. He's a politician, saying anything and everything he needs to win, and so many gullible folks seem to be taking to him like it's the 2nd coming. He's a liar, he has hung around with some of the scummiest people in this country (and other countries), and he is dangerously naive and inexperienced. What's more, his radical policies are far out of step with most of the people of this country... it's just that he seldom states just what policies he's for, and later often contradicts himself in a day or 2. He's fooled a lot of people, and if he's elected, I can almost guarantee that the "divisiveness" of the Bush Presidency will pale by comparison. If he's elected, I can only hope he isn't able to permanently ruin this country before saner souls can take the reins again.

And really, McCain will bear some very close watching and public pressure as well, if he's elected, to prevent him from doing some of the damaging things he supports or has supported in the past. But his experience and centrist positions on many issues (veering left or right on certain ones) makes him a far safer choice for President than Obama.

You're right, I love this country. I want to see it grow and prosper. We simply disagree on the best way to achieve that. I'm not for "the rich getting richer"... I'm poor myself, and my family always has been. But I'm also not for class warfare and punitive wealth redistribution that cripples the economy by driving rich people to move their money and businesses to other countries.

I'm for free speech and expression, as well as the right to bear arms.

I'm for preserving the rule of law for our citizens, but not unprecedentedly extending it to foreign terrorists/POWs/enemy combatants captured and held overseas and requiring civilian legal systems and evidence requirements when of course none of that was followed when they were captured (nor should it have been... this is a war, not a police investigation, and it shouldn't now be turned into one).

I'm for smaller, generally less intrusive government, and lower taxes. Waste should be cut, pork barrel spending viciously curtailed, and power moved back to the people or the states and local governments when possible. Yeah, I know none of that has happened lately.

I'm for welcoming legal immigrants and helping them to adjust, learn the language, etc. I'm completely opposed to people sneaking across the border because they don't feel like doing it the legal way, and then marching in our streets demanding rights.

I'm for judges that uphold the law, not reinterpret it because it doesn't fit their political agenda.

Just because I'm not happy with a lot of stuff going on right now doesn't mean I'm voting Democrat... how would Obama help with these issues?

There isn't a human being alive that can pull the wool over my eyes. You make me sad, Sam. I know I should get angry and lecture-y but really, it's just sad.

[KevinTBrown]

I think its 49.5% to 50.5% McCain. I still say there are a lot more people (of all races) that will not vote for a black man then any poll will find and the small percentage lead Obama has isn't enough to overcome that deficit.

With you being in Atlanta, I can see how you'd feel that way....

But nearly every single poll has Obama leading by no less than 4 points. You'd think there'd be at least ONE poll that would prove your assumption.

Now while there are indeed a lot of people who won't vote for him just because he's black, there are just as many people who won't vote for McCain because he's in his 70s. In the end, Obama still going to win. Unless, of course, something extremely damaging comes out..... which it won't.

[Charles RB]

Hmm so Sam really does want it to be the 50s again.

In the 50s, being gay would get you arrested over here - leading to the suicide of Alan Turing, one of the men of GCHQ who saved countless lives by cracking German codes. In the 50s, black immigrants coming over here led to a vicious race riot and a lot of hate (because they were, gasp, black). In the 50s, we still had far stronger class, gender, racial, and national inequalities. In the 50s, Catholic Northern Irish weren't even second class citizens and Protestant privelege shat on them. In the 50s, our European neighbours contained two Fascist dictatorships and multiple Communist satellite states.

It's not a bad thing to be out of the 50s.

[Infra-Man]

I think its 49.5% to 50.5% McCain. I still say there are a lot more people (of all races) that will not vote for a black man then any poll will find and the small percentage lead Obama has isn't enough to overcome that deficit.

At this moment I'm saying 54% Obama to 46% McCain. Things can change, but I think with Clinton and Obama campaigning together next week (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/OBAMA_CLINTON?SITE=AP) there's going to be a greater consolidation of the Democratic voters, particularly the newly registered voters.

While racism may play a factor in this election, I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that dissatisfaction with the current administration, the Republican party, and the direction of the country will be a bigger factor than race.

[Sabrinaset]

That’s the problem, this belief that only conservatives want a smaller government. What I want and I think most of the country wants is an efficient and more effective government. By default you achieve that you get a smaller government. What conservatives want is smaller for smaller's sake and damn the consequences. No thought behind it, just role it back to such and such year.

My impression of the differences between conservatives and liberals, and I'm really oversimplifying here, but just for brevity's sake, is that a conservative would tend to think that the government should do less, and that a liberal thinks the government should do more. Implicit in that belief is that a conservative thinks that the less taxes we send to the federal government, the less it will grow so that it can do less, while a liberal would think that we should increase taxes so that the federal government can do more. In and of itself, all that is is a difference between what people feel is the role of government.

The problem is that, pretty much since FDR, that the government has been growing faster and faster, and it's achieved something of a snowball effect now where, short of a revolution, it may not even be possible to shrink the bloated whale of government anymore. I really thought Gore with his "Reinventing Government" initiative was onto something, but that went nowhere and was just empty words.

But the point I was trying to get at is that you keep bringing up smaller government thing, so I was wondering if that was something of some importance to you.

What really amuses me about you is how you act like "your" republican party ...

Here we go again... How many times do I have to tell you I quit, something like a year ago now, when I realized that what I believe in is not what the current GOP ... well, they SAY they believe in, but they don't act on it. It's not "mine". I grew up in a Republican household ... in the same post BeetleBum showed you, I mentioned that Mom wasn't happy about what I did. As to where I've been, I'm only 24, I'm nowhere near as old as you are, so I don't have the time to fully immerse myself in political stuff. and most of my time has been spent learning med stuff anyways.

I remember Pip being happy I came to my senses. You, on the other hand, seem unable to tell the difference between someone who is, and isn't, a Republican. I think, as an experiment, I ought to say in every tenth post something like "... and Democrats like Kingdom2000, who only care about the real victims of crime: criminals." And, well, just keep hammering that point over and over again, even if you don't believe it. In fact, *especially* if you don't.

I think its 49.5% to 50.5% McCain. I still say there are a lot more people (of all races) that will not vote for a black man then any poll will find and the small percentage lead Obama has isn't enough to overcome that deficit.

I remember a lot of Republicans saying they would have gladly voted for Colin Powell in 1996.

[Samurai]

There isn't a human being alive that can pull the wool over my eyes. You make me sad, Sam. I know I should get angry and lecture-y but really, it's just sad.

Really? And yet you find it so easy to assume that the wool has been pulled over my eyes, and those of millions of other Americans.

Well then, consider for a moment that maybe neither of us is blind to the faults of our party and candidates, and neither of us is completely happy with the poor choices we get year in and year out, and it's a matter of "picking the lesser evil" (only because Cthulhu isn't running!) It's just that, upon weighing things, some of us end up choosing these asshats over those asshats, because we think they may do a little better job on more of the issues that matter to us. And while both parties may have some ignorant people who are just voting D or R without really knowing the candidate, quite a few see him for what he is, warts and all, but just see even more warts on the other guy...

[JamesRitcheyIII]

The whole world moves to the left. 100 years ago women couldn't vote. 100 years before that, slavery was perfectly legal (Hells bells, Missippi ratified the amendment abolishing slavery in 1995). Mixed race marriages were illegal in most states 40 years ago. Remember segregation?

The fight for human rights, in short, is a constant move to the left. There is no stopping that movement.

Everyone should take these liberal positions so they won't sound like fuddy duddy old bigots by their great grandchildren. ;)


You're wrong about the timeline--the whole world moved to the left 230 years ago, after over a hundred years of leftist thinking, known as The Enlightenment--our founding fathers were known as radicals, traitors and terrorists. These left-wingnuts (who had opposition tooth and nail from the forces of genocidal sociopathy and ignorance since the beginning) founded 'one nation, conceived in Liberty', and explored the experiment of self-government, where everyone has a voice, and the same rights and responsibilities--an even playing field. Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt with child labor, Wilson with Women's Suffrage, Eisenhower, LBJ moving the country towards justice to include everyone--? That was just filling in the details--and we're not done.

Still the forces of darkness stand (from the beginning) perpetually screaming 'there outta be a law' at the top of their lungs--usually, by trying to add religious amendments to the Costitution, or some clever bit of legal subterfuge to disenfranchise and marginalize those they hate. One step forward, two steps backward--and we just spent 7.5 years of walking backward.

[Joe Rice]

Speaking of asshats:

"I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mothers race" - Barack Obama

It's past tense, you context-denying throwback.

[Samurai]

Here we go again... How many times do I have to tell you I quit, something like a year ago now, when I realized that what I believe in is not what the current GOP ... well, they SAY they believe in, but they don't act on it. It's not "mine". I grew up in a Republican household ... in the same post BeetleBum showed you, I mentioned that Mom wasn't happy about what I did. As to where I've been, I'm only 24, I'm nowhere near as old as you are, so I don't have the time to fully immerse myself in political stuff. and most of my time has been spent learning med stuff anyways.

I remember Pip being happy I came to my senses. You, on the other hand, seem unable to tell the difference between someone who is, and isn't, a Republican. I think, as an experiment, I ought to say in every tenth post something like "... and Democrats like Kingdom2000, who only care about the real victims of crime: criminals." And, well, just keep hammering that point over and over again, even if you don't believe it. In fact, *especially* if you don't.

Sabrina, I think part of the difference between us is that you're younger than I am. I was politically aware and active during the Reagan years, and really am a Reagan Republican. Bush Sr started a bad downturn for the Republicans that in many ways his son has followed. Correct me if I'm rong, but you've really only seen the Republican party at less than its best, with the 2 Bushs, while I have Reagan's example in living memory to show me what the party can and should be. I think if I were 10 years younger, I might not have joined or stayed with the Republicans either (though with CA's closed primaries, I want to get a vote in the primary and so wouldn't go independent). So, I understand what you mean by saying "the Republicans no longer represent conservative values", and McCain will likely do little if anything to change that, but what other choice is there besides trying to change it back from the inside, with our votes and voices? You certainly aren't going to make the Democrats conservative, and 3rd parties, even if you agree with them more, are more likely to spoil the chances of a semi-conservative being elected than ever get their own candidate into high office.

[Samurai]

Speaking of asshats:



It's past tense, you context-denying throwback.

Yeah, it's from one of his books, reminiscing. Maybe you don't find "I was a race-baiter, nursing grievances and animosity against whitey because it made me feel good (and helped me get ahead)" to be disturbing at all, but I do.

But then, you probably also didn't find the "Conscience of the Senate" doing the exact same thing (except against blacks instead of whites) decades earlier to be such a big flaw either...

[Charles RB]

Remember, Bree - don't vote for who you agree with, vote for the big party! It may not actually be what you support or want, but it says it's conservative and that's good enough to keep voting for it, by gum!

[Joe Rice]

Yeah, it's from one of his books, reminiscing. Maybe you don't find "I was a race-baiter, nursing grievances and animosity against whitey because it made me feel good (and helped me get ahead)" to be disturbing at all, but I do.


Were it present tense, I might find it disturbing. As a reflection on what a man once thought, I find no problem. I've thought some awful and embarrassing things in my time, too.

[Charles RB]

Yeah, it's from one of his books, reminiscing. Maybe you don't find "I was a race-baiter, nursing grievances and animosity against whitey because it made me feel good (and helped me get ahead)" to be disturbing at all, but I do.

Wow, when someone was young they were a grumpy sulky arsehole who lashed out at a parent.

I am shocked.

[rick]

Maybe you don't find "I was a race-baiter, nursing grievances and animosity against whitey because it made me feel good (and helped me get ahead)" to be disturbing at all, but I do.



Ignoring your very interesting rewrite of what Obama wrote in the actual quote, I have to ask what it is that you find disturbing about a black American coming to grips with the racial tensions that they in fact do face here in the US and then rejecting them and instead work very hard toward building a more inclusive nation?

Why are you bothered by Obama rejecting racial prejudice?

You aren’t making sense.

[Samurai]

Remember, Bree - don't vote for who you agree with, vote for the big party! It may not actually be what you support or want, but it says it's conservative and that's good enough to keep voting for it, by gum!

"No Bree, you go join that party of 5 other people who agree exactly as you do, so that you'll never have to vote for a candidate you disagree with at all! And each year one of you 6 can run for office, get your 6 votes, and remain politically pure of the much larger party, full of people having to compromise because in order to gain a real majority, compromise (sometimes a lot of it, even too much of it) is going to be required. But we on the other side support your decision not to compromise, and withhold the combined 6 votes your party members would have given them because that helps us in the long run, and we hope a lot more of your former party's voters (and none of our own) follow your example by gum!"

[Sabrinaset]

Remember, Bree - don't vote for who you agree with, vote for the big party! It may not actually be what you support or want, but it says it's conservative and that's good enough to keep voting for it, by gum!

No, the Republicans said they were conservative, but they weren''t, so I quit. And do I have to repost the four or five times I said that, unless something shocking happens between now and the election, I was voting for Obama? Come on, at least READ my posts before commenting on them! You guys aren't even trying anymore.

"No Bree, you go join that party of 5 other people who agree exactly as you do, so that you'll never have to vote for a candidate you disagree with at all! And each year one of you 6 can run for office, get your 6 votes, and remain politically pure of the much larger party, full of people having to compromise because in order to gain a real majority, compromise (sometimes a lot of it, even too much of it) is going to be required. But we on the other side support your decision not to compromise, and withhold the combined 6 votes your party members would have given them because that helps us in the long run, and we hope a lot more of your former party's voters (and none of our own) follow your example by gum!"

... ooookay. Now I get it.

I think I'll just play WoW while you guys argue over this ...

[Samurai]

Ignoring your very interesting rewrite of what Obama wrote in the actual quote, I have to ask what it is that you find disturbing about a black American coming to grips with the racial tensions that they in fact do face here in the US and then rejecting them and instead work very hard toward building a more inclusive nation?

Why are you bothered by Obama rejecting racial prejudice?

You aren’t making sense.

That's just it... he hasn't rejected it. At all. He has spent the last 20 years going to a racist church preaching racist ideas. As little as 2 years ago he openly and publicly supported his racist, murdering relatives in Kenya and made public appearances with them. His friends and associates, whom he's throwing overboard or under the bus as fast as he can now that he is in the running for President, show that this is the real Barack Obama, he hasn't changed, and 1 flowery speech doesn't change his lifetime of bigotry and divisive racial politics.

[Samurai]

No, the Republicans said they were conservative, but they weren''t, so I quit. And do I have to repost the four or five times I said that, unless something shocking happens between now and the election, I was voting for Obama? Come on, at least READ my posts before commenting on them! You guys aren't even trying anymore.

Then get ready for more disappointment if he's elected Bree, because he sure isn't conservative either...

[Joe Rice]

That's just it... he hasn't rejected it. At all. He has spent the last 20 years going to a racist church preaching racist ideas. As little as 2 years ago he openly and publicly supported his racist, murdering relatives in Kenya and made public appearances with them. His friends and associates, whom he's throwing overboard or under the bus as fast as he can now that he is in the running for President, show that this is the real Barack Obama, he hasn't changed, and 1 flowery speech doesn't change his lifetime of bigotry and divisive racial politics.

You're an idiot.

[Samurai]

You're an idiot.

That's your only comeback when someone points out his record and relationships, disproving the "yeahbuthe'schanged!" BS?

[Red Jack]

Really? And yet you find it so easy to assume that the wool has been pulled over my eyes, and those of millions of other Americans.

Ah, but you see, we have reality to back up this claim. The party you back nakedly and repeatedly attacks civil rights, makes deals with corproations that screw the average American in favor of the wealthy, they are prosecuting a "war" that has zero strategic value and has, in fact, made the world less stable and safe (not to mention all the dead human beings). The media, (far from being liberal) in collusion with the current government, neither asks the "tough questions" nor digs below the surface of press releases until it's much too late to matter. There is now an entire "news" network dedicated to propagandizing the American public to accept or support those decisions that, while obviously screwing them, can be made to sound as if something they value is being protected.

By contrast, while "liberals" also cozy up to big biz (the real enemy of mankind) the the simple demographics of their constituency makes it a much harder sell and so thee things must be done less easily and in secret. Democrats, until this year essentially, had not been an actual party for some years but were simply Not Republicans.

Bill Clinton was only a democrat in name. His fiscal policies were just as hurtful to the average American as anything Bush has done. So much so that his wife was tethered to his decisions (NAFTA, GATT,) mortally wounding her presidential run because they pretty much eviscerated the American labor force (and the ability for the average Amercian to do better than her parents had) in favor of slave wage labor both here and abroad. This allows the finnancial news people to announce the "economy" is doing great while Americans are sinking farther and farther towards poverty across the board.

Drilling oil? Your solutution to energy concerns both strategic and finanncial is to DRILL MORE? Jesus. First off, the amount of oil produced by the feilds in contention would be negligible in terms of offsetting any of our long term problems and MEANINGLESS in terms of current price spikes. We wouldn't see any of the refined product for a decade, minumum, and we'd burn through it in half that time.

This is the nation that put boots on another world and you're telling me the best we've got to offer vis a vis the energy issues is more drilling? HUH?! That dog doesn't even know what hunting is.

The fact is such policies serve short term political goals and long term industry goals, namely those of the car and oil industries (and who is currently running the government? That's right, a bunch of "ex" oil execs.)

Illegal immigration is a massive issue for those of us who live in the West and South West. I also have a probelm with folks coming here just to siphon resources (regardless of how dire things are at home for them) rather than because they want to participate in the grand experiment. But they are ALLOWED to do this because it serves the bottom line of several industries. This nation was built on slave labor. Black. Asian. Latino. White.

When it became illegal to hold slaves, then, eventually, to have defacto slaves via Jim Crow laws in the south and similar activities vis a vis latins in the west, you saw a spike in illegal immigrant labor that grew exponentially every year. It's a modern slave labor force and NOBODY who calls themselves an American should be happy about it. Regardless of what we ultimately decide is the solution, that problem, again, screws the average American worker in favor of, you guessed it, big monied interests.

You have been propagandized to consider anyone who brings these and other similar points to the fore to be "Class Warriors," awful people who hate the "free market" and want to take from the deserving rich and give to the underserving masses. That is not so. We are simply people who can do arithmetic.

Well then, consider for a moment that maybe neither of us is blind to the faults of our party and candidates, and neither of us is completely happy with the poor choices we get year in and year out, and it's a matter of "picking the lesser evil" (only because Cthulhu isn't running!) cut for length


I have no illusions about Mr. Obama. If Dems had the courage of their supposed convictions Kucinich or even Edwards would be the big winner this year. Gore would get elected on a write-in draft vote. We are just as guilty of the lazy, cattle-like behavior as you guys. Worse in some ways because we often pretend we're so damned smart and loving of Mankind. That's BS there too.

Americans, red, blue, purple, need to wake up. While you're focused on telling women what they can do with their bodies or who gets to marry who, or the swarthy people in kaftans out to blow you up, actual smart ruthless people are gutting the nation you claim to love.

It's only a nation because we agree and work at it. It's just an idea. Contrary to the propaganda, those can be killed. You're watching it every night on TV.

[Sabrinaset]

Then get ready for more disappointment if he's elected Bree, because he sure isn't conservative either...

None of them are. But at least Hillary is out of the race, so that's a plus.

Like MacQ said elsewhere, if Obama makes Hill his VP nominee, that's the quickest way to make my vote go elsewhere.

[Charles RB]

No, the Republicans said they were conservative, but they weren''t, so I quit.

Well, yeah, that was my point - I was mocking Samurai's post based on you leaving the party because it wasn't conservative.

Except then he made another one while I was posting and I hadn't quoted. :frown:

[mgs]

Nothing emotional or bantery about it.

and to refuse to consider those as factors in his character, a question you raised, is to not seriously be asing the question.

again, I ask you, what is the problem with the guy?

</p>
You, sir, need to reread your post. ;)
As to his character, honestly, I don't know much about him, but as the race goes on, even in his time in public office, the 'minor' transgressions do not point to someone who is all that stable in his character. The Reverend, the real estate person...Sure, things in his past, that he seems to write off, now that he's so in the public eye, but why not fix those things BEFORE this time? What else will come of his time as an elected official?

My main problem is his experience. What has he done? Does anyone really know what his policies were and how did he help his constituency in his job? I admit to being lazy and not looking it up, but the same question I ask of his supporters, what, really had he done as an elected official before this? I usually get the same blank stares.

[Sabrinaset]

Well, yeah, that was my point - I was mocking Samurai's post based on you leaving the party because it wasn't conservative.

Except then he made another one while I was posting and I hadn't quoted. :frown:

Yeah, when Sam made the next post, I finally got what you guys were getting at. I'm STILL playing WoW right now, though.

[JamesRitcheyIII]

Yeah, it's from one of his books, reminiscing. Maybe you don't find "I was a race-baiter, nursing grievances and animosity against whitey because it made me feel good (and helped me get ahead)" to be disturbing at all, but I do.

You crazy right-wingers, and your wacky, wacky 'Conversion-Reaction'--'everybody is racist', except you. That 'everybody' seems to coincidentally, by some fluke, be composed of marginalized minorities, who are trying tirelessly to undermine white rule in America. A comment meant to explain how he grew up--what he overcame--what he grew out o--is just final proof that he means to enslave the white race! Honesty about feeling downtrodden isn't racism, you douche! It's gut-reaction against a raw deal. It's like Jews being pissed off at Auschwitz Guards--so Jews are racist?!.
The way you blame minorities and people of conscience on the bench for your problems, and worship the ones actually responsible for them. Hopefully--some day, you'll fight against those destructively 'Tribal' feelings and win (as Obama did), but I don't think it likely.

You're just to the right of Charlie Manson.

But then, you probably also didn't find the "Conscience of the Senate" doing the exact same thing (except against blacks instead of whites) decades earlier to be such a big flaw either...

What Phil Hart has to do with this goes beyond all common sense--his record was impeccable, and his conscience clean as far as anyone can tell, now. Bussing was a feeble idea, tried for all the right reasons. I'm not wild about gun control--because I think there's a war coming against the forces of darkness--yeah-YOUR contingent--with Blackwater your own private Army against any real Democracy.:biggrin:

[rick]

That's just it... he hasn't rejected it. At all. He has spent the last 20 years going to a racist church preaching racist ideas. As little as 2 years ago he openly and publicly supported his racist, murdering relatives in Kenya and made public appearances with them. His friends and associates, whom he's throwing overboard or under the bus as fast as he can now that he is in the running for President, show that this is the real Barack Obama, he hasn't changed, and 1 flowery speech doesn't change his lifetime of bigotry and divisive racial politics.


You still are not making too much sense Sam.

First off you guys have still never done a very good job of explaining how a church that that teaches its members that when living in a racist society the best thing the people facing that racism can do, is to unite together and work toward a stronger and more independent existence within the greater boundary of the overall society in general.

How is it racist to believe that the best thing for black Americans is economic independence?

Hell, since this calls for lots of free enterprise on the part of black Americans, you guys on the Right should be completely in favor of it.

Of course the bugaboo you are going to bring up is that Wright made some pretty silly and outrageous statements over the years. But what you can’t do is actually paint a picture of the man as a racist without totally ignoring his entire career and only looking at three maybe four tightly edited, out of context statements.

And so far as I can tell the Republican word game approach really isn’t working with the masses this time. I suspect that quite a few people feel rather played by this approach after 8 years of Bush and just aren’t falling for it this time.

Also, as for Raila Odinga, the Prime Minister of Kenya who appears to be Obama’s cousin, he does seem to be a pretty typical tinpot, but I haven’t even seen anything to suggest that the two men have ever met let alone made public appearances together. You know what though, there is another relative of Obama’s out there who is most certainly a war criminal and is responsible for the deaths of thousands and who Obama has been seen appearing with in the same room at the same time, and that’s Vice-President Dick Cheny.


It is a interesting thing the Right is trying to do this election and I have to admit it is a bright strategy. The best way to offset the inevitable accusations of racism on their parts for their attacks on Obama is to attempt to make it appear that Obama is the racist. It’s sort of the same approach the Republicans took in both 2000 and 2004 when they somehow managed to convince a great deal of Americans that George W Bush was the tough military fighting man, when he was in the reserves at home and it was Al Gore and John Kerry who actually went to Vietnam.

I don’t think the approach is going to go to far this time, except of course with the rank and file followers the message is meant for in the first place.

From my perspective though if the best that the Right has been able to come up with over the last year is the kind of silliness you are pushing here about the evil racist black guy looking for separation and revenge against “whitey” you really don’t have anything at all.

Sam I like you, you know I like you, and because of that I try to be nice about this sort of thing, but I have to say that one of your real faults in how you think about politics, is that you tend to base how trustworthy a story is based more on how it reflects through your ideology than through the facts.

And don’t get me wrong there are plenty of people on the Left who do the same thing.

But you would do a whole lot better in these debates if you actually went for what was provable fact instead of all the innuendo. Pushing so hard with these nuggets of red meat really doesn’t make your case.

It’s like this argument I had at work earlier this week where this guy was trying to make the case that Sen. McCain willingly collaborated with the enemy while he was a POW in Vietnam. His view was that because McCain eventually broke under torture and told whatever minor “secrets” that he knew, that this some how counts as collaboration.

His “view” was based on a small bit of fact that he took out of context and twisted to his own ideology. He so wanted to find something bad to say about a respectable, decent person, that he was willing to ignore the truth just for the sake of politics. And this whole ridiculous and just plain racist attempt to paint Obama as the one with the bigotry issues is exactly the same thing.

[Sabrinaset]

Ricks post segues nicely into this story (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5198068&page=1) on a pastor daring the IRS over using his pulpit to tell people to vote for McCain. Okay, why isn't the IRS going after these guys? I mean, you want separation of Church and State? Why not separation of the Church FROM dealing with the State?

[Red Jack]

That's just it... he hasn't rejected it. At all. He has spent the last 20 years going to a racist church preaching racist ideas. As little as 2 years ago he openly and publicly supported his racist, murdering relatives in Kenya and made public appearances with them. His friends and associates, whom he's throwing overboard or under the bus as fast as he can now that he is in the running for President, show that this is the real Barack Obama, he hasn't changed, and 1 flowery speech doesn't change his lifetime of bigotry and divisive racial politics.

You need t get out more. The church in queston has white members and, as you well know, at least one white "guest" preacher.

What your issue is here is class, not "race."

Also, what freaking planet do you live on that you think black America, by reacting to centuries of social and governmental oppression by creating what is, at absolute worst, a place to vent their frustrations safely, is somehow evidence of racism?

Really. This nation has an actual history. It's not pretty. If you knew a bit more of it you wouldn't be so accepting of the concept of "reverse racism."

There's only one kind and this ain't it.

More to the point, Mr. Obama, in one of the best speeches ever written or given by an American politician, DIRECTLY addressed those concerns and managed to do so without blaming ANYONE or pointing the finger.

Acknowledging the brutal treatment of blacks in this nation from day one to now is not racism. If you don't understand that, I submit you have deeper issues you need to work out before making claims about your "distrust" of Mr. Obama over this point. It rings a bit hollow as is.

And, honestly, you're kidding with this stance, right? You don't give a damn about black issues and never have. Have you looked at the history of the Republican party recently? Do we really need to cite the nearly unbroken line of racially divisive and physically oppressive politics and government created and maintained by your party of choice over the last century and a quarter? Because you guys have been on the wrong side of that issue nearly 100% of the time. Like 99.999999999999999999% You guys should be ashamed of yourselves on that alone.

If I were Barack Obama I would BEG McCain or anyone like him to start that particular argument. Your party would never recover.

[JamesRitcheyIII]

I think its 49.5% to 50.5% McCain. I still say there are a lot more people (of all races) that will not vote for a black man then any poll will find and the small percentage lead Obama has isn't enough to overcome that deficit.

Yeah--unless the margin is embarrassing in the popular vote, the 'powers that be' can make up any final count number they want. 2004--With Diebold and ES&S (http://onlinejournal.com/evoting/042804Landes/042804landes.html), owned separately by two Republican brothers being the only electronic voting machine companies in the U.S. (devoid of paper ballot systems), counting 80% of the votes--I think Obama will need a much wider margin...

BUT--to quote Leonard Cohen:

But I'm stubborn as those garbage bags
that Time cannot decay,
I'm junk but I'm still holding up
this little wild bouquet:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.

It's the same mentality of those douchebags who went around into minority neighborhoods, and handed out flyers saying if they'd ever been convicted of anything, that they couldn't vote. They'll stop at nothing in support of their oligarchic, corporate slave-state.

[Red Jack]

</p>
You, sir, need to reread your post. ;)
As to his character, honestly, I don't know much about him, but as the race goes on, even in his time in public office, the 'minor' transgressions do not point to someone who is all that stable in his character. The Reverend, the real estate person...Sure, things in his past, that he seems to write off, now that he's so in the public eye, but why not fix those things BEFORE this time? What else will come of his time as an elected official?

My main problem is his experience. What has he done? Does anyone really know what his policies were and how did he help his constituency in his job? I admit to being lazy and not looking it up, but the same question I ask of his supporters, what, really had he done as an elected official before this? I usually get the same blank stares.

the answer is "Who cares?" And multiple posters have addressed this qustion in this thread.

What had Ross Perot done? What had any senator done? What had Colin Powell done? What had any governor done? There is no such thing as a track record when it comes to this job unless youv'e already done this job. You know who has experience? Tony Blair. But he's not an American and can't run.

And anyway, it's a lie.

You don't care that everything the current President ever did was done for him except those few times when he tried himself and FAILED. You don't care that he was a drug addict and a bit of a sadist. He's "put that behind him." Really? When was that? I'm pushing forty and nobody would describe that as being part of my young adulthood. yet, strangely, folks like you have grafted themselves onto the "experience" question because its sounds authentic and above board.

It's not. It's a smokescreen for what's really at work and which I wish, just for once, one of you would admit. Don't dream it, baby, be it.

The "experience" issue is bullshit in any case. Which is why it's not working. Try something else. Tick tock.

[JamesRitcheyIII]

the answer is "Who cares?" And multiple posters have addressed this qustion in this thread.

What had Ross Perot done? What had any senator done? What had Colin Powell done? What had any governor done? There is no such thing as a track record when it comes to this job unless youv'e already done this job. You know who has experience? Tony Blair. But he's not an American and can't run.

And anyway, it's a lie.

You don't care that everything the current President ever did was done for him except those few times when he tried himself and FAILED. You don't care that he was a drug addict and a bit of a sadist. He's "put that behind him." Really? When was that? I'm pushing forty and nobody would describe that as being part of my young adulthood. yet, strangely, folks like you have grafted themselves onto the "experience" question because its sounds authentic and above board.

It's not. It's a smokescreen for what's really at work and which I wish, just for once, one of you would admit. Don't dream it, baby, be it.

The "experience" issue is bullshit in any case. Which is why it's not working. Try something else. Tick tock.

QFT--duh!

Speaking of which, relating your last line--the truth--like, in reality--is that Obama already has 11 years of public service--from state to federal, and Dubya only had 5, going in--at the state level. Why the fuck did they vote for that 'Rain Man-sans-math skills', 'late starter', 'C' student, with over 200% less experience than Obama--and over a Vietnam vet with decades of experience in public service, and a first-rate mind and education? OH--and TWICE.

No. Really, to the Uber-Extreme Righty-Tighties--I'd like to know. Why is experience important to you, of all people, all of a sudden?:biggrin:

[Michael P]

Oh, I think he's more than a bit of a sadist.

[Tages]

I once again labor to remind Sam and others that the word "media" is the plural form of "medium," and that when you say things like "The liberal media is..." it makes you look like an illiterate.

[Sabrinaset]

the answer is "Who cares?" And multiple posters have addressed this qustion in this thread.

What had Ross Perot done? What had any senator done? What had Colin Powell done? What had any governor done? There is no such thing as a track record when it comes to this job unless youv'e already done this job. You know who has experience? Tony Blair. But he's not an American and can't run.

And anyway, it's a lie.

You don't care that everything the current President ever did was done for him except those few times when he tried himself and FAILED. You don't care that he was a drug addict and a bit of a sadist. He's "put that behind him." Really? When was that? I'm pushing forty and nobody would describe that as being part of my young adulthood. yet, strangely, folks like you have grafted themselves onto the "experience" question because its sounds authentic and above board.

It's not. It's a smokescreen for what's really at work and which I wish, just for once, one of you would admit. Don't dream it, baby, be it.

The "experience" issue is bullshit in any case. Which is why it's not working. Try something else. Tick tock.

That's again, part of the problem that PBM, Dazz, and I had with certain of the Obamaniacs is ... it's really hard to pin them down sometimes on why exactly they're voting for Obama, and it seems like they're voting against Bush ... who, well, isn't running.

I mean okay, purely anecdotal, but we have two nurses in the office, and it's hilarious listening to those two argue politics because one of them listens to Rush and plays him when he's on, while the other one is an admitted Communist and has Che stickers on the drawers. Of course, they do this just to irritate the other one. And they're always working together ... it's even funnier when one of them takes a day off leaving the other one alone, because then the remaining nurse is miserable, but never admits it. Everyone loves those two. It's like having an old married couple taking care of your paperwork. They act like they hate each other, but we all know that's not true, and if, God forbid one of them were to die, the other one would waste away and die withing six months as well.

Anyways, the far-left winger recently put up an Obama sticker on the counter, which wasn't really a shock (Does the Communist Party even have a candidate running for President?) and it was no big deal until later, when I was dropping off a couple files a month ago, saw the sticker she had just pasted on the counter, and I asked Lena why she was voting for Obama instead of whoever was running on the Socialist ticket. I then got a (literally) five minute lecture on why she hated W. Which was like ... okay, I get that you hate Bush, but why are you voting for Obama? And I didn't really get much of an answer there.

[Samurai]

You need t get out more. The church in queston has white members and, as you well know, at least one white "guest" preacher.

What your issue is here is class, not "race."

Also, what freaking planet do you live on that you think black America, by reacting to centuries of social and governmental oppression by creating what is, at absolute worst, a place to vent their frustrations safely, is somehow evidence of racism?

Really. This nation has an actual history. It's not pretty. If you knew a bit more of it you wouldn't be so accepting of the concept of "reverse racism."

There's only one kind and this ain't it.

More to the point, Mr. Obama, in one of the best speeches ever written or given by an American politician, DIRECTLY addressed those concerns and managed to do so without blaming ANYONE or pointing the finger.

Acknowledging the brutal treatment of blacks in this nation from day one to now is not racism. If you don't understand that, I submit you have deeper issues you need to work out before making claims about your "distrust" of Mr. Obama over this point. It rings a bit hollow as is.

And, honestly, you're kidding with this stance, right? You don't give a damn about black issues and never have. Have you looked at the history of the Republican party recently? Do we really need to cite the nearly unbroken line of racially divisive and physically oppressive politics and government created and maintained by your party of choice over the last century and a quarter? Because you guys have been on the wrong side of that issue nearly 100% of the time. Like 99.999999999999999999% You guys should be ashamed of yourselves on that alone.

If I were Barack Obama I would BEG McCain or anyone like him to start that particular argument. Your party would never recover.

LOL, you question my knowledge of history when you make a post like that, so full of inaccuracies it's obvious you don't know real American history but only the Grievance Politics version.

The Republican Party has been at the forefront of equality issues from its founding until the present day.

http://www.ccrgop.org/CivilRights.htm

And look through this :

http://www.carnellknowledge.com/pdfs/2005_calendarSM.pdf

We started our party with the express intent to protect the American people from the Democrats’ pro-slavery policies that made people inferior to the state. The Democrats didn’t just oppose Republicans, or merely tolerate racial discrimination; they were aggressively pro-slavery -- so much so that they were alternately referred to as the “Slaveocrats.”

So on March 20, 1854, our founders decided to take them on. They drafted plans and platforms, and in the space of a few months, put together Republican Party organizations across the Northern and Western portions of the United States.

The first Republican state convention was held in Jackson, Michigan just a few months later in July. The first meeting of the Republican National Committee was two years later. Three months after that, the first Republican National Convention was held in Philadelphia.

That first Republican National Convention nominated our first presidential candidate, who -- as everyone here knows -- was a former U.S. Senator from California, John C. Fremont. He didn’t win, but just four years later, a former member of the House did win, carrying the Republican standard. And not only did Lincoln win the presidency, but his coattails were so long and so broad that Republicans won majorities -- big majorities -- in both the House and in the Senate.

In fact, after the election of 1860, every single governor in every northern state in the United States was a Republican. This was phenomenal progress in the space of just a few years. It was possible because our party was based on such a powerful idea. We know now that we don’t win elections unless we have ideas behind us. The history of the Republican Party is an amazing example of how much can be accomplished if your ideas are big enough.

These Republican majorities, and the strength of our ideas, enabled us to fight and win the Civil War. This same Republican commitment to individual freedom led our nation through Reconstruction, and guided our policies to the end of the 19th century and throughout the 20th century, to make the United States of America what it is today: a beacon of hope and freedom for the entire world.

Military histories of the Civil War are commonplace. There is an enormous industry dedicated to producing DVDs, videos, movies, and books about the military aspects of the Civil War. But all too little attention is paid to the political aspects of the Civil War. For many years after the Civil War, the history books accurately described the Republican Party’s leading role in preserving the Union and ending slavery. But as history faded, and college professors became more partisan and politically tendentious, the facts were lost. “History” changed. The facts didn’t change, but our history books did.

Today, students are taught that Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation was an eccentric individual act, and that Lincoln rose above politics in issuing it. In fact, the opposite was true. This was a profoundly political act, which had been expressly authorized by the U.S. Congress in a hotly debated law. Both the House and the Senate had solidly Republican majorities, which -- over strong Democratic opposition – had passed the Confiscation Act.

That law stated very clearly that slaves belonging to rebels were free. By signing the Emancipation Proclamation, President Lincoln was implementing that statute. Freeing the slaves was thus a political question that every Republican in Congress voted for, and every Democrat voted against.

At the end of the war, despite their strong majorities, Republicans in Congress knew they wouldn’t have a majority forever. Anticipating that the Democrats might someday come back into power, Republicans unanimously voted for what became the 13th Amendment to the Constitution -- thereby putting an end to slavery.

The Republicans in Congress went on to pass the nation’s first ever Civil Rights Act, extending citizenship and equal rights to people of all races, all colors, and all creeds. Notice that Republicans didn’t take the political approach that they might have, limiting themselves to saying that former slaves would now be treated equally, or only blacks or African-Americans would gain their civil rights. We said all people, all colors, all creeds -- because that’s the way Republicans think. The founders of the Republican Party were simply putting in force the stated ideals of the Founding Fathers, so that our government would finally recognize that all people are created equal, and that all should enjoy the right to pursue happiness.

Republicans have always believed that every man and woman is created equal. This is not a choice that can be made for us by others. It isn’t up to our government. So we required our government to fulfill that promise.

The same year as the first Civil Rights Act, Republicans in Congress wrote another constitutional amendment to extend even further the scope of our civil rights legislation. We extended the concepts of due process of law, and equal protection of the laws, to every state. Now, every state -- even those where Democrats held sway -- would have to implement these principles. No longer just at the federal level, but at the state level as well, the civil rights of every American individual would be protected.

This major civil rights advance -- what we now know as the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution -- is a purely Republican achievement, because every single Democrat in Congress voted against the 14th Amendment. That is another fact deftly omitted from American history textbooks these days: we owe our Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws and due process to Republicans, and this bedrock of American civil rights was unanimously opposed by the Democrats.

Three years later, in 1869, the Republicans proposed yet another constitutional amendment, this one specifically guaranteeing blacks the right to vote. The same partisanship was in evidence: 98% of Republicans voted for it; 97% of the Democrats voted against it.

Seven years later, Republicans in Congress authored what was then, and what remains today, the most sweeping Civil Rights legislation ever enacted. The 1875 Civil Rights Act guaranteed the right of equal access to all citizens in all public accommodations -- whether or not owned or controlled by the government. Now that phrase, “public accommodations,” is very familiar to us today, because it was at the heart of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which became the focal point of the 1960s civil rights movement. The reason that this question was before the Congress again in the 1960s is that the 1875 Civil Rights Act only lasted for eight years before the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional. What finally became law in 1964, therefore, was the original Republican legislation of 90 years earlier. Not surprisingly, in 1964 a significantly higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The Democrats’ opposition to Republican efforts to protect the civil rights of African-Americans lasted not just through the Reconstruction era, but well into the 20th Century. In the South, the terrorist wing of the Democratic Party, the Ku Klux Klan, virtually destroyed the Republican Party -- which did not recover enough to become a force in the region until President Reagan’s message of freedom and equality for all prevailed in the 1980s.

Every single African-American in Congress, House and Senate, until 1935 was a Republican.

[Samurai]

Part 2......:

In 1872, the first black governor took office in Louisiana. I love his name: Pinckney Pinchback, a great Republican. Our own state of California was the first to have a Hispanic governor. Can you guess his political party? Republican Romualdo Pacheco became governor in 1875, long before anybody had ever heard of Cruz Bustamante.

The first Hispanic U.S. Senator was elected from New Mexico in 1928. You guessed it -- he was a Republican, Octaviano Larrazolo.

Republicans led the fight for women’s voting rights -- and the Democrats, as a party, opposed civil rights for women. All of the leading suffragists -- including Susan B. Anthony, Lucretia Mott, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton -- were Republicans. In fact, Susan B. Anthony bragged, after leaving the voting booth, that she had voted for “the Republican ticket -- straight.”

The suffragists included two African-American Republican women who were also co-founders of the NAACP: Ida Wells and Mary Terrell, great leaders of our party, both of them.

The first women delegates to a national party convention did not go to the Democratic National Convention, they went to the Republican Convention. In fact, for years Democrats kept women out, while Republicans were letting women in. The goal of the Republican suffragists, including their male Republican elected official friends, was to add an amendment to the Constitution that would give women the right to vote. Sadly, there is not a single California schoolbook in use today that tells students it was a Republican U.S. Senator from California, Aaron Sargent, who authored the women’s suffrage amendment -- or that he named it in honor of another great Republican, Susan B. Anthony.

Senator Sargent introduced the Susan B. Anthony Amendment in 1878, but it didn’t become the law of the land until 1920. Why? Because Republicans did not have majorities in both the House and the Senate at the same time, and the Democrats kept voting against it. But, in the meanwhile, in 1916, Montana -- which had by state law given women the right to vote -- elected Jeannette Rankin to be the first woman to serve in the United States Congress. She, of course, was a Republican.

In the national election two years later, in 1918, Republicans won majorities in both the House and the Senate. We then swiftly passed the Women’s Suffrage Amendment. And 1920, therefore, was the first presidential election in which all women could vote. What do you think most women in America did? They voted for Warren Harding. In fact, I remember having a conversation with my grandmother about this. I talked to her about the first time she was able to vote, and I asked her, “Who did you vote for?” She looked at me as if I were crazy. “Of course,” she answered, “I voted for the Republicans. They gave us the vote.” That’s why the Republican
landslide for Harding was so big that year.

Meanwhile, in the face of the Democrats’ continued terrorizing of Republican organizational activity in the South, many courageous Republicans were standing up nonetheless. One of the great Southern leaders of that era who was openly calling himself a Republican and drawing attention to his cause was Booker T. Washington, the famed educator and founder of Alabama’s Tuskegee Institute. But even a man as distinguished as this, and even in the 20th century, was opposed by a still-racist Democratic Party. When Republican President Teddy Roosevelt had the temerity to invite Booker T. Washington to dine with him in the White House, the Democrats raised holy hell through the media. They said it was a scandal, and outrageous, and an atrocity.

Republicans led the integration of pro sports. Branch Rickey, owner of the Brooklyn Dodgers, was a Republican businessman who hired his fellow Republican, Jackie Robinson. Together they integrated Major League Baseball when Jackie Robinson took the field in 1947 for his first game. In addition to being a great athlete, a great Dodger, and a great American, Jackie Robinson was a great Republican -- and a very outspoken one.

This year, 2004, is the 50th anniversary of the modern civil rights movement, which most people date to the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision. That opinion was written by a Republican Chief Justice appointed by a Republican President, Dwight Eisenhower. And of course that Republican Chief Justice had been our three-term Republican Governor here in California, and he’d been our Republican nominee for Vice President of the United States in 1948: Earl Warren.

Three years after Brown, President Eisenhower won passage of his landmark Civil Rights Act of 1957. Now remember, the nation had just ended a long stretch of Democratic administrations -- nearly four terms of FDR, and seven years of Truman -- and yet there had been no civil rights legislation at all. In fact, the Republican Civil Rights Act of 1957 was the first U.S. civil rights legislation in eight decades.

Another great Republican, U.S. Senator Everett Dirksen of Illinois, authored and introduced the 1960 Civil Rights Act. It was also he who was most responsible -- more than any other individual -- for the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. As Republican Leader in the Senate, even though his party was in the minority, Dirksen crafted the strategy that overcame long odds and tenacious Democratic opposition.

The Democrats weren’t just internally conflicted about the 1964 Civil Rights Act; a significant number of them actually filibustered it -- preventing an up or down vote on the bill. Eventually, however -- thanks to Dirksen’s leadership -- this landmark legislation did get the vote it deserved. As with all of the previous civil rights legislation in our nation’s history, it passed with significantly more support from Republicans than from Democrats. The same was true for the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which became law the following year.

Which political party gave our nation the first Asian American Senator in the United States Senate? The Republican Party -- and it was the esteemed Hiram Fong of Hawaii. The first African American Senator after Reconstruction? Republican Ed Brooke from Massachusetts. The first Asian American federal judge? Republican Herbert Choy, appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals, by President Nixon, for whom I served as law clerk.

The first woman on the Supreme Court? Everyone knows that. But you may not have known that before she became a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Arizona Republican Sandra Day O’Connor was the first woman to be Majority Leader in the legislature of any state.

The first Hispanic member of the President’s Cabinet? Republican Lauro Cavazos, Secretary of Education under President Reagan.

It was President Ford who, in 1976, repealed FDR’s notorious executive order interning 120,000 Japanese Americans during World War II.

We can be proud of Republican appointments such as Justice Clarence Thomas, the former Chairman of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; Colin Powell, the first African American to be National Security Advisor or Secretary of State; Condoleezza Rice, the first woman to serve as National Security Advisor; and Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao, the first Asian American woman in any president’s Cabinet.

This remarkable, unbroken 150-year string of civil rights achievements is the reason that, this year, we are so proud to publish the 2005 Republican Freedom Calendar. Our party has a great story to tell. There is also much work still to be done to secure the God-given rights of all men and women, and the Republican Party is leading the way.

[Red Jack]

LOL, you question my knowledge of history when you make a post like that, so full of inaccuracies it's obvious you don't know real American history but only the Grievance Politics version.

The Republican Party has been at the forefront of equality issues from its founding until the present day.

http://www.ccrgop.org/CivilRights.htm

And look through this :

http://www.carnellknowledge.com/pdfs/2005_calendarSM.pdf

Is somebody else going to take this guy to school or do I have to do it?

[Michael P]

I think it's your turn on the rotation, actually.

[Samurai]

Is somebody else going to take this guy to school or do I have to do it?

Why not actually try reading the article and looking at the Freedom calender first, rather than jumping in with the knee-jerk response? I know it's long, but it has a lot of great information you probably have never heard before.

[JamesRitcheyIII]

LOL, you question my knowledge of history when you make a post like that, so full of inaccuracies it's obvious you don't know real American history but only the Grievance Politics version.

The Republican Party has been at the forefront of equality issues from its founding until the present day.

http://www.ccrgop.org/CivilRights.htm

And look through this :

http://www.carnellknowledge.com/pdfs/2005_calendarSM.pdf

Are you still on with that tired bullshit? Your Party in no way resembles the part of Lincoln, or even the Party of Ike (who called himself a 'Militant Liberal'). Dems and Republicans flipped ideologies over the last 50 years--or don't you remember--Reagan started out as a Conservative Democrat--remember that title? You've done what bigots always do--deflection, calling the oppressed racist. You fabricate and retcon, as your mindset are prone to do. History doesn't change, because you want to rewrite the history books, to make your 'Great Leader' look better. Nobody who's ever cracked a political history book buys your bullshit, and has heard it a dozen times--mainly from Nationalistically-Inclined Sociopaths.

How'd you feel about the FEMA response to Katrina? Happy or sad?

[Red Jack]

That's again, part of the problem that PBM, Dazz, and I had with certain of the Obamaniacs is ... it's really hard to pin them down sometimes on why exactly they're voting for Obama, and it seems like they're voting against Bush ... who, well, isn't running.

I mean okay, purely anecdotal, but we have two nurses in the office, and it's hilarious listening to those two argue politics because one of them listens to Rush and plays him when he's on, while the other one is an admitted Communist and has Che stickers on the drawers. Of course, they do this just to irritate the other one. And they're always working together ... it's even funnier when one of them takes a day off leaving the other one alone, because then the remaining nurse is miserable, but never admits it. Everyone loves those two. It's like having an old married couple taking care of your paperwork. They act like they hate each other, but we all know that's not true, and if, God forbid one of them were to die, the other one would waste away and die withing six months as well.

Anyways, the far-left winger recently put up an Obama sticker on the counter, which wasn't really a shock (Does the Communist Party even have a candidate running for President?) and it was no big deal until later, when I was dropping off a couple files a month ago, saw the sticker she had just pasted on the counter, and I asked Lena why she was voting for Obama instead of whoever was running on the Socialist ticket. I then got a (literally) five minute lecture on why she hated W. Which was like ... okay, I get that you hate Bush, but why are you voting for Obama? And I didn't really get much of an answer there.

Well, the thing is, you're right. A great many people are voting AGAINST rather than FOR (something that always worries me) and the field of viable candidates is tiny.

Obama does have record. He is a coalition builder. He is an aisle crosser. He is not an ideologue. He has been in elected office for over a decade and he wants to end this stupid conjob of a war. That last alone will be enough, no matter what spin the media put on the outcome of the "surge," to put him over. Plus this brutal economy that Bush built for his pals.

Too many of us have died for too little return over something that, every day, is confirmed to be the lie many of us knew it was at the beginning. That and the oil men not fixing our gas price problems. Or, rather, fixing them, if you get my meaning.

If McCain were running against Bush (instead of AS him) I would vote McCain as the lesser of two evils. If McCain was running against Nader, I would vote Nader even though I think he's a bit of a nut in some ways. If Nader was running against ANY of the previous Democratic hopefuls, he's out. too much of a nut. It's always a sliding scale.

Luckily McCain is running against Obama and he's doing it in a way that promises more of the crap we've been shoved into by the current administration. A lot of folks, more than Mr. McCain can overcome, are dead sick of how this administration has been kicking us for the last eight years. Every election is a vote on the incumbent's record. McCain can't win. Obama can only lose. And I just don't think he's gonna.

All he has to do is keep the high ground and continue not to be Bush or McCain. Which he is doing quite well.

No matter what, he won't be a worse president than the current one. A homeless crack addict, drafted for the job, who spent most of the time alternately screaming and nodding couldn't do worse.

Good times is a'coming if for no other reason than they can't ever be this bad.

[Crowley]

good example of why I'm voting Obama:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_tbjbd1J3c

vs McCain:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdBnxH7GDiM

[Sabrinaset]

Well, the thing is, you're right.

That's two things we've agreed on in a week, and I think you're fairly close to the truth in the rest of your post. The Apocalypse is near!

No matter what, he won't be a worse president than the current one. A homeless crack addict, drafted for the job, who spent most of the time alternately screaming and nodding couldn't do worse.

Thanks a LOT, Jack ... you just started the "Draft Amy Winehouse" movement!

[Samurai]

Are you still on with that tired bullshit? Your Party in no way resembles the part of Lincoln, or even the Party of Ike (who called himself a 'Militant Liberal'). Dems and Republicans flipped ideologies over the last 50 years--or don't you remember--Reagan started out as a Conservative Democrat--remember that title? You've done what bigots always do--deflection, calling the oppressed racist. You fabricate and retcon, as your mindset are prone to do. History doesn't change, because you want to rewrite the history books, to make your 'Great Leader' look better. Nobody who's ever cracked a political history book buys your bullshit, and has heard it a dozen times--mainly from Nationalistically-Inclined Sociopaths.

How'd you feel about the FEMA response to Katrina? Happy or sad?

First, Red Jack said "The Republican Party has been on the wrong side of civil rights" almost its entire existence, so the tired old "conservatives swapped parties" stuff doesn't apply. He didn't say conservatives, he said Republicans.

Second, I don't really buy that whole "flipped parties" thing. Republicans are still at the forefront of equality today. Whether it's putting unprecedented numbers of minorities in high cabinet positions or ending the institutionalized racism called Affirmative Action in favor of true legal equality instead, we are still the party of our forefathers.

What changed was the Democrats went from the openly bigoted "keep them down" policies of the past to buying off the new black voters with handouts and government programs of racial privileges. Eager to get ahead, and led by black leaders caring more about lining their pockets than the high ideals of equality spoken of by earlier civil rights leaders, blacks fell in with the party that fought so hard to keep them slaves. They forgot just which party was about true equality and went to the party that said "we'll give you stuff, just vote for us, honest, we've changed!" And yet, after decades of that misplaced trust, the Democrat policies have resulted in vastly more black crime, unwed black mothers and fatherless homes, and more. If we are charitable, we could say those are unintended consequences of the Democrat policies. If we are uncharitable, we could say they've certainly succeeded in keeping blacks down just like they've always tried to do, and perpetually needing more and more Democrat help and handouts, in return for their votes...

As for Katrina, FEMA has never been first responders, that is the job of the local authorities. And in the Democrat-run, utterly corrupt and incompetent New Orleans, there was no local measures to help people. Bush couldn't send in the National Guard until given express permission by the governor, and that was withheld for days. That is the law! And yet, in other places hit by disaters, such as the mid-west hit by tornadoes or flooding, we don't see the people waiting for FEMA, they are handling things themselves, and then get help from FEMA later on, or when asked for by local authorities.

That said, Brown was an incompetent idiot too, and not able to react quickly and skillfully when it became apparent that New Orleans officials weren't up to their tasks, and good riddance to him.

[Samurai]

good example of why I'm voting Obama:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_tbjbd1J3c

vs McCain:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdBnxH7GDiM

A quick little photo-op of filling a couple sandbags won you over? Wow, you're easy.

[Red Jack]

One (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UZBZ4GR8Ug&feature=related)

TWO (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8izXYe0zbM&feature=related)

three (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhZEJiu03MU&feature=related)

four (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EC9j6Wfdq3o&feature=related)

five (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avBF8oBS1pI&feature=related)

six (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9hBZrkC2ps&feature=related)

seven (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fdru4BphJ4E&eurl=http://www.crooksandliars.com/)

Eight (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvZEZL2LmA8&feature=related)


And we're just getting started.

This is the video current events portion. In our next class we graduate to text and more complex history. Can you say, "Southern Strategy?"

I knew you could.

[Crowley]

A quick little photo-op of filling a couple sandbags won you over? Wow, you're easy.

no it's just another example of how Obama is willing to DO. While McCain is all talk... unless he's fucking over Americans in the interest of lining his own pockets and those of his corporate cronies.

And how McCain's Cheif economic advisor helped run up gas prices through deregulation:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/25130683#25252591

McCain advisors created and defend 'Enron loophole'
06/19/2008 @ 9:43 am
Filed by David Edwards and Muriel Kane

Keith Olbermann delivered a special report Wednesday on the "Enron loophole" -- a regulatory gap that is the single greatest cause of out-of-control gasoline prices -- and how McCain's leading advisors created that loophole and continue to defend it.
Advertisement

People who deal in oil routinely use "futures" -- agreements in advance on prices and delivery dates -- to deal with fluctuations in the market. However, deregulation has allowed commodity speculators to take over this system of futures and use it for their own profit, running up the price of oil in a speculative bubble.

According to Olbermann, the story of $4 a gallon gas begins during the presidency of George H.W. Bush, when former Enron CEO Ken Lay started speculating on energy futures. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) gave Enron free rein, and when Bill Clinton was elected in 1992, CFTC Chairwoman Wendy Gramm moved to lock in the commission's informal position on Enron as official policy. Gramm then joined Enron's board of directors, earning more than $900,000 over the next decade.

In December 2000, during the chaos following the presidential election, Enron got a law passed containing an amendment known as the "Enron loophole," deregulating not just single trades but entire markets. This made it possible for Enron to artificially create the California energy crisis -- and left Enron employees chortling over how they had fucked over "Grandma Millie."

The Enron loophole applied not just to electricity, but to all energy sources, which is why speculators have now been able to take over the oil market. Two weeks ago, the Senate Commerce Committee heard testimony from a former CFTC director that "the speculators are not just placing bets in these futures markets, they're saying, 'Gosh, I can control the price of heating oil.' ... Morgan Stanley is the biggest heating oil owner in New England."

If the Enron loophole is removed, said this director, "you get at least a 25% drop in the cost of oil ... some people estimate 50%."

John McCain voted to close the Enron loophole in 2002 and 2003, saying at the time that "we're all tainted" by Enron's money. But, notes Olbermann, "for most of this campaign, McCain has offered explanations other than the influence of speculators, and remedies other than regulation." If the Enron loophole is not closed, even alternative energy sources will do little to reduce prices, because speculators will be able to immediately take those over as well.

"John McCain doesn't talk about the Enron loophole any more," reports Olbermann. "What changed? Since 2006, John McCain's top economic advisor has been former Texas Senator Phil Gramm, husband of the former CFTC head who then joined Enron."

"It was Graham who passed the Enron loophole ... with no hearings, no debate," Olberman emphasizes. "It was Graham who stopped Democrats from closing the Enron loophole. ... Graham lobbied Congress about commodity trading rules in 2006."

In addition, McCain's senior advisor, Charlie Black, was a lobbyist for the act containing the Enron loophole in 2000, and McCain's finance co-chair, Wayne Berman, has lobbied more recently against legislation to prevent price gouging.

Olbermann acknowledges that McCain is now saying, "We must reforms the laws and regulations governing the oil futures market." However, McCain has not yet specifically mentioned the Enron loophole, and he still has Gramm and Berman and Black running his campaign and writing his economic policies




more flip flops from McCain:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c

[Samurai]

One (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UZBZ4GR8Ug&feature=related)

TWO (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8izXYe0zbM&feature=related)

three (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhZEJiu03MU&feature=related)

four (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EC9j6Wfdq3o&feature=related)

five (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avBF8oBS1pI&feature=related)

six (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9hBZrkC2ps&feature=related)

seven (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fdru4BphJ4E&eurl=http://www.crooksandliars.com/)

Eight (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvZEZL2LmA8&feature=related)


And we're just getting started.

This is the video current events portion. In our next class we graduate to text and more complex history. Can you say, "Southern Strategy?"

I knew you could.
Don't bother, I already know all about it. Like I told James, I don't buy all of it. And even the parts that are true only represent a small minority of the Republican party, the great majority of which are not from the south and never were disgruntled Democrats.

As for what's posted above, you've a collection of a few comments (some by Fox News, not the Republican Party, some others by the obnoxious Keith Olbermann even), none of which supports your contention that "the Republican Party has been on the wrong side of civil rights for over 125 years, 99.999% of the time." My posts directly argued your contention with thousands of words of histirical FACTS, and all you've got are "Some woman on Fox News called Michelle Obama a "baby mama!"

[Samurai]

no it's just another example of how Obama is willing to DO. While McCain is all talk... unless he's fucking over Americans in the interest of lining his own pockets and those of his corporate cronies.






more flip flops from McCain:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c

Anything Olbermann says is almost guaranteed to be either lies or spin, but McCain was pushing for a gas tax increase of at least 50 cents per gallon as part of a joint bill with Democrats. It's why his "gas tax holiday" idea was such obvious pandering... he's pushing to massively increase fuel taxes at the same time he was calling for a temporary break in fuel taxes because the high fuel prices are so damaging to the economy!

[mgs]

the answer is &quot;Who cares?&quot; And multiple posters have addressed this qustion in this thread.

What had Ross Perot done? What had any senator done? What had Colin Powell done? What had any governor done?
You don't care that everything the current President ever did was done for him except those few times when he tried himself and FAILED.

The &quot;experience&quot; issue is bullshit in any case.


Who cares? O.o Me, that's who. Someone who's worked in politics early in my life and knows about how some things work, and no matter what you say, experience is a large part of someone's political career. I've worked with an Assemblyman who became a Senator and confidently know that he knows how to do the right thing with his own knowledge. Even though he's a Republican, I vote for him every time because I know of his experience.

I never said I liked Perot, Powell or the current President, again, your emotions are showing most of your argument for Obama.
okay, I get that you hate Bush, but why are you voting for Obama? And I didn't really get much of an answer there.

Exactly! ;) That's the only response I get from my parents, who changed their vote for Hilary to Obama, they just rant about how they hate the current President.That and the oil men not fixing our gas price problems. Or, rather, fixing them, if you get my meaning.



i don't think any President, no matter how good can really fix this though. Sure, the oil moguls may be getting away with a little, esp. under Bush, but oil is a natural resource, and if you think that any one person can stop the worldly depletion of natural resources, than you are sadly decieving yourself.

[Crowley]

i don't think any President, no matter how good can really fix this though. Sure, the oil moguls may be getting away with a little, esp. under Bush, but oil is a natural resource, and if you think that any one person can stop the worldly depletion of natural resources, than you are sadly decieving yourself.
*Sigh*

If the Enron loophole is removed, said this director, "you get at least a 25% drop in the cost of oil ... some people estimate 50%.

the reason prices are so high is because of futures trading.

[mgs]

the reason prices are so high is because of futures trading.

which, as I understand it, is still dependent upon the resource itself, being provided, yes?

[JamesRitcheyIII]

First, Red Jack said "The Republican Party has been on the wrong side of civil rights" almost its entire existence, so the tired old "conservatives swapped parties" stuff doesn't apply. He didn't say conservatives, he said Republicans.Second, I don't really buy that whole "flipped parties" thing. Don't--why break with your tradition of Historical Revisionism because it 'just FEEEELS wrong'--? It doesn't alter the facts, however. Republicans are still at the forefront of equality today. Whether it's putting unprecedented numbers of minorities in high cabinet positions or ending the institutionalized racism called Affirmative Action in favor of true legal equality instead, we are still the party of our forefathers. I can't speak to the 'that was then so it ain't important' temporal myopia our beleaguered educational system espouses--If he got one thing wrong, he's still 1000% ahead of you. Al I know is, except for pockets of liberalism among the Dems in the northeast 50-100 years ago, he and I would be 80% more likely to be Republicans--and there certainly wasn't the divide there is now. Still most people believe they are moderates (despite the hard swing to the right after 9-11--it's just the 'rabble-rousers' like you and me having angrier voices, and a corporate-owned, conservative controlled news media who 'poke' them into being divisive, and give them half the news they need to make informed decisions, and fulfill their roles as the Sovereign of the United States of America--whereas you folks want a King. Helping people isn't racist--it's common human decency. Even the Romans fed the poor--until they got sluggish and reactionary, around the same time they started fucking their outer provinces.


What changed was the Democrats went from the openly bigoted "keep them down" policies of the past to buying off the new black voters with handouts and government programs of racial privileges. Eager to get ahead, and led by black leaders caring more about lining their pockets than the high ideals of equality spoken of by earlier civil rights leaders, blacks fell in with the party that fought so hard to keep them slaves. They forgot just which party was about true equality and went to the party that said "we'll give you stuff, just vote for us, honest, we've changed!" And yet, after decades of that misplaced trust, the Democrat policies have resulted in vastly more black crime, unwed black mothers and fatherless homes, and more. If we are charitable, we could say those are unintended consequences of the Democrat policies. If we are uncharitable, we could say they've certainly succeeded in keeping blacks down just like they've always tried to do, and perpetually needing more and more Democrat help and handouts, in return for their votes...

As for Katrina, FEMA has never been first responders, that is the job of the local authorities. And in the Democrat-run, utterly corrupt and incompetent New Orleans, there was no local measures to help people. Bush couldn't send in the National Guard until given express permission by the governor, and that was withheld for days. That is the law! And yet, in other places hit by disaters, such as the mid-west hit by tornadoes or flooding, we don't see the people waiting for FEMA, they are handling things themselves, and then get help from FEMA later on, or when asked for by local authorities.

That said, Brown was an incompetent idiot too, and not able to react quickly and skillfully when it became apparent that New Orleans officials weren't up to their tasks, and good riddance to him.

I get it--people who defend civil liberties, and want freedom for all human beings, as well as equal protection under just laws in the courts are racist--while totalitarian douchebags who REALLY DO use the 'N' word in private and bitch about 2.5 cents on the dollar going to public assistance programs are Real Americans--who defend the poor and minorities by trying to relieve them of their pesky rights.

Man, you live in a fairytale.

[Charles RB]

good example of why I'm voting Obama:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_tbjbd1J3c

That is pretty cool.

[Red Jack]

Civil War through Reconstruction- Republicans are pro inclusion (by contrast to previous eras) called “The Party of Lincoln” by southerners who hated the north for destroying Reich 0.

Modern Rebs always run back to this era as proof of something. It isn’t. That Republican party bears zero resemblance to the modern one or even itself only a decade later.

Sam, lumping in latinos and their treatment as an example of non-racist behavior only solidifies the notion that you’ve got a blind spot to the issue. How could treating latins well possibly relate to how you treat blacks, native American or, really anyone else? Answer: not at all.

Individual Rebs like Ike did hold what might be considered by us to be a more progrssive view but, and this is key to undermining your argument, YOU WOULDN’T VOTE FOR HIM. He’s a liberal by your standards and, frankly by the standards of his own party that came after him. So, again, not representative of the whole.

1964 – Goldwater anti civil rights.

1968- Strom Thurmond abandons Dems in order to join the Rebs, again over race issues, and delivers his state to Nixon.

Nixon’s Southern strategy v.1 attracts Dixiecrats (who only stayed in the party out of generational hatred for Lincoln) by convincing them that the Rebs had their best interest, namely continued Jim Crow, at heart

Civil Rights era to present- Rebs fight all attempts at correcting the social contract that kept blacks in the second class (at best). Literally right up to the present.

Reagan Era / Southern Strategy V.2– Ronny opens his run for the White House at the scene of the murder of three civil rights workers (maybe you’ve heard of them) and gives his famous “I believe in States Rights” speech. That's the code for, “I believe a Nigger should know and keep his place and you should have the right to show him” that Rebs have been using since the turn of the previous century because they’re too cowardly to take the heat for what they really want.

Dixiecrats hear the Good News and actually leave the party in favor of the Rebs, removing the thin veil of difference that had been floated before. The Republican party works tirelessly to eviscerate or remove all social gains made by blacks, other minorities and women from that time to the present.

Bush v. 1, Southern strategy-lite – Willy Horton ad coupled with questions about Dukakis' actions should such a person rape his wife- clear design to play on cultural paranoia about white women and black men (horrors! LOOK at the size of him!). And it worked.

Similar strategy recently used to torpedo the Harold Ford campaign.

Trent Lott and Haley Barbour, among others, cozy up to the Council of Conservative Citizens, an org that is simply a renamed cell of the KKK and maintain ties to them to the present time.

But, yes, by all means, scurry back to Reconstruction to find your evidence. You’re only proving my point.

Seriously. These are just off the top of my head. I’m sure, if pressed, the others here can drop all manner of corroborating incidents, legislation and individuals to prove the point. or I can continue with this until you just look silly.

But that’s not really important, is it? Because you “don’t believe” that stuff.

You’ve made a decision and any evidence that doesn’t support your decision is rejected by you. I'm familiar with that means of interaction. It causes me trouble in these boards a lot but, sadly, it's still not really my problem. I just have to deal with it.

What you're doing here is not thinking, Sam. I don’t know what it is but it doesn’t involve using your brain at all. There are good grounds for social conservatism out there but you seem to avoid them almost as if you know where and what they are but can't be bothered.

Sad, as I said. But, this year, not as meaningful as in previous times.

[Crowley]

which, as I understand it, is still dependent upon the resource itself, being provided, yes?

yes, but the resource level has nothing to do with the rising price. It's insider trading and market manipulation due to deregulation.

[Crowley]

That is pretty cool.
Yeah, I know it's a photo op... but he's choosing illustrate that he will lead by example.

[LtMarvel]

Sabrina, I think part of the difference between us is that you're younger than I am. I was politically aware and active during the Reagan years, and really am a Reagan Republican. Bush Sr started a bad downturn for the Republicans that in many ways his son has followed. Correct me if I'm rong, but you've really only seen the Republican party at less than its best, with the 2 Bushs, while I have Reagan's example in living memory to show me what the party can and should be. I think if I were 10 years younger, I might not have joined or stayed with the Republicans either (though with CA's closed primaries, I want to get a vote in the primary and so wouldn't go independent). So, I understand what you mean by saying "the Republicans no longer represent conservative values", and McCain will likely do little if anything to change that, but what other choice is there besides trying to change it back from the inside, with our votes and voices? You certainly aren't going to make the Democrats conservative, and 3rd parties, even if you agree with them more, are more likely to spoil the chances of a semi-conservative being elected than ever get their own candidate into high office.
So, Reagan Rupblican, how do you account for more Reagan people spending time in jail than for any other president? Is corruption the strong Republican value you are striving for?

[Samurai]

Civil War through Reconstruction- Republicans are pro inclusion (by contrast to previous eras) called “The Party of Lincoln” by southerners who hated the north for destroying Reich 0.

Modern Rebs always run back to this era as proof of something. It isn’t. That Republican party bears zero resemblance to the modern one or even itself only a decade later.

Sam, lumping in latinos and their treatment as an example of non-racist behavior only solidifies the notion that you’ve got a blind spot to the issue. How could treating latins well possibly relate to how you treat blacks, native American or, really anyone else? Answer: not at all.

Individual Rebs like Ike did hold what might be considered by us to be a more progrssive view but, and this is key to undermining your argument, YOU WOULDN’T VOTE FOR HIM. He’s a liberal by your standards and, frankly by the standards of his own party that came after him. So, again, not representative of the whole.

1964 – Goldwater anti civil rights.

1968- Strom Thurmond abandons Dems in roder to join the Rebs, again over race issues and delivers his state to Nixon.

Nixon’s Southern strategy v.1 attracts Dixiecrats (who only stayed in the party out of hatred for Lincoln) by convincing them that the Rebs had their best interet, namely continued Jim Crow, at heart

Civil Rights era to present- Rebs fight all attempts at correcting the social contract that kept blacks in the second class (at best). Literally right up to the present.

Reagan Era / Southern Strategy V.2– Ronny opens his run for the hite house at the scene of the murder of three civil rights workers (maybe you’ve herd of them) and gives his famous “I believe in States Rights” speech. The code for, “I believe a Nigger should know and keep his place and you should have the right to show him” that Rebs have been using since the turn of the previous century because they’re too cowardly to take the heat for what they really want.

Dixiecrats hear the Good News and actually leave the party in favor of the Rebs, removing the thin veil of difference that had been floated before. The Republican party works tirelessly to eviscerate or remove all social gains made by blacks, other minorities and women from that time to the present.

Bush v. 1, Southern strategy-lite – Willy Horton ad coupled with questions about Dukakis' actions should such a person rape his wife- clear design to play on cultural paranoia about white women and black men (horrors! LOOK at the size of him!). And it worked.

Trent Lott and Haley Barbour, among others, cozy up to the Council of Conservative Citizens, an org that is simply a renamed cell of the KKK and maintain ties to them to the present time.

But, yes, by all means, scurry back to Reconstruction to find your evidence. You’re only proving my point.

Seriously. These are just off the top of my head. I’m sure, if pressed, the others here can drop all manner of corroborating incidents, legislation and individuals to prove the point. or I can continue with this until you just look silly.

But that’s not really important, is it? Because you “don’t believe” that stuff.

You’ve made a decision and any evidence that doesn’t support your decision is rejected by you. I'm familiar with that means of interaction. It causes me trouble in these boards a lot but, sadly, it's still not really my problem. I just have to deal with it.

What you're doing here is not thinking, Sam. I don’t know what it is but it doesn’t involve using your brain at all. There are good grounds for social conservatism out there but you seem to avoid them almost as if you know where and what they are but can't be bothered.

Sad, as I said. But, this year, not as meaningful as in previous times.
You've have an extremely skewed version of history drummed into your head by someone, a version that bears almost no resemblance to what really happened, and why. You've got supposed secret codes and all kinds of stuff going on there. Sure, I could point out what was actually said and done, but you'd just say that there were secret ulterior motives and meanings to everything. I mean, you don't even get the nicknames right... "Rebs" is short for the Rebels of the south during the Civil War, not the Republican Party, or are you just trying to draw an unwarranted comparison there? The Rebels were almost entirely Democrats, after all, and hated the Republicans.

And when did I bring up Latinos? You're apparently responding to something, but I have no idea what there.

Look, the Southern Strategy wasn't based on racism, it was based on a combination of states rights (still very popular in the south), and drawing Christian Conservatives to a party they'd hated for well over 100 years, despite the reasons for that animosity being left decades in the past. They were becoming more and more dissatisfied with some of the more extremist fringe elements of the Democrats, and it was felt that perhaps some of them could be won over. There was no racism involved, and in fact, giving up and denouncing their past racism was part of the price (and part of the reason) some joined the Republican party. Thurmond and others left that behind when they switched parties, while unrepentant racists like Robert Byrd stated in the Democrat Party. (Oh, he says he's changed, but he was using the N word repeatedly on a televised interview just a few years ago, and letters written many years after leaving the KKK show that he didn't really change his views at all).

[Samurai]

So, Reagan Rupblican, how do you account for more Reagan people spending time in jail than for any other president? Is corruption the strong Republican value you are striving for?

I don't know about jail time, but Clinton had more associates convicted of crimes.

Here's the Clinton Legacy?

RECORDS SET

- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- Second president accused of rape**
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court

* According to our best information, 40 government officials were indicted or convicted in the wake of Watergate. A reader computes that there was a total of 31 Reagan era convictions, including 14 because of Iran-Contra and 16 in the Department of Housing & Urban Development scandal. 47 individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine were convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes with 33 of these occurring during the Clinton administration itself. There were in addition 61 indictments or misdemeanor charges. 14 persons were imprisoned. A key difference between the Clinton story and earlier ones was the number of criminals with whom he was associated before entering the White House.

[LtMarvel]

Anything Samurai says is almost guaranteed to be either lies or spin, ...!

Fixed it for you.

[LtMarvel]

I don't know about jail time, but Clinton had more associates convicted of crimes.

Here's the Clinton Legacy?
Way to not answer the question. If Regean is the ideal Republican, does that mean corruption is the strong GOP value?

[Crowley]

I don't know about jail time, but Clinton had more associates convicted of crimes.

Here's the Clinton Legacy?

source?
let me guess... they killed Vince Foster too?:rolleyes: Old nonsense to go along with your photo shopped Robert Byrd.




How about we talk about McCain and the Keating 5?

[Samurai]

source?
let me guess... they killed Vince Foster too?:rolleyes: Old nonsense to go along with your photo shopped Robert Byrd.




How about we talk about McCain and the Keating 5?

http://www.prorev.com/legacy.htm

And those are facts, not conjecture.

[LtMarvel]

http://www.prorev.com/legacy.htm

And those are facts, not conjecture.
Did you type that with a straight face?

[Samurai]

Did you type that with a straight face?

Yes, these are straight up FACTS. Hard numbers and statistics, not "maybe he had Foster shot too!" stuff.

[LtMarvel]

No they are not. I think a person with average intelligence with an average knowledge of those events would take no more than 2 minutes of reading that site to determine that those are not facts.

[Crowley]

http://www.prorev.com/legacy.htm

And those are facts, not conjecture.

here's some other facts from that site:
http://belowgroundsurface.org/belowgroundsurface/framespage.htm?loc=http://belowgroundsurface.org/belowgroundsurface/Comments.aspx?StoryURL=616
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/06/16/mccain-sets-a-new-record-10-flip-flops-in-two-weeks/

[FalconX2000]

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/21/campaign.wrap/?iref=mpstoryview

A very interesting article. Obama and McCain attacking each other for failing to support a bill for upgrading of levees, flood control, everglades, etc.

Obama supported the bill but opposed an amendment making those flood controls top priority. McCain supported the amendment but opposed the actual bill.

At issue is the 2007 Water Resources Development Act, a $23 billion bill that funded levee and flood control programs along with dozens of other projects across the country, including Everglades and other habitat restoration, emergency water supply storage, lock and dam security, and water quality improvement.

The bill passed Congress, with Obama in favor and McCain opposed, although neither took part in the final vote.

The measure was vetoed by President Bush as too expensive, but that veto was overridden, a first for the president. Neither McCain nor Obama participated in the override vote.

The Senate votes were 91-4 for the first vote and 79-14 for the override.

During the initial debate in the Senate, Obama voted against an amendment, sponsored by Feingold and co-sponsored by McCain and others, that would have established a commission to prioritize water projects, with flood control at the top of the list.

Thirty-five Republicans joined 34 Democrats in rejecting the amendment. Although he was a co-sponsor, McCain did not vote on the amendment. McCaskill, who was not a co-sponsor, voted in favor of it.

[kingdom2000]

Here we go again... How many times do I have to tell you I quit, something like a year ago now, when I realized that what I believe in is not what the current GOP

I noticed you ignored my comments that addressed that very strange thought. The republican party hasn't been the republican party you believe in for decades. Those core values you think they have lost....they haven't had them for decades. Sure they give it lip service but their actions have not backed them up for a very long time. Bush is simply the extreme but he is still just a sympton of the infection that has plagued that party for a very long time. Long before you where born. You basically believed in a myth for a very long time that really has little to do with Bush. So again I ask, why did it take you this long to see the light?

Oh (and this will be the part you probably focus on in your reply), I don't believe you. When push comes to shove, you will find an excuse to vote across the board Republican come November. I doubt it will even take much.

[Sabrinaset]

I noticed you ignored my comments that addressed that very strange thought. The republican party hasn't been the republican party you believe in for decades. Those core values you think they have lost....they haven't had them for decades. Sure they give it lip service but their actions have not backed them up for a very long time. Bush is simply the extreme but he is still just a sympton of the infection that has plagued that party for a very long time. Long before you where born. You basically believed in a myth for a very long time that really has little to do with Bush. So again I ask, why did it take you this long to see the light?

I notice you didn't read this from the same post either.

I grew up in a Republican household...

...which would sorta indicate I was raised by Republicans (That would be Mom and Daddy) with their values for, well, my whole life ... I'm still living at home until I can pay off the student loans. And like I said, I'm not old like you, I still don't think I've completely forged my own identity quite yet. So once again, you twist words around, and your inability to read what I wrote in a post becomes my ignoring you. Now I admit it's still sorta cute, but it is getting boring.

Oh (and this will be the part you probably focus on in your reply), I don't believe you. When push comes to shove, you will find an excuse to vote across the board Republican come November. I doubt it will even take much.

Believe what you want, it's not gonna affect my paycheck. But considering the number of times I've flat-out called you out on your untruths, I'll just say you're a liar who's projecting your character flaws on others and leave it at that.

[Major Comma]

OK Bree,
Enough softballs for you.
Time for the burning question!
Whats the status of your WoW game?:smile:

[Sabrinaset]

OK Bree,
Enough softballs for you.
Time for the burning question!
Whats the status of your WoW game?:smile:

I got my paladin up to level 33! I got bored playing my priest, and I'm prolly gunna start a mage soon ... or someone with mega death-dealing AOE spells.

[rick]

I don't know about jail time, but Clinton had more associates convicted of crimes.

Here's the Clinton Legacy?


It's interesting that your little piece estimates the conviction rate of the Nixon and Reagan administrations, but in the case of the Clintons expands the list to include associates and memebers of the so-called Clinton machine.

So here is my challange.

Please gives us the names of the members of the Clinton adminstration who were convicted of crimes while in office.

Or did the Progressve Review leave that part out of their hit piece?

[LtMarvel]

www.playcatan.com

The perfect little GOP/olden times game!

[CutterMike]

I don't know about jail time, but Clinton had more associates convicted of crimes.
* According to our best information, 40 government officials were indicted or convicted in the wake of Watergate. A reader computes that there was a total of 31 Reagan era convictions, including 14 because of Iran-Contra and 16 in the Department of Housing & Urban Development scandal. 47 individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine were convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes with 33 of these occurring during the Clinton administration itself. There were in addition 61 indictments or misdemeanor charges. 14 persons were imprisoned.
Here's the Clinton Legacy?
I don't want to say that you're comparing apples and oranges, Sam, but it seems to me that you're pretty clearly not examining the sources that you quote.

"40 government officials" vs. "47 individuals and businesses".

If they were comparing "government officials" with "government officials" or "individuals and businesses associated with the <NAME> machine" with "individuals and businesses associated with the <NAME> machine", then fine. I suspect, however, that your source chose those exact terms PRECISELY because they could cast a wider net amongst the Clintonistas that way.

Does your source include indictments and/or convictions of "individuals and businesses associated with the <NAME> machine" AFTER the administration in question is out of office, but as a result of that administration's policies (e.g.: banking and energy deregulation leading inevitably to BCCI, Silverado, and Enron)?

Also, does your source GRADE the indictments and/or convictions in any way? For instance; does Whitewater score higher or lower than dealing with known terrorists and drug traffickers (Iran/Contra)?

[Samurai]

I don't want to say that you're comparing apples and oranges, Sam, but it seems to me that you're pretty clearly not examining the sources that you quote.

"40 government officials" vs. "47 individuals and businesses".

If they were comparing "government officials" with "government officials" or "individuals and businesses associated with the <NAME> machine" with "individuals and businesses associated with the <NAME> machine", then fine. I suspect, however, that your source chose those exact terms PRECISELY because they could cast a wider net amongst the Clintonistas that way.

Does your source include indictments and/or convictions of "individuals and businesses associated with the <NAME> machine" AFTER the administration in question is out of office, but as a result of that administration's policies (e.g.: banking and energy deregulation leading inevitably to BCCI, Silverado, and Enron)?

Also, does your source GRADE the indictments and/or convictions in any way? For instance; does Whitewater score higher or lower than dealing with known terrorists and drug traffickers (Iran/Contra)?

There's much more detail on the site, read it if you want.

There is a bit of a difference in terms there, though they say "Reagan era convictions" for Reagan. Nixon didn't have the same kind of "machine" around him that the Clintons did. They (like Obama) were surrounded by criminals and unsavory types even if they didn't always elevate them to cabinet positions.

[king mob]

There's much more detail on the site, read it if you want.

There is a bit of a difference in terms there, though they say "Reagan era convictions" for Reagan. Nixon didn't have the same kind of "machine" around him that the Clintons did. They (like Obama) were surrounded by criminals and unsavory types even if they didn't always elevate them to cabinet positions.

So who exactly are the criminals surrounding Obama then? Name them.

[CutterMike]

There's much more detail on the site, read it if you want.

There is a bit of a difference in terms there, though they say "Reagan era convictions" for Reagan. Nixon didn't have the same kind of "machine" around him that the Clintons did. They (like Obama) were surrounded by criminals and unsavory types even if they didn't always elevate them to cabinet positions.
So if business associates of Clinton are included, include business associates of Nixon, Reagan, and the Bushes. If you're only going to count members/employees of the Nixon, Reagan, Bush Executive Branches, then only count the same in the Clinton administration.

Anything else is cherry-picking your sample groups to get the results you want. You can see this, can't you?

As to who has a "political machine" I am reminded of a "game" that we used to play in 6th Grade reading classes (it was a combined speed/critical reading course). It was the "I-You-Him" game. The idea was to examine various statements and see how the speaker used their terms.

For example: "I am slender, you are thin, s/he is skinny," or, "I am frugal, you are cheap, s/he is a tightwad."

"Reagan/Nixon/Bush had a staff and had associates, Clinton had a machine".

...Because, of course, Republican staffs and/or associates who commit felonies, defraud their employers (the American people) or profit from Administration policies AREN'T a "machine", while Democratic ones ARE. Is this really what you want to be saying?

[Charles RB]

So who exactly are the criminals surrounding Obama then? Name them.

http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb162/charlesrb/00149d26.jpg

[Sabrinaset]

Why is Judge Dredd working with Judge Death and Mean Machine?

[Charles RB]

Why is Judge Dredd working with Judge Death and Mean Machine?

Justice Dept sent them to take out a nuclear-armed mutant gang IIRC. I forget why Death and Mean got sent out (except to make the story commercial).

Sadly Mean's no longer with us, having had his dial, claw and aggression surgically removed last year and being taken into care. ("I got me a bunny rabbit.")

[Samurai]

So who exactly are the criminals surrounding Obama then? Name them.

Are you just playing dumb or do you really not know? William Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Tony Rezko, Raila Odinga, Hatem El-Hady, Nadhmi Auchi, James Johnson (not charged yet, but got special low-interest loans from Angelo Mozilo, CEO of Countrywide Finacial, involved in the sub-prime lending scandals) plus many other shady or bigoted people who aren't actually criminals, from Rashid Khalidi and Ali Abunimah to Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan.

[Sabrinaset]

Justice Dept sent them to take out a nuclear-armed mutant gang IIRC. I forget why Death and Mean got sent out (except to make the story commercial).

Sadly Mean's no longer with us, having had his dial, claw and aggression surgically removed last year and being taken into care. ("I got me a bunny rabbit.")

Okay. All I know about Dredd were the Bolland and thereabout issues that were reprinted over here that I got in an eBay lot, and I'm sure those are at least twenty years old.

I kinda LIKED Mean Machine!

[kingdom2000]

I do find it amusing how you fling "liar" around as a defense for pretty much everything. It’s not lying, it’s a perspective. And my perspective of you is a die-hard republican that has gone independent. I simply don't believe you. That is not a lie, much like well 99.999% of the posts on this board that is an opinion. Your educated, you know the difference. That you need to fling "liar" around so cavalierly doesn't do yourself any favors.

And btw, before you say "but your calling me a liar to", no I am not. I just don't believe you. I think you keep telling yourself "i will not vote republican" but come election day and that republican bought electronic system lies before you and suddenly faced with the decision of actually voting democrat, your lifelong party training will kick in and go republican across the board.

[Sabrinaset]

I do find it amusing how you fling "liar" around as a defense for pretty much everything....


MUST I go back and get the relevent posts where I stated I thought there was no essential difference between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to government spending, and your, on several occasions, stating that I thought the opposite? Yeah, I'd call that lying. In your case, I do have to fling it around because you do it often. The only unresolved question I have is why ... I strongly suspect you didn't think I would prove you wrong, much like Hillary and the Bosnian snafu. Misrepresentaing what I believe is a lie. Sorry.

You'd be more accurate stating I'm a die-hard conservative who went independant, but I can understand how you'd think that way. Now THAT, on your part, would be an opinion. It's wrong, but that's not a lie on your part. And like I said, feel free to believe how I'll vote. As I'll keep feeling you're projecting. Nuff 'said.

[rick]

Are you just playing dumb or do you really not know? William Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Tony Rezko, Raila Odinga, Hatem El-Hady, Nadhmi Auchi, James Johnson (not charged yet, but got special low-interest loans from Angelo Mozilo, CEO of Countrywide Finacial, involved in the sub-prime lending scandals) plus many other shady or bigoted people who aren't actually criminals, from Rashid Khalidi and Ali Abunimah to Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan.

Funny how few of those people actually have anything more than the most peripheral connection to Obama.

Odd that.

My favorite is still the Prime Minister of Kenya who while definitely an Obama cousin doesn’t seem to have ever met the man.

Still if we are going to look at the candidates connection to people with criminal ties, do you know if John McCain is still on Charles Keatings Christmas list?

After all, if these kind of minor connections are such a major factor in how we should judge Senator Obama, then it only makes sense that we also judge Senator McCain by the felons he did favors for in exchange for contributions.

It’s interesting that you guys on the Right are trying this technique against Obama when it so clearly is just waiting to back-fire on McCain.

Good luck with that.

[Kevinroc]

Obama being related to shady people doesn't make him shady. Notice how Sam conveniently ignores Obama's relation to Dick Cheney.

[Samurai]

Funny how few of those people actually have anything more than the most peripheral connection to Obama.

Odd that.

My favorite is still the Prime Minister of Kenya who while definitely an Obama cousin doesn’t seem to have ever met the man.

Still if we are going to look at the candidates connection to people with criminal ties, do you know if John McCain is still on Charles Keatings Christmas list?

After all, if these kind of minor connections are such a major factor in how we should judge Senator Obama, then it only makes sense that we also judge Senator McCain by the felons he did favors for in exchange for contributions.

It’s interesting that you guys on the Right are trying this technique against Obama when it so clearly is just waiting to back-fire on McCain.

Good luck with that.

Never met him? Then what's this:

http://www.tothepointnews.com/images/stories/obamaodinga.jpg

Obama's bias for his fellow Luo was so blatant that a Kenya government spokesman denounced Obama during his visit as Raila's "stooge."

And here is the biggest non-surprise: Raila Odinga has, in his own words, a "close personal friendship" with Barrack Hussein Obama Junior.

When Obama went to Kenya in August of 2006, he was hosted by Raila and spoke in praise of him at rallies in Nairobi. Now Obama is playing deaf, dumb and blind because this is one very dangerous allegiance.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/kenyas_killing_fields/index.html

[CutterMike]

Are you just playing dumb or do you really not know? William Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Tony Rezko, Raila Odinga, Hatem El-Hady, Nadhmi Auchi, James Johnson (not charged yet, but got special low-interest loans from Angelo Mozilo, CEO of Countrywide Finacial, involved in the sub-prime lending scandals)
(...)
May we assume, then, that you would list Jeb Bush, Neil Bush, Ken Good, and Bill Walters of the Silverado S&L fiasco -- all of whom profited, mightily, while the American taxpayers footed the $1.6 BILLION bill for cleaning up the mess that they left behind -- as evidence that the Reagan and the Bush, Sr. and Jr. administrations., were "surrounded by criminals and unsavory types even if they didn't always elevate them to cabinet positions," the way that you accuse the Clintons and Obama as being?

[king mob]

Are you just playing dumb or do you really not know?

Nope, I'm just wanting you to actually name names and give reasons and not just give a list with people with vague connections to Obama.

William Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Tony Rezko, Raila Odinga, Hatem El-Hady, Nadhmi Auchi, James Johnson (not charged yet, but got special low-interest loans from Angelo Mozilo, CEO of Countrywide Finacial, involved in the sub-prime lending scandals)

This is what I mean.
plus many other shady or bigoted people who aren't actually criminals, from Rashid Khalidi and Ali Abunimah to Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan.

And this.

You suddenly develop an interest in the suitability of Presidential candidates after 8 years of the current American government which has cared nothing for your constitution or your people. If there wasn't so much riding on this election for America and the world then it might actually be funny.

[section 8]

Obama being related to shady people doesn't make him shady. Notice how Sam conveniently ignores Obama's relation to Dick Cheney.

hmm, if there is one. i think that only validates sams point

[Kevinroc]

hmm, if there is one. i think that only validates sams point

They are actually related.

[rick]

Never met him? Then what's this:

http://www.tothepointnews.com/images/stories/obamaodinga.jpg



http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/kenyas_killing_fields/index.html

My mistake.

But see, being confident in my candidate, it doesn't hurt me to admit to being wrong.

So are you going to answer about McCain doing "favors" for Charles Keating, and the whole "Keating 5" situation?

Like I said if you want us to look at Obama as a criminal, then shouldn't we be judging McCain by those same standards?

[rick]

Sam.

Just in case you forgot about the Keating 5, let me remind you.

And to be fair since I know you are sort of picky about sources, here's an article from the conservative National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com/contributors/levin040501.shtml) about the situation.

After all, I don't want to be accused of not being fair.

[Royal]

My mistake.

But see, being confident in my candidate, it doesn't hurt me to admit to being wrong.

So are you going to answer about McCain doing "favors" for Charles Keating, and the whole "Keating 5" situation?

Like I said if you want us to look at Obama as a criminal, then shouldn't we be judging McCain by those same standards?

Not to mention his work for the WBO.

[Crowley]

Sam.

Just in case you forgot about the Keating 5, let me remind you.

And to be fair since I know you are sort of picky about sources, here's an article from the conservative National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com/contributors/levin040501.shtml) about the situation.

After all, I don't want to be accused of not being fair.

Not to mention his economic advisor Phil Gramm ties to Enron's Ken Lay.

[Red Jack]

I thought this might be interesting considering the sources.

1. USA TODAY. hardly a bastion of Left-leaning spin.

2. Ken Mehlman, Chairman of the GOP.

Enjoy (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-14-GOP-racial-politics_x.htm)

Now, Mehlman's lingo was soft on the GOP, of course. Yet, even with that soft sell, he nailed the GOP down to exploiting the racial divide in this country and of fomenting it for political gain. he admitted to the "Southern Strategy" that Sam claims didn't exist and admitted it was "wrong."

Setting aside that the "apology" was crap and simply a ploy to pick up a few fringe dwelling dim bulbs of color who couldn't track legislative history, within months of that speech, Mr. Mehlman presided over yet another Willy Hortoning of a politician who might have unseated a white Republican.

It was so naked and so blatant that it made not only the papers but the fairly soft and coddly cable news as well.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15404235/

So you can take the words and actions of Reb #1 over Sam's or you can you can follow Sam into the world of delusion and spin.

The Republican party had an auspicious beginning, only being created as an answer to the racist policies of the Democrats of the day form whom they split. But, in fairly short order, it mutated into the party we see and enjoy today.

[Samurai]

Sam.

Just in case you forgot about the Keating 5, let me remind you.

And to be fair since I know you are sort of picky about sources, here's an article from the conservative National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com/contributors/levin040501.shtml) about the situation.

After all, I don't want to be accused of not being fair.

Here's what your link says:

"…[F]rom 1984 to 1987, Senator McCain took actions on Mr. Keating's behalf or at his request. The Committee finds that Senator McCain had a basis for each of these actions independent of the contributions and benefits he received from Mr. Keating, his associates and friends.

"Based on the evidence available to it, the Committee has given consideration to Senator McCain's actions on behalf of Lincoln. The Committee concludes that, given the personal benefits and campaign contributions he had received from Mr. Keating, Senator McCain exercised poor judgment in intervening with the regulators without first inquiring as to the Bank Board's position in the case in a more routine manner. The Committee concludes that Senator McCain's actions were not improper nor attended with gross negligence and did not reach the level of requiring institutional action against him. The Committee finds that Senator McCain took no further action after the April 9, 1987 meeting when he learned of a criminal referral.

"Senator McCain has violated no law of the United States or specific Rule of the United States Senate; therefore, the Committee concludes that no further action is warranted with respect to Senator McCain on the matters investigated during the preliminary inquiry."

McCain was the only Republican implicated in the Keating Five scandal,
I'd agree with that finding. He exercised VERY poor judgement, and never should have accepted the contributions if he was going to have any dealings with them. While he may not have broken the law or any rules, there was certainly at least the appearance of impropriety. And the ironic thing? It was due at least in part because of McCain's close relationship with Democrats, since all the other people involved besides him were Democrats. If he'd stayed on his own side of the aisle, it never would have happened to him.

[Charles RB]

They are actually related.

How did that happen?

[Samurai]

I thought this might be interesting considering the sources.

1. USA TODAY. hardly a bastion of Left-leaning spin.

2. Ken Mehlman, Chairman of the GOP.

Enjoy (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-14-GOP-racial-politics_x.htm)

Now, Mehlman's lingo was soft on the GOP, of course. Yet, even with that soft sell, he nailed the GOP down to exploiting the racial divide in this country and of fomenting it for political gain. he admitted to the "Southern Strategy" that Sam claims didn't exist and admitted it was "wrong."

Setting aside that the "apology" was crap and simply a ploy to pick up a few fringe dwelling dim bulbs of color who couldn't track legislative history, within months of that speech, Mr. Mehlman presided over yet another Willy Hortoning of a politician who might have unseated a white Republican.

It was so naked and so blatant that it made not only the papers but the fairly soft and coddly cable news as well.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15404235/

So you can take the words and actions of Reb #1 over Sam's or you can you can follow Sam into the world of delusion and spin.

The Republican party had an auspicious beginning, only being created as an answer to the racist policies of the Democrats of the day form whom they split. But, in fairly short order, it mutated into the party we see and enjoy today.

You do know that the "Southern Strategy" was a good 100+ years after the founding of the Republican Party, right? So, even if your claim of that event marking the swing of the Republicans toward racists (and it's not), that still means that for well over 100 years, 2/3s of their history, Republicans stood for equal rights. Meanwhile, the Democrats, founded about 60 years earlier, have for 160+ years stood for racism, slavery, and bigotry. There's no "in short order" switch there, you are simply historically WRONG. And there is still no switch today. The Republicans still stand for equal rights... it's just that the Democrats have successfully bought off their former slaves with handouts and benefits and preferences, until being for anything other than racial preferences is labeled "racist". They have perverted the definition... they say "treating everyone equally is racist, you are only NOT racist if you agree to racial preferences that reward people for their skin color!" It's not the Republican Party that changed, it was the strategy of the racists that changed...

[Charles RB]

Why is it that when I google for more on Obama/Odinga, the ONLY places I see that are carrying the story are places with names like No Quarter USA and Freedom Sentries, and that scary Atlas Shrugged place that Samurai linked to?

[section 8]

They are actually related.

MIEN GOTT!!! That makes the perfect reason not to vote for Obama, Why aren't the Reps using this against him?

IS McCan related to Spiro Agnew?

[section 8]

How did that happen?

You see when a Man and a Woman love each other, Or some times a man and another man, or a woman and another woman, or if you are lucky your wife will have an open minded tennis partner....

(worst birds and bees talk ever, or is it the best?)

[rick]

Here's what your link says:


I'd agree with that finding. He exercised VERY poor judgement, and never should have accepted the contributions if he was going to have any dealings with them. While he may not have broken the law or any rules, there was certainly at least the appearance of impropriety. And the ironic thing? It was due at least in part because of McCain's close relationship with Democrats, since all the other people involved besides him were Democrats. If he'd stayed on his own side of the aisle, it never would have happened to him.


Now come on Sam, we are using your standards here after all.

How can you say that McCain just made an error in judgment while at the same time calling someone who hasn’t even been indicted as an example of the “criminals” Obama hangs out with?

Fair is fair after all.

If Obama is not to be trusted because he knows someone who hasn’t been indicted but who there are rumors and suspicions about, then doesn’t it make even more sense to assume that McCain is himself a criminal since there are rumors and suspicions about his own actions.

I mean you are the one who is setting the boundaries here, so how is one assumptive leap different from the other?

[Crowley]

Why is it that when I google for more on Obama/Odinga, the ONLY places I see that are carrying the story are places with names like No Wuarter Usa and Freedom Sentries, and that scary Atlas Shrugged place that Samurai linked to?
Because they're running a 20th century Willie Horton attack on Obama... (he's black, he fist pounds with his wife! He's a terrorist jihadi!) against a 21st century candidate.

And it's failing miserably.

A new NEWSWEEK Poll shows that he has a substantial double-digit lead, 51 percent to 36 percent, over McCain among registered voters nationwide.

[Michael P]

Why is it that when I google for more on Obama/Odinga, the ONLY places I see that are carrying the story are places with names like No Wuarter Usa and Freedom Sentries, and that scary Atlas Shrugged place that Samurai linked to?

Because, thank God, they haven't yet figured out a way to fool all of the people all of the time.

[Red Jack]

You do know that the "Southern Strategy" was a good 100+ years after the founding of the Republican Party, right? So, even if your claim of that event marking the swing of the Republicans toward racists (and it's not), that still means that for well over 100 years, 2/3s of their history, Republicans stood for equal rights. Meanwhile, the Democrats, founded about 60 years earlier, have for 160+ years stood for racism, slavery, and bigotry. There's no "in short order" switch there, you are simply historically WRONG. And there is still no switch today. The Republicans still stand for equal rights... it's just that the Democrats have successfully bought off their former slaves with handouts and benefits and preferences, until being for anything other than racial preferences is labeled "racist". They have perverted the definition... they say "treating everyone equally is racist, you are only NOT racist if you agree to racial preferences that reward people for their skin color!" It's not the Republican Party that changed, it was the strategy of the racists that changed...

No. that is spin, sam.

If you tilt the feild in your own favor, punishing the successes or even the attempts at success by the group you deemed to be "out" for centuries and then one day change the law to say everything is now equal it is, at the very least, naive to think everything could actually be equal.

In fact, in addition to the massive deficit experienced by the Out group, the In group has had those same centuries to get entrenched, to pass on legacies, to create the so-called "old Boy" network that, despite changes in the law, served and serves to keep the Out out. You don't need slavery when you've got Jim Crow and you don't need Jm Crow when you've got illegal aliens.

Claims of desiring "equality" from your people are really claims of a desire to maintain the status quo. Which, of course, is unacceptable.

let us review.

you have scurried bck to Reconstruction, a process begun by the Lincoln administration post Civil War to offer some redress for the sins of the past to the formerly enslaved Americans in the southern states. Yes. Excellent work, Mr. L. Kudos.

However, as you may have heard, Mr. Lincoln was murdered while in office and, nearly instantly, his VP, a racist Republican by the name of Andrew Johnson, quickly took steps to destroy the budding equality that his dead boss had built. Indeed Reconstruction can be said to have ended because of Mr Johnson's withdrawing federal support and taking an extremely tolerant view of the subsequent rise of the various Night Riders, terrorist groups who aimed to put things back the way they had been before the war. Which, with Jim Crow, they did.

Here's a lovely quote from Mr. J. "This is a country for white men and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government for white men."

Ulysses Grant was not a racist, at least by the standards of the day, and, during his presidency, though he also did little to truly support Lincoln's Reconstructionist policies, did send federal troops to quell some of the more egregiously violent acts of the KKK and others.

President Hayes made the first overt attempt to officially transform the Republican party from what Lincoln had envisioned (and its founders as well) into the racist white supremecist party it became. He put the final nails in the coffin of Reconstruction declaring in a speech over A Confederate gravesite that the experiment of granting the negroes equal citizenship with whites had been "a failure." AND WAS OVER.

President Garfield wrote that he had, " a strong feeling of repugnance when I think of the negro being made our political equal and I would be glad if they could be colonized, sent to heaven, or got rid of in any decent way."

Teddy Roosevelt said blacks were a "stupid race." Here's another lovely quote from Big TR.

"I have not been able to think out any solution to the terrible problem offered by the presence of the Negro on this continent ," he said. "He is here and can neither be killed nor driven away." He blamed southerners for bringing us here.

Wilson was the reason blacks were barred from attending Princeton. During his presidential campaign, which rested on a platform of keeping Asians out of the country, he said, "I stand for the national policy of exclusion. We cannot make a homogeneous population of a people who do not blend with the Caucasian race."

And while we're tripping down memory lane, let's get back to Ike who, while conceding the practical necessity of giving blacks legal equality, said repeatedly that this didn't mean they should have equal standing socially or, god forbid, to "court" his daughter.

So, no, Sam, you don't even get to claim Reconstruction. With the exception of Grant, when a Republican President (by definition the frontman for the party) has gone on record about race, he has come up on the wrong side and the GOP has worked tirelessly, as I said, to gut the strides made on those fronts by actual Americans.

Nixon. Reagan. Bush. Bush the lesser. It's almost a perfect straight line continuity of racism (and sexism, and anti-tolerance in general).

We can keep dancing but, really, now is the time where the smart man bows out.

[Royal]

Now come on Sam, we are using your standards here after all.

How can you say that McCain just made an error in judgment while at the same time calling someone who hasn’t even been indicted as an example of the “criminals” Obama hangs out with?



Ask Sam about where McCain was during the death of Jimmy Garcia. Also ask him what he did the next week.

[Charles RB]

Because, thank God, they haven't yet figured out a way to fool all of the people all of the time.

Which begs the question of what Obama actually did in that Kenyan visit and the actual context behind that photo (I presume it's genuine), since if what happened was the same as what the fringe-right bloggers are saying it'd have turned up somewhere else.

Also - ten seconds of looking at Atlas Shrugged scared me. Whole lot of "RARRR CULTURE WAR" seems to be going on there, backing itself up with atrocity propaganda.