Subscribe to ListverseYour View: Who Should Be The Next President?
- Published April 4, 2008 - 662 Comments
The US elections are fast coming upon us, and the entire world will be watching to see what happens because, like it or not, US foreign policy and financial policy affects many non-US citizens as much as US citizens. For this your view, I would like to ask that you tell us who you think would make the best President – but please tell us why. I am hoping that this “your view” will not only help us get to know each other better, but will also help those of us outside the US get a better understanding of the US system.
Who Should Be The Next US President?
My answer is Obama. The reason for this is a very simple one (because I am not really affected by US policy except financial policy), I think Obama is likely to end the war in Iraq which, in turn, will help lighten the financial burden in the US. When the US economy is healthier, the advertising revenue on this site is better and will allow me to pay people to expand it!
Remember: treat everyone with respect and no ad hominems!
April 4th, 2008 at 1:38 am
Get Mandela….
April 4th, 2008 at 1:48 am
Obama. Clinton is a crazy bitch (dodging sniper fire MY ASS) & McCain is a Republican. Simple choice.
April 4th, 2008 at 1:57 am
Now a days, it’s “cool” to hate Republicans and join in on everything the trendy Democrats say or do. Personally, I think G.W. Bush has failed this country as a president but does that mean I have to hate Republicans from now on? It’s pretty obvious that this country needs a PROVEN leader. As much as I hate war, we’re right in the middle of it and pulling out of it quickly would be a mistake. My vote is for John McCain.
April 4th, 2008 at 2:00 am
I cannot believe that you do not have universal health care in America. That’s why I would vote some Obama-ass if I lived in your country.
April 4th, 2008 at 2:05 am
Not to be sexist or anything, but I don’t think America is really ready for a female President, especially when there are more-than-capable male candidates available.
And McCain? He’s just not modern enough.
I don’t know a lot about the candidates, but I think Obama would make a great president. He’s cool and I think he will be able to galvanize America. He needs to.
April 4th, 2008 at 3:01 am
Out of the “lesser-of-three-evils” choices left, it has to be McCain. He is not really a Republican or Democrat but fairly centrist in most things except the military and government spending where he can be downright Reaganite at times. For all of their bluster about change and hope, Clinton and Obama are still old-school politicians who can be trusted in nothing they say.
April 4th, 2008 at 3:12 am
I don’t care as long as it’s a Democrat. We have been in the red for far too long.
April 4th, 2008 at 3:15 am
Another day going to be spent on LV…
April 4th, 2008 at 3:18 am
I know that this does not answer the question…
I’v not made a choice -
With this pack, it is not who to vote for, it’s who to vote against.
April 4th, 2008 at 3:25 am
I believe that people who honestly think this makes a difference has lost touch with how the world actually works. Shit will happen regardless of who gets elected, or even if Bush decided to use his magical army of bloodninjas and stay in office… It does not matter, it will not matter.
You pick one over the other, maybe the war ends. But then you get screwed on taxes, liberties, or whatever. Pick the other, maybe you get better taxes or values or whatever, but the draft takes your sons and daughters.
Why pick between two evils? Just move to a civilized country and let someone else deal with it. I mean, if you truly want to stick it to them, would there be any better way of doing it than taking your money and leaving? I’d like to see them try to save the country from the next great depression when their tax payers ups and leaves.
April 4th, 2008 at 3:35 am
Frank, you can’t say things will be the same regardless of the President. Look what FDR did for the US during the Depression and WWII. On topic, though, I think’d choose Obama. McCain doesn’t exactly seem like the right person for the job, and seems like he wouldn’t get things done. And honestly, I just don’t like Hillary Clinton. As was stated before, it’s not who you’re voting for, but who you’re voting against.
April 4th, 2008 at 3:38 am
Ron Paul…
Big government Democrats are not the answer to Neo-Cons.
You can’t say small government doesn’t work… We haven’t had small government
April 4th, 2008 at 3:46 am
Rocknopera: I quite liked Ron Paul too – but unfortunately I think he would not win as a write in.
April 4th, 2008 at 3:49 am
The first thing the United States has to do is get rid of the two party system that has ruined the political landscape of this country, People have differing views on a variety of topics to put them into two categories. McCain is who i am voting for just because he was in the military and i am a retiree myself. I don’t need any more explanation than that.
April 4th, 2008 at 3:57 am
charlie: I agree with you completely – the same is true of New Zealand – two major parties and a variety of smaller ones – the two major parties ALWAYS end up leading government – though it is sometimes made of a coalition of the big party with some of the smaller parties.
I have to say though – be wary of proportional representation of the variety in New Zealand – minority parties can control the government by refusing to back them on supply and demand – so you end up with minority government.
April 4th, 2008 at 4:17 am
Robert Mugabe.
It looks like he might be out of his current job fairly soon.
April 4th, 2008 at 4:20 am
Obama. He is going to make many good new changes. ONe that i thought was especially smart is his i dea that he will give $4,000 for tuition to kids IF they do community service. Kill two birds with one stone, eh?
April 4th, 2008 at 4:24 am
I would go for John McCain were I a US Citizen (US resident for 8 years now).
I cheered for Democrats, but frankly I’m satisfied with anyone of the nominees we have locked up right now (Clinton, Obama, McCain).
But John McCain is a moderate, I concurred with him in a lot of major issues that don’t really fall into Republican or Democrat byline. He was well like in the military, many democrats absolutely adored him.
If there’s anyone that can bring unity to US and don’t fall to the “I must appeal to Conservative/Liberal ideal”, it’s him.
April 4th, 2008 at 4:29 am
Tonny SS, I think the polls show your point on McCain fairly well. Many Democrats will vote McCain if their preferred D candidate is not the nominee.
April 4th, 2008 at 4:39 am
I’m voting for McCain because i will not have a female president. Not going to war every month when she is on the rag. And i wouldn’t call myself racist but i definatly prefer caucasion so Obama is out. And i think its time for a republican to fix this mess.
April 4th, 2008 at 4:47 am
Of the three choices I will be voting for McCain. I agree with those who’ve said pulling out of Iraq in the manner Obama and Clinton plan on will be a huge mistake and only serve to have further wasted the lives of 4000+ Americans and many soldiers from other nations. To be honest its not a matter of who is best of the three but who is least worse. Obama doesn’t have enough experience and knows very little about economics or foreign policy and Hillary is a morally bankrupt human being. I’d love to have universal healthcare but the Democrat’s plan for universal healthcare entails FORCING everyone to get insurance if the govenment determines you can afford it which means that the people who are just barely sqeeking by now will still not have healthcare or else will no longer be able to sqeek by. I would not object too strongly to Obama being elected although I think he will fail miserably, please tell us WHAT you plan to change rather than ranting about change but if Hillary is elected president I will be rescinding my American citizenship and moving to MAdagascar
I’d like to add that only here in America would the “less government” party (REpublicans) constantly try to dictate how everyone should live while the “common man’s party” would have “super delegates” who effectively could nullify the common man’s preferred choice for their party.
April 4th, 2008 at 4:56 am
longball… are you basically saying you’re voting for McCain on the basis of him being a white male?
The hell?
April 4th, 2008 at 5:04 am
At this point, as long as it’s not G.W. Bush, I’ll be a happy camper.
April 4th, 2008 at 5:05 am
Well Longball; I would call you a racist and a sexist too. I wouldn’t pick Obama if I was american either, but not because he’s black but because he is unproven and appears wishy washy to me. I wouldn’t vote for Hillary Clinton, not because she’s female but because she’s a sneaky liar. McCain is kind of scaring me too, he’s been hangin’ around Bush so much, its rubbed off on him. That said, McCain will probably win and probably be effective too; he will not alienate the military and the Gung-ho south (sorry to all you moderate southerners, I’m sure there are some). I think that despite what he says, he will scale down the war in the Middle East and get the UN peacekeepers involved quickly. He will do it in order to win a second term in office.
April 4th, 2008 at 5:05 am
And longball…I’m not normally and internet basher, but you’re a moron if you’re actually sincere in your bigoted comment. If you posted that just to start sh*t, go play with a bouncy ball if you want to amuse yourself.
April 4th, 2008 at 5:06 am
Dammit! Typo: “and” should be “an.”
April 4th, 2008 at 5:09 am
Ronald Reagan
April 4th, 2008 at 5:25 am
I’ll vote for the candidate that will eliminate the electoral college (huge farce) and sign a law that says all primaries must be held on the same day. How many people do you think did not vote in the Republican primaries after McCain started winning by a larger and larger margin. The primary schedule does a good job of alienating voters.
April 4th, 2008 at 5:28 am
Mofleminator… I’d vote for him.
Jfrater… I agree. He won’t win. I still think he’s best for the job. I’ll continue to fight for the his ideals and policies. The Libertarian movement is a growing one.
April 4th, 2008 at 5:32 am
i’m not trying to start any shit, just trying to be honest. i do apologize to any one offended. and to clarify, race is not the sole issue in my decision against obama. *shrug*
April 4th, 2008 at 5:44 am
Obama.
I think this American election will be viewed as a sea change in American politics just like the 80 election of Reagan. I suspect some reliable “red states” like Ohio and Virginia will go “blue” and some “blue states” like Oregan and Pennsylvania will go Red. I also think some plains states and rocky mountain states will go “blue” for the first time in a very long time.
I suspect the Republican Party will be in opposition federally for a while until they renew themselves like other conservative parties around the globe have to appeal to a broader element of the population.
I think many progressives will be buoyed by a Obama victory and primary status quo Democrats in 2010 that either supported Clinton or hold more right of center social views.
April 4th, 2008 at 5:46 am
Ross Perote… Because he’s sooo crazy. I can’t belive I actually voted for him… twice.
April 4th, 2008 at 5:54 am
well first off, i would vote for satan himself before i even considered clinton. not because she’s a woman either. because she’s more evil than the devil. that and she and obama are absolute SOCIALISTS. it will hurt like hell voting for mccain too though. i am so disappointed in the field of presidential hopefuls this time around i want to puke.
i voted for mike huckabee in the primary, mainly for his support of the FairTax. http://www.fairtax.org
if we could only get a tax system like that in place, the United States would become the greatest tax shelter in the world and our economy would be unstoppable.
also. longball is an idiot.
April 4th, 2008 at 5:59 am
OBAMA.
My friend and neighbor Mike, a journalism professor, is almost ten years older than me. He agrees with me in large part about Obama, but he’s also just slightly more cynical. He says I’m infected with that most distasteful of political chimaeras–”hope.” I guess he feels he saw it as a boy, with Kennedy. Maybe, I don’t know. But I don’t feel I have illusions about Obama–I simply see in him more character and better judgement than either Clinton or McCain.
First of all, let’s remember that just because the national media doesn’t give you a Curriculum Vitae on a candidate, that doesn’t mean he’s “unknown” or that there’s nothing to find out about him. There *is* still a press out there that looks into things like this, and Obama himself has a website detailing all his plans and his previous record.
But look… the thing about Obama is this: I am 43 years old. Sounds old to some of the punks out there, but trust me, I don’t feel old. But in any case, I know one thing: I am sick to damn death of baby boomers. My generation has had to live in their self-absorbed, self-centered shadow long enough. Barack Obama is my age (well, he’s 4 years older, but still). He’s MY GENERATION. Hillary Clinton is a boomer. Her generation has had its shot with her husband and GW Bush. Moreover, like many of her generation, she (and Bush as well) is a rank opportunist and a self-indulgent, self-absorbed liar and confabulator, who will say anything and do anything to get what she wants–which in her case is the presidency–because, AGAIN like a baby boomer–she feels ENTITLED to it. She feels it is OWED her.
I have no illusions about Obama. He is a politician, and his age doesn’t exempt him from the sly and underhanded things ALL politicians do…. but as yet we have no evidence he’s done anything to rank with what the Clintons did in their long political careers. But the one thing Obama displays is CHARACTER. And this also answers the ridiculous charge that either Clinton or McCain are more adept at foreign policy. Why? Because McCain was a prisoner of war and served in the military? My father and most of my uncles fought in WWII, but I wouldn’t for a moment have thought that that experience makes them experts at foreign policy. To me McCain has been a fiscal maverick, bucking the party line on various issues related to monetary policy and campaign reform. But foreign policy? His experience is no greater than the average senator’s. And the fact is, no one REALLY becomes “expert” in foreign policy unless they’ve held some post in the State Department. Hillary’s experience, of course, is even less–and again, largely confabulated.
What really matters in foreign policy–as with anything else–is CHARACTER. Clinton has none; she’s a phony from start to finish—and McCain’s character has suffered of late, because he seems to be cozying himself up, suddenly, to the very branch of the Republican party which he has supposedly opposed for a good part of his career. Of course people will say this is out of necessity–but is it? No, the fact is that some candidates are more their own person than others–but all, to SOME extent, are beholden to who supports them. And the more McCain gets in bed with the Bush league and the other right-wing extremists in this country–the more he settles down with them for good.
I was once a conservative Republican, many years ago. I was swayed by Ronald Reagan–he was “my” president back then–the first president of my adulthood. But over time I saw through the smoke of conservative policy, and saw the betrayal and lies carried on by Republicans who pretended to want to “lift people up” but in fact really only wanted to maintain a class-ist economic status quo, while allowing religious zealots control of some of our major political institutions. And we’ve seen what 8 years under such rule have brought us–a stupid, pointless war in Iraq when the real fight was in Afghanistan, and in the hearts and minds of Arabs… the fabric of our political freedoms tattered…. and an economy toppling over into ruins. I have had 4 major “promotions” of a sort in my career in the last 10 years. Each one carried with it, of course, greater money. (Along with yearly increases as well). But after 8 years of Bush, I am very nearly in the same financial shape I was in when Bush entered office—meaning all that money has been eaten up by higher costs in nearly everything I have to pay for. And for a long time, every day on the news I could hear a new attack being mounted on our way of life, our freedoms, by this administration–and new ways Bush was RUINING our reputation overseas.
Our democracy cannot stand another 4 years (let alone another
of Republican rule.
And it needs more, now, than smarmy, smug, and superficial Hillary Clinton.
But Obama isn’t just the lesser evil. The man has character and ability–proven ability.
April 4th, 2008 at 6:01 am
wow, longball: i think you just gave this hot topic what it needs to be extra spicy.
i agree with most people that says we are choosing the tallest of 3 midgets. that said, obama just doesn’t have enough experience. clinton at least has seen the world of the president up close, but she seems like she will say and do whatever the people in front of her tell her to do.
i’d have to go for mccain because at the very least we will have a strong man in the office. (not man in the gender sense, just person)
i do feel that it is a possibility that the bad guys will try to test obama and clinton. mccain’s reputation i hope will protect us some.
i don’ think health care or the ecomony will be solved anytime soon. the president doesn’t have the power to fix every problem like we think the office does. too much beuracracy.
this is one reason why my faith is so important to me. if my hope is based on who the majority of a fickle, self-serving country chooses, i will be hoping for better days all my life.
Psalm 20:7 – Some trust in chariots (power) and some in horses (wealth), but we trust in the name of the LORD our God.
April 4th, 2008 at 6:07 am
You must go for McCain. He is definitely nothing to get excited about, but compared to the alternatives he’s the best bet. Ron Paul would be president in a perfect world, but there’s no chance that can ever happen because he’s not a democrat or republican. I think Obama is a great speaker and everything but I just don’t trust his experience. And Hillary is a liar and doesn’t seem very presidential. For sure it’s time for change but not Barack Obama change.
April 4th, 2008 at 6:08 am
If you vote for McCain, be sure that you respect his running mate, because McCain is about three days away from the average American man’s life expectancy.
April 4th, 2008 at 6:09 am
another thing. just ask yourself that if bin laden could vote. who would he vote for? my guess would be one of the “I SURRENDER!!!!!” democraps
April 4th, 2008 at 6:12 am
George Carlin
April 4th, 2008 at 6:14 am
Me
April 4th, 2008 at 6:18 am
If you asked this question 9 months ago I would have answered, Obama but honestly, I am really supporting Hillary Clinton for President. I respect Braack Obama and his ability to speak to and touch people with his words and vision but I think that Hillary Clinton has proven herself to be a great politician and has been able to use her knowledge and understanding of the political system in this country to make things happen.
I am a resident of the State of New York and she has inacted policies that have truly proven to help the working and middle class society that is rapidly diminishing before us. I know she can be abrasive at time but her understanding of foreign policies and the experience she has had working within this government make her the better choice.
A vote for McCain is like a vote for another Bush. If he is elected president, I don’t feel anything will truly change. I am not hating Republicans, as I am Independant myself, but his policies and ideas are not much different than what we have now.
April 4th, 2008 at 6:25 am
People hoping for “fair taxes” and “flat taxes” have been duped. Let me explain why and how.
I’ve mentioned that I was once a conservative. But I wasn’t just any conservative–I wasn’t just somebody who voted as such. I was a College Republican at a major university–which got me to mix with certain people. Then we graduated… and I and those other people went out into the world. Some of them got political jobs… in the party… working for think tanks and for actual candidates–congressmen. I was an associate of these people, friends of mine… and I saw what was going on. It took me a while to realize the truth… and then I was abhorred.
Why do any of you think that “flat” taxes were championed first and primarily by the ultra-rich and those with strong ties to them? Why? Because it would be a windfall for them. And it would hurt YOU, who are non-super-rich.
Our graduated tax system is an off-set, in part, for sales and property taxes. We all pay these things–income tax, sales and property taxes—but the sales tax falls mainly on those in the middle class and lower. Property tax also affects primarily the middle class. To off-set this, in part, we have a graduated income tax which, because it is graduated, affects primarily those earning the most money. This DOES, then, in effect, make for a fairer playing field. The rich pay more in income tax, but the middle and lower classes are paying more in sales tax and in aggregate, property taxes. So it’s evened out a bit.
A flat tax would in fact make things easier *only* on the rich. And you can see why.
This was recognized–though of course never talked about (except amongst ourselves, and then only in whispers) by those people I knew. It was a way to put MORE money in the hands of the rich–of course, no one saw it as nefarious–we thought, in trickle-down economics terms, it would mean, eventually, more jobs and income for the middle and lower classes. But of course this was, at best, smoke and mirrors.
A “fair tax” is just a populist version of the same thing, though of course with a different intent. But calculations have consistently shown that, again–it ends up costing lower-income and middle-class people MORE in the long run.. while freeing up wealth for the rich.
Don’t be fooled folks. Both plans are dreams dreamed up by people who either A) have other designs than the ones they reveal to you or B) are just plain deluded.
April 4th, 2008 at 6:32 am
I have been leaning towards Obama, mainly because of all the things he says about changing the US, but reading these comments made me really curious about McCain. I’ve been focusing on Obama, but thats not really fair. We still have 8 months left, so… I guess I am gonna have to go do some research on McCain.
I personally think Hillary just might be the anti christ, though. Just saying….
April 4th, 2008 at 6:34 am
MzFly:
I too am a New Yorker. Please explain to me ONE policy that Hillary Clinton has enacted that has truly helped the working class as you say.
And why, exactly, do you think she has some “understanding of foreign policy?” On what do you base this baseless belief?
April 4th, 2008 at 6:39 am
I’m really puzzled by people who believed McCain will be just “more of the same”.
John McCain has clashed quite often with Bush Admin, and he has supported a lot of proposal by the Democrats.
April 4th, 2008 at 6:45 am
Obama, baby!
I’ll take intelligence, honesty, and good judgment over “experience” and opportunism any day. Already voted for him in the primary, and got to see him at University of Maryland! I have a video on my phone of him kissing a baby lol
April 4th, 2008 at 6:59 am
Amanda: I used to have some respect for McCain and his “maverick” ways until he started to change his policies, pandering to hard-line conservatives to shore up his base. I now consider him just as much of an opportunist as Clinton, and I can’t be sure if he would revert back to moderate status if elected or if he would continue to be a slave to party pressure.
April 4th, 2008 at 7:01 am
Randall, you’re wrong and you obviously don’t have a clue what the Fair Tax really is. Do a little research before you run your mouth. I suggest maybe reading The Fair Tax Book and The Fair Tax: The Truth: Answering the Critics. Both books are by Neil Boortz and they are great.
April 4th, 2008 at 7:02 am
Obama.
Both Clinton and McCain would only represent more of the same old garbage. The Republicans permanently lost my support when they exploited anti-gay bigotry to push through their various marriage amendments, solely to try and turn out right wing voters. A party that exploits hatred, fear and intolerance in the pursuit of power is morally despicable.
April 4th, 2008 at 7:03 am
Tonny SS:
Because A) he’s a fervent supporter of the war in Iraq, and has joked (and even sung!) about bombing Iran. *More of the same.*
B) He has come out in favor of many Bush policies, both economic and otherwise (more of the same)
and C) He has cozied up to the same right wing that Bush has been in bed with all along. MORE of the same.
April 4th, 2008 at 7:04 am
What most people in the US (and I don’t know about the rest of the world) sometimes fail to realize is that the President does not make EVERY decision for this country. It is very important to remember that the Presidential appointments say alot about how a Presidency will go. Bush appointed a good number of cronies with no experience and has taken a beating for their misgivings (as well he should). He also lost some of the good appointments (Powell) because they got so aggrevated with the state of the union. All this being said, a good person can look bad because of the people that surround him/her. I can only hope that the next President does a better job than Bush in this area.
April 4th, 2008 at 7:21 am
None of them.
I will never vote for Obama because he’s far more frightening than McCain. At least McCain doesn’t try to mask the crap he wants to do to this country with flashy talks and intellectual skullduggery.
Obama is not the best candidate, but people think he is because he speaks well and he says all the right things. But, just like politicians, the people who support Obama are not thinking ahead.
What are the consequences of leaving the war early without conditions? What happens when we implement universal healthcare when clearly the country can’t afford it, especially with the economy in a rut?
First off, the war: I don’t like the war, I don’t want to be there, and would love to leave. But, and this is a huge but, we have a moral responsibility, an ethical responsibility, to see this through because it is OUR fault that Iraq is in the condition it is in. It is OUR fault that innocent Iraqis are dying for virtually no reason, and for us to think that walking away from a war WE started, which created conditions that are killing hundreds of innocent people just trying to go about their lives is the right thing is utterly idiotic. We have to leave Iraq in a state of some sort of normality. Iraq has to be able to defend itself. If we leave too early the country will fall into chaos. Then what? Do you want to tell all those 4,000 U.S. soldiers who died, and their families, “well, I know we sent them off and they got killed, but it was for nothing anyway. We just wasted their lives. Haha”? What about the thousands of Iraqis who have already died and will eventually die? Can the U.S. live with knowing we walked out too soon and saw the country fall into complete chaos because of what WE did? The blood of thousands of innocent people who didn’t want us there in the first place and now need us to help them get their country on its feet will be on our hands and nobody seems to be thinking about that. It’s nice to say “the war was illegal, so let’s leave”. We live over here in relative safety. We don’t have to worry about going to University and being blown up by a car bomb every single day. We don’t have to worry about whether or not its safe to go buy groceries today or tomorrow or the next day. If we did, maybe we’d have a better understanding what hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are going through right now because of our actions only a few years ago. And, when Iraq descends into chaos it will damage the U.S.’s international reputation so horribly that it may take decades to repair. We have a moral responsibility to see Iraq become a stable country that can defend itself, police itself, etc.
Now, healthcare: I’d love to have it, but we can’t afford it. Anyone who thinks we can doesn’t understand the U.S. economy. We owe so much money to China right now and will owe that money for a long time. Even if Obama stuck around for 8 years we would never see a functioning universal healthcare system that managed to do the job without bankrupting the country. Universal healthcare isn’t something you can just jump into. It takes a lot of time and preparation and with medical services as expensive as they are right now we have to put that into consideration. This is why I liked Edwards, because he proposed working to reduce the costs of healthcare as they stand right now. The benefit of that is that more people could afford to get health insurance and to get regular checkups rather than going to the emergency room. That’s the first step in moving towards a universal system. Universal healthcare in countries that have it is not perfect either. It has serious flaws. Sometimes it can take months for you to get something done and sometimes certain treatments aren’t covered or offered that are allowed in systems like the one in the U.S. There are a lot of things we have to take into consideration right now about healthcare. The first is we have to make sure we can afford it without putting additional burden on people we deem to be “rich”. Anyone who is in the upper class (250,000 a year or more) will be hit extremely hard to pay for healthcare. Of course those of us who don’t make nearly that much can say “so what, they’re rich, they can take it”, but a lot of those people work their butts off to make six figures, just as much as you might work your but off for 50,000 a year. How would you feel if I said you could only take home 25,000?
The result of all of this? I won’t vote for Obama. I don’t really like Hilary, and I don’t really like McCain either. I don’t have a candidate, but if I have to choose between Obama, Hilary, and McCain, I’d toss a coin between Hilary and McCain and toss Obama off to the side. Obama has far too much wrong with him to be a good candidate and not nearly enough experience, and just a little bit too nearsighted. The fact that Obama can make great speeches is part of the reason he scares me. Lots of horrible people have been great speakers, and in this day and age the only thing I’m concerned about is having a President smart enough to do what is right to get the U.S. back on its feet.
April 4th, 2008 at 7:59 am
i think after 8 years of someone who can’t speak a solid sentence Obama would be a great choice.
April 4th, 2008 at 8:00 am
SMD:
I agree with you about the war, but we need to change our goals, or facilitate those changes we have stated. We’ve totally f-ed up Iraq, and we need to put the power into the hands of the people who actually live their. We are the bringers of democracy, right? Besides, even though both Clinton and Obama say they will withdraw troops bla bla bla, they won’t really. They take some combat troops out and focus more on reconstruction. Also, Congress would never let the president abandon the mess we’ve made. Their not (collectively) crazy enough.
About the economy, you kind of bash Obama and his universal health care plan. In fact, Obama is not the universal health care candidate… Clinton is. Obama wants to phase in universal health care for future generations, while Clinton wants it now (catastrophe). Obama is only advocating health care mandates for children, while Clinton wants to issue a mandate for everyone. Obama has said in the past that if this nation was starting from scratch, he would be for universal health care, but because of the position we are in now, we need to very slowly and very carefully phase it in if it’s going to be done right.
You also say Obama doesn’t have experience. I think this is a “non-issue” (I love those words that pop-up during an election cycle and then everyone throws them around, politicians, pundits, etc., me – like “vitriolic” and “vetted” and “snake-oil salesman”). Bush had experience. Cheney’s got experience. Obama’s got good judgment and high ideals. Sure, maybe he’s just an opportunist like the rest of them (he IS a politician, after all…), but the fact that he can instill hope in so many people and work off of positive emotions instead of the tried and true fear and hate is something nobody can deny. That hope that we can restore our standing in the world and work together in harmony for the betterment of not only our country, but for humanity is a very powerful message. This is why I am voting for Obama – he is the Luke Skywalker to Hillary’s Darth Vader and McCain’s Emporer Palpatine. I will not vote for fear over hope, even if there is the chance that hope may end up being false.
April 4th, 2008 at 8:00 am
john mccain or….
April 4th, 2008 at 8:01 am
SH*T
“…who actually live THERE…”
April 4th, 2008 at 8:01 am
donald trump he could fire congress
April 4th, 2008 at 8:06 am
Holy crap, wtf…
“THEY’RE not (collectively) crazy enough”
April 4th, 2008 at 8:22 am
I have never really liked George Bush, But I will say I do believe he was the right man to handle 9-11 when it happened. I do not agree with some of his policies but I will say that there have been no terroist attacks since the anthrax scare after 9-11.
I’m still young. I do not fully understand government yet but listening to my candidates I will go with McCain. I do not particularly like any of my choices but he is the lesser of 3 evils. The war scares me. I have 2 brothers in different armed forces. Listening to them discuss the war I understand that we are not ready to pull out of this and waste the 4000+ lives lost in the effort. I will not speak for all the people in the military but I know a lot of my friends do not vote just because they feel it is going against their current president. But since we have our current candidates they all say no to clinton. She hates the military. My brother has had the displeasure of meeting her and she was grouchy the whole time and only perked up when a camera was turned on. I am not against a female President but I am against her.
Obama is just a smooth talker with no real experience. Of all the candidates he has the highest proposals to increase taxes on capital-gains and he will end bush’s tax cuts. Right now his proposals dont effect me, I dont own a house or stocks Im still in college working my butt off and paying for that. But in a few years while Obama is still in office I will graduate and start my life in the real world. So the candidate I choose now effects how my life is a few years down the road.
So I have:
Obama – a smooth talking inexperienced politician with high tax proposals and eliminating the ss cap
Clinton – bitch…answer is no
McCain – Still hanging back deciding what to do.
Really my options look sucky.
April 4th, 2008 at 8:25 am
To enlighten some who think i am just being mouthy i will explain my decition.
I is proven that all females go through PMS experiencing a varying temperament and displays of emotion. i do not want a rash, life altering decision made and then a press release a week later “oops i’m sorry, blame it on the period.” i feel like ms. clintons morals are on question and seeing how she handled power while her husband was in office i do not want a feministic “i’m doing this to prove women are equal” attitude self power driven monster in office.
I am not saying women are not equall. I am saying i dont think hilary is the one to be the spokesman, she’ll bring the wrong message accross.
As for Mr Obama, i feel that while most americans still have a problem with race issues, most “african-american” people tend to get upset and more emotionally involved to defend their “history” and “way of life”. i dont think that a president of my united states of America need to have those dogs on his back, the pressure that would arise from assuming such a powerful office would be very hard to bear, and as i believe he is unexperienced i think it would lead to some bad decision making
LordCalvert – eff off
April 4th, 2008 at 8:34 am
At Randall Reply #50.
I’m gonna call you on his economic policy and. Point A and C I see it as people just scrutinizing his way of compromising, the same way John Kerry was.
April 4th, 2008 at 8:37 am
“I have never really liked George Bush, But I will say I do believe he was the right man to handle 9-11 when it happened.”
Khaylin25 – umm, like invading Iraq at the expense of many American lives ? or torturing people in American run prisons ? or tackling terror by having your local librarian liable to provide the Feds with a list of your reading materials (Patriot Act)? etc. etc.
When he is gone, I will always remember him standing there with his arm around the (now ex) FEMA Chief saying “Brownie, you’re doing a heckuva job”; all of 5 monutes before the twit was out of a job due to incompetence. ROFLMAO
..or the rabbit-in-headlights look on the dope’s face when he was in that classroom being informed about the WTC attacks !
Bush is nothing but a swaggering dick.
April 4th, 2008 at 8:40 am
I don’t like any of the current candidates, so I go with Reagan.
Of the three, though, I would prefer McCain.
April 4th, 2008 at 8:41 am
Oh – I was GOING to vote for Ron Paul until THAT was ruined.
April 4th, 2008 at 8:45 am
Just to add a quirky note…I have kinda wondered what are the odds that either one of Clinton or Obama suffers an assassination attempt in the lead-up to the elections. On the one hand you have a black guy, and on the other, a woman. Just add one armed nutjob to this equation and you have a volatile mix.
Anyways…shows how working in the financial markets for years can twist your thought processes
April 4th, 2008 at 8:51 am
i agree. i bet if either of them get voted in someone will assassinate them before two years. almost guaranteed.
April 4th, 2008 at 8:55 am
I still haven’t decided. I want Ron Paul to win, I think of Obama as the “purest” of the three evils, but McCain will win, especially if this Clinton vs Obama thing continues to split the Democrats all the way to November.
April 4th, 2008 at 8:59 am
None of the above.
While Obama is an eloquent speaker, I’ve heard his fellow Senators consider his political career undistinguished. He has never lead, either as a mayor or governor. While it would be nice to have a leader outside of the “old boys network”, Obama just hasn’t accomplished anything to show me he can lead the US.
Clinton has a too checkered past, and McCain will be continuing the GOP’s oil grabbing war mongering, so I’ll pass on these.
Maybe a successful business person who would focus on our country; rebuilding infrastructure, creating jobs, etc. would be ideal. I am not familiar enough with NY mayor Blomberg, but I’ve heard some positive ideas from him.
April 4th, 2008 at 9:00 am
longball-
seriously?
are you really saying these things?
i mean while we’re on stereotypes, i don’t want a man as our president, they all think with their dicks.
April 4th, 2008 at 9:00 am
I think the lack of Clinton support is funny.
April 4th, 2008 at 9:06 am
Barack Obama.
Take away all of this primary circus silliness, you go to the actual issues and the candidates positions and plans for them and Obama wins hands down. It doesn’t matter that he is mixed race, or what his name is or how many years in the US Senate. He sees that the problems in the headlines are just the results and symptoms of much larger problems and it is those that he seeks to address. He is not perfoect, nor do I agree with everything he proposes, but of the three remainign candidates, I believe he will be open to debate and discussion to put together the best plans.
April 4th, 2008 at 9:08 am
Ron Paul.
April 4th, 2008 at 9:09 am
i seriously am saying these things. it is very stereotypical, but i won’t blatantly lie.
And i’m sure alot of men think with there sexual appendages. So if man and women can’t be president lets move to a panel of men and women who collectivly decide what the hell goes on. 51, no ties inviolved, member from every state, and wash dc…basicly a senate. make the senate president
April 4th, 2008 at 9:11 am
Clinton or Obama would be great, the Clinton years were great but I personally want Obama… He is a GREAT speaker, and he is truly taking people away from the voter apathy that plauges our nation in so many of the elections. He is very adamant about change, and that is what we need, fresh ideas about changing what George has screwed up… Republicans may be fashionable to hate, but its for a reason, the republican party has been using the neo-conservative blueprints since the Reagan years, and people re finally wising up and seeing that it doesn’t work. So I would not call it fashionable, but more of an awakening, calling it fashionable is playing down the perceptivness of the american people. It sounds like another term to slander the democrats that the Republicans created as part of a smear campaign. Now honestly I think the best president would actually be the true republican Ron Paul, but obviously he never had a snowballs chance in hell. So I will be voting for Obama in the 2008 elections because he sees politics for what they really are, not a giant soap opera that the media portrays it to be, he sees it as “Hmm, what can we do to do good for our nation, and the people” and that is more admirable that anything that a canditate has promised, or done in the past few decades, maybe all the way back since LBJ (and yes no matter what people have to say about LBJ he cared about people, hes the one who pushed forth civil rights, restoring our core principles yata yata yata, Viet Nam was too complicated to blame on one person, read up on LBJ and you’ll find that he was a great president)
April 4th, 2008 at 9:14 am
McCain…the best of the three
Obama…his entire campaign is full of bumper sticker slogans and candy-like rhetoric. Every single policy point he has made concerning “improvements to America” All involve Money…Money…Money…and where will he get that money? Taxes,Taxes,Taxes. If a candidate cannot look beyond financial means of improvement, then there is a lack of policy creativity and knowledge on the part of the candidate. Also, he has the thinnest resume of all three candidates. What is sad, is that so many of his supporters only look at his façade and say that he sounds good, or he is articulate, or that he looks presidential. It is sooooo sad that ANYONE would base their vote on such superficial means. It is the young people who are saying this (and some oldies), but that shows that the younger generations can be blinded by stardom. The president of the US is not some phony bologna position, and citizens are treating the campaign like American Idol. Awful… Lastly, anyone who equates having a child after unprotected sex as a “punishment” and equating a baby out of wedlock to an STD seems like an abortion absolutist with a total lack of values: “Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old,” he said. “I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information.” – this quote was in response to a sex-ed question
Clinton…nah, this Bush – Clinton – Bush thing has gone on long enough and she brings nothing but slogans and fabricated stories of duress to the campaign trail. Too much of a megalomaniac and has a warped moral compass (her dishonesty is quite extensive). I want the first female president to have more class and be more respectable; thus, no Clinton.
April 4th, 2008 at 9:18 am
great speakers dont make great leader, they make great liars and great big mistakes.
April 4th, 2008 at 9:20 am
mflo – i completely agree with you.
April 4th, 2008 at 9:20 am
MFLO- Taxes Taxes Taxes? No, how about refurbishing the entire system and reallocate funds to other funds? 600 billion on a war the people do not want? A illegal war? How about all the money we waste with medicare, and Social Security? How about all the money wasted on Faith Based Initiatives, and the dozens of other programs???? We do not have to pay more to have a better country, we already pay ridiculous taxes, think of it as a major refinancing, there are so many ways to pay for things other than pay more taxes, or push or more taxes on the big industry that gets the most money off? Lumber, Prison Idustrial Complex, Big Contractors, etc… You do not need to pay more to have more, we have billions of dollars wasted on things the americna people do not want, or dont even know but wouldn’t want it if they knew!
April 4th, 2008 at 9:23 am
I know this is off topic, and im sorry…… however, I get really tired of hearing that “the US is a bunch of blood thirsty war mongers”. By no means are we (USA) a perfect nation, but i do feel the good we do in the world greatly outwieghs the bad by a huge margin. Many of you individuals that frequent this site would be in a much different, and most likely a much worse situation if it were not for the United States and our foreign policy, as well as our military strength! I do not condone war, but sometimes drastic steps are necessary for the greater good of mankind. The United States DID NOT go to war in Iraq for our own benefit. It was to benefit the rest of the world as well. The number of US soldiers lives lost in Iraq has surpassed 4,000 as of last month. These soldiers have given their lives not only for their own country, but for hopes of having a better world to live in for everyone, regardless of where you live!
If you dont care to stand behind our troops….please feel free to stand in front of them!!!
Back to the topic at hand now. I feel that Obama would be the best able to lead our nation.
April 4th, 2008 at 9:25 am
LordCalvert:
Trust me, I know what I’m talking about. I’m not acquainted with every version of it (there’s more than one) but most, if not all, share the idea of moving to a national sales tax, with exclusions or paybacks to those who make under a certain amount.
Now YOU explain to me HOW that is fair. And how you would A) cover government expenses with it and B) prevent such a system from being abused, from the rules slowly being changed until we were ALL paying it, instead of just those over a certain income.
It SEEMS fair on the face of it, as do many things–until you examine the details, and until you foresee where it could lead.
April 4th, 2008 at 9:27 am
rational – how is this a war we dont want, or an illegal war for that matter???? i assume you speak for everyone???? lol
April 4th, 2008 at 9:27 am
“If you dont care to stand behind our troops….please feel free to stand in front of them!!!”
An interesting observation: VERY FEW of the people who call for us to “stay the course” in Iraq, or keep us there “until it’s stabilized” are willing to go there themselves or send their children there.
It’s despicable that college Republicans, for instance, go around making gung-ho speeches about the war, ala McCain—but not ONE of them sign up to go there.
April 4th, 2008 at 9:29 am
First of all to longball: Hillary Clinton is 60 years old, so in reference to her dear Aunt Flo, I do believe that train has sailed. Game, set, match, Roman.
Secondly, to me it’s a toss up, I have a reason to vote for all three. For Hillary, I believe having a democrat in office would be a step in the right direction for the country, and having her as president now would only set up Obama for the next two terms (a possible 16 year run of progress). I believe that if Hillary was president, the time it would take for Obama’s turn to run to come up would give him the experience many people believe he lacks.
Obama and Hillary are relatively close idealistically, and Obama would be a breath of fresh air. The fact that he isn’t as experienced in Washington could actually be an asset.
As for McCain, there are two things. Historically speaking (for McCain, not the country), he appears to be fairly moderate and has gone up against party lines in the name of sanity. That said, in case he does go batshit insane, he’d essentially be the US’s much needed shot of GOP chemo. Most Americans agree that W has been a cancer, and if McCain gets elected, gets pressured into following his party lines (which by the way aren’t even Republican anymore, i.e. not allowing gay marriage is basically the government telling you what you can and cannot do, not a true Republican tennet) and basically is more of the same, the country is going to go through a really shitty period (that’s the chemo part) and the conservatives wouldn’t win the next election if Reagan himself rose from the dead and ran.
Now before the naysayers say i’m just a “democrap” (think of that all by yourself LordCalvert?) I’m fairly middle of the road. If I were running, and I wish I could, I’d have a pretty solid platform. For example, Iraq: pull a majority of the troops out, gradually, and leave 40,000 in the majorly pro-American Kurdish areas. They would be in a relatively safe place, but ready at a moment’s notice to clean some shit up. Universal health care? Easy. Base coverage for all, so that no one is uninsured, and then you can buy into higher levels so that you are more in control of your situation. Sort of like TV, you get 3, 5 and 8 for free, but if you want something better, you have to pay for it. Taxes? The more you make, the more you pay. Anyone making less than the poverty level, no taxes, same for retired folks. The economy should be run by like an ecosystem. Any biologist worth his DNA could tell you that the best way to have a strong keystone predator (or a lot of people getting rich as fuck) is to have an even stronger base. In biology, to have 10 wolves in a field, you must have 1000 rabbits that are healthy, and to have 1000 rabbits, you must have 100,000 kg of food. Translation, pumping more energy to the bottom (giving poor people more money through lower taxes) encourages fat rabbits and even fatter wolves. Terrorism? Child’s play. Go green. There’s a man in Ohio that built a prototype engine that runs on salt water. FUCKING SALT WATER! If oil becomes useless, you pull all the money out of an extremely volitile area of the world, and then they become dependent on you, not the other way around.
Sorry for the rant, but this was an opportunity to get on a soap box.
April 4th, 2008 at 9:32 am
longball: It’s okay, you can be honest with yourself. You have racist and sexist ideas. If you’re going to spout them off, at least be up front about it.
As for the whole “women on the rag” statement…seriously? There have been *many* successful female leaders of state that didn’t hit the big red button because they were having their period. That is an incredibly ignorant thing to say, something I’ve laughed about in the past because it so blatantly false. Point blank: Do you honestly believe that Hillary Clinton would launch an attack on a county because it was her time of the month? You answer to this speaks for itself, so answer carefully.
You concerns about Obama being black and because you seem to think you know how black think reveals how truly close-minded you are.
April 4th, 2008 at 9:35 am
Roman – i liked the post but from what i gather, its not necessarily hillary or obamma but just a damn democrat in general you could give a positive reason., whie your resons for mccain are based on his actions and his ideals. Sounds good to me, like maybe he is the only one who should be president.
April 4th, 2008 at 9:37 am
ok here we go.
A. The Fair Tax makes everyone a tax payer. That is everyone that buys stuff. A tourist from another country is paying federal taxes just like a citizen or illegal alien for that matter. The same goes for a 6 year old kid buying a candy bar. I can’t pull numbers out of my head but they can be found at http://www.fairtax.org
B. We all pay the Fair Tax from the day it goes into effect. That being the day after the 16th Amendment is done away with. Yes there is a provision in HR 25 that says the 16th Amendment has to be gotten rid of. There is no certain income level that keeps people exempt from the tax, but there is a monthly prebate given to every household based on the number of people in that household. This prebate is enough to cover the basic necessities of life up to a certain point.
The Fair Tax would create an environment in which corporations wouldn’t need to “outsource” jobs overseas like they do now because of the current tax system. American companies would stay here because it would be more profitable, not to mention foreign countries would bring their businesses here. More jobs means better economy = more money made = more money spent = more revenue for the federal government.
April 4th, 2008 at 9:37 am
I believe he’s too smart to ever run, probably because he knows he could do more outside of office – or a similar reason -
but Gore 100%.
Out of who’s running…I’m still on the fence, but leaning very far from Hillary.
April 4th, 2008 at 9:39 am
I honesly cant remember a single womans leader off the top of my head. i know there are some, very successful ones. i am saying hillary would fly off the handle. give me another female option and i’d rethink it over. and yes i think she would. maybe it would never make it out of the white house or beyond her assistants ears but i think she would say it. and again, i’m not saying all women or all black people are like that. i just dont want to risk it. call me what you will but if either of them make it, when my contract is up, i’m out and headed for canada. i wont serve under a woman or a incompitent or both!
April 4th, 2008 at 9:45 am
“The United States DID NOT go to war in Iraq for our own benefit. It was to benefit the rest of the world as well.”
otay – how, exactly, did invading Iraq “benefit” the rest of the world ? Why, in fact, did Bush send troops to Iraq in the first place ?
“The number of US soldiers lives lost in Iraq has surpassed 4,000 as of last month. These soldiers have given their lives not only for their own country…”
Whatever the circumstances, loss of life on such a scale is a tragedy. Particularly when the underlying cause was avoidable.
“If you dont care to stand behind our troops….please feel free to stand in front of them!!!”
Like those in Abu Ghraib ? Puhleeeze…
April 4th, 2008 at 9:46 am
Tonny SS:
“I’m gonna call you on his economic policy”
Well why didn’t you then? If you have some means of contradicting me, then say so. McCain has given NO indication that he intends to play things ANY different from Bush.
Republican economic policy has finally FAILED. I was once a rabid supporter of it, so please don’t tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about. Deregulation and non-regulation have in part led us to the crisis we’re in. Along with the nonstop culture of greed that we’ve reveled in like pigs in mud ever since Reagan took office. YES, it’s brought great economic success to some people… but we’ve also seen, since Reagan, a continued widening of the gap between rich and poor, and a movement to what is now almost entirely a *consumer culture* that feeds on itself. And we’ve seen economic policies that have globalized our economy *without* ensuring that the policies and practices of our partners were *at the same time* put on a fair and balanced footing with ours.
“…and. Point A and C I see it as people just scrutinizing his way of compromising, the same way John Kerry was.”
WHAT? Either you’re blind, or you’re just being deliberately disingenuous. McCain is THE most fervent supporter of the war in Iraq *outside* of the Bush administration. He has SAID countless things to confirm this. AND to indicate that he is perfectly willing to go after Iran.
As for the right wing–McCain will be BEHOLDEN to them. Because if he were to win, it will be THEY who put him in office. He realizes this and it is WHY he is cozying up to them. He MIGHT, once he was in, buck them a little. But it doesn’t work that way in politics. McCain will have to surround himself with these people, including MANY former Bush-ites…. because they are for the most part the ONLY people in the party who are available. And it’s the people AROUND the president and who serve him on mid-levels that matter. McCain means MORE of the same BECAUSE he is a Republican. It wouldn’t matter if he was the most liberal Republican you could imagine (which he isn’t) unless he chose to surround himself with many people from the opposing party—which he won’t.
April 4th, 2008 at 9:49 am
I feel that I am fortunate to live in the time that I am. 50, hell even 25 years ago, would anyone have thought that there would be a black man AND a woman as front runners for the presidency? AND there is a female speaker of the house! That said, I DO worry that if either Clinton or Obama is elected some asshat with the same backwoods moron ideals as longball would try to kill them.
That was part of the reason that Colin Powell refused to run for president years ago. His wife was TERRIFIED that someone would try to kill him. Now I think that he got a close up and personal look at what went on with this administration he’d be ashamed to call himself president.
Randall: Sorry I’m gonna make you feel really old here. Reagan was “my” president too! He was elected the week before I was born and didn’t leave office until I was in 2nd grade. At the time I didn’t understand. I was like, “But he’d THE PRESIDENT!” I was so sad. It took a while before I understood that there would be another one.
April 4th, 2008 at 9:49 am
I served 7 years in the US Army. I was stationed at Fort Kobbe, Panama from Oct 1985 thru Feb 1990. For those that do not remember, Operation Just Cause took place in Dec 1989. The world condemned the US for its actions in Panama. You cannot watch TV and know what is going on in a country, or a region. I was there, i knew “the real deal” and feel that our actions were more than appropriate to rid Panama of Manuel Noriega. Panama as a country benefited the most from our actions there.
April 4th, 2008 at 9:51 am
yea! what kiwiboi said! and the american revolution shouldn’t have been fought either! nor ww1, 2, or korea or any war. they were all “avoidable” and “unneccessary”. come on. if i’m close minded for not wanting a woman president then saying the war in iraq was unbenifitial for the US and avoidable must be…lol
the ratio of american to “other participants in the war” deaths is so low its crazy. we’ve lost less people in this one of the longer wars than any other war in our history. yea it sucks but no soldier or Marine is perfect and not going to absorb casualty statistics. sorry…tragic yes but in all i’d say we did a damned fine job of staying alive!
April 4th, 2008 at 9:56 am
Can someone explain why universal health care is a good idea? I don’t want it.
Would it be truly universal as in what is covered? Like every experimental procedure, every treatment that may or may not
work? I think we’re a nation of hypochondriacs who if everyone was covered for everything, it would overwhelm the health care industry. Besides, I’ve already seen the gross overcharging that is billed to government programs like Medicare. My grandma’s medicare gets billed for doctors visits she never made and high prices for med. supplies. Medical charges would soar. And think, more patients= more malpractice suits, patients getting passed over because of overcrowding, etc.
Of course this would be paid for with more taxes. Now if people want health care, why cant they pay for it themselves?
Give up one movie, one nintendo game, and one fast food trip a month and you can afford insurance. And if your really poor, there are programs already available.
And if you say other countries have universal care that works, remember; the US has almost 300 million people which would be I believe the largest pop. in the world to recieve such a program, and the US also has a growing immigrant population, how do you deal with them?
And one more thing, Social Security have to go. We already have people who have collected Soc. Secuirty checks LONGER than what they worked for them. And now we want people to live to be a 110? I dont want to pay for someone to have 50 years of regular income retirement!
April 4th, 2008 at 9:58 am
lizim and any one else who doesn’t like what i had to say -
you would be suprised at the number of “backwoods morons” there are out there. just as i am suprised at the number of egotistical assholes on here. dont bash me, just argue my ideas. i may have some fucked up lines of thinking but boy arn’t we all glad it a free country! so kiss my ass.
April 4th, 2008 at 10:02 am
McCain is a pro-life pro-Patriot Act evangelical creationist. No thank you.
Clinton and Obama are typical lying politicians. Hillary is sneaky. Obama speaks well, but just tells the public what they want to hear. Go ahead and look at their voting records.
Doesn’t matter anyway. Nothing is going to change with this election.
If voting did anything, it would be illegal by now.
April 4th, 2008 at 10:04 am
LordCalvert:
Okay… explain to me how your point A) is fair. Make everyone a tax payer. This is NOT currently the case for ALL taxes that are paid. Under our graduated income tax system, it’s possible for someone, or a family, under a certain income level, to end up exempt from paying taxes and even to get money back. This would not be the case under a “fair tax” system—and therefore the off-set I talked about, against the sales tax AND property tax–would vanish. (people would still be paying property tax of course).
B) this chimaeric idea of bringing business back home is *reaching.* There are just as many theories which state this would not happen–and certainly not to the degree that it would affect our economy as you say.
Tonny, it isn’t just because of the “tax system” that businesses send jobs overseas (and we’re not just talking about outsourcing, but also whole industries doing all their work abroad). They send jobs about because they don’t have to PAY workers as much as they would have to here–in terms of salary AND in terms of benefits. How would a national sales tax in ANY way alleviate this?
And remember something else: Our government is a BIG, money-thirsty operation. And with few exceptions there NOT a huge amount of cutting you can make and have it still operate the way we need it to, unless you want to see the end of government oversight of air travel, pharmaceuticals, of homeland security, and cut the military until we’re about as strong as Switzerland. Will sales tax money alone make up for that, most of which comes from Income tax? No. As a general proposition, the wealthiest Americans do pay the bulk of the individual income taxes collected in the U.S. Remove that, and no matter how you look at it, you DO make things LESS fair (not more) and you make it impossible for our government to afford to do business.
April 4th, 2008 at 10:09 am
chris – religious preference has nothing to do with his ability to lead.
April 4th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Obama turned his back on America and Clinton is a woman. Go McCain!
April 4th, 2008 at 10:15 am
HAHA, Republican, hilarious. Even if you’re actually being serious, you’re still parodying yourself.
April 4th, 2008 at 10:24 am
LordC:
And another point…. even if you COULD make the government run on sales tax money alone—imagine what would happen in a time of economic downturn, when sales fell. Sales of consumer items and services are far more volatile than income. It could end up being economic disaster as we borrowed and borrowed to try to make up the difference–only difference being from the way we borrow now is that we’d have to make up enough to pay back the bonds/loans from sales, not income.
April 4th, 2008 at 10:29 am
I hear a lot of people say that Obama is a lier, but no one can tell me how he has lied. I’d very grateful if someone here could settle this for me.
April 4th, 2008 at 10:31 am
slick – ha! every time he opens his mouth. lol j/k
April 4th, 2008 at 10:31 am
islanderblast; universal health care is a good idea because middle income families hit with a health tragedy are made bankrupt because of it. They make too much money to qualify for medi-care and too little to pay for private insurance. The way it works here; graduated payments for citizens, low income pay nothing and it goes up from there to a maximum of $600.00 a year. Businesses with over either 50 or 100 (I can’t remember which) also contribute a like amount based on payroll. It is not perfect; rich folks will never have to wait, they can leave the country and pay, but it is still one of the best systems I am aware of. I have never had to wait for any life threatening treatment or diagnosis. Breast lump , mammogram in 2 days, surgery following thursday. My husband had a heart attack, angio and stent before discharged. Mom had stroke, our family doctor actually cancelled his vacation to provide care. It is abhorrent to me that the richest country in the world does not care for its own citizens.
April 4th, 2008 at 10:32 am
I am voting for McCain. The truth of the matter is the world is in chaos, and i sure as hell dont want a pussy leading this country. You cant change the past, you can only prepare for the future.
April 4th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Argh, the reason we’re in this situation in the first place is because of fear, Chesty-Puller. Remember what FDR said?
April 4th, 2008 at 10:36 am
Randall, I’m not going to argue with you. I think it’s best for both of us to agree to disagree. You are obviously in favor of keeping the abomination that is our current tax system. I do find it telling though that the income tax was supported and discussed by Karl Marx in his Communist Manifesto. That in itself disgusts me. It’s also pretty apparent that you support punishing the achievers in society while rewarding the folks that do nothing for the betterment of themselves or anyone else.
Befor you condemn me for being ‘just another rich guy looking out for myself and my rich buddies, I’ll just tell you that I’m a farmer born and raised. I suppose I get my attitude about taxation from the hours I spend sweating in the fields only to see the fruits of my labor taken by force by the imperial federal government. At least with the Fair Tax I would get to say how and when that money is taken.
April 4th, 2008 at 10:39 am
SlickWilly, read his voting record.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm
April 4th, 2008 at 10:40 am
in response to #93 Randall:
just in case you didn’t know. since the end of World War II there have only been 2 times that the amount of money spent at the retail level by the American people has actually gone down.
i seriously encourage you to read the book. here’s a link if you don’t wanna look it up.
http://www.amazon.com/FairTax-Answering-Critics-Neal-Boortz/dp/0061540463/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b
all of the arguements against the Fair Tax that you have put forth so far are answered much more eloquently than i can in that book.
April 4th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Myself.
April 4th, 2008 at 10:42 am
chris: what?
April 4th, 2008 at 10:43 am
Oh and Longball; I don’t need to be raggin’ it to be a bitch. I am a bitch when the circumstances merit it. Like when talking to a self-delusional bigot and sexist. I get a little more emotional ‘that time of the month’ but i don’t turn into a ravin’ psychopath. I have never once used hormones as an excuse for mistakes I have made. Females are quite adept at separating what we feel from what we think. Does testosterone make up your mind for you? I think so.
April 4th, 2008 at 10:44 am
rational – It looks like you and I are on the same page (except the illegal war statement…history states that a war you’ve started is illegal if and only if you lose). The US is hemorrhaging but instead of fixing the hole in the dam, Obama just wants to throw more money at it. Where are his policies of correction? I would like to see a prez correct the financial issues, but throwing more money at them is not the answer…
April 4th, 2008 at 10:44 am
As far as the current crop of politicians, I don’t think we could have a worse selection. I’d rather have the three of those idiots (and their spouses) dropped off in the mid-Atlantic on a nice April night. Of course Hillary the ice queen would float with her heart of ICE and the size of Bill’s balls would be a natural flotation device. Obama would be able to spin the situation so that he actually believed that he would be able to fly and McCain would probably be picked up within the first hour by the U.S. Navy because you never leave a man behind. Just to make sure that they had a nice tour of the Atlantic Ridge I’d give them a penny for every lie they told. Of course the Mint would be working around the clock just to make enough pennies to ensure their long trip to the bottom. In order to save this country we need to draft a President from a group of eligible candidates. I think the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy said it best: “Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.” And of course there is the Kurt Vonnegut quote that says: “There is a tragic flaw in our precious Constitution, and I don’t know what can be done to fix it. This is it: Only nut cases want to be president.” On those notes I think whoever wins the election needs to do two things. The first is to stop kissing Saudi Arabia’s oily azz, shouldn’t our oil be close to free since we are rebuilding Iraq they should be giving us as much oil as we want. We should be able to fill swimming pools with oil because it would be cheaper than using water but because of our “love” for the Saudis our economy is in the crapper. I would love to see all of those oil countries in total bankruptcy because we have decided to use our own alternative fuels. You can’t drink a 6 star hotel and a Rolls Royce can you Sheik Hadji Wana Peepe? The second thing we need to do is nuke Israel. All the Muslims hate us because of our blind allegiance to Israel so we tell everyone you’ve got a week to clear out and then Kapow, instant radiation vacation land! No body would give to shakes of a dead monkeys tapeworm about the West Bank then would they? I mean who the hell cares about some hellhole in the middle of the desert where all your borders are with countries who want to kill you. Why not move to Brazil or one of those nice islands in the Pacific? I mean I don’t think there is a single Jewish person who lives in Israel, just tourists, anyway I thought New York City was was the real Holy Land? Now that we have obliterated the real Holy Land, which should more aptly be called the holey land from all the bullet holes, we would be the heroes of the Muslim world. And while they are all celebrating we nuke them too. In about 2,000 years people can move back into the middle east and there will be plenty of glass,(sand fused from the heat of the nuclear blast) to use as an export. You know maybe I should be President, I have all the good ideas and plus I’d love to have my own Army! I can’t believe how smart I am, I rock!
April 4th, 2008 at 10:45 am
Ok Mom, I understand that it works pretty good in Canada, Id just rather see some or all health coverage here be offered by businesses to its employees with the rest the responsibility of the individual.
April 4th, 2008 at 10:46 am
mflo: Yo. Why do you say Obama wants to “throw more money at it?” I’d argue that the hole in the damn is the war, and he’d like to plug it.
April 4th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Hey slickwilly, it is very easy to tell how Obama has lied. He has opened his mouth! I figured it would be obvious, so you are welcome, I’m glad I could finally get that problem settled for you. Watch Hillary closely as well, if her lips move then you can be sure that she is lying!
Oh and Chesty Puller can I have your autograph? Ooh-rah and Semper Fi!
April 4th, 2008 at 10:57 am
mom – whoa whoa whoa, again missing my point. i would rather vote for you than for clinton. i think that she and she only would be a terrible president. even if she were a man i’d still not vote for her. i know its posibe for women to not let nature affect there thinking. i don think it is possible for hillary though. lol. i’m not saying she would be a raging emotional psycopath but i dont think any interference from your own body should be allowed in that high of an office. hell, if the vice stepped in once a month for a week that would fix the problem.
and further more, i’m not sure if i believe you about you becoming a bitch at moments notice. i just dont see it happening. i’m glad you have never used PMS as an excuse for any actions but there are women that do and do it frequently. and testosterone may or may not make up my mind (opinion!) but i dont think you would know regardless. not trying to be an ass but you dont know me, i dont know you. which goes to show that my previous comment of voting for you shows how high i hold hillary in my mind.
April 4th, 2008 at 10:57 am
Fred Thompson!!! we need another actor in the white house!
but seriously, i’m voting for McCain, with Hillary as a second choice (VP?).
Obama just doesn’t have enough experience, but I could see him winning in 2012 or 2016.
Hillary is trying to play the game the boys’ way, instead of being herself (a woman seeking the white house). Bill as first husband is a deterrent to some, but I think he’d be harmless.
McCain has experience, fortitude, patience (POW), and the right ideas about the war and the economy.
April 4th, 2008 at 10:58 am
I think flat tax/fair tax a misnomer. How is it fair that a single mom, not on welfare, will pay the same portion of their income as a wealthy individual who could afford to pay half their income in tax without changing their life-style? I actually believe a combination income/consumption tax is the way to go. Graduated tax rates based on income, and consumption tax based on spending. Food, taxes, kids clothes, toilet paper and other necessities are exempt. I do not object to Canada’s hated GST. I don’t buy new cars every year, I don’t buy new clothes every year, therefore I pay little tax. If I was a rampant consumer, I would pay more.
April 4th, 2008 at 11:00 am
Excuse the typo; sb – food, lodging, kids’ clothes
April 4th, 2008 at 11:06 am
MOM: Sounds good to me. I don’t think the rich people will like it too much, but I’m not rich, so I don’t really care what they theink.
April 4th, 2008 at 11:06 am
when was the last time a single mom went out and bought a $20,000,000 private jet? i’m just guessing that the sales tax on such an item would be a little higher than on mom’s Geo.
April 4th, 2008 at 11:08 am
I’m 100% for Obama. I see a lot of people in this forum dismissing him for lack of experience. First, I want to say that we could use someone with no experience when it comes to getting us into wars we have no business fighting, taking money from lobbyists and thus putting their interests before ours, increasing our debt to epic proportions, creating a system of healthcare where doctors make more money rushing us out and prescribing us with medicine they were paid to push on us, making it more economically feasible for a person to sell drugs than to get a minimum wage job, making it ridiculously expensive to go to college and sustain oneself, and of course, allowing this foreclosure crisis to develop and come crashing down on our families. No, I don’t want anyone who has any experience with making those things happen, thank you.
Second, he did not come out of nowhere. It may seem that way b/c the majority of Americans don’t pay attention to things unless they appear on reality t.v. or in a prescription medicine commercial, but he’s been around for a hot minute. Some of his accomplishments include creating a state Earned Income Tax Credit in Illinois which provided over $100 million in tax cuts to families, an expansion of early childhood education, and requiring interrogations and confessions to be videotaped after a number of inmates on deathrow were found to be innocent. He also helped pass a law allowing citizens to see how their tax dollars were being spent online and he’s helped veterans get the disability pay they deserve. He wants to make practices in Washington more transparent, allowing us to see who does what with who’s money. He’s someone who refuses to take money from lobbyists and wants to stop the practice altogether. Anyone who can run a presidential campaign on grassroots support alone has way more than character!
He wants to give kids attending college money in exchange for community service – something that we could use in this country…a little community service! He wants to make healthcare more affordable and wants to make it mandatory for children to have healthcare, just like it’s mandatory for people in some states to have car insurance. Of course, his plan allows for all children to be able to obtain insurance, through their parent’s jobs or through other plans like child health plus or medicaid/medicare (I always confuse the two) – which I think is great b/c all children SHOULD have healthcare and if it is being made available to all parents, there’s no reason all children shouldn’t be covered.
And how does he want to do this? Well in addition to revising our tax system and not allowing pork barrel spending on projects that go nowhere, he wants to STOP SPENDING 90% OF OUR MONEY ON THE WAR – wow, what a novel idea!!
As far as foreign policy is concerned, Barack has lived in many places outside of the U.S. He has a very diverse background. He is not of the same closed-minded class that our leaders tend to be. He understands how we are viewed by other countries and why that is. As Americans, some of us tend to think that the world revolves around us and, just as children on the playground say, “whatever we say goes.” He plans to use diplomacy in a different way. He is able to see the point of view of the other person, something we have desperately been lacking for about 200 years. He also seems to remain very cool and calm during stressful times, something I can’t say about Hillary (and no, I’m not talking about her crying, but about her acting like a crotchety and snotty old crank when things don’t go her way). I also think that if the world sees we elect him instead of more of the same, we will be treated differently. We desperately need someone different in a position of power to bring us to our senses and allow us to be seen in a better light to the rest of the world. We have a lot of making up to do.
I also see a lot of comments regarding how Barack will handle the war. He has said he wants to try and get out of there as soon as possible, but he has also made it clear that he doesn’t just want to duck and run. We all want our sons and daughters home, but we also need to understand that as someone above said, we need to fix what we fucked up in the first place. He wants to try and get Iraq into a position where it can fend for itself and handle it’s own affairs before we leave, anything less would be barbaric. Although, that wouldn’t be anything new for this country…how many countries have we invaded for our own interests and then left them to rot? I don’t think any of us want to repeat that and Barack has made it clear that what he intends to do is work on a tighter time table than we have been. I also think that Obama would handle this situation better b/c he would be less inclined to impose his (or our) belief system on another country like Bush has. As if we can walk into another country and tell them, “oh no, you have to have a congress, and a house of representatives, and blah blah blah.” Every culture/nation has to figure out what works for them best themselves – but that’s a whole other show. What he doesn’t want is for us to still be having this discussion 10 years from now, and I’m all for that.
As for Hillary, she IS a liar. She was for universal healthcare way back in the day when her hubby was president, then she eventually shut her mouth in exchange for some money from lobbyists. Now she’s trying to be all about the people again…kiss my ass. On top of her indiscretions, the way she has been running this campaign is just unconscionable. I understand that there has to be a certain amount of dirty politics in any campaign b/c that’s just how these things work. But blatantly lying about your opponent over and over again is not dirty politics, it’s just stupid and childish. She also seems to be adopting a few of Obama’s ideas of how to handle things such as education and the war which seem very bandwagony…especially considering she’s been in the game for over a decade and she’s just now coming out with these ideas? Hmm…
I would be insane to vote for McCain. Nothing against republicans in general (although you guys haven’t had a good go of it lately), but he has said he would stay in Iraq for another 10 years. He’s just too damn gung ho about war, and this coming from a POW! How idiotic is that? Is he subconsciously trying to get back at his captors or something? I also haven’t heard him say anything about education – when did this become a secondary issue?
Both Clinton and McCain represent more of the same to an extent and we are sorely in need of real change which I think only an amateur who doesn’t owe anyone anything can accomplish.
P.S. I’ve been addicted to this website for about 4 months now but this is my first comment…so be gentle, I’m a virgin.
April 4th, 2008 at 11:08 am
See what I mean?
April 4th, 2008 at 11:15 am
You already have my list of reasons Jamie -
Harrison Ford, hands down.
April 4th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Lord Calvert There is NO WAY you would win me over with a comment like that. My husband is on a ship in the Pacific RIGHT NOW trying to stop drug dealers and smugglers from entering and leaving the United States. He has a college degree in electrical engineering. He has pulled himself up by his bootstraps and guess what? We STILL live below the poverty level! Well below.
So, no I don’t give a flying fart in space about some asshole who wants a new private jet.
Not when my husband gets shot at to keep cocaine and heroine out of my country and still has trouble paying the bills.
April 4th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Chris: Actually, according to the website you posted, he has stuck pretty close to his guns since years before he considered running for president. Of the scores of “No” and “Yes” votes on the website, I couldn’t even find one that contradicts his platform. According to the source you gave me, Obama is not a lier.
Fidel: Cute, but repugnant. If you say a politician is lying, you are obligated to provide proof other than your own prejudices.
April 4th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Believe me people, the Clinton and McCain campaigns have access to the same materials as you do, and most likely a lot more. If he ever made a statement in his platform that goes against his voting record, he would have been called on it long ago. No, Obama is not a lier nor a traditional old-school politician, and that is precisely why he is so infuriating to the opposition. They just keep hammering him for his “inexperience” and never say anything new.
April 4th, 2008 at 11:35 am
LodCalvert: Just curious, what do you have against Karl Marx?
April 4th, 2008 at 11:36 am
I’m not 100% sure, but I’m leaning toward Obama. I can’t stand Hillary and I just can’t get behind McCain. We’ve had rich old white dudes for over 200 years now and look where that’s gotten us! (No offense, rich old white dudes, but you’ve had your chance, move aside and let someone else have a go!)
I want to see changes in the economy. I’m tired of making more money and still being poor because the cost of living has gotten so high. I would like to see universal health care. I didn’t have health insurance for four years. I was too old to get it under my mom and step-dad (because I wasn’t in school), but I couldn’t get any sort of medicaid because I lived under their roof and they counted my income with theirs, even though I was working and making my own money. It wasn’t until I moved out and got a job that offered insurance that I finally got overage.
I really, really like Roman’s idea about taxes. I have my reservations about giving low-income families MORE money, I’ve seen them do a fabulous job of wasting what they already get on cigarettes, beer, and junk food. How about a complete overhaul of the welfare system so people can get up off their asses and get jobs? How about less jobs being sent overseas so the welfare cases can go work somewhere? I work in a bank, we’re now experimenting with outsourcing. I hate it. It’s ridiculous to have to wait thirty minutes for some dude in India to do work that I could have done in half that time. So they can waste money paying me to wait, while they’re paying them to do my work for me? I don’t get it.
Everyone’s talking about change, and maybe the things I want changed won’t get changed, but for some strange reason, Obama gives me hope. I know fuck all about politics, I can be honest on that. I don’t vote party lines, I’m not even registered to a party, I have views that are all over the place, and I’ve changed my mind as I’ve gotten older. I don’t know if how I feel now is how I’ll feel five years or even just one year from now.
I’m glad to see people discussing this in a (mostly) polite manner. I’ve read a lot of interesting comments and I’ll definitely be checking back later to night to read some more!
April 4th, 2008 at 11:45 am
McCain.
I was heading for “none of the above” but then I read some of Obama’s book, and took a hard look at his policies and his background. The man is way scary, and the number of lies he tells is just weird. Why lie about the fact that you’re a chain smoker? Why lie about hearing the sermons of the pastor who married you?
I’ve had enough of lies. McCain is a grumpy old white guy but at least you know where he stands.
April 4th, 2008 at 11:57 am
LordC:
No, I don’t think you’re some rich guy trying to protect your rich buddies. Clearly you’re a populist, and you’ve been duped into this nonsense that our current tax system is somehow “unfair” to you and the people you know.
And no, I am not so much in favor of our current tax system; I acknowledge that it needs constant tweaking to KEEP it fair. And the rich do, yes, constantly fight this. A never ending battle. But yes, I feel this system is FAR more fair than the one you’re touting.
And okay, you don’t want to argue about it, fair enough (pardon the pun) but I note, often, when people don’t know the answers or don’t really understand what they’re talking about, that they back off using such an excuse. Perhaps this is not the case with you–I merely note that it happens. But I would think that if you had SO digested the arguments FOR the “fair tax” that you are now gung-ho about it—that you could easily summarize them to answer my points.
The fact that you didn’t, and refer me instead to a book, can only leave me suspecting that you don’t really know the whole story about the “fair tax,” and that it merely sounds “good” to you… which is the typical mistake the populist makes—he thinks something sounds good, but never puts his mind around the larger issues.
Populists are always rural folk—which is not to say they’re stupid–they’re not. But they simply rarely take the time to consider how the larger world works. It’s in the same fashion that people used to get duped by snake oil salesmen—it wasn’t that they were stupid, when the smarmy con man came to town and took all their money—they just didn’t have the experience or knowledge of the wider world to know that the ridiculous promises won’t work. They think something sounds good–hell, go for it.
Populists are more hip to the world in some ways, these days–but no less inexperienced or naive about the large machinations that make it work. Flat tax ideas and fair tax ideas are nothing more than latter-day, sophisticated versions of snake oil miracle cures–and Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee were snake oil salesmen.
April 4th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Bonnie:
Please detail these “lies” you’ve heard Obama tell. Name them.
April 4th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Obama, because he is against the war in Iraq. This would be less of a drain on the economy. also, he is for the legalization of Marijuana (w00t). And legalizing marijuana would also help the economy, the gov’t would make so much money off of that shit. Plus I can now smoke without fear of the cops haha.
April 4th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
“this is my first comment”
SueSue – and what a lengthy comment it was ! Welcome aboard
April 4th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Randall:
Obama has lied about the fact that all Americans are ready to get over their historically held prejudices (apparently).
April 4th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Obama’s laundry list of lies:
http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/?page_id=15
There’s 68 and counting. The language is derisive in this link but every one is documented. I wanted to like Obama, I really did. He’s charming, he’s well spoken, and his whole campaign is based on the idea that it’s time to move into the 21st century. But when you take a realistic, hard look, as all of us should, the whole house of cards comes down. He is not a good man. He should not be President.
April 4th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
They all suck. I have this idea for every politician that’s out there – not decent, corrupt to the highest level. They don’t do any work. They got shit minds. I’m just so frustrated with these guys.
Get your ass up and do some work!!!
I know everyone probably thinks that it’s not easy to run the country. There are so many things to be taken care of, etc. But how many people are there in politics? I’m just looking at it from a point of view, how much manpower do they have….unlimited amount (according to the work they do).
I don’t care what the qualifications are of a President. All that matters is – are they good enough, do they have enough experience, do they have right mindset for country’s good, do they have desired goals, if they do, do they have sorted out and detailed plans for the desired goals? Simple things matter a lot. You can’t just go up there and make decisions as you go along. Yes, there are some times when you have to do that. But most of the times, you have to have a plan set up and if it doesn’t work there are supposed to be backups. We can’t run anything with trial and error basis here. I mean, we’re talking about a whole country here, millions of people’s life.
We need someone who is 1 with nature, with world, with him/herself.
Bring us something new. Screw the old stuff. We need some fresh new stuff. Screw following the path, make your own path that other ppl can follow.
None of em are good.
April 4th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Thank you for posting that, Bonnie.
The ones I noticed in the voting record link I posted were the fact that he does have lobbyists and does accept their money. Also voting “present,” and one that your site did not mention, the fact that he has stated that he wants to repeal the Patriot Act, but still voted FOR it.
He’s a lying sack of shit. Just like the rest of them.
Unfortunately the sheeple will never realize this.
April 4th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Longball; i hate Hillary too, she is a manipulative, hypocritical, lying, nasty human being. I dare you to find me even one instance of say Margaret Thatcher making a decision because she was on the rag or having a hormonal surge. Golda Meir? C’mon Longball, go read about a few powerful women and then tell me how their decisions are affected by their flow. And you prefer whites? for what? I prefer intelligent, forthright, dedicated candidates, regardless of sex or race.
April 4th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
I strongly feel that the biggest problem with our government is the fat assed congressmen and senators that manage to get re-elected term after term. I think there should be a limited number of terms for ALL elected officials. This would allow for fresh ideas to be brought forth instead of stagnating our nation because “the fat boys” like things the way they are!
**just my opinion**
April 4th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
@mom424
Its not sick that the richest country doesnt take care of its citizens. i feel its sick that us citizens expect our government to take care of us for every one of our problems. keep government small.
April 4th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
“keep government small.”
travis – you got that right!!
April 4th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
They all are equally terrible.
April 4th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Oh let the comments begin…
I really don’t care who wins this election because we are in a tri-fecta from hell to vote from. Obama promises false hopes, Hillary can’t deliver, and let’s face it, McCain?
If I could vote(only 14)I’d vote for Obama because I still have some faith in him, I guess we’ll see how well he does though because he’s bound to win.
April 4th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
travis:Here here.
lambda121:Yes, all terrible, but i guess they’re better than the ass-clown currently in office.
April 4th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
“i hate Hillary too, she is a manipulative, hypocritical, lying, nasty human being”
Mom – so…do you have view on Hillary
Seriously…I would crawl over broken glass for that baad girl! I’d drink her bathwater
April 4th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
I just re-read the description for the your view, so let me explain U.S. elections from my view…
Basically the more money you pay people, the more chance you have to win. It doesn’t matter if you have morals, all you gotta do there is lie until you get in office. that’s just primaries, the actual election for the president is an all out opponet bashing ad campaign while still lying your ass off.
I think here’s how it should go, take every candidate’s IQ, then we will decide. Because here’s why, Bush Jr. has the lowest IQ of any president ever, explains why we have a huge national debt and still in a win-less war. And why Dick Cheney shot his friend in the face, he also has a low IQ.
April 4th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
kiwiboi:I wouldn’t do that, her snuke may have fallen out of her snizz
April 4th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Oh, and the worst possible thing that could happen is Obama/Clinton ticket to vote for, then, we are royaly f***ed.
April 4th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Csimmons – only in South Park
April 4th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
kiwiboi:Maybe, but I wouldn’t tempt it
April 4th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Hey Csimmons, I like the idea of a meritocracy as well, but here’s some famous persons and their IQ’s… aka still would not be perfect:
Hitler – 141
Nixon – 143
Hillary Clinton – 140
Bill Clinton – 137
George W. Bush – 125 (debatable)
George Washington – 118
JFK – 117
Ulysses S. Grant – 110
Leonardo da Vinci – 220 (I’d cut off my ear if I were that smart)
Sharon Stone – 154 (wtf?)
(Porn movie star) Asia Carrera – 156 (ok…)
Andy Warhol – 86 (drugs?)
So it’s not how smart you are, it’s how you use it.
April 4th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Hillary Clinton should be the next president. Since the US was formed, men have been calling the shots and look where we are now. Maybe with a woman in charge, things can improve. There are those who say only a man can be president because only men are “logical” creatures. I disagree, I think a female president can be logical and diplomatic. The men had their chance, now let a woman try and show the men how it’s done.
April 4th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
TMo: Yeah, it is more how you use it I guess, and are you serious about Da Vinci?!? I too would cut my ear off!
April 4th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
We need another great Democrat to pull the country out of the mire that we are in.
One that will talk to our enemies and make them see reason.
We need Jimmy Carter….I mean Obama
April 4th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
um, jamie, war is very profitable.
I don’t care who wins because I know u have no control.
April 4th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
caycee99:Well why not a black guy? Both were equallt restricted from being president and Hillary won’t deliver what she promises. Maybe the healthcare but that’s it.
April 4th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Kiwiboi, Travis;
I don’t believe in big government meddling either. I absolutely detest the current climate of entitlement Everybody and his damn brother gets government money, the BLWTLF (Black Lesbians with Two Left Feet) and the SPVCIC (Society for the preservation of Vanatuan Culture in Canada) I’m sure are on the list. I also believe that if you are able bodied you should have to either work/train to receive welfare.
I believe in a market driven economy, with just enough rules to prevent price fixing and the like. I hate anyone telling me what to do.
That said I also believe that equal access to health care and education to be a basic human right. Obviously most Canadians agree as we have had some form of medical insurance in most provinces since the 1950’s and an act of Parliament made it law in the 60’s. It is not socialized medicine, both public and private enterprise participate.
April 4th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Im just going to write in JFrater for president.
Gravy that argument has begun to loose its edge, yes war use to be profitable. But not this kind of war, sice the wars in iraq and afghanistan arnt to the scale of the world wars, we are not stimulating the economy by producing war materials. We are insted spending money to keep the resources we have functioning and that does not turn any sort of profit.
April 4th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Leaning towards Obama, but I really would like to see who their running mates will be. As pointed out above, I fear that the first black or female president will be assassinated.
Da Vinci cut off his ear? Do you mean Van Gogh?
I’d really like to see Obama when he’s nominated, too. I feel he’s holding waaay back, for posterity’s sake.
April 4th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
if it wasn’t for his policies for Iraq i would vote for McCain. But because he wants to stay i want Obama. I consider myself a moderate but just because of the war i could not vote for McCain
April 4th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
I think we should just descend into anarchy. Worked for the…uh…worked for someone.
April 4th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
(longball: I honestly cant remember a single woman’s leader off the top of my head. I know there are some, very successful ones.)
List of current female leaders:
Ireland- President Mary McAleese elected 1997
New Zealand Prime Minister- Helen Clark elected 1999
Finland President- Tarja Halonen elected 2000
The Philippines President- Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo succeeded 2001, elected 2004
Mozambique Prime Minister- Luisa Diogo appointed 2004
Germany Chancellor- Angela Merkel elected 2005
Liberia President- Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf elected 2006
Chile President- Michelle Bachelet elected 2006
Switzerland President- Micheline Calmy-Rey appointed 2007
India President- Pratibha Patil elected 2007
Short Historical List:
Queen Hatshepsut (1503-1482 B.C.)
Boudicca (c. 40-60)
Queen Elizabeth I (1533-1603)
Golda Meir (1898-1978)
Indira Gandhi (1917-1984)
Margaret Thatcher (1925-)
Wilma Pearl Mankiller (1945-)
Aung San Suu Kyi (1945-)
Read about one of them longball, you may be pleasantly surprised.
April 4th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
I think Obama should win and Clinton as vice. McCain is just a replica of Bush and I hate Bush and plus McCain is 72
April 4th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
I’m actually leaning towards Obama….because he doesn’t have the political background of the others….maybe he will be less like them then.
April 4th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
goof ball: name for me some things Bush did wrong.
April 4th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Jfrater. Re your comment on coalition Governments in NZ.
I can’t remember one instance in NZ where a minority party has withheld support on supply and demand and forced the ruling party to abort proposed legislation. When a coalition government is formed the minor parties are permitted to withhold support on certain legislation, however, not supply and demand, this clause would be written into the coalition agreement.
If the agreement was to be broken and support withheld, the Government would be forced to dissolve parliament and call an early election. If that happened it’s probable the defaulting party would be missing from any further coalition governments in this or any other Parliament.In fact the chances are the would probably be missing from the next Parliament altogether. No one likes a deal breaker.
April 4th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
I have to say that Obama is the best choice. The Ohter two choices are the next Bush (McCain) and a chronic liar (Clinton). Obama is the only candidate that has lived like the rest of us normal people and can understand how we think and feel about the government. That is the real experience that he needs. Clinton will not help because she has royally screwed people left and right (ask Ron Paul and anyone who lives in New York State.) McCain is only going to continue this pointless war and that will continue to drive down the economy until we no longer have a country. Obama will be the one who will step up and dig us out of the economic hole that Bush has left our country in and, hopefully, restore our good name in the international community by being a diplomat instead of a war monger. Obama is the way to go.
April 4th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Oh, before I forget, just in case my credentials are questioned, I live in New York State so I know hare badly we got screwed by Hillary Clinton.
April 4th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
I meant HOW badly. Damn typos.
April 4th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Hillary Clinton by a comfortable mile.
McCain seems like a really nice guy and I like him and have respect for him – but I think he is a pretty lamentable politician. He seems a little “slow”. While I think he would be valuable as Commander-in-Chief because he was a POW for so many years and would know what it is like to be a soldier, I just don’t think his economic policies are good enough at all. I don’t see very much change with McCain.
Obama speaks and looks nice but pretty things don’t equal good. I also think he is very sneaky and has cleverly deceived the general public on many issues without most people noticing. when I read the gushing and worshiping of him on the net I get very, very worried. the last thing we need right now is a major leader who no one questions. To me Obama is a very big risk- he could either be wonderful, the next JFK – or he could be the biggest mistake we have ever made. Personally I am not willing to take that risk at this time. his record in the Senate is less than concrete and his policies are all very vague and pretty standard.
Clinton is a little gruff, I will say that, but she is very very smart and she gets stuff done. She knows exactly what needs to be done, her experience in the Senate and as First Lady gives her the know-how to handle major issues effectively. She doesn’t give good speeches but she does very well in debates – this is very telling. As a president sometimes you are going to have to react quickly on lots of issues. she has a sharp mind and her health care plan is hailed by health economists as the best and closest to universal health care. She also has one of the best policy advisers at arms-length at all times, Fmr. President Bill Clinton.
for all of you who won’t support Clinton because she is “a bitch” PLEASE keep in mind that the last time we elected the “nice one” we ended up with G.W. Bush. Gore was consistently seen as stiff and unfriendly, while Bush was fun and happy. Bush won.
Now look where we are. I
Clinton ‘08!
April 4th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Screw Hillary. If she becomes elected President, our country has forgotten about everything it was founded on. Like the 1st Amendment says, “No female for president.” It’s the 1st freakin’ amendment. Obama isn’t really good either. He and Hillary believe the exact same stuff all the way down to the T, but I like Obama more because he has a faith and, Most importantly, he’s a dude, and the man should always lead, especially since the President will be leading the greatest country in the world, and I’m not going to have a President who’s a female. Where’s Huckabee when you need the “man” (male) the most. God heal our land.
April 4th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Not that I believe in a god. Maybe we need Him right now…
April 4th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
I will be voting for a President who knows what form of government we have. We do not have a democracy, but a Republic. Rule by mob is dangerous and makes for countries with short lifespans. The United States is the oldest nation on Earth, and for good reason. When times get tough and people lose interest, our politicians stick with it and finish the job. Much like McCain will do with Iraq.
When the war was started, the VAST majority of Americans agreed with the war, and now that people realized what war actually meant, the people have changed their tune. If we leave Iraq unfinished, and struggling, what do you think will happen to the people? A person can’t be for human rights and call for an early withdrawal from Iraq.
Do I agree that it was a mistake to go in? Yes, I do, now that hind sight is 20/20. Our constitution and system of government protect us and the world against mob rule. The Republic of the United States is the rock in which we all cling. All forms of free government in the Western Hemisphere are modeled after ours.
It is the right of every human being to live free. Our forefathers believed these rights were in existence well before the Constitution was ever written.
The United States will be around much longer than any civilized nation on Earth because of our Republic. It will only last if we all realize this. Only in this century has our system of government been mislabeled as a Democracy.
C.F. Austin
April 4th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
slickwilly: Thank you so much, I strive very hard to be repugnant. It is very hard to offend everyone at the same time but I set my goals high and maybe one day… Since I am obligated to bring proof of the lies told by a politician I shall set off on my quest to prove the utterance of deceit from the pie-hole of those said greedy, slimy, low lives that we call politicians. But no I shall do one better! I shall bring you the heads of those foul beasts! I must say that I am not prejudice in any way, I am what you would call postjudice; I meet someone and THEN I judge them. For example if I were to meet someone whom everyone said was a big bloated butthole I would not assume that, I would meet that person and if they were indeed a big bloated butthole then I would deem them so. In my travels I have met and known many people, who are considered “famous”, among them both of the Clinton’s, good ‘ol George W. Bush, my uncle Frank Sinatra, Senator Kerry, countless pathetic leeches in the positions of Governors and Mayors, all those vain and hollow celebrities from Hollywood who don’t want you to know that they are barely 5 ft. tall, and athletes who play a child’s game and make a kings wage only to shrink their manhood and expand their mammaries in the search of some pointless statistic like how many times they can run around in a square without having a small ball brush their artificially created bodies and all of those people had lived up to their reputations or worse in some cases. Out of all of those wonderful people mentioned a few of them have actually lied to me personally, strictly in passing, but lying no the less. Their lies to me were horrible unspeakable things like “I’ll see you later” and “I’ll be back soon.” I still am devastated by their heartless deceit and will never be the same. They are politicians and if you believe that Obama, Clinton, and McCain have never told a lie then I have some very nice property I’d like to sell to you…
April 4th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Fidel,
i think its safe to say u have way too much time on your hands if u spend it meeting politicians, movie stars, and professional athletes.
April 4th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
After watching the 3 closely and listening to their responses (both rehearsed and off the cuff) I will be voting for Senator Obama.
He seems to care more about the “average joe”, he is more concerned with the direction America is headed (heathcarewise, financially, environmentally..ect), and his timetable for bringing the troops home is shorter than the other 2 candidates.
I won’t be too disappointed if one of the others win though, anyone is better than GWB.
April 4th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
thank god im not 18 yet
April 4th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
billyshears,
me too, im a year away and i dont even think im gonna vote haha
April 4th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
I wanted to vote for Ron Paul, but I wasn’t registered.
April 4th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
McCain. After college I’ve got 4 years with the Marines, I don’t want an underfunded army!
April 4th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
More than anything, this list is a really interesting look into how a portion of the populace thinks. If I worked for one of the candidates, I’d be paying attention.
And my pick is Obama. Because he’s black. Yeah, that’s right, because he’s black.
But it’s not “politically correct”. I don’t think blacks “deserve” to have one of their own (well, at least half of their own) as president. I happen to think it would go a long way towards healing some of the wounds. We’ve got to move past our brutal racial history, and I think a candidate like Obama is well suited to serve that goal. He’s not as polarizing as, say Jesse Jackson, nor a Clarence Thomas-type Uncle Tom. I don’t believe he possesses any particular insight/power to cure the divide. I am, actually, incredibly frustrated that he has a Kerry-like ability to speak without saying anything. But I think having a black president will instill some degree of hope in a portion of the population that hasn’t had a whole lot of reasons to feel hope.
I don’t expect anyone to see this as a persuasive argument. In fact, it’s a bad argument for persuading someone. But I honestly think we would be a healthier country if we thought of ourselves as the kind of country that could elect a black man.
I mean no disrespect to women. I realize the same benefit would be gained were we to elect a woman, but I think the divide between black and white is more disruptive to the US.
And for those opposed to universal health care, how does an insurance company make money?? Raise premiums, or reduce pay outs. The market is a great distributive mechanism for cars, or toasters, or $4300/night hookers. Not so much for health care. My step-father has had catheters inserted and pulled out *3* times in the past 4 days while he fought his insurance company over a procedure, and he has great insurance. They relented, and he’s in good shape now after the procedure, but for a while, he just wanted to die, and it fucking pisses me off that he had to go through that.
Sorry so long…
April 4th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
RON PAUL 2008
He’s the ONLY candidate that makes ANY sense and can explain and properly support all his ideas. Check out his website. The media has attempted to shut him out of many of the debates and has neglected him much air-time – but he is the most sensible candidate that we’ve had in a looooong time!
April 4th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
(Objectively) speaking from Canada, I gotta say that I’m surprised people aren’t seeing right through Obama and Clinton, and calling them on it. They’re lying through their teeth. It’s like an Albertan provincial election (classic campaigning): I will change everything and save you 200 dollars on your car insurance. It’s the timeless attempt to say ANYTHING for votes. And for the people voting democrat, please don’t assume the war will screech to a hault once a democrat is in. It doesn’t work like that.
That’s why I say John McCain, the heir to the french fry fortune, because the way he’s laying low and staying moderate while the democrats get polarized is winning him points. I can say with absolute confidence…he will be the next president.
P.S. U.S. federal politicals are a lot more amusing and stimulating than Canada’s.
(Edmonton)
April 4th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
My first choice was Mitt Romney because he is a strong conservative, his background as a successful businessman shows that he would help our economy, and his strong stance against illegal immigration. I’m hoping Mccain takes him as his VP and then I will feel more confident voting for Mccain. The media has turned Obama into the rock star of this year’s election. I am currently in college and the support for this guy is overwhelming and there are few people in my school that can really tell me what he stands for. Obama called his grandmother a “typical white person”. Can you imagine if McCain called a black relative a “typical black person”? He would be destroyed in the media and considered a racist. What if McCain was part of a church that did not allow black people to go there? Once again, he would be considered a racist. I love reading the posts in here for the people who are going to vote for Obama because very few of them actually have any of his IDEAS, which are borderline socialist. The only thing that is said is “he is cool” or “he gives me hope”. Are you kidding? Vote for someone based on their plans for this country, not on how good they are at speaking. As for the issue of universal healthcare, how is this a good idea? Healthcare is a priveledge, not a right. The quality of healthcare in this country will decrease dramatically if we have universal healthcare. Wait time will increase dramatically just like it did in England. The reason we have such poor areas in cities is BECAUSE of government dependency, and now you expect the government to bail us out of that? No, they are just going to make it worse.
April 4th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
it worries me that people say hilary BECAUSE she is a woman or obama BECAUSE he is black or not mccain BECAUSE he is a rich white guy.
is this serious. are we this shallow?
as far as obama’s experience goes…all we have to go on for his platform, for the most part, is what he has said IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CAMPAIGN. please tell me that the average person is aware of this.
i would love to see some statistics on the percentage of campaign promises that actually come to pass no matter the party.
csimmons: did i read that correctly that you are only 14?
April 4th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
OBAMA!
McCain is a corrupt, ignorant, war mongering fool. I can’t believe the Republicans found someone dumber and less curious than George Bush. Sure, let’s have four more years of Hell, VOTE FOR McBUSH.
Bosox, how come the European economies are kicking our ass? When Bush took office the Euro was worth eighty cents. Now it’s nearly doubled in value against the dollar. There are at least two good reasons why. Their healthcare system is much less expensive so businesses are more competitive. The second reason is they aren’t pissing away three trillion dollars in Iraq.
McCain outright admitted he knows nothing about the economy, and he proved he knows nothing about foreign policy when he made those outrageous gaffes the other week about the relationship between Iran and Al Qaeda.
Only fools are going to vote for McCain, so he should win handily.
April 4th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
All i want is a fucking person i dont care if it is a republican or a democrat their all retards and the only good person for president is a human being that stands for his people not his party.
April 5th, 2008 at 12:45 am
I’m voting for your mamma!!!
She’s not black, white, democrat or republican…
But she probably gets more shit done every day before noon than ANY of these elitist cocksuckers has ever done or will do in their entire lives.
My actual vote will probably be for McCain. Only because Obama is going to be the Democratic nominee, McCain is about as liberal as a republican can be, and if it comes down to it, McCain is the lesser of two evils.
Randall:
The only real thing Mr. Obama has going for him at this early stage is oratory skills- much like a certain German fellow had in the 30’s… The guy who both promised and delivered ‘change’ to those who, I suppose, got what they asked for…
April 5th, 2008 at 1:24 am
McCain. He’s the most experienced and he really has dodged sniper fire.
With the way Obama and Clinton are at each other’s throats, completely polarizing the democrats, McCain will win.
April 5th, 2008 at 1:31 am
Fidel is an idiot. Islamists don’t hate the America because we support Israel. They don’t even claim that that’s the main reason. But even if it was true, I don’t want Muslim Fundamentalists from other countries dictating our foreign policy, especially if it involves Destroying one of the most advanced nations on Earth.
I like Ron Paul’s foreign policy, at least what I know of it. I am a radical liberal when it comes to social policy, so the more progressive, the better. If I could have someone like Obama with Ron Paul or Edwards as vice president, that’d be cool.
April 5th, 2008 at 2:45 am
Obama hands down.I can’t stand Hillary,and don’t even get me started on whats his face.
April 5th, 2008 at 2:47 am
Regarding the war:
The war was a failure. Nothing more. Nothing was gained (apart from a bit of crude), and a small threat was eliminated. A greater threat is the global stigma the West is gaining for being too gung-ho. I’m worried about that. There’s no easy way to stop guerrilla warfare currently, especially when it’s from inside your own country. How scary is that?
Why was the war started? Sure, Saddam was a dictator. So was Castro, so is Mugabe. They never had WMDs, whereas NK has uranium now AND is refusing to comply with numerous orders to cease enrichment of it. We better f**k them up now? Or no, wrong time for that? Need more financial incentives (which I’m fine with, if it’s not profitable, or you won’t break even, hold off).
Continuing the failure of a war doesn’t honor the dead anymore than withdrawing does. They’re dead, and no amount of further fighting will make their deaths any more, or any less dignified. They died fighting for perceived freedom, and that’s all that counts in America.
I say withdraw the troops, bring them back, and focus on other issues at hand, such as the East. I’m afraid of those people. Chinese hackers hacking into Western companies, Angela Merkel’s laptop was hacked. Russia testing a new bomb that’s 4x more powerful than the US counterpart, and testing it on September 11! What the hell kind of audacity is that? China’s attempt at stopping the free speech of athletes. China’s stranglehold on Taiwan and Nepal. Not cool. These are more scary than some archaic bombs that might be in existence, maybe.
April 5th, 2008 at 3:19 am
i have a hard time listening to someone tell me how they will fix my money problems (healthcare…schools,) and then hear how many tens of millions of dollars they raise every month to tell me some more ideas on how to fix things.
So, i’m not that into this politics thing. Don’t know who i will go for. i can say it won’t be Obama. The second he said he wants Al Gore close to him, he lost my vote.
April 5th, 2008 at 6:07 am
I laugh because Obama will be the president. Maybe with Hillary as his running mate, maybe with Al. But he will win. Money talks, and he has so much support that it seems like its a fairy tale. McCain, as much as I like the guy, is way, way too old to be pres. He will be the oldest elected by four or so years- Older than reagan. If there is one thing that the presidency does, it is that it wears a man out. And with McCain being so old, I think that whomever he has as a running mate will be president before the first term is done with. Any Romney is too scary to be president.
April 5th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
I think Santa Clause should be the next president.
He cares about everybody.
April 5th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Tulane – Reagan was almost 70 when he was inaugurated (turned 70 just two weeks after his inauguration) and McCain will be 72 when he is inaugurated so it is not that much of a difference. He is not too old to be president.
“He will be the oldest elected”
Wrong, Ronald Reagan was 73 when he was elected president in 1984.
April 5th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
It doesn’t matter who you vote for, the government always gets in!
April 5th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
People who think Obama isn’t the typical politician aren’t paying attention. Look out how he tweeked McCain’s words when he said that we could “be in Iraq for 100 years”. McCain didn’t say that we were going to be fighting a WAR in Iraq for 100 years, he said we could have troops there for 100 years. We still have troops in Germany, Japan, and I lived on a military base in the Marshall Islands that we’ve been occupying since World War II. Obama also has gained so much support by just saying what the country wants to hear, “hope and change”. I could get up there and say that, he has NO NEW IDEAS. I understand that Iraq is a mess right now but pulling out is not the answer because the terrorists would take over. Military leaders know this and Obama is offering false hope if he thinks that he will be able to pull out the troops immediately.
April 5th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Do any of you McCain supporters remember the Keating 5. Your man is a crook.
April 5th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Clues: If you’ll remember correctly the committee ruled that McCain and Glenn were both barely involved and both ended up being re-elected. Plus I’ll be voting for McCain NOW, not McCain 19 years ago.
April 5th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Mike:
You belive he has been cured of evil greed? Perhaps, if only replaced with a lust for power.
19 years or not the man still got himself dirty.
Wiki Article:
Gray testified that several U.S. senators had approached him and requested that he ease off on the Lincoln investigation. It came out that these senators had been beneficiaries of $300,000 (collective total) in campaign contributions from Keating. In October 1989 The Arizona Republic reported that in addition to campaign contributions, McCain’s wife and her father had invested $359,100 in a Keating shopping center in April 1986, a year before McCain met with the regulators. The paper also reported that the McCains, sometimes accompanied by their daughter and baby-sitter, had made at least nine trips at Keating’s expense, sometimes aboard the American Continental jet. Three of the trips were made during vacations to Keating’s opulent Bahamas retreat at Cat Cay. McCain also did not pay Keating for some of the trips until years after they were taken, after he learned that Keating was in trouble over Lincoln. [1] Lincoln Savings and Loan’s collapse is said to have cost taxpayers $3.4 billion
April 5th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
I can’t believe this debate. John McCain absolutely should be the next President. He’s single-handedly stopped 4 terrorist attacks; one in Los Angeles, another in an airport, the third in New York City, and the last one was a computer threat that could’ve ruined our entire country! John McCain is the man, and he should be our next President!
April 5th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Phillies, What the Hell are you talking about? You must be confusing John McCain with Jack Bauer. Don’t worry though, if the ignorance displayed on this thread is any indication, McCain will win in a landslide.
April 5th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Not that I can vote (being under 18 and all), but I think the candidates this election are incredibly horrible.
Clinton- Commonly known as the “bitch” of the bunch. She lies, and has an ego the size of a blimp (and the kind that might be filled with flammable hydrogen…and blow up). Sure, her lies are the little exaggerations present in most of her stories…but I tend to find that exaggerations of the truth lead to more serious lies in the future. Also, she claims to have a good amount of practice in leading a country….wtf? No she doesn’t. She was the first lady. I mean, while that calls for a good deal of knowledge regarding foreign relations, and whatnot, it is by no means on the same block with actually running the country.
Obama– What the hell does that man want to do with our country? I have no idea! Sure, he wants change–that’s wonderful. He has a lot of hope for our country–that’s wonderful. He wants to accomplish a lot of things–that’s wonderful. But…wait, wait..what? I don’t know how he wants to accomplish these things. All he’s said is that he wants change, that he’s wants to accomplish things in America, but what the hell are they!? PLEASE TELL US! He’s a bunch of rhetoric, and I’ll be honest–he uses the race card just as much as hillary uses the woman card.
Now, I have yet to mention anything regarding McCain…mostly because I’ve been trying for five minutes to come up with something I absolutely despise about the man. All I came up with was that he pulls the “I was a POW” card too many times.
Really, if I could I’d vote for him.
He’s just enough republican and democrat for me.
April 5th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Haha, im just kidding. I was confusing John McCain with John McClane (from the Die Hard movies) in an attempt at satire. A poor attempt, but an attempt nonetheless.
Honestly, to paraphrase Lewis Black, this election is like “picking between three bowls of shit…just pick the one that stinks less.” Obama is too inexperienced, and I don’t like Clinton, and McCain is absolutely ancient. But of the three, McCain is the only one who crosses party lines to do what he thinks is right. So I’d have to go with McCain, IMO
April 5th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
go ralph nader
legalize marijunna what else could you want in a president
April 5th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Easy RALPH WIGGUM lol Honestly right now I could give a shit who is the next president just as long as Bush goes away. ANY ONE would do a better job then Dubya.
April 5th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
James, at least recognize California’s medical marijuana laws. The state receives more than 200 million dollars a year in tax revenues from MM. Also, if Bush hadn’t opposed California’s stricter emission control and milage standards, American car companies would be in much better shape.
McCain is an ignorant fool who will thwart progressive state laws. Then he’ll appoint judges that are more committed to the Reuplican corporatist agenda than to upholding the Constitution. We are so screwed if that wet douche becomes president.
April 5th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
I’m voting for Clinton..
Unfourtunatly, I think Obama is going to win.
April 5th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
So Clues, your reasoning for not voting for McCain is because 19 years ago he was minimally involved in a small scandal. Look at your own source by the way.
“Bennett, who was the special investigator during the Keating Five scandal that The Times revisited in the article, said that he fully investigated McCain back then and suggested to the Senate Ethics Committee to not pursue charges against McCain because of “no evidence against him.” Bennett was coincidentally on Hannity and Colmes the night the story broke to talk about his autobiography. On the show, he said that he felt the Committee pursued charges against McCain because, without him, the case would have been entirely against Democrats.”
April 5th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Clinton. Hands down.
April 5th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Mike, the Keating Five scandal has nothing to do with why McCain would make a terrible president.
Reason #1 He doesn’t understand what’s going on in Iraq. Iran just brokered a cease fire between Al Sadr and the Iraq security forces. McCain wants to start a war with Iran that will turn the majority of Iraqis against the US. Bush flushed three trillion dollars down the toilet so that Iran could control Iraq. McCain believes wholeheartedly in the Neo-con agenda.
Reason #2 He will pursue every single one of George Bush’s failed economic policies. He admitted that he doesn’t understand economics and is relying on Phil Gramm to teach him the ropes. Phil Gramm is the guy who pushed through the banking deregulations that caused the sub-prime mortgage melt down. McCain’s actual motto is, ” I believe the government should do as little as possible”. It’s too late for libertarianism.
Reason #3 McCain will appoint judges that will further the Bush agenda until we are broke, dishonored, and occupied by a foreign country. Yeah, that’s what I said. What do Republican fools think will be the consequences of owing our entire GNP to China? We will be living under communist rule. He is the Manchurian Candidate.
April 5th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Emmi,
despite the fact that Clinton may have exaggerated the Bosnia situation (there is still a small possibility that she actually DID misspeak; these candidates run off so little sleep and Clinton had made many, many trips to other countries as first lady, some of which were probably a bit dangerous), I still think she is the best, and here’s why:
two elections ago, Gore ran against Bush. Gore made up a fib (exaggeration) about a girl in a Florida school that had to stand because there weren’t enough desks for everyone. he used this as a talking point and went on to talk about his policies. Bush & Co latched onto this and ran with it, telling everyone that Gore was a pathological liar and that we don’t want a “liar in the White House!”
8 years later, take a look at where we are at now. We took the one that didn’t make up small, harmless fibs and we are years into a hopeless war and our economy is down the toilet. but hey, he is nice. that matters, right? The stiff, impersonal jerk looks reeeeally good right about now.
I guarantee you all history will repeat itself; VOTE WITH YOUR MINDS PEOPLE! not your emotions! that is the single biggest mistake we can make.
April 5th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Very good point fava bean.
I think that both Democrat candidates are good. I think that McCain was the best Republican runner and I’m glad he won the primaries–he’s practically a Dem. But if it was him or a real Democrat, I’d vote blue any time. I just don’t think he’d get us out of the war. With our economy screwed over, the last thing we need is a price each week equal to flying out the pre-Katrina population of New Orleans in first-class and putting them up in 5-star hotels for a night every week.
I heard some people are putting together a lawsuit against Bush for his lies, but I don’t know if it will go anywhere. Have any of you heard of that?
April 5th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Exe, I haven’t heard about a lawsuit against Bush, but that does raise perhaps another compelling reason why McCain should not get elected. The DOJ has become politicized and corrupted under Bush. They spend so much of their resources trying to prevent Democrats from voting, they don’t have time for the criminals who are robbing the taxpayers blind. McCain will not allow the DOJ to go after companies like Haliburton or Blackwater and recover the money they stole from us. Shady financial institutions like Countrywide and Bear- Sterns will be propped up with taxpayer money, while the people losing their homes and jobs will be left to rot.
April 5th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Exactly.
The Republican party rides to the top in the pocketbooks of cigarette and oil companies, and as they say in Texas, “You dance with the one who brung you.”
They give tax breaks to their big buddies and forsake all else.
April 5th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
And in response to an earlier post: it’s not ‘cool’ to be a Democrat, it’s ’smart’ to be a Democrat.
April 5th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
EXE- No, it is “cool” to be a democrat and to be “open minded”, “accepting”,”politically correct”, and to believe in global warming (don’t get me started!). But it’s not “cool” to have moral convictions and to have an opinion that differs from the liberal media.
April 5th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
…and for being so “open minded” and “accepting”, Democrats sure are narrow minded when it comes to Republicans!
April 5th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
Hannah, pray tell what are the moral convictions Republicans hold? They are stealing money hand over fist from the American taxpayers. They are trying to keep Democrats from even voting. So tell me my dear palindrome, what has to occur in your life before you see the light? Lose your job, your home, have a loved one get killed in Iraq? Backwards is forward in rightwing world, like Hannah, the Republican party is a palindrome.
April 6th, 2008 at 12:14 am
The USA needs a change and Obama would make u a much more liked country, and lets be serious here your in a war you dont wanna be in and they dont u there and most of your country doesnt want u there so why not get the hell out, im pretty sure there not gonna bother to follow u back. So yeah go obama he seems to have the right frame of mind, i would say any of the three u have now would work out better then bush but my gut tells me obama will do the most and will be back for a second term as well.
April 6th, 2008 at 2:03 am
Since I’m more of a lurker now than a regular poster, I’ll jump in and tell you all how it is.
Clinton and Obama are communists.
Randall and hs ilk can ‘tell’ me all they want. It doesn’t change the facts. (In other words, shut your fucking faces you fascist cunts.)
Take half of the (what do you want to call it? Money is such an evil word, isn’t it?) fruits of my labor at gunpoint, stand upon high and preach to me about how that is somehow not enough, and promise, no… DEMAND that you should be able to take more, and if I so much as wonder why, well then I’m just a fucking Neocon Bush lover who wants to kill black, brown and gay people.
Oh, and I like to kick puppies too.
I’m going to be biting through my tongue when I pull the lever on McCain, but socialist though he is, voting for either of the Democraps will be the same as buying the gun and the bullets, handing it over, (paying the fine for having said gun and/or bullets) and then kneeling…
and taking one to the back of the head.
April 6th, 2008 at 2:10 am
dddd
April 6th, 2008 at 6:04 am
I’m pretty sure that if Obama and Clinton were communists, they wouldn’t have a chance of being elected. I would vote for McCain, but I can’t, I am only 13 years old.
April 6th, 2008 at 8:34 am
Yogi: About the Keating Five, I was responding to someone’s previous post calling McCain a crook.
1) “McCain wants to start a war with Iran” Really? You clearly haven’t been paying attention because this is a quote from McCain on NPR. “We cannot take the military option off the table, but we have to make it very clear it’s the last option.” Are you saying you don’t think it should be an option at all?
2) The government SHOULD do as little as possible. If I’m living in Alaska, I don’t want the government taxing me so that the Big Dig can be finished in Boston, which is exactly what was happening. Large government is a corrupt government.
3) He will appoint judges that will further the Bush agenda? There are only two judges in the Supreme Court that were even appointed by Bush so don’t tell me that he will corrupt that system when in 8 years Bush only appointed 2 judges. You have been watching way to much CNN to believe that any country could ever take over the US. Remember we are still the most powerful country in the world.
April 6th, 2008 at 8:58 am
Stephen Colbert.
April 6th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Yarr, thanks for dragging down the discussion. After comparing your moronic rant to the insightful comments from non-Americans here, I’m beginning to think the US should outsource its votes as well as its jobs.
Mike, McCain is absolutely clueless about the situation in Iraq. Just this morning he made yet another appalling gaffe. He said Al Sadr called for a truce because he felt he was losing. Actually Al Sadr had nothing to do with it. It was a deal between Malaki and Iran. The Iraqi security forces were getting their asses kicked, thousands of them deserted or went over to Al Sadr’s side. McCain said it’s all good, last year, tens of thousands of Iraqi troops would have deserted.
As for the judges that McCain would appoint if elected. It’s not just the Supreme Court that he would debase, it’s the entire federal judicial system.
One other thing, Alaska is by far the most corrupt state in the union. You need to clean up your own house before you can comment on what’s happening in other states. And if you want a smaller government you cannot conduct foreign policy is such a heavy handed way. We are spending 200 billion dollars a year to enable Iran to control Iraq. Do you think that’s wise?
April 6th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Yogi, I live in New Hampshire, I’m not from Alaska and never said I was from Alaska. When I say we need smaller government I am saying that the government should not be controlling MY life. Our government should be used to protect this country from outside THREATS. If you do not think that Iraq was a threat you are blind. I admit there were mistakes made in Iraq but for some reason that is all the media focuses on. They ignore the fact that this country is MUCH better off then it was five years ago. Try talking to the soldiers in Iraq and most, not all, will say that they are making great progress towards helping the Iraqis control their country and protecting it from the terrorists that want to kill you. Ignore the liberal media for a minute and realize that if we pull out of Iraq any time soon, terrorists will take over. As much as you think Obama is your savior and will get all the troops out and it will be safe, he CANNOT do that. The military will not let him because they know that terrorists will take over Iraq if they leave now. Are there going to be “Save Iraq” committees just like “Save Darfur” because if we leave Iraq the same shit that is going on in Darfur will happen in Iraq. The mass murder of women and children. If you put down your weapon in front of a terrorist he is not going to just shake your hand, he is going to shoot you in the head.
April 6th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Mike, Iraq was not a threat to the US. If anything, Saddam’s ironhanded rule helped keep the Al Qaeda and the Shiite extremists in check.
Only a complete fool would argue that the US is in a better position now. Iran is the only country that has benefitted from Bush’s folly.
BTW the majority of American troops believe that the war in Iraq was a mistake. You need to get informed Mike, you are being manipulated by liars.
Obama isn’t going to just pull out American troops all at once. He’s going to use diplomacy to stabalize the region, then we can wthdraw gradually. McCain has no plan at all. He will have the US troops in the middle of a full blown civil war within a year of taking office.
It’s not as complicated as it seems in Iraq. Iran controls the Shiite majority. Saudi Arabia is backing the Sunnis, and the Kurds have a quasi-independent state in the North. The US needs to move its troops into the North and protect the Kurds and let Saudi Arabia and Iran fight their proxy war in the South.
BTW This message is NOT approved by Obama. Unfortunately, Bush has put the next president in a no win situation, so he or she won’t be able to save us. The best we can hope for is to mitigate the damage and hopefully save our economy and our honor. Bush has wasted three trillion dollars in Iraq, not to mention the number of lives that were lost, and we are MUCH less safe then we were five years ago. I guess the only way for Mike to figure this out is for him to lose his job and his home. Even then, will he be smart enough to figure out the connection to Bush’s Folly.
April 6th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Mike does have a valid point about the media having misplaced priorities. Recently, a memo was released that will likely result in John Yoo, David Addington, and Donald Rumsfeld getting indicted for war crimes. The Republican nominee made several appallingly ignorant gaffes that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, he is unfit for office. Barack Obama is a lousy bowler. Which of these stories got the most the most attention?
April 6th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Damn it! I just wrote then, instead of than. I wish Jamie would set up the comment section so that we can edit our mistakes.
April 6th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Im pretty sure that the people who founded america were smarter then any of us, so i think we should run our country like they told us too. They told us how by writing the constitution.
United STATES of america. The national government has more power then was ever intened by the founders, and what our government has become is exactly what they feared. Regardless of who does it, some one needs to reduce the power of our national government. That way we wont end up creating a society that we have fought against, as a nation, for as long as we have existed.
April 6th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Please, please, please America, vote Obama. You owe the rest of the world an apology for imposing Bush on us all this time!
April 6th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Obama, without a doubt. The two most significant problems that face America is the Economy and the War in Iraq. McCain has admitted to knowing very little about how economic functions in a time that requires economic leadership. Many people have discussed the prospect that democrats will enact taxes that will burden the people, and therefore claim that we should not elect them. One must look at the reality of our situation; we are in trillions of dollars of debt and if we do not make up for this deficit the taxes will only hit harder, and on our children. The longer we avoid this problem the greater it becomes. And unlike Bush, Obama has proposed taxing the wealthier portion of America (You know the 1% that controls 40% of the wealth?) in order to diminish our debt. That makes a lot of sense to me personally, more so than McCain who promises tax cuts when the government needs money.
Second, the war in Iraq has been a disaster, and the longer we stay the more we put ourselves in danger. In all honesty, our actions in the Middle-East provokes more hatred of the West, and pulling out of Iraq is one of the best measures to encourage better attitudes towards western society. You can’t kill an idea through the Barrel of a gun, and unless a candidate understands this, and McCain has clearly demonstrated that he does not, we cannot secure a better relationship with the Middle East.
April 6th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
You gotta love those Republican values. 60 of the 272 criminals listed here are pedophiles. The Republican Party- short men with short eyes.
http://www.republicanoffenders.com/
April 7th, 2008 at 7:05 am
I vote for Obama. Nuff said.
April 7th, 2008 at 7:07 am
JFK had his strong points, but he also had his screw ups which hurt the country. I can’t stand when people hold him up as a God among presidents.
April 7th, 2008 at 8:34 am
Ron Paul.
Nelson Mandela is hailed as some sort of political god, but he was a murderer in the same line as Milosevic. Gee, I wonder what it could be about Mandela that makes it politically correct to pretend he was a good man. . .
April 7th, 2008 at 8:39 am
If I was a citizen of the US, I’d first look at the documentary called Zeitgeist (http://zeitgeistmovie.com/) and then decide.
I’m not familiar with candidates as much, but I think it would be interesting to see how would Obama handle the presidency. (At least you know it can’t get any worse than Bush.)
April 7th, 2008 at 8:50 am
Bob, Nelson Mandela was a murderer? Then so was George Washington. You’re not TOO racist are you?
April 7th, 2008 at 9:04 am
Some of the stuff written in this thread is deeply depressing, and it’s downright scary to see how many people lack basic critical thinking skills.
April 7th, 2008 at 9:11 am
Randall: don’t lose hope, I’d vote for Obama, so there’s still 2 good thinkers on this thread
April 7th, 2008 at 9:37 am
What do you call a rightwing dolt who doesn’t have a leg to stand on, is disarmed of wit, and cast adrift in an ocean of ignorance… BOB!
Thank you, I’ll be here all week, don’t forget to tip your waitress.
April 7th, 2008 at 9:39 am
Hey, here’s a tangible vote for Obama. Did it once, can’t wait to do it again in November.
April 7th, 2008 at 9:59 am
TMo, I live in California and for the first time my vote in the primary would have actually counted. However, after John Edwards withdrew from the race just prior to the primary I decided not to vote at all. It’s not that I don’t like Obama and Clinton, I do, I’m ready, willing, and able to do whatever it takes to get either one of them elected. Rachel Maddow expressed my sentiments exactly, when it comes to Obama vs. Clinton, I’m an agnostic. I can’t wait until the Democratic nominee has been decided and we can turn our attention to planting Miss Liberty’s sandal up McCain’s ass.
April 7th, 2008 at 10:02 am
Yogi, I’m in Maryland (woot) and I’m one of those Obama supporters who would “never vote for Hillary,” but I must digress, I cannot be that ignorant. Anything is better than four more years of this crap.
April 7th, 2008 at 10:34 am
For God fucking sakes people, *ALL* of Clinton’s, McCain’s, and Obama’s plans for every issue is spelled out very clearly on their websites. Those of you who are saying, “Yeah, sure he/she wants to change things but can’t tell me how, and that’s why I won’t be voting for him/her,” are just being lazy and arn’t looking in the right places. One of the other important things is that, while *none* of the candidates have any *new* ideas, they hold several good old ideas that never got off the ground for lack of support. A president’s job is to unify the people and to play ball with everyone in order to make sure the most responsible legislation is passed. The reason a lot of the old ideas never came to fruition is because the commander in chief failed to garner enough support for it. The only candidate that has the ability to rally people and bring together people from all walks of life and all political backgrounds is Obama. Character *does* matter tremendously, particularly when dealing with foreign diplomats. As many have said, I’ll go with character and good judgement over “experience” any day, if that experience has little to show for it.
And for God’s sakes people, Obama is *not* suggesting a “cut and run” tactic in Iraq. He is *tremendously* more intelligent than people give him credit for, he understands the intricacies and difficulties involved and is planning for it. And also, to those of you saying that you have no idea what Obama really stands for other than what you’ve heard on TV, look at his voting record. It speaks for itself; his voting record has not contradicted his platform ideals in anyway.
April 7th, 2008 at 11:47 am
SlickWilly:
Bravo pal. Nicely done, nicely written.
I have deeply despaired for our republic after reading some of the low-brow statements made in this thread. You would think that people writing in to a web site such as this–which is not your average “any moron who can work a keyboard” kind of site–would at least have a larger number of folks who make some sense. But the number of people who are clearly ignorant of the issues, the history, the facts and the way politics work–as well as being ignorant of the records of the candidates–is appalling.
April 7th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Hey Randall, SlickWilly: Here’s a good article entitled Lamentations of an Educated Voter (part 1 of a 3 part series, part 2 is here and part 3 here) from a very insightful non-partisan political blogger addressing these same concerns.
April 7th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
TMo:
Thanks.
So depressing. So very, very depressing.
And alarming.
April 7th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Is not lethargy apart of the 21st century American dream?
(It’s rhetorical; I already know the answer…)
April 7th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Haven’t read all the comments. I’m leaning toward McCain. Randall, I too was once a fire breathing conservative, I’ve softened a bit through the years, but not because of anything national, it was a local conservative that pissed me off. One of my former governors sat on his ass while the state practically burned down and all he could do was shrug his shoulders. I’ve since adopted Pete Townshend’s attitude. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
I admire Obama and I think he’d be ok, but it is a concern that he hasn’t spent much time on the job.
I do take issue with some of you saying we need national health care. That’s bullshit, has anything the federal government done recently convinced you they can handle national health care? NO FUCKING WAY! They’ll tell you everyone now has free health care then tax your ass through the roof to cover it. And pretty soon that system will be as bankrupt as Social Security is now. As soon as they open the gates it will be a failure. Giving doctors federal jobs is a very bad idea.
April 7th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
bucslim:
This idea that Obama hasn’t spent enough time on the job…. something parroted by others in this thread—is, I’m sorry to say, ludicrous. Kennedy had roughly the same amount of time on the job before taking the presidency. But more importantly–let me ask you–what amount of time would you *have* Obama spend in the senate then? What does that *matter* to the job he can do in the presidency? ALL presidents *grow* into the job once they’re in office. NO ONE is “ready” for that job when they take it. It’s unique, a position that few can be truly prepared for, unless they’ve had very specific, high level careers in politics–and this then cuts both McCain AND Clinton out of the running as well.
*Character* and *judgement* are what matter in a presidential candidate. Not whether it’s this many years or that many years that he’s been mired in politics.
Moreover–consider this: Obama–whom everyone proclaims is “inexperienced”–has thus far run one of THE MOST financially successful campaigns on record—he’s not only raked in the dough–mostly from small contributors–but he’s kept himself *totally* in the black, while both McCain and Clinton’s finances have been an absolute MESS.
As for health care… buc, it’s a problem that’s GOT to be solved. Easy for you and me to criticize when we both work in academia, where we have excellent coverage at a relatively low cost (at least I do). But there is a VAST number of people out there who don’t have that luxury. This is inexcusable in a country as rich as ours. I don’t want “socialized” medicine either–but that isn’t what Obama is talking about.
Remember no issue is black and white. (pardon the pun).
April 7th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Lecter: Don’t curse us alright.
April 7th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
i would be great
April 7th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
I’m not going to sit here and pretend I’m some sort of political pundit with an inside working knowledge of Washington. I’m not an expert in economics or foreign policy. However, you don’t have be any of those things to exercise an informed vote. I honestly don’t care if someone supports Clinton or McCain (or Obama for that matter) as long as they’ve taken the time to research the issues at hand, find out where the candidates stand on the issues, and find out whether or not the plan the candidate has for affecting the issue seem feasible. After that, the choice has everything to do with your personal values. And honestly, it’s not that difficult a thing to do. With the internet, everything you need to know is at your fingertips (as long as you also excerise a bit of caution concerning your sources). I’m not holier-than-thou, I don’t feel I’m better than anybody else, I just want to make that clear in case it came off that way in my previous post. I realize the depth of my ignorance, but I also make the effort to try to circumvent it by going out of my way to stay on top of important personal and national issues.
People, it doesn’t matter who you support. Just be honest with yourself and ask if you’re supporting your candidate for the right reasons.
Randall: Thank you. I’ve noticed that a lot of people mean well, but some of this stuff just never really occurs to them. The most disturbing trend I’ve seen is people objectifying their personal feelings towards a candidate and stating it as if it were fact. They think they know, they think they’ve got it all figured out, and they vote accordingly. It’s like giving a monkey a dowsing rod. Don’t be surprised if they misuse it and end up fucking themselves. Give enough monkeys enough rods and they might end up fucking all of us. That is really what I’m worried about.
TMo: Great article, really explores this distressing topic in down-to-earth, straightforward terms. I like in the first article where the author posits the questions about the ramifications of each candidate’s positions. Sometimes it’s not enough to know the issue and how the candidate plans to solve it; you need to think about the unexpected peripheral consequences that the plan might have.
April 7th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
To everyone:
I must sincerely apologize for the comment I made a couple of days ago. I had been drinking off a day that began by getting my taxes done and finding out that the 40-some-odd percent that I normally pay wasn’t enough this time around, and basically had to sign over a paycheck to the IRS. It was not a good time for me to be anywhere but in bed, much less spitting bile on here. I’m truly sorry to anyone I might have offended, (especially you Randall) and I promise to keep it clean and sober in the future.
April 7th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Randall – I think experience should count for something. Not everything, and not like Hillary is saying. And I concur with your sentiment about being mired – politics has a way of despoiling even the brightest of minds.
Obama is inspiring, fresh and intoxicating. I like his speeches and he seems to be different than most democrats who spew nothing but liberal bile and hand wringing. I like the fact that there is a national ‘buzz’ around him and that he has done something that a lot of politicians talk about but never actually accomplish – that is to get the youth out to participate. He seems to stand for something, he’s above it all and mature about all of the crap Hillary has slung his way.
Alas, his voting record and positions are far too liberal for my liking or for my vote. But I like the guy, I think he would do well leading this country. If Hillary would have pulled out when she should have, I believe he would have been unstoppable. Now, democrats have a huge problem that could very well cost them the White House. From what I can tell, that might not be such a terrible thing, as McCain has most conservatives seething with hatred.
As far as health care is concerned, who can say what the answer is. But to put it in the very hands of people who cannot help but screw things up is in my estimation a total mistake. Who is to blame for the state of affairs? Honestly, we are all to blame. We have the best health care system in the world that nobody could afford if it weren’t for insurance. No insurance? Well get in line and fill out some forms. By the time the doctor will see you, you’d be better off making funeral arraingements. We are all to blame for this crap. We eat too much and don’t excersize. Doctors charge too much and Insurance will only cover you if you have a decent job. It’s a giant mess but these are not problems politicians can fix. I don’t know what the answer is, but part of me wants to eliminate the insurance gangsters. If you had to scratch out a check when you see the doc, then maybe some of these bozos would figure out they couldn’t make the payments on their new sloop because insurance wasn’t subsidizing it. Of course no one wants to pay for the big stuff, so maybe we still need insurance I don’t know.
Seemingly any scenario you put forth is full of new problems that are worse than what we have now. . . .
April 7th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Bucslim et al; you don’t need socialized health care, you need a centrally administered health insurance system. There is a big difference. Look what happens when MD’s lose their autonomy – your current HMO fiasco – but it is obvious that the totally free market approach is woefully lacking. The cost of health care in the USA is damn near the highest in the world (3X Canada’s, and ours is better), and it does not service everyone with anything approaching equity.
Randall, SlickWilly; How exactly do you two fellows figure you ended up with 2 glorious terms at the hands of Bush and his buddies? It’s because the majority of voters don’t read, don’t bother to investigate their candidates and know almost nothing of history unless it pertains directly to the founding of the USA. While you’re working on the health care fiasco, maybe some time on the education issue is warranted. Just a quick glance at most of the comments, and I realize that with my Canadian high school diploma, I know more about American politics and Its’ history vis a vis the rest of the world than most Americans. Sad but true. Oh, and Randall, I was never seduced by Reagan (most of my family was and then tried to back-track). Any policy that shrinks the middle class, increases the numbers living below the poverty line and triples the national debt as the rich get richer is poor government. Greed begets greed.
April 7th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Mom, respectfully I do not think free market is the problem because the health care system isn’t necessarily ‘free market.’ If it was, we wouldn’t be in this mess. I should have to pay for medical attention if I need it, not when I don’t. A plumber comes to my house to fix a clogged drain, I pay him when he leaves. If he does a poor job or costs too much I go to a more reputable plumber. That, my dear is free market. I don’t pay him in advance, just in case. What we have now is closer to extortion, the insurance gangster comes around every paycheck and takes money from me just in case. And if I don’t pay, the broken leg I have stays broken.
So my original point on this matter should stand for something, that is if we had to pay for medical attention when we need it, some of these doctors would surely be out of business instead of sucking on the Insurance/Medicaid teat. I certainly don’t offer that up as a solution, but it does make sense from a certain point of view.
April 7th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
I don’t know how you can vote for McCain, as he won’t be pulling the troops out of Iraq. I am one who has been to Iraq, and it is time to get out of there. Anyone who is still for this war in Iraq lacks intelligence, and it’s time to get our guys home, as they are dying sometimes in the hundreds each month. Our if you enjoy our troops getting killed daily, vote for McCain as he will keep us over there.
April 7th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
RON PAUL!
April 7th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Yogi Barrister, you are the smartest person alive. Just thought you should know. Read all of the post, and I quote from Yogi’s first post: “Only fools are going to vote for McCain, so he should win handily.” Alot of great points made, but that one is a personal favorite.
April 7th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Chuck Norris! He’ll roundhouse kick the enemies of the state and then box a kangaroo on ‘roids!
April 8th, 2008 at 4:16 am
mom242, scully – yes there have been some great female leaders. i’m not sure if they had as big of an impact to the world as a female US president would have, even if we had a less “evil” candidate let alone the monster running for office now. however, i concur that adequate female leadership is possible. I would prefer a woman with more than pretty words and a chip on her shoulder over Mrs. Clinton.
And Obama is a smooth talker, yes. Perhaps too smooth because half the people here think he would be a great president because he can talk articulately. I would prefer a president who did more than talk about change.
April 8th, 2008 at 5:54 am
Bucslim; One of the things with Canadian health care that I don’t agree with is the lack of any user fees whatsoever. It needn’t be much, but it would go a long way towards lessening the load on our emergency rooms. You would not believe the number of folks sitting around waiting to see a doctor for a snotty nose; if they had to pay even a stipend, they might stay home and let their immune systems do the work.
On a side note my Grandma, a health care professional, was horrified by the state of public health. People don’t and should stay home when they are sick. Don’t be thanking the guy who shows up at work with a fever and chills, he/she is just a virus factory insuring the success of said illness.
April 8th, 2008 at 7:19 am
Someone please correct me if I am wrong-
The candidates are giving out promises of universal health care and other things, but here is the thing: according to the constitution, presidents do not have the sole right to make laws and plans for welfare. The president is to be “Commander in Chief” of the military. The only time he gets to make laws is when Congress sends him a copy of a bill they proposed and agree on. Only then does he get to make a descision on laws, and if he rejects it, Congress can bypass him in another vote, if 2/3 of them agree. Correct me if I am wrong.
April 8th, 2008 at 7:27 am
Yarr:
Did you offend me? I didn’t even remember.
I had to look back and found that, in the same breath, you referred to my personal candidate, Obama, as a communist, and then referred to me and my “ilk” (obliquely) as “fascists.” I’ve never been referred to as either, but certainly being connected with *both* was …well, it was amusing.
No offense taken.
April 8th, 2008 at 7:37 am
Mom:
I’m perfectly aware that all of this also explains how we got 8 years of the hated Bush. I just never cease to find it appalling. It’s like constantly peeking under the sheet that covers up the maimed body. You never get quite used to the ghastly sight.
As for Reagan, and my having been seduced by him—in the way of a shamed explanation, I plead A) the fervor and passion of youth B) the times–post Carter, post 70s, we were looking for something totally different and for someone who promised to make America great again… C) peer pressure–seemed like 75% of the people I knew then were College Republicans or their sympathies leaned that way. I even knew a girl back then in college that I dated briefly–to look at her, you’d think she’d swallowed the entire “New Wave” identikit (if there was such a thing in real life)… the hugely teased blonde hair, the makeup, the ultra-trendy New Wavey clothes… and she was *deeply* into every synth band that came out of the UK and Europe… but she was also fairly rabidly Republican. Figure that one out. Only in the 80s.
Once I looked back on the Reagan revolution and saw the damage it had done, I awakened from my stupor and realized my preppie, spoiled, privileged lifestyle was NOT as cool as I had thought it was and that the society *wasn’t* better off because of Reaganomics. I shivered, hung my head for a few years, then got back to normal.
April 8th, 2008 at 8:08 am
Sorry Randall, I have to take issue with you concerning Reagan.
I’m not sure what ‘damage’ drastically lower inflation, 16 million new jobs, 3 million aliens granted amnesty, prosperous economy, and the end of the cold war had on us during Reagan’s administration. There is a reason that every Republican candidate for office will try to refer to themselves as a ‘Reagan’ conservative. It’s because he was one of the most beloved Presidents in the last 50 years. If he were alive today and running for President, it wouldn’t be a contest and you know it. He pulled this country out of the steaming bullshit mess Carter made. Additionally, there is nothing inherently wrong with making money and paying less taxes. Reagan supported you keeping more of your money and keeping the government out of your way as much as possible.
I’m not completely blind – I know about Iran/Contra and the deficit. But you cannot deny the economic boom this country had when we followed his policies and the prestige we had around the globe. That is a stone cold fact. It is debatable his effect in bringing about the end of the cold war, but he did have a lot to do with it.
April 8th, 2008 at 8:41 am
longball: Would you then prefer a candidate that promised the same old thing we’ve had for the last 8 years? Or the same old thing we had for 8 years before that? I get the “all he does is talk about change” thing alot about Obama, but no one can tell me what exactly Hillary or McCain has done to change anything during their tenure in the senate. He talks about change, yes. And he is making a plan to implement it, a plan that largely, if not completely adheres to the ideals he has supported in the past. People talk about Obama like “change” is some kind of dirty word. I don’t know about you, longball, but if you’ve been living in the same USA I’ve been living in for the last 8 years, I would have thought a candidate that talks about change would be highly welcome. His being highly articulate is just a bonus…also highly welcome after the bumbling fool in the white house has made a mockery of the English language for the last 2 terms.
April 8th, 2008 at 9:11 am
By MARTHA RADDATZ
April 7, 2008
593 comments FONT SIZE EMAIL PRINT SHARE ABC’s Martha Raddatz asked American soldiers in Iraq what issues are most important to them when looking at the presidential candidates.
A look at the key political issues for U.S. soldiers in Iraq.Though the military is not supposed to engage in partisan political activity, these soldiers spoke out about their personal endorsements, and their opinions are likely to matter. In 2004, 73 percent of the U.S. military voted for a presidential candidate, and officials believe it may be even higher this time around.
PFC Jeremy Slate said he supported Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., because of his stated intention to pull out of Iraq right away.
“That would be nice,” Slate said, “I’d like to be home, yea.”
SFC Patricia Keller also expressed support for Obama, citing his representation for change.
Spc. Patrick Nicholls from Eggawam, Mass., pointed out that many soldiers on the frontlines frequently think about their families back home…”
April 8th, 2008 at 9:29 am
Wow, soldiers in the battlefield think of their families back home? You’ve got to be kidding me, that’s astounding!
April 8th, 2008 at 10:09 am
bucslim:
I have little wish to engage in a big argument about the Reagan legacy. I don’t know how old you actually are and what you actually remember—and if you’ve mentioned it in the past, I’m sorry but I’ve forgotten. I’m disheartened, sad, and weary whenever the subject of Reagan and 80s conservatism comes up. I feel like I passed through some test of fire in those years, and I hate having people who are *still* conservatives after all that (or worse, kids) come to me and give me grief about abandoning The Gipper and “the movement.”
I grew up in a well-off family in New York. They (my family) were generations of old-school New York/Northeastern Republicans (their like doesn’t exist much anymore) who weren’t at all socially conservative (indeed, my family gave money to civil rights causes and my parents were hugely fond of Jack Kennedy). You might call them, today, “Liberal Republicans,” though I’m not sure how accurate that would have been. When I was a child, in the late 60s and early 70s, I hadn’t a care or want in the world–we had a nice big old house in the country, a sailboat, a camp on a nearby lake, and a summer place up in Maine. What you’d call privileged, though we were hardly wealthy. Growing up in that environment, I was a curious mix of political beliefs. Fiscally conservative to some extent, but socially very liberal. I became quite the left-wing enthusiast in my late teen years in fact… a right little commie pinko.
What drew me into conservatism and Reagan was the idea promulgated by a lot on the Right at the time, that THIS was the real way to save people from poverty, to make life prosperous for *everyone.* The Left had TRIED to do this, they said, in the 60s and 70s… and failed. And I looked around me and thought…. by god, they seem to have a point.
But I was 19 years old at the time (1984… the first presidential election I voted in) and what the hell did I know? I loved William F. Buckley and thought he knew it all. But see…. I came to it because I wanted RADICAL change–I wanted the problems fixed–I wanted everyone to have *at least* the nice life I’d had–I was brought up with all this American shit pounded into my head–that we’re all brothers and sisters, we Americans, that we’re all equal… and that it isn’t right that some are allowed to remain hopelessly poor while others are rich. It’s un-American. Silly me, I still believe that. Conservatives promised this would happen. Reagan promised it. Prosperity, a chance for everyone. Give your tax money back to you, etc. etc.
You, I see, still believe this is all they did. You don’t look hard enough.
After the Reagan policies were implemented–both institutionally/politically and socially—this gradually became a country of the very rich on one hand… and on the other, people struggling like mad to keep up. The gap between rich and poor has grown to an alarming size. Even Alan Greenspan–architect though he was of this–admits it and is troubled by it. Admit it or not, greed became the byword. We’ve eroded the protections that workers had enjoyed, weakened unions to the point where even the old robber barons would be jumping for joy, and left the consumer at the mercy of rapacious and de-regulated industries. Corporate control of our life and our *media* has grown to appalling levels. And the religious right has come into our lives and told us how to live our lives and now practically controls what we see and hear on TV and radio, and has been allowed a role in our society so obnoxious that they’re actually back to challenging Evolution again… in the TWENTY FIRST goddamned century.
And there’s been worse erosion of our civil liberties under Bush… all with the willing and enthusiastic support of Reagan conservatives.
You, I think, are still a bit deluded because you see the 80s as having been self-contained… the 80s were great, in other words, and it was the fault of those who came later that we have the injustice and mess we have now. (if you even believe that). I don’t agree. The blame lies with the original movement… with Reagan and those around him in those days. They were wrong. And many of them lied. It wasn’t about helping lower-income Americans–*that* was a smokescreen to hide the truth—which was that it was really about killing 60s/70s liberalism–because it had offended and attacked the insular, bigoted and wealth-conscious status quo of those who Had It and wanted to Keep It.
April 8th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Randall – I think we are pretty much the same age. I however am not quite as cynical about the Reagan Administration economic policies as you are. To me it all boils down to how much government do you want in your life. The basic premise of those policies is that it entrusted individuals more freedom to decide what to do with their money, instead of the government taking it from you and spending it on whatever they decided was best for you. Which would you rather have – a handout from the government or the chance to do it yourself? Liberals constantly point to the poor and disadvantaged because that is the only way they have any power whatsoever. We do however have a responsibility to give those less fortunate than us a chance to recover and live a decent life. It’s not a right, only the PURSUIT of happiness is a right.
And there is nothing whatsoever wrong with making money and wanting to keep most of it. If I ever win the lottery or suddenly find myself with extra cash, it’s only human nature to want to keep it and use it as I see fit. It’s the same principles I’ve tried to instill in my children and hopefully you have too – work hard and depend upon yourself, not the government. Sure, there are times in everybody’s life when they need assistance, it’s dependence that kills the soul and kills the pursuit.
It’s also noteworthy that you skirted the facts that I brought up and instead devoted your post to the same tired liberal description of what Reagan accomplished. And I’m always amused when people gasp in amazement at how religious folk have a voice in politics. Are they not Americans? I think they should have a right to voice their opinions and vote like every other American (or maybe the 50% who do vote.) Or is it that we should only listen to enlightened Liberals? Interesting to me how Liberals always talk about inclusion, diversity and tolerance, except when it comes to religious people – they should just shut the fuck up. How very enlightened indeed!
It’s clear we both had different experiences living through the 80’s.
April 8th, 2008 at 11:46 am
P.S. William F. Buckly did know it all. (RIP)
April 8th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
bucslim:
“It’s clear we both had different experiences living through the 80’s.”
Yes, very, very clear. Sadly clear.
For me, to try talking to you about this, is like trying to talk to a wall. Or…. no, strike that…. it’s like trying to talk to a sleepwalker. You’re still mouthing the old platitudes. They’re almost thirty years old… and you still believe them.
I don’t know your background–that’s why I described mine, I thought you might respond in kind–but at any rate—do you HONESTLY believe that all this was done for YOUR good? To help YOU? I’m sorry, I like you, I don’t mean to be unkind… but are you that gullible? Do you not ever look around at the world outside your door? Are you the type who loves to see greedy, self-absorbed fat Americans driving SUV’s that they have no business driving? Are you the type who thinks it’s just fine that big business has practically its own way, now, with our society–to the point where *criminals* like Ken Lay almost get away with their financial rape? Ah… but this is tired old liberal speak, you’d say. Ha. No, buc…. you’re sleepwalking. You’ve apparently noticed *nothing* that’s gone on for the last 25 years in your country. You’re pleased with the surface picture of it, and have no desire to look deeper. And like some figure in a fairy tale, you’re bewitched so that when you look into the cesspool, you’re seeing only a sparkling pond of clean, fresh water.
I’m not asking you or telling you that you have to abandon your conservative views, if you so call them. What I’m telling you is to wake up and look around and realize that they’ve in fact been betrayed.
Oh, and yes… PEOPLE have a right to vote and involve themselves in government. RELIGION does NOT. Where would you place the dividing line?
April 8th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Randall – typical liberal rhetoric. You’re the one sleepwalking pal, and I don’t really blame you. After all we’ve all been force fed a steady diet of ‘the sky is falling’ crap for years from a liberal media. And it appears that you’ve swallowed it whole, my friend. The only way a Liberal gets anywhere is to make believe everything is shit.
There are some great things about this country, one of them is being allowed to screw off work and blather on and on about politics on a website.
At one time I was as conservative as they come. Straight down the line gung ho. Two things happened that changed my mind. One, working at a public institution for most of my career, I can readily see what education and public service can do for a community and state. Two, and I’ve mentioned this before, a ‘conservative,’ candidate for governor ran for office under the ‘won’t raise taxes’ banner. During his term the state damn near went bankrupt and he refused to do anything about it, sat on his ass and wore some ‘what’s happening’ grin slapped all over his stupid face! At that point I became cynical of all politicians and their stupid bullshit.
No, no, no, not sleepwalking, just tired of the same old bullshit FROM BOTH SIDES!
And do you really care about the SUV’s or fat people shoving Stealth bomber sized slices of Sabarro pizza into their fat pie holes? I don’t, I point and giggle. You should try it sometime. What I don’t do is have some sort of superiority complex that because I drive a Tercel that somehow I’m better or more consciencious than they are. I try to mind my own business and not let other people’s lifestyle bother me. How all of this goes back to Reaganomics is beyond me, but you seem more concerned about it than I am.
And another thing, you seem to point out to me, quite frequently, that I always look at the surface of things and never look deeper. Friend, I have looked deeper at many issues. Sometimes not by choice, but because of some really shitty things that have happened to me recently (ugly divorce) It’s just you and I have different conclusions. I don’t think I’ve ever accused you of being shallow like that but it’s quite demeaning. I can assure you I’m well read – from both political spectrums, and I enjoy debating with you and I don’t do it lightly because I know you’re a smart dude.
April 8th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Bucslim, read the whole article. What would astound you is that the troops support Obama over McCain. The majority of US forces now believe the war in Iraq was a mistake and that McCain will put them in greater jeopardy.
April 8th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Yogi, I did read the whole article and I would argue your point that the majority of US Forces now believe the war in Iraq was a mistake. They might have their misgivings in private, but they follow orders. Most of what I’ve read elswhere is in direct contridiction to what you’ve stated.
April 8th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Bucslim, do you know what William Buckley said about having a wealthy middle-class? He thought it was dangerous and would lead to the breakdown of civilization. If people aren’t afraid of losing their jobs and aren’t on the verge of poverty, they are more likely to overthrow the government or create social unrest.
April 8th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
By Jim Lobe
WASHINGTON, Feb 28 (IPS) – The findings of an unprecedented poll of U.S. troops in Iraq are certain to add to steadily growing pressures on the administration of President George W. Bush to accelerate Washington’s withdrawal from a country that is increasingly seen as being on the verge of civil war.
Along with signs of disaffection and confusion in military ranks, recent surveys of public opinion at home have shown growing pessimism about the war, while even some of Bush’s staunchest right-wing supporters, such as National Review founder William F. Buckley, are calling the president’s Iraq adventure a failure.
The military survey, carried out between mid-January and mid-February by Le Moyne College’s Centre for Peace and Global Studies and the Zogby International polling firm, found that more than half of U.S. troops in Iraq (51 percent) favour a full withdrawal either ‘’immediately” (29 percent) or within six months (22 percent).
An additional 21 percent told interviewers that U.S. troops should leave Iraq between six and 12 months from now, while only 23 percent — or less than one in four — agreed with official Bush policy that the troops should stay ‘’as long as they are needed.”
The face-to-face survey of 944 military respondents, whose names and specific locations were withheld for security reasons, is the latest in a series of polls showing a continued erosion of support for the Iraq war, as well as for Bush himself.
April 8th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
bucslim:
You know I’m a smart dude, yet you risk my great wrath by having the audacity to say that *I am mouthing “typical liberal rhetoric,* and accusing ME of being the sleepwalker here. I would squash you like a bug, bucslim, but I like you and rather pity you. And this old, tired argument also wearies me. I see my old self reflected in you and it makes me shake and lose heart out of shame for what I was and pity for what you are.
You’ve not listened closely to me if you think I’m nothing but a liberal now. I did the liberal thing over 25 years ago, buc. Like you, I’m disgusted and disheartened by BOTH sides. But that doesn’t remove me from thinking. You, it seems, would rather switch off your mind and go back to simply believing in the tired old bullshit you were fed in the Reagan years. Sleepwalker, pal. Remember, I moved through that period. I was a conservative. Now I’m not. How is THAT sleepwalking?
No, in fact you scream it with every sentence.
“How all of this goes back to Reaganomics is beyond me, but you seem more concerned about it than I am.”
Yes, I *am* concerned. I’m not switched off to the plight of my society. But I expect, now, after hearing you, that we went into conservatism in the first place for entirely different reasons. I believed in something and wanted to make a difference. You, on the other hand, seem to prefer not thinking too hard or observing too hard the world around you. You’d rather keep to the old dogma, safe in its comforting arms… however false and unsupportable they are.
“And do you really care about the SUV’s or fat people shoving Stealth bomber sized slices of Sabarro pizza into their fat pie holes?”
Yes, in fact I do. I care about our environment, and I care that my fellow citizens in the republic I share with them are losing the capacity for self-governance, becoming fat and slap-happy Romans—deluded into becoming good, drooling consumers for their corporate overlords.
Is THAT the vision you wanted to see in your 21st century America, when you became enamored of Ronald Reagan? Not me.
You seem proud to say that you mind your own business. There’s a difference between minding one’s own business and choosing–however subconsciously–to be blind to the state of one’s society and nation, and to one’s responsibilities within it and to others. You are a perfect example of the blindness that those self-absorbed, provincial-minded other Americans also practice, not caring a whit for what we do to our world and who we do it to.
I counsel you to open up your eyes. There’s a reason you got deluded by that slimy politician you’re so angry about. Your eyes are closed tight, and you don’t even know it.
April 8th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Yogi – http://www.slate.com/id/2178286/nav/navoa/
April 8th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Randall – over and over again I seem to appear to you as close minded and surface gazing. Wrong on all points. I’m quite open to and read from both sides of the spectrum. I’ve read your posts the entire afternoon and made up my own mind as to the soundness of them. But this idea that my conclusions are shallow and trite is really getting old. PLEASE!
You are completely blind if you think another politician will solve all of these ills you speak of. And you prove my point over and ove again that Liberals are constantly complaining about how everything is going to shit. Of which you, my worthy adversary, are a perfect example. Obama’s a good man in my estimation, and God bless if he get’s the nomination – but neither him or McCain will transform or run my life. I do.
And I am most certainly not blind to my neighbors or unwilling to lend a hand to people that need it, I take issue with you suggesting that I am some sort of cold hearted snob. You are dead wrong on that.
Pity me? I pity your attitude. Count your blessings and be happy for a change.
April 8th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
TMo:
Oh I fully agree we need to change how we deal with Iraq. Completely and fully. We’re not doing as good a job as we should. We should be addressing a myriad of issues that we’re simply not even looking at at all. One thing that still gets to me is that we still send our soldiers (soldiers in the supposed richest country in the world) without proper armor/equipment. That seems unacceptable to me.
On the subject of bringing the power to the people: the people have the power, but the problem is that Mr. Shrub heard about Shiites and Sunnis and went “are those like spicy Falafels?” So now we have practically a civil war and the poor government that has power can’t do anything about it. They aren’t trained right and it’s not happening as fast as it should. Things are getting better, but quite honestly, the U.S. can do a better job and we damn well know it. But with the leadership we have, not just Bush, but all of them, it’s just not happening as it should.
The biggest thing that the U.S. needs now is to establish some sense of order long enough to properly train the Iraqi police forces. I say the U.S., but it probably should come more as a joint effort, and then once they can defend themselves, they can root out suicide bombings and what not, then the U.S. should move out and work as an ally, not as a military occupant.
Oh, gosh dangit. You’re right though. Clinton is the full Universal lady, but I’m still not for Obama’s plan either. The only plan I am for involving healthcare is attempts to reduce the costs. That’s it. I’m not willing to raise my taxes so that I can live even poorer than I already do just so we can add another service that I won’t get to use. I once applied for the California medical system (MediCal) when working 4 hours a week at Kmart and was denied because I worked too many hours. But there were people working part time jobs without children who were getting it. That seems fair. So I can pay taxes into it, but I can’t use it. Nice. I’m not rich by a long shot (technically I’m neither since I’m studying at the moment at UCSC, but will eventually go back to the work force and not have healthcare) and I think Obama’s system will run the same risks as a fully UH system. Plus, Obama just scares me. He speaks a lot, but I’ve yet to really hear or see him say anything that tells me he can make the changes he proposes. He says “it’s time for a change”, but that doesn’t mean anything to me. I’ve heard that old yarn before. Look where we are now. I don’t see any changes…just lots of the same crap we had 4 years ago amplified.
I want UH, but right now the only thing we should be focusing on are the following:
Finish the wars (plural, since we’re still in Afghanistain)
Fix the dying economy (this means forcing the nation to innovate so we don’t fall prey to the same globalization garbage that has now shoved our economy into a deeper rut than when Bush squandered our surplus left over from Bill…we don’t produce anything in the U.S. anymore, at least nothing that other nations want…we need to start producing and we need to do it NOW, not tomorrow, not next week, NOW. We’re at a point where we import more than we export and we build and buy everything from nations we helped establish themselves. This is bad. Where’s the innovation? Where are our Edisons and Einsteins and what nots?)
Fix the dying housing market (which goes with the previous one there)
Fix our immigration issue
Reduce healthcare costs
And a couple other issues that I can’t remember at this moment that are probably just as important.
As for Obama. His judgment, in my eyes, is very flawed. He supports Rev. Wright, who is clearly a racist who, in turn, incites more racist values in people who follow him. He [Obama] hasn’t done enough in my eyes to condemn the horrible words that man has said. In fact, his speech defends Wright, saying that just because Wright went through hard times means he has an out. It’s in his speech. If I were to say John next door could be a KKK member all he wanted to because he happened to go through some hard times that had to do with relations with members of another race, I would be lynched (at least if I were in Obama’s position, and yes, I know that’s a little dramatic, but you get the idea). There should be no acceptance in any racial group, religious group, etc. of discrimination and hatred. That’s the point where Obama really lost me. As soon as he defended Rev. Wright for his blatant hate speech, that was it for me. People say he has condemned Wright, but I’ve read his most recent speech on race…there’s not a lot of condemnation in there at all…Sorry, I don’t associate with racists for a reason: I don’t like what they stand for and they’re not the types of people I want to be around. I have friends who are mixed race and if my friends can’t hang out together because one guy hates some other guy cause he’s Asian or Black or whatever, that’s not the type of person I want in my life. Obama does not have good enough judgment to make this decision in his own life. He’s allowed Wright to be a part of his life for decades. People don’t just become racist over night. Wright has been this way for a long time and Obama has certainly heard similar speeches in the past.
As for the whole hope thing. I can think of a number of cases when someone came along who said all the right things and acted all the right ways and ended up committing horrible acts against humanity. They were speakers of hope too. They knew how to get everyone excited about change and the future. And they were evil men. This is why I like McCain more than Obama. I know McCain is a homophobic religious nut. I know he isn’t going to do a lot of changing around here. I know what to expect. I know that the little changes he is going to make might not pull us over the hump, but he could at least stop us from going any further down the hole. With Obama? I don’t trust him. He talks far too well for is own good and that scares me. I don’t know if he’s evil, and I doubt he is, but there’s a part of me that will always be afraid of what he could do with his voice. It sounds paranoid, but I’ve learned that when you put too much trust into the words of politicians, you get burned. The skeptic in me will always look at the man who speaks so perfectly, so correctly, so amazingly and wonder what is really going on. Words aren’t enough.
There is also the bit you said about experience being a non-factor. Generally, I would agree. Experience is usually not a factor in how well someone will do, but at the same time I think the present condition of the U.S. is far different and more complex than what Lincoln dealt with, and he had very little experience and is still remembered as one of the greatest Presidents of all time. We have an economy that is sunk into a hole, we have two wars and another two or three brewing, not to mention our collapsing relations with Russia, or decaying country and standard of living, lack of innovation, etc etc. The problems that exist now after decades of productivity, with the usual recesses, make this a truly complicated issue. I don’t like McCain, but he has experience (I think he’s too old though and that is one thing that worries me about him since old folks tend to hold very old fashioned values that are hard to break). Clinton, if she would stop being a moron, maybe could handle those issues, maybe not. Obama, I don’t know. I don’t know if he can handle the problems in the country. If he puts good people behind him, sure. But who is he going to take with him? I don’t know. I have no idea at all. He’s going to need some smart thinking individuals to cover all his bases.
Okay, I’m rambling.
. My problem is I’m thinking far too much about all this…or is that a good thing? I think my big issue is that I just don’t trust ANYONE that is running right now, which makes voting rather difficult.
Okay, enough from me.
April 8th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Ok…I was 20 years old last election…I voted for Bush….I know start the bashing right?? Any ways,I felt that being in the situation we were in, we could not afford to change government. Now with that said I have had a hard time debating on who I want to vote for…
Hillary: Not a chance in hell. She is clearly the devil.
Obama: He is a wonderful speaker, just like Bill Clinton, you may not like him but as soon as he speaks, you fall in love.
I do like “some” of the things he has to say, but in a way I feel like he is luring people into his grasp…change and hope….nah no thanks, plus I am STRONGLY against abortion. I don’t give a shit what anyone has to say about it either.
McCain: The lesser of the 3 evils. I wasn’t sure about him at first, I thought he would do exactly as Bush, but the more I watch him the more I like him. I too feel pulling out of the war quickly would result in total chaos, we need to finish what we started. McCain gets my vote.
We all need to remember that ALL politicians lie, cheat and make up bullshit promises, and are POWER HUNGRY. Why the hell else would they want to run a country? Ahhh fun fun.
April 9th, 2008 at 8:19 am
Wow. Obama is not a viable candidate because he seems *too* intelligent and *too* well-spoken. Just…wow.
April 9th, 2008 at 9:26 am
Jennabug, did you watch any of Gen. Petraeus’ testimony before Congress yesterday? If you had, you would realize that McCain is not mentally fit to be president. He appeared to be suffering from dementia. Clinton on the other hand was focused and right on target the entire time. Saying she’s the devil is just childish, voting for McCain is irresponsible.
April 9th, 2008 at 10:27 am
Yogi or someone; I read the General’s testimony. Seems to be honest (he neglected to mention why Al-Qaeda now has a foot-hold in Iraq, but nevermind), and his projections make sense. Could someone tell me what McCain said/did in regards to this testimony that proves him unfit? Save me the time looking it up and having to wade through tons of party propaganda to find the facts. I would do it, but I’ve gotta go bake a pie. Strawberry/Apple I think.
April 9th, 2008 at 10:53 am
Mom, McCain has repeatedly confused and conflated Al Qaeda with Al Sadr. He appaerently doesn’t understand the difference between Al Qaeda, Sunni insurgents, Shiite militias, and how they relate to Iran. That’s a deal breaker if you want to be president.
Gen Petraeus looked OK, but he was really just baffling us with bullshit. Ryan Crocker flat out lied before Congress when he said Iraq has met twelve 0f the eighteen benchmarks. The correct number is three. He should be removed from his post immediately.
April 9th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Obama
April 9th, 2008 at 11:14 am
buc:
Sometimes I joke, sometimes it’s hard to tell when I’m joking and when I’m not. Sometimes I myself don’t know.
I don’t necessarily find you close minded. However, you DO continue to mouth the same rhetoric we mouthed 25 years ago.
But don’t take offense. As I said, I’m just testy about this subject. I’m hugely disillusioned even now, and still pretty angry. And I’m impatient and cross with people who are still mired in conservatism after all that’s happened over the last 20 years. It’s like people driving blind into a sinkhole.
“You are completely blind if you think another politician will solve all of these ills you speak of.”
I never said that, buc. I believe Obama is a good candidate. I’m confident he means well. I’m VERY confident that he’s the best person for the job amongst those we have to choose from. But I don’t know where you got the idea, in all the weary, regret-filled statements I’ve made about politics, that I believe for a moment that anything like a panacea-candidate exists out there.
“And you prove my point over and ove again that Liberals are constantly complaining about how everything is going to shit. Of which you, my worthy adversary, are a perfect example.”
Now here I won’t stand for your nonsense buc. Did you honestly think about this statement when you wrote it? About the logic of it? (or lack thereof). By your logic, if we don’t complain, then there are no problems. And if people complain, then their complaints just CAN’T be legitimate.
A) I am no liberal. I don’t call myself *anything.* I have political views that vary depending on the subject. I am simply an intelligent person who has been on both ends of the political spectrum, and I’m calling reality as I see it.
B) I would like you to explain to me how things are NOT going to shit, buc. Our economy is in a mess–we’re almost certainly slipping into recession. We’ve seen an ill-thought-out NAFTA screw up people’s lives and livelihood’s both in the US *and* in our partner nations… we’re mired in a war that should never have happened, while the REAL war in Afghanistan has been neglected. Our armed forces are stretched dangerously thin and have been serving over-long tours of duty, beyond what an all-volunteer force can handle. De-regulation and TOTAL lack of oversight by a toadying congress (when it was controlled by the Republicans has not only brought us countless scandals in the financial world, but has now brought to us a debacle in the real estate market. In addition, lack of congressional oversight has given ridiculous leeway to the Bush administration to violate and run roughshod over our democratic principles, not least of which was the abandonment of habeas corpus. This administration has openly embraced torture as a viable and legitimate practice, and through it’s clumsy, bullying and stupid foreign policy has *ruined* our reputation amongst the rest of the civilized world, throwing away the moral high ground which we have commanded since the end of WWII. Need I go on?
But no…. only “liberals” complain, huh? Do you listen to yourself? That’s basically saying that “good Americans” keep their mouth shut and let the government do what it wants. THAT is servile, toadying and UN-American, buc.
BUT.. I suppose if it was a left-wing government in control of the US–THEN you’d be complaining, right? If you didn’t like the policies? But that would be okay, then, correct? Because it’s only bad when liberals complain, right?
COME OFF IT. I at least thought you were more intelligent than that.
“..Obama’s a good man in my estimation, and God bless if he get’s the nomination – but neither him or McCain will transform or run my life. I do.”
Well yee-ha and good for you. But again, by this logic, then why bother voting? It doesn’t matter who runs things then, does it?
Of course the truth is that whomever the president is, he CAN have a significant impact on your life. Presidents set policy. They help to guide and manage the WAY business is conducted in the US. They are *in charge* of foreign policy–and all these things can come back to affect your life to varying degrees. Your statement amounts, then, to little more than cant.
“And I am most certainly not blind to my neighbors or unwilling to lend a hand to people that need it, I take issue with you suggesting that I am some sort of cold hearted snob. You are dead wrong on that.”
I certainly NEVER said you were a snob, nor cold-hearted. But I am taking you at face value for things you have said. I *quoted* you. Your attitude is that you don’t care. At least from your words.
“Pity me? I pity your attitude. Count your blessings and be happy for a change.”
Dude… again… listen to yourself.
I am a citizen of a democratic republic. It is MY responsibility to be concerned about what my government does because they work for ME. I WILL speak out, therefore, when I feel that government is doing wrong. That is my DUTY as an American (and my right).
What YOU are advising, on the other hand, is to take a happiness pill and shut up about it. Does that REALLY sound responsible to you? I would hope not.
You’re an ostrich digging your head in the sand, buc. Face it.
April 9th, 2008 at 11:15 am
MCCAIN: Do you still view al Qaeda in Iraq as a major threat?
PETRAEUS: It is still a major threat, though it is certainly not as major a threat as it was say 15 months ago.
MCCAIN: Certainly not an obscure sect of the Shi’ites overall?
PETREAUS: No.
>
McCain is taking a page from Bush’s playbook. If you repeat a lie over and over( this was the fourth time in three weeks he made the same “mistake”) people will start to believe it. If you don’t know that Al Qaeda is a Sunni operation, you are unfit for office. If you don’t understand the dynamics of the three major sects in Iraq you simply cannot be the Commander in Chief. If a midget like Joe Lieberman doesn’t even have to stand on his tippy-toes to whisper the correct answer in your ears, you are too short to be president.
April 9th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Randall: Nice novel
April 9th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Yogi:
Nicely said.
April 9th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Yogi, Randall; Amazing how Bush managed it eh? Betcha he still doesn’t understand. Now I’m going to go look up the those 18 steps you’re talking about.
Randall was it not Clinton that implemented the abhorrent Rendition policy (kidnapping and removal for interrogation outside the US)? Granted the current administration has taken it to a new low.
April 9th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Mom424: Dontcha mean “talking aboot?”
April 9th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Slick; ayuh yer right.
by the way I answered your question about gun laws in Canada in my response to troy on the dangerous list.
April 9th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Mom424: Yeah, I saw that. Man, the gun control issue is one I’m iffy on. For one, I think that law-abiding citizens should be allowed to responsibly own guns, and I don’t think banning handguns would solve, or even reduce, the gun crime problem. However, the statistics I’ve seen seem to indicate that countries with strictier handgun laws see a significant difference in violent, gun-related crime. I’m all for banning assault weapons, get the f. outta here. If you can’t use it for hunting, and its not classified as a sport weapon, it has no place being here. Also, I think there should be a VERY strict limit on the number of guns allowed in a single household, or by a single owner. I see people listing their guns all the time, and many have between 3 and 10 guns, most of which are handguns/assault rifles, with the odd shotgun or hunting rifle thrown in. It’s disgusting overindulgence, and completely unnecessary. I don’t think people should be allowed to own more than 2 cars a person, either, but that’s a whole other can of worms.
April 9th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Slickwilly; I wouldn’t want a ban on hand guns/side arms but I would like to see much stricter control on your side of the border. Here you can own a hand gun but it is a privilege not a right. It must be stored separately of the ammunition and I do believe it must be disassembled to keep it at home. You must apply for a license, take gun safety courses etc. And you are correct there is a direct link between prevalence of gun ownership and gun related crime. It is just common sense; the more floating around the easier it is for the bad guys to get them. Now even here if you really want a gun illegally you can get one, it is just that much more difficult. You would have to break into many homes before you found a hand gun.
April 9th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Mom:Much sticter control sounds good but it won’t fly with the NRA nut jobs.
April 9th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
The less guns floating around, the easier to control the frightened,huddling masses.
April 9th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
anybody but hillary clinton.
April 9th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Csim: “Nut Jobs”? You should look at the politics.
Neo “The Body” Ludd: Nicely put.
Courtney: Are you one of the ones who thinks she is “Evil” and/or the Devil Incarnate?
Why all of this hatred of the Hill? Because she “Worked Through” the Lewinski scandal? She probably new long before we did. Really, did you see the look inn his eyes during the investigation? The man is probably scarred in more ways than we can Imagine. BSM Pain olympics has nothing.
My current problem is Obama and his “Black Power, Fuck the White Man” spiritual advisors.
Give me my gun, Give me my rights to Speak, and get the Hell off my property.
April 9th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
crimanon:Hells yes! That’s how I feel, and I wasn’t saying guns are bad by the way.
April 9th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Mom, who are you rooting for to win the Stanley Cup?
GO SHARKS!
April 10th, 2008 at 5:19 am
Charles Manson!
April 10th, 2008 at 6:52 am
Randall – you’re entitled to your own stupid opinion, poopy pants!
April 10th, 2008 at 6:55 am
“poopy pants”?
Not since I was two…..
April 10th, 2008 at 7:49 am
You know, honestly, I don’t see what the big deal with this whole Rev. Wright scandal is. Obviously he has gone on record making some perceived anti-American comments, if you could call it that. I’ve been reviewing the transcripts of his sermons, and people keep coming back to about the same 3 or 4 comments he made. None of which are really racist, I’ve found. There is no question that he used some strong words, inflammatory, even. But Rev. Wright was expressing the anger and conviction that many modern blacks still have about the very real racism that still exists in our society. In addition, most of the comments he made that are the subject of controversy are aimed at the very real arrogance and hypocrisy with which America conducts itself. Its a subject alot of Americans don’t like to talk about publicly, but one that almost everyone has a strong opinion about, even though many don’t want to hear it.
However, many people criticize Obama for making Rev. Wright is spiritual advisor for his campaign and for not immediately disowning Wright when the statements were made public, or immediately disowning him when, people *assume*, Obama heard them in church. I have a few things to say about this.
1) I’d first like to address that people *think* they know what has gone inside the United Church of Christ. They assume that Obama has heard statements like these before, and because of his nonaction against them, they assume he necessarily condones them. My first point is that, if Rev. Wright were making statements like this every Sunday for 36 years, you’d think there’d be a lot more ammo for Hillary and the conservatives to fire at him. As it stands, there are only about 3 or 4 comments that keep popping back up. If, in 36 years, he has only made even a dozen or so of these comments (assuming some of them never made it to paper), why do people assume that Obama *must* have heard these statements? The logic suggests that Wright was very much a PASTOR to his church, and not some vehement anti-american black supremecist.
2) He is a black pastor in a black church, expressing the issues that black people have with America and expressing the anger with which they feel about it. How is that wrong? How is that un-American? Indeed, how is that even anti-American? He didn’t just say “God damn America.” He said “God damn America for killing innocent people. God damn America as long as she pretends to act like God.” Do you all deny that our government can be extremely unjust? Do you all deny that we have killed innocent people in our military pursuits around the world? Do you all deny that America acts like it runs the world? If you answered yes to any of these questions, you are deluding yourselves. There is no hate here, just a profound regret and anger at the situation.
3) Lastly, Obama trusts Rev. Wright. The man married him to his wife, baptized his daughter. Obama is certainly not racist. For god’s sake, the man is HALF WHITE. In other words, just as much white as he is black. And he has been attending the church for many years. The fact that he made this man his spiritual advisor – and decided not to abandon him through the controvery – is a testament to his loyalty and strong spiritual committment. I would much rather have a president that sticks by his allies, even when they are not the most popular, than drop the ones that have been with him from the beginning like a hot plate when a little bit of controversy arises. It shows that Obama is a *strong and loyal leader.*
I just feel I need to point these things out. The fact is, there is in actuality so little going against Obama that his critics feel they must seize upon these minor, controversial chinks in his armor and bloat the situation until the uninformed American public is up in arms. Rev. Jeremiah Wright statements do not necessarily imply that he is anti-American, or that he he is racist. In fact, I would challenge anyone on this message board to produce statements by Rev. Wright that overtly prove that he is racist and anti-American, and not simply discussing a potent topic in a spirited way to a crowd of sympathizers.
April 10th, 2008 at 7:52 am
Slick: That’s a nice novel, wanna publish that?
April 10th, 2008 at 8:08 am
Csimmons: Hey listen, just because some of us have more to add to the conversation that a few pithy sentences one comment at a time doesn’t mean you have any right to hate on me for my lengthy missives. And yes, I would like to publish it.
April 10th, 2008 at 8:33 am
slick: I might buy it.
April 10th, 2008 at 8:42 am
Csimmons: Why buy the book when you just got it for free?
April 10th, 2008 at 8:45 am
slick: Good point, I’ll just print it out and sell it for ten bucks for each copy
April 10th, 2008 at 9:02 am
Mornin Slick: You forgot to mention the essay thing. How the opposition quoted 1 line from Obama’s wife’s senior thesis, took it out of context, and tried to use it as anti-Obama rhetoric. The university refused to release it (I’m not sure why, to not influence the election?)so the Obama camp released it themselves. Really scraping if you are looking at the wife’s academic career.
April 10th, 2008 at 9:33 am
Good morning, Mom: Absolutely. I think people are actually mistrusting Obama because he doesn’t seem to have the same skeletons in his closet as most other politicians. The few he had he brought out on his own, which was a brilliant move in my estimation. It’s such a weird thing: people bitch endlessly about how they’re tired of old-school politics and politicians in washington, but are extremely mistrustful of Obama for not seeming to be these things. They think, because he doesn’t have the same flaws as most other politicians, that he is “up to something.” It’s an interesting – and, if you ask me, ignorant – dichotomy.
April 10th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Oh, so we are saying good morning now? Then Good Morning Slick and Mom, and slick, that is a bit weird how we hate when politicians have skeletons in their closet but when Obama reveals his to the public he’s “up to something”. It just sounds retarded.
April 10th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Hey Slick; I’m actually undecided about Obama. He seems unproven to me. I know I’m an uninformed Canadian but honest to god, I rarely if ever heard his name uttered before the democratic primary. Why is this? I had heard/was aware of the other candidates long before. Is it because he doesn’t make waves? He’s not new to the political scene. I am concerned the reason he was put forth has less to do with his political views and plans and more to do with the fact that he hasn’t had the chance to offend the American public yet. Is there substance behind the style?
April 10th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Mom: Really I hadn’t heard of him before either, I only heard of him during the primaries as a strong candidate. I think the reason why we hadn’t heard of him was because of the way he didn’t piss anybody off or have a huge scandal. Plus I’m sure he will eventually piss some people off.
April 10th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Mom424: From what his voting record indicates, there is a lot of substance there. You’re not alone, most of the American public was blindsided by Obama. He literally came out of nowhere; before his candidacy he was a state senator for Illinois, for about 7 years, before being elected to the Senate in 2004. Before he announced his run for president, he was pretty low-key, kind of like John Kerry in the 2004 election. McCain has run for president several times before, and Hillary was the first lady for 8 years, so both of those candidates were fairly high profile before this year’s run. Also, as Randall pointed out, every candidate for president save an incumbent is unproven. As far as his records are concerned, he certainly seems to have the best aspects for the job, but no one ever knows until they get there. I don’t know what you mean by “put forth.”
April 10th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Csimmons: With this whole Rev. Wright thing, I think he has managed to piss a few people off.
April 10th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Mom:
Obama delivered the keynote speech at the Democratic Primary convention in… 2004 I believe. He was an instant celeb in the party, because he was so impressive, and, yes, presidential.
April 10th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Slick; I’m sure he didn’t decide on his own to run. I am rather cynical but is it not likely that party big wigs push the candidates that they think have a chance at winning? That is what I mean by put forth.
I would not discount a candidate just because he is new, I’ve read his voting record, and other than the war thing (lots of your politicians were duped), there is nothing that would prevent me voting for him. In fact if I was American, I would vote for him. I prefer untested to the proven lying, scheming, old boy network.
I still think that we are going to end up with McCain; Honest to god, Bush and his cronies should be over on the new list. They are better at misdirection than Uri Geller. And a large portion of your population (at least the loudest ones) still believe the bullshit.
My god Popoff is getting rich again. You can’t teach folks who refuse to learn.
April 10th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Mom, what do you mean, “other than the war thing?” Obama is the only remaining candidate who was against the war from the start.
April 10th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Mom424: Yeah, TMo is right, of the 3 candidates, Obama is the only one who voted against the war. McCain, like Bush, is a warhawk; hopefully enough people realize this in time. I only fear McCain being elected if Hillary gets the nomination. So far, most polls have shown that if Obama gets the nomination, he will handily defeat McCain come November. Granted, a lot can happen in 8 months, but the way things are going, Obama has enough support from both parties that he would soundly defeat McCain. Hillary, on the other hand, is a polarizer. Only the most die-hard democrats seem to support Hillary, and if that’s the case, the red states will swing to McCain if she runs on the DNP bill, and the presidency along with it.
April 10th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Slick: Rev Wright has been shown as a pussy cat compared to this guy,
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/8564/?ck=1
I feel as though it has only begone.
April 10th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Crimanon: If you mean Glenn Beck, then I might agree with you. That guy is childish, nitpicky, doesn’t let his guests get a word in edgewise, and takes small issues and blows them way out of proportion. Rather like Bill O’Reilly if you ask me.
I have little to say about Meeks. He has gone on record as making potentially divisive racial comments and is a strident anti-gay campaigner. I’m not denying that. However, while Obama has consulted him for spiritual advice, and he did serve a capacitory position on Obama’s exploratory board for his campaign, as far as I’m aware, that is as far as Obama has included him into his political matters. Obama has connections with Meeks because Meeks was instrumental to his election to the state senate. There is some cause for concern if Obama brings people like Meeks into his inner political circle, but as far as associating with unsavory people like Meeks, unfortunately, to do what Obama says he will do, he must connect with people like Meeks who hold strong opinions that run counter to his own. You can’t bring people together while pushing others away. I don’t care if Obama plays ball with these people, or even associates with them. You can be friends with someone who has completely different racial and political views from your own, so long as you don’t yourself fall victim to close-minded thinking. The most important thing to remember here is that Wright and Meeks never served as part of Obama’s political thinktank. As far as has been proven, they have not had an influence on his policy making. Case in point: Meeks is very, very anti-gay rights. In a bill that came up in 2006 proposing a constitutional amendment to outlaw same sex marriage, Obama adamantly opposed it, and his outspokeness was instrumental in defeating the bill.
April 10th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Slick; I apologize, I misread the war thing. What I thought happened was that while speaking out against the war, he ultimately voted for it – you know solidarity in the face of combat – I take it back. Geez, one more reason to vote for Obama. I hope you are correct; Why would anyone vote for Ms. Clinton? She lies and gets caught out. Yup she dragged her only child through an active combat area. Yup single handedly brokered peace in Northern Ireland.
April 10th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Mom, if she gets the nomination I would vote for Clinton as often as possible. She is whipsmart and focused. I do think however, after watching her during the Petraeus hearings, that she’s too valuable in the Senate, and not electable enough to win against McCain. Our media dislikes women in general, and Clinton in particular. They positively cream their pants over McCain. It’s really pathetic .
April 10th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Mom424: Notice the startling lack of support for Clinton, even in this thread. Many people find her repellant. I myself can’t really say *why* I don’t care for Hillary Clinton, other than I don’t fully agree with her healthcare policy. Beyond that, her stance on the issues is very close to Obama. I think its the overall feel of her character. She stretches the truth as every politician tends to do from time to time. There was the whole Whitewater scandal from back in the early 90’s, not to mention the whole Bill-Monica thing, which I for some reason – I couldn’t tell you why – seems to reflect poorly on her (I thought she was very stoic and supportive of Bill throughout all that, even though she had every right to be steamed). I’ve also heard she is a giant hosebeast bitch (ala Martha Stewart) but I’m not sure if there is much truth in that. I don’t hate Hillary, and I would vote for her before I’d vote for McCain, but between Hillary and Obama, for me there is no contest.
April 10th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Slick; I’m not so sure that Hillary is a better bet than McCain. The bitch factor doesn’t trouble me – a man would be considered forceful and uncompromising – but the foolish lying about things she needn’t. Seems almost pathological. She is plenty smart and focused, but she is cut from the same cloth as McCain. Old School Politics 101 – say whatever you need to acquire and maintain power.
If McCain won he would deescalate the war and hopefully get some UN help in short order. 2 1/2 years at most. He will want a 2nd term. The cynic in me speaking, it won’t matter if he really believes they should stay.
By the way, during the BJ scandal was the only time I actually had some respect for Hillary. Her behavior was beyond reproach. I don’t understand how it reflected badly on her. Now if it was Hillary and Monica, I would understand.
April 10th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Mom: Hillary and Monica, hmmmmm……
April 10th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
I don’t think it’s a coincidence that political cartoons about the candidates are usually about Hillary fighting Obama in a ring, and the ‘Donkey’ referee being the only one knocked out!
Get it?
The elephant in the audience being the only one enjoying it happens once in a while too…
April 10th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Slick: using the link for the vid only. O’Reilly is a hate-monger… Beside the point.
Meeks Is a Delaget. How can he not be part of the think tank?
April 10th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
‘Show me who your friends are and I’ll show you who you are.’
April 10th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
CSim: I was having the same thought… Strong, set in their goals, known to give guys a little lip…
April 10th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Crimanon: Obama was never very close to Meeks in the first place. However, just because he is a superdelegate doesn’t mean that he has any influence over Obama’s political agenda. There are over 800 superdelegates in the democratic national party. I’m sure you don’t think hundreds of people are deciding for Obama what his course of action will be. Also, I don’t necessarily agree with that quote. *Real* friends, maybe. Meeks is not a real friend to Obama, he is a political friend. He constituency was vital for Obama to win the seat in the state senate, so Obama approached him and asked for his endorsement. Any real ties beyond that that we know of is purely politics. I doubt, Rev. Wright being a close, close friend of Obama, that he even actually consulted Meeks for real, true “spiritual” advice. Most likely, it was a political move to establish rappore between Obama and Meeks’ constituency (who are made up mostly of the parishioners at Meek’s church).
April 10th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Slick: He is more than likely just a political friend, I really don’t care because he is pretty much going to win the office of president of the united states, unless out of nowhere there is a huge scandal involving him and Osama Bin Laden, Even then he’s still a better choice to McCain who will drive this war on until we enter another depression.
April 10th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Slick: Would you, running for office, even approach a guy like Meeks or Wright? Very Very bad call on his part. If Hitler could get you elected, would you do it? Misunderstood Ideals that potentially lead to Extreme Actions.
April 10th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Mom, Huh or should I say Eh? You think McCain is going to de-escalate the war? And you believe he would make a better president than Clinton? That makes no sense whatsoever. Just compare their eyes. One has clear, focused eyes that exude energy and intelligence. The other always has a dull, glassy, and bewildered look. Anybody who votes for McCain is a complete fool. He is not fit to be president. He’d be lucky to survive a single term in office, so you better really like his VP.
April 10th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Crimanon, I’m going to invoke Godwin’s Law on you. You actually just compared Obama to Hitler, because of his association with Wright? That’s really, really, stupid. Wright served this country with distinction and has done a tremendous amount for his neighborhood. Guess what, any Black man his age has good reason to be angry. Get back to us when you accomplish anything as praiseworthy as Rev. Wright.
April 10th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
I had to google Rev. Meeks to find out he is indeed a creep. If he were white he’d be a staunch Republican. Crimanon is right about this jerk. Obama should disassociate himself from the bad Rev. Meeks.
April 10th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
Yogi: Thank you.
April 11th, 2008 at 4:59 am
Yogi; I didn’t say I thought he would make a better president than Clinton. I said I wasn’t convinced he would be any worse. I know McCain’s party line about the war, the point I was making is that he will get out of the war regardless of what he thinks – he will want a 2nd term – he would not get it without ending/deescalation.
The Meeks/Wright thing; Is it not a political reality that Obama will require the black vote in order to win? Even a principled fellow (He certainly seems to be) knows he cannot afford to alienate a large voting block. I think that abandoning his church/pastor would be counter-productive. It is possible to distance himself from the comments (I believe he is trying) without abandoning the man/church community.
April 11th, 2008 at 6:23 am
Yogi – I respect what you’re saying about Obama. There’s a lot to admire about the guy. But you gotta drop this crap about ‘anybody who votes for McCain is a complete fool’ crap. Obama’s just another politician who’ll promise you the moon and find out things are very different when they get into office. Saying eye disposition is a way to determine intelligence and therefore a reason to vote for someone isn’t very smart. Stephen Hawking’s eyes are probably matted down with crud right now, and you wouldn’t call him stupid.
John McCain is a great American who gave his all for this country during another unpopular war. Say you don’t care for his policies, say you aren’t going to vote for him. But don’t spray everybody who supports him with that kind of talk – it doesn’t really help your point or contribute anything valuable to the conversation.
April 11th, 2008 at 6:39 am
Yogi, Crimanon: As I said before, Obama was never very close to Meeks. Meeks is the reverend of a black superchurch in Chicago, and his own consituency represents a large portion of conservative black voters. How can one praise Obama’s message of unity and change if he refuses to associate with members of the hardcore conservative right? As I said, Obama’s plans are very clear cut, his stance on the issues is very clear cut, and having occasional political dealings with these men is not going to influence his policy. Why does it reflect poorly on Obama that he wants to connect with people even of Meeks political biases? And still manage to get the guy on his side?! Why does he have to publicly distance himself from people like Meeks? To satisfy people who can’t or don’t want to look past the surface on most issues. It’s a knee jerk reaction…ooh, Obama has connections to a anti-gay black conservative, that’s BAD! I don’t know why, but it is!
And yes, Crimanon, if I were running for office, I would realize who my necessary contituency was and gun for them. It’s part of election politics…it’s all part of the game. You have to enact change through the system because over or around the system just won’t work anymore; it has gotten too bloated for its own good. And comparing Hitler to Meeks was probably an overstatement, to put it lightly.
April 11th, 2008 at 6:45 am
bucslim: Maybe Obama is just another politician who’ll sell you a prime slice of lunar real estate. But McCain is *definately* an old-school politician who *will* sell you that slice. And we know based upon his recent actions that he will continue to carry the torch for Bush if he takes office. I used to really like McCain because he was one of the most middle-of-the-road conservatives, and I respect that. But to win the GOP nomination, he had to compromise some of his beliefs for popularity in the party and in doing so, spoke out in favor of Bush’s economic and foreign policies. Both of which are the primary reason people are so ready to see a change in the whitehouse. McCain is a smart man, a competant leader, and certainly a patriot, but the chance that he will just continue the 3-ring circus washington has become is just too great.
April 11th, 2008 at 6:47 am
SlickWilly: Ditto on the use-to-respect-McCain sentiments.
April 11th, 2008 at 6:58 am
Slick – good points all. But the mere fact that most conservatives hate this guys guts ought to tell you something that he’s not a Bush clone. I just don’t buy into this craze that Obama’s the cure all. That’s all I’m saying.
Democrats have a serious problem right now. There’s a very real chance that this Hillary thing could split the party at the convention – which could get ugly in a hurry. You might not like it, but that could spell victory for McCain if it goes too far.
April 11th, 2008 at 7:02 am
Hard-line conservatives don’t like McCain because of his former “maverick” status and because of his history of crossing party lines in some Senate votes. And also his perceived liberal attitudes towards illegal immigration. But they have settled with him and are coming to terms with him because he’s begun to pander to their views and they’d still rather have him then one of the “communist” dems.
Hopefully Obama will upset Hillary in Pennsylvania, because if he does, she will have to drop out. I’d say the chance of that is only about 10% at this point, though. We’ll have to see how the next 10 days play out.
April 11th, 2008 at 7:10 am
LOOK. Let’s settle this crap ONCE and FOR ALL.
I think we would ALL agree (those of us who think and have IQs greater than idiot level) that the last eight years of Bush/Republican rule have been a disaster. NOT just because of the way the war was carried out—(or, as I feel, that it was carried out AT ALL) but also because of the erosion of our freedoms (Patriot Act, as well as the way nut-cases have taken over and/or influenced the FCC and other government agencies), the corrupt handling of judicial appointments, the mess that is our economy now, and so on and so on and SO ON. Bush didn’t screw all this up on his own. He had LOTS of help–from Republicans who have gone overboard with their ideologies. The Republican party–in terms of holding the presidency and/or congress—has simply been in power FAR TOO LONG, in one way or another. Naturally, Republicans aren’t going to agree with all this–but think about it. Whenever ANY party has power for too long, they tend to get sloppy, greedy, corrupt, and unresponsive. They fall more and more into the hold of special interests. We’ve seen this happen with the Republicans JUST as it happened to the Democrats many years ago.
The problem with McCain, therefore, is not merely the personal failings he may or may not have (age, odd temperament, some of his stances)… it is ALSO the fact that voting him into office means a CONTINUATION of Republican control AT LEAST of the White House–which means many, if not most, of the same people will be running or influencing policy in this country as have been for the last 8 years. This is a fact–it’s how big politics in Washington work—people are deluded if they think that because McCain is a different person, he will have that many different people *working for him*—and even where they would be different people–they are all beholden to the same basic policies, ideology, etc.–and they all move within the same groups, and influence one another. Washington is a big incestual cesspool in these matters.
Moreover—the same special interests (big oil, big business, the religious right) who have been influencing policy the last 8 years or more—will CONTINUE to do so. Sure, the democrats have special interests of their own—but this is the way our big mess of a democracy WORKS. It balances itself out over time. But the BALANCE has been lost over the last 8+ years, between Bush and congress. It’s time for the Republicans to be out of power for a while. It’s as simple as that.
If you don’t agree with that, then you’re happy with the way things have gone the last 8+ years. I’m not.
Clinton or Obama? I prefer Obama by a mile. Or ten miles. But if Hillary got the nomination, I’d still vote for her–because it’s still POLICY and ideas I’m voting for–and WHO the president is–is almost secondary to that.
April 11th, 2008 at 7:12 am
TMo – don’t bet on Hillary dropping out even if she loses Pennsylvania. This is a woman who offered the VP job to Obama when she’s behind in delegates. The Clinton’s believe she should be ‘appointed’ President, not voted in.
April 11th, 2008 at 7:19 am
bucslim, very true. Even Jesus voted for Hillary. Oh wait, that was Bush.
I have been following this election cycle extremely closely (what else am I gonna do for 8 hours a day on a computer. work? nah.) And by far my favorite moment was Sinbad-gate. I love Sinbad. Houseguest? Anyone?
April 11th, 2008 at 7:32 am
bucslim: Oh, you are so right about that. None of the candidates will be a cure-all, because it will take literally years to undo the damage that the current administration has done both to the US economy and our foreign relations. I’d would just like to see the person whom I think is the best man for the job (or woman, of course, but in this case, man) win the presidency. And I agree with you about the dem. nomination. If this thing isn’t decided come the Pennsylvania primary, it could mean *real* trouble for dems in November. McCain is already on the presidency campaign trail; Obama and Hillary are still in the primaries. He has a several month headstart, which could ultimately do real damage to the dem. nominee. I just hope that Hillary will decide enough is enough and drop out of the race if she loses Penn.
April 11th, 2008 at 9:06 am
Bucslim, I’m not going to drop the “crap”. Voting for McCain is foolish, unless you are a defense contractor. For the vast majority of Americans a McCain presidency will be just as disastrous as the Bush presidency. Same policies, same corruption, same incompetence. So I repeat, you have to be a fool to vote for McCain. You are letting your base emotions override common sense. That’s my definition of a fool.
BTW the anti-Hillary sentiment is also childish. For the most part, the people who hated Hillary before this campaign started have mommy issues. It’s not Clinton’s fault that your mother didn’t breast feed you or that you could nevver get a date in high school. Clinton is a bright, capable woman, and a terrific senator. Grow up already!
April 11th, 2008 at 10:20 am
Yogi – “the anti-Hillary sentiment is also childish.”
I’d argue that Hillary has conducted herself in a very childish way this election cycle, and the anti-Hillary sentiment is very adult-like and based upon her deviant character and intentional misleading of the electorate more than her sex. She has come off as a pathological liar and has turned off many Democrats to her candidacy because of her supposed inevitability and willingness to say anything we want to hear. I supported Obama from the start (actually I supported Gravel from the very start lol) but Hillary did not seem like such a bad choice until she started acting like a conniving, lying opportunist. I will still vote for her if she wins (read: steals) the nomination, because anything is better than four more years of Bush, but not without a really, really disgusting taste in my mouth.
And it’s not breast milk. I happen to like breast milk.
April 11th, 2008 at 10:23 am
TMo:
I’ve gotta agree, in large part, with what TMo just said.
I’ll still vote for her if she gets the nom, but I won’t be happy about it. But please god, anything but four more years of Republican rule. The nation can’t stand it.
April 11th, 2008 at 10:29 am
I dont want any of the 3 candidates, none of them represent me. But i can’t stand Hitlery Clinton, so i guess either obama or mccain. Obama may be even more liberal than Clinton, but at least i know where he stands, Clinton is, as TMo put is, “a conniving, lying opportunist.”
lolz at the “landing under sniper fire” story she made up…
April 11th, 2008 at 10:39 am
TMo, I’m inclined to agree with what you say about how Clinton has conducted her campaign. That’s why I stipulated that the people who hated her BEFORE the campaign are childish. Most of it is just misogynistic crap. I’d actually prefer to have a woman president, but with Clinton, the point is moot, she wouldn’t win against McCain. Obama is the only thing standing between us and another four years of George Bush.
April 11th, 2008 at 10:45 am
Yogi – yes she is a bright and capable Senator – voting for the war in Iraq then trying to either hide from that vote or bitch about the war. Offering the VP to the candidate who has more delegates and making up stories about her dodging bullets in Bosnia.
Of course, telling the truth about Hillary will get you branded as misogynistic.
April 11th, 2008 at 10:45 am
Right on cue, Everlast chimes in with a comment that makes my point. Calling her Hitlery is asinine. The root cause of Everlast’s fear of Clinton is called Vagina Dentata.
April 11th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Why do you hate her for voting for a war that you supported as well? George Bush provide false information to the Senate. She changed her position when she learned the truth.
April 11th, 2008 at 10:53 am
Yogi:
Whoa there, big fella… let’s not accuse *everyone* who hated Hillary before the campaign of childishness. Or… okay, “hate,” sure… I didn’t use to *hate* the woman (I dislike her more and more every day, now, however) but dislike of her can go way back, and it can be put down to more than mere misogyny.
I recall many instances when her husband was president when her arrogance appeared to be right out on her sleeve; only one example is the entire debacle with her universal health care program, when her unwillingness to compromise—and apparent belief that the various politicos in Washington should just bow to her and do as she said—turned me off badly to her.
I consider myself a fair person, and yet I gradually gained a feeling for her that was very negative. Now, in this campaign, my feelings have *only* be reinforced.
Let’s face it–the negative characteristics she’s been evincing over the last year have always been with her—and people have picked up on it as I have.
I’m from New York, and yes, I’ve voted for her—because she’s a Democrat. But I’ve never thought of her as a “terrific” senator… she really doesn’t seem to have done that much to benefit the state, if you ask me.
She’s got my vote, if she wins the nomination (which seems unlikely) but let’s not pretend she was anything but what she’s appeared to be in recent times: opportunistic, very loose with the truth, and short on character.
April 11th, 2008 at 10:55 am
Yogi Barrister you’re a moron, it has nothing to do with her sex.
April 11th, 2008 at 11:12 am
I’ll take your word for it Everlast, how exactly is she like Hitler? Does she remind you of your mother or do you really believe she’s like Hitler?
Randall, she’s been pretty effective in the Senate. As a senator, She’s supposed to be working for the entire country, not just New York. Getting more pork for your state is the job of your House reps.
BTW Clinton is my least favorite of the Democratic candidates as well. I thought it was because of her vote on the war and her inside-the-Beltway status, but as I dig deeper into my psyche, I realize that I’m still angry with the way my mother potty trained me.
April 11th, 2008 at 11:14 am
“Of course, telling the truth about Hillary will get you branded as misogynistic.”
Bucslim you should become a fortune teller. see post 366.
It’s a great trick the party faithful(both parties) often pull
Don’t like Obama? you’re a racist
Don’t like Clinton? you’re a misogynist
Don’t like McCain or support the war on terror? you’re a traitor and can’t be a patriot.
it’s complete crap.
April 11th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Yogi:
“Randall, she’s been pretty effective in the Senate.”
Eh. I don’t think particularly more so than many other senators, and certainly not the match of great NY senators like Pat Moynihan (not that I was a huge fan of his, though I liked him).
“…As a senator, She’s supposed to be working for the entire country, not just New York. Getting more pork for your state is the job of your House reps.”
Touche.
Being from New York, I’m used to ALL of our elected officials getting graft for us whenever they can get it. 
April 11th, 2008 at 11:24 am
everlast:
no…. if you *don’t like* Obama, you pretty much *are* a racist, dude. There’s little explanation otherwise.
Sorry, but come on. It’s one thing to be a tad concerned that maybe he doesn’t have the experience–I don’t agree with this sentiment and think it’s often an excuse–but I can see it. But not *liking* Obama? Hating him, as some profess to do? No, there’s no reason. ‘Cept racism.
April 11th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Everlast, addendum:
Or…. let us not say “racist.”
But let us say… his color is coloring some people’s opinions of him.
April 11th, 2008 at 11:26 am
Randall: I think that’s a little harsh. I’m an Obama supporter, but I don’t think everyone who doesn’t like him is a racist. They are either racist *or* retarded.
April 11th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Randall I can’t always tell if you’re joking or not, you are saying it’s not possible, what so ever, to dislike Obama? if so, I’m assuming you just mean him, personality-wise and not his platform, in which case you may have a point then.
April 11th, 2008 at 11:31 am
TMo:
Okay, that’s fair. I’ll buy that. Racists are always retarded, but not all retards are racist.
April 11th, 2008 at 11:34 am
Precisely. Not all far-right war-mongering bible-thumpers are necessarily racist.
April 11th, 2008 at 11:35 am
everlast:
I’m saying, to HONESTLY have reservations based on his experience or some stance of his–sure. Someone else could never be sure if it’s an excuse you’re using to hide your racism–but nevertheless, if it’s honest, it’s legit, even though I don’t think there’s anything to *really* feel reserved about, in regards to Obama.
But I have heard several people squawk about how they “don’t like him,” and so on… and THAT, yes, is undoubtedly just thinly-disguised prejudice.
April 11th, 2008 at 11:37 am
TMo:
Right… but not ALL far-right war-mongering bible-thumpers are retarded…. some are brain-damaged. Find distinction.
All, however, are *assholes.* That’s a far larger set that encompasses many subsets.
April 11th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Let’s be PC here. Not all retards are assholes. There’s some really charming retards out there.
April 11th, 2008 at 11:46 am
TMo:
YES. Very true. So sorry… clumsy error of logic on my part.
April 11th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
351. Slick: I’m sure there are ways Much more productive than Hanging out with Meeks or Wright, Hell, I’d rather see him talking to Sharpton at least he knows, More often, when to keep the intensity to a minimum.
The Overstatement… Hitler had done Way more (In the eyes of the citizen) to get His part of the world, Knew his people better, And not only knew the system, He knew how to Break it to get his way. Strategist Yes, Nice Guy No.
Barack has both and then some.
April 11th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Crimanon: Well, you can’t really say there are more productive ways because you don’t know how productive their relationship was to begin with. I understand it makes some people uncomfortable that Obama has political affiliations with Meeks (as I said, I don’t what the big deal is about Wright), but Obama owes Meeks a debt of gratitude for his endorsement during his run for state senate. If not for Meeks, Obama might not even be running for president right now. Beyond that, I don’t know how many more times I need to say it, but Obama was never personally close with Meeks. He is not a good friend, he is not a political advisor, he simply represents a political alliance between Obama and Meeks’ constituency. Again, after a moment’s thought, how does this reflect poorly on Obama?
April 11th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Slick: Holy shit, I can’t believe you still don’t see it. Ok, we’re at a party Me and You. There are a couple chickies there who think we’re pretty awesome. So you go and get drinks or do what ever has to be done at that moment. I’m there keeping them entertained. For some reason I come on a bit strong and there is a small brawl and Much drama. You get back and find out what has happened. “Grab his friend too!” And now not only am I getting kicked out but you stand the chance of wandering in the streets too. You may be able to stick around if you put the proper spin on things. But the other party-goers won’t see you in the same light.
I don’t know you any more than Obama and Meeks may know each other. But to even be associated can be detrimental to Any situation.
April 11th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Nothing against you, just making a point.
April 13th, 2008 at 9:22 am
Decisions, Decisions. What Do I Do?
Hmmm..Clinton, Obama Or McCain?
Who’s The Most Likely, My Ass Not To Screw?
Pick A Poison; Ego, Smugness, Or Being Insane?
April 14th, 2008 at 7:18 am
TMo, Randall,
Mentally challenged prejudicially insensitive, please. We don’t want any Aryan Mongoloids to be offended.
April 17th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
RON PAUL -contrary to what our corporate-sponsored media would have you believe- he is still in the race, and he is doing well.
The grassroots effort was very vocal in their support of Ron Paul leading up to the primaries. Luckily for this country, there are some very informed and organized people involved in the Ron Paul for President campaign. Many grassroots volunteers are participating in the delegation process. The primary elections are just a “kickoff” for the game that is delegation process.
John McCain. wow. John McCain is only the “PRESUMPTIVE Candidate”. He has not been nominated to represent the Republican Party. According to the media’s delegate count (which is another problematic topic, not to mention the electronic voting controversy) John McCain is likely to receive the Republican party’s nomination. Many states are considering a vote of “no confidence” in John McCain to run against either Democratic candidate. John McCain’s voting record shows that he DISAGREES with the Republican Party’s values and principles far more than he agrees with them. Eight years ago, McCain ran and no one would support him. Now, people are saying “As long as its not Bush, I don’t care” WAKE UP!! BUSH PUBLICLY ENDORSES JOHN MCCAIN! This election looks like a high school popularity contest. The media is playing it up like a TV drama of Clinton Vs. Obama Vs. McCain, while The People of America get the shaft.
Obama likes to taint words like “HOPE” and “CHANGE”. Ron Paul is our only hope for a change. ..and not the Clinton-Obama kind of change (for the worse).
Check out http://www.ronpaul2008.com
Ron Paul will be the catalyst that turns the United States around before the U.S. is destroyed by bad foreign policy (policing the world), “monopoly money” (currency backed by nothing), and a long list of issues we are now facing.
Ron Paul supporters: DO NOT WASTE YOUR VOTE ON OBAMA. Watch what happens at the Republican National Convention (RNC) held sept 1-4 2008 in (interestingly enough) St.PAUL, Minnesota.
April 17th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
And to those that think they support McCain, Clinton or Obama.. get really informed on the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act. Learn about how its being used to attack our personal liberty and privacy. Then, go to http://www.govtrack.us/ and check out the voting record for the New York, Arizona, and Illinois Senators. There are your favorite three voting “Aye”. Go over to the House and look at the Texas Congressman’s vote (NAY).
Here is a brief summary:
9/11.
less than six weeks later, HR 3162: Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (USA PATRIOT Act) is presented. -Nearly 200 pages- Less than four hours later bill passes (without being read)
2005, certain sunset provisions from the 2001 bill are set to expire. Your favorite three are part of the Senate majority that vote to “re-Authorize” 2001’s USA PATRIOT Act.
They can say all they want on TV and during debates. As long as the people don’t catch on to it and bust them publicly. Look at the voting records for these people. They are corrupt. Their bank accounts are filled with money from lobbyists, corporate interest groups and foreign government trade organizations. McCain, Obama and Clinton are all salespeople, and the American public is buying what they’re selling.
“They say jump, you just say ‘how high?’ You’re brain dead, you got a f-n bullet in your head”
-Rage Against the Machine
April 17th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Travis: Get in the game, man. With party politics the way they are, Ron Paul has a better chance of being elected Queen of Australia than president. It sucks, but that’s the way things are. It’s a two party system, and US republicans have spoken: they want McCain. At this point, a vote for Ron Paul is a wasted vote, and he is taking crucial left-wing votes away from the democratic candidates. Idealism is nice, but it’s the pragmatists who get things accomplished.
April 17th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
SlickWilly: I’m not sure which game you’re talking about. I’m playing my part in the delegation process. I sat on the Joint Resolutions Committee for my County. I typed my County’s platform. I’m going to the Republican Party Convention for my state as a Delegate from my County. From there, I hope to go to the National Convention.
I have been called an idealist; I have had friends tell me that I am deluded -I prefer words like “determined” and “optimistic”.
Regardless, considering one’s self as “practical” does not make one any more “productive” than the next. I don’t know what it is that you’re getting accomplished. More and more it seems that people consider the majority’s view as the most rational, using a bandwagon approach to THINKING, of all things. If that is the game you think I should play, then count me out.
April 18th, 2008 at 6:48 am
Travis: I think it is fantastic that you are involved with the delegation process, and it’s nice that you are “determined” and “optimistic” but given the fact that McCain has already received enough delegates to seize the party’s nomination, how do you feel your determination and optimism is going to be at all productive? Ron Paul will not get the republican nomination, and he will not be elected president. I would agree with that many people do go along with the majority opinion, simply because they are too simple-minded or lazy to decide for themselves. But the fact of the matter is, the president of the US is going to be either John McCain, Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama. Voting for Ron Paul is like going to a horse race and betting on the horse grazing in the field down the street from the track. And, yes, considering one’s self practical does tend to make one more productive, when they are making practical decisions rather than idealistic ones. I feel for you, man, I really do. I contributed several hundred dollars to Paul’s campaign back when he still had a reasonable shot of contending with the republican bigwigs. But there comes a time when you have to say, “sorry, ron…but it ain’t happening.” The most practical, and yes productive thing you can do at this point is decide which of the three candidates you hate the least.
April 18th, 2008 at 7:58 am
Unfortunately, I am in the minority on this. Many people share Your view that we are obligated go to the polls and cast a vote -even if that vote for a candidate we don’t agree with or trust.
Allow me to correct and extend your metaphor. The Ron Paul horse is not down the street from the track. This horse is in the race. This horse is running in a lane amongst “The Big Three”: the Obama, Clinton and McCain horses. All the wealthy observers up in the boxes (Bankers, Doctors, Businessmen) are putting their money on anyone but the Paul horse. The crowd notices this and bets like the rich people, thinking “with that kind of support, how could I lose?” The Paul horse is smaller, he doesn’t have the rich people’s bet, and he doesn’t have a pretty display around him, yet for some reason everyone -even the people betting with the bankers- feel that the Paul horse should win. A few people decide to place a bet on the Paul horse, knowing that -even if he doesn’t win- he deserves their effort. You agree with me on this, SlickWilly, because you bet on the Paul horse with your donation. The Big Three are heading the race, snarling and fighting to beat each other. Everyone in the stands is arguing about which of The Big Three is going to pull ahead. All the while, the little Paul horse is galloping steady and strong… ignoring the other three and staying focused. The bigwigs up in the boxes notice Paul and get nervous. They know that if the Paul horse wins the race, they will lose all of their investments and a great deal of money. So, the bigwigs send people down to the regular seats and encourage more people to bet on the Big Three. People flood the betting windows to cast their bets on who they have been told is likely to win.
Who is going to win? There is a lot more involved than just the popular vote. McCain is not popular. Do some research. Here’s my question to you: When all this fighting over which candidate will get the Democratic nomination is over, where do the voters for the other candidate go? Except for the people you have deemed “simple-minded”, can you see Obama supporters voting for Hillary or McCain? Or Hillary voters casting a vote for Obama? After all this fighting? I don’t see any democratic voters going in for McCain. Ron Paul is the only practical candidate to run against either of these democratic front runners. This is not a race about ethnicity or gender. This is a race about who is going to handle this country the best, and I think we both agree that Ron Paul is that person.
So, to be true to myself, I will cast my vote for Ron Paul. And if I am not able to do so via write-in or otherwise, then no other candidate will receive my vote. And I will only mention that the general public’s voting is a fraudulent, and we would all do better to petition and rally.
Either way. Thank you for participating in this discussion. It is apparent that we must simply agree to disagree on this one. Best of luck to you.
April 18th, 2008 at 8:39 am
Travis: I understand your point and your convictions are admirable. Unfortunately, I do not see a whole lot of Hillary’s supporters willing to vote for Obama if she doesn’t get the nomination and vice versa. I completely agree with you about Ron Paul, my man. He was supposed to be “it.” However, it just didn’t end up happening. His views were too radical for the republicans, and he should have known that when he signed up.
It’s a pity that just because I’m a realist, or that I no longer support Ron Paul, you think that I am uninformed. Oh well, you’re no different than Hillary’s, Obama’s and McCain’s respective supporters. Everyone thinks they are the smartest person alive and whoever disagrees with them is ignorant. Yes, yes.
McCain might not be “popular” but he got a slim majority of the popular vote, meaning that, by and large, the people have spoken, and McCain is the republican candidate that most people support. Ron Paul will not get the nomination, he will not be elected. Good on you for standing by your political convictions, even if they might lead you nowhere.
In any case, good luck at the state republican convention. And good luck as well if you happen to make it to the national convention.
April 18th, 2008 at 8:50 am
Slick,
For the record, I didn’t call you ignorant, and I didn’t mean to imply that you are uninformed. I didn’t say that I am any more or less intelligent than you. I was only trying to get you to see my side.. and I think you do now.
You are just as firm in your beliefs as I am in mine, and I respect that. Thanks for the good wishes.
April 18th, 2008 at 9:46 am
Travis: My mistake. Best wishes.
April 19th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
- BOB123
How can I be blamed if I was forced to work in an environment where politicians, movie stars and athletes appeared regularly? I didn’t seek these people out, in fact I don’t follow sports, politics, or Hollywood enough to know or care who most of these people are. The people that appear outside after an event to seek a meaningless signature or photograph with those previously mentioned, are the ones that I feel have too much time on their hands. Now that I am retired I can be very selective with who I will work with and nothing is more satisfying than to refuse service to a self-appointed entertainment mogul or egotistical politician. Those people are so use to getting their way that they throw a very entertaining tantrum when they are told “no” and I admit I often will refuse good money just to see their ego take a blow.
April 20th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
Obama is the man of choice. For all those who say that experience s a great thing, please note exihibit ‘bat shit crazy’ Dick Cheney. He has a mountain of experience, but the man is the closest thing to apocalyspe that I could imagine. If anything else, I want an enigmatic president. 8 years of a monkey is too much.
April 21st, 2008 at 7:44 am
YEA FOR COMMUNISM!!!!
April 22nd, 2008 at 5:54 am
Who should be the next president? Any of the three choices has a lot of work to do once in office. Many people had such high hopes for Bush when he was elected. Especialy we in americas military. But look where that got us. Most americans don’t realize how much of our Experienced military leadership has jumped ship. And I’m not talking about officers, I’m talking about our senior NCOs. Stripped of most of their power, and forced to train convicted felons and rapists…and basicly told to shut up and color. And win a war against an invisible enemy. When 911 happened me and my buddies were more than ready to head over and kick some taliban ass. To us, Iraq makes no sense. Those of you who hear these idiots from the military, officers, telling you how gung-ho they are, and that we’re doing a good…please! We’ve had way to many good guys die, and trust me, most of us in the military could care less about winning in Iraq. No one can even tell us how to win!! So, the right president is the one who has the guts to back the f*** out of a pathetic costly war. For the sake of our country, and not just to save face. Where do you think all your tax dollars are going? No health care? That money is in Iraq…etc. We don’t need another pat on the back, thanks for what you do, you boys make me proud,(and richer), president. We need a leader! So make the right choice, vote for a leader, not for the one that gives you warm fuzzies. You’ll just make another BUSH mistake.
The silent voice of the military.
April 22nd, 2008 at 1:06 pm
I’m glad I’m not old enough to vote, because I don’t like anyone who’s running.
April 23rd, 2008 at 8:30 pm
WhiskeyJack: So, which candidate are you supporting?
May 8th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Homer Simpson
May 9th, 2008 at 1:56 am
With or without the Crayon stuck in his brain?
May 10th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Homer Simpson – President
Peter Griffin – Vice President
May 21st, 2008 at 1:55 am
osama or obama…
May 25th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
this is a pick your poison election in my eyes.
no matter who wins taxes will go up because of the numerous programs they are all promising.
hillary:too fake
obama:too inexperienced
McCain:too republican
who gives a shit about race, gender, age
just remember that no matter what shit looks like it always stinks
i pick george carlin even though that is impossible.
but between the 3 i pick Obama
May 29th, 2008 at 2:31 am
Honestly, I voted in the primaries for Hillary Clinton and I’d do it again and again and again. Say what you want, I really don’t care, but call it whatever you want, if she doesn’t get the nomination then I WILL VOTE JOHN MCCAIN. I don’t believe all the things that the media says, but to me there are to many ifs about Obama and where there is smoke there is fire is a popular saying where I’m from. I have to vote for the experienced candidate and I am a lifelong democrat, but I will not vote for Senator Obama period. I also agree the delegate system should be abolished, if not for that Al Gore would have been our president and who knows how things would have turned out differently with no Bush. I think with a few more years time serving in the capacity of the senate Obama might be a credible candidate. He seems well spoken and well intentioned, but as we know the best intentions do not always make the best actions. He seems very personable and I don’t dislike the man, but I will vote for someone that I feel is strong enough to take the criticism without flinching so much. He has only begun to see what will be thrown at him in a general election and already he seems so defensive, just doesn’t seem seasoned enough.
May 29th, 2008 at 7:18 am
Behold!!! The Two-Faced Party System!
May 29th, 2008 at 8:38 am
Very Smart, must’ve been hard to think that one up. HA,HA,HA
May 29th, 2008 at 9:41 am
Tell you what, JazJ, experience don’t mean sh*t if it’s just experience with sticking one’s thumb up their respective ass.
May 29th, 2008 at 9:51 am
I would just like to point out that those that say they would vote for McCain if their preferential democratic candidate does not secure the nominations obviously don’t give a *shit* about the issues. If you truly care about the issues (and you should, if you expect to wisely exercise your right to vote), you would vote democrat, no matter who the nominee is. Clinton and Obama differ only slightly on a small number of issues, whereas McCain differs greatly on a wide number. Those Clinton supporters who refuse to vote for Obama if Clinton doesn’t get the nomination are being childish and ignorant. Vice versa for those Obama supporters that refuse to vote for Clinton. All you people are doing is hypocritically playing into the political game of the system. You are not helping the situation, you are hindering it. Get your heads out of your asses and wake up: if you are a democrat, stand by the democratic nominee, whoever it is. Otherwise, you’re just proving that you are an unintiated (read: lazy) or ignorant voter.
May 29th, 2008 at 10:11 am
Well said Slick, every word.
May 29th, 2008 at 10:13 am
SlickWilly: I’m 100% with you on that one. I voted for Obama in the primary, but as much as I dislike Clinton, I would vote for her over McCain in a heartbeat (while puking in my mouth). Then again, there’s no way a Dem will lose my state in November (Maryland), so maybe I’d just vote 3rd party again. Or maybe just write-in “Turd Sandwich.”
May 29th, 2008 at 10:30 am
TMo: Seriously? You’re voting for Turd Sandwich *again*? Everyone knows that the only effective, experienced candidate is Giant Douche. Get with the program, man!
Seriously though…all this “I’ll vote for Obama but I’ll NEVER vote for Clinton” horseshit is just that. The biggest problem is how widespread this attitude is. Just goes to show what we all knew all along: most voters don’t care enough to pay attention to the issues. These are the soundbite crowd, who believe everything they read on the ticker bar beneath the anchorperson on the evening news. I don’t particularly like Clinton; I feel her tactics in trying to get FL and MI seated are tearing the party apart and this displays her misplace priorities. However, her agenda is acceptable to me, and she has her plans for getting those things accomplished clearly laid out on her website (as does Obama), meaning that her ideals and platform represent my own far more than McCain’s do. If she does somehow steal the election from Obama, she’ll still have my support.
May 29th, 2008 at 10:36 am
Dude, totally. I don’t like Giant Douche. Did you hear what he said about the Greco-Roman empire that was taken out of context? And, Jesus, did you see his miniature golf score? So un-American. And what about pancake-gate? Absolutely ridiculous. I could never vote for some one who puts margarine on their flapjacks.
May 29th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Slick:
Of course what’s really at the bottom of these people (like JazJ) saying they’ll vote for McCain if Obama gets the nomination is RACISM… pure and simple. We all know that, but the media is too shy to admit it. And as much as I love Obama, it’s the one thing I fear that might keep him from being elected–not the openly racist amongst us, but the “hidden” racists who put up a front, but, when the chips are down, will not vote for a black man simply *because* he is black.
But it’s the only logical explanation for people taking the tack they do. Experience? PLEASE. McCain’s vaunted “experience” is a chimera. Ditto with Hillary’s. The word “experience” is really a code-cover-word used as justification for not voting for a black man—used by people who don’t want to admit that and will NEVER admit it. They will instead go on about Obama’s lack of “experience” or this or that “doubt” about him… all of which is just smoke and mirrors to cover up the truth–which is that their vote is racially motivated first and foremost.
I have yet to meet a SINGLE Obama supporter who says they would never vote for Hillary if she got the nomination. I’m sure they exist out there, but I have yet to meet one.
The question here is not about Obama or Hillary, or even Obama or McCain. The question is about AT LEAST FOUR MORE YEARS of Republican control of the White House – which means more infringements of our civil rights, more control and power for the religious right, more blank checks given to corporate America to do whatever they wish, even if it’s criminal, and more bumbling and offensive foreign policy mistakes. McCain will be BEHOLDING to these people who put him in office and there is *no way* that he will shirk away from that–the man is a career politician and he knows the way the game is played. Even if he only intended to serve one term, it wouldn’t matter–he would be drawing his subordinates, cabinet, and advisors from the very same pool that has served George W. Bush, and these very same voices will be driving McCain’s domestic and foreign policies. REGARDLESS of the differences in persona between McCain and Bush (and these differences are far less striking than people like to think) their essential policies will be near-indistinguishable. That is the way of things…. and particularly so with McCain, who is making it a point to draw a steady continuity between his plans and the policies of the Bush administration. People who think this will change when McCain is in office are disastrously naive. Parties matter when voting for president. It matters what PARTY controls the White House just as much–and sometimes more–than what MAN controls it.
With Obama, on the other hand, you have at least a more independent thinker. Certainly, though, much applies to him that I’ve said–he is a Democrat, and his policies will, in large part, follow a Democratic party line. In that sense, he and Clinton would not be so different as presidents. The difference would reside, in large part, in nuances of character. We could expect Hillary Clinton to be disingenuous, self-serving, even shady. (And we can expect the same of McCain, along with other vices, from what we’ve seen of him lately). Obama might turn out to be these things as well, but thus far he shows no indication of it. Rather, he shows every indication of having more integrity than either Clinton OR McCain. In any case, though, what matters for the future of our country is that the REPUBLICANS be put *out of power.* This means no McCain. And any Hillary supporter who doesn’t understand that, who says they would rather vote for McCain over Obama–is in fact a racist. There is simply no other answer. And such people are also part of the reason why we’re in the mess we’re in now–because people (perhaps not the same people, but I guarantee you that many of them were in fact the same) were too ignorant to see what Bush would do and was doing to our country–which is how he came close enough, twice, to nail reelection by his shady means.
I am an Obama supporter–a fervent one—but like all other Obama supporters *I* know, I would vote for Hillary Clinton in a HEARTBEAT over McCain or ANY OTHER REPUBLICAN—because I have my country’s best interests at heart. As much as I detest Hillary, she is a Democrat, and it is time for HER party, and Obama’s party, to be in power now.
May 29th, 2008 at 10:47 am
Applause
May 29th, 2008 at 11:05 am
Slick – I read your previous post with great interest (# 413) It’s somewhat humorous to me that no less than 8 months ago, the Dems could nominate Kinko the Clown and they’d get elected hands down, no problem against whoever the Reps put up there. Leave it to the Clintons to turn every Democrats wet dream into a fudge factory.
Hillary’s got her fangs into the nomination like a pit bull on a the ass of a postman. She ain’t lettin go for nothing. No matter what or how many pundits say she’s out of the race, she still believes they should just give it to her anyway, as I’ve stated in a previous post. And that might very well split the party and lose the race. Hell I might even watch the convention this year. The only thing missing would be a steel cage and Tina Turner declaring “Two go in, one comes out.” Maybe Mel could lend Obama his whistle.
Welcome to Thunderdome!!
May 29th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Randall – you’re a fervent Obama supporter? Really? I couldn’t tell.
May 29th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Buc: It’s somewhat humorous to *me* to hear you mention Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome.
May 29th, 2008 at 11:17 am
buc:
What? Did some little man say something? I couldn’t quite hear it.
May 29th, 2008 at 11:19 am
buc: (addendum)
and by the way, thanks for the support over there on that Truman thread. I get boiling mad at people like that… the idiocy and childishness, the adolescent moralizing. It interferes with my digestive system. Gives me the runs.
May 29th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Randall – I think the racist angle is a little over the top dude. Of course, I look at the Clintons the same way I look a the bottom of my shoe after I’ve stepped in dogshit, that’s besides the point. Some have said one could be misogynistic for not voting for Hillary. But you can’t judge everyone’s motivation for not voting for Obama or Hillary as some sort of redneck or chauvinist agenda. Some Dems hold the Clinton’s in very high regard and accept the experience thing as a legitimate issue. It’s all bullshit to me, but I hate those hillbillies.
May 29th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Randall – The Truman thing is just sad. I don’t know if it’s the education system failing us or people just don’t care. It sickens me that some folks are just to lazy to pick up a book or pay attention in class. One of my uncles was shot at the Battle of the Bulge and another one was in the South Pacific watching his friends die right and left. Good men on both sides getting chopped to bits on tiny fragments of land which would have been repeated endlessly.
Anyhoo, you’re very welcome.
May 29th, 2008 at 11:56 am
i always supported obama over hilary but i did respect hilary until she cried in new hampshire
i always thought that robots would short circuit if they got wet
to the person who would refuse to vote for obama if…excuse me when he beats out hilary for the nomination i havent smelled that much bullshit since i went to the rodeo
like i said before who gives a shit about race, we all bleed red blood anyway
and gore would have made a horrible president most likely corrupt.
btw. delegates choose the nominations not the president you are thinking about the electoral college which in my opinion is easier than a popular vote
May 29th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Concerning race…Obama is half-white. Alot of people seem to forget this, him running on the “first black president” ticket and all that. I think it would be unfair to characterize everyone who finds Obama distasteful as racist, but it would also be wrong to overlook the role that unconscious racism plays into our desicion-making processes as well.
May 29th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
true but most racists only think about the “black” half of Obama and you can’t vote for half a man
oh wait hilary…. j/k
May 29th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
to all the hilary clinton supporters i may have offended i would like to say
I am Sorry
that you support crybaby clinton
May 29th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
buc;
No no, I don’t think I’m being over the top in this at all. I can lay out a logical case, clear and concise, why “experience” is not a legitimate question in this race, and that as an issue, it’s nothing but a chimera.
There shouldn’t be THAT many dumb people out there who can’t understand that 4 years of McCain means 4 more years of the same horror and miasma that we’ve had under Bush. Yet the number of Hillary supporters who say that very thing–that they would sooner vote for McCain rather than Obama–is still pretty damn high, depending on which polls you listen to.
So come now, dude… don’t tell me I’m being over the top. That isn’t concern over “experience.” That’s racism, pure and simple. That’s throngs of poorly-educated and lower-class whites (and whites with low-class attitudes and ideas) who know it’s wrong to say that they won’t vote for a man based on the color of skin, so they make up some excuse to explain why they will not do so. It’s as simple as that.
On the other hand, I’m sure that when push comes to shove, a lot of these people will still pull the lever for Obama, because the economy is tanked and they know the damage the Republicans have done. I just hope that enough of them do come to their senses.
But really man, don’t tell me it’s not racism. Because then *you’re* being naive.
May 29th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
MPW:
It’s that attitude (in regards to Gore) that got us into this mess in the first place, and endangers Obama’s chances.
Al Gore, no matter WHAT you might think of him, would have been INFINITELY preferable over George Bush. That cannot even be *debated.*
May 29th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
buc:
As to the Truman thing…I think you underestimate these people. They’ve picked up a LOT of books, and they’ve paid attention in class. The trouble is the message they’ve been getting, and their smug self-assurance in the rightness of their revisionist view of history. Which is endemic on the anti-bomb side of this debate. It’s almost uniformly people who, while highly intelligent, are utterly out of touch and have no concept of what that war was really like, about, or what it meant to the people who had to FIGHT the thing. Also, they have a small-minded view of reality in general, with no grasp of the grand tragedy of life, whether it’s concerned with war or not. They’re the type of people who, throughout history, have tried to drive us towards utopias and controlled societies because they think they know better than the rest of us poor slobs.
In that sense there’s an inherent class thing in there too… note that “Steve” was recommending that no civilians be hurt or killed, that the only “honorable” way to have fought that war (or any war) is for soldiers alone to slug it out. Now think of the horror of that position–it should make us all cringe. It’s juvenile, it’s a teenager’s moralistic view of reality–but it also betrays the holder of such an idea as a person who never thinks HE would have to face that problem, or be the one to fight it out. He’s the one who sits on the sidelines and tells the rest of us (presumably lower-class folks) what to do, and how to die. It doesn’t matter to him that those soldiers were human beings with desires and wants of their own, and families—they’re soldiers and it’s up to THEM to fight, not civilians. But what the hell is really the difference? Training, and, of course, usually gender and age. How nice to say that women and children and grannies shouldn’t die. But of course NO ONE should die. But war isn’t like that, and never has been. WWII was just reality trebled.
It really galls me though, to have little small-minded bastards like that telling us that OUR relatives should have died, to spare… who? Women and children? Well gee, that’s nice and all… but the point is that we shouldn’t ever have to MAKE those choices.
And to say that those who fight should die, while those who stay home should always live–well that’s just naive and also, I think, a tad class-centric. It says that Steve, being intelligent and educated, should be able to decide who dies and who doesn’t. And of course it ain’t gonna be Steve who does the dying.
May 29th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Randall – I think your point is well taken. However my decision not to vote for him is policy motivated, not racial. I do think there are plenty of racists out there who would never vote for the guy based upon the color of his skin – your point is very true.
I guess I just don’t want anybody lumping me in with that crowd even though I would probably cast my vote for McCain. Call me stupid or ignorant, we can argue that, but don’t call me a racist. I think if Hillary were the nominee, the reaction would be completely different. You see folks, Hillary is like Darth Vader to Republicans. The very thought of another Clinton residing in the White House would arouse Jedi like feelings amongst the conservatives. The ads would literally write, shoot, and produce themselves – there would be no end to the consternation.
No, I’m not casting my vote for Obama because I’m racist, I’m voting against his 96% liberal voting record – indeed the highest in the land.
And Randall, don’t fool yourself into believing that John McCain is the darling of the Republican party, that he ain’t! He’s been on the other side of the fence on many, many issues. In fact, out of most of the Republicans out there, he’s one of the most liberal and not a Bush clone. Indeed both Rush and Ann Coulter have pledged their allegiance to Clinton if she won the nomination.
But if the Democratic convention is a bloodbath, McCain might find himself against a crippled nominee, or a Sith Lordess.
May 29th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
I’ll agree with Buc about McCain. The nominee could have been Huckabee (*shivers*). Now there’s a scary thought. If a mormon became president, would have the first ever second, third, and fourth ladies? And what about that crazy underwear? It’s long been known in political circles that those candidates that wear whitey-tighties exclusively have a stronger showing in the electoral college. Obama is gearing up for the first ever “boxer” candidacy. Something about him just screams…”boxer” guy.
May 29th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Yo bucslim… Obama is not the most liberal senator (um, Russ Feingold? Bernie Sanders? [a self-described socialist]). Obama voted with Hillary on 257 out of 267 votes last year- virtually identical. I don’t care what the National Review says. Guess what their rankings were for 2004? (Drum roll) Most liberal Senator… for 2004… isssssssssssssss John Kerry. See a pattern?
Food for thought: here’s a quote from the Review’s analysis- “Obama voted the liberal position on 65 of the 66 votes in which he participated, while Clinton voted the liberal position on 77 of 82 votes.” Oh, I get it now. Wait…
Regarding McCain’s “maverick” status… or lack thereof… so far this year, he’s voted with Bush 100% of the time. In 2007, he voted with our precious lil president 95% of the time. It’s pretty obvious he’s dropped the “maverick” status, flopping back to an ultra-conservative platform on those same issues (such as immigration) where he may have originally garnered this title. I believe his only “liberal” position he currently retains is that of global warming, or pretending to care about it at least (although I still don’t understand how this is a partisan issue).
It’s 5oclock and I’m off “work” so I’m just gonna leave it at that
May 29th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
al gore was preferable over bush. he did win the popular vote.
im not saying i dont like gore, hell i wanted him to win in 2000 but i personally feel NOW, that he would have not been so great either
i dont see how negative feelings towards gore could effect obama’s chances
i bet you anything come november obama will be the new president.
May 29th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
I knew when I made my statement some were not going to be happy with it, but I stand by what I said. It is just this attitude of Obama followers that the only reason I wouldn’t support him is because he is African-American that has put me off of him totally. That is just a ridiculous load of bullcrap. Oh, since I don’t agree with the candidate I must be racist. Do you even know what ethnicity I am? No.
Each candidate out there have things I don’t like about them, including Hillary. Yes, McCain voted with Bush and it looks very suspicious, but trust this he is a maverick. He has to get elected first in order to get the presidency, so what happens if he drops all those people he needs on the conservative side, do you think they will vote for him? Just like every other candidate does in order to get elected, he will say what he needs to get the presidency first.
Now, as to issues with Obama, call me a media hound or whatever, but it feels to me he is getting a free pass to the nomination without much checking into some things. Whenever anything negative comes out, except for maybe the Mr. Wright scandal I admit, the media pointedly defend him. This makes me very suspicious of him as a candidate. It may be he is the best person in the world, but there are too many ifs that have not been explained to my satisfation. Ties, whether small or not, to Rezko, Ayers, or even his own wife, who I think puts manipulative on a whole new map, do scare me. I can’t just pretend he is not like every other politician out there. The fact that he waited to deny the Rev. Wright scandal until it was virtually impossible not to shows me that he is just as much a politician as each one of them and this message of change is just a political ploy to get to the nomination, just like all the other candidates. As for my support of Clinton, call me what you want, I know she is far from perfect. She has dealt with more scandal than should be dealt with and each time the lady has come out of it with her head held high. People have constantly pushed her to get out of the race and that to me is just plain wrong. Aren’t we supposed to be a Democratic Party? Well, that means let everyone of those states have their say and allow Florida and Michigan to have their say because we don’t have just 48 states, we have 50. This is my point, Obama says he wants this to be about each American helping take back the White House, oh except for Florida and Michigan, because those 2 million moved up the date of the primary and their point of view doesn’t matter. I guess they are not included in his view of change. Why? Because then that might not help him get to the presidency, plain and simple. I don’t personally hold him responsible for all those things though, I think the whole DNC messed this election up before it even got started. I have virtually lost faith in them and it’s sad. I’m devestated that all of this is happening, but I refuse to vote for someone who has so many suspicious ties.
May 30th, 2008 at 7:04 am
JazJ: Don’t you think if Hillary had anything tangible to throw at Obama it would have stuck by now? By far the worst ‘gaffe’ he’s had is the fact that his former pastor and spiritual adviser scares white people. If the Ayers thing and the Rezko thing meant anything at all, don’t you think it would have stuck? 92-minute Chicago Tribune interview: The Obama-Rezko Connection.
You say “[Hillary] has dealt with more scandal than should be dealt with…”
What does that even mean?? I bet she wouldn’t have had to “deal” with much scandal at all if SHE WASN’T INVOLVED IN ANY. Obama has been reeeaaaally nice to her, taking the high road and staying away from:
Watergate
Travelgate
The Dubai Port Deal
The Kaplan Connection
The Peter Paul Fundraiser
The Pellicano Connection
The Johnny Chung Connection
The Health Care Fiasco (I don’t see how she can say she was a proponent of universal health care. Rather, she was a proponent of an oligopoly, rife with collusion.)
You know what? You sound like Lanny Davis. I hate that guy. The Florida/Michigan debacle is total bullshit. Some one tells you not to break the rules -> you break the rules -> you get punished -> you whine and complain that it’s not fair. Florida is a little less sketchy, you know, Obama’s name actually being on the ballot and all (sans the lack of exposure due to no campaigning), but Clinton arguing that the Michigan votes should count is like telling all of Zimbabwe that their votes against Mugabe will be counted. Listen, I don’t give a shit about experience. I don’t care what the fuck you look like or sound like, I want somebody with character and good judgment to be president. Hillary Clinton has, time and time and time and time and time again, shown that she does not have character; she does not have good judgment. Everything she does is for herself and herself only. Why do you think her core constituencies are (1) the uneducated (um, they’re uneducated and can’t as readily see through her bullshit – perfectly demonstrated by the “then I’ll vote for McCain!!1!” argument [also, the uneducated are more likely to be racist]), (2) old people (a lot are still afraid of blacks), and (3) white women (don’t really blame them, the symbolism of Hillary as President is a big step forward against sexism in a country rife with it – but please, ladies, lets wait for one that isn’t a sleazeball, that way I can vote for her too without puking all over myself).
Ok. So everyone makes mistakes. McCain, Clinton, and Obama are all politicians. They’re all people, and they all make mistakes. The difference? I think the only one of them whose moral purpose is to make this country a better place to live, to increase the richness of our society and our people rather than the width of their wallets and the authority of their words, the only one that actually cares about the people of our country, is Obama. Do you think Hillary Clinton actually cares about you? Really? Over and over again she proves she only cares for herself, and running on a Democratic ticket with the policies she feigns and the talking points she spews is the only way she can fill her ego. But there’s the problem: she will never be full, and she will drain us dry.
May 30th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
With all of this hub bub about the pres. Has anyone actually thought of their Gov, Sen, or Rep.?
Can anyone tell me where to find All of the candidates? Three hours searching!!! I’m starting to feel like we Are being kept in the dark!
June 2nd, 2008 at 9:01 am
JazJ: So you admit you don’t care about the issues? You admit that the only thing you care about is how the media has treated a candidate? Do you realize *that* is the reason we ended up with Bush for the last 8 years?
On McCain…he *was* considered something of a maverick. If you honestly think he hasn’t traded in that status for popularity in the GOP, you’re delusional. Why do you think it took him almost 20 years of campaigning as a presidential candidate to secure the nomination? Because only recently he has relented his liberal views and agreed to champion the GOP’s agenda (the same agenda, I might add, that has gotten us into this terrible mess).
You say “too many ‘if’s’” about Obama. Praytell, sir…what are these “if’s” you speak of? Perhaps you can list them for me. And because the media defend Obama, that makes you suspicious of him? What kind of logic is that? Maybe you can tell me what research you’ve done on your own to come to this conclusion. I mean, you must have done your own research…right? Because that statement would make no sense otherwise.
I agree the party mishandled the FL and MI primaries, but the rules of the party are the rules of the party. Why did FL and MI want to man-handle their way into the front spots anyway? The fact is, the DNP made its decision, and I think it is absolutely despicable and underhanded to bitch and moan about FL and MI when the dice have already been cast. Particularly since Clinton would not have been doing it were she ahead in the delegate count. *However* that does not mean I won’t vote for Clinton if she secures the nomination. Why? Because I actually *care* about what is happening to this country and I *care* about the ISSUES, and how the candidates plan to act on them. Voting for McCain simply because you don’t like Obama’s media image is shallow and shortsighted. It screams ignorance masquerading under the guise of discerning judgment. If you agree with how McCain stands on the issues, vote for him. However, clearly you don’t care about who does what to anything or where this country ends up by voting across party lines. McCain’s stances are very different than either Clinton or Obama’s, but Obama’s and Clinton’s are *very* similar to each other.
Ergo, if you care about the issues, vote for Obama (or Clinton if she secures the nomination). If you don’t, then God help us all, because too many people like you are going to screw this up for the rest of us.
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:39 am
I have read both of his books, and I didn’t see anything but useless drivel with statements mixed in that were very controversial in my opinion. I am now an Independent. I have argued everywhere my views on Senator Obama and I refuse to argue anymore, what’s done is done. I’m over it now, vote how you want to vote, I’ll vote how I do. More power to all of you who support who you support. Good luck in the fall to all of you.
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:06 am
quote: “I do not want to talk about it anymore. Let me wallow in my ignorance. I am jealous of those of you who are subjecting yourselves to critical thinking. Good luck with that.”
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:08 am
I am so humbled by your incredible argument. Keep talking, I don’t need luck, I get a vote.
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:25 am
Ah, such is the folly of a “working” democracy.
Lamentations of an Educated Voter
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:56 am
JazJ:
It’s on account of thickheaded “citizens” like you that we end up with disasters in the White House like George W. Bush. And people like you would have us saddled with four more years of the same policies in John McCain. (Who is almost certain to be nearly as bad a disaster). Incredible and mind-boggling, the ignorance.
Your ignorance shows when you intimate that McCain is only playing up to ultra-right conservatives in order to get elected. He MAY be doing some of this, sure–but you have no understanding of politics in the slightest if you think that, once in office, he would simply ignore the people who put him there. No, he would be BEHOLDEN to those people, which is how it works in politics–and moreover, he has only a certain pool of Republican bodies to choose from to fill his cabinet and all of his service positions throughout the government. MANY, if not most of these would, by necessity and the nature of politics, be the very sort of people who have been *fucking up* this country since George Bush attained office.
The Presidency, Jaz, is NOT simply a choice of individuals. It is a choice of PARTY and IDEOLOGY. It is not just George Bush who has fucked things the last eight years, but his *party* and the ideology of that party–because it is now utterly controlled by the far right and HEAVILY influenced by the religious right. As well as by neo-conservatives who have still not faced the enormous blunder they created in Iraq. And McCain CLEARLY goes along with these people.
Your “logic” is flawed in the extreme (you would excuse Clinton’s numerous scandals, but you are “suspicious” of Obama’s thus-far unknown and/or very minor ones). Presumably you wanted to vote for Hillary Clinton at least in part because of her policies. Where, then, is the logic in turning your vote to McCain, whose policies are UTTERLY in opposition to those of the democratic party?
As jaded as I am by the stupidity of some of my fellow Americans, I find it hard to believe that anyone could be that illogical.
You may not be willing to admit it to us or even to yourself–but to call on the chimera of “doubts” about Obama, and to say that you would rather vote for McCain rather than a Democrat, when our country DESPERATELY needs a change of government and direction–means that you are either a rock-ribbed Republican—which you are apparently not—or that you are simply a racist who cannot bring yourself to accept the idea of voting for a black man.
You may deny it here and get defensive with me about it… but in your heart you know it’s true.
The only other answer possible is that you are an unmitigated moron who doesn’t understand the state of your own country and the world, and how it would only be made worse by giving 4 or 8 more years to the party that has already driven it into the ground over the previous 8 years.
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:59 am
woot
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Keep arguing until you are blue in the face, but I don’t care what anyone thinks about me. There’s the difference, keep believing the things you say, keep trying to push your overeducated opinions on everyone. It’s this elitism that is tearing our party apart, so continue travelling down that road, I’ll seperate myself from it. Moronic is telling someone else how they should vote because you feel you are all knowing and have a crystal ball of the future.
In my heart, I want a patriotic candidate, who will actually place his hand over his heart when our national anthem is played, in my heart, I want a candidate who doesn’t go to a church for 20 years with racist ministers in it, in my heart I want to know I’ll be protected at 3 a.m., not talking to the terrorists. There are many things I could say, but these are just a few of my concerns. I’m proud to live here and I pledge allegiance to my flag and I place my hand over my heart when the national anthem is played on the principle of the many men and women who have died for that flag. So, don’t preach your rhetoric to me, because symbolism means a lot to me and it’s symbolic that a man like Obama feels this country is not great enough as it is, to do so. I’m sure there are many veterans that would take offense to that. So, all your arguments fall on deaf ears, because I listen to my heart and it’s telling me Obama is not my president.
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:40 pm
my senators are feinstein and boxer(california)
and my rep is david drier. that was easy
June 4th, 2008 at 12:12 am
“in my heart I want to know I’ll be protected at 3 a.m., not talking to the terrorists.”
Protected? From whom? Which terrorists?
June 4th, 2008 at 7:06 am
JazJ: Seriously? You won’t vote for Obama because he didn’t put his hand over his heart during the national anthem…on *one* occasion? And do you even *know* what Rev. Wright said? I think you don’t, because any person with a brain that doesn’t get all his information on how to think from the republicans can clearly see that nothing Rev. Wright ever said was overtly racist. You accuse us of elitism, when really the only thing being displayed here is your childishness and ignorance, on such a profound scale that it almost shames me as an American.
Of course, you want a president that puts his hand over his heart during the national anthem, and continues to pledge that American soldiers will die in Iraq for as long as it will take, even up to 100 years from now. You want a president who doesn’t associate with a bigoted preacher (oh by the way…ever heard of John Hagee? I would guess not) but is okay with illegally spying on American citizens. You would rather have a president that wears a flag pin on his lapel, but will continue the same Bush administration economic policies that caused this country to go, in 8 years, from the largest surplus in it’s history to the largest deficit. You want a president who opposes the burning of the American flag, but doesn’t oppose letting a woman die if she is unable to get a life-saving abortion.
Jaz, you don’t care about where this country is headed. All you care about is playing this ridiculous little Clintonista game and be a sore and childish loser. Hillary *herself* has come out in support of Obama. She *herself* said to her supporters that not voting for Obama would be foolish and ignorant. I agree with her, Jaz. If you want to take it upon yourself to carry Clinton’s torch over into McCain’s arena, don’t be surprised if 4 years down the road you don’t see much has changed. The only thing that lies between this country now and the epic failure we are heading for is Barack Obama.
June 4th, 2008 at 7:13 am
Slick:
June 4th, 2008 at 7:14 am
um, i made a heart, but the internet erased it.
June 4th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Slickwilly, you are entitled to your opinion, I’ll keep mine. I don’t know why people feel the need to push what they believe on me, when I am most certainly not going to listen to you, so get over it. I have made my decision and I know for a fact, I am not the only one. So, call me foolish, call me crazy, call me any names you want, but the fact of the matter is millions voted and millions will vote again in November, so intimidation is not a tactic I will bend to. Hillary may have been my candidate of choice, but that does not mean I will blindly follow where she leads in her choice of candidate. I have to make that decision for myself. If everyone of you feel so strong about your candidate, then by all means vote for him in November. I will vote what I vote. There’s a saying here in the south, it goes “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.” I refuse to be led by a party that thinks they can take away votes from citizens and then just say we will now unify. Unity my a**. You want unity, don’t assume everyone should just blindly follow because you say so. I take offense to that, and I’m going to make a statement in November that tells them just how unhappy I am with the DNC. I wouldn’t care if they put Ghandi up as a candidate at this point. I’m over them and that party. So, keep calling me names, keep saying your ashamed, keep making your supposed points. It makes no difference to me. I’m a citizen just like everyone of you, and I will have my say too when the votes are cast. Nothing is going to change anyway, so why not make my point loud and clear. We all know ALL politicians lie, including Obama. So, this act of he is the second coming is getting a little old. I’m over all of it.
June 5th, 2008 at 5:26 am
JazJ:
“I’m a citizen just like everyone of you”
No. No you’re not. That’s just it. Citizens make their decisions on the basis of what’s good for their country, and what problems need to be fixed. You, by your own admission, are making your decision out of anger against the party that you up until recently (supposedly) supported. And at the worst time possible, you’re going to vote for the party that for the last 8 years has jeopardized our country’s future.
But of course, as I’ve said repeatedly–I can read between the lines, JazJ, and you certainly don’t fool me. There is no logic in anything you’ve said, and I’m convinced the real reason you won’t vote for Obama is because of your own, poorly disguised racism.
June 5th, 2008 at 6:25 am
“so intimidation is not a tactic I will bend to”
No one is using intimidation as a tactic. We are attempting to use rational thinking as a tactic to influence your decision, but if you won’t subject yourself to that then the point is moot.
June 5th, 2008 at 7:41 am
Liberal ‘rationalism’ has never solved a thing. It’s typical for you people to resort to hysterics and name calling in some weak attempt to get people to change their minds. Delusional daydreams of a utopian American paradise with Obama at the helm is completely silly.
I’ve stayed out of this thread for the most part because I know we need a change and personally I’d vote for just about anyone right now to get in there and see what they can do. George has made a fine mess of things, no argument here. But you’ve got to admit it’s been a pretty brutal time to be president. And the supposed paragons of intelligence, compassion and forethought, the liberals amongst us, haven’t done much to correct the wrongs of our society either. They’re doing what they do best, sit on their ass and bitch. Alll the while having some sort of smug demeanor with an extra helping of snark, fooling themselves into thinking they have some sort of moral higher ground. Not voting for Obama? – well you’re a racist moron.
Bullshit!
We have George because the Dems couldn’t come up with anyone better than Al Gore and John Kerry. You can piss and moan all you want about Florida and Ohio and Republican dirty tricks, but the simple truth is you Democrats out there haven’t fielded a decent candidate since Slick Willy. Now you’re throwing all your marbles at a guy who, despite your love affair with him, might not be able to deliver sugar coated promises he’s telling us. He’s just a politician and if we’ve learned anything by now it’s that a politician is one step below the used car salesman.
June 5th, 2008 at 7:53 am
Jaz: Grow up. You sound like an angry, spoiled child. You just thought Hillary was the “second coming,” as you like to put it, and now you can’t handle the fact that she lost the election. The issues be damned, right? This is how you sound to the rest of us: “Oh no! Hillary Clinton lost? Oh, I’m so angry right now! I hate Barack Obama, this is all *his* fault! You know what…just to prove how angry I am at him I am going to vote for McCain. That will show him!” You get all worked up and throw your hissy fit and pretend that you are just as legitimate a voter as the rest of us, when all you are really doing is proving that you either don’t have the intelligence or the motivation to actually realize the scope of your asinine decision. I’m not trying to convert you, I know by this point that you are going to cast your stupid little vengeful vote for McCain no matter what the rest of us say. At this point, I’m just taking to the time to berate you for it and consistently remind you that it is a stupid decision. But it doesn’t matter to you, right?
I got news for you, J. You arn’t the only southerner around these parts. Where I’m from, we have a saying too: “Fish or cut bait.” That means, do the right thing, or get the hell out of the way and let someone else do it. That would good advice for *you* to follow.
June 5th, 2008 at 8:04 am
Got to admit, Slick’s got a point. I’ve never understood that mentality of voting the other way if your darling loses the nomination. It’s pointless and could cost the Dems the election.
June 5th, 2008 at 8:07 am
Buc: This isn’t about Obama being a pariah or the second-coming, or any of those things his critics like to bandy about. This conversation is why it is asinine for Clinton supporters to support McCain, in light of the vast rift between their ideologies. It means that those Clinton supporters who would rather vote for McCain than Obama never really cared about Clinton’s stances. All they care about is sound bites and news blurbs and how their candidate looks in the media. That is stupid. If someone believes in McCain’s stances, they should vote for McCain, no argument there. But they shouldn’t vote for him because of a hissy fit over Clinton being knocked out of the race.
Buc, I could also say the same thing about McCain not being able to deliver on his promises too. There is as much proof in McCain’s pudding as Obama’s. Take a deep breath, calm down, and quit attacking Obama just because you think liberals are smug, snarky, and holier-than-thou. For the record, I don’t think not wanting to vote for Obama is racist, but not voting for him if you are a democrat *just* because you’re preferred candidate lost the primary is childish. You would *have* to agree with me on that.
And before you go attacking liberals in general, remember that even though we haven’t done much to help the situation, the reason the situation is the way it is is because of republican rule. If you are a republican, that argument is lot like yelling at the guy who won’t swim out and save you from drowning because you waded into the ocean without knowing how to swim.
June 5th, 2008 at 8:10 am
Sorry, got that out after your previous comment. Disregard the “take a deep breath” sentence.
June 5th, 2008 at 8:16 am
Sadly, there is not a great candidate of either party this election year. Conservatives are disappointed with McCain getting the nomination and the libs are eating their own on this one. Divisive politics have come home to roost in the Democratic party. I can’t wait to see how they handle having to come together and try to unite a divided electorate behind Obama, if he even is the nominee when all is said and done. I really think the Clinton machine has some tricks to pull out of their ass in a last-ditch attempt to get the nomination. It seems pretty obvious to me McCain can beat Obama or Hillary because Hillary is extremely polarizing and Obama is, well, an idiot. It’s time for hope! Hope for what? Change! What kind of change? The kind we’ve been hoping for! What kind is that? We are the change we’ve been hoping for! What?
June 5th, 2008 at 8:20 am
Slick, I appreciate your point of view, delivered in a calm rational way. I respect your comments, but I will point out the plethora of other posts in this thread that support my claims.
June 5th, 2008 at 9:10 am
Rushfan- you are exactly right. No good choice for the leader of our nation. The office of President of the United States is such that only a complete egomaniac would ever run. We’ve also set up an election/primary system that requires the candidates to have vast financial resources at their fingertips.
Presidents and Congressmen used to have REAL jobs before and after their political careers. Career politicians have ruined the system
June 5th, 2008 at 9:17 am
Green ~ good point. The office of the presidency has evolved (or devolved) into what it is today: a popularity contest.
June 5th, 2008 at 9:43 am
Randall – you’re saying that to not vote for Obama is a racist stance? Surely not. That would be ridiculous.
Tell me that’s not what you’re saying…
June 5th, 2008 at 9:49 am
SlickWilly: Thank you daddy, for your supreme wisdom. Should I go sit in the corner now? The problem is I am what you call a moderate democrat, I don’t like extreme liberals. I actually value someone more seen as a centrist, which is why I will vote McCain. I didn’t feel only that Hillary was my option, she was my only option to begin with. Actually, I liked Edwards, but he dropped out of the race. Once the field was narrowed, I had to back Senator Clinton and whether people approve or not is not my problem. I agree with the above people that it has basically come to a popularity contest. Everyone of the candidates are flawed beyond what is right, but I just have to vote for the lesser of two evils in my opinion. So, think what you think, say what you say, blah, blah, blah. Chastise me all you want, do you think it really matters? Talk amongst yourselves, enjoy your debates about how wrong the Clinton supporters are who won’t follow in line like good little children because the Obama supporters and the DNC want us to. You can’t shame me into something or someone I don’t believe in, be he black, white, green, orange whatever color. As for Randall, my child is bi-racial thank you, I love people of all shades and colors because that’s how I was raised. The ones screaming racism the loudest are usually the ones who are racist. My ethnicity is varied and I don’t even know what all I have in me, but I do have African-American relatives who are as close to me as can be, so I take great offense when someone tells me the only reason I don’t want to vote for Senator Obama is because he is black, that’s ridiculous. In fact, had Colin Powell ever ran, I would’ve voted for him in an instant. I admired him, I trusted him, I thought he would have made an excellent Commander-In-Chief, but he didn’t run. To me, Obama does not come close to that man. So, think what you will.
June 5th, 2008 at 9:56 am
ditto, jazj, well put.
June 5th, 2008 at 10:00 am
Why are other peoples info in my name and email box?
June 5th, 2008 at 10:01 am
JF my screen name is Quiana, but when I go to post JazJ info is in my info boxes?????
June 5th, 2008 at 10:02 am
jazj – it’s the Thetans from the scientology list messing with you
Actually, it’s a problem (intermittent) with the caching architecture on the LV webserver, I think. Raises its head every so often
June 5th, 2008 at 10:10 am
it a republican was to win the presidency whom would you want it to be?
to the US citizens: go to a website called politics1 and take the quiz to determine your party affiliation
i thought i was a liberal until i took the quiz. turns out i am a moderate libertarian… go figure
June 5th, 2008 at 10:11 am
“it a republican” should be “if” a republican
June 5th, 2008 at 10:13 am
I’d vote for a Condi Rice/Colin Powell ticket.
June 5th, 2008 at 10:14 am
My dream ticket would be Rush Limbaugh/Oprah Winfrey.
June 5th, 2008 at 10:24 am
rushfan: I was wondering if the “rush” part of your screen name was for the rock group or Limbaugh. You may have just answered it.
In my opinion, voters should be non-partisan when it comes to the presidential vote. Sometimes we need republican ideals and sometimes we need democratic ideals. Right now, we really don’t need either but a Nader-esque candidate will not win, so vote for the candidate that is best for the country. Even if it means crossing party lines.
June 5th, 2008 at 10:26 am
trojan man, thanks, now i hear the hook from the condom commerical and i can’t get it out of my head. “Trojan Maaaan!”
June 5th, 2008 at 10:28 am
or is it the arena football team the “the chicago rush”
June 5th, 2008 at 10:38 am
rushfan: The hook in my head has the “Trojan Maaannnn” with the horse neighing right behind it. Yeah, it’s from my days in college. Our mascot was the Trojan and when we played another team called the “Gamecocks”, their cheerleaders would hold up signs that said, “Your Trojans can’t hold our ‘Cocks”. It was hilarious.
June 5th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Wow, it’s a mystery for the ages, isn’t it? Could it be I like being in a hurry? Or perchance I enjoyed that movie with Jason Patric and Jennifer Jason Leigh? Or maybe I went to Rush University.
June 5th, 2008 at 10:45 am
trojan man: that is hilarious.
are those the biggest rivals in south carolina
June 5th, 2008 at 10:47 am
im think it is the band rush and thats my final answer
June 5th, 2008 at 10:48 am
terrible English…hahaha
June 5th, 2008 at 10:50 am
sorry, thanks for playing.
June 5th, 2008 at 10:52 am
MPW: Ahhhhh, another mystery. The two schools in question are not located in the state of South Carolina. You get 48 more guesses.
June 5th, 2008 at 10:53 am
lmao guys
June 5th, 2008 at 10:56 am
MPW- I took that quiz a couple of months ago and also came out as a Libertarian.
The old parties “Democrat” and “Republican” are antiquated and no longer representative of what many “members” of the party actually believe.
It’s time to stop voting with emotions and start voting with our heads
June 5th, 2008 at 10:57 am
JazJ:
Then I’m afraid that the only other choice here is that you are an unmitigated moron, and it’s because of “citizens” like you that our country is in the dire predicament that it’s currently in.
Slick has done an excellent job of pointing out to you the utterly unreasonable and illogical attitude you’ve taken. If you and people like you sway things in November, then you will get the disaster that you so richly deserve. The sad thing is that the rest of us will have to suffer for your stupidity.
June 5th, 2008 at 11:00 am
Indeed, Green. I propose we breed new politicians. Say, Republicrustaceans and Democats. They can fight it out cockfight-style, winner take all.
June 5th, 2008 at 11:00 am
trojan man arent the game cocks the mascot from the university of south carolina?
i will guess north carolina or florida
June 5th, 2008 at 11:02 am
rushfan dont i get a consolation prize or at least another guess?
June 5th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Randall- sorry to interrupt but shouldn’t yall stop with the name calling?
Adults in an intellectual discussion about the future of our country shouldn’t resort to calling people morons
June 5th, 2008 at 11:07 am
mpw, keep’em comin’
June 5th, 2008 at 11:14 am
kiwiboi:
No, that’s not what I’m saying. Now, in point of fact, sure–many people who will refuse to vote for Obama ARE racist… we hide a LOT of our racism in this country, and you’d be surprised at the number of people who seem otherwise to be reasonable and fairly intelligent, but who actually harbor very powerful prejudices and bigotries. I’ve seen it myself time and time again.
But no… I don’t accuse someone like, say… bucslim, of racism. Now, for all I know, buc is head of the local KKK chapter (or at least maybe he organizes their bake sales) but I don’t believe this for a moment. No, it’s simply the fact that buc is a deluded, but nevertheless faithful right-winger who, despite the insanity of his party over the last couple decades or so (and particularly the last 8 years), still believes in the values and principles he holds dear. I think he’s certifiable, but I also think he’s genuine in a sense. At any rate, the point is that he has ideological reasons for not voting for Obama. I think he’s dead wrong, but that’s beside the point.
But people who have been Clinton supporters, however–no, they’re a different breed. The whole reason for supporting Hillary Clinton is that she is a Democrat and holds Democratic principles and ideals. We may argue about her authenticity, but the fact is that, had she attained the nomination, *I* would have voted for–even though I detest her–because she is a DEMOCRAT, and I know that she would be far better than McCain OR ANY OTHER REPUBLICAN BREATHING—because the Republican party is now at a point where it is overly-corrupt, controlled by corporate special interests and the religious right, and has infringed on our freedoms and rights. It has led us down a terribly destructive path for the last 8 years or more, and it is time for the Republicans to be out of power–that, or we face more peril ahead, if they’re allowed to continue running things.
Now…. you would assume that ANY Democrat should know this. As should Clinton’s supporters. The question now is saving the country from the Republican party.
But what happens when their candidate loses the nomination? They say they’ll vote for McCain.
What POSSIBLE logic could there be in that? I can see absolutely NONE. Regardless of what you may think of Obama–the fact is that this is not a race about persons, but about PARTY. George Bush did not make his awful blunders alone–he had a LOT of help–and we all know this. We all know what the Republican party has done the last 20+ years–moving further and further to the right, coming more and more under the influence of religious bigots, and more and more aligned with baldfaced corporate greed which has led us into the current economic crisis we’re in. This is not all the doing of slow-witted, smug, and bullying George W. Bush–though of course he’s been the captain of the sinking ship.
I don’t expect a Republican or conservative to agree with any of this—but a Democrat–a Clinton supporter–damn well should… and most of them do.
BUT THEN they turn and say they’ll vote for McCain over Obama. And for no good reason. They either cite bullshit reasons about “doubts” over Obama–which are mere code words… or they say it’s on account of their anger over Hillary not getting the nom.
Both excuses are utterly untenable. And I maintain that what’s behind them is in fact racism. It’s no coincidence that most of Clinton’s supporters are poorly-educated blue collar types with populist attitudes towards politics—and no coincidence that such people are the ones who still harbor racist tendencies, sometimes openly.
June 5th, 2008 at 11:15 am
I’m gonna have to blame jfrater, MPW, and Trojan Man when I get fired for being online for so much of my work day today.
June 5th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Randall: Oh, I’m the moron. How very controlling you seem to be, I guess I can assume you are a woman beater from the way you seem so hostile towards women. Oh, also I guess since I didn’t go to Harvard I can’t have an honest opinion. I must be an idiot because you say it is so, huh? I find it idiotic to have a candidate who is so idealistic in his rhetoric, but when it’s convenient throws people under the bus. How many times do things have to come out about the man for someone to actually look deeper? Didn’t Rezko get 16 counts? Obama says “He wasn’t like that 20 years ago.” What about Rev. Wright? “He wasn’t like that 20 years ago.” What about Pfleiger? “He wasn’t like that 20 years ago.” Who’s next? You might can overlook these things, but also in the south is a saying “When you lie down with dogs, you get fleas.” I intend to be safe after November.
June 5th, 2008 at 11:40 am
No, that’s not what I’m saying.
Randall – cool. I just wasn’t sure about how to take some of your comments.
Now, in point of fact, sure many people who will refuse to vote for Obama ARE racist; we hide a LOT of our racism in this country, and you’d be surprised at the number of people who seem otherwise to be reasonable and fairly intelligent, but who actually harbor very powerful prejudices and bigotries.
Agreed. And it is almost always irrational, as is bigotry, homophobia, etc. etc. But it’s also a characteristic of human nature, unfortunately. To some extent I have more respect for racists/bigots etc. who are open about it than those who hypocritically cloak it one way or another.
But what happens when their candidate loses the nomination? They say they’ll vote for McCain. What POSSIBLE logic could there be in that? I can see absolutely NONE. Regardless of what you may think of Obama,the fact is that this is not a race about persons, but about PARTY.
Couldn’t agree more. And I think Hillary still has some convincing to do along these lines with some of those hardcore (so-called) Democratic women’s factions that have been threatening to switch to McCain.
On a side-note, and being somewhat of a cynic, I’m almost surprised some wacko hadn’t tried to take out Clinton or Obama; in fact, I could almost envisage some redneck cleaning his weapon and counting his ammunition on account that no woman/no black should be running for the Presidency.
Welcome to Planet Earth.
June 5th, 2008 at 11:42 am
the movie, rush…of course
June 5th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Kiwiboi: i have a black friend who didnt want Obama to win simply because of the fear of an assasination.
i find that both valid and rediculous at the same time.
June 5th, 2008 at 11:47 am
What about Pfleiger?
I thought Pfleger’s exhibition was ungracious, inappropriate, and unbecoming a priest.
Though I don’t have the knowledge of Pfleger that Chicagoans would have, from what I had previously seen/heard/read of him, I judged him to be an intelligent, insightful, and eloquent guy. Shame.
June 5th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Kiwiboi: i have a black friend who didnt want Obama to win simply because of the fear of an assasination.
MPW – it’s a crazy world we live in.
June 5th, 2008 at 11:51 am
How is it rational to vote for the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES based solely on party lines?
June 5th, 2008 at 11:51 am
crazy indeed
June 5th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Randall – I don’t hate any particular group, except the Dutch. I’d say more, but I’m late for my Klaven meeting. We’re puttin up razor wire at the compound and the ladies are rubbing carnuba wax on the cross we’re burning. We’ll probably run down a few race mixers later just for shits and giggles. It’s gonna be a hot time in the old town tonight!
June 5th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
MPW: yes, the gamecocks are the mascot of USC. But they are not the ones to which i was refering.
June 5th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
green:
For the love of god–do you NOT understand how politics works?
When you vote for the president you do NOT merely vote for the man (or woman). You vote his or her PARTY into power. The Democratic and Republican parties have opposing ideologies on MANY points. The person you vote for for president may not be 100% beholding to the ideologies of his party–it varies from president to president–but you can damn well bet he’s in step with his party at least 75% of the time or on at least 75% of the issues–*or he wouldn’t be the nominee.*
And when he gets into office, he has to have an ENORMOUS number of people around him, serving under him and advising him. These people are, in practice, always drawn from his PARTY. They are often–and usually–party ideologues. Yes, if the president has certain beliefs on certain points, he will usually put people in that agree with him and will do as he says–but this is not always possible. The president is beholden to those interests and individuals who helped get him his nomination, and then his win. These people have agendas of their own, and the way it works in Washington is, quid pro quo. I got you X number of votes, or gave you X money, or got you X support–you owe me X. Be it a certain power base or office or title, or what have you.
The ideology of the Republican party is what this election is about. It is about ending 8 years of not only George W. Bush, but 8 years of godawful economic policies, scandals, foreign policy mistakes, influence of the religious right, and erosion of our freedoms. The Republican PARTY has been behind these, not just Bush alone–because of the people who put Bush into power who then became his advisors, cabinet members, and various other underlings.
McCain is a part of that same party–and by his own admission he agrees with Bush and the others in his administration on MANY of the issues. And when McCain gets into power, (if he does) he will then place those same people or like-minded people into power with him–which means the same economic policies, same foreign policies, same domestic policies, with only SLIGHT differences (MAYBE) from the previous 8 years.
Do you get it?
Therefore we need a Democrat. Now, no—this is not the way it always is. Some elections are less about party distinction than others. But that IS what we have with this election. It is about removing the Republican party from power.
June 5th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
MPW: and, no…not Florida or North Carolina. Much more backward than those two.
June 5th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
buc:
And what’s the pie for tonight? Apple? Cherry? Mincemeat?
June 5th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Jaz: No, of course, you’d rather have a candidate that was under investigations in the 90’s for illegal government loans, hiding and misappropriating legal billing records, firing long-time government employees and replacing them with pet business associates, allegations that she participated in the conspiracy of Vince Foster’s death, the sudden removal of potentially damaging records from Foster’s office on the night of his death, murky lobbyist hand-out records, suspicious commodities trade practices, and her participation in illegal white house access to FBI files on hundreds of powerful republican leaders around the nation.
If I were you, Jaz, I check myself very carefully for those fleas you were talking about.
June 5th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Sure get rid of the Republican “godawful economic policies, scandals, foreign policy mistakes, influence of the religious right, and erosion of our freedoms” and replace it with what exactly?
I’m pretty sure you could replace all of that gas with the 8 years of that doofus Clinton and plank of wood Gore. (with the exception of the religious right influence, yawn)
Of course, I’m the deluded one. Now I finally ‘got it’ – the liberal Democrats are the scandal free and intelligent choice. They’re never corrupt (chinese fundraisers) or embarrassing (Spitzer/Clinton) or incompetent (peanut head Carter) They’re honest (Ted Kennedy/Kwame Kilpatrick) and objective (Keith Obermann)
Thanks for the laughs Randall, keep em comin!
June 5th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
“Randall: Oh, I’m the moron. How very controlling you seem to be, I guess I can assume you are a woman beater from the way you seem so hostile towards women.”
And to what woman have I been hostile? Hillary? I said nothing hostile about Hillary–I said I’d vote for her. Or you? Are you saying you’re a woman? Because I didn’t even know that, jackass.
“Oh, also I guess since I didn’t go to Harvard I can’t have an honest opinion.”
Ha. Cute, but rhetorically moronic. I never said anyone had to have a four-star education to have a meaningful opinion. I merely said that *idiotic* opinions, such as yours, should have no place in our electorate.
” I must be an idiot because you say it is so, huh?”
Yeah, that about covers it. I think I’m able to recognize an idiot when I hear one speak.
” I find it idiotic to have a candidate who is so idealistic in his rhetoric, but when it’s convenient throws people under the bus.”
And I find it idiotic to say such things when you have touted your support for another candidate–Hillary Clinton–who, along with her husband, has been tainted by more scandals than any other political figure since the Nixon days, and who has been caught in lie after boldfaced lie, and whose only tactic when she’s pressed is to turn to attack politics, trying to damage a fellow Democrat–whom she agrees with 90% of the time, on issues–regardless of the consequences, because of what is apparently her own egotistical sense of entitlement to the position she so wantonly craves.
And further idiocy to then turn from that candidate when she’s lost and, instead of voting for the other Democrat who agrees with her on almost ALL the issues, vote for the REPUBLICAN in the race, who shares NONE of Hillary Clinton’s passionate beliefs about health care, economic fairness, or the way our country is headed.
The difference between me and you is, despite how much I personally detest Clinton, I would vote for her in a heartbeat if the choice was between her and McCain, because I recognize A) her ideological qualities (which Obama shares) and B) the fact that to save our FREAKIN’ COUNTRY, we MUST NOT vote the Republican party another term in office.
You, on the other hand, apparently care nothing of the issues. Rather, for whatever reason, you simply wanted Hillary. Stupid and irrational.
And stop quoting your quaint Southern “wisdom” to me. I’m not moved by empty cliches. I’m moved by logic and reason, and an awareness of the world around me. You might try it sometime. It’d do you some good.
June 5th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
bucslim: In the words of Nigel Powers, “There are two things I hate most in this world. The first is people who are intolerant of other people’s cultures. The other is the Dutch.”
June 5th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
“The ideology of the Republican party is what this election is about. It is about ending 8 years of not only George W. Bush, but 8 years of godawful economic policies, scandals, foreign policy mistakes, influence of the religious right, and erosion of our freedoms.”
Almighty Randall ~ As opposed to the brilliant leadership provided by your Democrats? Let’s raise taxes, punish successful businesses, not make any effort to invest in terrestrial energy (nuclear), encourage illegal immigration, allow the ACLU run our lives, and exactly which freedoms are you lacking? Do tell?
June 5th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
buc:
Cute, pal, but you always forget that in me, you’re not dealing with one of your buddies with the double-digit IQs from the bar you frequent after you leave that cubicle of yours every night.
I never said EITHER party is free from the shit, and of course you know that. We’ve had this conversation before. The point is, the ideology of the Right needs to be OUT OF POWER for a while–because it’s swung too far away from sense, reason, and logic, and is out there in Arrogance and Batshit-Crazy Hypocrisy Land.
When the Republican party has regained its sanity again, mayhap we may once more voteth for them, shouldst they be worthy. At present, sadly, they ain’t.
June 5th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Randall…I’ve gotta know, do you drive a PT Cruiser? Or maybe a Honda Element? Perhaps a Scion.
June 5th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
What a bunch of buffoons!
None of the candidates have any idea what’s right for my country, and very few of the citizens do either.
I could run on the same platform today as I did in the past, and win in a landslide!
Neither Senator Obama, Senator Clinton, nor Senator McCain are leaders. Obama and Clinton are just looking at the historic oppotunity of being the first of their “kind” to be elected. And McCain is just an angry war veteran looking to get his hands on the BIG weapons.
Will any of them do what is necessary? Support public education? stimulate business or economy? defend OUR borders instead of everyone elses? I think they will not.
June 5th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Randy ~ I was eagerly awaiting your “I didn’t say the Democrats were any better” defense. You seem to think you’re intellectually untouchable just because you have lengthy answers to people’s comments and somewhat witty come-backs. You picked a side, you’re a Democrat. As such, you ascribe to their ideology, or at least agree with it enough to relate to it and prefer it over the Republicans’. You obviously share both Obama’s elitist attitude as well as Hillary’s complete departure from reality. Kudos.
June 5th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
rushfan: Yes, raise taxes. Sorry that you don’t want to shell out for the common good. If we didn’t have this stupid, pointless war in Iraq right now, we would have 8 billion a month to pump into other areas. I would question why we don’t use that money for something else before I question raising taxes. Punish successful businesses, yes…successful businesses who have become successful through unethical business practices and the bait-and-switch tactics that are at the root of the economic disaster this country is in. Are you saying we should let corporations run willy-nilly on the consumer and do whatever they want?
I would be interested to know which democratic leader encourages illegal immigration. I think democratic leaders have a more realistic approach to dealing with the situation, but I guess to republicans this amounts to “encouraging illegal immigration” when any stance but the ridiculous, archaic hard-line conservative agenda is endorsed.
And I should point out, that the county’s economic situation during Clinton’s terms was powerful and potent, our standing on the international stage was favorable, and we weren’t having American citizens being sent home in bodybags by the truckful from some expensive and meaningless war. Yes, I’d say that compared to the last 8 years, democratic leadership is just what we need.
June 5th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
rushfan:
And I take it you’re defending the economic policies of the Republicans, the last 8 years? Happy with what you see around you, are you? ‘Cause I’m not. Most of us aren’t.
“punish successful businesses,”
show me some successful businesses. And yeah, I’d like to “punish” an oil company or two. Ever stop to think that MAYBE they don’t have OUR best interests at heart? Hmmm?
“not make any effort to invest in terrestrial energy (nuclear),”
Yawn. I’m all for investing in nukes, butthead. As long as it’s done with the highest attention paid to safety. We’ll be driven to it in time, anyway.
But no, let’s not ALSO look at other alternatives as well–no, let’s just give more breaks to oil companies and buddy up to them. Sure. As the Republicans have done.
” encourage illegal immigration,”
How’d your ancestors get here, simp? 90% of mine got here in the 1600s. Can you say the same? Probably not. Stop to think that it was easier, in their day, to emigrate to this country. We’ve made it progressively harder and harder ever since. These people want to come here for the same reason YOUR ancestors came. A great idea is to toss YOU out with them. I’m behind that.
” allow the ACLU run our lives,”
Better than the religious right any day, “rush.”
“and exactly which freedoms are you lacking? Do tell?”
I’d enjoy the freedom to kick your ass, but we never had that one, so I gotta let that one go.
So how about we start with the attack on Habeas Corpus, and work our way down from there?
Go away worm, you waste my time.
June 5th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Randall – How dare you besmirch the good names of by buddies Jethro and Clem. We drink Old Grandad and talk about sheep and goats. Jethro just learned how to wipe from front to back and Clem can do a cannonball off the high board.
June 5th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
oh, and Randall drives a sweet-ass 22′ O’Day with a beautiful new spinnaker and a recently-installed porta-potty head. The chicks love it. The cool, intellectual, and hot chicks that is.
The chick with the thing on her lip—she loves the guy who drives the pickup truck. And…. that would be you, I bet. Shithead.
June 5th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Well said, George.
If my country continues on its current path, I foresee another civil war in the very near future. But instead of North against South or Black against White, it will be Haves against Have Nots.
And I would put my money on the Have Nots. There is nothing as dangerous as a person backed into a corner with nothing to lose. Now get a few million of them, give them weapons (shovels, rakes, guns, knives, clubs) and let them march up to the gated communities of the Haves.
Will the military be able to separate them? Or will they be taking sides as well? Could the president choose one side versus the other as “right”? He (or she) would probably side with the Haves, as that is the group they would have hailed from, and would include all of their friends and supporters.
And who would join the Have Nots? Our wonderful, industrious, hard-working neighbors to the south. A few million of them, working from the inside (as in “the inside of your home as gardeners, caretakers, maids, etc.”) would certainly make the battle interesting.
June 5th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
buc:
I laughed. Thank you.
June 5th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Randy ~ Butthead? Simp? Worm? I expected much, much better from a kid about to start middle school already. Just try to “kick my ass.” I bet you fight like a girl. It feels good here under your skin.
June 5th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Don’t forget about us, President Lincoln.
Our neighbors to the immediate south have gotten far too self-absorbed and self-righteous lately. Most of the Haves live right on our wide-open, unprotected border, and we would love to expand our borders a little.
June 5th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
randall no need to name call. you take things very personally
June 5th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Best Canadian export ever: Candace Olson.
June 5th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
you tell him, green. although it helps when people show that they aren’t to be taken seriously so one can move on to a real conversation with an adult who doesn’t resort to name calling
June 5th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Anyone who wants eith Hilary or Obama in the White House is asking for serious trouble. Socialism will only be a step away. I think the government should stay out of my business, not force me to have health insurance
June 5th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
News Flash:
The physical (if illegal) population of the United States jumped by roughly 5 million people today as Canadians and Mexicans poured over our borders in an obvious protest of the current state of immigration affairs.
The US Military, National Guard and Reserves were called back from as far away as Iraq, China and Brazil to help restore order.
President Obama Clinton McCain had this to say: “Shit!”
June 5th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
that’s actually a good point. lots of people who are considered “uninsured” choose not to have insurance.
June 5th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
rush- you just might be a Libertarian… not such a bad word once you understand the ideology behind it. The government does not need to make sure we have equal results, just an equal playing field
June 5th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Green ~ I’m aware of Libertarian beliefs
June 5th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Green: If Obama gets elected, no one over the 18 will be forced to have health insurance. He wants to make insurance affordable for everyone. Many people choose not to have insurance, green, because it is simply unaffordable for those lower on the SEC scale with the skyrocketing costs of living across the board. If you have to choose between putting gas in your vehicle so you can go to work and provide food for your children, and putting huge amounts of money away into some ominous institution that you may or may not ever see again (or might be canceled at a moment’s notice), you can see why some “choose” not to have health insurance. This country will never be a socialist nation, but we could/should take a page or two from the playbook of socialist nations. It’s the utilitarian ideology that matters, not the social policies themselves.
June 5th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
rushfan:
Yeah, I bet you like the feel of a man’s skin, there, deve.
Honestly, I have no more time to waste with some idiot who is apparently a Rush Limbaugh fan (or does your name mean you’re a Rush fan, as in the Canadian group? Either way, both truly suck, so you’re a loser in my book no matter what).
You have no idea who you’re talking to, as a newcomer to this site. I am a former dyed-in-the-wool right wing conservative who is in his early 40s and was a passionate follower of Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater, and William F. Buckley back in the day. But those men were giants compared to little piss-ants like you and your sickening Limbaugh, Bush, and sundry cronies. And you? For all we know, back when I was a College Republican, you were playing with blocks–but even if not so, it hardly matters… I came to my senses when I saw that conservatism had been betrayed by liars, hypocrites, racists and religious bigots over 20 years ago.
Now, you bore me… and I’m off for G&Ts with my neighbors at dockside, so rant away, idiot. I’ll be having more fun on my end, I’m quite sure.
June 5th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
randique, sorry, you lost me a “deve.” Is that “randy” for “i’m such a lonely man i lash out at any and all opposing viewpoints and attempt to invalidate them so as to remember what it felt like when i still had full use of my penis?” Just a guess.
June 5th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
our country was founded by men who wanted the rights of the government to be lessened, not vastly enlarged. By taking pages from socialism we are destroying the very foundation this nation was built on: independence and the idea that people can work things out for themselves.
June 5th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Green: The problem is, the situation the country is facing now is vastly different than the county that was originally founded. We are facing pressures and problems today that the founders never would have dreamed of in a million years. We cannot continue to govern our nation on an outdated but traditional ideology that is not suited to deal with the modern social landscape. Changes have to be made, context taken into account, and the vast complacency that now exists among the American people. We already have big government, but at this point smaller government is not the solution. It’s a shitty catch-22, but we can’t rely on the same failed ideologies of the past simply because they worked 200 plus years ago. Independence is not supposed to be letting others suffer while caring only about your own situation, but that has what it has become, and it has become fasionable to defend this egotistical, self-serving way of life by asserting that independence was the fundamental premise the founding fathers.
June 5th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
#538 was from me. I thought they had fixed this shit.
June 5th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
simma down now
June 5th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
rushfan, cheri oteri..?
trojan man…..Mississippi? alabama? Texas?
June 6th, 2008 at 5:52 am
and “rushfan,” clearly, is code for “I’m such a gigantic dork that I’m incapable of humor of my own invention, but have to make SNL references in order to try to be funny.”
“deve,” by the way, is short for “deviant.” Education’s a wonderful thing, “rushfan.” You should give it a shot.
June 6th, 2008 at 6:09 am
is it hard to breath with your head that far up your ass? i hope so.
June 6th, 2008 at 6:27 am
deve (n.) a coerced payment; “protection” money.– From the “double tounged dictionary”
Definition of Deve
a. 1. Deaf.
From webster-dictionary.net
not “deviant”
yes, my education IS a wonderful thing
June 6th, 2008 at 6:33 am
green ~ you’re my hero
June 6th, 2008 at 6:35 am
oh, shucks. we could use some more tranquility around here
June 6th, 2008 at 7:16 am
green:
A) it’s “Double TONGUED Dictionary,” not “tounged.”
B) the mere fact that you can look up a word in a dictionary is not a sufficient sign of marked education. Merely an indicator that you can read. Good for you. I’d suggest you expand your repertoire, now.
rushfan:
A) it’s “breathe,” not “breath.”
B) I note that neither you nor your little buddy “green” here answered any of my or Slickwilly’s points. You simply sit back, fire off your right wing nonsense cliches (some of which we invented when I was in college) but when challenged, you have nothing to say, except for trading insults. Which can be fun, yes, but gets YOUR argument nowhere.
The Republican Party is going to lose, and probably lose big, in this year’s election. I wonder, then, what your attitude will be? To continue to blame others? Or will you reflect on the mistakes and wrongs committed by the party?
The former path is the way to continued ignorance. The latter to wisdom. Try taking the latter for a change.
June 6th, 2008 at 7:21 am
thanks for correcting our typos, randall.
June 6th, 2008 at 7:24 am
Obama voted w/George Bush 50% of the time.
June 6th, 2008 at 7:34 am
and how many “present” votes does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop? or into the white house?
June 6th, 2008 at 7:42 am
The campaign says Obama has consistently supported the death penalty “in principle” and opposed it “in practice.”
Obama said he would support a single-payer health plan for Illinois “in principal”, “although such a program will probably have to be instituted at a federal level; the long-term objective would be a universal care system that does not differentiate between the unemployed, the disabled, and so on.” The campaign says Obama has consistently supported single payer health care in principle.
Under single-payer health care, a government system would replace private health insurance. Obama’s campaign said he has always supported the idea in concept, but thinks it is not currently practical because of the existing health care infrastructure.
Way to pick a side. He’s just another politician who refuses to grow a pair and be a leader. Leaders don’t parse positions. They take a stand. He wants it both ways on everything.
June 6th, 2008 at 7:53 am
What do we want? Change! What kind of change? Who the hell cares!
June 10th, 2008 at 5:55 am
tranquil:
A) Obama’s “present” votes occurred in the Illinois legislature, not in the US senate. They were not at all uncommon. This is a chimera.
B) I’d rather have a leader who understands that some policies and ideas are good in principle, but need to have the brakes put on them in practice—over some single-minded jackass (such as we’ve suffered under the last eight years) who can’t even concede the possibility of having made a mistake, much less reflect on his mistakes and learn from them. There IS a difference between “principle” and “practice” that’s more than abstract. Only those who have no argument to make would fail to recognize this, and pull the disingenuous stunt of trying to twist it into some sort of leadership question.
C) Obama, of course, thinks like a lawyer. But again, I’d rather have a president who understands the law (and why we have laws) and approaches them with care and consideration, over a bullying fearmonger who runs roughshod over the law or uses it to further his own ends–political or ideological.
June 10th, 2008 at 6:03 am
I’m not going to fight with you. Obama gives a good speech, but he is at best naive and at worst dangerous. There’s no way he’ll be able to keep all of the promises he’s made anyway, so I’m hardly worried. And since there’s no chance in Hell he’ll be the next president, it hardly matters anyway.
June 11th, 2008 at 5:58 am
rushfan:
Naive? I hardly think so. Are you so jaded–or so duped by the right wing–that you find someone naive simply because they’re able to instill hope in people for the first time in a decade? That they can get something done, and fix problems?
And dangerous? That’s just silly. Tell me how in god’s name Obama is “dangerous.” What “danger” does Obama present? It’s BUSH who’s made life MORE dangerous for us, drastically so. In almost every aspect of our lives.
And “no chance in hell” that Obama will win? Well, we’ll see rushfan. If things go the way I think they’ll go, I do hope you’ll come back here and eat your words in November.
June 11th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Naive and dangerous? Rush, heard of George W. Bush lately? I have the feeling you probably voted for this guy…twice. I honestly doubt naivete and dangerousness matter much to you. I swear…do you people even *think* about these things before you put them in print?
June 11th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Slick:
Actually, I think we’ve ratted these people out (or rather they’ve ratted themselves out). They claimed to be supporters of Hillary Clinton (perhaps they really were, but I have my doubts as you’ll see) but in fact by now elsewhere on this site several of them have admitted to being virulently anti-abortion, and have shown other distinctly conservative ideological leanings. Also, it seems they’re all women–which they had not previously identified themselves as. Note too that “rushfan” is, in fact, a follower of the hated Limbaugh. (Whom I dispensed with as a hypocritical blowhard years ago).
Now… either one of two things is going on here. 1) Hillary Clinton was drawing in fairly passionate support from a lot of conservative Republican women who were anti-abortion and so on–which is possible, I suppose, though I think rather unlikely. (Though this could have been explained by women, regardless of ideology, wishing to support a fellow female candidate, and for some reason Hillary does seem to have won over some people who one would think would be opposed to her in ideological terms). 2) The whole thing is a feint, in that none of these women (or some of them at least) never really intended to vote for Hillary Clinton and are simply trying to undermine Obama, who is of course the real threat to John McCain. They may not have been enthusiastic about McCain, in other words, but they were hip to this strategy of Limbaugh’s (however tongue-in-cheek he may or may not have meant it) to shower support upon Hillary Clinton in hopes of influencing her succession to the candidacy of the Democratic Party–because as we well know, it was Hillary that Republicans were really itching to run against–presumably on the theory that they could tear her apart AND that she would galvanize the party… seeing as, in McCain, they haven’t got a candidate that really excites the party base.
In any event, I find it curious and rather suspicious that here we have several women who have made a big show of supporting Hillary, and saying that since she didn’t get the nod that they’d now vote for McCain—when, upon examination, each of them has revealed herself to be a right-wing mouthpiece. Hillary Clinton, for all the criticism I’d lay on her, was never “right wing.” She’s a faithful, if flawed Democrat. I find it very hard to believe that conservative ideologues would really support her. And even if they did, out of some sense of some collegial gender thing, then their non-support of Obama is really based on the fact that they never would have switched ideologies in the first place–in other words, that had Hillary never run in the first place, these women would have voted Republican even if Christ himself had gotten the Democratic nomination.
June 11th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
I find that these people who seem to know everything about the political process can be so pompous as to assume they are the most intelligent beings out there. I don’t pretend to be anything other than a disenfranchised voter who questions why I must automatically assume the mantle of an Obama supporter once my preferred candidate has exited the race. Is it because he is supposedly behind my views? I don’t know. He hasn’t really addressed those issues. Actually, he hasn’t expressed any issues publicly that have been satisfactory to me. You can sit there and be judgemental and pretend you are automatically the superior being because CHANGE is what is most vital, but tell me how specifically he is going to change our system. I am sick and tired of the people here who think that they are being progressive by voting for the candidate of CHANGE and don’t really know what CHANGE they are voting for. Talk is cheap in my opinion, hell I want change but I’m not exactly one to pretend to know how to go about doing it. I’m just an every day citizen who is not a political candidate, but a person of souring economy, souring war, and souring prices. But, I know this, before all these things, I hold my national security above it all. What is all the money in the world without a safe and secure one for the safety of my child? I have never voted Republican in my life, but I will do so in this election, unless and until I hear something that reassures me that my child’s safety is most important and all children’s safety is most important, because they are our future. I think it rather suspicious that every woman who supported Hillary must automatically assume the role of an advocate of the Democratic Party who ignored our pleas of equality and fairness. Ridiculous is all I can come up with when I think of these people. So, pretend to be holier than thou, it doesn’t make a difference to me. I will vote for my child, and right now at this moment, that doesn’t include Senator Obama.
June 11th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
jazj: I stopped reading at “Is it because he is supposedly behind my views? I don’t know. He hasn’t really addressed those issues.”
Once again, if you know your stance on the issues, and you previously supported Hillary Clinton, it would only make sense for you to throw your support to Obama. If you have not done your research, that is not my fault. Obama’s Blueprint for Change. Straight from his website.
“he hasn’t expressed any issues publicly that have been satisfactory to me”
Then you should never have supported Hillary in the first place; she and Obama are almost identical on the issues.
June 12th, 2008 at 8:32 am
Randy ~ YOU are the one who brings Bush up at every opportunity. Not me. Aren’t you also the one who said something like, “I didn’t say my side was perfect. I just said your side is stupid.”
I find Obama to be a pandering whiney baby who has people like you fooled by his constant cry of “change for all” and “hope for the future” etc. As a smart guy, I actually expect better from you. (I don’t dislike you. I have much respect for you. You are the one who resorts to childish name-calling.) As I was saying, Obama couldn’t be a more stereotypical politician if he was an SNL sketch. “We are the change we’ve been waiting for!” Really? What is he even talking about? I would give him an honest listen if he ever SAID anything. He spouts slogans and platitudes and they aren’t even GOOD ones. Sheesh. Oh, and you’ve obviously never listened to Rush. If you gave him a listen, you’d find he’s actually very entertaining as well as informative. I’ve listened to Air America and it was, big surprise, a lot of name-calling, as your side seems to resort too all too often.
So, Randall, you’re smart enough to know there are good politicans on both sides, bad politicians on both sides and the same goes for ideas, issues, corruption, etc. Let’s not feed into the polarization that the media thrives on and the two-party system breeds. Let’s rise above it, shall we?
June 12th, 2008 at 8:43 am
“So, Randall, you’re smart enough to know there are good politicans on both sides, bad politicians on both sides and the same goes for ideas, issues, corruption, etc. Let’s not feed into the polarization that the media thrives on and the two-party system breeds. Let’s rise above it, shall we?”
Obama ‘08!!
June 12th, 2008 at 8:45 am
tmo ~ what *specifically* does obama stand for?
June 12th, 2008 at 8:46 am
TMo:
Good idea.
June 12th, 2008 at 8:49 am
rushfan:
Stop it, with this “what does Obama ’specifically’ stand for” nonsense. Go to his web site and investigate. Listen to him. He’s no less specific than *any other* politician, and at the same time, he’s got a platform laid out, as anyone running for president will do.
Stop letting Rush Limbaugh do your thinking for you. He’s lousy at it anyway.
June 12th, 2008 at 8:51 am
Well, I already linked this in 559.
But, Obama’s Blueprint for Change. Straight from his website. (pdf)
June 12th, 2008 at 8:51 am
No one thinks for me, Randall. I just haven’t fallen for Obama the way you have. I think you should listen closer to what he says. Are you a part of the “money culture” he whines about? Do you drive, and eat and use an air conditioner? Obama would not approve.
June 12th, 2008 at 8:53 am
rushfan:
I’m so low on time at the moment… just a quick one….. take note of my far earlier post in this thread where I admitted that I was a former conservative Republican. You’re therefore wrong–I DID use to listen to Limbaugh. A LOT. I came to realize, however, that he was nothing more than a self-serving blowhard who uses propaganda and distortions to sell his case, trusting on the soft-headedness of his audience to get away with it.
June 12th, 2008 at 8:55 am
Case in point, Randall, I worship Oprah just as much as Rush. I didn’t fall in line with her just because she supports Obama. And just so you know, I don’t support McCain, either.
June 12th, 2008 at 9:00 am
did anyone see Obama without a teleprompter last week? Hysterical if it wasn’t so sad
June 12th, 2008 at 9:01 am
Randall, sorry to hear you’re on the run, hope you’ll be back. Why did you make the Huffington move and switch sides? We value your intellect on this side of the aisle. How do you reconcile the fact that Democrats think Americans are too stupid to make decisions for themselves?? You’re proof people are more than capable. I suspect you were swept up in the “people need to be taken care of and the gov. doesn’t do enough for them.” Or maybe you’re a passifist. What happened?
June 12th, 2008 at 9:03 am
rushfan:
Okay, I have a meeting in about two minutes.
But to your last remark, rushfan, all I can say in response is, “bullshit.” I haven’t “fallen” for anything. I am, rather, disgusted and mortified by 8 years of George Bush and a Republican party that has UTTERLY lost its way.
I’m 43, rushfan. Way past the age of “falling” for ANYTHING. So please. Peddle that crap elsewhere, it slides right off me.
As for your remarks about the “money culture,” my response again is, “bullshit.” You’re not listening to Obama, nor are you looking at the country and world around you. You’re listening to Limbaugh, and insulating yourself from reality.
If you indeed have so much respect for my intelligence, then listen to me now: no one’s telling you that you have to become a freakin’ liberal. But stop getting your view on reality from idiots and liars like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and the like. Those people and the people they represent and are allied with betrayed conservatism LONG ago. I am no liberal now… I have NO allegiance to ideology or party. I have been on both ends of the political spectrum and back again. I am FAR more jaded and open-eyed than you can possibly think. I haven’t been “fooled” by Obama—I know what politicians are. ALL politicians. But I can recognize a failed ideology when I see one, and that ideology is on the RIGHT, it isn’t coming from Obama.
And now I gotta go. I *will* be back though.
oh and I still say you did a nice job on that abuse list, even if you ARE deluded politically.
June 12th, 2008 at 9:03 am
Paultard alert!
just kidding.
Side note: I voted for Bush in 2000 and third party in 04.
I know, I know.
June 12th, 2008 at 9:04 am
Green, yeah, Obama is a good “speech giver” he’s definintely not good at thinking on his feet. Did you see him in any of the debates? Holy cow, I’ve never heard someone say “ummm” “errrr” “well” more. He’s just so careful not to ever commit to anything. He talks *around* everything.
June 12th, 2008 at 9:08 am
This is the second presidential election that I will be allowed to participate in. This is also the second election where I am completely dissatisfied with my choices.
We can’t change the problems we face until we have better choices for leadership
June 12th, 2008 at 9:09 am
Randall (for when you come back)
Don’t let my nickname fool you. Rush is an entertainer and I like to listen to him at work. I am a huge fan of his, but I do not agree with 100% of the things he says.
Oh, and if Obama does win, I will not spend his entire presidency denying he’s the prez like a democrat. (not that you are)
Are you familiar with Walter E. Williams. I love him, too. You remind me a little of him.
June 12th, 2008 at 9:34 am
Oh, and not to beat a dead horse, but I love NPR as well. I get my info from many sources, as I’m sure you do.
June 13th, 2008 at 7:32 am
rushfan:
“Randall, sorry to hear you’re on the run, hope you’ll be back.”
I’m back for a moment. Unfortunately yesterday my meeting ran far longer than I thought and then an ex-girlfriend suddenly popped by to chat and take me to dinner. And then there were drinks with the neighbors by the lake, and afterwards I found it more fun to spend the last bits of the daylight fishing off the dock than typing away on the internet.
I returned, however, to answer your questions.
“Why did you make the Huffington move and switch sides? We value your intellect on this side of the aisle.”
Well, *you* may value it, rushfan, but in fact, no—intellect is not valued any longer by the Republican party nor by the people who call themselves conservatives.
You may ask yourself, pointedly, why Arianna Huffington made *her* switch. Her reasons might echo mine.
But since you asked, the answer is this: I don’t know how old you are, but I am 43. I grew up in New York in the late 60s and 70s. My parents were dyed-in-the-wool Republicans–but liberal Republicans–Rockefeller Republicans, as they were called in New York. A branch of the party which no longer exists–people who believed in protecting the sources of capital and respecting the inviolate nature of private property and the market, but who also believed in social responsibility, and believed that, as the privileged, we were meant to give something back to society–as part of our duty as Americans.
In those days liberalism was a dirty word because in the 60s many people preached it when what they really wanted was socialism. And socialism would of course be wonderful, if it worked well and could do what it hopes to do without infringing on human rights. Some countries seem to have found this balance, with intelligence and great care… though of course we’re all rightly skeptical of how well it really works in practice… but at any rate, America is a vast and deeply proletarian country, and there’s little hope for so highly-nuanced and high-maintenance a system as socialism working here. It would fail here for the same reason it failed in the USSR. Socialism is the ideal experiment for the micro-nation, or even for the city-state. It would have worked in ancient Athens, perhaps. It may work in Sweden (sometimes, though this is debatable). But in the US, where the populace is a *mass* more than it is a people–no. In fact, I constantly fear for democracy in the US, so close it is in spirit and timbre to the ideals that form the basis for socialism (though socialism itself is an ideology, which democracy is not) and, in my opinion, the citizenry of the US too often abrogates its responsibilities towards maintaining its own democracy. Just as socialism would quickly become corrupt and misery-laden here, so I also wonder how long democracy can last in a country whose people seem to be less visionary and less courageous every day, and who march to tunes of consumerist conformity more and more.
See, rushfan, I had ancestors who fought the Revolutionary War (I also had an ancestor who was a Tory, who lost all his property and was exiled to Nova Scotia for it). My mother was active in the D.A.R. My family passionately believed in the ideals of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence (ALL of their ideals–not just some of them, as today’s conservatives seem wont to do). Sometimes we tend to forget how radical and *revolutionary* these ideals are. The American spirit is in fact a revolutionary one–in that sense we were never so different from the revolutionary left-wingers who wanted to overthrow monarchies and such. But we also became very… complacent and suffused with riches. And we became self-righteous and fat, so secure in our nation’s wealth and in the ease which money offers that we’ve forgotten a lot of the spirit of what we are…. though we still mouth the words.
Now, when I was a kid, when I was about 15-19, this drove me far to the Left. I believed passionately in the American ideals, but felt they’d been betrayed. But it was the late 70s by the time I was in my late teens—and ten years had therefore gone by since the idealistic excesses of the 60s. And being an intelligent and thoughtful kid, and still grounded in my upbringing… which made me believe in rights and democracy and such—I came to recognize how the left itself had betrayed its OWN principles over the years–and how much of it also simply hadn’t worked. I came to feel the Left was bankrupt (I now realize this was a somewhat childish assessment, though of course still accurate in some ways). Then Ronald Reagan was there, and I get swept up into that… and moved from Left to Right, hearing this call from people who said, “we can bring back the revolution. We can right the injustices of society. We can bring back dignity to people.” That was coming from the Right, in those days. And I listened to it and believed it, and saw sense in it. I continued to believe it and fight for it for the next 10-15 years.
But then the betrayals and lies started surfacing. I had friends who worked in politics. High up. Fellow College Republicans who’d mouthed the same idealistic stuff I’d heard and believed. But then, as time went by…. they began to change. Some of them admitted to the stuff that was really going on…. that it was all bullshit, really… that all this talk about “righting wrongs” was really about simply restoring the status quo for the people of power who’d lost some of that power and standing in the 60s. That the whole thing was really just about making money, and that the little guy, whoever he was, mattered no more to Republicans than he’d ever mattered, except as someone to manipulate, to get votes out of. See, the Republicans, under Reagan, had discovered how you could appeal to blue collar types—Republicans had always had a hard time with this—by going the jingoistic route, and by telling them what they wanted to hear. Reagan, I think, genuinely believed he could help such people—but the people who succeeded him, and were around him–no. They had other plans and other ideas.
At first I thought, oh well, this is politics. But then I saw the culture changing. America became a wasteful, (rather than thrifty and careful) consumer culture. Fundamentalist christians became more and more powerful. I always believed heartily in the separation of church and state—but clearly these people did not, and do not. Greed began to be viewed as a virtue, not a vice. In fact, a lot of vices became virtues. It began to be viewed as “bleeding heart” to talk about such things as “social responsibility,” when to me, raised in it, that it was one of the things the Republican party was supposed to be about—the party of Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt after all. Freedom, equality, and conservation of the environment. But all these things were made fun of by the conservatives I knew and heard on TV and the radio and in the papers. I suddenly realized—we had turned the party over to the meanest-spirited, greediest, most non-democratic people that were out there. Or maybe it had just come to appeal to that base part of all of us, I don’t know.
There’s much more to it, but that’s all I have time for.
“How do you reconcile the fact that Democrats think Americans are too stupid to make decisions for themselves??”
that’s an old, old line from long ago that you’re mouthing, rushfan. It’s like railing against FDR. Please. You embarrass yourself when you use it. As does Limbaugh and people like him.
“You’re proof people are more than capable. I suspect you were swept up in the “people need to be taken care of and the gov. doesn’t do enough for them.” Or maybe you’re a passifist. What happened?”
well, I’ve told you some of what happened. Clearly now, you see it wasn’t that I got “swept up” in anything.
And a pacifist? Where do you get that, because I’m opposed to the war in Iraq?
My father and five of my uncles fought in combat in WWII. One of my uncles was killed in the Korean War. I’m no pacifist—but I know what war is. And I know a stupid and pointless war when I see one. I grew up with one on TV every night (Vietnam).
Maybe this will make you understand better, and maybe it’ll make you think, I don’t know. I hope so.
June 13th, 2008 at 8:05 am
Randall ~ Thanks for sharing. I myself just moved back to Texas from New York (Vestal) and I was born on Long Island. I am 33 years old and spent my teenage years as an animal rights activist and environmentalist. I didn’t even get an interest in politics until about ten years ago. I was raised by apathetic lazy “parents” and I’ve never even met my real father. Once I got into politics, it was clear to me when it comes to gov., less is more. I’m for smaller gov., more personal responsiblity, literal interpretation of the constitution, I’ve gone from pro-choice to pro-life (does not the constitution guarantee the right to “life” liberty, and the persuit of happiness?) I see the whole Katrina incident of recent history as a perfect example of what’s wrong with America. Just look at how many fingers were pointed with no one willing to take responsibility! One event managed to hilight so many issues: race relations, people’s expectations of their local, state and federal government, infrastructure issues, the media’s effect on the news, personal responsibility and the lack thereof.
Anyhoo, I wish I was at one of the many lakes I live near, but alas, I am at work. Missing my baby girl and my hubby. Thanks for taking the time, Randall. Hope to talk again.
June 13th, 2008 at 8:10 am
This debate has become pointless and stupid. It’s like the evolution/creation debate. No matter how many times one side waves the facts in the face of the other side, neither will budge. If you want to vote for McCain, do it. You obviously have your reasons, good or bad. I will vote for Obama, because I see him as the only person fully qualified to handle the array of issues this country faces in the wake of one of the worst presidencies in US history. I really am just flabbergasted that people will still vote republican after the disaster that was the Bush administration. Don’t you realize that the same players that caused this mess will fill the same positions under a McCain presidency? Obama is not perfect. He has flaws, of course. All people do, including (and especially) politicians. But at this point, it’s not a question of McCain versus Obama. It’s republican rule versus democratic rule. The last 8 years have shown that the republicans have some serious reprioritizing to do.
It’s a lot like going to the pound and looking at two dogs. You have played with the one in the cage on the right and he bit you in the ass. Really, *really* hard. Caused almost irrepairable damage to your ass. Scars that will last forever. You haven’t played with the dog in the left cage yet. Given than you know the dog in the right cage is vicious and dangerous, why would you still choose that dog over the other?
I’m sure this isn’t what Bush meant when he said “shock and awe.” But I certainly am shocked by the fact that Bush has a 61% disappoval rating and 43% of the population still consider voting republican, and in awe of the fact that some people just can’t see reason no matter plainly it is spelled out. McCain is not the right choice. He is a fine and competant leader, and a smart man. He was the best choice the republicans had to offer, no doubt. However, it’s not McCain that I’m against (if you’ll notice, most of the personal attacks in this exchange were made against Obama, *not* McCain). It is another 4 years of the same policies and people that cause our country to incur the largest deficit in US history, a drawn-out and pointless war in Iraq, gas prices to rise at the highest rates ever seen in US history, even adjusted for inflation, food prices spike over 12% (and that is a conservative estimate) and corporate entities rake in historic profit margins that have also outpaced inflation. The number of deals that Bush has made over his presidency makes me sick, the number of his friends he has helped push to the top, all while the average American has to scrape the couch cushions just to put gas in the goddam tank. Vote republican if this situation is okay with you. The rest of us will be out here in, you know, reality.
June 13th, 2008 at 8:16 am
rush: As TMo pointed out, smaller government is a nice idea, but historically, the republican party has given lip service to the idea of smaller government while keeping it the same size. Nothing really had been done proactively to lessen the influence of the federal government, particularly in the last 8 years (where we have seen our lives invaded and liberties commandeered by the federal government). In fact, Bush has done more for big government than Clinton ever did.
I could debate with you over the interpretation of the constitution as it applies to abortion, but honestly, it’s not worth the argument at this point.
June 13th, 2008 at 8:20 am
Slick ~ Ug, I hate that name. Clinton was the most pathetic womanizer, I can’t see the appeal, personally.
Sadly, I firmly believe it honestly will not matter who is the American president until there is an American president who really and truly, honestly works for change. Say I was president. Now, hear me out. I believe the only responsibilty the gov. has for the people is national defense and caring for those that cannot take care of themselves (the elderly, orphans, disabled, mentally imparied.) Everyone else is more than capable of doing it on their own and if there was no one giving them welfare or unemployment, they’d find a way. And if they couldn’t, there have always been and always will be churches, charities and tons of private sector organizations to help. I believe in *seriously* limited government. Privatize everything! Competition improves. Why do teacher’s unions fear vouchers?? If some people love Europe so much, why don’t they learn from their system of funding the child instead of the school?? Now I’m just rambling, but seriously, think about it.
June 13th, 2008 at 8:20 am
Oh, and rush: the phrase “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” appear in the Declaration of Independence. Not the Constitution.
June 13th, 2008 at 8:23 am
**I could debate with you over the interpretation of the constitution as it applies to abortion, but honestly, it’s not worth the argument at this point.**
it’s worth it to me and the 39 millions babies aborted since the 1973 roe v wade decision.
June 13th, 2008 at 8:29 am
I wish I was as smart as you, Mr. Willy
June 13th, 2008 at 9:10 am
rushfan:
Again…. this abortion thing. Another point for me. Something that became far too polarized over the years–largely because it was exploited, as an issue, by the religious right, who saw it as a cheap and easy way (because it lends itself so easily to the illogical argument of the emotional appeal) to grab attention, money, and power for themselves. Because funny that we see far less clamor, from the religious right, for stopping capital punishment… or war… or closer still to the subject, for stopping the deaths of babies and children all over the planet from disease and rampant hunger. Nope. No religious right-wingers going around the world fighting tooth and nail to stop the horrors of starvation. But plenty of them ranting non-stop against abortion, and blowing up abortion clinics and threatening (and killing) doctors. But you don’t see them flying to Darfur to put a stop to genocide. All of these are supposedly about respecting life… but their respect for life seems to halt at the savage ranting against abortion. Funny. Especially when you consider it’s often the very same people who will get behind the idea of bombing Iran, and who were behind the idea of the war in Iraq, and who support capital punishment, and so on.
(Which is not to say that I’m against capital punishment… nor is it to say that I don’t believe many people are honestly and sincerely against abortion for principled reasons… I merely note the discrepancy amongst MANY such people).
Abortion is a far more complex subject, and we should all just admit to it. I hate the idea of abortion, I always have. I’m not at all comfortable with it. I’m particularly against late-term abortions. But why? Because a late-term fetus is more like a “real baby,” because it looks like one and is nearly as big as one. Probably, yes. Is that logical? What IS a separate life? When IS a baby…. a “baby?” That is, when is it a human being, a separate human being? And as such becomes privy to rights and protections?
Is that really such an easy question?
And what of a woman, and her body? Are women always to be considered partly a sort of “communal property” that the rest of us can command and dictate standards to, simply because a woman’s body can produce a separate biological entity? (At least for a certain period of her life). Isn’t that rather odd, in itself? Is THAT such an easy question?
And what OF these children, once born? What of an unwanted millions of children? What happens to them? Who takes care of them? Where do they go? Do we force people to keep children they want? Regardless of circumstance? Yes, self-responsibility comes into play–but is a moral point (that we should all be self-responsible) more important than the question of whether a child ends up neglected, abused, or abandoned because it was unwanted?
No… it’s all too easy to refer to the “39 million babies” aborted… but we all know the question isn’t as simple as that.
June 13th, 2008 at 9:11 am
rushfan: “it’s worth it to me and the 39 millions babies aborted since the 1973 roe v wade decision.”
Rush, in my lifetime, I’ve been good friends with two girls during a period in time in which they had abortions (none were mine, to be clear). The first was one of my best friends in college, and the other was a roommate soon after college. I am 24, so this was not too long ago. (I have also known woman in similar situations who decided to have their babies)
I did not know the first girl was pregnant until she came running across the quad and burst into tears and hugged me and told me she had the abortion. I was across the hall in my apartment when the second girl came out of the bathroom crying and hugged me when she found out she was pregnant, and later i sat on a chair in the living room while she moaned and cried in pain, drugged up and drifting in and out of consciousness for 6 hours, laying on the couch with her “boyfriend” sitting by her feet, undergoing her “take-home” abortion. Later that night, I witnessed a horrific scene in the bathroom, the sink and toilet full of blood.
I have seen these horrible things, yet I still support a woman’s right to choose.
I don’t think abortion is pretty. I don’t revel in the glory of the freedom represented by a woman’s right to choose. Abortion is a VERY serious matter, and a VERY important decision when made, and it will affect a woman for the rest of her life. The second girl told me that her mother cried every year on the anniversary of an abortion she had had in her early-20’s, yet my friend still believed that it was the right thing to do for herself, maybe not fully realizing the consequences, but definitely having a large handle of what the procedure would entail, both physically and emotionally. No sane woman goes and gets an abortion on a whim. If they choose to do so, they have seriously weighed the pros and cons of what they are doing. If they believe that having a child at this point in their life would be detrimental to both theirs and the babies lives, that they would not be able to provide a healthy, adequate environment, time, space, money, and support, then abortion needs to be an option on the table.
No sane woman is happy when she chooses to have an abortion. But maybe she and the life inside of her will cry just a little bit less in the long run. Think it’s selfish? Selfish is telling a woman she can’t make a choice, bringing up the real possibility of not only placing huge strains on the woman’s life but also forcing a new life into this world that will not be adequately nurtured, cared for, loved, fed, or ultimately happy. And I think THAT is the worse of two evils.
June 13th, 2008 at 9:16 am
rushfan:
Oh, and by the way… I know Vestal well. I know Binghamton University well. Or SUNY Binghamton, as we called it in my day.
But I’m not surprised you’ve planted yourself in Texas. Seems like it (and Florida, Virginia, and NC) is the home for all wayward former middle-roaders and left-leaners, (and New Yorkers) who then become right wing. Texas, it seems, is populated by people with blinders on, about reality (no offense to you personally… I just have an admittedly irrational dislike for Texas and the “classic Texan.”)
June 13th, 2008 at 9:21 am
rushfan:
Oh and, rushfan… you didn’t… by any chance, fib a bit about your age… and your background… and where you’re from? You aren’t by any chance really MY age (43) and from *elsewhere* in New York State?…. and you didn’t by any chance go to Bucknell University, did you? You aren’t by chance a very pretty brunette that I was secretly madly in love with in high school, are you? An Irish girl with a Hebrew first name, and beautiful eyes and a beautiful smile?
No?
Nah… didn’t think so. The coincidence woulda been too great. But she too went away to Texas and got married, and became a conservative Republican. And so died my youthful crush. 
June 13th, 2008 at 9:23 am
Wow. I simply stated a fact and you two went off. I’m actually more concerned with why the pro-abortioners don’t want to allow women to see a sonogram of their fetus to help them make up their minds. Abortion is a business, Planned Parenthood makes a lot of money off abortions every year. It’s a sad fact. I’ve also known women who had to make tough decisions when they found out their babies would be born with birth defects. One mom had the baby and loved her until she passed away. The other mom had an abortion because she couldn’t handle the idea. I don’t judge either of them. Abortion *is* much more complex than either of you, as men, will ever comprehend.
June 13th, 2008 at 9:27 am
Randy ~ nope. 33. Name’s Linda. Born on Long Island at Brookhaven Memorial Hospital. Raised in Texas. Moved to Vestal in October of 06. Got pregnant. Moved back to Texas in March of 07. Had said baby in July of 07.
Oh, and got married in Binghamton in August of 03.
Spent some time at San Antonio College. I am a brunette
June 13th, 2008 at 9:54 am
I want to point out that pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion. (For instance, I am against abortion. I would not want my girlfriend or sister to have one. But I support their right to choose for themselves. If they wish to have it done, who am I to stand in their way?) Please delineate between these two terms in the future, rushfan.
June 13th, 2008 at 9:59 am
rushfan:
Well, you’re a brunette at least… in my book that means you’re already superior to other, lesser women… whose lighter-colored hair marks them as inferior. If you have brown eyes you’re *really* one of the female master race. In my world, anyway.
June 13th, 2008 at 10:01 am
…except for my daughters, who are blonde. They’re the exception to ALL rules. Because they’re exceptionally wonderful, smart, and brilliantly sarcastic. I forgive them their blondness.
June 13th, 2008 at 10:05 am
rushfan: you said “Everyone else is more than capable of doing it on their own and if there was no one giving them welfare or unemployment, they’d find a way. And if they couldn’t, there have always been and always will be churches, charities and tons of private sector organizations to help.”
Really? Always? I volunteer at a rescue squad and someone went out on a call to a couple staying, shivering in the cold in their car because they had no place to go. They were turned away from the salvation army for having no room and then turned away from the church because they weren’t married.
June 13th, 2008 at 10:13 am
rushfan:
I agree with Slick on this… pro-choice is not necessarily synonymous with pro-abortion. He speaks for me on this one. (In this, as in some things, I have appointed Slickwilly my Chief Acolyte List Universe Mouthpiece–as long as he keeps sending me the freshly-baked Tollhouse cookies every Tuesday via Parcel Post, and continues to refer to me as “Lord and Master, His All Highest Intellect, Servant of the Secret Flame” and other ridiculous Dungeons and Dragons shit… cuz I like to embarrass Slick—it’s one of the few pleasures I have left in life).
“Wow. I simply stated a fact and you two went off.”
That happens in men our age sometimes. A woman just shows us something and we go off. Usually I can hold out a lot longer…. I can’t speak for Slick. But sometimes I get caught off-guard and…. well, accidents happen.
“I’m actually more concerned with why the pro-abortioners don’t want to allow women to see a sonogram of their fetus to help them make up their minds.”
Come now. Disingenuous. As I pointed out, this is an argument from emotion. An appeal to emotions. And as such is invalid. The picture, albeit a sonar-distorted one, of a baby stirs us. Is that, however, a sufficient argument?
“Abortion is a business, Planned Parenthood makes a lot of money off abortions every year.”
And so is anti-abortionism. Major churches make a LOT of money every year off donations made by the faithful and willing who think they are doing God’s will on earth by handing a few bucks or a check to some smarmy preacher or other.
“It’s a sad fact. I’ve also known women who had to make tough decisions when they found out their babies would be born with birth defects. One mom had the baby and loved her until she passed away. The other mom had an abortion because she couldn’t handle the idea. I don’t judge either of them.”
Glad that you don’t.
“Abortion *is* much more complex than either of you, as men, will ever comprehend.”
Well, we’ll leave aside the passive sexist remark there–it may, after all, have some validity. But I hasten to point out that *I* am the one who remarked upon the complexity of abortion as a question.
June 13th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Randall, you’re positively giddy.
June 13th, 2008 at 10:38 am
rushfan, congrats on the hair color, now what color are those eyes
June 13th, 2008 at 10:46 am
JR ~ What’s a rescue squad? We don’t have those here? Is it like an EMT?
Randall ~ You’re a bit dismissive, aren’t you? I may not be the eloquent (and wordy) writer you are, but my opinions are my own, not whoever you think said them before me. Just because others share my views doesn’t mean they’re not genuine. It’s not like you’re the first liberal ever to state your particular views, right? Plus, I’m a much better conversationalist in person. I love love love to debate and discuss and talk. I have since childhood. And nope, they’re blue. The nicest compliment I ever got was some guy told me he could “see galaxies” in my eyes. My daughter got my eyes, you should go to my myspace page and see how beautiful she is.
June 13th, 2008 at 10:47 am
rushfan:
I get like that when talking to brunettes. Something primal. Fun. Sticky.
MPW:
get lost, clown. The lady and I were having a private conversation. Go rack up points for your free prize, you freeloader.
June 13th, 2008 at 10:47 am
Hey MPW! What’s the haps?
June 13th, 2008 at 11:04 am
Oh yeah rescue squad is the ambulance service, I’m an EMT.
June 13th, 2008 at 11:06 am
randall, theres a gentlemen’s way of settling this with a duel or i could just beat you silly- your call
rushfan the haps is this im bouts to go see the Happening because i finally get a day off
June 13th, 2008 at 11:09 am
is randall a synonym for a bitter little man who lashes out at people because his balls are blue
rushfan is married you homewrecker
June 13th, 2008 at 11:27 am
testing…
June 13th, 2008 at 11:30 am
DUDE! I want to see The Happening sooo bad. I probably won’t go to the movies again until Sammy’s in highschool. I wanna see The Stranger, too. I love horror movies, thrillers, stuff like those two.
June 13th, 2008 at 11:30 am
rushfan -
*tap tap* is this thing on?
June 13th, 2008 at 11:31 am
i mean, the strangers. the one with liv tyler.
June 13th, 2008 at 11:33 am
cyn ~ i can see comments wracking up on the recent comments list, but not the actual list. it’s frustrating…
*tap tap* take my wife, please. thanks, i’ll be here all weekend. two drink minimum. don’t forget to tip yer waitress.
June 13th, 2008 at 11:36 am
rushfan -
yup. something funky going on. *sigh* apparently the server upgrade did not resolve everything. will holler at J ’bout it.
June 13th, 2008 at 11:40 am
rushfan -
btw – liked the comedy reference.
June 13th, 2008 at 11:44 am
All political bullshit aside, I too want to see the Happening. Even though I already know what the Happening is. I won’t spoil it for you all, but you might be better off if I did. That way you wouldn’t be disappointed. Anywho, I have a strange relationship with M. Night Shyamalan. He keeps putting out POS after POS and every single time, I say to myself, “That’s it. I’ve made up my mind. Shyamalan is crap, the Sixth Sense was a fluke, and there is no way I’m giving him another chance.” Then the next movie comes out, and is so well advertised, that I can’t help but give him another chance. Even though nearly every time, he disappoints.
Sixth Sense – nearly a perfect movie
Unbreakable – passable
Signs – 1st half, excellent, 2nd half, crap
The Village – passable, but you could see the ending from 3 miles away
Lady in the Water – second worst movie I have ever seen in my life, bar none except for a shitty horror movie I saw that looked like it was filmed in someone’s basement
And what’s with him putting himself in major roles in his movies? EGGOOOOO.
Randall: Those cookies were meant for your old lady. I’d appreciate it if you’d stop going through her mail…master.
June 13th, 2008 at 11:48 am
JR ~ I’ve been giving your comment a lot of thought, I didn’t want to reply hastily. I don’t want to sound cold or heartless because I am definitely not. The question I ponder is just what exactly is the government supposed to do for people who find themselves in need, even temporarily? I’m asking because I’d honetly like suggestions, not to be funny. Sometimes people fall on hard times. If you’re fortunate enough to have family, you can rely on them. Or maybe friends. If you have absolutely no one to rely on, you really should be able to take care of yourself. I don’t mean that the way it sounds, honestly. The people in the example you gave could eventually go to the local police if they need immediate help and they’d be put up somewhere, I’m sure. There are always sad examples of people who get forgotten and left behind and no one helps them, but as a society, we can do better than to just “expect” the government to save us. That’s my only point. I mean did you guys leave them to freeze in their car? I bet you didn’t.
June 13th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Slick ~ dude. i feel your pain. i’m embarassed to say, tho, that i like the village. sorry. hated lady in the water. loved signs. if you ruin the happening…dont make me take off my earrings…
June 13th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
I enjoyed the Village. Of all his post-Sixth Sense ventures, it was probably the most sound. And the creepiest. I did not like Signs. The second half anyway. Shyamalan is very good at the Hitchcockian suspense, and his ability to develop atmosphere is almost unparalled. That was what made the first half of Signs so good. He is, however, unable to seal the deal. His lack of foresight at the end of Signs, coupled with his egregious foreshadowing and god-awful metaphors (sorry, but true) is what ruined the picture for me. I think the bad taste left in my mouth from Lady in the Water is what is really turning me off. That movie was so bad…I can’t even express in words how terrible it is. From the moment is starts, everything is wrong, including the atmosphere. It felt like Shyamalan misfired in a big way. He didn’t stick to his guns, but acted like he tried to, and it backfired on him. I do want to see the Happening, though, if purely for the imagery in the trailers.
I really should ruin it for you. It’s kind of a dumb idea. I’m just willing to see how well he actually pulls it off, whether it is believeable and real, or stupid and insipid.
June 13th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
There are so few good movies these days, just leave me to wait in anticipation for The Happening to come in the mail as it sits in my queue at Blockbuster.com for the next year or so…
June 13th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Based upon the (relatively) insightful debate going on here, I’m surprised that any of you would want to subject yourself to The Happening.
The plants make bad people kill themselves. There, I said it. The real twist? The twist comes only 40 minutes in.
June 13th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
As a former M Night fan, I have lost all respect
June 13th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
wow. thanks for being a total dick tmo.
June 13th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
I’m just trying to make the world a better place for all of us.
June 13th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
don’t you have some plants to eat?
June 13th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
rushfan: You don’t sound cold or heartless at all I understand what you are saying, I just wanted to point out that one little thing, that it isn’t always that easy to go to a church, salvation army, etc. But yeah, I think we as a society should help others and ourselves as much as possible, and maybe there ARE some people who just expect to get help from the government but there are also people who don’t expect help but fall on hard times no matter how hard they try to self-sustain it doesn’t work. (ooh sorry bad run-on sentence) As far as specific suggestions on how the government could help that the government isn’t already doing..I don’t know, again I just wanted to make an observation on that single statement.
June 13th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
The plants only make BAD people kill themselves. Besides, you don’t eat them, their toxic pollen chases you down through the wind.
If you were an informed movie-goer, maybe you would care to check a few reviews before wasting $10:
New York Post Kyle Smith
A movie that features Wahlberg suggesting everyone try to outrun the wind can barely be watched once.
The Globe and Mail (Toronto) Rick Groen
Being risibly bad, The Happening is at least worth a laugh. Exactly one laugh, by my reckoning, and completely unintended but no less full-throated for that.
Boston Globe Ty Burr
You feel like you’re not watching the end of the world but the end of a career.
June 13th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
okay, debbie downer. not all of us read reviews FOR THIS VERY REASON, DICKHEAD. But thank god you have filled that void in my life. i was just sitting here thinking, god, there has got to be a person *so* lame that they actually enjoy ruining movies for me.
June 13th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
again. dont you have some plants to eat? or pollen to shove up your arse?
June 13th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Hey! Go see it then. Maybe you’ll like it. Or maybe you’ll walk out $10 poorer and just a little bit dumber, God forbid.
June 13th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
i don’t know about you, but once i get popcorn and mr pib and nachos i’ve paid well nigh more than ten bucks. and like i said, i don’t go to the movies anymore. it’s funny i had this very conversation with a co-worker this morning before she left to go watch the happening. i hate the movie theatre experience because i’m always next to stinky too much perfume wearing loud obnoxious people.
June 13th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Um, then stop complaining.
June 13th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
how about a salad with some special plants i have selected for you?
June 13th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Damn, TMo, i wasn’t really gonna do it…
June 13th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
that’s pretty shitty, right??
June 13th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
The Happening was good but not great i’ll leave it at that
June 13th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
to me the happening wasnt only about “plants”
June 13th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
thanks, MPW, I’m still looking forward to seeing it.
June 13th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
No problemo;)
June 16th, 2008 at 5:26 am
What the hell happened to the presidential debate? I snuck in here and expected fireworks and all I got was amateur Siskle and Ebert.
Now rushfan and Randall are pals? WTF people?
June 16th, 2008 at 5:28 am
I don’t know about “pals”
June 16th, 2008 at 5:30 am
Oh and by the way rushfan, I broke my own rule this weekend and attended “The Hulk” with my daughter and I again experienced the reason why I don’t go to blockbuster type movies during the first two weeks of its run.
Why the fuck can’t people shut their blathering pie holes during movies? It was a good thing that the last 40 minutes of that movie was full of action, loud enough to cover up the inane post nasal drip constant chatter of the couple behind me. Good lord that’s annoying.
June 16th, 2008 at 5:34 am
I hear ya. I’m always by the dude who bathed in Ax body spray and Old Spice deoderant. The “new and improved” Hulk was good tho, right? Ed Norton is the shit.
June 16th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Ed Norton is pretty much the shit in just about anything. Not to pile on the other Hulk cause I thought Eric Bana was pretty good too. Especially the spitting rage. I sorta thought the Hulk CG was better in the first one, but the second one’s story line was much better.
June 18th, 2008 at 8:27 am
maybe the president election is just a hoax to keep people under a illusion that there is democracy for all this time. they(government) will choose the one who are more popular and convincing so his winning will look real to people.and they can continue with their plan for 30 or more years rather than 4 years. but anyway,i believe most government(even one like this)is good and care for their people. just different system
July 13th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Barrack Obama is awesome. He’ll be a great president. I don’t mind Hillary Clinton. At least she’s a democrat, but I don’t think she has any chance of beating John McCain. On the other hand, Obama has a pretty good chance of winning. I would like to see Hillary Clinton as either Obama’s V.P. or somewhere in his cabinet.
August 2nd, 2008 at 7:08 pm
I have to chose Obama, while his lack of experience makes me a bit nervous (but that might end up in his favor) he advocates change. Change is what America needs, we can’t keep going in the direction that we are in.
As far as McCain goes he’s pretty much said he’s keeping things they way they are, which America does not need. He feels like, at least to me, Bush’s little puppet.
August 2nd, 2008 at 8:38 pm
I have to know…Am I the only person sadly disappointed by the choices we have this election? An elderly war hero or a newby who thinks he’s The Chosen One? Are you kidding me? As the election draws near and these two morons have the battle of the inept campaign managers, it just gets worse and worse. Maybe once they pick VP’s things’ll get more interesting. I hope McCain pick Bobby Jindal. Or Condi Rice. Or Colin Powell. Obama’s probably gonna have to pick his wife. Actually, I can’t wait til the debates start. They’re like watching a car wreck sometimes, so bad but you can’t look away.
August 2nd, 2008 at 8:52 pm
rushfan: you are not the only person who thinks that, actually I’ve felt like that for the last couple of elections.
August 13th, 2008 at 10:01 am
I knew someone would find a name for our election process for this year. Electile Dysfunction: the inability to become aroused over any of the choices for President put forth by either party in the 2008 election year.
August 16th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Barrack Obama- he might be wrong on some of the smaller issues like taxes and affirmative action, but those issues aren’t important in this election. The issues the voters are thinking about are the life vrs. death situations, such as the war, and Obama has good policy on those issues. Besides, there is never going to be a perfect president that does everything right, and Barrack Obama is the closest anyone has gotten in a long time. So, in this election, we can’t think about the smaller, less important issues that McCain is right about. We have to think about the war, which Obama is right about.
August 31st, 2008 at 4:42 pm
SENATOR OBAMA, PLEASE LET AMERICA IN ON YOUR THOUGHTS AND FEELINGS CONCERNING THIS US JUDICIAL INJUSTICE ???
LETS ALL HOPE OUR MEDIA FRIENDS CONTINUE TO SHOW AN INTEREST IN REPORTING ON THIS AMERICAN HORROR FACING THESE (TENS OF THOUSANDS) FORGOTTEN AND TRAPPED POORER AMERICANS, AND HOW THIS POSSIBLE FUTURE PRESIDENTIAL CONTENDER HANDLES THIS VERY SERIOUS ISSUE FACING LATINO AND BLACK AMERICAN COMMUNITIES ????
**WITH 80% OF THE BLACK AMERICAN VOTERS SAYING THEY SUPPORT SENATOR OBAMA IN THIS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, IT IS ONLY FAIR FOR EVERYONE TO KNOW PRIOR BEING ELECTED OUR NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HOW THIS DEMOCRATIC SENATOR TRULY FEELS ABOUT THIS AMERICAN JUDICIAL HORROR CONTINUING TO INFLICT GRAVE HARM ON THE BLACK AMERICAN FAMILIES AND THEIR COMMUNITIES NATIONWIDE ??????
*** WHEN GOD’S FACE BECAME VERY RED ***
THE US SUPREME COURT GAVE ENEMY COMBATANTS FEDERAL APPEAL HC RIGHTS LAWYERS AND PROPER ACCESS TO US FEDERAL COURTS,AND POORER AMERICANS (MANY EVEN ON DEATH ROW) ARE DENIED PROPER FEDERAL APPEAL LEGAL REPRESENTATION TO OUR US FEDERAL COURTS OF APPEAL, AND ROTTING IN AMERICAN PRISONS NATIONWIDE ?????????
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE $LOWLY FINDING OUT HOW EA$Y IT I$ FOR MIDDLE CLA$$ AND WORKING POOR AMERICAN$ TO FALL VICTIM TO OUR U$ MONETARY JUDICIAL $Y$TEM.
****WHEN THE US INNOCENT WERE ABANDONED BY THE GUILTY ****
The prison experts have reported that there are 100,000 innocent Americans currently being falsely imprisoned along with the 2,300,000 total US prison population nationwide.
Since our US Congress has never afforded poor prison inmates federal appeal legal counsel for their federal retrials,they have effectively closed the doors on these tens of thousands of innocent citizens ever being capable of possibly exonerating themselves to regain their freedom through being granted new retrials.
This same exact unjust situation was happening in our Southern States when poor and mostly uneducated Black Americans were being falsely imprisoned for endless decades without the needed educational skills to properly submit their own written federal trial appeals.
*** INNOCENT AMERICANS ARE DENIED REAL HC RIGHTS WITH THEIR
FEDERAL APPEALS ***
This devious and deceptive judicial process of making our poor and innocent prison inmates formulate and write their own federal appeal legal cases for possible retrials on their state criminal cases,is still in effect today even though everyone in our US judicial system knows that without proper legal representation, these tens of thousands of innocent prison inmates will be denied their rightful opportunities of ever being granted new trials from our federal appeal judges!!
Sadly, the true US *legal* Federal Appeal situation that occurs when any of our uneducated American prison inmates are forced to attempt to submit their own written Federal Appeals (from our prisons nationwide) without the assistance of proper legal counsel, is that they all are in reality being denied their legitimate rights for Habeas Corpus and will win any future Supreme Court Case concerning this injustice!
For our judicial system and our US Congressional Leaders Of The Free World to continue to pretend that this is a real and fair opportunity for our American Middle Class and Working Poor Citizens, only delays the very needed future change of Federal Financing of all these Federal appeals becoming a normal formula of Our American judicial system.
It was not so very long ago that Public Defenders became a Reality in this country.Prior that legal reality taking place, their were also some who thought giving anyone charged with a crime a free lawyer was a waste of taxpayers $$.
This FACADE and HORROR of our Federal Appeal proce$$ is not worthy of the Greatest Country In The World!
***GREAT SOCIETIES THAT DO NOT PROTECT EVEN THEIR INNOCENT, BECOME THE GUILTY!
A MUST READ ABOUT AMERICAN INJUSTICE:
1) YAHOO AND 2) GOOGLE
MANNY GONZALES THE KID THAT EVERYONE FORGOT IN THE CA PRISON SYSTEM. ** A JUDICIAL RIDE OF ONES LIFE !
lawyersforpooramericans@yahoo.com (424-247-2013)
September 2nd, 2008 at 7:04 am
Yeah, I wouldn’t rush it with Obama just like that..
“The speech delivered by Senator Barack Obama Thursday night, accepting the Democratic presidential nomination at a football stadium in Denver, combined populist rhetoric with invocations of patriotism and pledges to escalate the war in Afghanistan and build up the US military “to meet future conflicts.””
…
“The Democratic candidate made many harsh criticisms of the Republicans, and spoke with apparent confidence, clearly feeling that powerful sections of the ruling elite stand behind him and want new management of the affairs of US imperialism in the wake of the Bush administration’s debacles in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
But his indictment of Bush, McCain & Co. was notable for what it left out. There was no mention of Guantánamo, torture, secret CIA prisons, illegal wiretapping, or all the other violations of democratic rights carried out on the pretext of conducting a “war on terror.” In a key Senate vote last month, Obama backed expanded wiretapping and surveillance powers for agencies like the National Security Agency and the FBI.
Equally significant, Obama criticized the war in Iraq as a strategic blunder, not an act of aggression that has resulted in the slaughter of over one million innocent people. He presented the US occupation, which has shattered Iraq as a functioning society, as though the Bush administration was favoring that country at American expense. “Iraq has a $79 billion surplus while we’re wallowing in deficits,” he complained.”
It seems like he wants more military and that seems like trying to profit from Georgian conflict. Very sad politics.
October 6th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
vote me for president!!! i promote no schooling, higher taxing, and no health benifits and insurance to anyone. prostitution is legal, and cocaine will be our number one export lol jkjk, i hate politics =P
October 10th, 2008 at 10:14 am
How much less government do you people want? Hell, the Bush and McCain still don’t think there is anything wrong with the Economy, they think the rescue plan is going to work. Bush says with “enough time”; We’re going to win the Iraq war with “enough time” too. Given “enough time” we may have won every war we were involved in but one side eventually decided it was time to concede, it’s not going to be al Quida because they DON’T CARE ABOUT LIFE! What does Bush care he’s not there, McCain has family there but he believes it’s a right and Palin is a religious NUT.
I’m a registered Independant and I was undecided until the second debate where McCain didn’t say anything. Obama made his points and definitly won my vote. See how many Republicans aren’t re-elected because of Bush and McCain, the government will be a much better place.
October 10th, 2008 at 10:19 am
If you did a little research, you might be surprised to find out who is really responsible for this financial mess. Chris Dodd? Barney Frank? Ever heard of them?
I don’t think the resolution to this crisis is socialism, which is the road we’re heading down. Less government is always the answer, Kevin. They’re the ones who got us into this mess after all!
October 10th, 2008 at 10:40 am
rushfan, Yes I’ve heard of them. Rush: great f’ing band by the way, I went to a concert when they were on their Counter Parts Tour great show. Back to the subject at hand, I’m assuming you’re a Republican or at least have rep views, pointing blame at (D) senetors, or whatever they are I could really care less. Why have oversight if they’re not going to use it? My point of this whole things is that Bush was saying weeks before they had to write up this “rescue plan” everything was fine with the economy. McCain was saying the same thing. If there shouldn’t be government intervention let the economy fix it’s self, let’s see what happens then. Sure, I think people who took out mortgages that couldn’t afford them should have known better and should maybe try to find some way to pay for them, that’s not my problem if I’m paying for their mortgage I should live in their house and not in my 1 br apt. People should be smarter in the beginning so we don’t have these problems that’s all, but the government shouldn’t let it get this far.
October 10th, 2008 at 10:47 am
kevin ~ sorry to disappoint, but I’m a Rush Limbaugh fan. Not Rush the band.
I am indeed a Republican. You blamed Bush, McCain, so I was pointing out there was more blame to go around.
You are exactly right about the people not able to pay for their houses. I’m in a two bedroom apartment w/a husband and a baby and a good job, but still not able to afford a house yet. Even if I’d known that I could have bought one using these unethical offers, I wouldn’t have taken it. I can’t afford a house yet. Period. When I can afford one I’ll get one.
As far as government intervention in our lives, just please listen to Obama. He claims to be able to fix every single solitary wrong in each and every American’s life. I’m not exagerating. Listen to him. I’d rather be in charge of my own life, thanks.
October 14th, 2008 at 5:43 am
“I don’t think the resolution to this crisis is socialism, which is the road we’re heading down. Less government is always the answer”
bahahaha… socialism… typical american conservative afraid of any government intervention whatsoever. the road the current administration is heading down is not socialism. they had no choice but to intervene. in the past the government has been able to let the market work itself out but not this time, if anything they should have acted much eariler and much stronger.
and just because the government has nationalised a few banks does not mean that you are living under a socialist regime. i bet you think that you are well under way to living under a communnist government! just like soviet russia!
please get a clue before you speak next time.
October 21st, 2008 at 2:11 pm
It’s probably much too late in the topic, but I recently received the following piece of thought provocation as a circulating e-mail:
“The following might help put the presidential race — and race — into perspective.
Obama/Biden vs McCain/Palin, what if things were switched around?…..think about it.
Would the country’s collective point of view be different?
Ponder the following:
What if the Obamas had paraded five children across the stage, including a three month old infant and an unwed, pregnant teenage
daughter?
What if John McCain was a former president of the Harvard Law Review?
What if Barack Obama finished fifth from the bottom of his graduating class?
What if McCain had only married once, and Obama was a divorcee?
What if Obama was the candidate who left his first wife after a severe disfiguring car accident, when she no longer measured up to his
standards?
What if Obama had met his second wife in a bar and had a long affair while he was still married?
What if Michelle Obama was the wife who not only became addicted to pain killers but also acquired them illegally through her
charitable organization?
What if Cindy McCain graduated from Harvard?
What if Obama had been a member of the Keating Five?
What if McCain was a charismatic, eloquent speaker?
What if Obama couldn’t read from a teleprompter?
What if Obama was the one who had military experience that included discipline problems and a record of crashing seven
planes?
What if Obama was the one who was known to display publicly, on many occasions, a serious anger management problem?
What if Michelle Obama’s family had made their money from beer distribution?
What if the Obamas had adopted a white child?
You could easily add to this list. If these questions reflected reality, do you really believe the election numbers would be as
close as they are?
This is what racism does. It covers up, rationalizes and minimizes positive qualities in one candidate and emphasizes
negative qualities in another when there is a color difference.
Educational Background:
Barack Obama:
Columbia University – B.A. Political Science with a Specialization in International Relations.
Harvard – Juris Doctor (J.D.) Magna Cum Laude
Joseph Biden:
University of Delaware – B.A. in History and B.A. in Political Science.
Syracuse University College of Law – Juris Doctor (J.D.)
vs.
John McCain:
United States Naval Academy – Class rank: 894 of 899
Sarah Palin:
Hawaii Pacific University – 1 semester
North Idaho College – 2 semesters – general study
University of Idaho – 2 semesters – journalism
Matanuska-Susitna Colle ge – 1 semester
University of Idaho – 3 semesters – B.A. in Journalism
Education isn’t everything, but this is about the two highest offices in the land as well as our standing in the world. You make the call.”
October 21st, 2008 at 7:40 pm
I suggest anyone wanting to know why I support McCain to visit Obamacrimes.com and then talk to me. I don’t know whether he was or was not born in the U.S., but I find it really fishy that he refuses to produce a simple document in a court of law that can easily disprove any rumors that he is a natural born citizen. Seems to me it would be in Senator Obama’s best interest to do so. If he is not a viable candidate and he is not a natural born citizen, then our constitution is not worth the paper it is written on if he is allowed to be elected. I really don’t know if it is true or not, but the question that it may be will not allow me to vote for him. If he would lie about something like this, then what else has he lied about. He reminds me of one of those slick used car salesman that I see on television trying to sell a piece of crap with smooth talk. I hope that I am completely wrong about him if he happens to win this election and he would prove me wrong, but my gut tells me something completely different. I always follow my gut instinct and it’s telling me not to vote for this man. As for the above, I have seen educated people with no life experience do horribly and I believe many great men and women in this country have done incredible things with no formal education. I believe Einstein’s teacher once said he would not amount to anything, I think I read that somewhere. How wrong was that person? Anyway, education can be helpful and I encourage anyone that is able to do so to do so, but it does not make a person more brilliant or qualified at all positions. Sometimes, life experience teaches things that a school can never prepare you for.
October 28th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
OBAMAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
November 4th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
OBAMA.
December 10th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Doesn’t voting now kinda defeat the object? He’s won already numbskulls!
December 10th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
659. Bella -
might wanna check the publication date before calling folks numbskulls
Published on April 4, 2008
pretty much puts any comments made post election into the rhetorical category anyway.
given some of those comments…i’d say its rather obvious we were ready for any qualified president considering what we’ve had to endure the last 8 years. heh…
and personally, even though waaaay back when i had concerns re: Obama…we done good this time. pretty much redemned ourselves from re electing the current idiot.
December 21st, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Voting for Obama does not necessarily equate to universally free health care for all eligible Americans. In order for there for us to get even remotely close to that notion, people should contribute to paying increased taxes.
June 3rd, 2009 at 1:51 am
ME!