# Obama, is this guy the real deal?



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

So what do folks think? Is Obama the real deal?


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

He's just another dirt-bag politician who just happens to be flavour of the month. He is spending millions on hype while people are going homeless and illiterate.... How real can he be?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Sure is for me.

The speech
Barack Obama : : Change We Can Believe In | His Own Words

New York Times thinks so too.












> *Mr. Obama’s Profile in Courage*
> 
> Published: March 19, 2008
> 
> ...


good read

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/opinion/19wed1.html?hp


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

A complete phoney. I've rarely heard such empty rhetoric. A Chauncey Gardener for the new Millennium.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

HE??



> He is spending millions on hype while people are going homeless and illiterate....


That is money he has raised in large part from the same millions you are talking about...a few dollars at a time....unlike HRC.

It's not his money he's spending - it's his very broad constituency supporting him in doing so..
He's no Bloomberg with personal wealth.












> Obama announced that 385,101 contributors were first-time donors. To date, the Illinois senator has received donations from 1.07 million donors, far more than any other candidate.


» Obama beats Clinton in money raising game - Thaindian News


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

He's a con. A REALLY good con. 

Folks are lapping it up. Shows there IS one born every minute.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yeah I guess the Bush supporters discovered THAT didn't they


----------



## spitfire (Feb 26, 2008)

To the OP just why did you start a political discussion on a technical forum. You know men and politics don't go together. 

I actually support Obama and I turn here to see everyone hates him.. what do you want.. McCain to be the next president? or Hillary.. oh I like the idea of any other Hitler ruling over a super power.

This thread is going to turn fugly. Worse than those Mac vs PC ones.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Spit: You're new here, right? This is the "Everything Else" forum where such things are allowed. Don't worry about it getting too bad. We'll beat each other up until we're tired and then the thread will fall out of favour with no resolution.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

I'm not buying it, I'd support Clinton before him.


----------



## spitfire (Feb 26, 2008)

Macfury said:


> Don't worry about it getting too bad. We'll beat each other up until we're tired and then the thread will fall out of favour with no resolution.


I like that idea. I would like to begin the flaming war may I?

Alright here goes. I am not gonna go into the whole detail but people here are acting all conservative. Is it the fact that he is a Democrat or is it because he is Black or is it because he is part Muslim. For all we know he can create the next big revolution. Although even I have my doubts about that. American politics aren't really that straightforward but he is no BS, this shiz is fo real. He is an over hyped "dirt bag" maybe for old farts like some of you guys here. 

why am I going on and on here..


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

It's because he stands for "change" that means whatever it needs to for whichever audience he happens to be addressing at that time. He'll attack Pakistan if you ask nice...but not at the next rally. Policies? Well-l-l-l-l-l, let's just say he'll change things. 'Cause he's all about change.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

> But he was the Common Man twenty-times-magnified by his oratory, so that while the other Commoners could understand his every purpose, which was exactly the same as their own, they saw him towering among them, and they raised hands to him in worship.


_It Can't Happen Here_--Sinclair Lewis


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> A complete phoney. I've rarely heard such empty rhetoric. A Chauncey Gardener for the new Millennium.


Nice troll. I don't think I'll bite though. I like to watch.

To all those who are proclaiming Obama a con artist or fraud, you know that's simply ludicrous. He may be saying what he thinks people want to hear, like any politician, but I think the idea that he is actually "conning" people is rather idiotic. I'd say you really haven't been following the news about the election and are probably just parroting someone's talking points.

If Obama is a "fraud" then what politician is not? Can anyone name a politician who is running for any office that is completely and solely motivated by nothing more than pure public service?

Now there are many politicians who are actively involved in completly mis-representing their underlying agenda, some to greater degrees than others, but I think Obama is not too far along on that scale compared to a calculating criminal like Dick Cheney.

I think Obama has thrown a lot of people for a loop. How the hell did a guy who is so obviously intelligent and dignified end up becoming a major political figure in the USA? We're all so used to seeing inarticulate, good 'ol boys, who can't string a sentence together without sounding like idiots and whose motivations are plainly visible, that I think someone like Obama invites some people to assume he's just a clever-talkin' salesman.

DJ, if you want to judge whether Obama is for real or not, I would suggest you watch the speech he made this morning in Philly. It is eloquent and definitely a political risk in some ways. As he says himself he could have just hoped the issue of race in the campaign fades away rather than directly addressing it.

In this speech he calls on Americans to live up to their own ideals as a nation, which to me if there's anything historically valuable about that country, now teetering at the brink of actual fascism, are the principles at the core of their founding. I've often thought that America's greatness has come from the times it has chosen to live up to its own raison d'etre and principles, and that it's greatest evil has come from the times it has cast those aside. I think Obama is offering Americans a chance to move away from the evil of this last decade.

The speech is long, about 30 minutes and probably the best one he has made in this campaign: Obama Speech: A More Perfect Union


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I'd say you really haven't been following the news about the election and are probably just parroting someone's talking points.


This rather lengthy post sounds like a talking point from the Obama campaign. 

Of course he's a con-job, like most other pols. The point is that someone here asked if he was "the real deal." He isn't.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I think Obama is offering Americans a chance to move away from the evil of this last decade.


And I think Obama IS the evil of this decade.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> This rather lengthy post sounds like a talking point from the Obama campaign.
> 
> Of course he's a con-job, like most other pols. The point is that someone here asked if he was "the real deal." He isn't.


Nope, those were my real opinions. I don't do talking points. Real opinions sometimes take more space than sound-bite based trolls, because reality is often more complex than the short-attention span theatre that doubles for news.

But I'm sorry if my post was too long. It's because my writing skills are not always up to the task of getting my point across succinctly.

But please elaborate on the nature of Obama's con job or his Chauncey Gardiner-ness. So, in your opinion, either he's a supremely clever uber-con artist or a blank witless dupe that other's are writing their fantasy's on?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> And I think Obama IS the evil of this decade.


Geez, why? Oh wait, sorry, I don't want to ask you to give reasons for your opinion.

OK, instead I'll answer ... IS not.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Fear and loathing in lap puppy land.....very informative that...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Nope, those were my real opinions. I don't do talking points.


Congratulations on hitting so many of them by mere chance.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> But please elaborate on the nature of Obama's con job or his Chauncey Gardiner-ness. So, in your opinion, either he's a supremely clever uber-con artist or a blank witless dupe that other's are writing their fantasy's on?


Obama is a typical con-jobber with an eye for populism. He says essentially nothing. He is hope. He is change. He is the blank screen on which some people project their fantasies.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Well, at least he's a bi-racial blank screen. I like him. All politicians are manipulators. He manipulates in a way America needs to be manipulated right now.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Obama is a typical con-jobber with an eye for populism. He says essentially nothing. He is hope. He is change. He is the blank screen on which some people project their fantasies.


I didn't say he was the "real deal" and I'm not sure what DJ meant by that anyway. Which is why I suggested he should view Obama's most recent speech. But I think he says a hell of lot and in a much more straight forward way than most pols have done, especially on the US national stage. If you want policy positions, they exist on his web site and have been addressed in many of his speeches.

I'm sure he's too much of a lefty for you, which is fine, but I don't see what the con is here and you haven't really explained it, just repeated it. I have a pretty good dollop of cynic in my personality, (maybe not as much as you), but as far as cynical con-job pols go, I would put armies of them ahead of Obama.

There's 3 potential US Presidents left standing. Judging who is the biggest con artist of the three, I find it surprising that anyone would say Obama.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

fjnmusic said:


> Well, at least he's a bi-racial blank screen. I like him. All politicians are manipulators. He manipulates in a way America needs to be manipulated right now.


Yes, his opponents are trying to play the racial wedge and define him as the "scary black candidate". I like how he is refusing to be defined by that and is saying, "I'm black and I'm white and I am part of both worlds."


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

A potted plant would do a better job than the current President, so frankly America has little else where to go but up.

That said, only McCain has explicitly promised to keep in place -- or expand -- the disastrous, illegal and unconstitutional policies of his predecessor. So that leaves exactly two candidates: Hillary and Barrack.

If Barrack isn't "the real deal," is anyone suggesting (ludicrously) suggesting one of the other ones IS? Cuz that would be a pretty big laugh line around here, I think ...

Obama is as close "the real deal" as I've seen get this far in US politics in a long time. A lot of you strike me as ENTIRELY too cynical, especially (most of you) being in a country that has never been touched by the kind of foundation-raping evil George Bush has been capable of. He's completely destroyed the America I used to know, and was a big factor in moving us out of there.

I guess you could say when it comes to traitors, George Bush is "the real deal."


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

chas_m said:


> I guess you could say when it comes to traitors, George Bush is "the real deal."


Very good line, chas!

I lived and worked in California during the end of the Reagan years and the first few years of Bush Sr. I got to know some great, intelligent and thoroughly admirable Americans during that time and I sometimes wonder how it must have broken their hearts to see what the rise of the Bush-Cheney junta has done to their country. I sincerely hope that the abomination of those years is coming to an end. In someone like Obama, I see much to be hopeful for.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Dennis Kusinich and Ron Paul were the only 2 candidates whose voting records opposed the war, opposed deficit spending, and opposed the rape of the constitution. 

Of the three remaining Obama is the only one offering even a faint glimmer of hope. The other two will stay the Bush course right onto the rocks and if possible continue staying the course right into a nuclear attack on Iran. 

That said he is a politician and the glimmer is very faint indeed. If he is indeed the real thing I am sure the Shrubbies will see to it that his life is very short indeed.


----------



## spitfire (Feb 26, 2008)

I am glad to see some Obama supporters surface. I though I was fighting this one alone.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Some??.........
Don't let the yapping lap puppies fool you.....much noise...little else.



> *Canucks like Obama over Harper, Dion*
> 
> Mar 08, 2008 04:30 AM
> 
> ...


uninspired with current leaders??????serious understatement.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

His recent "A More Perfect Union" will probably push him over the top, and secure him the Democratic nomination.

With a little luck, he'll easily win the White House as well.

Then we'll see if he is the real deal, or just another empty-shell of a politician.

If he does win the Democratic nomination, will Hillary stay around for another 8 years to try her run again?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I am in full agreement with MacDoc. Both my wife and I have sent him a donation, and since I am allowed to vote in the State of Georgia comes election day in Nov., I shall, hopefully, cast my ballot for Obama. We shall see.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> There's 3 potential US Presidents left standing. Judging who is the biggest con artist of the three, I find it surprising that anyone would say Obama.


I see all of these three as unmitigated disasters in waiting. I have by no means called him the worst of the three. It's just a craptastic Republicrat ticket.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

spitfire said:


> I am glad to see some Obama supporters surface. I though I was fighting this one alone.


Spitfire, you'll always find MacDoc to join you in support of the _American Idol_ candidate. To him, this is just an extension of the best TV show of all time--another "drop-dead moment," if you will.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Macfury. Who would you say is an ideal candidate for President?


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I like how he is refusing to be defined by that and is saying, "I'm black and I'm white and I am part of both worlds."


True that is his genetic make up, but wasn't he raised by his white mother and white grandmother? Hardly the typical black upbringing.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

guytoronto said:


> Macfury. Who would you say is an ideal candidate for President?


Guy: Out of this year's pack of hopefuls I have only seen people with substance and limited leadership capabilities and people with limited leadership capabilities and no substance. 

I think Mitt Romney probably had a little of each but it would be difficult to say. Probably see more of him in 2012 after the disastrous McCain presidency. As Dr. G says--we shall see.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury, yes, we shall see. However, I foresee a different outcome. If Clinton wins the nomination fair and square, I shall vote for her. Whomever wins the presidency will have a disasterous experience with the US economy as the #1 domestic issue, and then Iraq/Iran as the #1 foreign policy issue.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr. G--there's little hope from a Libertarian perspective. All three of them want to do more to control things that are really beyond their ability to affect positively. 

Since the Republicans and Democrats virtually relied on each other to pass most of the legislation enacted during the past 8 years--including foreign policy SNAFUs--no party has an "out" regardless of who wins, McCain or Clobama. This will be a sacrificial presidency in preparation for 2012.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"All three of them want to do more to control things that are really beyond their ability to affect positively." When dealing with the economy, I would agree to a point with your contention, Macfury. Foreign policy is something else, since the president can choose to act in a proactive or reactive manner, in either a positive (something like the Marshall Plan after WWII) or negative (e.g., Vietnam, Iraq). 

"This will be a sacrificial presidency in preparation for 2012." I told my wife nearly the same thing just last night. The term "between a rock and a hard place" seems to be appropriate for whomever is the next president. We shall see.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

I'm becoming an increasing admirer of the drawn out American electoral system. Any candidate who can survive the process has to be at least a competent President I think.

Looking at the three left standing, as a conservative, I am disappointed that McCain has softened his position against waterboarding and other forms of coercion. Given his own history, if he's prepared to renege on that then anything is negotiable. Clinton appears to be more able and intelligent than her husband, although she is looking to build on his legacy. I think she'd be a decent President. Until yesterday, Obama had not proved himself to me. He looked good and spoke well, and his mixed racial origins were an asset, but his calls for change seemed empty and his 'Yes We Can' slogan had all the depth of 'Bob the Builder', from where he may have borrowed it. But yesterday's speech showed that there is some substance there. He did not present answers, but honestly asked some painful but fundamental questions about race in America... questions that have been long avoided by politicians. Better, he asked the questions in a unifying rather than a divisive way.

The choice between Obama and Clinton has been presented as one of hope vs experience. I think that's still true, but Obama showed yesterday that it is not a naive hope that energizes his supporters. I think he may be "the real deal", and if I were an American he'd have my vote.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

F-N, good for you. You have seemingly looked at each person running for the US presidency and weighed their strengths/weaknesses in a rational and realistic manner. While we agree on your final outcome, that is not at issue. Had you said the you were supporting McCain, that would have been fine, since you are looking at the person AND their stand on issues. Thus, a holistic approach is the way to determine who is to earn and receive one's vote. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I will say this. Although I don't support Obama, there's a certain schadenfreude in the idea of seeing the Clinton machine come to a screeching, clanking halt.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Speaking of coming to a "screeching, clanking halt", in the words of President Bush, "Because we acted the world is better and the United States of America is safer." CNN.com

His presidency must come to a "screeching, clanking halt" soon. Bring on Nov. 4th, 2008.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr. G: You've been away too long. The presidency comes to a screeching, clanking halt in January 2009.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Fink-Nottle said:


> I'm becoming an increasing admirer of the drawn out American electoral system. Any candidate who can survive the process has to be at least a competent President I think.


Which explains the GOP tendency to select morons or blithering idiots.beejacon


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury, true, Inauguration Day is on January 20, 2009, but I would hope that Bush would not commit troops, or undertake an air war against Iran, between election day and inauguration day. Still, one never knows with him these days. We shall see.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> Which explains the GOP tendency to select morons or blithering idiots.beejacon


Or the Semocrats to select a John _F_. Kerry.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

Macfury said:


> I will say this. Although I don't support Obama, there's a certain schadenfreude in the idea of seeing the Clinton machine come to a screeching, clanking halt.


OMG, I'm following the days, hours, weeks and months until the smirking plague is finished with us using a Mac countdown widget. There's talk about impeachment to move him along faster, but thus far it seems a pipe dream. 

Electing another Clinton would be a stick in his eye, and I voted for her, but there's something about O that makes me feel good again about being an American. There's so much to do, and so many problems, but perhaps all we need to start is to feel good again.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Frankly, I think all the American politicians are just as bad as their Canadian counterparts! I'd rather see none of the running American candidates win. Who wants another Clinton in the White House, and didn't she have enough time running the White House the first time around? I'm still trying to figure out if Obama is the lesser of the different evils. I've heard some news about him plagarizing speeches and asking for NAFTA to be renegotiated and then behind the scenes saying he doesn't want NAFTA renegotiated. Of course the thing I really hate about American elections is they last too damn long!!! That's where I think we have it right in Canada. Call an election, do a few weeks of running, and then everyone votes on one day and it's over! And while I'm on my rant, don't cut into TV shows about the election! That's what the news is for!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *Black Guy Asks Nation For Change*
> 
> March 19, 2008 | Issue 44•12
> 
> ...


Home | The Onion - America's Finest News Source


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"... but there's something about O that makes me feel good again about being an American." Miss G., you might not be old enough to remember, but this is how many of us felt about Robert Kennedy. Even though back in 1968 I ran as a delegate to the Democratic National Convention from the State of New York, pledged to Eugene McCarthy, I believed that RFK was going to be the nominee after the California primary on June 4th, and that he would be able to beat Nixon. We all know what happened to "Bobby" on June 5th. 

Still, the hope that came forth from listening to him speak (I was able to hear him speak live four times) was inspirational.

"Few will have the greatness to bend history; but each of us can work to change a small portion of events, and in the total of all those acts will be written the history of this generation ... It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is thus shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance." Robert F. Kennedy, University of Cape Town, South Africa, N.U.S.A.S. "Day of Affirmation" Speech, June 6, 1966

American Rhetoric: Robert F. Kennedy - University of Cape Town Day of Affirmation Address


----------



## Gerbill (Jul 1, 2003)

Where did all the red necks come from? 

If I were American, I would certainly be a liberal Democrat, so any Republican alternative would be off the table. That leaves Clinton and Obama. With that choice, it would have to be Obama, _faute de mieux_.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Fink-Nottle said:


> I'm becoming an increasing admirer of the drawn out American electoral system. Any candidate who can survive the process has to be at least a competent President I think.
> 
> Looking at the three left standing, as a conservative, I am disappointed that McCain has softened his position against waterboarding and other forms of coercion. Given his own history, if he's prepared to renege on that then anything is negotiable. Clinton appears to be more able and intelligent than her husband, although she is looking to build on his legacy. I think she'd be a decent President. Until yesterday, Obama had not proved himself to me. He looked good and spoke well, and his mixed racial origins were an asset, but his calls for change seemed empty and his 'Yes We Can' slogan had all the depth of 'Bob the Builder', from where he may have borrowed it. But yesterday's speech showed that there is some substance there. He did not present answers, but honestly asked some painful but fundamental questions about race in America... questions that have been long avoided by politicians. Better, he asked the questions in a unifying rather than a divisive way.
> 
> The choice between Obama and Clinton has been presented as one of hope vs experience. I think that's still true, but Obama showed yesterday that it is not a naive hope that energizes his supporters. I think he may be "the real deal", and if I were an American he'd have my vote.


I think the hope vs experience theme is a false framing, but one that generally the media has grabbed and one that Clinton has certainly used. Clinton's experience is suspect at best and mostly fabricated at worst. But the point that Obama makes is that it's not experience, but judgement that counts and Clinton has failed on the judgement count, with her move towards Republican hawkish pandering and her Iraq war vote. She calculated, even though I'm certain she really thought that the Iraq war was a bad idea, that she needed to support it to secure her re-election in 2002. She's not so different than than all but a few of her Democratic colleagues (and I think even 1 or 2 Republicans), but now most Americans have realized that it was the small minority who opposed it who exhibited sound judgement. She continues to display bad judgement based on political expediency, in how she has conducted her campaign to date.

On the other hand, Obama bucking the conventional wisdom, has still continued to take the high road in his campaign and this latest speech is more evidence of that. I don't think Americans are used to seeing their politicians speaking to them as if they are intelligent adults. I'm sure that as a US presidential candidate, he has to make many compromises to political expediency, — no one could ever get elected to any office if they insisted on speaking their uncensored mind. But seeing this level of integrity surviving at this level of US national politics is surprising and almost unprecedented.

Whether this type of approach can win in the era of sound-bite, insta-pundit, short attention span, wedge issue driven politics is yet to be decided, but I have to admire him for attempting to keep to the high road.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Obama is a good campaigner, I'll give him that. And Hillary is shockingly poor from someone of her "experience."


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> GratuitousApplesauce said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, his opponents are trying to play the racial wedge and define him as the "scary black candidate". I like how he is refusing to be defined by that and is saying, "I'm black and I'm white and I am part of both worlds."
> ...


Not sure what point you're making here, JJ. He has said that exactly, that his upbringing wasn't typical.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Not sure what point you're making here, JJ. He has said that exactly, that his upbringing wasn't typical.


The point is he's a fake, not the real deal, as the thread asks.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> The point is he's a fake, not the real deal, as the thread asks.


Exactly how does your sentence make that point?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Exactly how does your sentence make that point?


Pretty clearly.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Exactly how does your sentence make that point?


He's clinging to his black roots like Oprah on chocolate cake. And like her it is again nice to be able to pick and choose when to cling on to your "roots" when the situation suits it. He was raised by his white mother and grandmother, who lived a nice white middle-class life then attended white university. Fake, fake, fake.

I bet Hillary has had more black in her than Obama.:lmao:


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

I don't think Obama is 'clinging' to his black roots. I think he went into this campaign not wanting race to be an issue. It has now been forced on him by the media and he needed to respond.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I agree with Vandave on his point re Obama and race. In my opinion, the speech he gave yesterday took a realistic and inspirational road, and proved that he is an honest person who has earned the right to be where he is today.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

> He was raised by his white mother and grandmother, who lived a nice white middle-class life then attended white university. Fake, fake, fake.


I going to give you the benefit of saying I don't understand you; surely you are not saying that American middle class black people who go to university are somehow fake???!!!. 'Fake' implies a deliberate deception by Obama... can you justify that position?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> He's clinging to his black roots like Oprah on chocolate cake. And like her it is again nice to be able to pick and choose when to cling on to your "roots" when the situation suits it. He was raised by his white mother and grandmother, who lived a nice white middle-class life then attended white university. Fake, fake, fake.


So he's a fake because he's not acting white enough for you? Bizarre perspective, JJ.

I guess in your judgement, knowing his whole history and all the circumstances of the milieu he grew up in and the people who did and didn't influence him you are fully qualified to make that judgement, eh? 

And by the way, what is a "white" university? Or a "white" middle-class life for that matter?

If you've been paying attention at all you'll see that rather than "clinging to his roots" as you say, it's been his opponents who have been trying to pigeonhole him as a special-interest-only African-American candidate. If you watch his Philadelphia speech you would see that he has a much more mature and subtle understanding of racial issues than you seem to be able to manage.



JumboJones said:


> I bet Hillary has had more black in her than Obama.:lmao:


That's a completely ridiculous thing to write, nor can I understand what the LMAO icon is about in this case.

Your comment seems to say more about you than Obama.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Do you really want to go there??....you know enough already FN to know what you are dealing with.
You LIKE squeezing pimples?? 

••

Glad to see many editorial boards weighing in on Obama's speech.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Fink-Nottle said:


> I going to give you the benefit of saying I don't understand you; surely you are not saying that American middle class black people who go to university are somehow fake???!!!


Nope, where did I say that? I am saying that this half African American man, that is being touted as being the first "black" President is a fake because he is far from being an average black American. He is as in touch with black Americans as Hillary is to the common white American house wife. No he is not the real deal, I think he has a facade like every other politician, and in due time it will all come crumbling down.

Yes GA, I am a big fat racist, why don't you just come out and say it. I don't like Oprah and Obama, boo hoo. :-(


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

The last 3 elections have revealed a glaring need for:

A "Non of the above" option.:clap: 

A ban on electronic voting. Let's be blunt with the electoral college it takes more than a month for official results. We can wait a few hours to count paper ballets.:clap: :clap: :clap: 

Beyond that the primary and general election systems both need revamping. Modern communications rendered the current systems obsolete decades ago.XX) XX) Time to put the nails in the coffins.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Glad to see many editorial boards weighing in on Obama's speech.


It certainly was a split reaction, but you're right that a lot weighed in on it.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> Yes GA, I am a big fat racist, why don't you just come out and say it. I don't like Oprah and Obama, boo hoo. :-(


If the shoe fits, it's your choice whether to wear it or not, Mr. Jones.

You're well within your rights to like or not like Oprah or Obama. I like Obama, I'm not sold on Oprah though, but that has nothing to do with her "blackcent" as you so inelegantly put it in another thread. I don't know you well enough to proclaim you a racist or not, pretty hard to do from a few inflammatory posts on a discussion forum, I'd prefer to let you speak for yourself. You do seem to be hung up on this idea of the authenticity of Obama and Oprah's racial identities though. I can't imagine why or what that's about. But your stated reasons for disliking Obama and suspecting he's a con artist seem ridiculous.

You've presented a series of assumptions that make no sense here. Why is Obama a fake because he was raised by his white mother and grandparents and he doesn't meet your arbitrary idea of who or what the "average black American" is? 

You seem to be the one who is fixated on his race, along with a certain choice faction of the US public, not him. He keeps saying he is part-black and part-white and knows both worlds, yet you seem to think he has no right to say that based on some bizarre standard of what "black" equals that you've set up. I suspect that standard would apply to few in the real world. His message is that he wants to transcend race and racial divides, whereas you seem fixated on putting people into those boxes and defining people's character through a racial lens.

Obama has already stated pretty clearly that he's not "average". I don't think that makes him a fake. On the contrary that makes him honest.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

GA... good post. You racist, inflammatory ∞¢¢£*!#, you.

[insert broad, pleasantly non-denominational, race-santized™ winkie here]


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

GA: Bravo

Jumbo: I can see you're conflicted, so as someone who has spent the vast majority of my life in the Deep South, let me clear this up for you:

Yes, you're racist. You're the very definition of racist, ie someone who judges the character of others primarily based on race or racial identity.

The good news is, there's an easy cure. So I hope you will overcome your racism (and cynicism) and learn to trust -- and like -- people from very different backgrounds and viewpoints than your own. Good luck, have fun and best wishes.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> I am saying that this half African American man, that is being touted as being the first "black" President is a fake because he is far from being an average black American.
> 
> Yes, I am a big fat racist, why don't you just come out and say it. I don't like Oprah and Obama, boo hoo. :-(


Yes, you are a racist. And you are probably proud of it too, right? You probably look at yourself in the mirror and say "Ha, I can see what others don't! I know the truth!". And you probably do it while cradling your Bible. And one day maybe, just maybe, you've prove how wrong we all are about blacks, and gays, and anybody else that doesn't fit perfectly into the "Aryan race" profile.

Keep up the good work JJ. With people like you, it makes people like Obama really shine.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Uh, guys...a lot of the dialogue going on south of the border--including dialogue among prominent members of the Democratic Party--are asking themselves the same question. How black is "black?" Obama has been dissected publicly as being too black and not black enough. 

Obama has said many things to so many people, and is expected to carry the hopes and aspirations of many diverse groups. 

So JJ says that--when Obama has portrayed himself as being in touch with the black experience in the U.S.--he considers him not traditionally black enough to carry off that position.

That doesn't make JJ a racist folks.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

A thorny mess, no doubt. Still MF, you would merely appear to be wading further in. I am awaiting your clarification of what exactly constitutes "traditionally black enough."


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max: It isn't for me to decide. I merely note that this is already on the open discussion table south of our border. If you wanted to say you were traditionally black I wouldn't fight you over it.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

People... calm down with the over the top rhetoric please.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

MF: Mighty big of you, offering not to fight me like that. Thank you, Kind Sir.

I am wondering if you would bristle at the phrase "traditionally white." You know, I believe you would.

LOL

Ahh, _Time._ That venerable bastion of objectivity and professionalism.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max: The question is not whether _Time_ is objective, but whether the issue is under open discussion. 

If you called me "traditionally white" I would wonder what the hell you were talking about...as Obama is probably wondering what the hell everyone else is talking about.

And yet, Obama's wife is, for the first time in her life, proud of America? Why? Because some of them support a man for president?


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Does any of this matter when McCain is President?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

EveanPitts: McCain? Max, do you consider him traditionally white enough for the office?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I'll do you one better, l'il buddy: MacFury, do you consider yourself able to respond to Evan on your own?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Well, Skipper, I'll take you up on that one. He is both white _and_ black enough for that august office.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I just don't get this whole black and white nonsense.

The point is, he beats the hell outta the guy in the White House now.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

chas_m said:


> Yes, you're racist. You're the very definition of racist, ie someone who judges the character of others primarily based on race or racial identity.


No actually I'm judging him based on his actions and how he is portrayed, which I think is a front. I do not believe he is the "average black American Joe" or Martin Luther King reincarnate, as people like to make him out to be.



chas_m said:


> The good news is, there's an easy cure. So I hope you will overcome your racism (and cynicism) and learn to trust -- and like -- people from very different backgrounds and viewpoints than your own.


I'll have to remember that while hanging out with my multi-cultural friends.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Jumbo: Chas_m is new here. He doesn't get it yet.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

I think McCain has the inside edge. He will pick up the Veteran's votes because he had a lengthy stay at the Hanoi Hilton, as well as the 'Nam wannabee's. Republicans will vote for him, and if they manage to keep all of the voter corruption and ballot stuffing in place, they will carry Florida and Ohio. He will pick up all of the votes of those who Hillary Clinton manages to annoy, which by my estimate is pretty much the entire population of those who have ears. (She is so grating that I wish they'd let Sirhan Sirhan out on day parole.)

Americans are entirely fixated on the whole Race issue, while at the same time, Race is an industry that Americans do not want to destroy with such things as having a President who is also a Mullato. Just like Americans have turned a court decision into the whole Abortion-Anti Abortion industry, which perhaps is only a little shy of the Brittney Spears industry in market capitalization.

They also like their guns, and though McCain wants gun control, he is not opposed to guns. Americans want to win in Iran and McCain has the support of The Running Man (the dude that killed Richard Dawson), which trumps Obama who has the support of Chuck Norris (who never killed Richard Dawson), or Clinton (who could have killed Richard Dawson with her annoying and grating mouth).


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> Yes, you are a racist. And you are probably proud of it too, right? You probably look at yourself in the mirror and say "Ha, I can see what others don't! I know the truth!". And you probably do it while cradling your Bible. And one day maybe, just maybe, you've prove how wrong we all are about blacks, and gays, and anybody else that doesn't fit perfectly into the "Aryan race" profile.
> 
> Keep up the good work JJ. With people like you, it makes people like Obama really shine.


Wow you got all of this from my post, you're quite insightful. You shouldn't be wasting your time here GT, you should really be on here:

Psychic Power Network

btw, not like it is any of your business, but the last time I stepped foot inside a church was when I was married 5 years ago. I am very far away from the Aryan crusader you would like me to be.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

EvanPitts said:


> I think McCain has the inside edge. He will pick up the Veteran's votes ...


Don't know about the Gulf era vets. The handful of 'Nam era vets I've talked to despise him, mainly because he promises to continue the Bush lunacy.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> No actually I'm judging him based on his actions and how he is portrayed, which I think is a front. I do not believe he is the "average black American Joe" or Martin Luther King reincarnate, as people like to make him out to be.


Why are you confusing what "people like to make him out to be" or "how he is portrayed" with how he presents himself? I don't think he's ever claimed to be MLK reincarnate, although he has acknowledged being inspired by his life and words. I don't see what's wrong with that, anyone with a heart should be inspired by what MLK did.

You keep going back to how you don't think he's the average "black American" and two things come to mind about that. (1) He doesn't claim to be the average "black American" having clearly stated that his upbringing is not a typical one. You're claiming that he should live up to a standard that you are defining but that he's never claimed. And then calling him a fake for not living up the standard you've created. He has said how some consider him not white enough and others not black enough. He says let's transcend race, "We aren't white or black Americans, just Americans."

(2) What's with this "average" standard you've created anyway and why should anyone have to live up to it? It has nothing to do with reality, just your own perceptions.

I disagree with labelling you a racist, even though you seemed to be asking me to, because I don't see how that's helpful. I don't see how any of us can know enough from this forum to judge your character that way or what good it does if we think we can. When Obama condemned the words of his pastor raging about white oppression he said that what was really wrong about his words were the inherent assumption in his words that people and society were static. He believes that society has changed and can continue to change and grow and I agree.

When I was a kid in the 60s black people were being regularly lynched in the US South and overt racism was pretty open and rampant. So was overt sexism and being a practising homosexual was a crime. While racism, sexism and homophobia hasn't disappeared, and never will completely, I can see that people and society in general are slowly and gradually getting beyond these limiting behaviours. 

That change is something to be celebrated and I think the great thing about Obama's candidacy is that someone like him, who would have been denigrated when I was a kid for being of mixed race, can now through his demonstrated abilities, be on the verge of becoming US President. If that can happen the USA has a real chance of awakening from its recent negative turn and becoming a great nation once again.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> The point is, he beats the hell outta the guy in the White House now.


True enough.

As chas_m said earlier in the thread, a potted plant would do a better job than Dubya, although I don't want to denigrate potted plants by making the comparison.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

McCain will win.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

SINC said:


> I just don't get this whole black and white nonsense.


Either rent the movie Roots, or read the book. Pretty much says it all. Of course, you can always read "Black Like Me" that really reveals the cards. It is nonsense, but it is very real in America.



> The point is, he beats the hell outta the guy in the White House now.


When you think about it, there are 350 Million people that are better than the dude that currently practices his peculiar malfeasance in the White House. In fact, he may have the least number of Presidential accomplishments since William Henry Harrison!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> The point is, he beats the hell outta the guy in the White House now.


SINC, are you saying Obama is violent???


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Macfury said:


> SINC, are you saying Obama is violent???


"Macfury, have you stopped beating your wife lately?"


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> McCain will win.


That would be like electing that potted plant. I hope you're wrong there.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Macfury said:


> McCain will win.


Of coarse he'll win. The Republican's have the elections rigged remember?
Which makes me wonder why some of the former conspiracy theorists have a new found naive hope a Democrat can possibly win? Rigged voting machines and all. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

Macfury said:


> McCain will win.


The Dems have a secret weapon that goes unmentioned: the economy. 

Historically, the country saw far better economic times when a Democratic president was in charge. McCain has no particular interest in the economy or domestic matters in general. Both Dems have discussed domestic concerns at length, and Hillary is a specialist there. 

We're in a recession - or close to one - so pocketbook issues are on the table right now. Security has receded somewhat as a priority in people's minds. Iraq is always an oozing sore, of course, and I hold both McCain and Hillary responsible. 

O voted against the war when it was political suicide. I admire his foresight and courage in that area. He is an exceptional individual in many ways.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MissGulch said:


> Historically, the country saw far better economic times when a Democratic president was in charge.


Ahh , yes...the Halcyon days of Jimmy Carter!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"O voted against the war when it was political suicide. I admire his foresight and courage in that area. He is an exceptional individual in many ways." An excellent point, Ms.G. I recall when Sen. Wayne Morse from Oregon, and Sen. Ernest Gruening of Alaska were the only two senators who voted against the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution back in August, 1964.

YouTube - Wayne Morse from War Made Easy


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Ahh , yes...the Halcyon days of Jimmy Carter!


Why are you mentioning JC as an example, when this period was more the exception? Even recent history (Clinton) is an example of what I'm talking about, but not in the mood to Google it for you (I have seen the stats many times). 

Even Carter had much foresight in regard to our energy crisis and the need to cut back. He gave a speech in the White House in a sweater, urging all of us to cut down our thermostats, drive less and buy more fuel efficient vehicles, saying we have to wean ourselves from oil. He has been largely unappreciated for this, and if he won a second term we might have had an comprehensive energy policy. Our relationship to OPEC and the Saudis would be way, way different, and there may not have been a 9/11. 

So go ahead, dis Carter, and tell me he was stupid and wrong and weak about energy.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Once again, an excellent point. I last voted in person in the US back in 1976. I voted for Carter in Athens, Georgia, which he won by a landslide.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

An interesting history of how the US got into Vietnam, and, had they learned the lessons of Vietnam, they might have avoided getting into a war in Iraq. "Those who fail to learn the lessons of history, are doomed to repeat that history over and over again."

YouTube - Would JFK have pulled out of Vietnam ? - Part 1

YouTube - Cronkite Interview of JFK


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MissGulch said:


> Why are you mentioning JC as an example, when this period was more the exception?


Because you can't make the case that Democrats are good for the economy based only on a single administration.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MissGulch said:


> Even Carter had much foresight in regard to our energy crisis and the need to cut back.


I like Jimmy Carter as well. I agree that he had a lot of foresight and it wasn't just limited to energy policy. I think history would be quite different if he had gotten a second term.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Macfury said:


> McCain will win.


My gut feeling agrees with you while my heart wishes otherwise.

I think America is very socially divided and I don't sense any progressive movement from the red states. I think the Republicans will keep the majority of red states locked up. 

I think McCain has more potential to make in-roads in blue states than a Democrat does in red states. 

I think the only things that can stop McCain are a third party religious right candidate or a major economic downturn. I think any escalation with the war on terror will favour McCain. 

It will probably come down to Florida and Ohio again. I wonder how McCain polls versus the Democrats in those states.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

...and check to see where Nader polls strongly.

The world would certainly have been a different place if Jimmy had been elected twice--as he certainly wouldn't have been capable of engineering a second term as bad as the first.


----------



## krug1313 (Apr 27, 2007)

I like Obama. I hardly ever watch CNN unless he is on. I truly believe he is up to cleaning the mess America is in. I wish he was one of our politicians. He's just a real stand up guy.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Vandave is beginning to say things that are making me like him!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dreambird said:


> Vandave is beginning to say things that are making me like him!


What, you didn't like VanDave before!!??


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"I like Jimmy Carter as well. I agree that he had a lot of foresight and it wasn't just limited to energy policy. I think history would be quite different if he had gotten a second term." I strongly agree, Vandave. I could have used my registration in New York City to vote for him, which would have been wiser than to vote for him in his home state of Georgia. However, I just wanted him to win and I campaigned for him in New York City when I was at home for summer break.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Macfury said:


> What, you didn't like VanDave before!!??


Well... maybe like/dislike are too strong of words... let's just say it kinda knocked me off my chair to see/hear these sort of words from him:



> I like Jimmy Carter as well. I agree that he had a lot of foresight and it wasn't just limited to energy policy. I think history would be quite different if he had gotten a second term.


or that his "heart wishes otherwise" with regards to McCain winning... 

I may have "painted him with the wrong colour of brush"... I dunno...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Dreambird said:


> I may have "painted him with the wrong colour of brush"... I dunno...


I think my support of the federal Conservatives causes people to make incorrect assumptions about many of my political beliefs. 

I think my beliefs are more closely aligned with the Democrats than they are with the Republicans. And I think the Democrats are more closely aligned with our Conservative Party than they are with the Liberals. And yes, I realize most here probably don't agree with that statement (but let's not debate it again).


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

You can paint Vandave with the brush that says "fiscally responsible and socially conscientious" but don't dip the brush into the paints marked "crazy conscientious."


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Vandave said:


> And I think the Democrats are more closely aligned with our Conservative Party than they are with the Liberals. And yes, I realize most here probably don't agree with that statement (but let's not debate it again).


... and no, I can't say I agree with you on that there... however it does fall into the category of trying to "pidgeon-hole or label" people's political beliefs... which I find impossible to do with myself. So no, I don't want to open the debate with you again...  Let's just say I came to a better "understanding" of your beliefs.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Macfury said:


> You can paint Vandave with the brush that says "fiscally responsible and socially conscientious" but don't dip the brush into the paints marked "crazy conscientious."


That's a good way to put it. :clap:


----------



## BocaCiega (Mar 21, 2008)

*Obama, an unknown quantity*

Who are Obama's friend? Rev. Wright so far, too bad he was the first known personal associate introduced to the masses. Sure there's Oprah, but that association isn't personal. 

Imagine for just a moment, that what was spoken by Mr. Wright was a conversation to your children. Did ****** really infect Blackey with AIDS? Words matter as Obama has so eloquently informed us. 

God Damn America, from the Pulpit, in front of children?

These are just words.

When Geraldine Ferraro used a comparative analysis of being a chosen candidate because she was a woman with Obama's position he turned the issue on it's head and called it her attempt to say that his candidacy was a byproduct of affirmative action. 

These too are just words. His Race has made him untouchable for democrats but not for republicans in the general election.

In my estimation Obama will not win against McCain. McCain is proud of his vote, he and the present administration will do what they can to reduce the conflict in Iraq and demonstrate progress, and the American people will vote for a well know but fabricated War Hero who is inches away from victory. 

Obama's argument about not voting for something 6 years ago when he wasn't privy to the intelligence will melt away into the victory that we are about to celebrate ……just around the bend.

Hillary, with all her baggage is a known quantity; she can stand toe to toe with McCain and argue with a commanding experience that though she voted for the use of force, as he has, she is capable of determining that the success he is selling is not going to achieve the objective. She can speak with experience because she has experience in the White House. Sure she was a wife of a former president, but no one on the planet would try to argue that she wasn't engage in the issues and operations.

She can force McCain to stumble all over himself with facts and friends from around the world that support her. Obama may be untouchable as a Blackman and a democrat but McCain is a target bigger than Texas, and Hillary will take him apart. 

If America wants to remove the republicans from the stage, they need a Big Dog with real teeth not a puppy with false teeth and a loud bark.

Obama is a good professor and in my estimation he would do a better job back at Harvard or if he want to be an advocate he can join the Faculty at Howard.

Just a view from waterworld, your mileage may vary. ;-)


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

*BocaCiega, an unknown quantity*



BocaCiega said:


> Who are Obama's friend?


Hmmmm, and who is BocaCiega? Do we now have Clinton campaigners from Florida posting on ehMac?



BocaCiega said:


> Did ****** really infect Blackey with AIDS? Words matter as Obama has so eloquently informed us.


What kind of language is that? You are aware that Obama unequivocally repudiated Wright's comments, right?

Your post is full of twisted partial facts lifted straight out of the Clinton and McCain campaign talking points. Clinton's experience, please, that's a political campaign fabrication.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GA: It's not a very powerful post is it? Clinton's experience as First Lady seems to consist of some PR visits around the world and a disastrous effort at crafting a government health care system. 

If Obama is armed with "the facts" he could just as easily cause McCain to stumble, providing that McCain is offering only fabrications. I would say that in any oratorical contests between Hillary and Obama, Hillary has come out the clear loser. 

If I were a Democrat, I know which candidate I would want to debate with McCain--and it ain't Hill.


----------



## Cole Slaw (Aug 26, 2005)

It's Politically Incorrect to criticize Obama. 
To do so automatically labels you as a racist; thus the fear the press seems to have of scrutinizing him too closely.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Cole Slaw said:


> It's Politically Incorrect to criticize Obama.
> To do so automatically labels you as a racist; thus the fear the press seems to have of scrutinizing him too closely.


Oh please.

I think the press' coverage of the Rev. Wright, the land deal with Tony Rezko, the silly dust-up over Michelle's "I am finally proud" comments, etc., are evidence that the MSM has no issue with criticizing Obama, plus for the truly rabid bits, you can always drop by Fox "News" for the incoherent ramblings of Bill O and pals.

Maybe the lack of any *real* dirt has to do with the possibility that Obama is one of those very rare birds in American politics: _clean_. 

As for BocaCiega.... you are living up to your handle....

M


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

There's another factor at work--uncertainty. Once the Dems pick their candidate, it'll be gloves off time for the press, and the currently silent McCain.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> The world would certainly have been a different place if Jimmy had been elected twice...


Yeah, Americans would be held hostage not only in Tehran, but in many other places. Once Reagan got in, the Mullahs knew that they'd be Bonzo'd into submission, while they knew how to walk all over Carter.

As for all of these economic "good times" - Clinton oversaw the Internet Bubble that wiped out a trillion and a half dollars.  Pretty good times, eh! I don't think political parties have any say in the swing of the economy - but assertive leadership can work to ameliorate the damages of greed.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Evan: Shhhh....they still think the "Bubbah Bubble" was prosperity.


----------



## BocaCiega (Mar 21, 2008)

*Oil will still win in November*

We had a chance with Hillary, she might just have pull off a Green energy sweep but......

I know some folks have fell for the beauty contest, but down in the ditches this race is about larger issues like energy, Liquid Coal, v Oil v Green tech. Obama is a Liquid Coal guy, a dirty bird, if the wind blows from the south you guys will get my drift.

The deal is made Rockefeller W.V.-- Richardson N.M have just endorsed Obama. 

N.M like W.V are coal-mining states.
Obama represents a coal mining and coal transformation state. Both Jay Rockefeller and Richardson need to represent their energy resources and economic interests. Coal Resources, Reserves, and Mine Sizes, New Mexico

American politics like everything else this country engages in is rooted around money and power, not honesty, trust or justice. That's what they sell you, look under the hood.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Ah, Obama as the _coal_ candidate...how...poetic.

I don't even like Obama and this is making me sick already.

And in this corna-ah we've got old Hillary "cattle futures" Clinton, pristine and unsullied by outside influences.


----------



## BocaCiega (Mar 21, 2008)

*up your way*

I don't know how it works......up your way.....but down here it's about money.

if you want to know about US politics you need to know where the players are:
Coal Fuels A Debate Over Obama - washingtonpost.com

coal states 
State Coal Profiles

v 
Jobs in places like Pen. Oh. that affirmative action laws have left with ill effects. 

The dreamers have no idea that Obama is a dirty bird, but when push comes to shove he will make the argument that it's either Iraq or Coal. Now choose your poison.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

BocaCiega said:


> We had a chance with Hillary, she might just have pull off a Green energy sweep but......
> 
> I know some folks have fell for the beauty contest, but down in the ditches this race is about larger issues like energy, Liquid Coal, v Oil v Green tech. Obama is a Liquid Coal guy, a dirty bird, if the wind blows from the south you guys will get my drift.
> 
> ...


You appear to be just a cynical Clintonista who is desparately trying, like most in the Clinton camp, to throw any imaginable allegation, false or not, at Obama to see if it'll stick. This is her "kitchen sink" strategy. The only strategy left due to the insurmountable lead in pledged delegates that Obama has is to "bloody him up", as Rush Limbaugh so eloquently put it, in hopes that the superdelegates can be swayed to overrule the Democratic primary voters choice.

From your own linked article:


> ... his Senate office sent out a clarification of his coal-to-liquid position, saying he would support subsidies only if the fuel could be created with 20 percent lower carbon dioxide emissions than petroleum-based fuels. The statement dismayed those pushing coal-to-liquid, who noted this would require technological leaps even beyond perfecting carbon storage.


Your girl is not clean by any stretch and will have far more to pay back to the powerbrokers she has cozied up to if by some miracle she becomes President. But she won't, because even if she somehow strongarms the Democratic nomination, she'll have so turned off most Democrats with her tactics that enough will stay home to ensure a McCain win. The only chance the Democratic Party has to not have Bomb-Bomb McCain take the White House is to nominate Obama and end the fratricidal warfare within their own ranks.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Wow GA. You really need to take a valium and forget claiming any expertise on US politics. You're way outta touch simply because you're way outta touch. 

Leave it to them that knows.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Came across a great analytical article, since my last post in this thread, on politico.com that quotes unnamed sources within the Clinton campaign admitting that she has no chance of winning.

Story behind the story: The Clinton myth - Politico.com



> Her own campaign acknowledges there is no way that she will finish ahead in pledged delegates. That means the only way she wins is if Democratic superdelegates are ready to risk a backlash of historic proportions from the party’s most reliable constituency.
> 
> Unless Clinton is able to at least win the primary popular vote — which also would take nothing less than an electoral miracle — and use that achievement to pressure superdelegates, she has only one scenario for victory. An African-American opponent and his backers would be told that, even though he won the contest with voters, the prize is going to someone else.
> 
> ...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

And your expertise on US politics comes from where again?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> Wow GA. You really need to take a valium and forget claiming any expertise on US politics. You're way outta touch simply because you're way outta touch.
> 
> Leave it to them that knows.


Another "opinion" SINC? Care to elaborate, all-knowing one?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Another "opinion" SINC? Care to elaborate, all-knowing one?


Hell no, not when you know-it-all. I mean why would I bother?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> Hell no, not when you know-it-all. I mean why would I bother?


You appear to be the one claiming some higher knowledge, hinting that I don't know what I'm talking about. I never claimed to know it all, I just argued my points. Unlike yourself.

But let's look at _your_ words: "You're way outta touch ...".

Gee, why am I "way outta touch", SINC?

Your reasoning: "... simply because you're way outta touch."

Convincing argument once again SINC. :clap: 

If you want to throw jabs my way, you could at least try to make some sense and go beyond insults about taking valium.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

I tend to agree with GA in that Hillary only has a small chance of winning. I don't think she will give up until it is over even if it means fracturing the Democratic Party.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> You appear to be the one claiming some higher knowledge, hinting that I don't know what I'm talking about. I never claimed to know it all, I just argued my points.


Fine with me. I too argue my points. I see no expertise in your statements regarding US politics.

For my part, I'll not put forward any points I clearly understand nothing about. Namely US politics.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"I tend to agree with GA in that Hillary only has a small chance of winning. I don't think she will give up until it is over even if it means fracturing the Democratic Party." Vandave, my wife asked me this very same question a few hours ago. I told her that the math was not with Clinton, but that if she took the nomination on the strength of an unelected superdelegate surge, that it would fracture the Democratic Party. I sense that this is her one shot at the presidency, whereas if Obama lost fair and square, he would be able to run again in 4 or 8 years. We shall see.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Fine with me. I too argue my points. I see no expertise in your statements regarding US politics.
> 
> For my part, I'll not put forward any points I clearly understand nothing about. Namely US politics.


These statements are ridiculously contradictory. Given the latter rationale, how would you have any idea whatsoever regarding GA's opinions on U.S politics?

Are you just out to spar?


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> "I tend to agree with GA in that Hillary only has a small chance of winning. I don't think she will give up until it is over even if it means fracturing the Democratic Party." Vandave, my wife asked me this very same question a few hours ago. I told her that the math was not with Clinton, but that if she took the nomination on the strength of an unelected superdelegate surge, that it would fracture the Democratic Party. I sense that this is her one shot at the presidency, whereas if Obama lost fair and square, he would be able to run again in 4 or 8 years. We shall see.


Arguments that Clinton's win with the help of superdelegates would be somehow tarnished are the result of bias in the extreme.

Superdelegates have the right to vote, and are no more biased than any primary or caucus delegate.

Obama may be ahead now, but you could just as easily tarnish many of his delegates from first-past-the-post voting states, where the person with the higher voting carries all the delegates, unlike other states which split delegates based on the percentage of votes. That would also be unfair to Obama.

The fact is, the system is clearly laid out, in advance, and delegates of all kinds have the right and duty to vote at the Democratic convention. Privileging one kind of delegate over another, because they might vote one wa or another, is specious. You either accept the system and how voters get to the convention, or you don't. If the system is blatantly unfair, change it; in the interim, it's the system they have.

And as for superdelegates being somehow parachuted in, remember many of them were elected by far more of the electorate than any local delegate; many are Senators, Governors, Congresspersons, etc. Perhaps some party wonk in Rhode Island should carry more weight; perhaps.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> These statements are ridiculously contradictory. Given the latter rationale, how would you have any idea whatsoever regarding GA's opinions on U.S politics?
> 
> Are you just out to spar?


No, just pointing out that unless you live in the country and have followed the campaign for many years, you're peeing into the wind.

I don't much like getting damp, but some people do.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

HowEver, you misunderstood my point. I was commenting upon the idea of a "fractured" Democratic Party. I still contend that if Obama has the most votes from the various primaries, and the most delegates going into a convention, but that the superdelegates swing it for Clinton, then this is what will fracture the Democratic Party, just as the victory of Humphrey over McCarthy in 1968, albeit it after the death of Robert Kennedy.

I never contended that the superdelegates would cast their votes as "bias in the extreme". However, although they are elected officials in each of their states, they were not elected with the expressed intent of casting a vote in the convention for one candidate or the other. As well, I don't see that party officials and fund raisers, some of whom have superdelegate status, but were not elected by anyone, should have a vote.

I trust that this clarifies the matter. I would not want this to break out into another GA/Sinc disagreement. Paix.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

On the other hand, if they were elected after the rules changed that created 'superdelegates,' it was known at the time, generally if not specifically, that they would in fact also fulfill that role at the national convention.

I meant that there shouldn't be bias against these delegates, any more than any other. I doubt the party will fracture if they vote en masse for Clinton.

Still, a few months is a long time in politics. Anything is possible. Obama was nowhere near being a frontrunner some time ago, and he may have peaked too early, may lose momentum, especially if he loses Pennsylvania.

My comments were more to the effect that the slew of articles that paints support among superdelegates for Clinton as some kind of evil are merely biased arguments. You could make any kind of argument about regular delegates also, depending on where they're from. These articles serve a political purpose. There is no 'fact' that such delegates are not acceptable, nor that they'll sway the vote.




Dr.G. said:


> HowEver, you misunderstood my point. I was commenting upon the idea of a "fractured" Democratic Party. I still contend that if Obama has the most votes from the various primaries, and the most delegates going into a convention, but that the superdelegates swing it for Clinton, then this is what will fracture the Democratic Party, just as the victory of Humphrey over McCarthy in 1968, albeit it after the death of Robert Kennedy.
> 
> I never contended that the superdelegates would cast their votes as "bias in the extreme". However, although they are elected officials in each of their states, they were not elected with the expressed intent of casting a vote in the convention for one candidate or the other. As well, I don't see that party officials and fund raisers, some of whom have superdelegate status, but were not elected by anyone, should have a vote.
> 
> I trust that this clarifies the matter. I would not want this to break out into another GA/Sinc disagreement. Paix.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I see your point, HowEver. My hope is that voters in Florida and Michigan will get a chance to cast votes, since it was their legislatures that decided to "jump the gun" on Super Tuesday. Then, the math is taken away from the superdelegates and into the hands of voters once again. My main concern with the superdelegates is that some are not elected officials in the Democratic party. If I was a Gore fundraiser, and you raised funds for Kerry, we might both be superdelegates. 

It will be very interesting if the Edwards delegates are the deciding factor in a second ballot. We shall see.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> Fine with me. I too argue my points. I see no expertise in your statements regarding US politics.


Well I claimed no expertise either. I feel like I'm reasonably informed on the subject of US politics and my opinions flow from that.



SINC said:


> For my part, I'll not put forward any points I clearly understand nothing about. Namely US politics.


If you feel like you understand nothing, fine, then speak for yourself.

If you disagree with my opinion or think I'm uniformed, fine, then counter it and we can discuss. I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with me and I generally attempt to do so without snarky jabs and trolling. If I feel I can't counter your points then I'll either shut up or I'll concede the point.

Telling me to "take a valium" because I'm "way outta touch" and then not being able to tell me why I'm "way outta touch" is nonsense. Those are the arguing tactics of kids in a schoolyard.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

HowEver said:


> Arguments that Clinton's win with the help of superdelegates would be somehow tarnished are the result of bias in the extreme.


There's a tremendous amount of bias in coverage of the US election, coming from both directions. I would admit that many of the articles arguing that way, especially from web-based media, quite likely are from writers writers with a pro-Obama bias, as articles arguing the opposite quite possibly are from writers with a pro-Clinton bias. Having a bias doesn't necessarily render their observations invalid though.



HowEver said:


> Superdelegates have the right to vote, and are no more biased than any primary or caucus delegate.
> 
> Obama may be ahead now, but you could just as easily tarnish many of his delegates from first-past-the-post voting states, where the person with the higher voting carries all the delegates, unlike other states which split delegates based on the percentage of votes. That would also be unfair to Obama.


AFAIK, all the states in the Democratic primary award their delegates proportionally. For the GOP it's first past the post.



HowEver said:


> The fact is, the system is clearly laid out, in advance, and delegates of all kinds have the right and duty to vote at the Democratic convention. Privileging one kind of delegate over another, because they might vote one wa or another, is specious. You either accept the system and how voters get to the convention, or you don't. If the system is blatantly unfair, change it; in the interim, it's the system they have.
> 
> And as for superdelegates being somehow parachuted in, remember many of them were elected by far more of the electorate than any local delegate; many are Senators, Governors, Congresspersons, etc. Perhaps some party wonk in Rhode Island should carry more weight; perhaps.


You're right in that it's the system they have. That doesn't mean it's not incredibly arcane and overly complex — like much about the US electoral system. There are numerous differences between states too. Some have caucuses, some don't, so there are extra delegates awarded at the caucuses. Many have different and unique weightings for how delegates are apportioned. There were reports that the pros in the Clinton camp were confused heading towards the Texas primary because the system there was so different and complex compared to other states.

From what I've read the current system was decided upon in the '80s. The idea of the superdelegates was conceived of as a safety valve, so that some candidate, who had garnered a lead at the primaries, but who suffered some kind of a gaffe or scandal that killed their electability could then be turfed by the party elders. It was also envisioned as a way for the supposedly wiser long time party members and dignitaries to exercise some kind of control over their party.

I certainly don't think any credible person would recommend changing the system mid-election and I don't think there's any chance that would happen regardless. Democratic National Committee chair Howard Dean has said that "[t]heir role is to exercise their best judgment in the interests of the nation and of the Democratic Party."

It is clear that if the superdelegates overrule the choice of the majority of primary voters, this will be widely seen as an undemocratic act. It may well be within the party by-laws, but it would definitely be a large PR problem. Just because it's legal doesn't mean that it will be perceived as fair or just. Given that many of the superdelegates are party insiders, there is a belief that Clinton holds a greater influence with them. This may or may not be true. The argument from the Obama camp is that if the supers overrule the popular vote this would not be in the best interests of the nation or the Party. Clinton supporters of course are arguing the opposite, since this appears to be her only realistic avenue to taking the nomination.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> It is clear that if the superdelegates overrule the choice of the majority of primary voters, this will be widely seen as an undemocratic act.


Agreed. There is very little chance that Obama is not going to go into the convention without the lead in both delegates and popular vote (and states won).

Grassroots Democrats are _a little touchy_ on the idea that the winner of the popular vote won't be the winner. I think you can understand why that is.



> Given that many of the superdelegates are party insiders, there is a belief that Clinton holds a greater influence with them. This may or may not be true. The argument from the Obama camp is that if the supers overrule the popular vote this would not be in the best interests of the nation or the Party. Clinton supporters of course are arguing the opposite, since this appears to be her only realistic avenue to taking the nomination.


Good points all, but at the end of the day Hillary cannot really win. She just MIGHT be able to snatch the nomination away from Obama (though I doubt it), but if she does she will wreck the Democratic Party, set race relations back 40 years, and thus hand the presidency to John McCain. All _he_ has to do to win is not look _too_ crazy. It's sad, but true.

Hillary's one hope of winning the general election was to prove to a country, half of whom _hates her guts_, that half the country _shouldn't_ hate her guts, that she is her own person and everyone should put Bill aside (_regardless_ of what you thought of him) and give her her own chance. IOW, her only hope of winning is to be Al Gore (before you groan, don't forget that he actually WON the popular vote in 2000).

If she continues alienating the grassroots (I'm not just talking about Obama supporters, I'm also referring to undecideds and supporters of now-gone candidates) as she has been doing, there's absolutely *no way* for her to win the general election. She *must* know this. I can only imagine she wants to stick to the end for the misguided notion that future female candidates will be taken more seriously if she comes "this" close to the nomination.

I think she will give up after Pennsylvania. I hope she will. Time will tell, of course. It always does.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

chas_m said:


> I can only imagine she wants to stick to the end for the misguided notion that future female candidates will be taken more seriously if she comes "this" close to the nomination.


The whole notion of having the presidency fall from father to son and husband to wife is a little upsetting already. It really looks more like a monarchy when that happens more than a couple of times.

Though I have no personal knowledge of Hillary Clinton, she strikes me as a person who might _say _she was going to stick to the end for the misguided notion that future female candidates will be taken more seriously if she thought it might help her become president in 2012. I have rarely seen anyone with more drive and less sincerity. Watching her craft a story about being a duck hunter to woo rifle enthusiasts clinched that for me.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

Macfury said:


> The whole notion of having the presidency fall from father to son and husband to wife is a little upsetting already.


I agree with this 100% (agreeing with MF is rather upsetting in itself  ). Are we getting a co-presidency, or is he to be in a chief advisory role? I voted for her, but not terribly comfortable with this scenario.

Looking at some old news reports when the Clintons were campaigning in 1992 brought it home: their time has passed, but they don't see it. Bill and Hill looked so eager, so fresh in those days, full of hope and new ideas. Now, it seems they're willing to ram her candidacy down the country's collective throats, whatever it takes. We need a fresh vision to set the country on a new course.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

It is unrelentingly offensive to preclude a woman from work based on her husband's job or former job.

If this was said about you or someone you know, you'd paint a placard and march in protest about it.

If there is something specific about Clinton giving up power because her husband has a few ideas, you may be forgetting how much power this job has. It's not going to happen.




MissGulch said:


> I agree with this 100% (agreeing with MF is rather upsetting in itself  ). Are we getting a co-presidency, or is he to be in a chief advisory role? I voted for her, but not terribly comfortable with this scenario.
> 
> Looking at some old news reports when the Clintons were campaigning in 1992 brought it home: their time has passed, but they don't see it. Bill and Hill looked so eager, so fresh in those days, full of hope and new ideas. Now, it seems they're willing to ram her candidacy down the country's collective throats, whatever it takes. We need a fresh vision to set the country on a new course.


----------



## BocaCiega (Mar 21, 2008)

*two sides*

G.A. the problem with your position is that you assume that anyone pointing out that Obama has anything to look twice at is automatically a Clintonian. WRONG

Then you'll default to "if not for Billary then they must be for McRoid", WRONG

My Voter Registration Card says NP (no party affiliate) I couldn't care less which democrat wins, real change is detached from both parties. 

I do know that when the Clintons were in office they shook things up. What does anyone know about Obama? 

Jay Rockefeller said yesterday on C-Span that Obama will pull the troops out of Iraq and put them in Afghanistan where they belong, then he went on to say that there are 50 more countries like it that our military will need to engage with. Now that was from a guy who was promoting him. 

The national service plan that Obama has, will be a slippery slope to military service, not unlike the National Guard, this is how he will engage the Black population that has refused to join the volunteer Army. $4000 per year for education for every year of service. 

In a nation that has too few jobs, where is 20 million volunteers per year going to fit in? 20 million in (2010), 40 million (2011) 60 million (2012) on and on until some estamate their will be 100 million student volunteers working for $4 and hour if one was to brake down the $4000.00 package. (extreme estimate)

Now add transportation to and from the volunteer location, any tools or cloths they might need. Add insurance and incidentals and he has a program that is unsustainable, not to mention a highly educated population that has no place to go. They deliberately dumbed down the population from the sixties on, (look into civic education policy) why would they want to educate them now when the reasons to keep them dumb hasn't changed?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

HowEver said:


> It is unrelentingly offensive to preclude a woman from work based on her husband's job or former job.


HowEver--we were discussing the inheriting of the presidency by a very small circle of people: Bush to Bush, Jr. and Bill to Hillary. It makes the presidency look like an aristocracy. It has nothing to do with the sex of the candidate.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BocaCiega said:


> I do know that when the Clintons were in office they shook things up. What does anyone know about Obama?


Other than a few scandals it was a relatively uneventful presidency. No major shake-ups.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Macfury said:


> HowEver--we were discussing the inheriting of the presidency by a very small circle of people: Bush to Bush, Jr. and Bill to Hillary. It makes the presidency look like an aristocracy. It has nothing to do with the sex of the candidate.


Sure thing you sexist bastard. 

Best be watching what you say, wouldn't want to upset the politically correct crowd here with any views on members of minority groups. Even if your comment has nothing to do with that minority group they belong to, it might be misconstrued into them thinking your comments are based on your inner hate for them.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

BocaCiega said:


> G.A. the problem with your position is that you assume that anyone pointing out that Obama has anything to look twice at is automatically a Clintonian. WRONG
> 
> Then you'll default to "if not for Billary then they must be for McRoid", WRONG
> 
> My Voter Registration Card says NP (no party affiliate) I couldn't care less which democrat wins, real change is detached from both parties.


Boca, the problem with your last post is that you assume that anyone disagreeing with attacks on Obama that are half-truths or campaign smears has a problem with anyone questioning Obama or his positions. WRONG. 

So you say you're not in favour of Clinton or McCain. Great, but hard to tell when you've used their talking points and started off with the McCarthyesque guilt by association propaganda regarding his pastor. And hard to tell you were not a Clinton supporter when in your very first ehMac post you express support for her over Obama based on Clinton's supposedly superior experience. 

Not to mention that you just showed up on ehMac to post in response to an Obama thread, so you don't have any previous history with which to judge your opinions or orientation by.


----------



## BocaCiega (Mar 21, 2008)

*sorry*

Ops, well..... I was sent a link from one of your members to this thread, that's how I found it. Stating that Hillary has more experience is hardly a leap. Mr. Wright's comments are over the top no matter who's side your on or if your on no side at all. The media down here is saturate with Wright and Wrong questions. Apparently my position and comments have threatened your administration, they now have me on a short leash. I hope I haven't broken any rules? 

<edit my last post in the Nasa thread didn't post, a pop-up flashed by saying something about moderator....it was a flash so I'm not sure what it's about>



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Boca, the problem with your last post is that you assume that anyone disagreeing with attacks on Obama that are half-truths or campaign smears has a problem with anyone questioning Obama or his positions. WRONG.
> 
> So you say you're not in favour of Clinton or McCain. Great, but hard to tell when you've used their talking points and started off with the McCarthyesque guilt by association propaganda regarding his pastor. And hard to tell you were not a Clinton supporter when in your very first ehMac post you express support for her over Obama based on Clinton's supposedly superior experience.
> 
> Not to mention that you just showed up on ehMac to post in response to an Obama thread, so you don't have any previous history with which to judge your opinions or orientation by.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Nope, no rules broken. GA was referring to the fact that in just a few short posts you've gone from supporting Hillary to not supporting anyone but Obama or McCain.


----------



## BocaCiega (Mar 21, 2008)

*not that cut and dry*

I would like to see the republicans loose. 

I don't think Obama can beat McCain, and without a viable third party (Nader) we're left holding a probable democrat loser for President. 

I don't know about your elections but down here we mostly vote against someone, not ever having someone to really vote for. We're always left with the beauty contest, while the viable leaders seem to never get started. Biden or Dodd were actually well rounded candidates, but Voters down here go for celebrities and we get stuck in the Bush's.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BocaCiega said:


> I don't know about your elections but down here we mostly vote against someone, not ever having someone to really vote for.


Lots of strategic voting here as well, though we have more parties to play off against each other.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Guys... BocaCiega is a long time friend of mine... I thought he might be interested in this thread and so I sent him on over for a lOOk. I was kind of surprised but happy to see he had registered... I think you'll enjoy debating with him...  

I've looked over this whole thread... uuhmm "maybe" a little bit of a strong first post but eh! just because it seemed out of the blue to you perhaps? I also hope no rules broken? I trust as per usual around here one is well aware of it if that happens? 

Wot Nasa thread?  





BocaCiega said:


> Ops, well..... I was sent a link from one of your members to this thread, that's how I found it. Stating that Hillary has more experience is hardly a leap. Mr. Wright's comments are over the top no matter who's side your on or if your on no side at all. The media down here is saturate with Wright and Wrong questions. Apparently my position and comments have threatened your administration, they now have me on a short leash. I hope I haven't broken any rules?
> 
> <edit my last post in the Nasa thread didn't post, a pop-up flashed by saying something about moderator....it was a flash so I'm not sure what it's about>


----------



## BocaCiega (Mar 21, 2008)

*hello dar DB*

Sorry to disrupt your Applecart. 

I'm not much in posting political arguments these days DB, I think I agree with Al Gore on the diminished capacity of political information. Book Excerpt: The Assault on Reason - TIME

I haven't figured out why my post on the NASA Seawater thread hadn't worked, maybe it's closed and I can't see it? This new fangled BB software will take some getting use too. 

From my perspective here in Florida, a Swing State, it's becoming apparently clearer that Obama will push Florida to McCain. If I do the math that will mean that Ohio and other swing states will follow, painting the US of A RED for another four years.

Now the media has been pushing the Obama product line and the results have been effective, but that will only last until the general election. Hillary has been treating Obama with kid gloves but in a general election Obama will be debating with McCain via Rove. Not to mention Newt Gingrich who is masterful in his capacity to twist phrase. Even my Black friends who voted in the primary do not expect Obama will win the general election. 

Individuals and the media have been able to beat-up on Clinton because they know more of her, little do they know that they are beating the only viable candidate that's left on the stage. 

Women are the majority vote in the US, 55/45 and Seniors are the majority age group. With men generally voting Republican, where is Obama's base? It's Black and a Black base is not going to win a general election with 13% of the population. Senior women will either not vote or vote White. Since Obama turned Ferraro into a racist, he will loose the middle aged female vote as well. 

Neither of these candidates would be my choice, but I haven't had a candidate to vote for since Ross Perot, an Independent. ;-)

Time will tell...... seeya


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

*Nah... Applecart's OK!*

Well... I hardly know what to say as I truly hoped the Republicans would be out the door myself... I guess even though my heart gets heavier and heavier as time goes on I'll cling to that hope until the voting is done...  

But if I might do a little "conspiracy theory" kicking around... only because it ties in so well with something right now. The book excerpt you link above mentions TV and it mentions an incident with CBS in particular:



> And what if an individual citizen or group of citizens wants to enter the public debate by expressing their views on television? Since they cannot simply join the conversation, some of them have resorted to raising money in order to buy 30 seconds in which to express their opinion. But too often they are not allowed to do even that. MoveOn.org tried to buy an ad for the 2004 Super Bowl broadcast to express opposition to Bush's economic policy, which was then being debated by Congress. CBS told MoveOn that "issue advocacy" was not permissible. Then, CBS, having refused the MoveOn ad, began running advertisements by the White House in favor of the president's controversial proposal. So MoveOn complained, and the White House ad was temporarily removed. By temporarily, I mean it was removed until the White House complained, and CBS immediately put the ad back on, yet still refused to present the MoveOn ad.


OK... so CBS tries to play fair... and doesn't get away with it. Quelle surprise! 

They aren't going to get away with telling fictional stories that hit too close to home either... and I don't buy an excuse like too low a Nielson rating. CBS is half owner of a little network called the CW for who 4.x viewers per episode of any of their shows is good by them.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

There is absolutely ZERO chance that John McCain will win the presidency. Trust me on this.

Republican anger is very palpable in the states, even among rank-and-file Republicans who are VERY angry that they didn't get ANY of their agenda accomplished even after capturing ALL THREE branches of government.

Rank-and-file Republicans HATE McCain, mainly for his immigration stance but also for other votes. Plus he's a flip-flopper, and we all learned last election cycle that flip-floppers make bad presidents ... right? Didn't we learn that? 

Anyway, Republicans are planning to stay at home IN DROVES this election cycle. Nobody, not even "conservatives," want a third Bush term, and that's what they KNOW they'd get with McCain.

McCain = Dole.

PS. Forgot to mention that even IF McCain SOMEHOW cheated his way into office (hey, it's been done!), he faces a majority-Dem (possibly super-majority Dem) congress. This just ain't gonna work for him, period.

PPS. Oh and did I mention it's possible he'll be in jail before long? The penalty for this is five years in prison ...


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

chas_m said:


> There is absolutely ZERO chance that John McCain will win the presidency. Trust me on this.


Ditto that. I honestly and sincerely believe that O stands a better chance against McBush than Hillary, even though she got my primary vote. She is so divisive, so HATED in the red states, and among so many Republicans and independents. They don't want another Clinton in the white house no matter what. I'm not saying they will vote for McBush; they will stay home on election day. A left-leaning independent friend from Dallas bears this out, and gave me a sense of what people in the red states are feeling about her. She did go on to say that Obama is an acceptable candidate to many on the right. I think he can scoop up enough of the independents to win.

Independents will decide the election. 

I agree with Boca about Biden and Dodd. The prettier candidate always wins. Or the one that has a name brand.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MissGulch said:


> Ditto that. I honestly and sincerely believe that O stands a better chance against McBush than Hillary, even though she got my primary vote. She is so divisive, so HATED in the red states, and among so many Republicans and independents. They don't want another Clinton in the white house no matter what. I'm not saying they will vote for McBush; they will stay home on election day. A left-leaning independent friend from Dallas bears this out, and gave me a sense of what people in the red states are feeling about her. She did go on to say that Obama is an acceptable candidate to many on the right. I think he can scoop up enough of the independents to win.
> 
> Independents will decide the election.
> 
> I agree with Boca about Biden and Dodd. The prettier candidate always wins. Or the one that has a name brand.


And ditto that. But I will stay out of this and just let you Americans discuss this because, according to some on ehMac, non-Americans aren't qualified to have opinions about US politics ....

....

....

Ahh nevermind! I have too many opinions to keep them to myself. 

Like many, I think a continuation of the Bush/Cheney neoconservative junta, with McCain as the figurehead, would be an unmitigated disaster, not only for the US, but for the world. (Which is mainly why I have an opinion on this.)

The argument that Clinton would be the best person to take on McCain in the GE is pretty faulty in my opinion as mentioned by Miss G. 

The ultimate proof for this is that Republicans have admitted as much quite clearly and have sent their talk radio and Fox news attack dogs out to convince Republicans to support Clinton in the hopes she can beat Obama or at least "bloody up" Obama, in the words of Limbaugh. Note that Bill Clinton appeared on Limbaugh's show to help with this cause prior to the Ohio and Texas primaries. And some statistical evidence from exit polling has emerged that this strategy may have worked for Hillary.

The GOP and McCain dearly want to face Clinton in the GE, because she is the best chance that they will win. They know that McCain is a weak candidate and they know that Bush has tainted the Republican brand. And they want Clinton out there to galvanize their base because she is so hated by them. 

But now, even with Obama winning the nomination, the Clinton camp has given the GOP all manner of weapons with which to attack him. The "bloodying up" may well have worked for the neocons.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MissGulch said:


> She did go on to say that Obama is an acceptable candidate to many on the right.


I sense entirely the opposite. Obama is left of Hillary.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I agree that McCain's best change in the general election is against Clinton. Those conservatives that might stay home if Obama is his opponent will come out in droves to defeat her, regardless of the Republican nominated for president. Obama is, as Macfury contends, left of Clinton. Only a Nader candidacy in a wide array of states could make an impact upon some of Obama's support, but moreso against Clinton's left-leaning supporters.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I agree with Dr. G. though the actual battle between McCain and Obama might change the tenor of the contest. 

But the Democratic party base is also a fractured rainbow coalition made up of many factions, including conservative Democrats who won't vote for a very lefty Democrat; racist Democrats who might not vote for a Black man; and Democrats in the military who would not have either Democrat candidate as CIC for example. The final story won't be told by just one large group. Even "independents" alone are not going to be the final authors of the outcome.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I think that Obama can beat McCain, but it would be difficult for Clinton to beat McCain. The wild card for Obama is that he is able to bring more people to the polls to vote for him, people that have never voted before, or who have not voted for years. This is why a Clinton victory in the Democratic convention, especially if it is won by the superdelegates voting for Clinton should she be behind in the popular and delgate votes, would be McCain's best chance at a victory in November. We shall see.


----------



## BocaCiega (Mar 21, 2008)

*it's your nickel*

Obama will loose most of the Red states he won, in the general election. He will loose the swing states, and in the end he will loose. IMO

Do the math, go from state to state and see for yourself. Clinton won the traditional democratic states, she won the swing states and if the votes in Fl. and Mi. were counted she would win the popular vote. 

Winning Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, N/S Dakota, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, to name a few, in a Democratic primary doesn't translate into votes in the general election. 

You'll notice that Rush started telling people to vote for Clinton after most of the Red states had already caucused for Obama. The call to vote for Clinton is a sideshow. 

Here the thing, if Bush embroils us in Iran and the choice is between McCain and Obama the vote will be for McCain. If the issue in Iraq can be made to look better, with victory right around the corner, a vote for defeat would be unlikely, so again Obama will loose. 

I can't think of any scenario that Obama will win when the Republican apply pressure, threr just aren't any. He's too green to risk for the traditional voters. Of course if a huge group of non traditional voters participate he may have a slim chance, but counting the youth vote to maintain their attention span over the long haul has never worked out for those who have gambled and lost in the past. 

It's a long time until November, much can change, but if the vote were held today I wouldn't bet on Obama.Keep in mind that in the general election it's winner take all, not a % of the delegates.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

BocaCiega makes sense, in the traditional sense of logic. However, I feel that this will be an atypical election. True, Clinton won the traditional states that a Democrat needs to win if he/she is going to be elected president. True, in a traditional general election is a "winner take all" situation. This is where BC's contention might come off the rails, since I don't feel that this is a traditional general election. I still contend that we will see a significant increase in voter turnout in ALL states. This is the wildcard that will come to pass should Obama be the candidate. This is when the polls will replay 1948, when they all said that Truman was going to lose to Gov. Thomas Dewey. I also think that the selection of the VP for both candidates will play a more significant role this election than it has in the past.

As I am fond of saying, we shall see. I shall be the first to admit that I was incorrect in my speculation comes Nov. if Obama loses to McCain. However, if I am correct, remember me fondly and rejoice in our victory. Paix, mes amis.

Full Disclosure -- My wife and I both sent money to Obama's campaign, and my son and I intend to vote for him, should he be the candidate, in the State of Georgia.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

Macfury said:


> I sense entirely the opposite. Obama is left of Hillary.


There is very little difference in their positions; this is a fight over personalities. In fact, Hillary's health care plan has a universal mandate which I support, and Obama's doesn't. Compelling everybody to buy health care is a big government, leftist position. This mandate was the reason why I voted for her.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr. G: In this case, there's no Dewey/Truman scenario as yet. In fact, I would hazard that McCain is playing Truman this time around if you read the newspapers. 

Should Obama win the nomination I have little doubt that what's left of the Clinton machine will wreak havoc with the election as well. I would be surprised if the ranks close happily behind him. Obama is an upstart and I imagine elements of the Democratic party would rather teach "the people's choice" a lesson about upsetting the party's nomination strategy than to allow him to win.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Reinforcing "non Traditional " Obama picked up over 1 million NEW donors in March alone on top of the over 1 million individual donors he already had.

A great number of these are people who have never donated or been engaged in the political process before.

This is where the huge turn outs ( and his phenomenal fund raising ) are coming from.

Look American's were stupid enough to vote Bush in a second time ( sort of I see Ohio has now indicted some people over voting machine fraud)....nothing would surprise me.

In some respects having the Republicans hang by their own petard for the mess Bush has created would be somewhat satisfying since no matter who comes into the power the next 2 years+ are NOT going to be very delightful for America.

Presidential desire or not the corrupt and gerrymandered mess the US calls Senate and Congress will not go away and will not be changed.
It's an embedded parasite of gross proportions.

Nothing short of a massive economic shock will engender sufficient change .... of course the NeoCons are familiar with exploiting that strategy. 

Obama has the support of many angry people who are getting engaged....I just don't see Congress and Senate changing enough to translate the anger into action and change.

Pelosi is ample example of that.

••

If there is a Truman Dewey story it's crown princess Hilary getting a wake up call from Mr. Obama.
Don't forget 6 months ago it was supposedly a slam dunk for her.

Obama has done the same sort of cross country - talk to the regular people - effort that Truman undertook. It might just pay off.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Should Obama win the nomination I have little doubt that what's left of the Clinton machine will wreak havoc with the election as well. I would be surprised if the ranks close happily behind him. Obama is an upstart and I imagine elements of the Democratic party would rather teach "the people's choice" a lesson about upsetting the party's nomination strategy than to allow him to win.


Aside from your characterization of Obama as an "upstart," which is curious, who may be "taught a lesson," even more curious, and oddly evocative, on what do you base these upcoming political reprisals from the Clinton camp? This sour grape assassination theory is purely speculative.

Less fiction, please. And less of that southern rhetoric.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Dr. G: In this case, there's no Dewey/Truman scenario as yet. In fact, I would hazard that McCain is playing Truman this time around if you read the newspapers." Guess we read different newspapers, Macfury. McCain is falling all over himself to align himself with conservative Republicans, and to shed himself of any "taints" of being a liberal, just the way Tom Dewey did back in 1948. Dewey was viewed as a progressive Republican which did not sit well with those traditional "rock rib Republicans" (as they were called back then). He was a good governor of New York State, but many viewed him as too liberal for the traditional voters. Thus, he moved to the right, just as McCain is doing now.

Still, I hope that the people have their chance to have a say if he is to be president or not.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr. G: We're looking at it from different ways. The newspapers are picking Obama as the winner in a McCain horserace, so McCain is becoming the underdog.

In terms of political migration, both Hillary and McCain are skewing right.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I read the NY Times, the Washington Post and the Globe and Mail. Most of what I have read shows a nearly dead heat among all three, which makes for an interesting election in the Fall. I personally see Obama over McCain and McCain over Clinton. If Obama wins the nomination, watch for a massive voter registration move that results in a large voter turnout. If Clinton wins the nomination, there will be a larger than expected turnout of the "religious right" and the "values-based Republicans". We shall see.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

BocaCiega said:


> Obama will loose most of the Red states he won, in the general election. He will loose the swing states, and in the end he will loose. IMO
> 
> Do the math, go from state to state and see for yourself. Clinton won the traditional democratic states, she won the swing states and if the votes in Fl. and Mi. were counted she would win the popular vote.
> 
> ...


I don't understand your analysis. From what I can tell it seems to assume that all those who voted for Hillary in the blue states that she won in a vote between (mostly) Democrats, would not vote for Obama should he be the nominee in the GE. While there is some basis that a small percentage of Democratic voters would sit on their hands rather than vote for Obama based on some polling and anecdotal reports, I think Obama would handily win all the traditional blue states, as well as make some of the traditional red states more competitive than Hillary would. 

You say you think a McCain would be a bad choice for president. Are you saying that if you had the choice of either Obama or McCain in November you would not vote for Obama, and allow a chance that McCain might win? While many Clinton supporters might not like the choice of Obama, the vast majority of those same people like the choice of McCain even less.



BocaCiega said:


> Here the thing, if Bush embroils us in Iran and the choice is between McCain and Obama the vote will be for McCain. If the issue in Iraq can be made to look better, with victory right around the corner, a vote for defeat would be unlikely, so again Obama will loose.
> 
> I can't think of any scenario that Obama will win when the Republican apply pressure, threr just aren't any. He's too green to risk for the traditional voters. Of course if a huge group of non traditional voters participate he may have a slim chance, but counting the youth vote to maintain their attention span over the long haul has never worked out for those who have gambled and lost in the past.
> 
> It's a long time until November, much can change, but if the vote were held today I wouldn't bet on Obama.Keep in mind that in the general election it's winner take all, not a % of the delegates.


If Bush is insane enough to go into Iran, outside of this being a disaster for the whole world, I think it is true that most Americans at this point, don't want any such thing to happen. This may not stop him, because it's clear now that the Bush/Cheney/neocon cabal hasn't based any of their moves on rational assessments.

Your assessment of Obama losing to McCain in those circumstances would apply equally to Hillary. This of course assumes that many uninformed Americans are actually dumb enough to vote for the same fear/war strategy that has failed so spectacularly in the last 8 years. This could be a real possibility sadly. And if this is really true there is no possible Democratic candidate who can win. No Democratic candidate, especially Clinton, will ever appear "tough" enough on foreign policy to satisfy those who think that the US has to continue on that path. Fortunately I believe there is some small reason to believe that enough Americans have actually tired of that path.

We've already seen the "safe" pro-war candidate in Kerry get beaten by the GOP through their Rovian swiftboating and being accused of flip-flopping on Iraq. Clinton is nothing more than Kerry the 2nd in this regard and certainly has less so-called and mostly fabricated experience than either Kerry or McCain. Your arguments don't add up as pluses for Clinton.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I suspect by November ....

* It's the economy stupid* ......big time..

also Rove has bailed.....smart feller.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> As I am fond of saying, we shall see. I shall be the first to admit that I was incorrect in my speculation comes Nov. if Obama loses to McCain. However, if I am correct, remember me fondly and rejoice in our victory. Paix, mes amis.


Dr.G. believe me if you are right all of Calgary will be aware of the celebration in honour of your prediction in this house!


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

GA, of course I can't know what BC is thinking but from what he says it sounds all too similar to what goes on in Alberta in some ways to me. 
What made me turn so purple with rage over the recent provincial election was great wind from all the flapping lips I felt and heard from people... they wanted a change here, 37 yrs. of Conservative rule were enough, yada, yada yada on ALL the things that were wrong. All the people who campaigned door to door heard the same... and the lip service... on yes! we'll vote for you. Be it Liberal or NDP. The Cons don't campaign door to door... they don't need to. 

Come election day... with the lousy 41% turn-out the Cons got back in with an even stronger majority... well what should someone like me think? 
I've been hearing on the news and reading in the papers that we're having a big influx of people from Quebec... fine! I have no problem with this at all... but I do WISH they'd remember how to get out and vote Liberal! I suppose we're getting all the ones who hate the Liberals though...  No the bigger problem is people who voice their dissatisfaction loudly and then stay home and do nothing on election day. Alberta also has a large American ex-pat population... I'm not sure what their rights are on voting here... I believe they are able to. 

Voter apathy is a huge problem here. Personally, just my opinion but I've heard some countries fine their eligible voters for not exercising their right to vote... maybe it will take something like that... my Doctor, who was also angry, seems to think it'll take something drastic like the erosion of our democratic rights altogether to wake people up. 

Anyway... that's just one factor... coming from probably the most neo-con, corner of Canada... 

Oh! Yes... in Alberta also... on the subject of "memes"... I have heard of Liberal candidates, door knocking getting a youngster far to young to even know what they're talking about citing the that "this household doesn't vote Liberal because of the NEP. So there you have it. I'm sure in the US there must be a million things seen the same way.




GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I don't understand your analysis. From what I can tell it seems to assume that all those who voted for Hillary in the blue states that she won in a vote between (mostly) Democrats, would not vote for Obama should he be the nominee in the GE. While there is some basis that a small percentage of Democratic voters would sit on their hands rather than vote for Obama based on some polling and anecdotal reports, I think Obama would handily win all the traditional blue states, as well as make some of the traditional red states more competitive than Hillary would.
> 
> You say you think a McCain would be a bad choice for president. Are you saying that if you had the choice of either Obama or McCain in November you would not vote for Obama, and allow a chance that McCain might win? While many Clinton supporters might not like the choice of Obama, the vast majority of those same people like the choice of McCain even less.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Dreambird you give us hope for Alberta :clap:


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Thank you MacDoc... I'm my very socialist grandfather's "gift" to the place!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The only socialist in Alberta! 

Dreambird, that's so poetic--or at least Will Smith in his last movie.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

That's right up there in Maytag repairman territory.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I taught all my children about Liberals and the NEP. They like FeXL, are currently teaching their children about Liberals and the NEP. And so the cycle continues.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

See how badly I am needed here?  

With all due respect, no offense intended I know how strong your feelings are Sinc, but children often go on to make up their own minds as they leave the nest. 

My grandfather in fact was as I said "very socialist" as the rest of my immediate family except myself and my sister they are/were all NDP supporters. I was too in my younger days but have shifted my views to more centrist Liberal stance. But still I don't consider myself a "card carrying anything". 





SINC said:


> I taught all my children about Liberals and the NEP. They like FeXL, are currently teaching their children about Liberals and the NEP. And so the cycle continues.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

For the record, growing up in Saskatchewan, I supported the CCF and later the NDP. I became so disenchanted with their policies and union garbage, I switched parties. And here's a hint. It wasn't to Ross Thatcher and his merry band of Liberals.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Well... bully for you!

Roy Romanow's government was probably the most successful NDP government in Canada (aside from Tommy Douglas). 

But that government was hardly what NDP is now... I would say it was much more on the conservative side... small "c". 

I shifted away from the NDP myself... they went a little too far left for me. I remain a union supporter... although it pains me to see them trying to kill themselves these days... 

I never did and never will jump in bed with the neo-cons.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dreambird said:


> Roy Romanow's government was probably the most successful NDP government in Canada


The judges' panel would have a very easy time choosing among the many contestants for that honour...


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Like who?

Maybe in Ontario? I never paid enough attention, but perhaps Bob Rae?

In B.C. where I have ties... my family lives there and I come from there... the NDP had a couple of kicks at the cat and they always messed up.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Ask MF to define a "successful government".
Then ask him to name one.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Ask MF to define a "successful government".
> Then ask him to name one.


One of the reasons I favour private solutions. I can name many successful companies, but successful governments are elusive.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

uh... HUH!!! :greedy: Ka-Ching! :greedy: 

Well then Alberta's gov. is certainly successful... XX)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dreambird said:


> uh... HUH!!! :greedy: Ka-Ching! :greedy:
> 
> Well then Alberta's gov. is certainly successful... XX)


They're a little lefty for my tastes.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

How about we just wrap you up in a nice red ribbon and put you on Bush's stoop?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dreambird said:


> How about we just wrap you up in a nice red ribbon and put you on Bush's stoop?


Great. How will I explain my libertarian ideas to that lefty?


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

You could always engage the aid of Cheney... and please don't tell me HE is left of you... because then I really have no idea where you belong...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)




----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

For those puzzled by the US Primary Election system

YouTube - newstopia: US electoral system explained


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

MacDoc, I understood the system prior to watching this clip, but then questioned their conclusion -- that the candidate with the most money would be declared president. I know that they were doing this in a quite "tongue in cheek" manner, however.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Barack Obama | Change We Can Believe In | Downloads

Looks like a MacBook Air and an iPhone on Obama's downloads page. Good for him.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Only slightly lingually tainted......have you SEEN how much Obama has raised from individuals 

I wonder how many takes it took.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

My wife and I have both contributed to the Obama campaign back when he was just starting off in Iowa.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> April 4, 2008
> *Nat'l Poll: Obama Jumps To +12*
> Posted by KYLE TRYGSTAD | E-Mail This | Permalink | Email Author
> 
> A new national Democratic primary poll from Diageo/Hotline (.pdf) (March 28-31, 342 Dem RV, MoE +/- 5.3%) shows Obama leading Clinton by 12 points, after the two had remained close in similar polls in previous months.


and within the error range now in Pennsylvania



> *Latest Pennsylvania poll: Clinton ahead by 4 points*
> 
> The survey was done before Sen. Barack Obama's opponents jumped on him for describing some small-town voters in Pennsylvania as being "bitter," but a new poll from the Keystone State shows a very tight race there between Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
> 
> The Newsmax/Zogby survey puts Clinton ahead 47%-43%. That's the smallest lead for Clinton of any Pennsylvania poll in the last week or so, according to Real Clear Politics. It also puts Obama within the poll's 3.2 percentage points margin of error because Clinton's support could be as low as 43.8% (47-3.2=43.8) and Obama's could be as high as 46.2% (43+3.2=46.2). Pennsylvania's primary is set for April 22.





> *Gore, Carter to Endorse Obama*
> 
> *Sunday, April 13, 2008
> *
> ...


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

MacDoc, do you have a citation for that last quote? If it is true, it is a very big endorsement.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

For Gore to force Hillary to stand down would be the cruellest cut of all.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

That last "report" is speculation, iirc. I read it on one of the less-savory "news" sites, so take it with a grain of salt until it happens.

Furthermore, much as I admire Hillary, does anyone really think she can be persuaded to stand down by _anyone_? Even Bill? Puh-lease. To quote her doppelganger on SNL, "I plan on continuing this campaign through the _inaugeration_!"


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Just for the record, I think Obama is the real deal, I have contributed to his campaign and I hope he is the nominee.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I agree with your last post, chas_m. I don't see Clinton "standing down" until the convention. We shall see.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

One undiscussed side benefit to a Barack _Hussein _Obama presidency would be a big leap in our standing with the rest of the world, including and especially the Arab Middle East. He has already begun ascendancy into pop star status over there. They're quite stunned that Americans would want a guy like him. 

I'm not sure how much it will help us, but it can't be a bad thing. He surely has a diplomatic touch. I would be proud to have him represent the US.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Being stunned by it is not necessarily an advantage. He may not be the kind of pop star who behaves in the fashion they expect.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Being stunned by it is not necessarily an advantage. He may not be the kind of pop star who behaves in the fashion they expect.


We would all certainly expect that he would favour American needs above theirs if he's cashing our paycheck.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MissGulch said:


> We would all certainly expect that he would favour American needs above theirs if he's cashing our paycheck.


The "Great Satan" is no pushover.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

Macfury said:


> The "Great Satan" is no pushover.


No one's calling you a pushover, Macfury.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MissGulch said:


> No one's calling you a pushover, Macfury.


Is my face red?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

We can't tell from this perspective; the mask's in the way, O Satan.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Bitter, and proud of it. Clinton says we're 'resilient,' but we can't take it any more. McCain says 'let em eat Lemons,' but what we really need is a leader who can turn lemons into lemonade: Barack Obama
> 
> Enjoy


 Bitter Voters For Obama

••••

from no lightweight - this comment



> *Obama the Elitist*
> 13 April 2008
> Written by: Mike Krauss Posted under Essay Index
> 
> ...


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Great post, Dave.


----------



## 5andman (Oct 15, 2006)

chas_m said:


> Just for the record, I think Obama is the real deal, I have contributed to his campaign and I hope he is the nominee.


I like Obama also, BUT, I don't think he would be effective cleaning up the Bush Administration's mess and forwarding his agenda.

Whereas Hilary would have the experience and political savvy to "clean house" and pave the way for Obama after her 2 terms.

The only thing that scares me about Obama is the religious aspect of his.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

5andman said:


> The only thing that scares me about Obama is the religious aspect of his.


What religious aspect is that? You can't really run for public office in the USA without being a "heart-on-your-sleeve" Christian, but I haven't seen any reports indicating he's particularly odd, religion-wise. Have I missed something? (Plus, come on, compared to the self-serving bible-thumper in the White House at the moment...)

M


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

5andman said:


> I like Obama also, BUT, I don't think he would be effective cleaning up the Bush Administration's mess and forwarding his agenda.


I think the whole cleaning up of the Bush Administration mess is pretty much a task far beyond any mortal. How to get themselves out of the years of poor foreign relations and null reputaion are tasks of impossibility in and of themselves. Perhaps Obama might be better of only because of his lack of connections with the centers of official corruption.



> Whereas Hilary would have the experience and political savvy to "clean house" and pave the way for Obama after her 2 terms.


Hillary Clinton would be a disaster, perhaps as much of one as her husband was. They are both a disgrace to America, except that her husband has a less grating voice.

Once they vote Hillary off the island, they can get to the business of putting up Obama as the Democrat's loser in the face of the McCain/Republican juggernaut.


----------



## 5andman (Oct 15, 2006)

EvanPitts said:


> Perhaps Obama might be better of only because of his lack of connections with the centers of official corruption.


Unfortunately, no connections means no effectiveness. 
Like anything in life, it's not what you know -- *it's WHO you know*.




EvanPitts said:


> Hillary Clinton would be a disaster, perhaps as much of one as her husband was. They are both a disgrace to America, except that her husband has a less grating voice.


Only time will tell, but so far historically, Bill Clinton was considered a good president.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

EvanPitts said:


> Once they vote Hillary off the island, they can get to the business of putting up Obama as the Democrat's loser in the face of the McCain/Republican juggernaut.


I respectfully disagree. The only way McCain & the Republicans can win this election (apart from another Diebold vote-rigging effort) is if Obama, during a televised debate on CNN, pulls a child from the audience and molests him on-camera. It would have to be something truly heinous for the Democrats to lose this election.

If the citizens of the United States of America elect another Republican administration to follow in the disastrous footsteps of G.W.Bush, I may start believing in the rapture and the apocalypse. Given the ammunition available to the Democrats, they *should* be able to mount a devastating campaign against not just the Bush legacy, but the behaviour of Republicans in both houses.


----------



## 5andman (Oct 15, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> What religious aspect is that? You can't really run for public office in the USA without being a "heart-on-your-sleeve" Christian, but I haven't seen any reports indicating he's particularly odd, religion-wise. Have I missed something? (Plus, come on, compared to the self-serving bible-thumper in the White House at the moment...)
> 
> M


You haven't met his Pastor yet?

And, you are right about the ""heart-on-your-sleeve Christian" in the USA. It's too bad, as I believe in the separation of church and state.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

5andman said:


> You haven't met his Pastor yet?


Ah. Good timing - this came into my inbox this morning:


> In 1961, a young African-American man, after hearing President John F. Kennedy's challenge to, 'Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country,' gave up his student deferment, left college in Virginia and voluntarily joined the Marines.
> 
> In 1963, this man, having completed his two years of service in the Marines, volunteered again to become a Navy corpsman. (They provide medical assistance to the Marines as well as to Navy personnel.)
> 
> ...


More interesting tidbits at Wright's Wikipedia entry

As for Wright's comments, that have caused so much consernation, that's far more political than religious. And for America to dismiss him as "just another crackpot" is an error... the anger that is evident in his sermons has a foundation that, as usual, the mainstream media and all political commentators will just brush aside, as if it is truly "fringe" - when it is far more common than I think many people want to believe.


----------



## 5andman (Oct 15, 2006)

I heard some of Wrights statment (not read) and he could have probably articulated his views in a less than inflammatory way.

From my understanding, every Democrat Nominee has served the military in some capacity (including Clinton).

Interesting, is that McCain will be the VERY FIRST Republican Nominee to actually serve his country (as Bush and Cheney never served -- well, actually they can't figure out whether Bush ever served or not).


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

5andman said:


> Interesting, is that McCain will be the VERY FIRST Republican Nominee to actually serve his country ....


You mean the only nominee of the current crop of nominees? ...because the statement is patently false as phrased.


----------



## 5andman (Oct 15, 2006)

Macfury said:


> You mean the only nominee of the current crop of nominees? ...because the statement is patently false as phrased.


Sorry, I meant if he was elected president. He would be the first Republican President/Vice President to serve his country in a military capacity (I think from the beginning when the party formed?)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sandman: I think someone misinformed you. Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Harrison and McKinley all served in the Civil War. Teddy Roosevelt served in the Spanish American War. Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush I served in WWII 

When you add in Veeps, there are many more.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

MacFury is right on this point. Further, I'm unaware of any way (other than eventually as Commander-in-Chief, which doesn't count) Bill Clinton served in the military.

John McCain's military record is above reproach (though so was John Kerry's, but that didn't stop the Swift Boat liars). If John McCain hadn't LOST HIS FREAKIN' MIND after 9/11, I might have called him the strongest Republican nominee since Eisenhower.

Sadly, the man has simply gone bonkers. I am of the honest opinion that he is struggling with the onset of dementia. He is a sad shadow -- a hypocritical one at that -- of his former self. It's actually hard to watch.

Dig up some old footage of him in his prime -- back in the 80s, even the mid-90s -- and compare that man to the one before you today. It's shocking.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

chas_M: There's a reason that rank and file Republicans don't love McCain. He's a self-styled "maverick" only in that he seems to harbour a deep desire to be a Democrat. That qualifies him as a strong candidate to some Democrats--who would never vote Republican anyway.

Right now he's getting a pass as Hillary and Obama beat each other to a bloody pulp. He may yet gain the support of Republicans, depending on who Obama is after the Wheel of Fortune stops and he has to choose a single persona to campaign with.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

CubaMark said:


> Given the ammunition available to the Democrats, they *should* be able to mount a devastating campaign against not just the Bush legacy, but the behaviour of Republicans in both houses.


Greetings from beautiful San Francisco (I'm on a business trip).

It has begun. Hillary called McCain "McBush." hee-hee


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

McCain will call Hillary the "also-ran" after Obama is nominated.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

He's about to be nominated tonight. Who's happy here?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

10 delegates to go :clap:










•••

Gracious speech by McCain about the Dem race.

••

CNN declares him the Dem candidate.

Dr. G did you ever think we'd see this day ???? :clap:


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Clinton is a fool for not conceding tonight. Why take away this night from Obama? What a fool. I hope Obama doesn't pay off her debt or give her any sort of position in his government.

I hope he wins the next contest this Fall. :clap:


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

What a great speech Obama made just now. I have had the chance to hear Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. speak at out-door rallies. This speech came close, very close, to moving me to tears, as I did those times when I heard those great fallen leaders speak. At least I shall be able to cast a vote for Obama in this upcoming election. Paix, mes amis.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Dr. G did you ever think we'd see this day ????" MacDoc, my mother went down to hear Martin Luther King, Jr. speak in Washington, DC, way back in August, 1963. I wish I could have gone with her. I wish she was still alive to see the day when such a person had a real chance at becoming president. We shall see.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> What a great speech Obama made just now. I have had the chance to hear Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. speak at out-door rallies. This speech came close, very close, to moving me to tears, as I did those times when I heard those great fallen leaders speak. At least I shall be able to cast a vote for Obama in this upcoming election. Paix, mes amis.


Both of those fine orators were also assassinated. Is that some kind of omen for Mr. Obama, do you think?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

He's glib, I'll give him that.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> Both of those fine orators were also assassinated. Is that some kind of omen for Mr. Obama, do you think?


What a horrible, horrible thing to say.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Macfury said:


> He's glib, I'll give him that.


That John McCain, he's um, old. I'll give him that.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I agree with chas_m. That was not smart thing to say, and I do NOT see it as an omen.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Obviously, Hillary still thinks she can snatch this one at the convention.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury, I do NOT want to see another 1968 Democratic Convention nightmare. I ran as a delegate for Gene McCarthy for the 7th Congressional District in NYC, but only got alternate status and could not afford to go. Sadly, if the convention did not damage Humphrey so badly (e.g., "Dump the Hump"), and if the campaign had lasted one more week, he might have just beaten Nixon. 

We shall see.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

It's crazy, and counterproductive. I wish she'd stop already and lose with grace. Al Gore should have been this insistent during the Florida recount. If only...


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Yes, Ms. G., "if only .................." 

"Of all sad words of tongue or pen,
The saddest are these,
It might have been."


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I've read some speculation that there's an Obama bombshell waiting in the wings, ready for release in just such an occasion--explaining Hillary's reticence as she waits for the release of the damaging material.


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

I think it would be a giant step forward for the US to elect a woman or an African-American, but I am quite confident the US is not ready for the latter. The US is still heavily laden with racism and ignorance, people will switch parties to not elect Obama, not because he can't do the job but because the color of his skin. And that is a sad statement!

Aside from the fact that Hilary is a power hungry *adjective*, if I was married and my wife cheated on me like that; the marriage would have ended right then and there. She knew she would need him to get to power. She is never going to give up; she will need to be dragged of stage kicking and screaming.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

RunTheWorldOnMac said:


> I think it would be a giant step forward for the US to elect a woman or an African-American, but I am quite confident the US is not ready for the latter. The US is still heavily laden with racism and ignorance, people will switch parties to not elect Obama, not because he can't do the job but because the color of his skin. And that is a sad statement!


Hasn't last night's development proven your point wrong?



> Aside from the fact that Hilary is a power hungry *adjective*, if I was married and my wife cheated on me like that; the marriage would have ended right then and there. She knew she would need him to get to power. She is never going to give up; she will need to be dragged of stage kicking and screaming.


Women tend to be more tolerant of a husband cheating than the reverse.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

RunTheWorldOnMac said:


> I think it would be a giant step forward for the US to elect a woman or an African-American, but I am quite confident the US is not ready for the latter. The US is still heavily laden with racism and ignorance, people will switch parties to not elect Obama, not because he can't do the job but because the color of his skin. And that is a sad statement!.





MissGulch said:


> Hasn't last night's development proven your point wrong?


His point is still right as I read it. 

He is saying that US voters will play the race card and NOT ELECT him to the presidency in November. 

It still could happen and the fact that Obama won the nomination matters not in his prediction for the election itself.

If Obama wins in November, then he would be wrong.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

RunTheWorldOnMac said:


> I think it would be a giant step forward for the US to elect a woman or an African-American, but I am quite confident the US is not ready for the latter. The US is still heavily laden with racism and ignorance, people will switch parties to not elect Obama, not because he can't do the job but because the color of his skin. And that is a sad statement!.


Perhaps the United States is half-ready, then, and will elect Obama.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

MissGulch said:


> Hasn't last night's development proven your point wrong?


All it proved is that, if given the choice, the Ku Klux Klan would rather have Obama that Hillary, seeing that Hillary is such a thoroughly contemptuous person. And really, her involvement in the Whitewater affair and the "suicide" of Vince Foster has never been cleared in the eye of the public.



> Women tend to be more tolerant of a husband cheating than the reverse.


So that's why Bill decided to stay with Hillary... beejacon


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Hillary should have said something along the lines of " We need to keep Republicans out of the white house! I call on all of you to vote Obama and keep Republicans out of the driver's seat of this country!"


Unfortunately, the US is indeed still ridden with racism. Even if Obama gets in I would not be surprised at all if he were to be assassinated. About three years ago I was in Missouri and along the side of the highway there was a billboard for the Klan. They were advertising themselves as all over conservative racialising groups do; conserving heritage.

The United States is a large country with many different types of people and different places. Many beautiful people live in that country. Nonetheless, they are still far too racially conscious to have a black president. Very sad thing to say.


Good thing that idiot McCain is taking the reigns as the US is loosing strength. Canada should be focusing on ties with Europe right now that is for sure.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Obama's speech last night was less about himself, and more about America. I really liked his sense that this was "our time" and "our moment". After Pearl Harbor and 9/11, there was a sense that "we are all in this together". While the class divisions are growing in the US, Obama is one person who can help to bridge those divides if given a chance. He is raising expectations on the part of the American people, and I only hope that if he is elected, that he will be able to bring about some of this change. We shall see.

I know that he has my vote in the State of Georgia.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> Obama's speech last night was less about himself, and more about America. I really liked his sense that this was "our time" and "our moment". After Pearl Harbor and 9/11, there was a sense that "we are all in this together". While the class divisions are growing in the US, Obama is one person who can help to bridge those divides if given a chance. He is raising expectations on the part of the American people, and I only hope that if he is elected, that he will be able to bring about some of this change. We shall see.
> 
> I know that he has my vote in the State of Georgia.


I agree, racism is shrinking but class divisions are growing. 

And I'm very surprised at the cynical attitude from the Canucks here, the world-weariness of it all. Look at how many white people got behind O. We are embracing change; reinvention is an American trait. Not Canuck? 

Applesauce will likely chime in and give a more positive spin.


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

Sinc is correct in what I said.

Hillary had more of the popular vote, Obama had more support from delegates. This says quite a bit; a delegate vote and a Joe Voter vote are all worth 1 vote during an election.

Don't get me wrong, it would be great in the headlines if Obama were to win; but on the ground will be a different story. Much of the states that love their racism are gonna go nuttier than they already are.

And yes, he had better have a major security crew.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Much of the states that love their racism are gonna go nuttier than they already are." Having lived in the State of Georgia for five years, assuming that you would consider Georgia to be one of those "nuttier" places in the US, I saw back then a change, and from what people who I know, and are still living there, there is a positive change towards racism. Strangely, however, that due to the prosperity brought to the whole state due to the 1996 Olympics, people in the state as a whole, of all colors, are becoming more conservative.


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

Georgia, Texas, Indiana...the Su'thern states...

I hope I'm wrong for sure, but I suspect McBush is gonna beat Obama out...


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

ehMerica,

I travel the US much more than I would prefer. I notice that class division quite starkly. In December I was in India. I drove through a small town. On one side of the major road was the "white" side of town where all the nice houses were, the other side was the "black" end of town where all the crummy houses were.

Substantively segregation was still present in that town. In many places in the US it is hard to not equate monetary stratification with racial stratification.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

RunTheWorldOnMac said:


> Sinc is correct in what I said.
> 
> Hillary had more of the popular vote, Obama had more support from delegates. This says quite a bit; a delegate vote and a Joe Voter vote are all worth 1 vote during an election.


Actually this is only true if you use Hillary's math and go along with the some states don't really count theories she is espousing.

Overall Obama is certainly the best of the three but he consistently has voted to extend the war. Also voted for deficit budgets and the rape of the constitution (Homeland Nazi bureau, domestic spying, death of Habeus Corpus and so on). On the big issue items he is at best only marginally better than Hillary and McCain. 

As to whether he is owned outright by the big corporations only time will tell assuming he gets elected. Given that McCain has committed himself to extending the Bush insanity for four more years Obama has my vote as well.

I would like to see him get his chance.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)




----------



## iJohnHenry (Mar 29, 2008)

I'll be borrowing that, thanks.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Obama offers the hope of change, not change itself. He offers a largely pro-socialist campaign platform, marginally different fron Hill's that will enrage the non-socialist side. He won't bring anyone together, except some Democrats. If he miraculously wins, he will havet o prove himself capable of managing the Iraq situation--fair or not. Whichever approach he might choos will not bring people together. His high-tax promises will also not bring people together, although I suspect it might push them all into a lower take-home pay bracket and thus bring them somewhat together.


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

I truly believe that McCain will not get elected due to his age. It's not because he is too old, it's just that he looks like he is about to kick it. That's not going to look well when he is standing next to a young Man like Obama. I don't think he's going to make it. A Great thing IMO.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

They could run Methuselah next to Obama and he would inch ahead.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Macfury said:


> They could run Methuselah next to Obama and he would inch ahead.


All they have to do is wait 100 years. Then Methusaleh wins over Obama easily.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Dr.G. said:


> Strangely, however, that due to the prosperity brought to the whole state due to the 1996 Olympics, people in the state as a whole, of all colors, are becoming more conservative.


I don't think the shift to conservative ideals has much to do with prosperity, but it has much more to do with the people's reaction to an agenda of change for the sake of change. Liberalism promised so many things, and for a long number of years, those promises lead to progress and positive change. Then the people wanted a break from the program of change for change sake, but the liberals lost touch with the grassroots, and could not gain control over their urges to change anything and everything. Thus, people in general made a move away from the untested and perhaps too radical issues, to gather support for the conservatives who promise to establish what had already been changed before moving ahead.

American's face a strange decision. On one hand is Obama who is untested but perhaps actually more popular in the long run because Hillary is such a divisive person. On the other hand is McCain who really can not be identified with the hard core fundamentalists that put Bush into power. This election is going to be less about Obama or McCain, less about the Republicans and Democrats; and more about the defectors from these various camps. How many Republicans are going to vote for Obama because they hate McCain; how many Democrats are going to vote for McCain because Obama defeated Hillary; and how many fence sitters will vote Democrat because Obama is not Hillary. Really, the election will once again be decided by perhaps a 100,000 voters who will be swayed not by party platform or issues or even the racist ticket, but by who musters up the best and dirtiest mud on their opponent in the TV commercials. That is where the election will really be decided, and watch for those places that are using the defective Diebold Voting Machines...


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

For better or worse, there are two candidates:

John McCain, a war hero now seen as hopelessly corrupted
Barack Obama, a breath of fresh air who might be too inexperienced to do the job perfectly.

One of them has EXPLICITLY PROMISED to change the direction of the country, which 80 percent of the people say they want.

One of them has EXPLICITLY PROMISED to keep intact the Bush doctrine on every major issue facing the US and the world.

This really seems like a dead simple, no-brainer, party-free choice to me ...


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Obama offers the hope of change, not change itself. He offers a largely pro-socialist campaign platform, marginally different fron Hill's that will enrage the non-socialist side. He won't bring anyone together, except some Democrats. If he miraculously wins, he will havet o prove himself capable of managing the Iraq situation--fair or not. Whichever approach he might choos will not bring people together. His high-tax promises will also not bring people together, although I suspect it might push them all into a lower take-home pay bracket and thus bring them somewhat together.


Nobody's running a pro-socialist platform in the USA, unless your definition of "socialism" is as broad as the Grand Canyon. As far as Obama's high-tax promises go, I understand he's offering a middle and lower income *tax cut*, combined with a rollback of the huge high income bracket tax breaks that Dubya brought forward. If some form of single payer Medicare is established there then there may be increases for many working folks to pay for that. But they will also be able to drop much of the very expensive private medical insurance which could amount to a net gain in take home pay.

The fear that Obama can't win because of ingrained US racism is largely overblown in my opinion. Yes, racism is a big issue in many pockets of the US, places where the majority will never be voting for any Democratic candidate black or white anyway. I think the majority of Americans are thankfully past thinking that someone other than a white male can never be President. 

New polls are coming out in various states showing that Obama's support is surging and once Clinton is truly off the radar, I think Obama will benefit from even greater numbers. McCain is a weak candidate, who can't seem to get his message straight and has to carry the Bush legacy millstone around his neck. Obama in his speech last night was already busy hammering McCain on Bush's failed policies and McCain's calls for more of the same. 

I think one of the main factors in who wins elections in the US is based on many people who don't follow politics watching the candidates in news clips and deciding which one looks like they believe what they are saying. In '04 it was Kerry who looked hesitant while Bush looked decisive. Currently it's McCain who looks hesitant and Obama looks like a man who believes what he says.

Unless something extraordinary happens between now and November, I don't see how McCain can bring in the votes. I suspect many Republicans may just stay home on election night.



MissGulch said:


> Applesauce will likely chime in and give a more positive spin.


How was that?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

APPEAL........Obama sure has it......



> *Why This Fifty-Five Year Old White Lifelong Republican Wants Obama To Win*
> 
> Posted June 4, 2008 | 11:11 AM (EST)
> 
> ...


 :clap: :cheers: 

such passion...in an exRepublican.....wow.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> APPEAL........Obama sure has it......
> 
> 
> :clap: :cheers:
> ...


Uh, either I missed it, or the post does not reveal who this person is, which lessens its impact considerably in my mind.


----------



## arnab (May 27, 2008)

yes he is the real deal


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"such passion...in an exRepublican.....wow." That's an amazing piece, MacDoc. Do you have a specific citation URL? I would love to pass this on to others. Merci.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

Voila...


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Merci, Doug.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

So just when I am beginning to have a glimmer of hope the guy commits himself to pursuing the Bush insanity into Iran.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> Uh, either I missed it, or the post does not reveal who this person is, which lessens its impact considerably in my mind.


Just a nobody from the Huffington Post. Using stuff like this as indicative of trend is a mug's game.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

xkcd - A webcomic of romance, sarcasm, math, and language - By Randall Munroe

It's better on xkcd, with all the alt text and all.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

SINC said:


> Uh, either I missed it, or the post does not reveal who this person is, which lessens its impact considerably in my mind.


Um, perhaps you should try reading the whole piece at the Huffinton Post. The man's name, Frank Schaeffer, is printed at the top and credited at the bottom. You know, newspaper style.

(it's also in the URL!)


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Just a nobody from the Huffington Post.


A "nobody" whose books receive ringing endorsements from George and Laura Bush.



> For instance the Bush family gave one of my recent military-related books (Keeping Faith-A Father-Son Story About Love and the United States Marine Corps) a ringing endorsement. After Laura Bush read an excerpt out on Meet The Press sales skyrocketed.





> Frank Schaeffer is a writer and author of _Crazy for God: How I Grew Up As One Of The Elect, Helped Found The Religious Right, And Lived To Take All (Or Almost All) Of It Back_


Sounds good.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

chas_m: Since when did you start respecting book reviews by George and Laura Bush? It sure doesn't impress me.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Macfury said:


> chas_m: Since when did you start respecting book reviews by George and Laura Bush? It sure doesn't impress me.


It was actually Karl Rove who reviewed the book and then advised the Bush's on it. lol


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Rove is brilliant but vicious.
Is there the equivalent of "pyschopath" for election strategists?? That would be about correct for him.

One reason McCain's not going anywhere ....Rove knows a lost cause and he's quagmired in past questionable practices anyway.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> One reason McCain's not going anywhere ....Rove knows a lost cause and he's quagmired in past questionable practices anyway.


MacDoc, that's naive. The current love-in for Obama isn't uniting the country--it's uniting a large segment of the Democratic Party only. If they stuffed McCain and dragged him around the country on a U-Haul, he could still win it.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> MacDoc, that's naive. The current love-in for Obama isn't uniting the country--it's uniting a large segment of the Democratic Party only. If they stuffed McCain and dragged him around the country on a U-Haul, he could still win it.


In the wise and immortal words of Dr.G.,

"We shall see."


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Amen, Mrj. Amen, brother. Paix.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> In the wise and immortal words of Dr.G.,
> 
> "We shall see."


Don't get me wrong here, I enjoy those wise and immortal words, but the reason they work so well for Dr. G is that they cover all eventualities.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

True, Macfury. Still, Obama has my vote in the State of Georgia. I still contend that he will bring out voters who have never felt the need to vote in the past. As well, he will attract independents. 

So, we shall see.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Some men see things as they are and ask why. Others dream things that never were and ask why not," Robert Kennedy often said, quoting George Bernard Shaw.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I belong to another discussion group on RVs and it appears even Americans are split on Obama. I think the following exchange shows us some insight on the average American voter's views. Sorry for the length, but I thought it might provoke more discussion.

* “I am so proud of the People of this Great Nation. A Black person has been selected to be the nominee of a major political party to run for the President of this United States of America. Let Freedom and Equality ring!”

* “And a woman was right there in the running until the end. How sweet is that. This Country only gets better.”

* “A Black person? Seems like his mother was white or am I missing something?”

* “Hate to mention it but either your record is cracked or your needle is stuck in the same ol' groove" Lets face it....some folks just don't see it YOUR way! Obama MAY have to run Hillary as #2 just to get elected!”

* “I don't think you hated to mention it. I think you really rather enjoyed it.”

* “Mr. Obama is not black. He is bi-racial. His mother, who passed away, was Caucasian.”

* “For some folks being mixed is worse than full black.”

* “He calls himself an African American. Do people want to deny that he is black? Could someone vote for him if they thought of him being bi-racial instead of black if that was a factor for them? Color doesn't matter. Or does it? He has been a breath of fresh air for sure. How do you refer to Tiger Woods?”

* “I wasn't going to say anything on this one but your message deserves an answer on my part. I think of Tiger as an AMERICAN MAN, VERY qualified to do his job, can anyone really say that about Barrack? To me it seems that everyone is so gung-ho on the fact that he's "black" and can give a good speech that their not asking if he even knows what he's talking about. Do you believe everything a politician says?

What kind of experience does he have? Where does he stand on anything? WHO is he really? Does passing out money for charities in Chicago and three "terms" of Government service qualify him for anything?

I had about that in the Army, wanna make me a General and have me command the troop with your grandson in it in a war zone?

This is the guy we're thinking of asking to protect our children and Grandchildren's lives and keeping the country safe. Hell most of us ask for more credentials from a plumber working on our toilets than people have asked of Barrack's experience in leading a country that I've seen so far.

Him being "black" or not, is not one of the factors in my decisions or questions. Someone being "black" is NOT one of my prejudices, you want those let's talk about illegals.

I love my Country and want her safe. I don't care if whoever keeps her that way is black, purple, green, or female, as long as they can DO the job, but damned if I'll vote for someone just BECAUSE they’re black, purple, green, or female, and can give a good speech, just to show I'm not some kind of prejudiced red neck.

Actions speak louder than words here, TOO much is at stake.”


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC: He's got a good set of pipes, but his speeches are the damnedest type of gobbledygook I've heard in quite some time. People just seem to get all melty in Martin Luther King/John F. Kennedy vein when they hear him say...nothing. 

Sorry--he's going to "heal the planet"--I forgot that one.


----------



## iJohnHenry (Mar 29, 2008)

Time will tell.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Very true, iJH. Very true. I have a sense that Obama is the right person, at the right time and in the right place to truly help many people in America who are in need of hope and change. We shall see.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> Very true, iJH. Very true. I have a sense that Obama is the right person, at the right time and in the right place to truly help many people in America who are in need of hope and change. We shall see.


I agree. Let's hope we're correct.


----------



## iJohnHenry (Mar 29, 2008)

I don't know about the rest of you, but next to his wife he looks positively jaundiced.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Mrj, great minds think alike. Seriously, I have not felt as if the "tumblers of history" were finally falling into place as I have in 40 years. Forty years and a day ago, that combination was forever dashed. Now, we have a new opportunity and a new person to bring about genuine and positive change. We shall see.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Still on that "We shall see" disclaimer, eh?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Another excerpt from that same US RV thread:

"I've been wondering why NO ONE has said this is the first time a BI-RACIAL person has won the nomination. Why is Obama calling himself African-American? Is it that he is ashamed if his Caucasion heritage? We never see his grandmother and he rarely talks about her OR could it be he is using race to further his personal agenda?"

It gets more interesting all the time, doesn't it?


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

SINC said:


> Another excerpt from that same US RV thread:
> 
> "I've been wondering why NO ONE has said this is the first time a BI-RACIAL person has won the nomination. Why is Obama calling himself African-American? Is it that he is ashamed if his Caucasion heritage? We never see his grandmother and he rarely talks about her OR could it be he is using race to further his personal agenda?"


The person you are quoting, like you, are grossly misinformed.

"Why is Obama calling himself African-American?"

Um, got any tape on that? I see lots of OTHER people calling him that, and he IS half-Kenyan, which last I looked is in fact in Africa, so even if he DID call himself that, it's entirely accurate.

He's referred to himself MOSTLY as "half-black" or "half-white" and has made NO SECRET of his white mother or his white grandmother, who (contrary to your Faux Noise friend) he CONSTANTLY mentions, the most recent time I'm aware of was as long ago as Tuesday night, where he spoke at length about her, and the fact that she is too old and frail to safely travel from her home in Hawaii, and finished by crediting her for "pouring herself into raising me, and she made me the man I am today. This night is for her."

That's three mentions in two sentences.

See, here's the deal: I don't care if you don't like Obama. It's entirely your right to prefer someone else. But if you insist on LYING about him either by making up stuff yourself or "quoting" people who lie about him, I'm going to correct you.

Every. Single. Time.

So either get your facts straight, or [EDIT for civility: shut up] about Obama. Because I will be here through November and beyond.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

chas_m said:


> I will be here through November and beyond.


Hell, if you get your miracle, he might even be president after that!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Still on that "We shall see" disclaimer, eh?" Macfury, since I can't predict the future, that is all I have right now. Of course, I have contributed to his campaign and shall vote for him via absentee ballot. If I was living in the US I would be going door-to-door trying to get out the vote for him in November.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> "Still on that "We shall see" disclaimer, eh?" Macfury, since I can't predict the future, that is all I have right now.


That's true. In December you will have all the information you need!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

In December, 1976, I received an invitation to the Presidential Inauguration for the work I did for Jimmy Carter in New York City. I would love to receive another invite in December, 2008 to the 2009 inauguration of President-elect Barack Obama. We shall see.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Heck, I'd take that invitation--and I don't even like him!


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Heck, I'd take that invitation--and I don't even like him!


I would too. Can't really say whether or not I like him. I don't trust him but the alternatives are a whole lot worse. Truthfully I assume all politicians are liars and/or thieves until I am proven wrong. Come on Barrack prove me wrong!

I notice that my absentee voter registration allows me to vote at "any vote center". Time for another letter so I can get that changed to "mail in voter"

Seems like the rumours of the neo-cons trying to disenfranchise mail in voters may actually be true.

Brings up a thought. How many years does a con have to spend in bars to become a neo-con?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

eMacMan, if I were American I'd be committed to Bob Barr this election. Freedom is America's strongest suit and neither Obama nor McCain have much intrest in that--it's just a choice between the way either wants to micro-manage the environment, the economy and the lives of individuals.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

*For the record chas_m:*



chas_m said:


> The person you are quoting, like you, are grossly misinformed.
> 
> See, here's the deal: I don't care if you don't like Obama. It's entirely your right to prefer someone else. But if you insist on LYING about him either by making up stuff yourself or "quoting" people who lie about him, I'm going to correct you.
> 
> ...


Did you miss the part about me stating right up front this is an ongoing exchange on an American RV Thread that I thought might provide some insight and provoke discussion?

Don't you dare tell me to STFU!

I was trying to let ehMac members know how an average American interacts on the subject of Obama.

You sir, as a guest in this country to my knowledge, have the cajones to tell me to STFU?

I don’t think so.

If you can’t get your head around the fact that it is your own countrymen who are posting these exchanges, some for and some against Obama, you are a sad case to make such comments.



chas_m said:


> The person you are quoting, like you, are grossly misinformed.


For the record, I am much better informed than you sir. For instance, take my remarks in this thread:



SINC said:


> Bobby was a fine man indeed. Now if only the USA has one more in the wings come November.


No where on this board will you ever find ONE WORD from me that is against Obama. In fact, I challenge you to find one.

That makes your accusation as hollow as your purported indignation of my postings of your own countrymen’s views on the issue.



chas_m said:


> See, here's the deal: I don't care if you don't like Obama. It's entirely your right to prefer someone else. But if you insist on LYING about him either by making up stuff yourself or "quoting" people who lie about him, I'm going to correct you.
> 
> Every. Single. Time.
> 
> So either get your facts straight, or STFU about Obama. Because I will be here through November and beyond.


So here’s MY deal. My facts ARE straight, and if it pains you to see your fellow countrymen’s views hung out for discussion in Canada, I respectfully suggest you rewrite that blog of yours in reverse.

Until then, please forego the opportunity to tell me to shut up in rather vulgar terms.

As a former (or current, I can never get that straight) journalist, it degrades you.

And I'm going to correct you.

Every. Single. Time.

So get your own facts straight, or cease and desist about your impressions of my views of Obama, because I will be here, not only through November and beyond, but more importantly forever as a Canadian.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

chas-M: I think you owe SINC an apology. He made it quite clear that he was quoting from a U.S. discussion group. Even if the comment had been his you have no cause to tell anyone to "STFU" here.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

SINC said:


> Did you miss the part about me stating right up front this is an ongoing exchange on an American RV Thread that I thought might provide some insight and provoke discussion?


You quote it because you agree with it. Or are you going to distort some more?



> Don't you dare tell me to STFU!


If you'll stop reprinting lies about people, I will gladly retract that.



> I was trying to let ehMac members know how an average American interacts on the subject of Obama.


And how -- exactly -- do you know what the "average" American interacts/thinks/knows/is?

More people have voted for Obama than have voted for McCain so far. If you assume most Democrats will eventually vote for Obama (ie combine Hillary's votes), the picture looks even worse for McCain.

So it would appear the "average" American is quite open to the concept of a black president, something you appear very uncomfortable with. The "average" American appear to be "buying" what Obama is "selling," at least so far.



> You sir, as a guest in this country to my knowledge, have the cajones to tell me to STFU?


Are you the owner of this country?

No?

Then sit down and shut up.



> If you can’t get your head around the fact that it is your own countrymen who are posting these exchanges, some for and some against Obama, you are a sad case to make such comments.


I have absolutely no problem with people who take issue with this position or that position of Obama's (or Hillary's, or McCain's, or Barr's for that matter). Democracy depends on multiple parties, each with VALID but differing points of view.

For the record I'm very excited about Bob Barr's entry into the race, and did you see how well Ron Paul continues to do? I'm happy for these men and their supporters because they represent a sincere attempt by the real grassroots of the US to inject more and BETTER political views and genuine debate about the REAL problems the US faces. This is a Very Good Thing and I support it wholeheartedly, even if I disagree with this or that candidate on this or that issue.

What I object to is the reprinting of lies and balderdash such as your post. Hiding your agenda behind a quote from some other person doesn't mask your views and, as the quote was 100% BS, does nothing to illuminate the discussion.



> For the record, I am much better informed than you sir.


As with most of your views, you are again incorrect.



> No where on this board will you ever find ONE WORD from me that is against Obama. In fact, I challenge you to find one.


Yes, you tend to use sock puppets and surrogates to speak FOR you. Elegant, but transparent.



> So get your own facts straight, or cease and desist about your impressions of my views of Obama, because I will be here, not only through November and beyond, but more importantly forever as a Canadian.


So will I. GET USED TO IT.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Macfury said:


> eMacMan, if I were American I'd be committed to Bob Barr this election. Freedom is America's strongest suit and neither Obama nor McCain have much intrest in that--it's just a choice between the way either wants to micro-manage the environment, the economy and the lives of individuals.


In point of fact, Obama was a constitutional law professor before becoming a Senator.

Neither you nor I know exactly how he will manage the government, but you can at least rest assured that he's quite familiar with freedom and liberty and the other concepts expressed in the Constitution of the United States.

This will make a nice change from the present occupant of the White House.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Macfury said:


> chas-M: I think you owe SINC an apology. He made it quite clear that he was quoting from a U.S. discussion group. Even if the comment had been his you have no cause to tell anyone to "STFU" here.


On reflection, I agree that the term was too strong.

So I do apologise to Sinc for using that specific term. I should have reworded it somewhat, and I will refrain from using it in future posts.

Thanks, MF.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

chas_m said:


> You quote it because you agree with it. Or are you going to distort some more?


I distorted nothing, I quoted nine people in an exchange that I thought would add to the debate here. Any distortion is only perceived by you.



chas_m said:


> If you'll stop reprinting lies about people, I will gladly retract that.
> 
> And how -- exactly -- do you know what the "average" American interacts/thinks/knows/is?


Did you even bother to read all the quotes? By my count, five of the nine quotes were FOR Obama and one was neutral. That leaves three against, so it pretty much reflects the campaign results to date. One who was against had no issues with colour, rather with experience alone. 



chas_m said:


> So it would appear the "average" American is quite open to the concept of a black president, something you appear very uncomfortable with. The "average" American appear to be "buying" what Obama is "selling," at least so far.


And that is EXACTLY what those quotes collectively say, that a majority support Obama.



chas_m said:


> Are you the owner of this country?
> 
> No?
> 
> Then sit down and shut up.


Of course not, but I have lived here 63 years longer than you sir and I have yet to tell anyone to sit down and shut up on this board. How dare you tell me that AGAIN? You have no right to do that as my opinion is as valid as yours.



chas_m said:


> What I object to is the reprinting of lies and balderdash such as your post. Hiding your agenda behind a quote from some other person doesn't mask your views and, as the quote was 100% BS, does nothing to illuminate the discussion.


They are far from lies sir. Do you have no conception of the difference between public opinion and outright lies? Agreed the minority of the quotes who did not support Obama are based on either misinformation or bigotry.



chas_m said:


> As with most of your views, you are again incorrect.
> 
> Yes, you tend to use sock puppets and surrogates to speak FOR you. Elegant, but transparent.


You make a broad statement like that and expect people to take you seriously? Most of my views are just that, views. To call them broadly incorrect is nonsense. I happen to believe that much of what you spout on this board is ill conceived and US influenced, but I recognize your right to them without stating that you are "mostly incorrect".

And one more thing on the record. When I made this statement:



SINC said:


> Bobby was a fine man indeed. Now if only the USA has one more in the wings come November.


I guess you can't get your head around the fact that I was referring to Obama. He will make a fine president.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

I think most of us would prefer that Sinc and chas_m work out their differences in the ring, and pelt each other in a vat of Jello.

Obama is ahead in the  money game. The big donors, and the little ones, are whipping out their checkbooks with enthusiasm. This speaks very loudly for his chance in November. Look for a big change in management upstairs, yo to the chief!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MissGulch said:


> Look for a big change in management upstairs, yo to the chief!


Of course, McCain will bring in his own set of cronies!


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

Whether he is the "real deal" or not depends very much on what we individually want to see happen. From my reading of it though there is a huge appetite for change in the US. I think that many people in the US are really tired of being hated and maligned all over the world. I also think many of then are very tired of having a president who was elected on a platform of fear mongering, primarily, and who is mostly a source of embarrassment and a target for derision. 
His fund raising represents a use of the internet to access grass roots support-and the results are very different indeed from the traditional large corporate sources of funding.
Who knows what will happen--but I find it all very exciting and a reason for guarded optimism.
Chas's unbridled aggression and personal attacks are inappropriate.

And all of this is just my opinion.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

mc3251 said:


> I think that many people in the US are really tired of being hated and maligned all over the world. I also think many of then are very tired of having a president who was elected on a platform of fear mongering, primarily, and who is mostly a source of embarrassment and a target for derision.
> 
> And all of this is just my opinion.


Your opinion is spot-on!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I remember the excitement when Howard Dean was ahead in the money game during the last Democratic primary.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MissGulch said:


> I think most of us would prefer that Sinc and chas_m work out their differences in the ring, and pelt each other in a vat of Jello.


I didn't _have_ any differences with chas_m until he launched the personal attack. I am damned if I will stand by and let him get away with that without defending myself. Besides last I checked, argumentum ad hominem are forbidden on ehMac and he crossed that line. More than once I might add.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Of course, McCain will bring in his own set of cronies!


Have a look at this interview. McCain wants him to run the pentagon, but wait for his opinion of Obama.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

SINC said:


> "I've been wondering why NO ONE has said this is the first time a BI-RACIAL person has won the nomination. Why is Obama calling himself African-American? Is it that he is ashamed if his Caucasion heritage? We never see his grandmother and he rarely talks about her OR could it be he is using race to further his personal agenda?"
> 
> It gets more interesting all the time, doesn't it?


I think this is a valid question to ask.

In my opinion, it has little to do with Obama and more to do with our / US society. For the most part, Obama has gone out of his way to not make his candidacy a racial issue. His opponents were the ones who forced the issue. Like Chas_m said, Obama has made no secret about his mixed background. 

I think Obama has redefined racial politics and has made many of his predecessors look like dinosaurs. Unlike people like Al Sharpton, Obama doesn't delve into every racial controversy (e.g. Duke Lacrosse team) that gets blown up in the media. 

As far as the media goes, they are just using terms and references that our society is stuck with. We always use the darkest colour of skin to refer to somebody of mixed heritage. Somebody who is half black and half white is always referred to as African-American (at best).


----------



## iJohnHenry (Mar 29, 2008)

As a bemused outsider, it seems that *chas_m* has more agendas then feathers on a duck's back.

"Thanks MF."??  I think I would prefer to see that as "Thanks MacF".


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

chas_m said:


> Neither you nor I know exactly how he will manage the government, but you can at least rest assured that he's quite familiar with freedom and liberty and the other concepts expressed in the Constitution of the United States.
> 
> This will make a nice change from the present occupant of the White House.


Would be nice if true. 

Unfortunately I have heard nothing from the Obama or anyone else stating that they would re-establish and follow the constitution. That in itself is extremely distressing given the damage the current occupant has done. 

OTH we know Billary and McSame are committed to following in Bushes footprints.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Listening to Clinton's endorsement of Obama, I can't help think that if she campaigned like this from the start, and did not bypass the caucus states as being "too insignificant", she might be the victor right now. It was a genuine speech from the heart, unlike her earlier speeches which were read without much conviction or inspiration.

Up until this afternoon, I did not want her to be named his VP. Now I am not so sure. We shall see.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> anyone else stating that they would re-establish and follow the constitution.


you missed Ron Paul's diatribes then.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> you missed Ron Paul's diatribes then.


If either Ron Paul or Denis Kucinich had survived the preliminaries I would happily vote for them in November. 

I picked what I thought were the 3 most important issues;

Get out of Iraq, Eliminate deficit spending, & Restore the Constitution.

All of the remaining candidates are committed to following the Idiots tracks into the bushes on these three issues.

I'll now add a fourth point; Abandon the idea of nuking Iran which again both parties seem to be married to.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ehMacMan: It seems to me that when a central government essentially turns its citizens into cash spigots it can do whatever the hell it wants--foreign adventurism, inane incentive programs for dysfunctional technologies, pay-offs and bribes to various demographic groups. I don't think it's possible for the government of a large country to resist this temptation once they get carte blanche.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Of course, McCain will bring in his own set of cronies!


It seems as if his supporters can barely contain themselves ...


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> It seems as if his supporters can barely contain themselves ...


:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

McCain and Obama are two of the saddest candidates I could have imagined arising from the wreckage of the previous admin.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> It seems as if his supporters can barely contain themselves ...


Oh nice work there!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"McCain and Obama are two of the saddest candidates I could have imagined arising from the wreckage of the previous admin." Actually, I am not surprised at these nominations. McCain is still the maverick in the Republican party, and thus a change from the current administration. Obama is a fresh voice of wisdom, hope and possibility. I am hopeful that the campaign will be about issues and not about negative attack ads. We shall see.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

McCain is a "maverick" only in that he has no idea where he stands on the issues. One day he tells people he's the "heir to Reagan" and the next he's looking for praise while sucking up to members of the Democratic Party for photo-ops. Maverick? He just touts some warmed over Democrat policies from time to time, then turns into a mad dog and bites one of his own party members on the ass in hopes that the media will pat him on the head.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Macfury said:


> McCain is a "maverick" only in that he has no idea where he stands on the issues. One day he tells people he's the "heir to Reagan" and the next he's looking for praise while sucking up to members of the Democratic Party for photo-ops. Maverick? He just touts some warmed over Democrat policies from time to time, then turns into a mad dog and bites one of his own party members on the ass in hopes that the media will pat him on the head.


He sure isn't anything like this Maverick seeing that he crashed five jets in his military career.

McCain lost FIVE US Aircrafts


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

VanDave: I've often wondered if McCain's spotty military legacy would haunt him as John Kerry's submerged his campaign.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

Vandave said:


> He sure isn't anything like this Maverick seeing that he crashed five jets in his military career.
> 
> McCain lost FIVE US Aircrafts


I dislike McCain for political reasons, but several of those aircraft losses seem to be beyond his control; a flameout where he went through the recovery procedure several times, an accidentally fired rocket (presumably not by him), and being hit by a SAM.

I'm all for berating people for their actual failures, but not for presumed failures, or those beyond their control.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

John Clay said:


> I'm all for berating people for their actual failures, but not for presumed failures, or those beyond their control.


Fair enough, but I sure as hell wouldn't get on a plane with him.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Macfury said:


> VanDave: I've often wondered if McCain's spotty military legacy would haunt him as John Kerry's submerged his campaign.


I wonder about that as well. I don't have a sense the Democrats will do it, but rather disgruntled former military veterans. I don't think it will get much media play this time around. I think Kerry could have handled the issue better at the start but he allowed it to remain and dog him through the campaign.


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

Macfury said:


> McCain and Obama are two of the saddest candidates I could have imagined arising from the wreckage of the previous admin.



How so, Macfury? With the Republican race, it seems that the party looked at its options and picked the one who had the least amount of backing from the religious fringe, and whose views were moderate compare to the other candidates. Granted, there are some who really hoped to see Ron Paul make a breakthrough, but libertarians are still a niche political movement in much the US. The way I see it, McCain was likely the best pick of a bad lot.

As for the Democrats, Obama's win signalled just how badly a lot of people in the Democratic party want a fresh start. When I think of all the ways that the Clinton campaign could have been dismantled by Obama--dirty tricks, ugly attack ads and swiftboating--he somehow managed to avoid most of that and instead took the high road. That feat alone, I think, earned him the respect of a lot of people.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

If you're talking aaout that religious group who voted for Huckabee, then no other candidate has that support in the bag. If you're talking about the same group of voters who put Bush into office, they will not rally around McCain unless they perceive Obama as more odious than McCain. McCain was only able to shore up some support after backing off of his "moderate" performance over the past decade. I don't see any rationale--a backing away from religious support or a move toward a "moderate" candidate--as having anything to do with McCain's nomination. 

Obama is so much of a "fresh start" I find him scary. The number of inane statements he's already made about world issues has been far from encouraging (nukes in Pakistan, the sanctity of Jerusalem)--but he just takes it all back during the next speech. I do, however, consider his expertise equal to that of Hillary Clinton--being a president's wife is not a qualification for high office.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

(( p g )) said:


> How so, Macfury? With the Republican race, it seems that the party looked at its options and picked the one who had the least amount of backing from the religious fringe, and whose views were moderate compare to the other candidates. Granted, there are some who really hoped to see Ron Paul make a breakthrough, but libertarians are still a niche political movement in much the US. The way I see it, McCain was likely the best pick of a bad lot.
> 
> As for the Democrats, Obama's win signalled just how badly a lot of people in the Democratic party want a fresh start. When I think of all the ways that the Clinton campaign could have been dismantled by Obama--dirty tricks, ugly attack ads and swiftboating--he somehow managed to avoid most of that and instead took the high road. That feat alone, I think, earned him the respect of a lot of people.


McCain was the best pick of a bad lot. And shooting yourself in the foot is probably better than shooting yourself in the hand or the head. 

Arch-conservative Bay Buchanan sums up the Republican hand-wringing quite nicely in her recent column:



> John McCain is relevant only in so far as he is not Barack Obama. The Senator from Arizona is incapable of energizing his party, brings no new people to the polls, and has a personality that is best kept under wraps.


The whining comments from the right-wing nutjobs afterwards make for a gleeful schadenfruede-fest.

Buchanan also mentions that McCain's best shot at beating Obama is hammer him as the unpatriotic guy whose middle name is Hussein. Hmmmm ... that sure worked out well for Hillary's camp.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Gratuitous: I maintain that the more Obama opens his mouth, the farther his foot will stick in it. He seems sort of harmless right now, but I predict a big drive to McCain from people who simply don't want to see Obama in office. It's up to Obama whether or not he turns the sizablenumber of anti-McCain Republicans, who might sit this one out, into enemies.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Gratuitous: I maintain that the more Obama opens his mouth, the farther his foot will stick in it. He seems sort of harmless right now, but I predict a big drive to McCain from people who simply don't want to see Obama in office. It's up to Obama whether or not he turns the sizablenumber of anti-McCain Republicans, who might sit this one out, into enemies.


MF, I think you could be de-emphasizing McCain's far superior foot-in-mouth metrics. Not to mention his general lack of ability to say anything in public that sounds even vaguely inspiring. He's Bob Dole, ... only older, angrier and dumber.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

John, JOHN!!..about those speeches.......










••

Ouch


> Wed Jun 4, 1:23 PM Pacific
> *Poor old John Bush McCain: Gonna' get clobbered*
> 
> _From a McCain press conference earlier today:
> ...


watch him here

Poor old John Bush McCain: Gonna' get clobbered - The Jed Report



> n not-for-attribution interviews, a number of Republicans were neither optimistic about his chances nor positive in their assessment of his campaign so far.
> 
> *"I think we've got a world of problems," said one Republican strategist with extensive experience in presidential campaigns.]/b] He said this came home to him with a thud when he watched Obama and McCain give speeches last Tuesday, with the Democrat speaking before "20,000 screaming fans, while John McCain looked every bit of his 72 years" in a speech televised from New Orleans. This Republican cited the liberal blogger Atrios' description of McCain's speech with a green backdrop that made McCain "look like the cottage cheese in a lime Jell-O salad." *


*

no kidding.... *


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc: We've already seen that photo last week--here in the forum in fact. It doesn't mean a thing to me as both these gentlemen bore the daylights out of me--one because he is a bore, and the other because he says nothing while he speaks.

Feel free to quote bloggers all you like. This election will not be a slam dunk for Obama. The amount of self-congratulation on the part of Democrats should have Obama supporters nervous already.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"This election will not be a slam dunk for Obama." Macfury and I agree on this point. While I feel that Obama will win the election, it will be close.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

MacFury, I think that suggesting that Hillary's qualifications were that she was a former president's wife is unfair and frankly sexist. She is an accomplished politician in her own right.
That said, I'm glad she lost because she represented Old Washington and old money.
I also worry about Obama's inexperience, on that we agree...but I am encouraged by the message of hope and the appetite for change in the USA.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mc3521: my comments aren't sexist in the least. I'm aknowledging that both Obama and Hillary Clinton have roughly equal experience as senators, but that being the president's wife doesn't add to the resumé--they remain more or less equal in practical experience.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

^^^
And Hillary has way more experience in fraud and corruption, and in assassinating former colleagues as well. She just wanted to get in so that Bill could resume eating Big Macs on the people's dime, and perhaps bring bad taste and sex scandals back into the White House.

Osama all the way! Well, I think McCain will end up clobbering him, mostly because Americans need a strongman in order to stop playing the games in the Middle East...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

EvanPitts said:


> Osama all the way! Well, I think McCain will end up clobbering him, mostly because Americans need a strongman in order to stop playing the games in the Middle East...


I belong to a number of US discussion groups and that sadly, is the most often quoted question I read. 

"Obama is fresh and new, but inexperienced. Can he protect our country?"

Americans fixation on war and military protection may be Obama's largest single obstacle in his campaign.

In spite of that, it appears he will overcome those concerns.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I think of all the inexperience that the current Bush had prior to his election, that I don't see that Obama's inexperience is any greater threat to the US. Bush took much of his foreign policy advice from Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al. I cannot see Obama taking such advice from people such as these. To be honest, I would feel more secure with Obama as president after reading some of McCain's views/comments re Russia and foreign policy. 

To be truthful, there are not many people who could possess the expertise and knowledge that it needed to direct foreign policy in our complex world. I have faith and trust in Obama, and that sort of respect is the true "coin of the realm" when it comes to a politician these days.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Faith and trust are just our own projections for an untested commodity.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

SINC said:


> "Obama is fresh and new, but inexperienced. Can he protect our country?"
> Americans fixation on war and military protection may be Obama's largest single obstacle in his campaign.
> In spite of that, it appears he will overcome those concerns.


I do not know if Obama could carry the important states, as he failed to win in Pennsylvania and Ohio, and McCain is being backed in California by the Governator.

It will be interesting to see because Obama and McCain will not be able to win using their own supporters, but rather, it will come down to how many defectors may vote the opposite way. Many Republicans do not like McCain and may choose to toss their vote to Obama; and many Democrats that supported Clinton may vote McCain to spite Obama.

What will be important is the running mate: a McCain-Romney ticket would be formdable; while an Obama-Edwards ticket would be less polarizing than an Obama-Clinton ticket. Of course, if McCain could pull off putting Powell on the ticket, he'd blow the doors off the whole election, but I doubt that Powell would take him up on the lucrative offer.

But then again, it will be close, and I suspect it will come down to a messy election with fraud, ballot stuffing, machines that don't count black votes, enumeration fraud and the whole deal that we have seen in the US in the past two elections. And to boot, since Hugo Chavez's cousins own Diebold who make the voting machines, the election may actually be decided in Caracas...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

SINC said:


> I belong to a number of US discussion groups and that sadly, is the most often quoted question I read.
> 
> "Obama is fresh and new, but inexperienced. Can he protect our country?"
> 
> ...


I think that's why he should pick a military person as his running mate. Wesley Clark would be a good fit and give Obama the military cred he will need.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Dr.G. said:


> I think of all the inexperience that the current Bush had prior to his election...


And to think, that fool never did become experienced. He was all about putting an inadequate number of inadequate troops into a place that even in more peaceful times is quite dangerous. Bus was only "saved" by Al Qaida because it have him the "enemy" he needed to take the world's mind off of his debacle with the Chinese, seeing that he did order a spy plane into their air space. (I guess he never knew that the US operates a great number of satellites that can take pictures from space.)

His foray into Iraq was so mismanaged in so many ways that even our own Chretien took a big pass on it. The situation would have been quite different if the US actually had a real plan: a real "shock and awe" air bombing that would have leveled everything Saddam, sending in the real Army, rather than the cheesy National Guard weekend warriors that are just being picked off by the 10 year old Iraqi zealots, having some kind of vision for a future administration of Iraq (rather than fooling around with endless negotiations to find an ad hoc leader/puppet).

Between Iraq and Afghanistan, the US dropped the ball - they never studied the methods of Lord Curzon who imposed law and order - and anyone who rebelled was shot on sight. In the moment that the US needed clear policies and a strongman, they had only a clueless chimpanzee leading his band of rabble. They didn't even put into the field the generals that could do the job. Instead, any general that wanted to go hard core and clean up the mess was "retired". 

In this view, Obama could not possibly do worse. I would think that Obama would send in the real Army, and have a real Coalition with a real plan with very real objectives. Bush attempted nothing more that grade school playgorund bully tactics that failed in so many ways.



> Bush took much of his foreign policy advice from Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al.


Rove is a treasonous scum that should be serving life in a federal prison for his crimes. Cheney was quite a shady character with some disturbing connections to other criminal masterminds who attempted to bankrupt their own country. Rumsfeld, he was originally appointed by Nixon, who clearly lost in Vietnam, so who would have thought that he could possibly do any better in Iraq?



> ...McCain's views/comments re Russia and foreign policy.


I think McCain needs to take a good nap, then have a vacation to sort out his thoughts. Someone should tell him the Cold War is over, and perhaps even tell him that the Berlin Wall no longer exists, except for portions as a national monument to stupidity.



> To be truthful, there are not many people who could possess the expertise and knowledge that it needed to direct foreign policy in our complex world.


I think too many people try to pretend to be experts, when they really have to strong arm some people. The international scene is more of a mess simply because the UN is entirely enfeebled, a forum for losers like the Iranian dude to complain about Zionism that is somehow afflicting Tehran, Mugabe who kicked out the white people in order to starve the black people, and dozens of other crazies. The UN is so full of crazies that really, it was not that hard for Qadhafi to "rehabilitate" his image, and to take his place among the "sane leaders". In fact, with things the way they are now, I'd rather have Qadhafi for PM that King Harpo...

So really, it is a dead heat between McCain and Obama, and the election will be decided by perhaps 100,000 votes, unless one of the candidates makes some kind of giant faux pas. Neither of them could do a worse job in foreign affairs than Bush - who history will show was even more stupid than Mr. Madison.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

EvanPitts said:


> ^^^
> And Hillary has way more experience in fraud and corruption, and in assassinating former colleagues as well. She just wanted to get in so that Bill could resume eating Big Macs on the people's dime, and perhaps bring bad taste and sex scandals back into the White House.
> 
> Osama all the way! Well, I think McCain will end up clobbering him, mostly because Americans need a strongman in order to stop playing the games in the Middle East...


You forgot to mention this part: "Hey, you kids, get off my lawn!"


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

HowEver said:


> You forgot to mention this part: "Hey, you kids, get off my lawn!"


I think old man McCain would be more scary if I was a kid. If he came outside, I think I'd get off the White House lawn pretty fast.

Obama, on the other hand, would call all the kids over for a discussion, give out some candy, and invite the kids in for a movie. Really, Obama is far more Mr. Lepage than McCain...


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I see Obama as the first president since JFK that might inspire many in the US to look at ways in which they might help those in their country, by putting the interests of those in need over self-interest. Others presidents have inspired people, but I recall that I was 14 and wanted to join the Peace Corps and work on soil conservation in Africa. JFK had a way of inspiring many in the US to think this way, and I feel that Obama is the same sort of person.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

Macfury said:


> mc3521: my comments aren't sexist in the least. I'm aknowledging that both Obama and Hillary Clinton have roughly equal experience as senators, but that being the president's wife doesn't add to the resumé--they remain more or less equal in practical experience.


MacFury: Point taken-I apologize for my misinterpretation of your comments.
/michael


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

Dr G, perhaps I am just a cockeyed optimist, but I've been thinking the same way. Obama seems fresh, different, and really pretty inspiring. Let's hope it holds.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

All this stuff about experience is just a red herring. Who has ever been elected as President of the USA with experience other than a second term President? There have been perfectly competent presidents with little experience in and around the White House and Washington and perfectly horrible presidents with tons of it.

As Obama says it's not about experience, it's about judgement. Does anyone out there really trust John-a-hundred-years-in-Iraq-let's-continue-the-Bush-agenda-McCain as someone who has sound judgement? He may have tons of Washington experience, but he sounds like an unhinged and ignorant old fool to me.

Hmmm ... what's that Beach Boys tune he was singing again? Bomb, bomb, bomb. Bomb bomb Iran.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

I thought you were joking. This old fart is seriously frightening.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

mc3251, we need to be optimistic with all that we see around us that has happened this century. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Does anyone out there really trust John-a-hundred-years-in-Iraq-let's-continue-the-Bush-agenda-McCain as someone who has sound judgement? He may have tons of Washington experience, but he sounds like an unhinged and ignorant old fool to me.


Fine for you to say, but the trouble is, are there enough Americans who feel the same way? I sure hope so.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Gratuitous: We have a "Bomb Iran" Beach Boys spoof on a 45 that dates back to 1980. They should have done it with a GWB voice because he'll undoubtedly do just that before his term of office is through, sparing the new guy from having to weigh too heavily on that decision.

I have a nightmare about being holed up in a farmhouse during the _Night of the Living Dead_ with the two presidential candidates. McCain wants to turn the zombies back with a symbolic show of force and a stern eye, while Obama wants to talk to them. I'm dead either way.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

SINC said:


> Fine for you to say, but the trouble is, are there enough Americans who feel the same way? I sure hope so.


This is the question really, isn't it? To me it looks like BIG appetite for change, but one can never overestimate the power of fearmongering. IMO Bush's entire second term victory was based on the "who's your daddy" platform....you need us to protect you from the nasty terrorists who are lurking around every corner just waiting to kill you and your family and your pets.

Oh, and Kerry certainly helped him out by running a fairly poor campaign.

michael


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mc3251 said:


> Oh, and Kerry certainly helped him out by running a fairly poor campaign.


Apparently he finished his campaign with $15 million he hadn't spent yet. A last-minute TV campaign in Ohio might have won him the election!


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

Not with every evangelical preacher telling his parishioners to vote Bush! ;>)


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Apparently he finished his campaign with $15 million he hadn't spent yet. A last-minute TV campaign in Ohio might have won him the election!


Hence the Diebold machines. Cheap insurance on Bushes part. Foolproof cause there was no paper trail. Only problem was they were idiot susceptible.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I have a nightmare about being holed up in a farmhouse during the _Night of the Living Dead_ with the two presidential candidates. McCain wants to turn the zombies back with a symbolic show of force and a stern eye, while Obama wants to talk to them. I'm dead either way.


And it turns out McCain has been previously bitten by the ZombieCons and is about to turn zombie just when you have your back turned to him.


----------



## eggman (Jun 24, 2006)

Macfury said:


> I have a nightmare about being holed up in a farmhouse during the _Night of the Living Dead_ with the two presidential candidates. McCain wants to turn the zombies back with a symbolic show of force and a stern eye, while Obama wants to talk to them. I'm dead either way.


That's pretty bleak... even if you somehow manage to survive the two of them, you'll be the one crawling from the wreckage when the mob of gun toting ******** passes by...

"Good shot! OK, he's dead; let's go get 'im. That's another one for the fire."

of course the most frightening quote from NOTLD is this:

"Well... the television said that's the right thing to do. "

I am afraid we're already operating under this premise.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

eggman: Beat 'em or burn 'em. They go up pretty easy.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

eMacMan said:


> Hence the Diebold machines. Cheap insurance on Bushes part. Foolproof cause there was no paper trail. Only problem was they were idiot susceptible.


Seriously, they are fixated on having machines do things that are actually best left to a slip of paper and a pencil. But most of the problem is not with the machines, but with the "voter registration" which is nothing more than a Jim Crow nightmare.

In the last election, "white" districts ended up with far more voting machines than in equivalently populated "black" districts. And for the Afro-American, they may very well face death of they try to vote in many places. Until they have a system where every voter can vote, and every vote is counted accurately - the Americans have no right to claim that they are a "democracy".

Same goes here, where most people have never bothered to go out to vote. It really is sad because we do have the right to vote, and are encouraged to vote - but don't. While in places like Zimbabwe or Iraq, elections can mean assault, threats, or death at the hands of the "government", perhaps the liquidation of entire families, clans, or villages.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> And it turns out McCain has been previously bitten by the ZombieCons and is about to turn zombie just when you have your back turned to him.


Gratuitous: Judging by the advanced state of decay he isn't a fresh one.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

^^^
Reminds me of the dark side of the moon - there is no dark side of the moon, it's all dark...

Perhaps the benefit of electing McCain at an advanced age is that there would be a better chance of not having to suffer through a second term, like we had to suffer through when Clinton was in office.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Just read an interesting item on CNN.com/Money re the tax plans of Obama and McCain. Under McCain, the more you make the more tax you save. Makes perfect sense ................. if you have a few million dollars of income each year.

How McCain and Obama will change your tax bill - Jun. 11, 2008

MCCAIN OBAMA 
Income Avg.tax bill Avg. tax bill 
Over $2.9M -$269,364 +$701,885 
$603K and up -$45,361 +$115,974 
$227K-$603K -$7,871 +$12 
$38K-$66K -$319 -$1,042 
$19K-$38K -$113 -$892


sorry, the chart is not coming out as I am formatting it online.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> Just read an interesting item on CNN.com/Money re the tax plans of Obama and McCain. Under McCain, the more you make the more tax you save. Makes perfect sense ................. if you have a few million dollars of income each year.


And neither can be delivered as promised because the budget would require spending cuts neither candidate would make--Obama least of all, because he proposes fully-funded government health care in addition to everything currently offered.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I think that health care will be the one promise that Obama attempts to undertake in his first 100 days in office. It shall be the cornerstone of his agenda, and set the stage for a true progressive movement such as LBJ's "Great Society". The key will be getting the troops out of Iraq. We shall see.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr. G: Do you suppose he can deliver those tax cuts while delivering his great socialized health care plan? We shall see that this is impossible.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Dr. G: Do you suppose he can deliver those tax cuts while delivering his great socialized health care plan? We shall see that this is impossible.


Actually it isn't. Diverting a small percentage of their DoD spend would more than cover it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Ontario spends $40 billion on health care for 12 million people. 

Assuming federal funding of less than half of Ontario's level for America's 300 million people we arrive at a figure of approximately $500 billion. The annual U.S. Department of Defense Budget comes in at around $495 billion.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

$527+ billion .......... and counting. Place people before war and anything is possible. 

National Priorities Project | Bringing the Federal Budget Home


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

I personally place the cost of the war at around Five TRILLION dollars. That is how much additional debt King George has racked up pursuing this insanity.

Of course those are just the dollars. At least 4000 US service men dead and many thousands more with devastating injuries. 

I know Lord Cheney believes they don't count but I think we should also count somewhere between 250,000 and 1,000,000 dead Iraqis as we total the cost. Also the 4 or 5 million Iraqis that have been displaced.

All to line the pockets of the Bush Buddies who already have far more than they really need.

So if Barrack really wants to pursue a workable health care system he has a lot of inherited debts to deal with first. 

For the first time in my life I understand the concept of Original Sin. I still find it abhorrent. America will be paying for the sins of Lord Cheney and his gang of murdering thieves long after the perpetrators are dead and gone.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Ontario spends $40 billion on health care for 12 million people.
> 
> Assuming federal funding of less than half of Ontario's level for America's 300 million people we arrive at a figure of approximately $500 billion. The annual U.S. Department of Defense Budget comes in at around $495 billion.


Yeah but they aren't proposing universal health care like we have are they? So using the 300 million based on population doesn't fly


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Jonesy: I cut it in half. Even if I cut it in fours, it still won't be a small percentage of the Defense Budget. Also, halving the Defense Budget all at once would cause an economic dislocation so severe you wouldn't want to be around to see it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> I personally place the cost of the war at around Five TRILLION dollars.


You understand that this is debatable. And that, even if true, doesn't mean that 5 trillion dollars in liquid cash were spent on the war--that is, the money could not have been spent elsewhere because we are counting costs, not expenditures.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

eMacMan said:


> America will be paying for the sins of Lord Cheney and his gang of murdering thieves long after the perpetrators are dead and gone.


What can I say? Dad gave Junior the keys to the family car, and he wrecked it. XX)


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

An interesting analogy, Ms. G. The problem is that dad can afford to write off the car, the son gets another car without any problem, and the US taxpayers sit back and watch the US slip into a debtors status.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The U.S. populace is already enjoying deficit status through its own consumptive habits. Credit card, ho!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury, sad, but all too true. Still, the Federal government is doing it part with needless spending in Iraq. I just think of all the hungry people in the US that could have been fed with the billions that have gone "missing" in Iraq.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr. G: You will disagree with me, but I believe that when one central body--the federal government--becomes this large, it no longer has the ability to halt its own corruption or even properly oversee the funds it spends. It will merely remove the money from people's pockets to cover up its own ineptitude. It doesn't matter if the size of government expands to provide a large military or corporate elfare, or expands to provide a large social service net, the result of its greedy expansion will be the same.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury, we actually agree, to a degree. I am against inept and corrupt government on all levels (the latest being the FEMA fiasco with the stockpile of goods that never were distributed to people in need after Katrina). I am against such military expenditures as Star Wars. I am against corporate welfare. However, I am in favor of the social safety net. I believe in the New Deal and the Great society of FDR and LBJ. Too many people were helped at a time of great need to not see the goodness of these undertakings. Thus, as MacDoc would tell you, I am a fiscal conservative and a strong social liberal. 

I still feel that government "of, by and for the people" is possible, but that hope is fading quickly. Whenever I dispair of this hope, I go to this site and renew my belief that the America I cherish will not be taken from all of us by lobbyists, the "military/industrial complex" and the corporate elite. We shall see.

Paix, mon ami.

The Battle For America - Large Quicktime


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Ontario spends $40 billion on health care for 12 million people.
> 
> Assuming federal funding of less than half of Ontario's level for America's 300 million people we arrive at a figure of approximately $500 billion. The annual U.S. Department of Defense Budget comes in at around $495 billion.


It doesn't have to come from anywhere. The money already exists.

The US spends 16% of GDP on health care. We spend around 10% of GDP.

If you displace some of the money going into the private system (e.g. corporate health care plans), then a public health care system becomes feasible.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Vandave said:


> It doesn't have to come from anywhere. The money already exists.
> 
> The US spends 16% of GDP on health care. We spend around 10% of GDP.
> 
> If you displace some of the money going into the private system (e.g. corporate health care plans), then a public health care system becomes feasible.


The U.S. government already foots the bill for almost 50% of health care costs. By your projections, they could just create a universal health care system with that money alone.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Macfury said:


> The U.S. government already foots the bill for almost 50% of health care costs. By your projections, they could just create a universal health care system with that money alone.


Slice it up how you want, my point is that 16% is already spent on health care. 

The difficulty they face is unwinding the complexity of their existing system. I doubt they could ever unwind private delivery, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. I think their system would be more based on providing universal coverage.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> I am against corporate welfare. However, I am in favor of the social safety net. I believe in the New Deal and the Great society of FDR and LBJ. Too many people were helped at a time of great need to not see the goodness of these undertakings. Thus, as MacDoc would tell you, I am a fiscal conservative and a strong social liberal.


Dr. G: I maintain that if all corporate welfare is eliminated, duplication is eliminated, graft is curtailed, fringe programs are cut, and defense is given a reasonable budget, there would be plenty of money left over to provide even greater social services to those truly in need--while providing a hefty tax cut.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Again, I agree with you, Macfury, to a degree. What do you consider to be a "fringe program"?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Some examples of fringe program: 
* Toronto recently spent $5,000,000 to hire extra social workers (above its existing program) who will to try to convince panhandlers to get jobs. 
* $2 million federal ad campaign to advertise the existence of student loans


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury, we are in agreement there, in that many such programs are not conceived with the intented recipient in mind. $5 million would be better spent on shelters and food, which are the two main obstacles for someone not being able to obtain work.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Dr. G: You will disagree with me, but I believe that when one central body--the federal government--becomes this large, it no longer has the ability to halt its own corruption or even properly oversee the funds it spends. ....


True not just of governments but corporations as well. My short three year stint with a big oil company convinced me of that. Examples such as Haliburton and Enron are far too numerous to even partially list.


----------



## cap10subtext (Oct 13, 2005)

Macfury said:


> * $2 million federal ad campaign to advertise the existence of student loans


That's pretty disgusting. That could completely pay off 142 people's student loans identical to mine. That's 2,000 Jason Lang scholarships.

The problem is that the government is pushing student loans and in order to prove how "accessible" secondary education is but the fact remains that a university education can easily lead to crippling debt due to skyrocketing costs. The money would be better spent subsidizing the trades or putting academic councillors on staff that really know the system and offer practical advice on how to graduate without wasting time and tuition.

Sorry, that's my rant. Sorry for derailing the thread.

And now back to the Obama show...


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

cap10subtext said:


> That's pretty disgusting. That could completely pay off 142 people's student loans identical to mine. That's 2,000 Jason Lang scholarships.


Better yet, it could be used to improve education or healthcare, or perhaps give teachers a little extra for all their trouble, rather than giving kids free rides through university.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Some examples of fringe program:
> * Toronto recently spent $5,000,000 to hire extra social workers (above its existing program) who will to try to convince panhandlers to get jobs.
> * $2 million federal ad campaign to advertise the existence of student loans


Governments are truly dain bramaged, and these schemes just make it ever so much more self evident. It's so stupid that one can not even pass a comment, next to saying that it is just so stupid.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Vandave said:


> Slice it up how you want, my point is that 16% is already spent on health care.
> 
> The difficulty they face is unwinding the complexity of their existing system. I doubt they could ever unwind private delivery, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. I think their system would be more based on providing universal coverage.


So it's the _complexity_ of their system that essentially prevents them from cutting their health care bills in half while providing universal health care coverage?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Macfury said:


> So it's the _complexity_ of their system that essentially prevents them from cutting their health care bills in half while providing universal health care coverage?


I doubt that they can do much cutting of existing health care costs. Overall, costs will go up due to greater coverage (i.e. increased services). 

I just don't see public delivery as being much of an option for the US since most health care assets are already privately owned.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Vandave: Since no candidate has made it clear how they will deliver the gift of universal health care, it isn't really possible to analyze or debate significantly. If it bears any resemblance to the ill-fated Hillary Care plan of a few years ago that made seeking certain types of treatment punishable by law, it will be an expensive disaster.


----------



## arnab (May 27, 2008)

i can't beleive ron paul went against them. his supporters and ron paul's supporters really have the common goal. this just shows that old ron paul is just another washington politician! 

obama 08


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

arnab said:


> i can't beleive ron paul went against them.


Who'd have believed it? You'd think they were from different parties or something.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

*Obama the Apple Macbook Pro*

*Obama the Apple Macbook Pro*
by Bryan Appleyard


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Just received the following email. Great news.

"Dear Marc,

A few hours from now I will step on stage in Detroit, Michigan to announce my support for Senator Barack Obama. From now through Election Day, I intend to do whatever I can to make sure he is elected President of the United States.

Over the next four years, we are going to face many difficult challenges -- including bringing our troops home from Iraq, fixing our economy, and solving the climate crisis. Barack Obama is clearly the candidate best able to solve these problems and bring change to America.

This moment and this election are too important to let pass without taking action.

That's why I am asking you to join me in showing your support by making a contribution to this campaign today:

https://donate.barackobama.com/gore

Over the past 18 months, Barack Obama has united a movement. He knows change does not come from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue or Capitol Hill. It begins when people stand up and take action.

With the help of millions of supporters like you, Barack Obama will bring the change we so desperately need in order to solve our country's most pressing problems.

If you've already contributed to this campaign, I ask that you consider making another contribution right now. If you haven't, please take the next step and own a piece of this campaign today:

https://donate.barackobama.com/gore

On the issues that matter most, Barack Obama is clearly the right choice to lead our nation.

We have a lot of work to do in the next few months to elect Barack Obama president, and it begins by making a contribution to this campaign today.

Thank you for joining me,

Al Gore

LIVE TONIGHT -- 8:30 p.m. EDT: Watch streaming video of Al Gore and Barack Obama at a rally in Detroit, Michigan:

http://www.BarackObama.com "


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The quesion is, just who has Obama united?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

One need only to look at some of his rallies, Macfury, to see the diversity of supporters. He is even now bringing in many of the conservative African-Americans who have been the hallmark of the Republican party's attempt to show that they are a party of white older men. 

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Black conservatives weigh voting for Obama « - Blogs from CNN.com


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Al Gore certainly made damned sure he wouldn't offend the Clintons by endorsing Obama at the point where it is no help to him whatsoever. Very gutless politics on Al's part.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Gutless on the part of the Democrats in all respects, because they should have stood up to the Clintons in the first place and told her she had to stand for election in her own home state - and that she could only do that after when they stood for a real trial in all of their land swindles and the peculiar conspiracies to murder their own partners / advisors for their cheap political gain. The Clinton Administration also saw and allows the genocide of the various peoples of the former Yugoslavia, of which they never faced charges of crimes against humanity for their complicity with the Milosevic regime.

Obama is far and above that, because I have never heard tell of him ripping people off in land scandals and the murders of his advisors, nor has he ever participated in genocide and crimes against humanity. He also has never participated in the acts of high treason and sedition that the Clintons engaged in endlessly.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I think that it was wise on Gore's part to stay clear of the primary battle until the outcome was finalized. This way, he could not be accused of swinging it away from Clinton.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

It may have been wise, but it's wisdom that has the air of cowardice about it.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I don't see Gore as being cowardly. He stayed apart from the process for just the right reasons. It would have been cowardly of him had he suddenly thrown his hat into the ring just before the final primaries when there was no true winner. This would have frozen many of the superdelegates and it would have gone to a second ballot for sure. 

This way, he is not looking to be VP, just elect a president that has similar views as he holds on various issues.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Considering the loud yawn after Al's belated support was announced, methinks he overestimated his own importance.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I disagree, Macfury. This will have a big impact, since many wanted to see him run again for the presidency, me amongst them. Still, once he said he was not going to run, I supported Obama after his Springfield, IL speech to declare his being a candidate. My wife supported Clinton, but soon switched when she heard Obama speak. We both contributed to his campaign, although I am the only one who is able to vote for him. We shall see.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I had forgotten about this interview way back in October.

YouTube - Barack Obama on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

War Room - Salon.com

click on the YouTube video

How I hope he becomes president.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/bignews?source=email_ptf

I have sent in my donation, and will donate more. Sort of putting one's money where one's mouth is, so to speak.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Great interview with Leno - Barry gets a few good zingers in there... loved the bit about "Would you let your wife be alone in the same room with Bill Clinton?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Hard to imagine that the interview was when he was still somewhat unknown.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

...and here's his first general election campaign ad. Very nice - smooth, hits all the right buttons... well done. My only complaint (blame my media background) is that he is reading "up" to the camera, rather than from a more confident, dead-on or slightly-down head position. But that's being realllly picky on my part...


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

While it's way too early to be counting on polling results, Obama's numbers seem to be climbing quite a bit for the last week. Electoral-vote.com has current poll results broken down as serving up 344 Electoral College votes as opposed to 194 for McBush, ... er, I mean McCain. 

Their analysis also gives the Dems significant majorities in the Senate and House.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sweet--I think those early projections reulted in the election of President Kerry as well.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I figure right now with 270 electoral votes needed for victory, Obama with 211, McCain with 194, and the rest up for grabs. 

I am hoping that I am wrong that McCain will win the state of Georgia, where I am voting via absentee ballot again this year. We shall see.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

“vero possumus”


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

So Congress sold themselves to the devil again today. This time on illegal wiretapping. Not one word from either presidential wannabee.

Looks like whomever is elected we can expect more of the same old, same old. beejacon


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

eMacMan said:


> So Congress sold themselves to the devil again today. This time on illegal wiretapping. Not one word from either presidential wannabee.
> 
> Looks like whomever is elected we can expect more of the same old, same old. beejacon


Well, McCain was already in favour of giving immunity to the telecoms and complaining about the Dems holding that up. Obama on the other hand has pissed off many of his supporters by appearing to be going along with this.

Many are trying to figure out why anyone who calls themselves a liberal or claims to be against raping the US Constitution would be in favour of this wiretapping. It seems inexplicable to me on the surface of it why the majority of Dems would go along with this. But I think that there are political games being played here that are never spoken about in public, and much ass-covering being done by Dems who have been complicit since 9-11 in much of the Bush regime's anti-democratic actions, such as the Patriot Act and allowing the Iraq War to go ahead on the basis of obvious BS.

As to Obama's motivation for going along with this, I would guess this also has much to do with behind-closed-door political games. On Olbermann's show they were speculating that Obama is giving in on this because of his need to not cross the majority of the Dem establishment. Interestingly, the show had John Dean on who after perusing the bill claimed that it didn't give the telecoms _criminal_ immunity, just civil. He was speculating that Obama may be aware of that and is making nice at present to bolster his support with the right-wing Dems.

Even if that is true this may have already turned off some of his more ardent idealistic and youthful supporters that he will depend on getting out to the polls to make sure he doesn't receive Kerry's fate. Not sure what Obama is doing but then again he didn't get to be a presidential nominee without have a good strong portion of Machiavellian scheming to his character. Hopefully, if he wins, he won't completely cave on everything even vaguely left-of-centre like Bubba Clinton did.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Ooops. Apparently Obama has now said he'll oppose the telecom immunity and try to strip it from the bill. Maybe some of the backlash from his own side gave him a little scare?

Obama: I'll Fight To Strip Telecom Immunity From FISA


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

McSame is in Canada today, meeting with the "president of Canada." 

As McCain visits Canada today, millions of them are down here! | Top of the Ticket | Los Angeles Times


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MissGulch said:


> McSame is in Canada today, meeting with the "president of Canada."
> 
> As McCain visits Canada today, millions of them are down here! | Top of the Ticket | Los Angeles Times


I think that Harper would like to have that title. Or maybe a new US Cabinet post, Supreme Governor of the US Territory of Canada. beejacon 

I hear McCain is only up here to scoop some of them cheap pharmaceuticals. His Viagra bills are killin' him. beejacon


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I think that Harper would like to have that title. Or maybe a new US Cabinet post, Supreme Governor of the US Territory of Canada. beejacon
> 
> I hear McCain is only up here to scoop some of them cheap pharmaceuticals. His Viagra bills are killin' him. beejacon


I am sure Emperor Harpo would consider the title of president to be a demotion.beejacon


----------



## ruffdeezy (Mar 17, 2008)

I love Obama, I watch CNN all day and ocassionally Faux news so I can get fired up. I also post comments on the CNN ticker and the faux news posts. 

His best quote so far
"we are one nation.....one people.....and our time for change has come!"


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"we are one nation.....one people.....and our time for change has come!" Amen, brother. Paix.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

There are so many checks and balances in the US that (at least in my imperfect understanding), in many ways the prez has less unilateral authority than our PM. In any case there is a natural moderation of both rhetoric and action once someone is in office due to the need to govern those who didn't vote for you as well. 
So while I think Obama is a breath of fresh air and I admire him greatly, I am cautiously optimistic as to what the actual outcome will be. I'm still not sure at all that he'll win the general election (fear mongering is potent as a strategy), although I'm sure pulling for him. As to afterwards-just having a president that respects the constitution will be a plus.
The great thing about politics is that everyone can have an opinion.
;>)
/michael


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

mc3251, the Congress can hold up various initiatives that a president wants implemented. Of course, when Congress tries to pass a law, the bill can be vetoed by the president.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

mc3251 said:


> There are so many checks and balances in the US that (at least in my imperfect understanding), in many ways the prez has less unilateral authority than our PM. ...
> ;>)
> /michael


Unfortunately King George has ignored all of them, then used the results of illegal wiretapping to force members of Congress to go along with him. Hence the urgent need to restore the Constitution and dismantle the Homeland Gestapo. Obama has consistently voted along with the rest of the sheep. Most recently with the FISA bill.


----------



## ruffdeezy (Mar 17, 2008)

It will be a close election but I don't think McSame has enough support to win. Check out 270towin.com to play around with the electoral college votes by state to see who you think will win.

Obamanation!


----------



## ruffdeezy (Mar 17, 2008)

Dr.G. said:


> https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/bignews?source=email_ptf
> 
> I have sent in my donation, and will donate more. Sort of putting one's money where one's mouth is, so to speak.


Don't you have to be a US citizen to donate? if you are, cool, glad you donated too.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Anyone can donate, but only US citizens get a tax credit if they file a US tax return.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Actually, I might not be correct in that last post. I am not sure, but since I am a US citizen, I did not see a problem.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> ...and dismantle the Homeland Gestapo.


I'm glad I'm not the only one scunnered by the use of the word "Homeland." The whole thing gives me the creeps. The only thing the Democrats did on this was to make sure that the members of the new police force were properly unionized--high fives all around!


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I'm glad I'm not the only one scunnered by the use of the word "Homeland." The whole thing gives me the creeps.


I have to agree. Who in their right mind came up with "Homeland"... Anything would have been better than that name.

DSS Domestic Security Services
USSS United States Security Services


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"DSS Domestic Security Services
USSS United States Security Services"

Since they are already in the US, why not drop the "Domestic" and simply call them the "SS"?

Or, call these people "rangers" as in "United States Security Rangers" or USSR for short? 

Just a thought.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> "DSS Domestic Security Services
> USSS United States Security Services"
> 
> Since they are already in the US, why not drop the "Domestic" and simply call them the "SS"?
> ...


So they have Federal Marshals, Secret Service, FBI, NSA, CIA, etc... Why did they need another security service?

If I was a american who was fiscally conservative i'd be going nuts... Why is it the Republican's talk about small government but are the ones who keep adding to it?


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> I'm glad I'm not the only one scunnered by the use of the word "Homeland." The whole thing gives me the creeps. The only thing the Democrats did on this was to make sure that the members of the new police force were properly unionized--high fives all around!


"Homeland" is not the worst part. The real farce is the "security" part of the program. How can they be expected to provide any real kind of security when the border is so porous, pretty much any Mexican (or whoever) can cross and get a job. It was just a way of giving Tom Ridge a patronage job, and feed various Republicans at the public trough.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Yes, the fiscal conservatives have been pushed aside by the religious right. McCain is trying to court both sides, but the religious right gets out the votes. The fiscal conservatives are the heart of soul of the Grand Old Party.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

EvanPitts said:


> "Homeland" is not the worst part. The real farce is the "security" part of the program. How can they be expected to provide any real kind of security when the border is so porous, pretty much any Mexican (or whoever) can cross and get a job. It was just a way of giving Tom Ridge a patronage job, and feed various Republicans at the public trough.


The entire purpose of the Homeland Gestapo is to gather dirt on any body who might have the guts to stand up and oppose the BS being shoveled down our throats, particularly members of Congress. 

Truthfully there is a greater chance of being struck by lightning than of dying in a terrorist attack. There is at least a 100 times greater chance of being Tasered by a cop with GOD Syndrome and a 10,000 times greater chance of being audited by the IRS. No way the US government is at all worried about terrorists.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> Yes, the fiscal conservatives have been pushed aside by the religious right. McCain is trying to court both sides, but the religious right gets out the votes. The fiscal conservatives are the heart of soul of the Grand Old Party.


I think fiscal conservatism has been ceded by the GOP in favour of the Democrats. Clinton balanced the budget and left a surplus, which is now a memory in these times of record deficits and national debt. The country was left to Shrub in pretty good fiscal condition and he wrecked it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The current group in charge of the Republican Party is known as the "Country Club Republicans" who have no interest in fiscal conservatism. McCain is one of them.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

Macfury said:


> The current group in charge of the Republican Party is known as the "Country Club Republicans" who have no interest in fiscal conservatism. McCain is one of them.


Are we agreeing? This is unprecedented.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Yes, we're in agreement here. The Country Clubbers honestly thought that they would rob Democrats of their thunder by outspending on any issue for which they demanded increased government spending. The result is a budget bloated beyond comprehension. Despite hopes among supporters that George Bush might be a conservative president, he never was and never claimed to be. Hawkishness isn't the arena of conservatves only, and he is a fiscal disaster, handing out entitlement programs that weren't even aked for (prescription drug entitlements for seniors, for example--the biggest gift the president gave to industry that year). Other than a moderate view on stem cell research--he never banned it as was widely reported--I can't think of too many areas where Bush acted as a conservative.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Does McCain belong to a country club?

Both dudes will attempt to spend more than Herr Bush ever did, perhaps in some bizarre attempt to save the "Hummer Cultur" of Texas.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"The current group in charge of the Republican Party is known as the "Country Club Republicans" who have no interest in fiscal conservatism. McCain is one of them." Macfury and I may not agree on many things, but on this point, we are in agreement.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I am betting my wife that Bush will give a full pardon to His Lordship, Conrad Black, on the last day of his administration. We shall see.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> I am betting my wife that Bush will give a full pardon to His Lordship, Conrad Black, on the last day of his administration. We shall see.


That would make a great poll, in a new thread.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

HowEver, I don't know that this will happen, but I am willing to bet my wife that it will.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

With former Congressman Barr running on the Libertarian Party's ticket, this will make things interesting in Georgia, a "pink state". He might just make the difference in a close race between McCain and Obama in Georgia. We shall see.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> HowEver, I don't know that this will happen, but I am willing to bet my wife that it will.


Are you:

a) willing to make a bet with your wife, or 
b) willing to put her up for collateral in a bet with someone else?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

a


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Michigan, Wisconsin, Colorado, Florida and Minnesota will be the key states to watch. Obama really needs to do well in these states for a strong win. We shall see.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Nader was taking a few stabs at Obama today - he was saying that white liberal bleeding hearts don't really challenge Obama to any serious questions because the white liberal bleeding hearts are all about feeling bad for slavery (which ironically, Obama was never subject to since his black ancestors were from Kenya). I think Nader has been smoking the peyote with his running mate again.

The latest John McCain "message" is almost as scary as any of the crazy Suzuki ecological messages of late.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I still believe that Barr will pull more votes away from McCain than Nader will pull from Obama. We shall see.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"(CNN) -- The AFL-CIO, the nation's largest labor organization, endorsed Sen. Barack Obama for president Thursday, calling him "a champion for working families." " This will help if they come out and vote for him.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

Maureen Dowd's column talks about Karl Rove's latest efforts to discredit Obama, and that it isn't working. Her history is grudging with a compliment, but clearly she likes the guy.

Intellectual, sophisticated, urbane, sensitive. I can't wait until he's president, truly the best of America. Bring it on!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

All America needs is a sensitive guy to deal with the hardheads across the pond. Beautiful.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

^^^
Karl Rove is a scumbag, and I think anything he does to "discredit" Obama will just backfire. They just know what that creep is up to. He's the kind of guy that Nixon wouldn't have for very long because of the excessive scuminess!

Nader kind of scares me, mostly because I have no idea what he stands for barring the fact that he didn't like the Corvair...


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

Macfury said:


> All America needs is a sensitive guy to deal with the hardheads across the pond. Beautiful.


Why is sensitivity a flaw now? You prefer a thug like Bush? Seriously, you have no idea how painful it is having him "represent" me.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Intellectual, sophisticated, urbane, sensitive. I can't wait until he's president, truly the best of America. Bring it on!" Amen, Ms. G. Amen, sister.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

MissGulch said:


> Why is sensitivity a flaw now? You prefer a thug like Bush? Seriously, you have no idea how painful it is having him "represent" me.


Unfortunately I do. His command of the English language as every bit as dismal as say Cretin or Dion.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

eMacMan, the main difference is that English is George Bush's mother tongue, and not an ESL situation.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MissGulch said:


> Why is sensitivity a flaw now?


Because it only works on people who appreciate sensitivity, and is a lousy quality for negotiators.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I think that it will be most interesting to see which man has a Senate that will go along with his Supreme Court nominations. I read on CNN that the new president might actually be able to nominate 1-3 new Supreme Court judges. We shall see.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

eMacMan said:


> Unfortunately I do. His command of the English language *as* every bit as dismal as say Cretin or Dion.


About your success with names: it's "Chrétien."


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

HowEver said:


> About your success with names: it's "Chrétien."


Even I knew that. Maybe he was being sarcastic.

Barack Hussein Obama is a _really_ funny name for a US president, but I'm getting used to him and the moniker. The initials BO are _extremely_ funny.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Because it only works on people who appreciate sensitivity, and is a lousy quality for negotiators.


The art of international diplomacy is one of nuance and the ability to read the other person's body language. It is a fine trait for a negotiator, although it seems you prefer a simpleminded lout like Bush.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

HowEver said:


> About your success with names: it's "Chrétien."


In Alberta he is generally referred to as The Cretin.beejacon Sorry about leaving out the first name.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MissGulch said:


> The art of international diplomacy is one of nuance and the ability to read the other person's body language. It is a fine trait for a negotiator, although it seems you prefer a simpleminded lout like Bush.


No, I prefer a smart, tough negotiator.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

Macfury said:


> No, I prefer a smart, tough negotiator.


You can't vote.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I can vote .............. I can vote ............... I cast one vote for Obama in the fine State of Georgia.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

MissGulch said:


> You can't vote.


You don't know how much I wish *I* could say that to him!!!  :lmao: :lmao:


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

Dreambird said:


> You don't know how much I wish *I* could say that to him!!!  :lmao: :lmao:


Go ahead and say it to him. It's the truth no matter who says it.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Dreambird, amazingly, my son, who was born here in St.John's, NL, is ALSO allowed to vote in Georgia. Since he is also an American citizen, by virtue of being born to a US citizen, he can vote there as well. So, that's 2 votes for Obama.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MissGulch said:


> You can't vote.


But I still have a preference (and I have certain...influences).


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury, I would think you would more likely support Jim Barr.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> Dreambird, amazingly, my son, who was born here in St.John's, NL, is ALSO allowed to vote in Georgia. Since he is also an American citizen, by virtue of being born to a US citizen, he can vote there as well. So, that's 2 votes for Obama.


Your son got automatic citizenship, or did he have to request it? Isn't he disqualified from running for president?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> Macfury, I would think you would more likely support Jim Barr.


On the surface of it, I believe you're right, though I haven't examined his character to any great degree.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Dr.G. said:


> Macfury, I would think you would more likely support Jim Barr.


Who's this Jim Barr person? I've not hear of him? Some kind of right wing crackpot or something?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Miss G., when my son was born, I wrote in to Washington, DC to request citizenship for him. This is a standard procedure for US citizens living abroad. Luckily, while my mother was still alive and living in NYC, I requested a Social Security number to be created in his name, since he was a citizen, and mailed to her NYC address.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury, he is no Ron Paul, even though he carries the Libertarian Party standard. He lead the charge in Congress to impeach Bill Clinton.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Mea culpa, it is Bob Barr, not Jim Barr.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Ah... I see. I had no idea you could do that... :clap: 

Me... I was more wondering if there wasn't some way to tell MF "you can't vote" when it comes to Canada? Oh well...  




Dr.G. said:


> Dreambird, amazingly, my son, who was born here in St.John's, NL, is ALSO allowed to vote in Georgia. Since he is also an American citizen, by virtue of being born to a US citizen, he can vote there as well. So, that's 2 votes for Obama.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Dreambird, 16 states in the US allow this form of non-resident voting for children who have never lived in the US.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Here is an interesting CNN interview with Bob Barr.

Preston on Politics: Barr says he's no Nader - CNN.com


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Yes, Obama is the real deal all right. A real politician with the same foibles as any other run-of-the mill candidate. Note how Obama voted with his fellows to grant immunity to the telecom companies that shared their customer information with the feds. That was the perfect opportunity for Mr. Obama to show that he was a "new" kind of politician. He proved otherwise.

Obama backers on the left are doing the wincing now -- chicagotribune.com



> "Only an idiot would think or hope that a politician going through the crucible of a presidential campaign could hold fast to every position, steer clear of the stumbling blocks of nuance and never make a mistake," wrote Bob Herbert in The New York Times. "But Barack Obama went out of his way to create the impression that he was a new kind of political leader—more honest, less cynical and less relentlessly calculating than most. . . . Obama is not just tacking gently toward the center. He's lurching right when it suits him, and he's zigging with the kind of reckless abandon that's guaranteed to cause disillusion, if not whiplash."


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I don't agree with Obama's vote on this issue. Of course, I did not agree with the decision by FDR to "pack the Supreme Court", and I consider FDR the best president the US ever had. We shall see.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Yes, Obama is the real deal all right. A real politician with the same foibles as any other run-of-the mill candidate. *Note how Obama voted with his fellows to grant immunity to the telecom companies that shared their customer information with the feds. That was the perfect opportunity for Mr. Obama to show that he was a "new" kind of politician. He proved otherwise.*
> 
> Obama backers on the left are doing the wincing now -- chicagotribune.com


Needed a little more emphasis. This was total demolition of the foundations of the nation. Clearly we are getting the same president no matter who we vote for.

The erosion of the constitution is not a left or right wing issue. It is our telephone conversations and eMails that are being monitored and can be spun any which way. Everyone should be *SCREAMING* at the top of their lungs.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'm surprised how quickly he's succumbed to the same kind of power mad zeal they all seem to succumb to. The man will literally say anything. I heard him the other day talking about how he would *end the war in Iraq after issuing orders to the Joint Chiefs of Staff*--this guy is so ignorant of how government operates that he doesn't realize that the Joint Chiefs are supposed to maintain neutrality in operational matters. He could tell them anything and they would not be able to follow his orders.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I'm surprised how quickly he's succumbed to the same kind of power mad zeal they all seem to succumb to. The man will literally say anything. I heard him the other day talking about how he would *end the war in Iraq after issuing orders to the Joint Chiefs of Staff*--this guy is so ignorant of how government operates that he doesn't realize that the Joint Chiefs are supposed to maintain neutrality in operational matters. He could tell them anything and they would not be able to follow his orders.


Care to explain that one?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

da_jonesy said:


> Care to explain that one?


The Joint Chiefs of Staff have no authority over the military--they act in an advisory capacity, but have no ability to command troops or make operational decisions. If Obama told them to end the war they would be sitting on their hands.



> “I will call my Joint Chiefs of Staff in and give them a new assignment and that is to end the war.”


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> The Joint Chiefs of Staff have no authority over the military--they act in an advisory capacity, but have no ability to command troops or make operational decisions. If Obama told them to end the war they would be sitting on their hands.


Completely confused as to the commend structure then. As Commander in Chief does the military not directly report into him?


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Macfury said:


> The Joint Chiefs of Staff have no authority over the military--they act in an advisory capacity, but have no ability to command troops or make operational decisions. If Obama told them to end the war they would be sitting on their hands.


Well, he did say it would be a "new assignment." So he presumes that he can re-write the rules, if this is the case.

Perhaps he'll find a new role for the Secretary of Defense at the same time...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

da_jonesy said:


> Completely confused as to the commend structure then. As Commander in Chief does the military not directly report into him?


Yes, as HowEver notes, a president can issue directives through the Secretary of Defense to the Unified Combatant Commands, but the Joint Chiefs of Staff are not part of the chain of command. They have no authority over military operations. Obama simply doesn't understand the way in which the U.S. military is structured.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

HowEver said:


> Well, he did say it would be a "new assignment." So he presumes that he can re-write the rules, if this is the case.


ala the shrub.

Same Old, Same Old


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Yes, as HowEver notes, a president can issue directives through the Secretary of Defense to the Unified Combatant Commands, but the Joint Chiefs of Staff are not part of the chain of command. They have no authority over military operations. Obama simply doesn't understand the way in which the U.S. military is structured.


So am I missing something or are we talking about semantics... The President gives the order, the military does it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

You're really missing something.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

da_jonesy said:


> So am I missing something or are we talking about semantics... The President gives the order, the military does it.


Funny... It's more of the President gives the order, and the military flubs it in at least a thousand ways, conducts an investigation, finds someone to "blame" that knew nothing about the original order, then demands another billion dollars for some pet sci-fi project that will never see the light of day. Meanwhile, the President ends up looking like a fool because the whole operation fell off the rails three minutes after the order was signed off...


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

A little closer to the topic at hand, John McCain doesn't know how to use the web, and has his staff handle any internet-related needs that come up. He wants to learn all about "a Google," and catch up a bit, even though the internet has been rather widespread since 1992. 

If action is character, this guy is hopelessly stale and stuck in his ways, and I don't want him running things. If the Democrat was like this, I'd cast an equally jaundiced eye in his/her direction. 

Do you guys agree with me - should this matter?


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

There's a lot of stuff George Dubya doesn't know and he's been running the country just fine for eight years.  It's a good ol' boy thing. Folks don't trust you if you know too much. God bless America.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

fjnmusic said:


> There's a lot of stuff George Dubya doesn't know and he's been running the country just fine for eight years.  It's a good ol' boy thing. Folks don't trust you if you know too much. God bless America.


George has been running the country "just fine"?  Uh, have you heard????....


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"George has been running the country "just fine"? Uh, have you heard????...." Yes, we have heard ............... the laments of "Why couldn't Gore have been elected president?" and "Please, God, let me make it until Obama is elected president."


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

MissGulch said:


> George has been running the country "just fine"?  Uh, have you heard????....


Yes, unfortunately there's no little smilie for "sarcasm." How about this?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MissGulch said:


> Do you guys agree with me - should this matter?


Yes these things do matter, although if I have to judge both pieces of information in isolation, I would say Obama's is worse. 

McCain can get some lackey to run the keyboard, but understands what the internet is. Obama is such a neophyte he simply doesn't understand the chain of military command.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

^^^
Maybe the lack of knowledge is better - since the Pentagon is somewhat more dangerous than a rattlesnake pit during breeding season...

Besides, it does not matter if it is McCain or Obama - it all comes down to their selection of advisors. No President is an "expert" on everything (or in the case of the current President, an expert on nothing in general), so it is up to the staff - not only his hand selected staff at the White House but the whole apparatus of government to present a decision in the best way possible.

Bush's biggest problem has been glad handling turkeys like Karl Rove, people that only have a job because of the spoils system. People with clues just pick up and leave, knowing that it is better to make more money in private industry than to make less money looking like a fool in front of the entire world. But then again, at least Bush kept his cigars in the box on the desk - which shows more self control than President Cheeseburger that preceeded him.

Maybe the vote should come down to that of the First Lady, of which I think McCain has a lead over Obama. Plus, McCain is old and may only last a term, so one should think about who the Veep is because the Veep may become the Prez.

Personally, I'd vote Obama if he was Republican because the Democrats are fairly repugnant, recalling such illustrious administrations as "Rice Paddy Destroyer" Johnson, "Jimmy Peanuts" Carter, and "Hey baby, wanna score?" Clinton (and his hellion wife that is so evil, the Devil wouldn't take an option on her soul)...

And if the Democrats wonder why the Republicans have a lock on the White House, just look at Carter, Jackson, Kennedy, Hart, Dukakis, Mondale, Kerry, Gore; not to mention the fact that the Democrats feature any number of bleeding hearts and man hating feminazis like Billary Clinton... Obama is a refreshing change, though I am not too sure if he'd be hard core on anything.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> You're really missing something.


Well explain the chain of command to me then... Keep it simple so I can follow. Use simple words and keep the analogies to a minimum.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

da_jonesy said:


> Well explain the chain of command to me then... Keep it simple so I can follow. Use simple words and keep the analogies to a minimum.


The Joint Chiefs of Staff have deliberately been removed from the chain of command by an Act of Congress and have been for decades. For Obama to believe that they could carry out his orders to end the war in Iraq shows a shocking lack of understanding about the military command structure. It isn't just a slip of the tongue or an oversight, or the type of thing you catch up on later, but a massive disconnect with the way the military functions.

The structure works like this:

President
Secretary of Defense
Unified Combatant Commands

The Joint Chiefs aren't in the loop,

You can't just bark out presidential orders and hope the right person might be listening.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> The Joint Chiefs of Staff have deliberately been removed from the chain of command by an Act of Congress and have been for decades. For Obama to believe that they could carry out his orders to end the war in Iraq shows a shocking lack of understanding about the military command structure. It isn't just a slip of the tongue or an oversight, or the type of thing you catch up on later, but a massive disconnect with the way the military functions.
> 
> The structure works like this:
> 
> ...


Methinks you protest too much...

_The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff may transmit communications to the Commanders of the Unified Combatant Commands from the President and Secretary of Defense and advises both on potential courses of action, but does not exercise direct military command over any combatant forces._

Unified Combatant Command - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## ruffdeezy (Mar 17, 2008)

Just ordered some Obama gear from ebay. 

One more thing, the HBO movie Recount is a great watch.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"During his town hall meeting with voters in Kansas City yesterday, McCain said, “Senator Obama has the most extreme record of any member of the United States Senate.”

In an interview after the event, The Kansas City Star asked him to clarify the remark. 

“His voting record … is more to the left than the announced socialist in the United States Senate, Bernie Sanders of Vermont,” McCain answered, according the paper."
CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time - Blogs from CNN.com

Well, I can't see voting for Obama now. A socialist?????


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Of course, Bernie Sanders was opposed to the war in Vietnam, supports universal health care and opposes what he terms "unfettered" free trade which he argues deprives American workers of their jobs while exploiting foreign workers in sweatshop factories. He has openly expressed his opposition to the Bush Administration, which he has regularly attacked for cuts in social programs. He actively supports clean air and clean water initiatives, as well as the protection of parkland and forests. He is a strong supporter of the rights of children and the retired.

My God!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Bernie Sanders is a born-again New Dealer!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

McCain has labeled Obama as a born-again New Dealer by virtue of his being like Bernie Sanders. "Fellow travelers"??? I see a conspiracy in the making.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

da_jonesy said:


> Methinks you protest too much...


Methinks you're making excuses. They can transmit suggestions about troop readiness and the fitness of the various branches of the Armed Service, but can't command the troops. I don't expect a Canadian to make the distinction, but I would expect Obama to have a basic understanding of the command structure.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yep - and a surprising supporter of a Obama new Deal



> _Thought I would jot down this little note to President Obama.
> It’s a little presumptive of course; first that he’ll even be President (he will) and second that he’d read it (he won’t). But presumptiveness is an inherent requirement of an investment manager and so I shall proceed._
> 
> 
> ...


PIMCO - Investment Outlook - July 2008 "Dear President Obama:"


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> He has openly expressed his opposition to the Bush Administration, which he has regularly attacked for cuts in social programs.


That's hilarious. Bush has lavished more money on those programs than anyone before him.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

MacDoc, we all know that you are a closet New Dealer. Now, you are starting to show your real colors. What next???? You rinning around saying "Yes we can!!!" re issues such as ending child poverty, or homelessness, or the destruction of our wilderness environments?????


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Yep - and a surprising supporter of a Obama new Deal


Why wouldn't a really rich guy who manages one of the country's largest mutual funds companies want to see floods of government cash coming his way? Net gain for him, net loss for the taxpayers.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I'm with you, Macfury. We have to stand together on this front. The Elite must band together to protect their wealth, their women and children, their wealth, their property, their way of life, and their wealth. We cannot let the likes of a socialist Obama, or a "pinko" MacDoc take down that structure that has serve us (well, some of us who count) so well. 

We must stand up for America in her time of need.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Don't worry Dr. G--they'll tax a little of his windfall and give the money back to the rank and file.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Can't say I have ever read that MacDoc is a pinko, nor is Obama. That's Americans, you know, if the policies above were promoted in Canada, they'd be considered the hard core right wing - that's how pinko this country is. That's why Layton doesn't have a chance, there is not much room between the Fiberal nutcases and the Trotsyites to manouver. America doesn't know diddly squat about Communism - they never had Trudeau as a leader.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> I'm with you, Macfury. We have to stand together on this front. The Elite must band together to protect their wealth, their women and children, their wealth, their property, their way of life, and their wealth. We cannot let the likes of a socialist Obama, or a "pinko" MacDoc take down that structure that has serve us (well, some of us who count) so well.
> 
> We must stand up for America in her time of need.


hear hear!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Amen, groovetube. We need to stand firm against the rising "red tide" before it becomes "the red menace". Where is a Joe McCarthy when we really need him. Hopefully, if the US should attack Iran, I foresee President Bush declaring the upcoming election in November "postponed" until the country is free from terrorists. 

I shall be looking for a MacDoc "fellow traveler" under my bed each night from here on out. "Better dead than red".


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Can't say I have ever read that MacDoc is a pinko, nor is Obama." Macfury, it is like the Spanish Inquisition -- nobody expects it until it actually arrives. "Be afraid .............. be very afraid."

YouTube - The Spanish Inquisition


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I think that if we used the right "tactics" we could get MacDoc to confess that he is a liberal/pinko neo-New Dealer, who has cleverly disguised himself as a hard working, friendly, kind, understanding and intelligent entrepreneur.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> I think that if we used the right "tactics" we could get MacDoc to confess that he is a liberal/pinko neo-New Dealer, who has cleverly disguised himself as a hard working, friendly, kind, understanding and intelligent entrepreneur.


Fortunately, thanks to the hard work of the Bush Administration, these "tactics" are now legal.

Cheers


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Good idea, bryanc. Bring on the waterboards. We will make MacDoc howl and wish he was a PC-using neo-con.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)




----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Oh, psshaw. Everything will turn out OK once we have everyone wearing the new state-approved armbands.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

:clap:...stitches or tattoos might be more secure..


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

you laugh now.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Max said:


> Oh, psshaw. Everything will turn out OK once we have everyone wearing the new state-approved armbands.





MacDoc said:


> :clap:...stitches or tattoos might be more secure..


There have been some alterations to the 1930's scheme. I am pretty sure the current plan is to implant nanochips.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Have to be neon - visibility in all lighting conditions n'all


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

And then when people turn 30 they get killed in a glorious state ceremony! Guess that means old duffers like me are just biding our time.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

MacDoc, we have special tags for "your kind". Of course, once the fact that I am Jewish becomes known, with grandparents from Russia, I shall have my very own tag -- a yellow Star of David. MacDoc, mon ami, we must stand together and fight our oppressors. The battle for America has just begun.

The Battle For America - Large Quicktime


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Have to be neon - visibility in all lighting conditions n'all


I have heard that tinfoil caps can defeat the Nano-chips but will leave that to Sinc to test.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

"Well let me be absolutely clear. Israel is a strong friend of Israel's."


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

New test coming for Obama.

The bank bailout bill, bails out the big boys but does nothing for the guys they sucked in and are losing their homes. Seems to me if you bail out the robber baron you could at least insist that he carry those mortgages at the original low rates.

Also this bill contains yet another privacy invasion clause. All credit card transactions would be copied to the feds.   They already have plenty of authority to seek warrants on suspected miscreants they do not need instant access to everyones finances!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> New test coming for Obama.
> 
> The bank bailout bill, bails out the big boys but does nothing for the guys they sucked in and are losing their homes. Seems to me if you bail out the robber baron you could at least insist that he carry those mortgages at the original low rates.
> 
> Also this bill contains yet another privacy invasion clause. All credit card transactions would be copied to the feds.   They already have plenty of authority to seek warrants on suspected miscreants they do not need instant access to everyones finances!


They have to bail out the banks, since the government--Democrats in particular--have been pushing the banks to offer home loans to the marginalized. At this point, they also have to do it to prevent a banking system collapse. 

But I am sure you will see Obama's strong opposition to this bill as harbinger of his future policy ideas.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Macfury said:


> They have to bail out the banks, ....
> 
> But I am sure you will see Obama's strong opposition to this bill as harbinger of his future policy ideas.


We clearly need a "dripping with sarcasm" emoticon.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)




----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

He did great Over There, if a bit lite on the issues. I think it was intended as an introductory tour, and mostly everyone felt he would be good in the big office. 

He didn't make me cringe, which felt good for a change.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"He didn't make me cringe, which felt good for a change." Very true, Miss G. Nor did he call Berliners a "jelly doughnut".


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> They have to bail out the banks, since the government--Democrats in particular--have been pushing the banks to offer home loans to the marginalized. At this point, they also have to do it to prevent a banking system collapse.
> 
> But I am sure you will see Obama's strong opposition to this bill as harbinger of his future policy ideas.


I'm sure you weren't hanging the sub prime crisis on the democrats even though they weren't in any position of power until only recently getting congress.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Well... looks like somebody's definitely off the Vice-Presidential candidate list....


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Mark, I respect the accuracy of new on Fox as much as I do of the reporting in the Enquirer. Needless to say that I hold both in distain and a taint upon the rights of Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Speech enshrined in the US Constitution.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

As do I, Dr. G. - you may know that I am generally very careful with the news sources (and yes - I should have cited them above). This does, however, look a little too verifiable to be _good news._ If true, Edwards shine would definitely be dulled...


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Yes, I see your point, Mark. He is young enough to make another run at the White House in 2012 should Obama not make it this year. We shall see.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *How Obama Became Acting President*
> Barry Blitt
> 
> 
> ...


The New York Times > Log In


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

over??











> Thomas B. Edsall
> 
> *Obama-McCain Matchup: Blowout Or Trench Warfare?*
> 
> ...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc: Barry Blitt did not write that article--he illustrated it.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Macfury said:


> MacDoc: Barry Blitt did not write that article--he illustrated it.


MacFury is right. The author of the article is one of the NYT's best writers, Frank Rich.

I don't always agree with everything Mr Rich prints, but damn I do enjoy the way he puts it.

How this same paper can employee hatchet-job racist Maureen Dowd is a mystery, but perhaps she's just filling in for WH transcriptionist Judy Miller.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> If true, Edwards shine would definitely be dulled...


Cheating on your wife, while she deals with recurring breast cancer will "dull" his "shine?" Would kill the candidacy of any Republican outright.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"The election remains Mr. Obama’s to lose, and he could lose it, whether through unexpected events, his own vanity or a vice-presidential misfire." I agree with this point in the article. I am still unsure as to whom I would select as a VP. However, Gore as "energy czar" is a great idea.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Cheating on your wife, while she deals with recurring breast cancer will "dull" his "shine?" Would kill the candidacy of any Republican outright.


really.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

The Obama-McCain election is going down as a snoozefest. It was great that Obama wiped Billary off the slate, but the excitement is now gone.

I sure hope that some of the other contests will feature some interesting dirt and mudslinging, and perhaps some debates that get away from all of this discussion about "issues" and concentrate on what is really important - the sleeze and the old skeletons in the closets of the legislators.

Appointing Gore as "Energy Czar" would basically end any hope in conserving energy - just like appointing a "Security Czar" ended any hope of security, and a "Drug Czar" ended any hope of ending the drug trade. If Amercan's want to get something done, they should bring back that dude from Walking Tall - he knew how to get things done. Just like Eliot Ness and J. Edgar Hoover did...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Obama's vnity is ringing loud and clear at this point. The press is more enamoured of him than the peope are.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> "The election remains Mr. Obama’s to lose, and he could lose it, whether through unexpected events, his own vanity or a vice-presidential misfire." I agree with this point in the article. I am still unsure as to whom I would select as a VP. However, Gore as "energy czar" is a great idea.


Not sure if Gore's being ready and able and incorporated to peddle energy credits is a credit to his resume.beejacon


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

HA HA HA HA HAHA HAHA HAAAAAAA!!!!!!!

Republican National Committee releases parady Obama Berlin advert

From this video we may ascertain the following undeniable facts:

1/ Republicans are complete idiots. They can't even achieve parody.
2/ no, that's it. Just #1.

Really... it's just sad to see... "wiped off the map" will be the catchphrase of the 2008 Presidential election....


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

CubaMark said:


> Really... it's just sad to see... "wiped off the map" will be the catchphrase of the 2008 Presidential election....


I certainly hope you are right in this prediction CM.

As an aside, it must be mucho hot in your locale these days, si?


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Actually, SINC, my folks in Nova Scotia have it much worse than me. Six weeks now of temperatures above 30 degrees, and nary a drop of rain. The blueberries are suffering.... Down here, temps are daytime around 23, nighttime down to 10 or 12, and it rains every day like clockwork from 6pm->midnight.

The joys of living in a mountain desert...


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I still recall the bumper stickers back in 1972, just after the presidential election -- "Don't blame me, I'm from Massachusetts". This was the election in which Nixon crushed George McGovern by 520 Electoral Votes to 17, with 61% of the vote (GM won Massachusetts and the District of Columbia). 

I just want to see Obama win and have a Congress that supports his visions.

We shall see.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

100 days???.....gonna take more like 10,000 days to fix this mess.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Sad, but all too true, MacDoc.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

CubaMark said:


> Actually, SINC, my folks in Nova Scotia have it much worse than me. Six weeks now of temperatures above 30 degrees, and nary a drop of rain. The blueberries are suffering.... Down here, temps are daytime around 23, nighttime down to 10 or 12, and it rains every day like clockwork from 6pm->midnight.
> 
> The joys of living in a mountain desert...


Guess I shoulda checked CM, my son just bought a house in lower Sackville and has worked in Halifax for two years now.


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

"1000 dollars for each family" to reactivate economy. tsk tsk, bad economics.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

...and the Republicans sink to a new low...

Barack Obama, Antichrist


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Did I miss the "ant-Christ" reference in that ad?

The explicit biblical reference, poorly made, is to a film version of Moses, played by Charlton Heston, parting the Red Sea.

As for Charlton Heston, now there is an easy corollary to be made with the anti-Christ. But through the actor, not the Old Testament character he portrayed.





CubaMark said:


> ...and the Republicans sink to a new low...
> 
> Barack Obama, Antichrist


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

However, the "ant-Christ" reference was in the URL
Crooks and Liars » McCain’s Obama is the anti-Christ ad


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> However, the "ant-Christ" reference was in the URL
> Crooks and Liars » McCain’s Obama is the anti-Christ ad


Thanks! No, I caught that.

I guess it's the domain's interpretation of "The One."

Time for them re-read both Testaments--funny, I was going to say "again."


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

HowEver, when I first saw the phrase "The One", I thought back to a campaign sign for Richard Nixon back in 1968 which read "Nixon's the one". Someone I know used to write under this slogan "Yes, and Agnew is the other one".


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

Obama as the "real deal" is open to dispute, but what isn't disputable is McCain's moribund campaign, the latest being his commercial that disses Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. This article tells about how Paris's mother is pretty upset that he used her daughter to mock his rival. 

The mother is/was a supporter that donated $4,600 to his campaign.

Even worse is the use of Britney Spears for the same purpose. Maybe McCain hasn't heard (he doesn't use the internet), that Britney had a nervous breakdown and had to be committed to a mental hospital. She is a sick girl who lost custody of her children and her father has a court order to manage her life.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

And yet, despite the lacklustre campaign, McCain's poll numbers are rising. The latest national Rasmussen poll has him ahead by one point. Gallup has Obama just three points ahead.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2008 - Latest Polls


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)




----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

It's easy to avoid a deficit by raising taxes as Clinton did. Nobody has the guts to cut spending.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Nobody has the guts to cut spending.


Nope... but at least the liberals don't cut taxes and run a deficit to finance it.

I can't remember the last time there was such a consensus regarding the current sitting US president's place in history: Worst. President. Ever.

Cheers


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> It's easy to avoid a deficit by raising taxes as Clinton did. Nobody has the guts to cut spending.


:lmao: :lmao: *that's* your best reaction to the historical record? 

What I find truly sad is that the warmongering right finds it so very easy to spend gazillions of dollars to kill people, but fights tooth-and-nail against spending much less to provide for its own citizens.

Seriously - somebody should put these folks on the couch and have 'em psychoanalyzed. (oh, wait, someone did!).

M


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I don't support war-mongering _and_ I want to cut spending.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

McCain's "straight talk express" runs off the rails...


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

No fair, Mark. You can't hold John McCain to everything he says. We want a president who will tell us what we want to hear, not merely the truth. If you want more in a president that this, just remember what Jack Nicholson said, "You can't handle the truth." Pax, mi amigo.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Agreed Dr. G. And we must also be patient when Obama voices a trial ballon about nuking Pakistan, since we can understand that it was just the thing one particular audience wants to hear--and that if we follow Obama closely we will eventually hear that which makes us happy. 

Forgive the telcoms for handing over caller lists to the feds? Obama is a forgiving man who just wants to move on.But he'll be a tiger in office. Just not yet.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Forgive the telcoms for handing over caller lists to the feds? Obama is a forgiving man who just wants to move on.But he'll be a tiger in office. Just not yet.


I encourage you to watch this very interesting comment by MSNBC's Keith Oibermann on that very issue.

M


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

It was signed into law on July 20th. Where's the lawsuit?


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Odd... We had a thread on the whole deal about assassinations - and then after the Mayor pulled the plug on it - Obama was almost assassinated by a nutcase in Florida who was also going to assassinate George and Jeb Bush, all on the same day! Lucky the Secret Service was onto the dude...

With three months to go until the Election, things are rather quiet, but then, not much is going on in Washington these days. It would be a good time to start the campaign for the 2012 Election!


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

EvanPitts said:


> Odd... We had a thread on the whole deal about assassinations - and then after the Mayor pulled the plug on it - Obama was almost assassinated by a nutcase in Florida who was also going to assassinate George and Jeb Bush, all on the same day! Lucky the Secret Service was onto the dude...
> 
> With three months to go until the Election, things are rather quiet, but then, not much is going on in Washington these days. It would be a good time to start the campaign for the 2012 Election!


Can't blame the mayor for not wanting to deal with the turkeys in black balaclavas. Unfortunately there are idiots with severe cases of GOD SYNDROME that take those sort of threads a good deal more seriously than any of the postings would warrant.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

I can't blame him either - but the whole thing was so post-ironic, considering the story that did come out in the news. But it is nothing new, it's been going on for years, and historically, it was acute from about the 1860's-1914, in light of the anarchist movement, the Fenians, and other organizations that used assassination as a method of "promoting change". And change is what they got, when Gravillo Princip did his nasty task that toppled empires...

The system of government in the US is specifically designed with these things in mind, with a fixed succession in the event of anything going on. The framers of the Constitution did this in order to avoid the kinds of problems that were endemic in Rome (the framers had read Gibbon, which was being published in parts during those years). Succession, an Electoral College, three branches of government that have the power of veto over any other branch, etc.

Not only in the US, but precautions are taken in Canada, by the use of special armoured vehicles, a bullet proof office of the PM, and the Prime Minister's taste testers...


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

I don't think Mc Cain has the energy to fight for the presidency, he'll run out of gas and it will show. Once he tours Florida, he won't be leaving. IMO


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> The Biden speculation was at a fever pitch as it became more and more obvious that it was him — a Secret Service detail was sent to his house; his office sprang to life. John King made the call first on CNN, followed by Steve Chaggaris on CBS; a CNN email alert came in at 12:53 a.m. followed by a New York Times alert at 1:05 a.m. Meanwhile, the Obama campaign was silent, at least where texting was concerned. *The confirmatory message eventually came in at 3:31 a.m*.


The Text Is In! Biden Is VP! Thanks For The Update!











some background
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/u...l=1&adxnnlx=1219483437-LtD+oNc3TwtAatQQSQB4Qg


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I won half of my bet with my wife. Now, if McCain picks Mitt Romney, I win the whole bet.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

*Obama Choses Biden*

I think we can safely say Obama has gone over to the Dark Side.beejacon Biden is a NeoCon with donkey ears.beejacon Sadly we can certainly expect him to stay the insane course set by the current lunatic.

I shall be looking at the independents as my way of voting none of the above.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

eMacMan, take a look at Biden's full record in the Senate. In 36 years he have been part of many progressive policies, especially in the area of civil rights.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> eMacMan, take a look at Biden's full record in the Senate. In 36 years he have been part of many progressive policies, especially in the area of civil rights.


Nowadays he continues to vote in support of the Iraq quagmire and consistently has supported the Homeland Gestapo bills. Alas he too has sold his soul.  

BTW I really want to be wrong on this one, as being right means the next four years will be just like the past eight.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I was listening to the Rush Limbaugh show in the car yesterday, just before the announcement. Limbaugh was practically praying: "Please pick Biden, please pick Biden."


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Be careful what you wish for, Rush, because it might come true ............ and bite you in the behind comes election day. We shall see.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

What's So Heroic About Being Shot Down While Bombing Innocent Civilians?

U.S. Journalist *Karen Lee Wald* prefaces:

For anyone who lived through the Vietnam era with a conscience, it is horrendous to think that the next president of the USA would be someone whose claim to fame is that he got shot down while bombing vietnamese peasants and unarmed urban civilians....

I am also leery of those --including (Michael) Moore and others --who feel obliged to accept the version of McCain having been "tortured" by the vietnamese, albeit pointing out the justifiable rage of people whose children, siblings, parents and neighbors had been blown to smithereens by this man and his fellow bombers. 

klw


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Listening to Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. speak at the Democratic convention. Very inspirational and a fine speaker.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Dr.G. said:


> Listening to Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. speak at the Democratic convention. Very inspirational and a fine speaker.


Surely you are not referring to the marble mouth completely incomprehendible JJ I have tried to listen to far too many times, are you Dr. G.?

I haven't understood a word he has tried to utter in forty years or more.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Rev. Jesse Jackson is the father of Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Dr.G. said:


> Rev. Jesse Jackson is the father of Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr.


Ah, I did not know that. Thanks for the enlightenment sir.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Sinc, I have heard Rev. Jesse Jackson speak in person and he is very inspirational as well as understandable. I have also heard Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. speak in person as well.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> Listening to Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. speak at the Democratic convention. Very inspirational and a fine speaker.



And he shares his daddies ability to spot a camera and plant himself in front of it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I listened to some of it and was astounded at the way Obama is postitioning himself as some sort of Dr. Phil with pocketsful of cash. "Barack understands your needs and will fulfill them."


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury, guess we perceived the speeches in the first day of the convention in a totally different manner. Still, that is the great part of a democracy. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

I see that Obama has gone back to getting out of Iraq. Suspect in a week or two we'll find out he really means getting out of the cities and towns but staying on the bases ala King George III. Still we can't ignore the consistent votes to extend the war funding and in support of the Homeland Gestapo.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Barack means OUT of Iraq in an IN-ish sort of fashion.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

I seriously made an effort to watch some of the Convention, and really, it was the most boring thing ever put on TV.

I don't even know why they are bothering, since they already "selected" their leader, and the leader wannabe. So really, what is there to do, next to party?

And the speech last night, Obama's wife... There are professors that mumble into notebooks that are more interesting. I couldn't hack that load of manure, meaningless in all regards, well, for the few minutes I watched it before flipping to the more exciting things going on on The Weather Channel.

I heard they had a "speech" from old Ted Kennedy - really, if the Democrats have to rely on old fossils to make speeches; they are no different from the Republicans who trot their fossils out for the Election.

Perhaps I just think it is a big waste of time, since Biden is surely to sink the boat. I don't know how Obama can trot out his whole "change" thing when he added perhaps one of the biggest glad handlers to the ticket. But then, it may also come down to whatever deadwood McCain adds to his ticket.

Not to mention the agitators that want Clinton, and really, any vote for the Democrats could lead to some kind of job for that scalawag - best to vote Republican and make sure she doesn't get in and mess things up.

It's hard to beleive that after two weeks of the interminable Olympics, they follow it up with something even more boring. I think Ted Turner should put a special on called "Paint Drying On A Wall", it's bound to pick up a lot of viewers just because it would be more entertaining...


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

From the convention floor, Macs on the job!



Buddy on the left is doing a video interview with the MacBook's iSight, while dude on the right is live-uploading the audio of the interview with his iPhone.


M


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

I guess that closed thread wasn't so far fetched.

'No threat' to Obama as four arrested: report - Yahoo! Canada News


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

JumboJones said:


> I guess that closed thread wasn't so far fetched.
> 
> 'No threat' to Obama as four arrested: report - Yahoo! Canada News


Yep, it's has been in the news everywhere but ehMac for a year or more:

Man Held In Obama Death Threat - August 8, 2008

Barack Obama Death Threats

Obama Gets Secret Service Due to Death Threats - Associated Content

FBI Probes Possible Obama Death Threat, 3 Men, 1 Woman Arrested On Drugs, Weapons Charges; Official Says "No Credible Threat" To Obama, Convention - CBS News

Obama: death threats and Swiftboat Two - Diane Francis


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

I had no idea about all the threats!

That's what I get for getting all my news from ehMac... : )


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

HowEver said:


> I had no idea about all the threats!
> 
> That's what I get for getting all my news from ehMac... : )


Shhh you're not supposed to talk about it!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Banning a subject accomplishes nothing. It simple demonstrates ignorance of the real facts in the world around you. There is a ton of information out there on the many, many death threats to Obama. I follow them with great interest as they are and will be part of history be it like JFK, RFK or Martin Luther King Jr., or ending on a more positive note.

I compare the threats against Obama the same way as terrorist threats after 911. So far no one has banned those threats, but they too are very real, just as dangerous and fact.

And no amount of perceived indignation with change either set of threats. It's news, plain and simple.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

SINC said:


> Banning a subject accomplishes nothing. It simple demonstrates ignorance of the real facts in the world around you. There is a ton of information out there on the many, many death threats to Obama. I follow them with great interest as they are and will be part of history be it like JFK, RFK or Martin Luther King Jr., or ending on a more positive note.
> 
> I compare the threats against Obama the same way as terrorist threats after 911. So far no one has banned those threats, but they too are very real, just as dangerous and fact.
> 
> And no amount of perceived indignation with change either set of threats. It's news, plain and simple.


Of course you are much more likely to do from a lightning strike than in a terrorist attack. The "Be Afraid" button was continually pushed pushed so that the current crooks could set up the Homeland Gestapo and invade Iraq. The latter was very handy for enriching their big oil buddies.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

OK I have little or no tolerance for politicians or political speeches. The DNC has lots of both and most of the latter have been boring in the extreme.

Still this one is worth listening to. Dennis has hit all of the major issues clearly and concisely. Too bad the surviving candidates are not interested in dealing with those issues.

YouTube - Dennis Kucinich at the DNC: Wake Up America!


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Hillary Clinton's speech and her constant pandering, as well as the threat that she may be a part of the Obama Cabinet, pretty much forks a few million votes to McCain. Add to that the millions of votes going to McCain because of the inclusion of Biden on the ticket - and so long as McCain can resist the temptation to put a tool like Quayle on the ticket, he should have it in the bag, especially if he picks Romney or another Republican big wig. Of course, Powell on the ticket would be a major coupe for McCain.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

For all my dislike of American foreign policy 










*Sincere congrats to the people of the United States on nominating Barack Obama for President ...keep the changes rolling*  :clap:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I think there are some changes coming to abortion laws...


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

If McCain wins I do not even know what I will do. Look where old, crusty white men have gotten the US so far!

Do some of you want to start a crying circle? Maybe start a Fight Club and erase all the credit card debt.....?


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

I already enacted my "What if McCain Wins" plan by moving up here. 

(no, I won't move back if Obama wins. I think he'll make a great president, but the US will need at least a decade to recover from this debacle and bury all traces of neo-con-fascism. The Republicans will need at least that long to recover their good name from this fiasco as well.)


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> For all my dislike of American foreign policy
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What's with the big type crap?

I can still read the regular font fine and it didn't enhance your point one iota, even though I agree with it.


----------



## lookitsmarc (Feb 2, 2008)

SINC said:


> Banning a subject accomplishes nothing. It simple demonstrates ignorance of the real facts in the world around you. There is a ton of information out there on the many, many death threats to Obama. I follow them with great interest as they are and will be part of history be it like JFK, RFK or Martin Luther King Jr., or *ending on a more positive note.*
> 
> I compare the threats against Obama the same way as terrorist threats after 911. So far no one has banned those threats, but they too are very real, just as dangerous and fact.
> 
> And no amount of perceived indignation with change either set of threats. It's news, plain and simple.


That's got to be one of the biggest euphemisms I have ever heard. Nice!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> What's with the big type crap?
> 
> I can still read the regular font fine and it didn't enhance your point one iota, even though I agree with it.


MacDoc suffers from big crayon envy. It comes from being ignored in elementary school. Look at the pretty, pretty colours!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

lookitsmarc said:


> That's got to be one of the biggest euphemisms I have ever heard. Nice!


Alberta is "Big Euphemism" Country.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Sincere congrats to the people of the United States on nominating Barack Obama for President ...keep the changes rolling." I agree, MacDoc. Today is an historic day for Obama, as well as for the memory of MLK's "I have a dream" speech.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> "Sincere congrats to the people of the United States on nominating Barack Obama for President ...keep the changes rolling." I agree, MacDoc. Today is an historic day for Obama, as well as for the memory of MLK's "I have a dream" speech.


Now if we could just get him to veer away from the Bush Agenda at least a little. So far he has committed himself to following the same stupidity into Iran that served the country so well in Iraq. Also wants to increase troops in Afghanistan, which would have been smart 4 years ago, but that window of opportunity has long since ceased to exist. Still supports FISA even though it creates a KGB or Gestapo like force right on American soil and is potentially every bit as repressive as the Nazi, Soviet or Chinese regimes were at their worst.

WAKE UP AMERICA


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

FISA is "potentially" insidious but comparing it to "Nazi, Soviet or Chinese" regimes makes everything one reads by the same author pretty hard to take seriously.




eMacMan said:


> Still supports FISA even though it creates a KGB or Gestapo like force right on American soil and is potentially every bit as repressive as the Nazi, Soviet or Chinese regimes were at their worst.
> 
> WAKE UP AMERICA


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

My lord. I have stayed out of this one for quite some time, but I can't believe the gullibility of some people. Obama is a politician like any other, except he is half black, woopdeedo! Do you really think that all his platitudinous rhetoric would have garnered one half the attention that it has if it weren't for the fact that the US is still stuck in the dark ages when it comes to race.

So he's half black, if we are all equal who cares! What does the man stand for and what does he offer in terms of policy and direction that is so radically different from what anyone else in the democratic party might have to offer? Clearly not that much if it was still down to the wire with Hillary Clinton,  as his opponent.

What would be truly amazing is that if the Democratic or any other political party actually put forward a nominee who represented real change and by that I mean someone who isn't a career politician. But that is never going to happen.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yeah but but,,,,he's an awful good speechifier


----------



## johnb1 (Aug 6, 2006)

*Hmmm....*

Maybe he is...and maybe not...We'll just have to see

I say the proof of the steak is in the eating....

whichever person gets to be President will inherit a big old mess...There's the War
to pay for, loads of foreclosure and banks going under (9 now, may be more)
a lousy economy, floods, and Britney Spears (well, a disaster is a disaster) 
and the country's reputation overseas is right in the toilet :yikes: 
plus the country may be divided, paranoid and....broke.... (and Hillary's ticked off )

think of the US as a house. It's be nice to leave that house as you found it, hopefully in better shape. If you trash that house, you should be forced to fix it, not just ditch it

Way to Go, George W !

John B


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Obama himself has not made a big deal out of being black or half-black, although many of his supporters have commented on the historic nature of his nomination.

Then again, obviously many people don't recognize change when it's staring them in the face.




screature said:


> My lord. I have stayed out of this one for quite some time, but I can't believe the gullibility of some people. Obama is a politician like any other, except he is half black, woopdeedo! Do you really think that all his platitudinous rhetoric would have garnered one half the attention that it has if it weren't for the fact that the US is still stuck in the dark ages when it comes to race.
> 
> So he's half black, if we are all equal who cares! What does the man stand for and what does he offer in terms of policy and direction that is so radically different from what anyone else in the democratic party might have to offer? Clearly not that much if it was still down to the wire with Hillary Clinton,  as his opponent.
> 
> What would be truly amazing is that if the Democratic or any other political party actually put forward a nominee who represented real change and by that I mean someone who isn't a career politician. But that is never going to happen.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

HowEver said:


> FISA is "potentially" insidious but comparing it to "Nazi, Soviet or Chinese" regimes makes everything one reads by the same author pretty hard to take seriously.


I would agree, FISA is just more red tape that will do nothing more than to add the the clerical staff in Washington. The NKVD and the Gestapo were much more efficient - why bother with a lot of paperwork when you are going to destroy the evidence later anyways? Congress has longed to gain control of the CIA, and if that happens, the CIA will be the most encumbered thing imaginable.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

johnb1 said:


> There's the War to pay for, loads of foreclosure and banks going under (9 now, may be more), a lousy economy, floods, and Britney Spears (well, a disaster is a disaster), and the country's reputation overseas is right in the toilet :yikes: plus the country may be divided, paranoid and....broke.... (and Hillary's ticked off)


Looks like business as usual in the good ole US of A! beejacon

It was crazier in the 80's: Reagan funding every crackerjack group that could be bribed to fight "communists", the Strategic Defense Initiative, a major recession and energy crisis, America's reputation overseas in the toilet, Chrysler being bailed out only to go on and make K Cars and buy out AMC for some unknown reason, Miami Vice and Misfits Of Science, America attacking crackerjack nations like Panama and Grenada (which were much wussier than Iraq and Afghanistan), and Nancy and his intimate visits with the Mulroney's...

I would have added Rob Lowe, but I have no idea if he was caught with the trannies in the 80's or the 90's, nor do I want to waste time consulting the Wikipedia.

Yep, business as usual...


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Getting back to da jonesy's original question "Obama, is this guy the real deal?", I think that after tonight's speech, most who saw this historic moment would say "Yes!!!".


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Indeed :clap:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

You guys are pushovers. Dr. G is obviously an idealist, but MacDoc's brain cells have been fried on too much _American Idol_.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Dr.G. said:


> Getting back to da jonesy's original question "Obama, is this guy the real deal?", I think that after tonight's speech, most who saw this historic moment would say "Yes!!!".


Obama's speech rated as "Best Nap In Front Of A Television Possible", and after that torture, I look forward to turning on CPAC in the fall and watching something much more exciting, our Senators asking questions about minutae, or Supreme Court deliberations.

Not to burst anyones balloons, but why did they bother having this shindig, since there was no voting, no race, no mudslinging and no substance? It was a political event completely devoid of politics or anything interesting. Sure, we got to see the Democrats trot out crusty old drunk Kennedy in some attempt to have people "remember" the 60's. At least in the 60's (and 70's), the DNC was actually interesting, with The Weathermen, Black Panthers, Abbie Hoffman, and the Plumbers. Maybe they should have trotted some of those dudes out, well, any that are still alive and able to get a day pass from the old age home.

Plus there were some actual races with actual votes. This was nothing more than a Coronation that dragged on and on and on. Not that I expect the RNC to be any more interesting. McCain will be crowned along with some clown that will be his running mate. And perhaps even worse than trotting out old drunk Kennedy, the Republicrats will probably trot out old man Bush, yeah, another best possible nap in front of the television. By then, maybe I'll be able to flip channels and watch the excitement of a Jack Layton election speech!


----------



## iJohnHenry (Mar 29, 2008)

Room deposit??

Because Democrats are closet Republicans, in that they love to party.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

DEMs love the Big O while GOPs have to hold their nose to pull the lever for McCain.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

MF, that was just mean.

___________________________

Excellent speech and energy from Obama last night. It remains to be seen whether he can carry that all the way forward to the election day, but based on last night's performance and Obama's more direct slags of his opponent, I'd expect the republican camp has got to be just a wee bit nervous.

I think he just might take it away from the republicans. But after the honeymoon, who knows? Talk about your great expectations. The weight of what this one man is supposed to represent is colossal.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"You guys are pushovers. Dr. G is obviously an idealist, but MacDoc's brain cells have been fried on too much American Idol." Macfury, I can't/won't speak for MacDoc, since I don't watch American/Canadian Idol on TV. However, you use the term "idealist" in a negative sense, and I would say that, for me, it is a positive word, just like the word "liberal". I am a liberal and and idealist, and I say this with pride. 

Luckily, I am able to vote in the US election, or else I would feel torn to go back to the US and at least work for Obama's campaign. I have swayed five other American ex-pats to register and to vote for Obama in Michigan, Wisconsin, California and New York. So, along with my vote and my son's vote for Obama in Georgia, that is seven votes for Obama/Biden. We shall see.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"DEMs love the Big O while GOPs have to hold their nose to pull the lever for McCain." Miss G., let's hope that Democrats, Independents, Republicans, et al, were moved by the speech last night and vote for Obama. Imagine all the good he can do for most Americans if he is elected with a Democratic Congress. We shall see.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> However, you use the term "idealist" in a negative sense, and I would say that, for me, it is a positive word, just like the word "liberal". I am a liberal and and idealist, and I say this with pride.


I'm not using your idealism as a negative term. Idealists see the best in what they support. It explains to me what some--but not me--see in Obama. It is the nature of idealism and not a criticism.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> It remains to be seen whether he can carry that all the way forward to the election day, but based on last night's performance and Obama's more direct slags of his opponent, I'd expect the republican camp has got to be just a wee bit nervous.


They were nervous at the beginning, but I think this latest barrage of emptiness has got them feeling a lot more confident about little man McCain's chances.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Brave stance, there... but you're blowin' smoke, my proper Torontinianesque friend. I can smell it from here.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

HowEver said:


> Obama himself has not made a big deal out of being black or half-black, although many of his supporters have commented on the historic nature of his nomination.
> 
> Then again, obviously many people don't recognize change when it's staring them in the face.


Then again many people can be guiled into believing that because you give an old car a new paint job, it makes it a new car.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Max said:


> Brave stance, there... but you're blowin' smoke, my proper Torontinianesque friend. I can smell it from here.


I had to turn the volume down it's almost yelling lol.

A few right wing blogs this morning, the best they could do, was posting cartoons of terrorists looking happy about Obama.

Man. That's all they got. Obama effectively neutralized the 'Bush-isms' last night. It can't be easy to take if you are part of the righteous right.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I think some of you are confusing media adulation with electoral support.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Whereas you personally are confusing your avatar with your own mind. Be more like my avatar - _realistic._


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Max said:


> I think he just might take it away from the republicans. But after the honeymoon, who knows? Talk about your great expectations. The weight of what this one man is supposed to represent is colossal.


Yeah, it all comes down to who Hugo Chavez decides who should be President, considering that his relatives own the voting machines. After the shenanigans of the last two elections, I would expect this one to be quite an upset decided by a handful of "votes" cast in some obscure precinct.

Hugo has a big choice: putting Obama in and having normal political relations with the US (but at the cost of not being able to brand Obama the issue of Satan in order to scare his countrymen); or putting McCain in and continuing with the whole issue of Satan angle and being able to feed an ever increasing amount of petroleum into the US, which will not change their habits one iota. McCain makes better fodder for Allo Presidente!, and we all know what high ratings mean in today's world.


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

Macfury said:


> You guys are pushovers. Dr. G is obviously an idealist, but MacDoc's brain cells have been fried on too much _American Idol_.


Speaking of _American Idol_ while listening to Obama's speech, I was reminded of a contestant (any contestant) singing a Whitney Houston song on Idol. They get the words right, but they can't capture the feeling.

Obama, IMHO, got the words right, but where was the passion and the outrage that his words were trying to convey.

I really wanted him to make a moving speech, but I wasn't moved.

The hype about it being the 45 anniversary of MLK's "I Have a Dream" might have hurt Obama who just doesn't have the "big voice" for a speech like that.

Interesting that Obama picks an old codger as his running mate, while the old codger McCain picks a woman. Both camps seem to think they know what the public wants. But because both Obama and McCain can say "nuclear", we'll see what the public thinks.

Margaret


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> I think some of you are confusing media adulation with electoral support.


The electors never vote in who the media want. The media really wanted Ford in, but Carter one; then the media wanted Carter in, but Reagan won. The media also wanted Mondale and Ferraro, had a love in with Jesse Jackson, turned Perot into a folksy hero, not to mention has beens like Dukakis and Hart.

America still has enough red necks to get McCain elected, despite the media, especially if they manage to "forget" to put voting machines in the black neighbourhoods once again...


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

If anything, with this election, the quality of the nominees is way above anything we have seen over the last 8 years.

Obama, the great oratory politician of our time
McCain, the American War Hero

Biden, The experienced outspoken blue collar senator
Palin, the fresh upstart maverick outsider

This will be a very interesting election. I hope the "swiftboating" tactics of the last one will be kept to a minimum, but I doubt it.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I see your point, Macfury. Still, I look towards the future with a hope of a renewed American dream. I was too young to appreciate the impact that John Kennedy had upon the US, but I was actively involved in the election of 1968 when I saw the potential that Robert Kennedy offered to many American people (for the record, I ran as a delegate to the Democratic Convention in Chicago supporting Eugene McCarthy).

Obama brings out that renewed hope that we can work hard together and to rebuild the US. Call it idealism, but there is a need to restore a sense of "common purpose".


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

You can't "swiftboat" John McCain unless he really is a war hero.

What did he do to justify the "hero" title?

Not to denigrate surviving torture and degradation as a POW; it's just that Kerry's heroic actions, for example, actually saved lives and helped their war effort. What did McCain do other than survive?




da_jonesy said:


> If anything, with this election, the quality of the nominees is way above anything we have seen over the last 8 years.
> 
> Obama, the great oratory politician of our time
> McCain, the American War Hero
> ...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'm supplying information here, not offering an opinion on McCain's war record. He did co-operate with the enemy to receive medical attention:

"Demands for military information were accompanied by threats to terminate my medical treatment if I [McCain] did not cooperate. Eventually, I gave them my ship's name and squadron number, and confirmed that my target had been the power plant." Pages 193-194, Faith of My Fathers, by John McCain.

There's already a Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain group demanding to know whether McCain delivered any secrets to communist interrogators that could be used against him as president.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> If anything, with this election, the quality of the nominees is way above anything we have seen over the last 8 years.
> 
> Obama, the great oratory politician of our time
> McCain, the American War Hero
> ...


McBush's choice is going to be painted as Dan Quayle in a dress. Just wait...

I miss your fruit f***er avatar, jonesy.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

HowEver said:


> You can't "swiftboat" John McCain unless he really is a war hero.
> 
> What did he do to justify the "hero" title?
> 
> Not to denigrate surviving torture and degradation as a POW; it's just that Kerry's heroic actions, for example, actually saved lives and helped their war effort. What did McCain do other than survive?


It is pretty well documented that he was given the option of leaving the POW camp "out of turn" but told his captors he would stay. It's debatable that is a heroic action in and of itself, but there are some who argue the point. 

The american view is that he is a war hero... that is pretty much accepted.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MissGulch said:


> McBush's choice is going to be painted as Dan Quayle in a dress. Just wait...
> 
> I miss your fruit f***er avatar, jonesy.


I had suspected McCain would choose a woman (to leverage the Hillary defection factor), the problem was I didn't know of any other than Rice who had a high enough profile to consider.

Well what better to replace the FF than "The Most Interesting Man in the World"...

Dos Equis - The Most Interesting Man In The World Revisited | Everything's Better With Brentter

PS. The FF may return.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> PS. The FF may return.


A moving .gif FF - even better!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"I had suspected McCain would choose a woman (to leverage the Hillary defection factor), the problem was I didn't know of any other than Rice who had a high enough profile to consider." Good point, da jonesy. As well, Palin have very few similar views as those held by H. Clinton. Thus, just because she was a woman, Clinton got support from various other non-woman groups. I can't see women who supported Clinton suddenly voting for McCain because he selected a woman.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *Palin: You're no Hillary Clinton*
> 
> None of my pro-Hillary female friends are falling for this obvious GOP pander. To the contrary, McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as his VP is drawing hoots of derision.
> 
> ...


It may actually wind up energizing the Dem women to give the Repubs an even swifter boot....

One Quayle's at the thought.....


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"One female friend said: "Sarah Palin is to the movement for women's equality what Clarence Thomas is to civil rights. She's an extremist and an enemy to the cause that has been fought on her behalf.... Someone should stand up and say: 'I know Senator Clinton. Senator Clinton is a friend of mine. And Sarah Palin is no Hillary Rodham Clinton.'" "

An interesting point, MacDoc. I am waiting for Biden to make such a statement in their one debate. I feel that she will hold her own as a speaker. However, if asked certain questions re foreign policy views and first-hand experiences, she might start to show her areas of weakness.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

The republocrats did indeed scrape the bottom of the barrel. They had to travel a long way to find an anti-abortion, creationist female republican. beejacon


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

eMacMan, she is not all that bad. She did put an end to Sen. Steven's "bridge to nowhere".


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Interesting;


The Perfect Stranger


> The Perfect Stranger
> 
> By Charles Krauthammer
> Friday, August 29, 2008; A15
> ...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc: You're missing the swift boat here. Palin was not chosen to engage Democrats but to energize Republicans who could handily crush Obama if sufficiently motivated. Media derision will only energize them further.


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

A septuagenarian Washington insider with health issues and an anger management problem teams up with someone whose brief resume seems so underwhelming that the only things people can really remark on are her gender and her loyalty to hard-right conservatism. 

For many most voters, the Omama/Biden ticket is now going to look like the safe, responsible choice.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Conventions aren't for buddy-building.

If they had trotted out character witnesses, as that article suggests, for each one who told their story, a few fewer people would have identified with Obama. No doubt they could have found scores of people.

Keep things general, and he's all things to all people.

Brilliant.






Macfury said:


> Interesting;
> 
> 
> The Perfect Stranger


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

(( p g )) said:


> For many most voters, the Omama/Biden ticket is now going to look like the safe, responsible choice.


For committed Democrats, sure. But they were going to vote for THAT set of clowns already.



> Conventions aren't for buddy-building.
> 
> If they had trotted out character witnesses, as that article suggests, for each one who told their story, a few fewer people would have identified with Obama. No doubt they could have found scores of people.


It's been done at all prior conventions--it simply wasn't possible here.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

I'd take Obama or McCain over Bush any day. Neither of the tickets have Southerners among them. Finally the grip of the Southern Baptists and Moral Majority have been loosened.


----------



## JoeyDee (Aug 15, 2008)

God bless him and the WORLD needs a change, I think we can all agree on that. Bush's administration has totally put the US in a bunch of crap and created so much hate amongst each other  which totally sucks!

Obama is getting younger people involved and more aware that we need a change. 

-JOey


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Obama is getting younger people involved and more aware that we need a change." I totally agree, Joey. This is why I am betting on an Obama victory. He has my vote in the State of Georgia (via absentee ballot). We shall see.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Boy, I have to say ... it sure is nice to have a candidate for president who can actually string coherent sentences together. It's been a while.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

JoeyDee said:


> Obama is getting younger people involved and more aware that we need a change.


I was following tracking polls for a little while this month and noted that this is the area where Obama was losing most support--in the younger demographic groups. To solidify support in that area he would have needed to vote against granting the telephone companies immunity for handing over customer records--or cast some similar maverick vote--but his record since offering "Change" has been to support the status quo. He has, however, "changed" his mind on Iraq and other issues on which this group now disagrees with him.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

chas_m said:


> Boy, I have to say ... it sure is nice to have a candidate for president who can actually string coherent sentences together. It's been a while.


Well I know what you mean, but as far as candidates go not really quite true, if he is elected and becomes President then you are completely correct.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

When referring to incoherent leaders, Chretien immediately springs to mind.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

gmark2000 said:


> When referring to incoherent leaders, Chretien immediately springs to mind.


Too true! :lmao: :lmao: I worked on the Hill when Chretien was PM, it was too funny listening to the inerpreters struggling to translate even his French  into English!


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

screature said:


> Too true! :lmao: :lmao: I worked on the Hill when Chretien was PM, it was too funny listening to the inerpreters struggling to translate even his French  into English!


Yes, nothing like a leader who couldn't speak in either official language.


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

VP teenage daughter pregnant, to marry father. Let's se how they spin this. IMO, Game over for the Republicans!!!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/us/politics/02PALINDAY.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Palin’s Teen Daughter Is Pregnant; New G.O.P. Tumult

By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
Published: September 1, 2008
ST. PAUL — The 17-year-old daughter of Gov. Sarah Palin, John McCain’s running mate, is five months pregnant, the Alaskan governor announced Monday, adding a new element of tumult to a Republican convention that had already been disrupted by Hurricane Gustav.
The daughter, Bristol, plans to marry the father, according to the statement, which was issued by Governor Palin and her husband, Todd.

“Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned,” the statement said. “As Bristol faces the responsibilities of adulthood, she knows that she has our unconditional love and support.”

The announcement came after a swirl of rumors by liberal bloggers that the governor’s fifth child, who was born in April, was in fact her daughter’s.

Groups that oppose abortion rights had been thrilled with Mr. McCain’s selection of Ms. Palin as his running mate, partly because of her opposition to abortion. It is not clear how social conservatives will respond to the latest news, but the initial reaction of several delegates to the convention here was supportive of the family.

The McCain campaign said it was aware of the daughter’s pregnancy before Mr. McCain named Ms. Palin as his running mate on Friday.

Steve Schmidt, the chief strategist for the McCain campaign, was surrounded by reporters and cameras as he walked through the media center next door to the Xcel Center in St. Paul, where the convention is taking place. Asked over and over when and how Mr. McCain found out about Bristol’s pregnancy, he repeated, “Senator McCain was aware” of it and called it “a private family matter.” He would not say when Mr. McCain found out or how, calling it a “private conversation.”

“The fact is, John McCain had a thorough search and made the decision to add Sarah Palin to the ticket because he believes” that she “will change America,” Mr. Schmidt said.
He said how big this becomes would depend on the media. “I think the American people will see this news and they’d have good wishes for the young lady and they’ll respect the privacy of the family,” he said.

Asked if Ms. Palin would be able to juggle the demands of the vice presidency with her complicated family life, Mr. Schmidt said, “She’s been a very effective governor and again I can’t imagine that question being asked of a man.”

Ms. Palin’s statement identified the father only by a first name, Levi. “Bristol and the young man she will marry are going to realize very quickly the difficulties of raising a child, which is why they will have the love and support of our entire family,” the statement said. “We ask the media, respect our daughter and Levi’s privacy as has always been the tradition of children of candidates.”

Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee, was asked at a brief press conference in Monroe, Mich., about the suggestion by some Republicans that Democrats — particularly liberal bloggers — were trying to advance rumors about the Palin family.

“Our people were not involved in any way in this and they will not be,” Mr. Obama snapped, his voice raised. “And if I ever thought there was somebody in my campaign that was involved in something like that, they’d be fired, O.K.?”

Mr. Obama said the pregnancy “has no relevance to Governor Palin’s performance as a governor or her potential performance as a vice president.” He added that, “my mother had me when she was 18. How a family deals with issues and teen-age children — that shouldn’t be the topic of our politics.”

“So,” he added, “I would strongly urge people to back off these kinds of stories.”
Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina said that he had heard no discussion about removing Ms. Palin from the ticket. In fact, he said, he thought her daughter’s pregnancy would not hurt her with voters.

“People are looking for real,” he said in an interview. “Real means blemishes, real means warts, real means real. These family imperfections make people say, ‘That family isn’t so different from my family.’”

Early reaction among women at the Republican convention to the news about Bristol Palin’s pregnancy was almost uniformly supportive.

“This happens to people in all walks of life,” said Karen Minnis, 54, a state representative from Oregon.

She also said she had no problem with Governor Palin continuing to campaign while her daughter is pregnant and she herself has an infant son.

“She’s already proven herself as a very good multi-tasker,” Ms. Minnis said. “She comes from a great family and it just shouldn’t be an issue.”

When Pam Younggren, 61, of Fargo, N.D., was told the news of the 17-year-old’s pregnancy, she shrugged. “Well, she wouldn’t be the first one,” she said.

“We can’t control what our daughters do,” she said. “I don’t see it as a problem. She will have appropriate care for her baby.”

Mikey Hoeven, 50, who is married to the governor of North Dakota, said that while the situation was difficult, she also said that Mrs. Palin is “tough” and would get through it.


etc, etc, etc,


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

screature said:


> Well I know what you mean, but as far as candidates go not really quite true, if he is elected and becomes President then you are completely correct.


You know what, you're right. Bob Barr (the Libertarian candidate) can absolutely string a sentence together as well. As does Ron Paul. I find it helps a lot when you a) have some idea of what you're talking about, and b) aren't lying all the time.

I was thinking of McCain, who quite frankly is almost incomprehensible at this point. Unless he's repeating well-rehearsed talking points, actually hearing him speak "off the cuff" is sad and humiliating.

Nader's not a whole lot better, I might add.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

American elections are absolutely retarded. The spin mongers have been making hay out of Palin's pregnant daughter, especially the fact that since the daughter is not going to murder the baby, that it is some kind of anti-abortion deal. They don't consider the fact that maybe she just wants to have a baby - and they also don't consider that no one in the world actually cares one way or the other.

The Republicans may be in trouble, not over policy or personalities, but because of a hurricane - which just reminded everyone of the last time when God Hated New Orleans, and the gross incompetence shown by the Administration, and of the cover-up afterwards.

Of course, Obama's "Change" policy was an utter failure, so he made sure that he brought in one of the biggest glad handlers onto the ticket, and the Democrats have began with the mud slinging commercials already. The only thing more retarded than American elections is the coming election in our own country.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

A few years ago, I heard some bit on the Rush Limbaugh radio show featuring a McCain impersonator doing a Humphrey Bogart bit in the McCain Mutiny. It seems so approproate to hear the old guy mumbling about stolen strawberries.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Crazy theory perhaps but if I can get 1000 to 1 odds I might just lay down $25.

As idiotic as it seems Sarah Pain will be driven out because of the previous baby. I am guessing maybe Nov 1. Jeb Bush will be named as the last minute stand-in. If by some miracle McCain wins, the medical will reveal his Alzheimer's is advancing too rapidly to accept the job and BAM the Bush era continues unabated.beejacon beejacon


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

An interestings speculation, eMacMan. 

I recall that in 1972, about two weeks after McGovern's nomination, it was revealed that his running mate, Thomas Eagleton, had received electroshock therapy for clinical depression during the 1960s. Even though many people still supported Eagleton's candidacy, an increasing number of influential politicians and columnists questioned his ability to handle the office of Vice President. The resulting negative attention prompted McGovern to accept Eagleton's offer to withdraw from the ticket, replacing him with United States Ambassador to France, Sargent Shriver. This occurred after McGovern had stated publicly he was still "... behind Eagleton 1000 percent".

McGovern's reneging on that statement a few days later made him look indecisive. The Eagleton controversy also put the McGovern campaign off message and it proved to be a harbinger of what would become McGovern's subsequent landslide loss to Nixon. 

I don't think that McCain wants to tempt Fate or repeat history, not with the Religious Right evangelicals showing Palin a great deal of support.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

EvanPitts said:


> American elections are absolutely retarded.


You've got me there.



> The spin mongers have been making hay out of Palin's pregnant daughter,


What they're making hay of is the HYPOCRISY, not the baby. This is a "abstinence until married" household that apparently doesn't practice what they preach.

And there's some evidence that this is the daughter's SECOND pregnancy -- that Gov. Palin has been LYING in claiming the most recent child is her son when in fact he may be the grandson.

HYPOCRISY is the fuel running this engine, not teen pregnancy or young motherhood et al -- Obama is the product of an 18 year old mother, as he was quick to point out.



> The Republicans may be in trouble, not over policy or personalities, but because of a hurricane


Actually, this particular hurricane has been a GODSEND to them -- no ridiculous speeches about how great they are (when the record shows they haven't been great at all), no Bush and Cheney showing up to remind Americans how much we HATE THEM!!, and McCain doesn't have to mutter and fluster his way through an acceptance speech, few easily-disproven falsehoods about Obama, and best of all, a do-over on Katrina! Republicans LOVE do-overs and assume it's their god-given right.



> Of course, Obama's "Change" policy was an utter failure


Surely that's yet to be determined? He's gained recently in the polls, and has never not been in the lead, so ...



> he made sure that he brought in one of the biggest glad handlers onto the ticket


Not sure what you mean by this, Joe Biden isn't a "glad-hander" by any means. That would have been someone like John Edwards or Hillary. Joe Biden is like John McCain in exactly one way: both are amazing to watch when they get angry. It's a pity Biden isn't going to debate McCain; Biden knows how to draw McCain's temper and then you'd see who's fit to lead and who isn't.



> and the Democrats have began with the mud slinging commercials already.


Um, what? I think you have confused the Dems with the Republicans. Obama has been rushing to Palin's DEFENSE regarding the "baby mama" flap, and the worst thing their recent ad has said is that the choice of Palin changes nothing; it's still him versus four more years of Bush policies, which is hardly mud-slinging; it's absolutely true.

The Republicans, on the other hand, have ads out that even one of the most conservative editorial boards in America decrys as "patently false" as it claims Obama will raise taxes on "your family and seniors" when in fact the first tax rise under Obama's plan kicks in at $250,000 per annum, everyone below that gets a break.

Lying about your opponent is, in my view, more "mud-slinging" than saying your opponent will continue disasterous Bush policies, when in fact said opponent has explicitly promised to do exactly that.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

eMacMan said:


> > I am guessing maybe Nov 1. Jeb Bush will be named as the last minute stand-in. If by some miracle McCain wins, the medical will reveal his Alzheimer's is advancing too rapidly to accept the job and BAM the Bush era continues unabated.beejacon beejacon
> 
> 
> If McCain had actually picked someone like Jeb Bush, he might have made this a contest. Instead, he has EXPLICITLY signalled via the choice of Palin that the gaffes, missteps and general incompetence will carry on exactly as it is if he's elected.
> ...


----------



## iJohnHenry (Mar 29, 2008)

chas_m said:


> And there's some evidence that this is the daughter's SECOND pregnancy -- that Gov. Palin has been LYING in claiming the most recent child is her son when in fact he may be the grandson.


I thought that too.

Conversation: "Come on honey, you just had a baby. You can't get pregnant yet!!!"

Right.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> And there's some evidence that this is the daughter's SECOND pregnancy -- that Gov. Palin has been LYING in claiming the most recent child is her son when in fact he may be the grandson.


Y'know that's exactly the thought that went through my mine - this is NOT her first time seeing the 2006 photo.

...what evidence???


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

EvanPitts said:


> American elections are absolutely retarded.


How so, you ask? Case in point:



chas_m said:


> And there's some evidence that this is the daughter's SECOND pregnancy -- that Gov. Palin has been LYING in claiming the most recent child is her son when in fact he may be the grandson.


How ridiculous can you get? Answered.

.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

> Surely that's yet to be determined? He's gained recently in the polls, and has never not been in the lead, so ...


In some polls he's been behind and the gap is tending to close as the election draws near. He's had his Biden bump and it wasn't a big one.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

HowEver said:


> How so, you ask? Case in point:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is the article and photo which people are talking about...

Baby news strikes a chord: Politics | adn.com

I have to say she doesn't look very pregnant to me. She is supposed to be 7 months along in that photo, which would be dated Feb 5th if it was Super Tuesday this year. The baby was about one month premature born around April 18th.


----------



## iJohnHenry (Mar 29, 2008)

The baby could have been the daughter's, at full term, and she could have been knocked-up again by her BF.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> In some polls he's been behind and the gap is tending to close as the election draws near. He's had his Biden bump and it wasn't a big one.












Gallup Daily: Obama Hits 50% for First Time


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

It is interesting watching the Republican's various video montages. One had the inclusion of Lincoln, Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, Jr., another had the March on Selma and the bread lines of the Great Depression and Lincoln once again. Still another had the life of Teddy Roosevelt, who became president when McKinley was shot. Interesting, as an American history major in university, I recall debating a strong supporter of Goldwater re the Republican party. Back then, and even moreso today, the Republican party would not be a place for the likes of Lincoln and T. Roosevelt.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I've been following several polls including Rasmussen, CNN and others. In Gallup, Obama has had a small bump, 3 up for him and conversely, 3 down for McCain as the result of his anointing. Gallup seems to offer the consistently highest numbers for Obama. 

Aslo note that many of the polls ask voters to choose between only McCain and Obama. When Barr and Nader are included, some of Obama's support dissipates. I find it interesting, because I would have expected Barr's 2 per cent to come solely off McCain's side of the board.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Given the current RNC speeches I came across this...


Online NewsHour: Bush vs. McCain - March 1, 2000

Here are some interesting things said about McCain by other republicans...

_ARI FLEISCHER: Well, I think that Senator McCain's best days are behind him, frankly, Margaret. I think when you look at the calendar ahead and look how the Governor's message of reform with results and his compassionate conservatives is connecting -- the inroads we're making among independent voters and the way the Republican voters have come home to Governor Bush, I think it is becoming very hard for Senator McCain to continue. We are looking forward to a big night on Super Tuesday March 7._


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

While Republicans had their convention in St. Paul, supporters of Ron Paul threw their own convention in neighboring Minneapolis.

"Freedom brings people together," Paul said before a sold-out crowd at Tuesday's Rally for the Republic.

Paul, who said he entered the presidential race reluctantly, told the roaring audience, "I lost my skepticism. I hope you lost your apathy." 

I have to hand it to Ron Paul. He sticks by his convictions. I don't agree with many of his views, but I admire his committment to his beliefs. 

Amazing that a Republican Congressman is being limited to access to a Republican national convention.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> Amazing that a Republican Congressman is being limited to access to a Republican national convention.


Specifically he was told he would not be welcome unless he renounced his stand against the war in Iraq.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Specifically he was told he would not be welcome unless he renounced his stand against the war in Iraq." Ron Paul is still a democratically elected Congressman in the Republican party. If he was not welcomed, then they should have thrown him out of the party when he first ran for president.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Obama. Is this guy real?" Listening to the Republicans, it is amazing that he even got out of high school, let alone Harvard Law school. If I believed that I was merely being a pawn of the "liberal left media", I would vote for McCain. Luckily, I was brought up to think critically. So, I am voting for Obama.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> "Obama. Is this guy real?"


Definitely--which is why he inspires so little awe.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Definitely--which is why he inspires so little awe.


We are in awe of you, Macfury. You have used up all of our awe.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Awe, shucks.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Awe, shucks.


Shucks and awe.




.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Definitely--which is why he inspires so little awe." Macfury, we totally disagree on the meaning of "awe". Obama inspires with genuine hope and has earned our respect for who he is as a person. Vote for him or not (I shall be voting for him), but he is a "real person".


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I agree that he is a real person--not extraordinary in any sense. And no less a politician than any other contender for high office.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"I agree that he is a real person--not extraordinary in any sense." Macfury, I think we are either talking about a different Obama, or that you sense of "extraordinary" is different from mine.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Obama certainly has charisma, but so did Trudeau. However his voting record in the areas I consider most important, closely follows the Bush Path.

He had his chance with the FISA bill and completely blew it. A vote against that bill would have easily won him the election. As it is a guess we had all better get used to snapping our heals together and shouting "Sieg Heil"


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

chas_m said:


> You've got me there.


However, American elections are a little more understandable than they system they use in Australia, which is totally incomprehensible.



> This is a "abstinence until married" household that apparently doesn't practice what they preach.


It's just so boring in Alaska in the middle of winter. If abstinence is some kind of virtue, I lost that 27 years ago...



> And there's some evidence that this is the daughter's SECOND pregnancy -- that Gov. Palin has been LYING in claiming the most recent child is her son when in fact he may be the grandson.


Nothing new, it happens a lot in places like Timmins and Kentucky. In fact, she could benefit from the voter support from the Springer Nation!



> Obama is the product of an 18 year old mother, as he was quick to point out.


People have questioned why his half-brothers are still living a life of poverty in a mud shack in Kenya - but then again, if the choice is being a dirt farmer in Kenya or living in Chicago, Kenya is a pretty simple choice. There is even less bloodshed in a Kenyan Election than in one in Chicago. Clean air, organic food, cool looking and comfortable clothing and amazing scenery, things absent from Chicago...



> Actually, this particular hurricane has been a GODSEND to them -- no ridiculous speeches about how great they are (when the record shows they haven't been great at all), no Bush and Cheney showing up to remind Americans how much we HATE THEM!!


Benefits were reaped by all, and the speeches at the RNC were a few grades better than the ones at the DNC sleepfest.



> Not sure what you mean by this, Joe Biden isn't a "glad-hander" by any means.


He's so good at it, it's like magic. Biden is so incompatible from Obama's message of Change, and this could really hurt the Democrats.



> That would have been someone like John Edwards or Hillary.


Edwards apparently has trouble keeping his pants on like Hillary's hubbie. Hillary herself is so grating and annoying when she opens her maw - reminds me of one of my friend's wife, ugly and annoying to all get out.

McCain can get into quite a rage. Biden gets into a rage as well, then starts yapping on and on, so bad that Kennedy has to leave the Senate to grab another fifth of Johnny Walker Red. (But I suppose that air molecules could motivate Kennedy that way as well...)

The Democrats have kind of ignored Kerry, as well as Gore, and unless there is a plan to bring them out at a more critical time, it could hurt the Democrats.



> Obama has been rushing to Palin's DEFENSE regarding the "baby mama" flap, and the worst thing their recent ad has said is that the choice of Palin changes nothing; it's still him versus four more years of Bush policies, which is hardly mud-slinging; it's absolutely true.


Obama has been trying to keep from the mud slinging, but the Democrats know better, and it is probably some kind of Schumer effort to plant doubts.

Bush never had "policies". It was all about hate mongering and baiting. His Administration was a complete failure that has accomplished little.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> ...or that you sense of "extraordinary" is different from mine.


I am truly convinced that this is the case. I really see nothing in either candidate.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"I really see nothing in either candidate." Great minds think alike. I see nothing overtly wrong in either candidate, but I do see certain things that are overtly and covertly correct (in my opinion) in one of these candidates, which is why I am voting for him.

If McCain was running for the Democrats, against someone like Mitt Romney, I would be voting for McCain in Georgia in Nov. So, I am not totally opposed to McCain, as I might be if Bush were running once again. I just feel that at this point in time, Obama is right for America. We shall see. At least we can have an honest disagreement without name calling. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/bochangevid?source=20080904_BO_DNC_ND

Yesterday, I got a sense that the Republicans were going for the "us vs them" vote, and the Democrats are more for coming together to make things better for us all.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Dr.G. said:


> https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/bochangevid?source=20080904_BO_DNC_ND
> 
> Yesterday, I got a sense that the Republicans were going for the "us vs them" vote, and the Democrats are more for coming together to make things better for us all.


That definitely is the messaging and more or less had to be the case for the Republicans as the "Kum By Ya, let's all join hands and be as one" brand had already been taken. Not that I could see Republicans taking that stance anyway, at least not the current US neo-Cons.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Downplaying the efforts of ordinary Americans who still believe in America seems to be backfiring on the Republicans. It's not "America, love it or leave it", but rather, "America, change it or lose it". No longer will it be "My country, right or wrong", but rather, My country, when it is right, we must work hard to keep it right, and when it is wrong, we must work even harder to set it right.

eptember 4, 2008
Palin speech pulls in $8 million — for Obama
Posted: 05:19 PM ET

From CNN Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser

(CNN) – Barack Obama's campaign says it has raised more than $8 million from over 130,000 donors following Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin's speech Wednesday night.

The campaign also says it is on track to raise $10 million before John McCain takes the podium at the Republican National Convention tonight.

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time - Blogs from CNN.com


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Walk together, children, and don't get weary." True then ......... true now.

"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice."

YouTube - "We Shall Overcome" - Martin Luther King, Jr.

YouTube - We Shall Overcome - Peter Paul And Mary


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)




----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Right on, brother chas. Peace, my friend.

YouTube - Peter Paul & Mary This Land Is Your Land


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The electoral map based on ongoing polls has shifted dramatically, with McCain and Obama now neck and neck:

RealClearPolitics - Electoral Map

I believe the information at the link I provided will change as the polls change, so my comments hold only for today.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Macfury said:


> The electoral map based on ongoing polls has shifted dramatically, with McCain and Obama now neck and neck:
> 
> RealClearPolitics - Electoral Map
> 
> I believe the information at the link I provided will change as the polls change, so my comments hold only for today.


I think that "Pig" comment is going to hurt Obama more than he might have realized, even though I thought it was quite clever. :clap:


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

He wasn't even talking about Sarah Palin, so how could it hurt him?

It will hurt McCain more, since (1) he was talking about McCain's policies, not his running mate, which is clearly evident when you look at the video and (2) McCain has used the same phrase talking about Hillary Clinton.

McCain doesn't exactly come off as a genius in this exchange.




JumboJones said:


> I think that "Pig" comment is going to hurt Obama more than he might have realized, even though I thought it was quite clever. :clap:


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

HowEver said:


> He wasn't even talking about Sarah Palin, so how could it hurt him?


Not directly, but come on, it's not like that expression is used every day. It just so happens he used it after Palin described herself as a pitbull with lipstick, I don't think it was just a coincidence.

Hillary is old news, and people tend to have a short memory when it comes to those things. As well I think the American people expect that kind of talk form someone like McCain, but not Obama. He has now shown how low he will stoop as well that he is just like every other politician. Change, I think not.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

How low will he stoop? How ridiculous will your assumptions get?

He wasn't talking about Palin, clearly, and undeniably. "Not directly." Nor indirectly.

But because she used the phrase, it must have been about her. Wow.

I sentence you to read Plato's _Dialogues_ so that you can learn just a smidgen about... anything.

From now on, we are going to assume that all your comments about Obama actually refer to John F. Kennedy because you may have once mentioned him.





JumboJones said:


> Not directly, but come on, it's not like that expression is used every day. It just so happens he used it after Palin described herself as a pitbull with lipstick, I don't think it was just a coincidence.
> 
> Hillary is old news, and people tend to have a short memory when it comes to those things. As well I think the American people expect that kind of talk form someone like McCain, but not Obama. He has now shown how low he will stoop as well that he is just like every other politician. Change, I think not.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

HowEver said:


> How low will he stoop? How ridiculous will your assumptions get?
> 
> He wasn't talking about Palin, clearly, and undeniably. "Not directly." Nor indirectly.
> 
> ...


My assumption eh, along with half of America, please. If you can't put two and two together don't get angry with me. 

There are several other expressions he could have used and would have worked better, "same sh!t different pile" comes to mind. Speeches are written ahead of time, this was planned, if not the writer should be fired for not foreseeing the connection and possible conflict.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

JumboJones said:


> My assumption eh, along with half of America, please. If you can't put two and two together don't get angry with me.
> 
> There are several other expressions he could have used and would have worked better, "same sh!t different pile" comes to mind. Speeches are written ahead of time, this was planned, if not the writer should be fired for not foreseeing the connection and possible conflict.


"Half of America" is far too low. Try 99% of America.

Those who don't see it that way belong to the one percent club.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Obama is really clumsy off the cuff. I think he just believed he was being funny and not referring to Palin.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Obama is really clumsy off the cuff. I think he just believed he was being funny and not referring to Palin.


I really hate to give ANY politician the benefit of the doubt but in this case I will go along with you.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

So when Obama used the expression 8 months before, he was predicting that Sarah Palin would be named by McCain as a running mate?

Or when McCain used the expression specifically speaking about Hillary Clinton, he was doing so to get Obama in trouble a year later?

How's that for writing ahead of time.



JumboJones said:


> My assumption eh, along with half of America, please. If you can't put two and two together don't get angry with me.
> 
> There are several other expressions he could have used and would have worked better, "same sh!t different pile" comes to mind. Speeches are written ahead of time, this was planned, if not the writer should be fired for not foreseeing the connection and possible conflict.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

HowEver said:


> So when Obama used the expression 8 months before, he was predicting that Sarah Palin would be named by McCain as a running mate?
> 
> Or when McCain used the expression specifically speaking about Hillary Clinton, he was doing so to get Obama in trouble a year later?
> 
> How's that for writing ahead of time.


To believe using the expression again wouldn't be a touchy subject after Palin's speech is nieve, and is a complete mistake on his part. I think it is going to hurt his campaign, if you don't then fine, we'll see in November.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

As my grandfather used to say, "You can put a shoe in the oven, but it won't come out a bagel." Obama is free to use that phrase if he wants to as a way of getting the votes of those who like bagels ............... and who want a change in the way the president views the American people and the people of the world.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

^^^
It could have an adverse effect on cobblers, as they would view the placing of shoes into an oven as an act of mass murder.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Good one, Evan.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Biden to Obama: "Hands off'n my shootin' iron."

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Fact Check: Does Obama want to ban guns and rifles? « - Blogs from CNN.com



> Sen. Joe Biden, told supporters at a Virginia rally on Saturday, September 20, "I guarantee you, Barack Obama ain't taking my shotguns. So don't buy that malarkey. They're going to start peddling that to you. I've got two and if he tries to fool with my Beretta, he's got a problem."


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"From my cold, dead hands ..................."


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Yes we can ............" Spread the word .......... spread the hope.

YouTube - Signs of Hope & Change


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

3 to 2 independents for Obama that's good news.

For the breakdown by category 

MediaCurves.Com - A Service of HCD Research Inc.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

MacDoc, if true, those are interesting numbers, and if I was a McCain supporter I would be worried, especially with those Independent voters. We shall see.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

There is one very important off shoot of last night's presidential debate that no one has yet mentioned.

Did anyone else notice that these two candidates treated each other with the utmost respect? Did you notice neither spoke over the other or tried haranguing the other?

When our leaders step up to debate, watch what I fear will be everything the American debate wasn't, with everyone talking at once and pandemonium so voters get no sense of who is saying what. Sadly, it's the Canadian way in both the debates and in the house. 

One other observation. I did not feel comfortable with Obama's knowledge of foreign affairs and his obvious lack of military knowledge. His proposal to abandon Iraq for Afghanistan shows significant misunderstanding of the situation. That might have a big effect on US voters in the privacy of the ballot booth.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

US presidents are only as good as their advisors. Obama may have mischaracterized a few situations, but that pales beside the continuation of warmongering promised by McCain. Let his advisors catch him up, and pray for peace.

But you're right about the mutual admiration society aspect. They come off as nice people vying for some humanitarian award. It's hard to believe that within a few months they'll be in charge of slaughtering thousands abroad, ordering secret hits in foreign countries, and imprisoning hundreds of thousands at home in disproportionate numbers.

Back at home, the attack ads continue. It does seem to be pretty one-sided. No doubt Dion should be pretty pissed off at the way he's portrayed. Maybe they'll get a rise out of him at the debates as well.






SINC said:


> There is one very important off shoot of last night's presidential debate that no one has yet mentioned.
> 
> Did anyone else notice that these two candidates treated each other with the utmost respect? Did you notice neither spoke over the other or tried haranguing the other?
> 
> ...


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I found it interesting that in the entire 90 of debating, John McCain did not mention the middle class directly even once. I think that this oversight will cost him at some point in the next week or so if he does not get back to actually thinking about those who are really hurting in this recession. We shall see.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> I found it interesting that in the entire 90 of debating, John McCain did not mention the middle class directly even once. .


He repeatedly referred to it as "Main Street."


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

SINC said:


> I did not feel comfortable with Obama's knowledge of foreign affairs and his obvious lack of military knowledge. His proposal to abandon Iraq for Afghanistan shows significant misunderstanding of the situation. That might have a big effect on US voters in the privacy of the ballot booth.


While not intending to comment here on "who's right" about Iraq, I will point out to you that the US public are SERIOUSLY "over" Iraq. They want out, for good or ill, they no longer care. They want OUT.

This is reflected in the fact that, despite ongoing casualties and the ongoing (and huge) drain on the US budget, the news media there barely cover it and then only when they have to. The public have almost forgotten about the story now, focused as they are on the dog-and-pony show and the economic meltdown. It's like they can only keep a maximum of two stories in their collective consciousness (or at least, the news media seem to think so).

I daresay that if the adventure in Afghanistan were costing Canada $12B a month, it would be the centre topic every night. You still do pay a great deal more attention to your servicepeople (particularly in death) than the US does theirs these days.

In large measure, Obama's steadfast support of leaving Iraq as quickly as possible, contrasted with McCain's generally hawkish tone, is one of the factors that has made this lesser-experienced candidate so viable.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

SINC said:


> Did anyone else notice that these two candidates treated each other with the utmost respect? Did you notice neither spoke over the other or tried haranguing the other?


Lucky I didn't waste my time watching that junk. Debates should be about mud throwing, unfounded accusations, dirty laundry, hidden scandals, etc... Genteel debates are boring, held as if the Electors actually care about "issues".

It was probably the same level of boredom as one of Bush's State Of The Union Adresses, you knw, where he talks about all of the fluff that he doesn't plan on achieving. I am still waiting for the "Shock And Awe" attack on Iraq.

Americans are literally being bored to death by this garbage - it's time to bring out the negative ads, scandals, dirty laundry and whatever - they need to jazz this thing up or no one will bother going to the polls.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury, "Main Street" is not the middle class. Obama uses the term middle class and main street, but not in the same sense of McCain.

Seems the Obama folks read my posting. "I found it interesting that in the entire 90 of debating, John McCain did not mention the middle class directly even once. I think that this oversight will cost him at some point in the next week or so if he does not get back to actually thinking about those who are really hurting in this recession. We shall see."


https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/debatevideo1?source=20080927_DP_D1


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

What is "Main Street" then, Dr. G.?


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)




----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

In Lincoln's day the job was a lot smaller. Sin e the U.S. has largely abandoned its constitution, the government has its finger in millions of pies that Lincoln would never have had to deal with. He would be appalled at the degree to which the average American has become a ward of the state.


----------



## ruffdeezy (Mar 17, 2008)

Macfury said:


> He repeatedly referred to it as "Main Street."


It's interesting how Obama was the first to use the phrase comparing Wall Street and Main Street months ago and now McCain and the media has picked up on it.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

ruffdeezy said:


> It's interesting how Obama was the first to use the phrase comparing Wall Street and Main Street months ago and now McCain and the media has picked up on it.


Picked up on it? It's like a disease. They can't stop saying it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ruffdeezy said:


> It's interesting how Obama was the first to use the phrase comparing Wall Street and Main Street months ago and now McCain and the media has picked up on it.


Newsflash: Obama didn't make it up.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Main Street" is a satirical novel written by Sinclair Lewis, and published in 1920. The story is set in Gopher Prairie, Minnesota.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Dr. G - you ill enjoy this story....



> *Not that it matters ...
> Or does it?*


Leisha's Random Thoughts & Ponderings: Not that it matters ...


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Thanks for that article, MacDoc. Shows who we need as president of the United States.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

You could have quoted a bit more to save us from clicking through...



MacDoc said:


> Dr. G - you ill enjoy this story....
> 
> 
> 
> Leisha's Random Thoughts & Ponderings: Not that it matters ...


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

HowEver, I am glad that MacDoc did not tell us who the article was about near the end. This way, it had more impact, at least for me.

At first, I thought he was wanting to know if I was "ill", then I realized the typo.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

HowEver said:


> You could have quoted a bit more to save us from clicking through...


Weren't you one of the people who was complaining MacDoc posts *too much* of his articles not two days ago? 

I may be confusing you with someone else, but I'm just kidding anyway. MD does post overly long excepts sometimes. I agree with you that a one-sentence summary or key paragraph might strike the right balance.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

No. I was referencing people who made such complaints. Try to keep up.




chas_m said:


> Weren't you one of the people who was complaining MacDoc posts *too much* of his articles not two days ago?
> 
> I may be confusing you with someone else, but I'm just kidding anyway. MD does post overly long excepts sometimes. I agree with you that a one-sentence summary or key paragraph might strike the right balance.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I was one of those people. I believe Sinc and MF have also complained. My take on it goes like this: post long quotes if you wish, but I'd rather you use your own voice. Post a link or a smaller quote _in addition to_ using your own furshlugginer words to give us your view. That tells me you're willing to back up your views... at least, to the extent that you take the trouble of typing your own responses to issues of the day. Simply link bombing and quote barfing just doesn't seem very... personal. It's just rather mechanical parroting of what other people have actually taken the time to express.

But that's my view and I don't generally get my knickers in a knot over that stuff. I'm generally quite happy with this place and its various citizens.

*Edit*

Cool story MD linked to, though. Sort of a random act of kindness thing. Although in terms of impacting this looming election; I'm sure John McCain has had his moments where he's helped out perfect strangers. Those stories are out there, too.

Aren't they?


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Max said:


> Cool story MD linked to, though. Sort of a random act of kindness thing. Although in terms of impacting this looming election; I'm sure John McCain has had his moments where he's helped out perfect strangers. Those stories are out there, too.
> 
> Aren't they?


Sure they are! Haven't you heard about his torrid fling with a Cuban beauty (which, I suppose, gives him Latin American experience ...)


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

He also has contemporary experience with Latin.




chas_m said:


> Sure they are! Haven't you heard about his torrid fling with a Cuban beauty (which, I suppose, gives him Latin American experience ...)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Through Acorn, Obama also helped arrange thousands of sub-prime mortgage loans for people who would not otherwise have been in the market.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Through Acorn, Obama also helped arrange thousands of sub-prime mortgage loans for people who would not otherwise have been in the market.


He should have to pay them back then.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

He's been paid with their thanks.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Macfury said:


> He's been paid with their thanks.


Did he vote that the lenders be re-imbursed?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I believe he voted that they receive some compensation for the loans he promoted.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Once again Obama had the chance to say the bailout was just plain wrong and did nothing to fix the problem. Once again he, McCain and Biden voted Bush all the way. 

Palin of course was considered too off the wall to vote at all but would have joyfully goose stepped along had the opportunity presented itself.beejacon


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Obama is a REAL politican after all.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Do governors vote in Congress, or Senate? .........................




eMacMan said:


> Once again Obama had the chance to say the bailout was just plain wrong and did nothing to fix the problem. Once again he, McCain and Biden voted Bush all the way.
> 
> *Palin of course was considered too off the wall to vote at all* but would have joyfully goose stepped along had the opportunity presented itself.beejacon


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Through Acorn, Obama also helped arrange thousands of sub-prime mortgage loans for people who would not otherwise have been in the market.


All those damn community organizers caused the credit and financial crisis!!! You're quite the comedian, MF.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

^^^
I still think that Obama made a big mistake when he put Biden on the ticket, because that ruined his whole message of "change" by going with one of the biggest Washington insiders who is possibly more connected to the pork barrel than anyone else in Congress.

It also opened up the door to McCain, who can claim to be the real renegade as well as being progressive minded by selecting Palin as a female VP.

What should have been an Obama cake walk has turned into a peculiarily closer than need be race - though Obama was smart enough not to entirely ruin his campaign by adding Clinton to the ticket...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Just sayin'

Oh, really?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Sinc, I know someone who has volunteered for the Adult Literacy program at Blue Gargoyle. She is a die-hard Republican (she is voting for John McCain but he is far too liberal for her). If there was anyone who would be the first to call out the National Guard if there was even a hint of inappropriate actions by Obama, she would be the first to sound the alarm. As she has said, it is a great organization that really put their funding to good use to help adults learn to read.

Blue Gargoyle


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)




----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I was shocked when McCain call Obama "that one". McCain is really starting to dislike Obama now, and it won't be long before we see a Willie Horton-like commercial.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> I was shocked when McCain call Obama "that one". McCain is really starting to dislike Obama now, and it won't be long before we see a Willie Horton-like commercial.


The latest bits of the right-wing smear machine are some hope that they can connect Obama to a socialist Kenyan politician who he met in 2006. "That must mean he's a Muslim terrist, right?"


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

GA, that would be on par for the last gasp sorts of ads that might come from a Republican party that is being controlled by those on the extreme right of the party.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> GA, that would be on par for the last gasp sorts of ads that might come from a Republican party that is being controlled by those on the extreme right of the party.


Let's hope it's the last gasp. Me, I've watched too many of those stupid movies where just when you think the monster is dead and the story is over, it comes roaring back to life for the final attack.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

GA, sad, but all too true. Hopefully, this will have a happy ending for those of us who believe in Obama. We shall see.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Good news all around

Right Side Politics Examiner: State polling update 10/10

BUT



> West Virginia - Obama Leads
> 
> * An American Research Group poll of likely West Virginia voters taken October 4-8 shows *Obama leading McCain 50%-42%.*


West Virginia????? !!!!!!!!!!! ...hell is indeed in danger of freezing over.......


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Georgia - McCain Leads". Bug humbar!!!!

MacDoc, West Virginia is to a Democrat as Ohio is to a Republican. Rarely, if ever, will either party win without this state.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Your daily cheer up looks rather exciting for Mr. Obama.

Electoral-vote.com: President, Senate, House Updated Daily

Blue seems to be washing down the east coast......even North Carolina in play now. Indiana and Missouri 



> Dem pickups (vs. 2004): CO FL IA NV NM ND OH VA WV
> GOP pickups (vs. 2004): (None)





> Obama 346 McCain 181 Ties 11
> 
> Senate Dem 59 GOP 41
> 
> House Dem 247 GOP 186 Ties 2


If this holds Obama has a New Deal mandate. :clap:


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

I think the winner is going to have a serious case of buyers regret a year from now. The next President will have to make some very tough decisions to get spending in line and he won't be popular because of that. 

It is looking good for the Dems to win everything, but do they really want that hot potato?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Hello, Jimmy Carter II!!!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"If this holds Obama has a New Deal mandate." If is the key word here, MacDoc. Still, this would be a great mix for Obama to get things moving forward. We shall see.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr. G: I don't want to be telling tales out of school, but the guy's middle name is--wait for it--Hussein! Remind you of any deposed or executed dictators? Thought so! 

Thank me later for this.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

MacDoc's middle name is Hussein? I thought it was Milhouse, named after Richard Milhouse Nixon.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sure, Mac "Hussein" Doc. He thought he could combine first and last to conceal the middle.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Live and learn. Macfury, next thing you will tell me is that MacDoc sells PCs with Vista.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Dr.G. said:


> Live and learn. Macfury, next thing you will tell me is that MacDoc sells PCs with Vista.


He doesn't have to sell them - Vista sells itself!

GRIDLOCK!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Landslide looking a bit more likely



> *Poll: Obama Opens 14-Point Lead On McCain*
> 
> CBS News/New York Times Survey Shows Major Swing Among Independents, Suggests McCain's Strategy May Be Hurting Him


Poll: Obama Opens 14-Point Lead On McCain, CBS News/New York Times Survey Shows Major Swing Among Independents, Suggests McCain's Strategy May Be Hurting Him - CBS News


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

MacDoc, bite your tongue. I don't want to see McCain holding up the Chicago Tribune with the headline "Obama Defeats McCain".

http://www.sqlservercentral.com/blogs/blogs/michael_coles/dewey_defeats_truman.jpg


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Catch Frontline if you can. Excellent 2 hours on Obama. Incredible - even in college his gravitas is so evident.
When he interviewed about his Harvard Law Review editor win he sounds so similar in cadence and focus as he does now 

Remarkable man.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

He's got a good set of pipes. The rest is inference.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Now it's all over - the kids have spoken



> *Student Voters Pick Senator Barack Obama to Win 2008 Presidential Election*
> 
> Scholastic Election Poll Has Mirrored Outcome of Every Presidential Election But Two Since 1940
> October 14, 2008: 09:00 AM EST
> ...


Student Voters Pick Senator Barack Obama to Win 2008 Presidential Election


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Dr. G: I don't want to be telling tales out of school, but the guy's middle name is--wait for it--Hussein! Remind you of any deposed or executed dictators?


MF: John McCain's middle name is Sidney. That makes him a ***, by your logic.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

MazterCBlazter said:


> Bush murdered,terrorized and stole far more than who you infer.


AND did it in 1/4th the time it took Hussein! BOO YAH!

AMURK YEAH!!! beejacon

Edit ehmax. Watch language


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Not sure what the name Sidney has to do with a cigarette - especially since McCain doesn't smoke. But perhaps you hit the jolly juice far too hard after the Election last night, and perhaps there will be some worship at the porcelian altar in order... beejacon


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

*Blink* indicates people unconsciously assess others and situations very quickly......
gladwell dot com - blink

My conscious and subconscious concur on this 










I would be very comfortable with this man, in person or as president. :clap:

_( Picture from Hawaii where he is visiting his grandmother )_


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Interesting theory and all... one I put much stock in, and I suspect many people unconsciously do same. But you're loading the scale, MacDoc, in selecting that picture. I'm sure McCain also has some 'down-home,' comfortable, casual clothes he wears too - when he's not running for office or holding same.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> *Blink* indicates people unconsciously assess others and situations very quickly......
> My conscious and subconscious concur on this ]


MacDoc, those are interesting internet diversions, but I hope you're not reading anything important into a parlour game.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Barack Obama and Joe Biden: The Change We Need | "Defining Moment" -- On the air...

Sounds good to me.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

If Obama is elected, this should be the most interesting first 100 days since FDR's first term. We shall see.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The very first thing he should do is put Pelosi on the back bench in disgrace.

She had the gall to invoke 100 days then oversee perhaps the worst Congress in history.....


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> October 24, 2008
> Editorial
> 
> *Barack Obama for President*
> ...


:clap:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I really didn't want to see the entire issue of the NY Times posted. A link would have sufficed.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Aw, poor SINC. You didn't have to read it, of course.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

MacDoc, I agree with your point about Pelosi.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

MacDoc, I also fully agree with the NY Times endorsement of Obama. I did read it all, and the link was appreciated.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Dr.G. said:


> MacDoc, I also fully agree with the NY Times endorsement of Obama. I did read it all, and the link was appreciated.


What link Dr. G.?

There was no need of a link when the entire story was posted.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Point of interest:

Number of newspapers endorsing Obama: 135
Number that endorsed Bush last time: 29

Number of newspapers endorsing McCain: 52
Number that endorsed Kerry last time: 4

Circulation of papers endorsing Obama: 16 million
Circulation of papers endorsing McCain: 4.1 million

Still to weigh in: 44 papers with 12.2 million circulation
(most should endorse tomorrow, I'll update this if they do)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Why is that interesting?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> MacDoc, I also fully agree with the NY Times endorsement of Obama. I did read it all, and the link was appreciated.


Interesting that the endorsement came just about on the day that the New York Times achieved junk stock status:

UPDATE 1-S&P slashes New York Times rating to junk | Markets | Bonds News | Reuters


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Interesting that the endorsement came just about on the day that the New York Times achieved junk stock status:
> 
> UPDATE 1-S&P slashes New York Times rating to junk | Markets | Bonds News | Reuters


Why is that interesting?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"What link Dr. G.?

There was no need of a link when the entire story was posted."

Still, I like to go to the source to see the entire article, just in case something was left out.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

HowEver said:


> Why is that interesting?


I have no idea. I 'm just posting a bunch of data like chas_m because he says these sorts of things are interesting.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I have no idea. I 'm just posting a bunch of data like chas_m because he says these sorts of things are interesting.


Now _that_ is interesting.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Why is that interesting?


Because newspapers are still highly influential with literate people (admittedly a shrinking minority of the US population). The number of papers endorsing McCain is very low compared to last time around, and the number of "switchers" (which would surely be of interest to Mac people) is unusual.

Many papers, including my former city's Sentinel, haven't endorsed a Democrat in decades. Some, like the Chicago Tribune, have never endorsed a Democrat before this year. It adds weight to the meme that this will be a historic election, regardless of the actual result. Surely history is interesting?

But yes, as a closet Republican I can see where you'd find any bits of reality that happen to bend Obama's way _dull_.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Interesting that the endorsement came just about on the day that the New York Times achieved junk stock status:
> 
> UPDATE 1-S&P slashes New York Times rating to junk | Markets | Bonds News | Reuters


This is the best you could come up with?? A non-sequitur that has nothing to do with politics??

Smell that desperation!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

chas_m said:


> This is the best you could come up with?? A non-sequitur that has nothing to do with politics??


I think it has everything to do with politics. The New York Times' day as a political influence peddler are on the wain--as are most newspapers'.

Do you smell fear? No, I think you smell Jimmy Carter II. Had I been old enough to hold a mortgage at that time I would have lost my house, even if I had made a considerable down payment and held a job. Obama has the look and feel of Jimmy Carter II--only he has less experience. If he wins, I'll be pleasantly surprised if it doesn''t turn out as badly. 

Your great "faith" is non-transferable.

The only bright side here is the rise of the next Ronald Reagan following this term of office.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Macfury said:


> I think it has everything to do with politics. The New York Times' day as a political influence peddler are on the wain--as are most newspapers'.


Sorry, but I still don't see the connection between the NYT's influence on society and their stock rating. I agree with you completely that newspapers are losing influence on American society (though they still represent a large enough constituency to, say, move an election), but that phenomenon is also affecting lots of papers who's stock is rated differently.

The Chicago Tribune, for example, which has never before endorsed a Democrat for president in its entire 161-year history, has "premium" rated stock. Yet they endorsed Obama. So the connection between their stock rating and their endorsement is ... ?

GM and Ford's stock are both rated "junk" status -- yet they are still enormous companies who sell a lot of cars. By your logic, if one's stock is "junk" rated, one's product is -- junk? Or what? What are you trying to say?

I'm not seeing the line you're trying to draw between the NYT's endorsement and their stock rating. Anybody else seeing this?


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Macfury said:


> The only bright side here is the rise of the next Ronald Reagan following this term of office.


I hate to disappoint you, but Sarah Palin has been making it pretty clear that she's the Republican 2012 nominee.

You might like Palin more than I do, but I think we can both agree she's no Reagan.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

chas_m said:


> Sorry, but I still don't see the connection between the NYT's influence on society and their stock rating.


Their stock rating is directly tied to the number of subscribers and advertisers. Not too much of a reach. They may not survive the next two years. The NYT endorsement is relatively meaningless, particularly as it comes in their dying days--a deathbed endorsement. The Chicago Tribune endorsement is more meaningful as it's actually a thriving newspaper.

Is this clear to you?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

chas_m said:


> I hate to disappoint you, but Sarah Palin has been making it pretty clear that she's the Republican 2012 nominee.
> 
> You might like Palin more than I do, but I think we can both agree she's no Reagan.


I don't care for Palin. I don't feel the out-and-out hatred as others do. I don't see her as presidential material. The fact that McCain won't campaign as a would-be President has left an enormous vacuum in the Republican campaign. Palin is essentially campaigning on her own as the old man mumbles his lines. I do, however, admire her for carrying on despite the old fool's fumbling.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Their stock rating is directly tied to the number of subscribers and advertisers.


So you start off with a lie you pulled out of your backside. Their stock rating is NOT "directly tied" to the number of subscribers and advertisers.

The number of subscribers has remained basically flat since 2005. Current circulation is 1.12M weekday, 1.62M Sunday. In fact, circulation for the NYT actually INCREASED 3% from last year, putting them back to 2005 levels.

The Chicago Tribune, which you call a "thriving" paper, averages 542K circulation and just cut 14% of newsroom staff to save $8.8M. It is in serious financial trouble, along with the rest of the Tribune papers.



> Last December, Tribune Co. bought out its public shareholders in an $8.2 billion deal orchestrated by real estate mogul Sam Zell. Now, he and the company are struggling to service that debt with cuts at its newspaper properties, which also include the Los Angeles Times, the Orlando Sentinel and The (Baltimore) Sun.


Source: SignOnSanDiego.com > News > Business -- Chicago Tribune trims 14% of news staff

As for advertisers, newspaper advertising is down overall, affecting all newspapers. The NYT's advertising is down 13%, but the overall average at Tribune Company (which owns the Chicago Tribune) is down 12%. They don't break their losses down by specific paper.



> They may not survive the next two years. The NYT endorsement is relatively meaningless, particularly as it comes in their dying days--a deathbed endorsement. The Chicago Tribune endorsement is more meaningful as it's actually a thriving newspaper.


A load of disproven crap from a closet Republican.

But AGAIN -- how does how "healthy" a paper is weigh on the value of its endorsement? The Trib is actually in MORE trouble than the NYT, and has a smaller circulation, but it's endorsement is more "meaningful as it's actually a thriving newspaper"? Even though the NYT has more than double their circulation?



> Is this clear to you?


No, but that's only because your argument is nonsense. But like the closet Republican you are, you can never admit you're wrong.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

chas_m said:


> So you start off with a lie you pulled out of your backside. Their stock rating is NOT "directly tied" to the number of subscribers and advertisers.


That's crazy talk, of course it is. Their expenses exceed their advertising and subscriber revenue. It's a common way of valuing stock. Called "financial performance."



chas_m said:


> The number of subscribers has remained basically flat since 2005. Current circulation is 1.12M weekday, 1.62M Sunday. In fact, circulation for the NYT actually INCREASED 3% from last year, putting them back to 2005 levels.


Wrong again. As of April 2008, the NYT shows a 3.9% DECLINE from the previous year at 1,077,256. It's attempted to recoup revenue by jacking up cover price, but to no avail. Many of its subscribers have taken advantage of a free three-month subscription.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/business/media/29paper.html




chas_m said:


> The Chicago Tribune, which you call a "thriving" paper, averages 542K circulation and just cut 14% of newsroom staff to save $8.8M. It is in serious financial trouble, along with the rest of the Tribune papers.


They've cut their expenses to remain viable. The NYT can't bring itself to do so.



chas_m said:


> But AGAIN -- how does how "healthy" a paper is weigh on the value of its endorsement? The Trib is actually in MORE trouble than the NYT, and has a smaller circulation, but it's endorsement is more "meaningful as it's actually a thriving newspaper"? Even though the NYT has more than double their circulation?


The Times has become increasingly shrill as it loses subscribers and heads for bankruptcy. Its "deathbed endorsement" is an extremely weak one, as the newspaper may not even survive the next term of presidential office. 



chas_m said:


> No, but that's only because your argument is nonsense. But like the closet Republican you are, you can never admit you're wrong.


You are an expert at ska and New Wave, I'll give you that, but on these matters...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

I am not sure why newpaper circulation statistics have anything to bear upon the Election. If it did, Hamilton would be solid Liberal because The Spectator told us so. So what if the Chicago Tribune went Obama - they probably did it because he is a Chicago homeboy, while McCain is from the Canal Zone.

Even though Obama ruined the ticket by plopping smelly old Biden on it - it did save us from having Clinton on the ticket. McCain has not been able to put a good case forward, and now that the Republicans have been caught with corruption and graft on their hands, many fence sitters are going to Obama.

Now, Obama does have ACORN all over his face - but then again, people are just looking at it as a counterbalance to the ballot stuffing that the Republicans have managed in the past two Elections. A bunch of dressed purchased at the swankiest boutiques simply outweighs an attempt at giving votes to dead people.

Unless Obama drops the football in the next week, he'll be moving into Blair House for the transition, while McCain will be figuring out which one of his seven houses he may stay at, and Palin will move back to her log cabin where she can shoot bears and Rooskies from her kitchen window.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

EvanPitts said:


> Unless Obama drops the football in the next week, he'll be moving into Blair House for the transition, while McCain will be figuring out which one of his seven houses he may stay at, and Palin will move back to her log cabin where she can shoot bears and Rooskies from her kitchen window.


Now you're getting it!


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

chas_m said:


> Now you're getting it!


It's not that I am "getting it". McCain had all of the advantages going in, and he dropped the football. He was not able to take advantage of Obama's greatest weakness - that he had damaged his message of Change when he added a glad handler to the ticket. Unfortunately, Obama did not have much to pick from, the Democrats lack any depth, and half of their potential candidates are simply annoying whiners, like Pelosi, or drunkards like Kennedy.

Bush has been so repugnant that no other Republicans wanted to run - people like Powell who would have swept to power so very quickly. Even though the Republicans are a much better fit into the White House, one can not just wash away the filthy stains that Bush and his crew have managed to leave. And McCain is no superman. Sure, he was a maverick because he didn't put the knee pads on right away - but he also caved in to the fantasies that Bush peddled.

This election came down to credibility - and McCain has refused to attack the very lack of credibility in Obama's message of Change - because one can not have Change by adding to the ticket the biggest glad handling Washington insider. And because of that, and the fact that Palin is no party bulldog - McCain's vote is pretty much sunk. His only chance is to stake out the pocket votes, and to hope that Hugo Chavez wants him in so that the Diebold voting machines can be preloaded with votes. Of course, it would be good if they do a bit of preloading, as Obama has a large number of dead people voting for him.

This is one dirty mess - and still the candidates refuse to throw mud. The next Election will be far more interesting, then after four years of Obamamania, the Republicans foot a candidate that can fix up the incredible mess.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

EvanPitts said:


> It's not that I am "getting it". McCain had all of the advantages going in, and he dropped the football. ...McCain has refused to attack the very lack of credibility in Obama's message of Change - because one can not have Change by adding to the ticket the biggest glad handling Washington insider.


McCain's platform virtually approaches the Democrat ticket in its infantalization of Americans. His reputation as a maverick has meant pandering to the likes of Ted Kennedy. This may get you invited to the right Washington parties, but chasing the "moderate" votes of people who can't really make up their minds has been a bad strategy from Day One.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Obama is now being called a Marxist by the "elitist leftist media". 

Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com


Obama need to go to Union Square in New York City to rally the workers in a new revolution.

YouTube - The Communist Internationale (Original, with English Lyrics)

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." Karl Marx.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

It's interesting to me how the US election seems to be a mirror image of the Canadian election.

We had a Liberal who should've been able to to decimate the incumbent Conservatives, but who completely bungled the campaign with his amateurish mistakes, and gave the election to the Conservatives on a Silver plater, and most of us saw the outcome coming and made predictions about how this will force the Liberals into re-inventing themselves and that they'll do better next time.

The US has got a Conservative who should've been able to wipe the floor with Obama, but he's been a bumbling idiot throughout the campaign, and appears to have set the stage for an historic Democratic Landslide. Our local conservative contingent have all but accepted this as inevitable, and are now prognosticating about the phoenix-like revitalization of the Republicans that will result from this fiasco.

What I'm wondering is, if Canada is moving to the Right, and the US is moving to the Left, will we meet in the middle? And what will happen then?

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc: I believe that there will be a convergence, but no melding of the two countries. Example: Our health care system will become two tiered, while that of the U.S. will offer a slate of free services beyond which you pay out of pocket.


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> Obama is now being called a Marxist by the "elitist leftist media".
> 
> Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com
> 
> ...



Obama's 2001 interview on Chicago Public Radio and his talk of “redistribution of wealth.” doesn't exactly seem much like small "c" conservative talk.

Little Green Footballs - Obama on the 'Redistribution of Wealth'

Also have you looked at the kid's section of Obama's website? This is aimed at children 12 and under

From: Barack Obama and Joe Biden: The Change We Need | Kids for Obama



> The one thing most grandparents have in common is that they have the most wonderful grandchildren in the world - so clever, so handsome, so pretty, ever so precious. Even if you are still unsure of your path in life, and even if your parents and friends occasionally wonder about you, your grandma and grandpa love you and have faith in you.
> 
> *That is your weapon! "Precious" needs to get on the phone and say, "Grandpa, Grandma, I am asking you to vote for Barack Obama. This is really important to me. It's about my future. It's about the world I will be living in. It's about the world I want for my future children. (They will love that one!) Please! Do it for me!"*


What's wrong with this? Well, to quote from: The Future Has Arrived: Barack Obama Targets Kids « Dr. Slogan’s Prescriptions



> Now let’s wrap up the tour and put this into perspective. Is this all so bad? Is it bad at all? Shouldn’t kids be involved? Aren’t they entitled to their opinions? Is it wrong to reach out to them to open their eyes, so that they could change opinions of their parents? There are two way to answer these questions. One is simple ethics. Make no mistake: this is not about reaching out to the supporters. Sen. Obama openly goes after the kids of people who don’t plan to vote for him. He and his staff see the minds of children as a backdoor to get to the voting parents and grandparents. So, yes, it is bad. It is wrong. It is despicable. And there’s no excuse for this.
> 
> There’s another way to answer the question. What does our government think about this? Are they ok with targeting children with propaganda? As it turns out, they are not. When it comes to commercial advertisement, government bodies such as FDC and FDA have been going after marketers who target children age 12 and under. Yes, it’s exactly the same age group that Sen. Obama targets so explicitly. Just last year FDC along with its European counterpart pushed Masterfoods to stop marketing of its products (e.g. Snickers, Milky Way and Twix) to kids. Apparently, from the government’s perspective, kids age 12 and under are not mature enough to figure out whether Snickers are good or bad for their health, and thus can be misled by advertising. But of course, figuring out where a presidential candidate stands on taxes, abortion, education and national security is much easier. So why would the government have any problem with that?



Educating children about the political process is one thing but for *any* party to use pre-teen children in any way to further their political agenda is, in my opinion, unethical.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

It is interesting that there has not been too many Canadian Conservative governments alongside of Democratic governments in the US. Borden caught the end of Wilson's presidency, R.B. Bennett was PM for a couple of years while FDR was president, Diefenbaker was PM for most of JFK's presidency, and Joe Clarke got a bit of Carter's presidency. Hopefully, Harper will have Obama has his counterpart in the US. We shall see.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)




----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

bryanc said:


> We had a Liberal who should've been able to to decimate the incumbent Conservatives, but who completely bungled the campaign with his amateurish mistakes, and gave the election to the Conservatives on a Silver plater, and most of us saw the outcome coming and made predictions about how this will force the Liberals into re-inventing themselves and that they'll do better next time.


It's actually something I stated in other threads, at least with the experience at the Head of the Lake. The Liberals just seemed to not get to the starting blocks. In my riding, the Liberal candidate resigned three days before the Writ fell, so it took time for a new nominee to emerge. Their campaign was weak: an unknown candidate, low visibility, late to get signs out, and very late to get out flyers (in fact, they arrived after the Election had taken place). This is a riding that has long been a fairly safe seat for the Liberals, and had been with the exception of one term during the Mulroney super-majority, had been Liberal since Lincoln Alexander ran here.

The Liberals in my girlfriend's riding fronted a candidate with an unwieldly hyphenated name that was also an unknown, kept a low profile, and never did send out flyers. Hamilton East, Sheild Copps old stomping grounds, remained securely in the clutches of the NDP because the Liberals put forth the old, corrupt mayor of Hamilton into a campaign. After his antics as mayor - no one wanted that dude in, especially after the consitutents take one gander at their property tax bills - taxes that pretty much doubled during his term in office. So much for "Amalgamation" saving money for the tax payer.

Then in nearby Halton, the Liberals trotted out Garth Turner, who was demolished, much to the chagrin of the Alberta Cattleman's Association; and in Burlington, they trotted out old Paddy Torsney, who was trying to get back in based on her multiple terms of experience sitting beside the curtains at Parliament, and doing precious little for her riding.

Unlike in your riding, where the Liberal candidate fragged themself - the Liberals around here were strictly lackluster, destined for the back row of the back benches in Parliament, that didn't put together an effective sign campaign nor did they bother with timely delivery of flyers or othe propaganda.



> What I'm wondering is, if Canada is moving to the Right, and the US is moving to the Left, will we meet in the middle? And what will happen then?


The US is not moving to the Left - it is just trying to make some distance from the sad and pathetic policies of Bush. Obama may have some slight "leftist" impulses, but only compared to Bush and that brand of kleptocrats. Plus, when one looks at it, big issues like healthcare are a disaster in the US, especially for the poor. Going to the hospital can result in "medical bankrupcy", so some kind of public health system is not "socialism" but just common sense.

And Canada is not moving to the Right. Harper has managed to shove the Liberals out of the Center, where they are pressured on the Left by the NDP. The "Conservatives" have very few policies that could be linked to actual conservative thoughts. Harper is as candy a$$ bleeding heart - he just panders to an older and wealthier demographic who can't see it.

The change in Canada stems from the years of abuses heaped upon the people by the Liberals. The corruption, the graft, the broken promises, the "elect us because we are Liberal but really, we are going to govern as if we are Conservatives" attitude, the acts of class warfare, the pandering to Quebec traitors and seditionists. Really, Canadians have just said that it is enough - we want a government that will concentrate on these five points and actually do something - rather than promising to do something about these five points but once in power, going on to open other cans of worms for their own cheap thrills.

Canadians are sending a message, that they liked Chretien because he sounded like a homeboy, but we hate him because he looted the treasury with projects that were never approved by Parliament or the people. That they liked Martin because it sounded like finances were much improved, but we hate him because he shoved Chretien out of office for no good reason, that he promoted his thugs while ejecting long term members of his own Party, and that he ran a campaign based on his vanity rather than his ability. We also hate him because he simply tossed in the towel in a big huff because we did not crown him dictator in the election he did not loose.

We also sent a message, that we could not trust that Dion's Green Shaft Tax would go to anything even remotely resembling something environmental, and it just looked like some scheme of raising funds to one again purchase votes in Quebec.

Canada is not swinging to the Right ot anything - the Election is an expression that the Electors do not and can not trust Parliament, and will continue to impose Minorities that can not get away with any shady policies or underhanded tricks. Canadians have grown weary of broken promises, endless fight over nothing, official neglect and malfeasance, etc...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Wow - brought tears to my eyes....



> ELECTIONS
> 
> *Daughter of slave votes for Obama
> 109-year-old Bastrop woman casts her vote by mail.*
> ...


more here

Daughter of slave votes for Obama


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Gosh, MacDoc, I hope you don't read this stuff over an open MacPro. That's a nice story, but is everybody being moved to tears this week?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

That is a great story, MacDon. Thanks for the URL. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Amanda Jones says she cast her first presidential vote for Franklin Roosevelt, but she doesn't recall which of his four terms that was. When she did vote, she paid a poll tax, her daughters said. That she is able, for the first time, to vote for a black presidential nominee for free fills her with joy, Jones said. "

Makes one proud.


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

I don't know if everything that is stated in the article is true. If it is, It should be disturbing. I'm not an expert in there matters. but I do seem to remember that whenever I have made a purchase online with my credit card, I have had to include the three digit (CVC) number on the back. It the article it states:


> *In addition, Obama's site violates his agreement with Visa/Mastercard. Visa Mastercard regulations require each credit card acceptor to "obtain the 3 digit Card Validation Code [CVV2 found on the back of your credit card. 4 digits for American Express Cards] and submit this code with all authorization requests with respect to transactions where the card is not present..." [cite:] Visa/Master Program Guide.
> 
> (Please see attachment or go to Obama's site. You will notice that Obama's donation site does not have this code requirement, which is in direct violation of Visa/Mastercard regulations.)
> 
> *


Now, I don't know for sure if it violates the regulations, but I did go on both the McCain and Obama web sites and found that what the article does state is correct, On McCain's site there is a place to put the 3 digit code but on the Obama site there is no place to put it. Why would the Obama campaign not require something that verifies the authenticity of the card and thus decrease fraud?



A Credit Card Payment Expert Explains the Depths of Obama's Fraud

Obama Accepting Untraceable Donations


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Voyager said:


> Why would the Obama campaign not require something that verifies the authenticity of the card and thus decrease fraud?


OK you've finally convinced me. He's not fit to be Prez because his campaign staff have blatant and systematic disregard for their merchant Visa and MasterCard contracts. Too bad, because other than that I preferred him to McCain, but we can't have that sort of stuff going on. No We Can't! Go McCain!!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *Nielsen: 33.6 million watched Obama ad*
> 
> 83485060 UPDATED: If Barack Obama fails to win the election, perhaps the networks should hire him to entertain viewers on Wednesday nights.
> 
> ...


 

Nielsen: 33.6 million watched Obama ad--The Live Feed


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Gosh, MacDoc, I hope you don't read this stuff over an open MacPro. That's a nice story, but is everybody being moved to tears this week?


Seriously, MF -- did you sell your soul on Ebay or something?


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Voyager:

Do you even have any idea of how desperate you sound? Just askin'.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

chas_m said:


> Seriously, MF -- did you sell your soul on Ebay or something?


Talk about bleeding hearts!


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

chas_m said:


> Voyager:
> 
> Do you even have any idea of how desperate you sound? Just askin'.


Why, because I am pointing out things that make your glorious leader sound like the old style political hack that he is? I think it's pathetic that you're rooting for a politician that has had his birth records sealed, refuses to release school records, has refused to talk about his time at Columbia University, and seems to have cowed people into not talking about him. Even his aunt, living in poor conditions, in Boston says that she won't make any comments about him until after the election. Why won't she? What is she afraid of? 

The LA Times has a video of Obama at a party for a Rashid Khalidi but their latest excuse for not releasing it is that it would put the life of the source of the tape in jeopardy. Now why would that person's life in jeopardy for releasing a tape of The Chosen One at a party? 

Oh, and although you won't see this is the MSM, Wendy Button, a *former* Obama speech writer won't be voting for him. I guess she won't be writing for the Huffington Post either.
So Long, Democrats - The Daily Beast

Actually seeing the howls coming from the some Obama supporters shows how desperate they are to believe in something and the extent they go to protect those beliefs. They remind me of the old children's story The Emperor Who Wore No Clothes. 

Cheers!


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Voyager:

*yawn*

Well, all that's good news for you then, as his landslide victory will be nullified by all these obviously-true charges that will eventually be investigated and tried in court.

And then Joe Biden will be President.

Care to make a little wager on these charges of yours?


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

chas_m said:


> Voyager:
> 
> *yawn*
> 
> ...


I have yet to see a response from you that answers questions or involves any kind of reasoned discussion. All you seem to be able to do is use sarcasm and "Wanna bet" responses. But, I guess when all some have is blind faith in their "leader", any criticism scares them.

Oh, and I expect The Chosen One to win. After all, he has spent over 600 million dollars on it and, if he doesn't, all he will have to show for it is a stack of bills and receipts. 

But then, as Dr. G. frequently says, " We shall see", since the only real poll that counts is the one that takes place on election day.

Oh, and here's another example of the new "bipartisan" way The Chosen One is doing things. The reporter's newspaper had the "audacity" to endorse McCain and now there is no room on the plane for him.

Washington Times - Washington Times kicked off Obama plane for finale

I gather the same is happening to reporters from the NY POST and DALLAS MORNING NEWS.

Obama - Change We Can Believe In!!


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Voyager said:


> Washington Times - Washington Times kicked off Obama plane for finale
> 
> I gather the same is happening to reporters from the NY POST and DALLAS MORNING NEWS.


So how is this different than what we've seen other politicians do to the press in the past?


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> So how is this different than what we've seen other politicians do to the press in the past?


That's my point. It isn't any different! But coming from one who claims to want to do things differently...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Voyager, I think the Obama-maniacs on EhMac have got a bad case of man-love going on.


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Voyager, I think the Obama-maniacs on EhMac have got a bad case of man-love going on.


As the old saying goes, love *is* blind.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Love your sig, MF.

That one has been around for a while, but it never gets old.

Cheers


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Voyager, I think the Obama-maniacs on EhMac have got a bad case of man-love going on." Not "man-love", just good old-fashion inspiration and hope in a better tomorrow. Who was the last person to inpire you? Before Obama, politicians and social activists who inspired me to action (and whom I heard speak in person) were Robert Kennedy, Gene McCarthy, Martin Luther King Jr., Wayne Morse and Paul O'Dwyer.


"That I may seem, though I die old, 

A foolish, passionate man." Yeats.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc, I thought it was time to give Cthulu his due again. The election period is always a time of eldritch horror and a surprise appearance by the Elder Gods won't catch me napping.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Voyager said:


> I have yet to see a response from you that answers questions or involves any kind of reasoned discussion.


I'm not Obama's lawyer and I cheerfully admit I don't know. But unlike you, I seem to have a functioning BS detector.



> All you seem to be able to do is use sarcasm and "Wanna bet" responses.


Yes, I find it curious that you lack the courage of your convictions. I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is, but you're not. I find that most Republicans are equally cowardly in that way.



> Oh, and here's another example of the new "bipartisan" way The Chosen One is doing things. The reporter's newspaper had the "audacity" to endorse McCain and now there is no room on the plane for him.


So? The Washinton Times is a Moonie paper with no connection to facts or the truth (and that statement has absolutely nothing to do with their unsurprising endorsement of McCain -- there are several papers who have endorsed McCain that are perfectly legitimate newspapers).

I'm not clear on why you think the campaign should spend tens of thousands in donor money flying around people who have dedicated themselves to smearing the candidate. This goes equally for the McCain campaign, who have done exactly the same thing.



> Obama - Change We Can Believe In!!


As has been said repeatedly on this forum, Obama is actually likely to be a centrist-left president, again putting the lie to the shrill hysteria of flat-earthers like yourself who are convinced he's some Frankensten mix of Marx, Lenin and Clinton. The "change" Obama is pushing isn't "I'm going to be the first president to put cheese on my head 24 hours a day, _that's_ new and different!", it's "I'm going to govern transparently, based on reality," which, at least given the last eight years, is _very_ new and different.

PS. Thanks for reminding me to update Endorsement Watch -- wow, more good news for Obama! Maybe he is The Chosen One ... I doubt Jesus could rack up this many endorsements (after all, He's a damn hippie tree-hugger socialist with a wildly Liberal agenda of "sharing the wealth" ...)


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

*Newspaper Endorsements*

I'm updating this with fresher data:



chas_m said:


> Point of interest:
> 
> Number of newspapers endorsing Obama: 135
> Number that endorsed Bush last time: 29
> ...


Number of newspapers now endorsing Obama: 233
*Number that endorsed Bush last time: 46*

Number of papers endorsing McCain: 105
Number that endorsed Kerry last time: 4 *(no change)*

Circulation of papers endorsing Obama: *21.7 million*
Circulation of papers endorsing McCain: *7.2 million*

Significant papers still to weigh in: 12 papers with approx. 2.1 million circulation

Please note: the above totals do _not_ include the Obama endorsements from The Economist (a magazine), the Financial Times (a UK newspaper) and Nature (_the_ scientific journal, which recently offered its first-ever -- since its founding in 1864 -- endorsement).


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

How many votes are newspapers allowed again?


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

I have no real relevant information to post, but like most everyone else, it doesnt really matter.

To: chas_m, I don't really see what betting on something means to the facts, or even make the opinion worth more.

With that said, I have been following the presidential race, and if I were to vote, I'd vote for Obama.

Reason, McCain is campaigning based on fear mongering, and intimidation. I don't really believe that is all democratic. The wierd part is that Obama has significant more funding than McCain. My guess this is because people would rather support the winner.

I haven't heard anything convincing that McCain could do the job better, just some rhetoric with no real value.

I'd vote for Obama, despite McCain's claims that his "experience" will save the world.


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

chas_m said:


> Yes, I find it curious that you lack the courage of your convictions. I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is, but you're not. I find that most Republicans are equally cowardly in that way.


 Gee, Can't you read. I said:


> Oh, and I expect The Chosen One to win.


  




> I'm not clear on why you think the campaign should spend tens of thousands in donor money flying around people who have dedicated themselves to smearing the candidate.


 Since he has so much money at his disposal a few extra bucks shouldn't matter, should it. 





> As has been said repeatedly on this forum, Obama is actually likely to be a centrist-left president, again putting the lie to the shrill hysteria of flat-earthers like yourself who are convinced he's some Frankensten mix of Marx, Lenin and Clinton. The "change" Obama is pushing isn't "I'm going to be the first president to put cheese on my head 24 hours a day, _that's_ new and different!", it's "I'm going to govern transparently, based on reality," which, at least given the last eight years, is _very_ new and different.


 I'll believe it when I see it. 



> PS. Thanks for reminding me to update Endorsement Watch -- wow, more good news for Obama! Maybe he is The Chosen One ... I doubt Jesus could rack up this many endorsements (after all, He's a damn hippie tree-hugger socialist with a wildly Liberal agenda of "sharing the wealth" ...)


 For some reaason his "sharing the wealth" doesn't seem to extend to members of his family - like his aunt and uncle in Boston. I guess he meant only sharing other people's money.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

This article in the _Wall Street Journal_ by Fouad Ajami, professor of Middle Eastern Studies at the School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University sume up the current situation quite accurately:

Obama and the Politics of Crowds - WSJ.com



> There is something odd -- and dare I say novel -- in American politics about the crowds that have been greeting Barack Obama on his campaign trail. Hitherto, crowds have not been a prominent feature of American politics. We associate them with the temper of Third World societies. We think of places like Argentina and Egypt and Iran, of multitudes brought together by their zeal for a Peron or a Nasser or a Khomeini. In these kinds of societies, the crowd comes forth to affirm its faith in a redeemer: a man who would set the world right.
> [Commentary] Martin Kozlowski
> 
> As the late Nobel laureate Elias Canetti observes in his great book, "Crowds and Power" (first published in 1960), the crowd is based on an illusion of equality: Its quest is for that moment when "distinctions are thrown off and all become equal. It is for the sake of this blessed moment, when no one is greater or better than another, that people become a crowd." These crowds, in the tens of thousands, who have been turning out for the Democratic standard-bearer in St. Louis and Denver and Portland, are a measure of American distress.
> ...


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

Ran across this. Listen carefully to what she says towards the end.


Bonehead Of The Day | Black & Right

I think Obama had better hope that there aren't too many of his followers who think that's the gist of his message.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> This article in the _Wall Street Journal_ by Fouad Ajami, professor of Middle Eastern Studies at the School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University sume up the current situation quite accurately:
> 
> Obama and the Politics of Crowds - WSJ.com


An intellectually dishonest essay coming from the Bush advisor who said about the Iraq War in his 2006 book "there can be no doubting the nobility of the effort" and advised the White House in a speech prior to the invasion "after liberation, the streets in Basra and Baghdad are 'sure to erupt in joy in the same way the throngs in Kabul greeted the Americans".

Ajami is only concerned about crowds because his candidate has to bus them in. He doesn't seem to have any problem with Palin pulling in masses of extremists though when he tries to equate a large crowd with intolerance or idol worship and suggests that the only appeal of Obama is all marketing. Meanwhile his "anti-marketing" candidate can't seem to say one word about important issues because he's too busy putting out ads saying "be afraid, be very afraid".

There is no doubt that there are many people projecting things onto Obama that he can not possibly deliver if elected, something I see that Obama has been very keen in pointing out in every speech he makes. Meanwhile all McCain can offer is flaccid bleatings about his supposed "maverick" brand and hope some sucker will buy that. His deluded supporters laughingly project free market nirvana on the king of the bailout.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Friday, October 31, 2008
> 
> *Up to 60% of early voters backing Obama, poll claims
> *
> ...


Up to 60% of early voters backing Obama, poll claims - The Irish Times - Fri, Oct 31, 2008

cue Jaws.....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Gratuitous, why should I listen to you--you were wrong about the outcome of a hockey game last year. Similarly, the writer's opinion on the Iraq war aren't germaine to his opinion about Obama's supporters. I love how you lay on the verbiage just like everyone else. Palin can't draw listeners, they must be "extremists."


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Voyager said:


> I think Obama had better hope that there aren't too many of his followers who think that's the gist of his message.


Unfortunately that's the part of his message they're most interested in--the cheques they think will be coming in the mail by December.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Gratuitous, why should I listen to you--you were wrong about the outcome of a hockey game last year. Similarly, the writer's opinion on the Iraq war aren't germaine to his opinion about Obama's supporters. I love how you lay on the verbiage just like everyone else. Palin can't draw listeners, they must be "extremists."


You know, you're absolutely right. I got carried away with the rhetoric on that extremist comment. 

Usually I read over my comments before hitting the "submit" button and with a second look I might have taken that out. I was thinking of the numerous YouTube videos that have come out showing line-ups heading into the McCain-Palin rallies featuring lots of racist and moronic comments, but of course we all hope that those types only represent a fringe of their supporters.

As to the writer's opinion on Iraq, what I wanted to point out by bringing that up is to make the point that this writer isn't some dispassionate and unbiased ivory tower dweller but was a White House advisor very much connected to the Republican cause. No, that doesn't refute his opinion on Obama's supporters but it does serve to highlight his frame of reference as an invested insider.

I'll stand by my other comments in that post. Ajami is just repeating the stale "empty suit/blank slate" charge against Obama that the GOP pretty much abandoned last spring. Obama has spoken in detail and at length about his platform and programs and if anyone doesn't know where he's coming from at this point they haven't been paying attention. I certainly don't buy into Ajami's argument simply because he lays on a thin patina of intellectualism.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Macfury said:


> How many votes are newspapers allowed again?


Their influence, particularly among voters who haven't engaged until late in the game, is considerable.

But of course, if the endorsements were running the other way, you of course would still be dismissing newspaper endorsements as unimportant. Uh huh.

Hands up, who here believes THAT for a second? :lmao:


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

> Barack Obama’s senior advisers have drawn up plans to lower expectations for his presidency if he wins next week’s election, *amid concerns that many of his euphoric supporters are harbouring unrealistic hopes of what he can achieve.*
> 
> The sudden financial crisis and the prospect of a deep and painful recession have increased the urgency inside the Obama team to bring people down to earth, after a campaign in which his soaring rhetoric and promises of “hope” and “change” are now confronted with the reality of a stricken economy.
> 
> ...


Wow, what a surprise. I wonder where his "euphoric supporters" got their "unrealistic hopes"? Obama spent the last many months deliberately raising people's hopes and expectations on what he was going to do. He laid out glorious visions of his plans for the future and enticed the people to vote for him. He sold people the dream of hope and change. He was the leader who was going to do things differently and they've believed him. 

I particularly liked the part where they talked of the "sudden financial crisis ". What's sudden about it? The American economy has been in a meltdown for at least a year over the mortgage fiasco, the Federal debt is well on the way to 11 TRILLION dollars, and of course the deficit is in the neighbourhood of 455 BILLION dollars. I would hate to think of the quality of his economic advisors if any of this was a surprise to Obama. He knew all this even as he was giving his spellbinding speeches.

So, now that he thinks it's in the bag, he is starting to let the people know, in some vague way, that he really may not be able to deliver on everything he's promised. But he's lifted people's expectations so high, how many people will really listen to what he's saying. They have been lead to believe they're electing some sort of saviour for America. That's what he has created in his quest for the Presidency. And now he's beginning to get worried about it?



Barack Obama lays plans to deaden expectation after election victory - Times Online


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

The same sort of change of mood happened after LBJ was elected in 1964, and the Great Society took hold. This term in office started off as his being the greatest president re social issues since FDR. However, as the US got bogged down in the war in Vietnam, money for this Great Society agenda was slowly cut back. Thus, the expectations were dashed against the rocks of a war that fewere and fewer Americans supported.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

chas_m said:


> But of course, if the endorsements were running the other way, you of course would still be dismissing newspaper endorsements as unimportant.


I've always found the notion of a newspaper endorsing a candidate to be laughable, regardless of the endorsement. I would find it humiliating to report on such a thing.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"I've always found the notion of a newspaper endorsing a candidate to be laughable, regardless of the endorsement. " Macfury, William Randolph Hearst would be rolling over in his grave. Of course, he endorsed Hoover in 1928 and then FDR in 1932.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr. G: I see newspaper reporters as fulfilling their roles when they report, and commentators to be fulfilling their roles when they analyze. The notion of the newspaper itself having an opinion has always seemed wrong to me.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

It is the opinion of the publisher, as in Hearst or Pulitzer. They were right and left, for big business and for the people. This is why Hearst's endorsement of FDR caught everyone by surprise.

Now, with media conglomorates taking up so many of the newspapers, I too find it best to make up my own mind.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

..the real deal.....Yes HE IS


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"..the real deal.....Yes HE IS". Amen, brother MacDoc. Yes we did.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

It was an amazing night.

In the past I've read lots of criticism about the drawn out nature out of the American electoral system and how elections drag on for a year or more. But yesterday we saw how it's supposed to work... a candidate who went directly to the people, rather than to the political parties, and attained the highest office in the land. In Canada our elections take 6 weeks but our candidates are selected by the parties who only then present their choice to the public to be yayed or nayed. Would Dion have survived the primaries?

I think we can be a little smug... their system is not perfect and our may be better in some ways, but we can and should learn.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Dr.G. said:


> It is the opinion of the publisher, as in Hearst or Pulitzer.


Not so much these days. Newspapers have editorial boards, and aren't run by single individuals so much anymore. I know that if it had been left up to the Orlando Sentinel's publisher, they would have endorsed McCain. They did not.



> Now, with media conglomorates taking up so many of the newspapers, I too find it best to make up my own mind.


Sure, but editorial boards who have actually interviewed the candidates (most of the major American papers) are a valuable source of information, not just because they endorse this or that person but because they usually print the transcript of the interview. I see this a lot in the local papers up here and it's invaluable.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> ..the real deal.....Yes HE IS


Look at him shake that kid's hand. Never seen the like! Do you suppose he will kiss a baby at some point?


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

I couldn't be happier with the way democracy has been exercised here, and with the enormous step forward in maturity that the US has taken. I just hope that as the honeymoon period ends (and it will be short) and the harsh reality of what he has been left with comes into focus, that Obama, his team, and the American people are up to dealing with the challenges and actually making change happen.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)




----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

I think the whole "We Love Obama" train will end up off the tracks in a year or so, especially with the comments that Pelosi made after the election, where she promised to use the Democrat majority in Congress to fillibuster and derail any of the policies that Obama may wish to put forth. He will have a difficult time of it - and will be fairly reliant on Republican support as well as the dissenters within the Democratic Party to push forth any kind of agenda.

Apparently Obama appointed some Clinton era scuzzbag as the Chief of the White House Staff - really showing the truth of hs entire CHANGE message. Yeah, "change" indeed, next he'll give that James Carville some big paying job covering up scandals with thousands of words that have no meaning - just like when he defended Clinton and that Administrations grevious sins.

So celebrate while the train is flying down the tracks, and when it ends up flying into some industrial park, I'll be sure to say "I told you so".


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

Rahm Emanuel seems to be quite the character.



> At a dinner to celebrate President Clinton's first election victory, Mr Emanuel began to name those who he believed had earned his enmity. As he listed the names of those he saw as traitors, he grabbed a steak knife, stood up and began plunging the knife into the table and shouting "Dead! Dead! Dead!" after each name.
> 
> "When he was done, the table looked like a lunar landscape," one witness recalled. "It was like something out of The Godfather. But that's Rahm for you."


I would hate to be in Rahm Emanuel's bad books. 

And yes, an example of Obama's message of "change".

Profile: Rahm Emanuel, Barack Obama's new enforcer - Telegraph


Also an interesting comment by Rahm Emanuel in the article:


> "We get into this stupid argument every four years: centrists vs. leftists," he says. "That is not the argument today. It is change vs. status quo. In 1992, Bill Clinton was a change agent -- he won. In 1994, Newt Gingrich was a change agent -- he won. In 1996, Bill Clinton was a change agent to Dole and Gingrich -- he won. In 1998, Democrats represented a change from the Republican drive for impeachment -- they won. In 2000, George Bush was a credible change agent. In 2002, Democrats failed to convey change -- and they lost. I want to be about change and reform to the Republican status quo."


The Enforcer : Rolling Stone

So, will Obama and the Democratic party be considered the status quo in 2012 or 2016?


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

MacDoc said:


>


I have to say that's the most Jewish Lincoln I have ever seen.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

EvanPitts said:


> I think the whole "We Love Obama" train will end up off the tracks in a year or so, especially with the comments that Pelosi made after the election, where she promised to use the Democrat majority in Congress to fillibuster and derail any of the policies that Obama may wish to put forth.


In other news from EvanPitts' FantasyLand Daily:

*Elvis Crowned King of Bhutan
*Bigfoot Considered for Head of EPA
*Sarah Palin Wins Nobel Prize for Economics, you betcha!


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Voyager said:


> Rahm Emanuel seems to be quite the character.


His selection was a shot across the bow of Congress (both parties): work with us, or get left behind*. We are not the "pussy" Democrats you had for the last two years. We are going to get results.

*for those of you who have difficulty with subtle distinctions, this idea is very different than "my way or the highway."

It's very "Chicago," but in the best sense of that. Ever been to Chicago? Amazing city. Here's a picture for you:











> So, will Obama and the Democratic party be considered the status quo in 2012 or 2016?


Let's hope. The Democrats were every bit in as much need of reform as the Republicans. Howard Dean showed them how to win, and Obama's group showed them how to raise money from the public instead of just big corporations; now they need to remember how to govern transparently and effectively. They've done it before, they can do it again with a little discipline, and if Obama's got anything going for him, it's discipline.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I have always wondered what Chicago looked like and now--thanks to the magic of the internet--I am able to see it.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I am of the opposite opinion of Evan. I think that we will all be surprised with how many good things Obama does in his first year, in spite of the economic/political situation he inherits. We shall see.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

Dr.G. said:


> I am of the opposite opinion of Evan. I think that we will all be surprised with how many good things Obama does in his first year, in spite of the economic/political situation he inherits. We shall see.


I hope you are right. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and it's all just guesswork at this point, but I also think that we get what we expect much of the time. Part of what Obama is trying to do is build positive energy and positive (albeit "managed") expectations.

For my part, I am really happy for my American friends and relatives. After years of embarrassment living in an empire of fear ruled by thugs and corporate fat cats, they are having a love affair with their new prez. It's like watching your best friend fall in love-you don't know how well the relationship will work out, but you are just really happy for them. It's infectious, and that's a good thing.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Obama doesn't have much choice but to staff his administration with all of the thugs and hatchet men who populated the previous Clinton administration. This is already reflected in the transition team announcements.


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

More change we can believe in!

Yahoo!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Well, that was certainly refreshing. I appreciate such a gesture representing a clean break with the past!


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

It is very difficult not to be dismissive and cynical. For my part, I am going to look at all of this in the most positive light possible. It is just too easy to always take the negative view-and I have a real tendency to become snide and sarcastic. Personally I don't think it adds much value, and it certainly isn't good for me.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mc3251: I suspect to maintain your jubilant mood, you're going to have to duck into that shell for the next couple of weeks. I haven't seen a surprising thing yet, from Obama's dismissal of his family from the stage during his "ascendency" to his selection of hatchet men.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

we shall see MF. I hope you are wrong, but certainly wouldn't be so brash as to argue at this point.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'm not suggesting he's worse than any other politician. Just a politician.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Talk about the honeymoon being over. Why not let Obama get inaugurated and then bring out the knives? Just a suggestion.


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> Talk about the honeymoon being over. Why not let Obama get inaugurated and then bring out the knives? Just a suggestion.


Why wait? He now has two (2) Transition teams, one paid for by the government and one funded privately.


> Lost amid all of the jubilation of the Obama victory was the announcement by the Obama transition team that it had set up a separate transition program beyond the one that is paid for by the American taxpayer. Called the “Obama/Biden Transition Project,” it is a 501(c)4 tax-exempt organization, with no limits on the contributions it can receive and* no requirements to divulge the names of individuals or organizations that give it money.*
> 
> Traditionally, the victorious campaign has set up inaugural funds, as well as funds to deal with legal costs and other expenses to close down the campaign. Others have set up quasi-corporate offices to deal with transition issues, such as in 2000, when, with the election in doubt, the Bush-Cheney team set up a private transition office in McLean, Virginia, covering the costs from campaign contributions and other fundraising. Ultimately, the federal government, headed by the Government Services Administration, covers the cost of the transition staff, providing it with office space and all equipment.
> 
> ...


 Another example of transparency, no doubt. I wonder who he will employ on that second team?

The American Spectator : Wasting No Time


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

chas_m said:


> In other news from EvanPitts' FantasyLand Daily:
> 
> *Elvis Crowned King of Bhutan
> *Bigfoot Considered for Head of EPA
> *Sarah Palin Wins Nobel Prize for Economics, you betcha!


You obviosly did not bother to LISTEN to the inflamatory speeches made after McCain's concession speech by both Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. I would expect you to retract your comments until you get a clue, and actually LISTEN TO WHAT THEY SAID.

They pledged to block Obama's policies if they didn't happen to like them, and pledged to use the Democratic majority in Congress to fillibuster any and all legislation. I think it shows the true colours of the Democrats, a party where the knives are out, what, ten minutes after McCain conceded the election to Obama - the Majority leaders of Congress are pledging to FILLIBUSTER all legislation, and FILLIBUSTER all possible attempts by the White House to alter or make corrections to the federal bailout of the banks, and further, insisted that if they did not have enough support from the White House, that they would FILLIBUSTER until the Government comes to a halt.

If you bothered to even watch those inflamatory and derogatory speeches - speeches not made by Daniel Carver of the KKK or by some right-wing nutcase - but speeches made by the two people who control the Democratic Party majority in both the Senate and the House - then you would not go around saying that this person "lied" and that person "lied" - because it is entirely of the public record that these two whack artists are going to be the biggest obsticles to anything Obama may want to change.

What will end up happening is that Obama will be reliant upon the Republican minority in Congress as well as those in the Democratic Party who happen to have been turned off by the derogatory sentiments of Pelosi and Reid - in order to get anything done. Of course, having fragged themselves, we may not see them even appointed to their positions with the new Congress, ruining their careers with some of the dumbest possible words ever to have been emitted from the mouths of anyone in Congressional history.


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

chas_m said:


> Let's hope. The Democrats were every bit in as much need of reform as the Republicans. Howard Dean showed them how to win, and Obama's group showed them how to raise money from the public instead of just big corporations; now they need to remember how to govern transparently and effectively. They've done it before, they can do it again with a little discipline, and if Obama's got anything going for him, it's discipline.


I agree Obama has shown them how to raise money from the public. It remains to be seen if the public were all citizens or not. And if the donations were all legal. Transparent government? With two transition teams, one of which will hire people who may not be able to get security clearances.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> Talk about the honeymoon being over. Why not let Obama get inaugurated and then bring out the knives? Just a suggestion.


Obama is already in a hurry to start off on a sour note--why give him a head start? Besides, you're the one who married him. It's not _m_y honeymoon.


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

EvanPitts said:


> You obviosly did not bother to LISTEN to the inflamatory speeches made after McCain's concession speech by both Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. I would expect you to retract your comments until you get a clue, and actually LISTEN TO WHAT THEY SAID.


Could you give a link EvanPitts. I've heard about their speeches but haven't actually listened to them. 

Thanks


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Besides, you're the one who married him. It's not my honeymoon." Fair enough. So, tear him apart all you want prior to Jan. 20th, and even after Jan.20th. I envision great things happening in America comes the third week in January. We shall see.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Hopefully we can reach a consensus on this:

Watching Obama's press conference today, my main thought was: man, it's good to have someone in there who UNDERSTOOD THE QUESTION, replied on-topic, and was not hostile to the press.

The press corps must be LOVING this after eight years of talking-point, non-sequiter, how-dare-you-question-me replies ...


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

And the press seemed to love his Nancy Reagan humour. Maybe he should think a bit more before opening his mouth. That way he won't have to apologize for his poor taste.

YouTube - Obama on Nancy Reagan and seances


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Parsing the speech as reported by AP:



> ...signaled his intention to move decisively to preserve the domestic auto industry.


Business as usual. I don't favour propping up these companies at taxpayer expense.



> Obama called the industry "the backbone of American manufacturing and a critical part of our attempt to reduce our dependence on foreign oil."


??




> Obama indicated that his transition team will be examining the management of the $700 billion financial bailout for Wall Street with a critical eye.


Good.



> In another signal he intends to extend a helping hand to Detroit, Obama singled out the presence of Michigan Gov. Jennifer Grantholm among the team of economic advisers standing behind him at the press conference.


Bad. She is a disaster at managing Michigan's economy.



> When asked whether he had spoken to any ex-presidents after the election, Obama said he had "spoken to all of them that are living," — but in an apparent attempt at humor, added: "I didn't want to get into a Nancy Reagan thing about doing any seances."


His talent at extemporaneous humour is lacking in the extreme.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Voyager said:


> The American Spectator : Wasting No Time


American Spectator = National Enquirer

Dude, find credible sources, or at least start claiming Obama's an alien. The AS comes with a free fold-up tinfoil hat in every issue.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

EvanPitts said:


> You obviosly did not bother to LISTEN to the inflamatory speeches made after McCain's concession speech by both Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.


Actually, I heard remarks made by both of them following Obama's victory, and didn't hear anything like that -- quite the contrary. Perhaps I missed something, however, so if you would like to provide links to either a transcript or the actual remarks (neither one of them have actually given any formal speeches since Obama's election), I'd be happy to review this and show you how wrong you are (again).


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Someone forgot to tell Voyager (and EvanPitts) that the market in fear-mongering was leveraged to the hilt and crashed a couple of days ago. The currency is now worthless and nobody's buying it.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

GA, sadly, there will be enough "fear-mongering" in the days to come to fill a stadium. Still, now is the time for all of us to pull together for the common good. We shall see. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

It had to happen:

*OBAMAPHORIA:* The postelection rapture that swept over Obama's supporters worldwide.

*OBAMANATION:* A twist on "abomination," expressed by evangelicals and other conservatives who oppose Obama's stance on abortion, gay marriage and other social issues.

*OBAMARAMA:* The celebrations around the Jan. 20, 2009, inauguration.

*OBAMANOS:* A play on "Vamonos," or "Let's go," among Obama fans in Mexico.

*OBAMATOPIA:* The political paradise that Obama's staunchest supporters hope he'll usher in.

*OBAMALUJAH:* Exultation shouted by his fans.

*OBAMATRONS:* The policy wonks who will occupy the West Wing of his White House.

*OBAMASCOPE:* Media scrutiny of the new leader. (Example: "One hundred days after Barack Obama took office, newspaper editors put the president's economic plan under the Obamascope.")

*OBAMANATOR:* Hollywood-inspired nickname for the new president - even if he's got what California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger contends are "skinny legs" and "scrawny little arms."

*OBAMALICIOUS:* Complimentary term used by those who like Obama's looks.

*OBAMALOHA:* Goodbye, Obama-style, with a nod to Hawaii, his birthplace.

*OH-BAMA:* Joyful exclamation, via headlines in the Kennebec, Maine, Journal, The Regisister Guard in Eugene, Ore., and The Namibian, from the southern African country of Namibia.

*BAMELOT:* Description of his presidency, from a New York Post headline that played on the youth and freshness of John F. Kennedy's administration that came to be known as "Camelot."

*OBAMERIKA:* Headline from the Croatian newspaper Slobodna Dalmacija.

*BARACKSTAR:* Description from those who believe Obama is "the Mick Jagger of politics"


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

OBAMALOHA to the Bush presidency.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"(CNN) -- President-elect Barack Obama plans to reiterate a call for fast action on the economy when he delivers the weekly Democratic radio address Saturday." 

A 21st century "fireside chat". People that lived through the Great Depression recall the hope that was instilled by FDR with these radio "chats".


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

chas_m said:


> American Spectator = National Enquirer
> 
> Dude, find credible sources, or at least start claiming Obama's an alien. The AS comes with a free fold-up tinfoil hat in every issue.


Credible sources- like the New York Times, MSNBC and Chris "I want to do everything I can to make this thing work, this new presidency work." Matthews. Now, those are really credible sources. :lmao:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> "(CNN) -- President-elect Barack Obama plans to reiterate a call for fast action on the economy when he delivers the weekly Democratic radio address Saturday."


These are on every week Dr. G. HAve been for as long as I remember. It's not a special message to supporters.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Someone forgot to tell Voyager (and EvanPitts) that the market in fear-mongering was leveraged to the hilt and crashed a couple of days ago. The currency is now worthless and nobody's buying it.


:lmao: :clap:


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Voyager said:


> Credible sources- like the New York Times, MSNBC and Chris "I want to do everything I can to make this thing work, this new presidency work." Matthews. Now, those are really credible sources. :lmao:


Well yes, by every measure I can think of they ARE more credible than the AS. They draw larger audiences, have higher believability ratings, offer balance in their perspectives (Keith Olbermann, meet Joe Scarborough) and generally deal (however imperfectly) in reality. All things AS scorns and mocks.

As for Chris, that was just a bit of patriotic exuberance on his part. You've probably never experienced real patriotism or hope, as cynical as you are about your own country (and apparently all others), but it's an American tradition to give a new president (particularly one who hasn't actually taken office yet) a period of time to fight his battle with the bureaucracy and see how well he'll do. It's traditional -- and polite -- to try to work with the new president wherever possible, joining together to make a better country. Your boy McCain stressed this in his concession speech, or do you just love to hate so much you can't take leadership from YOUR leader anymore?

So long as Obama continues to show great deference to the Constitution of the United States and the laws of the land (something his predecessor pointedly did NOT do), he does IN FACT deserve the cooperation and support of all those who truly put "country first."

The mindless partisan rancor exhibited by people of your ilk shows your true colours -- "party first" or "ideology first" instead of patriotism and _esprit d'corps_. Put bluntly, such people are part of the problem and will _never_ be part of the solution, even (especially) if they ever get back into power.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The power of the federal government is such that it already violates the Constitution on many levels. As much as I did not appreciate the governance of George Bush, his supposed violations of the Constitution were points of contention, not points of fact.

Regarding the so-called "honeymoon," I recall the media rancor already building as George Bush selected his transition team--the complaints that he was building a government out of the leftovers of his father's administration. That was the world's shortest honeymoon.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

http://media.halton.topscms.com/images/57/05/ecae04b64565819be0deee93ea0f.jpeg


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> The power of the federal government is such that it already violates the Constitution on many levels. As much as I did not appreciate the governance of George Bush, his supposed violations of the Constitution were points of contention, not points of fact.
> 
> Regarding the so-called "honeymoon," I recall the media rancor already building as George Bush selected his transition team--the complaints that he was building a government out of the leftovers of his father's administration. That was the world's shortest honeymoon.


His honeymoon ended when the Chinese captured and cloned the most high-tech American spyplane. And Bush deserved that punishment, because he shouldn't have authorized spying on an area that was much better spied upon by satellites. In fact, the Bush Administration was in very big trouble until it was rescued by Al-Qaida, and that rescue was probably the reason that the Bush Administration didn't bother to liquidate bin Laden. Osama was worth more alive than dead to Bush's political career...


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

EvanPitts said:


> Osama was worth more alive than dead to Bush's political career.


One of the truest things you've ever posted Evan. I would speculate that even if the Bush admin had been successful in killing him, they would have kept that a secret, so that bin Laden, just like Emmanuel Goldstein from Nineteen Eighty-four, could be brought out on video whenever a public fear ramp-up was required.


----------



## iJohnHenry (Mar 29, 2008)

I've said this all along.

Wonder if Bush will 'search & destroy' Osama before he leaves office?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

iJohnHenry said:


> I've said this all along.
> 
> Wonder if Bush will 'search & destroy' Osama before he leaves office?


Well say it! Will he or won't he?


----------



## iJohnHenry (Mar 29, 2008)

Well, having an Alpha day, are we??

Sure, I'll say it, with the caveat, unlikely though it is, that the bastard is actually still alive.

He won't let the Dems take credit for something he "already" accomplished.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

iJohnHenry said:


> Well, having an Alpha day, are we??


Dang straight! But I didn't want you to take credit for half a prediction. I doubt that Mr. Bin Laden will show.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> One of the truest things you've ever posted Evan. I would speculate that even if the Bush admin had been successful in killing him, they would have kept that a secret, so that bin Laden, just like Emmanuel Goldstein from Nineteen Eighty-four, could be brought out on video whenever a public fear ramp-up was required.


Really, with all of the technology that the NSA/CIA/WhateverIA, plus the infinite resources of MI5, the Mossad, and really, of every single country that has intelligence agencies, not to mention remote sensing, satellites...

It comes down to the fact that on cheezy, low quality Google Earth - which anyone can look at on line - I can readily identify my car parked in front of my house, and the block of concrete that was replaced on the front walk (and even for a while, until they updated the picture, a wheelbarrow sitting on the front lawn) - the NSA or whoever, with much better quality equipment, should be able to identify what Osama ate that day by taking a picture of his poop from a bazillion miles away.

Plus, really, Gerald Ford's "prohibition" on assassination is a Presidential Order, that for any sitting president is nothing more than a scrap of paper. If Bush wanted to kill Osama, it would be easy-peasy to tear up Ford's (who wasn't even elected President in the first place) scrap of paper, and offer some kind of gratuity to whoever delivers the head of Osama.

And in this world, there are a thousand nutjobs that would do the job for some kind of cash payment, like the Bulgarians, the Czechs, or the Belgians. Or Bush could have ordered the insertion of Cruise Missiles into whatever cave Osama was hiding in, or fry him with some fancy laser beam or giant bomb, or whatever.

Really, it is one dirty sad sack living out in caves in the dusty remote valleys of who-knows-where, and the people who have every conceivable technology when it comes to killing, can't get down and dirty and do the job. Yeah, the nation that has the technology to drive a remote controlled vehicle around Mars; the nation that defeated the Imperial Japanese Empire and the German Third Reich; the nation who danced a deadly game with the Soviets - is entirely befuddled by the degnerate mind of a dirty, sadistic Arab crazyman. Yeah, right - it's all about having Osama around to get cash from Congress to do whatever they are doing in Iraq...

If Bush wanted Osama dead - Osama would be dead faster than one could imagine, given the tools that are available, and the number of people who would go out and risk their lives for basically nothing but patriotic impulse (or sheer lunacy).

But then, if the American's really wanted to get rid of Castro - they could have, whenever they wanted - but he was another convenient boogeyman, especially when it comes to the key Cuban votes in Florida...


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

A couple of funny Obama cartoons from The Telegraph:


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

EvanPitts said:


> His honeymoon ended when the Chinese captured and cloned the most high-tech American spyplane. And Bush deserved that punishment, because he shouldn't have authorized spying on an area that was much better spied upon by satellites. In fact, the Bush Administration was in very big trouble until it was rescued by Al-Qaida, and that rescue was probably the reason that the Bush Administration didn't bother to liquidate bin Laden. Osama was worth more alive than dead to Bush's political career...


I'll go along with a lot of what you say here, but I must remind you that CHENEY ran everything during the first term, and apparently a lot of what happened in the second term too (but in the first term, it was pretty obvious that Bush was deferring to Cheney & Rumsfeld on damn near everything).


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

EvanPitts said:


> If Bush wanted to kill Osama, it would be easy-peasy to tear up Ford's (who wasn't even elected President in the first place) scrap of paper, and offer some kind of gratuity to whoever delivers the head of Osama.


The government did -- and still does, as I recall -- have a reward out for Usama. Up to $27 million can be yours!

FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitive - Usama Bin Laden



> And in this world, there are a thousand nutjobs that would do the job for some kind of cash payment, like the Bulgarians, the Czechs, or the Belgians. Or Bush could have ordered the insertion of Cruise Missiles into whatever cave Osama was hiding in, or fry him with some fancy laser beam or giant bomb, or whatever.


It should be self-evident that this isn't the case -- surely Bush would have pulled out that card before Nov. 4th if he had it to play.



> Yeah, the nation that has the technology to drive a remote controlled vehicle around Mars; the nation that defeated the Imperial Japanese Empire and the German Third Reich; the nation who danced a deadly game with the Soviets - is entirely befuddled by the degnerate mind of a dirty, sadistic Arab crazyman.


Yes, it's possible to stump high technology -- with low technology. If, for example, just a hypothetical -- if Bin Laden had a cave complex built inside one of those mountains (remember that he's quite rich, and that the US wasn't seriously looking for him for quite a long time) or went deep undercover as a technologically-bereft farmer who's messages to his flock are delivered in old-fashioned coded note hand-carried on an ass -- then yes, that would pretty well stymie any efforts to find him. It's not like there aren't a lot of similar-looking bearded men in the region ... 

It took the US seven years (total) to find and capture Olympic Park bomber Eric Rudolph, who was merely hiding in the thick woods of western North Carolina. It took the entire US military eight months to find Saddam Hussein.



> But then, if the American's really wanted to get rid of Castro - they could have, whenever they wanted - but he was another convenient boogeyman, especially when it comes to the key Cuban votes in Florida...


Yeah, that old Republican trick of paying LIP SERVICE to ousting Castro but not actually doing anything about it isn't going to work anymore, if for no other reason than that Castro will be dead of old age soon ...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

chas_m said:


> Yeah, that old Republican trick of paying LIP SERVICE to ousting Castro but not actually doing anything about it isn't going to work anymore, if for no other reason than that Castro will be dead of old age soon ...


Kennedy's efforts to oust Castro probably served as a template here.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MazterCBlazter said:


> I really like the way Barack Obama treats his wife and children in public. Somehow I find it positive and reassuring that we have a good man in office. I see positive chemistry and love between them in their body language.


I didn't see much of this when he shooed them away so he could experience his "glory moment" alone on stage on election night.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

You would prefer that they stood like admiring statues in front of their lord and master? You would prefer that kind of propadrama, MF?

Methinks you're reaching. You're seeing carbuncles where roses bloom.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Now, now Max ... MF's delicate worldview has been recently shattered. It's only natural for him to go through the stages of grief while he comes to grips with the loss of his fantasy realm. Give him time.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> You would prefer that they stood like admiring statues in front of their lord and master? You would prefer that kind of propadrama, MF?


I don't prefer any of the drama--just noting that no president I have seen has prevented the family from sharing int the victory moment.



chas_m said:


> Now, now Max ... MF's delicate worldview has been recently shattered. It's only natural for him to go through the stages of grief while he comes to grips with the loss of his fantasy realm. Give him time.


And just what was supposed to be my "fantasy realm"--two lousy terms with George Bush? From where I sit, I'm actually enjoying the spectacle of what I see coming together right now. I must have gone through all of the stages of grief so quickly, I shot straight through to judgmental amusement.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Like a greased weasel, you are!

Way I see it, you must have been watching that acceptance speech while comforably ensconced in your home on Bizarro Earth.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> Way I see it, you must have been watching that acceptance speech while comforably ensconced in your home on Bizarro Earth.


Me not watch television. Television watch me. That is way it done on Bizarro world.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Good response, yours. Me like, despite you heavy no like Obama speech-accept.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

You two been sipping the fortified grape juice...haven't you?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

kps said:


> You two been sipping the fortified grape juice...haven't you?


That's grape juice PLUS, buddy.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Don't know MF's excuse, but over here it was two beers and a snifter of some Lithuanian vodka. A beeeeeg snifter.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

chas_m said:


> The government did -- and still does, as I recall -- have a reward out for Usama. Up to $27 million can be yours!


I guess not many people want $27 million - which is perhaps half of a PowerBall lottery winning...  



> It should be self-evident that this isn't the case -- surely Bush would have pulled out that card before Nov. 4th if he had it to play.


The self-evident part is the collusion that Bush is involved in with the bin Ladens. If Bush really wanted Osama, it would be easy-peasy to issue a Finding and Order for the assissination. But Bush prefers to play with some people at his Camp X-Ray or Camp Delta, or whatever they are calling it this week, trying to get "answers" out of people that know nothing. Again, it shows how poor the CIA is when it comes to getting the job done - while in the old days, the OSS would have mopped up the thing in a week or so.



> Yes, it's possible to stump high technology -- with low technology. If, for example, just a hypothetical -- if Bin Laden had a cave complex built inside one of those mountains (remember that he's quite rich, and that the US wasn't seriously looking for him for quite a long time) or went deep undercover as a technologically-bereft farmer who's messages to his flock are delivered in old-fashioned coded note hand-carried on an ass -- then yes, that would pretty well stymie any efforts to find him. It's not like there aren't a lot of similar-looking bearded men in the region ...


Sure, but the Americans to have plenty of arms that are up to the task, from giant bombs that make the Grand Slam look like chump change, to a myriad of bunker busters, not to mention the Cruise Missile and who knows what else. Osama may have some cash, and sure, he could bury himself into some kind of cave - but the Americans can surely destroy all of the surface entrances and seal his gang deep inside - where they would starve to death.

Low technology can hold off high technology for a short duration - but high technology will always gain the upper hand, if the motivation is there. In this case, Bush could care less about Osama - and in fact, wants Osama alive to be the "enemy". Bush's War is about fairy dancing, doing the bare minimum to achieve some kind of stand off. Just like in Iraq, where the Americans still haven't sent in the real Army to do any real work, they are fooling around with weekend warriors of the National Guard. It's sad to see such people slaughtered at the hands of those that have nothing more than some muskets and AK-47's - when all of the real weapons and real fighters that have real training are loafing around in the various bases in the States.



> It took the US seven years (total) to find and capture Olympic Park bomber Eric Rudolph, who was merely hiding in the thick woods of western North Carolina. It took the entire US military eight months to find Saddam Hussein.


The American's are still looking for CC Ryder - which shows that in total, the American's are just really bad at finding people... beejacon




> Yeah, that old Republican trick of paying LIP SERVICE to ousting Castro but not actually doing anything about it isn't going to work anymore, if for no other reason than that Castro will be dead of old age soon ...


Of course, two or three Presidents should be able to leech off of Castro's brother Raoul, before any number of other Presidents will score their points with whatever Castro happens to be the strongman after that.

Of course, it would be easier if the American's just admitted that supporting the previous perverted and corrupt regime was a gigantic mistake, and that the Cubans should never have been treated worse than slaves - then they could get on with things. But better to have a flock of bogeymen in the closet to point fingers at, especially when the American's only have penny ante nations left as enemies.

What is true is that the ulterior motives of the various Administrations in the White House are entirely built upon suspect terrain - and that the penny ante dictators have been able to completely outmanouver the Administrations on pretty much anything. It's all about cash, so we shall see if Obama has a different set of cards to deal out.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

EvanPitts said:


> I guess not many people want $27 million - which is perhaps half of a PowerBall lottery winning...


Yes, and the lower risk of death in a backwater hellhole almost make up for the terrible odds of winning the PowerBall ... 



> The self-evident part is the collusion that Bush is involved in with the bin Ladens. If Bush really wanted Osama, it would be easy-peasy to issue a Finding and Order for the assissination.


Well, yes and no. Let me say first that I agree with you about Bush not wanting Bin Laden killed, and I agree also that his family and the Bin Ladens are very closely connected (tip o the hat to Michael Moore for first exposing that link).

But Presidents cannot order assassinations, even covertly. Now, I hear you saying, since when has legality mattered to Bush, and I hear ya. But that might be a line even HE won't cross, not that he wanted to as you say.



> Again, it shows how poor the CIA is when it comes to getting the job done - while in the old days, the OSS would have mopped up the thing in a week or so.


And while Julia Child was there, a delicious French victory meal would have followed! 



> Low technology can hold off high technology for a short duration - but high technology will always gain the upper hand, if the motivation is there.


Well, EVENTUALLY yes. My guess however is that Obama will die of old age.



> Just like in Iraq, where the Americans still haven't sent in the real Army to do any real work


I'm not sure how to interpret this. What "real Army" are they holding back?

As for doing "real work," my impression is that just "surviving the summer in Iraq" is more "real work" than I've got any stomach for. I doubt the troops there feel "underworked."



> they are fooling around with weekend warriors of the National Guard.


Well, no. National Guard and Reservists (these are almost entirely ex-Regular Army people, not "weekend warriors" at all) make up only 40% (approx. 55,000) of the troops in Iraq. Add approximately 95,000 regular Army troops and 11,000 or so non-US troops to get the total.

The US regular Army only has a TOTAL of 543,000 soldiers, which is why only 100,000 or so can possibly be in Iraq at any one time -- soldiers are used elsewhere (Afghanistan for example), and the rest are in "rotation." Two thirds of all the soldiers in the combined army (including reserve and NG) have been to Iraq for at least one tour of duty.



> It's sad to see such people slaughtered at the hands of those that have nothing more than some muskets and AK-47's


Guns don't play nearly as big a role in US casualties as home-made bombs. Anyone could make the kind of bombs the Iraqis make, and given that the landscape is unrelentingly boring and same-looking poses an even greater challenge.



> when all of the real weapons and real fighters that have real training are loafing around in the various bases in the States.


Source?



> The American's are still looking for CC Ryder - which shows that in total, the American's are just really bad at finding people... beejacon


You forgot about DB Cooper. 



> Of course, two or three Presidents should be able to leech off of Castro's brother Raoul, before any number of other Presidents will score their points with whatever Castro happens to be the strongman after that.


It will be interesting to see what, if anything, Raoul does differently once Fidel is actually dead. I will, however, predict here for the record that we will see President Obama set foot in Havana before the end of his first term.



> Of course, it would be easier if the American's just admitted that supporting the previous perverted and corrupt regime was a gigantic mistake


HAHAHAHA admit a mistake?? You really don't know this administration velly well, do you? 



> But better to have a flock of bogeymen in the closet to point fingers at, especially when the American's only have penny ante nations left as enemies.


I don't know about that ... Russia is flush with evil AND oil money. Makes for a great "new bogeyman!" beejacon


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

*Obama the quitter!*

I knew he couldn't hold a job!

UPDATE 1-Obama resigns Senate seat effective Sunday | Markets | Markets News | Reuters


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Very interesting ........... We shall see what comes out of these meetings.

(CNN) -- "President-elect Barack Obama met with his former rival Sen. Hillary Clinton to see if she would be interested in a role in his administration, two sources told CNN Friday.

Obama also will meet with the man he defeated in the general election, Republican Sen. John McCain, on Monday, the Obama transition team announced Friday."


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Dr.G. said:


> (CNN) -- "President-elect Barack Obama met with his former rival Sen. Hillary Clinton to see if she would be interested in a role in his administration, two sources told CNN Friday.


She'd be good for Sec. of State, but really her main job is and always will be keeping the interns away from Bill. 



> Obama also will meet with the man he defeated in the general election, Republican Sen. John McCain, on Monday, the Obama transition team announced Friday."


Now that's classy. Let's see if he really will put "country first."


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

chas_m said:


> She'd be good for Sec. of State, but really her main job is and always will be keeping the interns away from Bill.


Whether she would be good at the job is irrelevant. For a person of her ambition, it's a dead end job. She would serve "at the pleasure" of the President. That means she could be dismissed at the time of the President's choosing. If things on the international scene go well, the President would get the credit. If not, she, more than likely, would take the blame for the President. He would make sure of that.

Also she would retain more freedom and influence as junior senator from New York.

Now, an appointment to the Supreme Court might be more tempting.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

chas_m said:


> Now that's classy. Let's see if he really will put "country first."


Someone has to reward the old fool for throwing the election...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

chas_m said:


> But Presidents cannot order assassinations, even covertly. Now, I hear you saying, since when has legality mattered to Bush, and I hear ya. But that might be a line even HE won't cross, not that he wanted to as you say.


It is only a "limit" because of an Executive Order signed by Ford - and any Executive Order can easily be overturned, since it is not "law" because it was not ratified by Congress. So I do not know what Bush's predilicion is about overturning something that isn't statute law, considering that he made a pretty good run at habeus corpus - which is the basis of statute law.

It all smells very fishy, very very fishy, since Osama is basically nothing, and really, since Osama is not a "world leader" of any sort - it wouldn't even be an assassination. But then again, one only has to look at all the other Bush policy train wrecks to see that Bush certainly does not want to get any jobs done.



> I'm not sure how to interpret this. What "real Army" are they holding back?... Well, no. National Guard and Reservists (these are almost entirely ex-Regular Army people, not "weekend warriors" at all) make up only 40% (approx. 55,000) of the troops in Iraq. Add approximately 95,000 regular Army troops and 11,000 or so non-US troops to get the total.


If this is actually true, I would stand corrected. It is the impression that I get from the news over the past six or so years that it is all about the National Guard - and you never hear about the Army doing anything. But then - the Reservists and National Guard are "weekend warriors" by nature - since they are not continually enlisted and in continual training or duty. People that are part timers have no place in Iraq, at least on the front lines.



> ...and the rest are in "rotation." Two thirds of all the soldiers in the combined army (including reserve and NG) have been to Iraq for at least one tour of duty.


I think the whole "tour of duty" thing is too soft. They didn't rotate soldiers every three months during WWII - the solders were there to fight until victory - or they scored enough points to go home, points acquired by doing things. But then again, the Iraq War never did have a point, so how can one ask for solders to fight against imaginary enemies, and without any actual end goals in mind. It was far easier in the old days, when it was all about killing Hitler or killing Mussolini or killing Tojo - in Iraq, there is no enemy, just the mess of a civil war that has no solution.

So in my opinion, it would have been better if they actually had a goal in the first place, like, killing Saddam and his cronies and freeing the Kurds from oppression - which is doable; rather than just being the keystone cops in bomber's paradise.



> You forgot about DB Cooper.


My mistake - I meant DB Cooper. Listening to too much Buchanan again...



> It will be interesting to see what, if anything, Raoul does differently once Fidel is actually dead. I will, however, predict here for the record that we will see President Obama set foot in Havana before the end of his first term.


Raoul will engage in more looting than Fidel, then he'll be picked off by some junta that actually believes in Guevera. I can't see Obama flushing the Cuban vote down the toilet, though a major regime change in Cuba could lead to the eventuality.



> I don't know about that ... Russia is flush with evil AND oil money. Makes for a great "new bogeyman!" beejacon


Except they are US friendly, like many other corrupt and contemptable regimes. I do not think there is any logic in who the American's hate or like - at least since good old Joe McCarthy was doing his thing...


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Voyager said:


> Whether she would be good at the job is irrelevant. For a person of her ambition, it's a dead end job.


I think Clinton knows her Presidential aspirations are over. In 2016 she will be almost as old as John McCain was during this run. I can't see though how putting Clinton in the cabinet is much of a benefit to Obama. One of the strong points his campaign had was being No-drama-Obama. Everything around Billary is saturated with unnecessary drama, starting with the leak of her appointment and the media swirl around it.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Someone has to reward the old fool for throwing the election...


McCain threw the election? So is this where the wheel landed for the last spin of the GOP's Wheel! Of! Excuses! ?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

McCain's campaign was self-directed and incompetent. He's in many ways the Stephane Dion of his country, masterminding his own defeat.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

Obama developing plans to close Gitmo.

Is this an improvement already, or what?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I don't really see Gitmo as a violation of the Constitution, which applies only to citizens.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Voyager said:


> Now, an appointment to the Supreme Court might be more tempting.


I would personally be against that. The Supreme Court does not need any more polarising figures, and it shouldn't be a goal to "balance" the nutball Scalia and the activist Alito with "lefty" judges. Ideologues of any stripe should have no place on the Supreme Court.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

EvanPitts said:


> It is only a "limit" because of an Executive Order signed by Ford - and any Executive Order can easily be overturned, since it is not "law" because it was not ratified by Congress.


That's because there is already a law barring the President from doing anything illegal, and ordering a hit on someone is illegal. Bush didn't order a hit on Castro, for example. He may have suggested "dead or alive" on Bin Laden and Hussein, but that's not the same as ordering a hit.



> It all smells very fishy, very very fishy, since Osama is basically nothing, and really, since Osama is not a "world leader" of any sort


This is going to come as a big shock to the leaders of the world in Reality-land, which is a place outside EP's mind.



> If this is actually true, I would stand corrected. It is the impression that I get from the news over the past six or so years that it is all about the National Guard - and you never hear about the Army doing anything.


I believe I got most of the information from wikipedia, but the specific number of regular army currently in Iraq (~100,000) and the number of National Guard (~50,000) plus foreign troops (~11,000) comes from a US Army document PDF I found via a Google search and cannot relocated at the moment.



> But then - the Reservists and National Guard are "weekend warriors" by nature - since they are not continually enlisted and in continual training or duty. People that are part timers have no place in Iraq, at least on the front lines.


Agreed. Westerners IN GENERAL should not be there, as this war was entirely unnecessary.



> I think the whole "tour of duty" thing is too soft. They didn't rotate soldiers every three months during WWII - the solders were there to fight until victory - or they scored enough points to go home, points acquired by doing things.


This is not correct. Front-line soldiers were continually rotated out for fresh ones and routinely left the theatre of war for some RnR in nearby ports of call. They didn't get to go back home (except for certain circumstances), but they did get a break away from the fighting from time to time. My friends who have served in Iraq tell me there is no "break" of that sort during their 15 months "tours of duty" -- they don't get to go to Paris for a weekend every month, for example. They have "downtime" when things are quiet, but they basically never leave the theatre of fighting until injured or their term is up.



> But then again, the Iraq War never did have a point, so how can one ask for solders to fight against imaginary enemies, and without any actual end goals in mind. It was far easier in the old days, when it was all about killing Hitler or killing Mussolini or killing Tojo - in Iraq, there is no enemy, just the mess of a civil war that has no solution.


Agreed.



> So in my opinion, it would have been better if they actually had a goal in the first place, like, killing Saddam and his cronies and freeing the Kurds from oppression - which is doable; rather than just being the keystone cops in bomber's paradise.


Agreed.



> My mistake - I meant DB Cooper. Listening to too much Buchanan again...


I worry for the world when that guy starts to make sense -- as he sometimes does!  




> I can't see Obama flushing the Cuban vote down the toilet, though a major regime change in Cuba could lead to the eventuality.


Obama's too slick to flush the Cuban-American vote. I didn't say he'll cosy up to Fidel/Raoul, I predicted he would VISIT for direct talks. Different thing entirely.

Besides, the generation of militant anti-Castro is dying just as the man himself is dying. There's a wind of change in the air, and getting Cuba back into diplomatic relations with the US would be a huge feather in Obama's cap, not to mention tons of money for both countries.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

(duplicate deleted -- database had problems with posting so I posted a second time)


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

MissGulch said:


> Obama developing plans to close Gitmo.
> 
> Is this an improvement already, or what?


It's an improvement, if rather unsurprising. Almost every major politician, Republican or Democrat (with two notable exceptions) wants Guantanamo closed.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

> That's because there is already a law barring the President from doing anything illegal/QUOTE]
> I know what you are saying, Chas, but this is pretty funny. Surely we don't need a separate law for the prez that says "you can't break the law". There are laws, and if we break them that's, well, illegal.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

chas_m said:


> That's because there is already a law barring the President from doing anything illegal, and ordering a hit on someone is illegal. Bush didn't order a hit on Castro, for example. He may have suggested "dead or alive" on Bin Laden and Hussein, but that's not the same as ordering a hit.


He should have just ordered a hit, since really, even if illegal, the only people that could prosecute him would be Congress - and if Congress took such a step, Bush would have scored mondo points, and though their may be just enough votes to impeach, there would not be enough votes to convict the President. A bullet through bin Laden's head would be about the most popular thing imaginable, and anyone in Congress who would pursue the path of impeachment would be running to their political suicide.

And though the President is barred from doing things that are "illegal", it would not be clear at all if a "hit" on Osama or Hussein would be "illegal", since it is not certain if the laws would apply to those jurisdictions that do not have a reciprocal treaty with the US as ratified by Congress. Of course, Hussein would have been "protected" by American law if he had not torn up the over 200 treaties that Iraq had entered into since it was cleaved from the Ottoman Empire. Osama would have no such rights at all, since he does not actually hold any citizenship - but is a renegade to the extreme.

It is also true that if a sitting President, while in office, did anything that was "illegal", though not any action which would act to repudiate the Constitution, and not charged with high crimes or misdemeanors by Congress, is immune to prosecution of those acts. And it is uncertain, as it had never been tested, if a lawsuit against the "illegal" act would actually succeed once the President is no longer the sitting President, if the act took place while he was the sitting President.

But it is clear, since Ford issued an Executive Order prohibiting assassination, that assassination of foreign leaders is not actually "illegal"; and since it was an Order not ratified by Congress, it could be treated, if say Bush desired to, as nothing more than a useless guideline that he himself could overturn.

This is not a cut and dried situation - as it would be illegal for Bush to say, order a hit on a US citizen - or of ordering a hit against the citizen of any nation that has a reciprocal treaty with the US - but dealing with those people who are on the borderlands. It would all come down to political points, and I think that if Bush didn't have some kind of arrangement with the bin Laden family - that he would have ordered the exectution years ago, and end all of these expensive shenanigans long before they started.



> Agreed. Westerners IN GENERAL should not be there, as this war was entirely unnecessary.


Iraq is itself a construct of the West in the first place, since it was the West who saw to the dissolution of the Ottoman Caliphate, but did not want Mesopotamia to be cleaved into various sections so as to act as a counterpoise to the Turks. This is nothing more than an episode in the Wars of the Ottoman Succession, wars that were created many years ago in Lausanne, Switzerland.

Of course, the Americans have some kind of preference in keeping this construct together, rather than to let it be cleaved into more natural nations, like Kurdistan, of which the Kurds represent the largest ethnic group in the world that are not de jour self-governing.



> I worry for the world when that guy starts to make sense -- as he sometimes does!


I don't know if Roy Buchanan ever made much sense - but he sure knew how to wield his axe...



> There's a wind of change in the air, and getting Cuba back into diplomatic relations with the US would be a huge feather in Obama's cap, not to mention tons of money for both countries.


Considering that there are many Americans who still have an affinity for the Confederate States - I think the whole anti-Cuba thing can go on for many more years. Obama can not risk loosing any of the Cuban votes, especially if he does not want to suffer in the Congressional Elections in two years. I doubt if Obama will do anything about Cuba while Fidel is alive, and I doubt he will do anything while Raoul is alive either. If Cuba undergoes a major change, only then would Obama try to do anything, since meeting with either Castro would prove to be political suicide.

I think Obama has bigger problems than to fool around with Castro...


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Interesting comments from Ethel Kennedy ............ and very true words.

Barack Obama and Joe Biden: The Change We Need | Obama HQ Blogger: Open Thread: Stand Tall


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I beg to differ. These words are not very true.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury, I feel that her comparison of Obama to RFK was accurate and heartfelt.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Just watching him on a long interview on 60 Minutes....highly recommended if you can catch it.

He has this graceful sense of humour, as does Michelle that I think will really go a long way internationally and at home.

Just the joking around between them about his dilapidated apartment in Washington ( he's a bloody Senator and living in a one bedroom run down bachelor - generously dubbed a dump. Michelle wouldn't even stay with him there it was so bad.

I mean the guy is grounded and so his wife. Likeable both them and yet the intellectual horsepower is also there for both.
What a welcome change......you really feel like cheering this guy on.

I think that aspect of warmth and humour is going to really help America get through this tough time. An admirable AND historic first family.



















:clap: 

well done America....been a while since that thought has crossed my mind regarding US politics.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'll judge him by his record as President. All of this is just window dressing.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"I think that aspect of warmth and humour is going to really help America get through this tough time. An admirable AND historic first family." Amen, brother MacDoc. It was an enjoyable and uplifting hour .............. topped off by Andy Rooney. Time well spent.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"I'll judge him by his record as President. All of this is just window dressing." True, which is why people are so excited. If this is what is on display, imagine the quality that awaits us inside the store? America, as MacDoc accurately states, has brought upon itself "... a welcome change......you really feel like cheering this guy on."


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I've said it before and I'll say it again. those who expect too much are going to be disappointed. He is, after all, only one man, and the change he can effect will be limited.

All this gushing over his sense of humour and his family is pie in the sky wishful thing. The proof will be in the pudding when he steps into the area for the first time. The Christians never did do very well against the lions, if I recall.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

In the long run, the Christians are winning over the lions by a country mile.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

SINC said:


> I've said it before and I'll say it again. those who expect too much are going to be disappointed. He is, after all, only one man, and the change he can effect will be limited.
> 
> All this gushing over his sense of humour and his family is pie in the sky wishful thing. The proof will be in the pudding when he steps into the area for the first time. The Christians never did do very well against the lions, if I recall.


You may be on to something there Sinc though you may be confused who's the Christian and who's the lion.  



> One of the more interesting (if obscure) coincidences connected with the 2008 U.S. presidential election had to do with lottery numbers in Illinois. On 5 November 2008, the day after Election Day, the winning numbers in that state's Evening Pick 3
> lottery draw were 6-6-6 — a string of digits traditionally held to represent the "Number of the Beast" as described in the New Testament's Book of Revelation. When one considers that the winner of the previous day's presidential election was Barack Obama, who began his political career in Illinois and represents that state in the U.S. Senate, and who was the subject of a spurious election year rumor positing that he matched the Book of Revelation's description of the anti-Christ, well ... it might all seem a bit eerie.


beejacon


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> You may be on to something there Sinc though you may be confused who's the Christian and who's the lion.
> 
> beejacon


Just out of curiosity, what is the source of that article?


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

mrjimmy said:


> Just out of curiosity, what is the source of that article?


The good people at Snopes.com

snopes.com: 2008 Presidential Election Lottery Coincidence

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> The good people at Snopes.com
> 
> snopes.com: 2008 Presidential Election Lottery Coincidence
> 
> ...


I'm guessing you also read this, from Snopes.com:



> Nothing in the Bible - in Revelation or elsewhere - describes the anti-Christ as being "a man, in his 40s, of Muslim descent." In fact, since the book of Revelation was complete by the end of the second century, the religion of Islam wasn't founded until about four hundred years later, the notion that Revelation would have mentioned a "Muslim" at all is rather far-fetched. (And even if it did, it couldn't be construed as a reference to Barack Obama, since Senator Obama isn't a Muslim.


I can see the High Priestess Sarah Palin preaching this kind of BS to her dim witted flock. "Its juss gots to be true!"


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Seems to me the Bush Harper lap puppies are green with envy....a real leader with the ability to inspire shows up and they just growl and gnash puppy teeth.....and spout biblical admonitions 

of course considering their fearless leader there may be some just cause for jealousy in the pack









envy IS a sin after all, in some minds....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc: I think that you're confusing your own envy and fawning with the non-existent jealousy of others. You've got a bad case of man-love, but it isn't catching.

mrjimmy: You have to realize that every president of the 20th Century has already been identified as the Ant-Christ, either through some silly bit of numerical chance, or through the numerology inherent in the name (with a bit of twisting). Obama is the latest in an honourable line of false prophets of the Revelation.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

mrjimmy said:


> I'm guessing you also read this, from Snopes.com:
> 
> I can see the High Priestess Sarah Palin preaching this kind of BS to her dim witted flock. "Its juss gots to be true!"


I don't endorse the idea Obama is the anti-christ. Especially as defined by the theologically challenged folks you pointed out in your link though more theologically literate individuals have mused the same. My vote is for Oprah I just thought it was a funny coincidence that 666 was the loto number in his home state the day after his election when many pondered his fit with the biblical anti-christ. 

I do however believe, if a personification of Anti-christ does come around, MacDoc and many other resident Christian bashers will love him.

I certainly think his radical pro-abortion stance and eagerness to start using human embryo's for scientific experiment is diabolically evil and he'll steer the nation into a deeper hole than it already is. We shall see.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Well, I think that the whole thing about Obama being the Anti-Christ is about as silly as Obama being some kind of Savior.

With the looks of the people he is assembling for his "team", not much will actually happen, as he has completely abandoned all HOPE of bringing CHANGE to Washington, and it looks like he is digging in to defend against the various fractions of the Democratic Party.

Funny when all of the pundits on Sunday morning were talking about the importance of "bringing Republicans on board" - when the Democrats control 57% of the House and 58% of the Senate - more than enough to pass any kind of legislation. Well, unless there is something really brewing, with lots of dissent within the Democratic Party, especially since Pelosi has been yapping about fillibustering legislation - which is a big why?! if the Democrats are going to put forth the whole agenda, and can in all cases, pass all legislation as they see fit.

The next two years will be entertaining, with all of the drooling Clintonites in key positions, working to derail any notion that Obama had of CHANGE; with a Congress split not between Democrats and Republicans, but split along the rifts within the Democratic Party itself, with the Republicans acting as the balance point.

Obama is not Anti-Christ or Savior - but he could be the ring man in the Circus Washington - until the Republicans surge in 2010...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> November 17, 2008
> *Obama interview sets '60 Minutes' viewership record*
> 
> 60_obama_2 Barack Obama's first televised post-election interview gave Sunday night's "60 Minutes" its biggest audience in at least nine years.
> ...


Obama interview sets '60 Minutes' viewership record--The Live Feed


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

But alas...



> The "Minutes" boost wasn't enough to put CBS over the top for the evening, however. NBC still won with "Sunday Night Football" (17 million, 6.5), Dallas Cowboys at Washington Redskins, and pregame shows.


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

If true, things could get very interesting - especially if their world views don't mesh.
Hillary Clinton to accept Barack Obama's offer of secretary of state job | World news | guardian.co.uk

But not everyone in Obama's camp is happy about the possibility.
Cabinet post for Clinton roils Obamaland - Ben Smith - Politico.com

Hopefully, they will vet Bill's financial dealings closely for potential conflicts of interest.
Bill Clinton's dealings under review - Salt Lake Tribune


And:Don’t Do It, Hillary! - The Daily Beast


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Here is the 60 minutes interview 42 minutes sans ads. Put the tea on and enjoy.

60 Minutes, 11.16.08 Video - CBSNews.com


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

You know, watching that interview I can now see that Obama himself doesn't really have to do all that much.

If he will simply show that he is ENGAGED, that he CARES about the consequences of his decisions and that he isn't a idiot, the American people might just rise to the occasion and take on the struggle/sacrifices/challenges themselves. This generation really haven't been very challenged over the course of the last 25 or so years -- it will be interesting to see how they react.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Why would the country have to make any sacrifices for Obama?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Thanks for the link, MacDoc. Gets better each time I watch it ......... with a smile on my face each time. Yes we did. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Just for you Dr. G 



> *Obama's Use of Complete Sentences Stirs Controversy*
> 
> In the first two weeks since the election, President-elect Barack Obama has broken with a tradition established over the past eight years through his controversial use of complete sentences, political observers say.
> 
> ...


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

MacDoc said:


> Just for you Dr. G


That is hilarious! 

That must jab you where it hurts Dr. G. You are a professor of english, correct?


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

ROFLMAO cuz its true. Nice find, MD.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Thanks, MacDoc. I found that interesting .............. and true. Nice to have a literate president once again. He is as well spoken as FDR and Wilson.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"That must jab you where it hurts Dr. G. You are a professor of english, correct?" Adrian, I am in the Faculty of Education here at Memorial University, and teach undergrad and grad students, who are becoming teachers, or who are teachers, how to assess literacy language problems in children.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Well, Obama certainly isn't delivering change in his choice of administration--just a bunch of warmed over Clinton-era hacks. One would hope that a mandate for change could bring about an administration with choices a little more creative than this one. 

I think if he finds a spot for Janet Reno, they can have class reunion with all of the original members present.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Well, Obama certainly isn't delivering change in his choice of administration--just a bunch of warmed over Clinton-era hacks.
> 
> I think if he finds a spot for Janet Reno, they can have class reunion with all of the original members present.


Add Madeline Albright, put her in the UN, then watch all of the penny-ante nations of the world walk all over the good old US of A, like in the goold old days of Clinton, with all of the ethnic cleansings and massacres that Clinton supported around the world. I think the whole message of CHANGE and HOPE has already been consigned to the trash can.

Of course, if Obama had actually been committed to CHANGE and HOPE, he would have denounced scum like Pelosi, while refusing to tap into the web of intrigue that the Washington Insiders represent. His only HOPE was that he could knock off the Republicans so he could CHANGE the staff at the White House, and sell nights in the Lincoln Bedroom to the carpetbagger that bids the most money or influence.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Well, at least he has innovatively renamed his re-constituted Clinton economic team a "brain trust."


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

"Help is on the way." He's tapping the best people from the Clinton years to hit the ground running. People are looking for reassurance and a sense that somebody is not asleep at the wheel. I like this guy.



MF said:


> Well, at least he has innovatively renamed his re-constituted Clinton economic team a "brain trust."


 Don't kid yourself, people are sentimental about the "Bubba" years in spite of the drama. When Bill went to Toronto he was received like a rock star.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Good point, Miss G. It seems that any time Bush says something or tries to do something, the markets react in a negative manner. However, when Obama shows some leadership, the markets react in a positive manner. Guess the voters were right this time to elect a president.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The Dow is going up and down because they don't mind the selection of the "brain trust" but they need specifics. If Obama goes through with his Captial Gains Tax increases promised in his election platform, the market will go into a tailspin.

Gulch: Bubba was indeed mobbed by the Canadian masses. I'm referring not to the quality of Bubba's economic team, but to the lack of change in reconstituting it in its entirety.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

We shall see, Macfury. We shall see .............


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Well, at least he has innovatively renamed his re-constituted Clinton economic team a "brain trust."


It's very post-ironic, a Clinton brain trust. The Clinton Administration was the summation of no brains and no trust, but a peculiar fixation on pants, or the lack thereof.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

EvanPitts said:


> It's very post-ironic, a Clinton brain trust. The Clinton Administration was the summation of no brains and no trust, but a peculiar fixation on pants, or the lack thereof.


I think you're confusing the people who worked for Clinton with Clinton himself.

As I recall, the Clinton Administration was one of unparalleled economic growth and prosperity, so successful in fact that not only did the US eliminate its deficit, it had actually started paying down the DEBT (which is a different thing altogether), an unheard-of dream these days.

When it comes to the economy, the more Clintonites the better for all of us.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

MissGulch said:


> "Help is on the way." He's tapping the best people from the Clinton years to hit the ground running. People are looking for reassurance and a sense that somebody is not asleep at the wheel. I like this guy.
> 
> Don't kid yourself, people are sentimental about the "Bubba" years in spite of the drama. When Bill went to Toronto he was received like a rock star.


Poor MacFury, he hasn't a leg to stand on. Of course, that won't stop him *inventing* criticism of the new president before he even takes office ...

FACT: The Clinton Years were GREAT economically.

FACT: Um, where _else_ is a Democrat supposed to look for *experienced* high-level people except those who have worked in the last Democratic (ie competent and duly-elected) administration? Obama's not averse to hiring the occasional (and they are pretty rare) competent Republican ... look at Robert Gates' agreeing to stay on, and you can bet Colin Powell will show up at some point.

These trolls who trash the incoming nominations because many of them have served before ... yeah, Obama should forget that and bring in a whole bunch of new, completely untested, green-behind-the-ears people who've been selected for their jobs solely on their ideological bias ... because that worked out *SO WELL* for the Bushies ... :lmao:


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Sad to see him appointing all the people that helped create the financial catastrophe to various economic posts. Why not appoint someone that opposed derivatives trading and 40:1 credit margins. Oops forget none of them belong to the Clinton/Bush cartel.beejacon

BTW the bank bailout is crap. These are not banks but "investment banks". Their deposits were never insured and bailing them out will not benefit the guy on the street in the slightest.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

All fine points, chas. I see change as things happening differntly, and don't care who brings about this change. If McCain could help bring about this change, bring him into the picture. If Colin Powell can help bring about this change, bring him into the picture. If Sarah Palin could ................... well, let's say this is not going to happen.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> Sad to see him appointing all the people that helped create the financial catastrophe to various economic posts. Why not appoint someone that opposed derivatives trading and 40:1 credit margins. Oops forget none of them belong to the Clinton/Bush cartel.beejacon
> 
> BTW the bank bailout is crap. These are not banks but "investment banks". Their deposits were never insured and bailing them out will not benefit the guy on the street in the slightest.


Exactly. The problem is that the economic crisis is the result of a nasty coalition of Republicans and Democrats who are eager to hand that bailout money to their benefactors. The whole financial crisis is a child of Congress--Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac were intrinsic in the meltdown. 

Reconstituting a cabinet out of one subset of the authors of America's current misfortunes isn't change in the slightest. Obama can't find anyone else? Then don't run on a platform of change.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

There was a great line on one of the news shows this evening, Dr. G:

"Sarah Palin can see Russia from her house, but she apparently can't see what's happening five feet beside her" (referring, of course, to the "turkey" interview)


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

chas_m said:


> I think you're confusing the people who worked for Clinton with Clinton himself.
> 
> As I recall, the Clinton Administration was one of unparalleled economic growth and prosperity, so successful in fact that not only did the US eliminate its deficit, it had actually started paying down the DEBT (which is a different thing altogether), an unheard-of dream these days.
> 
> When it comes to the economy, the more Clintonites the better for all of us.


The Clintonites gave us the Internet Bubble - a false economy based on investors frittering their cash away on some of the world's dumbest ideas.

The Clintonites also defended Clinton and his perverted and degenerate actions. I can not recall even one of them ever rising and denouncing Clinton, let alone any of them ever testifying in front of Congress without bold faced lying. This regime was all about deception, and creating a facade of "action" while the Administration did nothing.

The Clintonites even managed to "follow orders" and do all kinds of perverted things, like authorizing ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity in the Balkans. They even exterminated their own people, like performing the assassination of Vince Foster - who was about to blow the whistle on the White Water swindle, and was silenced before the truth could be told.

Yeah, the good old days, when the pants were down and the penny-ante nations of the world rogered the United States. A regime so contemptuous that people resorted to voting for Newt Gingrich. A regime where Al Gore himself invented the Internet - Vint Cerf had nothing at all to do with it. It's pretty good when a do nothing regime can brag about things that they didn't do.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

chas_m said:


> FACT: The Clinton Years were GREAT economically.


Life on a Bubble... It is also a fact that the Clinton Regime did nothing of any value to keep jobs in the US, and allowed penny-ante nations like China the chance to overhaul the US economically.

Of course, life after the Bubble was different, after trillions of dollars were vapourized when it burst. And then, it must be nice thinking that the economy was GREAT, considering the Clinton Years Of Inaction and his "pants off" policies were the prime breeding grounds of such looming flaming zeppelin disasters as MCI-WorldCom, Enron, and Duke Energy.



> FACT: Um, where _else_ is a Democrat supposed to look for *experienced* high-level people except those who have worked in the last Democratic (ie competent and duly-elected) administration?


If they need to be "experienced", that is, even with bad experience - then you are right, since there are not many people left over from the last compentent and duly-elected Democratic administration, that of Harry S Truman.

But if you want to discuss actual competence, and having a great distance away from the filth and depravity of a corpulent regime - then I'd say that Obama would have been better off doing some recruiting at some of the Universities, because there is not much talent in the establishment of the Democratic Party.



> ... yeah, Obama should forget that and bring in a whole bunch of new, completely untested, green-behind-the-ears people who've been selected for their jobs solely on their ideological bias ... because that worked out *SO WELL* for the Bushies ... :lmao:


Now you are getting it - Obama should bring in people that have patriotic fervour and want to follow an ideological line - rather than the old school of corrupt Washington Insiders and glad handlers that he had entirely denounced when he campaigned on the premise of CHANGE.

As for Bush, he brought in the nasty old retreads, veterans of the Nixon Regime. People like Rumsfeld who piloted the US into military disasters in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. It didn't take some kind of clairvoyant Amazing Kreskin ability to see what would happen with War once Rumsfeld mixed it up in the Pentagon.

Yeah, bringing back the Clintonites is a pretty good idea - with the penny-ante nations shoving the US around in the UN, unfettered AL-Qaida membership drives, regulations that drive the banking industry to rack and ruin, fake Internet that is provided by overpriced quasi-monopolies, scandals, special investigations, and half the Democratic Party playing pile on the President to score their own points for whatever half-baked pork barrel policy they are touting on any given day.

Obama won the Election - but his Administration is composed of losers, retreads, degenerates, Washington insiders, and glad handlers...


----------

