# US Election:



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

*US Election: Why ******** May Rule The World*

An interesting read to be sure.



> By Joe Bageant
> Author of Deerhunting With Jesus
> 
> During this US election cycle we are hearing a lot from the pundits and candidates about "heartland voters," and "white working class voters."
> ...


BBC - Today



> *All this has become so deeply instilled as to now be reflexive. It represents many of the worst traits in American culture and a few of the best.
> 
> And that has every thinking person here in the US, except perhaps John McCain and Sarah Palin, worried.
> 
> Very worried.*


----------



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

A friend of mine lives in one of the most conservative and affluent counties in the US (13th wealthiest county in the US and voted for the Republicans over 85% in each of the last 10 elections. After the 2000 election, he considered selling his home and land (valued at $4 million US) and moving to Salt Spring Island, BC. Now, he is again speaking of moving to Canada if ever Sarah Palin becomes president. We shall see.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Dr.G. said:


> Now, he is again speaking of moving to Canada if ever Sarah Palin becomes president. We shall see.


Sounds like the same moaning that Alec Baldwin was into a few years back, when he was going to leave the US if Bush got elected. If people moved every time an election didn't go their way, there would be a lot of migration, from one despotate to another. Without Oppositioners, any Government soon degenerates into a Kleplocracy that relishes profane acts of hatred and class warfare.

If I had my way, I wouldn't have ever been born in Canada, tainted as it is with the filth and degenerates of the Fiberal party (and the effete Fiberal wannabees like Mulroney and Harper). But it is better to be opposed to the Government because they can't get away with things.

In fact, I'd prefer Singapore, everything neat and organized, if it wasn't for the crazy heat and humidity, just because they get things done without wasting the time. Like that graffiti kid - he'll never make that mistake again; while here, the whole City had "Keenur" written everywhere.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

The best thing about that article was this quote:



> We fry things nobody ever considered friable - things like cupcakes, banana sandwiches and batter dipped artificial cheese…even pickles.


Mmmmmmmm .... deep-fried banana sandwiches with a side of batter-dipped Cheez Whiz balls. 

But seriously, I think that the article is inferring a solidarity to this "*******" group, — probably in an attempt to sell the thesis laid out in his new book, — that may not really exist.

There certainly is a large uneducated group in the US (and Canada for that matter) that may fall loosely under this label, but they certainly don't always vote as a block and also share things with some other groups that wouldn't be called "********".

The main thing that this writer fails to mention though, is that GOP and their new leaders like McCain and Palin are pulling the old bait and switch on this group once again. They claim to represent this group, by appealing to superficial beliefs such as "Belief that most things outside our own community and nation are inferior and threatening, that the world is jealous of the American lifestyle" while setting up the economy in such a way that the "white, working class" nevermind any other working class, will never be able to get ahead.

For instance, Obama's tax plan will actually benefit the majority in this group, while McCain's, who hails from a long line of wealth and privilege but has mastered the good 'ol boy shuck and jive, will benefit only those in his hyper-wealthy country club group.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Obama just backtracked on tax increases for the rich--will delay until "after the recession."


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

You mean, he didn't wait until he was elected to backtrack? He was upfront about it months before getting elected?



Macfury said:


> Obama just backtracked on tax increases for the rich--will delay until "after the recession."


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

HowEver said:


> You mean, he didn't wait until he was elected to backtrack? He was upfront about it months before getting elected?


He's up front about everything. Problem is he'll be up front with a new idea bout that in a few minutes


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> He's up front about everything. Problem is he'll be up front with a new idea bout that in a few minutes


Unlike McCain and Palin who have been paragons of consistency throughout. Therefore someone who is a neutral observer like yourself would never have any reason to criticize that ticket.

Oh, has McCain backtracked on his massive tax handouts for the rich?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

A quote from Harry Truman is relevent for this "*******" group who apparently will again support the GOP. "How many times does someone have to hit you in the head with a 2 X 4 before you realize who is holding it?"


----------



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

"How many times does someone have to hit you in the head with a 2 X 4 before you realize who is holding it?" Give 'em hell, Harry. GA, we could really use a president like him today.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Unlike McCain and Palin who have been paragons of consistency throughout. Therefore someone who is a neutral observer like yourself would never have any reason to criticize that ticket.
> 
> Oh, has McCain backtracked on his massive tax handouts for the rich?


I was specifically mentioning it because you had just said:



> For instance, Obama's tax plan will actually benefit the majority in this group, while McCain's, who hails from a long line of wealth and privilege but has mastered the good 'ol boy shuck and jive, will benefit only those in his hyper-wealthy country club group.


If anyone began to praise McCain for something undeserved, I would shoot it down as well.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> If anyone began to praise McCain for something undeserved, I would shoot it down as well.


• I don't know how you "shot down" what I said, since it wasn't a response to anything I posted.
• Not sure I was "praising" Obama, just pointing out the difference of his tax policy in relation to the one from McCain.
• I'm looking forward to your new resolutely neutral incumbency.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I just have to ask: does that work like "revenue neutral?"


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Obama just backtracked on tax increases for the rich--will delay until "after the recession."


Oh dear.

I don't like a President who can modify his position based on new information or realities on the ground.

I like inflexible idealogues who never change their view.

UNLESS, of course, it's a total flip-flop/180-degree turnaround from where they were before (like being FOR a bridge to nowhere before you AGAINST it, or voting AGAINST a bill YOU authored) and then continuously claiming that your flip-flop is not only NOT a flip-flop, it's the same position/view you have ALWAYS held, even though mountains of evidence to the contrary exist.

That's what I like in a President.

Not.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

For the record, I'm not too worried about the "********."

Some of them (not all) might be dumb as rocks, some of them (not all) might consistently vote against their own economic interests, and some of them (not all) might be racist, misogynist, hot-tempered self-absorbed a-holes.

But due to LOTS of experience in this matter, even the most stupid, racist hothead out there knows full well when SUMPTHIN AIN'T WORKIN.

If Obama sticks to his very simple message: "if you think America is on the right track, vote for McCain; otherwise, vote for me," he'll do just fine. There might even be a surprise come Nov. 5th.


----------



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

Chas_m, Obama needs to do a Ronald Reagan during the debates. He needs to look directly into the camera, and in a calm and collected manner, ask the following question -- "Are you better off now then you were 8 years ago?"


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Max said:


> I just have to ask: does that work like "revenue neutral?"


Like all political promises, I'll wait to see it to believe it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sauce: you were sayin gthat obama's tax policy would help the "********"--except now it's helping the rich (until the recession is over).

Either way, it will be irrelevant when McCain takes office. Perhaps Obama in 2012?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Note that McCain cuts taxes by 2% as opposed to Obama's .3% cut, but the cuts to anyone who earns less than $111,000, which is the vast majority of the US population, gets a bigger break with Obama.

What is it about Republicans and other conservatives that makes them love the wealthy so much that they are always so keen to throw more money at them? Is it still the abject faith in the "trickle down", that in turn for us setting up their conservative all-you-can-eat buffet the grateful and wise wealth holders will give us more jobs cleaning their pools and toilets?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

By the way MF, I can't find any mention of Obama announcing that he was altering his tax plan. I found one link to an interview where he answered to a hypothetical question that he would be willing to reconsider his plan if there was a recession upon taking office.

Got links?

As well, the tax increase for the top tier is simply the result of letting Bush's tax cuts, set to expire by 2010, do so. Those are the big tax cuts to the highest brackets that Dubya brought in and that McCain loudly opposed at the time (back in his "Maverick" days). Now he embraces those tax cuts for his country club buds and wants to make them permanent as well as adding to them.

Where is that fair, balanced and neutral Macfuy administration who vows to criticize each side as they deserve it?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The country club Republicans spend like drunken sailors. Bush was in no way a fiscal conservative and never pretended to be. McCain is one of them. Both Obama and McCain are trainwrecks waiting to happen. 

I would vote Libertarian in the U.S. election, but will admit to a little schadenfreude. Watching some hopeful Obama-lovers starting to tear their hair out in angst provides a modicum of entertainment.

Obama vows not to rescind tax cuts for the rich if recession deepens


> This is the reference for Obama waffling on his tax plan:
> 
> n an interview aired Sunday by ABC’s “This Week” program, Obama cast doubt on whether he would seek to implement the modest increases that would go into effect for those earning more than $250,000 a year, by ending the Bush tax reductions.
> 
> ...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

That was the same interview where Obama referred to his "Muslim faith" a slip that will cost him dearly.



> OBAMA: And what -- what was the first thing the McCain campaign went out and did? They -- they said, uhhh, look, uhhh, his liberal blogs that support Obama (nervous laugh) are out there attacking Governor Palin. I mea- ih, uh, uh, eh, L-l-let's not play games. W-w-what I was suggesting, you are absolutely right that John McCain has not, uh, talked about my Muslim faith, and you're absolutely right that that has not come --
> 
> STEPHANOPOULOS: Christian faith.
> 
> OBAMA: Uh, M-my Christian faith.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> The country club Republicans spend like drunken sailors. Bush was in no way a fiscal conservative and never pretended to be. McCain is one of them. Both Obama and McCain are trainwrecks waiting to happen.
> 
> I would vote Libertarian in the U.S. election, but will admit to a little schadenfreude. Watching some hopeful Obama-lovers starting to tear their hair out in angst provides a modicum of entertainment.
> 
> Obama vows not to rescind tax cuts for the rich if recession deepens


World Socialist Web site? Nice one MF, your blog reading is indeed diverse.

So your post earlier saying:


> Obama just backtracked on tax increases for the rich--will delay until "after the recession."


... was not actually true?

I would say that I also don't hold out any high hopes for Obama, should he get elected. There are far too many compromises and deals that have to be made to become President of the USA, for anyone who gets there to have much integrity left. Business as usual will be the order of the day.

But there are trainwrecks and there are trainwrecks. Carrying on and increasing the Bush/Cheney mess, which is what McCain proposes and installing an extreme creationist and social conservative as the person who will quite likely inherit the Oval Office is asking for a trainwreck that of a far greater magnitude than anything that Bush came up with.

Obama, I would expect, will backtrack on his liberal roots, just as Bill Clinton did before him, so I don't think you right-wingers really have too much to worry about, but looking at the 2 tickets, there is no doubt in my mind that only someone completely out of touch could actually not see that there is a difference, just in the basic level of sanity.

Meanwhile, I guess if poking fun at verbal gaffes is amusing you MF, then go for it.

Was that your transcription? Outside of the unusual inclusion of the umms and aahs, which are normally left out of transcriptions, it doesn't include the next line where Obama clarifies his slip of the tongue.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sauce: I listen mostly to U.S. radio while driving, so when something makes the radio news I can't clip it out of the newspaper. I wind up having to find the item from whatever online source also reported it.

Still, Obama had initially promised a tax increase on the rich and is now no longer sure about it--certainly would no longer commit to it on the air. I thought you would find the World Socialist web site more trustworthy than "traditional" news services, but AP says the same thing:



> Obama: Recession could delay rescinding tax cuts
> 
> Sep 7, 2008 12:13 PM (2 days ago) AP
> 
> WASHINGTON- Democrat Barack Obama says he would delay rescinding President Bush's tax cuts on wealthy Americans if he becomes the next president and the economy is in a recession, suggesting such an increase would further hurt the economy.


Regarding Obama's many verbal gaffes, this particular one was widely covered in U.S. media as an error that will cost him in some circles:

Washington Times - Obama's verbal slip fuels his critics

So here is another version of the transcript that excise the stammering.


> it doesn't include the next line where Obama clarifies his slip of the tongue.


Here it is for all to see.



> Let's not play games," he said. "What I was suggesting -- you're absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith. And you're absolutely right that that has not come."
> 
> Mr. Stephanopoulos interrupted with, "Christian faith."
> 
> "My Christian faith," Mr. Obama said quickly. "Well, what I'm saying is that he hasn't suggested that I'm a Muslim. And I think that his campaign's upper echelons have not, either. What I think is fair to say is that, coming out of the Republican camp, there have been efforts to suggest that perhaps I'm not who I say I am when it comes to my faith -- something which I find deeply offensive, and that has been going on for a pretty long time."


Though I don't know how the stuff that he said after "My Christian faith" changes the context of the slip. It was clearly an accident on his part, but one that will cost him.

You see a McCain train wreck? I see two train wrecks both vying for the White House. Two sad sacks so out of their depth that it scarcely matters which gets in.


----------



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

"WASHINGTON (CNN) – Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul will call on supporters to back a third party candidate for president Wednesday, rejecting his own party’s nominee and offering equally harsh words for the Democratic candidate.

Paul, who unsuccessfully sought the Republican presidential nomination, will tell supporters he is not endorsing GOP nominee John McCain or Democratic nominee Barack Obama, and will instead give his seal of approval to four candidates: Green Party nominee Cynthia McKinney, Libertarian Party nominee Bob Barr, independent candidate Ralph Nader, and Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin, according to a senior Paul aide."

Interesting, but not totally unexpected. I actually agree with some of the things that Paul campaigned upon for his own run for the presidency this year within the Republican party.

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Ron Paul to announce presidential endorsement plans « - Blogs from CNN.com


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Obama just backtracked on tax increases for the rich--will delay until "after the recession."


The recession... We haven't recovered from the recession Trudeau stiffed us with in 1980-81, so Obama is saying that sure, he'll make tax cuts, but way down the road, perhaps after the next sixteen presidents are elected...


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

EvanPitts said:


> Obama is saying that sure, he'll make tax cuts, but way down the road, perhaps after the next sixteen presidents are elected...


That's backwards. He's talking about rescinding Bush's tax cuts. And he's saying he wouldn't do it while the US was in a recession. Seems reasonable, don't you think?


----------



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

A friend of mine who lives in New York City, and has become quite wealthy under the Bush tax cuts (for him and his sorts of investments), would be voting for Bush again if he were running. So, someone in the US was getting tax cuts under the current government.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

bryanc said:


> That's backwards. He's talking about rescinding Bush's tax cuts. And he's saying he wouldn't do it while the US was in a recession. Seems reasonable, don't you think?


It is just political-speak for rip-off. Taxes need to be cut because taxation throttles the economy. Wealthy people can move wherever they want, and if taxes in the US become to great, they can easily move to somewhere with less oppresive taxes. One has to make sure that the wealthy are not ripped off too much because the wealthy are those who own the companies that create jobs.

Just look what happened to Sweden when their tax system ripped of the rich too much. The rich people just left, with all of their money, and their whole system fell apart. It is proven that a Communist Utopia can not long thrive, at least while we depend on the cash nexus.

Obama talks about taking back Bush tax cuts, which is silly, because it will only serve to drive investment out of the country, and damage the already fragile economy and employment situation. He would be better off in actually utilizing what they already collect, making sure that money is spent on things that are needed, rather than on $5,000 toilet seats for the military.

As well, the US wastes billions of dollars in Iraq - and they even lost an entire plane load of currency worth a few billion dollars that was allocated to "corruption". The Americans would be better off not to go to war if they are just going to be sissy when they get there. No one is scared on an effete fake military composed of weekend warriors. If they want to do it right, they would have been better off to send the real military, that is, the Army, to do the work that the National Guard can not cope with. If America went to war against Tojo and Hitler with the same effete attitudes, they would still be fighting against Imperial Japan and Hitler's grandson. They could stop thevast waste of money by simply sending in the army to clean things up, and they could do it in a few months, if they wanted to. But it is about spending money on their pet projects, rather than doing anything rational.

I think it is kind of nuts that the Americans have so much concern over the body count in Iraq; while remaining completely ignorant to the even greater body counts in American cities like Los Angeles, Philadelphia and Washington.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> That's backwards. He's talking about rescinding Bush's tax cuts. And he's saying he wouldn't do it while the US was in a recession. Seems reasonable, don't you think?


I support all tax cuts.


----------



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

"I support all tax cuts." Macfury, my friend in the US would not be voting for you. I am amazed at the legal ways he avoids paying US taxes. He has told me that he is able to shelter the first two million dollars he makes totally legally. His accountant has ways to save even more on the next few million, but he feels that some of those ways are a bit devious, albeit supposedly legal. So, his first two million are totally untaxed, and the rest is taxed at the highest level for a regular US citizen. Amazing.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr. G: Your friend has no reason to vote for me, because there's nothing in it for him, apparently!


----------



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

True. I hear that Ron Paul is throwing his support for the other four candidates that are running for president outside of the Republican and Democratic party. He has quite a following these days. I don't agree with much of his message, but he is honest and forthright, which I respect.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Sauce: I listen mostly to U.S. radio while driving


I hope it's not US talk radio, because that stuff is brain poison. 



Macfury said:


> Washington Times - Obama's verbal slip fuels his critics


C'mon the Moonie-owned Washington Times? That rag makes Fox news or the World Socialist Web look actually fair and balanced. The headline should read "Obama's Verbal Slip Fuels His Critics Who Have IQs Lower Than Room Temperature"


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

EvanPitts said:


> It is just political-speak for rip-off. Taxes need to be cut because taxation throttles the economy. Wealthy people can move wherever they want, and if taxes in the US become to great, they can easily move to somewhere with less oppresive taxes. One has to make sure that the wealthy are not ripped off too much because the wealthy are those who own the companies that create jobs.
> 
> Just look what happened to Sweden when their tax system ripped of the rich too much. The rich people just left, with all of their money, and their whole system fell apart. It is proven that a Communist Utopia can not long thrive, at least while we depend on the cash nexus.
> 
> ...


Evan, — so much verbiage, so little analysis, so much parroting of outdated conventional wisdom.

Sweden's doing fine compared to the US model. Obama's plan is also a tax cut, to 90% of the US population and is a greater tax cut to that 90% than McCain's.

Did you see the chart above?

Obama isn't proposing taking back tax cuts, he's proposing letting Dubya's unprecedented and massive tax cuts to the very wealthiest expire in 2010, as they were set to. McCain is proposing making those cuts permanent and increasing them.

Your argument about the rich leaving the country are absurd, but is the typical fear-mongering you hear in the US media by right-wing analysts who get unlimited exposure. Where would they leave to - the Grand Cayman's? There is practically no where on Earth where the wealthy can get a better tax deal than the USA, even under Obama's plan. Allowing Bush's cuts to expire will impose an extra tax burden on the average person in that category of about 1%.

So again, what is it that folks love so much about the wealthy of the world that they want to just throw money at them? Is it only because they are so charming?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sauce: I'm not paying ABC any money for that transcript. You'll just have to deal.

People generally don't leave the country over personal taxes--their money does.


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

The following is a quote by Joe Biden at a rally in New Hampshire today, responding to a someone in the audience who didn't like Sen. Hillary Clinton and said he was glad Biden had been chosen instead.


> "Hillary Clinton is as qualified *or more qualified than I am* to be vice president of the United States of America," Biden replied, standing before a crowd at a Nashua rally. "Let's get that straight. She's a truly close personal friend; she is qualified to be president of the United States of America. She's easily qualified to be vice president of the United States of America * and, quite frankly, it might have been a better pick than me, *but she is first-rate. (emphasis added)"


Biden: Clinton 'Might Have Been a Better Pick' for Veep | The Trail | washingtonpost.com

I wonder if Biden's choice of words might seen as questioning Sen. Obama's decision to choose him as a running mate and if it will have any effect on the election.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Sweden's doing fine compared to the US model.


Sweden nearly went bankrupt when all of the wealthy people fled from the 102% tax bracket. The only thing that saved them was that they ransacked the concept of socialism, kicked thousands off of the dole, and cashed in by selling off most of the nationalized industries to outside investors. And they did suffer from a profound recession for the best part of a decade, and are only now pulling it all back together.

As far as "doing better" - the US economy is still the largest in the world, by far; and one can not even hope to compare the tiny economy of Sweden to even a small state like Delaware. In fact, Connecticut is the single most wealthy area in the world per capita, even wealthier than any of the much vaunted Emirates.

Over taxation cripples an economy because those with the most to loose to taxes are the wealthy, and it is they who can afford to live where ever they like. Given the choice, most billionaires wouldn't bother much with Canada, when compared to the opulence of Monaco or any other tax haven. It is only because there are certain tax benefits provided that they bother to stay at all.



> Obama isn't proposing taking back tax cuts


Obama's whole short political career has been dedicated to gouging even more cash out of the pockets of the worker. America really can not afford to lose any more investment. Most smart investors do not bother with the US any more because their is way more money (and way more tax benefits) to dealing elsewhere.



> Your argument about the rich leaving the country are absurd


Except that it happens all of the time. Half of the wealthy establishment in Canada actually lives elsewhere, many of them in Bermuda or The Bahamas. And it is not only the wealthy, but we even had a Senator that for years lived in Mexico - you know, an easy commute to Parliament.



> So again, what is it that folks love so much about the wealthy of the world that they want to just throw money at them? Is it only because they are so charming?


No, probably because I have never heard of a poor person employing thousands in a corporate empire. The wealthy are the only ones that create jobs because they are the only ones that can afford it. Perhaps things are different in your Obama-socialist-paradise, where overtaxed economies thrive and people are more than happy to spend 11 and a half month out of the year working for the tax man and are more than happy to have all of that cash spent so wisely on a wide variety of white elephant projects, graft, corruption and influence peddling payola.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Voyager said:


> The following is a quote by Joe Biden at a rally in New Hampshire today, responding to a someone in the audience who didn't like Sen. Hillary Clinton and said he was glad Biden had been chosen instead.
> 
> 
> Biden: Clinton 'Might Have Been a Better Pick' for Veep | The Trail | washingtonpost.com
> ...


Just more proof that Biden is a loser on a sinking ship.

Clinton is better than him? Really? This morning, I flushed some stuff down the toilet that was far superior to Clinton, so it doesn't say much about Biden. She is pure and utter garbage, spouting out her hatred at every turn, pandering to anyone who will slip her a buck, and really, if she ever wanted to prove herself as someone worthy of any public office, she would do that in her own home town. Of course, she'd have no chance there because of all of the people her and Bill swindled, and the number of odd and unusual "suicides" that they ordered. She is pure and utter filth, and the faster they get rid of her (and that Pelosi character), the faster the Democrats can get to attracting some real talent and potential.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

EvanPitts said:


> Sweden nearly went bankrupt when all of the wealthy people fled from the 102% tax bracket. The only thing that saved them was that they ransacked the concept of socialism, kicked thousands off of the dole, and cashed in by selling off most of the nationalized industries to outside investors. And they did suffer from a profound recession for the best part of a decade, and are only now pulling it all back together.
> 
> As far as "doing better" - the US economy is still the largest in the world, by far; and one can not even hope to compare the tiny economy of Sweden to even a small state like Delaware. In fact, Connecticut is the single most wealthy area in the world per capita, even wealthier than any of the much vaunted Emirates.
> 
> Over taxation cripples an economy because those with the most to loose to taxes are the wealthy, and it is they who can afford to live where ever they like. Given the choice, most billionaires wouldn't bother much with Canada, when compared to the opulence of Monaco or any other tax haven. It is only because there are certain tax benefits provided that they bother to stay at all.


Do you get paid by the word, Evan? 

So why are there any wealthy living and investing in any country besides the US then? Your arguments make no sense.



EvanPitts said:


> Obama's whole short political career has been dedicated to gouging even more cash out of the pockets of the worker. America really can not afford to lose any more investment. Most smart investors do not bother with the US any more because their is way more money (and way more tax benefits) to dealing elsewhere.


We weren't talking about Obama's whole political career we were talking about his proposals compared to McCain. Obama's plan is an overall tax cut, with a higher tax cut than McCain's plan to 90% of the US population. Your vehement defense of the wealthiest tax bracket who will have to go back to and live with the great deal they had under Reagan, Bush 1 and Clinton, if Obama becomes President is inexplicable.



EvanPitts said:


> The wealthy are the only ones that create jobs because they are the only ones that can afford it. Perhaps things are different in your Obama-socialist-paradise, where overtaxed economies thrive and people are more than happy to spend 11 and a half month out of the year working for the tax man and are more than happy to have all of that cash spent so wisely on a wide variety of white elephant projects, graft, corruption and influence peddling payola.


Again you are not arguing the facts, just indulging in over-heated hyperbole. There is no danger of Obama's tax plan driving the wealthy to abandoning the US, because it only takes those tax brackets to the previous great deal they had before George W. handed out an unprecedented windfall to them. A windfall that McCain wants to extend past it's scheduled termination and increase. Meanwhile Obama's plan gives greater tax breaks, I repeat, _greater tax breaks_, to most taxpayers. The wealthy elites are not the only ones who spend money in the economy, but according to McCain, whose family has been in those elite brackets for generations, and according to you, those are the only people who deserve a break.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I agree with EvanPitts on this. Cut that windfall and capital will fly out of that country faster than a sparrowhawk. You can say you never wanted that capital to begin with--and that's your right--but it will be gone nonetheless.


----------



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

"According to a CNN fact check, Obama's tax plan would increase taxes in 2009 on the wealthiest 20 percent of households, while offering tax cuts for the other 80 percent. The largest increases would be on the top 1 percent of earners, according to analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan research group whose staff of experts includes former economic advisers to the White House and Congress under both Republicans and Democrats.

By comparison, the Tax Policy Center analysis says McCain would offer tax cuts across the board. Those at the top end of the scale would get the biggest percentage cuts under McCain, while households with the lowest incomes would receive the largest percentage cuts under Obama's plan."

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time - Blogs from CNN.com

(CNN) – Real estate mogul Donald Trump is endorsing Sen. John McCain: “I’ve known him. I like him. I respect him. He’s a smart guy and I think he’s going to be a great president,” Trump said Wednesday night on CNN’s Larry King Live. “I endorse him.”


Luckily, Donald Trump really does not have to worry about being in the top 1% of earners who would have to pay more tax under an Obama tax plan. He is in a win-win situation.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

I think the whole tax cut issue is a big lark anyways. No matter what the President may want, he has to try to cajole the Congress into passing it. Once Congress gets a hold of it, it will end up being another pork barrel frenzy.

But I don't understand why so many people seem to want to punish the rich for being rich. If taxes become to oppressive for the wealthy, they can afford to leave, or at least divert their money to more fertile grounds. And for those who don't want to loose, they can just use any number of tactics, including purchasing failing companies for quick write-offs. That is what Kerkorian is an expert at, the biggest vulture of all the vulture funds.

I don't think the tax rip off will me much of a factor between McCain and Obama. I think it comes down to the fact that Obama promised change, then brought aboard one of the biggest glad handling Washington insiders possible - while McCain found an outsider who knows nothing about Washington. I think on this, Obama is at a distinct disadvantage.

The selection of the VP can really determine the outcome - just like Quayle sank Senor Bush so quickly against the corrupt and scandal ridden Clinton and his sidekick Gore who invented the Internet.

Plus. McCain can pull it off with around 50% of the popular vote, while Obama has a much bigger task of needing about 60% to carry the key states he needs in the Electoral College.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The top 50% of earners already pay 96% Of all U.S. federal taxes.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Macfury said:


> The top 50% of earners already pay 96% Of all U.S. federal taxes.


And the top 5% pay practically no taxes at all.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

HowEver said:


> And the top 5% pay practically no taxes at all.


Top 5% pay 53.25% of all income taxes. The U.S. has an Alternative Minimum Tax which taxes income over $175,000 at a flat rate, avoiding the possibility that some households pay no tax.


----------



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

Macfury, there are ways around the AMT on most of one's income. I could not believe the fact that a very close friend of mine could legally keep the first $4 million he made, and paid basic AMT rates on the remainder. Unreal, but all legal.


----------



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

(CNN) -- A new Government Accountability Office report on voting system testing finds that the Election Assistance Commission has not notified election officials across the country about electronic voting machine failures. 

And a new study by Common Cause and the Century Foundation finds that 10 very vital swing states have significant voting problems that have not been addressed since the last election.
___________________________________________________________

Report: Voting problems in several swing states - CNN.com

Bug humbar. And I thought that this race was going to be close with an Obama election as president.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> Macfury, there are ways around the AMT on most of one's income. I could not believe the fact that a very close friend of mine could legally keep the first $4 million he made, and paid basic AMT rates on the remainder. Unreal, but all legal.


What's the loophole? It seems ironclad if it's for personal earnings.


----------



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

Creative accounting. I could not believe it until I saw the tax returns. I don't understand US tax law anymore (as if I ever did, having only filed short forms), but it is possible. If I was in the US today, I would be voting for Obama, but I can see the reasons why Ron Paul gets so much support for some of his views.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

chas_m said:


> For the record, I'm not too worried about the "********."


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

That reminds me: what do Asians do when they have an erection?

Why, they vote, of course!


----------



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

"That reminds me: what do Asians do when they have an erection?

Why, they vote, of course!"

What does this have anything to do about the US elections, other than as an example of an ethnic slur that politicians, and thinking individuals, should avoid?


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

gmark:

I really, really hate to admit this -- because I do really love America -- but I'm afraid that graphic you have there just f'ing NAILS IT.

Let's hope their electoral count is right, that's all I have to say.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)




----------



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

Revelation 6:5 - 6:6 - “And when he had opened the third seal, I heard the third beast say, Come and see. And I beheld, and lo a black horse; and he that sat on him had a pair of balances in his hand. And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say, A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny; and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine.’”

At least the wine and beer industries are spared, as well as all of the oil companies.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

^^^
I think that picture originally appeared in some Communist propaganda, when they were promoting the quality of life in the Stalin-paradise called Chernobyl. One can see the fallout clouds in the background...


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

No wonder the candidates are silent, they are scare of the apocalypse.

McCain Expresses Concerns About Bailout Plan - The Caucus Blog - NYTimes.com

McCain Expresses Concerns About Bailout Plan


----------



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

Barack Obama | Change We Need | Host a Debate Watch Party

I am holding a Debate Watching Party for this first debate. BYOB (Bring Your Own Beliefs). It should be interesting. I shall be giving on-going commentary as they speak.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> I shall be giving on-going commentary as they speak.


Make sure not to comment too loudly near Obama's open mike.


----------



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

"Make sure not to comment too loudly near Obama's open mike." Macfury, seeing that I shall be in St.John's, NL, and he shall be debating in Oxford, Mississippi, I don't think that my commentary shall be overheard.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

This is well worth the time to read:



> *Iacocca: Where Have All the Leaders Gone?*
> 
> American Empire | Books
> 
> ...


Iacocca: Where Have All the Leaders Gone?


----------



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

An interesting read. I have respect for Lee Iacocca.

"Where are the voices of leaders who can inspire us to action and make us stand taller? What happened to the strong and resolute party of Lincoln? What happened to the courageous, populist party of FDR and Truman? There was a time in this country when the voices of great leaders lifted us up and made us want to do better. Where have all the leaders gone?"

Amen.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Good article and I agree there is a serious lack of leadership in the United States at the moment and this is not limited to politicians. One exception to this would be Warren Buffett who I believe has shown leadership. He should step down from Berkshire and take over the reigns of the Federal Reserve, Treasury and SEC. I don't think the existing players have the credibility to navigate through this financial mess. 

I would add CREDIBILITY to his list of C's to make 10.


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

Thanks for the article Sinc.

Hear Hear, debate postponed?


McCain Seeks to Delay First Debate
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/25/u...gin&adxnnlx=1222284431-DZ3NEU2C/ju3yTbn4go2aw


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Gaston, it may very well be a good idea for McCain to halt the campaign, but I feel his motivation is more opportunism than anything. I sense that he wants to make himself appear to be a leader at a time of crisis. In his own words he knows very little about economics and he is currently not the President.

This bailout deal seems to be falling apart quickly and somebody needs to stand up and take direction. Unfortunately Bush has little credibility. Everything he touches seems to fail.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> This is well worth the time to read:
> 
> 
> 
> Iacocca: Where Have All the Leaders Gone?


Good read. He sure tears a strip off of the Bush admin. He doesn't endorse anyone, but it's clear from his article that the leader he's asking for sure isn't McCain.

I liked this passage:


> A leader must have COURAGE. I'm talking about balls. (That even goes for female leaders.) Swagger isn't courage. Tough talk isn't courage. George Bush comes from a blue-blooded Connecticut family, but he likes to talk like a cowboy. You know, My gun is bigger than your gun. Courage in the twenty-first century doesn't mean posturing and bravado. Courage is a commitment to sit down at the negotiating table and talk.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

THAT's a big number  



> *Washington Post ABC Poll Obama Leads McCain by 9! 52% - 43%*
> 
> washingtonpost.com — Turmoil in the financial industry and growing pessimism about the economy have altered the shape of the presidential race, giving Democratic nominee Barack Obama the first clear lead of the general-election campaign over Republican John McCain, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News national poll.


Economic Fears Give Obama Clear Lead Over McCain in Poll - washingtonpost.com


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Whoever inherits the White House come November, I don't envy them. They couldn't have inherited a bigger mess if they tried. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Ouch...

EXCLUSIVE: LETTERMAN MOCKS MCCAIN CANCELLATION
Wed Sep 24 2008 17:41:58 ET

David Letterman tells audience that McCain called him today to tell him he had to rush back to DC to deal with the economy. 

Then in the middle of the taping Dave got word that McCain was, in fact just down the street being interviewed by Katie Couric. Dave even cut over to the live video of the interview, and said, "Hey Senator, can I give you a ride home?" 

Earlier in the show, Dave kept saying, "You don't suspend your campaign. This doesn't smell right. This isn't the way a tested hero behaves." And he joked: "I think someone's putting something in his metamucil." 

"He can't run the campaign because the economy is cratering? Fine, put in your second string quarterback, Sara Palin. Where is she?" 

"What are you going to do if you're elected and things get tough? Suspend being president? We've got a guy like that now!" 

Developing...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

McCain is such a dorky old man.


----------



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

This is a very smart move. His views were called upon by Sen.Majority Leader Reed in order to get some conservative Republicans to move on their votes, one way of the other. They said that they were waiting for direction from their leader, Sen. John McCain. So, instead of giving them and the people of the US some sense of where he wanted this proposal to move in specific ways, he is now rushing to Washington while the last pieces of the proposal are being worked out. 

He wants to postpone the presidential debates, move them to next Thursday replacing the vice presidential debates, which would be "postponed until a later date" (i.e., never).

Rather than go before Obama and the American people in this first debate, he will sit tight in Washington, DC, and wait for this plan. If not plan is hammered out by Friday, no debate ............... at least no John McCain at the debate.

Smart move. Better to run on your perceived personality than on specific issues.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

It's so transparent to postpone a debate you'll lose horribly, and replace (forever) a debate with your VP where she'll get decimated. What a joke.

Obama will win with this comment alone: the debate should happen anyway because America needs a president who can hold more than one thought at one time.

Goodbye, old Mr. McCain. History is about to make you as memorable as Bob Dole, without the Pepsi commercials.


----------



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

"It's so transparent to postpone a debate you'll lose horribly, and replace (forever) a debate with your VP where she'll get decimated. What a joke." True, HowEver, but the joke will be on all of us if the American people fall for this move. Of course, it could backfire if his involvement disrupts the bipartisan negotiations and sinks the deal. Then, all of his saying that he is putting "America first" will seem hollow. We shall see.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

HowEver said:


> Goodbye, old Mr. McCain. History is about to make you as memorable as Bob Dole, without the Pepsi commercials.


Dorky Old McCain could still win it. There are so many bizarre currents and counter-currents afoot, that anything can happen.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

They should put this guy in to replace McCain in the debate.

Old, Grizzled Third-Party Candidate May Steal Support From McCain | The Onion - America's Finest News Source


----------



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

Of course, Bush could unite the country by scaring the hell out of all of us. "Hannibal is at the gates" will seem pale if he says that by Monday, the US will be closed for business. There have already been a run on a major bank in Hong Kong on news of this speech. When CEO's on Wall Street start requesting that they receive their annual salary and end-of-the-year bonus checks before midnight, then we will know that all is lost.

I have only $12 in my checking account, so I have no need to run to the bank and withdraw any funds from the bank.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

That's funny, Vandave.


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

This is not funny: well,maybe a little.

I have to give America this: election, crisis, war, this is as entertaining as living in Argentina. 

YouTube - Matt Damon Rips Sarah Palin

YouTube - David Letterman Reacts to John McCain Suspending Campaign

YouTube - Late Show - Sen. Barack Obama

YouTube - McCain's YouTube Problem Just Became a Nightmare


----------



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

gb, I get a sense that you are one of those bleeding heart liberals who don't want to support God, Country and the American Way of Life. For shame to bring light to these slight flaws of McCain.


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

I voted for the U.S. election already. Have u?

Vote Obama or McCain: Global Electoral College | The Economist


It's interesting El Salvador is Republican.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Ooops.

The Washington Post reports that early this morning, even prior to McCain announcing his campaign would tuck its tail between its legs and shuffle back to Mississippi to debate Obama, they were placing ads on the internet announcing his win.

McCain Wins Debate - Washington Post Politics Blog


----------



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

GA, I am still going to watch the reruns of the debate to see how McCain won this debate. We shall see.


----------



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

"Yes we can ...................."

YouTube - Signs of Hope & Change


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> GA, I am still going to watch the reruns of the debate to see how McCain won this debate. We shall see.


That's how McCain is going to solve the problems of the USA. He's mastered the science of time travel!!


----------



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

GA, you might be right. We shall see.


----------



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

Well, if he is to win the debate hours before it even starts, then the "battle for America" has begun. It's time to get moving ........... onward and upwards ................... "It's time to punch the clock .......... the battle for America has just begun."

The Battle For America - Large Quicktime


----------



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

America is on the march again.

YouTube - Son's of Liberty


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

McCain's campaign should just go for the win!


----------



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

The Kennedy-Nixon debates back in 1960 had an interesting result. Those who watched the debates thought Kennedy won (Nixon, who had just gotten over the flu, and was sweating over his five o'clock shadow, looked nervous). However, those who listened to the debates on the radio, thought Nixon had won. Interesting.


----------



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

The questions still need to be asked .......... and answered. Paix, mes amis.

YouTube - The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan - 01 Blowin' In The Wind


----------



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

The times then .............. the times now. As Virgil once wrote, "Audentes fortuna iuvat" --( Fortune favors the bold)

YouTube - The Times They Are A Changin' - 01 Times They Are A-Changin'

Fortune favors the bold, but abandons the timid.


----------



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

Debate time awaits. May the best country win. We shall see.


----------



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

Good debate. No overt winners. Thursday shall be a split decision for me, since I want to watch both the US VP debates AND the Canadian leadership debate. Think I might have to tape one of them. We shall see.


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

Hate to admit McCain took that debate, i mean from the average Joe point of view.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

It was a very good debate because they actually spoke about policy in detail.

No real winner which helps McCain more than Obama.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Poll Results Suggest More Uncommitted Voters Saw Obama As Debate Winner


----------



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

"No real winner which helps McCain more than Obama." Vandave, while I am not a big fan of polls, many are, and a tie goes against McCain. Foreign policy was where he was to stand much taller than Obama. I don't dislike McCain, as I might dislike a Pres. Bush, but although I am voting for Obama, I feel that he is ready and able to be commander in chief. I feel the same about Biden, although I cannot say the same about Palin.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I posted this in the Obama thread, but it perhaps should have been here, so am repeating it:

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.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> Vandave, while I am not a big fan of polls, many are, and a tie goes against McCain. Foreign policy was where he was to stand much taller than Obama. I don't dislike McCain, as I might dislike a Pres. Bush, but although I am voting for Obama, I feel that he is ready and able to be commander in chief. I feel the same about Biden, although I cannot say the same about Palin.


I probably should have explained my point rather than leaving it open. I think the tie helped McCain more because his campaign was starting to go sideways and he was sliding in the polls. This keeps him in the race. 

I like Obama's foreign policy approach much better than McCain. America needs to engage the world and slowly disengage it's military. I think McCain will stir more conflict, especially with the Russians. 

Yes, Biden is capable of being leader while Palin clearly is not. It baffles me that somebody with little to no knowledge of the world or the last 8 years can become the VP, never mind be a heartbeat away from running the show. McCain obviously picked her for reasons other than qualifications. I think she is a symbol for the American right as she embodies many of the stereotypes that are held high by the 'cultural' right.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

SINC said:


> 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.


Our debate is going to suffer from having too many leaders. It isn't possible to actually debate anything because there are simply too many interactions. Rather, the parties are only going to have the opportunity to state their policy. 

I don't think Obama is suggesting Iraq be abandoned. I think he is suggesting a slow and gradual pullout with a timeline. This has already gone on longer than WWII and is draining their treasury. The violence in Iraq is ethnic based (clan vs clan) and is not caused by Al-Queda. From what I have read, the 'ethnic cleansing' is now mostly complete, which is the real reason violence has been dropping, as opposed to 'the surge'. I think it is time to get out of there and let the Iraqis manage their own affairs.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Good debate. Watched it in the local watering hole. Pleasantly surprised by how many turned out just to casually watch it in the main room. Glad we got there fully an hour before the debate began so we could settle in and chow on some dinner. By the time nine came around, the place was packed. TVs were turned up loudly, the house stereo system turned off at the request of several patrons; clearly people were there to watch the debate. That turned off a few regulars, but no biggie - the bar was making money. Mostly respectful listening during the debate but there were some hecklers and of course as the evening wore on and more drink was imbibed it got rowdier. But it was exciting and neat to participate in all the same.

I have to say I came away impressed by McCain... I thought that the man had less spontaneity in him and that the more agile-minded Obama was going to wipe the floor with him. Not so. It was a draw as far as I was concerned. But I agree that it was great to see these two discuss matters of actual policty. I loved how Obama called McCain "John" (and a couple of times "Jim") while McCain referred to Obama as "Senator Obama."

It was strange, though. I got the funniest feelings both men were 'wired' to handlers who were feeding them taking/rebuttal points throughout the event. Did anyone else get that feeling? If that was really happening, I'm disappointed. I would much rather see these guys do their thing without help. I'd like to know the actual circumstances.

We likely will repair to the same venue to watch future debates. It was fun and informative. And that prosciutto calzone didn't taste too bad, either. I have a feeling the future meetings between these two will have higher stakes and there will have to be some blood-letting.


----------



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

"I probably should have explained my point rather than leaving it open. I think the tie helped McCain more because his campaign was starting to go sideways and he was sliding in the polls. This keeps him in the race." I see your point now, Vandave. Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Max said:


> It was strange, though. I got the funniest feelings both men were 'wired' to handlers who were feeding them taking/rebuttal points throughout the event. Did anyone else get that feeling? If that was really happening, I'm disappointed. I would much rather see these guys do their thing without help. I'd like to know the actual circumstances.


There was some suspicion during the Bush-Kerry debates that Bush was wired, because no one could possibly imagine how Dubya could even follow or remember his own talking points successfully. It's certainly technically possible for the guys to be wired, but I would doubt it. If any evidence came up that this was happening the fallout would be massive.

When I see any politician standing up and talking coherently off-the-cuff about policy, I often wonder if that is something I could even remotely be able to do. Certainly not in a million years. I would ramble incoherently and probably end by stammering. Nor just about anyone I know with the possible exception of one of two people. 

Even some of the seemingly dumbest politicians usually have this skill. I don't doubt that John McCain for all his terrible judgement (in my opinion) is probably of above average intelligence, although clearly Obama is head and shoulders above him in that area. I don't think that very many people are able to survive in politics without having some above-average sharpness and quick wit.

Sarah Palin on the other hand, . . . well if there's anyone that the Republicans want to consider wiring she would be the one. I expect in her debate next week to see a lot of incoherent babbling, based on the 2 taped interviews she's done so far.

Over all I thought the debate was good and I think the edge would go to Obama for a number of reasons. Many snap polls of people who watched it shows Obama perceived as winning by a large margin.

He could have gone after McCain with a lot more force and passed up several good opportunities. For instance letting McCain get away with his BS about being opposed to torture, while supporting the Bush White House's waterboarding. Obama probably made the choice that it was better for him to not appear to be on the attack too much, but to appear to be dignified and "Presidential", knowing that McCain was going to have to go on the attack based on his sinking poll numbers.

I'm not sure how anyone can say McCain won on foreign policy, as many of the punditocracy are asserting. I think Obama quite successfully slammed McCain on his support for invading Iraq in the first place and his refusal to admit it was in error. The support for that adventure in the US is gone and most people finally now agree with Obama, that the US has to extricate itself from that quagmire, not dig itself further in as McCain has counselled.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> When I see any politician standing up and talking coherently off-the-cuff about policy, I often wonder if that is something I could even remotely be able to do. Certainly not in a million years. I would ramble incoherently and probably end by stammering. Nor just about anyone I know *with the possible exception of one of two people.*


Aw, shucks...


----------



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

When David Frum is doubtful about a Republican, it cannot be good news for that Republican.

"John McCain’s election campaign is all tactics, no message; all biography, no ideas. It’s a whirligig of devices and stratagems, all of which must have sounded brilliant at the expense-account lunch where they were concocted, but few of which make any difference to Americans hard pressed by the decline in housing values or the stagnation of middle-class incomes.


Significantly, the one McCain idea that has gained traction is the only one that qualifies as a pocketbook idea: His call for opening the outer continental shelf to oil exploration. That seemed to promise something to voters -- even if skeptical experts muttered that the promise was hypothetical, remote and almost certainly overstated.


But other than on energy and national security, where McCain has won both the argument and the polls, McCain has done everything except articulate how a vote for him would make a difference in the life of any voter. He calls for “reform,” but does not explain what he would reform, or how, or why."

David Frum: McCain hobbled by a campaign that's all tactics, no message - Full Comment


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

David Frum wanted McCain to pick Joe Lieberman as a running mate, and he is sore.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Macfury said:


> David Frum wanted McCain to pick Joe Lieberman as a running mate, and he is sore.


The Democrats would have actually gone to WAR to make sure that ticket didn't win if that had been the case. Lieberman is LOATHED amongst the base as a turncoat (rightly) and it would have provided strong cover to run a MUCH more negative campaign than they have.

I will never be able to say that picking the dumb-as-rocks church lady was a good idea, but picking someone _other than Lieberman_ was, genuinely for his hopes for the presidency, a good move. Obviously anyone he picked would have been attacked, but the choice of Lieberman would have lost McCain the religious right, _and_ enraged the Dems.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

chas_m: It was an odd suggestion to begin with. I believe Bill Kristol may also have suggested it. I think there will be a big shake-out after this election, not only of politicians but political pundits as well.


----------



## ruffdeezy (Mar 17, 2008)

I liked the debate. Obama won by a slim margin. McCain continued with his false truths and the braindead simplification of everything. Obama should have hammered him a lot more though on a number of points. Especially at the end, he should have said what he was going to and not let the debate end. The "Senator Obama doesn't get it" was weak. Almost like McCain was saying it for the sake of it and not assigning it to a specific issue or question. Basically McCain needed a big win and didn't get it. I almost thought we would hear the POW line but we did. He was 8 behind in the gallup daily tracking poll today fwiw.

Foreign Policy:
Obama - rebuild alliances with other nations
McCain - surge surge surge, pow.





Max said:


> I loved how Obama called McCain "John" (and a couple of times "Jim") while McCain referred to Obama as "Senator Obama."


The Jim was directed at the moderator.


----------



## ruffdeezy (Mar 17, 2008)

Macfury said:


> I think there will be a big shake-out after this election, not only of politicians but political pundits as well.


I doubt Hannity or Limbaugh are going anywhere but I do see that happening as well.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *CNN/Time: Obama up in 5 states*
> 
> Posted: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 4:23 PM by Carrie Dann
> 
> ...


and even more important



> WASHINGTON — Recently trailing or tied, Democrat Barack Obama now leads Republican John McCain in a trio of the most critical, vote-rich states five weeks before the election, according to presidential poll results released Wednesday.
> 
> The Democrat's support jumped to 50 percent or above in Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania in Quinnipiac University surveys taken during the weekend _ after the opening presidential debate and during Monday's dramatic stock market plunge as the House rejected a $700 billion financial bailout plan.
> 
> ...


Polls: Obama Leads In Three Critical States

all way outside statistical tie .....if that holds it IS all over


----------



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

MacDoc, while I hope this poll is correct, let us not gloat just now.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Homer Simpson attempts to vote for Obama. :lmao:


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Hit any key.

"Hey, where's the 'any' key on this keyboard?"


----------



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

Laugh all you want, GA, but it could still happen. No paper trail ......... no way to really check for a recount ................... no way to tell.


----------



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

(CNN) -- Sen. John McCain jokingly said Thursday that Sen. Barack Obama's poll numbers are rising as the economy seems to sink "because life isn't fair."

McCain: Obama lead growing because 'life isn't fair' - CNN.com


----------



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

"This is America. We're a nation that's faced down war and depression; great challenges and great threats, and at each and every moment, we've risen to meet these challenges because we've never forgotten that fundamental truth, that here in this country, our destiny is not written for us. It's written by us." Barak Obama

McCain: Obama lead growing because 'life isn't fair' - CNN.com


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> Laugh all you want, GA, but it could still happen. No paper trail ......... no way to really check for a recount ................... no way to tell.


Oh, believe me, I'm not laughing at the idea of voting fraud occurring, as I believe it has in the past few US elections. There are, of course, no smoking guns for much outside of a few bits and pieces here and there, but in the case of voting machines, there can never be a smoking gun.

That said, there are many places where tampering isn't possible or where people are carefully watching given past problems. Any tampering that could occur is only really possible if there is a perception of a tight race. In the case of non-voting machine voter suppression, like what occurred in Ohio, those techniques can only swing votes a few points. If Obama continues to lead by more than 5 points in the polls, it would be very difficult and unbelievable to engineer a sudden massive swing.

There are many who follow the polls closely who believe that the race has never been close because younger voters who don't by and large have land lines are under-represented in polling. There is reason to believe that the turnout for under-35 voters will increase greatly this time. If they know what's good for them they will show up to vote in large numbers. Electing McCain would be disastrous for their future.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> There are many who follow the polls closely who believe that the race has never been close because younger voters who don't by and large have land lines are under-represented in polling. There is reason to believe that the turnout for under-35 voters will increase greatly this time.


I remember this was going to happen for Kerry!


----------



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

GA, many people are putting in their votes early via absentee ballots. The Republicans tried to block an Ohio regulation that allowed people to come to the early polling sites, register to vote with two pieces of picture ID, and then to vote at that time. The Republicans lost, and people are coming to the advanced polls to register and vote. 

There might be hope yet. We shall see.


----------



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

"I remember this was going to happen for Kerry!" True, and it never came to pass. However, I have never seen a more energized group of people than these students from 19-25. Reminds me of 1968 and the "Keep Clean for Gene" campaign.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Are there yet..... 



> *McCain pulling out of Michigan*
> 
> John McCain is pulling out of Michigan, according to two Republicans, a stunning move a month away from Election Day that indicates the difficulty Republicans are having in finding blue states to put in play.
> 
> ...


----------



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

I strongly doubt this, MacDoc.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The Mayor would beg to differ from you.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> The Republicans tried to block an Ohio regulation that allowed people to come to the early polling sites, register to vote with two pieces of picture ID, and then to vote at that time. The Republicans lost, and people are coming to the advanced polls to register and vote.


I don't understand how Republicans can reconcile opposition to enabling more people to vote with being the party of the Constitution. It's wrong to put partisanship ahead of the bigger issues such as this. But, they know it removes young people and minorities who are more likely to vote Democrat.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

If McCain is pulling out of Michigan then it's not looking good for his chances of winning. If he can't secure the rust belt, he's done. :clap:


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

never had any chances! least of all after the Palin fiasco and the Stock Crisis.


----------



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

MacDoc, I heard the news last night about Michigan. I am shocked and I stand corrected.


----------



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

"I don't understand how Republicans can reconcile opposition to enabling more people to vote with being the party of the Constitution. It's wrong to put partisanship ahead of the bigger issues such as this. But, they know it removes young people and minorities who are more likely to vote Democrat." Vandave, I think that this was exactly the fear of the Republicans. Overwhelmingly, the wave of new voters coming forth to register, if the polling is correct, are favoring Obama. We shall see.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

In honour of the McCain campaign pulling out of Michigan . . .


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

With all this talk about McCain abandoning Michigan - perhaps it is simply because he favours the Buckeyes?

YouTube - Dead Schembechlers: Bomb Ann Arbor Now


----------



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

Got my absentee ballot from the State of Georgia in the mail today. Just finished filling it out after an extensive search of the views of those on the ballot. The toughest decision was the vote for County Public Service Commissioner. I actually voted for the Libertarian candidate since his views about fiscal responsibility seemed right for Clarke County.

I am pleased to have put my mark next to the Obama/Biden candidacy. Let us hope it helps. We shall see.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr. G: A Libertarian dog catcher would be an interesting choice.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> Got my absentee ballot from the State of Georgia in the mail today. Just finished filling it out after an extensive search of the views of those on the ballot. The toughest decision was the vote for County Public Service Commissioner. I actually voted for the Libertarian candidate since his views about fiscal responsibility seemed right for Clarke County.
> 
> I am pleased to have put my mark next to the Obama/Biden candidacy. Let us hope it helps. We shall see.


I don't believe there's much hope that Obama will win Georgia, so I'll predict you'll have an orphan vote there. But your down-ticket votes could be important. Obama's organization and 50 state focus is expected yield positive results for turfing Republicans even in quite red states.

I have a friend who gets an Ohio absentee ballot, which I'm sure he hopes will actually get counted this time.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

*US Right-wingers freaking out!*

I rarely look at hyper-right wing sites like Free Republic because my stomach isn't strong enough to take their unique blend of jingoism and stupidity seasoned with blatant racism that passes for content there. But today I was alerted by a blog author about the fact that they are completely losing it over Bush's signing of the bailout bill.

The wailing and gnashing of teeth is a sight to behold. Their post comments look like they're straight out of a far-left blog: "Bush should be tried as a traitor" ... "He's ripping the constitution to shreds". The anger is extended to McCain also: "Don't vote for McLiar in November".

They already think Obama is the anti-Christ so they can't hate him any more than they already do, but now some seem to be saying "He couldn't be a bigger disaster than Bush has been." (Sort of like MF, I guess  ). But they're extra enraged at Bush and McCain because they think they've betrayed their faith and trust.

These are the guys that are the hardest nub of Republican faithful. Up until now they're likely the ones who make up that 20% that still give Bush a good approval rating. I guess that poll is going to sink lower in a few days.

Sorry for the schadenfreude but the cherry on the sundae for me was seeing the cartoon below posted at Free Republic. It's by Dan Perkins (aka Tom Tomorrow), one of the most prominent of America's lefty political cartoonists. I guess they think it's true - Bush was a socialist mole. "He makes FDR look like Ayn Rand" in the words of one poster. You couldn't make this stuff up.


----------



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

"Dr. G: A Libertarian dog catcher would be an interesting choice." Macfury, no, my choice for "Animal Control Unit Manager" was for a Democrat.


----------



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

GA, you are quite right about the "down ticket" votes. My Georgia Congressional district is 10, which is represented by Congressman Broun, he of the infamous "I will not eat a cow pattie with a marshmellow in the middle of it" speech on the floor of the US House of Representatives. I voted for Saxby, the Democrat.


----------



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

Macfury, you would be interested to know that Barr has a spot on the presidential section of the Georgia ballot as the Libertarian. Coming from Georgia, it was understandable. No spot for Nader, however, but there was a write-in spot for him.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)




----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

First off, MacDoc, that deserves a :clap: 

Hilarious. Elegant. Perfect.

Second, GA: another Tom Tomorrow fan! Yay! Yeah, you gotta love it when the wingnuts eat their own.

Third: GA and Dr. G -- Obama will likely make a closer run in Georgia and the two other "solidly red" deep south states, Alabama and Mississippi, than most people think. The black population has only rarely ever come out in full force, but they will this time. While I doubt it will be enough to overcome the hicks from the sticks, all the metro areas of Georgia are going to be pretty solidly behind Obama this time. In the deep south, Palin may have hurt McCain more than is generally realised -- they can't stand that "yankee" accent of hers . And of course we all know the south loves a good tap-dancer!!  

RealClearPolitics (a VERY conservative site) pretty much gives the election to Obama now that McCain has "cut and run" from Michigan:
RealClearPolitics - Electoral Map

But if you look at their "no toss up states" prediction, they don't just give it to Obama, they LANDSLIDE it for Obama:
RealClearPolitics - Electoral Map

More detailed map from Congressional Quarterly here:
2008 Election Map &#151; Projected Landscape : Commercial Appeal


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

"Sauce--Bush never called himself a conservative in the first place. And yes, the bail-out goes beyond any constitutional power of the federal government--largely because the feds went far beyond their constitutional power in creating the problem they are trying to fix. I believe the bail-out effectively kills the Republicans' chances for election. McCain's crappy campaigning alone couldn't cinch it. They won't vote for Obama, but they will not bust their butts for McCain.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

:clap: too perfect


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I would agree:

Except the Obama train is driving backwards.


----------



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

"GA and Dr. G -- Obama will likely make a closer run in Georgia and the two other "solidly red" deep south states, Alabama and Mississippi, than most people think. " I truly hope so, chas m. We shall see.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> "Sauce--Bush never called himself a conservative in the first place.


Well there are probably miles of videotape showing that he asserted just that, so I'm not sure what you're saying. He also called himself a "compassionate" conservative, whatever that line of BS was supposed to mean. (Likely means about the same as a sweater-vest on Harper.) But he asserted a lot of stuff that has been proven to be bare-assed lies so I wouldn't put much stock in what he says, just what he did. And he showed in the end that he wasn't a conservative, as least not fiscally. But he sure pulled the wool over the eyes of America's conservative cheerleaders, didn't he? I guess that doesn't say much for their intelligence or judgement. Why, oh why didn't the National Review braintrust see through Bush's deceit?

Of course now we know the truth, based on the above cartoon. Bush, Cheney and Rove were hippy socialist moles bent on destroying the Republican party.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Just for you Dr. G










and 11 point lead nationally for Obama.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc--why not post the one that includes Barr and Nader?


----------



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

There is a slight chance that Barr, a former congressman from Georgia, could tip the state to Obama. This is why it is still listed as a "pink state". We shall see.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

Just a question for my own curiosity: Would Canadians (excluding Macfury) find Barack Obama acceptable as their prime minister?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MissGulch said:


> Just a question for my own curiosity: Would Canadians (excluding Macfury) find Barack Obama acceptable as their prime minister?


Given our current choices... yes, he would fair well in BC, Ontario and Quebec (if he learned french).


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Don't limit it to Obama--neither of the bums currently running in the U.S. would be acceptable to me.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MissGulch said:


> Just a question for my own curiosity: Would Canadians (excluding Macfury) find Barack Obama acceptable as their prime minister?


Rather conservative for my tastes, but far preferable to Harper.

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Question is, given the clown on the Hill, would he accept.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MissGulch said:


> Just a question for my own curiosity: Would Canadians (excluding Macfury) find Barack Obama acceptable as their prime minister?


I think a poll was done in the summer that had the figure at 75% or so would vote for Obama. Of course if Obama was running in Canada, his platform would look more like Kucinich's.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I think a poll was done in the summer that had the figure at 75% or so would vote for Obama. Of course if Obama was running in Canada, his platform would look more like Kucinich's.


Very true, Mr. Applesauce. He would be running a far more liberal campaign in Canada. 

The McCain campaign sent my late mother a postage paid envelope for a contribution, with a beggary letter. I sent back all the materials in the letter, sans check, along with a large heavy wad of paper. Let 'em foot the bill for it and find no check. 

Whenever I see a McCain ad as sponsored Google results, I click it to suck some ad money out of them. I know it doesn't mean much, but I hate them so much, especially lately. Digital justice.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

By clicking on their ads, are you not doing just the opposite of your expressed purpose, ie: they get funds from you clicking so you are helping them, not hurting them?

Or maybe I don't understand Google ads, but that is my impression.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

SINC said:


> By clicking on their ads, are you not doing just the opposite of your expressed purpose, ie: they get funds from you clicking so you are helping them, not hurting them?
> 
> Or maybe I don't understand Google ads, but that is my impression.


The advertiser has to pay for the clicks based on the value of the keywords they used in the ads. So each click is costing them. The one hosting the ads (the site owner(s) receives the money from the clicks.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Silly season is upon us....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I check Obabma;s campaign site hourly to make sure he hasn't changed positions on anything.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Obama is the candidate for the American Idol generation!


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Obama is the candidate for the American Idol generation!


So I guess that means McCain is the candidate for the bitter and cranky Depends generation that yells "Get Off My Lawn!" to the neighbourhood kids. Their latest use of desperate McCarthyist guilt-by-association attacks seems to indicate they need to change their diapers.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

. . .


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

McCain is the candidate of the Country Club Republicans who has no interest in fiscal conservatism, and he's struck a weak bargain with social conservatives to support him. What the Republicans need is a social libertarian with a fiscally conservative streak.

It's going to be an unpleasant scene when he's elected president.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> McCain is the candidate of the Country Club Republicans who has no interest in fiscal conservatism, and he's struck a weak bargain with social conservatives to support him. What the Republicans need is a social libertarian with a fiscally conservative streak.
> 
> It's going to be an unpleasant scene when he's elected president.


Maybe after their party melts down, which it appears to be headed for, it can reform itself and find the principles it appears to have misplaced. Step one would be to jettison the nutjob extremists as their base.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

It won't melt down at alll. I think they're likely to win if things go as I expect they will.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

Macfury said:


> What the Republicans need is a social libertarian with a fiscally conservative streak.


I agree, they need Bill Clinton.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> It won't melt down at alll. I think they're likely to win if things go as I expect they will.


You'll have to share that inside knowledge MF, because to all the world it appears that McCain has a 10 point or so disadvantage in the polls and is well behind in all the swing states. I'm not saying that couldn't change but that would be a pretty historic swing at this point. Many Republicans have already admitted that there is a slim chance of victory at present, short of some monumental game-changer occurring.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The Republican strategy has been to let Obama off the hook for most of the election process.There are obvious areas where he can be lambasted, but they've let him alone.

It's McCain's theory that all elections are won in the final 72 hours of the campaign. I expect a steadily escalating series of October surprises that will see Obama angry, reeling and unprepared in the final days. Even if he has answers, it will be too late to make them heard. The Republican base wants to see MCcain fight and he really hasnt so far. He's just now allowing Palin to do that, but will join in the fray only in the home stretch, where he can be seen as a fighter, not a snipey old guy.

I also believe that there is a statistically significant segment of the U.S. population that can't bring themselves to vote for a) a black guy and b) a neophyte. 

But, as Dr. G. so aptly puts it: "We shall see."


----------



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

"CNN) - The National Rifle Association said Thursday it plans to endorse Sen. John McCain and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, citing Sen. Barack Obama's "anti-gun record."

"We will encourage gun owners, hunters and anyone who values freedom to vote McCain-Palin on November 4," Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's Executive Vice President, said in the statement." 

He's got my vote now. "From my cold dead hands ................" No one, and I mean no one, is taking away my automatic weapons, SAM rocket launcher, or the surplus Korean War howitzer that is now in my backyard. I am one of Canada's first lines of defence when the hords start to come our way for our water, our oil, our women, our doxies and our land. "Death before dishonor."

YouTube - C'mon, Move to Canada!


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

LMAO Dr G!!!!!


----------



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

gb, you are a friend, so you may pass or approach. As for foes ............ beware. If I don't bring you down with the first shot, the doxies will make sure you never get up ever again. ADT is the way of our street -- Attack Doxie Territory.


----------



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

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- "Virginia hasn't backed a Democrat for president in 44 years, but economic concerns and changing demographics are giving Sen. Barack Obama a chance to steal the once reliably red state from Republicans."

This would be a major blow to McCain.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



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

Laugh if you will, MCB, but in the last few days of the election, the Bush administration will reveal something totally false, and totally repulsive about Obama. There will not be enough time for the Obama campaign to deny these totally false comments, and the McCain camp will not be blamed for these wild comments, but he will play into them and say "See, he can't be trusted and you really don't know who that guy really is all about today." 

Short of this, the computerized systems in key battleground states will declare McCain the victor ...................... hours before the last ballot is cast.

I pray that this does not happen, but we shall see.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> The Republican strategy has been to let Obama off the hook for most of the election process.There are obvious areas where he can be lambasted, but they've let him alone.
> 
> It's McCain's theory that all elections are won in the final 72 hours of the campaign. I expect a steadily escalating series of October surprises that will see Obama angry, reeling and unprepared in the final days. Even if he has answers, it will be too late to make them heard. The Republican base wants to see MCcain fight and he really hasnt so far. He's just now allowing Palin to do that, but will join in the fray only in the home stretch, where he can be seen as a fighter, not a snipey old guy.
> 
> ...


I'd be willing to concede that this is possible in theory, but what do the GOP have on Obama that they or Hilary haven't already tried to use? If you remember Clinton went for the "kitchen sink" strategy and that didn't work. Polling is saying that McCain's new "guilt by association" tactic isn't making a dent either, because he's got nothing other than to say, "you knew a guy who was once a terrorist". With Ayers being part of many activities and boards in the area, hundreds of other people knew, worked and associated with him, including some prominent McCain donors. 

On the other hand McCain went on several vacations with and was a close friend of Charles Keating, a now convicted felon who cost the the government $3 Billion in the Savings and Loan debacle that wiped out the life savings of 20,000 people. The evidence shows that McCain successfully influenced regulators to lay off Keating for many months giving him time to further loot his depositors. Sarah Palin was promoting an extreme right-wing secessionist movement in Alaska, as recently as May 2008. There's far more shady associations as well as actual questionable dealings on both of them than they can manufacture on Obama.

With the focus being the economy and most of the public feeling that the blame belongs to the GOP I don't see what these picayune smears are going to accomplish. Unless the GOP has something clearly substantive on Obama that they haven't used yet, I really don't see where these October surprises are going to come from. Do you? Wouldn't they have already thrown that bomb by now if they had it in their arsenal? Opinions rarely change overnight and Obama's lead seem to be still gaining, so if they have something huge waiting any longer could be foolish.

As to the black guy argument, I would submit that anyone who really wouldn't vote for a black guy has already parked their vote for McCain and the racist demographic is already reflected in the polling. I don't think it's the factor that it might have been 20 or even 10 years ago - thankfully. 

As to the neophyte argument, polling has shown that Obama is seen as ready to lead by most. If the neophyte argument is a factor, then it must be hurting McCain now with his choice of Palin. Everyone knows that she stands a very good chance of inheriting the Presidency should McCain win, because of his age and having had a few bouts with cancer. I'm wondering if with the obvious stress of this campaign if he'll remain healthy through to Nov. 4th.

I'm not saying it's in the bag for Obama, but I think that anything that changes this radically enough to wipe out Obama's lead will likely be coming from outside anything that the McCain campaign has. The overriding event that has come from the outside, the economic crisis, is not a positive for McCain. I think they've played any cards they have so far and it hasn't worked for them. Many Republicans who post on the net have resorted to asking their Lord to intervene in their favour.


----------



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

A Sen. Strom Thurmond-like whisper campaign could be started, saying that just like Strom Thurmond, Obama has fathered two black children. In both instances, the rumors will be factual.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Here is a video showing a cross-section of McCain supporters going to a rally. I have to warn you that you will feel angry after watching this. The hatred shown by some of these people and the public acceptance of it is very concerning to me.  

YouTube - The Sidewalk to Nowhere, McCain Supporters in Bethlehem, PA


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)




----------



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

Vandave, sounds just like the taunts that were thrown at me during the early days of the protests against the war in Vietnam. "Get a job", "get a haircut", "go back to where you come from" (I was born in New York City), "commie ******", etc, ect, ect.


----------



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

I think that I had better vote for McCain ..................... wait ............ I already sent in my absentee ballot to the State of Georgia with a mark next to the names of Obama/Biden ......................... mea culpa.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> Vandave, sounds just like the taunts that were thrown at me during the early days of the protests against the war in Vietnam. "Get a job", "get a haircut", "go back to where you come from" (I was born in New York City), "commie ******", etc, ect, ect.


Did they call you a Jew as well? I'm sure you didn't miss the hatred shown in this video towards muslims and the lack of people denouncing it. I think I have been too optimistic and naive to think such people existed in smaller numbers. I fear the level of racism and ignorance in the US is quite high.


----------



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

Vandave, I have called a "Jew bastard", but it is hard to tell that I am Jewish from just my outward appearances.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

You look like Mark Twain to me.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

That video is something else, all right. But I am not surprised by the depth of the ignorance and fear it represents. It doesn't speak well of the citizenry that people could be so knee-jerk and shallow in their thinking. Nor does it bode well for the country itself. If the Dems and the Repubs could take a serious time-out from their mutual loathing and attempts at character assassination and mudslinging, think of the great things America could once again achieve.

Now it resembles a twisted nursery - a bunch of collicky children squabbling. I'm not sure it's much better up here, if at all. Perhaps it's just not as apparent on the surface.

Sometimes I think that inventions like television and the internet have rendered politics meaningless.


----------



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

Thank you, gmark. I take that as a compliment. MT is far more distinguished looking than I am. If only I could write as well as he has written his many great works.


----------



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

MCB, it takes a great deal to get me riled. The worst that I received was having red paint thrown in my direction. The worst I ever faced was my hearing at my draft board back in 1970. I was able to convince them that my role as a combat soldier would be a great mistake, and I would put the lives of my fellow soldiers at risk. So, I was able to obtain a non-combative Conscientious Objector status and was drafted as a front-line paramedic.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



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

MCB, I lived two years in Waycross, Georgia. Find it on a map of the US south, and you will see why they call it the "buckle of the bible belt" in the south. Still, I faced little discrimination based on the fact that I was Jewish, but moreso because I was a "yankee from New York City". Still, my two years teaching there went well, as were the three years I spent in Athens, Georgia getting my Ph.D. at the University of Georgia.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> A Sen. Strom Thurmond-like whisper campaign could be started, saying that just like Strom Thurmond, Obama has fathered two black children. In both instances, the rumors will be factual.


Good one!



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> As to the black guy argument, I would submit that anyone who really wouldn't vote for a black guy has already parked their vote for McCain and the racist demographic is already reflected in the polling. I don't think it's the factor that it might have been 20 or even 10 years ago - thankfully.


Some of what you say makes sense there--and as I have said, I am not a McCain booster. He's got plenty of dirty laundry as well. But I believe that some people who can't bring themselves to vote for "the black guy" in the booth, will tell pollsters that they will vote for Obama right now. Even with a 4 point lead, only 2 per cent need to switch sides.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I saw this on a website called media circus:


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

The Election is ust becoming interesting, since the ACORN Scandal has surfaced. Seems the Democrats have been paying to register dead people to vote in Nevada, Mississippi and Illinois...


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

MazterCBlazter said:


> The further you get away from the West Coast and especially in the South East the worse it is. I love it in Washington, California, Oregon, and Colorado. My experiences in the Southern and Eastern US States made me grateful to be white when I was there. Glad I didn't live there, so many real idiots, scary stupid people.
> 
> Someday the American Empire will collapse.


Brings back my previously posted graphic:


----------



## Darien Red Sox (Oct 24, 2006)

I am not pleased with eather canadate and plan on voating for one of the indpendant canadates.


----------



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

"I am not pleased with eather canadate and plan on voating for one of the indpendant canadates." 

I am not pleased with either candidate and plan on voting for one of the independent candidates.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Some of what you say makes sense there--and as I have said, I am not a McCain booster. He's got plenty of dirty laundry as well. But I believe that some people who can't bring themselves to vote for "the black guy" in the booth, will tell pollsters that they will vote for Obama right now. Even with a 4 point lead, only 2 per cent need to switch sides.


I know you're not a McCain booster and that your focus on Obama critiques are only for the kicks of stirring up the lefties.

Ahhh - the much talked about "Bradley Effect". This is the theory that white people when contacted by pollsters will be embarrassed to tell a pollster that they aren't going to vote for the black or non-white candidate, but in the privacy of the voting booth will vote the way they truly believe. This effect is believed by some to have been responsible for the defeat of the popular Democratic black mayor of Los Angeles, Tom Bradley, when he was running to become California governor in the early '80s. 

Bradley was running far ahead in the polls, although there was some tightening closer to election day. There have also been alternative explanations for that result, mostly notably a gun ban resolution on the ballot, that mobilized and brought out a surge from California's conservative rural areas to defeat the ban. This group wasn't included in as large numbers in the polling and naturally when they voted to defeat the ban they also voted for the Republican.

Some pollsters have called the Bradley Effect a theory in search of data. There is much back and forth among the egghead polling geeks about whether this effect was ever real or a major variable, but instances of this effect seeming to occur are less noticeable in recent years. There is even some theorizing that there may even be a reverse Bradley Effect. Some think that because much polling now is currently done using computer formats where the person being polled is put on to a computer system, this effect, if it was ever real, is less evident. Others think that polling methodology has improved because pollsters have learned to ask better questions. This effect seems to be largely a myth rather than a fact.

It's notable that there is little to point to in many of the State primary elections that Obama has run in this year of any effect of this sort. In fact in many of the races, Obama did better than the polling predictions.

In the last Presidential election, there were widespread instances of outright voter intimidation, caging and fraud. As well, 1/3 of the votes were recorded on inherently insecure and non-verifiable touch-screen voting machines. There were also instances of polling data not matching the final outcome (not that it always does). Strangely none of these variances in outcome seemed to affect Bush's totals, only Kerry's.

I would suspect that if there is major deflation in Obama's outcome compared to polling, it will have more to do with gaming the incredibly damaged, insecure and partisan-controlled US voting system, with the mythical Bradley Effect being used as the official explanation. Of course any smoking guns will be almost impossible to find.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I know you're not a McCain booster and that your focus on Obama critiques are only for the kicks of stirring up the lefties.
> 
> Ahhh - the much talked about "Bradley Effect". This is the theory that white people when contacted by pollsters will be embarrassed to tell a pollster that they aren't going to vote for the black or non-white candidate, but in the privacy of the voting booth will vote the way they truly believe. This effect is believed by some to have been responsible for the defeat of the popular Democratic black mayor of Los Angeles, Tom Bradley, when he was running to become California governor in the early '80s.


In terms of policies of both candidates, I hate Obama's policy proposals slightly more than McCain's, but both are odious. Bearing in mind that I despise both of these eels--I have little good to say about either--I would sum up my opinion as follows:

Obama deserves to lose.
McCain does not deserve to win

Regarding the "Bradley effect" I believe that people aren't likely to worry so much for lower office, or for a primary candidate, but do believe that effect will be present for the office of President.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MF, I would change that to:

McCain — too dangerous to win
Obama — not ideal from my POV, but far better than anything the US political system has spit up in a very long time.



Macfury said:


> Regarding the "Bradley effect" I believe that people aren't likely to worry so much for lower office, or for a primary candidate, but do believe that effect will be present for the office of President.


So you're saying white people will only conceal their true voting intentions (for reasons that the theory doesn't really explain well), when they are asked in polls about down ticket races but not Presidential races? Nor does this explain Obama's results in the primary elections which didn't show any sort of Bradley Effect. Again, this is a theory in search of data. But I guess if you just "believe" it, well ...

But if the results are inexplicably less across the board and well over the MOEs that the polling shows at election time, I'm sure the Bradley Effect will be invoked, reality or not. People don't require reasons to believe, especially in the USA.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

'Sauce: If the theory holds true, it's a steadily declining number. The Bradley effect has already been displaced by the Wilder effect in the 1990s. I wouldn't think the primaries are a good case for discounting the effect, though, because we're not talking about the electorate, but about registered party members only. There's no real data on what will happen with a black presidential candidate, so we'll have to see.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

These Republican crowds are really ugly.

YouTube - McCain Tries to Tame Flames He Earlier Fanned

I have lost a lot of respect for McCain for playing the 'terrorist' card. He has stoked a lot of this hatred.


----------



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

"I have lost a lot of respect for McCain for playing the 'terrorist' card. He has stoked a lot of this hatred." Same here, Vandave. Do you find it interesting that we are in agreement moreso this year than last? Interesting ............. maybe it is something in the water .............


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> "I have lost a lot of respect for McCain for playing the 'terrorist' card. He has stoked a lot of this hatred." Same here, Vandave. Do you find it interesting that we are in agreement moreso this year than last? Interesting ............. maybe it is something in the water .............


I have never agreed with the Republican party. I have always been more closely aligned with Democratic policies. 

We only differ on this side of the border.


----------



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

I was a liberal Democrat in the US and gravitated towards the NDP here in Canada when I came to St.John's in 1977. Still, I have voted for the NDP, the Liberals, and the Conservatives in the three elections in which I have been allowed to vote.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> 'Sauce: If the theory holds true, it's a steadily declining number. The Bradley effect has already been displaced by the Wilder effect in the 1990s. I wouldn't think the primaries are a good case for discounting the effect, though, because we're not talking about the electorate, but about registered party members only. There's no real data on what will happen with a black presidential candidate, so we'll have to see.


In many of the states independents could vote and were polled. That is primarily the group that the so-called effect is supposed to be working on.

Anyway, if polls stay the same the effect is going to have to be pretty strong to cancel out double-digit advantages in many of the states. He's currently leading in 27 states that would give him a 343 electoral vote landslide. Even if you subtract big swing states like Ohio, Florida, Nevada and Colorado where he leads by less than 5% currently, he still has 282 electoral votes. He's got many different ways now to get to the 270 electoral votes to win, so there will have to be a massive surge towards McCain at this point to even get into margin-of-error territory and make this look close. This Bradley Effect is going to have to be a massive event.

But like I said earlier, I don't think he has it in the bag, because volatile external events could change the picture. But I don't think there's much McCain can do at this point to campaign himself to a win, Bradley effect or not. Certainly he's not going to smear his way to a win now, unless he's got something earth-shatteringly substantive and new. But then the question becomes, why would he keep it in his pocket?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Secret weapon......



> *Polls may underestimate Obama's support by 3 to 4 percent, researchers say*
> 
> (PhysOrg.com) -- Current polls of the presidential election may be underestimating Barack Obama's support by 3 to 4 percent nationally and possibly larger margins in the Southeast and some strongly Republican states, according to University of Washington researchers.
> 
> Psychologist Anthony Greenwald and political scientist Bethany Albertson, who analyzed data from the 32 states holding Democratic primaries, said race played an unexpectedly powerful role in distorting pre-election poll findings and the same scenario could play out in the election between Obama and John McCain.


Polls may underestimate Obama's support by 3 to 4 percent, researchers say


----------



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

(CNN) — "No, hell has not frozen over, but a Buckley is backing a Democrat for president.

Christopher Buckley, the son of the late conservative icon William F. Buckley, said Friday he's decided to back Barack Obama's White House bid, the first time in his life he will vote Democrat.

""Obama has in him—I think, despite his sometimes airy-fairy 'We are the people we have been waiting for' silly rhetoric—the potential to be a good, perhaps even great leader. He is, it seems clear enough, what the historical moment seems to be calling for," Buckley wrote."

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time - Blogs from CNN.com

Politics does indeed make strange bedfellows.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I think that McCain's half-assed idea of buying up personal mortgages is costing him dearly among his base. His ideas of "reaching across the aisle" are scaring off his most loyal supporters (i.e., not that loyal). If you could pay a Republican to promote the Democratic Party, McCain would collect a nice, fat pay cheque at the end of this election.

I'm starting to wonder if this is an election the Republicans would rather lose, with McCain standing in for a Bob Dole or a Walter Mondale. As some pundits have noted: "Don't hold your breath waiting for McCain to fight for you. He won't. As voters, you'll have to carry him across the finish line."


----------



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

"I think that McCain's half-assed idea of buying up personal mortgages is costing him dearly among his base." Macfury, I think you are correct on this point. Fiscal conservatives are going crazy at this idea, along with the Bush administration's nationalizing some banks should they take majority shares in certain banks.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> "I think that McCain's half-assed idea of buying up personal mortgages is costing him dearly among his base." Macfury, I think you are correct on this point. Fiscal conservatives are going crazy at this idea, along with the Bush administration's nationalizing some banks should they take majority shares in certain banks.



Dr. G: I won't put words in your mouth, but I suspect you may also see some irony in the U.S. fed offering to calm fears by taking over banks, considering its aplomb in managing its other affairs.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Indeed. Not to mention the deep irony in at least partially nationalizing the American banking system. No socialist move there, eh.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> Indeed. Not to mention the deep irony in at least partially nationalizing the American banking system. No socialist move there, eh.


You can see the quandary I would be in as a U.S. voter. Both parties are deeply mired in a mortgage scandal of their own making and promise to get the country out of it through their own brilliant intervention. 

The fact is that the market is stronger than all of them combined, and will crush their fairy tales in short order. Then they'll feed on a harsh stew of reality washed down with the bitter brew of unintended consequences.


----------



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

"The fact is that the market is stronger than all of them combined, and will crush their fairy tales in short order. Then they'll feed on a harsh stew of reality washed down with the bitter brew of unintended consequences." We shall see, Macfury. Sadly, in the wake of this whole situation, those in the middle class and lower will be washed away .............. leaving only those with enough money to ride out this "fairy tale".


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr. G: The market has no morals--and it's ignored at everyone's peril. If you play with fire, as U.S. politicans have over the past 20 years, everyone gets burned. And yes, those worst burned will be those with the least amount of money to protect themselves and those exposed most to unbearable debt. I see this more as a cultural flaw than a political one. People are mad to acquire because they feel they are entitled. The governments of the past 20 years have done their part by enabling them.


----------



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

"And yes, those worst burned will be those with the least amount of money to protect themselves and those exposed most to unbearable debt. I see this more as a cultural flaw than a political one." Again we are in agreement. Maybe we should call this play of ours "The Meeting of Great Minds"? Of course, we may also disagree on various points, but at least we are civil about it all. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Chavez has taken to calling Bush, "Comrade Bush", in recent speeches. Bush's nationalization program dwarfs anything they've done in Venezuela by many orders of magnitude.



MF said:


> Then they'll feed on a harsh stew of reality washed down with the bitter brew of unintended consequences.


While I don't often agree with your free-market fundamentalism, I have to admire a nice turn of phrase. You get points for style.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

There's so many McCain/Palin banner ads appearing today, and I keep clicking them and laughing hysterically. WTG, ehMax. He's gonna get rich. LOL


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

^^^
Speaking about Chavez - who will he be voting for, Obama or McCain? Chavez is the most important vote, considering his family owns all of the Diebold Voting Machines. I think he'll go Republican because it will be easier to demonize McCain on his show Allo Presidente!

however, he may be leary of the VP choice, since Palin knows guns, and thus, is a natural when it comes to South American politics.


----------



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

Interesting avatar, EP. I just noticed what it actually said.


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

EvanPitts said:


> ^^^
> Speaking about Chavez - who will he be voting for, Obama or McCain? Chavez is the most important vote, considering his family owns all of the Diebold Voting Machines. I think he'll go Republican because it will be easier to demonize McCain on his show Allo Presidente!
> 
> however, he may be leary of the VP choice, since Palin knows guns, and thus, is a natural when it comes to South American politics.


Chavez rooting for McCain? No way - it would upset his revolutionary buddy, Billy Ayers too much. 

Creepy Comrades: The Ayers-Chavez Connection


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Dr.G. said:


> Interesting avatar, EP. I just noticed what it actually said.


I couldn't resist borrowing it, it's a nice counterbalance to Chas_M's...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Voyager said:


> Chavez rooting for McCain? No way - it would upset his revolutionary buddy, Billy Ayers too much.
> 
> Creepy Comrades: The Ayers-Chavez Connection


It's just odd that Bush managed to "win" the last election because of Diebold machines - just as it is odd that the Chavez family owns Diebold.

I think Chavez entirely depends upon a demon to keep his people in line, because frankly, his beauty is just absent. Nothing better than Bush to play the part of the demon, since not only is Bush hated around the world, he is hated by most Americans as well. Bush has been the best demon since Nixon.

Chavez supporting Obama may lead to some reconcilliation or talks - and that kind of harmony would not play out too well on Allo Presidente! This, in the same manner if a real Conservative, fundamentalist President was elected - then what would Rush Limbaugh and the other Neo-Cons talk about? The ratings would go through the floor, so I bet the commentators are all voting Obama in the hope of scooping four years of Neilson ratings.


----------



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

"I couldn't resist borrowing it, it's a nice counterbalance to Chas_M's..." Interesting message on the avatar. I can't see McCain saying this, however.


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

EvanPitts said:


> It's just odd that Bush managed to "win" the last election because of Diebold machines - just as it is odd that the Chavez family owns Diebold.
> 
> I think Chavez entirely depends upon a demon to keep his people in line, because frankly, his beauty is just absent. Nothing better than Bush to play the part of the demon, since not only is Bush hated around the world, he is hated by most Americans as well. Bush has been the best demon since Nixon.
> 
> Chavez supporting Obama may lead to some reconcilliation or talks - and that kind of harmony would not play out too well on Allo Presidente! This, in the same manner if a real Conservative, fundamentalist President was elected - then what would Rush Limbaugh and the other Neo-Cons talk about? The ratings would go through the floor, so I bet the commentators are all voting Obama in the hope of scooping four years of Neilson ratings.


Conversely, Chavez might see in the election of Obama a kindred spirit. Someone, in his mind, more attuned to his political beliefs than McCain.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Dr.G. said:


> "I couldn't resist borrowing it, it's a nice counterbalance to Chas_M's..." Interesting message on the avatar. I can't see McCain saying this, however.


He wouldn't have to, he'd just send Palin out with a semi-automatic and do it Detroit style...


----------



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

And the children could respond in Chicago-style.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

EvanPitts said:


> I couldn't resist borrowing it, it's a nice counterbalance to Chas_M's...


Umm ... EP, you realize that McCain is the butt of the joke in that graphic, don't you?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

In addition to the video that Vandave posted the other day, here is another YouTube clip showing some of the McCain/Palin supporters in all their glory. Pretty disgusting. If these people had any integrity the other people in the line-up should have been shouting this guy down, but they appear to be supporting him.

YouTube - More Racism at a Palin Rally in PA


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



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

"How would you like your Pizza?" New York style, the best in the world.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr. G: I like the little bit of corn meal to help the pizza slide.


----------



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

Macfury, when I was a boy, I once wanted to work in The Pizza Den, the local pizza joint near where we played stickball. Those were the days ................. 15 cents for a slice of pizze .......... the Sicilian rectangle pizzas.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

New York Pizza is like no other. I like one of the later pizza places called Two Boots--you can have it Sicilian Style or with a Cajun twist, depending on which boot you want to wear.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Dr.G. said:


> And the children could respond in Chicago-style.


So what you are saying is that the kids would respond by going and buying a really thick pizza??? beejacon

Maybe if the kids went Beirut-style, it would make more sense...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Umm ... EP, you realize that McCain is the butt of the joke in that graphic, don't you?


I don't think it is a joke - when a man spends a decade in the Hanoi Hilton, and ends up owning seven houses, he's probably going to be hard core on the neighbourhood hooligans.

And since he is older, he wants someone to help guard the White House, and who better than someone who has much experience shooting hungry bears after a hockey game?

The way I look at it, old man McCain will just come out on the porch and tell the kids off - while Obama would try to enlighten the kids through educational discussions. When I was a kid, I'd rather the crotchety old man that occasionally threw things than the youthful dude out of the Peace Corps giving me the explainations about crown land patents etc...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

They had that bit where some ******* loser was claiming that Obama was a member of Al Qaida, since she was pretty sure that Obama bin Laden was the mastermind behind the D-struk-shin of Noo Yawk.

That's the problem with American politics - half the votes end up in the hands of the functionally illiterate - you know, the people that look at Jethro Bodine as some kind of science mastermind.


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

Did anyone else noticed at the end of the 3rd debate, when both couples were leaving the podium, McCain left his wife alone?

I thought the old man won, but at the end Obama recouped some ground, thankfully.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

EvanPitts said:


> That's the problem with American politics - half the votes end up in the hands of the functionally illiterate - you know, the people that look at Jethro Bodine as some kind of science mastermind.


Jethro invented that car which produced no pollution, and also developed the jack-knife boot during his tenure as a Double Naught Spy--neither of them mean feats.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

EvanPitts said:


> That's the problem with American politics - half the votes end up in the hands of the functionally illiterate - you know, the people that look at Jethro Bodine as some kind of science mastermind.


Jethro now runs a "global warming is a hoax" web site.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

EvanPitts said:


> That's the problem with American politics - half the votes end up in the hands of the functionally illiterate - you know, the people that look at Jethro Bodine as some kind of science mastermind.


I have a button somewhere that says: "Just think--National Enquirer readers are among the elite minority that actually read."


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Jethro is trying to finance a hotel project including a restaurant:

New Page 1


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)




----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Jethro invented that car which produced no pollution, and also developed the jack-knife boot during his tenure as a Double Naught Spy--neither of them mean feats.


Jethro Tull invented the seed drill and wrote a work on fertilizing, and later on, despite being _thick as a brick_ and needing an _aqualung_, had a pretty good career as a _teacher_ that was _living in the past_, got involved in a _bungle in the jungle_, which was all right by me...

Jethro Bodine, on the other hand, was a noted playboy, inventor, thinker, and inventor of the geodesic dome... Wait, that was Buckminster Fuller...


----------



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

(CNN) -- "Sen. John McCain stepped up his rhetoric against his Democratic rival on taxes in his weekly radio address Saturday, comparing his plan to "socialist" programs.

Asked why McCain used the word "socialist" in the radio remarks, a spokesman said, "That's what it is. 'Spreading the wealth' around is socialism."" 

McCain, Palin hint that Obama's policies are 'socialist' - CNN.com


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> (CNN) -- "Sen. John McCain stepped up his rhetoric against his Democratic rival on taxes in his weekly radio address Saturday, comparing his plan to "socialist" programs.
> 
> Asked why McCain used the word "socialist" in the radio remarks, a spokesman said, "That's what it is. 'Spreading the wealth' around is socialism.""
> 
> McCain, Palin hint that Obama's policies are 'socialist' - CNN.com


I think he misspoke when he said "Spreading the wealth around is socialism". Spreading the wealth around to those who aren't the richest 1% is socialism. He doesn't have any objection to spreading around wealth, he just wants wealth spreading to be limited to his own wealth bracket. Spreading the wealth to the very richest is called Republicanism. Meanwhile McCain finds blinkered fools like "Joe The Plumber", who make $40 grand, to stand around and defend his plan, even though Obama's would benefit him more.

It's funny, they call a $700,000 average tax cut for the richest in America simply, a tax cut. Their spin goes that it'll stimulate the economy and benefit all as our betters trickle it down to everyone. But if the tax cut goes to everyone except for the richest, well, that's goddamn communism, or welfare, as McCain termed it today.

Meanwhile Obama sums it up in front of 100,000 people in St. Louis today.


> My opponent's been talking a lot about taxes in his campaign. But here's the truth Missouri – we are both offering tax cuts. The difference is who we're cutting taxes for.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

A flat tax please, with low-end cut-off.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> A flat tax please, with low-end cut-off.


Fat Cats







The Flat Tax.


----------



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

"A flat tax please, with low-end cut-off." Also, no loop-holes. If you and I pay 20%, then those earning millions pay 20%.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

In a RED state no less 












> *Obama Rally Draws 100,000 in Missouri*
> 
> 
> Barack Obama attracted 100,000 people at a Saturday rally here, his biggest crowd ever at a U.S. event.
> ...



AND



> October 19, 2008, 9:21 am
> 
> *Powell Endorses Obama*
> 
> ...


Powell Endorses Obama - The Caucus Blog - NYTimes.com

:clap:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Powell is already one of America's favourite Quislings. No benefit there.


----------



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

Macfury, in my understanding, the usage of the term "Quisling" is synonymous with "traitor", and particularly applied to politicians who appear to support and favor the various interests of other nations or cultures over their own. How has anything in Colin Powell's past shown him to be a traitor?


----------



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

I am with MacDoc on this applause of the endorsement of Powell for Obama. I hope he is brought in to work for the government once again. We shall see.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr. G: I mean Quisling in the sense that he moves back and forth between allegiances--pro Irag invasion, anti-Irag invasion, Republican, Democrat. Not a traitor to his country, but loosely allied with various interests, so that he often switches camps.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

A flat tax wouldn't work. The highest income earners (top 10%) pay over 50% of our income taxes. It would take a long time to unwind that.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Vandave: A flat tax would work if there was a bottom cut-off point, below which you paid nothing. It's just a matter of setting the rate and the cut-off point.


----------



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

Macfury, that may be the way you use the term "Quisling", but without your explanation, which I see although not agree with, the term would mean "traitor" to most people who are familiar with what Quisling did to Norway during WWII.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr. G: If it means "to betray one''s friends and countrymen" to most people I retract it. I mean to suggest that he has no particular allegiance to one group or another that he appears initially to support


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

gastonbuffet said:


> Did anyone else noticed at the end of the 3rd debate, when both couples were leaving the podium, McCain left his wife alone?


The old man just forgot he was married, just like he forgot how many houses he owned...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Dr. G: I mean Quisling in the sense that he moves back and forth between allegiances--pro Irag invasion, anti-Irag invasion, Republican, Democrat. Not a traitor to his country, but loosely allied with various interests, so that he often switches camps.


If Powell was a Quisling, he would have taken over the government, then invited Saddam in to run the joint. He would have put forth lists of those who were "pro-America" so that they could be liquidated. A Quisling is somewhat more than a mere traitor - they subvert the nation in order to reap personal rewards - and use the invading force to hold and maintain power.

Powell, on the other hand, got the shaft from the Bu****es. He was forced to lie to the UN about all of the weapons of mass destruction that were little more than some phony dreams in Saddam's head. And the whole war was botched. We were supposed to have "shock and awe", we ended up with perhaps the most boring thing ever televised - even the Indian Head test pattern was far more entertaining.

They should have told Saddam that he had 24 hours to present himself to the UN, along with all of the cronies - and if not, Iraq would be pounded into dirt. And none of this wimpy firing a rocket once a day onto some selected target - I am talking about 24 hour carpet bombing until the place was a crater.

But then again, the Americans should have recognised the right of the Kurds to exist as a nation - and then just chop what was left into various new nations. Iraq obviously will never work as a nation, so it is time to bust it up and spread the wealth around.

Powell supporting Obama is nothing more than an attempt to brown nose for a job in 2009...


----------



## eggman (Jun 24, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Dr. G: If it means "to betray one''s friends and countrymen" to most people I retract it. I mean to suggest that he has no particular allegiance to one group or another that he appears initially to support


I'm slightly surprised MF (especially after you brought us "scunner" yesterday. (Thanks for that BTW))

From Wikipedia



> 'Quisling'
> 
> Main article: Quisling
> 
> In some European languages, the term "quisling" has become a synonym for traitor, particularly one who collaborates with invaders. The term was coined by the British newspaper The Times in its leader of 15 April 1940, entitled "Quislings everywhere." The editorial asserted: "To writers, the word Quisling is a gift from the gods. If they had been ordered to invent a new word for traitor... they could hardly have hit upon a more brilliant combination of letters. Actually it contrives to suggest something at once slippery and tortuous." The noun has survived; for a while during and after the War the back-formed verb "to quisle" (pronounced "quizzle") was used. One who was "quisling" was committing treason.[3]


Quisling only changed sides once - but apparently he did it so thoroughly that he was executed for it when the war ended. (In the 1920's he had been awarded a CBE for assisting the British in Russia... which was revoked in 1940 - I didn't know that particular bit of trivia).

I don't think that this would apply in any way to Mr. Powell, he hasn't betrayed his country, only (perhaps) his political party affiliation.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Eggman: I did check carefully afterward. I understood it to be somebody who switched sides, or betrayed those to whom one held allegiance, but didn't realize that one had to collaborate with an invader to meet the definition. That said, I agree with the quote you provided. Quisling is a brilliant combination of letters--a word that would probably be a tasty banquet for synesthetes.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MF said:


> Powell is already one of America's favourite Quislings. No benefit there.


I think you're quite wrong MF. Powell is very highly regarded as a moderate Republican. McCain has quoted him extensively and promoted his association with Powell. Republican's were hoping that McCain would tap him as his VP choice as way to ward off Obama, and it probably would have worked, except for the fact that Powell has made it clear he didn't want to be a candidate.

You should watch the endorsement Powell made. He rips McCain's dishonourable campaign apart piece by piece and rather eloquently.

msnbc.com Video Player










The GOP camp is now livid at Powell's "betrayal". They certainly see him as a quisling. And now they are prepared to forget about all the years where they promoted him as a signal of moderate Republicanism and toss him under the bus as just another black guy who'll stick to his own kind. Here's Pat Buchanan losing it badly on Hardball:

YouTube - Pat Buchanan Plays The Race Card










I hope idiots like Buchanan keep it up. They are painting their side into the corner with their own nutjob fringe and making sure that independents and moderates in their own party won't support them.

Regarding Powell, his statement today looks like the position of a thoughtful man. My question is, where was that guy when he was carrying water for George W. Bush in 2003 and presenting the entirely fictitious case for the invasion of Iraq? He should have walked out on Bush, Cheney and the rest of those jerks back then. His endorsement means little to those who have always questioned the current GOP administration, except for the fact that it is now giving those same people fits.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

'sauce you're making a better case for "quisling" than I intended.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I don't share Powell's politics--never have, but I watched both videos and I believe Powell is being sincere in his endorsement. I believe that Powell is also Jonesing for some kind of appointment, but I don't believe his endorsement is racially motivated. Obviously just my opinion, but there it is.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Interesting spate of recent polls, all released today.No slam dunk. It will be a fight to the finish.:

National	Rasmussen Reports	Obama 51, McCain 45
National	Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby	Obama 48, McCain 45
National	Hotline/FD	Obama 48, McCain 41
National	Gallup (Traditional)*	Obama 49, McCain 46
National	Gallup (Expanded)*	Obama 51, McCain 44


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> 'sauce you're making a better case for "quisling" than I intended.


Oh, it's clear that the hard right GOP, as exemplified by Buchanan, see him as a traitor. I haven't looked on freerepublic.com (my stomach can't stand to look at that place too often), but I'm sure they are gnashing their teeth, braying to the heavens and screaming for blood.

As far as I'm concerned Powell was a traitor to his country when he volunteered to sell the fraudulent Iraq invasion for Bush. He knew it was a lie at the time and still went forward. Maybe he's trying to now make up for that.



MF said:


> I don't share Powell's politics--never have, but I watched both videos and I believe Powell is being sincere in his endorsement. I believe that Powell is also Jonesing for some kind of appointment, but I don't believe his endorsement is racially motivated. Obviously just my opinion, but there it is.


No doubt a cabinet position will be offered. I think this endorsement and the thought of Powell working with an Obama administration just makes Obama's candidacy even more acceptable to the established powers that be.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> As far as I'm concerned Powell was a traitor to his country when he volunteered to sell the fraudulent Iraq invasion for Bush.


My understanding from reading Fiasco is not that he volunteered but was drafted to make the presentation..I'm willing to be corrected.

He was at that time an "outsider".


----------



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

"My understanding from reading Fiasco is not that he volunteered but was drafted to make the presentation." As well, Powell was given false information with which to make his decision to present the situation in Iraq to the United Nations.


----------



## zlinger (Aug 28, 2007)

MissGulch said:


> There's so many McCain/Palin banner ads appearing today, and I keep clicking them and laughing hysterically. WTG, ehMax. He's gonna get rich. LOL


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)




----------



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

This was sent to me by a friend. Scary times could await us all.

From the MANITOBA HERALD, Canada

The flood of American liberals sneaking across the border into Canada has
intensified in the past week, sparking calls for increased patrols to stop the
illegal immigration. The possibility of a McCain/Palin election is prompting
the exodus among left-leaning citizens who fear they'll soon be required to
hunt, pray, and agree with Bill O'Reilly.

Canadian border farmers say it's not uncommon to see dozens of sociology
professors, animal rights activists and Unitarians crossing their fields at
night. 'I went out to milk the cows the other day, and there was a Hollywood
producer huddled in the barn,' said Manitoba farmer Red Greenfield, whose
acreage borders North Dakota. The producer was cold, exhausted and hungry. He
asked me if I could spare a latte and some free-range chicken.

In an effort to stop the illegal aliens, Greenfield erected higher fences, but
the liberals scaled them. So he tried installing speakers that blare Rush
Limbaugh across the fields. 'Not real effective,' he said. 'The liberals still
got through, and Rush annoyed the cows so much they wouldn't give milk.'

Officials are particularly concerned about smugglers who meet liberals near the
Canadian border, pack them into Volvo station wagons, drive them across the
border and leave them to fend for themselves. 'A lot of these people are not
prepared for rugged conditions,' an Ontario border patrolman said. 'I found one
carload without a drop of drinking water.' They did have a nice little Napa
Valley cabernet, though.' When liberals are caught, they're sent back across
the border, often wailing loudly that they fear retribution from conservatives.
Rumors have been circulating about the McCain administration establishing
re-education camps in which liberals will be forced to shoot wolves from
airplanes, deny evolution, and act out drills preparing them for the Rapture.

In recent days, liberals have turned to sometimes-ingenious ways of crossing the border. Some have taken to posing as senior citizens on bus trips to buy cheap Canadian prescription drugs. After catching a half-dozen young vegans disguised in powdered wigs, Canadian immigration authorities began stopping buses and quizzing the supposed senior-citizen passengers on Perry Como and Rosemary Clooney hits to prove they were alive in the '50s. 'If they can't identify the accordion player on The Lawrence Welk Show, we get suspicious about their age,' an official said.

Canadian citizens have complained that the illegal immigrants are creating an
organic-broccoli shortage and renting all the good Susan Sarandon movies. 'I
feel sorry for American liberals, but the Canadian economy just can't support
them,' an Ottawa resident said. 'How many art history and English majors does one country need?'


----------



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

Barack Obama and Joe Biden: The Change We Need | Indiana | "Mellencamp"

A Democrat winning Indiana???? Could happen ................ Still, Indiana joined the Union in December 1816. It has been primarily Republican throughout its history, and today is the “reddest” state in the Midwest. Since 1940, it has only voted Democratic in 1964, when Lyndon Johnson won a landslide over Barry Goldwater. In both 1992 and 1996, Indiana was an island of red, its borders not touching a single Republican-voting state in any direction. In 2004, George W. Bush defeated John Kerry 60% to 39%.

We shall see.


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

The man has raised, what, over 600 million dollars already, 150 million in September alone, and he still wants more. I think this person has a serious addiction to money or he really does believe that the presidency goes to the highest bidder. As to where all those contributions are really coming from, it's anyones guess because he doesn't seem to want to make a complete list of donors available.

With $605 million already, Obama asks only $10 more from each of us | Top of the Ticket | Los Angeles Times

Atlas Shrugs: WHO IS JOHN GALT? A CONTRIBUTOR TO COLLECTIVIST OBAMA'S CAMPAIGN, OF COURSE! UPDATE: RNC FILES SUPPLEMENT COMPLAINT TO FEC


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Opie, Andy, Richie and the Fonz endorse Obama (video)


----------



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

Amen, GA. Great clip. Brings back memories ................. 
Now, let us hope that we can have some new memories for our children. My son cast his first vote in a federal election here in Canada (the NDP candidate in St.John's East won) and he cast his absentee ballot in the State of Georgia for Obama. Not sure if Obama will win GA, but let him win the election, and my son will have a good memory for life. We shall see.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)




----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

And this just in from Gina Gershon...

Gina Gershon Strips Down Sarah Palin from Gina Gershon

.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Opie, Andy, Richie and the Fonz endorse Obama (video)[/URL]


Ouch! That was painful! I've never seen a better advertisement for a hairpiece. Who'd have thought that actors would be supporting a Democrat though--makes you think!


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Voyager said:


> The man has raised, what, over 600 million dollars already, 150 million in September alone, and he still wants more. I think this person has a serious addiction to money or he really does believe that the presidency goes to the highest bidder.


I think you misunderstand the system pretty severely, Voyager.

Obama can think of a zillion ways he'd RATHER use that money, but he has to use it on the campaign. What I don't think you "get" is that Obama has to outraise and outspend both John McCain's campaign *plus* the "501c" smear groups. It's the latter that are the root of the problem.



> As to where all those contributions are really coming from, it's anyones guess because he doesn't seem to want to make a complete list of donors available.


First of all, the law does not require the individual reporting of donors who give less than $200. Everyone who gives more than $200 has to be reported, and Obama has complied with the law thus far.

Here's Obama's page on opensecrets.org that should give you the info you seek on his fundraising picture, but I'm going to compare just one key aspect to McCain for you. Here's Obama's sources and reporting status:










and here's McCain's stats:










Now then -- remembering that neither candidate can accept contributions from non-Americans -- where's the problem? Do you really think a bunch of US terrorists are sending Obama $200 (or less) each, is that it?

As the stats show, McCain is getting his ass handed to him by Obama in terms of fundraising. Without the federal matching funds, McCain would be dead in the water -- and McCain broke the law HE WROTE in order to secure loans using the matching funds as collateral (that's illegal).

The stats also show that, exactly as Obama has said, he gets most of his money from individuals, and most of that is contributions of $200 or less. McCain, by contrast, gets a much higher percentage of his (non-government) money from PACs and bundlers -- ie the usual way of buying influence in a campaign.

There are legitimate policy distinctions where someone could raise issues with Obama. Fundraising isn't one of them. You're barking up the wrong tree here.


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

chas_m:


> Now then -- remembering that neither candidate can accept contributions from non-Americans -- where's the problem?


The problem is the fact that Obama refuses to disclose the list of the donors who contributed less than $200. And unless there is a disclosure, we can never know if he has or has not been accepting contributions from non-Americans. Remember, a large portion of his contributions have been below that $200 threshold. It is only relatively recently that his campaign even asked contributors to check a box saying they were citizens. Clinton and McCain always asked for proof of citizenship before accepting donations from outside the States. They actually had to send in a copy of their passports before their donations were processed.

His refusal, while not illegal, puts a lie to his claim of doing things differently. More like old Daley style politics than a candidate of change. After all if McCain can make a full disclosure of *all* his donations, why can't he? It's all, more than likely, computer driven, not done manually so it isn't a backbreaking obstacle to report them.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Ouch! That was painful! I've never seen a better advertisement for a hairpiece. Who'd have thought that actors would be supporting a Democrat though--makes you think!


The Fonz sure has weathered well.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> The Fonz sure has weathered well.


Gah! He looked like the Pillsbury Doughboy--and that wig!


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

This should make Dr.G. happy ...

Obama Winning Georgia? How He Could Pull Off An Upset


----------



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

We shall see, GA. Actually, the African-American population of Georgia is more conservative, per capita, than other states. Still, we shall see.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Voyager said:


> The problem is the fact that Obama refuses to disclose the list of the donors who contributed less than $200.


Let me type this slowly, since you can't apparently read very quickly:

He's. Not. Required. To.

Considering he has over 2,000,000 contributors, that would also be an enormous waste of paper, something his "green" heart couldn't bear. 

Finally, the reason Republicans want this info is painfully transparent: they want to search for any Muslim-sounding names who've contributed. Racists, the lot of them.

Tell you what -- I will join your call for full disclosure of all donations no matter how small -- in two weeks. After all, it's only THEN that we'll have a full accounting, so makes sense to wait until the campaign is over.

Actually, I'll make you a better deal. If John McCain will release his FULL and UNEXPURGATED medical records (as Obama has done), AND his full NAVY record, AND a full list of all HIS donors, I'll join your call for Obama to immediately release all his donors.

Can't ask for fairer than that.


And unless there is a disclosure, we can never know if he has or has not been accepting contributions from non-Americans. Remember, a large portion of his contributions have been below that $200 threshold. It is only relatively recently that his campaign even asked contributors to check a box saying they were citizens. Clinton and McCain always asked for proof of citizenship before accepting donations from outside the States. They actually had to send in a copy of their passports before their donations were processed.

His refusal, while not illegal, puts a lie to his claim of doing things differently. More like old Daley style politics than a candidate of change. After all if McCain can make a full disclosure of *all* his donations, why can't he? It's all, more than likely, computer driven, not done manually so it isn't a backbreaking obstacle to report them.[/QUOTE]


----------



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

Joe the brother. McCain's brother called 911 to complain about being stuck in a traffic jam.

Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> Joe the brother. McCain's brother called 911 to complain about being stuck in a traffic jam.
> 
> Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com


Apart from highlighting that we don't always get to chose our relatives, what was the purpose of this post, Dr. G? I don't want to think that it was a cheap shot at John McCain since your posts have always been lucid and have never sunk to the lows that some others have in these discussions.


----------



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

Voyager, it was a play on words (i.e., Joe the Plumber, Joe the Brother), and was not meant as a "cheap shot". For some reason, my comment following the URL link did not appear. I wrote that this did not seem to be the typical CNN "breaking news". 

I want the rest of this campaign to focus upon the important issues, not about plumbers, brothers, birth certificates, etc.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> Voyager, it was a play on words (i.e., Joe the Plumber, Joe the Brother), and was not meant as a "cheap shot". For some reason, my comment following the URL link did not appear. I wrote that this did not seem to be the typical CNN "breaking news".
> 
> I want the rest of this campaign to focus upon the important issues, not about plumbers, brothers, birth certificates, etc.
> 
> Paix, mon ami.


I agree, but questions regarding possible electoral fraud or illegal donations are also important issues. Election results need to be perceived as fair, otherwise you end up with a very divided country. I suspect that, at this point, no matter who ends up being elected, that is what may happen.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> I want the rest of this campaign to focus upon the important issues..


We haven't heard next to anything about illegal immigration, actual defense policy, the national debt, whether the war on drugs is justified, free trade with South America, attitude to Cuba, trade relations with China, NATO policy, crime policy, internet neutrality, spy bills, search and seizure, the future role of Homeland Security, whether there will be bail-outs for bankrupt automakers, state's rights, energy policy (other than "drill" or "not drill"). 

The entire election has been conducted in an informational and intellectual vacuum--and I'm talking about both of these knuckleheads, Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain by name. Surely, Dr. G., even as an Obama supporter you can't be satisfied about the level at which your candidate has addressed these important issues.


----------



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

"Surely, Dr. G., even as an Obama supporter you can't be satisfied about the level at which your candidate has addressed these important issues." I agree, Macfury. I too would like to have heard more re some of the issues you raised. Sadly, I don't think that we shall hear any of these issues discussed in the next week or so. We shall see.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr. G: I think it's far worse than the possibility that we might not see these issues discussed. There is something profoundly and disturbingly wrong that either McCain or Obama supporters can "get behind their man" on such a paucity of issues covered. If this election were an episode of _The Twilight Zone_, I would expect some person from the 1960s visting the future to yell something like: "You're all mind-numbed robots--they're not saying anything!"

I'm not attempting humour here. How can an election be carried out without regard to issues considered important within the past two years?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I think it's happening because surface has long ago eclipsed substance in contemporary American politics. It's the triumph of style and medium over message.

And no, it's not a good thing at all for democracy. But apparently it's what the people and the media merchants want.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> And no, it's not a good thing at all for democracy. But apparently it's what the people and the media merchants want.


No disrespect to the EhMacers , but many members here have gone on record to passionately defend Obama's agenda for CHANGE, despite next to no information on these issues. It's waht EhMAcers are apparently satisfied with as well. On any issue where he could demonstrate his commitment to change Obama has voted with the Senate when he could offer a dissenting voice. 

This is not an effort on my part to convince people that McCain is any better. Its a fundamental question about the level of support a candidate can engender without having said anything about the important issues of the day.

What the hell is going one here?


----------



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

Macfury, I think it boils down to character and trust. I trust Obama far more than McCain. I have more faith in Obama and what he shall do for America. Thus, this is the underlying rationale for my passion for his becoming president. In my sincere and humble opinion, America shall be a better place for us all if he becomes president.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

So it's only on gut instinct that this support is offered?


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

"In my sincere and humble opinion, America shall be a better place for us all if he becomes president."

Yes, but what will it cost Americans for it to become that better place? Obama's promises are estimated to cost $4.3 trillion over the next ten years. 
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122...Obama Going to Raise $4.3 Trillion? - WSJ.com


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Macfury said:


> We haven't heard next to anything about illegal immigration, actual defense policy, the national debt, whether the war on drugs is justified, free trade with South America, attitude to Cuba, trade relations with China, NATO policy, crime policy, internet neutrality, spy bills, search and seizure, the future role of Homeland Security, whether there will be bail-outs for bankrupt automakers, state's rights, energy policy (other than "drill" or "not drill").


Actually, Obama has detailed position papers on many of these topics on his web site, available for perusal and download. I thought his plans for trade and energy policy in particular were strong and comprehensive. It should be noted that position papers don't and have never contained a huge amount of specifics (although Obama's energy policy is _exceptionally_ detailed, right down to a plan for controlling wildfires!), because Congress is in charge of that aspect. Position papers are and ever have been meant to lay out a candidate's vision of how it could and should be achieved.

McCain has some policy "statements" (much more vague) on his web site too, but confusingly there are contradictions between them and the Republican Party Platform which he has said he will stick by. Given his history of flip-flopping, it's hard to actually know (on some issues) where he really stands. On others, he's made it explicitly clear that he'll continue Bush policy.



> The entire election has been conducted in an informational and intellectual vacuum


I think you're being very unfair here. Obama has clearly TRIED to keep the discussion on actual issues -- albeit mostly the ones that dominate the headlines -- while McCain has tried everything short of setting his hair on fire to distract voters OFF the big issues.

But overall, I think you're starting from a flawed position -- name a previous campaign that was "all about issues" and didn't feature ridiculous amounts of pandering, hyperbole and generally debasing and humiliating gaffes and distractions in at least the last 40 years. Sometimes by accident, ofttimes by design, when you're are running against reality -- as both Dems and Reps have done in different elections -- you pull out the circus.



> Surely, Dr. G., even as an Obama supporter you can't be satisfied about the level at which your candidate has addressed these important issues.


Because said candidate has actually done a good job representing his positions on diverse topics on his web site, and because he has in fact (more so in the primaries than now) weighed in on many of the questions you raise, and because he has consistently attempted to focus on the foremost issues of the moment in his speeches, I have to say I *am* satisfied that he has at least convinced the electorate that he is a serious man with the critical thinking skills needed to address these big problems. Which, in my view, is what is needed.

McCain, at one time, would have made a good -- maybe even great -- president. But his surrender to the worst aspects of his base and his erratic personal behaviour -- not to mention his horribly mismanaged campaign -- have in my view shown that he no longer has the temperament or mental capacity for the job.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Macfury said:


> No disrespect to the EhMacers , but many members here have gone on record to passionately defend Obama's agenda for CHANGE, despite next to no information on these issues.


I again refer you to Obama's wealth of positions papers, available on his web site. Just because the election has, since the primaries, focused on only sideshows and a very few hot-button issues, doesn't mean nothing's been said about other topics.

I will cheerfully agree with you, however, that Obama's simple promise to NOT do things the way they've been done over the last eight years is enough for most voters. Americans, for whatever reason, like to think in stark black/white terms on difficult issues (the more difficult, the more stark). They are the one nation MOST convinced on this earth in the idea that there's a simple answer to _everything_.

So they DO tend to reduce complex issues into ridiculously oversimplified "sound bite" views, for example on the subject of the war in Iraq:

*Bush*: _Stay the course!_
*McCain*: _A hundred-year surge, my friends!_
*Obama*: _Out_!

See? Makes the choice easy, doesn't it? It hardly matters that none of the above is actually accurate. Bush has changed overall strategy at least four times, McCain doesn't really mean 100 years, he means permanent bases like we have in other Middle East countries, and Obama isn't really going to clap his hands and cause a Soldier Rapture on Jan. 20th.

Here's his actual plan if you're interested.



> On any issue where he could demonstrate his commitment to change Obama has voted with the Senate when he could offer a dissenting voice.


Obama has never stated that his idea of "change" means supporting positions nobody else in Congress holds. He is speaking both for himself and the entire Democratic party, and the meaning is perfectly clear: change from the direction the US is currently pursuing, on a wide variety of issues. You know, the *85%* of Americans who think the US is heading in the wrong direction? Change from that. You'll note that the question itself is simple: is the US heading in the right direction or wrong direction? Not about any specific topic, but generally. The dissatisfaction currently seen in that result is the highest ever recorded by a wide margin.

People do in fact want CHANGE (generally), and whoever embraces that idea best is going to win. So far, Obama (aided by his "newness" and his opposition party status) is going to resonate with that a lot more than a man who can't offer one specific way he'd diverge from Bush on the biggest issues of the day. The public understands that specifics will come later, and new arguments will emerge from that. The presidency is about setting a broad "tone" for the debate and a vision for going forward; it's Congress' job to actually execute the plan or come up with alternatives.

Quite naturally, as a Democrat, most of Obama's ideas for changing that direction reflect many of the things the Democrats would like to accomplish: broad themes like less money for the Iraq war, more money for US infrastructure, better environmental protection in trade agreements, equal pay for equal work, etc. So he (as a member of the opposition party) has been a "voice of dissent" from the status quo, and of course most famously his insightful dissent from the war in Iraq in the first place (eerily precient and forcefully defended in a 2002 speech that has been reconstructed here, and a 2004 Charlie Rose appearance here).

So I put it to you that at least on the biggest topic in US politics of the last eight years, Obama _was_ a "voice of dissent" from even most in his own party, and many of his positions (like his detailed energy ideas) represent a change from the traditional Democratic vagueness (their previous energy policy seemed to consist mostly of pandering to ethanol producers and being anti-nuke).

McCain could have been a "voice of dissent" over the last eight years; he once WAS such a person (and by this I do *not* just mean "voted with Democrats," I mean he bucked party policy or offered "third way" solutions). But particularly since 9/11, he has voted higher than 90% of the time with President Bush, even on policies the "old" McCain vigourously opposed (like authorising torture -- of all things for a POW to support!!).



> This is not an effort on my part to convince people that McCain is any better. Its a fundamental question about the level of support a candidate can engender without having said anything about the important issues of the day.
> 
> What the hell is going one here?


1. Obama has, in fact, made several speeches specifically tacking "big issues." The one that particularly won me over was his speech on race, which remains much more of a driving force in US politics than I think the largely-homogenous Canadian population fully appreciate. But I'd seen some of his earlier speeches, starting with his startling 2004 Democratic Convention speech after which I commented to my wife that I'd just seen the first black president. The above-referenced speech on Iraq from 2002 was another good example of him being right from the get-go.

2. It's not hard to actually look up Obama's position on nearly every issue under the sun, though (like McCain and other presidential candidates in the past) the level of specificity varies because the actual end result of these proposals isn't up to Obama:
Barack Obama and Joe Biden: The Change We Need | Policy Issues

3. John McCain does actually have some (rather more vague) position statements available for lookup as well:
JohnMcCain.com - McCain-Palin 2008

And I should add that I sincerely believe that if John McCain was running his own campaign, he would be happier making specific policy speeches or defending the Bush Doctrine. Sadly, for whatever reason, he's chosen not to go that route.

Bottom line: Like with an American voter, MacFury, it is up to YOU to make the effort to educate yourself on the candidates. The system Americans have set up to select their leaders is _designed_ to discourage depth, _punish_ any attempt at reasoned debate or nuanced views, and instead boil the candidates' complex life stories and positions into antagonistic sound bites, because quite frankly many Americans are unable to process large amounts of information and lack good critical-analysis skills. They don't want discussion, they want a mix of Wrestlemania and American Idol.

But that doesn't mean the detail isn't out there.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Voyager said:


> Yes, but what will it cost Americans for it to become that better place? Obama's promises are estimated to cost $4.3 trillion over the next ten years.
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122...Obama Going to Raise $4.3 Trillion? - WSJ.com


1. They're not promises. They are proposals.

2. Congress is in charge of the budget. How much of what Obama might get from what he wants is not under his direct control.

3. Each Obama proposal comes complete with an explanation of how to pay for it, as you'd see on his web site. The $4.3T figure is a right-wing fantasy originating in a Rupert Murdoch paper. Nuff said.

4. But even if it _were_ true, stopping the war in Iraq (versus continuing it) would "refund" just about all of that money; whereas McCain would spend that much on Iraq and Afghanistan alone, never mind his plans for a third front in Iran ...

5. So the question really becomes, how is MCCAIN going to raise $4.3T?


----------



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

Obama is pulling a Ronald Reagan. Sounds good to me.

Barack Obama and Joe Biden: The Change We Need | "Defining Moment" -- On the air...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Ken Adelman
> Posted October 24, 2008 | 10:45 PM (EST)
> 
> *Why a Staunch Conservative Like Me Endorsed Obama
> ...


Ken Adelman: Why a Staunch Conservative Like Me Endorsed Obama


----------



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

"Nonetheless, I concluded that McCain would not -- could not -- be a good president. Obama just might be." An interesting point within that article, MacDoc. This is what I tried to explain to Macfury in another post. 

I have never been so pumped about the possibility of voting for a presidential candidate who might just win since back in 1976 when I voted for Jimmy Carter and watched the election returns.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

How did you feel when Carter was done his four years?



Dr.G. said:


> "Nonetheless, I concluded that McCain would not -- could not -- be a good president. Obama just might be." An interesting point within that article, MacDoc. This is what I tried to explain to Macfury in another post.
> 
> I have never been so pumped about the possibility of voting for a presidential candidate who might just win since back in 1976 when I voted for Jimmy Carter and watched the election returns.


----------



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

I would have voted for Carter again in 1980 had I not been here in St.John's, NL. Carter was an honest man and faced a tough economic situation from the start. 

Carter told Americans that the energy crisis was "a clear and present danger to our nation" and drew out a plan to address it. In 1977, Carter had convinced the Democratic Congress to create the United States Department of Energy, which was, in my opinion, a forward thinking move.

I still recall watching the speech he gave in July, 1979, and wondering when the last time I watched a president be so honest with the American people.

"I want to talk to you right now about a fundamental threat to American democracy... I do not refer to the outward strength of America, a nation that is at peace tonight everywhere in the world, with unmatched economic power and military might. ... 

The threat is nearly invisible in ordinary ways. It is a crisis of confidence. It is a crisis that strikes at the very heart and soul and spirit of our national will. We can see this crisis in the growing doubt about the meaning of our own lives and in the loss of a unity of purpose for our nation. 

In a nation that was proud of hard work, strong families, close-knit communities, and our faith in God, too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption. Human identity is no longer defined by what one does, but by what one owns. But we've discovered that owning things and consuming things does not satisfy our longing for meaning. 

I'm asking you for your good and for your nation's security to take no unnecessary trips, to use carpools or public transportation whenever you can, to park your car one extra day per week, to obey the speed limit, and to set your thermostats to save fuel... 

I have seen the strength of America in the inexhaustible resources of our people. In the days to come, let us renew that strength in the struggle for an energy-secure nation."

I fear that the Iranian hostage crisis did Carter in during the election of 1980, along with Anderson's running as a third-party. Reagan got just over 50% of the popular vote. He also came up with the best line in the campaign -- "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?"

Still, Carter has done a great deal to help people all over the world, and I feel he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I believe most of the so-called Conservative endorsers of Obama are just glad-handers waiting for appointments and hand-outs. As a Conservative, McCain is lacking. Obama is not one at all.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

This is a complete shock. People who were apparently committed to er, one side jumping ship to what they perceive is the winning side for some sugar?

Never happens in Canada.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Oct. 25	
Obama 375 McCain 157 Ties 6
Senate Dem 59 GOP 41 
House Dem 252 GOP 182 Ties 1









Electoral-vote.com: President, Senate, House Updated Daily

Dr. G can you imagine - GEORGIA is in play for Obama!!!!!!


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

HowEver said:


> How did you feel when Carter was done his four years?


I was Georgia for most of Carter's term, and I remember him being beset by terrible external problems and not helped by some of the "friends" he brought with him from Georgia.

In some ways he reminds me of Dion; an honest guy, a true policy wonk, someone who is willing to tackle the big problems (maybe not come up with the best plan) and be honest about it.

See where THAT gets you in politics ...


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Macfury said:


> I believe most of the so-called Conservative endorsers of Obama are just glad-handers waiting for appointments and hand-outs.


Really? You think longtime conservatives like Eisenhower, Julie Nixon, the Goldwater family, Ken Adelman, and John McCain's own personal counsel Charles Fried, a man The New Republic calls "one of the most important conservative thinkers in the United States" are "so-called" conservatives? Really?

You're starting to sound as desperate as McCain himself, my friend ...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

chas_m said:


> Really? You think longtime conservatives like Eisenhower, Julie Nixon, the Goldwater family, Ken Adelman, and John McCain's own personal counsel Charles Fried, a man The New Republic calls "one of the most important conservative thinkers in the United States" are "so-called" conservatives? Really?.


Yes, I do. Not true conservative would vote for Obama except out of protest.


----------



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

"In some ways he reminds me of Dion; an honest guy, a true policy wonk, someone who is willing to tackle the big problems (maybe not come up with the best plan) and be honest about it." Chas m, I fully agree with this point.


----------



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

Macfury, would a "true conservative" not vote for Barr and the Libertarian Party? What exactly do you mean by the term "true conservative"?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Dr. G, I should think a true libertarian would have been able to explain himself better!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> Macfury, would a "true conservative" not vote for Barr and the Libertarian Party? What exactly do you mean by the term "true conservative"?


Dr. G: Obama is not a conservative either in the fiscal sense or in the social sense. Obama believes his duty is to place controls on various aspects of the economy and society in order to make them achieve his goals.

George Bush was neither a fiscal or social conservative, notwithstanding a small crumb to the anti-abortion crowd. But in all areas Obama is less conservative than Bush.

McCain is not a conservative either, although his campaign offers a few more conservative crumbs than does Obama's. His platform is, overall, more conservative than that of Bush's presidency.

I can believe that a conservative might exercise a vote for Obama out of protest, but to endorse him is to ask others to do the same--that's not a protest but a true desire for an anti-conservative victory. In any of the cases I've seen where so-called conservatives are endorsing Obama, they do so with no nod whatsoever to conservatism. They don't like Palin, or they think Wall Street is too greedy, or they're confused, or they think the Republicans are not the same party that they were during the Eisenhower era more than a half-century ago. No endorsement of Obama for any reason that can be defined as conservative.


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

It has to be bad when even the Russians think that the media is biased.


> Russia's Central Elections Committee has also assigned its Centre for the Study of Election Technology to review the U. S. election campaign.
> 
> A preliminary report prepared by the group, after studying U. S. media coverage on the NBC, CBS and ABC television networks since September, has concluded Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential candidate, has a "hidden advantage."
> 
> ...


Russian observers to monitor U. S. vote


The RNC spends $150 000 on clothes, reports it as required, but there are all sorts of comments, including that it is an illegal expense. It's reported in, among others, the LA Times, Washington Post, Vogue, and the New York Times. It's outrageous, yada, yada, yada. 

Obama spent $5 300 000 so he could have a nice backdrop for his acceptance speech. Evidently, not really a problem. A man's got to spend to project the right image, right?

Reports that the Democrats may be involved in financial fraud, possibly on a large scale, are on the internet but the main stream media seems to be looking the other way. Are the reports true? I don't know but I do know that the RNC has filed an amended complaint with the FEC requesting they look into it. If even partially true, it could be large scale and not just involving Obama's campaign.

If these reports involved the Republicans, would the news media be looking the other way or digging out "the truth"? I would like to think there are still real journalists out there in the main stream media in the tradition of Woodward and Bernstein but when the story regarding John Edwards' affair was originally broken by, I believe, the National Inquirer, I have my doubts. 



Power Line - ObamaFraud: Still Not News

Gateway Pundit: While Obama Commits Largest Campaign Donations Fraud In History... Media Focuses on Palin's Clothes

National Journal Makes Illegal Contributions To Campaigns, Obama Accepts McCain Doesn’t - Say Anything

Newsmax.com – RNC: Obama &#39Outside Law&#39 on Donors


----------



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

"Dr. G, I should think a true libertarian would have been able to explain himself better!" Max, I see Ron Paul as a true Libertarian, albeit in a Republican's garb, far moreso than Barr.


----------



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

"Dr. G: Obama is not a conservative either in the fiscal sense or in the social sense. Obama believes his duty is to place controls on various aspects of the economy and society in order to make them achieve his goals." Macrfury, I am glad that Obama is not a conservative. Right now, we need a president who will put into place certain controls on "various aspects of the economy" to help achieve a common goal of survival, growth, peace and prosperity. Now, more than ever, we need a person like Obama as president. We shall see.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> Right now, we need a president who will put into place certain controls on "various aspects of the economy" to help achieve a common goal of survival, growth, peace and prosperity. Now, more than ever, we need a person like Obama as president. We shall see.


I completely agree with you Dr.G. Hopefully even the most cynical and curmudgeonly among us can appreciate achieving this goal.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> Macrfury, I am glad that Obama is not a conservative. Right now, we need a president who will put into place certain controls on "various aspects of the economy" to help achieve a common goal of survival, growth, peace and prosperity. Now, more than ever, we need a person like Obama as president. We shall see.


Why would it surprise me that you're glad of that? However, I don't see that you've refuted my my contention that no conservative would endorse Obama on the basis of conservatism.

I personally believe that the U.S. requires nobody like either Obama or McCain. These are two sad sacks being paraded around by the major parties.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Voyager said:


> It has to be bad when even the Russians think that the media is biased.


Not following your logic there, but Russians have in fact been part of the international monitoring of the US elections since the fallout of the fixed 2000 election:

Albanian and Russian Observers Sent to Monitor American Elections (from 2002)


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Macfury said:


> I don't see that you've refuted my my contention that no conservative would endorse Obama on the basis of conservatism.


That's because I already refuted it:

Ken Adelman: voting for Obama
Goldwater family: voting for Obama
Julie Nixon: voting for Obama
Susan Eisenhower: voting for Obama
Charles Fried: voting for Obama (McCain's legal counsel and TNR's "most important conservative voice")
William Weld: voting for Obama
Ann Carleson: voting for Obama
and of course
Christopher (son of William F.) Buckley: voting for Obama

The list goes on, and expands, daily. These are long-time conservatives, most of whom have never voted for a Democrat in their entire lives (all of which stretch back at least 40 years).

The Chicago Tribune, in their first-ever Democratic endorsement, got it right (in my view) when they said "Obama would govern as much more of a pragmatic centrist than many people expect." They went on to write:



> We know first-hand that Obama seeks out and listens carefully and respectfully to people who disagree with him. He builds consensus. He was most effective in the Illinois legislature when he worked with Republicans on welfare, ethics and criminal justice reform.


Republicans are apparently incapable of knowing what an ideologue really is, and thus assume every candidate from the left is one. Obama simply isn't such a person, and even with a Dem majority Congress, he has already made decisions that anger genuine far-lefties and will continue to do so.

In point of fact, Obama is actually more "conservative" (small-c) than McCain, and these "true" conservatives are seeing some of that and hoping to encourage it.


----------



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

"I completely agree with you Dr.G. Hopefully even the most cynical and curmudgeonly among us can appreciate achieving this goal." Right on, mrj. Yes, "change we can believe in" once again. We shall see. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

chas_m said:


> Not following your logic there, but Russians have in fact been part of the international monitoring of the US elections since the fallout of the fixed 2000 election:
> 
> Albanian and Russian Observers Sent to Monitor American Elections (from 2002)


Did you read the story in the posted link? If not, the Centre for the Study of Election Technology feels American media is biased in Obama's favour. Which is ironic since the American media is always criticizing other countries when they feel their media is biased. Sort of returning the favour, so to speak. Or pointing out the hypocrisy involved.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

chas_m said:


> That's because I already refuted it:
> 
> Ken Adelman: voting for Obama
> Goldwater family: voting for Obama
> ...


You've refuted nothing. Just listed some former conservatives who have moved to the left--in some cases these are just the family members of conservatives.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Macfury said:


> You've refuted nothing. Just listed some former conservatives who have moved to the left--in some cases these are just the family members of conservatives.


Take your head back out of your -- er, the sand.

Most of these people have not "moved to the left." They have been and in most cases are Republicans. They vote for Republican candidates down-ticket, and if the McCain campaign hadn't lost its freakin' mind in August they might well be voting for McCain today.

They are not just "family members of conservatives." They are themselves conservatives. Ken Adelman, the architect of the Iraq war, has not gone all hippie on you. Nor has Charles Fried, McCain's freaking LEGAL COUNSEL. Nor Christopher Buckley, Bush speechwriter David Frum, Reagan & Bush speechwriter Peggy Noonan and all the others who have expressed their dismay and anger with how McCain has conducted himself and run his campaign into the ground. They WANT to vote for him, but as principled conservatives, they CANNOT, and they (patriotically) don't consider "staying home and not voting" an option, though I suspect hundreds of thousands of Republicans will do exactly that this year.

You might want to read up some of these true conservative voices before you dismiss and attack them. The fact that you have clearly never heard of most of them tells me you're not much of a "real" conservative yourself.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

chas_m said:


> They are not just "family members of conservatives." They are themselves conservatives. Ken Adelman, the architect of the Iraq war, has not gone all hippie on you. Nor has Charles Fried, McCain's freaking LEGAL COUNSEL. Nor Christopher Buckley, Bush speechwriter David Frum, Reagan & Bush speechwriter Peggy Noonan and all the others who have expressed their dismay and anger with how McCain has conducted himself and run his campaign into the ground. They WANT to vote for him, but as principled conservatives, they CANNOT, and they (patriotically) don't consider "staying home and not voting" an option, though I suspect hundreds of thousands of Republicans will do exactly that this year.


Yes, you've listed them three times. Those who endorse Obama on the grounds of conservatism have moved to the left.



chas_m said:


> The fact that you have clearly never heard of most of them tells me you're not much of a "real" conservative yourself.


I know all of them, that's why I'm begging you not to list them again. It's understandable that you haven't read many of my post--so I'll make it clear for you. I am NOT a conservative, I'm a libertarian. The current state of conservatism runs closer to libertarianism than does Obama's Marxist-lite.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Macfury said:


> YI am NOT a conservative, I'm a libertarian.


You're a libertarian sell-out is what you are.

Where are your voluminous posts on Dr. Paul or Bob Barr, the bona-fide Libertarians in the race? *crickets chirp*

You're in the tank for McCain, the least Libertarian Republican candidate we've had since Nixon. At least Bush (when he was a candidate in 2000) paid *lip service* to libertarian ideas, nicely summarised in this vintage Daily Show clip contrasting the views of *candidate* Bush to *President* Bush:

http://www.lisarein.com/videos/tvclips/dailyapril2003/4-28-03-bushvbush-sm.mov

Ah, memories (that was 2003 when they did that!). It's both hilarious and weepingly sad all at the same time.

If people who claim to be Libertarian would actually stand up and defend the Libertarian platform instead of being bribed by the low-taxes nonsense, people like Dr. Paul and Mr. Barr might have gotten the substantive vote percentage Libertarians need to be taken seriously, instead of the 1% "lunatic fringe party" amount they're going to get.

You're making the claim to be Libertarian, but a quick search shows -- surprise! -- no support of Ron Paul *or* Bob Barr in the Everything Else forum or sub-forums over the course of the past year (apart from one post where you took a test and found yourself "closest" to Paul in ideology). I even did a search on the use of the term "Libertarian" by you and except for you proclaiming yourself (and Sarah "Alaska should secede from the US" Palin as such, again I find -- surprise! -- no mention of it.

Are all Libertarians so "fair-weather"?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

chas_m said:


> You're making the claim to be Libertarian, but a quick search shows -- surprise! -- no support of Ron Paul *or* Bob Barr in the Everything Else forum or sub-forums over the course of the past year....


It's pretty sad that you even attempted that search, but I'll help you out:

http://www.ehmac.ca/s-time-again-eh.../62946-obama-guy-real-deal-31.html#post683746



> 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.


----------



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

"... if I were American I'd be committed to Bob Barr this election. " Macfury, just say that Bob Barr, Ron Paul and Ross Perot were in a primary in your state. Just out of curiosity, for whom would you cast your vote? I know who I would vote for among the three of them, and I am just curious who you would vote for. The party is the Independent Libertarian party.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr. G: Between the three, I would choose Ron Paul. Paul seems consistently on message and appears to understand how to work with people while promoting his political philosophy. I also agree with him that abortion ought to be regulated at the state level, not the federal. He is the most thoroughly libertarian of the three.

Barr is shaky on some issues, such as supporting the War on Drugs, use of medical marijuana, and initial support of the Patriot Act. Still, I find his current platform the best of the four presidential candidates.

I was initially interested in Perot but I consider his campaign a "stunt candidacy." You can only tell people that you will assign a Blue Ribbon Panel to look at various issues so many times before it's apparent that you have no ideas. His lack of support for Free Trade was also offensive to me.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

I did miss your ONE lukewarm mention of Mr Barr, you're right. But it doesn't diminish my point in the slightest.

You've NOT been an advocate for libertarianism or Mr Barr in this forum, you have instead been a surrogate for McCain/Harper right the way through. Neither of them are the least bit Libertarian, indeed I think I could make a case that Obama is closer to a Libertarian than McCain is. As for Palin, she's not libertarian -- she can't even spell it! She'd have to read the Constitution to find out if she thinks Libertarianism would fit her, which from more recent interviews she still hasn't done (well, not past the Second Amendment anyway ...). Her present idea of liberty is the freedom to kill moose.

Side question: is there even a Libertarian Party in Canada? Or are you it?


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

chas_m said:


> ...you have instead been a surrogate for McCain/Harper right the way through. Neither of them are the least bit Libertarian...


McCain and Harper have very different politics. McCain is nothing more than a dude that is pandering for the golf and country club vote, and was only a maverick when it came to rejecting the more foolish policies of the Bush Administration. However, his maverick attitudes went only so deep, and he supported such carperbaggers as Karl Rove by not supporting the impeachment of Bush.

Harper, on the other hand, is a candy a$$ed bleeding heart liberal that does not plan on accomplishing any of the planks in his platform. He is no different from Mackenzie King, who pandered to whatever poll was floating around at any given time. He is no Conservative, does not support the reforms that this nation needs: he is soft on crime, is all talk about reforming the Senate, and has already voted in favour of making Quebec a de jour apartheid state. McCain could never be that soft, nor could Obama, or any of the Libertarian candidates in the US.



> Side question: is there even a Libertarian Party in Canada?


Yes, they ran in the last Election in 26 ridings, where they picked up 0.0053% of the popular vote. Whe needs Libertarians when we have so many in Parliament now that are in a rush to sell out society for some cheap votes?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

chas_m said:


> I did miss your ONE lukewarm mention of Mr Barr, you're right. But it doesn't diminish my point in the slightest.


It doesn't diminish your point, it *demolishes* it.

The discussions here are all about McCain/Obama. Nobody wants me to go on ad infinitum about the American Libertarian Party, although I am happy to put forth my thoughts regarding U.S. libertarians when asked my opinion, as per Dr. G's question. 

Your weak jokes do not serve to rescue you here.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

This looks to be one horror story.....if it's happpening NOW - what is going to occur on Nov 4th  



> *WIDESPREAD TOUCH SCREEN VOTE FLIPPING!!*
> by FreeSociety
> Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 08:29:12 AM PDT
> 
> ...


read the rest and video here
Daily Kos: State of the Nation

unreal - 

YouTube - Vote-Rigging Software


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

What use is a democracy if the voting mechanism which enables it is by turns ill-designed, outdated, undependable and/or remarkably susceptible to rigging?

It does not augur well for the election.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

What good is an election if you can register the dead as voters? This sort of thing could have been cleaned up between 2004 and 2008, but both parties believe they can gain the upper hand with the current system--so nothing is done.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I don't disagree with you. It's a travesty of democracy. Taints the whole process... makes it a jaded exercise in cynicism.


----------



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

Comedian Becomes Serious Contender - washingtonpost.com

And, from Mankato, Minnesota --

"The political climate this year is such that Franken -- best known for starring in an "SNL" skit in which his character stares into a mirror and attempts to reassure himself that, doggone it, people like him -- has pulled ahead in his Senate race against Republican Sen. Norm Coleman.

Just weeks ago, Coleman appeared to be headed for victory, one of a handful of Republicans expected to win in a tough year for the GOP. But then a bad economy turned grim, the public's faith in Congress cratered, and support for Franken started to grow. The latest poll, a University of Wisconsin survey that came out Thursday, showed Franken ahead of Coleman 40 percent to 34 percent, his biggest lead of the race. Independent Dean Barkley was favored by 15 percent of those surveyed. "


----------



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

This is one way to make sure that Obama does not win Georgia.  The amazing thing is that I am still able to vote in Georgia, although I left the state in June, 1977. As well, my son can vote in Georgia, never having lived there in his life.

ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- "College senior Kyla Berry was looking forward to voting in her first presidential election, even carrying her voter registration card in her wallet.

But about two weeks ago, Berry got disturbing news from local election officials.

"This office has received notification from the state of Georgia indicating that you are not a citizen of the United States and therefore, not eligible to vote," a letter from the Fulton County Department of Registration and Elections said.

But Berry is a U.S. citizen, born in Boston, Massachusetts. She has a passport and a birth certificate to prove it. 

The letter, which was dated October 2, gave her a week from the time it was dated to prove her citizenship. There was a problem, though -- the letter was postmarked October 9.

Berry is one of more than 50,000 registered Georgia voters who have been "flagged" because of a computer mismatch in their personal identification information. At least 4,500 of those people are having their citizenship questioned and the burden is on them to prove eligibility to vote."


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> What good is an election if you can register the dead as voters? This sort of thing could have been cleaned up between 2004 and 2008, but both parties believe they can gain the upper hand with the current system--so nothing is done.


The whole US voting system is ridiculous and makes a lie of any propaganda about being the "world's greatest democracy".

There are several problems with voter registrations, although there is much being made of the ACORN issue, which I'm sure MF is referring to, that simply isn't true. Of more concern is the fact that any third party can be involved in any part of the administration of elections and that the election in each state is in the hands of partisan Secretaries of States. A bigger concern around registrations is the voter caging that goes on where huge amounts of valid registrations are simply thrown out by partisan officials for specious reasons. This happened in Florida and Ohio in the last few elections.

But the main problem with voting in the US, with a far greater potential to change votes on a massive scale compared to the more traditional but labour-intensive methods, is around electronic voting with no paper trail. Roughly a third of the vote in the US will be cast on touch-screen machines. There is no way to verify if these votes were cast correctly and there is no way to oversee the counting. The fact that these machines are involved in the process makes it impossible to know if the results are valid and the fact that it is child's play for someone with a little bit of programming skill to undetectably hack these machines means that the results are open to question.

The interesting part in one of the linked videos was at the point where the speaker demonstrates a program changing a vote silently and undetectably. I've linked to the spot in the YouTube video here. (You can now link directly to a particular minute and second spot in a YouTube video by appending it to end of the URL - cool.)

Strangely though, reported "problems" and "glitches" have so far almost completely favoured the Republicans in states where GOP officials control the voting process. I think that the only way Democrats can win is for there to be such a massive landslide that no potential hacking could be effective.

We'll see what happens on November 4th. I predict it will be messy and I predict that there will be no way to conclusively prove any claims or answer any charges in part because 30% of the vote is totally unverifiable. It's incomprehensible that Americans could allow this situation to continue.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Max said:


> What use is a democracy if the voting mechanism which enables it is by turns ill-designed, outdated, undependable and/or remarkably susceptible to rigging?
> 
> It does not augur well for the election.


And what is sad is that they had better results over a hundred years ago with the old Hollerith Tabulators (the company that evolved into IBM). The Election has developed into a hodgepodge of methods, without consistency. Add to that the lack of any real enumeration. Voter Registration is a joke, and is opened to all kinds of threats and violence. No real effort is put into ensuring that everyone has a vote.

Canada never resorted to the fancy systems that are failures in the US. Nothing is wrong with simple paper ballots, where you check one name. Of course, the US is more complex, since one votes for a slate of local, state and federal elections all at the same time. But going hi-tech has been a failure. And one really has to question that, since really, people use ATMs and banks all the time without systemic problems, but the Americans with all of their Silicon Valley and MIT style folk can't translate it into a decent system for voting.

Diebold machines are utter junk, unverifiable and entirely open to hacking. What America needs is a real solution, not having some penny-ante corporate peddle junk that is unusable. Again, they did it over 100 years ago, why can't they do it now?


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

YouTube - John Cleese (part 2): Obama, Biden & Fox News


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Time Magazine has a decent general summing up of the various types of problems that have occurred in recent elections and a preview of what can (and likely will) be a problem on November 4th.

Introduction - 7 Things That Could Go Wrong on Election Day - TIME


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> There are several problems with voter registrations, although there is much being made of the ACORN issue, which I'm sure MF is referring to, that simply isn't true.


Ah, so all allegations against Republicans are true while those against Obama and ACORN are false. Thanks for clearing that up, Senator 'Sauce.:lmao:


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Ah, so all allegations against Republicans are true while those against Obama and ACORN are false. Thanks for clearing that up, Senator 'Sauce.:lmao:


Didn't say that MF, but thanks for your attempts at misrepresentation. Your lmao emoticon is quite entertaining as well although quite unusual for you. Are you feeling OK? Maybe you need a nap or something?

You do know that the ACORN allegations are based on pointing to false registrations that ACORN flagged themselves for the most part, right? And you do know that the chances of any of these false registrations becoming false votes are virtually nil, unless Mickey Mouse actually shows up at a poll and identifies himself, don't you? These were frauds against ACORN by unscrupulous part-time workers being paid piece work. They reported these as required by law.

And you do know that a Republican-paid registration company owner was actually arrested and charged with voter registration fraud just a few days ago don't you? Maybe you haven't heard of that with all the insane amount of noise in the media about ACORN. This GOP operative wasn't reporting his bad results at all, unlike ACORN.

You really should quit listening to Rush Limbaugh, he's polluting your brain. :lmao:


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Pretty much sums up where we are at now. :lmao:


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)




----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

alaska senator feels the heat!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/28/washington/28stevens.html?hp


----------



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

MacDoc, laugh if you will, but when McCain and Bush bring out Osama Bin Laden in chains on Sunday, Nov.2nd., that will swing the election to McCain. Wait and see ..............................


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> And you do know that a Republican-paid registration company owner was actually arrested and charged with voter registration fraud just a few days ago don't you? Maybe you haven't heard of that with all the insane amount of noise in the media about ACORN. This GOP operative wasn't reporting his bad results at all, unlike ACORN.


So as you were saying, these Republican tales are true, but the ones fingering Democrats aren't. The reason I used the emoticon? I don't often laugh my as off, but this time I really did.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

MF: You seem to have a serious reading comprehension problem. Sauce didn't say the ACORN story was untrue, he said that connecting it to Obama or the DNC is inaccurate.

OTOH, the race-baiting girl and the RNC voter registration fraud stories seem to be accurately reported, ie that neither story links those crimes directly to McCain.

Hopefully I've phrased this simply enough that you can follow that.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Two things. If MF "really" laughed his posterior off, _oh my._ What a tragic fluke of a tale. Not to mention what a perfectly horrid, decidedly pungent mess that must be.

Secondly, we should hope that he makes a full recovery and asses up again, but quick! Otherwise he will be made the butt of many a joke.

We now return to our regularly scheduled slinging of that other brown stuff.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> Two things. If MF "really" laughed his posterior off, _oh my._ What a tragic fluke of a tale. Not to mention what a perfectly horrid, decidedly pungent mess that must be.
> 
> Secondly, we should hope that he makes a full recovery and asses up again, but quick!


It;s easily put back on--just a twist of the golden screw in the belly button and it's restored.

Though if I hear any more about the innocence of the DNC and its palsy relationship to Acorn I may have a relapse.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> So as you were saying, these Republican tales are true, but the ones fingering Democrats aren't. The reason I used the emoticon? I don't often laugh my as off, but this time I really did.


You know MF, I imagine that unlike many of your conservative brothers and sisters you are committed to reason, but sometimes I wonder. I didn't comment on every possible story or say anything like you're asserting, so I'm not sure what you were laughing your ass off about.

Maybe it's just those on the right are losing it as they watch the GOP shrink down to their crazed extremist base. Unless Mr. McCain can manage a win you're looking at a radical down-sizing of that party and a scenario where only those who literally believe the poison spread on right-wing talk radio will find a home. Look at freerepublic.com to see the hard nub of crazy people who will become the GOP's last constituency. A group to whom the newly rogue Sara Palin is the latest heroine. This is a group that is pretty hostile to most libertarian ideas.

I find it strange that even though you say you have so little in common with both Obama and McCain you continue at every opportunity to stand up for the extremist and twisted talking points offered up by the GOP campaign.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Though if I hear any more about the innocence of the DNC and its palsy relationship to Acorn I may have a relapse.


You mean, THIS Acorn?

Sen. McCain Stood With ACORN Rally In 2006 - Marc Ambinder


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *The Republican shipwreck
> 
> The mighty right-wing Titanic is sinking, and McCain is desperately blaming Bush. But the problem isn't the captain -- it's the ship.*
> 
> ...


good read........The Republican shipwreck | Salon


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

*In The News*

Financial Times (that left-wing hippie rag of ... oh wait it's one of the most respected business papers in the world) endorses Obama

Palin's pal Stevens guilty on all counts, could serve time in prison

And the meltdown between McCain and Palin grows more public.

Just a week to go before America gets its first black president. Can't wait.

You have to admire a man who's so determined to be not _just_ the first minority president, but also the first muslim, the first socialist, the first terrorist, and first America-hating president. Talk about a multi-tasker. Can America handle this many firsts?

Finally, you have to wonder why the _troops_ hate America: they give _six times_ more money to Obama than McCain!

You know, at this rate, the country with the most America-haters is going to be ... America! :lmao:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

chas_m said:


> You mean, THIS Acorn?
> 
> Sen. McCain Stood With ACORN Rally In 2006 - Marc Ambinder


Yes, the same ACORN that McCain thought had done a good job in finding homes for people is the organization involved in the current voter registration fraud.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Yes, the same ACORN that McCain thought had done a good job in finding homes for people is the organization involved in the current voter regustration fraud.


It just goes to show that some organizations can be multi-tasking, doing a good job hooking people up with affordable housing as well as doing a good job registering the deceased for the vote.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Perhaps Obama should shut down the fundraising at this point. How much does he need in order to coast to victory?


----------



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

MacDoc, the same thing was said of the liberal Democratic wing after the 1972 election. I would not count out the conservative movement in the US. However, as I told my wife, I can foresee a split in the Republican party with fiscal conservatives concerned more about the economy on one side, and religious conservatives on the other side. I think that the religious right will bring forth a new party, with the likes of Sarah Palin and Dobson running in 2012. We shall see.


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

HowEver said:


> Perhaps Obama should shut down the fundraising at this point. How much does he need in order to coast to victory?


I don't think Obama ever feels he has enough. 

Bigger questions than the amount he has raised are those advanced regarding his fund raising methods and the origins of the donations. Has his campaign really disabled safeguards that prevent fraudulent donations as some have charged ? Has he also allowed non U.S. citizens to donate, using the less than $200 loophole, in violation of the election laws? If he has raised all that money using perfectly legal means, more power to him. If not, then questions need to be raised in the main stream media before the election.


----------



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

"Has he also allowed non U.S. citizens to donate, using the less than $200 loophole, in violation of the election laws? " No. My wife sent in a contribution as did I. I am allowed, as a US citizen. She was not and they contacted her by phone to verify this, and then thanked her, but returned her money.


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> "Has he also allowed non U.S. citizens to donate, using the less than $200 loophole, in violation of the election laws? " No. My wife sent in a contribution as did I. I am allowed, as a US citizen. She was not and they contacted her by phone to verify this, and then thanked her, but returned her money.


Can I presume a credit card was used?


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Voyager said:


> Can I presume a credit card was used?


That sounds phishy...


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

HowEver said:


> That sounds phishy...


The reason I asked was Dr. G. said they had "sent in" their contributions. To me, being old fashioned, that suggests a cheque(check). The questions being raised are in relation to the use of credit cards, not cheques. 

Edit:
Specifically online credit card donations , where it is all automated.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Yes, the same ACORN that McCain thought had done a good job in finding homes for people is the organization involved in the current voter registration fraud.


MF, can you explain how the fraud that ACORN hires perpetrated will actually change or affect in any way the election?

I'm not arguing that what they did was illegal (and the natural result of paying people a bounty to collect "names"), but it's not clear to me how signing up "mickey mouse" is an election threat.

On the other hand, the less-reported (by the "liberal" media) election fraud being perpetrated by the RNC contractors -- "slamming" people by registering them as Republicans -- does affect the (next) election, since those people will be barred from voting in the next round of Democratic primaries (since most are unaware that they were slammed and won't discover it till they try to vote).

It seems to me that this is much worse than "registering" Mickey Mouse, since MM isn't going to show up to vote anyway.


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/29/us/politics/29stevens.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin


McCain Says Alaska Senator Should Resign


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

chas_m said:


> MF, can you explain how the fraud that ACORN hires perpetrated will actually change or affect in any way the election?
> 
> I'm not arguing that what they did was illegal (and the natural result of paying people a bounty to collect "names"), but it's not clear to me how signing up "mickey mouse" is an election threat.
> 
> ...


It's not the Mickey Mouse , Donald Duck, or Pluto registrations that are the problem. It's the real names with phony addresses. It's underaged children being registered. It' s people being registered at homeless shelters who may not be be legally able to vote in that district. It's things like the Secretary of State in Ohio who refuses to provide election boards with the lists of voter information (containing over 200 000 names ) that didn't match state databases of drivers' license information or social security databases so they can be checked for fraud. 

Convicted felons, I believe, can't vote but many are registered anyway. They are going to be able to vote this year because the system can't check all of the thousands out in time. Estimates are that there are 30 000 in Florida alone but they don't have the manpower or the time to weed them out before the election

Fraudulent registration can, and is in some places, overwhelm the system and allow the potential for voting fraud to happen. After all, registering is the first step in being able to vote, isn't it. Is ACORN solely responsible for all of this? No. But it shouldn't be minimized either.


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

gastonbuffet said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/29/us/politics/29stevens.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
> 
> 
> McCain Says Alaska Senator Should Resign


Unfortunately, McCain doesn't have the final say. The voters do. I hope they heed his advice.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)




----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

Voyager said:


> Convicted felons, I believe, can't vote but many are registered anyway. They are going to be able to vote this year because the system can't check all of the thousands out in time. Estimates are that there are 30 000 in Florida alone but they don't have the manpower or the time to weed them out before the election.


Offenders _can _vote, but the laws differ among the states. Further info available here.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Obama 8 years on...


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

McCain 8 years on ...


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Scintillating level of debate here! Can we get some crayon scrawls next?

I'll be glad when this circus of an election is over.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Voyager said:


> It's not the Mickey Mouse , Donald Duck, or Pluto registrations that are the problem. It's the real names with phony addresses. It's underaged children being registered. It' s people being registered at homeless shelters who may not be be legally able to vote in that district.


I haven't seen any evidence of this happening, but it would not surprise me. Still, inasmuch as most of these cases would be allowed to vote, I ask again: *how does this effect the actual election?*



> It's things like the Secretary of State in Ohio who refuses to provide election boards with the lists of voter information (containing over 200 000 names ) that didn't match state databases of drivers' license information or social security databases so they can be checked for fraud.


That's because that's the *Secretary of State's job* to do that, (check for fraud) not partisan operatives of either party, not to mention the obvious privacy and confidentiality issues. Republicans had access to these lists in the last federal election and used this information to rig the polls and suppress minority votes in Ohio and elsewhere.



> Convicted felons, I believe, can't vote but many are registered anyway.


This varies from state to state, actually. And no, most felons aren't registered. Registration in the United States involves presenting yourself and your identification to authorities, something most sensible felons are loathe to do.



> They are going to be able to vote this year because the system can't check all of the thousands out in time. Estimates are that there are 30 000 in Florida alone but they don't have the manpower or the time to weed them out before the election.


They had the whole of the last four years to "weed them out," and indeed they did exactly the _opposite_ in 2000 -- Katherine Harris _illegally_ barred many people who _were_ eligible because she hired a Republican-operative firm to "clean" the lists of minority voters, who tend of course to vote Democrat.

Bottom line: you have no idea what you're talking about. After the fiasco of 2000, several new steps was put in place across the country to guard against fraud. Among them "a provisional ballot." Anyone who votes who has ANY question of the validity of their registration (address difference, no proper identification, etc) is given a provisional ballot. If they are later found to not be properly registered, their vote is nullified.

In addition, parties are free to challenge votes in contested elections based on address differences and other technicalities. The Republicans this year are planning on obtaining lists of foreclosed homes in order to make sure that voters are not allowed to list them as their "current address" when they attempt to vote. You stay classy, Republicans.

In point of fact, actual cases of voter fraud (apart from "electronic ballot rigging") of the method you describe is incredibly rare. So rare, in fact, that when Republican operatives started leaning on United States district attorneys to become aggressive in finding and prosecuting such cases, they were unable to meet their "quotas" or did not consider it a relevant priority comparative to other crimes and were subsequently purged (illegally) by the Bush administration.

The US Election Assistance Commission (created after the 2000 fiasco) examined all available evidence on actual voter fraud in the US, and determined that the reality did not match the hype: actual, genuine voter fraud is almost non-existent in the US, and what little they found was primarily limited to local elections.

Apart from "Diebold" type electronic voting (which always favours Republicans), there is no legitimate reason to assume voter fraud, and the considerably strengthened ID requirements and "provisional ballot" concept mean that actual voter fraud is highly unlikely in this election as well. Finally, a reminder: the last two national elections (2004 and 2006) had international monitoring to help ensure compliance with the law, and apart from a dispute in Ohio that has not yet been satisfactorily resolved, both elections passed muster for fairness and legality.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

macdoc, gratuitous:

I don't know if you planned that, but that was the funniest one-two punch outside the "Visually Humourous Piece of the Day" thread I've seen here. Bravo.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Max said:


> Scintillating level of debate here! Can we get some crayon scrawls next?
> 
> I'll be glad when this circus of an election is over.












Howzat?!

I didn't think McCain was being challenged enough on his previous connections to brain-eating zombies. It's an important issue that needs to be addressed. Obama's working on some robo-calls in swing states.

Oh damn, I was just laughing and my ass fell off again.

chas_m: wasn't planned, I just thought the pic somehow fit.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Speaking of "this circus of an election", McCain brought Joe The Fake Plumber out on the campaign trail today. Joe (or Sam or whatever his name is) is now the new McCain foreign policy expert and ominously predicted that an Obama win would lead to the death of Israel.

So this guy, who isn't even registered to vote, wants to buy a quarter-million dollar plumbing business but has no money, but thinks Obama's tax on the rich will harm his aspirations, is now advising the world on foreign policy thanks to McCain? Some circus alright. More like a freak show.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Biden's TV interviews of late have been freak shows as well--that is one bitter guy.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

GA... thanks... I like how the chimney belches stars. My complements to the artist.

Circus... freak show... aint we splitting hairs? In this very visual age we live in, seems the public appetite for freak shows is insatiable. Right now, Plumber Joe is basking in his 15 seconds of fame... enjoy it, plumber dewd!

I may be sick of this election but it's going to be like watching a train wreck on the night it all goes down. I've a feeling this is going to be high weirdness.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Panic in the Repub ranks....I notice how they now bring up Pelosi.. the FIRST thing Obama should do is bounce her to the back benches.....permanently......

What a train wreck of a Congress......



> October 28, 2008
> *McCain Support Continues Downward Spiral*
> Obama Leads by 19 Among Those Who Have Already Voted
> 
> ...


 Overview: McCain Support Continues Downward Spiral




> *McCain adviser: Palin is ‘a whack job.’»*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Two camps, indeed. Geez, they're almost sounding like those furshlugginer Canadian Liberals... all for none and none for all!


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Biden's TV interviews of late have been freak shows as well--that is one bitter guy.


You'd be bitter too if someone brought in a circus clown and told you they think the clown can do your job better than you can.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Most recent example of the extreme bitterness of Biden I could find, from Ellen a week ago:

YouTube - Joe Biden Interview On Ellen Show 10/20/2008- Part 2 (HD)

Watch it yourselves, you'll see MacFury is his usual accurate self.

:lmao:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

chas_m said:


> Most recent example of the extreme bitterness of Biden I could find, from Ellen a week ago:
> 
> :lmao:


No, I was referring to this much more recent interview, not the softball promo appearance:

YouTube - Best. Interview. Evah! Barbara West vs. Joe Biden


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

I had a feeling you were referring to that one. It's gained a lot of notoriety, and not without reason -- Ms. West was specifically chosen for that ridiculous hatchet job ("isn't 'spreading the wealth' Marxism?") because her husband is a GOP operative and campaign consultant. Normally she's the health reporter (one step above intern).

I watched that interview (remember, that's the town I lived in a year ago), and her earlier "softball bordering on blowjob" interview with Sen. McCain. Back to back, it's the most obvious example of conservative bias seen this side of Faux Noise.

Reaction in Orlando was strong -- and overwhelmingly negative (and Orlando is broadly speaking a pretty solidly Republican town). She's gotten away with her GOP agenda pushing before -- you might be able to dig up a scandalous report she did on Canada's health system back when Billary were trying to get universal health care going in the US -- but she appears to have stepped in it this time. I wouldn't expect to see her make the national news again anytime soon, she'll likely be "retiring" next year.

PS. I think you're mistaking "bitterness" for "incredulity." You really should learn the difference, it will help you understand why so few people here ever agree with you.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)




----------



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

Maybe it is not too late for Bush to make amends ........................... No, I did not think so either.


----------



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

Just about time to watch Obama's "closing arguement" speech on TV. May it be inspirational. We shall see.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I have no doubt you will be inspired, Dr. G.


----------



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

"I have no doubt you will be inspired, Dr. G." I truly and sincerly was, Macfury. Makes me proud to still be an American who cast a vote for Obama. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Obama's 30 minute national infomercial is on YouTube.

YouTube - American Stories, American Solutions


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

American Stories, Socialist Solutions!


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

Taking the information about the voting process from the "Ask an American" thread, I am really afraid that the American electoral system will be manipulated as it was in 2004 and Obama will be defeated.

I hope I am wrong.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I am insanely jealous that Canada does not have a leader the calibre of Obama.....

Brilliant way to make his case with a 1/2 hour prime time media essay

YouTube - American Stories, American Solutions

and the segue to a live event gave it immediacy. :clap:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

gmark2000 said:


> Taking the information about the voting process from the "Ask an American" thread, I am really afraid that the American electoral system will be manipulated as it was in 2004 and Obama will be defeated


Gosh! Well, que sera sera.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> I am insanely jealous that Canada does not have a leader the calibre of Obama.....
> :


MacDoc that was pure lowbrow pap aimed at fans of American Idol.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Macfury said:


> MacDoc that was pure lowbrow pap aimed at fans of American Idol.


Who, it should be noted, vote in higher numbers than the "electorate."

If Obama can get "fans of American Idol" out to the polls, it will be landslide time.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Gosh! Well, que sera sera.


So you're okay with voter fraud if it benefits YOUR pimp.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Macfury said:


> American Stories, Socialist Solutions!


To quote Jon Stewart, talking to Obama:

"So if you win, is that a mandate for socialism in the US?" 

Why _do_ Americans seem to hate America??


----------



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

"Why do Americans seem to hate America??" I am an American and I don't hate America. It's not "America, right or wrong." Rather, it's America, when it's right, work hard to keep in right, and when it's wrong, work even harder to put it back on the correct path where all enjoy the blessings of liberty.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I think American's and the rest of the world hate the very military/industrial complex Eisenhower warned about....as most evidenced by the Bush regime.

•••


Truly scary....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

chas_m said:


> To quote Jon Stewart, talking to Obama:
> 
> "So if you win, is that a mandate for socialism in the US?"


Yes it would be. Though as you well know, most Americans probably don't really know what socialism is any longer. 



> So you're okay with voter fraud if it benefits YOUR pimp.


See: EhMacers reactions to voter fraud by Acorn to understand this response.


----------



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

gmark, I strongly hope you are wrong, but it is the "wild card" in this election. With so many problems with computerize voting, anything can happen.


----------



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

"I am insanely jealous that Canada does not have a leader the calibre of Obama.....

Brilliant way to make his case with a 1/2 hour prime time media essay." 

I strongly agree, MacDoc. I had tears in my eyes at certain times in the broadcast.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> I strongly agree, MacDoc. I had tears in my eyes at certain times in the broadcast.


So did McCain.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I find these reactions amazing. I'm not being critical of someone's genuine reaction, but I can't imagine anyone saying anything that would move me to tears, let alone this poseur.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

The stoic stone face of your avatar says it all, really.


----------



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

Mafury, this is how we are different. Had you grown up in America during the 50's you might have felt this way as well. Still, reactions to politicians are different. I knew someone who firmly supported Goldwater with his heart and soul. He cried when AuH2O lost in '64.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Max said:


> The stoic stone face of your avatar says it all, really.


Are you kidding? Peter Fonda would cry at the drop of a hat. He was known to burst into tears if someone rolled a joint incorrectly. "Crybaby" Fonda they called him.

Stoic? I don't think so...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I suppose if being "governed" is important to someone's personal growth they might become emotional over political messages.


----------



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

"I suppose if being "governed" is important to someone's personal growth they might become emotional over political messages." Macfury, in my lifetime, I have been governed over, dictated over, threatened, lied to, honored and inspired. This was one of the inspirational moments. I love America, and don't like to see what it has become at the hands of power-hungry and greedy people. I see in Obama a new beginning once again.

I love Canada, but I see "more of the same" for the next few years.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

A pic for GOP fans. beejacon


----------



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

GA, this may be a bit premature. The election is getting closer if you believe the latest polls. We shall see.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Yes it would be. Though as you well know, most Americans probably don't really know what socialism is any longer.
> 
> See: EhMacers reactions to voter fraud by Acorn to understand this response.


I expect better of you MF. Now that you've embraced the same fear-mongering and distorted language of the McCain campaign, should we expect you to embrace their reliance of social conservative and Christian fundamentalist fear-mongering too?

Your use, like the McCain campaign's use, of "socialist" to define Obama stretches the word beyond any meaning. At the most he is a social democrat, on a Canadian scale he would be about as far left as your average Liberal party member. A socialist desires that the state or collective owns and controls the means of production and distribution of goods. This is not close to what either Obama or any Democratic politician is proposing. It is simply a distortion to call Obama a socialist and of course when asked directly yesterday on Larry King if Obama was a socialist McCain had to back down and deny that. Because of course to continue to insist on that directly would make him look like an uneducated idiot. But he continues on with it the second he is off the show.

Obama's tax plan is actually pretty much what McCain agreed with when in Dubya's first term he was against his massive tax cuts to the very wealthy. Of course now he's changed his mind and decided that those temporary tax cuts should be made permanent and increased. But somehow Obama's middle class tax cut is "socialist", while McCain's greater percentage of tax cuts to the top income group is admirably conservative? This is of course, absolutely ridiculous.

As to the ACORN "vote-fraud", you should get your facts straight rather than posting fables. ACORN is not involved in any kind of "vote-fraud" as has been explained here on ehMac. They reported, as they were required to, isolated cases of their contract workers making up false voter registrations. These registrations are not "vote fraud" of any kind, because they have been flagged and reported. The only fraud here is where the contract workers tried to collect money out of ACORN for registrations they didn't get.

Meanwhile actual Republican-paid organizers have been arrested for voter registration fraud.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> GA, this may be a bit premature. The election is getting closer if you believe the latest polls. We shall see.


Yes, let's hope it won't be President Geezer and Vice-President Dingbat.


----------



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

"Yes, let's hope it won't be President Geezer and Vice-President Dingbat." Yes, that is my prayer as well, GA. We shall see.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I expect better of you MF. Now that you've embraced the same fear-mongering and distorted language of the McCain campaign, should we expect you to embrace their reliance of social conservative and Christian fundamentalist fear-mongering too?
> 
> ...At the most he is a social democrat, on a Canadian scale he would be about as far left as your average Liberal party member.


I see social democrats as socialist. I don't give them their own special little niche. When did I say that Canadian parties were not socialist in nature? Both Obama and McCain are in this category, though Obama is far worse. His membership in the New Party suggests he's pretty comfortable under that banner.

October 1996 Update



> Illinois: Three NP-members won Democratic primaries last Spring and face off against Republican opponents on election day: Danny Davis (U.S. House), *Barack Obama (State Senate)* and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary).


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

HowEver said:


> Are you kidding? Peter Fonda would cry at the drop of a hat. He was known to burst into tears if someone rolled a joint incorrectly. "Crybaby" Fonda they called him.
> 
> Stoic? I don't think so...


Are _you_ kidding? That ain't Peter Fonda.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I see social democrats as socialist. I don't give them their own special little niche. When did I say that Canadian parties were not socialist in nature? Both Obama and McCain are in this category, though Obama is far worse. His membership in the New Party suggests he's pretty comfortable under that banner.
> 
> October 1996 Update


Ho hum! Yeah, there's a real red. Sounds like he went from being an NDPer to a Lib. 

"Have you now, or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party." The GOP returns to its McCarthyist roots.

So in your book, I guess there's true conservatives (the Libertarians) and everyone else (the Socialists)? Well, I don't think your understanding of the terminology is normal or typical. Of course, for the McCain campaign, using your definitions, I guess the slogan would be: "Don't elect Obama, he's a bigger and scarier Socialist than we are."

So let's see there's the socialists who want to make the wealthiest 5% pay a bit more and stop wasting money on stupid foreign military adventures and then there's the socialists who want to give more money to the wealthiest 5%, engage in more intrusive and expensive military adventures and don't mind palling around with "agents of intolerance"* to get themselves elected.

Which does MF prefer? Why, its no surprise that it's the one's who won't make his wealthy friends pay more. All other issues are irrelevant.

*"Agents of intolerance" was McCain's own phrase for the extreme fundamentalist nutjobs like Falwell and the Moral Majority that he thought shouldn't be controlling the GOP back when he ran in 2000. Now he's reversed on that and has their Alaskan poster girl running as his heir to the throne.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Of course, for the McCain campaign, using your definitions, I guess the slogan would be: "Don't elect Obama, he's a bigger and scarier Socialist than we are."


I would encourage people to vote for Barr, but in a two horse race, yes, that slogan about sums it up. 

And no I don't favour a "progressive" income tax. Flat with a low-end cut-off is better. Making the rich pay more is not fair and I would take no delight in increasing taxes on any group.


----------



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

"I would encourage people to vote for Barr ...." Me too, Macfury, in the State of Georgia. That way, Obama may have a chance to win the state. I have not voted for a president that won since 1976, and I would like to say that this year, I voted for a winner who also won the state in which I voted. We shall see.

Personally, I like Ron Paul more than Bob Barr.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Macfury said:


> I find these reactions amazing. I'm not being critical of someone's genuine reaction, but I can't imagine anyone saying anything that would move me to tears, let alone this poseur.


That explains a lot, but also essentially says that you're largely dead inside (not that Obama didn't move you, but that nobody could).

I saw a comment on Digg after Obama's speech that moved me to tear up. It was just a simple, random comment:

"I want that America Obama talks about so bad. I have waited so long for it."

But it reminded me of how far America has fallen over the last 25 years in so many different ways and how cruelly their leaders have worked to keep the population divided, angry and fearful. The most unforgivable of Bush's many crimes was that he cynically used the attack on 9/11 to dismantle democracy and replace it with a fascist dictatorship. From the loss of civil liberties to the acceptance of torture, I weep for what America has lost.

It reminded me that there's a whole generation of young people now that have never known of a US leader who wasn't either impeached or should have been impeached. That's a very sad thought.

Hell, there are Americans in *college* right now that have never had a president _not_ named Clinton or Bush -- think about *that* for a minute!!

I'll bet _that_ will get MF's tears flowing. If that doesn't, nothing will.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

HowEver said:


> Are you kidding? Peter Fonda would cry at the drop of a hat. He was known to burst into tears if someone rolled a joint incorrectly. "Crybaby" Fonda they called him.
> 
> Stoic? I don't think so...


Um, MacFury's icon isn't Peter Fonda. It's Patrick McGoohan from "The Prisoner." The second-greatest TV show _ever_.*

*"Doctor Who" wins out only due to longevity.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

HowEver said:


> Are you kidding? Peter Fonda would cry at the drop of a hat. He was known to burst into tears if someone rolled a joint incorrectly. "Crybaby" Fonda they called him.
> 
> Stoic? I don't think so...


For the record:

Peter Fonda, then and now


----------



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

Peter Fonda looks just like his dad ............. who did a fine Lincoln as a young man ............... who also used Springfield, IL as his launching off point, just like Obama. We shall see.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I would encourage people to vote for Barr, but in a two horse race, yes, that slogan about sums it up.
> 
> And no I don't favour a "progressive" income tax. Flat with a low-end cut-off is better. Making the rich pay more is not fair and I would take no delight in increasing taxes on any group.


McCain only wants to make the middle class pay more than the rich, in terms of percentage of income. The flat tax is just another scheme to trickle money upwards.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> "I would encourage people to vote for Barr ...." Me too, Macfury, in the State of Georgia. That way, Obama may have a chance to win the state. I have not voted for a president that won since 1976, and I would like to say that this year, I voted for a winner who also won the state in which I voted. We shall see.
> 
> Personally, I like Ron Paul more than Bob Barr.


I've read that there's a very real chance that Barr could take away enough votes in Montana for Obama to win that traditionally red state. 

Go Barr Go! Yay for the Libertarians!


----------



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

GA, let's hope so, mon ami. Paix.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

The Economist endorses Obama.

Barack Obama should be the next president of America | It's time | The Economist

Oh riiiight! That socialist rag.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

chas_m said:


> That explains a lot, but also essentially says that you're largely dead inside (not that Obama didn't move you, but that nobody could).
> 
> I saw a comment on Digg after Obama's speech that moved me to tear up. It was just a simple, random comment:
> 
> "I want that America Obama talks about so bad. I have waited so long for it."


I certainly am moved by some things, but a greasy politician preening himself in a nest of filthy lucre? Never!

If that comment moved you to tears, I'm buying stock in Kleenex.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> The Economist endorses Obama.
> 
> Barack Obama should be the next president of America | It's time | The Economist
> 
> Oh riiiight! That socialist rag.


The Economist is just slightly left of centre.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Macfury said:


> I certainly am moved by some things


Which of your two faces wrote this then?



> I can't imagine anyone saying anything that would move me to tears


Or are SINC and Evan collaborating on a self-contradictory online persona, and there IS no MacFury??! :lmao:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

chas_m said:


> Or are SINC and Evan collaborating on a self-contradictory online persona, and there IS no MacFury??! :lmao:


I am moved by events, not speeches.


----------



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

"I am moved by events, not speeches." Macfury, you have obviously never heard the likes of Robert Kennedy or Martin Luther King, Jr. speak in person. Their speeches were backed up by the passion of their accomplishments and service.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr. G: I have not been attended the speeches, but I've heard them and seen them on film. While I appreciate their eloquence and historical significance I'm not generally captivated by such things.

Now put a doxie in a little baby bonnet and perhaps you've got me.


----------



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

Macfury, hearing these people speak in person was quite moving. Their delivery in person is a key element, but when you also hear the words being spoken, you know that you are sharing a moment of greatness in some small way.

Don't have any doxies in baby bonnets. Their birthday was the 29th, so does this count?

I am part of Dachshund Owners of America for Obama. A great organization, even though Obama promised to get his kids a beagle if he gets to the White House.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> The Economist is just slightly left of centre.


Your statements about left and right are curious. I would say that the Economist generally reflects a fiscal conservative viewpoint and the wording of their endorsement seems to indicate this is their priority. But like many conservatives, they are clearly concerned about Palin.

*****
I rejigged a Political Compass graphic I had to point out what I mean. The first one shows a generally accepted view of where people fall on the landscape. I guessed on a few and added myself and MF, taking a guess on where he would be. A bunch of them are from the Political Compass web site.










This second one indicates where MF (and a few others here) seems to have put the dividing line of the left-right axis, based on his ehMac comments.










This seems to me the only way he is able to judge both McCain and Obama, as well as publications like the Economist as left wing or socialist.

Like MF, I'm a libertarian. He and I differ quite a bit on our economic ideas though — the traditional left-right axis. I'm probably not as far left as the Political Compass test put me, but I answered many of the questions as "strongly" disagree/agree, probably because I'm rather opinionated.  I do believe I'm pretty much committed to ideas of personal liberty and tolerance as I get the impression MF is too.

What I find curious is that someone like MF would be willing to side with obvious authoritarians like Palin as a trade-off for their "less-socialistic" stances. I find that I would be more willing to trade off on my economic stances than have any truck with those verging closer to the fascist corner. In many ways I think the authoritarian-libertarian scale is more important than the left-right economic scale.

I find someone like Ron Paul compelling because he is clearly committed against US creeping fascism in many of its forms, such as the Patriot Act or unjust invasions of other countries. Although I disagree with Paul's laissez faire economic ideas and think they have been proven faulty, I'm much more sympathetic to him than an authoritarian communist like Lenin or Stalin. It seems that many on the fiscal conservative or right-libertarian side aren't that offended or concerned by the Republican willingness to get into bed with authoritarian types. It seems to me that the closer one gets to the authoritarian side the more one gets into "the ends justifies the means" mode of thinking.

As a disclaimer, I know that charts like these are open to a lot of interpretation. I've included them as a discussion tool. In many cases where they put a particular person is based on their public pronouncements rather than what many or most might think the person or party's actual beliefs are. 

For instance, I think Obama is actually closer to the Scandinavian/NDP area but his political stances are aimed at the US centre area, which tends to be somewhere in that top-right quadrant. It seems likely to me that McCain would have a less authoritarian ranking in 2000 than currently, but he felt he had to throw in his lot with the social conservatives to win. Palin is probably more of a socialist (although unwittingly so) but likely more authoritarian than she appears, based on her extreme fundamentalist views.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

I think our Conservatives fall somewhere between Obama and McCain and our Liberals are to the left of Obama.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> I think our Conservatives fall somewhere between Obama and McCain and our Liberals are to the left of Obama.


It's certainly fluid and changeable. That's where Political Compass put them.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> It's certainly fluid and changeable. That's where Political Compass put them.


I don't buy it. You may remember the post, but I once compared Harper's policies with that of Obama. When you go through each major issue one by one, you find they have a lot in common (e.g. tax cuts, health care, military, Afghanistan, gay marriage).


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> I don't buy it. You may remember the post, but I once compared Harper's policies with that of Obama. When you go through each major issue one by one, you find they have a lot in common (e.g. tax cuts, health care, military, Afghanistan, gay marriage).


Yep, and I remember I said something to the effect that both were pandering to the centre. I don't doubt that some Conservatives are actually real centrists, there are a few red Tories still within their midst. But I don't believe that Harper is anything but an extremist, both more right wing and more authoritarian than he can afford to let on these days if he wants to retain office. His whole political history is proof of that. I heard him make many of the right-wing statements with my own ears, as an elected official and during his hiatus from Ottawa, it's not like he had some brief flirtation with hard right conservatism as an idealistic student.

Hey, don't make me post that Harper/Obama morph pic again.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Gratuitous: I find those grpahs an interesting way to kill a few minutes, but they don't reflect my view of the world. Anyone who takes away large amounts of money through taxes is an authoritarian, so therefore, the Scandinavians, for example, are way south of where I see them on your graph. 

Similarly, Palin's opinions about various social issues do not make her more authoritarian unless she wishes to put the force of government behind them to make people conform to her opinion. 

Here's an interesting test: does establishing gay marriage as a right make governments more or less authoritarian? Some people might see that as granting freedoms to homosexuals, while I find the paternalistic nature of a government defining marriage at all to be unnecessarily authoritarian.

I'd show you how I see the chart, but it will look like hell after I chop the names out and move them around.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Gratuitous: I find those grpahs an interesting way to kill a few minutes, but they don't reflect my view of the world. Anyone who takes away large amounts of money through taxes is an authoritarian, so therefore, the Scandinavians, for example, are way south of where I see them on your graph.
> 
> Similarly, Palin's opinions about various social issues do not make her more authoritarian unless she wishes to put the force of government behind them to make people conform to her opinion.
> 
> ...


I would think that a libertarian would find that government defining who can and can't get married to be an intrusion on freedom. But certainly government allowing one group to get married and restricting that to another, as the social conservatives would have government do, is nothing if not authoritarian.

And of course Palin's social and religious beliefs aren't relevant if she doesn't insist that others have to follow them. But she has already shown that she wouldn't do that in her brief time in government. She and extremists like her are definitely a threat to freedom.

I figured you might make this argument about sharing of resources as being authoritarian. Of course the libertarian right never accounts for the inherent violence that leads to authoritarianism when small powerful elite groups can lay claims to the ownership of common resources. If a powerful elite can own outsize parts of the earth and its resources for themselves without question then why can't that same elite own those who inhabit those areas also? Well history shows the powerful will if they can and are willing to enslave millions. Your life and liberty that you right libertarians believe belongs only to you can be taken just as easily as the land your house sits on and the air you breathe. Right libertarianism or Ayn Rand's theories will only lead to a law-of-the-jungle might-equals-right result eventually. 

Left libertarians only extend the right to ones own life to include a fair share of resources necessary to maintain that life. This is a little more complex than an individualistic "my stuff is mine" approach and usually involves some kind of collective consensus on what would be fair. But left libertarians reject the totalitarianism of the proletariat that leads to communist tyranny.

I live on a small island and own a small piece of it. I accept that I can't do anything I please to it, because that may affect my neighbours and the population in general. I know some other guys who own hundreds of acres of the island. For some of them, one guy I can think of in particular, the idea that he can't just log every damn tree on that land or subdivide it and sell it as hundreds of little lots makes this guy really angry. He sees himself as the lord of that property and anyone in his way is a damn socialist. He doesn't care that logging that land might cause a landslide for his neighbours or ruin the water table or destroy a small ecosystem that is threatened in this area. The only reason he owns all that land is because his relatives got it dirt cheap when the government offered up repossessed rural land to veterans that they had stolen from interned Japanese families. It wasn't worth a lot of money until the hippies and artists moved to the Gulf Islands and made it an interesting place that people wanted to move to and vacation in. As a left libertarian I don't insist that "all property is theft" even though in his case it's partially true, but just that he submits himself to a truly democratic process where all the affected parties in the community have a reasonable say on some limits to what he can do with his lucky inheritance. Of course he would never agree with that, and I suspect neither would you MF.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Nice charts.

Am I the only one that really finds it amusing that Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky are all "up against the wall"?


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

*MORE Endorsements for Obama ... From Republicans!*

Peggy Noonan, speechwriter to Reagan and Bush the First

Ken Durberstein, CHIEF OF STAFF to Ronald Reagan for feck's sake!

... and although Fox's Neil Cavuto didn't endorse Obama, he DID tear John McCain a new one on-air.

... oh, and Stephen Colbert of course, but he just wants attention. 

Let's see what tomorrow's rat-catching exercise coughs up!


----------



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

I am only a few boxes away from GA -- a bit further up and to the left.

Solidarity, brother.

YouTube - Solidarity Forever (Pete Seeger)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I would think that a libertarian would find that government defining who can and can't get married to be an intrusion on freedom. But certainly government allowing one group to get married and restricting that to another, as the social conservatives would have government do, is nothing if not authoritarian.


Yes, that it does so at all, and forces the definition on others is the problem. When it gives “permission” to homosexuals to marry, and then tells others that they must accept the marriage of homosexuals as legitimate, they are compunding their authoritarianism. Had they never attempted to define marriage at all, there would not be a problem.



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> And of course Palin's social and religious beliefs aren't relevant if she doesn't insist that others have to follow them. But she has already shown that she wouldn't do that in her brief time in government. She and extremists like her are definitely a threat to freedom.


I haven’t seen evidence that she would restrict people’s freedoms in practice.



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I figured you might make this argument about sharing of resources as being authoritarian. Of course the libertarian right never accounts for the inherent violence that leads to authoritarianism when small powerful elite groups can lay claims to the ownership of common resources. If a powerful elite can own outsize parts of the earth and its resources for themselves without question then why can't that same elite own those who inhabit those areas also? Well history shows the powerful will if they can and are willing to enslave millions.


You seem to be saying that sometimes you have to kick the asses of people who try to take your property away (example: war) and I agree.



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I live on a small island and own a small piece of it. I accept that I can't do anything I please to it, because that may affect my neighbours and the population in general. I know some other guys who own hundreds of acres of the island. For some of them, one guy I can think of in particular, the idea that he can't just log every damn tree on that land or subdivide it and sell it as hundreds of little lots makes this guy really angry. He sees himself as the lord of that property and anyone in his way is a damn socialist. He doesn't care that logging that land might cause a landslide for his neighbours or ruin the water table or destroy a small ecosystem that is threatened in this area. The only reason he owns all that land is because his relatives got it dirt cheap when the government offered up repossessed rural land to veterans that they had stolen from interned Japanese families....Of course he would never agree with that, and I suspect neither would you MF.


I’m laughing at the fact that his guy got his inheritance through the authoritarianism of the government, which caused the problem in the first place. I would suggest that everyone band together to buy his property at a price he can’t refuse and make it impossible for him to live happily on that island otherwise. In terms of ecosystems and landslide, I agree that something of this nature needs to be addressed--through the courts--in that some of the actions you describe could have present severe and lasting damage to other properties in the vicinity. Libertarianism does recognize a “commons.” I think each such situation could be described in a law that says that one cannot do X, Y and Z while legitimate interests are petitioning the courts.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Yes, that it does so at all, and forces the definition on others is the problem. When it gives “permission” to homosexuals to marry, and then tells others that they must accept the marriage of homosexuals as legitimate, they are compunding their authoritarianism. Had they never attempted to define marriage at all, there would not be a problem.


I'm just going to use this example, but it seems to me that most of your positions on why libertarianism is better are similarly flawed.

I agree completely that "it would be better if" government had stayed out of marriage in the first place. But you can't ignore the facts of history. There are laws about marriage, and there are significant financial, medical and other legal constraints imposed on individuals as a result of this legislation.

You and I may agree that it would be better in the long run to toss it all out and build something sensible and from scratch, but to suggest that's what politicians should suggest is ridiculously naive. No one in their right mind is going to campaign on solving the gay marriage issue by getting rid of civil marriage completely (as much as I think that would be a great idea).

My point is that by denigrating politicians who propose pragmatic, minor improvements on the grounds that they are not ideal is rather juvenile. Let's take it as a given that none of the candidates in any election are perfect, so we're always accepting a sub-optimal solution. The interesting debate is invariably about which compromises will best serve society.

In the case of the US election, I agree with GA that it is odd that someone with you're history for vociferous support for rationality and personal freedom would support a ticket comprised of completely irrational fundamentalists from a party that has eviscerated the protection of individual rights and civil liberties so egregiously over the past 8 years.

Obama is far-more likely to restore civil liberties than McCain, and while both are handicapped with a religious world-view, Obama is clearly the more intellectually capable.

Cheers


----------



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

"Obama is far-more likely to restore civil liberties than McCain, and while both are handicapped with a religious world-view, Obama is clearly the more intellectually capable." A valid point, bryanc.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc: Libertarianism is better for me. It suits my temperament and my sense of "rightness." I suspect many would become completely discombobulated by such a system. 

The right thing for the federal government to do regarding homosexual marriage is to: 
a) defer to lower levels of government--state, provincial, municipal--so that it can be defined by community standard and develop organically; or
b) withdraw from defining it.

Neither of these would have been impossible choices, regardless of any previous actions by government. They would not have had to "toss out" civil marriage, which they don't control in the first place, administered as it is on the municipal level, with a parallel religious system.



> In the case of the US election, I agree with GA that it is odd that someone with you're history for vociferous support for rationality and personal freedom would support a ticket comprised of completely irrational fundamentalists from a party that has eviscerated the protection of individual rights and civil liberties so egregiously over the past 8 years.


I trust no political party to any great degree. I have watched Obama blow his one chance to vote against a bill holding telephone companies blameless for forwarding consumer data. I have seen McCain and Obama both vowing to restore civlil liberites. I watch with trepedation as both religious fundamentalists on one side, and vinsictive redistributionists on the other side aim to hijack both parties.

What I have seen with Obama is a creeping tax plan that has redefined rich Americans and rich American businesses as those making under $250,000, then $200,000, then $150,000 and then offering to send cheques to people who pay no tax, so that they too will have a tax cut. Obama's redistribuitve inclinations are among my greatest concerns, and I consider these authoritarian. I hold the retention of one's own income as one of the great civil liberties. I would not consider it a success for a president to declare a surplus by increasing taxes, when spending cuts are in order instead.

Obama is a glib talker, morally neutral, pragmatic in the basest sense and doesn't appear to me to be brimming with intelligence.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Macfury said:


> I haven’t seen evidence that she would restrict people’s freedoms in practice.


_Other_ than the freedom to terminate pregnancies, the freedom to read "subversive" material, and the freedom of the press, not to mention that she supports McCain/Bush's curtailing of civil liberties/right to privacy.

She has openly questioned or staked a position opposing _all_ of the above-listed freedoms. By tying herself to the Republican platform, she also supports the recent Supreme Court decision on "Eminent Domain" that I thought SURELY you'd be opposed to, the curtailing of habeas corpus* and other civil liberties, the unlawful breach of privacy rights, the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive war, and corporate welfare.

*someone will, of course, first have to tell her what habeas corpus _is_ ...

These aren't policy proposals or legislative ideas -- they are ACTIONS the Republican Party HAS TAKEN that she supports either by her direct actions or by her association with the Republican Party.

So what you meant to say was "Other than the long laundry list of freedoms already trampled, raped or destroyed by the Republican Party that has been directly or indirectly ENDORSED by Palin, I see no ... etc."

In the end, that's what this election is really about. The Republicans have had an extensive opportunity to actually show Americans what they'd do if they were in power. The Democrats, who were last in power during an unprecendented period of peace, prosperity and job growth, have some proposals to undo what has been done.

If you liked what the Republicans did over the last eight years, vote McCain.

If you don't -- given that there's no other real option -- you have to vote Obama and hope it works out well. The Democratic proposals may not be perfect, but the Republican track record is real and speaks volumes.

It's really Just. That. Simple.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

*Cheney Endorses ... Surprise! McCain! I know, right?!*

I have mentioned a boatload (actually approaching a BC Ferry-load) of prominent Republicans who have endorsed Barack Obama, but I would be remiss if excluded the most prominent name since George Bush who has bravely stepped forward in this, the final 48 hours of the election, to make a mavericky endorsement himself:

Dick Cheney has, finally, and I'm sure after great deliberation, endorsed John McCain.

Surely, now those "undecided" voters can get behind a choice: The (Assistant?) Decider has Decided. Bet you weren't expecting him to go for McCain, but there you are.

Kidding aside, this is actually a more interesting endorsement than it might seem on the surface: given that we all knew he was for McCain, why wait so long to formally endorse? Does he really think this will help McCain in any way?

More interestingly, why no endorsement of Palin? He's the VP, nobody cares who he likes as president, but here's a chance to put your stamp of approval on your possible successor -- and obvious student -- but on the subject of Palin, Cheney goes limp. Very strange.

It's like he thinks she could be less competent at the job of re-defining the VPship than he was ... :lmao:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I don't like McCain. McCain is simply not George Bush. Obama voted to extend the Patriot Act and hold telcom's blameless in handing over personal telephone records.

Business as usual.

Regarding Cheney's endorsement, I'm surprised that there was one at all from one of the least Conservative Republican administrations of all time.


----------



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

(CNN)—"For Obama Campaign Manager David Plouffe, it's a given he will be by the Illinois senator's side on election night — unless his wife goes into labor.

Plouffe, whose wife was expected to deliver their second child Saturday, told Fox News Sunday it's baby over Obama."

This is not good. Even Obama's campaign manager is bailing on him. This does not look good for Team Obama.

Hopefully, Bush will follow with Cheney's endorsement of McCain with a televised address to the nation on Monday night, saying that he fully supports McCain, and a McCain administration would be a continuation of the "great Bush years". 

We shall see.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

It's down to the crunch, and in not much more than 48 hours, we shall find out who the replacement is for the current chimpanzee in the White House.
Will it be "The Man" or "The Bro"?


----------



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

EP, let us hope that there is not a remake of "Bedtime for Bonzo", since Reagan is McCain's favorite politician. We shall see.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

EvanPitts said:


> It's down to the crunch, and in not much more than 48 hours, we shall find out who the replacement is for the current chimpanzee in the White House.
> Will it be "The Man" or "The Bro"?


Yo, O has the mo.


----------



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

Let us hope for an Obama inaugural address as good as this one. We shall see.

http://www.leadershipnow.com/speeches/fdrfirstinauguralgoget.mp3


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

EvanPitts said:


> It's down to the crunch, and in not much more than 48 hours, we shall find out who the replacement is for the current chimpanzee in the White House.
> Will it be "The Man" or "The Bro"?


Of course _The Man_ was a 1972 TV Movie written by Rod Serling and starring James Earl Jones as the first black President.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

EvanPitts said:


> It's down to the crunch, and in not much more than 48 hours, we shall find out who the replacement is for the current chimpanzee in the White House.
> Will it be "The Man" or "The Bro"?


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Of course _The Man_ was a 1972 TV Movie written by Rod Serling and starring James Earl Jones as the first black President.


Well recalled sir!! :clap:


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Macfury said:


> I don't like McCain. McCain is simply not George Bush. Obama voted to extend the Patriot Act and hold telcom's blameless in handing over personal telephone records.


I didn't agree with those votes, but he gave thoughtful explanations defending his positions and specifically opted to reserve the right to redress those issues once he had some actual power to do something about it. A lot of Democrats have chosen to punt lately, now that it's become clear they will have a strong majority after November.



> Regarding Cheney's endorsement, I'm surprised that there was one at all from one of the least Conservative Republican administrations of all time.


Bush endorsed McCain right away.

I completely agree with you that Bush/Cheney has not been a "true" conservative administration, and I agree with you that this was a real pity. McCain in 2000 would have been a genuine conservative administration (or as close to it as you're likely to get in the modern world), but alas he's drunk the neo-con/fundie Kool-Aid and abandoned any traces of fiscal conservatism.

But where I disagree with you is in your unwillingness to acknowledge that the Conservative Movement has twisted itself like a pretzel to match Bush's doctrines. I don't like it either, but Bush = Conservative in the US these days, and I think sadly this will persist after he leaves.

I'd love to see what I call the "fiscal" conservatives (this does not just apply to economics, I mean the disciplined, genuine conservatives) take over the Republican Party and do service to the nation by keeping liberals on the straight and narrow (a job currently being held by -- Obama, of all people!).

Sadly, I think the exact opposite will happen -- that SOCIAL conservatives (aka the Lunatic Fringe) will complete their already-in-progress takeover of the Republicans. Look hard at Sarah Palin, MF, because she, I'm sorry to say, is the new leader of the Conservative Movement in America starting November 5th.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

Heard you on Cross Country Checkup this evening, Dr.G. - well done. :clap:


----------



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

Thank you, Doug. Rex called me back to apologize for cutting me off so soon. I met him once in person at a literacy conference that was held here in St.John's and he commented, at the time, about my accent. He recognized the name when it was sent to him on the teleprompter. I was impressed.


----------



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

GA sent this to me. Let's hope many, many more did as well. We shall see.

http://i38.tinypic.com/8vyq0y.jpg


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Dear Red States:
> 
> If you manage to steal this election too we've decided we're leaving. We intend to form our own country, and we're taking the other Blue States with us. In case you aren't aware, that includes California, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin,Michigan, Illinois and all the Northeast. We believe this split will be beneficial to the nation, and especially to the people of the new country of New California.
> 
> ...


:clap:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> Finally, we're taking the good pot, too. You can have that dirt weed they grow in Mexico
> 
> Peace out,


Yep, the good old US of A.

They just had to end that little tirade on drug use.

That alone has destroyed much of the fabric of North American society and we too, are ill affected by its prolific use in this country.

And that is sad for us all.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Nice poster!


----------



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

GA, Obama would still win. It is what he says moreso that what he looks like. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I've got to say that in those photos it looks like they're wearing costumes.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

^^^
The Obama picture looks like the dude in out high school that used to run into the washroom between classes to snort lines of cocaine - while the McCain dude looks like his dealer that used to drop by to either sell more drugs to the cocaine dude, or to beat him up because of delinquent payment of debts...


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------

