| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 11/25 |
| 2008/9/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:51021 Activity:kinda low 75%like:51040 |
9/3 I think McCain secretly thinks Obama is the best choice and is dooming
himself to throw the election. It's the only explanation. Also
MAGICAL JESUS UNICORN's behavior around the time of the birth of her last child was
REALLY odd, I am willing to bet that it's not really her daughter
and that she decided to raise her daughter's newborn as her own.
I applaud her effort but I think she's done for.
\_ which historical figure had a female in his life who he thought
was his sister, but it was really his mother? I can't remember...
\_ That's how Ted Bundy got started.
\_ You're an idiot.
\_ Normally I prefer a more complete response, but in this case,
this is really all that can be said.
\_ Yeah, I started writing a more comprehensive response, but
replaced it with simplicity. -pp |
| 2008/9/1-3 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:51014 Activity:nil |
9/1 Protesting the war...by attacking buses?
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/bus-attack-in-st-paul-anarchists-attack.html
\_ And cub scouts! |
| 2008/9/1-3 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:51013 Activity:moderate |
9/1 Dirty tricks, not just a Karl Rove thing:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080901/pl_nm/usa_politics_palin_dc_3
\_ Yah, this is pretty low. Stay classy libs!
\_ You mean "Yah, this is pretty liberal. Stay low fellow cons!"
\_ How is this low? Liberals have MORE unwed moms than conservatives
\_ Perhaps, but Conservatives have more divorces.
\_ According to this BBC article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7592636.stm
Obama 'said people should "back off" from such stories.
THE ONE 'said people should "back off" from such stories.
SATAN SATAN SATAN 666 'said people should "back off" from such stories.
McCain 'said people should "back off" from such stories.
"I think people's families are off-limits, and people's children are
especially off-limits," he told reporters.
"This shouldn't be part of our politics. It has no relevance to Governor
Palin's performance as a governor, or her potential performance as a
vice-president."'
"This shouldn't be part of our politics. It has no relevance to
Governor Palin's performance as a governor, or her potential
Governor MAGICAL JESUS UNICORN's performance as a governor, or her potential
Governor TINA FEY's performance as a governor, or her potential
Governor MCGINA's performance as a governor, or her potential
Governor McCain's performance as a governor, or her potential
performance as a vice-president."'
Well said. I'm looking forward to having Obama as President.
Well said. I'm looking forward to having THE ONE as President.
Well said. I'm looking forward to having SATAN SATAN SATAN 666 as President.
Well said. I'm looking forward to having McCain as President.
\_ Worth noting from http://www.coolnurse.com/marriage_laws.htm :
"Alaska: If either of you are under 18, you will need certified copy of
birth certificate, both parents must be present with identification,
or if you have a legal guardian they must be present with a court
order and identification."
"Alaska: If either of you are under 18, you will need certified
copy of birth certificate, both parents must be present with
identification, or if you have a legal guardian they must be
present with a court order and identification."
So: if Bristol Palin and her baby-daddy intend to get married, they
will need Governor Sarah Palin's say-so to do so.
So: if Bristol MAGICAL JESUS UNICORN and her baby-daddy intend to get married, they
will need Governor Sarah MAGICAL JESUS UNICORN's say-so to do so.
So: if Bristol TINA FEY and her baby-daddy intend to get married, they
will need Governor Sarah TINA FEY's say-so to do so.
So: if Bristol MCGINA and her baby-daddy intend to get married, they
will need Governor Sarah MCGINA's say-so to do so.
So: if Bristol McCain and her baby-daddy intend to get married, they
will need Governor Sarah McCain's say-so to do so. |
| 2008/8/30-9/3 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:51010 Activity:kinda low 75%like:51032 63%like:51036 60%like:51043 |
8/30 http://FightTheSmears.com apparently is also start-the-smears http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/31096_McCain_Campaign_Behind_Anti-McCain_Smear_Site \_ Ahh, LGF... must be true. Can I counter this with a Kos link? \_ Did you read the article? Did you follow up on the IP addr leads? \_ What would you say if I buy http://goatsex.com and HTTP redirect it to http://FightTheSmears.com? Is that FightTheSmears is also goatsex? to http://FightTheSmears.com? Is that FightTheSmears is also goatsex? \_ Ah, good point. Thanks. -op \_ Learn how CNAME works and get back to us. This is no more than grafitti. |
| 2008/8/29-9/3 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:51006 Activity:nil |
8/29 so your gf gets raped. You get to raise the kid, according to Palin.
No abortions for you.
\_ You've got to be shitting me right? Oh well Palin will attract
former Hillary supporters and the religious belt. Biden
attracts... ??? Brilliant choice. The Karl Rove legacy lives on.
\_ Link?
\_ Yes, if there was only some way to let someone else raise the child.
Some way to let another family "adopt" it... "adoption" if you will.
\_ Yep, I hear there's a serious shortage of babies put up for
adoption.
\_ Of caucasian babies there is.
\_ http://www.vpilf.com
Words fail.
\_ lulz |
| 2008/8/29-9/3 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:51005 Activity:nil 70%like:51039 |
8/29 McCain only met with Palin once.
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/08/the_daily_bricabrac_sarah.php#more
The facts on Palin are going to be gold for the Dems:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12987.html
\_ "Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9000 with
zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the
presidency," (Obama) I'm not sure what to make of experience
criticism from Obama. He has about the same amount of experience,
and he wants to BE the president.
\_ Hmmm, which other major candidate has been making the
'experience' argument?
\_ It's not that it isn't a valid criticism in general, just
that it's more dangerous to Obama than Palin. Those in glass
houses and all that.
\_ The above quote was from an Obama campaign spokesman,
and their second statement was much milder. I suspect
they'll just ignore her and continue to go after
McCain. Meanwhile, this neutralizes McCain's one
solid attack, which was the experience argument.
Basically this was a really dumb, cynical move
to try to suck up Hillary voters and I'm surprised
conservatives think it was a good pick. Though
I guess "conservative" basically means "Republican
hack" now for the most part.
\_ Oh, I must have misread the attribution. My bad.
Anyway, I'm not really sure it neutralizes the
experience argument, since Palin isn't running for prez,
although it may sort of strengthen the "Mcain is old"
argument. She's not who I would have picked, and I hate
picking a woman just to have a woman type thinking. I
would hope no one actually votes that way, but it's
pretty obvious many people do. It does bloster his
ticket with the Bible belt the way say, Romney, would
not have. I really hope this means Mcain can quit
trying to pretend to be a far righty.
\_ Palin is a trivial figure, and someone comparing her
to Obama says far more about themselves than they do
about Obama.
\_ I guess you'll have to explain what you mean, because
I don't get it. What makes an Alaskan Gov. more
trivial than an Illinois senator?
\_ She seems to be a lightweight and Obama is not. How
many books has she written? She was Miss Congeniality
for God's sake and went to the University of Idaho.
We will know more after her debates with Biden. If
she does well in them, my opinion of her will go up.
\_ And Arnold Schwarzenegger is governor of the most
populous state in the union. People don't care
about book-writing academics. Why don't we have
presidents who have Ph.Ds in political science and
economics?
\_ so what does it say?
\_ http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/08/29/an-astonishingly-arrogant-v-p-selection.aspx
\_ Comments are pretty good.
\_ But Palin is 3,990,722 times hotter than Biden. We live in an era
of TV fluff politics. Palin is a great choice. Who else should he
have picked? One of the standard geezers wouldn't be interesting at
all. More than anything the VP is a figurehead role. And Palin
checks the conservative boxes.
\_ It's really amusing how the GOP has become the affirmative
action party.
\- Consider also how the VP hopefulls feel to be snubbed for
McCain's Folly, the Alaskan Cipher. Either it's obnoxious and
insulting, or McCain couldnt stand anybody, or nobody wanted to
go down with the S.S. McCain. |
| 2008/8/29-9/3 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:51004 Activity:nil 66%like:51034 72%like:51038 |
8/29 Hooo boy, Palin on Iraq:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7niokOXyjs
\_ hoo boy?
\_ She sure as hell isn't good at the coherance thing. |
| 2008/8/29-9/3 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:51000 Activity:nil |
8/29 http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/28/republicans.react.to.obama Obama to raise tax for people making $42K? That is screwed up. \_ No, not really. McCain is lying again. That is screwed up: http://www.newsweek.com/id/151621/page/2 \_ It's not a lie. Even your own article says it is true. |
| 2008/8/29-9/3 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50998 Activity:nil |
8/29 crap. mccain inc and 9000 years of eternal darkness starts in Nov.
you heard it here first.
\_ do you have a point?
\_ yes.. voting for mcCain now since Palin is a real woman.
\_ right... we believe you
\_ The question is, are you a racist, or are you a sexist? |
| 2008/8/29-9/3 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50995 Activity:nil |
8/29 “As for that VP talk all the time, I’ll tell you, I still can’t answer
that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that
the VP does every day?" - Sarah Palin
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12969.html
\_ Wakes up and checks the obituaries.
\_ http://amipresidentornot.com |
| 2008/8/28-29 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Recreation/Celebrity/BritneySpears] UID:50991 Activity:high |
8/28 Wow, remember how Obama complained about being compared to Britney
Spears? His holy temple set is being built by...Spears' set builder.
http://tinyurl.com/5ft7yl
\_ Wow, that's so meaningful!
\_ Stay on track, little GOPpuppet. Keep telling America that it is
\_ Stay on track, little GOPuppet. Keep telling America that it is
a bad thing to elect leaders who are popular and charismatic, I
just love this line of attack.
\_ Hilarious. I'm not a GOP. -op
\_ as independant as o'reilly eh? |
| 2008/8/26-9/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50975 Activity:nil |
8/26 I've been wondering about the Georgian side of the story, here it is
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6bn2co
Very interesting.
\_ Can you summarize? I'm not going to read this unless it blames
Obama for the whole thing.
\_ Can you summarize? I'm not going to read this unless it blames
McCain for the whole thing.
\_ Can you summarize? I'm not going to read this unless it blames
Bush for the whole thing.
\_ Can you summarize? I'm not going to read this unless it blames
Putin for the whole thing.
\_ Can you summarize? I'm not going to read this unless it blames
Rice for the whole thing.
\_ Can you summarize? I'm not going to read this unless it blames
Gorbachev for the whole thing.
{Obama,McCain,Bush,Putin,Rice,Gorby} for the whole thing.
\_ No, if I could summerize in 80 characters, it would not be very
interesting. I will say this explanation makes much more sense
than the reported one, although I would need futher confirmation
to totally believe it. It does have much less "WTF?".
\_ This is the part I don't understand. It is Georgia started the
whole thing, knowning fully well that Russian is going to step in.
Now, they are crying foul?
\_ So, you didn't read the article? |
| 11/25 |
| 2008/8/26-9/3 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50966 Activity:nil |
8/26 How dare anyone question The One!
"Obama not only aired a response ad to the spot linking him to William
Ayers, but he sought to block stations the commercial by warning
station managers and asking the Justice Department to intervene. The
campaign also planned to compel advertisers to pressure stations that
continue to air the anti-Obama commercial."
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D92PL7400&show_article=1
\_ Obama's response is pretty funny. "He blew things up when I was
eight years old, so it's ok!" Ummm... what?
\_ Dittohead desperation level: purple
\_ Ok, now you're just in denial, troll.
\_ You aren't really anyone to call someone else a troll, troll.
\_ typical dictator
\_ Let's see: someone starts publishing ads slandering you, and you
turn around and call them on the slander. Hm, yeah, I guess you're
right; only the guilty would call bullshit, right? Btw, would it
affect your vote if you knew that McCain had a black baby out of
wedlock? -krove@csua |
| 2008/8/25-29 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50954 Activity:nil |
8/23 I was deeply disappointed Obama didn't pick Wesley Snipes as his
running mate. There's still time for McCain to do the right thing. |
| 2008/8/23-29 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50949 Activity:nil |
8/23 Socialism is the solution to most of the problems GWB and Ronald R
created. Fuck McCain, go Obama!
\_ Is Obama a Socialist or a Nazi or a Stalanist? You guys need to
get your story straight here...
\_ Uh, all of those are socialist.
\_ Why do you think they call it Socialist Security.
\_ What do you expect, he was born a North Korean:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/4u377r
\_ He/she forgot to alter the seal as well. It still says Hawaii. |
| 2008/8/23-31 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50946 Activity:nil |
8/22 I find Biden uninspiring
\_ Biden was my first choice for President. I voted for Hilary in
the primary. The Biden choice makes me likely to vote for
Obama, even though I voted for McCain in the 2000 primary.
So it got him at least one vote.
\- is it because of the difference between hillary and omaba
on some issue you are able to look past the fact that she
clearly is a liar [this is indisputable, short of claiming
she has clinical level psychological problems] and in my
opinion sanctimonious, condescending and self-interested
["barak obama is not a muslim ... as far as i know", "barak,
i cant believe you plagerized from deval patrick" etc].
i liked biden when i watched him on the senate judiciary cmte
a long time ago, then he lost me a bit, but i started to like
him a little more lately ... i didnt pay too much attention
to him in the debates, but i still do see him on cmte hearings
and he did make a number of proposals w.r.t. iraq which are
at least the starting point for decisions, unlike hillary
who was just about triangulating and bending with the wind.
--non voter
\_ Did you vote for Singh's party?
\_ All politicians are liars. I voted for Hilary, because I
didn't know much about Obama and I feel he is inexperienced. I
prefer the devil I know to the devil I don't know.
\- all politics may be about compromise, but all politcians
are not liars. and even if in some senses that is true,
broad comments like "all pols are corrupt, liars, all
the same" are not meaningful and are just naive. the std
example of this is "do you really believe if ALGOR was
elected we'd be in the iraq fiasco"? do you believe
all exaggerations on a resume are the same? "expert c++"
when your coding chops are only so-so != "i have an MBA
from harvard" when you dont". the examples i gave
above are the "beyond the pale" examples. i didnt include
cases like hilary trying to link obama to the weather
underground and including the line "people died, barak".
yes, i didnt expect her to volunteer bill clinton pardoned
some members of the WU for "full disclosure" and maybe the
fact that nobody actually died was an "honest but
convenient" mistake [i cant remember if really nobody
died or one of the WU people got themselves killed], but
the example above [and the bosnian sniper episode]
admit no charitable explanation. those deserve the
political death penalty.
\_ Eh. It doesnt bother me as much as it apparently
bothers you. |
| 2008/8/22-29 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50945 Activity:nil |
8/22 Google for John McCain, then click on the ads. Congratulations,
you've wasted McCain 0.0000001% of his money. Keep it up guys! |
| 2008/8/22-29 [Reference/Military, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50943 Activity:nil |
8/22 Cindy McCain - The only way to get around Arizona is a private plane!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/14/cindy-mccain-in-arizona-t_n_112695.html
\_ She must have gotten that advice from Al Gore.
\_ What is the carbon footprint of owning 7 homes? Lawn,
heat, AC, maintenance, wash, etc etc?
\_ Pretty impressive that she managed to spend 50-100 hours getting
training without him noticing. |
| 2008/8/22-29 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50940 Activity:nil |
8/22 More birth certificate wackiness! Just after http://factcheck.org finally nailed the Obama birth certificate conspiracy shut: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html Pro-Hillary lawer opens case claiming Obama is ineligible to be POTUS http://www.americasright.com/2008/08/obama-sued-in-philadelphia-federal\ .html \_ Bwahahahaha, Berg cites differences in the English and Italian versions of Wikipedia as proof of discrepancies in Obama's birth records; this is the work of a kook. |
| 2008/8/21-26 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50928 Activity:moderate |
8/21 What's the big deal with arugula anyway? When did this become a
talking point? I like arugula.
\_ Please give more context, thanks.
\_ Apparently the McCain campaign keeps bringing this up.
\_ if this election is won or lost on whether McCain can convince
Americans that Obama is a weird arugula
eating motherfucker, I am going to be really pissed off.
\_ I haven't seen it recently except in jokes, because the
Obama quote is pretty funny. -!pp
\_ URL? I don't watch TV and the argula eating staff of
the New York Times hasn't mentioned it yet.
\_ http://csua.org/u/m5d (NYTimes blog)
\_ I am a freak and read the paper version.
\_ The NY Times blog is dumb. You can get arugula at freakin
Wal-Mart.
\_ McCain spokesman goes ape: http://tinyurl.com/6p69fp
\_ الله أَكْ!
\_ Hahaha, McCain doesn't even know how many houses he
owns and apparently neither does his campaign. Such
a "man of the people" indeed!
\_ Turns out, he owns zero. Cindy and related trusts
own eight properties.
\_ Arizona is a community property state, therefore
if she owns them, he owns them.
\_ Only if she bought them while they were
married. Not if she owned them prior to the
marriage or with funds that are clearly not
comingled with his in any manner.
\_ saying The Cindy/John McCain trusts own
their property and the McCains is a complete
cop-out, and you know it.
\_ Like I said, McCain Corp doesn't even know
how many houses he owns.
\_ You mean like how the GOP made fun of Kerry
for "owning" four homes with his wife and
how he was called a "Gigolo" with a "sugar
daddy wife." Kind of like McCain is. |
| 2008/8/20-26 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50911 Activity:nil |
8/20 Get ready for President McCain!
\_ if dubya can be President, anyone can
\_ And reelected, at that!
\_ ugh i hope not.
\_ الله أَكْ! |
| 2008/8/19-21 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50902 Activity:moderate |
8/19 Obama to choose a running mate.
+ Didn't choose Edwards
- VP candidate l0s3r potential still significant
\_ I think he'll pick Ted Kennedy
\_ l0lz
\_ Biden is rocketing up on Intrade. Not my first choice, but not
a bad one either.
\_ Why does anyone care? Discuss the choice when it happens.
\_ I don't think Biden will be picked. That I am insane and
accidentally plagiarized a speech charge will haunt him. Also,
Biden loooooooves to hear himself talk, the man does not shut up.
\_ I can't understand the second sentence. Also, I don't think that
speech will haunt him, that barely rises to the level of anyone
noticing. I doubt even far righties would bring that up.
\_ far righties bring up the fact Obama visited his grandmother
in Hawaii. do not underestimate the pettiness of far
righties.
\_ http://mediamatters.org/items/200703290011
Let their own words speak for themselves. |
| 2008/8/16-21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50885 Activity:moderate |
8/16 Hilarious. Barack catches himself saying Clarence Thomas was not
exprienced enough.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfblJvKXiP0
\_ you know Justice Thomas hasnt said a word in court for 2.5 years?
\_ Do you now he has written some of the best dissents?
\_ Do you think Obama is experienced enough?
\_ Yes. Do you think Clarence Thomas is experienced enough?
Would you a Diet Coke while you think about that?
\_ Then where does Barack of 143 days get off saying Thomas
isn't experienced enough?
\_ What does Obama's time in office have to do with
Thomas's experience?
\_ That he's unqualified to rate someone else as
inexperienced.
\_ So someone has to have worked longer than in their
field than someone else in another field in order
to say that person is not experienced enough?
Have you never supervised someone older than
yourself?
\_ yes
\_ The drugs must be tasty in your neck of the
ward.
\_ So what? These days almost all cases are decided on the briefs.
In my experience, oral argument is often a waste of time and
rarely matters (esp. at the appellate level).
\_ not asking any questions at all for 2.5 years is kind of
weird
\_ This may simply be a difference of opinion, but I find that
the justices seem more influenced by the Q&A these days
than the actual briefs.
\_ Almost as funny as Bush complaining about Russia invading Georgia
on phony, trumped-up charges, in violation of International Law.
\_ that is a pathetic response
\_ So it is okay that Bush is a hypocrite but not that Obama is?
Why do you hold Obama to a higher standard?
\_ Who said it's okay? Jesus Christ you buffoon.
But since we're on this topic, democratic Georgia is
different from Saddam's Iraq with its history of
aggression. The US actually did present its trumped-up
case to the UN etc. and gave Saddam alternatives. Russia
pretty much just rolled tanks in. We are also not annexing
pieces of Iraq to the US. |
| 2008/8/15-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50877 Activity:nil |
8/15 The Republican Campaign of Hate has just begun:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6bqc2t
\_ What further proof is needed that free speech is alive and well in
America when hate-filled garbage can get printed?
\_ Corsi isn't Republican:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57812
"Why I am not a Republican"
\_ Uh-huh.
\_ Right.
\_ "just begun" ?
\_ And the "liberal media" plays right along:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/5kjpju |
| 2008/8/13-19 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50864 Activity:nil |
8/13 Wow, how does the kool-aid taste?
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0808/11/sitroom.01.html
"My point is that a President Obama will have a good, strong
dialogue-oriented relationship with Russia, where these kinds of
situations would not occur."
\_ Red-flavor or blue-flavor?
\_ This particular one is blue-flavor.
\_ Sure, but how is the sentiment different from that of some-
one who drank the Red talking about McCain?
\_ Obama's force of will will prevent war?
\_ McCain's sheer anti-Russianism will prevent war?
\_ I haven't seen that claim. Are you just pulling
it out of your ass?
\_ If Condi did give the OK nod that might not be so far fetched.
\_ Yeah, that berry-blue flavor is pretty good, huh?
\_ Hard to tell what's water and what's not anymore. If 10
years ago someone told you the administration was going to
make it legal to torture prisoners you'd think they were crazy.
\_ Hard to tell what's water and what's not anymore. If 10 years
ago someone told you the administration was going to make it
legal to torture prisoners you'd think they were crazy.
\_ we need dubya and condi out on their asses before they fuck things
up even more
\_ Didn't Bush tell us he was going to "jaw-bone" the Saudi's to
keep oil prices low? How well has that one worked out for us...
\_ worked prety good for ~6 years.
\_ No it didn't. Just $3 gas seems cheap now. |
| 2008/8/12-14 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50851 Activity:low |
8/11 Obama forgets that Russia is on the UN Security Council
http://www.tampabays10.com/news/national/story.aspx?storyid=87027&catid=81
\_ Bzzt. Regardless of the fact that Russia would veto it, a proposed
resolution calling for an immediate end to the violence would send
a strong message that the international community does not condone
Russia's actions.
\_ ^international community^lackeys of the West
\_ Why is that important? The UN is worthless and always has been.
What use is it when you had communist dictatorships on the
"security council"?
Sending a strong message is orthogonal to the UN.
\_ You are diluting your OBAMAMA IS THE CRAZY AND WILL KILL
WHITEY message. Please get back on track.
\_ You're getting drool on your sweatpants. |
| 2008/8/11 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50837 Activity:nil |
8/10 Obama shifts towards economic-based affirmative action.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080810/pl_politico/12421
'Obama said that his two daughters should not be given preferential
treatment, owing to their relatively privileged upbringing, and has
called for government to "craft" a policy "in such a way where some of
our children who are advantaged aren't getting more favorable
treatment than a poor white kid who has struggled more."'
I think I'll vote for him. |
| 2008/8/8-13 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50825 Activity:kinda low |
8/8 Drive Naked, Save America
http://tinyurl.com/6xmyer [cnn.com]
\_ Is this worse or better than reducing the national speed
limit back to 55 (and 65 in some cases)?
\_ This is better than handing out tire gauges how?
\_ For one thing, there would be lots of naked chicks on the road.
\_ And more accidents.
\_ Drilling for oil in the OCS is going to have a negligible effect,
too. As much as it will pain conservatives, they are just going
to have to learn to live with less oil.
\_ And you won't?
\_ Since I already don't own a car, I doubt it will have a
huge impact on me. Perhaps on food prices, but that is
a very small part of my budget.
\_ The price of oil affects the price of almost everything.
\_ http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/opinion/10friedman1.html
Too bad the conservatives blocked the CAFE standards
from going up for all those years.
\_ Yeah, incinerating trash sure sounds environmentally
correct.
\_ This is moronic. Way more oil would have to go towards climate
control because clothing helps people regulate temperature. This
guy ridicules Obama for proposing a good idea and being stumped
that the Republicans would mock him for it. Its dumbass partisan
politics to mock someone for an idea you agree with. May as well
mock yourself. |
| 2008/8/8-13 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50819 Activity:nil |
8/8 One Nation, Under a New Obama Salute (USNews)
http://csua.org/u/m1n
Whoever thought this was good idea....
\_ Clearly stolen from Star Trek
http://tinyurl.com/6fc8zb
\_ Who must have stolen it from the University of Oregon. |
| 2008/8/8-13 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50816 Activity:nil |
8/8 Russia invades Georgia
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4486208.ece
\_ Welcome back Soviets, we missed you.
\_ They picked the luckiest day to invade!
\_ Anyone have any idea what's really going on here? Georgia wants
to join Nato and be west aligned, so Russia has been supporting
some rebel/seperatist groups? These groups are Russian citizens
or what? I don't really get that part. Georgia just made a major
offensive against a seperatist group and crushed them, so Russia
is rolling in the tanks?
\_ There's a population of ethnic Russians in that region of Georgia
who want to break away and join Russia. Mind you, given Russia's
opposition to Kosovar independence and Chechnyan separatists,
the irony is appalling.
\_ Just curious, was that population of ethnic Russians shipped
there by the soviets? They did that with some areas.
\_ Turns out (on closer viewing) that the separatists are a
different ethnic population from Russia and Georgia. As
usual, the BBC has an excellent primer on the region:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3261059.stm |
| 2008/8/6-10 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50798 Activity:nil |
8/6 Wow, welcome to the new McCarthy Era
"But you'd think an arch conservative working in an overwhelmingly
liberal town would think about restraining himself for expediency's
sake, if nothing else."
http://www.hollywood-elsewhere.com/2008/07/scratch_him.php
\_ Yes, it's exactly like the McCarthy Era. (How did you get into
Berkeley again?)
\_ By banging yer mom.
\_ Do you think he will end up blackballed? If he is, you can
complain about McCarthyism.
\_ The senate is holding hearings about this? Really? And
to think that just a week or two ago I was reading about
how a recent administration was using string loyalty tests
how a recent administration was using strong loyalty tests
for non partisan justice department jobs. |
| 2008/8/6-10 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50791 Activity:low |
8/6 Maybe Obama is just too weird
http://tinyurl.com/59325e
\_ What, you aren't going with the tire guage attack?
Maybe you can go the "celeb" route and attack him for being too
damn charismatic. I mean shit, that's always a good reason to
hate some.
\_ Oh man, I so want one of those tire gauges. Pure comedy. -!pp
\_ Wow, I didn't even know about the tire gauge attacks. The
Republicans are attacking Obama now because he told them
the truth about something? The GOP is more out of touch and
delusional than I had even imagined. And I imagined that they
were pretty out of touch.
"It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant," Obama said.
\_ The truth? Obama's "inflate your tires == drilling" moment is
the truth? Sorry, not so.
\_ Ahh, there we go. I've been waiting for you to start
spewing this kind of crap. Are you going to start
ranting about how obama thought he claimed tire guages
next?
\_ "Making sure your tires are properly inflated, simple
thing, but we could save all the oil that they're
talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was
just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups.
You could actually save just as much." -- Obama
\_ And? Someone asked "How can I help?" and Obama
told him. How DARE he! Let's go give McCain a huge
campagin donation so he will change his votes on
offshore drilling! (Oh wait, too late)
\_ Obama made a specific claim: that proper
inflation on your tires, regular oil changes, and
tune ups would save *AS MUCH OIL* as we'd get from
increased drilling. This is patently false, and
simply laughable. It also doesn't take into
account how to *grow* our economy.
\_ You are as ignorant as Limbaugh.
\_ Ad hominem! Excellent sir!
\_ "Simply laughable."
\_ Why is it simply laughable?
\_ Do you believe that we cannot grow our economy
without increasing oil consumption?
\_ Is Obama correct? Inflating your tires would
save more oil than we would get by drilling
offshore. You do know that Obama is correct about
this, right?
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6oy9uk
\_ Nope: http://preview.tinyurl.com/5fqnrq
\_ In other words, Obama was right. Powerline adds
in 1T barrels from Oil Shale, which is clearly
not gotten by drilling.
\_ Um, no. The barrels/day extracted number is
based on the *profitable* extraction, where
oil was at $60/barrel in 2008 -- which it
isn't.
\_ Dude, you are amazing. I want to have
sex with you RIGHT NOW.
\_ So you honestly believe that some
partisan blogger is more accurate in his
prediction of how much energy is
profitably extractable from the OCS than
the experts? Simply laughable.
\_ Appeal to authority! Excellent if you
don't care about the truth of an
argument.
\_ Too bad Obama listens to guys
like petroleum engineers and guys
who are petroleum engineers and guys
with PhDs in economics. He could be
like the GOP and get all his
policy ideas from blowhard internet
bloggers who have so far never
been right about anything. But then
he would be a Republican, not a
Democrat. "It's like these guys
take pride in being ignorant."
been right about anything. "It's
like these guys take pride in
being ignorant."
\_ The quote I saw had Obama
doing his own poorly thought
out back of the evelope
calculation. -!pp
\_ If true, he deserves to be
made fun of then.
\_ http://preview.tinyurl.com/62asue
Scroll down to the 1T line. Read the
comments section to see where he gets
eviscerated for including oil shale,
I don't have time to repeat it.
Scroll down to the 1T line.
\_ Not only is there the magic 1T
barrels, the dude also ignored
the bit about tuneups. Nor is that
Obama's energy plan. It is his
answer to "how can I help." Energy
plans good. Personal conservation,
especailly "free" conservation good.
Combined even better. Why does that
make you so sad? Is it too communist
for you or something?
\_ Uh, modern cars don't have tuneups.
\_ Uh, yes they do. But instead of
not working without them they
tend just to work less
efficiently. Still, moving parts
go out of tolerances after 1000's
of miles, modern or not. |
| 2008/8/5-10 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50782 Activity:nil |
8/5 I may have to start watching Jon Stewart again.
http://tinyurl.com/5zhpfa
\_ The "liberal" media goes after whoever is in power. Anyone older
than 21 remembers the Clinton years and already knows this.
\_ Wait, what??? I thought the liberal media always says
nice things about Jewish people
\_ Yes, but when the audience has to be prompted to laugh when an
Obama joke is made, it gets a bit tiresome. Now that people are
able to laugh at Obama as well as McCain I might be able to watch
it again.
\_ So your problem is with his audience.
\_ And the rarity of the Obama jokes. Now that he's figured
out an approach that isn't PI, that rarity is probably not
an issue any more.
\_ I am sure after he is elected President, he will be
the subject of non-stop jokes and ridicule.
\_ PI? Wait, you think Jon Stewart and the Daily Show are
concerned with being Politically Incorrect? Are you
fucking retarded?
\_ Why yes, yes he is.
\_ WRT Obama, they were avoiding hitting him until
recently.
\_ WRT Obama he's a lot less hit worthy than
McCain. McCain is a joke, Obama isn't.
\_ Hahahahahaha!
\_ Don't worry, humorous attacks on the POTUS
will remain a legal expression of 1st Amend.
under President Obama. God, I'm so looking
forward to January.
\_ Obama track record: jack and shit.
\_ McCain track record; fuck up and backpedal.
\_ Don't forget being one of the Keating 5.
\_ It's not track record. McCain is running
a pathetic campaign, the kind that just
begs to be made fun of. "That's not
change we can believe in... [insert
pained smile here]"
\_ This post is contentless.
\_ I enjoy the Colbert Report more.
\_ His schtick gets old pretty quick.
\_ I never tired of it.
\_ I'm sick of the sponsorships.
\_ ha |
| 2008/8/4-10 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50775 Activity:low |
8/3 Hess Oil Executives gave huge contributions to McCain campaign just
days before his drilling reversal
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/08/oil_company_executives.php
\_ So who gave to Obama then?
\_ So just to be clear, you DO admit McCain is a corporate tool
right? Even though you are being obviously dishonest in your
attempt to paint Obama with the same brush, can you at least
accept that McCain is a dishonest pol in the pockets of the
engery companies and anyone else who is willing to pay?
(P.S. I'm not happy with Obama's windfall tax idea either.)
\_ So just to be clear, you admit McCain is a corporate tool? But
you are trying (poorly, wrongly) to try to claim that's ok
because Obama does it as well, right? Since you are wrong about
Obama can you just accept that McCain is a dishonest pol in the
pockets of the energy company and anyone else who is willing to
pay his way?
(P.S. Before you bring it up, I'm not happy with Obama's
windfall tax idea either.)
\_ When did he reverse himself on drilling?
\_ http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_080804.htm
\_ [!facepalm] Read the speech and now revising my opinion.
He's not reversing himself, no matter how it's being
portrayed, and if you read his speech, you'll see a
well-thought-out plan:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/57br62 (PBS)
\_ Let's see. Don't open new offshore drilling until the
old ones are dry. AKA, keep stuff in reserve rather
\_ So wait for current reserves to run out making sure
there's a gap between running out and starting up?
Newsflash: we don't make enough oil for our needs right
now.
\_ When you are spending more money than you are
making is the right response to burn through
your savings or to cut back, try to get a better
job, and save your savings for when you might
really need them?
\_ His proposal is to get the oil-monkey off our
back by the time that happens. -!pp
\_ "get a better job" in this example
than burn through it right now. That's always been his
position. There is something which is unsaid which is
hopefully by refusing to burn through all our oil RIGHT
NOW we will transition to other energy sources before
any of the reserves are needed which means we will never
have to drill there.
\_ I thought Obama supported a compromise between the
pro and anti-drilling forces. Here in grown-up land
we think that compromises are a good thing, even though
we have had to suffer the last seven years with a "you are
either with us or you are with the terrorists" President. |
| 2008/8/4-10 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50773 Activity:nil |
8/3 vp picks? i'll start:
Obama picks the governor of Virginia: .
McCain picks the governor of Louisiana: .
Obama picks governor of Indiana: .
Obama picks Powell (R): .
\- how does that make sense? protection against assasination
by bigots? |
| 2008/8/2-8 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50762 Activity:low |
8/1 McCain goes negative
http://nymag.com/news/politics/powergrid/48928
\_ What else are the Republicans going to run on? Their good
stewardship of the American economy over the last eight years?
Their fresh new ideas? The Iraq War? What other choice do they have?
\_ Economy was fine until Dems took over congress (though I'm not
stupid enough to blame a president or even congress for the
economy). The Fed is the real problem.
\_ really? i thought the problem was basing our economy
so heavily on service fees for bundled debt products.
I don't think that's a Dem/Repub thing
\_ Deregulation, which is primarily a Republican thing,
is what led to the explosion of financial services. That
and the laissez-faire attitude of The Fed (more
Republicanism).
\_ No, forcing companies to lend to groups traditionally
not receiving loans is what caused the problem. Fannie
and Freddy buying up bad loans was the other problem.
Fannie & Freddy being backed by the government is what
allowed them to be so irresponsible.
\_ Wow, I hadn't realized there was a fantasy-land
version of the credit crunch!
\_ I don't think that this really explains the whole
story, but it is likely that Bush's American
Dream Downpayment Initiative, his Single-Family
Affordable Housing Tax Credit and his Self-Help
Homeownership Opportunities Program, all had an
impact on lower income home ownership rates, which
is what they were intended to do. The GOP also pushed
for banks to loan to more low income people in low
income neighborhoods, sorry I don't know the name
of the specific Acts that did this. But a bigger
factor was the explosion of unregulated credit, in
the form of CDOs, SIVs and the like that flooded
the market with easy credit. The money supply is
the market with easy money. The money supply is
the responsibility of The Fed and regulating
banks is the responsibility of Congress and The
White House, but because of their philosophy, they
decided to let "the market sort it out" which is
what we are suffering through right now.
\_ I'm sorry you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground
but can you please go drool somewhere else? Thank you.
\_ Do you mean Greespan, who was appointed by Reagan, or
Bernanke, who was appointed by Bush? Somehow, I thought
that these record deficits might have something to do with
why our economy is underperforming, but perhaps you have
a different theory.
\_ Greenspan let the tech bubble last too long, then applied
too much pressure to kill it. Bernanke should stop
printing money like it's going out of style.
\_ Could you not use "printing money" as a euphamism for
"loose monetary policy". Gives me the willies.
We're not Zimbabwe. |
| 2008/7/31-8/5 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50748 Activity:nil |
7/31 Reggie Miller = Obama?
\_ Looking forward to your interpreting this into English, really.
\_ They are both black guys who play basketball, I see where you
going with this.
\_ By this logic, Bill Bradley = Obama: they're both politicians
who play basketball. |
| 2008/7/31-8/5 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50746 Activity:nil |
7/31 Obama, such a class act. Accusing McCain of being racist
(groundlessly) _again_.
http://csua.org/u/lzl
\_ do you get everything from michelle malkin dot com? your language
is the same.
\_ Wow. McCain is indulging in the most disgusting of campaign
tactics which even people like Ranesh Ponnuru are decrying,
but it's Obama whose accusations are groundless. If you
don't get the obvious message sent by putting Obama in an
ad with two sexually available white women, then you are
extremely naive.
\_ Right, anyone who doesn't see racist undertones in everything
is naive. Two sexual availible white women, sheesh. If that's
the first thing you think of, your either trying too hard or
a perv.
\_ You don't have to see racist undertones in everything to
see it when it's obvious. -!pp
\_ FIND ME A LINK. THANKS.
\_ ugh, article is boring and uninteresting. can either you post
a link to video of the ad? ok thx.
\_ No where in this article does Obama accuse anyone of being racist.
In fact, the Obama camp specifically denies that claim:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/07/obama-camp-obam.html
Try again. |
| 2008/7/29-8/5 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50726 Activity:nil 90%like:50723 |
7/29 McCain far less active than Obama on the hill
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6re4qd [the hill]
\_ So what? I mean, I know what you're trying to say, this is supposed
to defuse the critisism that Obama isn't doing anything. The
difference is that McCain has been very active for 25 years.
Obama has been pretty much inactive for 3 years. What they are
doing right now matters much more to Obama since his history is
so much shorter. |
| 2008/7/29 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50723 Activity:nil 90%like:50726 |
7/29 McCain far less active than Obama on the hill
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/sen.-mccain-holds-off-putting-his-name-on-gop-energy-proposal-2008-07-28.html
\_ So what? I mean, I know what you're trying to say, this is supposed
to defuse the critisism that Obama isn't doing anything. The
difference is that McCain has been very active for 25 years.
Obama has been pretty much inactive for 3 years. What they are
doing right now matters much more to Obama since his history is
so much shorter. |
| 2008/7/26-30 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50699 Activity:nil 52%like:50697 |
7/26 http://myrightwingdad.blogspot.com/2008/07/fw-obama-death-list.html Obama was beheading in the name of Allah at the tender age of 10! \_ This is hysterical, thanks. I think I am going to post it to The Free Republic and see what they do with it. \_ That's hilarious. I like the comments tying Obama to the Waynes. |
| 2008/7/26 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50697 Activity:nil 52%like:50699 |
7/26 http://myrightwingdad.blogspot.com/2008/07/fw-obama-death-list.html Obama was beheading in the name of Allah at the tender age of 10! (Actually my favorite is the man killed in a "catfish restaurant," especially because the dead man is one of the few real names on that list and IS STILL ALIVE.) |
| 2008/7/25-30 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50691 Activity:moderate |
7/25 "This is the moment when we must build on the wealth that open markets
have created, and share its benefits more equitably."
Um, say what Obama?
\_ This is straightforward enough to me. What is confusing to you about
this statement? Was it the word "share" that threw you for a loop?
\_ I find it amusing that he's so clueless that he's talking to the
people of Berlin about how they threw off communism, and then
talks about reimposing it.
\_ you're a moron.
\_ You mean sharing is communism? Thanks for warning me, I had
been teaching my toddler to share, I will stop immediately.
\_ "This is the moment when we must build on the wealth that
open markets have created, and share its benefits more
equitably."
Communism
\_ Public schools, free clinics, world-wide efforts to
eradicate AIDS, the US military... and everything
else your taxes pay for. Communism? No. Government?
Yes.
\_ Forcing people to share is communism.
\_ Paying taxes that fund social services that improve
the basic quality of life is part of the social
compact. Do not confuse your a failure to meet your
silly Libertarian ideals with Communism; there's
plenty of room in-between.
\_ Taking money from one group and giving it to another
is communism. Plain and simple.
\_ you're a moron.
\_ Did you actually attend Berkeley? Communism requires
the elimination of private property and the ownership
of the means of production by "the people". And we
already do this in our system, except the money goes
from the poor/middle class to the wealthy and
corporations.
\_ Did you actually attend Berkeley? Communism
requires the elimination of private property and
the ownership of the means of production by "the
people". And we already do this in our system,
except the money goes from the poor/middle class
to the wealthy and corporations.
\_ the problem with you liberals is that you
think everyone who disagrees with you is
an idiot and that you're smarter than
everyone else. Think about that for a minute.
everyone else. Think about that for
a minute. -emarkp #1 fan
\_ no, we think *you* are an idiot. -tom
\_ We are smarter than you. QED.
\_ Straw men aren't particularly fun debate
partners.
\_ He wants to raise taxes.
\_ His first action as President will be to send the 82nd Airborne
into the Hospitals to nationalize them. Next he will seize
the banks. After that, your will have Obama Party officials
spying on you at your place of work. He is a Marxist.
into the Hospitals to nationalize them. Next he will nationalize
the banks. After that, your will have Obama Party officials watching
over you at your place of work. He is a Marxist.
\_ BLACK HELICOPTERS! |
| 2008/7/23-28 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50669 Activity:nil |
7/23 Obama claims that the Banking Committee is "his" committee?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjzb61wfyN0
\_ Well, he is the president!
\_ Weak sauce. He was referring to provisions he offered last year
to the Iran Sanctions Bill:
http://obama.senate.gov/press/080717-senate_banking
\_ Okay, so when he said "we just passed" he meant the Senate (fair
enough), what did he mean when he emphasized "my committee"?
\_ He misspoke: he meant that "his" provisions had been passed
by the Banking Committee.
\_ I'll take a few minor flubs by Obama over Angry McCain's current
bout of doozies.
\_ Articulate Harvard educated elitists aren't allowed to flub.
Cranky ex-POWs, however, can say whatever they want.
\_ Quick, to the Iraq/Pakistan boarder!
\_ Yeah! That plays loud music and is like, 2 months behind
on his rent!
\_ Quick, to the Iraq/Pakistan border! |
| 2008/7/23-28 [Reference/History/WW2/Germany, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50659 Activity:moderate |
7/23 See, I told you he was HITLER!
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6dv7mr
\_ I thought Obama was a Marxist. Is he Hitler, too?
Obamarxhitler just doesn't have the same ring as Bushitler, does it?
\_ Obama == Socialist ~ National Socialist == Nazi == Hitler
\_ Socialist >>> Bush Reagan Capitalist > McCain
Therefore, Obama >>> McCain
\_ This is too long for a soundbite, you need a way to say
this in a snappier fashion.
\_ I orignially posted about Obama's choice to speak in front of the
victory column. My intention wasn't to imply the Obama was Hitler,
just that he was incredibly arrogant and aften tone deaf. I expect
this sort nonsense from Bush, but you'd think the more 'humble' Obama
would, I don't know, ask a German where he should have a speech in
Germany.
just that he was incredibly arrogant and often tone deaf. I expect
this sort nonsense from Bush, but you'd think the more 'humble'
Obama would, I don't know, ask a German where he should have a
speech in Germany.
\_ You know he was denied his original speaking location, right?
Perhaps the Obama campaign should have you as a consultant,
since you obviously have his best interest at heart. He should
dress up in a fighter suit, pad his codpiece, land on a
aircraft carrier, and give a speech to a cheering throng
under a "Mission Accomplished" banner like a good Republican
fake war hero instead? Where was your outrage at the fascist
overtones then?
\_ 1. Yes his original location was the Brandenburg Gate. Which
was a jaw-droppingly arrogant, and insulting, first choice.
He can't ask a German?
\_ "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"
\_ Ummm... Yes? Said a standing President? Your point?
\_ So it is okay when Reagan does it, but not when
Obama does? Got it. I see where you are coming
from, thanks.
\_ Was it a campaign stop for Reagan too? Reagan
wasn't invited to speak there? Oh. You have
no idea what you're talking about? Got it. I
see where you are coming from, thanks.
\_ "Milk Strike ends at Brandenberg Gate"
http://preview.tinyurl.com/5a7oee
"Fulan Gong Rally at Brandenberg Gate"
http://preview.tinyurl.com/5afy56
It gets used for all kinds of things. Are
you German or something? I don't think you
know what you are talking about, you are
just parrotting some right wing talking
just parotting some right wing talking
points you heard somewhere.
\_ see below.
\_ Why can't the presumptive president use the same
location?
\_ Hey Germans, I think this hugely important
landmark, usually reserved only for visiting
heads of state, would make a nice campaign
speech backdrop, how that sound to you?
speech backdrop, how's that sound to you?
\_ Sounds to me like exactly the kind of
thing that a Harvard educated elitist
would think was a good idea.
\_ It actually gets used almost daily by
various sorts of protestors and the like.
Who told you otherwise?
\_ Sorry, I wasn't clear and overstepped
there. Obviously context is important.
The Gate is a public area, I didn't mean
to imply it was sealed up or something.
But there's a huge difference between
a bunch of German protestors and a
foreign pol giving a speech there. The
latter comes with HUGE political
implications.
\_ 2 weeks ago if someone had said
Obama was having a speech at
the Brandenberg Gate you would have
not be blathering this bullshit.
However, you read a bunch of blogs
flinging shit at Obama desperatly
trying to make "gaff prone elist"
stick and suddenly it is OBVIOUS
HOW ELITIST AND TONE DEAF Obama
was. Jesus H. Motherfucking Christ
you are so damn perdictable. -!pp
\_ Predictable? I predicted your
petty pointless frothing before
I posted this. You accusations
are false, but I don't feel any
need to discuss with a gibbering
monkey. Good day.
\_ You are fooling noone.
\_ So who exactly would have been
offended by Obama's speach at
the Brandenburg gate?
\_ HITLER
\_ Bush's attack poodle, Merkel.
2. "I expect this sort of nonsense from Bush..." Can you read?
\_ Anyone running for the office of President of the United
States is arrogant, almost by definition. The closest thing
we ever say to humility in that office was Carter, and you
can see where that got us.
\_ Ok, true. But I don't think a little bit of sensitivity
to our allies is wildly unrealistic.
\_ he's so fucking insensitive that every German TV
network covered his speech and 200,000 people came
network covered his speech and 20,000 people came
out to see him speak. What an asshole. -tom
\_ HILTER drew large german crowds
OBAMA draws large german crowds
HITLER == OBAMA qed
\_ Who the hell is Melissa Clouthier, and why would I want to read her
blog? |
| 2008/7/23-28 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50658 Activity:nil |
7/23 When did the National Enquirer start reporting stories that are true?
\_ Oh even the Weekly World News included the odd true story. (In
the WWW news' case, usually as a 1 paragraph blurb.)
\_ Quite a while actually. They even win real awards every now
and then. Of course they also do tons of crap as well.
\_ You mean the "SEN. JOHN EDWARDS CAUGHT WITH MISTRESS AND LOVE
CHILD!" story? Or the "BUSH BOOZE CRISES" one?
\_ i hope its not true. you have to pretty incredibly awe
inspiring worthy of study and fodder for comedy show jokes
for the next 10 years to have an affair when you are a
mainstream presidential candidate. they always get caught. |
| 2008/7/21-23 [Reference/History/WW2/Germany, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50649 Activity:nil |
7/21 Ah, Obama's not a flip-flopper, he's just a liar
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHEIi4XKRmM
\_ No, he's HITLER
\_ lol @ your inability to handle Obama criticism
\_ Lol at your weak sauce. !pp
\_ Jan 10, 2007: surge won't work, will increase violence
Jan 5, 2008: I've always said the surge would work
\_ See, just like HITLER
\_ You mean Stalin.
\_ POL POT!!!!!!1one |
| 2008/7/21-23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50644 Activity:high |
7/21 Look at all these corrupt Democrats. But how can this be? Democrats
are supposed to be noble and good. And getting the Green party off
the ballot sounds... undemocratic.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08193/896353-454.stm
\_ They are all HITLER
\_ Corruption seems to be endemic to the human experience,
unfortunately. I don't believe anyone (here) has claimed that
Democrats are all noble and good. Is that a Straw Man you are
furiously bashing?
\_ And yet, strangely, they still won't be the party that sold out the
government to Halliburton, Worldcom, and Enron.
\_ What exactly does "sold out the government" mean?
\_ Started a ruinous war to further profits for.
\_ Yet, strangely, Democrats voted to authorize that war.
An inscrutable contradiction!
Could it be that Democrats also profit from Corporate
America, Inc.?
But that's silly. Corporations are evil and Democrats
are axiomatically good.
\_ And yet, strangely, they're collaborators, not
instigators. Their culpability is still less than that
of the GOP, war-profiteering-wise.
\_ Strangely, I think you need to justify that.
\_ And stranger still, I think the charges need to
be justified first.
\_ A majority of Democrats in Congress voted against the
war, but you already knew that. Don't the facts get
in the way of your supposed rhetorical point.
\_ A majority of Democrats in the Senate voted for it.
Enough in the house to pass the resolution. They
are Democrats. A few Republicans also voted against
it, so what?
\_ An overwhelming majority of Republicans voted
for the resolution and an overwhelming majority
of Democrats voted against it, even when it
took quite a bit of moral and intellectual
courage to do so. The resolution would have
passed without any Democratic support whatsover,
since the GOP was in the majority. Why are you
so hellbent on re-writing history? Are you a
GOP partisan? Ashamed of your earlier war support?
I remember when Bush supporters were smashing
courage to do so. Why are you so hellbent
on re-writing history? Are you a GOP
partisan? Ashamed of your earlier war support?
I remember when war supporters were smashing
shop windows and beating opponents of the war,
where was your outrage then?
\_ I am still wondering why the Democrats didn't try to
impeach Bush. God, they have no balls at all.
Repubs impeach a guy for oral sex while Democrats win
control of Congress and proceed to mostly whine
about a supposed war criminal.
\_ I don't seem them whining about war crimes. Who
does that? Not the mainstream ones, anyway. You
get guys like Paul, Gravel, + Kucinich but nobody
votes for those guys. People vote for the status quo.
\_ You mean they are complicit and aren't opposed to
the war? That makes it better for them? I was
giving them some credit. People voted Dems
into office because they were unhappy with
the Repub leadership and the Dems turned
around and did absolutely nothing. And now
morons believe Obama is gonna change that?
\_ Better to do nothing than to do something
stupid. Stupid.
\_ They did do the stupid thing themselves.
They authorized the war, continue to
fund it, and Obama says he'll keep troops
there indefinitely. Yay.
Politics is all about complaining about
whatever bad thing exists. Like gas prices.
Look at the price of gas! Vote for me!
What am I gonna do about it? Who cares,
vote for me. War? War is bad right? Vote
for me!
\_ More lies. Obama said he will bring
the troops home. Do you get your
playbook from Rove?
the troops home.
\_ That's why the Dems will never get
anything done. They don't want to make
bad decisions. That never stopped the
Republicans, who beat the Dems like a drum.
Good leaders aren't afraid to stick
their necks out. They worry about being
proven right later. I'm not saying bad
decisions are a good thing, but I'd say
no decisions at all is worse. We don't
need a government if we're not going to
take any actions. Just refund the tax
dollars to the citizens then. I think a
token rumbling about impeaching Bush
would have been a good thing, even if
they didn't actually go through with it.
Instead, they approve everything Bush wants.
\_ Kucinich has repeatedly tried to get
articles of impeachment to the House
floor, but cannot get the votes. This is
the way a Democracy works. There are
other ways to win in politics, other
than beating your opponent like a drum.
That is the Rove playbook. Did FDR ever
beat anyone like a drum? No one would
dispute that he got a lot done.
\_ "Did FDR ever beat anyone like a drum?
YES! Geez, don't you know any history?
\_ Where and when? Maybe you define
beating like a drum differently
than me, but mostly FDR was a good
consensus builder, not a 50% + 1
kind of divisive leader like the
Bush/Rove/Cheney gang.
\_ They tried, over and over again, to get a time-
table for withdrawal passed, and you know what
the GOP did? Filibustered. That's right, the
party that threatened the "nukular" option if
the Dems filibustered turned around and fili-
bustered. Couple that with Bush's veto-frenzy,
and the charge that the Dems did nothing
quickly becomes: the GOP cock-blocked every
way they could. But hey, go ahead and blame the
Dems for the GOP's fuckups. |
| 2008/7/20-23 [Reference/History/WW2/Germany, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50641 Activity:high |
7/20 Oh, that crazy Obama, he couldn't get the Brandenberg gate, so he
switched to Hitler's favorite monument of militaristic dominance.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,566920,00.html
Not that he could have asked any German reporters about this.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/5tqtgy (Washington Post)
\_ Yes, because Obama LOVES HITLER! He's a crazy secret muslim
HITLER LOVER! HITLER HILTER HILTER!
\_ Perhaps it is part of Obama's effort to reach out to White
\_ Don't forget he's a commie who wants to raise all our taxes
to 100% and outlaw all guns except if the state needs to use
them in an "on-demand" abortion.
\_ HITLER!
\_ Um, deal with it. When Obama wins, you'll have to learn
to live with this crap for the next 4 years just like
everybody had to deal with BUSH=HITLER nonsense for the
past 8 years. It's a small price to pay for having your
team finally win one.
\_ You are missing what is important here. Obama is
HITLER!
\_ Wait, you mean you stopped calling Dems HITLER, LIAR,
and FLIPFLOPPER when Bush became Pres.? Your weak sauce
is old news.
\_ Not sure Obama is going to survive 4 years with all
the gun-toting whackos in this country.
\_ The gun-toting whackos in the Secret Service will
protect him just fine.
\_ Just like they did JFK and Raygun.
\_ Yeah, too bad JHJr assassinated Reagan. Oh,
wait, he _didn't_. Secret Service hasn't
lost anyone since JFK. Get over it.
\_ Oh yes, because Reagan and Brady managed to
survive I guess that means the SS did its
job. Maybe Obama will just be a vegetable
so you can still stand by your stupid point.
\_ Right, it's easier for you to imagine
that the Secret Service is incompetent
than to simply accept that the fact that
no one's been assassinated since JFK is
a result of professionalism.
\_ Only in your world is the POTS being
\_ Only in your world is the POTUS being
shot and nearly dying considered a
success.
\_ Perhaps it is part of Obama's effort to reach out to the White
Supremicist vote. |
| 2008/7/20-23 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50637 Activity:nil |
7/20 If you disliked the Obama cartoon, did you see the McCain cartoon from
last month's Rolling Stone?
http://preview.tinyurl.com/5f9ysg
\_ Don't you guys ever get tired of trying to "work the refs"? |
| 2008/7/18-23 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50626 Activity:nil 88%like:50614 |
7/18 McCain violates OPSEC
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6hhzvp [tpm] |
| 2008/7/18-23 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50625 Activity:nil 85%like:50613 |
7/18 BUD DAY: "The Muslims are going to kill us."
http://preview.tinyurl.com/5skflp [miami herald]
\_ BUD DAY doesn't appreciate your tone. |
| 2008/7/18 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50614 Activity:nil 88%like:50626 |
7/18 McCain violates OPSEC
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2008/07/mccain_says_obama_trip_to_iraq.php |
| 2008/7/18 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50613 Activity:moderate 85%like:50625 |
7/18 BUD DAY: "The Muslims are going to kill us."
http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2008/07/mccain-pow-bud.html
\_ BUD DAY doesn't appreciate your tone. |
| 2008/7/15-23 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:50577 Activity:nil |
7/15 Obama: we've always been at war with Eastasia
http://preview.tinyurl.com/59otvg
\_ What the fuck are you talking about?
\_ What the f*** are you talking about?
\_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four#The_War
\_ I know what you were referencing. That doesn't change
the fact that we can't figure out what the fuck you
the fact that I can't figure out what the fuck you
the fact that I can't figure out what the f*** you
mean. |
| 2008/7/14-23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50568 Activity:nil |
7/14 The Fox Newsification of AP:
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/16193.html |
| 2008/7/14-17 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50561 Activity:nil |
7/14 Damn that Liberal Media!
http://preview.tinyurl.com/5qwoz9 (Obama New Yorker Cover)
\_ Yes, incompetent lefties sure do the darndest things.
\_ It's a stupid cover, but part of the problem is it is really
hard to do satire when the people you are making fun of are
beyond satire. I mean shit, sometimes the Colbert Report sounds
scarilly like a real right wing talk show.
\_ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2045045/posts
\_ http://michellemalkin.com/2008/07/14/grow-a-pair-obama
\_ Your point is what? That Malkin is insane? We knew
that already. |
| 2008/7/13-15 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50556 Activity:nil 93%like:50555 |
7/13 McCain THROWS PHIL GRAMM UNDER THE BUS
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6hj8dj [tpm]
http://www.pbs.org/nbr/site/onair/transcripts/080711b |
| 2008/7/13 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50555 Activity:nil 93%like:50556 |
7/13 McCain THROWS PHIL GRAMM UNDER THE BUS
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/mccain_camp_gramm_is_not_advis.php
http://www.pbs.org/nbr/site/onair/transcripts/080711b |
| 2008/7/12-16 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50544 Activity:nil |
7/11 Berkeley's own Brad DeLong on the Fannie Mae bailout:
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/07/every-time-i-tr.html
Most amusing moment: Grover Norquist blames Nancy Pelosi
for high gasoline prices.
\_ I blame Al Gore. |
| 2008/7/11 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50543 Activity:nil |
7/11 Grover Norquist blames Nancy Pelosi for high oil prices:
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/07/every-time-i-tr.html |
| 2008/7/9-11 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50521 Activity:moderate |
7/9 http://appleorangescale.com/?wd0=obama&wd1=mccain Obama rules, McCain sucks! There it is guys, Obama is going to win. \_ I don't believe in crazy conspiracies. I think there will be a a big terror attack before the election. No false flag crap, no inside job stuff, it'll just happen. After that everyone will run scared and vote for McCain. McCain will keep us in Iraq for 5000 years. The US will collapse from the unsupportable expense. Osama wins. \_ CARE-O-METER: |.o......................................| \_ Where's the TAX CUT??? I don't care about anything else. \_ http://appleorangescale.com/?wd0=bush&wd1=hitler Bush now less popular than Hitler. \_ now that is sad, really really sad \_ This website is another large drop in the vast sea of stupid. |
| 2008/7/9-11 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50511 Activity:nil |
7/8 McCain jokes about killing Iranians again
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6mbe67 [wp] |
| 2008/7/7-9 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50491 Activity:kinda low |
7/7 Obama: "We cannot continue to rely only on our military... We've got
to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful,
just as strong, just as well funded." Wait, what does THAT mean?
http://csua.org/u/lva
\_ If you read the article and didn't cut out important words
with that eplisis it would be a lot clearer. But then you
couldn't take a quote out of context, removing the words that
it obvious the quote is out of context, and make it look like
Obama is spouting nonsense.
\_ Isn't that guy some kind of Marxist or something?
\_ Sorry, full quote is still nonsense.
\_ we already do.. every able bodied american citizen has the
right to bear arms
\_ "Obama repeated his pledge to boost the size of the active military"
Gee, that sounds so hopeful and changey! I bet that will cut the
deficit! Health care and boosted military and peace corps expansion
and who knows what else! Obama has a tax dollar for everyone.
\_ The military could be 5X as large and it would still cost less
than blowing shit up in Iraq. |
| 2008/7/4-9 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50474 Activity:nil |
7/4 Americans don't care about flip flopping:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/07/flip-flopping-as-american-as-apple-pie.html |
| 2008/7/4-9 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50473 Activity:nil 71%like:50472 |
7/4 Wow, even the NYTimes is noticing Obama's 'refinements'
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/04/opinion/04fri1.html |
| 2008/7/4 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50472 Activity:nil 71%like:50473 |
7/4 Wow, even the NYTimes is noticing Obama's PLEASE USE ANOTHER TERM OK
THX BYE
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/04/opinion/04fri1.html |
| 2008/7/3-8 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50465 Activity:nil |
7/3 Phrases that need retirement:
"thrown under the bus"
"douchebag"
"flip-flop"
...
\_ I get "flip-flop." Why the others?
\_ In some right-wing circles "Obama throws X under the bus" has
become a running gag.
\_ Really? I'd always thought it more fitting for McCain's
Straight-Talk Express.
\_ Only because Obama keeps throwing people under the bus.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/30309_Obama-_The_Disassociator
\_ Dude, the phrase needs to be RETIRED. Have you ever heard of a
"thesaurus?"
"sheeple"
"hope and change" |
| 2008/7/2-6 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50450 Activity:moderate |
7/2 Christopher Hitchens on Waterboarding: "Believe me, it's torture."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/02/humanrights.usa
\_ Gee, how nice of him to change his mind now. Rats. Ships.
Sinking.
\_ As much as I dislike Christopher Hitchens, it seems hard to
fault him for this. He had the courage to back up his claim
that waterboarding wasn't torture by trying it out, and then
(having learned what it was like) he admitted he'd been wrong.
I wish everyone was so principled.
\_ 4 years too late... I don't have much sympathy for anyone
who defended torture as strongly as that man did.
\_ FLIP FLOPPER!
\_ And why should I care what he thinks?
\_ Because he has been a tireless defender of the technique as not
being torture and has now been convinced, by experience, that it
is. If you believe that it is not, perhaps you should try it out
yourself.
\_ Torture is any experience so horrible that no-one would consider
trying it out simply for the purpose of writing a Vanity Fair
article about what it's like.
http://sweasel.com/archives/1269
\_ If he'd thought it was torture before he experienced it, he
would not have tried it out. Now that he's experienced it, he
recognizes it as torture and would not do it again.
\_ Yah, see here's the thing, torture is something that you know
you wouldn't try it even before you try it.
\- i think that is true for "medieval" type
torture [gouging out eyeballs], and highly
likely for modern "clinical" pain-inducing
torture [electric wire between teeth] but
i dont think it is necessarily possibly to
i dont think it is necessarily possible to
know the effects of things like sleep deprivation,
and psychological/terror oriented approaches such
as mock executions [russian roulette style, fake
firing squad, blind folded and dropped from
firing squad, blindfolded and dropped from
helicopter etc] until you've "been there/done that".
anyway, i thought this was a settled issue given
that all the "warriors" [mccain etc] said "wboaring
\_ Not by a long shot. Quite a few
military members said *they'd* been
waterboarded, and said they had no
problem with us doing it to others.
\- who is a "military member" who
has said "it's ok if somebody
waterboards US troops when
captured".
is totally clearly over the line" and it was only
chickhawks [bush, cheney, limbaugh] either saying
it wasnt clear or it was like frat hazing.
i was was captured and you said you were going to
if was was captured and you said you were going to
put me in the iron maiden, i'd talk right way.
if you threatened to waterboard me, i might go
for a minute or two. --psb
\_ McCain voted to support waterboarding. -tom
\_ I missed that. A point in his favor. -emarkp
\_ I'm sorry, "emarkp", but I
think you need some introspection on
whether you're serious about your
religion and whether your support of
torture is really consistent with
that.
\_ Why the quotes? It really is me, and I
find it laughable when someone else tells
me what my religion should be.
Especially the prolific atheist
relgion-haters here (though I obviously I
don't know if you're one of them).
-emarkp
\_ The quotes were simply to open
the door to the idea that someone
was masquerading as you to make
you look bad. Now I'm forced to
go with the person below: your
"religion" is a hollow sanctimonious
shell over your hateful and vile
core.
\_ yeah, it's easy as an atheist to
underestimate the ability of
religious people to rationalize
whatever it is they want to do
or believe. -tom
\_ You should be careful trying to
apply your childish understand of
something to a grown-up discussion.
-emarkp
\_ You're right, no one can tell you
what your religion is or should be.
But thanks to threads like this one
we know that whatever your beliefs
are, they serve as little more than
a hollow sanctimonious shell over
your hateful and vile core.
\_ you're an idiot.
\_ I don't understand, shouldn't you be
calling him evil rather than stupid? This
looks like a clear values call. -- ilyas
\_ and anyone disagreeing with your opinion
is an idiot. Great logic, comrade! Welcome
to People's Republic of California.
\_ No, I am tom! Do not anger me!
\_ I disagree with people who are not
idiots all the time. But *you* are
an idiot. -tom
\_ I believe you are confusing torture with deterrents.
\_http://home.lbl.gov:8080/~psb/Articles/Politics/Schelling.q
\_ I wouldn't try waterboarding, but I'm not a fucking
idiot like Christopher Hitchens. -tom |
| 2008/7/2-6 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50449 Activity:nil 85%like:50443 |
7/1 Who's smearing whom?
http://preview.tinyurl.com/56u2nx [politico]
\_ This article is really out to lunch. The smears of Obama are
everywhere. There are whole websites devoted to proving
that he's a gay racist from Indonesia who studied in a Madrassa,
and there are armies of freepers feeding the rumor mills. See
the above WaPo article for more. Just because "nobody with the
McCain campaign" is openly calling him a Muslim doesn't change the
fact that a large % of Americans now fervently believe this, and
are seemingly oblivious to the true fact of the matter. Obama
not be Swift-boated, because the fringe lunatics will do it for
them.
\_ So is being called a Muslim a smear?
\_ Of course not. It happens to be untrue. If someone were to
say that John McCain is homosexual, would that be a smear? |
| 2008/7/1-14 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50445 Activity:nil |
7/1 This is funny. Tim Mahoney, D. Rep from Florida, sends out mailpiece
about honoring the troops, but includes Soviet vet on the cover.
http://csua.org/u/luc (blog Link to pdf included) |
| 2008/7/1-2 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50443 Activity:very high 85%like:50449 |
7/1 Who's smearing whom?
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=DEFCE7F3-3048-5C12-00A118B64440DF50
\_ This article is really out to lunch. The smears of Obama are
everywhere. There are whole websites devoted to proving
that he's a gay racist from Indonesia who studied in a Madrassa,
and there are armies of freepers feeding the rumor mills. See
the above WaPo article for more. Just because "nobody with the
McCain campaign" is openly calling him a Muslim doesn't mean that
a large % of Americans now fervently believe this. Obama will
McCain campaign" is openly calling him a Muslim doesn't change the
fact that a large % of Americans now fervently believe this, and
are seemingly oblivious to the true fact of the matter. Obama
not be Swift-boated, because the fringe lunatics will do it for
them.
\_ So is being called a Muslim a smear?
\_ Of course not. It happens to be untrue. If someone were to
say that John McCain is homosexual, would that be a smear? |
| 2008/7/1-6 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50442 Activity:nil |
7/1 The Obama smears and rumors (yes Virginia, they exist)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/29/AR2008062901871.html
\_ "The truth is that right after 9/11 I had a pin. Shortly after 9/11,
particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq war, that
became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking
out on issues that are of importance to our national security.
"I decided I won't wear that [American Flag] on my chest. Instead,
I'm going to try to tell the American people what I believe will
make this country great, [emphasis added] and hopefully that will be
a testament to my patriotism." --Sen. Barack Obama |
| 2008/7/1-14 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50438 Activity:nil |
7/1 Obama to expand faith-based funding
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/07/obama.html
\_ Waiting for emarkp's brain to asplode...
\_ Huh? -emarkp |
| 2008/7/1-14 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50434 Activity:low |
7/01 Obama's continuing flip-flops. This time on same-sex marriage
http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/1051404.html
\_ hey guess what dittoheads: conservatives are the only people who
care about "flip flops." The rest of us call it "reconsidering."
\_ I don't think _anyone_ here listens to Limbaugh. You might as
well put that one to bed.
\_ No wonder you like Obama, he reconsiders his opinion each time he
speaks! He's so nuanced!
\_ I hate to sound like a partisan defender, but what do the failures
cited in this article actually have to do with Obama or his
proposed policies? Many of the failures began before he became a
State Senator. (Aargh. Posted in response to wrong troll.)
\_ The problem which keeps being hilighted is that Obama changes his
opinion every time he's asked or talks to a different group.
He's said in the past he's not for same-sex marriage.
Just like he said he'd filibuster FISA, and now voted for it.
Just like he said he felt the DC gun ban was constitutional, but
now says the court made the right ruling.
\_ What does this prove? That he's capable of being persuaded of
another opinion? What makes this newsworthy? If we're going
to go this route, how about McCain's flip-flops on the tax-
cuts and off-shore drilling?
\_ When the change is within a short time, it's a flip-flop.
More time allows for 'persuaded'.
\_ McCain in May: Off-shore drilling will not help.
McCain in June: Off-shore drilling for life, yo.
\_ I have no love for McCain--it's the worship of Obama
I find confusing.
\_ I just looked this up (HuffPo: http://csua.org/u/lu8
and I think you're a bit off the mark. He's argueing
short vs long term, which I think is correct.
\_ Agin' it before he was for it:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/3zzkof (cbs)
\_ This adds nothing to the HuffPo link, it's
almost content free. Why did you post this?
\_ It says that he was against off-shore
drilling at all before he was suddenly
for it. This was my original point. There
was a month's time-difference here.
\_ Haha "persuaded of another opinion." That's a pretty nice
way of putting it. I'm not against people changing their
minds, but Obama is flopping all over the map. He never
seems to give a reason for the changes either. It just
matches whatever the audience wants to hear. -!pp
\_ Pfft. I thought, for a moment, that you had an actual
point, but I see you're just trolling now. Looking
forward to more bitterness when President Obama is
inaugurated in '09.
\_ How do those blinders fit? (Not same person BTW)
\_ Willing to listen and talk, but not interested
in childish characterizations like "flip-flops"
especially when ignored in your own candidate.
\_ Who said I ignore them in McCain? Did you
miss the McCain thread a while back? But as
the guy says above, time allows for persuasion.
Changing your stance the NEXT DAY is a little
extreme.
\_ Potato, potato. If we're back to flip-
flops, the election's already over.
\_ Ummm... it worries me that they guy has
\_ Ummm... it worries me that the guy has
changed position so many times I can't
even figure out what is position IS on
most issues. You appear to just be
complaing about the word. Ignore that.
I don't think it's the right term for
what he's doing anyway.
\_ Then let's stop using the word
flip-flop for anything apart from
footwear. Given its historical use
as propaganda against Kerry, it's a
loaded term, and it needs to be
retired.
\_ Works for me, I never use it.
I'm not the guy who posted the link
though. I actually have no problem
with Obama's position here anyway.
It's a dumb link. -pp
\_ GOP in 1996: VOTE FOR DOLE, he's a WAR HERO! GOP in
2000: Forget that this guy is a draft dodger, it's
CHARACTER THAT MATTERS! GOP in 2004: Don't vote for
Kerry, he's a FAKE WAR HERO! CHARACTER MATTERS!
GOP in 2008: Vote for MCCAIN, he's a WAR HERO!
\_ What, you mean the GOP backs its canidate? Sacre
Bleu!
\_ And throws logic and previous statements under a
bus in his support? Quel shock!
\_ This is not a flip-flop, you are just too stupid to understand
his stance. He has said repeatedly that he believes that each
state should set its own same sex marriage policy and that the
the federal government should not set it nationwide. He has not
changed on that. He also disagrees with the initiative to ban
same-sex marraige in California. He can have an opinion on a CA
state proposition, in fact I expect my elected officials to have
opinions. That is not the same thing as trying to legislate your
opinion. Your black and white view of the world is precisely why
Conservatism is in the sorry shape that it is in.
\_ I agree. This is a dumb link. -Obama hater guy !op |
| 2008/7/1-14 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50433 Activity:nil |
7/01 Obama: "I'll meet McCain anywhere, anytime!" ... "or not!"
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/5837182.html |
| 2008/7/1-14 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Reference/RealEstate] UID:50432 Activity:nil |
6/30 Grim proving ground for Obama's housing policy
The Boston Globe: http://csua.org/u/lu6
\_ I hate to sound like a partisan defender, but what do the failures
cited in this article actually have to do with Obama or his
proposed policies? Many of the failures began before he became a
State Senator.
\_ This is actually Bill Clinton's fault. |
| 2008/6/30-7/14 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Reference/Military, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:50425 Activity:nil |
6/30 http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh Bush Administration aiming the US toward war with Iran. McCain would go along. Voting for McCain might get us into a war with Iran. |
| 2008/6/30-7/14 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50422 Activity:nil |
6/30 That Wesley Clark, class act right there.
http://www.politicususa.com/en/Clark-FTN
\_ How was Clark questioning McCain's record? In what way was this
"swift boating?"
\_ It wasn't. The right is just filled with Righteous Anger with
nowhere to focus it.
\_ It's not a "swift boat" because it's so stupid it will never
stick.
\_ It's not a swift boat because it isn't someone lieing
about McCain's record. If it was a switft boat Clark
would be claiming that there is a serious allegation
that McCain actually intentionally crashed his plane
and then just hid in a bunker for umpty whatever years
and was never actually a POW in the first place. Instead
what you have is Clark making the very sane point that
being a POW doesn't count as experiance towards being
president. (Re: Kerry. I never thought that being
a war hero would make someone a good president (or a
bad one) but the swift boaters were lieing in order to
cast doubt on if Kerry actually WAS a war hero, not
asking "does it matter if he was a war hero?")
\_ Did McCain really lose five planes in Vietnam?
\_ When is McCain going to sign his SF-180? What does he have to hide? |
| 2008/6/27-30 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:50405 Activity:nil |
6/27 Recreate '68! I have to admit, I think this is pretty funny. I hope
these bozo's totally flop.
http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_9719752 |
| 2008/6/27-30 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Academia/GradSchool] UID:50404 Activity:nil |
6/27 Milton Friedman still ticking lefties off even from the grave
http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2008/06/milton-friedm-1.html
My personal view on this whole affair is: what a knee jerk reaction!
Obviously, all these lefties do not seem to realize that
Milton Friedman's pro-free market views have become mainstream economic
thinking. Read his "Capitalism and Freedom" and compare it with
any freshman economics textbooks used virtually at any school, from
community colleges to private universities. There is no difference.
I read his text after being exposed to economics in college and, having
heard so much about the author before, I was actually quite surprised
how balanced, carefully thought out, and predominantly non-partisan
his views were. It actually gets quite boring after the second or
third chapter because you realize that it mostly echoes your
principles of economics textbook.
\_ Who are you talking to?
\_ Whom
\_ To whom |
| 2008/6/27-30 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50403 Activity:nil |
6/27 In a blistering condemnation of President Bush's willingness to go to
the wall for corporations he relies on to spy on Americans, MSNBC host
Keith Olbermann says the president's message in his State of the Union
address calling for immunity of telecommunications companies is a
"textbook example of fascism."
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Olbermann_rails_against_Bush_fascist_telecom_0201.html
Obama votes for FISA bill with immunity of telcoms.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/26/politics/politico/main4212811.shtml
Yesterday, Olbermann says:
"Senator Obama also refusing to cower even to the left on the subject
of warrantless wiretapping. He's planning to vote for the FISA
compromise legislation, putting him at odds with members of his own
party . . . But first, it's time to bring in our own Jonathan Alter,
also, of course, senior editor of "Newsweek" magazine."
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/26/olbermann/index.html |
| 2008/6/25-30 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50378 Activity:nil |
6/25 ok im convinced
http://www.imvotingrepublican.com
\_ One of the replies on the associated myspace blog,
"Quality film.
Unfortunately you are further conditioning the public that the
Republicans and the Democrats are different. They are the same and
so you are only dividing the population, creating a false
right/left paradigm. 100% of the things mentioned in the video
concerning the Republican Party can be directly attributed to a
Democrat Controlled Congress as well. For without the Democrat
Controlled Congress, the bills would not have passed allowing the
cheap Chinese plastic crap. Additionally, the Federal Government
\_ Whatever. I want my tax raise now!!! Fuck y'all rich people.
has no legal right under the Constitution to decide if a women can
kill her baby or not. The states do have that right. Your
knowledge of Government and the Constitution REALLY needs to
improve before you make another video. If you are going to make
videos such as this that warp or form the opinions of peoples
minds, you should at least have the good form to be responsible
for providing facts versus fiction.
Your video screws good people like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich.
Obama and McCain alike will bring us closer to an economic
meltdown due to either grotesque socialist programs (Obama) and
additional military spending / war spending (Obama and McCain).
Both of the men are what are known as Collectivists. They have no
respect for Liberty and they both believe that the small number of
elite should tell you and I what is best for us. They believe that
you and I are not worthy of making our own choices.
Well, we continue to elect Democrats and Republicans and we get
the same results. So what makes you think that voting for a
Democrat this time will be any different.
Insanity." |
| 2008/6/25-30 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50369 Activity:nil |
6/25 "I really didn't love America until I was deprived of her company."
-John McCain
http://www.jedreport.com/2008/06/damaging-mccain.html
Fox edited this comment out of a transcript and never broadcast it.
\_ This guy thinks it was edited out because it's too similar to
Michelle Obama's comment? Huh, I guess I don't see this similarity.
Mrs. Obama's comment sounds kind of shallow and self-serving,
McCain's seems more sincere.
\_ How so? I think they both sound sincere. |
| 2008/6/24-27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50355 Activity:moderate 92%like:50333 |
6/23 Passing out "homemade" signs at Obama rally
http://preview.tinyurl.com/67xltd [theunfocused.blogspot.com]
\_ this is about the level of me seeing a pro mccain poster on
the bulletin board at work. big whoop-dee-do. stop
blogging about your toast being burnt.
\_ Wow, look at all that FURIOUS ANGER in the comments. This is
awesome.
\_ The always vitrolic and bile-filled Right actually has something
to be upset about for once. I wonder if their heads are going
to explode in November when O actually wins.
\_ What do they have to be upset about again? That they were
given a free reign to do anything they wanted for 5-6 years
and ended up destroying the economy and America's reputation?
\_ They are losing control of the government.
\_ You mean they are unable to control the BEAST!!!
Big government BAD BAD BAD! Starve it! Go Reagan!
\_ It's all Bill Clinton's fault!
\_ When Bill was POTUS we had a Republican Congress.
\_ Yes because the economy and America's reputation were
perfect before W. Hint: deficits and bubbles were
existing problems. And don't liberals love gas prices
being high?
\_ The argument that the absurdities of the W-Admin
should be forgiven because no one's perfect fails on
its face. In the history of !perfect, no POTUS has
done more to screw us up.
\_ Carter.
\_ Even Carter didn't leave our military and our
economy in a mess on the scale of W.
\_ Carter only had four years, W got eight.
\_ Are you kidding? Carter's military failed to
get a bunch of helicopters across the desert.
Carter's economy introduced the phrase
"double digit inflation" and "odd-even gas
days" to the American public. *AND* he
managed to fuck up the country in only 4
years. Were you even alive during Carter's
term? Do you remember any of it? I do.
We've been over this before. As bad as Bush
has messed up any number of things, Carter
was worse. I could go on and on with Carter's
failures but there's no point. If he was a
(R) you'd think he was Satan. If Bush was a
(D) you'd be making excuses for him. Go read
Carter's Malaise Speech. That sums it up
nicely.
\_ You're comparing Carter's inability to
rescue the hostages to our humiliation at
the hands of insurgents with IEDs? The
resurgent Taliban? Year after year of
quagmire? D or R doesn't matter to me
nearly as much as the squandering of
surplus of budget _and_ international
support by the Bush Admin.
\_ I'm comparing Carter's entire concept of
diplomacy and military gutting policies
to nothing. The failure stands tall and
proud on the absolute scale without
requiring any comparison. How much
international support do you think we
had after the fucked up rescue? After
The President Of The United States Of
America gave the fucking "Malaise
Speech"? Really, I seriously suspect
like our other poster here that you
either weren't alive or aren't old enough
to remember the nightmare and very dark
days for the Carter era in this country.
I don't think you're stupid or anything
like that, I believe you're simply
uneducated on the topic. Go look up that
speech and we'll talk after.
\_ you know, you're right, i was not a
thinking human during the carter years,
but im going to go out on a short limb here
and state that the Bush Administration has
screwed up America 100x worse than Carter
could have dreamed. Do you realize how
much of a gigantic clusterfuck Iraq is?
fuck. i don't swear that much but just
thinking of bush right now makes my heartbeat
go up.
thinking of bush right now makes my heart-
beat go up.
\_ You weren't there and the media would
never remind you. I'm sorry but really
you have no clue how bad it was in *this*
country during Carter's era. Since you
seem so intense about Iraq, I'd rather
the cluster fuck be in another country
than in this country.
\- BUSHCO is a vastly bigger fuckup than
PEANUT. and unless you are a die hard
israel supporter, carter is a good
"ex-president". what are the odds
BUSHCO will grow up and be respected
for his service, sacrifice, maturity
of thought etc.
\_ After he's out of office I really don't
care what he does. I barely care now.
I'm not a die hard anything but I do
believe it is stupid to support the
theocrats and thugs in the area over
the only democracy that has women's
right and doesn't execute homosexuals.
\- let's review: you dont have strong
feeling about the US being a
democracy that tortures people,
is becoming a plutocracy, and
appoints judges hostile to
women's/gay rights ["I barely care
now"], but you are significantly
concerned about women's and gay
rights in the middle east. why is
it hard to take you seriously?
YBHBCA:S. --psb |
| 2008/6/23-27 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:50338 Activity:nil |
6/23 WTF? McCain actually talking sense about energy issues?
http://preview.tinyurl.com/3pyo7g (cnn.com)
\_ Voted for it before he voted against it.
\_ Umm... This is pretty much in line with McCain historically.
What are you talking about?
\_ Not that this necessarily applies here but I think changes
of position/flip flopping aren't inherently bad and screaming
about a particular flip flop is just stupid. Only complete
morons never reconsider things. If it happens all the time
or is hypocritical/insincere that's another thing...
\_ A fine idea. I hope President Obama adopts it during his first term.
Actually, that would be superb: McCain as Energy Secretary. |
| 2008/6/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50333 Activity:very high 92%like:50355 |
6/23 Passing out "homemade" signs at Obama rally
http://theunfocused.blogspot.com/2008/02/passing-out-signs-at-obama-rally.html
\_ this is about the level of me seeing a pro mccain poster on the bulletin
board at work. big whoop-dee-do. stop blogging about your toast being
burnt.
\_ this is about the level of me seeing a pro mccain poster on
the bulletin board at work. big whoop-dee-do. stop
blogging about your toast being burnt.
\_ Wow, look at all that FURIOUS ANGER in the comments. This is
awesome.
\_ The always vitrolic and bile-filled Right actually has something
to be upset about for once. I wonder if their heads are going
to explode in November when O actually wins.
\_ What do they have to be upset about again? That they were
given a free reign to do anything they wanted for 5-6 years
and ended up destroying the economy and America's reputation?
\_ They are losing control of the government.
\_ You mean they are unable to control the BEAST!!!
Big government BAD BAD BAD! Starve it! Go Reagan!
\_ It's all Bill Clinton's fault!
\_ When Bill was POTUS we had a Republican Congress.
\_ Yes because the economy and America's reputation were
perfect before W. Hint: deficits and bubbles were
existing problems. And don't liberals love gas prices
being high?
\_ The argument that the absurdities of the W-Admin
should be forgiven because no one's perfect fails on
its face. In the history of !perfect, no POTUS has
done more to screw us up.
\_ Carter.
\_ Even Carter didn't leave our military and our
economy in a mess on the scale of W. |
| 2008/6/18-24 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Reference/Religion] UID:50287 Activity:nil |
6/18 Obama refuses to photographed with Muslim supporters:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/568yxo (Yahoo news)
\_ Liar. His campaign officials did this. Remember, all campaign
officials are dirtbags. -emarkp
\_ By necessity. |
| 2008/6/16-17 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50267 Activity:moderate |
6/16 McCain campaign caught promoting Hershey's and Food Network recipes as
Cindy's:
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/mccain_camp_cribs_recipe_for_c.php
\_ Do you really think this means anything? I mean seriously is this
really something you care about? Don't you have more important
things to worry about? -not a mccain fan
\_ Do you really think this means anything? I mean seriously dude,
don't you have more important things to worry about?
-not a mccain fan
\_ OMG! That is horrible! Way way worse than McCain's Keating Six
involvement, crushing free speech, or trying to destroy our
borders and any meaningful concept of citizenship. And they've
got Obama's ugly land scam deals and friendly associations with
racists and known terrorists covered too. Recipe theft! Execute
them all!
\_ Of course you are insane too, so it balances out. |
| 2008/6/13-17 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50256 Activity:nil |
6/13 What is it with the nutters who support Obama?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-06-10-ohio-lethal-injection_N.htm?csp=34
\_ You're really reaching with this one... |
| 2008/6/13-17 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50249 Activity:high |
6/13 McCain flip-flops again, this time on Social Security:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/5tg6m6
\_ Finally a genuine criticism. Yep, it looks like ol' McCain doesn't
have any grounding philosophy on this. You can probably parse the
statements to make them consistent (using partial vs full
privatization), but looks like a flip-flop to me. (Unless the full
quotes expand on the partial thing.)
Now when will Obama supporters notice his flip-flops?
-emarkp
\_ In general, Obama tries to avoid speaking in specifics, so that
people can interpret his generalities however they prefer. This
is pretty clever, campaignwise, but is bound to set people up for
disappointed if he is elected. -Obama supporter
\_ So why are you a supporter? -emarkp
\_ oil is the ultimate strawman. the MSM websites harping on oil are
part of the conspiracy all over the internet to conceal the nature
of an exponential function. search for a graph of Moore's Law, the
quaint rule that the number of transistors on a chip doubles every
18 to 24 months, you will see a graph of a linear function, ie a
straight line, see this wiki page for a 'censored' graph of Moore's
Law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Moores_law.svg
however if this were a true linear function, the scale of the
y-axis would increase in regular increments, 10,000 then 20,000
then 30,000... etc... instead the y-axis of every Moore's Law
Chart you see increases in increments 10,000 then 100,000 then
1,000,000... making an exponential function appear to be a linear
function. I imagine this is to avoid general societal panic.
for a comparison of a linear graph and an exponential graph see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_equation
and for an exponential function here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_function
the graph of an exponential function at some point will veer
sharply up into infinity. before the powers that be began to
censor the true appearance of the Moore's Law chart on the internet
it was apparent that the singularity would occur in the year 2032,
when the chart veers sharply up into infinity. so the singularity
clearly occurs in the year 2032. CASE CLOSED.
\_ Because for the most part the two candidates are both
competent human beings with good advisers, but Obama's
ability to inspire me is worth more to me than McCain's
oft-vaunted experience, especially when I'm still not
sure which McCain is running this time around. --erikred
\_ I received a passing grade in my rhetoric classes. I
don't find Obama inspiring. Go find a video with full
audio of the original I Have A Dream and you'll know
what inspiring is. I got chills. Obama is a nobody
reading other people's words off a teleprompter. He
has no guiding philophy, principles or ethics. (And
please don't respond by bashing McCain. I don't like
him either).
\- your babbling isnt worth more time than a
a URL cut-n-paste: http://tinyurl.com/ytgsfm
note the biography of the endorser (he's basically
bush'41's JYOO).
\_ So you haven't actually heard the original Dream
speech. And no I didn't bother to go to your
blind tinyurl link.
\_ The tinyurl link goes to a Slate article.
\_ And yet, Obama has the pride to put his name
behind his words. Do you? --erikred
\_ Damn, I sure hope so since he's asking to be the
most powerful individual on the planet where as
I'm just some dude on the motd. Were you trying
to make some sort of point? When I run for office
I hope to do better than "CHANGE! WE CAN DO IT!
CHAAAANGE!!!!!" as a replacement something real
and worth listening to.
\_ It's the standard politician's playbook. Bill
Clinton had a similar campaign mantra. You
stand up there and list various problems and
describe some sorry individual who had some
misfortune and say we need to elect you to
fix all this stuff. Elect Obama and all bad
things will end and the government will fix
all your problems and those of the rest of
the world too, probably.
\_ ^some sorry individual ... misfortune^Bush
\_ What would you consider real and worth listen-
ing to? Perhaps I can help you find it.
\_ After eight years of being disappointed by the devil
I know, I am prepared to be disappointed by the devil
I don't know. -Obama supporter
\_ Then vote third party instead of more of the same
machine politics. I am.
\_ I did that in 2000 and look where that got us.
I think Obama > Gore, too. -Obama supporter
\_ So your 2000 vote, presumably in CA, got us GWB?
\_ A friend who lived through JFK and was disappointed
by his presidency seems to think Obama will also
disappoint. Perhaps. And yet, perhaps not. I'm
looking forward to taking a chance with a clear
conscience for once. --erikred
\- i wasnt around to decide how inspiring JFK
was, but i sure dont find him to be a person
of integrity, even after lowing the bar for
politicians. i think the best thing you can
say about him is he respected intelligence
[unlike BUSHCO].
politicians.
\_ Integrity is just something the press whacks the
right over the head with when they screw up and
covers up or dismisses when the left fails in
that regard. You'd be hard pressed to name a
politician or member of the press for that
matter, who has real integrity. Certainly
neither of the current nominees for President
has a shred of it.
\- just like "i wasnt indicted" isnt a real
defense, saying "they are all the same"
["all pols are corrupt" "the dems and reps
are all the same"] is also lazy. if you cant
tell the difference between the bogus "plag-
erism" charge w.r.t. OBAMA and DEVAL PATRICK
vs JFK and the TSORENSEN/Profiles In Courage
episode, then it's not productive to discuss
politics with you. |
| 2008/6/12-13 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50240 Activity:nil |
6/12 Barack Obama's Birth Certificate
http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/3/BO_Birth_Certificate.jpg
Not really that interesting, except that I didn't know that his full
name is "Brack Hussein Obama II" (The Revenge)
\_ This obsession of yours is beginning to look unhealthy.
\_ I'd like to thank Obama for releasing this so that the burgeoning
conspiracy theories could be nipped in the bud.
\_ Wait, Kos got it without saying how? This means the conspiracy
theories will only continue. *sigh*
\_ His middle name has been listed in Wikipedia. |
| 2008/6/12-13 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:50237 Activity:kinda low |
6/11 Fox News: Not even trying to hide the racism anymore
http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/9671.html
\_ http://sadlyno.com? Pst. Nice try.
\_ MSNBC, now officially part of the Obama campaign. And?
\_ First, you are wrong. But even if you are that's not the case.
\_ First, you are wrong. But even if you are that's not the issue.
It's not that Fox is blatently pro-R. I expect that. It's that
Fox is being pretty damn racist. I'm not cool with "anti-Obama"
turning into "stoke the flames of ugly racism." And calling
Obama's wife his "baby mama" is pretty fucking obviously
racist overtones. Then again, this is the same network that
let's Bill O'" my god black people eat with knives and forks"
Reilly on the air.
Obama's wife his "baby mama" is pretty fucking obviously racist
overtones. Then again, this is the same network that let's Bill
O'" my god black people eat with knives and forks" Reilly on the
air.
\_ You know Michelle called Barack her "babby daddy", right?
\_ So what? Seriously. If you don't see that Fox is not so
subtly painting Michelle Obama as an uppity angry black
woman you have your head in the sand. I don't care
if you don't like Obama. At this point I don't care
when it comes to Fox being a shill for the Republican
party. But I do care when then the anti-Obama strategy
is to pander to racism. Then again what else do you
expect from a party that pretty much has no way to win
unless they pander to hate.
\_ Yeah, I wish the Dems would knock that off too.
\_ Obama is Malkin's Baby Daddy? This explains everything. |
| 2008/6/10-13 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50207 Activity:high |
6/10 Obama plans to disarm America
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6afu7g
Actually, I was kinda meh on this video until is 3rd point.
World-wide ban on fissile material? Wah?
\_ Yay! Little Green Footballs! What, no freep link?
\_ We'd better disarm America. Otherwise we'll blow!
\_ Dittohead Desperation Level: Red
\_ So, you think there should be a world-wide ban on fissile
material?
\_ Depends on how it's implemented. I don't think the idea
is inherently wrong.
\_ Umm... nuclear power?
\_ That's about as brilliant as a world-wide ban on ammonium
nitrate.
\_ Did someone suggest such a thing?
\_ not exactly, but its not a bad analogy -- Banning
something that is either vitally userful or potentially
explosive, depending only on its concentration.
\_ No kidding, all the defense contractors and other War
Profiteers must be crapping their diapers right now.
\_ Wow you're painfully confused. With zero nukes the same
people will make the same money as before. Weapons money
has very little to do with nukes. You went to Cal?
\_ Did you watch the video?
\_ Yay, Little Green Footballs. What, no freep link?
\_ Hmm? It's a youTube video of Obama.
\_ By way of the LGF weblog. Great talking to you.
\_ Ah, so it is. Obviously this video must be fake.
\_ He probably should have said "weaponized \_ Ah, so it is\
. Obviously this video must be fake.
\_ You don't like the source of the link so that makes the
final content untrue? What are you smoking? Things are
true or not no matter the path the link may have taken
to get to you.
\_ If the boy cries wolf enough times, you're going to
ignore him the next time he cries wolf, even if he's
right. LGF doesn't like Obama and makes no bones about
it. As a result, LGF likes posting reasons why you
shouldn't like Obama, either; the majority of these are
trivial or non-issues dressed up to look like issues.
As a result, when I see LGF behind a link, I immediately
assume he's crying wolf. The source matters because it
alerts me whether to take the "facts" seriously or not.
In this case, not.
\_ This way of updating your beliefs works great in cases
where you have no fucking clue how to evaluate claims
yourself. -- ilyas
\_ Or a less than unlimited amount of time to waste
weeding through dreck. Are you still a grad
student?
\_ I've got a low threshhold for bs. Fool me twice,
forget about it.
\_ You don't understand it? It seems quite obvious to me.
This is how he maintains his belief that he is always
right. Any place that disagrees with him is labeled
as "unreliable." All facts even linked to from such
a place are by definition, untrue. Therefore, no facts
can be true that disagree with his worldview. QED.
A video of Obama displaying utter cluelessness? It
is linked to by LGF, therefore it cannot have actually
happened!
\_ Here, wipe your mouth, the froth is showing.
\_ He probably should have said "weaponized fissile material" instead,
but other than that, I am 100% behind this. Note that he said
a "goal" of nuclear weapons elimination worldwide. I think it is
great to have goals. I sure wouldn't want to be the first one to
eliminate my arsenal, though. Hey, I have a question for you.. I want
to give Obama money for the general campaign. Should I do it now,
or wait until after the convention?
eliminate my arsenal, though. Hey, I have a question for you.
I want to give Obama money for the general campaign. Should I do
it now, or wait until after the convention?
\_ He needs to know wth he's talking about. He said what he said.
When there's a "clarification" let us know, until then he's on
record as opposing all fissile material. If he did mean what
you want him to mean then he's following Ronald Reagan nuclear
doctrine without the important "verify" part. I fear for the
free world.
\_ Right, so McCain thinks we should stay in Iraq for 10k
years.
\_ If you can't win the argument, make things up!
\_ Here, have an obviously liberal link:
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/06/mccain-permanent-bases |
| 2008/6/9-12 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50201 Activity:moderate |
6/9 you know, physically, McCain doesn't look so hot. I hope he makes
it to November!
\_ Nice war hero you got there, I would hate for anything to happen
to him.
\_ McCain/Stroke 2008!
\_ McCain/Stokke 2008
\_ McCain will pick Byrd as a running mate to make himself look more
youthful.
\_ He reminds me a lot of Bob Dole. |
| 2008/6/9-12 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50190 Activity:nil |
6/8 Obama backpeadals on his pro-Israel statement
http://csua.org/u/lq5
\_ How often do you read the Jpost?
\_ John Kerry II.
\_ Like John McCain on waterboarding?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/washington/13cnd-cong.html
\_ Yeah, almost, except completely different.
\_ Yay, it's good for the gander but not the goose!
\_ That definitely looks like a "clarification" not a backpedal to me,
but I guess it depends on how you define those terms. He definitely
should have expected that AIPAC would interpret differently from
what he intended. |
| 2008/6/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:50182 Activity:moderate |
6/6 Did you guys get a load of Obama's victory speech? This guy really
does think he's the messiah.
"I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own
limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of
the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and
fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that
generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our
children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for
the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the
rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was
the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our
image as the last, best hope on Earth. This was the moment - this was
the time - when we came together to remake this great nation..."
Good thing he's facing it with profound humility, what the heck would
he be saying if he wasn't?
\_ Dittohead Desperation Level: Orange
\_ Unlike poster below, your value-add is zero.
\_ But identical to poster above.
\_ http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/transcripts/121300/bush.html
Everyone says things like this when they win. Did you just start
following politics this year?
Together, guided by a spirit of common sense, common courtesy and
common goals, we can unite and inspire the American citizens.
Together, we will work to make all our public schools excellent,
teaching every student of every background and every accent, so
that no child is left behind.
Together we will save Social Security and renew its promise of a
secure retirement for generations to come.
Together we will strengthen Medicare and offer prescription drug
coverage to all of our seniors.
Together we will give Americans the broad, fair and fiscally
responsible tax relief they deserve.
Together we'll have a bipartisan foreign policy true to our
values and true to our friends, and we will have a military equal
to every challenge and superior to every adversary.
Together we will address some of society's deepest problems one
person at a time, by encouraging and empowering the good hearts and
good works of the American people.
This is the essence of compassionate conservatism and it will be a
foundation of my administration.
\_ And thus we see how the R's have become the D's of a few years
ago.
\_ ...what language is this, and what does it mean in English? |
| 2008/6/6-12 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50177 Activity:nil |
6/6 Hee hee. Obama 2008 == Cuomo 1984
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYa8k09V7lI
\_ Except McCain is not quite as charming as RONALD REGAN THE
AMERICAN HERO!!! |
| 2008/6/6-12 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50176 Activity:kinda low |
6/6 "I am looking forward to a debate with John McCain. John McCain is a
good man. He's an American hero. We honor his service to this nation.
But he has made some bad choices about the company he keeps." -Barack
Obama
\_ "I'm not bad, I'm just drawn that way" -- BUSHJR
\_ No way Obama really said that. That is so pot-kettle-black.
\_ Yes he did. See for yourself:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=o6XyE_J-Xyo
at 1:25 in the video
\_ Wow, amazing given Obama's list of friends.
\_ It will be good to have this election to see if the American people
really want to continue the War in Iraq or finally end it. That is
what democracy is all about.
\_ You mean like in 2004 and 2006?
\_ Sure. In 2004 the public voted to keep the project going.
In 2006 they voted the other way, but the legistlature does
not have enough power to act unilaterally. Our framers set
things up like that on purpose.
\_ If they voted the other way, why did so many pro-war
candidates win? Why did Lieberman win? The 2006 election
as mandate to leave Iraq is one of the biggest media lies
in the last quarter century.
\_ so what's your explanation? The complete bankruptcy of
Republican ideology and policies? -tom
\_ Explanation for what? And yes, for once you're
finally right (a broken clock strikes twice) but not
for the reasons you feel. The Republican party no
longer has an ideology. They now have the same long
term goals as the Dems: acquire and retain power.
For a few years there they actually believed in
something, but no longer, sadly leaving those who
care about the long term health of this country with
no one to vote for. Oh but wait I can vote for the
extreme left marxist or the somewhat left socialist.
Fortunately, we term out the POTUS, so the amount of
damage either can inflict is repairable.
\_ Maybe you'd be better off in Myanmar. -tom
\_ He should go to a place where the govt. has
no ideology but to hold power because he
doesn't like that in our parties? You're
making even less sense than usual. -jrleek
\_ Which one do you think is the "extreme left
marxist"? Can you please sign your future posts
"WN" for wingnut, so I can filter them? Thks.
\_ I actually thought this comment was too stupid to be
worth replying to, but after reading the above, I have
changed my mind. The reason "so many" as you put it,
pro-war candidates won is because the war was still
popular in certain sections of the country. I imagine it
still is, in a few places. There are 435 different
Congressional elections. At least one of them must still
be pro-Bush.
\_ Hopefully the American people are smart enough to understand
that voting based on a single point is pretty dumb. "I ended
the war but turned the country into a debt ridden socialist mess
the likes of which Jimmy Carter can only dream of!" The war
will end soon enough no matter who is in office. I vote based
on the long term health of the country which has little to do
with Iraq and everything to do with long term economic policy
and security as always.
\_ gee, I wonder if there is some huge discretionary
expense that we could cut out of the budget...I'm
wracking my brain to think if there might be anything
we're spending a shitload of money on for no good
purpose... -tom |
| 2008/6/6-10 [Politics/Domestic/Election, ERROR, uid:50166, category id '18005#14.3352' has no name! , ] UID:50166 Activity:nil |
6/6 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91226631 Obama Bans DNC from Taking Lobbyists' Money \_ Meanwhile the charity "Friends of New Orleans" will pay for the party at the DNC in Denver http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/10878.html \_ Further proof that Obama is a radical marxist. |
| 2008/6/5-10 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50158 Activity:low |
6/5 Rezko convicted of 16 counts of corruption
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/04/obama-saddened-by-rezko-verdict Obama: "This isn't the Tony Rezko I knew." Now was Wright the pastor
"he knew" Who does this guy know?
\_ Ahh, smell the desperation. Is this really the best you have
right now?
\_ Ahh, smell the desperation. Is this really the best you have right
now?
\_ Starting in 2003, Rezko was one of the people on Obama's U.S.
Senate campaign finance committee, which raised more than $14
million. Rezko threw an early fundraiser for Obama, and that
fundraiser was instrumental in providing Obama with seed money
for his U.S. Senate race. Obama has since identified over
$250,000 in campaign contributions to various Obama campaigns as
coming from Rezko or close associates, and has in consequence
donated almost two thirds of that amount to charity.
\_ This is why we need campaign finance reform. Every politician
has to cater to people like this. Remember Bush and Enron?
McCain and the Keating Five? They all have to do this just
to stay in office.
\_ No, I just thought it was funny. This guys is surrounded by
hustlers, and he just keeps saying "That's not the ____ I knew."
He's either an idiot or a hustler. Which do you think he is?
\_ Surrounded by hustlers! Everywhere he turns! Pimps and
drug dealers!
\_ Try this, "Republican State Senator involved in land for cash
deal with power broker convicted on 16 corruption charges!"
You'd be the first one screaming for that (R) guy's head and
telling us how this proves (R) are all evil. But in this case
it is Obama so there's no problem with his prior actions or
associations. I don't have a horse in this race but I do find
your comments intellectually dishonest. I don't see how Obama
is any different than McCain and his dirty deals or Clinton and
her dirty deals or the rest of the Washington insiders and their
dirty deals. I fail to see how anyone can look at Obama and
give him such a big pass on *everything* so blindly just because
he sounds good reading from a prepared speech or teleprompter
and talks about hope and change a lot.
\_ But this isn't about Obama. If Rezko is guilty he should
pay the price, but you are seriously reaching to pin
this on Obama. It's not like Rezko was convicted in
corruption as part of his relationship with Obama.
(And yes I know about the land deal, it seems like a weak
story at best right now.)
\_ P.S. As to if it was an R, nah I wouldn't. Some here
might, but they'd be wrong too. If Obama was going to
the mat for Rezko I'd be upset, but I don't see any
evidence of that.
\_ *cough* Abramoff *cough*
\_ Wait, you think this is anything like Abramoff?
Seriously? You are that blinded by the need to
hate Obama?
\_ do we really need a president who can't observe worth a damn?
\_ Judgement!
\_ AND HE ONCE KNEW A COMMUNIST!
\_ The Hillary wikipedia page has a paragraph about how Hillary
worked for a Known Communist for a summer straight out of law
school.
\_ "Known Communist?" Are we travelling back in fucking time?
Aren't the new enemies the brown people from Arabia?
\_ I think we're moving towards pasty Han people. |
| 2008/6/3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50147 Activity:nil |
6/3 One reason no true conservative should ever vote for McCain:
Keating Five |
| 2008/6/3-5 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50146 Activity:moderate |
6/3 Since no one else seems to be willing to bite, here is my case
for Obama:
1) He was always against the War. This shows good judgement and
political courage. I have some sympathy for those who got swept
up in the tide of emotion and then apologized for their mistake,
but better to have not made the mistake in the first place.
\_ I am not sure whether this shows good judgement or just a
certain type of undesirable (for a President) mentality.
\_ In other words, he's not your candidate because he didn't
support the war.
\_ No. I just question whether he was really the only wise
person in Congress. There is nothing in his academic
or other record to indicate so. I think maybe he wears
his heart on his sleeve or in some way didn't quite comprehend
the situation in a way that others did. I don't believe
for one second that all of Congress is stupid and easily
deceived except for greenhorn Obama. If anything, it may
have been a calculated political move which has
apparently paid dividends.
\_ The majority of Democrats in Congress voted against the
war.
\_ The majority of Democratic Senators voted in favor
of the legislation. It is true that the majority
of the House Democrats voted against it, but
that is playing with statistics since the House
has so many more members. How did Obama vote
again and what was unique about his position?
\_ You seem to be arguing both sides of the fence
here. ".... all of Congress is stuid and easily
here. ".... all of Congress is stupid and easily
deceived except for greenhorn Obama" and then
"... what was unique about his position?" Are
you the same guy? Voting against the War was
hardly a unique position, which the first
comment implies. It was somewhat of a contrary
and politically risky (and correct, imho) one.
\_ Obama makes it seem like he was the only
one opposed to the war from the beginning,
but he was not. As you know, he didn't
even vote on it but so what if he had?
\_ Technically they voted to authorize Bush
to go to war if deemed necessary, not to
simply go to war.
2) Fiscally responsible. We have a huge budget deficit that only
one party seems to be willing to face. Better to start closing
that hole now, rather than continue on with our current policies.
3) Health Care: While the Obama plan isn't entirely to my liking,
it is much better than doing nothing. Health care costs will
eventually overwhelm our economy, if we don't do something about it.
4) Character: I was going to make a whole bunch of different points,
but decided to roll them up into what I think is the most important
one: Obama is intellectually curious, optimistic, generous spirited,
and profoundly democratic. In an era where most leaders either
pander to the lowest common denominator or go for a divisive
50% + 1 strategy, it is refreshing to see one that honestly tries
to reach across the aisle and try to include moderates and even
conservatives in his decision making. We have been able to afford
a certain amount of infighting amongst ourselves recently, since
we have not faced any serious threats, the way our parents and
grandparents did, but I think we are coming up into a time where
Americans are going to have to come together to face our problems.
Obama overwhelmingly offer the best opportunity to do that. The
Obama overwhelmingly offers the best opportunity to do that. The
best in a generation, in fact. -ausman
\_ Stop overwriting other people's edits, please.
\_ I had the motd locked. Respect the lock and you won't have this
problem.
\_ don't lock the motd forbloodyever and maybe we'd respect the
lock more. I hate when some dumass starts motdedit and then
goes idle for a prolonged time.
\_ I don't do that. At most I spend a few minutes with the
motd locked, but I will try to shorten that.
\_ His plan is to add at least $800B per year to our budget. How is
that fiscally responsible? What is Obama's health care plan and how
do you think it will reduce costs? -emarkp
\_ 40 million uninsured Americans with untreated costs will tear
up the economy.
\_ Whose cost does insuring the uninsured cut? The money for
covering the actual medical bills ought to come from
somewhere, and it's going to be from the premiums.
\_ Preventive care is much cheaper in the long run. People
without health insurance tend to have crappy preventive
\_ Preventative care is much cheaper in the long run. People
without health insurance tend to have crappy preventative
care.
\_ Prove it.
\_ I see. Thx. -- PP
\_ An ER is an expensive place to get primary care.
\_ According to his website:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/HealthCareFullPlan.pdf
I have not read this in its entirety and don't feel qualified to
debate it point-by-point, but you asked, so here it is. --e-red
\_ I'm not interested in point-by-point, nor even a full debate.
If you're making the case for him, I'd like to know why you
think his plan for health care is good, even in a nutshell.
-emarkp
\_ Single payer could reduce costs. I don't see how a mandated
and/or subsidized version of the existing insurance system
cuts costs, but that's what HRC and BHO propose.
\_ Guaranteed coverage will improve labor mobility, which
will make the economy more efficient. Standardization of
things like IT delivery of health care records will save
money. Guaranteeing that preventative health care is
available to all will save money. Providing coverage to
the 46M currently not covered is the humane thing to do.
In a nutshell.
\_ Where do you get the $800B figure from?
\_ It was the number I recall for the sum of all his promised
plans. I'll dig for a reference. I may have conflated it
with the projected $845B (over 13 years) for the global
poverty act. -emarkp
\_ Ah, I did conflate the two. It's over $280B per year.
http://csua.org/u/lp1
-emarkp
\_ Ending the War and letting the Bush tax cuts expire will
raise and save much more than that.
\_ Well, that's *very* speculative. For instance, Obama
said he'd be for raising the capital gains rate
because it would be more *fair* even if that meant a
reduction in revenue. Allowing the Bush rate cuts to
expire may very well reduce revenue as well. As far
as the war goes, any savings will be quickly eaten up
by new programs Obama has proposed. (I also disagree
about what bailing out of Iraq will cost, but that's
even more speculative.) -emarkp
\_ Raising tax rates increases government revenue,
especially at current tax rates. To claim
otherwise is disingenuous.
\_ ???? You're ignoring history, and Obama.
Charlie Gibson pointed out that in the past,
raising capital gains tax rates *decreased*
revenue, and cutting the rate *increased*
revenue, and Obama conceded it. This is like
saying that raising a price on a commodity must
increase revenue for that commodity, and
betrays a profoundly naive understanding of
economics. -emarkp
\_ epong: didn't your spider
senses go off when you cited
Charlie Gibson as an authority?
\_ I'd like to learn more about this. Do you
know where I can get read about these tax
cuts/increases and their results?
\_ No, it is not like saying that. I guess
you are sincerely misinformed about basic
economics, not disingenous:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/5kcels
Obama should not have conceded that point,
he should have contested it. Supply side
economics is pure wingnuttery, which the
overwhelming majority of economists agree.
\_ #1, that blog is a joke,
#2, the point was HISTORICAL. It *did*
happen, period. It's not up for debate.
-emarkp
\_ You realize that just because
an event (#2) happens after another
event (#1), that #1 wasn't necessarily
the cause of #2, right?
\_ A Tax Holiday will tend to bring in
extra revenue, for reasons that I hope
I don't have to explain.
\_ Greatest hits of the motd:
http://csua.com/?entry=50011
\_ Fiscally responsible + voted for farm bill?
\_ The Farm Bill is your sole criterion for determining fiscal
responsibility? I agree that it was a bad piece of legislation,
but surely voting for the War in Iraq has proven even more
costly?
\_ When he's actually been in a position to vote, he has voted
to fund the war.
\_ http://preview.tinyurl.com/56j2dn
Wizbang blog
\_ There's not a whole lot to work with in regards to his record.
What fiscally responsible votes of his can you reference?
\_ 1) It doesn't take that much political courage when you aren't
actually voting on it.
2,3) His health plan and support for the farm bill don't say
fiscally conservative to me.
4) "Profoundly democratic", man you are drunk on the Kool-Aid.
Howard Dean had similar plans and ideas as Obama and was against
the war. But he was white and did the yell. "Come together to
face problems" is BS. What exactly does that mean? His plans are
like those of the other Democrats. How is that reaching out to
Republicans? "Generous spirited"? That's fine as long as it's
his money; spending other people's tax dollars isn't generous.
Optimistic? He always talks about how we are at a crossroads
and we're going to have dire consequences unless we elect him.
Obama is an extremely gifted public speaker, best in a generation
perhaps, but he is still a politician, and he still blows a lot
of hot air.
\_ Remember "It's morning in America" from Reagan? Leadership
matters. Reagan was a good president primarily because he
was optimistic. Obama will do the same. I am prepared to be
disappointed, but eight more years of the same screaming
Rove/Limbaugh/Coulter/O'Reilly crowd in power is not
what America needs.
\_ Limbaugh/Coulter/O'Reilly were never in power, and
McCain is not Bush.
Obama is not optimistic like Reagan. He's very frowny
and concerned looking in his speeches, not like Reagan.
I don't really get where you're getting this optimism
thing from. He is mostly about "we need to change from
Bush". What's so sunny about that? That's what Hillary
says, that's what D's were saying in 2004.
\_ Well, he seems to believe he can do anything. I'll talk
to Iran and they will stop enriching uranium! Promise!
\_ This is a legitimate criticism, and I saw the same
with Kerry. Always "I'll talk with them about xyz."
That's fine, but there should be discussion about
what to do if they tell us to go pound sand. -emarkp
\_ Beginning a conversation with, "If you don't do
what I want, I'll bomb you" tends to be a good
way to abort negotiations. Listening and then
replying is much more diplomatic; it also gives
you more options, since you're not committed to a
course of actions ahead of time.
\_ You know Iran is in violation of a treaty they
signed right? And they've already refused
every carrot Obama claims to be planning to
use? The conversation didn't start with that,
it got to that. Sure, Bush didn't do a good
job but Obama is blowing smoke at best. I'm
not interested in trading Nixon for Carter
again.
\_ And you're not going to get Carter for Nixon
because Bush is worse than Nixon, and even
Nixon understood the need to talk w/o
preconditions-- that time with PRC. Obama
is not Carter, and McCain is not Reagan.
\_ China and Iran are totally different
circumstances. They have nothing to
do with one another.
\_ You're right, but not for the
reasons you think you are. Iran
has at least two different factions
in play: the Pres. and the Supreme
Council. PRC was mostly monolithic.
My point, though, was that even
Nixon recognized that talking >>>
huffing and puffing, sometimes.
We're militarily tapped out and
can't invade/occupy Iran, so why
pretend like we can? Let's meet,
then we can show everyone else
how reasonable we are and what
a showboating clown Mahmoud is.
\_ He seems optomistic to me (and to most Americans). I
\_ You know our ambassadors meet
occasionally right? It's not
like we have no diplomatic
contacts at all.
\_ Are you high? Apart from a
highly unproductive meeting in
Baghdad in 2007, the US
diplomatic position on diplo-
matic contact with Iran has
been "they can read our
position in the papers."
EDIT: Our ambassadors aren't
meeting, but our Treasury Dept.
have:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7248148.stm
\_ He seems optimistic to me (and to most Americans). I
don't know where you get the frowny thing from. Read
his book, I don't have time to recap it here.
\- I have not read all of the above, but the post-WW2
record is quite clear "structure trumps ideology".
Budget deficits are better predicted by whether
Congress and President are same party or diff party,
not which party.
\_ McCain's daughter is HOT HOT HOT http://i27.tinypic.com/2qtzww9.jpg |
| 2008/6/3 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50137 Activity:very high |
6/3 Since no one else seems to be willing to bite, here is my case
for Obama:
1) He was always against the War. This shows good judgement and
political courage. I have some sympathy for those who got swept
up in the tide of emotion and then apologized for their mistake,
but better to have not made the mistake in the first place.
2) Fiscally responsible. We have a huge budget deficit that only
one party seems to be willing to face. Better to start closing
that hole now, rather than continue on with our current policies.
3) Health Care: While the Obama plan isn't entirely to my liking,
it is much better than doing nothing. Health care costs will
eventually overwhelm our economy, if we don't do something about it.
4) Character: I was going to make a whole bunch of different points,
but decided to roll them up into what I think is the most important
one: Obama is intellectually curious, optimistic, generous spirited,
and profoundly democratic. In an era where most leaders either
pander to the lowest common denominator or go for a divisive
50% + 1 strategy, it is refreshing to see one that honestly tries
to reach across the aisle and try to include moderates and even
conservatives in his decision making. We have been able to afford
a certain amount of infighting amongst ourselves recently, since
we have not faced any serious threats, the way our parents and
grandparents did, but I think we are coming up into a time where
Americans are going to have to come together to face our problems.
Obama overwhelmingly offer the best opportunity to do that. The
best in a generation, in fact. -ausman
\_ Stop overwriting other people's edits, please.
\_ I had the motd locked. Respect the lock and you won't have this
problem.
\_ don't lock the motd forbloodyever and maybe we'd respect the
lock more. I hate when some dumass starts motdedit and then
goes idle for a prolonged time.
\_ I don't do that. At most I spend a few minutes with the
motd locked, but I will try to shorten that.
\_ His plan is to add at least $800B per year to our budget. How is
that fiscally responsible? What is Obama's health care plan and how
do you think it will reduce costs? -emarkp
\_ 40 million uninsured Americans with untreated costs will tear
up the economy.
\_ Whose cost does insuring the uninsured cut? The money for
covering the actual medical bills ought to come from
somewhere, and it's going to be from the premiums.
\_ According to his website:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/HealthCareFullPlan.pdf
I have not read this in its entirety and don't feel qualified to
debate it point-by-point, but you asked, so here it is. --e-red
\_ I'm not interested in point-by-point, nor even a full debate.
If you're making the case for him, I'd like to know why you
think his plan for health care is good, even in a nutshell.
-emarkp
\_ Single payer could reduce costs. I don't see how a mandated
and/or subsidized version of the existing insurance system
cuts costs, but that's what HRC and BHO propose.
\_ Guaranteed coverage will improve labor mobility, which
will make the economy more efficient. Standardization of
things like IT delivery of health care records will save
money. Guaranteeing that preventative health care is
available to all will save money. Providing coverage to
the 46M currently not covered is the humane thing to do.
In a nutshell.
\_ Where do you get the $800B figure from?
\_ It was the number I recall for the sum of all his promised
plans. I'll dig for a reference. I may have conflated it
with the projected $845B (over 13 years) for the global
poverty act. -emarkp
\_ Ah, I did conflate the two. It's over $280B per year.
http://csua.org/u/lp1
-emarkp
\_ Ending the War and repealing the Bush tax cuts will
raise and save much more than that.
\_ Well, that's *very* speculative. For instance, Obama
said he'd be for raising the capital gains rate
because it would be more *fair* even if that meant a
reduction in revenue. Allowing the Bush rate cuts to
expire may very well reduce revenue as well. As far
as the war goes, any savings will be quickly eaten up
by new programs Obama has proposed. (I also disagree
about what bailing out of Iraq will cost, but that's
even more speculative.) -emarkp
\_ I'm for not killing all infants at birth even
if it means it causes a zombie outbreak that
destroys the world.
\_ Raising tax rates increases government revenue,
especially at current tax rates. To claim
otherwise is disingenuous.
\_ ???? You're ignoring history, and Obama.
Charlie Gibson pointed out that in the past,
raising capital gains tax rates *decreased*
revenue, and cutting the rate *increased*
revenue, and Obama conceded it. This is like
saying that raising a price on a commodity must
increase revenue for that commodity, and
betrays a profoundly naive understanding of
economics. -emarkp
\_ I'd like to learn more about this. Do you
know where I can get read about these tax
cuts/increases and their results?
\_ No, it is not like saying that. I guess
you are sincerely misinformed about basic
economics, not disingenous:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/5kcels
Obama should not have conceded that point,
he should have contested it. Supply side
economics is pure wingnuttery, which the
overwhelming majority of economists agree.
\_ #1, that blog is a joke,
#2, the point was HISTORICAL. It *did*
happen, period. It's not up for debate.
-emarkp
\_ You realize that just because
an event (#2) happens after another
event (#1), that #1 wasn't necessarily
the cause of #2, right?
\_ A Tax Holiday will tend to bring in
extra revenue, for reasons that I hope
I don't have to explain.
\_ Greatest hits of the motd:
http://csua.com/?entry=50011
\_ Fiscally responsible + voted for farm bill?
\_ The Farm Bill is your sole criterion for determining fiscal
responsibility? I agree that it was a bad piece of legislation,
but surely voting for the War in Iraq has proven even more
costly?
\_ When he's actually been in a position to vote, he has voted
to fund the war.
\_ There's not a whole lot to work with in regards to his record.
What fiscally responsible votes of his can you reference?
\_ 1) It doesn't take that much political courage when you aren't
actually voting on it.
2,3) His health plan and support for the farm bill don't say
fiscally conservative to me.
4) "Profoundly democratic", man you are drunk on the Kool-Aid.
Howard Dean had similar plans and ideas as Obama and was against
the war. But he was white and did the yell. "Come together to
face problems" is BS. What exactly does that mean? His plans are
like those of the other Democrats. How is that reaching out to
Republicans? "Generous spirited"? That's fine as long as it's
his money; spending other people's tax dollars isn't generous.
Optimistic? He always talks about how we are at a crossroads
and we're going to have dire consequences unless we elect him.
Obama is an extremely gifted public speaker, best in a generation
perhaps, but he is still a politician, and he still blows a lot
of hot air.
\_ Remember "It's morning in America" from Reagan? Leadership
matters. Reagan was a good president primarily because he
was optimistic. Obama will do the same. I am prepared to be
disappointed, but eight more years of the same screaming
Rove/Limbaugh/Coulter/O'Reilly crowd in power is not
what America needs.
\_ Limbaugh/Coulter/O'Reilly were never in power, and
McCain is not Bush.
Obama is not optimistic like Reagan. He's very frowny
and concerned looking in his speeches, not like Reagan.
I don't really get where you're getting this optimism
thing from. He is mostly about "we need to change from
Bush". What's so sunny about that? That's what Hillary
says, that's what D's were saying in 2004.
\_ Well, he seems to believe he can do anything. I'll talk
to Iran and they will stop enriching uranium! Promise!
\_ This is a legitimate criticism, and I saw the same
with Kerry. Always "I'll talk with them about xyz."
That's fine, but there should be discussion about
what to do if they tell us to go pound sand. -emarkp
\_ Beginning a conversation with, "If you don't do
what I want, I'll bomb you" tends to be a good
way to abort negotiations. Listening and then
replying is much more diplomatic; it also gives
you more options, since you're not committed to a
course of actions ahead of time.
\_ You know Iran is in violation of a treaty they
signed right? And they've already refused
every carrot Obama claims to be planning to
use? The conversation didn't start with that,
it got to that. I'm not claiming Bush did
an awesome job, but Obama is blowing smoke
at best. I'm not interested in trading
Nixon for Carter again.
it got to that. Sure, Bush didn't do a good
job but Obama is blowing smoke at best. I'm
not interested in trading Nixon for Carter
again.
\_ And you're not going to get Carter for Nixon
because Bush is worse than Nixon, and even
Nixon understood the need to talk w/o
preconditions-- that time with PRC. Obama
is not Carter, and McCain is not Reagan.
\_ China and Iran are totally different
circumstances. They have nothing to
do with one another.
\_ He seems optomistic to me (and to most Americans). I
don't know where you get the frowny thing from. Read
his book, I don't have time to recap it here.
\- I have not read all of the above, but the post-WW2
record is quite clear "structure trumps ideology".
Budget deficits are better predicted by whether
Congress and President are same party or diff party,
not which party. |
| 2008/6/3-4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50132 Activity:nil |
6/2 Bo Diddley, dead:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080602/ap_en_ot/obit_diddley |
| 2008/6/3-4 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50128 Activity:kinda low |
6/2 See, it's not hard. I'm not a McCain supporter, but he's the most
likely vote for me. I'll enumerate his plusses and minuses without
referencing any other candidate:
+ Supports of the 2nd amendment
+ Supports the completion of the Iraq war
+ Likes originalist judges
- Amnesty
- enemy of the 1st amendment (McCain-Feingold)
- Has succumbed to the Global Warming hoax (added after 1st post
-emarkp)
Now let's have someone pro-Obama do the same. -emarkp
\_ Please define 'completion' of Iraq war.
\_ I have a couple:
+ Knows something about foreign policy
\_ Where do you get this from?
\_ I do not think 'supports Iraq war full heartedly and jokes
about bombing Iran' == knows something about foreign policy
\_ That's ok, you're too cowardly to even post your name next
to your political views, so I'm not all that interested
in what you think. -jrleek
\_ I'm amazed at how often people sign their ramblings
with my name, so I've given up signing most of my posts.
\_ Here is my password hash:
$gqxSEpB62znlWCH4vHW2a1
\_ Where is the password file?
\_ I'm not the pp, but I agree with his point, and I
_will_ sign my name. It's still not clear to me which
McCain is running: the one who stood against Bush in
2000, or the one who seems to have thrown that one
under the Straight Talk Express. --erikred
\_ This is a fair criticism. I personally put actions
far above words. McCain has a pretty well known
history. -jrleek
\_ There was an excellent '03 OpEd written as McCain's
proposed State of the Union 2005 and based on his
historical support for progressive measures that
made me think that I might actually vote for him.
Sadly, his campaign this year has made me doubt
his commitment to the same ideas that would have
made him attractive to me. --erikred
+ Historically fiscally conservative (no on farm bill, no on pork)
- gas tax proposal
Is that one about foreign policy too close to referencing Obama?
-jrleek
\_ Ah, forgot the fiscal policy part. The only drawback is that
he's from this current pork-loving congress. -emarkp
\_ What does fiscally conservative mean? That he voted for
Bush's $2T+ increase in the debt? That is a strange use of
the word "conservative."
\_ I'm pretty interested in any policy an Obama supporter agrees with
that Obama hasn't changed at least twice.
\_ The iraq war was a mistake from day one. He knew it. He made
it clear he knew it back when saying that meant it branded
you commie or a traitor. As to the rest, well, you are making
baseless arguments so whatever dude.
\_ Heck, I said that too. Does that mean I should be prez?
\_ Well you've got the changing the goalposts thing down pat,
but then again the goal is someone NOT like Bush.
\_ You would probably do a better job than the current
occupant. |
| 2008/5/31-6/5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50103 Activity:kinda low |
5/30 Clinton is winning Puerto Rico. YES.
\- i wouldnt dismisss the PA results but the PR results are
totally meaningless ... Clinton is basically the Senator
from Puerto Rico:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rican_migration_to_New_York#Currently
Either you are being sarcastic or ...
Your brain has been classified as: poco.
--psb
\_ Are you a MCCain supporter or a Hillary supporter?
Why wont you sign your name? Are you embarrassed to be a
Hillary supporter?
\_ I'll just use your name. -- psb
\_ Why won't YOU sign your name? -jrleek (!pp !op)
\- i have been an strong obama supporter since Feb
[i was out of the country before that and pretty much
assumed hillary the liar would win, so i didnt develop
any strong opinions and just ruminated on mccain vs
clinton]. i also think it is reasonable to have many
anonymous conversation on the motd ["where can i get
a good sandwich in berkeley"] but for threaded
discussion, anonymity makes it hard to know if you are
talking to the same person ... so i jokingly
suggested signing with a hash of your name. are there
*any* soda motd/wall participants willing to publicly
say "i support hillary clinton". there are people
publicly willing to take different sides on the iraq
war, gun control, gaylordism, drug legalization, the
housing crisis/financial regulation, and i believe
there are some mccain supporters, but how come no
hillary supporters are willing to name themselves?
is it more socially awkward to admit to being a hillary
supporter than to talk about your love of p0rn, as numerous
sloda people are willing to discuss [wang, holob, the asp],
or again does it say something about the lack of confidence
and general insecurity of hillary fans?
or am i mistaken about this? i am prepared to respond
to "you are a naive fool for voting for somebody with
no experience". i can also understand "i have no
interest in discussing politics on sloda" ... in
which case why the craven crowing [i assume OP is a
hillary supporter not a mccain person]. by they way,
i certainly can understand your being embarrassed to be
a hillary supporter, so i dont expect you to announce
yourself. i am just curious if you are embarrassed.
for example i've written lots of one off sloppy code
and i'm embarrassed to show it to people if that comes
up. so i certainly understand when another colleague
is sheepish about sharing something done at a low quality.
but it is a different matter when somebody shares something
and has no clue it is crap and has no sense of knowing better
and the attendant reticence. --psb
\_ I was being funny. I cannot think of anyone who seriously
still believes Hillary can win the nomination. It was a
good fight. It's interesting that Obama is really not
winning a giant landslide of pledged delegates, but I guess
in delegate races we often get these really close contests.
\_ Why do you support Obama? -emarkp
\_ how can you NOT support Obama? McCain wants us in
Iraq for the next 500 years, he seriously believes
that the Iraq conflict is exactly like us assisting
peace loving Germans, Japanese, Koreans, Puerto
Ricans, Hawaiians, have I left out any of our other
successful military occupations of this century?
\_ Those are reasons to *not* support McCain. I see
nothing to recommend Obama. -emarkp
\_ "I do not want to keep our troops in Iraq a minute
longer than necessary to secure our interests
there." - jmccain
What you're saying is a blatant mischaracterization.
McCain wants the mission to be completed. Do you
think it would take 500 years?
\- Obama treats people seriously ... I've been impressed
with his "big speeches" [post-Rev Wright race speech]
and smaller stuff [the way he handled a stupid reporter
when he left the Trinity Church over the weekend].
I also believe "character matters". In ths case his
democratic opposition, Hillary Clinton, is a lying,
sleazy, sanctimoious hypocrite. Policy obviously matters
as well, an on those grounds, I'm worried about McCain
and "plutocraticzation" ... note: I've long liked
I also believe "character matters". In this case his
democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, is a lying,
sleazy,sanctimonious hypocrite. Policy obviously matters
as well. On those grounds, I'm worried about McCain
and "plutocratization" ... note: I've long liked
and "plutocraticzation" ... note: I've long liked
McCain -- for reasons I wont go into -- I put a fair
amount of weight on his VN story and a few other
things ... but his recent pandering [gas tax] is a
little disturbing. We also have to forgive some
campaign time pandering, but I've again been impressed
with Obama relatively good record on this [ok some
on trade, but 1. there are issues there 2. at least
he treated people like adults on the gas tax] and in
contrast Clinton the liar has gone over the top
denouncing the enter science and profession of
economics. Also on McCain, I'm less sure than many a
precipitous withdrawal from Iraq is a good idea ...
not because of the terrorism issue, but I think the
US has responsibilities to prevent a Rwanda-like
slaughter there, so they need to factor that in to
their calculations, not "only" minimizing US casualties.
I am not a Lawrence Lessig Fanboy ... I had never gone
to his WOB site before this ... but his 20min PPoint
on "Why I'm for Barak" is a good statement of "my
position".
http://lessig.org/blog/2008/02/20_minutes_or_so_on_why_i_am_4.html
http://blip.tv/file/664200
I strongly encourge people to watch the first one.
I'll skip re-interating Hillary's list of Unbelievable
Cockroach moves.
I'll skip reiterating Hillary's list of Unbelievable
Cockroach Moves. Sure some Obama supporters are
shallow youth just going along for trendy-ish reasons,
but he seems to have gotten a disproportionate amount
of the supprt of "serious adults" with a good record
of being smart and principled, e.g. Prof deLong and
Senator GOPAT. Which Hillary endorser are you impressed
with? Eva Longoria? Look at their endorsements page
on Wikipedia. Paul Krugman's endorsement tant him,
and doesnt help her [like his apologia about her gas
tax stance saying "it's not a big deal" ... missing
the point he is obvously aware of that it's what
it says about her, not the policy issue ... if a friend
of your steals $5 from your wallet when you are in
the bathroom, is that "not a big deal"?].
\_ Any particular policy of his you like?
\- put somethng on the table, if you want an answer.
\- put something on the table, if you want an answer.
\_ Huh? -emarkp
\_ No one knows what the mission is. Unless you're
talking about McCain's fantasy of Iraq becoming
a warm friendly place where an American soldier
can walk down the street unarmed and only fear
being pelted with delightly spring begonias, and
THEN we'll leave.
\- Peace with Honor.
\_ There you go again. Do you honestly believe
that? If you're gonna try to discuss things
like an adult then you shouldn't exaggerate.
Reality should be enough. The mission is
to safeguard the security of the new Iraqi
state: "John McCain believes it is
strategically and morally essential for the
United States to support the Government of Iraq
to become capable of governing itself and
safeguarding its people." "Our goal is an Iraq
that no longer needs American troops."
\_ iraqi state is artificial construct.
Cheney is secretly an Iranian Shiite
cleric. We should just pack up and leave
Iraq, we have messed up beyond any
reasonable doubt.
\_ McCain has changed his mind about half a
dozen times on what "The Mission" is, so he
is not to be trusted. What is the goal this
week?
\_ Interesting. What were the 6 different
things?
\_ The war will be easy. -2002
The war will be hard. -2003
We should not leave a permanent force.
-2005
We should stay 100 years. -2008
We should make Iraq a democracy. -2006
We should make Iraq stable. -2007
http://tinyurl.com/3o6w3x
\_ next goal will be 'we cant leave
Iraq because then Iran will just
roll on in and annex it,
thereby controlling over half of
the world's remaining oil.' by
then i'll probably agree. good
work, BushCo. - sad liberal. |
| 2008/5/28-31 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50070 Activity:high |
5/28 Former White House press sect comes out with book bashing
his old boss. I feel like we're trapped in an alternate
universe where I read the newspaper and think immediately
'well OF COURSE I THOUGHT EVERYONE KNEW THIS STUFF' when
I read the newspaper and that The Onion should give up, since
their writers will never be able to keep up with the tragic
humor masters of the Bush administration.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/05/28/national/w051712D44.DTL
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6h9yup
\_ Uhm... "fired staffer pens bash book" is not exactly news for
\_ Uhm... "fired Bush staffer pens bash book" is not exactly news for
any administration. Is this your first election cycle in this
country?
\_ Yeah, let's talk about something more important, like WHY
DOESN'T THAT MARXIST OBAMA WEAR A FLAG PIN?
\_ Nice strawman.
Bush bashing is such old hat now isn't it? I mean, how
\_ doesn't get old. consequences of trying to pave Iraq
with no viable plan will be with us for decades.
old money bluebloods in CT still whine about the
New Deal, and that was a long time ago. Iraq isn't
even last week. Iraq is The Now(tm).
\_ Well, Al Qaeda has a part to play in this doesn't it?
If it didn't do 9/11 and fight us in Afghanistan and
Iraq then a lot fewer innocents would have died.
If Saddam wasn't a brutal strongman then we'd have no
excuse to go in there. Who is responsible for the
terrorism in Iraq? It's not the USA that is blowing up
street markets. Iraq is pretty effed up but it was
already effed up.
\_ AQ wasn't in Iraq pre-US Invasion. AQ and SH were
not BFF. We should have stopped with Afghanistan.
We should have brought other pressures against
SH. There were no WMD. There was no link to AQ.
Stop perpetuating lies told by chickenhawks to
sell a war to demonstrate that the Powell
Doctrine was bunk.
\_ I know there was no link to AQ, but there is now
right? So what about that? Should we ignore AQ?
AQ is there now and causing deaths.
\_ AQI is nowhere near as powerful or popular
as the AQ was when the Taliban ruled Afg.
We should leave the internal affair of
cleaning up AQI to the Iraqis.
much more dead can that horse get? Me, I consider myself
an independent voter because the reality is that both major
parties are full of posturing blowhards. If you really care
about change then you should push for instant runoff voting
and support real change from status quo American politics.
Not Obama populist speechmaking change, actual structural
change. Americans are too complacent. We often complain about
the choices but then go ahead and vote for one of them anyway
instead of making a concerted effort to bring someone else in.
I actually think a random selection of people would be better
Congresspersons than district-based elected reps from
political parties. Proportional representation would be
pretty good but political parties in general are somewhat
broken. You could have a bunch of people randomly selected
from an opt-in pool and then have voters approve some number
of those. The usual road to political campaign promotes
corruption and actor-style figurehead polticians.
change. Americans are too complacent.
\_ You really think a Democratic President is going to
be exactly like a Republican one? You expect more
unprovoked wars and massive transfers of wealth from
future taxpayers to well-connected defence contractors?
I don't. If you support real change, you should join
Common Cause and push for campaign finance reform. I did.
\_ You really think a new Republican President is going to
be exactly like Bush?
Bush couldn't do what he has done without the support
of Democrats in Congress. Do you really think Democrats
\_ I believe Bush and his advisors were able to
brilliantly out maneuver and bully Congress into
funding their Iraq plan. Also in another thread
we can all rant about Bush not following laws,
interpreting laws only in the way his lawyers
say they should be interpretted, just simply not
following laws he didnt like because hey its
war time, and then we can get into torture and
how Bush has thrown away decades of world good
will by showing how the US just doesn't care about
the Geneva conventions.
\_ Laugh. How did they bully Congress? If Bush is
not following laws, why don't they impeach him?
\_ I DO NOT KNOW!
\_ They didn't have the votes.
What laws? What world good will exactly? The
\_ look up 'signing statements'
\_ what material effect has this had?
good will was already pretty suspect in most
Arab countries; we have been strongly supporting
Israel for a long ass time and fucking around
protecting or deposing various third world
regimes. The Guantanamo dudes were mainly from the
Afghanistan thing which everybody seems to think
was a fine and jolly war.
\_ American popularity has plummeted worldwide,
not just in the Middle East.
\_ Well, it doesn't seem to matter anywhere but
in the middle east. I don't think this is
a long term thing. Muslims aren't very happy
about Europe either, and China already had
tension for obvious reasons. I don't see any
real long term difference.
\_ The majority of the Guantanamites were sold to
us by our allies in Pakistan. The Bush Admin
encouraged a sloppy attitude toward accepting
these guys without research or due process.
This same Admin then took a laissez-faire
approach to torturing those same people,
most of whom have now been released as not
having been terrorists to begin with.
are corruption-free? Do you think liberals are good
and conservatives are evil?
Democratic presidents took the USA into WW1, WW2, Korea
Vietnam, and Kosovo.
\_ WW1 = won
WW2 = won
Korea = stalemate
Vietnam = lost
Kosovo = won
I think the batting average of a Dem >>> Rep
\_ That's nice, pinhead.
\_ somalia = lost
grenada = won
nicaragua = won
\_ Somalia: poor planning, no war.
Grenada: The entire USMC vs. a minor band of
guerillas; if we'd "lost," there would have
been hell to pay.
\_ Panama '89 = won
Democrats are just as cosy with corporate America as
Republicans.
Campaign finance reform is mostly meaningless.
\_ Bush definitely could not have done what he did
without the support of the GOP. If the Dems are
collaborators, then GOP are Nazis. I'll take the
former over the latter any day.
\_ Really. Why? Bush couldn't do what he did without
the complacence of the American people. Anyway
Iraq isn't fundamentally very different from those
\_ So, since we didn't storm the White House or
impeach them, we're to blame for his bad
behavior? This is like someone killing people
then blaming the police for not catching him.
\_ Well, yes, because we elected him twice.
I blame the American people and Congress.
What do you want from me? We have only
two stinking parties and they are both
bad in various ways. Last time I voted
for Kerry, but I didn't even like Kerry.
This time I will vote for McCain. What
exactly do you want to impeach Bush on?
\_ Lying. Suppressing intel that didn't
favor his plans. Destroying e-mail.
Outing a CIA operative. What do I
want from you? A realization that no
matter who gets elected, they are
not going to be as fundamentally
bad as the President and Veep; a
statement to the effect that no
matter what anyone else didn't do
stop them, they were responsible
for the evil that they did. I
want you to hold the Bush Admin
responsible for its actions, and I
want you to do so without qualifying
it with excuses or references to the
Dems' behavior.
\_ No, I can't hold ONLY Bush
and Veep responsible because they
did not have the power to do their
thing alone. Congress was complicit,
CIA members were complicit, Britain
went to war and we did not force
it to do that. There was evidence
that SH wanted WMD even if he did
not have them, and there was an
insufficient trail for the WMD
that he was supposed to have had.
It's not useful to fixate only on
Bush and ignore the big picture.
How much was evil and how much was
incompetence I do not know. SH did
sponsor Palestinian terrorism to
some extent.
\_ I want a drug pony, indict me.
The POTUS was in a position to
know that the intel he was
receiving was shaky at best.
He still passed it on like it
was a "slam dunk." I buy that
Congress didn't stop POTUS,
and that some in the CIA wanted
to please the prez. The least
you can do is admit that the
Prez. set the tone and ignored
anything that contradicted.
This inability to accept *any*
blame w/o blaming someone else
at the same time is the key
character flaw of this Admin
and its apologists.
\_ Yes, obviously POTUS wanted war,
and dismissed indications
that were contrary to his aim,
and pumped the dubious stuff and
misportrayed the state of intel.
This was wrong etc. But then it's
not like there was hard evidence
against the WMD thing. We do know
SH had a WMD program of sorts and
it's possible we'd have ended up
in Iraq by now anyway for one
reason or another.
But yes, I do blame the prez for
the war. But I don't transfer this
blame to the entire Republican
Party; or at least not really more
than the D Party. Americans elected
W after the WMD fiasco was known.
At that point I am less concerned
about Mr. Bush personally.
other wars in principle. Saddam was a bad guy
and we're fighting for freedom. What's the
\_ the reasons we invaded Iraq change every
day. i don't think this is like past wars,
at all.
\_ It's exactly like past wars. The US was
not threatened in any war except WW2, and
that case was after the US already made
offensive moves against Japan.
The difference is that Bush was more
clumsy and hamhanded about it with the
lame justifications. He wasn't able to
make adequate speeches to inspire the
rabble (but it was still enough).
\_ We got involved in the Korean and
Vietnam war to show our muscle and
annoy the local power in that part of
the world, China. So we invaded Iraq
to annoy Iran? Piss off Syria? Huh
I guess you're right the Iraq war
is like every other war!
\_ So your argument is that just because
others talked us into illegal actions
we should let this bungler off the hook
just because he was so bad at it?
What the hell kind of behavior are we
rewarding here?
\_ No that's not my argument. (?)
difference? We killed lots and lots of civilians
in those other wars too. What's your big problem?
Did defense contractors not profit in the past?
Let's say we didn't go into Iraq. We'd still be
in Afghanistan, right? We'd still maintain the
overwhelming power of the US military. We'd still
have dot com bubbles and housing bubbles. The D's
aren't putting forth anything really different.
Guys like Nader and Ron Paul do put forth stuff
that is different. In 2000 Gore and Bush sounded
very alike and spent the debates mostly agreeing
with each other.
\_ Clinton significanly cut the military budget
and used that money to balance the fed budget.
This is not a small thing. A more liberal
Democrat might actually get something
significant done, like national health care.
WWII was different in that we actually
attacked the people who bombed us. I will
grant you Vietnam.
\_ Of course the Republican strategy to
Vietnam would have been so much less
aggressive.
\_ Re: national health care
Be careful what you wish for.
\_ No, Democrats aren't just as cozy with corporate
America as the Republicans, or they wouldn't support
things like Unions. Corporate America hates unions.
But they are cozy with certain sorts of corporations,
ones that do things like educate, build mass transit,
entertain and litigate (okay, not so great perhaps).
I prefer all of these to bombing civilians for
profit.
I am kind of nutty that way.
\_ You are pretty nutty to believe that Republicans
literally bomb civilians for profit, and that
they don't educate or do anything other than
rape babies. Seriously, take a breath and think
about it. Corporations give huge amounts of
money to Dem campaigns. Dems have huge investment
stakes and other ties large corporations. HRC
served on the board of Wal-Mart. But no,
Republicans bomb civilians for profit. Yay.
\_ Yes, I am very familliar with which special
\_ Yes, I am very familiar with which special
interest groups give to which candidates.
Obviously, you are not. Who does Boeing,
Halliburton, Bechtel and the other war
profiteers donate to? Do you even know?
Most big corporations hedge their bets a
little, but Big Oil and the Military Industrial
Complex overwhelmingly lean GOP. Can you guess
why? Wal-Mart arguably does some things that
are in the public interest (I know, so does
Big Oil...)
\_ Show me the data. And show me where the
money is going in the current election.
Democrats seem to be getting a lot of funds
from defense industry employees now:
http://opensecrets.org/pres08/sectors.php?sector=D
Democrats have had power in this country
before and have power in Congress now.
Where's the beef? Where's the utopian
legislation that will lead us to the
promised land? Democrats authorized Bush
to invade Iraq. Democrats do Bad Things
sometimes. National defense is not a
Republican invention and none of the
frontrunning candidates are going to
cut our military meaningfully after 2008.
The only one with that platform was Paul
(a Republican).
\_ and Kucinich, Gravel, Frank Moore.
\_ what about Nader? Point being that
these guys are essentially not in
the Democratic Party.
What's Obama gonna do?
\_ Look at the last eight years. But yes,
everyone can see which way the wind blows
now. A majority of Democrats in Congress
voted against the bill to give Bush the
authority to invade Iraq, no amount of
spin can change that. I think you are
wrong about Obama and defense spending.
Clinton cut it by 1/3 from Reagan. Obama
will do the same. There is no promised
land, but leadership matters and some of
it is clearly better.
\_ Obama would inherit Iraq. He's not
going to be able to cut the military
by 1/3 in a first term, you are nuts.
Clinton did not inherit any wars.
The president doesn't even have that
power, he needs Congress to do it.
As you said, companies try to go where
the wind is blowing and the wind was
blowing for GOP in the last 8 yrs.
\_ Repeatedly questioning my sanity
does not make your arguments any
more pursuasive. I have been shown
to be 100% right about Bush, even
when my position was the extreme
minority. You have not apparently
learned anything at all. Simply
ending the war in Iraq will cut
the military budget by 1/3. I
expect Obama to do thatin the first
expect Obama to do that in the first
two years of his term.
\_ Your position was never in the
extreme minority; that proves
you have a fantasyland inside
your head. What am I supposed
to learn? I didn't vote for
Bush, nor do I like him. I am
just being pragmatic. The
Democrats are not better and
are worse in other ways. The
war in Iraq will play out
similarly with any of the
candidates. Obama will "end"
the war but we will still have
troops there. We already ended
it a long time ago; mission
accomplished etc.
\_ Bush popularity rating was
91% at one point. Either you
have a strange definition
of extreme minority or a very
selective memory.
\_ His rating was never 91%.
Maybe among Republicans.
\_ Oct '01 according to
some polls. Check:
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob1.htm
Riding high after 9/11
'01? Bush hadn't done shit by then. _/
But ok I stand corrected. What were
you saying about him in Oct 01 that
you were so right about? In Oct 01
we were inundated with patriotism.
\_ Apologies: stat was posted by
motd fact-checker, not pp. Pls
continue.
\_ Somebody sure made money from all those bombs
dropped on Iraq. They don't build those
things for free, you know.
\_ You think no Democrats profited from that?
Hell, maybe you have a mutual fund with
defense industry stock and you profited
yourself. I probably profited. Democrats
profited from napalming Vietnamese villages.
This is not a fruitful line of discussion.
\_ "...You are pretty nutty to believe that
Republicans literally bomb civilians
for profit..." Yes, I would imagine
you find it unfruitful.
\_ Yes?
\_ Hardly a strawman: Obama was called a Marxist on the motd
and the flag pin question was in the PA debate.
\_ Wow, that's real serious important discussion there.
\_ Exactly my point. The media has spent more time
on Obama's non-existent flag pin then on health care.
\_ What? No, this is false.
\_ http://preview.tinyurl.com/69jcj3
Okay, they have pretty much the same
amount of entries here. Do you have any
evidence to back up your claim that the media
has spent more time on health care?
\_ If only McClellan had said something about books like this...oh.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/as-scottie-sowe.html
\_ You know what? I think if Gore the Democrat had been elected,
the new Gore Administration would not have been full of
hubris filled neocon toadies. I do not think they would have
invaded Iraq under false pretenses. We can debate this all day,
but I firmly believe this. I do not think the world would
appear to be headed towards a gigantic United States led
clusterfuck if a Democractic, Gore led administration were
in power right now. I believe there are significant differences
between the current Republican Bush administration, and my
fantasy Gore Democractic administration. I believe an Obama
or Hillary (ahem) administration would not blindly invade Iran
right now. I haven't heard Obama or Hillary (ahem) casually
mention that we should prepare to be in Iraq for the next 1000
years.
\_ While this is most certainly true, I think this has more to
do with BUSHCO than it has to do with the GOP. I doubt Pres.
McCain would have blindly invaded Iraq, &c.
\_ It was hardly blindly. It was very deliberate.
\_ yes, in fact it had been suggested by the whole host of
GOP chicken hawks as far back as 1997. See the PNAC. -tom
\_ Which is exactly why a McCain administration will
invade Iran, if they can figure out how to talk
Congress into it.
\_ It depends on which McCain we get after the election. |
| 2008/5/28-6/1 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50065 Activity:nil |
5/28 http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?source=hptextfeature&story_id=11412562 The amusing bit is at the end, where McCain voted against this, and Obama voted for. Extra amusing is how someone deleted this without comment. (Bush vetoed this bill also). -- ilyas \_ Change! |
| 2008/5/20-23 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50011 Activity:moderate |
5/19 Here's my whacky idea for how politics will go after 2008:
The (D) continues a leftward shift, alienating the center, Hillary
loving, soccer mom, family types.
\_ Why do you see (D) moving left and not more Moderate?
\_ Look at who's leading it. Obama is *the* most left in the
Senate. Olbermann, http://moveon.org, dailykos, etc. are all waaaaay
left. -not op
\_ I'm genuinely curious: what policies of Obama's do you see as
left-leaning and not moderate? Are they socially left-leaning
or culturally left-leaning?
\_ How about: universal health care
immediate withdrawal from Iraq (backed off this)
removal of funding to NASA
\_ not according to his website
raising taxes on the wealthy
\_ raising taxes or closing loopholes?
opposition to free trade
making life easier for unions
\_ through secret ballots or New Deal?
\_ Obama advocates removing oversight
of Teamsters. http://csua.org/u/lne
\_ The rest of the story:
http://csua.org/u/lnf
Seems like typical D stuff.
\_ And what in there is lefty and not moderate?
\_ All of it. You think Universal Healthcare is
moderate?!
\_ *shrug* I see a lot of Americans behind it. If
the majority want it, is it that lefty anymore?
\_ Lots of people want a free lunch, but it's
very lefty to want the government to control
business.
\_ UHC or an equivalent is considered a need
by a lot of people. This is not simply a
handout or a free lunch. Opposition to
such may be categorized as Conservative,
not Moderate.
\_ I wouldn't say proposing it is very
moderate. It's left, which is why
the right opposes it.
\_ maybe the right opposes it because
they're a bunch of morons. Or maybe
this whole argument is just another
attempt by conservatives to redefine
reasonable ideas which produce
results in every other industrialized
country as "leftist," as if that's
supposed to be an insult. -tom
\_ The CEOs of GM, US Steel and WalMart
are on The Left? Wow, you guys on the
Right must be feeling pretty lonely
at this point.
\_ Shoving more of the cost onto
the gov't means less of the cost
shouldered by the business. Many
businesses pay little tax as
it is so why do they care?
\_ So, the people and big
business both agree that
universal health care is a
good thing. So, uh, who is
against it? Oh, right,
anti-government ideologues. -tom
\_ TANSTAAFL
\_ Case in point.
\_ Every election year some obviously hack study comes out
that says "surprise surprise, the Democratic candidate is
the most liberal senator/congressperson/gov/etc" so idiots
like the poster above can go spout this crap.
\_ I'm unaware of *any* lefty idea he doesn't support. -pp
\_ What, you're saying he wants to nationalize industry,
creche your kids, mandate pharma for the proles, etc.?
Seriously, can you tell me what particularly makes him
"the most left in the Senate"? I'm genuinely interested
in hearing what you have to say, but I'd like some
substance.
\_ Did you mean "nationalize all industry?"
\_ Whoops! Yes, I did. Self-correction in 5.
\_ That's pretty funny, considering I haven't seen any
substance from Obama.
\_ Yay! You hit the fish in the barrel! Now, how
about an answer?
\_ How about how he wants to raise the capital
gains tax even though it may decrease revenue,
to be "fair" ?
\_ That would appear to be lefty, but could
also be viewed as populist... or just
popular. Here's the interview with Charlie
Gibson where he says it:
http://csua.org/u/lng
Frankly, I can't argue with this: why are
multi-millionaire hedge-fund managers paying
a lower tax-rate than their secretaries?
\_ Well, there are two possible "fixes" to
this inequity: 1) raise taxes on
capital-gains, or 2) lower income taxes.
We *know* (1) decreases overall revenue,
so....
\_ BZZZT! No. The only answer is to
call the money the hedge fund managers
make what it is: income. It is not
capitol gains *for them*. For the
money manager is it *income*. If
their income was taxed as such they'd
be paying a boatload more than their
secretaries. Their earnings are
misclassified.
\_ No, we know (2) decreases overall
revenue. Or at least every sane
economists (even those who support
tax cuts) knows that.
\_ I'm sorry, but I don't agree.
\_ clearly you're not a sane
economist. I guess that
makes you a clueless
ideologue. -tom
\_ Sane = "agrees with you"
Clearly a 100% tax rate
will maximize revenue.
\_ No, but it is quite clear
that our tax rate does
not maximize tax revenues,
and that cutting taxes
from the current rate
reduces tax revenues. -tom
\_ Cutting capital gains tax does not
raise tax revenue over the long run.
There is often a short term uptick
(bonus points if you can figure out
why) but it lowers them in the long
run, at least as long as it is below
the Laffer Curve, which appears to
be around a 40% tax rate.
\_ We should be optimizing for
GDP, not for tax revenues.
\_ Says who?
\_ We should be optimizing for
the general welfare of the
citizens of this country.
GDP growth is now almost
totally disconnected from
the general welfare. -tom
\_ Yes, comrade. A healthy,
growing US economy benefits
only corporate
industrialists.
\_ Tax revenue == general
welfare in your mind? Wow.
\_ clue == completely
absent in your mind?
Obviously. Try
reading it again. -tom
\_ Funny, I've seen lots of substance from Obama,
it just changes every time he talks.
"Unlike most politicians, Barack Obama does not
waffle. He comes out boldly, saying mutually
contradictory things." -Sowell
\_ Why would you bother quoting Sowell on
anything? -tom
\_ Because, unlike you, he's occasionally
right.
The (R) party splits.
(R1) goes to the center with McCain. Grabs all the center-left the
(D) loses, but loses the conservatives.
Conservatives form new party, (R2). (R2) has a small set of hard core
voters, similar to the smaller (D) party. (R1) party gains plurality
of seats, offices, etc, but can not rule without assistance of (D) or
(R2) in general or pass individual bills without help.
Ok, the odds of this actually happening are small but it would make
things interesting, IMO. If it does happen, you heard it here first!
\_ Our winner-take-all system of representation makes three parties
inherently unstable. If a third party does arise, it will
die immediately, or else kill one of the existing parties. -tom
\_ My prediction: Obama and the Democrats end the war and balance
\_ My prediction: Obama and the Democrats end the war and balances
the budget, following mostly Clintonian economic policy. This
\_ You forgot stopping Global Warming and starting the
Age of Aquarius.
\_ No, that waits for the second term.
stabalizes the dollar, brings down the price of gasoline and gets
the economy going. The voters reward the Dems with a filibuster
proof majority in 2010. Obama then passes comprehensive health
care reform, which ends up being the most popular program ever,
even more than Social Security, which is supported by 2/3 of all
voters. He is re-elected in 2012 in the biggest landslide since
FDRs second term.
\_ My prediction: McCain wins but not by a large margin. Not a whole
lot really changes. |
| 2008/5/19-20 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50008 Activity:nil |
5/19 Here's my whacky idea for how politics will go after 2008:
The (D) continues a leftward shift, alienating the center, Hillary
loving, soccer mom, family types.
The (R) party splits.
(R1) goes to the center with McCain. Grabs all the center-left the
(D) loses, but loses the conservatives.
Conservatives form new party, (R2). (R2) has a small set of hard core
voters, similar to the smaller (D) party. (R1) party gains plurality
of seats, offices, etc, but can not rule without assistance of (D) or
(R2) in general or pass individual bills without help.
Ok, the odds of this actually happening are small but it would make
things interesting, IMO. If it does happen, you heard it here first! |
| 2008/5/16-23 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49973 Activity:nil |
5/16 Congress passes huge pork bill.
http://tinyurl.com/4wwys7
http://tinyurl.com/44fywg
\_ Hello NATIONAL REVIEW crap!
\_ Is it wrong?
\_ No. NationalReview is right. Very RIGHT. Righteous.
Right wing. Right.
\_ Is this an interesting line of discussion to you?
Partisan line-drawing and team-based politics?
Left, right: it's all bullshit. Both left and right
wing politicians do stupid and corrupt things. The
rational individual will evaluate criticism impartially.
\_ The rational individual learns that some sources
are untrustworthy propaganda. While there may be
a story here, I'm not going to pay much attention
to the National Review's framing because I know they
are mendacious idealouges. (That being said I
am anti-farm subsidy, but there are plenty of sane
op eds out there declaiming the current bill.)
\_ Context seems to mean that you are saying
that there are lots of sane op-eds out there
supporting this bill. URL please? (if so)
\_ Untrustworthy propaganda? It's an op-ed. It is
not even a source. Find me a better op-ed then.
You talk as if you have no brain and can't
judge an argument on its own merits. Where's the
outcry from a mainstream source?
\_ If it's an op-ed, then label it as such. Posting
a bunch of shortened urls with a label that
appears to be about news is misleading. -10 pts.
\_ It is now. Any fact given in NRO immediately becomes untrue
by virtue of being printed there.
\_ Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. |
| 2008/5/6-9 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:49894 Activity:moderate 75%like:49913 |
5/6 Hey, Yoo lover: Yale denounces its own
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/05/john-yoo-and-pr.html
Thanks for the link, psb.
\- er, so does berkeley
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/05/the-torture-mem.html
\_ It's always better when an entire school suffers from group-think,
right?
\_ You mean the hippie dippie liberal 'group think' that torture
is wrong, makes us look like complete idiots to the world,
and doesn't give us reliable intelligence? Sign me up
for group think then.
\_ No I don't mean that. It has nothing to do with agendas. It
has to do with the OP talking about a school "deouncing their
own". I'm saying a school is thousands of people. They
don't all have to agree with each other on everything.
That's inane.
\_ Any turly educated person agrees with me.
\_ How tur.
\_ Right. Your interpretation would be retarded, and I couldn't think
of a better verb than "denounces." I can't imagine anything
closer to "Yale denounces its own" having meaning, than the dean
of the law school criticizing Yoo on legal, ethical and moral
grounds at a large, official gathering of that institution, such
as commencement, which is exactly what happened. -op |
| 2008/5/3-8 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:49880 Activity:moderate |
5/2 Hillary: Let's cut gas tax!
Blue Collar: Yay!
McCain: Let's cut gas tax!
\_ McCain proposed it, Hillary agreed.
Blue Collar: Yay!
Obama: Gas tax break will increase demand and the cost of gasoline
in the long run. Besides, it is not sustainable and not
a long term solution.
\- For an short term inelastic demand good, the price will
be set by the demand, and if you drap the tax, that
will convert consumer surplus into windfall profits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incidence
This is like an Econ 1 midterm question.
\_ What about if demand is elastic?
\- a full discusson of this is beyond the scope
of the motd. a fuller discussion involves
questions of "is it movement along the demand
curve" or "is it a shift of the agg demand curve".
also the view w.r.t. to oil is supply is also
constrained due to refining capacity being maxed
out, but this is complicated by the possibility
of drawing down inventory stocks. but what really
makes this complicated is the "clean theory"
assums competive markets [prce takers, marginal
cost pricing]. the theory of monopol is also
"clean" but the world we are probably in w.r.t.
to oil is oligopoly ... and that isnt a "clean"
theory ... anyway, let's leave it at that.
Big Oil: We'll just raise your cost to match whatever price difference
the temporary lack of tax would create, and pocket the
the money. HA
Blue Collar: FUCK YOU!
\_ I think you underestimate the Blue Collar in this country. -raised BC
\_ I think you underestimate the Blue Collar in this country. -raised
BC
\_ Vote for GEORGE W BUSH! PATRIOTISM, SERVE OUR COUNTRY! -BC
\_ That was BC in 2002. What do you think it is like today?
\_ McCain served in the armed forces and was patriotic.
VOTE FOR MCCAIN, FIGHT TERRORISTS! -BC
\_ Kerry had a rather more distinguished record of service
compared to Bush, and look how that went.
\_ SWIFT BOAT LIES! -BC
\_ No, now it is more like MY GAS COSTS TOO MUCH. @#$%! BUSH
\_ No, now it is more like MY GAS COSTS TOO MUCH.
@#$%! BUSH
AND ALL THOSE POLITICIANS IN DC!
\_ The gas companies don't care what the tax rate is. There is more
gasoline sitting in storage in the US right now than there has been
for years. Current prices have little to do with the gas tax or
a healthy functioning market. For starters, states like CA should
get together with nearby states and use the same formula for gas.
That would create a larger market of the same product and yield
a more stable price as well as lower prices over all. Strengthen
the dollar. Since oil prices are effectively keyed to the value
of the dollar, as the dollar decreases oil prices *must* increase.
This isn't even Econ 1 type stuff.
\- Hillary Clinton has decided to ignore "so called experts"
and "history" and "the facts" ... 'cause she's The Deciderette.
Hmm, now who does that sound like? "Trust me ... I'm experienced,
compassonate, tough, have what it takes, can swiftboat somebody
when I need to ..."
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/05/friends-dont-le.html
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/05/expertise.html
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/05/i-think-paul-kr.html |
| 2008/4/29-5/4 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:49853 Activity:kinda low |
4/29 How Frederick Douglass addressed the 3/5 issue:
"I answer.and see you bear it in mind, for it shows the disposition of
the constitution to slavery.I take the very worst aspect, and admit all
that is claimed or that can be admitted consistently with truth; and I
answer that this very provision, supposing it refers to slaves, is in
itself a downright disability imposed upon the slave system of America,
one which deprives the slaveholding States of at least two-fifths of
their natural basis of representation.
"A black man in a free State is worth just two-fifths more than a black
man in a slave State, as a basis of political power under the
constitution.
"Therefore, instead of encouraging slavery, the constitution encourages
freedom, by holding out to every slaveholding State the inducement of
an increase of two-fifths of political power by becoming a free State."
http://medicolegal.tripod.com/douglassuos.htm#three-fifths-clause
\_ Quite impressive, the human ability to rationalize. He practically
sounds like a Randroid. -tom
\_ The irony police are overwhelmed with tom, send in the irony
national guard!
\_ The 3/5 compromise was made by abolitionists who wanted to weaken
slave states. Go back and read history tom.
\_ It was actually done by both sides, hence the label used
"compromise."
\_ Yes, but the slave states wanted the slaves to count as 1
person.
\_ ...with their votes cast by the slave owner. -tom
\_ You are confused. The slave owner still only had
one vote. The 3/5 rule was for the number of seats
that state got in congress.
\_ Right, so if the slaves were truly free to vote,
and at 1:1 representation, the state of Georgia
might have more seats in Congress, but the people
in power in Georgia would lose power. -tom
\_ Well, at the time women were counted as 1
person but couldn't vote. People under
voting age are still counted as 1 person but
obviously can't vote.
\_ Parents are the legal representatives of
their children; slave owners and slaves
have diametrically opposed interests. -tom
\_ And womenfolk?
\_ Personally I think women's suffrage is
a good thing--you disagree? -tom
\_ The US had the choice to allow slavery, or not allow
it. It is pretzel logic to claim that, presented
with that choice, deciding to allow slavery but make
it somewhat less attractive was "encouraging
freedom." There's also no reason to believe that
slaves would vote the same way as their masters;
giving slaves full votes would likely have led to
abolition via democratic processes, for example,
rather than civil war. You could say that the 3/5ths
rule meant that "Georgia" had less power than New
York, but the people who actually had power in Georgia
were strengthened by the fact that their slaves couldn't
vote themselves freedom. -tom
\_ The current congress has the choice to continue war or not.
And? I thought you lefties thought it was conservatives
that only think in black and white.
\_ Do you think that the current Congress deciding to
continue to fund the war is "encouraging peace"? -tom
\_ Are you trying to change the topic?
\_ Umm, the US had the choice to allow slavery, or not exist.
You know when the constitution was written right?
\_ I thought you trolls believed in the power of the
free market. -tom
\_ Whaa? Am I talking to some sort of eliza program
based on tom rantings here?
\_ The idea that the US could not have existed
without slavery in 1787 is ridiculous. -tom
\_ It seems pretty obvious that the South would
not have signed a constitution that outlawed
it. Hence, the US would not exist, at least
as we know it.
\_ It's not necessarily obvious. The Southern
Colonies might have conceded, or they might
not have. That they were never forced into
position where they had to make the decision
is not evidence of which way they might
have jumped. Interesting counterfactuals
proceed from both eventualities.
\_ Don't let that whole Civil War thing
stand in the way of your hypothetical.
\_ Don't let a lack of understanding of
the causes of the Civil War or the
nearly century-long gap between it
and the signing of the Constitution
stand in the way of a one-line quip
full of sound and fury signifying
nothing
\_ is there some reason the 3/5ths compromise is suddenly big news on the motd?
did Hillary finally get behind it? Did Reverend Wright vow to travel
back in time and rip Dred Scott limb from limb? What's going on?
\_ is there some reason the 3/5ths compromise is suddenly big news on
the motd? did Hillary finally get behind it? Did Reverend Wright
vow to travel back in time and rip Dred Scott limb from limb?
\_ Rev. Wright would more
likely wish to rip Taney,
CJ, limb from limb.
What's going on?
\_ Assuming this quote is correctly attributed to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Douglass call me crazy, but
on this one I'm going to go with the smart guy who lived through
it over tom.
\_ In what way? Frederick Douglas and tom speak to utterly
different audiences: FD to a world where legalized slavery is
still considered a possibility, whereas tom speaks to a world
where slavery is an abhorrent concept. FD had to be almost
painfully cautious in expressing his beliefs, whereas tom is
free to express his with very little fear of danger to his own
physical person. Had he had his 'druthers, FD might have said
something more strident and provocative. --erikred
\_ FD wrote tons of provocative stuff. Start with the wiki
link. Not buying it. Also tom is claiming the union could
have somehow existed with the south agreeing to end slavery.
No. Ridiculous. If that were the case there would have been
no need of the 3/5th "compromise". You really think they
didn't talk about all this stuff at the time? Wow!
\_ FD also had his house burned down. I'm sure they talked
about it at the time; that doesn't change the fact that
deciding to encode slavery in the Constitution is not
"encouraging freedom." -tom
\_ /shrug. FD was being politic, working with what he had
at the time. It would be interesting to see what he had
to say post-Civil War, Emancipation Proclamation, 14th
Amendment. Also, pp's point vis-a-vis that the union
could not have existed without a 3/5ths compromise is
speculative. Carry on. --erikred |
| 2008/4/18-23 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:49777 Activity:moderate |
4/17 McCain makes decent amount of money, but not rich:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/18/916355.aspx
(US Navy Pension pays $58K a year? WTF?)
\_ McCain, combined with his wife's wealth, is probably
the third or so richest member of senate.
\_ You didn't know military pensions pay very well? That's one of
the big incentives to stay in a long time.
\_ except your exposure to carcinogens and other health
risk factors go up significantly.
\_ Umm, ok? Also risk of capture, torture and death go up?
\_ The pension usually pays 50% of active duty salary, but it
varies with years of service. Free medical for life, too.
\_ There are not too many jobs where you can retire after 20 years.
\_ I make more money than him. -dotcomer
\_ Him has better grammar than you.
\_ Him did it! Him's the one!
\_ You made more than $418k in 2007? Hot damn, good for you!
\_ He can get a law passed that will end your career in a heart
beat. Unless you're an AZ voter, you can't do squat.
\_ except the dot comer is already rich and doesn't need a "job"
\_ One good tax law and dotcommer is in the poor house.
McCain: 2, Dotcommer: 0.
\_ His wife, however, is completely loaded. Remember when Kerry was
being made fun of because all of his money came from the Teresa
Heinz fortune? I expect the media will be mocking McCain for this
any day now....NOT.
\_ I most of the stuff in that vein I saw was contrasting Kerry's
words with his actions. For example, he says "SUVs are evil"
but owns one. "Rich should pay more taxes" wife only pays
14%, etc.
\_ McCain is rich, but the money is locked up in his wife's beer
company. He has a pretty sweet arrangement: married to a woman
18 years his younger, who is also his sugar momma. Where can I
find a woman like that?
\_ No, the question is HOW DID MCCAIN DO IT? He must have
secret mojo that we desperate sodans don't have. What does
it take for us to get his secret mojo?
\_ If I married a woman 18 years my junior I'd go to jail.
Well, unless I did it in Yemen.
\_ If I married a woman 18 years my junior I'd go to jail for
polygamy.
\_ Unless you did it in Yemen.
\_ Just upgrade, like McCain did.
\_ You can marry a 14 year old in Alamaba, if you can talk
both parents into attending the wedding.
\_ Can you imagine if Hillary tried to get away with what he's doing?
"Oh, Bill's finances are separate and private, we're not going to
release those." One standard for Rs, another for Ds.
\_ Wow. Just wow. To borrow a phrase: epic fail.
\_ epic fail
\_ You have a short-term memory. Did Teresa release hers in 04?
\_ At first she didn't and the press hounded her until she did.
\_ She released a "summary." Besides, we're still not
actually in the race yet, it's still the Dem primary.
Why would the press hound McCain now? It is currently
not particularly news worthy.
\_ McCain has been getting away with murder for years. I
expect the press to roll over for him in the general just
like they always have. Reporters *love* him.
\_ "Liberal" media. |
| 2008/4/18 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:49776 Activity:nil |
4/17 Turns out McCain makes a LOT more money than me. WTF. Are there
ANY candidate who makes normal amount of money, instead of those
who are born are are married into money?
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/18/916355.aspx |
| 2008/4/15-23 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:49756 Activity:kinda low |
4/15 I guess this is Obama is worse than HRC guy's point?
http://www.primetimepolitics.com/primetime/site/page/a_living_lie
\_ That Thomas Sowell is an idiot? I don't think that's news. -tom
\_ ^is an idiot^disagrees with tom
\_ Is he really accusing Obama of being a Marxist and a Fabian
Socialist? This guy has a few screws loose, if he is. If he is
not, what is the point of his last few paragraphs?
\_ Instead of simply saying why he has a few screws loose, why not
explain why you think that's the case?
\_ because it's Thomas Sowell, so it should be self-evident.
\_ I think maybe it's you with the problem. Or is it because
he's a Senior Fellow at Stanford?
\_ No, it's because he's a freakish right-winger who
believes all sorts of insane things, and would never
say anything good about a liberal (unless it was to
insult another liberal). -tom
\_ Tom, everyone right of Stalin is crazy to you. Go
away.
\_ Yeah, only communists disagree with the idea
that the New Deal caused the Great Depression.
Get a clue. -tom
\_ Not the issue. You call anyone who disagrees
with you an idiot or crazy. And you fail to
ever substantiate it. You're the one with the
problem.
\_ I call *you* an idiot. I don't call
everyone who disagrees with me an idiot.
There's a difference, but I'm sure you're
too stupid to figure it out. -tom
\_ When have you *ever* engaged in debate or
discussion with *anyone* and granted the
other person was right and you were
wrong? I've never seen it happen on
the motd.
\_ Nice misdirection; I engage
in debate on the MOTD without
calling the other person an idiot
all the time. Idiot. -tom
\_ Did Sowell say that? I doubt it. He may have
said that some of FDRs policies lengthed the
depression, a stance for which there is fairly
good evidence, and the espousal of which hardly
makes one 'crazy.'
\_ I already did explain why. Do you expect me to explain why it
is obvious that Obama is not a Marxist? This guy is as lame
as the Bushitler crowd.
\_ It looks pretty clear to me that Obama /is/ a Marxist, so
yes I'd appreciate a serious reply.
\_ Then I think it's pretty clear you have no idea
what Marxism is.
\_ Sigh. So much for a serious answer.
\_ If you want to claim the moon is green cheese the
only answer you are going to get is "No, it isn't."
\_ You're the guy who's never read any of his books,
right? -!pp
\_ You are silly, but I will entertain your request:
Marxism: Believes in the Dictatorship of the Proletariat
Obama: Believes in Democracy
\_ No difference between democracy and "dictatorship of
the proletariat". Who are the proles anyway? The
bitter people on Pennsylvania?
\_ You claim that there is no difference between
Democracy and dictatorship. I beg to differ.
Marxism: Believes that The Workers should own the means
of production.
Obama: Believes in a modern regulated Capitalism
\_ Regulated to the point that business works for the
government. Thus, socialism.
\_ Is this Marxism or isn't it?
Marxism: Believes that Workers are naturally alienated in
a Capitalistic society.
Marxism: Believes that Workers are naturally alienated
in a Capitalistic society.
Obama: Believes in The Audacity of Hope
\_ Wrote a book with that title. Really believes that
the workers are naturally alienated and thus are
bitter gun toting christians.
\_ Have you read the book? Do you think that the
15% of rural citizens constitute the entire
body of "Workers?" And even if you take the
bitter quote at face value, it is actually
a statement complaining about the alienation
of a small group of people, not a claim that
this is their natural condition.
Marxism: Elevates Class Consciousness above all other
means of understanding human relationships.
Obama: Believes in an integrated political consciousness
that includes race, class, religion and family
and downplays it as a method to achieve political
change.
\_ O believes he and people who share his views are
superior, the rest are gun toting racist white hicks
in the outback.
\_ Everyone believes that their views are superior,
even you, I bet. Are you still going to maintain
your claim that Obama elevates Class Consciousness
above all other philosophy?
your claim that Obama elevates Class
Consciousness above all other philosophy?
Any other questions?
\_ Your descriptions of Obama's positions are way off
(if not entirely useless--what does 'the audacity of
hope' even mean?). I see him as far closer to Marx
than you do. Fine.
\_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Audacity_of_Hope
You haven't even bothered to learn the first thing
about Obama, yet you are quite certain that he
is a Marxist. Fine.
\_ This is why idiots like Bush get voted in.
\_ No. Idiots like Bush get voted in because
the other guy was so much worse. Bush was
the unknown lesser evil the first time and
the lesser evil the second. If the (D) had
real candidates running Bush would be a
footnote, not President. Twice. Hint: SF
is not in the political center of the US.
\_ Are you still claiming that Obama *is*
a Marxist, without having the foggiest
clue about what his actual positions are?
Where do you get your information about
what a candidates positions is, a Cracker
Jack box? Do you even know what Marxism
is?
\_ Bush was the lesser evil? Twice? Really.
Interesting argument. So you think
Kerry and Gore both would have made
\_ Bush was the lesser evil? Twice?
Really. Interesting argument. So you
think Kerry and Gore both would have made
a foreign policy decision more disastrous
than Iraq, and a domestic policy
decision more disastrous than tax cutting
and spending the nation into a debt-ridden
hole.
and spending the nation into a debt-
ridden hole.
\_ The Center is moving left, in case you
hadn't noticed. SF looks better everyday. |
| 2008/4/13-17 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:49745 Activity:nil |
4/12 Obama on 2004 on the "bitter" topic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oGF3cyHE7M
You can park your trolls here now, ok tnx.
\_ You're so last week. |
| 2008/4/11-16 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:49735 Activity:moderate |
4/11 Did Obama just shoot himself in the foot? I am an Obama supporter,
but this statement seems like a political mistake to me.
http://www.csua.org/u/l9l (newsday)
\_ Oh bullshit. You are not an Obama supporter and everyone knows it.
\_ No, I really am an Obama supporter. I even voted for him in
the primaries.
\_ The guy is going to make a lot of political mistakes. He is
incredibly green.
\_ Holy cow, I guess he just insulted 1/2 of America. I guess
this is why McCain is going to win.
\_ I could be wrong, but I don't think 1/2 of America lives in
rural areas.
\_ FWIW, Obama's response to the all of the "umbrage"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sc9PepjyDow
\_ He is pretty slick.
\_ I think what you wanted to say was that he's a SASSY NIGGER,
didn't you?
\_ Yawn. How many times are we going to have to see this lame
troll this election? FAIL.
\_ Sigh. Modern politics just reminds me of the trial scene in
Idiocracy.
\_ I knew enough about McC and HRC to not like either so I was
looking at Obama back in January/February. But now that I know
more about him I think he's the worst of the three for the country
and I *really* don't like the other two. This statement shows
what he really thinks and it is ugly.
\_ What about his statement do you disagree with so strongly?
Try the response video on youtube linked above, too.
\_ It was definitely a political error. Calling a broad swath of
people "bitter" and saying they "cling to guns or religion...
anti-immigrant or anti-trade" makes it sound like those aren't
valid opinions to have; that they are desperate fools. His
subsequent response framed it differently: saying that they
focus on those things because "they can't count on Washington"
for economic or other problems. It's a clever response but
it has a different twist than the original statement.
Clearly he didn't intend for his remarks to a liberal SF
audience to be seen by the "bitter" people themselves.
Barack admits mistake:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7344532.stm
\_ I actually agree with his remark and I was raised in a
small town, but I think it was dumb of him to voice it. -op
\_ He regrets the remark, but he didn't apologize for it.
\_ Worse than HRC? Really? i don't know if I'd go that far.
I would say Hillary has the same elitest views, coupled with
distain for democracy and voters that I find appalling. See
her attempts to get the Michigan delegates seated and her
continuing Bosnia delusions. What makes you think Obama is
worse? -Obama is a racist guy
\_ Yes worse than HRC and I *really* loathe her. Here's how I
see it:
HRC: same dysfunctional war room self-induced crisis/fuckup
of the week for 4-8 years but that's 99% their internal
problems and doesn't truly hurt the country in a real way over
the long haul.
BHO: true believer in socialism, hates our allies, loves our
enemies, no clue at all about half the country's needs/desires
and most similar in my mind to Jimmy Carter, worst president
ever.
Given how the election is going, it looks like BHO gets the
party nod and goes up again McC and gets crushed because quite
frankly BHO is even more distant from real people than McC
and has another 6+ months to say more stupid things.
McC: not (R), nor (D), nor (I), he represents the (Selfish)
party. Self aggrandising, nearly as criminal as BHO and HRC
in his financial dealings, no guiding philosophy other than
getting his name in the paper, the Presidency would just be
a huge ego trip.
I don't know who I'm voting for in November but it won't be
any of these losers. IMO, no matter who you vote for (of
these three), you're voting based on lesser-evil, as none of
them has a single good idea in their head. If anything
positive comes from the next President (no matter who) it will
be a case of the broken clock being right twice a day. I
guess by my own words, HRC is the least worst and wow does it
make me ill to say that.
\_ So who is your ideal candidate?
\_ My ideal candidate wassn't in the race. It sure as hell
isn't Pat Buchanan. This whole election cycle is a
wash.
\_ When wasn't it a wash? Did you think that Dubya would
make a good president? How about Kerry? Gore? Clinton?
\_ Patrick Buchanan
\_ Le sigh.
\_ So is he an ANGRY SCARY NEGRO or is he an OUT OF TOUCH IVORY TOWER
LATTE SIPPING ELITIST? Which is it, please?
\_ Both.
\_ Wow, I guess angry and partisan doesn't have to make sense,
huh? Just go with your feelings, Luke.
\_ Huh? Which of those things you listed are mutual
exclusive? You don't think someone can be and angry scary
elitist? That's how I'd define a lot of people I met in
elitist? That's how I'd describe quite a few people I met in
Berkeley. -!pp
exclusive? You don't think someone can be an angry scary
elitist? That's how I'd describe quite a few people I met
in Berkeley. -!pp |
| 2008/4/11-16 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Finance/Investment] UID:49721 Activity:nil |
4/11 McCain campaign attacks George Soros for funding third party groups,
even though Soros has funded McCain's own causes:
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/mccain_attacked_sorosfunded_de.php
\_ What's the betting pool like for odds on McCain self-destucting
or having a stroke before the election?
\_ "I was for George Soros before I was against him" |
| 2008/3/31-4/6 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49615 Activity:moderate |
3/31 Mark Steyn analyzes 'Dreams From My Father'
http://csua.org/u/l5p
This transcript covers on feature of Obama's first book that I found
so odd. I surprised more people who plan on voting haven't read it.
\_ Gee townhall. Surprise surprise.
\_ Ahhh, the Hugh Hewitt show! Let me guess, you're a Romney voter.
\_ Actually, I'd never heard of Hugh Hewitt until today. I got this
off a blog. I take it neither of you have read "Dreams From
My Father?" It's not that it's an amazing book or anything,
but it was the first thing I read when I first heard of
Obama and was thinking about voting for him. It's also the
reason I decided I didn't want to vote for him. I continue
to be surprised that more people haven't read it, especially
among those who love and those who hate him. -op
\_ Which aspect(s) of the book made you not want to vote for
him, and does that mean you chose Clinton instead?
\_ Well, I actually voted for Obama in the primaries because
I still like him a lot more than Clinton. Looks like I'll
end up voting for McCain in the general election unless
something big changes.
The book bugged me in a couple of ways. He seems to
realize early on that he can choose who he wants to become.
This is an unusual and admirable quality. So he decides
to join the black radical culture. This I find less
admirable. He then spends a lot of his youth trying to
prove how 'black' he is. Even going so far as to pressue
other african-american students if he doesn't think they're
acting black enough. He even calls one guy an Uncle Tom
for studing too hard, although he apologizes for that.
There seems to be a sort of 'hate whitey' undercurrent
throughout the text, although he never actually says
something so quoteable. There is one line where he
writes (as I recall) 'I came to the conclusion that
perhaps not all whites are worthy of our scorn.' Umm,
thanks? And perhaps not all blacks are criminals?
I would be okay with this if he ever seemed to get past it,
but near then end of the book he suggests that some
random white family in a restraunt in Kenya is there
because they "want black people to serve them."
This is all difficult to draw strong conclusions about
because, as the article mentions, he never overtly
states his positions, or if his ideas have changed.
He also comes across as ignorant of economics. -op
\_ Did you try the second book?
\_ No, I read the first book partially because I figured
the second book was likely to be written purely for
political reasons, and would therefore not show his
true beliefs. He stated in an interview that Dreams
From My Father contained things that were
'politically inconvinent' but that he stood by them.
I was impressed by that bravery. However, since he
never really makes any solid statements in the
first book, I guess I may as well read the 2nd. -op
\_ Okay, you piqued my curiosity enough that I am going
to read this book. I wonder what kind of book Dubya
would have written at that age. Probably nothing
as impressive.
\_ This constant bringing up of Dubya sounds kind of
pathetic, along the lines of 'Ok, but the Republicans
are still worse... right? right? Just checking'.
-- ilyas
\_ Why is it pathetic? Wasn't Dubya the best possible
candidate the Republican Party could nominate?
We have heard for years what a great President
he was, from many Conservative pundits. Would
McCain be any better?
\_ What's pathetic is your fixation on Dubya.
This thread isn't even about Dubya but you keep
somehow trying to bring him in. -- ilyas
\_ Dubya == McCain. I am not the one who
brought up McCain.
\_ No, Dubya is not McCain. McCain is
McCain. I think you should let Dubya go.
\_ I think it is pathetic that the Bush
voters want us to forget history so
quickly. You should have the loyalty
to stand by your man or at least be
willing to learn from your mistakes.
In what significant way do McCain's
In what significant way does McCain's
policy positions differ from Dubya's?
\_ I am not a Bush voter, and I grow
tired of this conversation.
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!
\_ Facts are such tiresome things.
You are going to vote for McCain
even though you have no idea
what his policies are, just
because you don't like a book
the other guy wrote 20 years
ago? That is a reason to vote
for someone I guess. Kind of a
lame reason, imho, but it is
your right.
\_ This has got to be a troll.
We have no idea what McCain's
policies are? No one here
could make such a stupid
statement seriously, could
they? -!pp
\_ So tell me then where
McCain would be different
than Bush. Their important
policies are the same.
\_ And Obama = Clinton = LBJ!
\_ Also LBJ == JFK == FDR
\_ No Obama's policies are quite
different than LBJ's. Depending on
which Clinton you mean, you are
actually pretty close to the mark
there.
\_ The quotes I've seen clearly seem written
from the perspective of exploring the mindset of
various individuals and groups, not really statements
of personal philosophy. Obama clearly has "racial
baggage" and identity confusion as part of his life
experience. The book seems more of an explanation of
why/how he would be involved in black radicalism rather
than an espousal of it. Can you honestly say you have
never had racist thoughts? Obama's book is open about
it, but I can't see any evidence he "hates whitey" at
this point in time, or understands less about econ.
than his rivals.
\_ Well, I find that theory even more disturbing. Does
he have no principles at all? What does it mean
when someone goes to so much trouble to avoid making
any sort of personal statement of principles?
\_ Most of us have a personal and moral philosophy
that evolves as we mature. I think that this is
a good thing and a sign of a smart and agile mind,
but I know that some (mostly extremists, on all
ends of the political spectrum) find that to be
a sign of moral weakness.
\_ That's not the focus of that book. The second
book is. Honestly though, I'm not sure what you
expect. How do you write a book on the subject
he did? Did he need a "for dummies" chapter
to reassure white people that he doesn't hate
them? What is "the solution" to the problems he
deals with? Should blacks ignore racism, pretend
it doesn't exist? On balance it seems better for
him to have written the book than not. It shows
that he has allowed himself to process and
consider ideas that we don't find appealing.
But I think in the end he rejects them, if only
because he decides the ideas not effective. Have
you ever seriously considered the merits of
communism, segregation, etc.? The reality is that
most smart people don't pretend to have a simple
rulebook for every situation in life. The best
he can do is point to his past actions and show
that he considers all angles of a problem and its
solution. There doesn't seem to be any way for
him to prove himself to you -- after all, if he
simply says something you can suspect him of
hidden resentment and hatred.
\_ The most common objection I've seen to the book is that
Obama's description of himself as a young man doesn't match
up with the experience that others had of him - that he was
much more outgoing and cheerful than he seems to have thought
himself. I'd say this is really common - I'm willing to bet
most of you would have a description of your younger self that
contradicted what others saw. Self-awareness takes a LONG
time to really develop, and some people never develop it.
\_ I love how Barack just confuses the hell out of conservatives.
\_ I love how Barack demonstrates so clearly how shallow the
majority of Dems are.
\_ What defines a non-shallow Dem for you?
\_ The silence just speaks volumes, doesn't it? |
| 2008/3/30-4/6 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:49613 Activity:nil |
3/28 Finally, the Clinton Death Spiral? Obama up 10 pts in Gallup tracking
poll for first time
http://www.gallup.com/poll/105841/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Now-52-Clintons-42.aspx
\_ And McCain still up on both. (Barely.)
\_ Not a problem once the democrats have a decisive choice. Voter
turnout in the primaries had the 2nd place democratic candidate
often beating the sum total of all republican votes so I think
the presidential will pretty much be decided by the Clinton/
Obama choice.
\_ Are there any numbers from previous elections that equate
higher primary turnout with general election victory? Are
you taking into account the huge number of cross over voters
this year who voted strategically? Are you counting the number
of people in both C and O camps who said they would stay home
or vote for M if their candidate didn't get the nomination?
\_ I don't think he was counting anything. His statement was
more of a statement of faith than anything else. -!pp |
| 2008/3/28 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:49597 Activity:nil |
3/28 Political debates on NPR are worthless. They really need a ref with
fact verification powers or something. I was listening to one this
morning talking about the Cow Palace, and the debators couldn't even
agree on basic facts, like if the Cow Palace operates in the black or
not. It's impossible to draw any kind of conclusions from two lists
of completely contradictory "facts." |
| 2008/3/28 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:49592 Activity:very high |
3/28 The only way the democrats are going to win this November is if
they join forces. But both candidates are too arrogant to
accept that. This country is not ready for a black candidate,
nor a woman president, but both of them, together, will hold
those democratic votes that may otherwise shift to McCain.
This is just sad. Personally I will vote for McCain if Obama
wins. I am not ready for a black kid president, regardless of
how good his speech skill is. -ray
\_ His "speech skill" is clearly better than yours.
\_ Though he seems to have learned from the Shatner school of
speaking.
\_ Well, I am not voting for a fucking black president,
because all black knows how to do is the play the racist
card when they commit a crime. I've seen plenty of them in
Oakland and San Francisco, wearing extra large T-shirts and
pants dropped down. They belong in jail. -asian
\_ This has to be a troll. You argument is logically inconsistant.
\_ Yours too, troll-boy, so what? -jrleek
\_ I don't think I combined ticket would actually make any sense.
Why would Obama want to be vice-president to Hillary? He'd
just end up playing second fiddle to Bill.
Why would he want to have Hillary as his vice-president? It would
be impossible to get her to tow the party line. -jrleek
\_toe
\_ Obama fiddles Bill. Hmm ... |
| 2008/3/26-28 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:49578 Activity:high |
3/26 NBC/WSJ poll shows Obama has survived the Wright imbroglio relatively
intact. Meanwhile, Hillary's negatives continue to soar.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/26/821438.aspx
http://img210.imagevenue.com/view.php?image=49717_9_123_419lo.jpg
\_ I told you guys a year ago Hillary would never be President and
you laughed at me. Now most of you are here saying how horrible
she is and how she should get get of the race. Hillary hasn't
changed one bit in the last year. Why are all of you bashing
her now?
\_ Please point to the thread where you attacked HC so we can tell
if you were attacking her based on credibility or gender.
\_ Are you totally new here? Except for the last ~8 weeks, the
motd has been all about HRC and her inevitability. My
favorite response to my comments on her unelectability due
to her ridiculously high unfavorability ratings (amusing that
you assume I a) attacked her or b) it was gender based) was
someone who posted a silly url to one of the 'vote with your
money' fake market betting sites. Show me all the rabidly
pro-Obama posts prior to Jan/Dec, or the rabidly anti-HRC
from Dems. Good luck with *that* motd search.
\_ Let me sum up the problem for you: you post anonymously;
there have been a lot of comments against HRC; it becomes
difficult to verify your "I told you so" claim without
knowing which of those comments were yours.
\_ Let me sum up the problem for you: I don't care if you
believe *me* or not. It is not "me vs. the motd!". It
is a simple fact that until very recently the motd was
full of "HRC IS INEVITABLE! CANCEL THE ELECTION! WE
NEED A CORONATION!" types. Now that Obama is winning,
quite suddenly the mood has shifted heavily against her
here, despite the fact that she hasn't changed one bit
from a year ago when this place was full of HRC cheer-
leaders. This has nothing to do with me. I don't give
a damn what you think of me or my track record. I want
to know what caused all these people who very recently
loooooved HRC to turn on her like she was Karl Rove's
pet dog. *She* hasn't changed a bit. You're just
deflecting.
\- Are you so clueless to think there is a "the motd
unified opinion"? Would you care to evaluate
(explode motd). I'm probably as active a motd
editor as any, and I've disliked Hillary Clinton
since at least 1996 [possibly 1993-1994, but
"on the record" since at least 1996].
\_ I still think HRC would beat McCain, but I like
Obama better.
\_ Funny how so many Dems have suddenly turned on her. I didn't
like her then, but I like her now given that Obama is her
opponent.
\_ You would rather see Hillary as president than Obama?
\_ Yes.
\_ No. She still can't win. My dog could beat her in
the general election. Well ok my dog isn't 35 so he can't
run, but if they didn't create anti-dog ageist rules, he
would.
\_ I've been saying forever that Hillary is too
polarizing to win, but people kept pushing her.
Interesting that those same people now think she's
a terrible candidate just because Obama has the
momentum. I think Hillary is terrible, but at least
she has experience in the form of Bill. Obama is
completely green and not ready for primetime. I
get the feeling he turns to Michelle in the morning
and says "Holy fuck! I might be President! Can you
believe that shit?!"
\_ Bill is a sleaze and a low-life but his personal
life and various crimes aside, his actual policies
weren't that bad (about the best you can say about
modern politicians, unfortunately). His wife and
her opposition are both worthless. It amazes me
that either got this far and may actually end up
as PotUS. More amazing to me is the visceral hatred
each camp has towards the other. Their policies are
exactly the same. It's all just identity politics
and has nothing to do with leading the country.
\_ And Bush has been a great president, right?
\_ He "likes" Hillary for the general in the same way that
Rush does.
\_ Because Obama is unqualified?
\_ Stating something repeatedly doesn't make it factual.
\_ What has he ever done? I am not saying
Hillary is super-qualified, but Billary is. |
| 2008/3/24-27 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:49556 Activity:very high |
3/24 McCain's endless free ride
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_03/013394.php
\_ McCain's free ride will end when Hillary finally gives up. He's
going to get slaughtered. -tom
\_ Maybe. I wish I shared your confidence in that.
\_ No kidding, Bush was going to get "slaughtered" too how the
the heck does a bumbling incompetent get [s]elected twice?
\_ c.f. "Idiocracy"
\_ I didn't think Bush was going to get slaughtered. The
situation is completely different today. McCain will
be viewed as the candidate of yesterday; he will win if
people think the country's current state is good.
What do you think? -tom
\_ Unless the Dems get their act together and nominate
ALGOR, McCain is going to be our next president. It
is fairly clear that Billary can't win. I used to
think Obama could win but Billary has really done a
number on him in the last few weeks. Because of this
I think McCain has a good chance of beating Obama.
I think McCain has a very good chance of beating
Obama.
I think McCain will most likely beat Obama.
\_ The idea of Al Gore as a candidate is laughable.
He had enormous advantages over Dubya and still
lost. He lost his own home state. He's got one
strong topic, the environment, which doesn't seem
like a major issue in this campaign. -tom
\_ ALGOR's biggest advantage is the realization
of the electorate of how different things would
have been if he had become President in 2000.
Also, unlike Obama, he hasn't been broken down
by Billary. At this point, he is probably the
only democrat who can take on McCain and win.
\_ Asserting that again doesn't make it any
less stupid. -tom
\_ Do you really think people who voted for Dubya in 2004
will vote for Obama now? I think it will be the usual
red vs. blue scenario.
\_ Yes, I do. Something happening twice doesn't make
it the "usual" scenario. Votes are a lot more
elastic than that. Ronald Reagan carried New York.
Clinton carried Georgia. -tom
\_ Consider: McCain is less polarizing, seen as more
moderate, than Bush. Obama is more polarizing
than Kerry or Gore, apparently: for the racial
issue if not the political issues.
I rate their chances as 50/50 either way. It will
depend on what media events happen between now
and November. But don't take my word for it:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2yke8u
The trend is actually for McCain. Saying McCain
is going to get slaughtered is delusional. It's
typical for you guys to delude yourself about
the appeal of the Republican candidates. You
don't understand the R voters.
The only way McCain will get slaughtered is if
he goes senile and cracks up on national TV:
his age is his weakness.
\_ I understand R voters just fine, you don't
understand swing voters at all. They care
mostly about the economy, which is going to
hell. Who do you think they are going to blame
for this? How much do you want to bet on the
outcome? -ausman
\_ I don't want to bet. I already said I
rate the chances 50/50. If I want to bet
near 50/50 I'll go play craps somewhere.
I pointed to polls showing 50/50. Are you
a Swami who foretells some vast shift
in public opinions within the next 6
months? It's not very credible to
place blame for all problems at the feet
of the incumbent party. The D's voted
us into Iraq also. The D's have controlled
Congress lately.
\_ Intrade and the Iowa markets have it
\_ Intrade and the other markets have it
more like 60/40. But I am sure all the
people betting there are not as wise
and experienced in these things as you
are. I expect the polls to change
pretty hard against McCain after the
Democratic nomination. And a majority
of Democrats in Congress voted against
the Iraq War. Retelling that tired
old lie of yours doesn't make it any
more convincing.
\_ The Senate is not Congress? A lot of
D's voted for it, and a majority in
the Senate. D's control Congress.
D's continue to fund the war. I think
I was mentioning delusions a couple
posts ago.
McCain hasn't really begun to fight.
You really think it's so obvious?
You should go bet on Intrade, those
40-something ask prices are ripe for
the picking.
\_ You are the one claiming that it
is 50/50, you should be grabbing
all the 40's you can.
\_ The topic here started with
someone questioning tom's
claim that McCain will get
"slaughtered". If you want
to define what that means
(Obama gets >60% of pop vote?)
then maybe I could bet against
that.
I'm not claiming Obama will
lose. I don't like the odds
enough to risk losing. You
are the one who is apparently
certain of the outcome. My
entire point is that it's
uncertain. (Someone else
claimed McCain would win.)
\_ I am not certain, but I
think the race is the
Democrats to lose. They
might just do that though. |
| 2008/3/21-25 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/Crime, Reference/Religion] UID:49530 Activity:high |
3/21 Krauthhammer on Obama's speech
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=290899211643217
\_ Does Krauthammer still call them Freedom Fries? When is he going
to apologize for the Iraq War? The guy is a fool.
\_ So, in other words, he's right and you have no answer to any
of his points? Thanks.
\_ No, he has shown himself time and again to be mendatious
\_ No, he has shown himself time and again to be mendacious
and has shown repeated bad judgement. Why would anyone
waste their time bothering to untangle what a proven
fool is blubbering on about?
\_ It's an opinion piece that *many* people would agree with.
Fine if you don't want to read someone's opinions.
\_ I don't waste my time reading Ann Coulter's "opinions"
either. Some people have worthwhile things to say,
this guy has proven, to me at least, that he does not.
\- you remember that reporter in manhunter/red dragon?
think krauthammer.
\_ That's nice. If you don't want to read something
that is fine. However, that puts you in a poor
position to comment on the article. Your opinion
of the writer's previous statements does not create
the logical grounds for outright dismissing a later
statement. -!pp (and no, like you I haven't read
it either, but unlike you I am not going to comment
on something I haven't read)
\_ I didn't comment on his article. I dismissed
him as a fool.
\_ Exactly. You gave a zero-content knee-jerk
response to seeing his name. Why bother?
Is that really going to convince anyone of
anything or just venting? I see no reason
to post content-free rants. Perhaps you can
explain the value of your original post?
\_ It is pretty funny that a guy who defends
Krauthammer would complain about a content
free rant.
\_ It's even funnier that a guy who
complains about Krauthammer would engage
so much in content free rants. -!pp
\_ Show me even one column of his that is
not: 1) tendentious 2) partisan and
3) wrong and I will reconsider my
POV. The truth is, I have read over
20 of his columns and not even one of
them was worth the time I spent.
them was worth the time I spent. And
btw, saying "Krauthammer was wrong
about Iraq and I will not consider his
opinion until he recants" is hardly
comment free. Perhaps you don't agree
with the comment, but it is certainly
not comment-free.
\_ I'm at no point defending Krauthammer.
I made it quite clear I didn't read the
article and it doesn't matter at all what
the article says since you didn't read it
either. You are intellectually dishonest
or possibly just mentally deficient.
Either way you have still failed to make
a point or even attempt to. -pp
\_ No, I made my point just fine, you just
refuse to admit it: some people aren't
worth wasting your time considering.
Do you remember when the motd was
covered with Freeper trolls? I used
to post links to Prof. Thomas'
excellent blog, The Economist's Voice,
excellent blog, The Economist's View,
until some of the Motd Conservatives
complained about the tone of the
comments section. Krauthammer is
far worse.
worse.
\_ You didn't make a point. A point
might have been convincing. You
expressed a content-free opinion.
There is nothing wrong with that.
It just isn't a point. Don't
confuse your opinion with fact.
\_ My reply was deleted, so here's the
rehashed version: You posted your
opinion. Yay. I'm happy for you.
It still isn't a fact and your
opinion is not something that can
be falsified. You don't like him.
Ok. As far as freepers go, if you
were the one posting freeper links,
I was the one saying we don't need
that here. There's no reason at
all to post a freeper link when all
we're getting is freeper hate plus
a link to the original article.
Just post the original link without
the hate. I also don't see a need
for dailykos hate either, just so
you understand I'm even handed with
my hate-link complaints.
\_ The answer to his question (why he stayed in the church) is pretty
obvious. A church is primarily about religion and faith. Politics
are secondary. A preacher expressing an opinion he doesn't agree
with isn't a crime that reflects on him or his judgement. Unless
you say he should have left because, cynically, it might be used
against him for political muckraking and fearmongering purposess.
\_ A preacher saying the things Wright said should have no
congregation.
\_ Well, I'd say any preacher should have no congregation since
religion is all a giant pile of bullshit. But go figure: it
seems to help them. You aren't in that church, you don't
know what pros there might be to counter these supposed cons.
\_ It's an opinion piece that *many* people would agree with.
Fine if you don't want to read someone's opinions.
\_ There *is no pro* that can counter these cons. And what do
you mean by 'supposed'?
\_ You know everything, why don't you figure it out?
\_ You know, this kind of shit is amazing to read, given how much
shit famous ring-wing christians get here. -- ilyas
shit famous right-wing christians get here. -- ilyas
\_ Well, I guess to me the thing is that Obama explicitly and
publically rejects the controversial statements at hand. The
only real controversy with him then is his church membership
and apparent friendship with this man. I don't recall the
right wing politicians rejecting wacky religious right stuff.
Actually they (Bush etc) invoke it in public policy matters.
\_ Slightly off-topic, but if you take a closer look at Wright's
philosophy, he's far more of a conservative than a liberal.
\_ Hey, I think he is a kook, but I think that about most
religious people, so I think my opinion doesn't really matter
religious people, so my opinion doesn't really matter
here. What is going on, imho, is that religious conservatives
are waking up to the fact that there are other strains of
Christian faith and it kind of freaks them out. |
| 2008/3/20-25 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:49521 Activity:nil 83%like:49515 |
3/20 McCain asked for Hagee's endorsement
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yvqryp [editor and publisher] |
| 2008/3/20 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:49515 Activity:nil 83%like:49521 |
3/20 McCain asked for Hagee's endorsement
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003728364 |
| 2008/3/19-21 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:49504 Activity:moderate |
3/19 The Swiftboating of Obama begins in earnest:
http://csua.org/u/l2s (politico.com)
Has it really come to this? Again? Are we really going to have a
campaign that's a replay of 2004? Are there any adults left?
"Idiocracy" is starting to look like prophecy.
\_ Oh no! Some one posted a video critical of a politician on youtube!
Send him to the gulag! Fairness doctrine!
\_ Oh no! Some one might tell the truth about a politician in a hotly
contested election! Quick! Smear the opposition!
\_ "the truth"... Uhhuh... Are you one of those people holed up
waiting for ObamaBinX to launch his racial holy war? RAHOWA!
ATTACA! Fuck off.
\_ Bad troll! No cookie! Back to your content-free cage!
\_ Wow, 38,000 whole views. And I bet 99% of them were all rabid
GOP partisans. Yawn.
\_ actually, the article we all came from to view it, was
critical of it. I expect a large portion of the views are
from people who are pro-obama, and the video will change
approx. 0 of their minds. It is actually pretty weak, I
doubt it will become a big item.
\_ A McCain aide was just suspended for pushing it:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/3co4w4 [tpm]
\_ It what way is that article critical of the YouTube clip?
It seemed mildly congratulatory, to me.
\_ Yeah, it was pretty poorly done. Of course, the combo of
"Just words?" and "God Damn America!" was pretty obvious. |
| 2008/3/18-21 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:49486 Activity:high |
3/18 Full text of Obama's "pastor" speech. Whatever else you might think,
this is moving stuff. I guess you can either choose to believe it
or not.
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/full_text_of_obamas_big_race_s.php#more
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWe7wTVbLUU
\_ Not only do I not think it's moving, I think it's a cynical
side-step.
\_ That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. However, I think
the bulk of people who would consider voting for Obama at all
will consider it brave, principled, and devout. He may be doomed
by the Idiocracy that only thinks in 5 second sound bites,
but he probably would never win with these folks anyway. Whether
they may make up 50% + 1 of the electorate remains to be seen.
\_ My original response to you was nuked. On the assumption that
it wasn't you that nuked it, let me ask, in what way did you find
it cynical, exactly?
\_ He will make a great President. My father still talks about JFK
and how much me moved a generation, we are going to finally see
and how much he moved a generation, we are going to finally see
something similar: a man of great charima, passion and intergrity
something similar: a man of great charima, passion and integrity
who is going to move America in a new and better direction.
\_ But... but... he's black! You know that those people are
all lazy shifty criminals who hate the white people and want
payback! My god, HE HATES AMERICA! AND SO DO YOU!
\_ I just got back from a two-week vacation in Australia. Every
conversation longer than five minutes that I had with Aussies
turned to the US Dem Primaries. There's a lot of hope/interest
in Obama, even abroad. --erikred
\_ Fortunately the rest of the world does not vote for our
leaders.
\_ Your statement is difficult to unpack. Are you suggesting
that it is fortunate that the rest of the world does not
vote for our leaders, that it is fortunate that the rest
of the world has no say in the choosing of our leaders, or
that despite his popularity abroad, Americans are unlikely
to elect Obama?
\_ All three. I don't see a difference between A&B which
is what I meant when I posted, but C is also true, but
not because he is or is not popular with the rest of
the world. Americans as a whole don't vote on that
basis. The reason it is fortunate that non-citizens
do not vote is they would obviously vote for someone
best for their own country, not ours. I think it goes
without saying (although I'm saying it :)) that an
elected official in any office should represent the
interests of the voters/citizens, not random people
from some other country who have their own government
and election system.
\_ *shrug* I don't see how my initial statement that
there's a lot of hope/interest in Obama, even
abroad, led to your statement. Perhaps I'm just
still jetlagged. --erikred
\_ We'll try again later.
\_ After six years of Freedom Fries and calling our
allies names, our reputation abroad could use
some improvement.
\_ You're confused.
\_ What do you imagine that I might be confused
about? Do you think that our reputation abroad
has gone up under The Decider? Do you think
that our declining reputation is a good
thing?
\_ Historically JFK seems to have been a pretty poor president.
See "A Legacy of Ashes."
\_ I agree. Ronald Reagan is our hero.
\_ Not sure I agree entirely, since he only had 3 years in which
to work before he was shot. He did inspire a generation to
service and to get to the Moon. He did well in the Cuban
Missile Crisis, the closest we ever came to full on nuclear
war with Russia (imagine if LBJ had been prez for that).
Then again, he did get us further into Vietnam. Hard to
say.
s
\_ And he made it ok to go outside without a hat. That alone
is worth being a hero.
\_ It would be nice if people wore more hats. It's
also good for us guys with thinning hair.
\_ So you think that last year would've been pivotal? Or are
you saying it takes 2 full terms to matter?
\_ I'm just not sure. I don't think there is a hard and
fast rule. As an enduring postive symbol of America, I
think there's no question that he's had impact, just as
Reagan did and continues to do so - though Reagan's
second term wasn't exactly littered with great
accomplishments. I think to put him in the same
category as say, Garfield or Harding, is a mistake.
I don't think we can say for sure what he would have
gone on to accomplish, but I think it's fair to say
that the '60s would have been quite different without
the trauma of his assassination. Talk to boomers about
it - for a lot of them, it defined their lives.
\_ re: boomers. Absolutely. I 100% agree. OTOH, I
don't care that all those people remember where they
were and what color their socks were when they heard
he got shot. As a realist I only care what he (or
anyone else) did or did not accomplish. I'm not sure
I agree the 60s would have been any different though
if he had lived. The US would still have been hip
deep in Vietnam. The hippies would have hipped.
Free love would have been just as not-quite free.
Am I missing something?
\_ The Civil Rights Act.
\_ Uhm no. That was grass roots. Without the
marches, the water cannons, dogs, shootings,
lynchings and millions of Americans saying
"No!" the CRA would never have happened.
\_ Uhm no. You can perhaps argue that it would
have been signed sooner or later, but the
Montgomery bus boycott started 10 years
earlier. It took great political courage to
push through the CRA.
\_ People dying on the streets made it
happen, not some paper pushers in DC.
It took no courage to pass something
most of the country was in favor of
given what was going on in the south.
Politicians are by their very nature
not courageous creatures.
\_ What makes you think that a majority
of the country was in favor of it?
As LBJ said, it gave the South to
the GOP for at least a generation.
\_ Replace all references to Reverend Wright in that speech with
David Duke and you might get a feel for why I'm not that impressed.
\_ So you think the two are the same? Really? Are you insane?
\_ One's a white guy who hates black people, and the other is
a black guy who hates white people. What's the difference?
Enlighten me.
\_ The United Church of Christ doesn't burn crosses on
people's lawns.
\_ Uh, please show me where he hates white people. Seriously.
I've seen the videos. I don't see him shouting how
WHITEY MUST DIE.
\_ Which videos? I have yet to see a url that points me
to these videos.
\_ In other words, you're comparing David Duke, former
Grand Dragon of the KKK, an organization publically
and vocally dedicated to racism, to Rev. Wright, a
man whose views you only know through reports in
Right Wing Media? Dude, more research, please, before
opening mouth.
\_ Different person, moron.
\_ Wow, if only you'd signed your post, AC.
\_ It's pretty obviously a different person.
Sheesh. I signed as well as you did.
\_ 1) This obvious you speak of is not so
obvious.
2) I'm not the one who complained about
being mistaken for someone else. If
you really want to be differentiated,
sign your posts.
\_ I suppose it's only obvious if you
have an IQ over 12. I'll spell it
out for you. If you're discussing an
article/video, and post comes along
from someone who doesn't even know
there IS a video, it's probably not
from the same guy.
\_ And David Duke claims to not be racist, but that he is
"a racial realist defending human rights." So what?
I admit, I don't have a 'smoking gun' statement, I'm
just infering from his attitude and general distain for
'Amerikkka' and 'middleclassness.' (acting like whitey)
At the very least we know he is a conspiracy nut.
\_ Please document. Seriously. Because I have a
feeling your ass is getting very empty right now.
\_ You said you saw the videos. Perhaps they weren't
the same videos? You could also read the
church website, but it's been purged recently.
link:csua.org/u/l2c (church pdf) Or you could
read Obama's first book, "Dreams From My Father."
Perhaps you should not be insulting other's
research. I've obviously done more than you.
\_ Yup, it's totally empty.
\_ Keep deleting this if you want, but it
is still obvious your ass well is running dry.
\_ Are you kidding? I love it when people ask
for evidence, and when you give it to them,
they say "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU! LALALA!"
I admit, you win, I laughed first.
\_ There is no way any of the things you
are talking about come anyway close to
David Duke. In any way shape or form.
I'm sorry but this whole thing should
be a total non-story.
\_ I've heard some of his sermons on the
radio. There is no way that a) any
reasonable person can consider what he
said anything but racist and hateful
or b) that someone who knew the guy
for 20 years, called him mentor,
attended his church for 20 years and
had him as a campaign advisor has no
clue what the guy has been saying and
doesn't agree with at least some of
it. --someone else
\_ So I am supposed to take the word
of some anonymous motd hozer, in
the abscence of any evidence what-
soever? I am curious, are you one
of the guys who thought invading
Iraq was a good idea, too? If these
sermons are so racist, find the
text of one on the Net and share
it and let me decide for myself.
Your judgement is suspect to me.
\_ It took me 10 seconds to find
a pile of links. It took 10
more to find links from a
sufficiently left wing source
that you might accept them:
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4443788&page=1
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4443230
I can't play the video but it
should be the live speech. If
not, you can easily find the
video or audio elsewhere. Have
a good evening.
\_ I looked at both of those
and watched the video. Which
quote exactly is the problem?
You had no idea what you were
talking about before and now
you can't find shit.
\_ Ok, now you're just
trolling. No reasonaable
human being can call that
anything but hateful.
\_ Were P Robertson and J
Falwell's musings on
"God removing his
protection on 9/11"
more or less "hateful"
in your beady little
mind?
\_ Which?
\_ It is about as "hateful"
as your average Rush
Limbaugh show or rant
from Ann Coulter, which
is to say, yes. Not
racist though, at least
it doesn't seem so to me.
is to say, yes somewhat.
Not racist though, at
least it doesn't seem
seem to me, a white guy.
so to me, a white guy.
\_ If Ann and Rush were
Obama's advisors and
friends of 20 years
they wouldn't get a
pass like Wright.
\_ Which is why
Ann can talk at
the RNC and call
Edwards a fagot
and the media
barely pays any
attention to
the story? Why
McCain can suck
up to a preacher
who calls the
Catholic church
Satanists and he
gets a pass? Why
Pat Roberston can
blame 9/11 on gays
and feminists and
still be sucked up
to by the
republican
machine? This is
whole thing is
bullshit. Obama
didn't say these
things but he
takes the hit.
Meanwhile major
rep. powers spew
tons more hate
regularly and
noone blinks.
How is being the subject of intense media _/
scrutiny and being the number one story in
newspapers all over the country qualify
as "getting a pass"? |
| 2008/3/17-21 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:49475 Activity:kinda low 90%like:49473 |
3/17 Oops, Obama was at the hate sermon
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yumfcv [newsmax]
\_ Yawn. All it takes is one Swift Boat to destroy him.
\_ What an incisive analysis!
\_ Wait, I thought the newsmax line was that Obama was really
a closet Muslim. Which one is it?
\_ Why can't a closet Muslim show at an extremist hate sermon?
Apparently he wasn't there but being a Muslim or not has nothing
to do with it.
\_ It's pretty funny how a few youtube clips of this preacher,
whom Obama has repeatedly said he doesn't always agree with,
trump everything Obama has ever said or written throughout
his life. That's a pretty amazing standard. I guess by this
standard, McCain has always believed that the Catholic
Church is the "great whore?"
\_ URL to the youtube clips?
\_ This story was already debunked. Sorry.
\_ link?
\_ http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/03/16/fact_obama_did_not_attend_serv.php
\_ http://preview.tinyurl.com/39cpn7 [barackobama.com]
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/17/opinion/17kristol.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/blog/index.blog/1797602/did-kessler-make-false-claim-about-obama
http://preview.tinyurl.com/26jw5f [nytimes]
http://preview.tinyurl.com/ytjtje [conwebwatch]
\_ newsmax is a much more reliable source than the liberal
biased NYT.
\_ Teehee. The newsmax story argues for something that
appears to have been physically impossible. But I guess
three separate cites debunking your precious fantasy
aren't enough, so please continue to stand by it.
Also, the NYT link is to a column by William Kristol,
not exactly a member of the vast left wing conspiracy.
He has retracted the "fact" at the top of his column,
you will note.
\_ Kessler says he's standing by his story.
\_ Apparently Davis, who is a freep poster, "lost his notes."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1986607/posts?page=334#334
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2xlxox [freerepublic]
This shit is laughable. Are you really going to stand by
this?
\_ Kessler scrubbing his wiki page:
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/newsmaxs_kessler_scrubs_refere.php
http://preview.tinyurl.com/32u723 [tpm] |
| 2008/3/14-17 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:49462 Activity:low |
3/14 Obama: Anti landmine.
Clinton: "uh... well... you know I don't want to be seen as weak
on defense...."
McCain: I'm going to go out on a limb and say he's pro landmine.
THE CHOICE IS CLEAR.
\- you know the landmine issue is more complicated than you and
"Princess" Di spin it to be. Yes, scattering them around the
countryside [Afghanistan, SE Asia] is irresponsible, but planted
along a DMZ, they are defensive, not offensive weapons. I dont
think a categorical ban makes sense. Of course we know what
happened to John "nuanced answers" Kerry.
\_ Yeah fuck nuance. landmines suck. they outlast your
conflict. they maim future generations. no one should
be using them.
\_ I couldn't agree more. Just think what would have happened
to the Federation if Sisko had adopted a nancy Euro-Picard
"Mr. Worf Hail Our Surrender" anti-mine stance and had
failed to mine the wormhole at the end of Season 5. |
| 2008/3/14-17 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:49458 Activity:nil |
3/14 Yay! Dem-led congress rejects earmark reforms!
\_ Earmark reform is a strange beast. It is arguable people mad
at something but taking it out on the wrong tool. Earmarks
by nature are not evil. Earmark != pork.
\_ Yes, all earmark = pork.
\_ Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
We won't be fooled again!
\_ "earmark reform" is one of those great conservative
ideology-laden terms, like "tax reform" and "welfare reform."
Conservatives don't really have a problem with earmarks; they
just don't want to provide public services. -tom
\_ Case in point, 2000-2006 congresses were the worst ever
with respect to earmarks, but now that the Democrats got
control Bush and the republicans in congress have been
complaining about earmarks long and loud. The democrats did
push through a bill that required that the earmarker actually
be named in an earmark so that you could see what congresscritter
asked for what earmarks, which was something that could not
pass when the republicans controlled congress.
\_ Note: Obama has released his earmarks. Hillary "I've got
a secret" Clinton has not as of yet. McCain hasn't been
doing earmarks for a while. |
| 2008/3/10-13 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49408 Activity:low |
3/10 I love this expose of the liberal media circle.
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/7060
thinkprogress -> media matters -> Keith Olbermann -> media matters ->
new york times
\_ So if I go on national tv and ask if George Bush rapes little
boys that's totally just you know, sillyness?
\_ You haven't watched the clip, obviously. -emarkp
\_ Even if done in jest, it is the sort of thing that adds up.
Especially when done on a serious news program.
\_ Sorry, you're an idiot. Beck has called the people who are
asking if Obama is the Anti-Christ, "crazy" and "nutjobs".
Mockery and sarcasm are common and reasonable ways to express
an opinion. -emarkp
\_ It's the way the mockery and sarcasm are presented. Find
me a talking head asking "Is George Bush a Nazi?" on a
national news show. I doubt you'll find it.
\_ So you still haven't watched the clip? -emarkp
\_ Ah yes, the "liberal media."
\_ Yes, precisely. -emarkp
\_ Exactly how "liberal" did you find the NYTimes series on WMD?
A little bit, a lot, or extremely? Damn liberals!
\_ How fair did you find the front-page utterly fabricated
smear on McCain? A little bit, a lot, or extremely?
\_ The Times sucks. No disagreement from me. But calling
them the "liberal media" is ignoring reality.
\_ Yes, you're repeatedly denied that they're liberal.
However, they consistently err on the side of
criticizing the right. -emarkp
\_ Except for their years-long crusade on behalf
of the Whitewater investigation, their shameful
series on WMD from Judith Miller, etc...
\_ Ah, I wrote "consistently". My bad. I meant
to say they do so in the overwhelming majority.
-emarkp
\_ I'm not sure what you base this
"overwhelming majority" assertion on.
They infuriate me on a daily basis.
--liberal
\_ Hypothesis: The right is worthy of
criticism more often.
\_ Odd hypothesis, and probably difficult to
test.
\_ Eliot Spitzer, the Democratic mayor of
[prove]
\_ Eliot Spitzer, the Democratic gvrnr of
New York just got busted on a connection
with a prostitution ring (!?). -- ilyas
\_ ... which the Times is doing a huge
story on.
\_ yes. And note, he wasn't
"connected with a prostitution
ring"; he hired a prostitute. -tom
\_ Governor of NY State.
\_ Yes sorry, fixed. -- ilyas
\_ I disagree. They just tend to go after
whoever is in power, which is part of the
role of media as government watchdog. See
the huge above the fold story about Spitzer
right now. It has just been so long since
the Democrats were in power, that people
have forgotten the role the NYT played in
attacking Clinton, Rostenkowski, etc. The
NYT might be slightly more liberal than
most, but that is just a reflection of
their readership. Overall, they are just
another big corporation, controlled by
billionaires and in the business of selling
ads. Why do you believe otherwise?
\_ If their role is to go after those in
power, why did they play such a major
role in aiding and abetting the WMD
shenanigans and in going into Iraq in
the first place?
\_ War against a foreign country only
happens when the moneyed classes think
they are going to profit from it.
-George Orwell
\_ I guess I've never seen Keith Olbermann before, he looks like he's
made of plastic. |
| 2008/3/9-11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:49398 Activity:moderate |
3/9 Basically, the math is simple. Hillary's screwed.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/9/184226/0219/795/473137
\- i wouldnt discount the out-of-the-box thinking capacity of the
reptiles in hillary inc. i think factors in play are florida.,
michigan, edwards, ALGOR, "obama surprise", some judicial stunt,
mccain doing something to set up mccain-billary, modelling the
brains of menopausal women aka "the hillary base". on a positive
note is lot of cash for obama. who can keep supporting hillary
after the fucking "as far as i know" comment. jesus. remember
normal odds handicapping doesnt work when the otherwise doesnt
play by MoQ rules but will bite, gouge, hit under the belt etc.
brains of menopausal women aka "the hillary base" and the Power
of Bill. on a positive note is lot of cash for obama. who can keep
supporting hillary after the fucking "as far as i know" comment.
jesus. remember normal odds handicapping doesnt work when the
otherwise doesnt play by MoQ rules but will bite, gouge, hit
other sidedoesnt play by MoQ rules but will bite, gouge, hit
under the belt etc.
\_ Hi. Hillary supporter here. what is the 'as far as i know'
thing?
\_ Clinton was asked in an interview whether BHO is a Muslim.
She basically said "No, he's not. As far as I know."
\_ oh. ok that's pretty bad.
\- and then she went on to talk about herself ...
"oh i dont believe in smearing people ...
i've been smeared a lot. did i tell you i know
what it is like to be smeared?" constrast that
with obama's above and beyond the call comments
about "i am not a muslim" + "it's sad that
being called a muslim can be considered a smear".
remember michael igantieff's lesson from iraq:
character matters. [i.e. if you get into bed with
evil fuckers just because you agree with them
on some particlar end [say universal healthcare]
you will get burned.
remember michael ignatieff's lesson from his
iraq war mea culpa: character matters [MI = liberal
supporter of the war, who later came to the reali-
zation, if you get into bed with evil fuckers,
just because you agree with them on some particular
policy platform --- say universal healthcare ---
you will get burned ... because ultimately what
matters is they are evil fuckers.]
\- also see:
http://tinyurl.com/2ewyx6
\_ Here's the video:
http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=55904 |
| 2008/3/6 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:49363 Activity:nil |
3/6 I can't stand The Hillary, but I don't like Obama's chances
in the election. I love Obama like a brother (tee hee!) but
he's the most liberal member of the Senate, why would middle
America vote for him instead of Hang 'Em High McCain? |
| 2008/3/5-7 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:49351 Activity:moderate |
3/5 The more Hillary & Obama fight each other, the less $$
they'll have against McCain. Stop the infighting!
\_ Hillary's win in Texas has sustained my hopes for riots at the DNC
\_ Billary v. Obama just means ALGOR will be the next president.
\_ It is called "an election", not infighting.
\_ I wonder how many of Clinton's votes are coming from Rs trying to
follow Limbaugh's suggestion.
\_ Clinton will probably get the Republican votes from Repubs
who want to sabatoge Democratic primaries while Obama will
get Republican votes who actually want to see him win.
\_ Probably not many. I'm R leaning, but I voted for Obama because
I figure there's a chance that whoever has the D in front of
their name will win by default. Given that, I'd rather have
the prez who posseses at least a few admirable qualities. Of
course, I don't like Limbaugh anyway. |
| 2008/3/5-7 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:49349 Activity:high |
3/5 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/22/us/politics/22mccain.html (old but tasty) McCain: "At no time have I ever done anything that would betray the public trust or make a decision which in any way would not be in the public interest or would favor anyone or organization." Asked if he had ever had a romantic relationship with the woman, Vicki Iseman, Mr. McCain responded, "No." Translation: Blowjobs and/or other inappropriate physical contact. They specifically chose one or two reporters who would ask the question in a certain way. This is not tinfoil--just the way it usually works. \_ Not everyone is like that horn dog Slick Willie. \_ okay, maybe just heavy petting or fondling \- what about Hillary's Alaska "into the wild" Lesbo Phase? \_ McCain is a politician who helped out some special interest and slept with some woman. Yawn. \_ he also married his 2nd wife, age 25, when he was 43 \_ What is wrong with that? It is a perfectly normal age spread in this country. It is also none of your business. There are plenty of reasons not to vote for McCain, but this is not one of them. \_ Don't you think dumping his first wife for a younger, hotter model says something about his character? \_ 30 years ago it probably did. Today, no. \_ well he has been married to th "hotter model" \_ well he has been married to the "hotter model" for ~27years. \_ If McCain was contesting an election in the 70s the fact that he upgraded to a newer model might have mattered. These days I think it is a non-issue. \_ 25 is the prime age of hotness for women. GOOD JOB \_ Really? He's my hero! \_ Then you should get them around 22-23, that way you will enjoy the prime age longer. \_ not if you replace them every few years, with a newer model. \_ He's my hero! \_ All the yellow journalism that's fit to print. |
| 2008/3/5-7 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:49347 Activity:nil 90%like:49344 |
3/5 America is "just downright mean" says Mrs. Obama
http://preview.tinyurl.com/23jjtf (newyorker.com) |
| 2008/3/5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:49344 Activity:nil 90%like:49347 |
3/5 America is "just downright mean" says Mrs. Obama
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/03/10/080310fa_fact_collins?currentPage=3 |
| 2008/3/4-7 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:49336 Activity:nil |
3/4 With 0% of the precincts reporting, Obama and McCain take Vermont,
projects CNN.
\_ I love the 0% projections.
\_ Damn, it looks like Clinton is going to take Ohio and Rogue
Island. And Texas is too close to tell.
\_ Hillary will inspire oll of us that you too can cry,
whine, bitch, throw tantrums, and scorch earth your way
to the White House. |
| 2008/2/28-3/4 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:49295 Activity:nil |
2/28 "more than one in every 100 American adults is in jail or prison,"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080228/ap_on_re_us/prison_population
\_ We're number 1! |
| 11/25 |