Politics Domestic Election - Berkeley CSUA MOTD
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Politics:Domestic:Election:
Results 901 - 1050 of 1431   < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2017/11/17 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
11/17   

2008/9/3 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:51028 Activity:insanely high Entry has been invalidated. Access denied. 2008/9/3 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:51027 Activity:very high Entry has been invalidated. Access denied. 2008/9/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:51023 Activity:high 80%like:51046 Entry has been invalidated. Access denied.
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
2008/9/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:51020 Activity:high 71%like:51031 76%like:51035 Entry has been invalidated. Access denied.
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.
2008/8/30-9/3 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:51008 Activity:kinda low 75%like:51033 80%like:51037 Entry has been invalidated. Access denied.
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
2017/11/17 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
11/17   

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    โ€œAs for that VP talk all the time, Iโ€™ll tell you, I still canโ€™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/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] 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?
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
        \_ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุฃูŽูƒู’!
                   \_ 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.
        \_ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุฃูŽูƒู’!
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/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] 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 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Reference/History/WW2/Germany] 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/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] 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/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] 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 [Reference/RealEstate, Politics/Domestic/Election] 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/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/Election, Reference/Military] 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/Election, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] 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/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] 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/SocialSecurity, Politics/Domestic/Election] 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/Domestic/Election, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] 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/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] 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.
2008/5/9 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:49913 Activity:nil 75%like:49894 Entry has been invalidated. Access denied.
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!
2017/11/17 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
11/17   
Results 901 - 1050 of 1431   < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Politics:Domestic:Election:
.