Breast Expansion Archive Forum

Miscellaneous => Off-Topic & Testing => Topic started by: gOOber on September 14, 2008, 10:29:21 PM

Title: MERGED: The Politics Thread
Post by: gOOber on September 14, 2008, 10:29:21 PM
I'll admit I voted for GWB. I'm not proud of it, but I did it.
What concerns me now is that this country is at a crossroads, an election that could not be more critical, we have the opportunity to elect this rare once-in-a-lifetime candidate, and we are on the verge of making the same mistake we made in 2000 and 2004.

People, please set aside your partisan biases. Loony lefties and fringe righties alike. Every time this country has reached a dangerous crossroads in the past, we have been led out of the darkness by a president who could not only lead, but inspire. Reagan comes to mind as the most recent. With the cold war threatening civilization, we rose up as a country together as stood behind President Reagan when he said, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." I still get goose bumps when I hear this replayed. It stirs my patriotism, invigorates my spirit, and inspires me to be the best American I can be.

Now, once again, we are at a crossroads. This time, it is Islamic Extremism, OPEC gangsters, out of control debt, recession and rampant inflation, etc. Once again, the powers that be have given us an individual to lead us and inspire and involve us. Once again, I am stirred to forget my old partisan biases. I am ready to be part of a united America that puts the unfortunate years of GWB behind us.

Barack Obama is a rare and remarkable human being. He is one who has the capacity, like Reagan, to not only lead but to inspire a new generation of Americans. It is a gift that such a person has been given to us, but we have to have the courage to put him in office. We have to have the courage to admit the missteps of our foreign policy and economic policy. We have to set aside our differences and elect this rare natural leader who can reassert our leadership in the world, not only as the world's most powerful nation and superpower, but as the morally centered country that for so long served as a beacon of light to those nations and peoples who would aspire to such greatness.

In summary, this old-guard disenchanted Republican thinks that Barack Obama can bring us back together as proud Americans.

 <img src="http://forum.bearchive.com/files/659652-BitterReformedRednecks.jpg">

Mod edit November 6, 2010: this thread has been merged from three separate threads, all of which eventually devolved to serve the same general purpose... thus, there was no point in keeping them separate. At the request of a user, the thread has also been generically renamed... the original thread titles (for posts within the separate threads) are still intact for each post. -Pal
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: H_cups on September 14, 2008, 10:33:55 PM
I HONESTLY don't know who to vote for.


Goober...we all thought the same thing about Melton.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on September 14, 2008, 10:34:00 PM
A man who can look at a situation and change the habits of a lifetime for the greater good...such a man is to be hailed and congratulated.

Welcome to the Rebel Forces, gOOber.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: DruulEmpire on September 14, 2008, 10:38:48 PM
I have now officially seen everything.

I like to think that any open honest confession counts for something around here -- and this is a prime example.  Congratulations.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on September 14, 2008, 11:43:16 PM
I wish I could muster some enthusiasm about this election.  I tried **94** the Obama koolaid, but it tasted like shit, so I spewed it from my mouth.  Doubly grating is the fact that I spend my days around college students who wouldn't know their heads from their assholes, yet are absolutely convinced Obama is the solution to all our problems.  The guy is a career politician, no more and no less.

*sigh*

The last time I felt any excitement about a candidate, it was Al Gore in 2000.  Since then, I've been voting against certain individuals rather voting for the people I embrace, because there hasn't been anyone to embrace.  It's a sad state of affairs.

That said, I couldn't possibly vote for a McCain/Palin ticket.  Too much crazy going on there.  I guess it's 3rd party for me this year, or perhaps I'll just scribble my name in...
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: SwitcherX on September 15, 2008, 12:28:14 AM
I live in Chicago and I can say without any doubt that Obama never did anything while he was in the state legislature.  In fact, I can't even remember hearing this guy's name until the guy he was running against for the senate dropped out.  I keep hearing abuot how he was a community organizer or activist or whatever.  In Chicago all that means is that he started crying (usually about racism) until whoever he was crying to gave him money to shut him up.  If you cut him open and looked inside all you would find is media hype.  McCain is useless too.

 
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Dearc on September 15, 2008, 02:24:09 AM
I'm really glad someone else had the courage to do this.

I too, am tired of the 'messianic' style Obama has portrayed, but upon further examination, he's so shallow.  Community organizer is a qualification to be President?  Please.

McCain isn't exactly the wisest choice, either.  I think he's too in-bed with lobbyists and corporate types.

So I'm voting for the issues that matter to me.  I'm a proud gun owner, and I understand Obama has voted (and lost) for every anti-gun law that appeared in front of him.  He may not suceed as President, but I bet he'll try to push through gun laws that'll make it extremely difficult to own anything above a .22.  I also believe he'll let Osama Bin Laden go, for the sake of pacifism.  I heard an excerpt from his interview with Bill O'Reilly (I can't stand him, either), and basically, I understood that Bin Laden will be allowed to remain free.

I don't have any REAL issues with McCain; I tolerate a certain extent.  I think Palin is fantastic except for her stance on abortion.  I was in the Army, Military Police, and my mother, and both older sisters are sexual assault victims.  I KNOW I have the right to speak out on this issue.  I've dealt with it within the family, and on the job.  Abortion for sexual assault victims should be available, with no questions asked.  Palin holds the opinion of only if the mother's life is in danger.  She also seems to hold G.W. Bush in high regards; not cool but, whatever.

Since I'm also a die-hard atheist, it seems both sides cater the religious vote, Reps more than Dems.  The Faith Based Initiatives Program is one of the worst abominations in the history of Executive Decisions.  The "wall between church and state" has been widdled down so bad, there are times I wondered (esp before Nov 2004) if I should fear for my safety, and I live near Minneapolis, the 2nd most liberal city in the Union, next to San Fransisco.

All the other issues:  high taxes, multiple price increases, lousy immigration policy, weak economy, worsening relation with Russia, bolder China, and any others worth mentioning, will have to be dealt with as the President sees fit.  It also matters whom is in their respective Cabinets.  Colin Powell was the crown jewel, and Pres. Bush took a big shit on him.

I'm voting for McCain this year.  In 2000, a few months after I got out of the Army, I voted for Gore; Kerry in 2004.  I'm not ashamed of it, since they both lost.  When the shit hits the fan, it'll be either religious crusaders or leftist feminazis, I've got plenty of ammo.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: pedonbio on September 15, 2008, 03:01:40 AM
Well, notty, I'm sorry you feel that way. When I was young I fell in love with JFK, and that ended badly. But over the years I've decided that he wasn't bad as presidents go.

First, m'dear, campaigns mean nothing. Really. Go back to old microfilms of the New York Times and read about the 1932 campaign. Better yet, go back to 1860 and old microfilms of the New York Tribune. Abe Lincoln was, after all, a lifelong politician.

Second, what is the guy's style of management? Lincoln, FDR, and JFK all had the same style: Surround yourself with really bright people. When an issue comes up, sit down and watch the smart guys fight it out. The closest the world ever came to nuclear war was the Cuban Missile Crisis of October, 1962. The solution was both ingenious and bizarre, and it was all Kennedy's, except that he pieced it together after watching very bright people scream at each other for ten days.

I look for these things in a president:

1) The ability to admit error and change course;
2) The ability to articulate both a clear policy position and a vision of a future;
3) The ability to laugh at himself;
4) The ability to listen to people he doesn't like.

I've given up on ever seeing another JFK. American politics doesn't have much time for guys who win Pulitzer Prizes any more. I do wish Gore had run this time, though.

Third, the problem with recent presidents is that the following qualities don't work for long-term national survival:

1) Using the office to settle old scores;
2) Making snap decisions and sticking with them;
3) Never admitting error;
4) Surrounding himself with people who think he's great.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: pedonbio on September 15, 2008, 03:18:23 AM
Incidentally, notty, everything that you, Switcher, and Dearc wrote about Obama was also written and said of JFK during the 1960 campaign. It was wrong then. I suspect it is wrong now.

There is a kicker, an added benefit for me, and, I think, for gOOber, too. Race has been a sad and painful aspect of public life in America for all my life. Electing Obama will go a long, long way to putting that to bed.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: 3deroticer on September 15, 2008, 04:31:17 AM
I wouldn't vote for Obama because of his color, but if he does get elected, it would let all the youngster see a color man as a president and that would be a mighty vision for people of all color to see.

I would add 2 more criteria of a great president and that would be his knowledge of history, and his ability to write his own book. GWB wrote his own book and I knew then I didn't want him as President. This will be the first election that a Republican Candidate doesn't have an autobiography of himself and his vision for the world as a leader.

With Palin we have only 6 weeks to know more about her, as she set herself to be interview with rightwing journalist in the next coming month. Charlie Gibson interview didn't do well for her and she wont make that mistake again.

McCain hasn't disclose his medical record to outside journalist other than his loyalist, and what we do know about his skin condition is that statistically he had live 8 of his 10 years that he is expected to live with his condition. Even then, if he undergo a recurrence that he would be incapacitated to serve out his term under stricter treatment.

I cried in my blankie hearing about a redneck Obama conversion.

If Obama become our next president and he turn our economy around, and your still not happy, then please send money to me, enough to send you into another country and pretend your job got sent over seas. With my help we can imagine your still living in a Republican world.

That being said, neither party can find a candidate that isn't owned by the corporation, until we end legalized bribery(lobbyist).
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: onionwriter on September 15, 2008, 05:09:39 AM
I don't disagree with anything said here. You may certainly disagree with me, but this is why I wanted Hillary. I would not have minded McCain. He is a fine man. I was honestly split on my vote.

To me, what it now comes down to is if the president dies. Who do you want backing him up? Who do you want a heartbeat away?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: turbo on September 15, 2008, 05:25:52 AM
I'll put my post here since it concerns Barack Obama.

Forum sells 'Obama Waffles' with racial stereotype

    Read all about it!!  
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: SwitcherX on September 15, 2008, 05:45:51 AM
Quote:

onionwriter said:
To me, what it now comes down to is if the president dies. Who do you want backing him up? Who do you want a heartbeat away?




It comes down to who has bought and paid for each of them.

i've been reading www.antiwar.com lately.  Not much about the candidates seems to get past Justin Raimondo.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: 3deroticer on September 15, 2008, 06:25:04 PM
My goodness, Alan Greenspan now bashing McCain tax plan?

Maybe 8 years is enough to wake up America?

It took Germany 12 years after Hitler came into power.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: 3deroticer on September 15, 2008, 06:36:19 PM
Quote:

turbo said:
I'll put my post here since it concerns Barack Obama.

Forum sells 'Obama Waffles' with racial stereotype

    Read all about it!!  




My brother-in-law is related to the inventor of the waffle maker, and I haven't got his take on this, but I bet this would piss him off. He serve Waffles every weekend and holiday morning.

This summit sponsored by the lobbying arm of the Family Research Council. Family Research Council name sound so cozy, and warm. Makes you think of old fashion noose swinging from tree and a toasted marshmallow off of burning effigy in the front yard.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on September 15, 2008, 07:18:14 PM
Quote:

pedonbio: There is a kicker, an added benefit for me, and, I think, for gOOber, too. Race has been a sad and painful aspect of public life in America for all my life. Electing Obama will go a long, long way to putting that to bed.


True. But I should caution everyone. No one should vote for ANY person because he or she happens to be the same race as they. I can tell you one thing for sure: white or black or biracial, the man is going to be president of everyone, and his policies will affect everyone. We've voted for 44 or so white men as president over the past two hundred plus years, and among them we've had some greats, some middle-of-the-roaders, and some atrocious abominations. Ultimately, their race did not matter, but their policies did.

I agree with you, though, pedonbio, when you say that all the slams against JFK are being leveled against Obama, and ultimately to the same effect, I hope.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Hugeboobfan on September 15, 2008, 07:18:54 PM
Quote:

Dearc said:
I also believe he'll let Osama Bin Laden go, for the sake of pacifism.  I heard an excerpt from his interview with Bill O'Reilly (I can't stand him, either), and basically, I understood that Bin Laden will be allowed to remain free.



Wha?  You must have watched a different interview than the one I saw.

From the interview:
Quote:

O'REILLY: So you are going to — again, more diplomacy, and we need it, absolutely, trying to convince the Pakistan government to take a more aggressive approach. If you don't, we're going to pull…

OBAMA: And what I will do is, if we have bin Laden in our sights...

O'REILLY: Yes.

OBAMA: ...we target him, and we knock him out.


O'REILLY: But everybody would do that. I mean, that would be the biggest win Bush could have.

OBAMA: Of course.

O'REILLY: If you send ground troops in, all hell breaks loose.

OBAMA: We can't — we can't have — and nobody talked about some full-blown invasion of Pakistan, but the simple point that I made was we've got to put more pressure on Pakistan to do what they need to do.


Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on September 15, 2008, 07:32:59 PM
Thank you for that, hugeboobfan! I wish people would take the time to actually listen and get the facts about whichever candidate they support, instead of being the conduit of lies, innuendo and outright fabrications. Next thing you know, someone will come here and say that Obama's a crypto-Muslim or something -- which actually is an insult to Muslims since it implies that anyone who is a Muslim is automatically a terrorist who wants to bring down our government. We've had eight years of a so-called Christian in power, and look at how bad things are in this country. I don't care what religion* the POTUS is as long as he or she does what we sent him or her to Washington to do.

* and for the record, Scientology ain't a religion, so sorry Tom Cruise but I ain't gonna vote for you!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: pedonbio on September 15, 2008, 07:50:57 PM
Quote:

3deroticer said:
My goodness, Alan Greenspan now bashing McCain tax plan?






I'd like to cheer, but I'm old and you'll find that the older someone is, the less likely they are to like Greenspan. Back during the 1980s Greenspan was a shill-for-hire for the crooks like Charles Keating who were looting S&Ls.

Oh, so was McCain!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on September 15, 2008, 08:11:35 PM
Anyone who thinks that Obama is the second coming is of course wrong -- but of the two alternatives, he is the better one. Better equipped to deal with the challenges that face us (and most of those challenges were brought upon us by eight years of this current administration I might add), better equipped to deal with foreign leaders who are rooting for us, better equipped to deal with foreign leaders who hate our guts, and most of all, he will provide a fresh start for our country. He has no magic wand to wave, no one does, and the first two years of his administration are going to be the hardest of almost any president's in living memory, but I have confidence that he can do it.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Dearc on September 15, 2008, 10:16:57 PM
Quote:

Hugeboobfan said:
Quote:

Dearc said:
I also believe he'll let Osama Bin Laden go, for the sake of pacifism.  I heard an excerpt from his interview with Bill O'Reilly (I can't stand him, either), and basically, I understood that Bin Laden will be allowed to remain free.



Wha?  You must have watched a different interview than the one I saw.

From the interview:
Quote:

O'REILLY: So you are going to — again, more diplomacy, and we need it, absolutely, trying to convince the Pakistan government to take a more aggressive approach. If you don't, we're going to pull…

OBAMA: And what I will do is, if we have bin Laden in our sights...

O'REILLY: Yes.

OBAMA: ...we target him, and we knock him out.


O'REILLY: But everybody would do that. I mean, that would be the biggest win Bush could have.

OBAMA: Of course.

O'REILLY: If you send ground troops in, all hell breaks loose.

OBAMA: We can't — we can't have — and nobody talked about some full-blown invasion of Pakistan, but the simple point that I made was we've got to put more pressure on Pakistan to do what they need to do.







I thought it made it clear, just an excerpt, and it was hearsay.  No, I didn't catch the entire interview before my comment.  I listened to it later.  Like I also said, I've no real love for O'Reilly either.  So wherever I heard this from, I was obviously short-changed, or short-changing myself.  I apologize.

I admit, I was diagnosed with a near-fatal case of foot-in-mouth disease.  
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: 3deroticer on September 16, 2008, 02:54:59 AM
http://vimeo.com/1679097?pg=embed&sec=1679097

Obama the second coming?

better look again at this clip, and think again.

To each his own, but I am pragmatic on the faith healing thing.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: SwitcherX on September 16, 2008, 05:17:12 AM
Obama's Bra 54 Double "D"
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on September 16, 2008, 05:26:25 AM
Quote:

3deroticer said:
http://vimeo.com/1679097?pg=embed&sec=1679097

Obama the second coming?


I said he AIN'T the second coming
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on September 16, 2008, 10:15:37 PM
Quote:

pedonbio said:
Well, notty, I'm sorry you feel that way.




If McCain is still leading in the polls come November, I would probably vote for Obama out of self-preservation.  Otherwise, not happening.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: 3deroticer on September 17, 2008, 12:08:18 AM
McCain refer to Obama that he think he is the second coming, and yet there are more religious undertone coming from Palin than anywhere else. I would classify Palin's church as extremist. That they tout that anyone who don't believes as they do will go to hell. That they bless this Iraq war and that they are on god path in doing the right thing in Iraq. There will always be war, but I believe that Jesus would have no part in it. If anything war is the absence of God the creator, but the entity of the destroyer. Going to war is admittance of failure to keep peace. This holier than thou attitude is where we get rampant disregard to laws that have been place democratically by the people. Disregard to hearings, cooperation of an ongoing investigation, accountability of expenditure, and blatant discordance to the constitution.

I rather have Obama, a constitutional scholar, top of his class in law school, as our new leaders, than a religious zealot that interpret god's law from the old testament, whenever it become convenient.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: mofoapoo on September 17, 2008, 04:14:53 AM
I understand people's distrust in politicians.  For all we know, Obama could very well eat the heart of humans on a daily basis to gain their courage.  Their delicious courage...

But regardless, the facts present themselves.  Mccain has a history of counterdicting himself, and Palin has proven to abuse her powers.  They both do the whole avoid media, avoid questions routine.

Obama, on the other hand, was excepted into a high end law school, but before he did that, he took his Columbia degree AND MOVED TO SOUTHERN CHICAGO.  He was able to get into harvard, but instead of doing that right away, he set aside 3 years of his life to helping people.  Come on.  People are just being a bit too cynical these days.  You gotta take what you can get.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: MasterDragonfly on September 17, 2008, 12:21:05 PM
Last night cherri asked me what the significance is regarding saying that Palin is "a heartbeat away".  So I went on to explain the concerns regarding McCain's health.

She then pointed out to me that arguably Biden is in the same position of "a heartbeat away".  While Obama certainly doesn't appear to have any health issues, it's undeniable that there would be a lot of people upset at having a black president, and as such, he could end up suffering from lead poisoning.  As did JFK.  

The optimist in me says this would never happen.  The pessimist in me would suggest such an event could lead to considerable civil unrest, to understate it.

Which just now brings me to another thought:  If the above is a possibility, and if McCain's health is indeed at risk, would it be more apropos to compare Palin to Biden, within the context of presuming that one or the other would end up taking the helm?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on September 17, 2008, 06:25:28 PM
Of course it would. Obama & McCain = presidential candidates, whereas Biden & Palin = vice-presidential candidates. Apples to apples, and oranges to oranges.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: SwitcherX on September 17, 2008, 09:07:55 PM
Quote:

mofoapoo said:Obama, on the other hand, was excepted into a high end law school, but before he did that, he took his Columbia degree AND MOVED TO SOUTHERN CHICAGO.  He was able to get into harvard, but instead of doing that right away, he set aside 3 years of his life to helping people.  Come on.  People are just being a bit too cynical these days.  You gotta take what you can get.




Nobody, other than a priest sent there by the church, moves to the south side of Chicago to help people unless there's money involved.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: MasterDragonfly on September 17, 2008, 09:21:21 PM
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
Of course it would. Obama & McCain = presidential candidates, whereas Biden & Palin = vice-presidential candidates. Apples to apples, and oranges to oranges.



Agreed.

Now if we could only get the media (and the candidates) to do likewise.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on September 17, 2008, 09:27:50 PM
Quote:

SwitcherX said:
Quote:

mofoapoo said:Obama, on the other hand, was excepted into a high end law school, but before he did that, he took his Columbia degree AND MOVED TO SOUTHERN CHICAGO.  He was able to get into harvard, but instead of doing that right away, he set aside 3 years of his life to helping people.  Come on.  People are just being a bit too cynical these days.  You gotta take what you can get.




Nobody, other than a priest sent there by the church, moves to the south side of Chicago to help people unless there's money involved.


And you know this how?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Hugeboobfan on September 17, 2008, 10:15:35 PM
Quote:

MasterDragonfly said:
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
Of course it would. Obama & McCain = presidential candidates, whereas Biden & Palin = vice-presidential candidates. Apples to apples, and oranges to oranges.



Agreed.

Now if we could only get the media (and the candidates) to do likewise.



It truly is the Palin-McCain ticket now.  Nobody cares about McCain; all his supporters are fired up about Palin.  They don't know much about her, they just like her.  It's the GW Bush "seems like someone I'd like to hang out with so I think I'll vote for them" disease that affects a good portion of american voters.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Dearc on September 17, 2008, 10:57:01 PM
One thing I've noticed not said here, is that many politicians say things, get elected, and 'forget' to do what they said they would.  Anyone remember "Read my lips-NO NEW TAXES!"?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Hugeboobfan on September 17, 2008, 11:39:08 PM
Quote:

Dearc said:
One thing I've noticed not said here, is that many politicians say things, get elected, and 'forget' to do what they said they would.  Anyone remember "Read my lips-NO NEW TAXES!"?



In that case, when McCain gets elected, I hope he "forgets" to do everything that he's said he's going to do.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: 3deroticer on September 18, 2008, 12:06:09 AM
Quote:

Dearc said:
One thing I've noticed not said here, is that many politicians say things, get elected, and 'forget' to do what they said they would.  Anyone remember "Read my lips-NO NEW TAXES!"?



When a republican announce his intention such as "I'm a uniter not a devider" then expect the opposite! or "No ch**d fall behind", then expecting dissing of our education system.

It's getting to be that any blatant statement is more of an opposite announcement!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: pedonbio on September 18, 2008, 02:54:54 AM
Quote:

SwitcherX said:
Quote:

mofoapoo said:Obama, on the other hand, was excepted into a high end law school, but before he did that, he took his Columbia degree AND MOVED TO SOUTHERN CHICAGO.  He was able to get into harvard, but instead of doing that right away, he set aside 3 years of his life to helping people.  Come on.  People are just being a bit too cynical these days.  You gotta take what you can get.




Nobody, other than a priest sent there by the church, moves to the south side of Chicago to help people unless there's money involved.




I spent three years there getting an education. Fucker, you be diss'n my alma mater!! Me and Milton Friedman gonna cap yo' ass!!!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Lesbian Bob on September 18, 2008, 03:41:52 AM
I'll vote for McCain only if Sarah Palin poses nude and keeps her mouth shut for the next 4 years.  Her voice is sooooo graaaating, and she says such idiotic things.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: 3deroticer on September 18, 2008, 05:04:05 AM
Does anyone know if that's an Alaskan accent? That voice is kind of grating, and I thought Michigander sound quite grating.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on September 18, 2008, 05:41:45 AM
Sarah Palin's accent sounds like a bad mix of Jesse Ventura and the McKenzie Brothers from SCTV
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Dearc on September 18, 2008, 10:29:39 AM
Right now, I'm worried that American's will be forced to make one of two choices:

1.  Capitalism run-amok, will little or no gov't oversight, corporate creed beyond measure, and worst of all, privatization of basic gov't services, like education and defense.  It'll be like Weyland-Yutani (Aliens) and Omni Consumer Products (OCP-Robocop).

OR

2.  Gov't control of all assets and services.  We've already nationalized the housing and banking industry, now insurance.  Socialism isn't exactly compatible with what Americans expect.  Only elitists would be spared.

Let's all remember that the 'unofficial plan' in the next couple decades is to form the North American Union, formerly comprised of Mexico, the U.S. and Canada.  We're starting to look like Europe, and that sucks.

And no, I'm not a conspiracy theorist or paranoid schizo.  These are WORST CASE scenerios, and I don't believe they're far off.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: ChrisR1 on September 18, 2008, 01:07:30 PM
Quote:

Dearc said:
Right now, I'm worried that American's will be forced to make one of two choices:

1.  Capitalism run-amok, will little or no gov't oversight, corporate creed beyond measure, and worst of all, privatization of basic gov't services, like education and defense.  It'll be like Weyland-Yutani (Aliens) and Omni Consumer Products (OCP-Robocop).

OR

2.  Gov't control of all assets and services.  We've already nationalized the housing and banking industry, now insurance.  Socialism isn't exactly compatible with what Americans expect.  Only elitists would be spared.

Let's all remember that the 'unofficial plan' in the next couple decades is to form the North American Union, formerly comprised of Mexico, the U.S. and Canada.  We're starting to look like Europe, and that sucks.

And no, I'm not a conspiracy theorist or paranoid schizo.  These are WORST CASE scenerios, and I don't believe they're far off.




This is what I see happening too. I think the true centrists are really being squeezed out - only the wackiest of the wack-jobs on either side are able to get elected, by playing to their respective bases. If someone has a voting record (and I'm aware that this isn't how they read, but for example) that read like this D, D, D, R, D, R - you'd hear, from the campaign of an opposing D "He sided with R on these issues...what will he side with them on next? Vote me, no flip-flopping..." And vise-versa.
My biggest problem with voting for Obama has nothing to do with him, but the Democratic Congress and Senate; I never like any one party, Democratic or Republican, controlling the Presidency, House, and Senate at any one time. It seems that's always when the 'wackiest of the wackies' are up to shenenagins and getting absolute lunacy passed into law.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: pedonbio on September 18, 2008, 01:34:51 PM
Quote:

Dearc said:
2.  Gov't control of all assets and services.  We've already nationalized the housing and banking industry, now insurance.  Socialism isn't exactly compatible with what Americans expect.  Only elitists would be spared.

 




And you think that the way to prevent that is to vote for the Republicans, who would never ever...oooppps?

One way to think clearly is to use words in their true meaning. "Elitist" means either "snob" or "people at the top". But when a Republican uses it, they mean "smart". If you use a fork and flush the toilet, you're an "elitist".

Do you mean something different?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Hugeboobfan on September 18, 2008, 01:41:52 PM
Quote:

Dearc said:
We're starting to look like Europe, and that sucks.




Would it mean a universal single-payer health insurance plan and 6 weeks of vacation a year?  If so, count me in!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on September 18, 2008, 04:17:19 PM
Quote:

Dearc said:
We're starting to look like Europe, and that sucks.





If that means that our women start looking like uber-busty Polish, Czech and German women, count me in!

"The RNC BarackRolled"
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: 3deroticer on September 18, 2008, 06:12:22 PM
Quote:

pedonbio said:
Quote:

Dearc said:
2.  Gov't control of all assets and services.  We've already nationalized the housing and banking industry, now insurance.  Socialism isn't exactly compatible with what Americans expect.  Only elitists would be spared.

 




And you think that the way to prevent that is to vote for the Republicans, who would never ever...oooppps?

One way to think clearly is to use words in their true meaning. "Elitist" means either "snob" or "people at the top". But when a Republican uses it, they mean "smart". If you use a fork and flush the toilet, you're an "elitist".

Do you mean something different?



Elitist?
A man who was raise on welfare and a single working mom is consider an elitist?
The name calling is seriously funny when it is use regardless of the meaning. If Elitist is a code word for being smart, then we have reach the threshold of actually embracing stupidity. Perhaps with GWB being the bottom of his class and McCain being the bottom fifth of his naval academy schooling, that once again with the help of the media, we would still embrace stupidity.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: SwitcherX on September 18, 2008, 09:13:14 PM
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
Quote:

SwitcherX said:
Quote:

mofoapoo said:Obama, on the other hand, was excepted into a high end law school, but before he did that, he took his Columbia degree AND MOVED TO SOUTHERN CHICAGO.  He was able to get into harvard, but instead of doing that right away, he set aside 3 years of his life to helping people.  Come on.  People are just being a bit too cynical these days.  You gotta take what you can get.




Nobody, other than a priest sent there by the church, moves to the south side of Chicago to help people unless there's money involved.




And you know this how?




Fresh out of college I got a job working for a Chicago company.  Shortly after I started, 1 of the local "community outreach groups" asked for a grant "to help with education".  All they did was threaten to call us racists if we didn't give them the grant.  The book Shakedown: Exposing the Real Jesse Jackson gives an idea of how these things works.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: SwitcherX on September 18, 2008, 09:16:48 PM
Quote:

pedonbio said:
Quote:

SwitcherX said:
Quote:

mofoapoo said:Obama, on the other hand, was excepted into a high end law school, but before he did that, he took his Columbia degree AND MOVED TO SOUTHERN CHICAGO.  He was able to get into harvard, but instead of doing that right away, he set aside 3 years of his life to helping people.  Come on.  People are just being a bit too cynical these days.  You gotta take what you can get.




Nobody, other than a priest sent there by the church, moves to the south side of Chicago to help people unless there's money involved.




I spent three years there getting an education. Fucker, you be diss'n my alma mater!! Me and Milton Friedman gonna cap yo' ass!!!




Now that's funny.  
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: mastert on September 18, 2008, 09:57:06 PM
I was driving home the other day when I thought of the perfect analogy for this election

Imagine, if you will, a 21 year old girl. On her left is a smart, good looking man, with a stable job a good personality. On her right is her current boyfriend. This boyfriend is emotionally abusive but he's a better looking man than the guy on the left. The guy on her left just asked out the 21 year old girl. She's smitten with him. She goes to the man on the right and tells him she's dumping him. The guy on the right tells her that no one will love her as much as him.

So she agrees to just 1 date with the guy on the left. He picked her up in his car and brings her flowers. She sits there on the date and is exactly what she needs at this point in her life. She learned the guy on the left has a wild friend but is also a down to earth guy and had cheated only once in his life. After a good date, she invites him in the house and the clothes come off. However she realizes that he is like one of her ex-boyfriends. He didn't have enough experience in the sack to satisfy her completely.

Later on the next day the guy on the right asks, what happened last night. She tells him exactly what happened. He flips out and tells her nobody will love her as much as he does. Then the clothes come off and he rocks her world. During pillow talk, he tells her everything she wants to hear and her mind clouds over and they go to **82**.

The next day the guy on the right catches her on the phone with the guy on the left. So he goes out with his friend and they both pick up a set of sisters and they both come back to the house. She sees the situation and goes nuts, but the girl he picked up goes home. Later on, she finds lipstick on his collar after telling her nothing happened?

In the end, she knows the guy on the left is exactly what her life needs. But the guy on the right is toxic, but knows how she likes it. So does she go to the left or does she go to the right?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on September 18, 2008, 10:54:59 PM
Quote:

SwitcherX said:
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
Quote:

SwitcherX said:
Quote:

mofoapoo said:Obama, on the other hand, was excepted into a high end law school, but before he did that, he took his Columbia degree AND MOVED TO SOUTHERN CHICAGO.  He was able to get into harvard, but instead of doing that right away, he set aside 3 years of his life to helping people.  Come on.  People are just being a bit too cynical these days.  You gotta take what you can get.




Nobody, other than a priest sent there by the church, moves to the south side of Chicago to help people unless there's money involved.




And you know this how?




Fresh out of college I got a job working for a Chicago company.  Shortly after I started, 1 of the local "community outreach groups" asked for a grant "to help with education".  All they did was threaten to call us racists if we didn't give them the grant.  The book Shakedown: Exposing the Real Jesse Jackson gives an idea of how these things works.


So you are conflating Operation PUSH with Obama? Please.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: collared_cherri on September 18, 2008, 11:54:25 PM
Quote:

mastert said:
So does she go to the left or does she go to the right?




She goes gay.  
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: 3deroticer on September 19, 2008, 12:08:10 AM
Jesse Jackson, Barack Obama
They all look alike!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on September 19, 2008, 12:14:41 AM
Quote:

mastert said:
So does she go to the left or does she go to the right?




She goes for a menage a trois
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: SwitcherX on September 19, 2008, 12:26:59 AM
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
So you are conflating Operation PUSH with Obama? Please.




No, I'm trying to tell you how things work in Chicago.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Dearc on September 19, 2008, 12:51:03 AM
Quote:

3deroticer said:
Quote:

pedonbio said:
Quote:

Dearc said:
2.  Gov't control of all assets and services.  We've already nationalized the housing and banking industry, now insurance.  Socialism isn't exactly compatible with what Americans expect.  Only elitists would be spared.

 




And you think that the way to prevent that is to vote for the Republicans, who would never ever...oooppps?

One way to think clearly is to use words in their true meaning. "Elitist" means either "snob" or "people at the top". But when a Republican uses it, they mean "smart". If you use a fork and flush the toilet, you're an "elitist".

Do you mean something different?



Elitist?
A man who was raise on welfare and a single working mom is consider an elitist?
The name calling is seriously funny when it is use regardless of the meaning. If Elitist is a code word for being smart, then we have reach the threshold of actually embracing stupidity. Perhaps with GWB being the bottom of his class and McCain being the bottom fifth of his naval academy schooling, that once again with the help of the media, we would still embrace stupidity.




IMHO, "elitist" would mean someone whose neglected the lower/middle classes.  Origins (such as, well, all candidates) are IRRELEVANT.  All but McCain came from lower/middle classes, and it's only because McCain's father was an Admiral in the Navy when he enlisted.

Wether or not ANY candidate will reveal any sense of elitism, has yet to be seen.  Right now, getting money to finish off their campaign debt is certainly on top of the "honey-do" list.  Just remember, lobbyists pay tons and tons of money, and why do their programs get passed through, while REAL problems get back-burnered.

As far as European free health care, I'm lacking solid intel.  I guess like anyone else, I want to choose my own hospital and research treatment options.  I'm young enough not to be falling apart, but old enough to know I'm not as young as I used to be.

I was referring to a basic generalization of acceptable socialism, like full welfare benefits and non-assimilation of immigrants, or outrageous taxes, etc.  What's the avg?  %40-60?  Not sure....

As far as Palin's accent, I think she sounds fine.  I grew up mostly in the South, but moved around alot as a Navy brat.  I was also stationed in GA.  So I'm used to differing accents.  Most people noticed I'm "not from around here."  Some place me from northern Ohio.  Ok, been THRU there, but...

Grating or not, I'm impressed with her overall.  I think she's inspiring.  I'm told Obama is also inspiring, but I don't feel it.  To each their own.  I also like WHAT she says, and don't always agree with her (I noted that in an earlier post).  She easier to listen to than Pelosi or H. Clinton.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Hugeboobfan on September 19, 2008, 01:11:44 AM
Quote:

Dearc said:
As far as European free health care, I'm lacking solid intel.  I guess like anyone else, I want to choose my own hospital and research treatment options.  I'm young enough not to be falling apart, but old enough to know I'm not as young as I used to be.



The only way you can possibly choose your own hospital and treatment options is if you are filthy stinking rich.  Otherwise you are stuck with the whims of whatever insurance company you pay premiums to.  In-network, out-of-network crap, "experimental" treatments which may not be covered, a maze of paperwork to work through before approval, etc.

Sure, you can choose which insurance plans you want to buy into, but you'll never know what health issue might come up, and thus can't know which plan/company would be the best fit for your specific future health issue.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on September 19, 2008, 06:45:05 AM
Quote:

SwitcherX said:
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
So you are conflating Operation PUSH with Obama? Please.




No, I'm trying to tell you how things work in Chicago.


Ah, I see:
Quote:

"You wanna know how to get Capone? They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way! And that's how you get Capone."

-- The Untouchables


Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: mofoapoo on September 19, 2008, 04:58:57 PM
Quote:

SwitcherX said:
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
Quote:

SwitcherX said:
Quote:

mofoapoo said:Obama, on the other hand, was excepted into a high end law school, but before he did that, he took his Columbia degree AND MOVED TO SOUTHERN CHICAGO.  He was able to get into harvard, but instead of doing that right away, he set aside 3 years of his life to helping people.  Come on.  People are just being a bit too cynical these days.  You gotta take what you can get.




Nobody, other than a priest sent there by the church, moves to the south side of Chicago to help people unless there's money involved.




And you know this how?




Fresh out of college I got a job working for a Chicago company.  Shortly after I started, 1 of the local "community outreach groups" asked for a grant "to help with education".  All they did was threaten to call us racists if we didn't give them the grant.  The book Shakedown: Exposing the Real Jesse Jackson gives an idea of how these things works.




How is that linked to Obama at all?  You can see all the lists of organizations Obama worked for, and only the first one was a large one.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: pedonbio on September 19, 2008, 06:28:08 PM
Quote:

mastert said:


Imagine, if you will, a 21 year old girl.




Does she have big tits? Is she into older guys? What's her name?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: pedonbio on September 19, 2008, 06:32:07 PM
Quote:

Dearc said:

IMHO, "elitist" would mean someone whose neglected the lower/middle classes.  




That pretty much includes all Republican presidents except Eisenhower.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: MasterDragonfly on September 19, 2008, 06:37:42 PM
Quote:

mastert said:
I was driving home the other day when I thought of the perfect analogy for this election

Imagine, if you will, a 21 year old girl. On her left is a smart, good looking man, with a stable job a good personality. On her right is her current boyfriend. This boyfriend is emotionally abusive but he's a better looking man than the guy on the left. The guy on her left just asked out the 21 year old girl. She's smitten with him. She goes to the man on the right and tells him she's dumping him. The guy on the right tells her that no one will love her as much as him.

So she agrees to just 1 date with the guy on the left. He picked her up in his car and brings her flowers. She sits there on the date and is exactly what she needs at this point in her life. She learned the guy on the left has a wild friend but is also a down to earth guy and had cheated only once in his life. After a good date, she invites him in the house and the clothes come off. However she realizes that he is like one of her ex-boyfriends. He didn't have enough experience in the sack to satisfy her completely.

Later on the next day the guy on the right asks, what happened last night. She tells him exactly what happened. He flips out and tells her nobody will love her as much as he does. Then the clothes come off and he rocks her world. During pillow talk, he tells her everything she wants to hear and her mind clouds over and they go to **82**.

The next day the guy on the right catches her on the phone with the guy on the left. So he goes out with his friend and they both pick up a set of sisters and they both come back to the house. She sees the situation and goes nuts, but the girl he picked up goes home. Later on, she finds lipstick on his collar after telling her nothing happened?

In the end, she knows the guy on the left is exactly what her life needs. But the guy on the right is toxic, but knows how she likes it. So does she go to the left or does she go to the right?



I like it.  A lot.  

/me steals it for conversations with friends

"She's a wishy-washing two-timing bitch.  He's a mysogynistic pretty-boy who will promise anything to keep from getting the boot.  Together they fight crime!"  

Master "had to say it" Dragonfly
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: ChrisR1 on September 19, 2008, 10:31:39 PM
Quote:

pedonbio said:
Quote:

mastert said:


Imagine, if you will, a 21 year old girl.




Does she have big tits? Is she into older guys? What's her name?




 
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: SwitcherX on September 20, 2008, 12:04:25 AM
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
Quote:

SwitcherX said:
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
So you are conflating Operation PUSH with Obama? Please.




No, I'm trying to tell you how things work in Chicago.


Ah, I see:
Quote:

"You wanna know how to get Capone? They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way! And that's how you get Capone."

-- The Untouchables







Now you're starting to understand.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: AZWolf on September 20, 2008, 09:26:30 AM
Do be do be doo....  
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: DruulEmpire on September 20, 2008, 09:32:50 AM
Quote:

AZWolf said:
Do be do be doo....  




This is AZWolf "too way damn cool to stop sounding totally aloof to the silly petty concerns of all you suckers" speak for "Palin has convinced me to vote for Obama."  It takes a lot of decoding, I know.

Welcome to the thread, AZ.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: AZWolf on September 20, 2008, 09:36:14 AM
Quote:

DruulEmpire said:
Quote:

AZWolf said:
Do be do be doo....  




This is AZWolf "too way damn cool to stop sounding totally aloof to the silly petty concerns of all you suckers" speak for "Palin has convinced me to vote for Obama."  It takes a lot of decoding, I know.

Welcome to the thread, AZ.




Absolutely.  I've written online for our locals and I'm amazed how many want McBush and Palin again.  I'm really quite stunned.

When we begin to take on water, I'll be outta here.  
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: MasterDragonfly on September 20, 2008, 03:31:22 PM
I received an e-mail this week from a friend in KS (from his wife actually) which was in essence spam she sent to about 30 of us.

It was in tabular format, listing McCain and Obama, listing what was supposedly key issues and comparing the positions of the 2 candidates.

After reading through the list, it was clear the spam was meant to sway strongly and favourably towards McCain.

One example was their positions on gun control.  I've always found the discussion of gun control within the context of the USA to be a bit of a straw man.  In my humble observation, gun ownership is so deeply entrenched in the national psyche of the USA, I simply can't imagine any politician every being successful in removing that right.  Ever.  Admittedly, my understanding of the concerns might be naive/misplaced.

I'll see about posting it here, for dissection.  I know it won't be as simple as copy/paste, so I'll have to ponder how to do it and keep it readable.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: MasterDragonfly on September 20, 2008, 03:52:14 PM
Here's the McSpammy Gram, edited somewhat because I didn't want to fight with tables:

Quote:


2008 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE COMPARISON TALKING POINTS

JM = John McCain
BO = Barack Obama

Favors new drilling offshore US
JM - Yes
BO - No

Will appoint judges who interpret the law not make it
JM - Yes
BO - No

Served in the US Armed Forces
JM - Yes
BO - No

Amount of time served in the US Senate
JM - 22 YEARS
BO - 173 DAYS

Will institute a socialized national health care plan
JM - No
BO - Yes

Supports abortion throughout the pregnancy
JM - No
BO - Yes

Would pull troops out of Iraq immediately
JM - No
BO - Yes

Supports gun ownership rights
JM - Yes
BO - No

Supports homosexual marriage
JM - No
BO - Yes

Proposed programs will mean a huge tax increase
JM - No
BO - Yes

Voted against making English the official language
JM - No
BO - Yes

Voted to give Social Security benefits to illegals
JM - No
BO - Yes


CAPITAL GAINS TAX

MCCAIN

0% on home sales up to $500,000 per home (couples). McCain does not propose any change in existing home sales income tax.


OBAMA

28% on profit from ALL home sales.  (How does this affect you? If you sell your home and make a profit, you will pay 28% of your gain on taxes. If you are heading toward retirement and would like to down-size your home or move into a retirement community, 28% of the money you make from your home will go to taxes. This proposal will adversely affect the elderly who are counting on the income from their homes as part of their retirement income.)
 

DIVIDEND TAX

MCCAIN

15% (no change)


OBAMA

39.6% - (How will this affect you? If you have any money invested in stock market, IRA, mutual funds, college funds, life insurance, retirement accounts, or anything that pays or reinvests dividends, you will now be paying nearly 40% of the money earned on taxes if Obama becomes president. The experts predict that 'Higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains would crash the stock market, yet do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit.')
 

INCOME TAX


MCCAIN

(no changes)

Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $31,250
 

OBAMA (reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts)

Single making 30K - tax $8,400
Single making 50K - tax $14,000
Single making 75K - tax $23,250
Married making 60K - tax $16,800
Married making 75K - tax $21,000
Married making 125K - tax $38,750

NOTE: Under Obama, your taxes could almost double!
 

INHERITANCE TAX


MCCAIN

- 0% (No change, Bush repealed this tax)


OBAMA

Restore the inheritance tax

Many families have lost businesses, farms, ranches, and homes that have been in their families for generations because they could not afford the inheritance tax. Those willing their assets to loved ones will only lose them to these taxes.

 

NEW TAXES PROPOSED BY OBAMA

New government taxes proposed on homes that are more than 2400 square feet.  New gasoline taxes (as if gas weren't high enough already) New taxes on natural resources consumption (heating gas, water, electricity)  New taxes on retirement accounts, and last but not least....New taxes to pay for socialized medicine so we can receive the same level of medical care as other third-world countries!!!



You can verify the above at the following web sites:


http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/election/2008/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.taxes.html

http://elections.foxnews.com/?s=proposed+taxes

http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourworld/polit...s_on_taxes.html

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/candidates/barack_obama/

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/candidates/john_mccain/




I'm sure there are real facts among these 'facts', but will defer to others to chip away at this spin.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: 3deroticer on September 20, 2008, 04:32:39 PM
I saw one comment several times on how Obama could be the anti-Christ because of his message of unifying the people and message of peace and hope. The wolf in sheep clothings, as if he will only appear to be a great charisma winning the hearts of the people.

I ask if some people so ingrain in the religious dogma that they would willing to vote for someone that is a wolf both outward and inward in order to not vote for someone who seems to good to be true.

Is it the battered people syndrome?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: DruulEmpire on September 20, 2008, 05:28:25 PM
MasterD, thanks.

I feel moved to respond because my answering machine has been getting all kinds of robot calls on behalf of McCain and the Republicans and I just got a new one this morning.

Looking over this, some bubbles pop spontaneously -- not the least of which is one of the sources being Fox News.  I also worry a little about a site which is "blog" first and not "washingtonpost" first.

The judges claim is entirely subjective.  Come the Bush-Gore election, the Supreme Court "interpreted" the living hell out of the Constitution.  So that claim is, to put it mildly, irresponsibly phrased.  As for health care -- this is a negative?  And as the brother of a lesbian, I have to ask -- supporting homosexual marriage is another negative?

Virtually no liberal on Earth supports abortion literally THROUGHOUT pregnancy, suggesting that it can be performed right up until the moment of birth.  Really wretched phrasing there.  The Bible was not written by doctors.  A quarry is not a stone house; a sack of flour is not a loaf of bread; a fetus has a long way to go yet to become independent of its host, its mother, and become a human being in its own right.  However, no one is anti-baby.  Rare, deservedly, is the liberal who would even touch a third trimester fetus, and they full well know it.

Iraq troops out immediately?  Obama is too much the politician -- and strategist -- to act this bluntly upon the Pick-Up Sticks game that is Iraq.  They know that too -- or should.

The gun question is a flat lie.  The only issue is registration.  Is registration for your car proof that our society is against your owning it?

And 3rde -- I've been wondering a while if the machinery has been playing to a "Barack Obama = Nicolae Carpathia" equation.  Carpathia is the Antichrist of the Left Behind books.  Carpathia makes no historical sense -- Hitler still remains the best candidate for Antichrist I've ever seen (not that I really even care).  Luckily, the Left Behind books don't even make any sense to most Christians.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheRover on September 20, 2008, 08:24:10 PM
Biggest problem I have with the first part of this is that everything is a yes or no answer, as if there is no middle ground or room for compromise.  As someone very cleverly pointed out about gun ownership.  And just from my perspective, who says the federal government needs to concern themselves with every single one of these issues?  Isn't that why we have state governments with their own governors and legislatures?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on September 20, 2008, 09:36:42 PM
Whenever I hear the words "talking points" issue from someone's fetid gullet, my estimation of that person drops considerably.

I'm thinking AZ has the right idea.  Relocation seems like the thing.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: pedonbio on September 20, 2008, 09:51:21 PM
Quote:

DruulEmpire said:
And 3rde -- I've been wondering a while if the machinery has been playing to a "Barack Obama = Nicolae Carpathia" equation.  Carpathia is the Antichrist of the Left Behind books.  Carpathia makes no historical sense -- Hitler still remains the best candidate for Antichrist I've ever seen (not that I really even care).  Luckily, the Left Behind books don't even make any sense to most Christians.




Unless you're Catholic, since the Roman Emperor Nero fit the various "clues" most closely, and makes the most sense since he was a contemporary of the writer.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: pedonbio on September 20, 2008, 10:02:15 PM
Quote:

TheRover said:
Biggest problem I have with the first part of this is that everything is a yes or no answer, as if there is no middle ground or room for compromise.  As someone very cleverly pointed out about gun ownership.  And just from my perspective, who says the federal government needs to concern themselves with every single one of these issues?  Isn't that why we have state governments with their own governors and legislatures?




Spot on, Rover. Several of the "positions" ascribed to Obama are either made up or just plain wrong. Among other things, he supports offshore drilling with state approval.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Dearc on September 20, 2008, 11:03:36 PM
No matter whom wins, there will be ALOT of people who feel like they lost.  There's just too much partisan bickering, and it's going to take more than charisma and leadership to fix this.

I think I've run out of ideas here, good or bad.  Maybe I'm just too tired.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: 3deroticer on September 20, 2008, 11:43:25 PM
http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/election/2008/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.taxes.html

http://elections.foxnews.com/?s=proposed+taxes

http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourworld/polit...s_on_taxes.html

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/candidates/barack_obama/

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/candidates/john_mccain/

My attempt to chip away at the spin by pointing out that most of these sources are spin master.
According to CNN, Fox, and Washington Post Barack Hussein Obama is a Muslim and was a terrorist when he was nine years old.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: SwitcherX on September 21, 2008, 12:02:57 AM
Quote:

TheRover said:And just from my perspective, who says the federal government needs to concern themselves with every single one of these issues?  Isn't that why we have state governments with their own governors and legislatures?




Because then the federal government wouldn't be all powerful and they can't have that.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on September 21, 2008, 03:45:48 AM
Quote:

TruthOut.org: "The Anti-Obama Hate-Fest"

The Republican Party, which has defined modern-day negative politics, was back at it again, bashing Barack Obama and the news media in an ugly display that rivaled the old days of Nixon-Agnew - or George W. Bush's last convention where GOP operatives **89** "Purple Heart Band-Aids" to mock John Kerry's war wounds.

After a slow start because of Hurricane Gustav, the convention in St. Paul, Minnesota, has turned into an anti-Obama hate-fest with a nearly all-white gathering laughing at and mocking the nation's first African-American presidential nominee of a major party.

However, beyond the pulsating contempt visible on the faces of the GOP delegates, many of the nasty attacks on Obama - as well as the effusive praise for the Republican ticket - were blatantly false, as if testing the depths of American gullibility and bigotry.

In speech after speech, Republicans didn't so much as tell the Big Lie as they deployed Wholesale Lies.

The Associated Press, which mostly had been recycling the Republican spin about the supposedly "maverick" ticket of John McCain and Sarah Palin, was so struck by the litany of distortions that the AP produced a special fact-checking article describing how Republicans had "stretched the truth."

For instance, Palin said about Obama, "it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform - not even in the state senate."

However, as the AP noted, Obama "worked with Republicans to pass legislation that expanded efforts to intercept illegal shipments of weapons of mass destruction and to help destroy conventional weapons stockpiles. The legislation became law last year."

Plus, the AP reported, "In Illinois, he was the leader on two big, contentious measures in Illinois: studying racial profiling by police and requiring recordings of interrogations in potential death penalty cases. He also successfully co-sponsored major ethics reform legislation."

The AP's fact-checking article noted, too, that former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's slap at Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden - that Palin "got more votes running for mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, than Joe Biden got running for president of the United States" - was a "whopper."

The AP wrote that "Palin got 616 votes in the 1996 mayor's election, and got 909 in her 1999 re-election race, for a total of 1,525. Biden dropped out of the race after the Iowa caucuses, but he still got 76,165 votes in 23 states and the District of Columbia where he was on the ballot during the 2008 presidential primaries."

Parallel Reality
The Republican National Convention also acted as if the Republicans had not controlled the White House for the past eight years and the Congress for most of that time.

"We need change, all right," declared former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, "change from a liberal Washington to a conservative Washington! We have a prescription for every American who wants change in Washington - throw out the big-government liberals, and elect John McCain and Sarah Palin."

Beyond this parallel universe of who runs Washington, there was fanciful puffery about the GOP "reformer" ticket - dubbed "maverick squared" - that doesn't square with reality at all.

For instance, the AP cited Palin's claim that "I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending ... and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. I told the Congress 'thanks but no thanks' for that Bridge to Nowhere."

The reality, of course, was much different.

As the AP noted, Palin, as mayor of the tiny town of Wasilla, hired a lobbyist and made annual treks to Washington seeking earmarked spending that totaled $27 million, and then as Alaska's governor for less than two years, she sought nearly $750 million in special federal spending, "by far the largest per-capita request in the nation."

And as for that $398 million bridge from Ketchikan to an island with 50 residents, the truth is that Palin enthusiastically supported the project before she reluctantly opposed it, rejecting the "Bridge to Nowhere" only after it had become politically indefensible.

The Los Angeles Times discovered that Sen. McCain had specifically cited several of Palin's earmarks on his annual list of wasteful pork-barrel spending.

In 2001, for instance, McCain's list included a $500,000 earmark for a public transportation project in Wasilla, and in 2002, he criticized $1 million targeted for an emergency communications center that Palin sought but local law enforcement said was redundant and a source of confusion.

Remaking Palin
Now, however, Palin has been transformed into a maverick reformer. McCain's campaign even cites her experience as an abuser of the earmark process as part of the reason she supposedly understands why it must be scrapped.

McCain spokesman Taylor Griffin said Palin's successes in getting earmarked funds "was one of the formative experiences that led her toward the reform-oriented stance that she has taken as her career has progressed."

Nevertheless, Palin wrote in a newspaper column just this year that "the federal budget, in its various manifestations, is incredibly important to us, and congressional earmarks are one aspect of this relationship." [For more details, see Los Angeles Times, Sept. 3, 2008]

Beyond the GOP's reality-challenged speeches, there was the startling image of a nearly all-white convention - where only 36 of the 2,380 delegates were black, the smallest number in at least 40 years - rollicking in ridicule and bristling with animosity toward Obama, an African-American.

With their loud chants of "drill, baby, drill" regarding energy policy and boisterous shouts of "USA, USA" about "victory" in Iraq, there was a sense that St. Paul was hosting a convention of American Falangists, rather than that of a modern national party.

The whiff of authoritarianism extended to outside where demonstrators and journalists were swept off the streets in indiscriminate arrests.

What's less clear about the GOP convention is whether the Republicans are on to something, that perhaps the United States has crossed over into a post-rational society that cares little about facts and reality or serious policy ideas and respectful debate, but rather is a nation moved by anger and ridicule, fear and nationalism.


Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on September 21, 2008, 06:29:50 PM
Quote:


OBAMA: The problem is we can’t appear angry. Bush called us the angry left. Did you see anyone in Denver who was angry?

BARTLET: Well ... let me think. ...We went to war against the wrong country, Osama bin Laden just celebrated his seventh anniversary of not being caught either dead or alive, my family's less safe than it was eight years ago, we've lost trillions of dollars, millions of jobs, thousands of lives and we lost an entire city due to bad weather. So, you know ... I'm a little angry.

OBAMA: What would you do?

BARTLET: GET ANGRIER! Call them liars, because that's what they are. Sarah Palin didn't say "thanks but no thanks" to the Bridge to Nowhere. She just said "Thanks." You were raised by a single mother on food stamps — where does a guy with eight houses who was legacied into Annapolis get off calling you an elitist? And by the way, if you do nothing else, take that word back. Elite is a good word, it means well above average. I'd ask them what their problem is with excellence. While you're at it, I want the word "patriot" back. McCain can say that the transcendent issue of our time is the spread of Islamic fanaticism or he can choose a running mate who doesn't know the Bush doctrine from the Monroe Doctrine, but he can't do both at the same time and call it patriotic. They have to lie — the truth isn't their friend right now. Get angry. Mock them mercilessly; they've earned it. McCain decried agents of intolerance, then chose a running mate who had to ask if she was allowed to ban books from a public library. It's not bad enough she thinks the planet Earth was created in six days 6,000 years ago complete with a man, a woman and a talking snake, she wants schools to teach the rest of our k_ds to deny geology, anthropology, archaeology and common sense too? It's not bad enough she's **77** her own daughter into a loveless marriage to a teenage hood, she wants the rest of us to guide our daughters in that direction too? It's not enough that a woman shouldn't have the right to choose, it should be the law of the land that she has to carry and deliver her rapist's baby too? I don't know whether or not Governor Palin has the tenacity of a pit bull, but I know for sure she's got the qualifications of one. And you're worried about seeming angry? You could eat their lunch, make them cry and tell their mamas about it and God himself would call it restrained. There are times when you are simply required to be impolite. There are times when condescension is called for!

OBAMA: Good to get that off your chest?

BARTLET: Am I keeping you from something?

OBAMA: Well, it's not as if I didn’t know all of that and it took you like 20 minutes to say.





(the rest)
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: pedonbio on September 21, 2008, 08:10:39 PM
Quote:

Dearc said:
 it's going to take more than charisma and leadership to fix this.

 




After seven years of incompetence and spin, it might be good to try.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Hugeboobfan on September 21, 2008, 09:25:55 PM
Kristof had a good column in the times today.  It's very sad that a third of voters still suspect or believe that Obama is a muslim.  Pretty depressing that in this age of information outright falsehoods can have that kind of persistence.  

NY times
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: DruulEmpire on September 21, 2008, 11:17:10 PM
We made a miscalculation when we entered the Information Age.  We assumed it was information we were after.  We were wrong.

We didn't want information.  We only wanted ammunition -- at least, enough of us to muck up and devalue the pursuit of information for the rest of us.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: onionwriter on September 22, 2008, 12:31:10 AM
Quote:

Hugeboobfan said:
Kristof had a good column in the times today.  It's very sad that a third of voters still suspect or believe that Obama is a muslim.  Pretty depressing that in this age of information outright falsehoods can have that kind of persistence.  

NY times




It's sadder that -- even though he is not -- voters might fear an American Muslim president. Are we that relgiously bigoted?

I suppose no Jew will ever be president . . . sigh.

It was news that Kennedy won even though he was a Catholic. Who usually wins? Methodists? (Which I am.) Which Lutheran synod is acceptable? How high has a Baptist ever risen in politics?

Yes. Jesus was all about keeping people apart and living in fear of each other.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Hugeboobfan on September 22, 2008, 01:11:39 AM
Quote:

onionwriter said:
Quote:

Hugeboobfan said:
Kristof had a good column in the times today.  It's very sad that a third of voters still suspect or believe that Obama is a muslim.  Pretty depressing that in this age of information outright falsehoods can have that kind of persistence.  

NY times




It's sadder that -- even though he is not -- voters might fear an American Muslim president. Are we that relgiously bigoted?

I suppose no Jew will ever be president . . . sigh.

It was news that Kennedy won even though he was a Catholic. Who usually wins? Methodists? (Which I am.) Which Lutheran synod is acceptable? How high has a Baptist ever risen in politics?

Yes. Jesus was all about keeping people apart and living in fear of each other.



Personally I believe a lot of it is code for concealed racism.  It's not acceptable anymore to publicly claim you don't want to vote for a black person, but saying you don't want to vote for a muslim doesn't raise as many eyebrows.  People feel very comfortable telling others that they don't want Obama to be president because he is muslim.  You can tell some people that Obama is not a muslim straight to their face and they still refuse to believe it.  If Obama had white skin would these people still be as stubborn?

But beyond that, the evangelical christian voting block has enough sway in this country to make belief in god a major requirement for public office.  It's absurd that is the case in the land of freedom of religion, but it is.  Candidates have to trip all over themselves proclaiming how important god is in their lives and how pious they are.  You think it's hard for a Jew to be elected president?  Imagine how impossible it would be for an atheist.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: onionwriter on September 22, 2008, 01:14:40 AM
Sir:

You are correct.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on September 22, 2008, 03:09:08 AM
Quote:

Hugeboobfan:
Personally I believe a lot of it is code for concealed racism.  It's not acceptable anymore to publicly claim you don't want to vote for a black person, but saying you don't want to vote for a muslim doesn't raise as many eyebrows.  People feel very comfortable telling others that they don't want Obama to be president because he is muslim.  You can tell some people that Obama is not a muslim straight to their face and they still refuse to believe it.  If Obama had white skin would these people still be as stubborn?



People who believe Obama is a crypto-Muslim are out-and-out racists. Period. The people with whom this country does the most business are all Muslim (the Saudis); the people whose regimes we propped up before we decided we didn't like them that much any more (the Iraqis) are Muslims. We've had a so-called Christian in charge for eight years and he has royally fucked all of us, Christian, Muslim, Jew, atheist,...AMERICAN. So WHO THE FUCK CARES IF OBAMA REALLY IS A MUSLIM???? I don't.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: MasterDragonfly on September 22, 2008, 03:41:29 AM
I'd say it's about time to inject some George Carlin for some provoking thoughts.  

George Carlin - It's Bad For Ya! (2008) - part 6 of 7

First 3 minutes.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: onionwriter on September 22, 2008, 05:35:32 AM
I was in New York during 911. A very bad time, and I was angry and scared.

A little afterward I thought of a solution: give up. Tell the world, "Okay, we are now a Muslim nation and leave us alone."

And in fact we are a Muslim nation. And a Jewish nation. And a Christian nation. And a Buddhist nation. And an athiest nation. And everything else.

I'm pretty proud of that. Even if we vote in dumb ways, we have a fair amount of tolerance left; "ethnic cleansing" will never occur in our country.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on September 22, 2008, 08:51:36 AM
We do come close from time to time; recall what happened to the Japanese in WW II. We lost our nerve to go all the way to bumping them off though -- we saved the black prisoners in the Tuskeegee Experiment for that
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: ChrisR1 on September 22, 2008, 12:20:41 PM
Quote:

Hugeboobfan said:But beyond that, the evangelical christian voting block has enough sway in this country to make belief in god a major requirement for public office.  It's absurd that is the case in the land of freedom of religion, but it is.  Candidates have to trip all over themselves proclaiming how important god is in their lives and how pious they are.  You think it's hard for a Jew to be elected president?   Imagine how impossible it would be for an atheist . ( emphasis added )




That's the one I'm waiting for...
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: onionwriter on September 22, 2008, 12:35:43 PM
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
We do come close from time to time; recall what happened to the Japanese in WW II. We lost our nerve to go all the way to bumping them off though -- we saved the black prisoners in the Tuskeegee Experiment for that




You are right.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: mofoapoo on September 22, 2008, 05:24:01 PM
I don't know, these days I think people are more scared of Muslims than they are of blacks.

Imagine, though, the backlash that would've been created if the rumors of Obama's religion were that he was a secret Jew.

I would've found it even more funny if those were the rumors, but the Jewish community would be up in arms.  Maybe, though, because the Muslim community in the US is less than 1%, but my point is valid.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: pedonbio on September 22, 2008, 05:52:23 PM
Quote:

onionwriter said:
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
We do come close from time to time; recall what happened to the Japanese in WW II. We lost our nerve to go all the way to bumping them off though -- we saved the black prisoners in the Tuskeegee Experiment for that




You are right.




I want to quibble.

First, ugly and disgusting as American racism has been, the internment program was ultimately answerable to FDR and, I know it may come as a shock, but even in government there are some things gentlemen do not do, and genocide is one of those things.

Also, there were two groups who opposed the internment, the ACLU and the American Friends Service Committee. They kept in touch with the internees to make certain that genocide didn't happen.

Finally, there was one newspaper editor who did the best thing possible. Walt Woodward owned the Bainbridge Island Beacon, a small weekly newspaper. (In case you liked  Snow Falling on Cedars, the locale of the story was really Bainbridge Island, but the names were all changed.)

Woodward editorialized against the internment, worked to help Japanese Americans arrange to keep their property, and, most importantly, after they were interned he had a stringer in each camp who reported the details of births, deaths, and sports scores, so that the internees remained a part of the community.

The paper was bought out a few years ago; now it's run out of San Jose, CA.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Hiram on September 22, 2008, 06:04:11 PM
Quote:

mofoapoo said:
I don't know, these days I think people are more scared of Muslims than they are of blacks.


Allahu Akbar.

Nope, I'm still more scared of black people.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: pedonbio on September 22, 2008, 08:12:52 PM
Quote:

Hiram said:
Quote:

mofoapoo said:
I don't know, these days I think people are more scared of Muslims than they are of blacks.


Allahu Akbar.

Nope, I'm still more scared of black people.




I subscribe to the Michael Moore Racial Quandry: Everybody who ever dumped me, fired me, cheated me in a deal, or divorced me was white.

White people hate me.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on September 23, 2008, 01:44:58 AM
Quote:

pedonbio:
I subscribe to the Michael Moore Racial Quandry: Everybody who ever dumped me, fired me, cheated me in a deal, or divorced me was white.

White people hate me.


That cracked me up, man
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on September 23, 2008, 01:46:19 AM
Quote:

pedonbio:
Finally, there was one newspaper editor who did the best thing possible. Walt Woodward owned the Bainbridge Island Beacon, a small weekly newspaper. (In case you liked  Snow Falling on Cedars, the locale of the story was really Bainbridge Island, but the names were all changed.)

Woodward editorialized against the internment, worked to help Japanese Americans arrange to keep their property, and, most importantly, after they were interned he had a stringer in each camp who reported the details of births, deaths, and sports scores, so that the internees remained a part of the community.

The paper was bought out a few years ago; now it's run out of San Jose, CA.


That is a story that should become better known. Thank you for sharing it with us.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on September 23, 2008, 01:46:45 AM
Quote:


Essence.com Roland S. Martin: "Major Clinton Backer, HUGE Obama Hater, supporting McCain"

Later this morning the campaign of Sen. John McCain will hold a news conference trumpeting the endorsement of Lynn Forester de Rothschild, a major fundraiser for Sen. Hillary Clinton and a member of the Democratic platform committee.

Forester, a CEO of her own company in New York who married a British billionaire, has been blasting Obama for quite some time, calling him arrogant, elitist and out-of-touch with the common man and woman.

Wow, someone named de Rothschild trying to call Obama an elitist.

Folks, I have interview (sic) Lynn and her rationale for backing McCain is nonsensical. What she should do is just be honest: she HATES Obama and will never support this man.

She continues to be mad, angry and bitter at the fact that her candidate lost. Forrester will claim that Obama didn't attack the sexism against Clinton during the primary, and that McCain's experience is what's most important. Maybe Forrester is really ticked off because she had her sights set on being ambassador to England, and she knows all too well that she can give that pipe dream up if Obama wins.

When I interviewed her for my CNN radio show, I asked her her views on abortion, the war, the Bush tax cuts and a possible conservative majority on the Supreme Court. On EVERY issue, she stands in stark contrast to McCain.

Not only that, how in the hell can you sit on the Democratic Platform Committee, and then support someone who stands in absolute contrast to that platform?

She should be ashamed of herself for the hateful and spiteful words she has tossed out about Obama. It's clear that she is a hater of this man.

Lynn, suck it up. Your candidate got beat by Obama. He won. She lost. And you just need to get over it.

Lastly, if McCain does win and puts into place that are counter to everything Forrester claims is important to her as a woman and as a Democrat, she should shut the hell up for at least four years because she would have played a role in making it a reality.


Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: pedonbio on September 23, 2008, 02:15:00 AM
Gawd.

A  Rothschild accusing somebody of being elitist?

Proof positive that American politics has gone totally mad!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on September 23, 2008, 02:21:49 AM
Whenever I think of Obama, I'm filled with loathing and disgust, yet I cannot sympathize with this woman.  She's the political equivalent of cutting off the nose to spite the face.  Bad play.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Real on September 23, 2008, 03:01:11 AM
yeah i think this election has set the new record for multi millionaires (now even billionaires) calling a self made man "elitist".

but yet again when youre running republican in the year 2008 what are you going to do?  talk about reality?...
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on September 23, 2008, 03:04:05 AM
Loathing? Disgust? Those are strong words. I might not like his policies and I don't want him to win this election, but even I would not use such words against McCain. What is your problem with Sen. Obama?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on September 23, 2008, 03:57:51 AM
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
Loathing? Disgust? Those are strong words. I might not like his policies and I don't want him to win this election, but even I would not use such words against McCain. What is your problem with Sen. Obama?




Obama calls himself a blank screen, but that's not quite right.  He's more like a screen full of silly platitudes, and people are so worn down by eight years of Dubya that they're lapping it up like ice cream.  It's become a game of pick-your-platitude!  Something for everyone!

Except me, I guess.  I see a congressman who wants to be President. *yawn* Same old shit, fancy new packaging.  I guess I have no problem with the old shit, it is what it is, but the packaging hurts my eyeballs.  Also, I find the cult of personality surrounding Obama rather creepy.  I wish I could go a whole day without encountering his more fervent followers either in person, in print, or on TV.  That would be nice.  I dream the dream.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: onionwriter on September 23, 2008, 04:11:26 AM
I agree with everything you say. But Palin scares me -- horrifies me. I am decided.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Real on September 23, 2008, 04:14:11 AM
meh, point is its time for a democrat in the white house.  i dont really see that he speaks in generalities any more than any presidential candidate in the recent past or present.

what's creepy is mccain's vp's resume next to his platform for the first 90% of his campaign.  what's creepy is bringing up your pow experience when youre asked why you dont konw how many houses you have.  what's especially creepy is insinuating that teaching kindergarders about inappropriate touching is "sex ed" on a tv commercial.  what's creepy is that after 8 years of george bush this election is a dead heat.  at least in my opinion.

i actually usually find the criticisms of obama more vague and superficial than people accuse him of being as a politician.  to go ahead and discount someone because of their oratory is ignorant from iether side.  he reperesents your basic liberal democrat, relative fiscal responsibility and social progression.  the way that many inudstrialized nations get along in peace and prosperity....
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: 3deroticer on September 23, 2008, 04:48:49 AM
I went back to Roseburg for the weekend and they had a poll in their newspaper on the campaigning. This town is notorious for being staunch Republican, and run you out of town if you were a liberal, a black man, and a gay person. I was once a bar bouncer that stop a posse threatening to beat up a mexican for being in the bar patronizing. I have never seen a redder neck town than this. The polls recently taken that they favor Obama by 3 to one in being our next president. Even in here in this forum Goober after many years of vilifying a liberal like me and Tommy, who I would have never believe be a turncoat from the Republican to think about Obama.  Still the Media have the polls breaking neck numbers. If miraculous events happen in my disbelieving eyes, then why haven't the media show this?

Sarah Palin had a support rally for her in Alaska, and then a few days later the largest record breaking rally ever held in Alaska for anti-Palin rally never got a peep in the media. So is it possible that whatever you hear about any candidate in the media is never going to be what you should hear but what gruel they want to feed you with?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on September 23, 2008, 05:51:12 AM
"Cult of personality", around a man who supposedly has been "speaking in platitudes" for the campaign? What do you say about the "cult" among the 28% of Americans who give the current president a passing grade, despite 9/11, Katrina, illegal wiretaps, Guantanamo, Abu Gharib, the Iraqi invasion,...?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Dearc on September 23, 2008, 10:39:52 AM
Notty, it makes me feel so much better that there's someone else here NOT lapping up the Obama-flavored ice cream.  I don't hate him personally, but I despise all politicians outright.  They have to PROVE themselves worthy of my respect.  Why?  Because I pay their salaries.  Anyone remember what the title of "taxpayer" means?  I no more believe they look out for the people anymore than an 'young person assailant' (the real word was censored) watches a daycare.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: MasterDragonfly on September 23, 2008, 01:51:30 PM
Forgive my ignorance, but wouldn't walking into the polls and voting Republican in a large way be the same as saying, "Those last 8 years?  Yeah, good job, people!  More please!"?

One message which I could swear I've heard uttered from the McCain/Palin camp is that there's going to be change.  If so, then that means they're opposed to how at least some things have gone on in the Bush administration.  So it follows that they're trying to say, "Yes we're Republican, but we're a *different* Republican"?  If they are in fact different, then who the hell would those people who really DID like the past 8 years vote for?

I can only speculate that McCain/Palin are trying to cater to those people who:

- tend to vote Republican, but aren't too pleased with the past 8 years
- tend to vote Democrat, are sitting on the fence, and simply want a change

Seems like they're trying to play all angles.

Meh.  Wouldn't be the first time a politician tried to make everyone happy, I suppose.

Still, I can't stop thinking that voting Republican is implicit approval that Bush did well by this country for the past 8 years.

Master "please Sir, may I have another?" Dragonfly
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on September 23, 2008, 03:43:02 PM
Quote:

Real said:
meh, point is its time for a democrat in the white house.  i dont really see that he speaks in generalities any more than any presidential candidate in the recent past or present.

what's creepy is mccain's vp's resume next to his platform for the first 90% of his campaign.  what's creepy is bringing up your pow experience when youre asked why you dont konw how many houses you have.  what's especially creepy is insinuating that teaching kindergarders about inappropriate touching is "sex ed" on a tv commercial.  what's creepy is that after 8 years of george bush this election is a dead heat.  at least in my opinion.

i actually usually find the criticisms of obama more vague and superficial than people accuse him of being as a politician.  to go ahead and discount someone because of their oratory is ignorant from iether side.  he reperesents your basic liberal democrat, relative fiscal responsibility and social progression.  the way that many inudstrialized nations get along in peace and prosperity....




Your point, maybe, but you missed mine.  Generally what happens is: congressman decides to run, congressman secures candidacy, congressman makes a bunch of promises he doesn't intend to keep, the masses, in a fit of temporary amnesia, eat it up, candidate is elected, newly sworn-in president goes to work on his personal agenda, the agenda doesn't resemble campaign speeches, people cry foul, yada yada yada...

Yet, Obama is different, Obama wouldn't do that...why, exactly?  Nevermind, rhetorical question.

I was waiting for the John McCain thread to give my John McCain rant, but since you brought him up:

John McCain should not run for president.  He should retire to one of his houses where he can ramble incessantly about the old days while his soulless robot wife spoon feeds him applesauce.  McCain is a warmonger.  It is all he truly understands, all he knows how to do.  This is a man who wants to bomb, bomb, Iran while building up our own nuclear program.  In matters domestic, he is clueless.  Apparently a devotee of Adam Smith, he worked for years and years to deregulate the markets, an experiment that turned out swimmingly, as we all saw last week.  A pity McCain lacks the wit to realize all systems fail when pushed to extremes, including capitalism.

Regarding Sarah Palin, she isn't fit to pull my dog sled.

As for Joe Biden, I got nothing.  He's too boring to even insult.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on September 23, 2008, 03:48:31 PM
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
"Cult of personality", around a man who supposedly has been "speaking in platitudes" for the campaign? What do you say about the "cult" among the 28% of Americans who give the current president a passing grade, despite 9/11, Katrina, illegal wiretaps, Guantanamo, Abu Gharib, the Iraqi invasion,...?




I say we conscript them into the army and send them to the Middle East.  Then everyone is happy.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: mofoapoo on September 23, 2008, 03:49:20 PM
Quote:

MasterDragonfly said:
Forgive my ignorance, but wouldn't walking into the polls and voting Republican in a large way be the same as saying, "Those last 8 years?  Yeah, good job, people!  More please!"?




It boils down to that a lot of people don't vote based on democrat or republican.  They vote for how much they like the candidate.

It's obvious that over the last decade, or more, the republican party has been full of corruption.  I understand conservative views, but the republican's haven't really represented that lately.

an example, the health care problem here.  The liberal view would be universal health care.  The conservative view is eliminate all the pointless middle men that are making the price of health care sky rocket.  Democrats do lean toward the liberal view, while republicans just want to do nothing, and leave the entire money drain in there.

I think, the only way to cleanse out the republican party is that if everyone stops voting for them, they will be forced to change.  Even now, McCain, who use to have some integrity, is running his campaign the same way bush did, trying his best to only answer questions he wants to hear.  It worked for Bush, why wouldn't it work for him?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on September 23, 2008, 03:52:39 PM
Quote:

Dearc said:
Notty, it makes me feel so much better that there's someone else here NOT lapping up the Obama-flavored ice cream.  I don't hate him personally, but I despise all politicians outright.  They have to PROVE themselves worthy of my respect.  Why?  Because I pay their salaries.  Anyone remember what the title of "taxpayer" means?  I no more believe they look out for the people anymore than an 'young person assailant' (the real word was censored) watches a daycare.




I think some politicians are better than others, but I am extremely wary of anything that is said on the campaign trail.  It's all lowest common denominator stuff designed to attract as many voters as possible.  There is always a hidden agenda, and we don't truly know what we are getting until the candidate is sworn in.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Real on September 23, 2008, 10:06:38 PM
Quote:

notty said:
Quote:

Real said:
meh, point is its time for a democrat in the white house.  i dont really see that he speaks in generalities any more than any presidential candidate in the recent past or present.

what's creepy is mccain's vp's resume next to his platform for the first 90% of his campaign.  what's creepy is bringing up your pow experience when youre asked why you dont konw how many houses you have.  what's especially creepy is insinuating that teaching kindergarders about inappropriate touching is "sex ed" on a tv commercial.  what's creepy is that after 8 years of george bush this election is a dead heat.  at least in my opinion.

i actually usually find the criticisms of obama more vague and superficial than people accuse him of being as a politician.  to go ahead and discount someone because of their oratory is ignorant from iether side.  he reperesents your basic liberal democrat, relative fiscal responsibility and social progression.  the way that many inudstrialized nations get along in peace and prosperity....




Your point, maybe, but you missed mine.  Generally what happens is: congressman decides to run, congressman secures candidacy, congressman makes a bunch of promises he doesn't intend to keep, the masses, in a fit of temporary amnesia, eat it up, candidate is elected, newly sworn-in president goes to work on his personal agenda, the agenda doesn't resemble campaign speeches, people cry foul, yada yada yada...

Yet, Obama is different, Obama wouldn't do that...why, exactly?  Nevermind, rhetorical question.

I was waiting for the John McCain thread to give my John McCain rant, but since you brought him up:

John McCain should not run for president.  He should retire to one of his houses where he can ramble incessantly about the old days while his soulless robot wife spoon feeds him applesauce.  McCain is a warmonger.  It is all he truly understands, all he knows how to do.  This is a man who wants to bomb, bomb, Iran while building up our own nuclear program.  In matters domestic, he is clueless.  Apparently a devotee of Adam Smith, he worked for years and years to deregulate the markets, an experiment that turned out swimmingly, as we all saw last week.  A pity McCain lacks the wit to realize all systems fail when pushed to extremes, including capitalism.

Regarding Sarah Palin, she isn't fit to pull my dog sled.

As for Joe Biden, I got nothing.  He's too boring to even insult.




ah i see.  the lesser of two panderers is always the choice;  one of the flaws of modern democracy.  but when you compare the last republican administration to the last democratic one i cant help but bristle at even the perceived insinuation that they start from even ground...
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: ChrisR1 on September 23, 2008, 10:09:00 PM
I think one of the biggest problems is having a team mentality; people get so caught up in the Us versus Them & hoping "Our guy wins" - it's especially problematic with congressional seats and all the gerrymandering of the districts so that there's such a safety net for incumbents. These people need to know that we've selected them to do our collective bidding and if they're up to shenanigans, they're out on their ass.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on September 23, 2008, 11:39:53 PM
Quote:

Real said:
ah i see.  the lesser of two panderers is always the choice;  one of the flaws of modern democracy.  but when you compare the last republican administration to the last democratic one i cant help but bristle at even the perceived insinuation that they start from even ground...




For some people, I guess.  For me the choice is neither candidate.  Why are we talking about degrees of insincerity?  That it exists is enough.  Even ground?  I never said that, never insinuated it.  Ask the forumites; I'm not subtle in my ways.  The ground is uneven, and that's part of my point.  I think people are somewhat less objective because the ground is so uneven, because people are so weary of George W. Bullshit. They'll rally around any guy who says, "Change, change, change," while seeing him through rose-colored glasses.  Who knows, maybe Obama is the right choice.  Maybe he'd do well as president.  But to predict he would make a good president based on his campaign seems foolish to me.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: pedonbio on September 24, 2008, 12:52:27 AM
Quote:

notty said:

Your point, maybe, but you missed mine.  Generally what happens is: congressman decides to run, congressman secures candidacy, congressman makes a bunch of promises he doesn't intend to keep, the masses, in a fit of temporary amnesia, eat it up, candidate is elected, newly sworn-in president goes to work on his personal agenda, the agenda doesn't resemble campaign speeches, people cry foul, yada yada yada...






Notty, excuse me, but that paragraph demonstrates that you're not applying your usually sharp analytical skills here.

The last time a congressman was elected president was 1824. The last time a congressman got his party's nomination was 1896.

Congressmen do not do well in American presidential elections.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on September 24, 2008, 12:59:16 AM
Is John McCain not a member of Congress?  Is Barack Obama not a member of Congress?

Are my analytical skills not sharp because you don't agree with me?  
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Real on September 24, 2008, 01:08:41 AM
Quote:

notty said:
For some people, I guess.  For me the choice is neither candidate.  Why are we talking about degrees of insincerity?  That it exists is enough.  Even ground?  I never said that, never insinuated it.  Ask the forumites; I'm not subtle in my ways.  The ground is uneven, and that's part of my point.  I think people are somewhat less objective because the ground is so uneven, because people are so weary of George W. Bullshit. They'll rally around any guy who says, "Change, change, change," while seeing him through rose-colored glasses.  Who knows, maybe Obama is the right choice.  Maybe he'd do well as president.  But to predict he would make a good president based on his campaign seems foolish to me.




really?  when people are making laws, setting domestic and foreign policy you dont think degrees of insincerity are of the utmost importance?  the ground is uneven to start to tell you the truth.  the race is a dead heat after the last 8 years of republican rule because in general america is the most right wing country in the free world.  i too think the prospect of that changing has people excited.  it has some very people very excited actually.  but what are the obama negatives being ignored that constitute the "rose colored glasses" that see this race tied?  i mean "change, change" is now the rallying cry of both sides.  what im getting at is if you pay attention, if you are inclined to, its very obvious who is far more full of shit.  the notion that politics doesnt matter because it isnt perfect is how people like geroge w end up in the most powerful office on earth....
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Hugeboobfan on September 24, 2008, 01:45:18 AM
Quote:

notty said:Who knows, maybe Obama is the right choice.  Maybe he'd do well as president.  But to predict he would make a good president based on his campaign seems foolish to me.



Then why not roll the dice?  Why choose neither?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: DruulEmpire on September 24, 2008, 01:47:35 AM
Quote:

notty said:
Is John McCain not a member of Congress?  Is Barack Obama not a member of Congress?

Are my analytical skills not sharp because you don't agree with me?  




A simple tangle of usage here.

Congress is bicameral and has a Senate and a House of Representatives.  Technically, yeah, they're all Congressmen (a term I extend euphonically to the women) -- but colloquially, we speak of Senators as Senators but for some reason prefer to call a Representative "Congressman."  So we haven't had a Representative Prez -- although Bush the Elder took a circuitous route, trying twice and failing to be Senator, settling for Representative, and then working his way up through the Cabinet until Reagan made him VP.

All that said, I'm not sure what "Senator vs. Senator" really clarifies.  Reagan was a Governor, but I never voted for him; Carter was a Governor, and not a whole lot of people feel much nostalgia for him; Palin is a Governor, and she scares me several times more than Quayle ever did.

Clinton worked out ... except for that whole Southern cultural warp within which fellatio doesn't get counted as sex ...
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: mofoapoo on September 24, 2008, 02:13:01 AM
Quote:

notty said:But to predict he would make a good president based on his campaign seems foolish to me.




and you are right.  but a lot of people vote that way, about how likable and cute they are on the campaign trail.

Doesn't mean you have to be.  Just look at their past, and what they have done.  They both have extensive histories, and you should vote based off what they did before they decided to become president.

When you look at both of them, McCain is by far the worse choice of the two.  Even if you ignore the fact that his party has become so fowled and corrupt.  He was involved in corruption, voted with Bush on several occasions and supported him in both elections, has been saying things now that were the complete opposite less than 6 months ago, and has openly voted against specific things that are considered conservative.  Not only that, his VP has had several scandals appear on her in less than a month.  Says something about them.

The only good thing McCain has done was go to vietnam, and it sucks what happened to him, but that alone isn't enough to get me to vote for him.

I know how easy it is to become cynical with elections, but if you dig through the crap the media puts out there that retards masturbate to, you can find important stuff.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on September 24, 2008, 02:19:54 AM
Quote:

Real said:

really?  when people are making laws, setting domestic and foreign policy you dont think degrees of insincerity are of the utmost importance?  the ground is uneven to start to tell you the truth.  the race is a dead heat after the last 8 years of republican rule because in general america is the most right wing country in the free world.  i too think the prospect of that changing has people excited.  it has some very people very excited actually.  but what are the obama negatives being ignored that constitute the "rose colored glasses" that see this race tied?  i mean "change, change" is now the rallying cry of both sides.  what im getting at is if you pay attention, if you are inclined to, its very obvious who is far more full of shit.  the notion that politics doesnt matter because it isnt perfect is how people like geroge w end up in the most powerful office on earth....




Gee, I dunno, the same negatives as every politician?  Greed, unchecked ambition, need for attention (well, I can empathize there), lust for power?  D'ya really think these guys are out there to make the world a better place?  If you do, I have a bridge to sell you.

I don't care who is far more full of shit.  It's all relative.  Dubya didn't get into office because of voter apathy, he got into office through manipulation of the system.  He remained in office through the politics of fear.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on September 24, 2008, 02:28:17 AM
Quote:

Hugeboobfan said:

Then why not roll the dice?  Why choose neither?




I'm only granting the possibility.  Anything can happen.  Personally, I don't feel he'd be an effective president.  Voting for him would be a waste of a vote.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on September 24, 2008, 02:30:09 AM
Quote:

DruulEmpire said:
Quote:

notty said:
Is John McCain not a member of Congress?  Is Barack Obama not a member of Congress?

Are my analytical skills not sharp because you don't agree with me?  




A simple tangle of usage here.

Congress is bicameral and has a Senate and a House of Representatives.  Technically, yeah, they're all Congressmen (a term I extend euphonically to the women) -- but colloquially, we speak of Senators as Senators but for some reason prefer to call a Representative "Congressman."  So we haven't had a Representative Prez -- although Bush the Elder took a circuitous route, trying twice and failing to be Senator, settling for Representative, and then working his way up through the Cabinet until Reagan made him VP.

All that said, I'm not sure what "Senator vs. Senator" really clarifies.  Reagan was a Governor, but I never voted for him; Carter was a Governor, and not a whole lot of people feel much nostalgia for him; Palin is a Governor, and she scares me several times more than Quayle ever did.

Clinton worked out ... except for that whole Southern cultural warp within which fellatio doesn't get counted as sex ...




Thanks for the clarification, Druul.  Feel free to insert governor or senator into that paragraph.  Doesn't change the argument.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on September 24, 2008, 02:36:44 AM
Quote:

notty:
John McCain should not run for president.  He should retire to one of his houses where he can ramble incessantly about the old days while his soulless robot wife spoon feeds him applesauce.  McCain is a warmonger.  It is all he truly understands, all he knows how to do.  This is a man who wants to bomb, bomb, Iran while building up our own nuclear program.  In matters domestic, he is clueless.  Apparently a devotee of Adam Smith, he worked for years and years to deregulate the markets, an experiment that turned out swimmingly, as we all saw last week.  A pity McCain lacks the wit to realize all systems fail when pushed to extremes, including capitalism.

Regarding Sarah Palin, she isn't fit to pull my dog sled.


At last we agree on something.

Quote:


"What Makes People Vote Republican?"

By Jonathan Haidt, Associate Professor of Psychology, University of Virginia; Author, The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom.

What makes people vote Republican? Why in particular do working class and rural Americans usually vote for pro-business Republicans when their economic interests would seem better served by Democratic policies? We psychologists have been examining the origins of ideology ever since Hitler sent us Germany's best psychologists, and we long ago reported that strict parenting and a variety of personal insecurities work together to turn people against liberalism, diversity, and progress. But now that we can map the brains, genes, and **61** attitudes of conservatives, we have refined our diagnosis: conservatism is a partially heritable personality trait that predisposes some people to be cognitively inflexible, fond of hierarchy, and inordinately afraid of uncertainty, change, and death. People vote Republican because Republicans offer "moral clarity" -- a simple vision of good and evil that activates deep seated fears in much of the electorate. Democrats, in contrast, appeal to reason with their long-winded explorations of policy options for a complex world.

Diagnosis is a pleasure. It is a thrill to solve a mystery from scattered clues, and it is empowering to know what makes others tick. In the psychological community, where almost all of us are politically liberal, our diagnosis of conservatism gives us the additional pleasure of shared righteous anger. We can explain how Republicans exploit frames, phrases, and fears to trick Americans into supporting policies (such as the "war on terror" and repeal of the "death tax") that damage the national interest for partisan advantage.

But with pleasure comes seduction, and with righteous pleasure comes seduction wearing a halo. Our diagnosis explains away Republican successes while convincing us and our fellow liberals that we hold the moral high ground. Our diagnosis tells us that we have nothing to learn from other ideologies, and it blinds us to what I think is one of the main reasons that so many Americans voted Republican over the last 30 years: they honestly prefer the Republican vision of a moral order to the one offered by Democrats. To see what Democrats have been missing, it helps to take off the halo, step back for a moment, and think about what morality really is. ...





By the way, if you want to see authentic scientific poll results, a good non-partisan site is FiveThirtyEight. The consensus there is Obama's gonna get 74% of the electoral college votes.

P.S.: I knew from the jump that Dubya was going to be a bad president. Eight years later and I weep for all that he has helped to happen to my country. Lots of people said that in '04, even though they were not all that enthused about Kerry, they were voting for him, or rather, they were really voting for ABB: Anybody But Bush. No matter who wins, there will be change; whether the change will be positive (Obama) or negative (McCain, more war, more bad economic policy, more hatred of Americans overseas...) is for the voters to decide.

P.P.S.: If you don't register to vote and then exercise your right to vote in '08, you're gonna have to STFU for the next four years because you had the chance to try and change things and you didn't. I'm just sayin'.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on September 24, 2008, 02:39:44 AM
Quote:

mofoapoo said:
Quote:

notty said:But to predict he would make a good president based on his campaign seems foolish to me.




and you are right.  but a lot of people vote that way, about how likable and cute they are on the campaign trail.

Doesn't mean you have to be.  Just look at their past, and what they have done.  They both have extensive histories, and you should vote based off what they did before they decided to become president.

When you look at both of them, McCain is by far the worse choice of the two.  Even if you ignore the fact that his party has become so fowled and corrupt.  He was involved in corruption, voted with Bush on several occasions and supported him in both elections, has been saying things now that were the complete opposite less than 6 months ago, and has openly voted against specific things that are considered conservative.  Not only that, his VP has had several scandals appear on her in less than a month.  Says something about them.

The only good thing McCain has done was go to vietnam, and it sucks what happened to him, but that alone isn't enough to get me to vote for him.

I know how easy it is to become cynical with elections, but if you dig through the crap the media puts out there that retards masturbate to, you can find important stuff.




McCain is a joke.  He too would be a waste of a vote.

The one good thing about this whole song-and-dance is that it allows ample time for the thousands of investigative journalists to dissect the lives of these men.  Of course, now that most of the news outlets are privately-owned, whenever I read an article I must question the source.  Still, you are correct.  There's good information if you look for it.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on September 24, 2008, 02:51:15 AM
Interesting article, Zookie.  I saw a speech by a Berkeley professor on the same topic.  He framed his argument in terms of a family dynamic, where the Republican Party was the disciplinarian father and the Democratic Party was the nurturing mother.  Good stuff.

Is your voting comment directed at me, or the forum in general?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Hugeboobfan on September 24, 2008, 03:47:03 AM
Quote:

notty said:
Quote:

Hugeboobfan said:

Then why not roll the dice?  Why choose neither?




I'm only granting the possibility.  Anything can happen.  Personally, I don't feel he'd be an effective president.  Voting for him would be a waste of a vote.



And herein lies the problem.  You think Obama is a waste of a vote, and McCain is a waste of a vote.  Presumably that means you'd be voting for a third party candidate, which you would have to acknowledge would have little to no chance of actually winning the election.  So if your 3 options are (1) waste vote on Obama, (2) waste vote on McCain, or (3) waste vote on 3rd party candidate, why not vote for the person that has a chance of getting elected and a possibility of actually being a slight improvement on the status quo?

All this depends on which state you reside in of course, but I can't see how being cynical and voting for someone who openly supports the same policies as the last 8 years is very helpful.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on September 24, 2008, 04:24:48 AM
Hugeboobfan has it right. If you're going to "waste" your vote, "waste" it on the fellow who at least has a chance of being as close to the polar opposite of the fellow who's being in power for the past eight years.

This just in:

ABC News: "Poll: Economic Discontent Boosts Barack Obama Over John McCain: Democrat Takes 52-43 Lead Among Likely Voters, Erases Republican's Post-Palin Pick Gains"

That's what happens when you strip away the glitz and tinsel and face the hard truths and the important issues.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on September 24, 2008, 12:23:14 PM
Don't be silly.  My vote is the only real power I have in this election, the only form of protest that matters.  I want both parties to know they have nothing to offer me.

I tried voting for a guy I didn't want in 2004, to oust another guy who was far worse.  I will never do that again.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: pedonbio on September 24, 2008, 12:26:14 PM
Quote:

Hugeboobfan said:

And herein lies the problem.  You think Obama is a waste of a vote, and McCain is a waste of a vote.  Presumably that means you'd be voting for a third party candidate, which you would have to acknowledge would have little to no chance of actually winning the election.  




I just wanted to mention that I detest Raplph Nader, but it does seem he is evolving a sense of humor. Two weeks ago he met with the editorial board of the  Washington Post. He asked why they didn't cover his campaign. They told him that it was because he couldn't win.

"So why do you cover the  Nationals?" was his reply.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: steveo on September 24, 2008, 12:36:47 PM
Sorry gOOb... I see no reason to vote for a marxist. I really don't think you would like being ruled by a marxist either.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Hugeboobfan on September 24, 2008, 12:44:59 PM
I voted for a third party candidate in 2000, partly in protest because I wasn't pleased with either of the main two options.  It didn't work out well.

The 3rd parties in the US are stuck in a catch-22: they can't attract many voters unless they have some realistic chance of winning elections (or at least get 5-10% of the vote), and they can't have a realistic chance of winning elections until they attract more voters.  

After the last eight years I feel much less inclined to follow the Rage Against the Machine/Nader philosophy that there is no difference between the two parties.  They're both corporate servants who will lie straight to your face, but there are different policy priorities, as evidenced by how much fail G.W. was able to stuff into his two terms.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: ChrisR1 on September 24, 2008, 12:54:33 PM
Quote:

Hugeboobfan said:So if your 3 options are (1) waste vote on Obama, (2) waste vote on McCain, or (3) waste vote on 3rd party candidate, why not vote for the person that has a chance of getting elected and a possibility of actually being a slight improvement on the status quo?




A vote for a 3rd party candidate is not a wasted vote - it's a tiny but important message to Democrats & Republicans alike saying "You may differ slightly in your platform wrapping, but your both basically the same & we're tired of it"; if there's one thing both parties agree on, it's marginalizing the 3rd party vote. They need each other as foils.
The Democrats love to cite Nader as "taking" votes from Gore that should have won the election for him - Ralph Nader didn't take anything - he earned those votes from citizens that weren't satisfied with the policies either Bush or Gore. And the way the Republican canditates banded together to form the "Pro-Life, Pro-Family" slate and beat Ron Paul in the Louisianna primary, in an effort to minimize public awareness of his Libertarian stance, is absolutely appalling.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: DruulEmpire on September 24, 2008, 03:43:16 PM
Quote:

steveo said:
Sorry gOOb... I see no reason to vote for a marxist. I really don't think you would like being ruled by a marxist either.




Dang -- steveo hasn't posted in over ten months, but came back to warn gOOber about Marxism.  Something's perking up ...  
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Real on September 24, 2008, 04:33:40 PM
lol, only in a country as right wing as america is the so called liberal party that wont even stand up for gay rights or to their defacto corporate rulers "marxist".  i have to admit tho, the right wing elites are very skilled in convincing americans that throwing money at them is the only way to keep you safe and prosperous.  even now people drink the cool aid.  mabye theyve been asleep for a half decade or so.

fiscal responsibility and social progression is the inescapable evolution of sucessful industrialzed nations.  just take a quick gander outside your own borders, really its not even treason lol.  just take a look at wall street for a look at how your laughably flawed laissez-faire economy cant live without either socialist bailouts or killing the middle class.  the market will die without intervention.  its just as much human nature as communism will never work.

once again as per usual obama's critics are far more vague than he could ever even try to be....
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: collared_cherri on September 24, 2008, 05:01:31 PM
Quote:

Hugeboobfan said:
Quote:

notty said:Who knows, maybe Obama is the right choice.  Maybe he'd do well as president.  But to predict he would make a good president based on his campaign seems foolish to me.



Then why not roll the dice?  Why choose neither?




Not answering for notty, but this is how I would view things if I were in the same position.

A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.  We're told over and over how precious our votes are.  So why show such little regard for it by a roll of the dice?  It is precious and it must be earned.  It should not be given away frivolously to the person who annoys you the least or at the fate of the dice.

A tick box needs to be added to the voting paper that says "No confidence".  A vote of no confidence means just that.  You have none in any of the choices presented to you.  But no politician in their right mind would want to add that.  Why?  There are a couple of reasons that I can see:  

- A vote is a vote.  If you vote for A simply because you dislike B more, A has won your vote.  

- A vote for "No confidence" shows you not only don't like your options, but you've made the effort to go to the polls to vote that way, showing how you're not swayed by all the double-talk and hollow promises.

It doesn't send a strong enough message to go to the polls and deliberately make your vote void because you don't want either person running the country.  You can't distinguish between a dissatisfied voter and someone lacking the skills to fill it out correctly.  They're not the same, but they're counted the same.

Staying home and not voting because you don't like the choices also does not get your message across because you're placed in the same category as those who just couldn't be bothered.  They're not the same, but they're counted the same.

No head of office wants to know how many dissatisfied people he's leading.  It's better to put the label of "undecided" on those who didn't or wouldn't vote than to know there are more people out there who don't want them there.  They just need to be more popular than the other guy by one vote.  A roll of the dice could give that to them.

I understand why people feel the way notty does.  Do they do nothing and watch their country head towards the cliff, or do they do something and watch their country head towards a cliff?  To them, there is no choice.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Real on September 24, 2008, 05:59:04 PM
its really ironic to me that foks who are so ultimately cynical about the election process, seem to truly believe that not voting is a form of protest that actually matters.

that's the same vein of flightly unrealistic idealism that "vapid" and "superficial" politicians are accused of all the time.  meh i guess were all only human.  i mean democracy is what it is.  if you sit on your hands waiting for it to be perfect well, you never have and never will vote.  imo its pretty much a cop out, but ill admit in this strange stange system intent on **56** all but the 2 big parties out of politics i would be a mite frustrated myself.  but trust me 4 and 8 years ago geroge bush was more than delighted that so many of you decided to take a pass.  i mean what did that important protest do?  hurt his feelings lol?

if you think there would have been no difference between bush and gore i guess there isnt much to say.  except that you have an unrealistic view that politics should be something that they never have or will be...
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: collared_cherri on September 24, 2008, 07:29:11 PM
Quote:

Real said:
its really ironic to me that foks who are so ultimately cynical about the election process, seem to truly believe that not voting is a form of protest that actually matters.






It's insulting if you believe that all those who do not vote believe it proves a point.  Perhaps the more moronic non-voter would, but those who give careful consideration to their decision have a few more brain cells than that.

Perhaps it wasn't clear in my points regarding a "No Confidence" option. These people struggle with the fact that in the calculations of the end result, it doesn't matter why they didn't vote.  They're simply counted amongst those incapable of filling out a form correctly and those who couldn't be bothered.  They can be bothered, their options do not appear on the voting forms.  Should they then vote for someone/thing they don't believe in?  To protest in that manner seems more ridiculous to me.  But that's just me.

A vote of 'no confidence' doesn't imply you're sitting on your hands waiting for perfection.  It makes a statement that you are not confident in the options presented to you.  There is a difference.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: mofoapoo on September 24, 2008, 07:34:24 PM
Quote:

steveo said:
Sorry gOOb... I see no reason to vote for a marxist. I really don't think you would like being ruled by a marxist either.




huge business bailout does not equal free market.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Real on September 24, 2008, 07:39:03 PM
oh no for sure.  i can imagine that sentiment being especially prevalent in a system that works to shut out all but 2 parties form existing.  

i was more specifially refering to the statement by notty that his vote is "the only form of protest that matters."  i mean its well within your right for sure.  but it doesnt matter in any tangible sense whatsoever really.  you know, they just go on and run things the way they will without you or your imput...
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on September 24, 2008, 08:40:28 PM
Quote:

notty said:
Don't be silly.  My vote is the only real power I have in this election, the only form of protest that matters.  I want both parties to know they have nothing to offer me.

I tried voting for a guy I didn't want in 2004, to oust another guy who was far worse.  I will never do that again.


OK, notty, if you must "waste" your vote, at least vote for a man who is more qualified than McCain and Palin put together -- uh, scratch that, Palin's qualifications are so close to zero that adding hers to his will make no difference -- vote for a true patriot, vote for a man of unimpeachable foreign policy experience and true vision.

BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN FOR PRESIDENT!!!!!!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on September 24, 2008, 08:44:45 PM
Quote:

cherri:
A tick box needs to be added to the voting paper that says "No confidence".  A vote of no confidence means just that.  You have none in any of the choices presented to you.  But no politician in their right mind would want to add that.  Why?  There are a couple of reasons that I can see:  

- A vote is a vote.  If you vote for A simply because you dislike B more, A has won your vote.  

- A vote for "No confidence" shows you not only don't like your options, but you've made the effort to go to the polls to vote that way, showing how you're not swayed by all the double-talk and hollow promises.


That's an excellent proposition, and I agree with it wholeheartedly.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: DruulEmpire on September 24, 2008, 09:31:18 PM
First: I find myself a little concerned that this thread was begun by an interesting post by gOOber, who has been a steady veteran poster at this Forum, and since he got this thread rolling he's not posted for ten days.  I hope some side effect of Ike didn't git him.

Second: I think Russia (!!!) once had a None of the Above option in its elections.  Admirable -- would have been more admirable if it kept away Putin ...
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: pedonbio on September 24, 2008, 10:08:16 PM
Quote:

collared_cherri said:



A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.  




You're right, cherri! Therefore, I am starting the Draft Satan Movement.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: GALVATRON on September 24, 2008, 10:22:54 PM
bwaaaaahhh!

That whole vote of no-confidence thing works.
A few years back in Iraq thy had an election; the choices were "Sadam", and "Not-Sadam". The people overwhelmingly chose Sadam! Unfortunately, the duly eletec representative of the people was removed from office due to accidental napalming of the entire nation, but the point is that for a little while democracy worked.
So all you yankees have to do is vote for "McCain", or "Not Mcain". If "Not-McCain" wins, then you have effectively eliminated McCain as a viable contender. Repeat the process... "Barack" or "Not Barack". If Barack fails, he is eliminated as a viable contender... repeat this process until someone wins, it may take a while, but eventually you will get the "best" person for the job in the minds of at least 50.0001% of the population.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: PregNut on September 24, 2008, 11:31:47 PM
Obama actually got booed today at his rally in Dunedin.




After admitting he is a White Sox fan.

Preg(Go, Rays!)Nut
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: GALVATRON on September 24, 2008, 11:56:10 PM
bwaaaahhhh!

I too would boo someone who admitted to liking baseball. It's the most boring thing ever. In order to make it more exciting, they should let the guy with the bat keep hold of the bat as he tries to run around the dirt road. And they should give the centurions guarding the beany-bags bats as well. THen when the ball hitter wants to take command of one of the bases, there would be a fight... with bats. They should also eliminate the running part and the part with the ball, that way the sport would be reduced to just two guys fighting with bats, and spitting.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on September 25, 2008, 12:00:49 AM
Quote:

GALVATRON said:
bwaaaahhhh!

I too would boo someone who admitted to liking baseball. It's the most boring thing ever. In order to make it more exciting, they should let the guy with the bat keep hold of the bat as he tries to run around the dirt road. And they should give the centurions guarding the beany-bags bats as well. THen when the ball hitter wants to take command of one of the bases, there would be a fight... with bats. They should also eliminate the running part and the part with the ball, that way the sport would be reduced to just two guys fighting with bats, and spitting.


That's ice hockey.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: GALVATRON on September 25, 2008, 12:13:40 AM
bwaaaaaaahhhh!

Yeah but with fewer Canadians.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on September 25, 2008, 12:20:27 AM
Quote:

Real said:
oh no for sure.  i can imagine that sentiment being especially prevalent in a system that works to shut out all but 2 parties form existing.  

i was more specifially refering to the statement by notty that his vote is "the only form of protest that matters."  i mean its well within your right for sure.  but it doesnt matter in any tangible sense whatsoever really.  you know, they just go on and run things the way they will without you or your imput...




I'm a girl, genius.  What guy goes by 'Notty' and has a cutesy cat as his avatar?

So, according to you, any vote not cast for the major parties is a wasted vote?  I don't feel that way.  We must agree to disagree.

What's your problem, anyway?  I don't tell you how you should vote.  Extend to me the same courtesy.

Grr...Notty getting...angry...Notty want to...slap faces...kick testicles back into the cavities from whence they descended...
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on September 25, 2008, 12:23:32 AM
Quote:

collared_cherri said:
A tick box needs to be added to the voting paper that says "No confidence".  




Thank you for the assist, mon cherri.  The hyenas were circling and it was getting awfully lonely around here.

I love the idea of a "no confidence" box!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on September 25, 2008, 12:26:24 AM
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN FOR PRESIDENT!!!!!!




That idea is...flippin brilliant!  The Boss as the boss!  Let's make it happen.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Real on September 25, 2008, 12:38:16 AM
ah, sorry miss.  i just figured since we were on a discussion forum id discuss the matter at hand as i saw it...
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: mastert on September 25, 2008, 03:50:04 AM
Quote:

Hugeboobfan said:

The 3rd parties in the US are stuck in a catch-22: they can't attract many voters unless they have some realistic chance of winning elections (or at least get 5-10% of the vote), and they can't have a realistic chance of winning elections until they attract more voters.  
 




The Democrats AND Republicans don't want a third party and they do it by controlling the media and just outpricing their competition. How did they do it, they tried to shun Ross Perot in 1992 and did shun Ralph Nader from the debates in 2000. The internet hurts major party candidates because it's a free tool to market yourself which is a hell of a lot cheaper than buying a TV commercial or a newspaper ad. It also costs a fortune to get on a ballot, Stephen Colbert made fun of this when he ran as a presidential candidate in SC for both parties. If campaigns were publically funded, then anybody could run for president. This is a short argument but anyway....

There's also our simple minded that there are only 2 solutions to a problem, Republicans represent 1 solution and Democrats represent the other. Until people get fed up with both parties and just write in a third candidate, it won't end anytime soon.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: 3deroticer on September 25, 2008, 05:01:13 AM
I think if you as a citizen have a ceiling limits of your contribution to your candidate, then the lobbyist should also have the same restriction. If corporation have been granted citizenship rights then as citizen they are limited to the funding of $2,500 to their candidate.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on September 25, 2008, 05:13:45 AM
Yeah, I always wondered about that. Individuals are allowed to donate no more than $2500 or whatever to a candidate, yet I keep hearing about these fundraisers that charge $10,000 a plate or whatever. (Damn, at those prices, those plates had better be made of solid gold and you should be allowed to go home with them!) What's the deal with that?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Hugeboobfan on September 25, 2008, 12:57:06 PM
Quote:

mastert said:
Quote:

Hugeboobfan said:

The 3rd parties in the US are stuck in a catch-22: they can't attract many voters unless they have some realistic chance of winning elections (or at least get 5-10% of the vote), and they can't have a realistic chance of winning elections until they attract more voters.  
 




The Democrats AND Republicans don't want a third party and they do it by controlling the media and just outpricing their competition. How did they do it, they tried to shun Ross Perot in 1992 and did shun Ralph Nader from the debates in 2000. The internet hurts major party candidates because it's a free tool to market yourself which is a hell of a lot cheaper than buying a TV commercial or a newspaper ad. It also costs a fortune to get on a ballot, Stephen Colbert made fun of this when he ran as a presidential candidate in SC for both parties. If campaigns were publically funded, then anybody could run for president. This is a short argument but anyway....

There's also our simple minded that there are only 2 solutions to a problem, Republicans represent 1 solution and Democrats represent the other. Until people get fed up with both parties and just write in a third candidate, it won't end anytime soon.



Yes, the media has been a serious obstacle to third parties gaining any ground in the US.  The internet could possibly change this, at least until it becomes more tightly controlled and regulated.  I think Ron Paul could have done fairly well as a 3rd party candidate had he run on the libertarian ticket, and even though he ran as a republican, the media still did quite the hush-hush job on him.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: steveo on September 25, 2008, 01:15:02 PM
Agreed mofoapoo! We shouldnt bail out anyone... specially all the Democrat Wallstreet Bankers and Fannie and Freddie cronies of our present congress. Let em all fail!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: steveo on September 25, 2008, 01:19:56 PM
Quote:

DruulEmpire said:
...

Second: I think Russia (!!!) once had a None of the Above option in its elections.  Admirable -- would have been more admirable if it kept away Putin ...




Aye... bring back *None of the Above*...!!!! I would use it this year.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: ChrisR1 on September 25, 2008, 02:54:21 PM
 
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: mofoapoo on September 25, 2008, 04:27:15 PM
Quote:

steveo said:
Agreed mofoapoo! We shouldnt bail out anyone... specially all the Democrat Wallstreet Bankers and Fannie and Freddie cronies of our present congress. Let em all fail!




wat?

The president have been giving these companies all the freedom they want.  When big business is free, it's happy, it's able to exploit way more money.  When doing that gets it into trouble, then it's okay for "conservatives" to bail them out.

Congress has been democratic for less than 2 years, you think all these things happened in only the span of 2 years?  Besides, congress is pointless right now the way it is.  Anything the democrats want to pass, the president vetos.  They don't ever have a 2/3 majority, it's always a 50/50 split.

But I guess that is typical of a republican view (keep in mind i say republican, not conservative).  Anything wrong is to blame everyone who isn't a republican, even when they have little to no power.  hell, even when congress was a majority republican, they blame democrats.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on September 25, 2008, 04:40:32 PM
Did you see Bill Clinton and Chris Rock on Late Night with David Letterman the other night?

(video)
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: collared_cherri on September 25, 2008, 06:35:04 PM
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
Did you see Bill Clinton and Chris Rock on Late Night with David Letterman the other night?

(video)




Your link didn't work for me Zookie, but I youtubed and found it.  Twas funny.  
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: pedonbio on September 25, 2008, 06:46:59 PM
Quote:

mastert said:
Quote:

Hugeboobfan said:

The 3rd parties in the US are stuck in a catch-22: they can't attract many voters unless they have some realistic chance of winning elections (or at least get 5-10% of the vote), and they can't have a realistic chance of winning elections until they attract more voters.  
 




The Democrats AND Republicans don't want a third party and they do it by controlling the media and just outpricing their competition. How did they do it, they tried to shun Ross Perot in 1992 and did shun Ralph Nader from the debates in 2000. The internet hurts major party candidates because it's a free tool to market yourself which is a hell of a lot cheaper than buying a TV commercial or a newspaper ad. It also costs a fortune to get on a ballot, Stephen Colbert made fun of this when he ran as a presidential candidate in SC for both parties. If campaigns were publically funded, then anybody could run for president. This is a short argument but anyway....

There's also our simple minded that there are only 2 solutions to a problem, Republicans represent 1 solution and Democrats represent the other. Until people get fed up with both parties and just write in a third candidate, it won't end anytime soon.




Mastert, I don't disagree with your analysis, but the reasons for the two-party are much deeper than that. We had a two-party system long before we had a national press.

First, we don't have a prime ministerial system. Every successful three-or-more party system has executive authority vested in a prime minister.

Second, one effect of the Electoral College system is to limit distribution of electoral votes to candidates who obtain a plurality in each state. Therefore, you can never have a president who cannot get at least a plurality in at least a plurality of states.

Third, the only example we have of a "third" party replacing a major party was the period 1855 to 1860, in which a non-existent party gelled around a collection of issues within a single election cycle and displaced a major party. In short, that's they way Americans behaved then, and there's no reason to think it would be different now.

In short, despite claims to the contrary, the two-party system was written into the Constitution. And for third-party fans, get a clue: There is no easy way to build a majority. Working with the raw material of history is a messy and sometimes dangerous job.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: pedonbio on September 25, 2008, 06:51:07 PM
Quote:

steveo said:
Agreed mofoapoo! We shouldnt bail out anyone... specially all the Democrat Wallstreet Bankers and Fannie and Freddie cronies of our present congress. Let em all fail!




+3 funny. Over the decades I've known about a hundred people who would fit into the "Wallstreet(sic) Banker" category.

Not a Democrat among 'em.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on September 25, 2008, 06:59:03 PM
Sorry cherri but I've fixed the link now. I hope you were able to see the full Chris Rock segment too
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: PregNut on September 25, 2008, 11:45:37 PM
Zookie, FTW!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: mofoapoo on September 26, 2008, 06:13:23 AM
Quote:

pedonbio said:
Quote:

steveo said:
Agreed mofoapoo! We shouldnt bail out anyone... specially all the Democrat Wallstreet Bankers and Fannie and Freddie cronies of our present congress. Let em all fail!




+3 funny. Over the decades I've known about a hundred people who would fit into the "Wallstreet(sic) Banker" category.

Not a Democrat among 'em.




No no, bush co.'s plan to pay 700 billion dollars to banks without anyone able to track the money, and no one can ask questions about the money is obviously forced onto them by the democrats.

As well as the other bailouts bush co. did (with the auto industry and others).  You see, that's obviously a representation of free market.

/endsarcasm
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Chestnuts on September 26, 2008, 08:00:34 AM
McCain Warned of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Meltdown in 2006: Democrats Ignored Him
From the Congressional Record (May 25, 2006):
Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.
The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.
For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.
I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.
- Senator John McCain
Title: ya, blame the republicans - ignore the facts
Post by: Chestnuts on September 26, 2008, 08:03:18 AM
NYT Revealed True Cause of Fannie Mae Crisis -- In 1999!
In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.
The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
"Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements," said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. "Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market."
- New York Times, September 30, 1999
Title: Re: ya, blame the republicans - the facts
Post by: Real on September 26, 2008, 03:16:36 PM
pffft.  the republicans had control of the house and the exectutive right up to 2 years ago.  and if you believe the house republicans still holding out on a deal, this isnt even bad.  this apparently is the free market that will correct itself, no oversight needed.

neither the center-right or far-right parites in america will stand up for the people over the rich elites, but acting like the laissez faire crowd comes out of this unscathed becuase fanny and freddie had their hooks into the democrats is some serious revisionist history.  one day democrats are marxists, the next out of control wall street capitalists.  while the latter is far closer to the truth, the desperation on the right is really showing...
Title: Re: ya, blame the republicans - the facts
Post by: TheZookie007 on September 26, 2008, 04:23:59 PM
Remember when G.H.W. Bush was in power, we had that S&L crisis and bailout? McCain was instrumental for getting his guy Keating off the hook. Flash forward ten years or so, and GW Bush is in power, and we're having a bank & housing crisis and attempted bailout...and McCain's up in the mix yet again. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

As I've been saying on the "Congress Actually Deliberates!" thread, what's disgusting is that that $700 billion figure was pulled straight out of Paulson's ass:
Quote:


Forbes: "Bad News for the Bailout"

In fact, some of the most basic details, including the $700 billion figure Treasury would use to buy up bad debt, are fuzzy.

"It's not based on any particular data point," a Treasury spokeswoman told Forbes.com Tuesday. "We just wanted to choose a really large number."





Here's a quote from the comments section of that article:
Quote:

Hi, I'm Henry Paulson and I helped engineer this crisis as CEO of Goldman Sachs where I earned $500 million by helping slice and dice these bad mortgages into securities and selling them off to the rest of you chumps.
Now as Secretary of the Treasury I am threatening you with economic terrorism and financial armageddon if you don't bail out me and my buddies and give us all your cash for our trash. I demand you do it, do it now and don't ask questions. I'll be leaving my post as Secretary of the Treasury in about 4 months and I'll be needing that $700 billion for when I return to Goldman Sachs as the profits I personally made from this scam are parked in an offshore account and are none of your damn business.


Incredible. Fuckin' incredible. And these are the guys who want Congress to just sign the bill without oversight? They must have been smoking some mighty powerful weed up in the Department of the Treasury.

Of course, in the interest of fairness, it might have been McCain and Co. who cooked up the repeal of the Glass-Stengall Act, but it was Bill Clinton who signed it into law!
Title: Re: ya, blame the republicans - the facts
Post by: Dearc on September 27, 2008, 01:04:09 PM
The first Presidential debate was last night, and I actually thought Obama did better than McCain.  Obama clarified his talking points, and attempted to knock down each shot fired by McCain.  Did anyone else noticed McCain NEVER looked at Obama, except once?

I was going to vote for McCain, but now, honestly, I'm not so sure...    
Title: Re: ya, blame the republicans - the facts
Post by: 3deroticer on September 27, 2008, 02:23:58 PM
I think one of a good sign of a leader is the ability to look at the person your talking to, and the moderator made an attempt to get them to talk to each other, and McCain refuse to that to Obama. McCain tone was condescending most of the time. Instead of saying "my friend" zillion of time, he switch to "Obama doesn't understand". I really hate it when someone tries to speak for someone else, but McCain put Obama on the defense, and I think Obama did pretty good to move on.  

http://www.cnn.com/

check out the quick poll from the debate.
also Paul Newman died today........sad......I know!
Title: Re: ya, blame the republicans - the facts
Post by: notty on September 27, 2008, 06:29:57 PM
I was underwhelmed by both men, but I've come to expect that of them.  A real debate would acknowledge the 3rd party candidates.
Title: Re: ya, blame the republicans - the facts
Post by: pedonbio on September 27, 2008, 08:13:37 PM
I think Jim Lehrer won the debate. It's unusual to get a modertator who asks intelligent questions.

The scariest moment was when he asked each of them what they would give up, now that they've both endorsed the hand-out to Wall Street. You can't give away $700 billion, or whatever, and pretend it doesn't affect your administration.

It was clear from both their answers that they either hadn't thought about it or were afraid to say.

Imagine next January if McCain wins: "Sure we just gave $700 billion to Wall Street; so what we need is to cut taxes for rich Wall Street people."
Title: Re: ya, blame the republicans - the facts
Post by: BarnacleBill on September 27, 2008, 09:05:52 PM
Their answers to that easy question... disturbing.

Obviously, neither one wanted to really talk about it.

I believe the truth is that BOTH PARTIES are indebted to Big Corporate America (obviously included Big Banking) and they know its political suicide (to their true constituency, i.e. their contributors) if they make waves in this bailout.

My question is this... why in the HELL have we not heard other numbers instead of $700 billion bounced around?

Why doesn't some Senator, Congressman or (dare I even think it), some Candidate for President come out and say, "Hey, lets only give them $350 billion?"

 
Title: Re: ya, blame the republicans - the facts
Post by: pedonbio on September 27, 2008, 10:37:43 PM
A few days ago one of the Representatives --Maybe Barney Frank-- was talking about an initial grant off $150 billion, which would be enough to solve the liquidity problem.
Title: Re: ya, blame the republicans - the facts
Post by: TheZookie007 on September 28, 2008, 12:53:11 PM
Liquidity problem could be solved by taking centi-millionaire Paulson and kicking him in the ass a couple of times, along with the CEOs who ran their companies into the ground...ain't gonna happen though.

Obama won that debate, but McCain gave a surprisingly good fight, despite his refusal to look at Obama almost the entire time (Lehrer tried his best), and despite his constant lies. McCain kept on harping on his POW experience and was name-dropping foreign leaders' names like they'd paid him or something. Experience is one thing, but experience in the wrong things wouldn't help us -- and most of McCain's experience led us to the wrong war in the wrong country the wrong way.

NBC's Saturday Night Live: "1st Presidential Debate"
Title: Re: ya, blame the republicans - the facts
Post by: 3deroticer on September 28, 2008, 06:06:59 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aH5R1s5_w5E&eurl=http://www.crooksandliars.com/

David Letterman says of John McCain that something smells bad and now John Kerry sums it up pretty much the rest of it.

Interesting to note that Barack Obama didn't try to use his official position to steal the limelight on the financial crisis and spread credit where credit is dued, and even then some to John McCain for showing up.

Kind of like the debate, When Obama could have delt the condescending card and came back harsh on John McCain. He didn't want it and pass up the negativity and stayed on the positive.

Watch for the gallup polls on Monday 29th of Sept. The first polls to reflect the debate!
Title: Re: hoax
Post by: PET on September 28, 2008, 07:11:06 PM
not to be rude to anyone, but I think "the US financial crisis" is a hoax...and the the media world is buying it.
Title: Re: hoax
Post by: BigPerkin on September 28, 2008, 08:25:36 PM
Quote:

PET said:
not to be rude to anyone, but I think "the US financial crisis" is a hoax...and the the media world is buying it.




i agree i think its a hoax, and the govt. controls the media to further its agenda
Title: Re: hoax
Post by: mofoapoo on September 28, 2008, 10:47:44 PM
Quote:

PET said:
not to be rude to anyone, but I think "the US financial crisis" is a hoax...and the the media world is buying it.




I agree in the sense that I don't think it's a crisis and that the US will crumble because of it.  They just call it a crisis so people will be like "SHURE U CAN GIEF 700 BILLION DOLLAR 2 COMPANY 2 SAV AMURICA FRM TERORISTS!"

I mean, it's a bad situation, and not doing anything would fix it.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: ChrisR1 on September 29, 2008, 01:18:58 PM
Quote:

pedonbio said:In short, despite claims to the contrary, the two-party system was written into the Constitution. And for third-party fans, get a clue: There is no easy way to build a majority. Working with the raw material of history is a messy and sometimes dangerous job.




Indeed, history is messy. I do think that a 3rd party will help bring balance to the system at some point - unfortunately, I don't think it rise in popularity so much by building a majority through awareness as the messy self destruction through corruption of the existing 2 parties.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Real on September 29, 2008, 02:41:31 PM
yeah, as sad as it is that all people's views are supposed to be represented by these 2 narrow parties, its not like you can run a minority government in the republic system you have running.  the only thing a 3rd party would do, depending on where along the political spectrum it was based, is hand the congress and white house to one of the 2 existing parties every time by vote splitting...
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: 3deroticer on September 29, 2008, 04:25:57 PM
I think a 3 party would be just more mess. The corporation will be able to outspend the public no matter how many party the system support.

Make lobbying for cash illegal, and then the public will be heard again.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on September 29, 2008, 09:30:35 PM
Quote:

pedonbio said:
In short, despite claims to the contrary, the two-party system was written into the Constitution. And for third-party fans, get a clue: There is no easy way to build a majority. Working with the raw material of history is a messy and sometimes dangerous job.




I like it messy.  You're getting pretty ornery these days, PB.

*puts on her smock*

Hi, I'm Dr. Notty.  Let's open up that brain pan and have a look...
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: ChrisR1 on September 29, 2008, 10:34:06 PM
Quote:

3deroticer said:
I think a 3 party would be just more mess. The corporation will be able to outspend the public no matter how many party the system support.

Make lobbying for cash illegal, and then the public will be heard again.




And therein lies the rub - it's not in the interest of those in charge to pass that sort of legislation. And all to often when these moves come up to vote (and now I'm talking on the California state level, for example), they fail after being blasted by groups that the general public mistakenly holds in high esteem - the teacher's union, the nurse's union, the public employee's union... When in fact the  union doesn't necessarily represent the views of teachers, nurses, etc.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on September 30, 2008, 06:03:58 AM

The Young Turks, 9/23/08: "Another Reason Why Obama is THE MAN"
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: gOOber on September 30, 2008, 06:19:19 AM
The color of money.

 
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on September 30, 2008, 06:38:41 AM
Quote:

 


Good one, gOOb!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on October 01, 2008, 07:36:17 AM
Real Time with Bill Maher: "New Rules", Sep. 9, 2008
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: MasterDragonfly on October 01, 2008, 01:08:08 PM
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
Real Time with Bill Maher: "New Rules", Sep. 9, 2008



Nice.

For about the last 10 secs, I thought I was having technical difficulties.  Turns out the person who edited the video thought it would be beneficial to have it loop a small segment repeatedly.  

Master "the lead-out groove *click* the lead-out groove *click* the lead-out groove *click*" Dragonfly
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on October 02, 2008, 03:21:14 AM
Quote:

For about the last 10 secs, I thought I was having technical difficulties.  Turns out the person who edited the video thought it would be beneficial to have it loop a small segment repeatedly.  


Yeah, that was messed up. Not under my control, though. Here's something to make up for it (esp. at the 1:42 mark):

Real Time with Bill Maher: "New Rules", Sept. 18 2008
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on October 05, 2008, 10:34:52 PM
Wow, I give you comedy, I give you boobs, and no response. Sarah Palin certainly has turned a few heads 'round here

Anyhoo:

SlateV.com: "From the Convention to the First Debate...in less than 4 minutes"
Onion News Network: "Obama Runs Constructive Criticism Ad Against McCain"
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: pedonbio on October 05, 2008, 10:59:54 PM
Oh, c'mon, Zookie! I was enjoying  Bill's new web site too much.

Oh, and I don't see any reason to end the arms race of busty weather women.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on October 05, 2008, 11:29:03 PM
Wow, I thought he was joking about creating that site!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: pedonbio on October 06, 2008, 12:37:25 AM
As crazy as it sounds, one result of the utterly putrid Millenium Electronic Property Act is that if a person mentions a web site on broadcast TV, they are legally required to own the URL. That's how  this site got started, because Conan O'Brien told a joke.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: gOOber on October 06, 2008, 12:50:16 AM
Barney and Barry. Separated at birth?

 
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on October 06, 2008, 01:19:43 AM
Quote:

pedonbio said:
As crazy as it sounds, one result of the utterly putrid Millenium Electronic Property Act is that if a person mentions a web site on broadcast TV, they are legally required to own the URL. That's how  this site got started, because Conan O'Brien told a joke.


So you mean, if I'm a man on the street, and a news reporter interviews me, and I inadvertently mention a URL, I have to purchase it if I didn't own it already? I've never even heard of the Act! This is crazy...or a fantastic opportunity.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: MasterDragonfly on October 06, 2008, 12:21:18 PM
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
Quote:

pedonbio said:
As crazy as it sounds, one result of the utterly putrid Millenium Electronic Property Act is that if a person mentions a web site on broadcast TV, they are legally required to own the URL. That's how  this site got started, because Conan O'Brien told a joke.


So you mean, if I'm a man on the street, and a news reporter interviews me, and I inadvertently mention a URL, I have to purchase it if I didn't own it already? I've never even heard of the Act! This is crazy...or a fantastic opportunity.



Sounds crazy to me.  And I'll give you (literally) an example:

 According to RFC 2606, the following top level domains are reserved:

.test
.example
.invalid
.localhost

Quote:

      ".test" is recommended for use in testing of current or new DNS
      related code.

      ".example" is recommended for use in documentation or as examples.

      ".invalid" is intended for use in online construction of domain
      names that are sure to be invalid and which it is obvious at a
      glance are invalid.

      The ".localhost" TLD has traditionally been statically defined in
      host DNS implementations as having an A record pointing to the
      loop back IP address and is reserved for such use.  Any other use
      would conflict with widely deployed code which assumes this use.




Also, the IANA has the following second-level domains reserved for documentation purposes:

example.com
example.net
example.org

So if a person on broadcast TV says something like "... for example, kissingfish.example.com, ...", there's a fundamental problem in trying to legally get that domain name, and *especially* in trying to implement it technologically in such a way that it would be reachable on teh intarwebs as we know it.

I for one would get out a bowl of popcorn and a comfy cushion if someone on TV mentions a URL which fits the description listed in RFC 2606.  
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: pedonbio on October 06, 2008, 02:14:30 PM
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
So you mean, if I'm a man on the street, and a news reporter interviews me, and I inadvertently mention a URL, I have to purchase it if I didn't own it already? I've never even heard of the Act! This is crazy...or a fantastic opportunity.




That's the way the NBC legal department interprets it, but only if you are an employee of NBC. In the man-on-the-street example it wouldn't apply unless the man-on-the-street is an NBC employee.

Hey, I said it was crazy.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on October 07, 2008, 08:12:40 AM
Crazy like a fox, and not a Firefox either.

Meanwhile, when a presidential candidate becomes desperate, they go for the smear and the negative campaign ad. Witness McCain's Mini-Me repeating the old "Obama pals around with domestic terrorists" lie. Barack's boys shot back with a 13-minute web video which documents the Keating 5 scandal and John McCain's role in it. These guys are on point
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on October 07, 2008, 08:24:35 AM
Charlie Gibson of ABC was interviewing four guys (all white, by the way) in Dayton, Ohio, about how the bad economic conditions in their area would sway their vote. One said that this was the first time in his adult life, but he was voting Democratic this year. Another one said, "I'm putting country first...and voting for Obama."

No one ever won the presidency in the past 11 elections without winning Ohio (which explains why the neocons tried so hard to rig the election in 2000)...and today Obama leads by six points in the state. Of course, four weeks is an eternity in politics, so you never know.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: onionwriter on October 07, 2008, 09:16:56 AM
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
Quote:

pedonbio said:
As crazy as it sounds, one result of the utterly putrid Millenium Electronic Property Act is that if a person mentions a web site on broadcast TV, they are legally required to own the URL. That's how  this site got started, because Conan O'Brien told a joke.


So you mean, if I'm a man on the street, and a news reporter interviews me, and I inadvertently mention a URL, I have to purchase it if I didn't own it already? I've never even heard of the Act! This is crazy...or a fantastic opportunity.




This is absolutely not true of print -- I've quoted probably 100 websites in the last year for daily newspapers. In fact, they want the links. I don't know where this comes from.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Hugeboobfan on October 07, 2008, 12:49:26 PM
Quote:

onionwriter said:
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
Quote:

pedonbio said:
As crazy as it sounds, one result of the utterly putrid Millenium Electronic Property Act is that if a person mentions a web site on broadcast TV, they are legally required to own the URL. That's how  this site got started, because Conan O'Brien told a joke.


So you mean, if I'm a man on the street, and a news reporter interviews me, and I inadvertently mention a URL, I have to purchase it if I didn't own it already? I've never even heard of the Act! This is crazy...or a fantastic opportunity.




This is absolutely not true of print -- I've quoted probably 100 websites in the last year for daily newspapers. In fact, they want the links. I don't know where this comes from.



He never said it was true of print.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on October 07, 2008, 01:47:03 PM
This is a long but important piece. Beware: incendiary words ahead.
Quote:

Jack & Jill Politics: "When Their Supporters Call Obama A Terrorist And Demand His Assassination, McCain And Palin Remain Silent"

Everyone has their threshold. I've just reached mine. Thanks to AmericaBlog for pointing me to this and this. Also a hat tip to TPM Election Central.

John "Country Last" McCain and Sarah Palin held some truly hate filled rallies on Monday. Here's a montage from McCain's hatefest 2008.

During this rally, a McCain supporter answers the question posed by Senator Country Last, "Who is the real Barack Obama?" The unmistakable answer: terrorist!

McCain says nothing.

From The Washington Post and AmericaBlog on Palin's rally:
Quote:

"Now it turns out, one of his earliest supporters is a man named Bill Ayers," Palin said.

    "Boooo!" said the crowd.

    "And, according to the New York Times, he was a domestic terrorist and part of a group that, quote, 'launched a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and our U.S. Capitol,'" she continued.

    "Boooo!" the crowd repeated.

    "Kill him!" proposed one man in the audience.

    Palin went on to say that "Obama held one of the first meetings of his political career in Bill Ayers's living room, and they've worked together on various projects in Chicago."




Palin says nothing.

I understand why McCain and Palin are going negative. The economy is falling apart around us, and they have no solutions. They are losing in Colorado, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Nevada and Virginia. Obama, despite McCain's repeated claims, understands what a surge is, because he's pulling one off right now.

But the current political environment does not excuse remaining silent when a candidate for president is referred to as a "terrorist" in your presence. A desire to win does not excuse remaining silent during a threat on the life of a U.S. Senator at one of your rallies. There are no excuses for evil such as this. John McCain and Sarah Palin, the GOP and all who support them have lost all rights to legitimate argument. They are liars. They are wrong. They are evil. Yes, evil. They are one small step short of inciting violence at their rallies. They are letting physical threats go unchallenged.

I was at Obama's rally at Independence Square in Philadelphia back in April. When he mentioned Hillary Clinton's name, the crowd booed, and he told them to stop. Barack Obama intervened when his supporters booed his opponent. He called for civility. Yet, when faced with supporters who label senators terrorists and call for their assassination, John McCain and Sarah Palin said nothing.

This is how evil spreads, from domestic violence to genocide. People in a position to stop it choose to do nothing.

John McCain is obsessed with his own honor. No one believes in the myth of the maverick as thoroughly as he does. He's called for civility in campaign tactics while lying about Obama's position on sex education. That's ok. It's politics. If he weren't a bit of a hypocrite, I would get suspicious. But the man who would make his name synonymous with honor stoked hatred in his rally today and let one of his senate colleagues be referred to as a terrorist.

We know what America does to terrorists.

And while Obama and William Ayers served on a board together, this is nothing like McCain's pro-terrorist history. He voted repeatedly to protect domestic terrorists who bomb abortion clinics. He counts as an "old friend" one G. Gordon Liddy, an ex-convict who served time for the Watergate break-in, plotted to kill journalists, firebomb a think tank and called for violent resistance against the U.S. government. While Obama and Ayers's relationship is minimal and old news, McCain was on Liddy's show this year during the campaign and has accepted $1,000 from him as recently as February. So who's the terrorist?

Now to Sarah Palin.

This simple-minded, overwhelmed, frightened, delusional nitwit thinks she's doing "big things" by going on "the attack." She presumes to challenge Obama at his level as if she had earned her position rather than having been selected by an old white man for the job. She is filled with pride and self-adoration. She is a fool.

This weekend, she said Obama was "paling around with terrorists." (a lie debunked by CNN). The irony is almost crippling to my mental functions. This is from the woman whose church says terrorism vs. Israel is God's judgment. This is a woman who was so close to the radical, separatist Alaska Independence Party, that people thought she was a member. She spoke to their convention, and her husband was a seven-year member of this organization whose founder was killed in a "plastic explosives deal gone bad."

Palin would know about "paling around with terrorists." She fornicates with one.

A few weeks ago CPL posted a story which seemed plausible but couldn't be verified. It said Palin was a racist. While the specific truth of that story is still unsettled, the pattern is clear: this ticket is painting Obama as the "other" and someone to be feared. This campaign is counting on stoking prejudice and racism. The McCain-Palin campaign is grotesque and dangerous. They are picking up where Hillary left off, but have gone much, much farther. They are presiding over hate rallies where people feel free to yell out murderous threats, and the candidates smile it off and keep going, essentially endorsing such mob mentality.

I want to know who still supports this ticket. I want to know because if anything should happen to Barack Obama. If he so much as slips on the jetway or stubs his toe playing basketball, I'm holding John McCain and Sarah Palin responsible, and I'm holding those who vote for them responsible for doing nothing to stop an atmosphere of violence. Enough is enough.

Those of you who have retained your soul and your senses, I ask you do to the following in response to this insane and hate-filled campaign.

1. Make sure you are registered to vote. Go to voteforchange.com

2. Volunteer. The campaign built on hope, rather than hate, needs election poll workers in key states like Virginia and Pennsylvania (big up Voter Suppression Wiki!). We need phone calls from home. Donate money.

3. Spread the word about McCain and Palin's dangerous beliefs and outlandish hypocrisies. Send these to your undecided or right-leaning friends in swing states.

4. Pray, meditate or otherwise send positive vibes to protect Obama and our country from these forces of darkness masquerading as legitimate political candidates.

Don't be one of those people that recognizes wrong and evil and does nothing to stop it. We are all responsible for creating the world we want to see. Let's go about doing that.


Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: onionwriter on October 07, 2008, 01:58:50 PM
Some of this is Secret Service stuff. It's not right for either campaign. I hope these haters are being arrested.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: onionwriter on October 07, 2008, 02:02:58 PM
Quote:

Hugeboobfan said:
Quote:

onionwriter said:
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
Quote:

pedonbio said:
As crazy as it sounds, one result of the utterly putrid Millenium Electronic Property Act is that if a person mentions a web site on broadcast TV, they are legally required to own the URL. That's how  this site got started, because Conan O'Brien told a joke.


So you mean, if I'm a man on the street, and a news reporter interviews me, and I inadvertently mention a URL, I have to purchase it if I didn't own it already? I've never even heard of the Act! This is crazy...or a fantastic opportunity.




This is absolutely not true of print -- I've quoted probably 100 websites in the last year for daily newspapers. In fact, they want the links. I don't know where this comes from.



He never said it was true of print.




I took a year of journalism law -- this is impossible. There's such a thing as "Fair Use" -- you can quote anything you want, if it's not too much. I've worked for NPR.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on October 07, 2008, 02:50:23 PM
Here we go...
Quote:

AngryIndian: "Racist Fliers Litter New Jersey Town...When will White America come clean to its Racism?"  

Residents in one New Jersey town are disturbed after receiving fliers over the weekend that question Barack Obama's candidacy on racial grounds.

Roxbury resident Elizabeth Corsetto says a flier was left in her driveway asking, "Do You Want A Black President?" and showing a doctored photo of Obama with a long beard and turban.

In a glimpse of what may be to come in the final weeks before Election Day, a white supremacist group peppered a New Jersey neighborhood with an anti-Barack Obama political leaflet asking, "Do You Want A Black President?" The leaflet, a copy of which you'll find below, was distributed by the New Jersey-based League of American Patriots, which notes on its web site that membership is "restricted to adult heterosexual men and women who are entirely of European Christian ancestry." The leaflet, which some Roxbury, N.J. residents found Saturday in their driveways, claims that "Black Ruled Nations most unstable and violent in the world," and asks, "Why should we seal our fate by allowing a Black ruler to destroy us?" The one-page flyer, which misspells the Democratic presidential candidate's first name, includes a doctored photo purporting to show Obama wearing a turban.


Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Hugeboobfan on October 07, 2008, 03:27:51 PM
Quote:

onionwriter said:
Quote:

Hugeboobfan said:
Quote:

onionwriter said:
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
Quote:

pedonbio said:
As crazy as it sounds, one result of the utterly putrid Millenium Electronic Property Act is that if a person mentions a web site on broadcast TV, they are legally required to own the URL. That's how  this site got started, because Conan O'Brien told a joke.


So you mean, if I'm a man on the street, and a news reporter interviews me, and I inadvertently mention a URL, I have to purchase it if I didn't own it already? I've never even heard of the Act! This is crazy...or a fantastic opportunity.




This is absolutely not true of print -- I've quoted probably 100 websites in the last year for daily newspapers. In fact, they want the links. I don't know where this comes from.



He never said it was true of print.




I took a year of journalism law -- this is impossible. There's such a thing as "Fair Use" -- you can quote anything you want, if it's not too much. I've worked for NPR.



Lol, no need to whip out your resume.  I was simply pointing out that Pedonbio wasn't talking about print but about broadcast television.  Besides, fair use exemptions are irrelevant if there is no copyright holder in the first place.  I've never heard of the "have to own" provision either, but I think what Pedonbio was originally saying was that Conan mentioned a website which didn't exist, and thereafter created it.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: MasterDragonfly on October 07, 2008, 06:57:31 PM
Quote:

Hugeboobfan said:
Lol, no need to whip out your resume.  I was simply pointing out that Pedonbio wasn't talking about print but about broadcast television.  Besides, fair use exemptions are irrelevant if there is no copyright holder in the first place.  I've never heard of the "have to own" provision either, but I think what Pedonbio was originally saying was that Conan mentioned a website which didn't exist, and thereafter created it.



This is what I thought Pedonbio was talking about as well.  Hence my reference to the RFC which talks about domains such as example.com as essentially being unobtainable/unpurchasable/unresolvable (at least unresolvable on the Internet at large), and how I'd be quite curious to see any laws force someone to purchase/create a non-existent domain which falled under the purview of that RFC.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: gOOber on October 08, 2008, 01:03:59 AM
 
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on October 08, 2008, 03:50:27 AM
...and Changios are kosher, so that should please our friends and allies in Israel

So: two debates, and two clear wins for Obama. Good enough for me.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: 3deroticer on October 08, 2008, 03:55:12 AM
Anyone notice that McCain refuse to shake Obama's hands at the end of debate?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Bonkers on October 08, 2008, 04:38:45 AM
You hear what Obama said in the beginning of the debate, tonight "the government gave the bailout money out and AIG, gave themselves 400,000 junta{I think you said Junta}" and also said "they should pay it back to the government and fire everyone"

The Arrogance of Wall Street goes on, like nothing ever happen and their innocent bystanders. I say put all those greedy bastard’s in Jail, for good measure.




Bonkers
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on October 08, 2008, 05:03:41 AM
He actually said that they went on a "junket". Not only should they be thrown in jail, they should have their assets seized and rendered back to the American people, via tax refunds or whatever. The sheer cheek of them makes my blood boil.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Bonkers on October 08, 2008, 05:39:04 AM
Thanks Zookie, yeah it was "Junket". I was half a **82**, when he said it. To me he won that debate, hands down



Bonkers
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Real on October 08, 2008, 05:40:38 AM
i like when mccain called obama "that one".  the writing is on the wall.  he couldnt even best obama in one of his town halls...
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: 3deroticer on October 08, 2008, 06:06:35 AM
He also said to "fire the executives."
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: gOOber on October 08, 2008, 11:42:31 AM
Obama appeared more presidential and knowledgeable of the facts. He called out McCain but in a respectful manner. McCain appeared angry most of the time. Could we just put a fork in the girl and the geezer and say they are done?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: MasterDragonfly on October 08, 2008, 01:22:49 PM
Heh, "the girl and the geezer" (or "the geezer and the girl", if you prefer) sounds like a cool name for a retrospective of this election.  

onionwriter, how about a quick bit of tongue-in-cheek?  

Master "nothing as lengthy as The Old Man and the Sea" Dragonfly
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Bonecracker on October 08, 2008, 02:51:46 PM
Quote:

gOOber said:
Obama appeared more presidential and knowledgeable of the facts. He called out McCain but in a respectful manner. McCain appeared angry most of the time. Could we just put a fork in the girl and the geezer and say they are done?


Dear Goob et al,

Regardless of the outcome, it's going to be a quantum leap forward!  A gigantic mind-blowing improvement.  Both gents and their running mates are credible candidates and people of action.

Best regards,

Bone...  
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: 3deroticer on October 08, 2008, 07:11:01 PM
McCain graduated at the bottom of his class
Bush graduated at the bottom of his class
Obama graduated at the top of his class

which candidate is different from the 2 ????

this is a trick question if you are a republican, not so much for the rest.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: gOOber on October 09, 2008, 07:09:26 AM
Big breasts for Obama.

 
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on October 09, 2008, 07:30:47 AM
That's got my vote.

Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Hugeboobfan on October 09, 2008, 12:12:20 PM
Those are lovely!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: DruulEmpire on October 09, 2008, 02:13:37 PM
Quote:

gOOber said:
Obama appeared more presidential and knowledgeable of the facts. He called out McCain but in a respectful manner. McCain appeared angry most of the time. Could we just put a fork in the girl and the geezer and say they are done?




I thought "The Geezer and the Gal" used to be an alternative name for "The Price is Right."
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on October 09, 2008, 02:15:59 PM
There's a girl in one of my labs with a body like that.  I don't get much work done.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: DruulEmpire on October 09, 2008, 02:20:34 PM
Well, if she were to dress like that, I'm not sure anyone would ...
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: pedonbio on October 09, 2008, 06:05:55 PM
Quote:

gOOber said:
Big breasts for Obama.

   




A friend of yours, gOOber??
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: gOOber on October 09, 2008, 07:37:55 PM
I wish.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: SwitcherX on October 09, 2008, 08:58:22 PM
Quote:

notty said:
There's a girl in one of my labs with a body like that.  I don't get much work done.




Tell me more.....
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on October 09, 2008, 10:39:27 PM
Just to prove that BarelyPolitical doesn't have the monopoly on funny on-point political videos this season:

"Obama Said Knock You Out"
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: PregNut on October 09, 2008, 10:40:34 PM
Quote:

gOOber said:
Barney and Barry. Separated at birth?

   


I saw that e-mail, too. Now show the other pic.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: gOOber on October 09, 2008, 10:42:05 PM
 
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on October 09, 2008, 10:51:26 PM
Quote:

SwitcherX said:
Tell me more.....




Her wardrobe seems to consist of low-cut tops.  She wears bras that are a size too small.  I think she's a sadist.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: PregNut on October 09, 2008, 10:52:46 PM
I don't believe you. I demand photographic evidence.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: SwitcherX on October 10, 2008, 12:04:45 AM
Quote:

notty said:
Quote:

SwitcherX said:
Tell me more.....




Her wardrobe seems to consist of low-cut tops.  She wears bras that are a size too small.  I think she's a sadist.




When you look at her, do you touch yourself?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: DruulEmpire on October 10, 2008, 12:29:49 AM
www.catsarebetter.com

Click the campaign ad.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: MasterDragonfly on October 10, 2008, 04:49:12 AM
Quote:

PregNut said:
I don't believe you. I demand photographic evidence.



PICSPLSKTHXBYE

Master "oh you were thinking it too" Dragonfly
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: AZWolf on October 10, 2008, 10:54:23 AM
Argument about issues and platforms?  No?  Thought so.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on October 10, 2008, 05:29:10 PM
Quote:

SwitcherX said:
When you look at her, do you touch yourself?




Not in the lab.  
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on October 10, 2008, 05:32:50 PM
Quote:

PregNut said:
I don't believe you. I demand photographic evidence.




I'd feel too lecherous snapping candids.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on October 10, 2008, 05:33:45 PM
I'm surprised the McCain camp hasn't made a bigger deal of Jeremiah Wright.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Bonkers on October 10, 2008, 06:37:13 PM
Because they don't want to get into a racist debate with the votes. Don't forget there are my many GOP members that are black and Latino’s and not to scare off their vote to Obama.



Bonkers
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on October 10, 2008, 09:53:55 PM
I doubt this will be the only occurrence...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081010/ap_on_el_pr/osama_ballot
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: DruulEmpire on October 10, 2008, 11:24:47 PM
Fascinating development today, and I give McCain a little credit for it: he dared to tell a crowd, right up against their own strenuous objection, that while he believes he'd be a vastly better President than Obama, that he also believes Obama to be fundamentally decent and that the nation need not be terrified of an Obama Presidency.

McCain can be a bit tone deaf emotionally, and he might have said this earlier, because any clips I see of his rallies show crowds that keep turning uglier and uglier in their flat hatred of Obama.  I think this just goes to show that we keep claiming "Woe is us, that we have to put up with all these negative ads" -- when the fact is that untold millions of us just can't seem to get enough of them, or the so-called "red meat" of some gut-slashing alleged duel of good versus evil.

McCain has got to be feeling conflicted in all kinds of ways.  We're in a crisis that does not neatly fit his Bushie economic dogma.  He must be aware on some inner level on how he has allowed himself to become a wholly different McCain from the one we could respect up until circa 2004.  And he can probably see the writing on the wall, and has got to be thinking "Once all this is done, there's got to be immediate peace, this hate can't keep galloping along on its own momentum."

McCain may even be realizing that there are plenty of psycho idiots who would assassinate Obama just on "principle," and that he's got to say something for the record casting him light-years distant from that sort of attitude.

I thank him for it -- cynically, with a proverbial tablespoon of salt, but I thank him.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: CarlTL on October 11, 2008, 12:04:26 AM
I just saw this story about the same topic:


 
Quote:

McCain booed after trying to calm anti-Obama crowd
By PHILIP ELLIOTT and BETH FOUHY, Associated Press Writers
14 minutes ago
The anger is getting raw at Republican rallies and John McCain is acting to tamp it down. McCain was booed by his own supporters Friday when, in an abrupt switch from raising questions about Barack Obama's character, he described the Democrat as a "decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared of as president of the United States."

A sense of grievance spilling into rage has gripped some GOP events this week as McCain supporters see his presidential campaign lag against Obama. Some in the audience are making it personal, against the Democrat. Shouts of "traitor," "terrorist," "treason," "liar," and even "off with his head" have rung from the crowd at McCain and Sarah Palin rallies, and gone unchallenged by them.

McCain changed his tone Friday when supporters at a town hall pressed him to be rougher on Obama. A voter said, "The people here in Minnesota want to see a real fight." Another said Obama would lead the U.S. into socialism. Another said he did not want his unborn [censored] raised in a country led by Obama.

"If you want a fight, we will fight," McCain said. "But we will be respectful. I admire Sen. Obama and his accomplishments." When people booed, he cut them off.

"I don't mean that has to reduce your ferocity," he said. "I just mean to say you have to be respectful."

Presidential candidates are accustomed to raucous rallies this close to Election Day and welcome the enthusiasm. But they are also traditionally monitors of sorts from the stage. Part of their job is to leaven proceedings if tempers run ragged and to rein in an out-of-bounds comment from the crowd.

Not so much this week, at GOP rallies in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida and other states.

When a visibly angry McCain supporter in Waukesha, Wis., on Thursday told the candidate "I'm really mad" because of "socialists taking over the country," McCain stoked the sentiment. "I think I got the message," he said. "The gentleman is right." He went on to talk about Democrats in control of Congress.

On Friday, McCain rejected the bait.

"I don't trust Obama," a woman said. "I have read about him. He's an Arab."

McCain shook his head in disagreement, and said:

"No, ma'am. He's a decent, family man, a citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with (him) on fundamental issues and that's what this campaign is all about."

He had drawn boos with his comment: "I have to tell you, he is a decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared of as president of the United States."

The anti-Obama taunts and jeers are noticeably louder when McCain appears with Palin, a big draw for GOP social conservatives. She accused Obama this week of "palling around with terrorists" because of his past, loose association with a 1960s radical. If less directly, McCain, too, has sought to exploit Obama's Chicago neighborhood ties to William Ayers, while trying simultaneously to steer voters' attention to his plans for the financial crisis.

The Alaska governor did not campaign with McCain on Friday, and his rally in La Crosse, Wis., earlier Friday was much more subdued than those when the two campaigned together. Still, one woman shouted "traitor" when McCain told voters Obama would raise their taxes.

Volunteers worked up chants from the crowd of "U.S.A." and "John McCain, John McCain," in an apparent attempt to drown out boos and other displays of negative energy.

The Secret Service confirmed Friday that it had investigated an episode reported in The Washington Post in which someone in Palin's crowd in Clearwater, Fla., shouted "kill him," on Monday, meaning Obama. There was "no indication that there was anything directed at Obama," Secret Service spokesman Eric Zahren told AP. "We looked into it because we always operate in an atmosphere of an abundance of caution."

Palin, at a fundraiser in Ohio on Friday, told supporters "it's not negative and it's not mean-spirited" to scrutinize Obama's iffy associations.

But Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania an author of 15 books on politics, says the vitriol has been encouraged by inflammatory words from the stage.

"Red-meat rhetoric elicits emotional responses in those already disposed by ads using words such as 'dangerous' 'dishonorable' and 'risky' to believe that the country would be endangered by election of the opposing candidate," she said.

___

Beth Fouhy reported from New York. Associated Press writer Joe Milicia contributed to this story from Cleveland.  




This could get very messy, very quickly.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on October 11, 2008, 12:11:00 AM
Quote:

notty said:
I'm surprised the McCain camp hasn't made a bigger deal of Jeremiah Wright.


Why make a big deal of such a non-issue? And if he makes the mistake of talking about Wright, Obama will counter with John Hagee. Besides, the last thing we need now is "My (now-ex-)pastor is stupider than your (now-ex-)pastor".
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on October 11, 2008, 12:36:47 AM
OK, first it was the Japanese town named "Obama" cashing in on their American namesake, now this:

Quote:

Portuguese Blog: "Obama Running for Office...in Brazil"

Local elections are rapidly approaching in Brazil. According to the Brazilian press, at least five candidates running in the local elections throughout the country are using the name "Barack Obama" in an effort to garner votes. The candidates, who are running for municipal positions, have registered their names as Obama on the ballots. The would-be Obamas include:
  • Brazilian Epaminondas Obama, running for a seat outside of São Paulo
  • Obama, a woman running in Rio de Janeiro state
  • Davi, the Obama of the Community, running in Minas Gerais
  • "Barak Obama," running in Paraná
  • Alexandre Barack Obama, running in Petrolina
  • Barack Obama of Belford Roxo, running in the suburbs of Rio de Janeiro



Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on October 11, 2008, 01:44:22 AM
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
Why make a big deal of such a non-issue?




Um, because that's what the Republican attack dogs are trained to do?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: mastert on October 11, 2008, 02:45:19 AM
I saw that story. I think it's just very sad. These people make me ashamed of my country. You think after the civil rights movement, that this country has come forward a little since the 60's. I take great pride myself when I don't see color when I talk to somebody. It goes to show you that McCain rallies might as well give out white robes and hoods and burn a cross on stage. And it also shows you that "middle" America is caught in a time warp. I gave thought at one time to moving down south, but if most people are like that, I don't want to be associated with them.

When given the microphone, the man having a kid said that he was afraid to raise his kid with an Obama presidency. And some old bat was afraid because he's an arab. NONE of those people were anywhere near NYC when 9/11 happened. I love NY because people try their damndest to NOT be like those Joe sixpacks in rural America who may not see a non-white person for months at a time.

I just don't know why people don't mind being so misinformed and so blatantly racist (though they stop just short of saying it). I really fear for Barack's life if he gets elected.

McCain is reaping what he sowed. Inciting near violence in his own supporters with a slew of the misleading attack ads. At least he came out and tried to quell the crowd. I really think he needs to take out ads after the election to say that he condemns this behavior in a modern civilized society. I think his 26 year reputation is tarnished after this race, I will certainly remember it that way.

With the Bill Ayers thing, he did a charity fund raiser. Raised money and GAVE it away! Oh, and nobody really cares anyway, unless Bill Ayers has $1 trillion laying around somewhere.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: 3deroticer on October 11, 2008, 03:27:36 AM
Quote:

notty said:
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
Why make a big deal of such a non-issue?




Um, because that's what the Republican attack dogs are trained to do?




I don't have the Republican play book, so any useful information you want to tell us, that we should know, would be much appreciated.

Thanks in advance!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on October 11, 2008, 03:33:34 AM
Another page from the Republican playbook is on display for all to see:
Quote:


LA Times: "Fox News' faux documentary sets new low"

Now and then, Fox News makes a stab at living up to its "fair and balanced" tag line.

At other times, the cable network's operatives throw off all pretense, let their neatly trimmed hair down and do what they seem to love best -- blame all of the world's evils on those pointy-headed, America-hating liberals. Like, say, Barack Obama!

Fox host Sean Hannity and his producers served up a heaping portion of just such red meat Sunday night on "Hannity's America." And they've since been making lame defenses of the faux documentary, which bore the subtle title: "Obama and Friends: The History of Radicalism."

Fox's hourlong screed is just the kind of media coverage that has contributed to the increasingly angry and irrational tone on the campaign trail. Even by the low standards of this election's advocacy journalism, the program plumbed new depths -- relying on innuendo and guilt by association to paint the Illinois senator as a dupe of the shadowy forces of the left.

Much of Hannity's report was based on interviews with half a dozen partisan commentators, whose main qualification seems to have been a previously expressed disdain for Obama.

Near the top of the program, the host introduced one of them, Andy Martin, as an "author and journalist." But reporters in his Chicago hometown know Martin better as a perennial political candidate and serial litigant.

The Chicago Tribune has spent some time examining Martin's past. He was refused entry to the Illinois bar in the 1970s, in part because his Selective Service records showed his thoughts exhibited "a paranoid flavor and a grandiose character."

In a 1983 personal bankruptcy case, he referred to a judge as a "crooked, slimy Jew." And a federal judge noted his history of "vexatious, frivolous and scandalous" lawsuits.

When he ran for Illinois governor two years ago, Martin quoted a nearly 30-year-old Tribune editorial that called him "an absolutely brilliant campaigner" when he was running for a Senate seat. He didn't mention that the same editorial said he "has no more business in the U.S. Senate than an elk has in a phone booth."

The producer of the Hannity program declined to be interviewed, so it's impossible to determine whether Fox didn't know about Martin's history or just didn't care....



Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on October 11, 2008, 05:15:46 AM
**edited for crazy talk
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on October 11, 2008, 05:30:47 AM
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
Another page from the Republican playbook is on display for all to see:




Here are a couple more chapters of the play book, courtesy of the epic-level douche bag known as Frank Luntz:

http://www.zephoria.org/lakoff/files/Luntz.pdf

http://www2.bc.edu/~plater/Newpublicsite06/suppmats/02.6.pdf
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: 3deroticer on October 11, 2008, 06:31:33 AM
http://www.pinocchiopolitics.org/long_list.htm

I go to website that is garbage according to you such as Huffington, crooks and liars, KOS, and Democracy Now!. But it is unfortunate that neither Sara Palin nor John McCain ever wrote a autobiography. Obama did write a book and also outline his position.

Kind of hard to claim my being Obsess, when you weren't inform that Reverend Wright was a non-issue with Obama? don't you think? The McCain campaign drop that long ago.

BTW is pretending to be a liberal while bashing the democrats in the playbook??

I have seen demonstration of people now claiming to be a liberal after spouting the Karl rove talking point for 7 years or so.

I have also seen picture of Bush in corporate offices being replace by JFK portraits on the wall. Some sign I believe that having a Bush portrait is now toxic on the wall for producing cash flow with other clients.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on October 11, 2008, 07:00:54 AM
**edited for crazy talk
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on October 11, 2008, 07:03:20 AM
**edited for crazy talk
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on October 11, 2008, 07:08:03 AM
**edited for crazy talk
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: SwitcherX on October 11, 2008, 07:45:28 AM
Quote:

notty said:
Quote:

SwitcherX said:
When you look at her, do you touch yourself?




Not in the lab.  




Next time I want yo to do it immediately wherever you are.  And think of me watching you when you do it.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: 3deroticer on October 11, 2008, 07:48:35 AM
Quote:

notty said:
Quote:

3deroticer said:
Kind of hard to claim my being Obsess, when you weren't inform that Reverend Wright was a non-issue with Obama? don't you think? The McCain campaign drop that long ago.





Please rephrase this in a way that actually makes sense, and then I'll respond.




Nah! I am fine with your non response. Like I have said most have move on with your nonsense of attacking a person for their liberal views. You believe whatever you want to believe. As far as who you are, only you know, I never tried categorizing you, but only point out years of you attacking me for my liberalism. I don't think your a liberal, and I am sticking to it. I don't need to prove who you are, but I think you would have a hard time convincing anyone in here that you are. It's up to you to prove otherwise, and honestly I don't care what you are. The burden of proof is on your end.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on October 11, 2008, 02:19:42 PM
**edited for crazy talk
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on October 11, 2008, 02:21:49 PM
Quote:

SwitcherX said:
Quote:

notty said:
Quote:

SwitcherX said:
When you look at her, do you touch yourself?




Not in the lab.  




Next time I want yo to do it immediately wherever you are.  And think of me watching you when you do it.




Perv.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Real on October 11, 2008, 04:26:37 PM
on the topic outisde of the ot civil war, i actually felt bad for mccain for a minute having to deal with people lke that racist woman who whispered "i think he's an  arab".  i mean of all republicans we could have seen he is the best (not saying much lol).  

but then i remembered the campaign he and the pitbull have been running lately.

after what weve seen the last decade, conservative arrogance of the first half of it both domestically and internationally crashing back to earth and right on top of them, when you go around making unfounded insinuations of "terrorist" you have to expect that for the most part only the very most ignorant of americans are still going to be on side.  

judging from the eruptions at recent republican rallies that's exactly what's happened...
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: 3deroticer on October 11, 2008, 05:16:48 PM
Quote:

notty said:
Quote:

notty said:
I'm not liberal,
Quote:

3deroticer said:
I don't think your a liberal, and I am sticking to it. I don't need to prove who you are, but I think you would have a hard time convincing anyone in here that you are. It's up to you to prove otherwise, and honestly I don't care what you are. The burden of proof is on your end.







Are you reading anything I'm writing?






For the past 2 years! Notty for the past 2 years you been trolling for my views, not yours. I never categorize you and I think no one could be label. Yet you label me as a martyr, a nut job, even put up a poll for me, just for a discussion in threads like this. Now your asking me to go there and prove myself of who I voted for.

The point was that there is this rehashing of what seems like a civil war going back in time of our thinking. Bush approval is down to %15 and there seem to be less of trying to shut up the progressive thinking from speaking, but you have prove otherwise. Here in the BEA one have spoken of how uncomfortable it is to have an opinion other than your own. I think many of us, and not just in here but worldly are not going to shut up anymore.

For 2 years anything I had to say about this administration, you have made a huge obsession to shut me up. Yet you could have exercise your restraint by not reading anything you don't want to read.

I tried to be your friend, and I open up to you about myself, and you turn around and started a poll to see if anyone thinks I am crazy. If anything you have proven to be severely mean spirited. There are lots of people with a violent past in their lives and they have moved on with therapy. Yet you are so obsess that you even have a thread on being Dr Notty in the house and ready to analyze. Ready to fix my grammar, my psyche, and my opinion on politics. And you think I'm obsessive?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on October 11, 2008, 05:52:21 PM
**edited for crazy talk
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: 3deroticer on October 11, 2008, 11:12:37 PM
Funny!

I actually think the world is fine just as it is, even with death and war, as everything will find a balance. I am not here to change anyone, nor have I ever tell you what you should do with your life. I don't tell you to shut up ever. I don't tell you how you should think even. I think Ghandi would tell you that you first respect yourself in order to respect others. I have hurt other people's feeling and I make amend by apologizing and for that I have become closer to the person. The world is what you make it to be, so if you feel that its gloom and doom with what I say about, such as purging of the votes. It isn't gloom and doom for those become aware and get out the vote. It is for those that don't think they can make a difference, that would see the world as gloom.

It's been pretty calm lately, and I have mistaken that this is in the past, but for the most part it has. I am overall very please, and to hear that someone now feel that they can discuss without dreading doing so lately is a very good omen.

I don't know you, and most likely never know you, but I have seen the better of you that is thoughtful and kind. I have express hope with Obama, and to me that has been the underline message for the most part I express about him. I don't see how talking about Obama as doom and gloom.

I don't know what to tell you. I know from your other post that you are not happy with Obama. Could it be that your projecting your doom and gloom of Obama onto me??

As for what fuels me is love. I teach Tai Chi to bunch of old fart in nursing home and make them smile and feel better about themselves. I listen to them banter their forgetful mind with a smile and hear the same story like I heard it the first time. They are old, senile, and have trouble talking, but I still love them as if they were my own grandparents. I am not limited to how smart, articulate, like minded to my opinion, or agile they are to express love and kindness.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: gOOber on October 11, 2008, 11:43:14 PM
An uninformed and unfortunate view of some.

 
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on October 12, 2008, 12:13:47 AM
**edited for crazy talk
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: 3deroticer on October 12, 2008, 01:23:08 AM
I sat for years with my pastor for 10 years until I found out that he thinks Gay people should not be part of the congregation, or partake in any church function of fellowshipping with the rest of us. Plus the church have several ordain minister, and nobody is perfect. Even if one person was disrespectful, that does not merits abandoning christianity. In this case Obama denounce his pastor. Was it too late?? It would be like me saying it's too late for you and I to bond together after 2 years of literary warfare. I personally don't think Obama's pastor reflect who Obama is as a person. I haven't seen Obama speak the same views of that of Reverend Wright.

Your opinion are always in consideration of my undertaking. Your thoughts counts as worthy to be heard, whether I agree or not.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on October 12, 2008, 01:57:12 AM
Quote:

gOOber said:
An uninformed and unfortunate view of some.

   


And that causes problems like this:
Quote:


MSNBC: "N.Y. mixup: 'Barack Osama' on ballot"

Who is running for president? In an upstate New York county, hundreds of voters have been sent absentee ballots in which they could vote for “Barack Osama.”

The absentee ballots sent to voters in Rensselaer County identified the two presidential candidates as “Barack Osama” and “John McCain.” In the United States, the best-known individual named Osama is Osama bin Laden, leader of the al Qaida terrorist group behind the 2001 attacks that destroyed the World Trade Center in New York City.

The typographical terror error was first reported by the Times Union of Albany.

The elections office faxed a statement in which the two commissioners, Democrat Edward McDonough and Republican Larry Bugbee, said they regret the error but never acknowledge what the error was.

“It’s human error, it’s very unfortunate, it’s an embarrassment to our office, obviously,” McDonough said in a later phone interview. “We wish we could turn back the clock, but we can’t.”

When they discovered the mistake, officials shredded the remaining “Osama” ballots and mailed correct versions to the roughly 300 people who had already received them.

McDonough said the “Osama” mistake was made in only one of the 13 ballot versions mailed throughout the county, located east of the state capital of Albany.

Voters who received both versions will be allowed to send in either one and have it counted, McDonough said.

Obama spokesman Blake Zeff said the campaign is “glad officials are working to correct this error and we assume it won’t happen again.”


And then you have racist idiots like Michelle Malkin trying to make light of this. "Typo" my ass -- "s" and "b" are nowhere near themselves on the keyboard.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on October 12, 2008, 02:06:11 AM
Quote:

notty:

1) That he only distanced himself from Jeremiah Wright when it was politically expedient.  The fact that Obama sat idly by through 20 years of Wright's "sermons" is troubling to me.


Have you listened to all of Wright's sermons in their entirety over the last 20 years? Did every single one of them contain inflammatory statements? And in any case, were any of the inflammatory statements entirely unjustified?
Quote:

2) That he considers himself a blank screen on which people project whatever they want to see.


He didn't say that. Here is the quote in context, taken from page 11 of The Audacity of Hope:
Quote:

Undoubtedbly, some of these views will get me in trouble, I am new enough on the national political screen that I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripe project their own views. As such I am bound to disappoint some, if not all of them. Which perhaps indicates a second, more intimate theme to this book - namely how I or anybody else in public office, can avoid the pitfalls of fame, the hunger to please, the fear of loss, and thereby retain that kernel of truth, that singular voice within each of us that reminds us of our deepest commitments.


That is a much different idea from just baldly stating "he said he's a blank screen".
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Hugeboobfan on October 12, 2008, 02:28:49 AM
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
Quote:

notty:

1) That he only distanced himself from Jeremiah Wright when it was politically expedient.  The fact that Obama sat idly by through 20 years of Wright's "sermons" is troubling to me.


Have you listened to all of Wright's sermons in their entirety over the last 20 years? Did every single one of them contain inflammatory statements? And in any case, were any of the inflammatory statements entirely unjustified?



And let's not forget that McCain has cuddled up to fundamentalist crackpots like Hagee and Falwell, who routinely spout(ed) all sorts of inflammatory nonsense.

For the last 20+ years the GOP has allowed fundamentalist christian conservatives to push their agenda into national politics.  I see no indication that Obama would allow his religious beliefs to dictate policy in the same manner.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on October 12, 2008, 02:59:53 AM
Exactly. It's like I said, we shouldn't turn this into a case "my (now-ex-)pastor is crazier than your (now-ex-)pastor". And how people can in one breath say Obama's a crypto-Muslim and at the same time say "...and his pastor hates America!" is beyond my sense of logic
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on October 12, 2008, 03:03:47 AM
Okay, Zookie.  Whatever you say, Zookie.  I yield to your superior ideology and judgment of character.  Obama is wise.  Obama is great.  Obama will solve all our problems.  Yay Obama.

I'm so excited.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on October 12, 2008, 03:19:08 AM
I knew I could browbeat you into my way of thinking soon enough, notty
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on October 12, 2008, 03:22:50 AM
Well, you know everything.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: 3deroticer on October 12, 2008, 03:41:29 AM
go zookie go
go zookie go
Yay! Notty sarcastically sees the wisdom of zookie!!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on October 12, 2008, 04:18:51 AM
Wow, I'm so glad I'm an Obamabot.  Now I don't have think about anything anymore!  Obama is wise.  Obama is great.  Obama will take care of everything now...le sigh... *dreamy-yet-vacant stare*
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Hugeboobfan on October 12, 2008, 04:29:18 AM
Quote:

notty said:
Wow, I'm so glad I'm an Obamabot.  Now I don't have think about anything anymore!  Obama is wise.  Obama is great.  Obama will take care of everything now...le sigh... *dreamy-yet-vacant stare*



There is a middle ground between "Obama is perfect" and "all politicians are the same and equally terrible", especially if you were basing your distrust of Obama mainly on his church affiliation and a bad interpretation of an excerpt from his book.

There are a lot of things I dislike about Obama but I'm not willing to be apathetic and assume all politicians are the same.  Not after the last eight years.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on October 12, 2008, 04:31:15 AM
But Obama *is* perfect!  
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on October 12, 2008, 04:38:08 AM
I wrote a poem:

Roses are red
Violets are blue
I love Barack Obama
And you should too!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on October 12, 2008, 04:45:46 AM
OMG! Barack is sooooo funny!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcgBOHbf5OE

ROFLCOPTER!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on October 12, 2008, 04:59:34 AM
Hey guys?? What do you think Mr. President Obama will do first when he's sworn in and all that junk? I hope he walks the earth sowing peace...and apple trees...I love apples!  And peace!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Hugeboobfan on October 12, 2008, 05:28:54 AM
Quote:

notty said:
Hey guys?? What do you think Mr. President Obama will do first when he's sworn in and all that junk?



I'm not sure, but I think he can't be nearly as bad as G.W. has been.  I have very low expectations at this point, including not starting any unnecessary wars, or ballooning the deficit.  I would also prefer to see some sort of meaningful action taken towards the exploding health care costs in this country.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on October 12, 2008, 05:41:22 AM
Quote:

Hugeboobfan said:
Quote:

notty said:
Hey guys?? What do you think Mr. President Obama will do first when he's sworn in and all that junk?



I'm not sure, but I think he can't be nearly as bad as G.W. has been.  I have very low expectations at this point, including not starting any unnecessary wars, or ballooning the deficit.  I would also prefer to see some sort of meaningful action taken towards the exploding health care costs in this country.




He's gonna change everything!  He's the candidate of change!  It's gonna be sooooo awesome!  You'll have government health insurance coming out your butt! *giggle*
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: SwitcherX on October 12, 2008, 07:23:18 AM
Quote:

notty said:
I wrote a poem:

Roses are red
Violets are blue
I love Barack Obama
And you should too!




Roses are red
Violets are blue
This election is a contest
To become the worst president ever
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: mofoapoo on October 12, 2008, 07:39:06 AM
sure is beat a dead horse in here.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on October 12, 2008, 03:40:03 PM
Quote:

SwitcherX said:
Roses are red
Violets are blue
This election is a contest
To become the worst president ever




That's crazy talk! TAKE IT BACK!  
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: MasterDragonfly on October 12, 2008, 03:44:10 PM
Quote:

notty said:
OMG! Barack is sooooo funny!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcgBOHbf5OE

ROFLCOPTER!



Have you been hanging out with Onionwriter?

Master "I wonder which one could appear to be more like the OMGWTFLOLBBQ stereotype" Dragonfly
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: collared_cherri on October 12, 2008, 03:53:27 PM
Quote:

notty said:
Hey guys?? What do you think Mr. President Obama will do first when he's sworn in and all that junk? I hope he walks the earth sowing peace...and apple trees...I love apples!  And peace!




There will be a free post-election breakfast for meerkat lovers at IHOP.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on October 12, 2008, 04:05:08 PM
Quote:

collared_cherri said:
There will be a free post-election breakfast for meerkat lovers at IHOP.




That would be, like, the best day of my LIFE!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on October 12, 2008, 04:10:54 PM
Quote:

MasterDragonfly said:
Quote:

notty said:
OMG! Barack is sooooo funny!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcgBOHbf5OE

ROFLCOPTER!



Have you been hanging out with Onionwriter?

Master "I wonder which one could appear to be more like the OMGWTFLOLBBQ stereotype" Dragonfly




Onionwriter spends all his time ranting and raving about that icky Sarah Palin.  *shudder*

I would rather talk about the awesomeness of Barack Obama! *giggle*
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: SwitcherX on October 12, 2008, 05:56:22 PM
Quote:

notty said:
Quote:

SwitcherX said:
Roses are red
Violets are blue
This election is a contest
To become the worst president ever




That's crazy talk! TAKE IT BACK!  




You're beautiful when you're angry.  
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on October 12, 2008, 06:55:36 PM
The Top Ten Reasons I Loooooooove Barack Obama!

10.  His dazzling smile!
9.  His piercing gaze!
 (He's looking right into my soul!)
8.  His baritone voice!
7.  He's a teacher!
6.  He's a community organizer!
5.  He brings us joy!
4.  He brings us peace!
3.  Change!
2.  Change!
1.  CHANGE!

Yay Obama! *clapclapclapgiggle*
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: DruulEmpire on October 12, 2008, 07:01:48 PM
Jeez-louise, all you have to do is vote for the guy.  I'm voting for him, but your reasons do zip for me (except "CHANGE!!!", which strikes me as damn sensible.)
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on October 12, 2008, 07:09:57 PM
Quote:

SwitcherX said:
You're beautiful when you're angry.  




How...how dare you!  You need some manners.  Hmph!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on October 12, 2008, 07:13:54 PM
Quote:

DruulEmpire said:
I'm voting for him




YAY! *clapclapclapgiggle*

*puts Druul on the Nice Ppl List and Switcher on the Mean Ppl List*
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: DruulEmpire on October 12, 2008, 07:15:15 PM
I was kind of hoping I was already on the list -- but okay.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Shara on October 12, 2008, 07:46:25 PM
doesn't matter what list you on, Notty will kill you eventually
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on October 12, 2008, 09:12:39 PM
The old Notty would have killed people, but she's gone now.  Byebye, old Notty!  Byebye, meanie!

The new Notty loves Barack Obama.  She leaves all the thinking to Zookie and 3deroticer.  They're super smart and they know everything about everything!

YAY!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Shara on October 12, 2008, 09:16:27 PM
 
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: DruulEmpire on October 12, 2008, 10:09:23 PM
Funny, I like Zookie well enough, but never thought of him as a "thinker."  How'd I miss that?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: SwitcherX on October 12, 2008, 11:55:09 PM
Quote:

notty said:
Quote:

SwitcherX said:
You're beautiful when you're angry.  




How...how dare you!  You need some manners.  Hmph!




Maybe you should punish me.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Shara on October 13, 2008, 12:01:24 AM
*hands notty her katana*
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: PregNut on October 13, 2008, 12:17:07 AM
Quote:

notty said:
The Top Ten Reasons I Loooooooove Barack Obama!

10.  His dazzling smile!
9.  His piercing gaze!
 (He's looking right into my soul!)
8.  His baritone voice!
7.  He's a teacher!
6.  He's a community organizer!
5.  He brings us joy!
4.  He brings us peace!
3.  Change!
2.  Change!
1.  CHANGE!

Yay Obama! *clapclapclapgiggle*



Dammit, notty! I warned you to not drink that Kool-Aid.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: 3deroticer on October 13, 2008, 12:26:47 AM
Quote:

notty said:
The old Notty would have killed people, but she's gone now.  Byebye, old Notty!  Byebye, meanie!

The new Notty loves Barack Obama.  She leaves all the thinking to Zookie and 3deroticer.  They're super smart and they know everything about everything!

YAY!



2 heads are better than one! leave the thinkig to us!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on October 13, 2008, 12:46:27 AM
Quote:

shara1 said:
*hands notty her katana*




*ponders the sword* Mmmm, shiny...

But I can't.  Mr. President Barack Obama wouldn't want me to disembowel SwitcherX...even if he is on the Mean Ppl List.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on October 13, 2008, 12:47:29 AM
Quote:

PregNut said:
Dammit, notty! I warned you to not drink that Kool-Aid.




Kool-Aid?  ZOMG!  I loooooove Kool-Aid!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on October 13, 2008, 12:56:28 AM
Quote:

3deroticer said:
2 heads are better than one! leave the thinkig to us!




Havingtwoheadseemslikeit'dbereallyweirdbuthwatdoIknowI'mnotsupposedtothinkaboutstuffsoOMGyou'resosmart3dsookayIwillleaveittoyouteehee! *vacantstare*
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: gOOber on October 13, 2008, 01:07:16 AM
 
Quote:

 I hope he walks the earth sowing peace...and apple trees...I love apples! And peace!  


Yes he will.

 
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: SwitcherX on October 13, 2008, 01:56:05 AM
Quote:

notty said:
Quote:

shara1 said:
*hands notty her katana*




*ponders the sword* Mmmm, shiny...

But I can't.  Mr. President Barack Obama wouldn't want me to disembowel SwitcherX...even if he is on the Mean Ppl List.




I was thinking of something more like a caning.  Shara can assist.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: pedonbio on October 13, 2008, 02:20:03 AM
Quote:

3deroticer said:
 
2 heads are better than one!  




I tend to disagree. Every male has two heads, and the little one is always getting me into jams that the big one doesn't like being in.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: 3deroticer on October 13, 2008, 02:42:17 AM
I let the big head talk softly and the little head carry a big stick!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: collared_cherri on October 13, 2008, 03:09:43 AM
Quote:

notty said:
Havingtwoheadseemslikeit'dbereallyweirdbuthwatdoIknowI'mnotsupposedtothinkaboutstuffsoOMGyou'resosmart3dsookayIwillleaveittoyouteehee! *vacantstare*




You're ruining my masturbation fantasies talking like this. I need nasty.  I need mean. I don't like it.  I don't like it a lot.  
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on October 13, 2008, 03:42:26 AM
Quote:

collared_cherri said:
You're ruining my masturbation fantasies talking like this. I need nasty.  I need mean. I don't like it.  I don't like it a lot.  




But...but...but...really? *wrings hands*


I don't know what do!  What do I do??
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: gmantwo on October 13, 2008, 03:52:18 AM
How about getting a life?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on October 13, 2008, 04:00:05 AM
Quote:

gmantwo said:
How about getting a life?




How about I shove a rusty nail up your urethra then kick you  in the groin repeatedly?  
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: SwitcherX on October 13, 2008, 04:37:33 AM
Quote:

notty said:
Quote:

gmantwo said:
How about getting a life?




How about I shove a rusty nail up your urethra then kick you  in the groin repeatedly?  




Ooohh, that sounds hot.....  Would you wear thigh high jack boots when you do it?  *mmmmm*
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: collared_cherri on October 13, 2008, 05:00:59 PM
Quote:

notty said:
Quote:

gmantwo said:
How about getting a life?




How about I shove a rusty nail up your urethra then kick you  in the groin repeatedly?  




That's HAWT!  *cums*
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Shara on October 13, 2008, 05:06:45 PM
Quote:

notty said:
Quote:

gmantwo said:
How about getting a life?




How about I shove a rusty nail up your urethra then kick you  in the groin repeatedly?  




now here we go :P
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on October 13, 2008, 06:00:33 PM
Quote:

notty: I don't know what do! What do I do??

gmantwo: How about getting a life?

notty: How about I shove a rusty nail up your urethra then kick you  in the groin repeatedly?  


Now THAT'S the notty I know and like to debate with, not this current incarnation that is taking mockery of my support of Sen. Obama to new and (quite frankly) unneccesary levels. I mean, going back and removing all your posts that actually had meaningful content and replacing them with this "ZOMGOBAMA!!!" stuff...that's not kosher, or halal if you think that Obama's an Ay-rab
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on October 13, 2008, 06:08:48 PM
Oh, and speaking of the non-defense of his fellow US Senator at a rally recently, I'm glad someone has finally said it:
Quote:

The Huffington Post: "James Zogby: John McCain: I am an Arab and a Decent Man"

Today my office issued the following statement, which includes my comments:

Dr. James Zogby says, "Enough is enough!"

Washington D.C. - October 11, 2008 - We are disturbed by the degree to which 'Arab' has become the metaphorical mud to sling against your opponent. Last week, for example, the Republican Jewish Coalition released a document in which they use the term Pro-Arab as a pejorative accusation. For his part, Rush Limbaugh has joined in by declaring that Obama is in fact an Arab American. Then, last Friday, after a supporter called Senator Barack Obama "an Arab", Senator John McCain came to the defense of of his political opponent by saying, "No, ma'am. He's a decent family man and citizen..." From this we are left to infer that an Arab man is less then a "decent family man."

Dr. James Zogby, President of the Arab American Institute, says, "Enough is enough! From the beginning of this campaign there have been those who have used 'Muslim' and 'Arab' in an effort to smear Barack Obama. This exploitation of bigotry and the stoking of racist fires to forward an agenda is reprehensible. This is not only offensive to Arab Americans, but to all Americans. As any ethnic group who has ever been used to scare the electorate knows, this is a dangerous game that, tragically, can get innocent people hurt.

"And while we are pleased to see that the senator is trying to dispel rumors about Senator Obama, we feel the need to point out that Arab Americans are also decent men and women with full rights of citizenship as enumerated under the Constitution. Arab Americans are part of the great melting pot that is this country's strength. We work towards peace in the Middle East along side our Jewish partners. We raise our sons and daughters to be model citizens of this nation. We serve this country with honor. The suggestion that any ethnic group is treacherous and Anti-American is unacceptable, dangerous, and unbecoming of such a great nation."


Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on October 13, 2008, 06:43:56 PM
Quote:

collared_cherri said:
Quote:

notty said:
Quote:

gmantwo said:
How about getting a life?




How about I shove a rusty nail up your urethra then kick you  in the groin repeatedly?  




That's HAWT!  *cums*




*cums too*
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on October 13, 2008, 06:46:10 PM
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:Now THAT'S the notty I know and like to debate with, not this current incarnation that is taking mockery of my support of Sen. Obama to new and (quite frankly) unneccesary levels. I mean, going back and removing all your posts that actually had meaningful content and replacing them with this "ZOMGOBAMA!!!" stuff...that's not kosher, or halal if you think that Obama's an Ay-rab




So...you're saying you don't like my poem? *le smirk*
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: PregNut on October 13, 2008, 10:11:52 PM
OMG! Now Obama has his own flag!

 

Preg(I know it's the Ohio state flag, but you'd be surprised how many people don't...or not.)Nut
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on October 13, 2008, 10:27:49 PM
Expect rabid McPlain supporters to hype that charge against him too

Quote:

The Uptake: "McCain Responds to "Arab" Epithet at Rally: "Obama a Decent Family Man"

Noah: Yeah, I know which one you're talking about. And just to be sure to make sure we got your quote OK, you called Obama and Arab terrorist?

Quinnell: Pardon?

Noah: You called him an Arab terrorist? Is that correct? Why do you think he is an Arab?

Quinnell: Because his dad is. If you... I'll send you the paper.

Female reporter: His dad is Muslim. His dad was Muslim. Barack Obama has never been a Muslim.

Quinnell: No but he's....

Dana Bash of CNN: He's a Christian.

Quinnell: He's not an Arab either, he's a --

Bash: His father was Muslim, and he's a Christian.

Quinnell: Yeah, but he's still got Muslim in him. So that's still part of him. I got all the stuff from the library and I could send you all kinds of stuff on him. In fact....



And these are the people who are going to be voting for McCain? People who, despite being told over and over by the man himself that he is not a Muslim, not only want to believe that he's a Muslim, but that he's an Arab? And by the way, what's wrong with being an Arab, or an Arab-American? And how could these same people think that anyone who is not a native-born American could be allowed to run for the POTUS? If these people read nothing else, can they not read the Constitution?:
Quote:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. (Article II, Section 1)


For the love of God, McCain, shut these haters down once and for all! Have you no sense of decency left at all?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: ChrisR1 on October 13, 2008, 10:52:07 PM
Muslim, Christian, Morman, whatever - he's still hit the obligatory "Why my faith is important..." talking points, which annoys me (with all politicians) across the board. I'm looking forward to the day when I'm old and gray and hear "My faith really isn't important to the way I plan to run the country, and I believe that strong and healty morals can come from outside the dogma of organized religion." That'll be the day...
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on October 13, 2008, 11:04:48 PM
Exactly. If he gets the job done, I don't even care if the POTUS is a godless heathen...although going by what's been happening to us for the past eight years, maybe we already have had one in that office
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: mofoapoo on October 14, 2008, 12:27:28 AM
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
And by the way, what's wrong with being an Arab, or an Arab-American?




have you ever met any of us?  We are crazy.  Every morning, i eat the flesh of christian babies.

You can't stop us from infiltrating your population.  Soon, one of our own will be your president.

all according to plan...
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: gOOber on October 14, 2008, 01:12:13 AM
Quote:

mofoapoo said:
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
And by the way, what's wrong with being an Arab, or an Arab-American?




 

have you ever met any of us?  We are crazy.  Every morning, i eat the flesh of christian babies.

You can't stop us from infiltrating your population.  Soon, one of our own will be your president.

all according to plan...


Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: 3deroticer on October 14, 2008, 01:13:00 AM
where are your cell?

The other day this past summer, a Muslim woman walk into the bank and she is covered up baring her eyes only, and I had my sunglasses on and the teller told me that I had to take them off. I thought it was interesting that this Muslim woman could be anybody and be carrying a weapon underneath, and myself wearing shorts and tank top is under scrutiny because of the eyes.

I don't know how most were feeling when they saw that. I myself lived in Detroit for a some good years immune to the reaction. I just talk to my room mates that just told me of her encounter with a Muslim coming into her cash register of where she work. She was kind of freaking out and reminded herself that she watches too much TV.

McCain can't tell her supporter that there is nothing wrong with being an American Muslim. If you remember VitminC who use to frequent here has a Muslim Mother. So he is technically in the same boat as Obama, raise in a mix culture.

VitaminC was the guy who introduce me to this place, so yeah Muslim are one crazy motherF!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on October 14, 2008, 01:18:46 AM
Please. The love of big and/or growing boobs transcends faith
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: gmantwo on October 14, 2008, 02:19:53 AM
Quote:

notty said:
Quote:

gmantwo said:
How about getting a life?




How about I shove a rusty nail up your urethra then kick you  in the groin repeatedly?  




Hey, you asked. Glad I could be of assistance in getting you back in the game.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Real on October 14, 2008, 05:14:52 AM
faith is the last real glass ceiling.  i dont think there will be an atheist or agnostic president in my lifetime. and obviously a person of faith other than christian or jewish could never win, at least not in anything resembling the society we know today.

those trying to mislead people about obama's religion or bring up his middle name in a not so subtly racist fashion are just ignorants and desperate bottom scrapers...
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: BarnacleBill on October 14, 2008, 11:57:38 AM
what about gays?

do you think we might have a gay President before a non-Christian?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: AZWolf on October 14, 2008, 12:10:35 PM
Quote:

BarnacleBill said:
what about gays?

do you think we might have a gay President before a non-Christian?




Not after Palin.  Your Geriatric recruited her to ensure that.  
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on October 14, 2008, 12:21:23 PM
Quote:

BarnacleBill said:
what about gays?

do you think we might have a gay President before a non-Christian?


You mean an openly gay president...I do believe we have had at least one closeted president (and definitely had a gay FBI chief).
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: AZWolf on October 14, 2008, 12:25:45 PM
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
Quote:

BarnacleBill said:
what about gays?

do you think we might have a gay President before a non-Christian?


You mean an openly gay president...I do believe we have had at least one closeted president (and definitely had a gay FBI chief).




You mean after CA.......
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on October 14, 2008, 12:26:52 PM
Yup!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: collared_cherri on October 14, 2008, 01:49:35 PM
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:

Quinnell: Yeah, but he's still got Muslim in him. So that's still part of him.  




He's got Muslim in him?  There's a Muslim gene?  People are not born a particular faith/non-faith, just as people are not born sexist, racist, smokers, sport fans.

What a ridiculous comment.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: 3deroticer on October 14, 2008, 02:08:14 PM
A major blockbuster is coming out base on a true story of a gay politician in San Fransisco!

It may be a trend if everyone falls in love with the movie!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: DruulEmpire on October 14, 2008, 02:13:38 PM
There's a serious theory that Lincoln was homosexual.

Druul "no wonder they call themselves Log Cabin Republicans" Empire
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Real on October 14, 2008, 03:12:41 PM
wow yeah, i forgot about that one.  put openly gay in the mulsim or wiccan category; no chance ever...
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: ChrisR1 on October 14, 2008, 04:39:30 PM
Nah, I think gay has a chance sooner than athiest.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: mofoapoo on October 14, 2008, 06:59:06 PM
Quote:

collared_cherri said:
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:

Quinnell: Yeah, but he's still got Muslim in him. So that's still part of him.  




He's got Muslim in him?  There's a Muslim gene?  




No no, it's more like a parasite, or AIDS.  Just like Children can get aids from being born from their mother, it's the same way.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on October 14, 2008, 07:24:15 PM
Quote:

collared_cherri said:
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:

Quinnell: Yeah, but he's still got Muslim in him. So that's still part of him.  




He's got Muslim in him?  There's a Muslim gene?  


Yeah, he's got Muslim in him, just like she's got stupid in her. All over her, as a matter of fact. The stupid old ignorant bigoted battleaxe.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on October 14, 2008, 07:50:36 PM
Quote:

DruulEmpire said:
There's a serious theory that Lincoln was homosexual.

Druul "no wonder they call themselves Log Cabin Republicans" Empire




He had really big feet.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: DruulEmpire on October 14, 2008, 07:52:29 PM
Quote:

notty said:
Quote:

DruulEmpire said:
There's a serious theory that Lincoln was homosexual.

Druul "no wonder they call themselves Log Cabin Republicans" Empire




He had really big feet.




And, y'know, being tall doesn't always assure big feet ...
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: JJ on October 15, 2008, 02:27:02 AM
fakin' it ?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Hugeboobfan on October 15, 2008, 02:40:59 AM
Quote:

JJ said:
fakin' it ?



Fake is right.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: 3deroticer on October 15, 2008, 04:38:15 AM
There was a special about photoshop propaganda and an expert can tell if the photo are real or not. I blew up the pixel of the fake one and saw much distortion of where the cord used to be in place. Also the clock has no shadow and perfectly at 3pm. What are the odds of that?

Interesting enough the segment focus on the famous Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie on the beach picture was fake, and yet the picture may have cause the break up.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on October 16, 2008, 07:47:12 PM
Quote:

International Herald Tribune: "Rivals split, with Joe in the middle"

At a moment when conservative Republicans are complaining that President George W. Bush has led the country into socialism with a country-club face, McCain went on the attack against Obama for "class warfare."

It was McCain's last chance to cast doubt on his opponent's character and credentials, and he threw the kitchen sink at him — along with the plumber. McCain invoked class war, culture war and the Iraq war. McCain cast himself as a victim of a Democratic attack machine, calling Representative John Lewis's allusion to George Wallace in criticizing the McCain-Palin campaign for stirring up the crowds "so hurtful."

They were seated, and this time, McCain made a point of looking at Obama, if often with a disdainful smirk and roll of the eyes. He kept taking out his pen to write on his yellow pad, almost as though it were a surrogate for reaching across and throttling the younger man he does not think should be challenging him because, as his aides put it, he hasn't bled....


Wow, talk about being out of it. Since when is bleeding a prerequisite for becoming POTUS? And all this invocation of war in a debate, I think, is very telling on the part of McCain -- he was simply itching for a fight all debate long, but Obama didn't come there to engage in a fight, he came to engage with the American people. The contrast between the two men and their demeanor towards themselves was so striking.

It was "so hurtful" for Lewis to call you out, Sen. McCain? Well, too bad, so sad. When someone at one of your rallies shouts "traitor" and "kill him", what else is a black man who grew up in the segregated south, and who was beaten to within an inch of his life by white racist policemen, supposed to think? You had a chance to complete repudiate the insinuations once and for all, but your disdain for your opponent prevented you from doing the right thing. Shame on you, sir, shame on you. You deserve to lose this election, and assuming that there are no dirty tricks, you should lose this election.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on October 16, 2008, 08:08:40 PM
The latest ad from the Obama camp...take that, you eye-rolling old creep!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on October 16, 2008, 08:40:45 PM
I wish Obama hadn't said he supports clean coal (no such thing).  During the primaries, he took a stronger stance on the environment.  Now he's making concession after concession.  Yucky.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: DruulEmpire on October 16, 2008, 08:59:33 PM
He's from Illinois.  It would be virtually impossible to come out of there without such a pledge.

What astonishes me is that some learned old green-leaning friends of mine are now saying "Give clean coal a chance."  Trouble is, it looks only slightly more likely to me than a successful annexation of Canada ...
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: ChrisR1 on October 16, 2008, 10:16:23 PM
Quote:

notty said:
I wish Obama hadn't said he supports clean coal (no such thing).  During the primaries, he took a stronger stance on the environment.  Now he's making concession after concession.  Yucky.




I'd say you're right - I've read a few articles about processes of burning coal under extreme pressure (around 3,000 PSI) where the combustion is very clean, but it's not very efficient (a lot of energy goes into the pressurization), so all the other aspects of the process (plant construction, transportation) take away a lot of the 'cleanliness'. Also, even if there were an efficient 'clean-coal' technology, the environmental impact of large scale coal mining operations is staggering.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: gOOber on October 17, 2008, 12:33:37 AM
 
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: gmantwo on October 17, 2008, 02:28:14 AM
Who looked more presidential last night? To me it was no contest. Bill Maher compared McCain to the chief inspector in the old Pink Panther movies--remember the guy who, when incensed by Peter Sellers' character, would have uncontrollable tics and spasms?

Obama sat there as cool as the other side of the pillow. No wonder some of McCain's fellow GOP senators cringe at the thought of him with his finger on a nuclear trigger.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on October 17, 2008, 11:29:08 AM
Quote:

gmantwo: Who looked more presidential last night? To me it was no contest. Bill Maher compared McCain to the chief inspector in the old Pink Panther movies--remember the guy who, when incensed by Peter Sellers' character, would have uncontrollable tics and spasms?


Inspector Dreyfuss, yeah, that's an apt comparison. Quite unfortunate that this last debate was so badly managed by McCain. Instead of answering the questions with what he would do as president, he wasted his time by slamming Obama...and that gave Obama the time to explain his policies in even greater depth. Oopsie.

Short of a rig of 2000 proportions, Obama will win. Maybe not by a landslide but even a 1 point victory is still a victory. The final debate was the final reason why.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on October 17, 2008, 11:32:43 AM
It's ironic that of all networks, it's al-Jazeera that's showing this...

"Misconceptions of Obama fuel Republican campaign - 13 Oct 08"

The ignorance displayed by these voters is staggering, and frightening, and is the primary reason why I want an elite to run for president and not "Joe fill in the blank".
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: gOOber on October 17, 2008, 01:13:30 PM
I think the Washingion Post said it pretty well:
Quote:

Mr. Obama's temperament is unlike anything we've seen on the national stage in many years. He is deliberate but not indecisive; eloquent but a master of substance and detail; preternaturally confident but eager to hear opposing points of view. He has inspired millions of voters of diverse ages and races, no small thing in our often divided and cynical country. We think he is the right man for a perilous moment.  


Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: MasterDragonfly on October 17, 2008, 01:37:10 PM
Quote:

notty said:
I wish Obama hadn't said he supports clean coal (no such thing).  



I support clean coal as well.  And teleportation.  And infinite wealth for everyone.

Someone wake me once these have been figured out.  
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: MasterDragonfly on October 17, 2008, 01:52:29 PM
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
It's ironic that of all networks, it's al-Jazeera that's showing this...

"Misconceptions of Obama fuel Republican campaign - 13 Oct 08"

The ignorance displayed by these voters is staggering, and frightening, and is the primary reason why I want an elite to run for president and not "Joe fill in the blank".



Holy crap.

If I were a betting man, I'd say these same people believe that all Canadians live in igloos and are issued mukluks at birth.

So long as it's not a black man feeding them the spin, they'll continue eating it all up.

Hm.  Random thought here:

In Canada, Quebec (or at least Francophone Quebec) always seems to have its own separate agenda.  Usually separation.    I've wondered what Canada would be like if Quebec got its wish.  (And of course what Quebec would look like, after the First Nations separate from Quebec and rejoined Canada (what with their ownership of 25% of the landmass of Quebec, with claims on another 50%) as was proposed at one time.)

In the USA, it seems as though "the south" (and this is something I've never quite been able to define in terms of border, unlike Quebec) is equally unhappy with the political future.  So what would happen if "the south" were to split off from the rest of the USA?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Hiram on October 17, 2008, 02:59:21 PM
He's from Krypton apparently!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: 3deroticer on October 17, 2008, 04:24:08 PM
Quote:

MasterDragonfly said:
Quote:

notty said:
I wish Obama hadn't said he supports clean coal (no such thing).  



I support clean coal as well.  And teleportation.  And infinite wealth for everyone.

Someone wake me once these have been figured out.  



Sure! *slap slap*
Put the rock of Gibraltar in the pail of water with the coal
and it may not be clean but it'll be kosher and godliness clean!
Dream at nite and experience the outer body travel,
and Know that I love you all immensely with all of my heart, and now you are rewarded richly!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: 3deroticer on October 17, 2008, 06:02:14 PM
Al E Smith annual dinner:

Al Smith was a Democratic Governor of New York and in 1928 the first Catholic Presidential candidate.  Every four years the Al Smith Memorial Dinner has the Democratic and Republican Presidential candidates stand up... and tell jokes.

McCain 1

McCain 2

Obama 1

Obama 2
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: SwitcherX on October 17, 2008, 09:30:20 PM
Quote:

MasterDragonfly said:
In the USA, it seems as though "the south" (and this is something I've never quite been able to define in terms of border, unlike Quebec) is equally unhappy with the political future.  So what would happen if "the south" were to split off from the rest of the USA?




They tried it once.  It went badly.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: SwitcherX on October 17, 2008, 09:32:24 PM
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
Short of a rig of 2000 proportions, Obama will win. Maybe not by a landslide but even a 1 point victory is still a victory. The final debate was the final reason why.




I wonder how much of a factor the "Bradley effect" will play.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on October 17, 2008, 10:45:43 PM
Quote:

gOOber said:
I think the Washingion Post said it pretty well:
Quote:

Mr. Obama's temperament is unlike anything we've seen on the national stage in many years. He is deliberate but not indecisive; eloquent but a master of substance and detail; preternaturally confident but eager to hear opposing points of view. He has inspired millions of voters of diverse ages and races, no small thing in our often divided and cynical country. We think he is the right man for a perilous moment, and he gives us lots and lots of orgasms.





Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: gOOber on October 17, 2008, 11:40:00 PM
So that explains the "O" face.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: SwitcherX on October 18, 2008, 12:39:29 AM
Quote:

notty said:
Quote:

gOOber said:
I think the Washingion Post said it pretty well:
Quote:

Mr. Obama's temperament is unlike anything we've seen on the national stage in many years. He is deliberate but not indecisive; eloquent but a master of substance and detail; preternaturally confident but eager to hear opposing points of view. He has inspired millions of voters of diverse ages and races, no small thing in our often divided and cynical country. We think he is the right man for a perilous moment, and he gives us lots and lots of orgasms.










and Notty is speechless.......
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on October 18, 2008, 12:45:58 AM
Quote:

SwitcherX said:
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
Short of a rig of 2000 proportions, Obama will win. Maybe not by a landslide but even a 1 point victory is still a victory. The final debate was the final reason why.


I wonder how much of a factor the "Bradley effect" will play.


Iowa pretty much cured me of a fear of a Bradley effect this time around. Like I said, Obama is no John Kerry. Any funny business of that nature and he and his team will be all over it like white on rice.

And of all the amazing stories I have heard from this election, this one really takes the cake:
Quote:

FiveThirtyEight.com: "On the Road: Western Pennsylvania"

So a canvasser goes to a woman's door in Washington, Pennsylvania. Knocks. Woman answers. Knocker asks who she's planning to vote for. She isn't sure, has to ask her husband who she's voting for. Husband is off in another room watching some game. Canvasser hears him yell back, "We're votin' for the n***er!"

Woman turns back to canvasser, and says brightly and matter of factly: "We're voting for the n***er."

In this economy, racism is officially a luxury. How is John McCain going to win if he can't win those voters? John Murtha's "racist" western Pennsylvania district, where this story takes place, is some of the roughest turf in the nation. But Barack Obama is on the ground and making inroads due to unusually strong organizing leadership....


Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on October 18, 2008, 07:17:18 AM
Quote:

LA Times Editorial: "Barack Obama for President"

It is inherent in the American character to aspire to greatness, so it can be disorienting when the nation stumbles or loses confidence in bedrock principles or institutions. That's where the United States is as it prepares to select a new president: We have seen the government take a stake in venerable private financial houses; we have witnessed eight years of executive branch power grabs and erosion of civil liberties; we are still recovering from a murderous attack by terrorists on our own soil and still struggling with how best to prevent a recurrence.

We need a leader who demonstrates thoughtful calm and grace under pressure, one not prone to volatile gesture or capricious pronouncement. We need a leader well-grounded in the intellectual and legal foundations of American freedom. Yet we ask that the same person also possess the spark and passion to inspire the best within us: creativity, generosity and a fierce defense of justice and liberty.

The Times without hesitation endorses Barack Obama for president....

He is no lone rider. He is a consensus-builder, a leader. As a constitutional scholar, he has articulated a respect for the rule of law and the limited power of the executive that make him the best hope of restoring balance and process to the Justice Department. He is a Democrat, leaning further left than right, and that should be reflected in his nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court. This is a good thing; the court operates best when it is ideologically balanced. With its present alignment at seven justices named by Republicans and two by Democrats, it is due for a tug from the left....

We may one day look back on this presidential campaign in wonder. We may marvel that Obama's critics called him an elitist, as if an Ivy League education were a source of embarrassment, and belittled his eloquence, as if a gift with words were suddenly a defect. In fact, Obama is educated and eloquent, sober and exciting, steady and mature. He represents the nation as it is, and as it aspires to be.


Three of the most conservative newspapers in the country -- the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, and the Chicago Tribune -- all endorse Obama (a little late in the game, but, well). Now all we need to do is wait for Colin Powell to speak up
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on October 18, 2008, 07:41:43 AM
LA Times Video: "Controversial Obama cartoon called racist"
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: onionwriter on October 18, 2008, 07:47:38 AM
It's almost three in the morning. We have eight political threads on a boob site, with fresh posts all the time. We're burning it up with comment.

What a f#cking meltdown. My home newspaper is talking about bank closures.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: DruulEmpire on October 18, 2008, 08:16:00 AM
Maybe we could use less threads, but we're three weeks from -- no hype -- a genuinely historic election, and during the middle of the biggest financial convulsion since the Depression, while continuing to fight two long drawn-out wars.  What's more, a lot of the posting isn't even throwing gasoline on the fire (which would be awfully expensive anyway), it's people standing up to charges.

One thing I happen to appreciate about this site is that from time to time we get to do a little more than go "Oooh ... boobies ...   "  That may seem counterproductive to some, but think about it -- some girls out there like a little conversation with their flirtation.  It's more impressive this way (well, except to notty).
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: AZWolf on October 18, 2008, 08:52:00 AM
We're more on-topic.  Absolutely.  But not without our dirt.
 
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on October 18, 2008, 01:20:49 PM
Quote:

DruulEmpire said:
It's more impressive this way (well, except to notty).




You are right.  If my date brought up Obama and/or the election, I would walk.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: ChrisR1 on October 18, 2008, 01:22:39 PM
Quote:

MasterDragonfly said:In the USA, it seems as though "the south" (and this is something I've never quite been able to define in terms of border, unlike Quebec) is equally unhappy with the political future.  So what would happen if "the south" were to split off from the rest of the USA?




If the south were to split from the US, South Florida would split from the South...
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on October 19, 2008, 01:22:25 AM
Quote:

DruulEmpire:
Maybe we could use less threads, but we're three weeks from -- no hype -- a genuinely historic election, and during the middle of the biggest financial convulsion since the Depression, while continuing to fight two long drawn-out wars.  What's more, a lot of the posting isn't even throwing gasoline on the fire (which would be awfully expensive anyway), it's people standing up to charges.


The most surprising thing about this is, not one of those threads is devoted to the Republican candidate for the presidency.
Quote:

One thing I happen to appreciate about this site is that from time to time we get to do a little more than go "Oooh ... boobies ...   "  That may seem counterproductive to some, but think about it -- some girls out there like a little conversation with their flirtation.  It's more impressive this way (well, except to notty).


And not only that, it just goes to show that we all are people who have other interests. Boobs are important, don't get me wrong, but they're not as important as (say) the state of the economy, local and national, the wars we are embroiled in, etc. etc. We are well-rounded here at the BEA Forum, and these threads reflect that.

-- TheZookie "and yeah, that pun about being well-rounded was unintentional" 007
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on October 19, 2008, 01:28:48 AM
Quote:

NY Times Op-Ed: "Nov. 5, 2008"

It's over.

I’ve studied the polls and the electoral map for months, and I no longer believe that John McCain can win. Unless Barack Obama slips up, Jeremiah Wright shows up or a serious national security emergency flares up, Obama will become the 44th president of the United States.*

The wayward wizards of Wall Street delivered the election to Obama by pushing the economy to the verge of collapse, **77** leery voters to choose between their pocketbooks and their prejudices. McCain delivered it to Obama with his reckless pick of Sarah Palin. That stunt made everything that followed feel like a stunt, tarnishing McCain's reputation and damaging his credibility so that when he went negative it backfired. And, some radical rabble among McCain's supporters delivered it to Obama by mistaking his political rallies for lynch mobs.

This perfect storm of poor judgments has set the stage for an Obama victory. It's over. Fast forward to Nov. 5....

Obama would make history by simply assuming office. But then, the question of governance: could this gifted, 47-year-old, first-term senator with a razor-thin political résumé harness his enormous power to push through an agenda that would meet our daunting challenges and secure our future?

History will be the judge, but on Nov. 5, it's on.

*If I'm wrong, I'll take my crow with a six pack of Liquid-Plumr.




Personally, I don't trust the Rovians behind the McCain campaign any farther than I can spit. Until the month of October is over, there's always the chance they could pull an October surprise.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on October 19, 2008, 09:11:52 AM
Quote:

The Huffington Post: "Michele Bachmann Channels McCarthy: Obama "Very Anti-American," Congressional Witch Hunt Needed"

In a television appearance that outraged Democrats are already describing as Joseph McCarthy politics, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann claimed on Friday that Barack Obama and his wife Michelle held anti-American views and couldn't be trusted in the White House. She even called for the major newspapers of the country to investigate other members of Congress to "find out if they are pro-America or anti-America."

Appearing on MSNBC's Hardball, Bachmann went well off the reservation when it comes to leveling political charges against the Democratic nominee.

"If we look at the collection of friends that Barack Obama has had in his life," she said, "it calls into question what Barack Obama's true beliefs and values and thoughts are. His attitudes, values, and beliefs with Jeremiah Wright on his view of the United States...is negative; Bill Ayers, his negative view of the United States. We have seen one friend after another call into question his judgment -- but also, what it is that Barack Obama really believes?"

Goaded by a Chris Matthews to explain exactly what she was talking about (at one point Bachmann seemed to imply that liberalism was anti-Americanism), the congresswoman waded deeper into the mud.

"Remember it was Michele Obama who said she is only recently proud of her country and so these are very anti-American views," she said. "That's not the way that most Americans feel about our country. Most Americans are wild about America and they are very concerned to have a president who doesn't share those values."

Matthews later pressed her to name a single member of Congress other than Obama who she thought was anti-American. Bachmann, who initially wouldn't budge, called for a major "expose" into the matter.

"What I would say is that the news media should do a penetrating expose and take a look. I wish they would. I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out if they are pro-America or anti-America," she said.

There were additional nuggets here and there. But the whole episode was a sight to behold. It is hard to imagine how this type of message actually helps the McCain campaign. For starters, there has been a relatively respected rule to leave candidate's wives out of campaign attacks. Moreover, there is already a deep resentment towards the severity of the political attacks McCain and his surrogates have launched against Barack Obama. Having a like-minded member of Congress essentially call for a witch hunt within Congress isn't the practical-minded message that the Arizona Republican wants out there....


Wow, what a looney tunes. It's like they allow anyone into the Congress these days...
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: DruulEmpire on October 19, 2008, 11:00:58 AM
Between Dearc sort of wondering "If only some clever intrepid reporter could give us the TRUTH about Ayers" over in the Joe the Plumber thread, and now this Bachmann woman, I'm finally beginning to discern the pattern:

Complaints about the "liberal elite media" are admissions that one wishes dire dirt on someone and vividly imagines secret evildoing to such an extent that the only interesting news anymore is anything suggesting or outright inventing such dirt.  All other news becomes irrelevant, and any failure to prove the suspicion true can only be due to bias, and not at all the occasional inconvenience of actual physical reality.

This has always been around, and many leftists have dug themselves deep down this same hole.  In a country where untold millions still believe Saddam's WMDs are lying around somewhere, however, this takes on a new dimension.

Criticism is fine, the kind PregNut makes is fair game.  But what are we supposed to do with "We just KNOW there must be something, why oh why can't the silly news just GIVE us what we just KNOW?"  This leads us into the same wilderness of mirrors as JFK assassination and UFO cover-up conspiracy theories.  A little more seriously, I also remember the "Satanic day-care centers" furor of the Eighties.

Oh, and the Clintons were murderers and drug smugglers.  Ahh, if only that story was not so suppressed ... *wistful sigh* ...
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: onionwriter on October 19, 2008, 11:50:02 AM
My grandfather went to high school with Joseph McCarthy.

My whole family knew Joseph McCarthy. Saw him all the time.

And yes, she is the same.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on October 19, 2008, 01:50:53 PM
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
It's like they allow anyone into the Congress these days...




They?  You mean voters?  Yah, pretty much.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: DruulEmpire on October 19, 2008, 03:10:52 PM
Two new words to add today: Colin Powell.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: 3deroticer on October 19, 2008, 04:40:51 PM
Quote:

DruulEmpire said:
Two new words to add today: Colin Powell.




I'm clean, my colonoscopy check out !! Nothing but old shit!

Remind me to never name anyone Colin!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: onionwriter on October 19, 2008, 10:49:08 PM
Snatched this from a Kansas City paper. What the hell is "growing pie"? McCain has now become as illiterate as Palin.

Are there pie trees out there? Can I buy one? I want one on my shelf, right next to my Twinkie plant.

TOLEDO, Ohio (AP) John McCain says he'll support middle-class workers and small-business owners by keeping taxes down. McCain's been campaigning today in the Columbus and Toledo areas of Ohio. He says Barack Obama "is more interested in controlling who gets your piece of the pie than he is growing the pie."
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on October 20, 2008, 02:07:33 AM
This puts paid to all attempts by the Rovians running the McCain campaign to make Obama look like someone who pals around with terrorists, who doesn't have the wherewithal to lead this country, or who is in any way not a patriotic American. His ringing and eloquent endorsement of him had me renewing my respect for Gen. Colin Powell, esp. when he brought up the "he's an Arab/Muslim" smear:

NBC's Meet the Press: "Colin Powell endorses Barack Obama for President"

Well done, sir.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: onionwriter on October 20, 2008, 02:15:35 AM
Shush - go away!

I'm watering my pie tree.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on October 20, 2008, 02:52:22 AM
It better be an apple pie tree, otherwise you're an Ay-rab.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: 3deroticer on October 20, 2008, 03:03:26 AM
I have to point out a lie! Ayers never said we didn't bomb enough! He never use the word bomb in reference to not doing enough of. What he said was that we didn't do enough to stop Vietnam war. We didn't do enough to protest the war. He lost his Girlfriend when she was making a bomb and it went off. I am really sure that he would never say we didn't bomb enough, and he also points out to the interview of his being misquoted.

Just irks me that this issue is so old that they keep repeating it, so that the average citizen began to believe it!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: onionwriter on October 20, 2008, 03:04:41 AM
The apple one is still growing; next to my Pearson's nutbar fern.

It's cherry -- hope that counts. It made me think of Washington.

Plus, it's tasty!

Unless all big boob lovers are naturally Democratic, this election is in the bag. What, 10 threads here now, and not a single positive comment?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on October 20, 2008, 03:50:43 AM
I'm saving my celebration for November 5th. Until I hear the words from McCain's gritted teeth -- "I concede" -- I will not believe it
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on October 20, 2008, 04:59:01 AM
An interesting comment from a blog that I went to for the first time ever today:
Quote:


As a white male Republican from Arizona who makes 250,000+ annually and was in the military, I went into this election year with an absolute open mind to every canidate. Even when it came down to the final choices, Obama and McCain I stayed open minded and totally undecided as I feel that most intellegent people should do regardless of party lines until they know what each canidate is all about. As the campaign went on I slowly started to feel ashamed of my political party and my state senator for so many reasons. McCain’s choice on his running mate Sarah Palin...what?!?. I truely believe he made that decision purely to get the votes of women and those who were supporting Hilary, and he did it at the expense of our nation. Why at the expense of our nation do you ask? Palin is no where near the level of experience that one should have to be our “back-up president”. People seem to forget that she will be next in line to lead our nation if anything were to happen to McCain and that scares the hell out of me. Another thing that I have noticed as I watch the presidential race closely: Obama is talking about the issues that face our country and telling us how he intends to address those issues. McCain on the other hand has put ALOT of effort in what is obviously a “smear” campaign and has not touched on the issues that affect this country nearly as much as Obama, which has me believe that either one: McCain has no clue how to handle these issues or two he doesn’t really plan to do alot of changing in the White House and plans to continue the Bush “legacy”. Now I am not a ignorant or naive person so I am not saying that everything Obama is promising is the truth or will happen but honestly even if half of what he is saying actually comes to reality then we will be in a lot better position than we are now. While McCain on the other hand has not given me a whole lot to hope for. If I were a betting man I would say the “odds” of change for the better lie with Obama. I can go on and on about the reasons that have swayed me away from my own political party and my very on Senator but I am not trying to run a “smear campaign” here. I am simply voicing my opinions as someone who is not black, who does make over 250,000+ annually, who was in the Military, who is Republican, who is from Arizona and who might be the perfect sterotypical view of someone who would or should be voting for McCain but I am not. I am voting for OBAMA!



Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on October 20, 2008, 06:45:21 PM
I like this: for once someone uses the words the way they were meant to be used. I always am peeved when someone says "liberal" as if he means "Democrat" or "conservative" as if he means "Republican". And now, behold, that rarest of creatures: two black conservative Republicans, one who is voting for Barack and one who is a McCain supporter:

"McCain supporter storms out of CNN interview"
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: mofoapoo on October 20, 2008, 09:55:49 PM
Running away plugging your ears while singing really loud seems to be a good strategy with the republican party lately.

"What!?  Bush isn't a conservative?  Yes he is!  Want me to explain how?  Fuck you that's how!"

Replace the second sentence with anything you want to argue against, and you automatically win.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: DruulEmpire on October 20, 2008, 11:34:27 PM
I just heard something on the news:

Rednecks For Obama.

I've got to admit, I'm loving this.

Druul "imagine if they could get Gretchen Wilson" Empire
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on October 21, 2008, 09:38:11 AM
In the light of all the stupid misinformation about his religious beliefs, I was especially pleased to hear about the group "Jews for Obama"

Quote:

ESSENCE.com: Roland S. Martin: "Conservatives can't handle the truth about Powell's endorsement of Obama"

"It's because he's black."

That is such an easy - and weak - answer to give when it comes to former Secretary of State Colin Powell endorsing Sen. Barack Obama for president.

Radio blowhard Rush Limbaugh made it clear that's what he thinks; Pat Buchanan, who would [be] a leader of the White Citizens Council if this was the 1950s, said as much; and even conservative columnist George Will tried to pin that on Powell.

All are wrong.

But what is so fascinating to watch these GOP-lovin' folks, and the others who blindly follow their every word, is that they have lavished Powell with effusive praise for years because they saw him as race neutral!

Powell, and his successor as secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, have been portrayed as their kind of Republicans because theuy aren't seen as black. They sort of occupy the rareified space reserved by whites for Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan and Oprah Winfrey - African Americans who are seen as having no color (well, maybe not Oprah, who has been tagged for being a traitor for supporting Obama. Why, they say? Because he's black!).

Their reaction to Powell's endorsement is the reality of being black in America: if you do everything the way the Limbaughs, Buchanans and Wills want, you're perfectly acceptable in their world. But the moment you actually use that clear and independent mind they said they love to support the person that you think is right for the job, then it's because they are black.

I know the feeling. I get the emails from white viewers who question my skills, integrity and credibility by assigning race as the sole reason I'm on CNN. Forget the fact that I've put 17 years into this job.

Powell is a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; national security adviser; and has served on the ground with our troops. He has served directly with four presidents and knows presidential timber when he sees it.

To Limbaugh, Will and Buchanan, put your fake race analysis away and give this accomplished man his due. He made a thoughtful, careful and meticulous decision over the course of several months, and gave one of the most compelling endorsements I have ever seen. He used his intellect and knowledge of the office and tried to convey that to the nation.

Powell wasn't a black man supporting Obama. He is an American hero who has always, and will continue, to put country first.

And for him, Obama is the choice.


Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: AZWolf on October 21, 2008, 12:54:32 PM
Most everyone for Obama, excerpt perhaps the very rich.
 
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: mofoapoo on October 21, 2008, 03:55:30 PM
Quote:

AZWolf said:
Most everyone for Obama, excerpt perhaps the very rich.
 




Even some of them now that they aren't very rich anymore.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on October 21, 2008, 05:08:24 PM
Quote:

AZWolf said:
Most everyone for Obama, excerpt perhaps the very rich.
 


..except for the very rich who are without conscience. After all, the richest man in America (Warren Buffett) is largely pro-Obama, and although he personally has profited from the current economic crisis, he is famous for trying to prod his fellow denizens on the Forbes 400 Richest Americans List to pay their fair share in taxes, with his comparison to his secretary.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: SwitcherX on October 21, 2008, 09:11:27 PM
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:



..except for the very rich who are without conscience. After all, the richest man in America (Warren Buffett) is largely pro-Obama, and although he personally has profited from the current economic crisis, he is famous for trying to prod his fellow denizens on the Forbes 400 Richest Americans List to pay their fair share in taxes, with his comparison to his secretary.




...and then Buffett summoned all of his lawyers and accountants to his office and demanded to know why they hadn't figured out how he could avoid paying taxes at all.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on October 21, 2008, 09:46:51 PM
Hahaha!

23/6: "Dead Presidents Discuss the Live Ones, part 1"
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: mastert on October 22, 2008, 02:22:01 AM
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
Quote:

AZWolf said:
Most everyone for Obama, excerpt perhaps the very rich.
 


..except for the very rich who are without conscience. After all, the richest man in America (Warren Buffett) is largely pro-Obama, and although he personally has profited from the current economic crisis, he is famous for trying to prod his fellow denizens on the Forbes 400 Richest Americans List to pay their fair share in taxes, with his comparison to his secretary.




Obama has openly mentioned that he would ask Warren Buffett to be Secretary of the Treasury. I don't put much stock into it, but he'd be a damn good choice.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on October 22, 2008, 02:28:53 AM
I don't know how good he would be with handling the Dept. of the Treasury's bureaucracy, but he would be the best-qualified Secretary in history. His confirmation would be super-fast
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: mofoapoo on October 22, 2008, 05:58:38 AM
Quote:

SwitcherX said:
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:



..except for the very rich who are without conscience. After all, the richest man in America (Warren Buffett) is largely pro-Obama, and although he personally has profited from the current economic crisis, he is famous for trying to prod his fellow denizens on the Forbes 400 Richest Americans List to pay their fair share in taxes, with his comparison to his secretary.




...and then Buffett summoned all of his lawyers and accountants to his office and demanded to know why they hadn't figured out how he could avoid paying taxes at all.




Doesn't he already donate well beyond the maximum amount to write off his taxes?

I heard you can only write off something like, 15-20% of your total income as tax exempt, and I read him and Bill Gates donate well beyond that.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on October 22, 2008, 07:46:53 AM
You are correct, sir.

Quote:

Botched joke, anyone? "Barack got asked the famous boxers or briefs question," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., per PolitickerMA's Jeremy P. Jacobs. "Then they asked McCain and McCain said, 'Depends.' "


Ouch!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: SwitcherX on October 22, 2008, 09:12:38 PM
Quote:

mofoapoo said:
Doesn't he already donate well beyond the maximum amount to write off his taxes?

I heard you can only write off something like, 15-20% of your total income as tax exempt, and I read him and Bill Gates donate well beyond that.




I don't know what Buffett did, but Gates set up some charitable foundation and then dumped a bunch of his money into it.  If done 1 way, it's a great way to do charitable work.  And if done another way, it's a fabulous way to avoid paying taxes.  If done properly, it can be almost impossible to tell the ways apart.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on October 22, 2008, 09:41:08 PM
You are also correct, sir.

Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: DruulEmpire on October 22, 2008, 09:54:18 PM
Quote:

SwitcherX said:
Quote:

mofoapoo said:
Doesn't he already donate well beyond the maximum amount to write off his taxes?

I heard you can only write off something like, 15-20% of your total income as tax exempt, and I read him and Bill Gates donate well beyond that.




I don't know what Buffett did, but Gates set up some charitable foundation and then dumped a bunch of his money into it.  If done 1 way, it's a great way to do charitable work.  And if done another way, it's a fabulous way to avoid paying taxes.  If done properly, it can be almost impossible to tell the ways apart.




In fact, that's the story of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.  At first, Howard set it up to duck taxes -- but it has grown into a worthy foundation in its own right.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: pedonbio on October 23, 2008, 12:32:01 AM
Quote:

SwitcherX said:
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:



..except for the very rich who are without conscience. After all, the richest man in America (Warren Buffett) is largely pro-Obama, and although he personally has profited from the current economic crisis, he is famous for trying to prod his fellow denizens on the Forbes 400 Richest Americans List to pay their fair share in taxes, with his comparison to his secretary.




...and then Buffett summoned all of his lawyers and accountants to his office and demanded to know why they hadn't figured out how he could avoid paying taxes at all.




I'm glad, ironically, that I'm not a Baby Boomer. I'm about six weeks older than the first Boomer.

A long time ago they had such promise. They were the manpower in the demonstrations that finally ended the draft, unfortunately, and went a long way toward ending the Vietnam War.

But since then the overwhelming mass of Boomers have behaved, as one of them put it, "like the Earth is a business in liquidation."

Buffet and, much to his credit, Gates, know what the assholes don't know: If you don't pay taxes, it's only a matter of time until you live in Somalia.

So when McCain promises to lower taxes, what he means is that he wants America to look more like Somalia.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: PregNut on October 23, 2008, 04:16:51 AM
So what does it mean when someone promises to give tax refunds to those who don't pay any taxes?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: SwitcherX on October 23, 2008, 04:54:47 AM
Quote:

DruulEmpire said:
In fact, that's the story of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.  At first, Howard set it up to duck taxes -- but it has grown into a worthy foundation in its own right.




Isn't that because he didn't have a will and they people handling the money didn't know what to do with it?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on October 23, 2008, 06:11:01 AM
I dunno; let's ask the candidates and see what they say about it:

"Presidential Rap Battle round 1"
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: PregNut on October 23, 2008, 10:36:28 PM
Looks like Obama earned yet another  endorsement.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: 3deroticer on October 23, 2008, 10:57:40 PM
McCain won the endorsement from Al-Quieda!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: DruulEmpire on October 23, 2008, 11:04:57 PM
Preg, dude -- Larijani is a potential OPPONENT of Ahmadinejad.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on October 24, 2008, 09:49:21 PM
The whole world wants and is endorsing Obama, so having an Iranian opposition leader express his hopes that he wins, in a rational world, should not raise a fuss. But you can guarantee that the Palindrones out there will try and use this against him. Those nitwits can't tell the difference between Iraq and Iran anyways, so no great loss. I'm more concerned about prominent Republicans who now are endorsing Obama, the so-called "Obamacans", chief amongst whom is General Colin Powell. That should have more sway than the words of any Iranian, in my opinion.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: 3deroticer on October 24, 2008, 10:11:53 PM
Scott McClellan just now endorse O'Bama! But that will be dismiss that he get the endorsement from another Irishman!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on October 24, 2008, 10:14:33 PM
I guess it doesn't surprise me much.  Aren't most of those people slightly right of center?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: AZWolf on October 25, 2008, 11:27:10 AM
Quote:

notty said:
I guess it doesn't surprise me much.  Aren't most of those people slightly right of center?




I was once a registered Republican.  Now I'm an Independent, but left leaning.  
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on October 26, 2008, 06:48:41 AM
Yes, the New York Times has endorsed Barack Obama, not such a surprise I suppose. One of the letters to the editor put it best:
Quote:

To the Editor:

Thank you for your elegant, articulate and powerful editorial in support of Barack Obama. For many of us, this election has come to symbolize not only a vote for Mr. Obama versus John McCain, but also a vote for reason versus ignorance.

The blogs supporting Mr. McCain are filled with a rage and hatred so intense as to sear the page in front of me. The hatred whipped up at rallies and by some representatives has been truly appalling.

A vote for Mr. Obama is a vote for hope; a vote for Mr. McCain seems to have become a vote representing the worst of our extremists.

And I wonder why this should really be. They have been in power for 20 of the last 28 years.

Does anyone else wonder what the extreme right is so angry about?


Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: gOOber on October 26, 2008, 09:58:28 AM
 
Quote:

 The whole world wants and is endorsing Obama


Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on October 27, 2008, 04:18:24 AM
...er, moving right along:

Funny or Die: "The Return of Opie Cunningham"
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: gOOber on October 27, 2008, 04:38:57 PM
 
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on October 28, 2008, 06:09:33 AM
We'd better be! LOL!

"A Letter From God to American Voters"
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on October 28, 2008, 06:21:18 AM
Quote:

gOOber said:
 


Quote:

Yahoo! News: "Feds disrupt alleged plot targeting Obama"

Two white supremacists allegedly plotted to go on a national killing spree, shooting and decapitating black people and ultimately targeting Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, federal authorities said Monday.

In all, the two men whom officials described as neo-Nazi skinheads planned to kill 88 people — 14 by beheading, according to documents unsealed in U.S. District Court in Jackson, Tenn. The numbers 88 and 14 are symbolic in the white supremacist community.

The spree, which initially targeted an unidentified predominantly African-American school, was to end with the two men driving toward Obama, "shooting at him from the windows," the documents show.

"Both individuals stated they would dress in all-white tuxedos and wear top hats during the assassination attempt," the court complaint states. "Both individuals further stated they knew they would and were willing to die during this attempt."

An Obama spokeswoman traveling with the senator in Pennsylvania had no immediate comment.

Sheriffs' deputies in Crockett County, Tenn., arrested the two suspects — Daniel Cowart, 20, of Bells, Tenn., and Paul Schlesselman 18, of Helena-West Helena, Ark. — Oct. 22 on unspecified charges. "Once we arrested the defendants and suspected they had violated federal law, we immediately contacted federal authorities," said Crockett County Sheriff Troy Klyce.

The two were charged by federal authorities Monday with possessing an unregistered firearm, conspiring to steal firearms from a federally licensed gun dealer, and threatening a candidate for president.

Cowart and Schlesselman were being held without bond. Agents seized a rifle, a sawed-off shotgun and three pistols from the men when they were arrested. Authorities alleged the two men were preparing to break into a gun shop to steal more.

Jasper Taylor, city attorney in Bells, said Cowart was arrested Wednesday. He was held for a few days in Bells, then moved over the weekend to another facility.

Until his arrest, Cowart lived with his grandparents in a southern, rural part of the county, Taylor said, adding that Cowart apparently never graduated from high school. He moved away, possibly to Arkansas or Texas, then returned over the summer, Taylor said.

Attorney Joe Byrd, who has been hired to represent Cowart, said in a written statement that he was was investigating the charges against his client and would have no further comment. Messages left on two telephone numbers listed under Cowart's name were not immediately returned.

No telephone number for Schlesselman in Helena-West Helena could be found immediately.

The court documents say the two men met about a month ago on the Internet and found common ground in their shared "white power" and "skinhead" philosophy.

The numbers 14 and 88 are symbols in skinhead culture, referring to a 14-word phrase attributed to an imprisoned white supremacist: "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children" and to the eighth letter of the alphabet, H. Two "8"s or "H"s stand for "Heil Hitler."

Court records say Cowart and Schlesselman also bought nylon rope and ski masks to use in a robbery or home invasion to fund their spree, during which they allegedly planned to go from state to state and kill people. Agents said the skinheads did not name the African-American school they were targeting.

Jim Cavanaugh, special agent in charge of the Nashville, Tenn., field office for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives, said authorities took the threats very seriously.

"They said that would be their last, final act — that they would attempt to kill Sen. Obama," Cavanaugh said. "They didn't believe they would be able to do it, but that they would get killed trying."

He added: "They seemed determined to do it. Even if they were just to try it, it would be a trail of tears around the South."...


And so it begins...McCain's chickens are starting to come home to roost...
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on October 28, 2008, 06:26:26 AM
...but fortunately, some people still have a shred of decency left:
Quote:

Talking Points Memo: "Dozens Of Call Center Workers Walk Off Job In Protest Rather Than Read McCain Script Attacking Obama"

Some three dozen workers at a telemarketing call center in Indiana walked off the job rather than read an incendiary McCain campaign script attacking Barack Obama, according to two workers at the center and one of their parents.

Nina Williams, a stay-at-home mom in Lake County, Indiana, tells us that her daughter recently called her from her job at the center, upset that she had been asked to read a script attacking Obama for being "dangerously weak on crime," "coddling criminals," and for voting against "protecting children from danger."

Williams' daughter told her that up to 40 of her co-workers had refused to read the script, and had left the call center after supervisors told them that they would have to either read the call or leave, Williams says. The call center is called Americall, and it's located in Hobart, IN.

"They walked out," Williams says of her daughter and her co-workers, adding that they weren't fired but willingly sacrificed pay rather than read the lines. "They were told [by supervisors], 'If you all leave, you're not gonna get paid for the rest of the day.'"

The daughter, who wanted her name withheld fearing retribution from her employer, confirmed the story to us. "It was like at least 40 people," the daughter said. "People thought the script was nasty and they didn't wanna read it."

A second worker at the call center confirmed the episode, saying that "at least 30" workers had walked out after refusing to read the script.

"We were asked to read something saying [Obama and Democrats] were against protecting children from danger," this worker said. "I wouldn't do it. A lot of people left. They thought it was disgusting."

This worker, too, confirmed sacrificing pay to walk out, saying her supervisor told her: "If you don't wanna phone it you can just go home for the day."

The script coincided with this robo-slime call running in other states, but because robocalling is illegal in Indiana it was being read by call center workers.

Representatives at Americall in Indiana, and at the company's corporate headquarters in Naperville, Illinois, didn't return calls for comment.


Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on October 28, 2008, 06:31:08 AM
AP Fact Check: "McCain persists in exaggerations"

And that is the greatest problem with his campaign. He spends all his time telling how bad Obama is or will be, lying as he does so, and nearly no time extolling what exactly he intends to do if he would win. That's no way to run a campaign, and that's no way to run a country...and that's why, in a fair election, McCain will and should lose.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: 3deroticer on October 28, 2008, 07:15:01 AM
Hiel Hitler = 88........ Damn!

You think we could get them to say "allegiance Adolf" and get that number down to 11

I hate to see a plot to kill 88 people every time these extremist goes on the loose!

I don't know anyone who doesn't know about 88, and it kind of defeat the purpose of secrecy at this point using the number 88.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: ChrisR1 on October 28, 2008, 01:07:31 PM
The news report I watched last night said their plan was to "drive toward an event while shooting wildly out the windows of their car" - WTF kind of plan is that? What a couple of retard rednecks.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: AZWolf on October 28, 2008, 01:09:46 PM
Quote:

ChrisR1 said:
The news report I watched last night said their plan was to "drive toward an event while shooting wildly out the windows of their car" - WTF kind of plan is that? What a couple of retard rednecks.




Sounds more likely connected to Palin than McCain but...desperation.  
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: 3deroticer on October 28, 2008, 03:45:16 PM
Quote:

ChrisR1 said:
The news report I watched last night said their plan was to "drive toward an event while shooting wildly out the windows of their car" - WTF kind of plan is that? What a couple of retard rednecks.


And they will count up to 88 while randomly shoot into the crowd? I wonder if they had a ticket counter in their possesion?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: ChrisR1 on October 28, 2008, 05:10:26 PM
Quote:

3deroticer said:
Quote:

ChrisR1 said:
The news report I watched last night said their plan was to "drive toward an event while shooting wildly out the windows of their car" - WTF kind of plan is that? What a couple of retard rednecks.


And they will count up to 88 while randomly shoot into the crowd? I wonder if they had a ticket counter in their possesion?




 Hillbilly No. 1 I got 8

 Hillbilly No. 2 Me too

 Hillbilly No. 1 Alright! Eighty-eight. Get'er done!!!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: gOOber on October 28, 2008, 05:20:23 PM
 
Quote:

 And they will count up to 88 while randomly shoot into the crowd? I wonder if they had a ticket counter in their possesion?  


 
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: midsize on October 28, 2008, 06:05:24 PM
Quote:



The numbers 14 and 88 are symbols in skinhead culture, referring to a 14-word phrase attributed to an imprisoned white supremacist: "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children" and to the eighth letter of the alphabet, H. Two "8"s or "H"s stand for "Heil Hitler."
 




That's so pathetically weird. I wonder why numerology has such a powerful hold over the imaginations of people in fringe societies. Is it just a kind of secret code, like a special handshake, that marks people as in the group, or do people who cleave to such extreme ideas also tend toward superstition?

I noticed recently that US highway 666 in New Mexico has been renumbered -- sad.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: DruulEmpire on October 28, 2008, 08:30:43 PM
I believe it has more to do with numbers being used so frequently in our society that they can help to create a sense of eerie coincidence.  If you're FBI, you feel extra alert round about Hitler's birthday, because these guys like to try to make shit happen round about then.

This is the sort of numerology that reminds me of "Jonathan Doe" in "Seven," who specifically wants to leave behind some statement about sin.  However, Doe must be about a zillion times smarter than these guys.

The "88" code has been in use for many years, but going for 88 sounds more like braggadocio than anything else.

As for fourteen, let me try something: "We must secure the future existence of white people and our children."  Let's see, I think that pretty well covers everything and is only twelve words.  You would think they wouldn't need those last two killings just because they're redundant.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: PregNut on October 28, 2008, 11:47:09 PM
More  morons.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: evilkirk on October 29, 2008, 12:34:57 AM
From the Vancouver Sun.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: pedonbio on October 29, 2008, 12:43:29 AM
That's really funny.


Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: DruulEmpire on October 29, 2008, 08:30:06 AM
Preg, if this is true -- and that question has to be asked, after my own hometown had to put up with the Ashley Todd fiasco -- then the couple described ought to be caught, and deserve the scrutiny of the "mainstream media" mentioned at the story's end.

For a vast majority of Americans, I'd say that the principle of an election going ahead without violence against supporters on either side is about as uncontroversial an idea as you can find.

Meanwhile, I happen to applaud a report I just saw by "mainstream media" TV reporter Brian Ross.  It didn't tell us much more about the Supreme White Alliance than we could guess -- but it was a fascinating study in how a man who's a big badass in private gets ambivalent about questions in public, possibly because he has never in his life bothered to ask himself any such questions.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: MasterDragonfly on October 29, 2008, 12:20:43 PM
 Yes We Can video.

I don't think I've seen this speech previously which Obama is doing in this video, but I found it quite captivating/touching (such as I was able to grok).  The artsy add-ons of music/singing were a nice touch, although I would have preferred more Obama and less musicians.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: PET on October 29, 2008, 02:33:58 PM
are US citizens going to vote now, when everything seems to be a done deal?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Hiram on October 29, 2008, 03:53:01 PM
What about the 30 minute commercial, its not been on yet?

Having watched a few McCain and Obama speeches, I'm fairly confident I'd go for Obama if I had the vote.

I see McCain as BushII, I don't think the world needs that right now.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on October 30, 2008, 01:51:09 AM
Quote:

PET said:
are US citizens going to vote now, when everything seems to be a done deal?


Nothing is a done deal, and until the swearing-in in January 2009, I'm not going to be able to relax. Eight years ago, we saw what happened. Without constant vigilance that sort of thing can always re-occur.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on October 30, 2008, 01:59:01 AM
Quote:

MasterDragonfly: I don't think I've seen this speech previously which Obama is doing in this video, but I found it quite captivating/touching (such as I was able to grok).


I can't remember which speech it is from, I think it was from his speech soon after he started his head-to-head campaigning against Hillary Clinton.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on October 30, 2008, 02:01:31 AM
Quote:

Hiram: What about the 30 minute commercial, its not been on yet?


This being the Obama campaign, you know it's going to be also up on the Internet.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on October 30, 2008, 02:06:23 AM
Talk about plucky Yankee practicality:

The Times of London: "'Obama looks like a terrorist but I'll vote for him anyway'"

And here's the other side of the aspirational Obama story:

The Times of London: "Found in a rundown Boston estate: Barack Obama's aunt Zeituni Onyango"
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on October 30, 2008, 06:57:50 AM
Barack vs. Michelle: The Ellen deGeneres Dance-Off!

Nice to see the candidates talk about the real issues, such as, does he have boogie shoes? Can he out-breakdance the Iranian president? Will John McCain get his groove on too? etc. etc.

-- TheZookie "bust a move...bust a muthafuckin' move!" 007
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: gOOber on October 30, 2008, 07:20:02 AM
Fascinating!

 
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: PET on October 30, 2008, 08:18:28 AM
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
Quote:

PET said:
are US citizens going to vote now, when everything seems to be a done deal?


Nothing is a done deal, and until the swearing-in in January 2009, I'm not going to be able to relax. Eight years ago, we saw what happened. Without constant vigilance that sort of thing can always re-occur.




good to know....we dont want the same thing again..the person who won didnt win....strange system, in my world most votes win.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: gOOber on October 30, 2008, 11:49:49 AM
 
Quote:

in my world most votes win.  


Where's the fun in that?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: pedonbio on October 30, 2008, 01:10:20 PM
Quote:

PET said:
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
Quote:

PET said:
are US citizens going to vote now, when everything seems to be a done deal?


Nothing is a done deal, and until the swearing-in in January 2009, I'm not going to be able to relax. Eight years ago, we saw what happened. Without constant vigilance that sort of thing can always re-occur.




good to know....we dont want the same thing again..the person who won didnt win....strange system, in my world most votes win.




Good grief! Where's the fun in that? It sounds so-o-o-o predictable!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: PET on October 31, 2008, 10:01:20 AM
Quote:

pedonbio said:
Quote:

PET said:
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
Quote:

PET said:
are US citizens going to vote now, when everything seems to be a done deal?


Nothing is a done deal, and until the swearing-in in January 2009, I'm not going to be able to relax. Eight years ago, we saw what happened. Without constant vigilance that sort of thing can always re-occur.




good to know....we dont want the same thing again..the person who won didnt win....strange system, in my world most votes win.




Good grief! Where's the fun in that? It sounds so-o-o-o predictable!




you have to learn, everything in life cant be just fun, sometimes things have to be adressed serious as well...or not....youre %¤##@ election and your *&"%#@ finical status have made my few earned money worthless, so I think the whole world should be able to vote in U.S., couse it have a profound impact on us non U.S. members as well...
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: AZWolf on October 31, 2008, 12:50:10 PM
I already voted for Obama.  Sick of the wealth migrating upward.  
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: SwitcherX on October 31, 2008, 08:55:36 PM
Quote:

PET said:
....strange system, in my world most votes win.




In America most electoral votes wins.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: SwitcherX on October 31, 2008, 08:56:36 PM
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:The Times of London: "'Obama looks like a terrorist but I'll vote for him anyway'"




How could he be a terrorist?  Just look at him:

 
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: pedonbio on October 31, 2008, 09:24:57 PM
Quote:

SwitcherX said:
Quote:

PET said:
....strange system, in my world most votes win.




In America most electoral votes wins.




True.

PET, every country has quirks that come from whatever history has made it what it is today. For example, in Britain the electoral districts have very uneven populations. One vote in Cornwall may have five or ten times the electoral power of a vote in London. Here in the US we would find that disproportion to be unconscionable; Brits don't seem to mind.

One problem that Americans have is thinking that "democracy" means the same thing everywhere. If I were a teacher, I would assign my class to write an essay about free speech. America, Britain, France, and Germany all think they have "free speech", but when you compare them, they have completely different ideas. For example, the SCOTUS has declared that naked titties or money can be "free speech", but naked kiddi3s aren't. On the other hand, folks in Germany go to jail for what American courts consider to be protected political advocacy. And the French? Ah, who can understand the French?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: PET on November 01, 2008, 01:13:57 AM
Quote:

pedonbio said:
Quote:

SwitcherX said:
Quote:

PET said:
....strange system, in my world most votes win.




In America most electoral votes wins.




True.

PET, every country has quirks that come from whatever history has made it what it is today. For example, in Britain the electoral districts have very uneven populations. One vote in Cornwall may have five or ten times the electoral power of a vote in London. Here in the US we would find that disproportion to be unconscionable; Brits don't seem to mind.

One problem that Americans have is thinking that "democracy" means the same thing everywhere. If I were a teacher, I would assign my class to write an essay about free speech. America, Britain, France, and Germany all think they have "free speech", but when you compare them, they have completely different ideas. For example, the SCOTUS has declared that naked titties or money can be "free speech", but naked kiddi3s aren't. On the other hand, folks in Germany go to jail for what American courts consider to be protected political advocacy. And the French? Ah, who can understand the French?




you are correct - Who can understand the French? they dosent even understand themshelf..
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: AZWolf on November 01, 2008, 10:52:14 AM
Heh.  If you think the French stand here to defend this stance, I snicker in your general direction.  
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on November 02, 2008, 01:07:36 AM
Quote:

The Village Voice: "Spoofing Shepard Fairey's Obama "Hope" Posters

Shepard Fairey's Barack "Hope" design might be 2008’s most seminal image—his nomination in TIME's Top 100 Most Influential People poll is most certainly forthcoming. But the poster's also become a hugely popular design to lampoon. Here're the best 25 parodies out there.


Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on November 02, 2008, 04:42:19 AM
Quote:

Yahoo! News: "Cautious joy as blacks imagine Obama win"

...Michael Cornwell, a surgeon from Atlanta, checks poll numbers daily online and fully expects Obama to win. Still, "you can't shake the tension," he said.

"We're expecting something to come out, some closing of the polls," Cornwell said on Thursday. "I see these Republican-driven articles saying the polls are tightening. Are they correct, or are they just a combination of Republicans wanting to make it look good and the media wanting it to be a tight race so more of the population will be engaged or buying copy?"...

Even if the polls do prove accurate and Obama does win, some of his enthusiastic supporters still have concerns about what lies beyond the mountaintop.

"The empire is in decline, the culture is in decay, the democracy is in trouble, financial markets near collapse," said Princeton professor Cornel West. "It's almost Biblical. And you can imagine what the black brothers and sisters in the barbershops and beauty salons say: 'Right when the thing is about to go under, they hand it over to the black man.'"...


Brother West has a point there
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on November 02, 2008, 05:04:51 AM
I'm weary of this election.  I'm so worn down by the endless coverage that I don't even care what happens this Tuesday.  Bah, humbug.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: SwitcherX on November 02, 2008, 06:10:32 AM
You're apathy arouses me.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on November 02, 2008, 07:56:34 AM
Yes, it arouses me to anger. Anyone who has the right to vote and refuses to exercise it insults the memory of people who gave their lives in order for them to have that right. It also insults the memory of people in other countries around the world who had that right forcibly taken away from them, and who would do anything to be able to vote yet cannot.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: BarnacleBill on November 02, 2008, 08:05:19 AM
If God intended for people to vote, He would've given them candidates.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: DruulEmpire on November 02, 2008, 09:28:37 AM
You're weary of the coverage?  Heck, at least you can turn the coverage off.  I'm weary of the ROBOCALLS.  The Reps manage to get one or two a day onto my machine.  If I were a swing voter, that tactic would inspire me to swing, all right -- AGAINST them.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Bonecracker on November 02, 2008, 01:35:25 PM
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
Yes, it arouses me to anger. Anyone who has the right to vote and refuses to exercise it insults the memory of people who gave their lives in order for them to have that right. It also insults the memory of people in other countries around the world who had that right forcibly taken away from them, and who would do anything to be able to vote yet cannot.


Dear Zook, Knotty et al;

Don't be apathetic, chaps!  This election is going to have the highest voter turnout in decades thus making it one of the more interesting to watch (and participate in) and proving that afteer 8 years of fascism, democracy can make a comeback.

And that is no slight against McCain.  He deserves our votes for picking a running mate with tits and a smokin' body!

BRGDS

Bone...  
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on November 02, 2008, 03:23:11 PM
Quote:

DruulEmpire said:
You're weary of the coverage?  Heck, at least you can turn the coverage off.  I'm weary of the ROBOCALLS.  The Reps manage to get one or two a day onto my machine.  If I were a swing voter, that tactic would inspire me to swing, all right -- AGAINST them.




Oh, yah, I forgot to mention the robocalls, the junk mail, the activists standing on street corners, the bumperstickers, the 30 minute infomercials, the public service announcements, and the conversations initiated by family, friends, acquaitances, and random strangers...
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on November 02, 2008, 03:24:12 PM
Quote:

BarnacleBill said:
If God intended for people to vote, He would've given them candidates.




LOL!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on November 02, 2008, 03:38:00 PM
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
Yes, it arouses me to anger. Anyone who has the right to vote and refuses to exercise it insults the memory of people who gave their lives in order for them to have that right. It also insults the memory of people in other countries around the world who had that right forcibly taken away from them, and who would do anything to be able to vote yet cannot.




You misunderstand me, as usual.  I am voting, but I don't much care about the outcome.  Old Guy vs. Chope Guy.  Whatever, let's just finish this puppy.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on November 02, 2008, 03:38:36 PM
Quote:

SwitcherX said:
You're apathy arouses me.




You are still in the dog house.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: collared_cherri on November 02, 2008, 04:19:22 PM
Quote:

notty said:
I'm weary of this election.  I'm so worn down by the endless coverage that I don't even care what happens this Tuesday.  Bah, humbug.




I have boobies.  Come play with them.  
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on November 02, 2008, 04:26:11 PM
Quote:

collared_cherri said:
I have boobies.  Come play with them.  




Now that's a proper way to spend a Tuesday.  *hops in the car*
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: DruulEmpire on November 02, 2008, 05:17:16 PM
Quote:

notty said:
Quote:

DruulEmpire said:
You're weary of the coverage?  Heck, at least you can turn the coverage off.  I'm weary of the ROBOCALLS.  The Reps manage to get one or two a day onto my machine.  If I were a swing voter, that tactic would inspire me to swing, all right -- AGAINST them.




Oh, yah, I forgot to mention the robocalls, the junk mail, the activists standing on street corners, the bumperstickers, the 30 minute infomercials, the public service announcements, and the conversations initiated by family, friends, acquaitances, and random strangers...




Well, let's see -- the junk mail is as easily chucked as leaving the coverage off, and I actually wanted to catch the one infomercial I'm aware of but never got to, plus I must be lucky -- especially for a Pennsylvanian -- in that I haven't bumped up yet against street corner activists (is Spatula City in a swing state? ).

But I'll grant you that there are too damn many public service announcements, enough to make you want to do nothing but check out the Cartoon Network for "The Venture Brothers."  "The Daily Show" made good parody of that, comparing the Obama campaign to some weird remake of the movie "Brewster's Millions."  (Eh, I got a kick out of that.)

Can't help you with bumper stickers, though -- at that point, we're not talking about coverage of the campaign, we're talking about its EXISTENCE.  In fact, I'll see your bumper stickers and raise you a whole other medium -- LAWN SIGNS.  There's been quite a war of paper in my neighborhood.  (This has also admittedly been a bad year for stickers -- I still miss "Gore Lieberman 5761" and "ReDefeat Bush.")

And believe it or not, you're not alone on the family front.  My homefront was "YOU MUST SUPPORT HILLARY."  My sister got to lead the curve by silently supporting Obama -- while conveniently living in another state.

But ultimately, I've got to confess that cherri's offer is untrumpable.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on November 02, 2008, 06:36:15 PM
Quote:

DruulEmpire said:
And believe it or not, you're not alone on the family front.  My homefront was "YOU MUST SUPPORT HILLARY."  My sister got to lead the curve by silently supporting Obama -- while conveniently living in another state.




My step-dad is black, hence, both he and my mother are voting for Obama.  They do not know that I am probably not voting for him.  Consequently, whenever they try to draw me into a political conversation, AWKWARD!  I don't have the heart to tell them that I just don't find the guy very compelling.  But...I can say the one thing I will look forward to on election day is their jubilation over Obama's victory.  I'll put on my happy face for them and pretend like everything is great.  They deserve that much, I suppose.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: gOOber on November 02, 2008, 06:58:19 PM
Quote:

notty said:
Quote:

DruulEmpire said:
And believe it or not, you're not alone on the family front.  My homefront was "YOU MUST SUPPORT HILLARY."  My sister got to lead the curve by silently supporting Obama -- while conveniently living in another state.




My step-dad is black, hence, both he and my mother are voting for Obama.  They do not know that I am probably not voting for him.  Consequently, whenever they try to draw me into a political conversation, AWKWARD!  I don't have the heart to tell them that I just don't find the guy very compelling.  But...I can say the one thing I will look forward to on election day is their jubilation over Obama's victory.  I'll put on my happy face for them and pretend like everything is great.  They deserve that much, I suppose.




Just saying.  
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on November 02, 2008, 07:28:55 PM
Ah, the "even if you don't like Obama you should vote against McCain" argument.  I haven't heard that one before.  

Okay, since I'm an undecided voter two days before the election, make your best pitch, Obama people.  Impress me!  Win my vote!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: SwitcherX on November 02, 2008, 08:15:18 PM
Quote:

notty said:
Quote:

SwitcherX said:
You're apathy arouses me.




You are still in the dog house.




want me to sniff your crotch?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: DruulEmpire on November 02, 2008, 08:41:10 PM
I guess I'm an "Obama person," though I backed into it -- I was for Biden first (so I'm pleased he's back), then I wanted Edwards (before he proved to suffer that dreary typical Clinton-style tendency to dip his quill in the wrong inkwell), and then I did back Hillary (my father is a former university history department chairman, and he still teaches, so it's easy to yield to him) -- but now I've come to back Obama, though for reasons which might alarm my parents.

But, Not (may I call you Not?), I'm going to try to resist the ego trip of assuming you're some blank slate waiting for the right bromide or jingle from me to turn you around 180 degrees, if only because I recall your claiming that you picked out a single passage from his "Hope" book and concluded that he could only be the appearance of a blank slate.  If you find that one datum just too damning, then any counterclaims are going to seem pointless.

(Everyone please wait -- more coming via editing -- )

The funny thing is, just now I was flipping around cable and I settled on TV One.  TV One is a black-oriented channel which I frankly hardly ever look at -- but it had an hour coming up of one Roland S. Martin (there's a TV fisherman Roland Martin who fished with Bush, so I guess the distinctive S. is important) asking questions of his own and his audience's of Obama.

Now, you might expect that this would be nothing but a sunny smiling infomercial lovefest, but in fact it was one of the better interviews I've seen -- not because Martin is that great, but because Obama seemed much more freed up than we usually see and hear him.  He was asked how he could balance being for "black issues" and issues from the rest of us, and he replied that there are aspects of being African-American which are universally positive assets, such as a deep and progressive faith.  At the same time, though, he said that the culture needs some housecleaning, and he immediately went to the issue of homophobia.  He said it should be possible to have both progressive politics as well as the Sermon on the Mount.

In other words, there are indeed particulars to this man for anyone with the genuine curiosity to listen for them -- much as McCain made for a fascinating profile in October's Atlantic Monthly, one which made it all the sadder for me to realize that I can't elect a man who ultimately seems to believe that any ground won in Iraq somehow conveys victory backwards in time to Vietnam.

Not, I can't speak to or for all the people who for you are ultimately detractors -- the street corner activists, the giggly young "true believers," those in your family who are basically thinking "At last, one of ours is getting in."  But for whatever it could be worth, I can tell you what I see.

Is he the next FDR?  I think he's ultimately, for all the hype, too centrist for that -- and that may be a shame, because we may be due for an FDR.  Is he the next JFK?  In obvious ways, of course not -- he's no Naval hero, he never wrote anything to rank with "Why England **84**" or "Profiles in Courage."

(sorry, everyone, still working on this -- more yet to edit -- )

But he DOES remind me of JFK in terms of the sheer acuity and scope of mind and facility with ideas, which become all the more clear in a more open than usual setting like that TV One interview.  I'm not talking about his character, I'm not talking about his niceness -- we're electing a bureaucrat, not a Pope.  I'm talking raw talent.

I find that important.  Biden is only partly right, he will be tested -- but not just because he's some "test magnet."  He'll be tested because the test has already begun, at the hands of Bush leaving.  In times like this, I think of how we lucked out getting Kennedy to lead us during the Cuban missile crisis.  It's a crisis worth studying.  Kennedy got together a council, he stood alone against an immense military push to launch World War Three, he was up against a Kremlin divided against itself, and he navigated an intricate and delicate path towards -- not much, but hell, at least it wasn't World War Three.

And that's what I see when I see Obama, very much that same style, that same attitude.  I think we need that back.

There's been a lot of hype about change.  I think the man is really quite centrist, and that we may really not get ENOUGH change.  And of course, of course, at some point he'll break our hearts, they all do.  But as much as I would appreciate change, there's a bigger reason I'm voting for him.

I'm voting for him to keep the hell alive.

(All right, that's it.  Done editing.)

(Eh -- sort of.  By the way, midsize makes a good point too. )
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: BarnacleBill on November 02, 2008, 08:41:44 PM
Hey notty, you are an amazing woman, and so I'm not offended at all if your better senses lead you to rise above all this bullshit.  I do believe that some people are just plain better than all the rest of us and those people (like you) should not be bothered with the sticky, incompetent fumblings of the rest of these fools.

  However, that being said, please vote Obama if you do vote.  Why?

1.  The Repubs were in total power (Pres, House, Senate) from 2000-2006.  What can you or anyone point to during those years that was a positive accomplishment?

2.  Obama is truly from the grassroots community organizer level.  He is not a political shill or hack.  He has seen and led grassroots change.  Its not just bullshit.  

3.  How great would it be to send a message to the world, that America's biggest skeleton in the closet (racism) has just been dealt a possibly fatal blow when we elect a half-black man?

4.  Obama is not owned/controlled by Big Business. The entire Republican party is. True, obama must "play by the rules" of Big Business, but obama will play hardball.

5.  Obama will really try to do some historical stuff, some kind of healthcare reform, maybe tax reform, Obama will try to really change things.  McCain will only try to spread the war to Iran probably.

6.  Do you want Sarah Palin a heartbeat away from the Presidency?

cheers, and do whatever you feel.  I trust the instincts of notty far more than i trust the workings of bureaucratic washington.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: midsize on November 02, 2008, 08:57:39 PM
Fill in the blank:

If you don't already know why you should vote for ___________, you probably shouldn't.

It's not that tough a decision. Vote for the candidate whose politics best agree with yours. If none of them do at all, stay home.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on November 02, 2008, 09:05:24 PM
Quote:

midsize said:
If none of them do at all, stay home.




If I stay home, TheZookie's head might explode.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on November 02, 2008, 09:15:13 PM
BarnacleBill, I love your endless flattery!  You are probably my favorite male specimen on the boards.

But truly, I'm no big whup.  Just a girl with anger issues and a fetish for massive breasts.

Anyway, you make some excellent points.  I'm not really convinced Obama will do much of what he claims he will do, but I do believe he will not do what he says he will not do which might do well enough.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: midsize on November 02, 2008, 09:18:51 PM
Quote:

notty said:
Quote:

midsize said:
If none of them do at all, stay home.




If I stay home, TheZookie's head might explode.




The Zookie is a many-headed beast, and as fast as you cut them off, they regenerate  
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Bonecracker on November 02, 2008, 09:24:48 PM
 Gadzooks, folks, he's right!  I can't believe I missed that all this time.

Cheekiest regards,

Bone...  
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: midsize on November 02, 2008, 09:31:14 PM
Seriously, though...

People get too hung up on trying to make the exactly right decision about presidential candidates, when there isn't one. In the end, McCain's tax plan vs Obama's tax plan isn't really going to affect you that much, nor probably any other detail of their proposals. Neither one will 'save' America, nor will either one 'destroy' it.

However, it's clear from the last 8 years that the President's overall ideology can have a huge effect on the country. For those who love W, he's done a great job because he's done what they wanted done. For the rest, well...

That's what I mean about choosing the one whose politics match yours. Nobody can convince you to vote for Obama; you have to make up your mind what you believe, what you want done with the powers of the Presidency, then choose the candidate who you think comes closest to that. You have to convince yourself to vote for Obama. If you can't, then you shouldn't. The challenge isn't to choose the 'right' one, it's to make your decision for the right reasons
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on November 02, 2008, 09:46:00 PM
Dru...may I call you Dru?  

TheZookie already chastized me for taking the blank screen comment out of context, although when he posted the entire paragraph, I didn't see much improvement.  Not damning, just not for me...

Anyway, thank you for the thoughtful reply.  I wasn't around for FDR or JFK, and I'm a devout atheist, but the other points you make seem reasonable.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on November 02, 2008, 09:51:54 PM
Quote:

midsize said:
Nobody can convince you to vote for Obama; you have to make up your mind what you believe, what you want done with the powers of the Presidency, then choose the candidate who you think comes closest to that. You have to convince yourself to vote for Obama. If you can't, then you shouldn't. The challenge isn't to choose the 'right' one, it's to make your decision for the right reasons




It's a pity not everyone feels this way.  The last few months might've been tolerable.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: midsize on November 02, 2008, 10:01:40 PM
The good news is that the 2012 campaign will last even longer. It'll start next Wednesday.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: BarnacleBill on November 03, 2008, 01:40:12 AM
true about the 2012 campaign, but it won't be as big a deal as  this one because we'll already know one of the candidates

@ notty, i'm really not trying to be complete brown-nosing ass-kissing suck-up to you.  I just think its obvious that you are smarter, more attractive, more witty and more honest than 99.9999% of the human population.  And I'm Captain Obvious for even bringing it up.  
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: mofoapoo on November 03, 2008, 06:22:26 PM
Hey Notty, you live in MI if I remember correctly, right?

Obama is winning by more than 10 points, so it's not as much of a factor.  What really is a factor is vote yes on prop 2.

Seriously.  Do it.  It's great.  They give you candy if you vote yes.  Also, you are a communist if you don't vote yes.  Also a terrorist.  A terrorist communist.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: 3deroticer on November 03, 2008, 07:24:55 PM
LOL!!

Giving her own best medicine are you MoFo?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: gOOber on November 03, 2008, 08:16:17 PM
Quote:

midsize said:
The good news is that the 2012 campaign will last even longer. It'll start next Wednesday.


POTUS 2012

 
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: pedonbio on November 03, 2008, 08:34:07 PM
Quote:

midsize said:

People get too hung up on trying to make the exactly right decision about presidential candidates, when there isn't one. In the end, McCain's tax plan vs Obama's tax plan isn't really going to affect you that much, nor probably any other detail of their proposals. Neither one will 'save' America, nor will either one 'destroy' it.

 




On the other hand, the person who would be most affected by having his taxes raised by the Obama proposal, Warren Buffet, is for it, and his reasons are worth considering. When a politician talks about cutting overall taxes, he's talking about making our country more like Somalia.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: pedonbio on November 03, 2008, 08:37:09 PM
Quote:

gOOber said:
Quote:

midsize said:
The good news is that the 2012 campaign will last even longer. It'll start next Wednesday.


POTUS 2012

   




Geeze, gOOber, some people will do anything to get elected! Willie with a haircut? Shee-it!!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: espy on November 03, 2008, 08:44:31 PM
Quote:

AZWolf said:
I already voted for Obama.  Sick of the wealth migrating upward.  



Spoken like a true underachiever  

Actually, wealth redistribution just means the wealthy have to work harder to get it back from the less-than-wealthy.  For the most part, people's net worth is not accidental.  If you threw all the money into one big pot and divided it up equally, it would just be a matter of time before the rich got rich again and the poor got poor again.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on November 03, 2008, 10:10:24 PM
Quote:

mofoapoo said:
Hey Notty, you live in MI if I remember correctly, right?

Obama is winning by more than 10 points, so it's not as much of a factor.  What really is a factor is vote yes on prop 2.

Seriously.  Do it.  It's great.  They give you candy if you vote yes.  Also, you are a communist if you don't vote yes.  Also a terrorist.  A terrorist communist.




Is that the proposition regarding stem cells, or the one about medical mary jane?  Knowing you, probably the latter.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: gOOber on November 03, 2008, 10:41:00 PM
 
Quote:

 Geeze, gOOber, some people will do anything to get elected! Willie with a haircut? Shee-it!!  


The legal weed will be worth it.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: midsize on November 04, 2008, 12:08:46 AM
Quote:

espy said:
Spoken like a true underachiever  

Actually, wealth redistribution just means the wealthy have to work harder to get it back from the less-than-wealthy.  For the most part, people's net worth is not accidental.  If you threw all the money into one big pot and divided it up equally, it would just be a matter of time before the rich got rich again and the poor got poor again.




That argument, as stated, has two major logical flaws.

1) It implies that the current rich will regain their wealth if it is taken from them. Saying that there will always be rich and poor is different from saying that the same people will always be rich and the same ones poor. If you put all the money together in a pot, some people might well get more of it, but it wouldn't necessarily be the same ones who have more of it now. Your argument holds only for the self-made rich who did not benefit from any chance or coincidence of social trends. For example, had Bill Gates been 10 years older or younger than he is, he might never have made a fortune, as he would have been out of synch with the emerging microcomputer industry. Certainly there is no expectation that inherited wealth would be reclaimed. Your argument assumes the existence of a hyper-deterministic meritocracy for which the evidence is spotty.

2) The logical construction of your argument is as follows: people differ in their desire and ability to acquire wealth; wealth will accrue to those with superior desire and ability to acquire it; therefore disparities between rich and poor are inevitable. However, as you've phrased it, you omit the 2nd step of the logic. Your statement is true only if wealth is distributed according to rapacity.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: mofoapoo on November 04, 2008, 01:27:57 AM
Quote:

Is that the proposition regarding stem cells, or the one about medical mary jane?  Knowing you, probably the latter.




Prop 1 is about the medical marijuana, and polls show that is winning by like, 10 points.  So I'm not worried about that one.

But yeah, prop 2 is about legalizing the research of embryonic stem cells that would've been destroyed after artificial pregnancies.  That's the close one, and the crazy medical schools like U of M and MSU and Wayne would get a lot of good research done.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: PregNut on November 04, 2008, 01:40:50 AM
Isn't Willie a Democrat?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Real on November 04, 2008, 03:12:07 AM
Quote:

espy said:
Spoken like a true underachiever  

Actually, wealth redistribution just means the wealthy have to work harder to get it back from the less-than-wealthy.  For the most part, people's net worth is not accidental.  If you threw all the money into one big pot and divided it up equally, it would just be a matter of time before the rich got rich again and the poor got poor again.




lol, you dont know very many trust fund k!ds do you?

plus there are plenty of other extenuating circumstances.  like depending on where you live being a non skilled worker could mean 25k janitor or 125k on the oil rigs.  and the fact that denying the systemic detriment being born into poverty puts on a person is completely ignorant...
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on November 04, 2008, 04:34:58 AM
Quote:

mofoapoo said:
Prop 1 is about the medical marijuana, and polls show that is winning by like, 10 points.  So I'm not worried about that one.

But yeah, prop 2 is about legalizing the research of embryonic stem cells that would've been destroyed after artificial pregnancies.  That's the close one, and the crazy medical schools like U of M and MSU and Wayne would get a lot of good research done.




Noted.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Bonecracker on November 04, 2008, 04:52:25 AM
 Dear Goob,
I'd vote for him... even if he would likely legalize pot and outlaw the IRS!!  Wait a minute, there's no down side to that equation!

Bone...
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: AZWolf on November 04, 2008, 01:53:00 PM
Barak Obama will stop the rich from sucking the life of the middle class and investing class.  Oh yeah.   Let the middle class roll.  
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: mofoapoo on November 04, 2008, 04:40:44 PM
Quote:

AZWolf said:
Barak Obama will stop the rich from sucking the life of the middle class and investing class.  Oh yeah.   Let the middle class roll.  




That is OBVIOUSLY a socalist, marxist idea.  How dare you not let the upper class run rampant and exploit people!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on November 04, 2008, 05:48:11 PM
...especially since I hope in the very near future to actually become a member of the upper class!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: AZWolf on November 04, 2008, 09:03:24 PM
I'll be happy to be a real member of the middle class.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Bonecracker on November 04, 2008, 09:27:44 PM
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
...especially since I hope in the very near future to actually become a member of the upper class!




Meh, I wold just like to be dirty rotten stinking filthy rich.  And humble!  
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Real on November 05, 2008, 03:14:39 AM
wow.

i cant believe he's actually going to win. and quite handily from the looks of it.

black president of the us.  trippy....
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on November 05, 2008, 04:15:31 AM
It appears you got your man.  Congrats.
Title: President-Elect Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on November 05, 2008, 04:19:23 AM
The earth has shifted.
Title: Re: President-Elect Barack Obama
Post by: mastert on November 05, 2008, 04:40:37 AM
THERE IS A GOD!!!!!

The concession speech by John McCain was extraordinary. If he had spoke to Americans like that instead of that awful divisive tone, he would probably be the president-elect right now.

I got chills watching especially older African American people crying thinking they would NEVER see a African American president. I wonder what MLK would say if he was still on this earth?

The crowd in Chicago is nothing I've ever seen. I wish I could be there.

I now hope that the democrats won't go on a power trip.
Title: Re: President-Elect Barack Obama
Post by: 3deroticer on November 05, 2008, 05:09:36 AM
The paper shredder truck is park outside Dick Cheney office, and the fire truck is standing by for more office fires!
Title: Re: President-Elect Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on November 05, 2008, 05:49:43 AM
That's exactly what I'm afraid of. All this work will be for naught if the evil that was done in secret by the Bush 43 administration is never brought to light and the perps punished. I think that now-world-infamous "undisclosed location" is getting pretty crowded now, with the likes of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, etc. hiding out.

Me, I'm just happy that there was no October surprise this time around, with no conveniently-leaked tape from Osama bin Laden, nor any sudden capture of major terrorists.
Title: Re: President-Elect Barack Obama *DELETED*
Post by: gOOber on November 05, 2008, 06:28:18 AM
Post deleted by gOOber
Title: Re: President-Elect Barack Obama
Post by: 3deroticer on November 05, 2008, 06:30:41 AM
I guess some moderator object to pointing out the historical significant of a minority president?

I didn't tag this place as being racist

I hope I am wrong about that!
Title: Re: President-Elect Barack Obama
Post by: Hiram on November 05, 2008, 07:16:21 AM
Congratulations to president elect Obama.
Clearly a brighter man than who preceded him.  

You have to give a person who comes from a broken home credit for getting to the presidency. It certainly shows his determination to overcome adversary, but determination probably wasn’t enough, he’d have to have been pretty clever to get from where he started to where he’s ended.

I suspect the US will turn slightly socialist over the next few years... which is going to be interesting.
 
OK, he is black, never really an issue for me, but I’m glad you’ve got the monkey off your back of the first black president.
Title: Re: President-Elect Barack Obama
Post by: 3deroticer on November 05, 2008, 07:44:41 AM
He could have work in a prestigious law firm at $100,000 income the first year. He had all the offer for coming at the top of his class from Harvard. But to get the funding for college was an agreement that he would serve the public. It was there that he met Michelle who was a year ahead of Barack and was to serve to be Barack Mentor in the program.

If Barack serves the presidency well, we may never want to go back. Maybe it takes a minority to not ignore all Americans when it comes to representing everyone. His acceptance speech pretty much undid the last 8 years of all Bush's speech.

I wouldn't use the term Monkey? but certainly may change the face of the black plight as we think of it now. Also the "Black Tax" and for the first time the phrase "once you go black, you don't want to go back" could be a wish for the 2012 race. I think he will do fine as our 44th president!
Title: Re: President-Elect Barack Obama
Post by: BarnacleBill on November 05, 2008, 07:45:52 AM
Rosa sat, so that Martin could march, so that barack could fly.

WE HAVE OVERCOME
Title: Re: President-Elect Barack Obama *DELETED*
Post by: DruulEmpire on November 05, 2008, 01:00:50 PM
I just want to take this moment to thank contributors to this thread, two in particular -- gOOber and Notty.  I will always remember his very candid opening post for this thread -- as well as his ongoing candor about, say, dominatrix-style lust for Sarah Palin.  And Notty (and yes, she can call me Dru -- after all, when I mail something to Vixen, I'm usually "Drew L'Empire" ) dared us to convince her -- but she did both ask for it and sit still for it, and that is a degree of integrity too many of us are not up to.

And I've other thoughts -- but this seemed to be the most important thing to acknowledge here.
Title: Re: President-Elect Barack Obama *DELETED*
Post by: evilkirk on November 05, 2008, 01:15:34 PM
Even Hagar was ready for change.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: boobies lover on November 05, 2008, 03:50:04 PM
Quote:

Bonecracker said:
 Dear Goob,
I'd vote for him... even if he would likely legalize pot and outlaw the IRS!!  Wait a minute, there's no down side to that equation!

Bone...





could not agree more..  

change has won.. now lets see the action of that change.
Title: Re: President-Elect Barack Obama
Post by: ROUNDandHEAVY on November 05, 2008, 04:06:11 PM
You know I don't care if Bush is ever prosecuted. We almost deserve everything we suffered from him because we let him get elected twice.

I am only concerned now with doing what we can to support Obama in his quest to fix it. It will be nice to have someone in office for a change whose main agenda isn't fleecing the American public for every last dime he and his freinds can squeeze out of us.

Good luck Obama, you're going to need it.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: gOOber on November 05, 2008, 04:34:38 PM
Dreams come true....

 

Title: Re: President-Elect Barack Obama
Post by: apehanger on November 05, 2008, 04:35:13 PM
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
 All this work will be for naught if the evil that was done in secret by the Bush 43 administration is never brought to light and the perps punished.

In secret? How about charging them with only the things they did bare ass naked in the light of day? I'm sure Bush'll get the traditional presidential pardon that comes with every new president... but in case he doesn't, let's not forget the example that the kinder, gentler government that he established in Iraq set when they brought Saddam to justice.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Shara on November 05, 2008, 05:18:52 PM
 
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: AgentDee on November 05, 2008, 08:21:39 PM
Quote:

shara1 said:
 




NICE!!!
Title: Re: President-Elect Barack Obama
Post by: oogieboogie on November 05, 2008, 08:37:05 PM
Good Luck Obama, you're going to need it.

I just hope he governs from the center, we don't need quasi-socialism.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Bonecracker on November 05, 2008, 10:43:46 PM
Thank you, boobies lover.  One of the most tell-tale signs of where the problem really lies was last night during the end speeches.

McCain spoke, and his supporters booed Obama.
Obama spoke, and his supporters quietly listened and respected McCain.

After two stolen elections putting the biggest dufus in history in office who turned out to be the worst president in US History, following the GREATEST President in US History (William Jefferson Clinton), you would think the republican Koolaid drinkers would show some basic decency and respect.

I guess it is not only beyond their grasp, but even beyond their reach.

Sad.



Quote:

boobies lover said:
Quote:

Bonecracker said:
 Dear Goob,
I'd vote for him... even if he would likely legalize pot and outlaw the IRS!!  Wait a minute, there's no down side to that equation!

Bone...





could not agree more..  

change has won.. now lets see the action of that change.


Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: pedonbio on November 06, 2008, 12:01:39 AM
I wanna say something.

Despite all the high-pitched screaming on the commercials and, truth be told, from McPalin, Obama is in fact pretty conservative. During the primaries I sent money to Kucinich. When he dropped out, I sent money to Edwards. When he dropped out I sent money to Clinton. That pretty accurately describes a political arc from left to right over the past year.

Obama has major leadership skills. There is one absolutely essential skill that Bush totally lacks: The ability to say "No" to your friends. I expect to hear some "No"s to things I wish he would say "Yes" to. It's interesting, because Bush and Yassir Arafat were identical in that shortcoming; they were peas in a pod, and neither one could see it. And so both failed completely.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: rtpoe on November 06, 2008, 03:14:02 AM
The Dems also gained seats in the House and the Senate. They best keep a leash on Nancy Pelosi, and don't let this success go to their heads. The last two times a party controlled both the Presidency and Congress, they overreached and lost Congress in two years.

And for all the talk about Race, I have to agree with a key official of the AFL-CIO (whose name I have forgotten, alas)addressing his fellow union members. "Here's a man who is going to fight for everything you want," (I paraphrase; I just heard the quote in passing on the radio today) "and you're not going to vote for him because of the color of his skin? Have you lost your ever loving minds?"

I think that the Media were the only ones making a deal of his race. Most people just wanted someone they could rally around and trust, and who wasn't tainted with the fiascoes of the Bush administration. I think most voters were simply tired of and frustrated with the Republicans, and were looking for a clean break, no matter who it was.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on November 06, 2008, 03:47:06 AM
Quote:

shara1 said:
 




Wow...some of those guys rocked the facial hair.
Title: Re: President-Elect Barack Obama *DELETED*
Post by: notty on November 06, 2008, 03:52:49 AM
Quote:

DruulEmpire said:
I just want to take this moment to thank contributors to this thread, two in particular -- gOOber and Notty.  I will always remember his very candid opening post for this thread -- as well as his ongoing candor about, say, dominatrix-style lust for Sarah Palin.  And Notty (and yes, she can call me Dru -- after all, when I mail something to Vixen, I'm usually "Drew L'Empire" ) dared us to convince her -- but she did both ask for it and sit still for it, and that is a degree of integrity too many of us are not up to.

And I've other thoughts -- but this seemed to be the most important thing to acknowledge here.




No need to thank me.  I was just being my usual stubborn self.  You fellas were rather convincing, though.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: midsize on November 06, 2008, 04:54:31 PM
Facial hair was a lot cooler back in the 19th century. Huge mutton chops, walruses, all sorts of connected beard-sideburn combinations... It was a good era for facial hair.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: 3deroticer on November 06, 2008, 11:10:26 PM
After watching the Movie "Ironman" I decide to wear facial hair again!

Robert Downing Jr made wearing them cool!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: AZWolf on November 07, 2008, 12:26:24 PM
If this was so, my 71 year old father would still be rocking his hair.  

And I have my moustache since I was 16.  So bring it.  
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: mofoapoo on November 07, 2008, 04:42:32 PM
Quote:

AZWolf said:
And I have my moustache since I was 16.  So bring it.  




I tried a mustache, and damn they hurt my face.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: ELESIS on November 07, 2008, 05:24:58 PM
Congradulation america on your new president, i hope he keep the country running smoohtly and keep you dude's safe (And I Hope He's Better Than Bush).
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: PregNut on November 07, 2008, 11:21:04 PM
Thanks. And we all do, as well. But he doesn't have to do to much to be better than W. Let's hope he does WAY better.
And pray for our Secret Service. I fear they'll need it for the next 4 years, at least.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: pedonbio on November 07, 2008, 11:31:52 PM
Quote:

PregNut said:
Thanks. And we all do, as well. But he doesn't have to do to much to be better than W. Let's hope he does WAY better.
And pray for our Secret Service. I fear they'll need it for the next 4 years, at least.




I couldn't say it better, PG.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: 3deroticer on November 08, 2008, 01:02:45 AM
As relentless I was for Bush, I will be for Obama!
I am glad he was elected, but I am ever watchful and not take for granted and fall asleep at the wheel of politics for a long time.

When Clinton deregulate the fairness doctrine for the news and allow monopoly of the news to a major conglomerate corporation, it was then Democracy was compromise. Without a voice of the free press, became the end of the (implied)forth branch of govt.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: SwitcherX on November 08, 2008, 01:09:49 AM
For now, we have a new president-elect. In the spirit of reaching across the aisle, we owe it to the Democrats to show their president the exact same kind of respect and loyalty that they have shown our recent Republican president.

-- Ann Coulter



I've heard on some overseas (to the USA) gambling sites you can already place bets on when Obama makes his first big screw up.  It looks like the smart money is on Vladimir Putin eating him alive.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on November 08, 2008, 01:26:34 AM
Ann Coulter is a fucking horse-faced skag.  I'd like to slap the taste out of her mouth.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: pedonbio on November 08, 2008, 01:27:04 AM
Quote:

SwitcherX said:
For now, we have a new president-elect. In the spirit of reaching across the aisle, we owe it to the Democrats to show their president the exact same kind of respect and loyalty that they have shown our recent Republican president.

-- Ann Coulter



 




As much as I respect people in Ms Coulter's situation, I don't take political advice from trannies.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on November 08, 2008, 01:39:15 AM
Ann Coulter looks like Ted Danson in drag.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: pedonbio on November 08, 2008, 01:42:08 AM
Quote:

notty said:
Ann Coulter looks like Ted Danson in drag.




I've never seen Ann Coulter and Ted Danson at the same time!  
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: SwitcherX on November 08, 2008, 01:43:10 AM
Quote:

notty said:
Ann Coulter is a fucking horse-faced skag.  I'd like to slap the taste out of her mouth.




That would be hot.  
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: SwitcherX on November 08, 2008, 01:44:34 AM
Quote:

pedonbio said:
Quote:

notty said:
Ann Coulter looks like Ted Danson in drag.




I've never seen Ann Coulter and Ted Danson at the same time!  




Alright you got me.  I'm Ann Coulter.  
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: ElmerFudd on November 08, 2008, 02:19:53 AM
Quote:

midsize said:
Facial hair was a lot cooler back in the 19th century. Huge mutton chops, walruses, all sorts of connected beard-sideburn combinations... It was a good era for facial hair.




It was also a sign of prestige (and wealth) to be "Portly."
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: midsize on November 08, 2008, 02:28:06 AM
It must totally suck to be Anne Coulter -- to be so filled with self-hatred that it comes boiling out of you daily in a tirade of vile, bilious lies aimed at everyone you blame for your unhappiness.

As for the right treating Obama the way the left treated Bush, that was how the right treated Clinton, and the left treated Reagan, and the right treated Carter, and the left treated Nixon, and... Why should anyone break a pattern of childishness that's worked for so long?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: pedonbio on November 08, 2008, 02:43:31 AM
Quote:

midsize said:
It must totally suck to be Anne Coulter -- to be so filled with self-hatred that it comes boiling out of you daily in a tirade of vile, bilious lies aimed at everyone you blame for your unhappiness.

As for the right treating Obama the way the left treated Bush, that was how the right treated Clinton, and the left treated Reagan, and the right treated Carter, and the left treated Nixon, and... Why should anyone break a pattern of childishness that's worked for so long?




I would respectfully disagree, midsize. Reagan got a lot of respect from the left, mostly for his persistence. Carter got a lot of respect from the right, mostly because he cleaned up most (but not all) the mess Nixon left behind.

It is appropriate for all of us to keep an eye on public officials. One source of the weirdness now has been the pointless attacks on Clinton: Whitewater, the suicide of the aide, while missing some really big problems, like Hillary's rather remarkable run of commodity trades. On the other hand, the left has completely ignored Bush's drug use. Go back and get a clip of his 2004 victory speech, then look up the symptoms of Xanax intoxication. George is still one heavy stoner.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: AZWolf on November 08, 2008, 10:05:05 AM
Quote:

pedonbio said:Go back and get a clip of his 2004 victory speech, then look up the symptoms of Xanax intoxication. George is still one heavy stoner.




Sadly, that explains so much.  But he played the Jesus card, so it won.  Worked in Jamestown and throughout history, but thankfully no longer.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: ChrisR1 on November 08, 2008, 11:09:19 PM
Quote:

rtpoe said:
The Dems also gained seats in the House and the Senate. They best keep a leash on Nancy Pelosi, and don't let this success go to their heads. The last two times a party controlled both the Presidency and Congress, they overreached and lost Congress in two years.




That's been my biggest concern. I've heard Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, and a pile of Congress people say comments at least as stupid as some of the stuff Sarah Palin has said. Of course, they all have a lower profile, so much of it's flown under the radar.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: midsize on November 08, 2008, 11:48:30 PM
Hi, Pendonbio;

Maybe it's a matter of the negative stuff sticking more in my memory, and I'll admit that your political memory is likely better than mine, but...

I *do* remember a lot of fanatical demonization of Reagan by the left - casting him as a trigger-happy nuclear cowboy who was going to start WWIII; going to town on him for napping in cabinet meetings; the "Ronald Wilson Reagan = 666 mark of the beast" connection. I really don't remember the left showing Reagan much respect, except maybe early on.

As for Carter, same thing. Maybe the right was ok on him early, but they savaged him over the Iran hostage crisis, the various ethics problems in his cabinet, and now he's mocked and hated probably more even than Clinton is among conservatives.

I agree that things reached a new level of organized intensity under the attack machine that developed against Clinton, but it seems to me that as long as I can remember people have been ripping the shit out of the other guys' Presidents.

-mid
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on November 09, 2008, 12:09:05 AM
Quote:

SwitcherX said:
For now, we have a new president-elect. In the spirit of reaching across the aisle, we owe it to the Democrats to show their president the exact same kind of respect and loyalty that they have shown our recent Republican president.

-- Ann Coulter



I've heard on some overseas (to the USA) gambling sites you can already place bets on when Obama makes his first big screw up.  It looks like the smart money is on Vladimir Putin eating him alive.


No fear of that happening, since we have Sarah "Africa is one big country" Palin on the case, when Putin does his head-rearing thing again.

Oh, and Ann Coulter is a rat bastard. Bush 43 did not get respect because he neither gave nor deserved it.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on November 09, 2008, 12:22:40 AM
Quote:

notty: Ann Coulter is a fucking horse-faced skag.  I'd like to slap the taste out of her mouth.


Oh, notty, you said it better than I ever could with my mild rat bastard reference. I think I love you.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: 3deroticer on November 09, 2008, 12:37:41 AM
Early on Reagan term he had all those warmonger in his administration. Some were from the Gerald Ford terms and some were put together by Sr Bush. When Nixon became impeach, Gerald Ford took over and IMHO got bowled over by the cabinet. Reagan Exclaim that "the crazy have taken over" after he got shot by Hinckly, whom was a family friend of Sr Bush(I know....smell like conspiracy)Reagan did 2 things, he cleaned up house and he change security from the secret service to the military. Many of these people that work under Sr Bush became part of the Jr Bush administration. Also right after the hostage crisis Rumsfield was accuse of negotiating for the hostage to stay put until after the election. I think the left showed Reagan respect later on as oppose to early on. To me he was known as the "Jelly Bean" president. As an actor he smoke a lot on and off screen, and he quit his habit by switching to Jelly Bean.

As for Jimmy Carter ethics??? He may be the first to be the most honest president, and maybe too honest to even work in the DC Washington!!!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on November 09, 2008, 02:27:49 PM
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
Quote:

notty: Ann Coulter is a fucking horse-faced skag.  I'd like to slap the taste out of her mouth.


Oh, notty, you said it better than I ever could with my mild rat bastard reference. I think I love you.




I am an artist and insults are my medium.  
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: mastert on November 09, 2008, 09:39:27 PM
Notty, you have to put that insult in the insult thread!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: ROUNDandHEAVY on November 10, 2008, 09:09:04 AM
I really think that Obama is not going to fall prey to a lot of the same crap most politicians do. He is pretty damn smart, seems honestly to want to do the right thing and knows how to sell his schtick. Most politicians are one or two, but not all three.

If he keeps making smart moves, Putin will not try to cross him just because, Putin really wants to fix his country and save face. The only reason Russia got aggro was because the Bush administration was provoking them by placing missiles on their border and courting their border nations for NATO while simultaneously showing weakness in our two current wars.

I think you'll see that Obama will negotiate where he can because he knows we can't afford an arms race right now.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on November 11, 2008, 09:10:41 AM
On Monday, the Obamas met with the Bushes in the White House. History continues to roll along right before our eyes...
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: AZWolf on November 12, 2008, 12:07:00 PM
Wow.  Ann Coulter...

Can't reply from such horse-evil replies.  
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on November 13, 2008, 12:30:42 AM
I wish I'd seen this earlier, It'd make the perfect riposte to all those who accuse President-Elect Obama of having a thin résumé:

The Onion News Network: "Obama Undertakes Presidential Internship"

Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on November 20, 2008, 08:43:39 AM
Quote:

"Obamas Expected To Have Sex in the White House, Insiders Say"

...The Secret Service has already begun preparing for the possibility that the President's tight schedule might be interrupted on occasion by a brief sexual interlude. The code phrase to indicate that the President (code name "Renegade") and First Lady (code name "Renaissance") are having sex will be "discussing the Bosnian problem" as in "Renegade can't be disturbed right now. He and Renaissance are discussing the Bosnian problem." In the event that President and Mrs. Obama are, in fact, discussing the Bosnian problem and not having sex, Secret Service agents have been instructed to say that they are "reviewing the Bosnian situation." A spokesman for the Bosnian government could not be reached for comment.


Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: DruulEmpire on November 20, 2008, 12:28:16 PM
"Michelle.  Bosnia.  NOW."
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: PregNut on November 20, 2008, 11:53:42 PM
TMI
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Bonecracker on November 21, 2008, 04:06:39 AM
T. M. Effing I.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: gOOber on November 23, 2008, 11:51:51 PM
The past is prologue.

 
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: AZWolf on November 25, 2008, 09:54:46 AM
He's already talking about stalling tax increases on your buddies.  So how can you keep talking trash?  
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on November 25, 2008, 08:53:13 PM
Quote:

SwitcherX said:
For now, we have a new president-elect. In the spirit of reaching across the aisle, we owe it to the Democrats to show their president the exact same kind of respect and loyalty that they have shown our recent Republican president.

-- Ann Coulter


Well, bitch, now you have no choice but to SHUT THE FUCK UP...at least, for a short while:
Quote:

Huffington Post: "Ann Coulter's Jaw Wired Shut: Report"



Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Bonecracker on November 25, 2008, 08:56:31 PM
Weith all this talk of foiled attempts on President-elect Obama's life, why hasn't Anne Coulter silenced herself by now in fears that someone might do the honorable thing and do 25 to life in actual service to the citizens of America and put her out of her misery?

I'm only pondering!!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on November 25, 2008, 08:59:00 PM
Quote:

gOOber said:
The past is prologue.


And sometimes it's very accurate:

 
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Bonecracker on November 25, 2008, 09:07:12 PM
So true, Zook.  When I saw Obmama's speech at the 2004 Dem Convention, I said to myself "that's the next president right there."

Anyhow, this is not jUST ANOTHER SUPERFLUOUS POST even though I imagine you, AZWofl and I could be accused of this today, nope, I have news from David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manager...


"Friend --

Today and yesterday, President-elect Barack Obama announced key members of an economic team tasked with creating jobs, stabilizing the economy, and getting our country back on track.

Barack is bringing together some of the best minds in the country to make swift progress on the economic challenges we face.

Timothy F. Geithner, president and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, will serve as Secretary of the Treasury. Lawrence H. Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury under President Clinton, will serve as Director of the National Economic Council.

Christina D. Romer will serve as Director of the Council of Economic Advisers, Melody C. Barnes will serve as Director of the Domestic Policy Council, and Heather A. Higginbottom will serve as Deputy Director of the Domestic Policy Council.

Peter Orszag, currently Director of the Congressional Budget Office, will serve as Office of Management and Budget Director, and Rob Nabors will serve as Deputy Director.

Barack's economic team has already begun work on a recovery plan, and he'll provide progress updates in the coming weeks. He'll also provide their initial recommendations to the incoming Congress.

You'll be instrumental in generating support to pass legislation that puts America on the road to recovery.

While we can't underestimate the challenge we face, we also can't underestimate the opportunity we have to bring the change our country needs.

Thanks,

David

David Plouffe
Campaign Manager
Obama for America



Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on November 25, 2008, 09:28:45 PM
Barack Obama was accused during the campaign of needing on-the-job training, of not being ready at 3 am to receive phone calls, of not being tested. This man has so far not placed a foot wrong, in his policies, in his cabinet choices (even the iffy Hillary-as-SecState choice), in almost everything he's done. It's rather remarkable. He hasn't wasted time talking to his detractors, instead, he's letting his actions speak for him.

I also find it interesting that he seems to have had more press conferences in the past month than Dubya has had in the past eight years
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: SwitcherX on November 26, 2008, 01:23:09 AM
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
Quote:

SwitcherX said:
For now, we have a new president-elect. In the spirit of reaching across the aisle, we owe it to the Democrats to show their president the exact same kind of respect and loyalty that they have shown our recent Republican president.

-- Ann Coulter


Well, bitch, now you have no choice but to SHUT THE FUCK UP...at least, for a short while:
Quote:

Huffington Post: "Ann Coulter's Jaw Wired Shut: Report"








I read on a gossip site that it wasn't true.  Who knows though.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: pedonbio on November 26, 2008, 05:03:05 AM
Quote:

DruulEmpire said:
"Michelle.  Bosnia.  NOW."




We call it  "going to Tukwila".
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Bonecracker on November 27, 2008, 04:32:19 PM
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
Barack Obama was accused during the campaign of needing on-the-job training, of not being ready at 3 am to receive phone calls, of not being tested. This man has so far not placed a foot wrong, in his policies, in his cabinet choices (even the iffy Hillary-as-SecState choice), in almost everything he's done. It's rather remarkable. He hasn't wasted time talking to his detractors, instead, he's letting his actions speak for him.

I also find it interesting that he seems to have had more press conferences in the past month than Dubya has had in the past eight years




I'm hoping the greatest president in the history of the US, Bill Clinton IMHO, will be given a HUGE role in this new administration as international peace ambassador.

The WORLD loves that homeboy!  Ain't no one don't love Bill outside of the US.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: evilkirk on November 30, 2008, 08:43:12 PM
I wanted to belatedly thank the moderate, thoughtful Republicans who added their votes to help give their country a fighting chance.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: SwitcherX on November 30, 2008, 09:39:25 PM
They All Know
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on December 01, 2008, 01:59:52 AM
Please. The dude is eligible to be POTUS; he is American-born. Hawaii was made a state in 1959, same as Alaska. This "they all knew, it's a conspiracy" stuff is tripe. And how nice that they got a black guy to spew this tripe out because if a white guy said it people could cry racism.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: 3deroticer on December 01, 2008, 04:39:51 AM
Wonder who the press secretary will be for Obama?

How many will we go thru? Would it be amazing that they would stick with one for the whole term?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Real on December 01, 2008, 07:44:30 AM
he's actually named robert gibbs already

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zgn6rjGbp0c
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on December 01, 2008, 08:29:37 AM
Quote:

3deroticer said:
Wonder who the press secretary will be for Obama?

How many will we go thru? Would it be amazing that they would stick with one for the whole term?


I would be very surprised if Obama had only one press secretary throughout his entire term(s). I cannot recall a president in the past twenty years who had a single press secretary for the whole of his term(s).
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on December 01, 2008, 08:30:13 AM


McCain/Palin had Joe Six-Pack...ha! We've got Joe Cool!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Bonecracker on December 01, 2008, 02:17:39 PM
Anyone care to bet how many assassination attempts will be made on the President elect, during his term?  

I'll start the bidding at 12.  There have already been two.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Real on December 01, 2008, 05:35:25 PM
2 already?  ive heard of plots, but not attempts yet.  what counts as an assasination attempt?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: 3deroticer on December 02, 2008, 12:08:43 AM
I saw a drawing of Rosa Park sitting on the bus next to a drawing of Barack sitting in the presidential limousine. Kind of a nice perspective of how far we have come as one nation.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Bonecracker on December 02, 2008, 01:51:39 AM
I'm looking forward to the day when a Native American has a chance!  Then we'll have come a long way.

Blacks were enslaved, most natives/indians/amerinds were slaughtered.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on December 02, 2008, 04:28:59 AM
Quote:

Bonecracker said:
Anyone care to bet how many assassination attempts will be made on the President elect, during his term?  

I'll start the bidding at 12.  There have already been two.


There have not been two attempts on his life; there have been two publicly-revealed plots on his life, and they were both caught in the fairly early planning stages, fortunately. Except for the events of 11/22/63, the Secret Service very rarely drops the ball. Maybe not as good as Shin Bet, but damned effective and thorough at what they do.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: gOOber on December 04, 2008, 01:13:45 AM
The die is cast. The Rubicon is crossed. History is to be made.

 
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: SwitcherX on December 04, 2008, 05:41:07 AM
 An 'Obama Defecating' Xmas Ornament?



From Reuters:

Figurines known as "caganer" of U.S. President-elect Barack Obama are sold at the Santa Llucia Christmas market in central Barcelona December 1, 2008. Catalans hide "caganers", or defecators, in Christmas Nativity scenes then invite friends to hunt for them during Christmas celebrations. The "caganers", which symbolise defecating and fertilizing the earth, are believed to bring prosperity and luck for the coming year.

The perfect gift for your true-believing friends.

The "caganers", which symbolise defecating and fertilizing the earth, are believed to bring prosperity and luck for the coming year.

Or as we call it here in our country, "hope and change."

Yes we can!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: pedonbio on December 04, 2008, 10:25:13 PM
Quote:

Bonecracker said:
I'm looking forward to the day when a Native American has a chance!  Then we'll have come a long way.

Blacks were enslaved, most natives/indians/amerinds were slaughtered.




Bone, I didn't see you working on the Fred Harris campaign in 1976. Were you too young? I sent money; the guy who replaced Harvey Milk on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 1978 (Harry something... Harry Bliss? Dammit, I can't remember) had worked in Harris's campaign.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: PregNut on December 04, 2008, 11:08:42 PM
Quote:

SwitcherX said:
 An 'Obama Defecating' Xmas Ornament?


From Reuters:

Figurines known as "caganer" of U.S. President-elect Barack Obama are sold at the Santa Llucia Christmas market in central Barcelona December 1, 2008. Catalans hide "caganers", or defecators, in Christmas Nativity scenes then invite friends to hunt for them during Christmas celebrations. The "caganers", which symbolise defecating and fertilizing the earth, are believed to bring prosperity and luck for the coming year.

The perfect gift for your true-believing friends.

The "caganers", which symbolise defecating and fertilizing the earth, are believed to bring prosperity and luck for the coming year.

Or as we call it here in our country, "hope and change."

Yes we can!


And I thought the commemorative Obama plates and coins were crap.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Q_BE on December 05, 2008, 05:11:26 PM
Quote:

PregNut said:
Quote:

SwitcherX said:
 An 'Obama Defecating' Xmas Ornament?



And I thought the commemorative Obama plates and coins were crap.



You and me, both, Preg.

Q-"Referred here by person or persons to remain named--DruulEmpire!"-BE
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: DruulEmpire on December 05, 2008, 05:34:22 PM
Actually, I don't know ANYONE offhand who doesn't find those coins and plates to be crap -- and I'd be rather shocked to meet anyone who was an enthusiast.  
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: midsize on December 05, 2008, 05:36:48 PM
How can you say that about authentic imitation ceramic plates with genuine 10 karat gold accents and an inspiring design that captures the historic nature of this inauguration, and is sure to become a treasured collector's item?

As for the coins, well... obviously you don't recognize quality when you see it.  

These defecators really show how weird cultural differences can be. If you put that in a shop window in the US, you'd have angry complaints and accusations pouring in. Who knew it's actually a 'good' thing in Spain to have little figurines of people shitting (besides the Spaniards, obviously)?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Q_BE on December 05, 2008, 05:54:54 PM
Quote:

midsize said:
These defecators really show how weird cultural differences can be. If you put that in a shop window in the US, you'd have angry complaints and accusations pouring in. Who knew it's actually a 'good' thing in Spain to have little figurines of people shitting (besides the Spaniards, obviously)?



All of a sudden I want a shitting Obama ornament for my Christmas tree.

Q-"It's not because he's too dumb to find a toilet, eh?"-BE
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: pedonbio on December 06, 2008, 01:37:04 AM
Quote:

Q_BE said:
Quote:

PregNut said:
Quote:

SwitcherX said:
 An 'Obama Defecating' Xmas Ornament?



And I thought the commemorative Obama plates and coins were crap.



You and me, both, Preg.

Q-"Referred here by person or persons to remain named--DruulEmpire!"-BE




I assume you thought the same about the plates and [Gawd forbid!!] Christmas ornaments commemorating G.W. Bush.  
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: pedonbio on December 06, 2008, 01:41:17 AM
Quote:

midsize said:

These defecators really show how weird cultural differences can be. If you put that in a shop window in the US, you'd have angry complaints and accusations pouring in. Who knew it's actually a 'good' thing in Spain to have little figurines of people shitting (besides the Spaniards, obviously)?




It's a good thing in China, too, although not for Christmas ornaments...

Actually, it's only Northern Europeans and Americans who are so uptight about shitting. It isn't uncommon for Chinese friends to discuss the condition of their bowels. Everybody in China knows that Mao had hellacious bouts of constipation.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on December 06, 2008, 04:34:55 AM
I'm okay being uptight about it.  Tell me about your bowels, and I'll show you the contents of my stomach.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: SwitcherX on December 06, 2008, 05:20:04 AM
If you want I'll tell all about the time I flushed out my colon.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: solvegas on December 06, 2008, 05:28:57 AM
Uh...no thanks.  
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: SwitcherX on December 06, 2008, 05:48:30 AM
You sure?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: SwitcherX on December 06, 2008, 07:21:59 AM
 
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on December 06, 2008, 05:56:13 PM
Quote:

midsize: How can you say that about authentic imitation ceramic plates with genuine 10 karat gold accents and an inspiring design that captures the historic nature of this inauguration, and is sure to become a treasured collector's item?

As for the coins, well... obviously you don't recognize quality when you see it.  


Quality? Riiiiiiight. They couldn't get someone to be able to reproduce the hair properly on a coin so they just painted over a Kennedy silver dollar? What a piece of crap.

Quote:

These defecators really show how weird cultural differences can be. If you put that in a shop window in the US, you'd have angry complaints and accusations pouring in. Who knew it's actually a 'good' thing in Spain to have little figurines of people shitting (besides the Spaniards, obviously)?


Technically speaking, those figurines are a Catalan tradition, not a Spanish tradition.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on December 06, 2008, 07:12:28 PM
A Japanese girl criticizing Obama? Well, what does she know?!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: pedonbio on December 07, 2008, 01:36:53 AM
Quote:

SwitcherX said:
   




YEAH!! I love it!!!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on December 07, 2008, 02:39:33 AM
"Dave Chappelle on being the first black president"
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: gOOber on December 11, 2008, 01:55:26 AM
Quote:

SwitcherX said:
   


Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: evilkirk on December 14, 2008, 03:59:26 PM
So true.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: PET on December 15, 2008, 05:45:26 AM
Quote:

evilkirk said:
So true.
 






why not let them wifes do the decisioning instead, it had been a succesful strategy before...
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: dyon on December 16, 2008, 04:29:34 PM
BARAK OBAMA IS ANOTHER FACE OF THE SAME MEDAL...ALWAYS IMEPERIALIST, LIBERIST, CAPITALIST...

THE VERY ALTERNATIVE IS A NEW COMMUNIST AND REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENT WHICH WILL SPREAD ALL ACROSS THE WORLD....

LENIN STILL LIVES!!!!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: midsize on December 16, 2008, 06:37:55 PM
Quote:



LENIN STILL LIVES!!!!




He's on that island with Elvis and Bruce Lee. Now there's a dream ticket: Presley/Lee '12 !!

Elvis would automatically have 50 million votes, and VP Lee could just kick the ass of everybody who causes trouble.

uh... thagyaverymuch!

Marilyn could be First Lady, since Elvis' wife remarried.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: pedonbio on December 16, 2008, 08:40:12 PM
Quote:

dyon said:
BARAK OBAMA IS ANOTHER FACE OF THE SAME MEDAL...ALWAYS IMEPERIALIST, LIBERIST, CAPITALIST...

THE VERY ALTERNATIVE IS A NEW COMMUNIST AND REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENT WHICH WILL SPREAD ALL ACROSS THE WORLD....

LENIN STILL LIVES!!!!




Key-reist! He's ba-c-c-c-c-c-c-ck!!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: SwitcherX on December 16, 2008, 09:40:06 PM
Quote:

midsize said:
Elvis would automatically have 50 million votes, and VP Lee could just kick the ass of everybody who causes trouble.





until Check Norris got bored with him and roundhouse kicked him onto orbit
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: midsize on December 16, 2008, 10:31:45 PM
Now there's a question you don't hear too much about: Bruce Lee vs Chuck Norris.

*It's icon versus icon in the **29** ass-kick contest of the century!!*

I know Chuck has God-like powers, but Bruce might actually have *been* God, so... I don't know what the line would be on that fight.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on December 16, 2008, 11:11:05 PM
Bruce Lee would kick Chuck Norris' ass into orbit, whereupon Chuck Norris' beard would kick Bruce Lee's ass right back.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: AkGuy on December 17, 2008, 01:36:55 AM
A hiccup in the economy hardly spells doom for capitalism.  Capitalism is part of the American way of life not the defiitnition of America.

Communism has an impressive track record of success:  Soviet Union... oh wait... hmmm... North Korea.... well, never mind that one.  I know! Cuba!  They're a well to do, prosperous Communist State!

As for Obama, I hope he really is going to make a change for the better; but my gut tells me me, he's more hype than hope.  Hopefully, history will prove me wrong.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: dyon on December 17, 2008, 03:30:29 AM
Quote:

AkGuy said:
A hiccup in the economy hardly spells doom for capitalism.  Capitalism is part of the American way of life not the defiitnition of America.

Communism has an impressive track record of success:  Soviet Union... oh wait... hmmm... North Korea.... well, never mind that one.  I know! Cuba!  They're a well to do, prosperous Communist State!

As for Obama, I hope he really is going to make a change for the better; but my gut tells me me, he's more hype than hope.  Hopefully, history will prove me wrong.




Pls read:http://forum.bearchive.com/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/683675/page/0/fpart/3/vc/1
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: PET on December 17, 2008, 05:32:33 AM
Quote:

midsize said:
Now there's a question you don't hear too much about: Bruce Lee vs Chuck Norris.

*It's icon versus icon in the **29** ass-kick contest of the century!!*

I know Chuck has God-like powers, but Bruce might actually have *been* God, so... I don't know what the line would be on that fight.




wasnt Chuck a student to Mr Lee? Rearly teachers kick them students into orbit....its not fair.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on December 17, 2008, 10:12:34 AM
Hey, stranger things have happened!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Djoser on December 17, 2008, 03:32:06 PM
wataaaaaahhh!!!  
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on December 17, 2008, 05:07:53 PM
But both Bruce Lee and Chuck Norris would probably be beaten by Stewie Griffin
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: PET on December 17, 2008, 09:41:15 PM
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
But both Bruce Lee and Chuck Norris would probably be beaten by Stewie Griffin




 This can only be setteled in a ultimate showdown
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on December 18, 2008, 07:51:53 AM
I liked that version of "Ultimate Showdown" much better than the one with everyone getting fucked, literally. Thanks, PET
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: gOOber on December 23, 2008, 08:19:07 PM
 
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Hiram on December 23, 2008, 08:43:50 PM
I didn't realise BO is left handed - not that make a shit of difference.

How many presidents have been left handed?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: DruulEmpire on December 23, 2008, 10:19:08 PM
I think the consensus is Clinton, Truman, Garfield, George H. W. Bush, and now Obama.  (In 1992, with H. Ross Perot, we had three left-handers all contending.)  There are arguments for others, but those five seem to stick.

Watch Obama.  He uses his hands when he talks, but he leads with his right.  This is a man VERY much in command of himself (smoking notwithstanding).
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: PET on December 24, 2008, 08:13:38 AM
Quote:

Hiram said:
I didn't realise BO is left handed - not that make a shit of difference.

How many presidents have been left handed?





some claim that left handed people are more created...me myshelf cant create anything with my left hand.....
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Polyman on December 25, 2008, 10:03:21 AM
Garfield was not only a lefty, but ambidextrous. He was also at least trilingual and could reportedly write in Greek with one hand and Latin with the other... at the same time.

Anyway, I voted for Obama, and I was very glad to see him win (especially by such a large margin.) I think he'll get the country going in the right direction- which is pretty far from where we've been going the last eight years. He's done a good job so far with his appointments and handling of the transition (I was glad to see Richardson get a cabinet post, I was hoping for him to be President this time last year), but he's definitely got his work cut out for him. Anyone who thinks he'll be able to solve all our problems within the next few months is setting their expectations far too high, but I'm confident that he'll make a lot of progress over the next several years.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on December 25, 2008, 04:24:28 PM
Check out this sexy piece:

Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on December 26, 2008, 01:21:56 AM
No wonder ObamaGirl had a crush on him...dude's pretty buff
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: 3deroticer on December 26, 2008, 05:49:32 PM
This might be the most skin we ever seen on a president from the public!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: gOOber on December 26, 2008, 09:14:22 PM
Buff Bam The Hawaii Hunk

 


Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: SwitcherX on December 27, 2008, 12:45:08 AM


Obama has been writing Lincoln/Obama erotic fan fiction on his secret livejournal.  Excerpt:  Lincoln lay back on the bed, nude save for his trademark stovepipe hat.  'Tell me,' he purred seductively, as he and Obama formed a more perfect union. 'When you come, is it 10% ethanol?'
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on December 28, 2008, 08:32:09 AM
BlackPlanet Year in Review: "The Top 10 Obama Player-Haters of 2008"
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: 3deroticer on December 28, 2008, 05:18:42 PM
That was kind of weird for Bill Clinton and Jesse Jackson to be among them, although I do agree with the assessment.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: SwitcherX on December 28, 2008, 08:49:12 PM
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
BlackPlanet Year in Review: "The Top 10 Obama Player-Haters of 2008"




Pastor Manning keeps it real.  Damn.....  
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on December 28, 2008, 11:26:51 PM
Are you kidding me, 3de? Bill Clinton & Jesse were the ultimate Obama player-haters...which is sad.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: SwitcherX on December 29, 2008, 11:41:04 AM
 
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on December 29, 2008, 12:37:33 PM
Moveon? "Baby, Can you please tell these people to stop sending me emails?..."

LOL so funny and SO TRUE. I had to label their email as spam before they would quit flooding my inbox.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on December 29, 2008, 01:28:07 PM
And speaking of Jesse Jackson and becoming the first black president:

Eddie Murphy, "The First Black President" (from Delirious)

Richard Pryor, "The 40th President of the United States"
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: gOOber on January 01, 2009, 03:49:26 PM
Thank gawd it's 2009.

 
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Bonecracker on January 01, 2009, 04:13:52 PM
19 days to go!  YAY!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: PET on January 01, 2009, 04:22:38 PM
Quote:

Bonecracker said:
19 days to go!  YAY!




until he will be installed?
hope that program isnt full of bugs as the last one were
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: pedonbio on January 01, 2009, 11:10:22 PM
Quote:

PET said:
Quote:

Bonecracker said:
19 days to go!  YAY!




until he will be insatalled?
hope that program isnt full of bugs as the last one were




Sorry, PET. There is a whole subculture in the US that is probably unknown in Europe since we have fixed terms for public officials, but we carry around little backward-running clocks and calendars that count down to January 20, 2009. My wife got me one three years ago. The damnned battery gave out two months ago!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on January 02, 2009, 02:52:34 AM
That Backwards Bush clock of yours must have been made by "Brownie"...
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: SwitcherX on January 02, 2009, 03:43:41 AM
 www.obamaclock.org
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on January 02, 2009, 04:31:17 AM
You see, the difference between the Obama clock and the Backwards Bush clock is, Obama hasn't done any stupid things yet. By the time the Backwards Bush clock had been set up, 9/11, Katrina, and many many more boneheaded things had gone down on Dubya's watch.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on January 07, 2009, 10:02:05 PM
Don't you just HATE when this happens?
Quote:

Yahoo! News (UK): "Piven loses Obama's number"

Actor Jeremy Piven is reeling after his cell phone deleted a personal message from Barack Obama that included the U.S. President-elect's personal phone number.

The greeting - a thank-you for the actor's campaign work during the election - was Piven's prized possession, until his rogue Blackberry erased it for no reason.

He says, "I was lucky to stump for Barack in Indiana and to introduce him in Chicago. Barack left me five numbers. It was the greatest voicemail that I've gotten in my life by the way... I saved it and I went back to listen to it and my BlackBerry had erased all of Barack Obama's phone numbers. Then when I called back to try to tell them, 'Can I get Barack's number? He left it for me.' They didn't believe me and I now have nothing and I've been trying to find him."


Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on January 07, 2009, 10:25:07 PM
Quote:

Yahoo! News: "Obama hails 'extraordinary' moment with presidents"  

Confronting a grim economy and a Middle East on fire, Barack Obama turned Wednesday to perhaps the only people on the planet who understand what he's in for: the four living members of the U.S. presidents' club. In an image bound to go down in history, every living U.S. president came together at the White House on Wednesday to hash over the world's challenges with the president-elect. There they stood, shoulder-to-shoulder in the Oval Office: George H.W. Bush, Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter.

"This is an extraordinary gathering," Obama said, looking plenty at ease in the humbling office that will soon be his.

"All the gentlemen here understand both the pressures and possibilities of this office," Obama said. "And for me to have the opportunity to get advice, good counsel and fellowship with these individuals is extraordinary. And I'm very grateful to all of them."

Bush, blistered without mercy by Obama during the campaign season, played the role of gracious host.

"All of us who have served in this office understand that the office transcends the individual," Bush said as Obama nodded in thanks. "And we wish you all the very best. And so does the country."

It was a moment of statesmanship that tends to happen when presidents get together, no matter how bitter their previous rivalries. In a photo opportunity that lasted less than two minutes, Carter, Clinton and the senior Bush smiled but said nothing. They deferred to the nation's incoming and outgoing leaders.

Earlier, Bush and Obama met privately in the Oval Office in a chat expected to cover events of the day, mainly the troubled economy and Middle East. The two have shown solidarity since Obama's win in November, with one previous Oval Office sit-down and at least a few phone calls in recent weeks.

All sides were determined to say as little as possible about what was discussed. Presidents — new, old, incoming — like to keep their conversations private.

Without offering any specifics, Obama press secretary Robert Gibbs said all the presidents "had helpful advice on managing the office as well as thoughts on the critical issues facing the country right now. The president-elect is anxious to stay in touch with all of them in the coming years."

From the White House, press secretary Dana Perino said the discussion was "wide-ranging" but declined to comment further. Before the gathering, she had said she could not imagine the leaders would meet without discussing the Middle East, where conflict rages in Gaza, or the economy, which is sinking.

The White House would not even say what the men ate, allowing only that they ordered off the menu of the White House mess, as Bush does all the time.

Intentionally or not, Bush opened the media moment in a curious way, suggesting that he was already out the door.

"I want to thank the president-elect for joining the ex-presidents for lunch," said Bush, who is in fact still the president until Jan. 20.

"One message that I have, and I think we all share, is that we want you to succeed," Bush added, a beaming Clinton at his other side. "Whether we're Democrat or Republican, we care deeply about this country."

White House aides tried to usher the media out of the Oval Office when Bush stopped speaking. The lighting for the event even went dark.

But sometimes, there is more than one president at a time.

Obama spoke up on his own, the lights went back on, and the cameras kept rolling.

"I just want to thank the president for hosting us," Obama said. When a reporter asked Obama what he could learn from the mistakes of the four presidents surrounding him, he smiled and said he planned to learn from their successes.

The get-together was Obama's idea, and Bush liked it. The lunch lasted about 90 minutes, held in a small dining room off the Oval Office.

Carter, Clinton and the two Bush presidents were last together at the Washington funeral service of President Gerald Ford in 2007. And presidents have gathered at other occasions over the years. But not since October 1981 — 27 years ago — had all of the living presidents gathered at the White House.


Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on January 07, 2009, 11:35:40 PM
Quote:

NY Daily News: "Bollywood's goodbye to George W. Bush? A film that makes fun of him"

Bollywood has a going away present for President George W. Bush as he prepares to leave the White House: a gag movie that makes him the butt of every joke.

The new film The President is Coming, uses Bush’s 2006 trip to Mumbai as a springboard for a fictional comedy in which six young Indians compete to shake the President’s hand.

In the story, Bush has agreed to shake the hand of one young person who represents promise for India’s future – and officials at the U.S. Consulate in Mumbai proceed to put the candidates through a battery of wacky tests to choose a winner.

Directed by Indian filmmaker Kunaal Roy Kapur, the film is apparently also an homage Bush’s infamous tendency for verbal gaffes at public speaking events.

"Bush is more of a sort of metaphor for the things that America represents – good or bad – but he's also used as a bit of a punching bag because he's an easy target," Kapur, 29, told Reuters.

The English-language movie is shot in a mock documentary style and cost about $615,000 to make, according to Kapur.

The film – which is based on a play by the same name – opens Friday in India, just days before President-elect Barack Obama takes office on Jan. 20.

"It's definitely a nice little goodbye present for Bush," Kapur said.


Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Hiram on January 08, 2009, 08:59:09 PM
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
Quote:

Yahoo! News: "Obama hails 'extraordinary' moment with presidents"


The thing I most like about Obama is how carefully, and skilfully, he uses the English language.  It’s not just that he is articulate, he is, but he chooses his words so well IMO.  

Comparing him with Dubya is like light and day.

Americans chose well.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: gOOber on January 08, 2009, 11:41:27 PM
 
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: PregNut on January 09, 2009, 01:49:07 AM
Quote:

Hiram said:
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
Quote:

Yahoo! News: "Obama hails 'extraordinary' moment with presidents"


The thing I most like about Obama is how carefully, and skilfully, he uses the English language.  It&#8217;s not just that he is articulate, he is, but he chooses his words so well IMO.  

Comparing him with Dubya is like light and day.

Americans chose well.


It's not what he says, but how he says it.


-MMMMDCC
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: midsize on January 09, 2009, 02:11:15 AM
Quote:

Hiram said:

Comparing him with Dubya is like light and day.






Either you're being ironic, or that's a gem of a Bushism
 

I heard somebody on the radio the other day talking about the difference between what he called eloquence of explanation and eloquence of inspiration (or something like that). His argument was that too often eloquence is meant as eloquence of inspiration -- which can be simply rabble rousing or demagoguery. Eloquence of explanation is the ability to elegantly communicate complicated ideas and information to people in a way that they can readily grasp; his prime example being the Gettysburg Address.

If Obama possesses the eloquence of explanation, then it is about not just "what he says", but indeed also "how he says it." Pretty language and language that prettily explains tough and complicated ideas to the public are not identical, and the latter will certainly help in the next few years. Obama's detractors like to scoff at his being called eloquent, but it's not necessarily empty rhetoric if it's the right kind of eloquence.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: SwitcherX on January 09, 2009, 02:28:18 AM
 
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheRover on January 09, 2009, 02:57:39 AM
Quote:

Hiram said:
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
Quote:

Yahoo! News: "Obama hails 'extraordinary' moment with presidents"


The thing I most like about Obama is how carefully, and skilfully, he uses the English language.  It’s not just that he is articulate, he is, but he chooses his words so well IMO.  

Comparing him with Dubya is like light and day.

Americans chose well.




They are almost all articulate when they have prepared, rehearsed speeches.  I've seen Obama stumble at a few press conferences...let's see how some of those those go before we anoint him the next Cicero.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Hiram on January 09, 2009, 09:03:24 AM
Quote:

midsize said:
Quote:

Hiram said:

Comparing him with Dubya is like light and day.






Either you're being ironic, or that's a gem of a Bushism


Unfortunately, that was my bad syntax.

I think your point about eloquence is a good one.  But I like the preciseness of Obamas sentences, he is a lawyer afterall.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on January 09, 2009, 09:10:54 AM
Quote:

SwitcherX said:
   


Oh, Switcher, that really made me laugh! Thanks!

-- TheZookie "his fonts got serifs goddam" 007
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on January 09, 2009, 09:38:33 AM
Quote:

USA Today: "Obama, Spider-Man on the same comic-book page"

In a growing world of Barack Obama collectibles, one item soon may be swinging above the rest.

On Jan. 14, Marvel Comics is releasing a special issue of Amazing Spider-Man #583 with Obama depicted on the cover. Inside are five pages of the two teaming up and even a fist-bump between Spidey and the new president.



"It was a natural after we learned the new president is a Spider-Man fan," says Marvel editor in chief Joe Quesada about reports that Obama once collected Spider-Man comics. "We thought, 'Fantastic! We have a comic-book geek in the White House.' "

The White House transition team did not respond to a question about the extent of Obama's comic-book geekiness, but Obama did mention Spider-Man during the campaign, primarily at children-oriented events. And during an Entertainment Weekly pop culture survey, Obama said Batman and Spider-Man were his top superheroes because of their "inner turmoil." (John McCain picked Batman.)

In the story by Zeb Wells, Todd Nauck and Frank D'Armata, Spider-Man stops the Chameleon from spoiling Obama's swearing-in. At one point, Spider-Man says he mistook Vice President-elect Joe Biden for the Vulture (a vintage Spider-Man villain).

The issue, selling for $3.99 at comic-book specialty shops (find one at comicshoplocator.com), is expected to be an instant sellout, especially because the Obama cover, by Phil Jimenez, is limited to half the run.

"This issue will have a lot of heat and go for premium prices. I already have people calling about it," says Alan Giroux, owner of All About Books and Comics in Phoenix. "I expect this will be on the collectors' market for $20 by the first day."

Presidents have been supporting characters in comics before: During World War II, superheroes fought Hitler as Franklin D. Roosevelt cheered them on. John F. Kennedy appeared in Action Comics #309 in 1963, when he helped protect Clark Kent's secret identity.

"If I can't trust the president of the United States, who can I trust?" Superman tells Kennedy.

That issue appeared a week after Kennedy was assassinated. DC Comics had to explain later that it was too late to recall the book.

Presidents have appeared as more shadowy figures in recent years.

"We do our best to be completely non-partisan and treat presidents with respect," Quesada says.

"This is not so much a pro-Obama statement but a tip of the hat to having a Spider-Man fan in the White House."

Would McCain have gotten a special issue had he won?

Says Quesada: "If McCain was a Spider-Man fan, I'm sure he would."


Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on January 09, 2009, 05:35:02 PM
That's pretty cheesy.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: DruulEmpire on January 09, 2009, 11:17:47 PM
I think our President-elect has enough on his plate without trying to save these guys from the misfire that was the third movie.

Not sure that even looks like Obama -- and for that matter, Spidey is beginning to resemble the dreaded Red Skull.

Although -- they would have been willing to do this for McCain?  Really?  Wouldn't quite have the same vibe.  Sure, Spidey's a "maverick," but you wouldn't want to see him in prison.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on January 10, 2009, 11:17:04 AM
Yeah, I thought Spidey was looking a little Red Skull-y in that picture as well...and at this rate, the only way John McCain will appear in a Marvel comic is if they stick him in an issue of the old What If...? franchise.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: PregNut on January 10, 2009, 10:46:03 PM
This kind of idol worship makes Obama look more and more like the leader of a brainwashing cult than the next leader of the world's most powerful nation.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on January 11, 2009, 07:04:20 PM
"Idol worship"? Please. Obama is not the first president to appear in a comic book, as my link showed, and he is not the first famous person to be so honored either. "Brainwashing cult leader", my ass.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: ROUNDandHEAVY on January 11, 2009, 08:13:21 PM
Quote:

notty said:
That's pretty cheesy.




Real people in comic books always looks cheesy. The comic book style just doesn't lend itself to reality.

That's why while comic book heroes can look so cool, if they try to mimic specific actors, the characters in comic books based on movies look like horrible charicatures.

Most comic book artists tend to make everyone look like superman or batman.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on January 11, 2009, 08:29:33 PM
I wasn't referring to the artwork. Fist-bumping is soooo 2003.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: ROUNDandHEAVY on January 11, 2009, 09:14:09 PM
oh
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: DruulEmpire on January 11, 2009, 09:28:37 PM
Quote:

notty said:
I wasn't referring to the artwork. Fist-bumping is soooo 2003.




Well, there's a whole wide swath of America that still needs to get the memo.  When Barack and Michelle were caught doing this on the campaign, people declared "Terrorist coded message!"
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on January 12, 2009, 08:11:51 AM
Those people who declared that mainly worked for Faux News and as such are near-total idiots...I think most people have gotten the memo that there's nothing at all sinister about fist bumping. The whitest men on the planet have long been appropriating elements of black urban culture: George H. W. Bush high-fived a cadet at West Point, and Dubya did a chest bump with one of them...so get ready for Obama to fist-bump one at the next graduation
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: JJ on January 14, 2009, 08:46:40 AM
This is hilarious!  Captures the essence of Obama's depth!


 

Here's the link to see it in full animation -

http://www.spike.com/video/barack-obama-...p;numPerPage=12
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: pedonbio on January 14, 2009, 10:44:09 PM
Quote:

PregNut said:
This kind of idol worship makes Obama look more and more like the leader of a brainwashing cult than the next leader of the world's most powerful nation.




Think what you like, PregNut. There's serious work to be done.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: PregNut on January 14, 2009, 10:53:45 PM
That's correct, so let's not worship the man until he's actually done something.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on January 15, 2009, 07:19:19 AM
Well, tell that to all the people who STILL despite all evidence to the contrary believe that Dubya is doing a heck of a job.

In other news:

Rachel Maddow calls out Obama on "clean coal"
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: BarnacleBill on January 15, 2009, 07:21:05 PM
 
Quote:

 let's not worship the man until he's actually done something




I already consider the way he won the election against all odds and from "outside" the system as being a huge "something".
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on January 15, 2009, 10:54:25 PM
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
Well, tell that to all the people who STILL despite all evidence to the contrary believe that Dubya is doing a heck of a job.

In other news:

Rachel Maddow calls out Obama on "clean coal"




My thoughts:

1. Rachel Maddow is annoying.
2. Rachel Maddow is a lesbian.
3. Even if we could magically sequester 100% of the carbon from coal plants, there's still the matter of how we obtain the coal in the first place. This involves explosives that destroy entire ecosystems, heavy machines that belch out vast amounts of pollution, and acidic lagoons full of mine tailings that occasionally burst and drown entire cities.
4. Obama has taken an extremely disappointing stance in regard to coal power and nuclear power. He claims that coal plants and nuclear plants need to be part of the energy mix. That is lobbyist bullshit. With a little effort, we could meet all of our energy needs via alternative sources.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: pedonbio on January 16, 2009, 06:18:23 PM
Quote:

notty said:
My thoughts:

1. Rachel Maddow is annoying.





So were all my ex-wives.

Quote:


2. Rachel Maddow is a lesbian.
 




You say that like it's a bad thing.

The rest of your post related to scientific and ethical issues, so I ignored it.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: DruulEmpire on January 16, 2009, 06:36:55 PM
I happen to agree with notty's third and fourth points, as I suspect Zook may too.  (The first two points can't be too important, if she essentially agrees with Rachel. )  This issue is probably my single biggest misgiving against Captain O.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on January 16, 2009, 08:43:21 PM
Quote:

pedonbio said:
Quote:


2. Rachel Maddow is a lesbian.
 




You say that like it's a bad thing.

The rest of your post related to scientific and ethical issues, so I ignored it.




It's not a bad thing, but that hairstyle is atrocious. I much prefer lipstick lesbians.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: SwitcherX on January 17, 2009, 09:53:40 AM
Did everyone make their reservations?


'Pig sex' orgy set for inaugural week


"This Maneuvers is a PRIVATE and INVITATION-ONLY event. It will be held at the nearby Doubletree Hotel, located at 1515 Rhode Island Avenue NW. Go to the Second Floor, which is where all the Convention Rooms are," said the instructions.

The e-mail came from the Fort Troff "MAL Maneuvers" organization, according to AFTAH.

"We've now got a KILLER line up of DEMOS, including super skilled rope bondage, sounds play, and **73**. LIVE Music and Sound is gonna be provided by THE BLACK PARTY DJ Rich King. So you can s---, fist, rim, and [f---] TO THE BEAT."


Is Score having any events?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on January 17, 2009, 11:05:40 PM
Quote:

ROUNDandHEAVY: Real people in comic books always looks cheesy. The comic book style just doesn't lend itself to reality...

Most comic book artists tend to make everyone look like superman or batman.


Yeah, but I think they got this one pretty much alright:

Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: gOOber on January 17, 2009, 11:16:22 PM
I wonder if Obama's presidency will mean the end of political humor as we have known it for the past 16 years?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: DruulEmpire on January 17, 2009, 11:23:36 PM
There will always be Blagojeviches.

'Sides, Captain O is the Ultimate Straight Man.  The best fun to have with him is to imagine him trying to reason with the unreasonable.  SNL was onto something when they had Fred Armisen's Obama obliged to talk to McCain's tiny invisible leprechaun-like friend Joe the Plumber.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Dearc on January 17, 2009, 11:51:09 PM
Quote:

notty said:
4. Obama has taken an extremely disappointing stance in regard to coal power and nuclear power. He claims that coal plants and nuclear plants need to be part of the energy mix. That is lobbyist bullshit. With a little effort, we could meet all of our energy needs via alternative sources.




Stance or not, right or wrong, we NEED as much energy as we can get for the time being, and it'll take years to change the system.

I live in Minnesota, where the average temperature this past week was -20.  Ban coal and oil?  If you think Vikings & Packers fans are weird, you'll have a fucking riot on your hands faster than you can say "Yah knooow?"

Of course, this isn't the "Energy" thread.  
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on January 18, 2009, 12:28:03 AM
Quote:

Dearc said:
Quote:

notty said:
4. Obama has taken an extremely disappointing stance in regard to coal power and nuclear power. He claims that coal plants and nuclear plants need to be part of the energy mix. That is lobbyist bullshit. With a little effort, we could meet all of our energy needs via alternative sources.




Stance or not, right or wrong, we NEED as much energy as we can get for the time being, and it'll take years to change the system.

I live in Minnesota, where the average temperature this past week was -20.  Ban coal and oil?  If you think Vikings & Packers fans are weird, you'll have a fucking riot on your hands faster than you can say "Yah knooow?"

Of course, this isn't the "Energy" thread.  




Actually, most of us don't NEED as much energy as we USE. We are lazy and wasteful. I'm not talking about banning coal today, or tomorrow, or next month. But if we wanted to...if Obama wanted to...we could do it in four years. It's one thing for Obama to say, "I declare a moratorium on coal power. Now, let's get to work replacing those existing plants." It's quite another to say, "Even though coal power is inefficient, hard on the environment, hazardous to human health, and the health of our ch1ldren in particular, we still need coal in the energy mix because my lobbyist buddies say so. How about this? We'll just slap a carbon sequestration bandaid on all the new coal plants we build. That should appease the millions of concerned citizens, not to mention all the moms and dads with asthmatic k1ds. Yay!"
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Dearc on January 18, 2009, 04:25:06 AM
I DO agree that we need to be better stewards of the planet, and that Americans are a wasteful bunch.  Although Obama may have backpedaled on coal & oil, we must remember that China & India put out ALOT more pollution that the US does, so those lashing out on our mix of energy production should try protesting the other 2...but I have my doubts that'll work!

I honestly believe for the time being-next few years-Americans are doing the best they can.

But I'm obviously biased.  I'm sitting here in my gas-heated home, taking a break from a video game, flapping away in a forum.  At least I still recycle and consolidate my trips.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Dearc on January 19, 2009, 02:08:21 AM
Ok, perhaps the MOST ridiculous thing I've ever seen for a President...

http://www.accesshollywood.com/barack-obama-sneakers-kicks-you-can-believe-in_article_10104

Seriously, does anyone truly believe that this new legislation he's passing around to repeal the 22 Amendment should pass?  There's a reason why a president can only serve 2 consecutive terms.  Only one president has served more, that was FDR, and it was during WW2.

If he's serious, he's the ultimate sham.  
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: 3deroticer on January 19, 2009, 04:33:42 AM
where did you hear he wants to repeal 22 amendment?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on January 19, 2009, 04:49:05 AM
So...Obama's inauguration is going to cost over 150 million dollars...when a large chunk of America is struggling just to afford the basic necessities. What a spectacular waste of money! This ranks up there with golden parachutes for greedy, incompetent executives.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on January 19, 2009, 07:54:10 AM
Quote:

Dearc: There's a reason why a president can only serve 2 consecutive terms.  Only one president has served more, that was FDR, and it was during WW2.


Do you know the only reason why a president can't serve more than 2 consecutive terms? The precedent was set by George Washington, who at the end of his second term, was reported to have said, "Two terms is more than enough for any man." (He wasn't only saying that because it made for a good sound bite, but because he was sick of the bickering, backstabbing and general mayhem that was the politics of his day...ah, the more things change, the more they stay the same...)

The Congress (controlled by Republicans) rushed in the 22nd Amendment soon after FDR kicked the bucket, mainly out of spite. There's no other real reason. Don't pull the "it's to prevent entrenched interests never leaving" card on this one...after all, FDR's New Deal produced the meant-to-be-temporary Social Security program. Truly, "there is nothing so permanent as a temporary government program." I remember when Reagan was riding roughshod over the landscape, I was thankful that the amendment was in place, just as I sort of regretted that it was there when Clinton was doing whatever it was he did after doing Monica Lewinsky but the thankful returned when Dubya came on the scene

Again, where did you hear that Obama's trying to repeal the 22nd Amendment?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: 3deroticer on January 19, 2009, 08:38:42 AM
Quote:

notty said:
So...Obama's inauguration is going to cost over 150 million dollars...when a large chunk of America is struggling just to afford the basic necessities. What a spectacular waste of money! This ranks up there with golden parachutes for greedy, incompetent executives.



well to be fair the inauguration is funded by contribution small as 5 dollars from the people. No one is hog tied to contribute. It's not hard to believe after 8 years that the people want to party!, plus they are getting great entertainment willing to play for the elected president.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on January 19, 2009, 11:18:06 AM
Yup, it's good value for money. I'd rather spend $150 mil on a blowout party -- NO MORE BUSH IN THE WHITE HOUSE, WOOHOO!!!! -- than the same amount on bailing out a company whose CEO earned $400 mil in one year or something.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Dearc on January 19, 2009, 02:15:21 PM
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:

The Congress (controlled by Republicans) rushed in the 22nd Amendment soon after FDR kicked the bucket, mainly out of spite. There's no other real reason. Don't pull the "it's to prevent entrenched interests never leaving" card on this one...after all, FDR's New Deal produced the meant-to-be-temporary Social Security program. Truly, "there is nothing so permanent as a temporary government program." I remember when Reagan was riding roughshod over the landscape, I was thankful that the amendment was in place, just as I sort of regretted that it was there when Clinton was doing whatever it was he did after doing Monica Lewinsky but the thankful returned when Dubya came on the scene

Again, where did you hear that Obama's trying to repeal the 22nd Amendment?




http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=86324

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2009/01/14/three-terms-for-barack-obama/

http://forums.military.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/672198221/m/3550060212001

Oh, so in your view, the 22 Amendment was to limit the Democrats, and allow Republicans enough time to go apeshit?!  PUHLEEZE!  Tone down your Democratic rally speech.

The 22 Amendment was not only to limit the power of one man by time, but also connections.  Obama doesn't need anymore time than what's already given, and eight years is more than enough time for people to get together and get something done.  If anything's NOT getting done, it's not related to the presidency's time limit.  Connections is where it's at, Obama's got plenty of those.

I'm guessing you've never swore an oath to something greater than yourself, but I have.

Oath for swearing in of military personnel (enlisted).

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will  support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic ; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
(Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

US Constitution, Article II, Section 1 "Oath of Office For President of the United States.

Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my  preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on January 19, 2009, 03:26:01 PM
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
Yup, it's good value for money.




Good value would be televising the oath from the Oval Office, and using the left over $149,999,950.00 to help the poor and homeless of Washington, D.C.  
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: DruulEmpire on January 19, 2009, 03:58:01 PM
Dearc, a couple of points -- regardless of how you interpret and analyze, the fact remains that it was only after FDR died early in his fourth term that the 22nd Amendment passed.

Personally I'm for it myself.  My father always argued that FDR could have groomed someone like Robert Wagner (no, not that "Number Two" guy, but one of the more underappreciated politicians of the past century) to take over.

However, I can't help but notice that your own article mentions Eisenhower and Reagan, along with Clinton, being critical of the Amendment.  Just want to be sure here your outrage is equal opportunity.

Much more to the point -- it's something getting pushed by this one Jose Serrano guy.  Are you a betting man?  Because I'll bet you right now that this will go nowhere.  A whole lot of elected officials aren't going to lie back and say "Sure, steamroller right over me."

That's what gets me with this talk I hear from time to time, to the effect of "Oogah-boogah, there's a super secret Presidential order which no one can defy!"  No one?

It's not for nothing that CONgress is the opposite of PROgress.

I'll believe that Obama is about to serve a third term the day I can believe that Schwarzenegger can run for President -- and we've seen a LOT more of a push for that.  I'm betting against both.

And you know what gets me most about this particular brand of gratuitous alarmism?  IT KEEPS GETTING FORGOTTEN.  I remember the time someone complained in my face "Saddam Hussein is being defended!" as if to say "Oh no, surely this is the ultraliberal slippery slope by which we will hang ourselves by our own suicide pact!"  But Saddam vented, to no avail, and was tried, and was hung -- big fat whoop.  You're inspiring me to start a gallery of scares which will never come to anything -- because experience has shown me that the alarmists never chronicle their oh-so-immediately-precious alarms, it's a kind of "Here's TODAY'S claim to outrage" sort of thing.

On the whole, I think Notty comes closer to an actual point.  It would be good to see a lot of the money redistributed.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: midsize on January 19, 2009, 04:26:06 PM
He hasn't even been sworn in to his 1st term, and we're supposed to be afraid that he's already plotting his 3rd?? It's going to be a reeeeally long 4 years for dittoheads.

Seriously, just get the fuck over it -- all of it.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: JJ on January 19, 2009, 07:29:08 PM
Quote:

gOOber said:
I wonder if Obama's presidency will mean the end of political humor as we have known it for the past 16 years?



====================

Yeah, it will!   And shortly the Congress will be passing a law making it illegal to criticize the Exalted High Ruler and Annointed One, that being Lord Obama. Why, that would be racist.

According to CNN, we all "need to get behind this President" and come together.  Keep hearing how we really need for this President to "succeed"!

Don't recall that CNN put out the same appeal when Clarence Thomas ascended to a seat on the Supreme Court or when Colin Powell, then Condy Rice became Secretary of State?

Oh for the days when you could say anything about anybody AND the TV networks just reported the news everynight.  
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: SwitcherX on January 19, 2009, 07:54:52 PM
 
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Dearc on January 19, 2009, 08:24:44 PM
Point taken, Druul.  Sorry if I appeared to overreact.

Do I believe he could even get away with it?  No.  The idea that a politician and/or an advisor could pose such an idea with any seriousness was what got me angry.  For the record, I'm on the fence if a foreign-born should be president, like Schwarzenegger.  I'm sure there are plenty of those serving longer than I've been alive, which puts it in perspective.  Like Dennis Miller said, we need to "click the refresh button" on the Constitution.

The limits of power and control, checks and balances, what I believe, to be some of the greatest things about how our govt works (when it does work).

I guess I need to remember here at the forum anything Democrats do is great, and Reublicans are total screw ups.  <insert sarcastic smirk>
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: gOOber on January 19, 2009, 09:00:07 PM
 
Quote:

 Why, that would be racist.


It has nothing to do with race. Clinton and Bush were comedy gold mines. Obama is about as funny as a final exam in physics.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: DruulEmpire on January 19, 2009, 11:00:20 PM
Dearc: Well, this IS a thread named "Barack Obama," and started by that unique post by gOOber, so I think a little support here is going to be expected.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Dearc on January 19, 2009, 11:07:48 PM
Quote:

DruulEmpire said:
Dearc: Well, this IS a thread named "Barack Obama," and started by that unique post by gOOber, so I think a little support here is going to be expected.




I beg to differ.  Criticism is just as healthy...even bad criticism like my own.  It's also healthy for supporters to know there's a dissenter in the room.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: PregNut on January 19, 2009, 11:12:46 PM
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
Yup, it's good value for money. I'd rather spend $150 mil on a blowout party...



So much for 'spreading the wealth around a little.'

Quote:

midsize said:
He hasn't even been sworn in to his 1st term, and we're supposed to be afraid that he's already plotting his 3rd?? It's going to be a reeeeally long 4 years...  


Well, he is already campaigning for 2012...

Quote:

Dearc said:
I guess I need to remember here at the forum anything Democrats do is great, and Reublicans are total screw ups.  <insert sarcastic smirk>


Now you're getting it.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: DruulEmpire on January 19, 2009, 11:16:53 PM
There's no difference, dissent away -- said "a little" support, never said "stay off."

The trouble being, I really wish for dissent that was substantive.  I mean, "Mallard Fillmore" -- talk about a lame duck.  Oh no, the Secret Service may kiss the President's ass -- wow, what a shocking new development.

Notty continues to be the best here so far -- pointing up the internal hypocrisy of his stance on coal (and I hail from a city that sees one or two sub-zero days, relied on coal for steel, and is next door to West Virginia) or the crazy money it takes to pull off an inauguration.

I don't despair like others seem to when it comes to criticizing him.  If the man does -- finally DOES -- something blatant, we won't give a damn what color he is.  The Presidency is a job, not simply a prize for this or that team.  The Bush dynasty has already made that clear.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on January 19, 2009, 11:48:38 PM
I wasn't planning on posting in this thread after the election, but it seems I can't help myself. I'm sure my mood will improve after the inauguration, but right now I just want to scream, "I didn't vote for Obama! I don't give a shit about this 'historic event!' Go fuck yourself! In the ear!"

*takes a deep breath*

Nonetheless,

When I offer up criticisms of the man, they'll be based on his actions or lack thereof. My personal feelings will only season the dish, not provide the main ingredient.

*smiles sweetly*
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: DruulEmpire on January 20, 2009, 12:36:26 AM
Sounds good to me -- looking forward to it.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: 3deroticer on January 20, 2009, 03:41:17 AM
Notty! Where did you get the figure cost of Obama's inauguration?

I tried to find it and all I get that we wont know for another month what it will be. However I did find the figure for Bush 2005 inauguration at $157 million dollars. Which most of it was spent from taxpayers money, and not like the partial contribution from Obama's. Basic secret service security for all president ran around $115 millions dollar.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on January 20, 2009, 04:09:25 AM
That doesn't surprise me. You can always count on Bush to waste millions of dollars. But I HOPED for a CHANGE from Obama.

http://biz.yahoo.com/cnnm/090116/011609_inauguration_costs.html?.v=2
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Dearc on January 20, 2009, 04:14:38 AM
Quote:

notty said:
I'm sure my mood will improve after the inauguration, but right now I just want to scream, "I didn't vote for Obama! I don't give a shit about this 'historic event!' Go fuck yourself! In the ear!"




Notty, I give you lots of credit.  You hit it on the head, because that's EXACTLY the way I feel, too.

Deep down, I wish people would celebrate when appropriate and let the guy go to work when he does.  I just keep thinking, "He hasn't even done anything!" and the world is freaking out.  I can only imagine the fallout when a plan falls through or he didn't do something else first, something that was priority to another.

Honestly, I'm alot more consistent in person.  I can never remember what I type, but very well at what I say.  I'm not that much into blogging or forums anyhow.

Sorry for my stupid rants.  Going to get **92** now.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Real on January 20, 2009, 05:37:23 AM
lol

of course many americans arent ready to do a tumble roll down the middle of the streets at the prospect of ridding themselves of one of the most vile leaders in your history.

i mean 47% of you voted for a ticket with freaking sarah palin on it.  no wonder you scare the shit out of the rest of the world...
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Psf_79 on January 20, 2009, 12:39:20 PM
Obama's inauguration party expensive? About the same price as W's
http://mediamatters.org/columns/200901170003?f=h_top
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: gOOber on January 20, 2009, 05:09:03 PM
 
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: pedonbio on January 20, 2009, 09:00:46 PM
Quote:

notty said:
I wasn't planning on posting in this thread after the election, but it seems I can't help myself. I'm sure my mood will improve after the inauguration, but right now I just want to scream, "I didn't vote for Obama! I don't give a shit about this 'historic event!' Go fuck yourself! In the ear!"

*takes a deep breath*

Nonetheless,

When I offer up criticisms of the man, they'll be based on his actions or lack thereof. My personal feelings will only season the dish, not provide the main ingredient.

*smiles sweetly*




Notty, usually I'm as bored with "historic event" crap as you are, but this time it's right. We white folks have gone a long, long way toward getting our souls back. In 1961 when Obama was born, his parents were prohibited by the laws of 26 states from marrying. In 11 states (The Old Confederacy) even if his father had acquired U.S. citizenship, he couldn't have voted in primary elections because his grandfather had not been eligible to vote in those states. More likely, his father would have been arrested for trying to register.

We old white farts have indeed come a long way, Baby!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on January 20, 2009, 10:37:50 PM
Quote:

Real said:
lol

of course many americans arent ready to do a tumble roll down the middle of the streets at the prospect of ridding themselves of one of the most vile leaders in your history.

i mean 47% of you voted for a ticket with freaking sarah palin on it.  no wonder you scare the shit out of the rest of the world...




What's your point?

If you're saying I should be happy Bush is gone, well, I am happy. But I knew this day would come 48 months ago, so the novelty has worn off a bit.

If you're saying I should be relieved Sarah Palin wasn't voted VP, come now my northern friend, we both know the outcome of this contest was never in doubt.

If you're saying I should embrace Obama because he is an improvement over Dubya, I'm afraid I must decline. You see, I hold the President to a higher standard than your George W. Bush litmus test.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on January 20, 2009, 10:43:58 PM
Quote:

pedonbio said:
Quote:

notty said:
I wasn't planning on posting in this thread after the election, but it seems I can't help myself. I'm sure my mood will improve after the inauguration, but right now I just want to scream, "I didn't vote for Obama! I don't give a shit about this 'historic event!' Go fuck yourself! In the ear!"

*takes a deep breath*

Nonetheless,

When I offer up criticisms of the man, they'll be based on his actions or lack thereof. My personal feelings will only season the dish, not provide the main ingredient.

*smiles sweetly*




Notty, usually I'm as bored with "historic event" crap as you are, but this time it's right. We white folks have gone a long, long way toward getting our souls back. In 1961 when Obama was born, his parents were prohibited by the laws of 26 states from marrying. In 11 states (The Old Confederacy) even if his father had acquired U.S. citizenship, he couldn't have voted in primary elections because his grandfather had not been eligible to vote in those states. More likely, his father would have been arrested for trying to register.

We old white farts have indeed come a long way, Baby!




Oh, PB. I'm happy you were able to assuage your guilt by voting for Obama. I'm happy your soul is on the mend. I guess it is a historic event for some people. But for me, I have no soul, and I feel no guilt, so...it's Tuesday.  

Edit: I just wanted to clarify that I'm not being flippant. I *am* happy for you. I'm happy for my parents. I'm happy for all the people who thought they would never see this in their lifetime. I suppose in that sense, it is a special day.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Dearc on January 21, 2009, 12:21:21 AM
I hereby declare that if I feel the urge to spout off some incomprehensible or totally inane comment, I can rest assured Notty says it better.  Give that man a cigar!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: rtpoe on January 21, 2009, 02:46:02 AM
I'm already disappointed in him. The economy is still a mess because he spent the whole day watching parades and partying!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: solvegas on January 21, 2009, 04:19:46 AM
Well, I didn't vote for him but as a patriot I want my Country and countrymen to do well. Unfortunately, there are forces out there having been unleashed by the Federal Reserve ( a goverment agency ) which I believe will cause a  lot of pain for a long time. For the last 15 years the Federal Reserve has been in a roller coaster money printing madness which has destabilized the economy. Remember the Clinton era Dot com boom ? It was caused by artificially low interest rates which made people believe money was cheap. Then the Federal Reserve stopped the money spigots in 1998 and by 2000 we had a recession ( according to the goverment conference board ). That's before Bush actually became President. Of course, the Federal Reserve  changed course and started printing money like mad. This helped create the housing bubble. I bought my house here in Vegas in 1998 for $132 K. In 2005 it was worth $325K. On paper I made a huge profit. Right now they say its worth $190 K.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: solvegas on January 21, 2009, 04:36:31 AM
I'm a slow typist so I had to cut myself short. Anyways, again in 2005 the Federal Reserve upped the interest rates, to contain the commodities and real estate bubbles, and now we are in recession. The artifially low interest rates which made banks believe money was essentially free made them do a lot of stupid loans and now the taxpayer is getting raped to bail out banks and others. Now the Interest rate is essentially zero but the economy may not respond. This happened to Japan in the 90's and their economy has stagnated for the last 18 years ( the Nikkei reached 39900 in Dec 31 1989. It's hovering between 10,000 and 11,000 lately, 19 years later ). My point is that the Federal Reserve screwing up of the money supply is going to take a long time to repair and frankly, it doesn't matter who is in the White House, He is fucked.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheRover on January 21, 2009, 04:59:53 AM
Quote:

Dearc said:
I hereby declare that if I feel the urge to spout off some incomprehensible or totally inane comment, I can rest assured Notty says it better.  Give that man a cigar!




Ah-Ah-AHEM!!!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: BarnacleBill on January 21, 2009, 08:24:20 AM
Great point solvegas.  Exactly what Paul Krugman said in his blog last week.

Krugman did a quick calculation based on historical Fed Reserve reactions to bad economic news (obviously, Fed lowers the interest rate to spur the economy in bad times).  

According to Krugman's calculations, for the Fed to respond as it has done historically, it would have to lower the interest rate to -6%.

That's NEGATIVE six percent.  Obviously, not possible.

Which is why Obama should do massive work projects like FDR, mainly in two areas.  (1) Building alternative energy sources, windmills, solar panels, etc.  (2) Creating millions of office jobs in a massive, unprecedented attempt to create a national healthcare history database.

Also, he should legalize pot.  It would save BILLIONS in prison and law enforcement costs while simultaneously creating BILLIONS in tax revenue.

Just some wacky ideas.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Janus on January 21, 2009, 08:31:30 AM
Legalize weed? You trust the same corporate douchebags who messed up banks and cars to handle weed?

 They're going to patent strands, raise tariffs on foreign crops, then use an RIAA type union to force wasting billions on patent protection.

J- That being said...Pineapple express was hilarious.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on January 21, 2009, 10:19:22 AM
Quote:

me: Yup, it's good value for money.

notty: Good value would be televising the oath from the Oval Office, and using the left over $149,999,950.00 to help the poor and homeless of Washington, D.C.  


Even better!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on January 21, 2009, 10:34:20 AM
Quote:

gOOber: I wonder if Obama's presidency will mean the end of political humor as we have known it for the past 16 years?


No way. The emphasis will no longer be on the president's stupidity, bad governance or malapropisms, but trust and believe that the late night comics will be able to find the funny in Obama

Quote:

JJ: Yeah, it will!   And shortly the Congress will be passing a law making it illegal to criticize the Exalted High Ruler and Annointed One, that being Lord Obama. Why, that would be racist.


No, but always insisting that anyone who wants to criticize him is racist, IS racist (or at least stupid). Obama is not a God, he is a fallible human being, and I for one, while being in his corner almost from day one, recognize this fact.
Quote:

JJ: According to CNN, we all "need to get behind this President" and come together.  Keep hearing how we really need for this President to "succeed"!

Don't recall that CNN put out the same appeal when Clarence Thomas ascended to a seat on the Supreme Court or when Colin Powell, then Condy Rice became Secretary of State?


None of those individuals became the head of state in a time of war. That's the difference. Why would anyone put out a call to rally behind a Supreme Court Justice? (Especially one who was essentially called upon to fill the black quota in the SCOTUS, after the death of the legal giant Thurgood Marshall. I mean, was he the best person of any color they could come up with? Please.)
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on January 21, 2009, 01:56:00 PM
Quote:

Dearc said:
I hereby declare that if I feel the urge to spout off some incomprehensible or totally inane comment, I can rest assured Notty says it better.  Give that man a cigar!




Whoa, there. Let's not rally around me quite yet. If my only choices on the ballot had been McCain and Obama, I would've voted for Obama. My purpose here is to try to keep these starry-eyed goofballs somewhat grounded in reality. Our country is a mess. This isn't a good time for idol worship. We need to ask tough questions and demand more of our leaders than we ever have before.

P.S. I'm not a man.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Dearc on January 21, 2009, 02:04:56 PM
Ooops, my bad.  lol
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: ROUNDandHEAVY on January 21, 2009, 02:54:05 PM
Quote:

notty said:P.S. I'm not a man.




No, rather an attractive woman.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: pedonbio on January 21, 2009, 08:12:15 PM
Quote:

notty said:
Quote:

pedonbio said:
Quote:

notty said:
I wasn't planning on posting in this thread after the election, but it seems I can't help myself. I'm sure my mood will improve after the inauguration, but right now I just want to scream, "I didn't vote for Obama! I don't give a shit about this 'historic event!' Go fuck yourself! In the ear!"

*takes a deep breath*

Nonetheless,

When I offer up criticisms of the man, they'll be based on his actions or lack thereof. My personal feelings will only season the dish, not provide the main ingredient.

*smiles sweetly*




Notty, usually I'm as bored with "historic event" crap as you are, but this time it's right. We white folks have gone a long, long way toward getting our souls back. In 1961 when Obama was born, his parents were prohibited by the laws of 26 states from marrying. In 11 states (The Old Confederacy) even if his father had acquired U.S. citizenship, he couldn't have voted in primary elections because his grandfather had not been eligible to vote in those states. More likely, his father would have been arrested for trying to register.

We old white farts have indeed come a long way, Baby!




Oh, PB. I'm happy you were able to assuage your guilt by voting for Obama. I'm happy your soul is on the mend. I guess it is a historic event for some people. But for me, I have no soul, and I feel no guilt, so...it's Tuesday.  

Edit: I just wanted to clarify that I'm not being flippant. I *am* happy for you. I'm happy for my parents. I'm happy for all the people who thought they would never see this in their lifetime. I suppose in that sense, it is a special day.




I wasn't assuaging any guilt. It is one of those feelings that comes from having lived through a time, and it's much more in the details. For example, in 1965 three civil rights workers, who were registering Black voters, were killed in Greenwood, Mississippi. Two of them had parents who were influential in New York State, so the FBI undertook to investigate. Some part of that story is told in the movie "Mississippi Burning". But now few folks remember what else was going on. For example, searchers found several other bodies of Black men, but that wasn't all that newsworthy. THAT was the norm, nothing unusual for that time and place. I recall two bodies were found wired together, floating in a river. At first it was thought one was one of the civil rights workers, but he wasn't. IIRC, a few years ago there was finally a conviction in his murder.

Terrrorism wasn't called that in those days, because it was home-grown.

Much less significant, but closer to me, was a strange incident with my bank in 1965. Among other things, I was a member of SNCC, the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee. I paid my dues by check. A few weeks later, I got a call to come into my bank. The branch manager asked if I had written the check. I said I had. He asked if I wanted to stop payment. I said I did not. He said okay, and I left. Two weeks later the bank closed my account.

I hope that stuff like that doesn't happen any more.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Q_BE on January 21, 2009, 08:59:53 PM
Quote:

ROUNDandHEAVY said:
Quote:

notty said:P.S. I'm not a man.



No, a rather attractive woman.



Fixed.

Q-"Either way, she sounds hot"-BE

Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Real on January 22, 2009, 03:44:23 AM
Quote:

notty said:
Quote:

Real said:
lol

of course many americans arent ready to do a tumble roll down the middle of the streets at the prospect of ridding themselves of one of the most vile leaders in your history.

i mean 47% of you voted for a ticket with freaking sarah palin on it.  no wonder you scare the shit out of the rest of the world...




What's your point?

If you're saying I should be happy Bush is gone, well, I am happy. But I knew this day would come 48 months ago, so the novelty has worn off a bit.

If you're saying I should be relieved Sarah Palin wasn't voted VP, come now my northern friend, we both know the outcome of this contest was never in doubt.

If you're saying I should embrace Obama because he is an improvement over Dubya, I'm afraid I must decline. You see, I hold the President to a higher standard than your George W. Bush litmus test.




my point is you have to be either a right wing republican or the ultimate cynic to feign not being able to logically connect with the palpable excitement surrounding the prospect of a leader who for starters believes in science and not fairy tale magic.  someone who's concerned about the middle as well as the upper class.  someone who is going to end the illegal occupation of a country that was invaded on a lie.  someonw who might not look to charactyer assasinate anyone who disagrees with him.  someone who claims he will and just might govern in the interest of common sense instead of academic political theory.  someone who understands that ecological preservation is an important infrastructure that will keep our [censored] from being flat broke.  someone who didnt wipe their ass with your constitution.  and on and on.  i mean you can hold your president to whatever standard you want, but you really think its so snicker worthy that folks might be excited?  

the outcome of this contest was never in doubt was it?  i dont know, it took two george w terms, a horrid mccain campaign and a vp candidate who actually seemed retarded and got a pass because she was a woman for obama to get his 3 point "landslide".  george bush got a second term.  anyone with a pulse who believes in jesus has a chance.

what is it youre looking for in a leader that would have been so much less scoff-worthy?...
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on January 22, 2009, 04:30:53 AM
Quote:

Open letter to Senator Barack Obama

Dear Senator Obama:

In your nearly two-year presidential campaign, the words "hope and change," "change and hope" have been your trademark declarations. Yet there is an asymmetry between those objectives and your political character that succumbs to contrary centers of power that want not "hope and change" but the continuation of the power-entrenched status quo.

Far more than Senator McCain, you have received enormous, unprecedented contributions from corporate interests, Wall Street interests and, most interestingly, big corporate law firm attorneys. Never before has a Democratic nominee for President achieved this supremacy over his Republican counterpart. Why, apart from your unconditional vote for the $700 billion Wall Street bailout, are these large corporate interests investing so much in Senator Obama? Could it be that in your state Senate record, your U.S. Senate record and your presidential campaign record (favoring nuclear power, coal plants, offshore oil drilling, corporate subsidies including the 1872 Mining Act and avoiding any comprehensive program to crack down on the corporate crime wave and the bloated, wasteful military budget, for example) you have shown that you are their man?

To advance change and hope, the presidential persona requires character, courage, integrity— not expediency, accommodation and short-range opportunism. Take, for example, your transformation from an articulate defender of Palestinian rights in Chicago before your run for the U.S. Senate to an acolyte, a dittoman for the hard-line AIPAC lobby, which bolsters the militaristic oppression, occupation, blockage, colonization and land-water seizures over the years of the Palestinian peoples and their shrunken territories in the West Bank and Gaza. Eric Alterman summarized numerous polls in a December 2007 issue of The Nation magazine showing that AIPAC policies are opposed by a majority of Jewish-Americans.

You know quite well that only when the U.S. Government supports the Israeli and Palestinian peace movements, that years ago worked out a detailed two-state solution (which is supported by a majority of Israelis and Palestinians), will there be a chance for a peaceful resolution of this 60-year plus conflict. Yet you align yourself with the hard-liners, so much so that in your infamous, demeaning speech to the AIPAC convention right after you gained the nomination of the Democratic Party, you supported an "undivided Jerusalem," and opposed negotiations with Hamas— the elected government in Gaza. Once again, you ignored the will of the Israeli people who, in a March 1, 2008 poll by the respected newspaper Haaretz, showed that 64% of Israelis favored "direct negotiations with Hamas." Siding with the AIPAC hard-liners is what one of the many leading Palestinians advocating dialogue and peace with the Israeli people was describing when he wrote "Anti-semitism today is the persecution of Palestinian society by the Israeli state."

During your visit to Israel this summer, you scheduled a mere 45 minutes of your time for Palestinians with no news conference, and no visit to Palestinian refugee camps that would have focused the media on the brutalization of the Palestinians. Your trip supported the illegal, cruel blockade of Gaza in defiance of international law and the United Nations charter. You focused on southern Israeli casualties which during the past year have totaled one civilian casualty to every 400 Palestinian casualties on the Gaza side. Instead of a statesmanship that decried all violence and its replacement with acceptance of the Arab League’s 2002 proposal to permit a viable Palestinian state within the 1967 borders in return for full economic and diplomatic relations between Arab countries and Israel, you played the role of a cheap politician, leaving the area and Palestinians with the feeling of much shock and little awe.

David Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator, described your trip succinctly: "There was almost a willful display of indifference to the fact that there are two narratives here. This could serve him well as a candidate, but not as a President."

Palestinian American commentator, Ali Abunimah, noted that Obama did not utter a single criticism of Israel, "of its relentless settlement and wall construction, of the closures that make life unlivable for millions of Palestinians. …Even the Bush administration recently criticized Israeli’s use of cluster bombs against Lebanese civilians [see www.atfl.org for elaboration]. But Obama defended Israeli’s assault on Lebanon as an exercise of its ‘legitimate right to defend itself.’"

In numerous columns Gideon Levy, writing in Haaretz, strongly criticized the Israeli government’s assault on civilians in Gaza, including attacks on "the heart of a crowded refugee camp… with horrible bloodshed" in early 2008.

Israeli writer and peace advocate— Uri Avnery— described Obama’s appearance before AIPAC as one that "broke all records for obsequiousness and fawning, adding that Obama "is prepared to sacrifice the most basic American interests. After all, the US has a vital interest in achieving an Israeli-Palestinian peace that will allow it to find ways to the hearts of the Arab masses from Iraq to Morocco. Obama has harmed his image in the Muslim world and mortgaged his future— if and when he is elected president.," he said, adding, "Of one thing I am certain: Obama’s declarations at the AIPAC conference are very, very bad for peace. And what is bad for peace is bad for Israel, bad for the world and bad for the Palestinian people."

A further illustration of your deficiency of character is the way you turned your back on the Muslim-Americans in this country. You refused to send surrogates to speak to voters at their events. Having visited numerous churches and synagogues, you refused to visit a single Mosque in America. Even George W. Bush visited the Grand Mosque in Washington D.C. after 9/11 to express proper sentiments of tolerance before a frightened major religious group of innocents.

Although the New York Times published a major article on June 24, 2008 titled "Muslim Voters Detect a Snub from Obama" (by Andrea Elliott), citing examples of your aversion to these Americans who come from all walks of life, who serve in the armed forces and who work to live the American dream. Three days earlier the International Herald Tribune published an article by Roger Cohen titled "Why Obama Should Visit a Mosque." None of these comments and reports change your political bigotry against Muslim-Americans— even though your father was a Muslim from Kenya.

Perhaps nothing illustrated your utter lack of political courage or even the mildest version of this trait than your surrendering to demands of the hard-liners to prohibit former president Jimmy Carter from speaking at the Democratic National Convention. This is a tradition for former presidents and one accorded in prime time to Bill Clinton this year.

Here was a President who negotiated peace between Israel and Egypt, but his recent book pressing the dominant Israeli superpower to avoid Apartheid of the Palestinians and make peace was all that it took to sideline him. Instead of an important address to the nation by Jimmy Carter on this critical international problem, he was relegated to a stroll across the stage to "tumultuous applause," following a showing of a film about the Carter Center’s post-Katrina work. Shame on you, Barack Obama!

But then your shameful behavior has extended to many other areas of American life. (See the factual analysis by my running mate, Matt Gonzalez, on www.votenader.org). You have turned your back on the 100-million poor Americans composed of poor whites, African-Americans, and Latinos. You always mention helping the "middle class" but you omit, repeatedly, mention of the "poor" in America.

Should you be elected President, it must be more than an unprecedented upward career move following a brilliantly unprincipled campaign that spoke "change" yet demonstrated actual obeisance to the concentration power of the "corporate supremacists." It must be about shifting the power from the few to the many. It must be a White House presided over by a black man who does not turn his back on the downtrodden here and abroad but challenges the forces of greed, dictatorial control of labor, consumers and taxpayers, and the militarization of foreign policy. It must be a White House that is transforming of American politics— opening it up to the public funding of elections (through voluntary approaches)— and allowing smaller candidates to have a chance to be heard on debates and in the fullness of their now restricted civil liberties. Call it a competitive democracy.

Your presidential campaign again and again has demonstrated cowardly stands. "Hope" some say springs eternal." But not when "reality" consumes it daily.

Sincerely,
Ralph Nader


Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: 3deroticer on January 22, 2009, 04:35:29 AM
US Bank called me in for a $1500 withdrawel to a man in Washington, as a follow up on homeland security procedure for purchasing a used moped. I am not with that bank anymore. I found another bank that didn't ask me 20 homeland security question. Personally, I don't think its the bank goddamn business what I do with my money, and I made the withdrawal in person.

I would like to see the homeland security policy relax a bit.

BTW Obama did meet with Muslim leaders today in America. I think that if he did that before the election it would have cost him the votes as the same for many of things he failed to do before the election. As anyone knows you know you need corporates ass kissing to get the votes, and even them McCain got 47% of the votes regardless that 2 million people showed up for the inauguration. I think Obama made all the right move to get where he is, now I'm waiting if he'll make the honest move from here on out.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: BarnacleBill on January 22, 2009, 05:04:42 AM
To notty:  

NADER SUCKS DONKEY DICK.  Please do not idolize that little bastard.  He has done some good stuff.  But seriously, he sucks.  He screwed Gore in 2000 in Florida.

And that letter is bullshit.  

The true faith of Islam is evil.  

Everybody knows this.  Islam is based on killing nonbelievers.  Where is the "moderate" Islamic outrage when Hamas UNPROVOKEDLY fires rockets into Israel?

Ralph Nader is an egomaniac, who thinks his shit don't stink.

Well, guess what, Nader, it does!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: mofoapoo on January 22, 2009, 05:23:06 AM
Quote:

BarnacleBill said:
Muslims are evil.  




stopped listening there.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Starscream on January 22, 2009, 06:31:31 AM
I saw something on the news about Obama re-taking the oath of office "just to be safe"
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on January 22, 2009, 06:50:02 PM
Quote:

BarnacleBill said:
To notty:  

NADER SUCKS DONKEY DICK.  Please do not idolize that little bastard.  He has done some good stuff.  But seriously, he sucks.  He screwed Gore in 2000 in Florida.

And that letter is bullshit.  

The true faith of Islam is evil.  

Everybody knows this.  Islam is based on killing nonbelievers.  Where is the "moderate" Islamic outrage when Hamas UNPROVOKEDLY fires rockets into Israel?

Ralph Nader is an egomaniac, who thinks his shit don't stink.

Well, guess what, Nader, it does!




My dearest BB,

I don't idolize Nader, but I respect him because he operates outside the entrenched political framework. And I'm sorry, but Nader didn't cost Gore anything. Gore cost Gore a safe margin of victory with his uninspired campaign and utter lack of charisma (although, he seems to have acquired a bit of that in recent years). I love the guy, but back then, he was limp. I can't think of any way else to say it.

As for Islam, I'm not a big fan. The treatment of Muslim women is often deplorable. But, I strive not to stereotype all Muslims based on the actions of a few. Sure, there are some mad-dog killers out there who want to rid the world of infidels. However, I'd be willing to bet most Muslims are not much different from you and me. I'd wager they want the same things we want: peace, prosperity, and a better world for our children.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: pedonbio on January 22, 2009, 07:41:56 PM
Quote:

notty said:

I don't idolize Nader, but I respect him because he operates outside the entrenched political framework.  




So does David Duke.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on January 22, 2009, 07:48:38 PM
Quote:

Real said:
my point is you have to be either a right wing republican or the ultimate cynic to feign not being able to logically connect with the palpable excitement surrounding the prospect of a leader who for starters believes in science and not fairy tale magic.  someone who's concerned about the middle as well as the upper class.  someone who is going to end the illegal occupation of a country that was invaded on a lie.  someonw who might not look to charactyer assasinate anyone who disagrees with him.  someone who claims he will and just might govern in the interest of common sense instead of academic political theory.  someone who understands that ecological preservation is an important infrastructure that will keep our [censored] from being flat broke.  someone who didnt wipe their ass with your constitution.  and on and on.  i mean you can hold your president to whatever standard you want, but you really think its so snicker worthy that folks might be excited?  

the outcome of this contest was never in doubt was it?  i dont know, it took two george w terms, a horrid mccain campaign and a vp candidate who actually seemed retarded and got a pass because she was a woman for obama to get his 3 point "landslide".  george bush got a second term.  anyone with a pulse who believes in jesus has a chance.

what is it youre looking for in a leader that would have been so much less scoff-worthy?...




Hmm, what do I do with this mess? I know, let's open it up to the forumites! Time for Question Game:

Am I a right-wing Republican? If I am, what makes me a right-wing Republican?

Am I the ultimate cynic? If I am, what makes me the ultimate cynic?

Do I fail to understand "the palpable excitement surrounding the prospect of a leader who for starters believes in science and not fairy tale magic?" Or is it that I understand, but find this behavior irresponsible? If it is the former, why do I fail to understand? If it is the later, why do I find it irresponsible?

Why am I not excited about some who cares about the middle class? Is it that I care more about the upper class? Or is that I care more about the invisible class, being those people near, at, or below the poverty level? Or none of the above? If so, why?

Do I fail to understand the excitement about potentially ending the occupation of Iraq? Or do I not care about Iraq? If so, why? Or did I realize a couple years ago that whichever Democratic candidate made it into office would withdraw the troops, making Iraq a bit of a non-factor?

Will Obama attack someone's character at any point during his term(s)? If not, why not?

Will Obama govern from common sense instead of theory? If so, why? How does that fit with his reputation as an intellectual? And what have you to say about his professorship at a university long known for its concentration on the theory of law rather than its practice?

Is Obama a champion of the environment? If he is, why does he support construction of additional coal and nuclear plants? Why does he support offshore drilling?

Did George W. Bush in fact wipe his ass with the Constitution? If so, how did he get it out of the display case? Do you think he watched National Treasure for some tips and tricks? Or, do you think the techniques used in National Treasure are not applicable to the theft the Constitution? Or do you think the techniques used in National Treasure are not applicable to anything? If so, why?

Do you think I think it's snicker-worthy that people would be excited about Obama? If so, why? Or do you think I think that people sometimes sacrifice their rationality to their enthusiasm? If so, do you think I might not want this to happen to my good friends in the forum? Or, am I just the party pooper? If so, why?

In the United States, are presidential candidates elected by popular vote? (hint: no) According to the polling data, did John McCain reach 270 electoral votes at any point during the campaign? What was Obama's margin of victory in the electoral college? Was it greater than 3%? If so, how much greater? Was McCain's campaign badly run? If so, why? If so, could it have been improved? If so, how could it have been improved? Could McCain have won the election with a better campaign? Was John McCain's choice of vice presidential candidate detrimental to his campaign? If so, why? Would he have received a larger portion of the electoral vote with a different vice presidential candidate? If so, why?

Weeeeeeeee!! I like Question Game!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on January 22, 2009, 07:49:53 PM
Quote:

pedonbio said:
Quote:

notty said:

I don't idolize Nader, but I respect him because he operates outside the entrenched political framework.  




So does David Duke.




You're comparing Ralph Nader to David Duke? Don't tell David Duke that.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on January 22, 2009, 09:11:42 PM
Quote:

Starscream said:
I saw something on the news about Obama re-taking the oath of office "just to be safe"


Yes, he did. This is a man who dots his Is and crosses his Ts. Of course, it's not stopping some loonie bin bloggers from trying to say that he isn't president because he didn't swear on a Bible...obviously reading comprehension is a thing unknown to them, since Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution makes no mention of the necessity of swearing on a Bible. When he and the other members of the Illinois state senate were sworn in, none of them swore on Bibles either...and of course we all know people who've sworn on a stack of Bibles and still were found to be lying through their adulterous teeth.

And Chief Justice John Roberts is a poopyhead.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on January 22, 2009, 09:23:06 PM
Quote:

BarnacleBill:
To notty:  

NADER SUCKS DONKEY DICK.  Please do not idolize that little bastard.  He has done some good stuff.  But seriously, he sucks.  He screwed Gore in 2000 in Florida.


Nader is to Gore what Alan Keyes is to Obama. If he were a country, he'd be a failed nation-state. He did do some mighty fine work in the now-distant past, but his presidential campaign no doubt helped to undermine Gore's attempt to hold the office. But let's not put the blame on him. It wasn't Nader who refused to fight to the bitter end when the Florida Supreme Court put a kibosh on the recount of the ballots in the 2000 election. And besides, if Gore couldn't even get people from his own state of Tennessee to vote for him, well.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on January 22, 2009, 09:25:20 PM
It may have taken him two tries to get the oath right but at least he is acting as a true president should:

BBC News: "Obama orders Guantanamo closure"
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: midsize on January 23, 2009, 01:02:19 AM
Quote:

notty said:

Hmm, what do I do with this mess? I know, let's open it up to the forumites! Time for Question Game:

Am I a right-wing Republican? If I am, what makes me a right-wing Republican?

Am I the ultimate cynic? If I am, what makes me the ultimate cynic?

Do I fail to understand "the palpable excitement surrounding the prospect of a leader who for starters believes in science and not fairy tale magic?" Or is it that I understand, but find this behavior irresponsible? If it is the former, why do I fail to understand? If it is the later, why do I find it irresponsible?

Why am I not excited about some who cares about the middle class? Is it that I care more about the upper class? Or is that I care more about the invisible class, being those people near, at, or below the poverty level? Or none of the above? If so, why?

Do I fail to understand the excitement about potentially ending the occupation of Iraq? Or do I not care about Iraq? If so, why? Or did I realize a couple years ago that whichever Democratic candidate made it into office would withdraw the troops, making Iraq a bit of a non-factor?

Will Obama attack someone's character at any point during his term(s)? If not, why not?

Will Obama govern from common sense instead of theory? If so, why? How does that fit with his reputation as an intellectual? And what have you to say about his professorship at a university long known for its concentration on the theory of law rather than its practice?

Is Obama a champion of the environment? If he is, why does he support construction of additional coal and nuclear plants? Why does he support offshore drilling?

Did George W. Bush in fact wipe his ass with the Constitution? If so, how did he get it out of the display case? Do you think he watched National Treasure for some tips and tricks? Or, do you think the techniques used in National Treasure are not applicable to the theft the Constitution? Or do you think the techniques used in National Treasure are not applicable to anything? If so, why?

Do you think I think it's snicker-worthy that people would be excited about Obama? If so, why? Or do you think I think that people sometimes sacrifice their rationality to their enthusiasm? If so, do you think I might not want this to happen to my good friends in the forum? Or, am I just the party pooper? If so, why?

In the United States, are presidential candidates elected by popular vote? (hint: no) According to the polling data, did John McCain reach 270 electoral votes at any point during the campaign? What was Obama's margin of victory in the electoral college? Was it greater than 3%? If so, how much greater? Was McCain's campaign badly run? If so, why? If so, could it have been improved? If so, how could it have been improved? Could McCain have won the election with a better campaign? Was John McCain's choice of vice presidential candidate detrimental to his campaign? If so, why? Would he have received a larger portion of the electoral vote with a different vice presidential candidate? If so, why?

Weeeeeeeee!! I like Question Game!




Notty;

I'm not going to even try to answer all those questions, but I doubt you want answers anyway. However, I will offer a generalized answer to all of them that takes 2 parts.

First, the long history of your contributions to this forum leads me to the following conclusions about you:
You are enviably intelligent and articulate, and your politics are moderate, libertarian, and center-right with an intolerance of anything smacking of dogma. You present a persona of rational skepticism born of deep agnosticism which is itself the product of disillusionment.

Such skepticism is distrusted by people more prone to ideology, because they suspect it of having a hidden ideological motivation. Skepticism is especially suspect in a time when both rancor and exuberance are heightened by an election and its aftermath.

I believe this phenomenon is the fault of the culture of talk radio and the blogosphere, where it has become almost a comedic shtick by the most obviously polarized ideologues to present themselves as the souls of sweet reason and merely truth-seekers and -sayers, while spewing hypocritical, hyperbolic, divisive, extremist rhetoric. The effect of this has been to destroy the meaning of sincerity. It is impossible to say "I'm not taking anything away from Obama, I'm just sick of people adding so much to him" without someone saying "Suuure... another bitter right-wing 'hater' who can't bear to hear good things said about a fine man." No protestation to the contrary suffices to prove your sincerity, because no one believes anymore in the possibility of sincerity.

That's the good part.

You often come across in your posts with an attitude of smug, snotty, arch dismissiveness that I don't believe is accidental. This makes it easy to believe that your rational skepticism is really a self-indulgent cynicism born not of agnosticism but of projected self-loathing. It also makes your statements reek of a snarky provocation that is unbecoming to a person of your intelligence and character, and evokes the expected response from your interlocutors.

In short, the answer to all your questions is: this conflict with your current critics is partly the fault of a dysfunctional culture that has no room for sincere skepticism and punishes reason with vituperation, and partly the fault of your often obnoxious attitude obscuring your pleasant personality and congenial intellect.

Not a fan, but respectfully,

-mid
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: ROUNDandHEAVY on January 23, 2009, 01:23:29 AM
Quote:

pedonbio said:
Quote:

notty said:

I don't idolize Nader, but I respect him because he operates outside the entrenched political framework.  




So does David Duke.




That's bogus logic. For example:

"I have a beard and Jesus has a beard, therefore I am Jesus."

Your response assumes that Notty likes anyone because they are outside the mainstream. I am sure David Duke's other activitites alienate him from Notty's admiration.

Having said that I don't like Nader because he operates outside the system. He is a crank, a crochety old curmudgeon who is incapable of winning enough hearts and minds to build a coalition.

I liked Carter, but he proved you can't just expect Washington to talk to the hand. Clinton on the other hand proved that you need to be able to make deals to further your agenda.

I think Obama has a big mandate, but also has a well organized machine ready to thwart him at every turn if he tries to simply marginalize them because he thinks they are wrong.

I am excited because he seems smart enough and charismatic enough as Clinton, only with a beter agenda and not so much baggage.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on January 23, 2009, 02:21:58 AM
Quote:

midsize said:
Notty;

I'm not going to even try to answer all those questions, but I doubt you want answers anyway. However, I will offer a generalized answer to all of them that takes 2 parts.

First, the long history of your contributions to this forum leads me to the following conclusions about you:
You are enviably intelligent and articulate, and your politics are moderate, libertarian, and center-right with an intolerance of anything smacking of dogma. You present a persona of rational skepticism born of deep agnosticism which is itself the product of disillusionment.

Such skepticism is distrusted by people more prone to ideology, because they suspect it of having a hidden ideological motivation. Skepticism is especially suspect in a time when both rancor and exuberance are heightened by an election and its aftermath.

I believe this phenomenon is the fault of the culture of talk radio and the blogosphere, where it has become almost a comedic shtick by the most obviously polarized ideologues to present themselves as the souls of sweet reason and merely truth-seekers and -sayers, while spewing hypocritical, hyperbolic, divisive, extremist rhetoric. The effect of this has been to destroy the meaning of sincerity. It is impossible to say "I'm not taking anything away from Obama, I'm just sick of people adding so much to him" without someone saying "Suuure... another bitter right-wing 'hater' who can't bear to hear good things said about a fine man." No protestation to the contrary suffices to prove your sincerity, because no one believes anymore in the possibility of sincerity.

That's the good part.

You often come across in your posts with an attitude of smug, snotty, arch dismissiveness that I don't believe is accidental. This makes it easy to believe that your rational skepticism is really a self-indulgent cynicism born not of agnosticism but of projected self-loathing. It also makes your statements reek of a snarky provocation that is unbecoming to a person of your intelligence and character, and evokes the expected response from your interlocutors.

In short, the answer to all your questions is: this conflict with your current critics is partly the fault of a dysfunctional culture that has no room for sincere skepticism and punishes reason with vituperation, and partly the fault of your often obnoxious attitude obscuring your pleasant personality and congenial intellect.

Not a fan, but respectfully,

-mid




Midsize...I'm almost speechless. What an incredible post. Possibly the finest I've read. I must admit you understand me very well. In some ways, I'm rather immature. You know that phase ch1ldren go through when they feel the need to test their boundaries? When they act out, agitate, and misbehave? Well, it seems I never got over that.

You are also correct in that I don't like myself very much. There's a scene in "Sideways" where Miles stares into the bathroom mirror and says, "You are such a loser. You make me want to puke." It's a bittersweet moment for me, because I go through the same routine each day. I try to refrain from projecting my self-loathing onto other people, but alas, I don't always succeed.

Okay, I think that's enough sharing for today. I haven't been very nice to you Midsize, and I apologize for that. You were right about the monocots.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Peter Hannes on January 23, 2009, 02:38:42 AM
Janus: Legalize weed?

Yes, of course marijuana should be legalized. Is the United States of America supposed to be the land of the free or a fascist shithole?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Peter Hannes on January 23, 2009, 02:42:15 AM
notty: I'm sorry, but Nader didn't cost Gore anything.

I'm sorry but you're wrong about that. Nader got about 97,000 votes in Florida. If he wasn't in the race maybe half of those people would have stayed home and most of the other half would have voted for Gore. He would have won the state by tens of thousands of votes and we wouldn't have had to suffer the 8 years of the Bush nightmare.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: mofoapoo on January 23, 2009, 03:45:14 AM
Quote:

BarnacleBill said:
The true faith of Islam is evil.  





You change it in an attempt to insult less people, but I still stopped taking you seriously.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: BarnacleBill on January 23, 2009, 03:47:49 AM
Well then we're even.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: ROUNDandHEAVY on January 23, 2009, 08:54:22 AM
Quote:

peterh said:
notty: I'm sorry, but Nader didn't cost Gore anything.

I'm sorry but you're wrong about that. Nader got about 97,000 votes in Florida. If he wasn't in the race maybe half of those people would have stayed home and most of the other half would have voted for Gore. He would have won the state by tens of thousands of votes and we wouldn't have had to suffer the 8 years of the Bush nightmare.




Gore didn't even carry his home state. Really blame Nader all you want.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on January 23, 2009, 10:29:29 AM
Nader is an idiot, and his candidacy did have a negative effect on Gore, but not nearly as much as the loss of his home state of Tennessee to Bush. 97,000 votes is nothing to sniff at to be sure, but to lose Tennessee's 11 electoral college votes did more to doom Gore than anything Nader did.

Meanwhile, in other good news, Barack gets to keep his Crackberry after all.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: MasterDragonfly on January 23, 2009, 02:37:42 PM
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
Meanwhile, in other good news, Barack gets to keep his Crackberry after all.



That is way cool.  I haven't been following the Crackberry scene closely, but it would be interesting to see whether it can be (and whether it has been) set up to use PGP/GPG or similar.

And in related news, it seems that President Obama's administration might mean a boost for Open Source.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on January 23, 2009, 05:15:53 PM
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
Nader is an idiot, blah blah blah...




Wow, that's very deep, Zookie. The breadth of your intellect is staggering.

Let's play the Role Reversal Game! I make the following post:

Quote:


Obama is an idiot, blah blah blah...





How do you respond?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: JJ on January 23, 2009, 05:19:09 PM
The truce is over as Obama cartoonists fire away............

 
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on January 23, 2009, 08:16:45 PM
Quote:

notty said:
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
Nader is an idiot, blah blah blah...




Wow, that's very deep, Zookie. The breadth of your intellect is staggering.

Let's play the Role Reversal Game! I make the following post:

Quote:


Obama is an idiot, blah blah blah...





How do you respond?


I respond by wondering why out of everything I had to say, you are harping on the "Nader is an idiot" part. But well, that's your prerogative.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: pedonbio on January 23, 2009, 08:19:40 PM
Quote:

ROUNDandHEAVY said:
Quote:

pedonbio said:
Quote:

notty said:

I don't idolize Nader, but I respect him because he operates outside the entrenched political framework.  




So does David Duke.




That's bogus logic. For example:

"I have a beard and Jesus has a beard, therefore I am Jesus."

Your response assumes that Notty likes anyone because they are outside the mainstream. I am sure David Duke's other activitites alienate him from Notty's admiration.

Having said that I don't like Nader because he operates outside the system. He is a crank, a crochety old curmudgeon who is incapable of winning enough hearts and minds to build a coalition.

I liked Carter, but he proved you can't just expect Washington to talk to the hand. Clinton on the other hand proved that you need to be able to make deals to further your agenda.

I think Obama has a big mandate, but also has a well organized machine ready to thwart him at every turn if he tries to simply marginalize them because he thinks they are wrong.

I am excited because he seems smart enough and charismatic enough as Clinton, only with a beter agenda and not so much baggage.




Actually, my point was logically perfect: The fact someone acts inside or outside "the mainstream" (whatever that is) is hardly a basis for admiration or contempt, and that was my point. I think notty simply quit writing before she made her point.

But your post is way off the mark. Notty has never said (that I could find) that she "likes" Nader. She has said that she "respects" him, which is the point at which we disagree. Apropos of "liking" him, those of us anywhere near the political pole notty and I are both fairly close to, know that NOBODY actually "likes" Ralph. He is personally arrogant, condescending, and a royal pain in the ass. I had a couple of really abrasive encounters with him when he worked for Warren Magnuson, and neither of us has bothered the other since. He doesn't, IMHO, eschew mainstream politics because he thinks it is corrupt, but because if he worked in it, he would actually have to treat other people with respect.

By the way, Zookie, did you compare Nader to Alan Keyes? Better not tell Keyes that!  
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on January 23, 2009, 08:34:15 PM
Quote:

JJ: The truce is over as Obama cartoonists fire away............


There was never really a ceasefire in the first place. I mean, really, those ears? Surefire comedy material right there. And on YouTube, he has been the subject of many impersonators, some of them very good ones:

YouTube: Alphacat: "Obama Picks His Cabinet!!!!"

YouTube: Alphacat: "Obama, I Can Do Whatever I Like" (spoof of T.I.'s "Whatever You Like")
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on January 23, 2009, 09:07:31 PM
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
I respond by wondering why out of everything I had to say, you are harping on the "Nader is an idiot" part. But well, that's your prerogative.




Because, if you're going to resort to name calling, at least be creative about it.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on January 23, 2009, 09:10:01 PM
Quote:

pedonbio said:
Notty has never said (that I could find) that she "likes" Nader. She has said that she "respects" him, which is the point at which we disagree. Apropos of "liking" him, those of us anywhere near the political pole notty and I are both fairly close to, know that NOBODY actually "likes" Ralph.




This is true. I respect Nader, but I like PB. Well, not the last few days, but that'll pass.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: 70ChallRT/SE on January 23, 2009, 09:16:10 PM
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
Quote:

Starscream said:
I saw something on the news about Obama re-taking the oath of office "just to be safe"


Yes, he did. This is a man who dots his Is and crosses his Ts. Of course, it's not stopping some loonie bin bloggers from trying to say that he isn't president because he didn't swear on a Bible...obviously reading comprehension is a thing unknown to them, since Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution makes no mention of the necessity of swearing on a Bible. When he and the other members of the Illinois state senate were sworn in, none of them swore on Bibles either...and of course we all know people who've sworn on a stack of Bibles and still were found to be lying through their adulterous teeth.

And Chief Justice John Roberts is a poopyhead.





I bring up this point for anybody who cares.
Since we are quoting the U.S. Constitution, how about throwing this into the mix?

Section 6. The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.

No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time: and no person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office.

Basically, Obama and his team circumvented this Constitutional Amendment by having Hilary take a salary $1,400.00 less than Rice was earning before the Secretary of State salary increased earlier this month. (note that she will still earn more than her current salary as Senator)

Since there has been so much talk of "W" stepping all over the Constitution during his tenure, would it not be fair to throw Obama under the same bus? Before he was even sworn into office, he used his vast knowledge of the "piece of paper" to get what he wanted, regardless of what Constitutional Law mandates.

I don't see much in the way of "change" or "hope" to be honest, a politician is a politician. They are all liars that hold their own agenda above that of "serving" this country.  

It is not my wish to see this man fail as POTUS, rather the contrary. I hope for a better economy, a more stable future, and a safe, secure nation for my little one to grow up in. I would however like to see a politician for once following the letter of the law he has sworn an oath to uphold, rather than sidestepping them.

As a side, I have taken an oath in my lifetime to uphold the law. I followed it to the letter, and my choice to do so cost me dearly for not bowing to elected officials who would have me make certain provisions as "favors" for them. I do not regret my actions, I stood for my beliefs, and will see politicians as nothing but self serving egocentrics until I am proven wrong by seeing an honest elected official performing their duties as described.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on January 23, 2009, 09:23:23 PM
Quote:

70ChallRT/SE said:
As a side, I have taken an oath in my lifetime to uphold the law. I followed it to the letter, and my choice to do so cost me dearly for not bowing to elected officials who would have me make certain provisions as "favors" for them. I do not regret my actions, I stood for my beliefs, and will see politicians as nothing but self serving egocentrics until I am proven wrong by seeing an honest elected official performing their duties as described.




I definitely like you.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: 70ChallRT/SE on January 23, 2009, 09:47:25 PM
Thank you Notty, and I like you!
I enjoy reading every post you make, they are insightful, thought provoking, or just fun
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: pedonbio on January 23, 2009, 10:11:18 PM
Quote:

70ChallRT/SE said:


I bring up this point for anybody who cares.
Since we are quoting the U.S. Constitution, how about throwing this into the mix?

Section 6.

No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time: and no person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office.

Basically, Obama and his team circumvented this Constitutional Amendment by having Hilary take a salary $1,400.00 less than Rice was earning before the Secretary of State salary increased earlier this month. (note that she will still earn more than her current salary as Senator)  
 




Before you get too worked up about that, your complaint is really with Thomas Jefferson, who first did that in order to appoint James Madison to his cabinet.

Jefferson and Madison, who had a significant hand in writing the Constitution, interpreted that paragraph to mean what every scholar since has agreed with: It is an awkwardly worded way to prevent politicians from raising the salary of an office, then being appointed to the office.

One irony of the awkward wording is that it doesn't matter that the politician might have voted against the raise, or might have voted to abolish the office (as happened, I think, to an Eisenhower cabinet member).
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: 70ChallRT/SE on January 24, 2009, 12:03:28 AM
Point taken Pedonbio.

I respect your knowledge of law, and your well informed response to my post.

The fact still remains, they took measures to circumvent this amendment, otherwise a reduction in salary for that particular seat would not have been taken. That raises a red flag for me on the basis of common sense.
I did not agree with many decisions made by Bush, nor do I subscribe to the policy of misinterpretation as an "out" for knowingly violating law. Bush had no right to do it, nor does any other person who holds a position in Government.

Surprising this "Emolument clause" hasn't been amended to prevent further controversy.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: gOOber on January 24, 2009, 12:51:00 AM
I hope our first African American president will remind Americans to show a proper respect to a forgotten part of  our history.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Dearc on January 24, 2009, 02:03:49 AM
I have to admit that I overwhelmingly approve of Obama's order to reinstitute abortion funds.  Republicans, Christian right and the Catholic church forced millions of young women to bear ch!ldren they may not have been willing, able or ready to have.  Of course, let's not forget the victims of sexual assault and medical issues.  

In many 3rd world countries, overpopulation is one of many devastating problems.  Before mentioned groups response:  GOD LOVES YOU! Have MORE ch!ldren.  Just my 2 cents...
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: 70ChallRT/SE on January 24, 2009, 05:56:56 AM
Dearc,
I would also overwhelmingly support funding for those in the last groups you mentioned, assault victims and those with medical problems.
I guess all others were forced by the Republicans, Christians, and Catholic church to be irresponsible and have unprotected sex? Where are the parents of these young victims of pregnancy? those who should have taught their offspring to use some discretion as they entered maturity.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on January 24, 2009, 09:51:13 AM
Quote:

gOOber: I hope our first African American president will remind Americans to show a proper respect to a forgotten part of  our history.


Now that was excellently done!

-- TheZookie "But seriously Sarah it's as cold as fuck up here " 007
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on January 24, 2009, 09:54:26 AM
Quote:

pedonbio: By the way, Zookie, did you compare Nader to Alan Keyes? Better not tell Keyes that!  


The only thing I'd ever tell that Ultimate Playa Hata is, as Bossip does, "Ho, Sit Down"

Real Time with Bill Maher: "New Rules", Nov. 09, 2008
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Janus on January 24, 2009, 10:16:27 AM
 Yeah... I'm an atheist, and I'm not sold on abortion, but please...continue to view people as one-dimensional or know their argument beforehand.

J- Yeah, odd duck is apt for me, I guess.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Dearc on January 24, 2009, 02:40:05 PM
Quote:

70ChallRT/SE said:
Dearc,
I would also overwhelmingly support funding for those in the last groups you mentioned, assault victims and those with medical problems.
I guess all others were forced by the Republicans, Christians, and Catholic church to be irresponsible and have unprotected sex? Where are the parents of these young victims of pregnancy? those who should have taught their offspring to use some discretion as they entered maturity.




It'd be easy to think of most women needing/wanting abortions because they can't handle the responsibility to have a ch!ld, or because they like to have so much sex, it finally caught up with them.

In case you missed it, I mentioned  3rd world countries.  These are countries with massive overpopulation, famine, disease, war of every type.  It makes sense to me: if you can't sustain yourself, your society, family, etc. don't have more.

As for young teens & 20 somethings hitting the beds, I  PERSONALLY believe they should bear it, and abortion should be only for medical reasons and/or special exceptions.  If they made it perfectly legal for all, I guess I wouldn't care.  But let's not forget one thing:  it's up to the women having them.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: mofoapoo on January 24, 2009, 06:44:12 PM
Quote:

Dearc said:
It makes sense to me: if you can't sustain yourself, your society, family, etc. don't have more.




...so you are telling a group of people who's only positive thing in life is sex...to not have any?

Trust me, they aren't gonna listen to you.

it's better to teach them about birth control, and in situations where it doesn't work out, abortions should be there for those who need it.

the church has tried your way for years, and it's not working.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: pedonbio on January 24, 2009, 07:14:24 PM
Quote:

gOOber said:
I hope our first African American president will remind Americans to show a proper respect to a forgotten part of  our history.




gOOb, that's a great parody! Ken Burns probably wishes he had made it. I love the disclaimer at the end: "No one really caught fire in making this film."
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Dearc on January 24, 2009, 07:56:14 PM
Quote:

mofoapoo said:
Quote:

Dearc said:
It makes sense to me: if you can't sustain yourself, your society, family, etc. don't have more.




...so you are telling a group of people who's only positive thing in life is sex...to not have any?

Trust me, they aren't gonna listen to you.

it's better to teach them about birth control, and in situations where it doesn't work out, abortions should be there for those who need it.

the church has tried your way for years, and it's not working.




First thing, I was trying to make the point if you can't sustain your k!ds, don't have any.

Second, if knocking the boots is the best thing in your meager existence, while still deal with famine, war, poverty and all those good things, you're better off dead anyway.

Yes, I'm also for birth control, and for those situations that make abortion necessary, too.  But I mentioned abortion first, not birth control.  Maybe you should have asked me to clarify instead of jumping to conclusions.

Third, me and the Church will RARELY agree, as that I'm an atheist.

Quote:

70ChallRT/SE said:
Dearc, I guess all others were forced by the Republicans, Christians, and Catholic church to be irresponsible and have unprotected sex? Where are the parents of these young victims of pregnancy? those who should have taught their offspring to use some discretion as they entered maturity.




Again, this is where abortion & birth control should be taught.  However, we all know the Bush Admin & the Church have refused to instruct.  So how could ignorant parents teach their sexually active ch!ldren about other options?  It's a cycle.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: pedonbio on January 24, 2009, 10:25:18 PM
Americans always get wrapped up in these debates. I don't know why. The greatest single factor affecting population growth is female education. China has tried special status for one-chi1d families, forced sterilization, forced abortions, and failed miserably at controlling population. Japan educated all its women, and the population started to drop.

Of course, for the first generation a population drop is described as "an aging population".
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: mofoapoo on January 24, 2009, 11:08:24 PM
Quote:

Dearc said:
Second, if knocking the boots is the best thing in your meager existence, while still deal with famine, war, poverty and all those good things, you're better off dead anyway




oh, here i was taking your seriously.  I really hope you are joking or being sarcastic.  Otherwise, I still can't take you seriously because instead, that makes you a jackass.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Dearc on January 25, 2009, 12:11:12 AM
I am being serious.  You have yet to contribute to the arguement.  If you wish to resort to name calling, screw you, too.

EDIT:  I'm just trying to make a point.  Not everyone has a bleeding heart for total strangers, especially those who've given up on trying to better their situations on their own, or at least make the best of what's given them by others.  Succinctly, I'm a cold-blooded bastard sometimes.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: gOOber on January 25, 2009, 01:23:11 AM
C'mon you two, if y'all get this thread locked, it'll break my heart.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: mofoapoo on January 25, 2009, 02:37:59 AM
Quote:

Dearc said:
I am being serious.  You have yet to contribute to the arguement.  If you wish to resort to name calling, screw you, too.

EDIT:  I'm just trying to make a point.  Not everyone has a bleeding heart for total strangers, especially those who've given up on trying to better their situations on their own, or at least make the best of what's given them by others.  Succinctly, I'm a cold-blooded bastard sometimes.




You know what would help to better their situations?  birth control with the option of abortion if the situation comes up.

But I guess when the world around them is wartorn and plagues with famine and sickness, it's their fault and they should die?

You said another human should die because sex is the last pleasure in life they have.  you aren't being "real" or blunt.  giving these people a safe option of abortion is not stupid, and you can claim you are against the church, but the church has that same idea.

what arguement have I not given?  I agree with Obama's lifting of the ban in question.  you have not given a good reason as to why it's bad.  You act like abortions are easier than normal birth control, and that people will go around having unprotected sex with everyone.

so i stand by my name calling.  someone who thinks someone else should die for such a stupid reason is, indeed, a jackass.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: MasterDragonfly on January 25, 2009, 03:56:07 AM
Female education on birth control could likely help.

I remember hearing on the Tom Leykis show that a woman which Tom knew was under the belief that the pill is only taken when having unprotected sex.  (I don't recall whether he had had relations with her, or whether this was casual conversation, or what.)

So if she didn't have sex for a week?  No pill during that week.  If she had sex 4 times in a day?  She took a pill each of those times.

Yeah, I was astonished too.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on January 25, 2009, 07:20:52 AM
pedonbio is right, and so are you, MasterD. Female education is the key to controlling the size of the population. Empower women with the tools that will enable them to make decisions regarding their bodies, and give them marketable skills in the workplace, and they will be able to do great things. It is the number one means of reducing poverty, teenage pregnancy, death from childbirth, etc. "The hand that rocks the cradle," and all that.

Now, to return to the main topic of this thread:
Huffington Post: "Obama's First Air Force One Trip: Comments On Pilot's Looks, Orders Dinner (VIDEO)"

Note: although the headline is technically incorrect -- Air Force One is the call sign of ANY aircraft which has the President as a passenger; there is more than one aircraft in the presidential fleet and therefore not just one Air Force One; and at the time that this video was made, Obama was still the President-Elect (as a matter of fact, this flight was taking him to the Inauguration) -- since the pilot himself said "Welcome to Air Force One", who am I to nitpick?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on January 25, 2009, 11:04:35 AM
Daily Mail (UK): "Meet Obama's bodyman, the White House 'Chief of Stuff'"
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: ROUNDandHEAVY on January 25, 2009, 12:43:27 PM
Quote:

mofoapoo said:
Quote:

Dearc said:
I am being serious.  You have yet to contribute to the arguement.  If you wish to resort to name calling, screw you, too.

EDIT:  I'm just trying to make a point.  Not everyone has a bleeding heart for total strangers, especially those who've given up on trying to better their situations on their own, or at least make the best of what's given them by others.  Succinctly, I'm a cold-blooded bastard sometimes.




You know what would help to better their situations?  birth control with the option of abortion if the situation comes up.

But I guess when the world around them is wartorn and plagues with famine and sickness, it's their fault and they should die?

You said another human should die because sex is the last pleasure in life they have.  you aren't being "real" or blunt.  giving these people a safe option of abortion is not stupid, and you can claim you are against the church, but the church has that same idea.

what arguement have I not given?  I agree with Obama's lifting of the ban in question.  you have not given a good reason as to why it's bad.  You act like abortions are easier than normal birth control, and that people will go around having unprotected sex with everyone.

so i stand by my name calling.  someone who thinks someone else should die for such a stupid reason is, indeed, a jackass.




I have to agree. This attitude that they might as well be dead because their life sux so bad is the worst kind of bourgeois, shortsighted attitude.

If we spent a tenth of the money on feeding an educating poor people around the globe as we do firing really expensive munitions at them, the world would be a much safer and nicer place to live in.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on January 25, 2009, 02:09:57 PM
Hey, have you seen this kid who wants to interview Barack Obama? He's a 10-year-old 5th grader from Florida, and he's already interviewed Caroline Kennedy and Joe Biden. Some old grumpy-fish at the Huffington Post are bitching that the kid referred to the vice-president as "my homeboy", which I think is just sour grapes. I mean, he's just a kid, what does he know from protocol? I hope he gets his wish. I also hope he improves his delivery a bit since he slurs his words a tad (or maybe it's his accent, I don't know).

"Damon Weaver interviews vice-presidential candidate Joe Biden"
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Dearc on January 25, 2009, 03:24:10 PM
If and when bc can be provided to those most unfortunate people in such ready abundance, then yes, by all means.  So yes, education should be priority before abortion; I conceed to that.

Jackass or not, apathy is a trait I've learned to embrace.  It's funny, being called the name of the mascot of Mofo's political affiliation to be taken as an insult, I'd rather acknowledge being an asshole. lol  The other posts are more correct than my own, but I never post to win a pissing match.  Someone here used the analogy of a movie scene to describe their character, and I thought, "Wow, I did the same thing."

"Last of the Mohicans."  Magua (Wes Studi) just killed Uncas (Eric Schwieg) and threw him over the cliff side.  Alice Munro (Jodhi May) steps out onto the edge, staring at Magua.  He lowers the hand with the knife, extends his other, offering to bring her back.  She looks back out over the edge, and falls.  He just watches her fall and leaves.  That's what I'm like; there are times I just don't care.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Shara on January 25, 2009, 09:04:15 PM
obama really loves the children, and the children love obama

 
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: SwitcherX on January 25, 2009, 09:23:31 PM
You're bad Shara!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Q_BE on January 26, 2009, 02:37:58 AM
A Q-BE Strip Barack Obama Election Special!

Q-"Obama Who?"-BE
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: SwitcherX on January 26, 2009, 04:01:48 AM
 
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: gOOber on January 27, 2009, 12:59:48 PM
Obama said, "We are a young country." It got me thinking about how young the US really is. Sure, countries like France have had their name for longer--but France's government has been violently overthrown by revolution more recently than the US.

Assuming that a government can be called continuous only since the most recent violent transition of power (I'd count a bloodless coup as violent), what are the oldest governments around? I'm thinking Vatican City is older (although they may not qualify, depending on how they achieved their current level of sovereignty).
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on January 27, 2009, 02:35:36 PM
That's a good question. Japan? England?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: gOOber on January 27, 2009, 06:29:22 PM
It's now official. Obama is the  antichrist.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on January 27, 2009, 06:42:24 PM
Quote:

Strandberg is so certain that the Rapture is coming, he's bought a number of Internet addresses in addition to RaptureReady: AntiAntichrist, Tribulationus and RaptureMe.


Um, if you've been raptured, who is going to be around to update the sites and pay the hosting fees? Obviously he hasn't thought this through.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: gOOber on January 27, 2009, 06:48:01 PM
What does rational thought have to do with any of this?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on January 27, 2009, 07:03:57 PM
Point taken.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: rtpoe on January 28, 2009, 02:48:45 AM
For Japan, we can go back to the Meiji Restoration in the 1860s. England goes back to the Glorious Revolution in 1688.

Iceland's Althing goes back to 930, but it hasn't been continuously functioning.

You'd probably have to give the prize to the  Tynwald, which has been running the Isle of Man for over a thousand years. But they're part of the UK....
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on January 28, 2009, 03:24:29 PM
I'd give it to the Althing, to start from AD 930 and still be around now, is no mean feat.

History made before our eyes, it still is amazing to me.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on January 28, 2009, 08:05:55 PM
Quote:

The Los Angeles Times: "World breathes sigh of relief, Hillary Clinton says"

After calling dozens of world leaders, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks of their 'appreciation' for the Obama foreign policy team's new direction.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday that world leaders were joining in a collective sigh of relief as President Obama's foreign policy team begins dismantling the policies of the Bush administration.

"There's a great exhalation of breath going on around the world as people express their appreciation for the new direction that's being set, and the team that's put together by the president to carry out our foreign policy goals," Clinton said after telephoning dozens of world leaders in her first five days on the job. "We have a lot of damage to repair."...


Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Dearc on January 29, 2009, 03:01:02 AM
Not a good sign...

From Lou Dobbs Tonight:

A president that mimics President Bush with fearmongering to pass legislation, a Congress that doesn't read legislation and a deep partisan divide. Do you believe this is change?
Yes 12% 320  
No 88% 2422  
Total Votes: 2742  

This is not a scientific poll.

http://loudobbs.tv.cnn.com

Although I do appreciate the move to reach out to Muslims the other day.  It'd be nice to get them to steal the wind out of Al Qaida's sails, instead of trying to bomb the shit out of them into submission.

Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on January 29, 2009, 06:09:54 PM
I don't understand what that admittedly non-scientific poll was trying to measure. But the, what do you expect from CNN's resident O'Reilly-alike, Lou Dobbs?

Preacher/Obama hater commits bra-size violation. News at 11.

YouTube: Barely Political: "Is the Obama Girl a 54 DOUBLE D? Really?"
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: gOOber on January 30, 2009, 12:15:57 AM
When he wanted to get away, Bush would head to his ranch. Does Obama have a retreat someplace? I'm sure he's going to need one.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Dearc on January 30, 2009, 01:42:12 AM
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
I don't understand what that admittedly non-scientific poll was trying to measure. But the, what do you expect from CNN's resident O'Reilly-alike, Lou Dobbs?




Woah!  If you believe Dobbs is akin to O'Reilly (whom is a f*cking moron), who would you consider a moderate?  One whom looks out for middle class America?  If there's a Net-guru news guy operating out of his mom's basement, good for him...  

I agree with Dobbs about %90 of the time, and is the only one reporting on stories that I NEVER hear on the other networks.  I've read 3 of his books, and mostly impressed.

But didn't you say you don't have cable?  Are you basing your assessment from the Net?

I also feel the need to apologize for a previous remark I made.  Writing mass millions of unfortunate people off to their fates is obviously an assanine thing to believe.  It's just how can a culture be a productive and hopeful one, while it lives off of perpetual handouts?  We should modernize & reinstitue the  Marshall Plan.  Just a thought.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: MasterDragonfly on January 30, 2009, 05:56:08 AM
 Barack and Michelle, touching, kissing, ... err, fisting?!?  (courtesy of The Soup)
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on January 30, 2009, 07:54:05 PM
Quote:

Dearc: Woah!  If you believe Dobbs is akin to O'Reilly (whom is a f*cking moron), who would you consider a moderate?  One whom looks out for middle class America?


Looking out for middle-class America by insisting that the only border we need to secure is our southern one, puts him in the O'Reilly class to me. I don't appreciate racism/classism masquerading as patriotism/concern for our middle class.
Quote:

But didn't you say you don't have cable?  Are you basing your assessment from the Net?


I used to watch A LOT of CNN International back in the 80s/90s and I enjoyed Lou very much when he stuck to his main area of expertise, the business world. His was my favorite business show. And although I don't have cable, I still watch his show when I get the chance, and I watch clips of his show on CNN.com, and by and large, I'm not impressed any more. We have problems that require equitable solutions, not an endorsement of xenophobia.

Quote:

We should modernize & reinstitue the  Marshall Plan.  Just a thought.


I completely agree.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: 3deroticer on January 30, 2009, 10:54:01 PM
The Marshall plan is a liberal plan, and this eats up the heart of the republican and they hate it that it work, because it goes against their philosophy of conservative ideals. We help Germany and Japan out of their hole with cooperative joint venture of making product for the economy. Nikon camera was an example of the product using Germans precision lens for the Japanese camera body.

Barack Obama  just sent some harsh word to the bankers of Wall Street on giving themselves a 20 billion dollar bonus to the executive. Plus another bank just bought themselves 2 more lear jets, and buy out smaller banks with their bail-out money on the taxpayers backs.

I am already piss that Bank of America use the bailout money to lobby against employees right to form a union.

These Bankers think they are too big for the economy to live without them.

Im curious if anyone think we should have let the bankers fall and support smaller company that will work harder for our money? By bailing out larger company, are we sustaining the monopoly syndrome? Are we letting huge company hold the people of the nation in hostage situation?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Dearc on January 30, 2009, 11:21:36 PM
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:  Looking out for middle-class America by insisting that the only border we need to secure is our southern one, puts him in the O'Reilly class to me. I don't appreciate racism/classism masquerading as patriotism/concern for our middle class.




His idea to send 12-20 million illegals home for slips of paper is not only logistically & administratively impossible, but reminiscant of some similar move by a bunch of pissed off Germans 60 years ago. It's not racist  because  they're Hispanics; they're illegals whom  happen to be  Hispanics.  This is for another thread, but thanks for chatting with me.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on January 31, 2009, 12:25:20 AM
Quote:

Dearc: It's not racist  because  they're Hispanics; they're illegals whom  happen to be  Hispanics.


Then in that case, seal up the borders, both borders, the one to the south (Mexico) AND the one to the north (Canada). If you do only the one in the south to keep out illegals who just happen to be Hispanics, then you should do the one in the north to keep out illegals who just happen to be Anglo. If you don't then that is clearly racist.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: ROUNDandHEAVY on January 31, 2009, 12:31:37 AM
Yeah because Canadiens are streaming across the border, taking our jobs and sending the money back home to relatives.

Listen yoiu want to have a real discussion about how Mexican workers are exploited by being forced into shadow citizenship by immigration laws that are outdated and ignorant of reality, fine I'm with you, but comparing Mexican immigration to Canadien immigration is a lame and naive excuse for an argument.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: ROUNDandHEAVY on January 31, 2009, 12:34:56 AM
Quote:

Dearc said:
Not a good sign...

From Lou Dobbs Tonight:

A president that mimics President Bush with fearmongering to pass legislation, a Congress that doesn't read legislation and a deep partisan divide. Do you believe this is change?
Yes 12% 320  
No 88% 2422  
Total Votes: 2742  

This is not a scientific poll.

http://loudobbs.tv.cnn.com

Although I do appreciate the move to reach out to Muslims the other day.  It'd be nice to get them to steal the wind out of Al Qaida's sails, instead of trying to bomb the shit out of them into submission.

 




Love the way you cite what even you call an unscientific poll.

That's like citing the Errol Flynn film "They Died With Their Boots On" to infer General George Custer was a selfless war hero and not a genocidal maniac and then adding as an afterthought a brief warning that the film was not an accurate portrayal of history.

After the last 8 years, can we please skip referring to unscientific polls conducted by ideologues?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: pedonbio on January 31, 2009, 12:50:56 AM
Quote:

ROUNDandHEAVY said:
Yeah because Canadiens are streaming across the border, taking our jobs and sending the money back home to relatives.

Listen yoiu want to have a real discussion about how Mexican workers are exploited by being forced into shadow citizenship by immigration laws that are outdated and ignorant of reality, fine I'm with you, but comparing Mexican immigration to Canadien immigration is a lame and naive excuse for an argument.




I think Zookie was making the same point I've tried to make several times: Getting all puffed up about undocumented aliens, or illegals, or whatever you call them, and then focusing only on people from Mexico has an unpleasant smell to it. Does that mean that illegals who have light skin, blond hair and speak English are "less illegal"?

My pet gripe during the Congressional "debate" a couple of years ago was that there was one huge bill that pretended to take care of border security, which was unrelated to worker exploitation, which was unrelated to terrorism, which was unrelated to under-funding the State Department, but the demagogues wrapped them all together, wrapped themselves in a flag, and drove off a cliff.

I'm certainly not ranting at you, R&H; like you, I'm slightly pissed at a Mexican government which exports its social problems so it doesn't have to clean itself up, but I am REALLY pissed at a U.S. government that winks and nods at what Mexico does. If the people who are driven north by the poverty that a corrupt Mexican government encourages, instead stayed in Mexico, there would be a revolution and a few Mexican politicians would lose their offices, and maybe their heads.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: ROUNDandHEAVY on January 31, 2009, 03:39:21 AM
Not to rant back at you, but I think we have a fundamental disagreement.

I still say its not a racial issue, its a class issue. The fact that mostly mexican people are streaming across the border is because of the great economic chasm, not because of their skin color.

To frame the argument otherwise is to be flirting with racism.

I suspect the Lou Dobbs's of the world would be spewing the same xenophobic crap if Canadiens were "stealing" good old American jobs and defying our sacred borders.

Ideological nutjobs like the border Nazis, have already proven that just being a member of the wrong political party is enough to warrant distrust and suspicion. This border flap is just another way for people to fan the flames of fear and intolerance.

Next time these people are feeling self important they should try cutting grapes and lettuce and a host of other food out of their diet.

Really people these people come here because our version of slave wages is a step up financially to them. as such they provide as service to us by taking back breaking jobs NO ONE wants, treating them like criminals is a national embarrassment. Classism at its worst.

But it has not one iota of relevance to race.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: MasterDragonfly on January 31, 2009, 04:08:34 AM
Quote:

ROUNDandHEAVY said:
I suspect the Lou Dobbs's of the world would be spewing the same xenophobic crap if Canadiens were "stealing" good old American jobs and defying our sacred borders.



Some months back cherri and I met up with other expat Canadians (and their spouses).  Eventually the conversation drifted to our individual border-crossing experiences.

One couple (both Canadian, as I recall) related one interesting interaction during their process of getting their green cards.  The officer in question said "I'm sick and tired of you Canadians taking away American jobs!"  And he wasn't just joking, he was dead serious.  This was after allll the other various approvals and hoop-jumping had been completed; these weren't people dashing across the border (or swimming across the St Lawrence).

And these were people who had done things the *right* way.

Fortunately, that particular officer wasn't the final checkpoint.  I'll skip over various other events preceeding this moment which made my jaw swing in the breeze; basically when they entered the final room (a very plain and simple one, as I recall them describing it), an officer sitting at a desk stood up, hand extended, and said "Welcome to the United Stated of America."

It was quite a long process for them.  No wonder the current process for a casual applicant is on the order of 12 years.

(Sidebar:  It's 'Canadians'.  'Canadiens' would be that Montreal hockey team.  )
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: ROUNDandHEAVY on January 31, 2009, 10:29:44 AM
I was under the impression that was the proper spelling in french, hence the name of the hockey team.

My bad.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Dearc on January 31, 2009, 03:57:48 PM
Quote:

ROUNDandHEAVY said:

Love the way you cite what even you call an unscientific poll.

That's like citing the Errol Flynn film "They Died With Their Boots On" to infer General George Custer was a selfless war hero and not a genocidal maniac and then adding as an afterthought a brief warning that the film was not an accurate portrayal of history.

After the last 8 years, can we please skip referring to unscientific polls conducted by ideologues?




I'm not tracking as to how you can compare Dobbs to Custer, but whatever you like.

The "unscientific" part was posted with the actual poll, not my own statement.  And much of the time, I believe Dobb's notions, guesses, insinuations and beliefs over some others facts.

Yes, we need to secure all borders.  At the moment, I can't remember the last time a foreign-born Canadian citizen tried to commit an act of terrorism in/on the U.S.  We also need to stop the Mexican gov't from actually instructing people not only how to cross the border illegally, and to getting to the safehouses in the U.S.  I'm sure all factors-race, class status, intention/resistance to assimilation, criminal background if applicable, etc-all play a role for individual cases.  What may be true for a guy in Texas, is way off from a woman & her k!ds in California.

No matter how anyone looks at this, there's no easy quick fix to make everyone happy.  Someone always gets screwed.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on January 31, 2009, 05:04:50 PM
Quote:

ROUNDandHEAVY: I suspect the Lou Dobbs's of the world would be spewing the same xenophobic crap if Canadiens were "stealing" good old American jobs and defying our sacred borders.


Then they'd better take a long hard look at Saturday Night Live, which was started by a Canadian (Lorne Michaels) and has had so many Canucks in and on that show (Mike Myers, Jim Carrey, Dan Aykroyd, Paul Shaffer, Martin Short, etc. etc.) that it's not even funny any more.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: MasterDragonfly on January 31, 2009, 05:05:52 PM
Quote:

ROUNDandHEAVY said:
I was under the impression that was the proper spelling in french, hence the name of the hockey team.



Well it is the correct spelling in French, hence the derivative name of the hockey team.  The name of the team will always be "Canadiens" simply because it's the official name, just like the Toronto Maple Leafs doesn't get corrected to "Maple Leaves" in order to be grammatically correct.

"Canadiens" is just not the name that Anglo-Canadians, the British, Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans, and (presumably) Americans use to refer to citizens of Canada.  My guess is this is a pretty universal reference in English, no matter which dialect.  

Franco-Canadians are pretty proud of their French language heritage, and Montreal's (not "Montréal", that would be the French spelling) home province of Quebec (not "Québec", that would be the French spelling) is culturally and linguistically in stark contrast to the rest of Canada.  Montreal isn't too bad, but you don't need to drive too far before discovering just how different it is.

But I thought your language of preference was English, not French...?  To give this better context, do you refer to citizens of your country as Americans, or do you refer to them as citoyens des États Unis?

I'm trying to make this distinction a little clearer, since it tends to direct the context somewhat.  My guess is it wouldn't be all that different from me overhearing a conversation which sounded like Spanish (without being crystal clear on which dialect) and me saying "Well I was listening to this Spanish guy the other day" and having someone here correct me by saying something like "Unless he was from Spain, he might actually have been Puerto Rican (or Mexican, or ...)" and then getting directed to use a more all-encompassing term.  (I'm actually a little unclear on this one; I think that 'Hispanic' is the preferred all-encompassing term?  Or is it 'Latino'? )
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: pedonbio on January 31, 2009, 07:16:13 PM
Quote:

MasterDragonfly said:

One couple (both Canadian, as I recall) related one interesting interaction during their process of getting their green cards.  The officer in question said "I'm sick and tired of you Canadians taking away American jobs!"  And he wasn't just joking, he was dead serious.  This was after allll the other various approvals and hoop-jumping had been completed; these weren't people dashing across the border (or swimming across the St Lawrence).






MasterDragonfly, I think we once talked about my similar experience with a border guard* in Calgary who had warned me about "acting Canadian" (whatever the Hell that is) and gave me a lecture about how there were illegal Canadians just streaming into the U.S.

That was more than ten years ago and I didn't have my passport with me; they weren't required at the time, so I had to "prove" I was a U.S. citizen to get on the plane by various other means. I hadn't thought about the obvious: Telling him I hated furriners and loved Lou Dobbs. Who but an American would say that?

----------
*--For anyone who hasn't flown out of Canada, the U.S. Border Patrol checks everyone boarding a U.S.-bound plane, even if you board hundreds of miles inside Canada.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on January 31, 2009, 08:31:17 PM
Quote:

Dearc: Yes, we need to secure all borders.  At the moment, I can't remember the last time a foreign-born Canadian citizen tried to commit an act of terrorism in/on the U.S.


That would be New Year's Eve, 1999.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: ROUNDandHEAVY on January 31, 2009, 09:31:22 PM
Ahh but I am english speaking and the US is my country, so I call it United States.

I guess I thought I was being respectful by using Canadiens.


Quote:

MasterDragonfly said:
Quote:

ROUNDandHEAVY said:
I was under the impression that was the proper spelling in french, hence the name of the hockey team.



Well it is the correct spelling in French, hence the derivative name of the hockey team.  The name of the team will always be "Canadiens" simply because it's the official name, just like the Toronto Maple Leafs doesn't get corrected to "Maple Leaves" in order to be grammatically correct.

"Canadiens" is just not the name that Anglo-Canadians, the British, Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans, and (presumably) Americans use to refer to citizens of Canada.  My guess is this is a pretty universal reference in English, no matter which dialect.  

Franco-Canadians are pretty proud of their French language heritage, and Montreal's (not "Montréal", that would be the French spelling) home province of Quebec (not "Québec", that would be the French spelling) is culturally and linguistically in stark contrast to the rest of Canada.  Montreal isn't too bad, but you don't need to drive too far before discovering just how different it is.

But I thought your language of preference was English, not French...?  To give this better context, do you refer to citizens of your country as Americans, or do you refer to them as citoyens des États Unis?

I'm trying to make this distinction a little clearer, since it tends to direct the context somewhat.  My guess is it wouldn't be all that different from me overhearing a conversation which sounded like Spanish (without being crystal clear on which dialect) and me saying "Well I was listening to this Spanish guy the other day" and having someone here correct me by saying something like "Unless he was from Spain, he might actually have been Puerto Rican (or Mexican, or ...)" and then getting directed to use a more all-encompassing term.  (I'm actually a little unclear on this one; I think that 'Hispanic' is the preferred all-encompassing term?  Or is it 'Latino'? )




Again...my bad.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: ROUNDandHEAVY on January 31, 2009, 09:41:19 PM
I wasn't comparing Dobb's to Custer, I was comparing a hollywood biopic to an unscientific poll.

Neither make a good basis for an argument.

I'm sorry you buy into Dobb's xenophobic rants, I believe in an America that is way more inclusive. You can criticize illegals all you want, but if no one wanted them here, they wouldn't be here. They serve a purpose, for which they are mistreated, maligned, treated like common criminals and even shot at.

All these people want to do is work and if there was a sane guest worker program available, I'm sure they would be happy to comply. Most of these "illegals" are family men and women who just want to work and make a decent living.

I can't see where that is inconsistent with the American dream.

Quote:

Dearc said:
Quote:

ROUNDandHEAVY said:

Love the way you cite what even you call an unscientific poll.

That's like citing the Errol Flynn film "They Died With Their Boots On" to infer General George Custer was a selfless war hero and not a genocidal maniac and then adding as an afterthought a brief warning that the film was not an accurate portrayal of history.

After the last 8 years, can we please skip referring to unscientific polls conducted by ideologues?




I'm not tracking as to how you can compare Dobbs to Custer, but whatever you like.

The "unscientific" part was posted with the actual poll, not my own statement.  And much of the time, I believe Dobb's notions, guesses, insinuations and beliefs over some others facts.

Yes, we need to secure all borders.  At the moment, I can't remember the last time a foreign-born Canadian citizen tried to commit an act of terrorism in/on the U.S.  We also need to stop the Mexican gov't from actually instructing people not only how to cross the border illegally, and to getting to the safehouses in the U.S.  I'm sure all factors-race, class status, intention/resistance to assimilation, criminal background if applicable, etc-all play a role for individual cases.  What may be true for a guy in Texas, is way off from a woman & her k!ds in California.

No matter how anyone looks at this, there's no easy quick fix to make everyone happy.  Someone always gets screwed.


Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: PregNut on January 31, 2009, 10:00:08 PM
Dearc should have said Glenn Beck instead of Lou Dobbs.
Glenn has always been for securing both US borders, especially since September 11th.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: pedonbio on January 31, 2009, 11:07:28 PM
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
Quote:

Dearc: Yes, we need to secure all borders.  At the moment, I can't remember the last time a foreign-born Canadian citizen tried to commit an act of terrorism in/on the U.S.


That would be New Year's Eve, 1999.




Yes, Dearc, Ressam was actually the first one, caught with a load of explosives on his way to LAX. Six more border-crossers from Canada have been convicted since, with a couple more pending. So far no one crossing from Mexico has been convicted of a terrorism-related offense.

This is why a lot of us question the motives of the advocates of, for example, fence-building.

Even shabbier was the way DHS treated the border patrolman who caught Ressam. He was ordered to move to Texas or Arizona to transfer to working the Mexican border. I can't recall whether he moved or they fired him.

The prosecuting attorney who got him to cooperate was fired by Gonzalez for not being a loyal-enough Bushie, and the judge who sentenced him was passed over for promotion because he was critical of the secret military tribunals.

The Bush Administration had a policy: Do your work well, do serious things that make us safer, and you will be punished. Be a mindless drone who worships Bush and all things Republican, and you'll do well.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: MasterDragonfly on February 01, 2009, 01:24:13 AM
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
Quote:

Dearc: Yes, we need to secure all borders.  At the moment, I can't remember the last time a foreign-born Canadian citizen tried to commit an act of terrorism in/on the U.S.


That would be New Year's Eve, 1999.



Perhaps a better way of phrasing that would have been "I can't remember the last time that a natural-born Canadian citizen...."  
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: MasterDragonfly on February 01, 2009, 01:28:54 AM
Quote:

pedonbio said:
MasterDragonfly, I think we once talked about my similar experience with a border guard* in Calgary who had warned me about "acting Canadian" (whatever the Hell that is) and gave me a lecture about how there were illegal Canadians just streaming into the U.S.



That rings a distant bell.  Feel free to regale us (or me at the very least) with such personal experiences.    The more memorable one was when you took the wrong road and ended up at the Canadian border, and the ordeal you had to put yourself through in order to get back (sans passport).  

Quote:

*--For anyone who hasn't flown out of Canada, the U.S. Border Patrol checks everyone boarding a U.S.-bound plane, even if you board hundreds of miles inside Canada.



It's not limited to just Canada.

Reference:  http://www.dhs.gov/xtrvlsec/programs/editorial_0685.shtm#6
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: MasterDragonfly on February 01, 2009, 01:44:27 AM
Quote:

ROUNDandHEAVY said:
I guess I thought I was being respectful by using Canadiens.



It's respectful to French-Canadians.  

Quote:

Again...my bad.



No worries.  I originally thought your initial post of 'Canadiens' was just a typo.  Didn't realize that you'd meant it to go deeper than that.

My sense (and admittedly, living in Texas may not be a reasonable sampling of the American populace) is that the American perception of Canada is this untouched wilderness where everyone speaks French (to name just 2 from what could easily be a longer list).  To be honest, the usage of French in Canada is pretty localized, mainly limited to Quebec and government offices.  It's taught in schools the same way Spanish is taught here, the main difference being that the chances of having a neighbour whose mother tongue is the same as the language taught in school (as a second language) is pretty much slim to none, unless you're either in Quebec or close to the borders of it.  There's a far better chance of having a neighbour who speaks Farsi/Chinese/dialect of India or Pakistan.

Btw, that Great White North pic brought back many good memories, both personal and courtesy of the show itself.  
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: ROUNDandHEAVY on February 01, 2009, 02:48:21 AM
Actually I was born in Pier Fonds, in or near Montreal(I can never remember), and I have cousins still living there.

I moved to New Jersey when I was 1 year old, and became a US citizen when I was 13. Needless to say I am passionate aboot:p my adopted country.

I often am confused by Quebec and Canada culturally hence my spelling anxiety, but I don't mistake it for an Alaskan style wilderness.

Molson Brador is awesome though!! Back bacon too.

Take off, eh?

Bob"I'm way off topic with is Canadian shit"hhh
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Dearc on February 01, 2009, 04:36:30 PM
Point taken, I stand corrected.  I hadn't known he was a citizen.

Glenn Beck is, by his own admission, a "rodeo clown."  I used to watch his show, but he always had people on that agreed with him, so little or no debate to see both sides, unlike Dobbs.

But, to each their own.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: MasterDragonfly on February 01, 2009, 05:24:32 PM
Quote:

ROUNDandHEAVY said:
Molson Brador is awesome though!!



Feh.  Don't get me started on the Big Three breweries there.  Molson, Labatt, and Carling.  I mean, they're not bad-tasting, and back in the day I was enamoured with one or the other.

But compared with the microbreweries which finally emerged from their stranglehold (eg, Sleemans, Creemore Springs, just to name a couple), they didn't really shine.

To my Canadian bretheren who haven't had the chance to sample decent American beer, there are quite a few excellent choices beyond Michelob, Budweiser and Pabst Blue Ribbon.  

Quote:

Back bacon too.



Feh.  Back bacon sucks, and badly.  I honestly don't know any Canadians who like that crap.

Oh, and before I forget:  Rye whisky.  Not so popular here.  
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on February 01, 2009, 05:29:52 PM
I used to drink rye whisky. I dunno why. It tastes like shit.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on February 01, 2009, 07:23:44 PM
Quote:

gOOber: When he wanted to get away, Bush would head to his ranch. Does Obama have a retreat someplace? I'm sure he's going to need one.


He does have one: The Fortress of Solitude.



Duh!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on February 01, 2009, 07:25:45 PM
YouTube: Asa The Comic: "Obama Not REALLY The President?!? - Race Stupors!!!"
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on February 01, 2009, 07:30:51 PM
There's just no pleasing some people, is there?

YouTube: Islam World News: "For the new Mr. President Barack Hussein Obama"
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on February 01, 2009, 08:22:14 PM
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
Quote:

gOOber: When he wanted to get away, Bush would head to his ranch. Does Obama have a retreat someplace? I'm sure he's going to need one.


He does have one: The Fortress of Solitude.



Duh!




What the eff is that? What's wrong with people??
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on February 01, 2009, 08:29:06 PM
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
There's just no pleasing some people, is there?

YouTube: Islam World News: "For the new Mr. President Barack Hussein Obama"




That guy has wicked kung fu grip. He doesn't quite sell me on Islam, though...
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: pedonbio on February 02, 2009, 04:28:14 AM
Quote:

ROUNDandHEAVY said:

I often am confused by Quebec and Canada culturally hence my spelling anxiety, but I don't mistake it for an Alaskan style wilderness.
 




I think that is true of most Canadians. I know it is true of all Quebecois.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: collared_cherri on February 02, 2009, 02:37:32 PM
Cleaning up.

 
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Q_BE on February 02, 2009, 10:50:18 PM
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
I don't understand what that admittedly non-scientific poll was trying to measure. But the, what do you expect from CNN's resident O'Reilly-alike, Lou Dobbs?

Preacher/Obama hater commits bra-size violation. News at 11.

YouTube: Barely Political: "Is the Obama Girl a 54 DOUBLE D? Really?"



That was awkward, but funny. The preacher really had a good sense of humor about it.

On a related note, in this video, Obama Girl is wearing a shirt that belongs in the "cute/clever sayings on t-shirts of busty women" thread by MasterDragonfly. Click and watch to find out.

Q-"Warning: Sarah Palin Parody"-BE
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: AZWolf on February 03, 2009, 10:43:33 AM
Such unrelated crap.  I think anyone posting here should undergo the crap I did earlier due to your greater detachment from reality relative to your fewer posts.  
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on February 04, 2009, 07:02:20 PM
Words I Haven't Heard From The White House In Over Eight Years: "I Screwed Up".

It is such a pleasure to see someone taking Harry S Truman's "The buck stops here" policy seriously for once.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: JJ on February 04, 2009, 10:55:46 PM
Obama cartoonists hard at work already!

 
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on February 07, 2009, 11:08:42 PM
Quote:

New York Times Op-Ed: "Playing With Fire"

It was good to see the president, ordinarily so cool, so accommodating, exhibiting some real fire the other night. It seems to have done some good.

With the economy in deep, deep trouble, and Americans suffering by the tens of millions, the Republicans spent much of the week doing their same-old, bad-faith Neanderthal two-step: trying their best to derail the economic stimulus package working its difficult way through Congress.

"This bill is stinking up the place," said Lindsey Graham, a Republican senator from South Carolina who not only opposed the legislation but wanted to make sure that no one would mistake him for a class act...

But only a small number. Even as the report of an agreement was being circulated, Senator Bob Corker, a Tennessee Republican, was bad-mouthing the package on CNN. "This bill is a disaster," he said.

It’s been clear for years that the G.O.P. is a party without a heart. But its pointless obstructionism, its overall lack of any serious response to what is a clear national economic emergency, seems to indicate it’s also a party without a brain...

The Republicans still don’t get it. Most act as if they don’t understand that in this radical economic downturn the demand for goods and services has fallen off a cliff, and that government spending is needed — and needed quickly — to replace a large portion of that lost demand.

The goal is twofold: to alleviate some of the enormous suffering (something that is easily understood if you have a heart), and to revive the battered economy (equally easy to understand by anyone with a brain).

Senator John McCain echoed many of his Republican colleagues on Friday when he indignantly asserted, "This is not a stimulus bill; it is a spending bill."

It was an objection that had been addressed by an incredulous President Obama on Thursday night. "What do you think a stimulus is?" the president asked, his voice rising. Spending, he said — to laughter from his audience — "is the whole point."


Someone please tell Sens. Graham & McCain to shut the fuck up. When Dubya sent down the Patriot Act for them to rubberstamp, it went through in record time and most of these guys never even bothered to read it. When Dubya sent them the bill for the invasion of Iraq, they approved it in record time, so now we're spending $10 billion/month on a war we should not have had in the first place. Granted, close to $900 billion is not chicken change, and granted, there was a large amount of pork in that bill that had absolutely no business being there in the first place...but most of the Republican opposition to this bill was mainly driven by a desire to be obdurate for the sake of being obdurate.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on February 07, 2009, 11:16:55 PM
It would seem they reached a compromise. I hope this package is better spent than the last.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on February 07, 2009, 11:42:03 PM
I hope so too.

Meanwhile:

YouTube: Barely Political: "Obama & Christian Bale Face Off"

And yes, they both said them!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on February 07, 2009, 11:50:58 PM
The Christian Bale remix haunts my dreams. Obama just earned a couple cool points.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: gmoney42 on February 08, 2009, 07:22:54 PM
i like politics too, but this is a big boob forum!!!!!
post some pictures of big boobs!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: PregNut on February 08, 2009, 10:10:49 PM
Quote:

gmoney42 said:
i like politics too, but this is a big boob forum!!!!!
post some pictures of big boobs!


 

Preg(This is the off-topic section, BTW.)Nut
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Q_BE on February 09, 2009, 02:02:37 AM
Quote:

PregNut said:
Quote:

gmoney42 said:
i like politics too, but this is a big boob forum!!!!!
post some pictures of big boobs!


 

Preg(This is the off-topic section, BTW.)Nut



I'm lollin' at dis.

Q-"The BEA's harmless, loveable, little cube"-BE
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: rtpoe on February 10, 2009, 12:27:06 AM
Da Prez tells it like it is.

 Complete with MP3 sound bites.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on February 10, 2009, 10:27:45 PM
Keeping them honest:

Quote:

Yahoo! News: "FACT CHECK: Examining Obama's job, pork claims"

At least Route 31 is a road to somewhere. President Barack Obama had it both ways when he promoted his stimulus plan in Indiana and later at a prime-time news conference. He bragged in Indiana about getting Congress to produce a package with no pork, yet boasted it will do good things for a Hoosier highway and a downtown overpass, just the kind of local projects lawmakers lard into big spending bills.

Obama's sales pitch on the enormous package he wants Congress to make law has sizzle as well as steak. He's projecting job creation numbers that may be impossible to verify and glossing over some ethical problems that bedeviled his team.

In recent years, the so-called Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska came to symbolize the worst excesses of congressional earmarks, a device that allows a member of Congress to add money for local projects in legislation, practically under the radar.

Nothing so bold, or specific, as that now-discarded bridge project is contained in the stimulus package. That's not to say the package steers clear of waste or parochial interests. Obama played to such interests Monday, speaking at one point as if he'd come to fill potholes.

A look at some of Obama's claims in Elkhart, Ind., and the news conference called to make his case to the largest possible audience:

OBAMA: "Not a single pet project," he told the news conference. "Not a single earmark."

THE FACTS: There are no "earmarks," as they are usually defined, inserted by lawmakers in the bill. Still, some of the projects bear the prime characteristics of pork — tailored to benefit specific interests or to have thinly disguised links to local projects.

For example, the latest version contains $2 billion for a clean-coal power plant with specifications matching one in Mattoon, Ill., $10 million for urban canals, $2 billion for manufacturing advanced batteries for hybrid cars, and $255 million for a polar icebreaker and other "priority procurements" by the Coast Guard.

Obama told his Elkhart audience that Indiana will benefit from work on "roads like U.S. 31 here in Indiana that Hoosiers count on." He added, "And I know that a new overpass downtown would make a big difference for businesses and families right here in Elkhart."

U.S. 31 is a north-south highway serving South Bend, 15 miles from Elkhart in the northern part of the state....


Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: rtpoe on February 11, 2009, 03:31:10 AM
Ummm....

In this case, what the heck is wrong with "pork"?

Aren't those projects the sort that will create jobs where they are needed? That "clean coal" plant sounds like a good idea. So do better batteries for hybrid cars. Urban canals can revitalize a decaying downtown (like the Riverwalk and Waterplace Park in Providence RI). And surely our decaying transportation infrastructure needs work?

If not in projects like these, where would you prefer the money went? More badly run corporations?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on February 11, 2009, 07:21:31 AM
Those are not examples of pork, but there is some pork in this bill...stuff like increasing defense spending, for example, when the United States already spends more on defense than almost all the other countries on earth combined.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on February 12, 2009, 09:32:06 PM
Will Ferrell imagines conversation between Dubya & That FEMA Guy
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: PET on February 14, 2009, 09:18:21 AM
 Look at this Obama and you may save the world.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on February 14, 2009, 05:24:00 PM
Interesting comments at this thread:
Quote:


I think what is often missed about Obama's BiPart Fetish...
is how incredibly transformative it would have been if he could have pulled it off. I think most of us agree that trying to engage republicans was a lost cause- but at the end of the day i cant blame him for hoping he could realign the debate with getting 80+ votes for the stimulus package. I think it needs to be acknowledged that if that could have really happened, the reward would have been tremendous, we could have the majority of the republican party signing on to massive infrastructure spending. I'm glad he learned his lesson and is moving on- but i dont blame him for trying.

It made sense...
Listen, the Republicans had been battered in the election, had lost their footing... McCain was openly talking about creating a Republican version of the DLC... It made sense to try and get that reverse Reagan coalition and realignment...  I agree with Chuck Todd when he said that maybe Obama got too much into his own hype, thinking that charisma and mandate alone would be able to push republicans like Bush pushed Democrats around during his tenure.

There was a brief window, though, where the Repbulicans were a bit punch **92** and apologetic to the new president...  Had the stimulus bill been completed on time (i.e. the inauguration), we might have gotten a better bill passed quickly WITH bipartisan support...

Oh well... that ship has sailed... now, it's time to be like FDR.


Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on February 14, 2009, 05:53:03 PM
I don't think bipartisanship is doomed, but where the economy is involved, the Democrats and the Republicans will never agree about much of anything.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: pedonbio on February 14, 2009, 07:18:47 PM
Quote:

notty said:
I don't think bipartisanship is doomed, but where the economy is involved, the Democrats and the Republicans will never agree about much of anything.




Notty, people who talk about bipartisanship are remembering a time that never was. There are now, and always have been, four political parties: Liberal Democrats, conservative Democrats, liberal Republicans amd conservative Republicans.

One of the things always cited as a great act of bipartisanship was the Voting Rights Act of 1965. You can think of it that way, because Evertt Dirksen brought 6 Republican senators with him to vote for it. But that was when Lyndon Johnson needed those seven votes to overcome the conservative Southern Democrats like William Fulbright who voted against it.

At that time the Democratic majority was 65 to 35.

Byegones.

But it is important to separate bipartisan votes for the sake of singing "Kumbya" from ideological rifts that cut across parties.

For example, in the House this time the entire Republican caucus stuck with their ideological belief that only tax cuts for people making over $500,000 a year will affect the economy. I think they are very wrong, but they are ideologically consistent.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on February 14, 2009, 07:45:57 PM
Quote:

pedonbio said:
Quote:

notty said:
I don't think bipartisanship is doomed, but where the economy is involved, the Democrats and the Republicans will never agree about much of anything.




Notty, people who talk about bipartisanship are remembering a time that never was. There are now, and always have been, four political parties: Liberal Democrats, conservative Democrats, liberal Republicans amd conservative Republicans.

One of the things always cited as a great act of bipartisanship was the Voting Rights Act of 1965. You can think of it that way, because Evertt Dirksen brought 6 Republican senators with him to vote for it. But that was when Lyndon Johnson needed those seven votes to overcome the conservative Southern Democrats like William Fulbright who voted against it.

At that time the Democratic majority was 65 to 35.

Byegones.

But it is important to separate bipartisan votes for the sake of singing "Kumbya" from ideological rifts that cut across parties.




I agree with you for the most part. But the fact is that when something like this comes along, Senators and Congressmen get the stubborn streak in them and divide along party lines. I was merely responding to the opinion put forth in OpenLeft that since the Republicans wouldn't play ball on the stimulus bill that it would be pointless for Obama to ever reach out to them again during his presidency.

Quote:

For example, in the House this time the entire Republican caucus stuck with their ideological belief that only tax cuts for people making over $500,000 a year will affect the economy. I think they are very wrong, but they are ideologically consistent.




I think the objections to the stimulus plan are slightly more numerous and complex than that.

Personally, I think the current iteration sucks. The money is spread around such that there isn't enough to actually fix any one problem. It's like treating a person with a couple deep gashes and bunch of superficial wounds by slapping bandaids on all the wounds. Guess what? Homeboy is gonna keep on bleeding.

Pick one thing to fix, Obama. Commit to it. Then move on to the next problem.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: pedonbio on February 14, 2009, 07:53:07 PM
Quote:

notty said:


I think the objections to the stimulus plan are slightly more numerous and complex than that.

Personally, I think the current iteration sucks. The money is spread around such that there isn't enough to actually fix any one problem. It's like treating a person with a couple deep gashes and bunch of superficial wounds by slapping bandaids on all the wounds. Guess what? Homeboy is gonna keep on bleeding.

Pick one thing to fix, Obama. Commit to it. Then move on to the next problem.




In truth I think the Republican objection is that they didn't get to write the bill. The tax cut in the bill is precisely the tax cut McCain claimed Obama would never support. You may be confabulating the Republicans in the senate, who are all over the map, with the ones in the House, who are pretty much together.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on February 14, 2009, 09:53:55 PM
You should look on YouTube for the videos of a guy by the name AlphaCat. He does one of the best impressions of Barack Obama out there; he's so good, in fact, that Newsweek hired him to do the voiceover for their parody of the MTV show The Hills, called The District:

The District, Episode 1: "The Challenges We Face"
The District, Episode 2: "Barack's Friends Let Him Down"
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on February 14, 2009, 11:00:34 PM
Quote:

pedonbio said:
In truth I think the Republican objection is that they didn't get to write the bill.




LOL!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on February 14, 2009, 11:04:50 PM
I actually agree. A democracy needs and deserves a loyal opposition but this stimulus package fight seems more than ever as if the Republicans are just being obstructionist for the sake of being obstructionist. They didn't have a problem approving the misspending of billions when their man was in office but now that a Democrat is in power, they suddenly remember how to say "no"...at least that is the impression I get.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: rtpoe on February 15, 2009, 04:18:28 AM
I think one of the key things with the Stimulus Package is not the details, but rather that it gets put through in the first place.

If you sit around and nitpick over the details, you're never going to get it done. How do you *know* which parts will actually work? You don't. And given the complexity of the plan, you may never know. And the longer the delay, the worse things get.

That's the crux of the matter. Our economy is heavily "faith-based", in that much of it is based on the expectation of what the future will bring. If we believe that there will be a working stimulus plan, then we can plan accordingly. If there's not going to be one, different plans must be made - as the economy worsens.

Sure, it's not perfect. But anything is better than nothing.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on February 15, 2009, 09:06:17 AM
Preaching to the choir, rtpoe -- tell that to idiots like Lyndsey Graham

Meanwhile, as always, when you hear something on cable TV, ask yourself "Cui bono?" (who benefits?) and consider the source. Case in point: pharma lobbyist Betsy McCaughey lies through her teeth about the details of the medical portion of the stimulus bill:

YouTube: "Fox, CNN Spread Rightwing LIE 2-12-09"
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on February 15, 2009, 04:42:54 PM
I think it will take more than the mere existence of a stimulus bill to restore confidence in the economy. The bill has to produce results, tangible improvements the average person can see and benefit from.

If we must pony up $800 billion, then we should spend it as follows:

$500 billion distributed among the states
$200 billion for infrastructure
$50 billion in educational grants
$50 billion in subsidies for solar, wind, and geothermal energy for homeowners
$0 in riders, pork barrel spending, and other assorted bullshit

Oh well. Time will tell...
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: gOOber on February 15, 2009, 05:06:52 PM
 
Quote:

 I think it will take more than the mere existence of a stimulus bill to restore confidence in the economy. The bill has to produce results, tangible improvements the average person can see and benefit from.
 


Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on February 16, 2009, 08:34:45 PM
Quote:

The Huffiington Post: "Dems Fed Up With McCain: 'Angry Old Defeated Candidate'"

Democrats are growing increasingly frustrated with the brash political attacks Sen. John McCain has launched against Barack Obama in the weeks since the new president took office. No one expected the Arizona Republican to be a legislative ally for this administration. But it was widely assumed that Obama's overtures to McCain in the weeks after the election would dull some of the hard feelings between the two. Now, they are realizing, it has not.

"He is bitter and really angry," Bob Shrum said of McCain in an interview on Friday. "He is angry at the press, which he thinks is unfair. He is angry at Obama and angry at the voters. He has gone from being an angry old candidate to being an angry old defeated candidate."

Indeed, during the debate over the economic stimulus package it was McCain, as often as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who spearheaded the opposition. The Arizona Republican denounced the proposal as pure pork on the Senate floor and introduced an alternative measure comprised nearly entirely of tax cuts.

On Sunday, McCain wouldn't let the fight die, even with the legislation through Congress. Appearing on CNN, he described the $787 billion measure as "generational theft" and said that the bill's authors should "start over now and sit down together."

Meanwhile, appearing on ABC's This Week, Sen. Lindsey Graham -- McCain's chief ally in the Senate -- said of the process by which the stimulus was forged: "If this is going to be bipartisanship, the country is screwed."

That two Republicans Senators who consider themselves prudent compromisers would forcefully condemn the president's top legislative priority is noteworthy in and of itself. That it comes after President Obama made overt gestures of reconciliation to both McCain and Graham raises questions as to just how long it will take for this era of post-partisanship to arrive.

Not to mention that, as other observers pointed out, McCain isn't being entirely consistent.

"During the Senate debate, 36 of the Senate Republicans voted for an alternative that would have cut taxes over the next decade by $2.5 trillion, [and] reduced the top marginal race to 25 percent," said the Atlantic's Ron Brownstein on Meet the Press. "For John McCain -- who voted for that alternative of a $2.5 trillion tax cut over the next decade -- to talk about generational theft, I mean, pot meet kettle."


(emphasis mine)

See what I mean about being obstructionist merely for the sake of being obstructionist? Even the guys at Saturday Night Live agree with me on that All the more reason why the 2008 version of McCain would not have been the best choice to lead this country.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on February 16, 2009, 08:56:44 PM
Quote:

NY Times Op-Ed: "They Sure Showed That Obama"

...Less than a month into Obama’s term, we don’t (and can’t) know how he’ll fare as president. The compromised stimulus package, while hardly garbage, may well be inadequate. Timothy Geithner’s uninspiring and opaque stab at a bank rescue is at best a place holder and at worst a rearrangement of the deck chairs on the TARP-Titanic, where he served as Hank Paulson’s first mate.

But we do know this much. Just as in the presidential campaign, Obama has once again outwitted the punditocracy and the opposition. The same crowd that said he was a wimpy hope-monger who could never beat Hillary or get white votes was played for fools again....

The stimulus battle was more of the same. “This town talks to itself and whips itself into a frenzy with its own theories that are completely at odds with what the rest of America is thinking,” [David Axelrod] says. Once the frenzy got going, it didn’t matter that most polls showed support for Obama and his economic package: “If you watched cable TV, you’d see our support was plummeting, we were in trouble. It was almost like living in a parallel universe.”

For Axelrod, the moral is “not just that Washington is too insular but that the American people are a lot smarter than people in Washington think.”

Here’s a third moral: Overdosing on this culture can be fatal. Because Republicans are isolated in that parallel universe and believe all the noise in its echo chamber, they are now as out of touch with reality as the “inevitable” Clinton campaign was before it got clobbered in Iowa. The G.O.P. doesn’t recognize that it emerged from the stimulus battle even worse off than when it started. That obliviousness gives the president the opening to win more ambitious policy victories than last week’s. Having checked the box on attempted bipartisanship, Obama can now move in for the kill....

At least some media hands are chagrined. After the stimulus prevailed, [Joe] Scarborough speculated on MSNBC that “perhaps we’ve overanalyzed it, we don’t know what we’re talking about.” But the Republicans are busy high-fiving themselves and celebrating “victory.” Even in defeat, they are still echoing the 24/7 cable mantra about the stimulus’s unpopularity. This self-congratulatory mood is summed up by a Wall Street Journal columnist who wrote that “the House Republicans’ zero votes for the Obama presidency’s stimulus ‘package’ is looking like the luckiest thing to happen to the G.O.P.’s political fortunes since Ronald Reagan switched parties.” There hasn’t been this much delusional giddiness in these ranks since Monica Lewinsky promised a surefire Republican sweep in the 1998 midterms.

Not all Republicans are so clueless, whether in Congress or beyond. Charlie Crist, the moderate Florida governor who appeared with the president in his Fort Myers, Fla., town-hall meeting last week, has Obama-like approval ratings in the 70s. Naturally, the party’s hard-liners in Washington loathe him. Their idea of a good public face for the G.O.P. is a sound-bite dispenser like the new chairman, Michael Steele, a former Maryland lieutenant governor. Steele’s argument against the stimulus package is that “in the history of mankind” no “federal, state or local” government has ever “created one job.” As it happens, among the millions of jobs created by the government are the federal investigators now pursuing Steele for alleged financial improprieties in his failed 2006 Senate campaign.

This G.O.P., a largely white Southern male party with talking points instead of ideas and talking heads instead of leaders, is not unlike those “zombie banks” that we’re being asked to bail out. It is in too much denial to acknowledge its own insolvency and toxic assets. Given the mess the country is in, it would be helpful to have an adult opposition that could pull its weight, but that’s not the hand America has been dealt.

As Judd Gregg flakes out and Lindsey Graham throws made-for-YouTube hissy fits on the Senate floor, Obama should stay focused on the big picture in governing as he did in campaigning. That’s the steady course he upheld when much of the political establishment was either second-guessing or ridiculing it, and there’s no reason to change it now. The stimulus victory showed that even as president Obama can ambush Washington’s conventional wisdom as if he were still an insurgent.

But, as he said in Fort Myers last week, he will ultimately be judged by his results. If the economy isn’t turned around, he told the crowd, then “you’ll have a new president.” The stimulus bill is only a first step on that arduous path. The biggest mistake he can make now is to be too timid. This country wants a New Deal, including on energy and health care, not a New Deal lite. Far from depleting Obama’s clout, the stimulus battle instead reaffirmed that he has the political capital to pursue the agenda of change he campaigned on....


Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: pedonbio on February 16, 2009, 09:06:49 PM
Ya know, Zookie, McCain doesn't do the "Get offa my lawn" thing nearly so well as Clint Eastwood.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on February 16, 2009, 09:25:55 PM
True, true.

AP: "How the economic stimulus plan could affect you"

AP: "The recovery plan: A national jolt to economy"
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: BarnacleBill on February 16, 2009, 10:43:50 PM


 
Quote:

 $0 in riders, pork barrel spending, and other assorted bullshit

 




But notty, I'm one of the silent majority referred to by Senator Schumer who "doesn't care about the tiny, porky amendments!"

As long as we can succeed in jump starting this fucker!


and for the record, I AM ONCE AGAIN impressed by Obama more than I express because he actually mentioned the possibility of "firing teacher who underperform".

This sea change (for a Democrat, i.e. controlled by teachers' unions, to utter such blasphemy) may be even bigger than American electing a black President!

Yay obama!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on February 16, 2009, 10:47:24 PM
Agreed. There's nothing wrong with the teacher's unions that firing of the truly incompetent members of them wouldn't fix. The number one priority of a nation in crisis is to overhaul our educational system, since a nation rises and falls on the strength of it. The easiest way to destroy a country without firing a shot is to mess up its educational system.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on February 17, 2009, 12:38:40 AM
Quote:

Huffington Post: "Howard Kurtz: Fox News Should 'Apologize For Using Partisan Propaganda'"

A week ago, Fox News tried to pass off a memo from the Senate Republican Communications Center as their own reporting. Unfortunately for the network, they didn't even check the talking points for typos before throwing them on the air. FNC apologized for the mistake -- but not for reprinting a Republican press release and calling it journalism. On Sunday's edition of CNN's "State Of The Union," Howard Kurtz noted the oversight. "You shouldn't be apologizing" for the typo, Kurtz says. "You should be apologizing for using partisan propaganda."...


Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on February 17, 2009, 07:05:25 AM
The next time any fucking Republican starts blathering to me about "generational theft":
Quote:

"Shrink-Wrapped Thieves"

From the "why are we listening to them?" files:

Quote:

The reconstruction effort, intended to improve services and convince Iraqis of American good will, largely managed to do neither. The wider investigation raises the question of whether American corruption was a primary factor in damaging an effort whose failures have been ascribed to poor planning and unforeseen violence.

The investigations, which are being conducted by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, the Justice Department, the Army’s Criminal Investigation Command and other federal agencies, cover a period when millions of dollars in cash, often in stacks of shrink-wrapped bricks of $100 bills, were dispensed from a loosely guarded safe in the basement of one of Saddam Hussein’s former palaces.

Former American officials describe payments to local contractors from huge sums of cash dumped onto tables and stuffed into sacks as if it were Halloween candy.



Think about that. The people who are now keening over "reckless spending" are the same ones who blindly sent pallet-loads of shrink wrapped hundred dollar bills to a war zone and didn't bother to keep any records. Now we find out that much of it found its way into the pockets of the people who were dispensing it. Gosh, what a surprise.

I don't know if you can find a better example of straight up GOP corruption than this. They invaded a country for no reason, looted the treasury and then handed out the money to all their friends in conservative movement, their contributors in the military industrial complex --- and even the active duty military itself, apparently. It was a huckuva scam. And yet, Barney Frank is the only elected Democrat I've heard make this case. Even now, the Iraq war is so sacred that the Democrats are still afraid to use the fact that the Republicans basically stole three trillion to discredit their phony arguments about the profligacy of the stimulus.

That's the beauty of the hissy fit. All their shrieking over the years about "supporting the troops" and "General Betrayus" made them immune from criticism about their looting of the treasury on that debacle in Iraq. Now that their fiscal mismanagement has brought the country to its knees and the only way to prevent a catastrophe is to have the federal government spend money to stimulate the economy and help the taxpayers keep roofs over their heads and food on the tables, they are staging a full-fledged tantrum over spending.

I don't want to hear anyone say even one more time that this is an ideological argument about fiscal responsibility. They wouldn't even allow anyone to ask what the price tag was for their Iraq debacle lest they be called out for treason. And, as predicted, it turns out they spent (and lost!) vast sums of of money. If this is a matter of sincere differences rather than opportunistic partisan obstructionism, then the difference it's about priorities, not ideology. Less face it, both parties will spend money on imperial ambitions (although only one really knows how to turn a profit at it.) Where they fundamentally differ is that the Republicans refuse to spend money to help the American people when they really need it.


And then you have the chairman of the RNC coming on to Fox News Channel and saying this:
Quote:

Yeah, no, Glenn. I’m not gonna, look, I’m not going to soft pedal this with you. I’m not going to try to blow smoke either. The reality of it is, you are absolutely right. You have absolutely no reason, none, to trust our word or our actions at this point. So, yeah, it’s going to be an uphill climb.


Final quote for now comes from Ann Pettifor:
Quote:

Sachs's analysis is overwhelmingly shared by mainstream economists. And by Republicans. These have been whipping voters into a frenzy with talk of 'generational theft.' Future generations, they argue, will be paying for this fiscal stimulus for decades to come. That is simply not true, as I will show below.

Meantime, these points are truly rich coming from the Republicans. Readers no doubt know that during the Bush-Cheney years the US national debt doubled from $5,700bn in 2001 to $10,700bn today. Others may recollect that Mr. Cheney said in 2001: "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter."

So let's not hear any more from Republicans about deficits mattering or about 'generational theft.'...


Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: 3deroticer on February 17, 2009, 09:40:52 AM
SNL got it right in this parody!

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heat...eachment-attack
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on February 18, 2009, 02:57:40 AM
Quote:

You have absolutely no reason, none, to trust our word or our actions at this point.




The GOP has been a parade of morons for the last 30 years. It's really quite sad how far the Republican Party has drifted from the noble ideals it was founded upon. It has become the party of the swindlers, the liars, the evangelicals, the rednecks, and the plain old ignorant fools.

Well, it won't be when I'm running things. I'm turning back the clock.  
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: rtpoe on February 18, 2009, 03:42:47 AM
With luck, Theodore Roosevelt will be forced to come back from the grave and beat some sense into his successors in the Republican Party.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on February 18, 2009, 09:34:57 AM
Yeah, wasn't it Teddy R. who said that you have to speak softly yet carry a big stick? He could use that stick to beat some sense into these so-called Republicans.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: PregNut on February 19, 2009, 12:02:14 AM
That's why Rush calls them RINOs.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: DruulEmpire on February 19, 2009, 12:13:24 AM
I'd feel a little better if Barry Goldwater was around to call them RINOs.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on February 19, 2009, 03:09:49 AM
RINOs aren't the problem. Rush Limbaugh is the problem. He's a thousand pounds of shit stuffed into a 300 pound sack.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on February 19, 2009, 07:11:19 AM
That's where you are wrong, notty. He's a full English ton of shit stuffed into a 300 pound sack.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on February 19, 2009, 08:51:10 AM
Good "news": "'President' replaces N-word"

Bad news:
Quote:

AlterNet: "NY Post Cartoonist Under Fire for Racist Cartoon"

Talk about seriously offensive: Today, the NY Post published a cartoon by Sean Delonas showing two police officers shooting a chimpanzee, in a reference to the recent incident in Connecticut where a pet chimp attacked a woman. In this cartoon, however, one of the policemen says, "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill":



In a statement, the Rev. Al Sharpton questions the racism that appears to be in Delonas's cartoon:
Quote:

The cartoon in today's New York Post is troubling at best given the historic racist attacks of African-Americans as being synonymous with monkeys. One has to question whether the cartoonist is making a less than casual reference to this when in the cartoon they have police saying after shooting a chimpanzee that "Now they will have to find someone else to write the stimulus bill."

    Being that the stimulus bill has been the first legislative victory of President Barack Obama (the first African American president) and has become synonymous with him it is not a reach to wonder are they inferring that a monkey wrote the last bill?







Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on February 19, 2009, 03:00:32 PM
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
That's where you are wrong, notty. He's a full English ton of shit stuffed into a 300 pound sack.




True, but my version is more lyrical. That's the key to a good insult.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Djoser on February 19, 2009, 05:47:25 PM
We are all apes, don't we?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: ROUNDandHEAVY on February 19, 2009, 10:26:14 PM
I laugh at my fellow white folks when they act confused at the anger of blacks. Some of us just can never understand what it means to be hyphenated, to have your very existence preceded by a set of coded, subconscious prejudices.

I know this one dude who has many black friends, he is respectful of people based on their personal merits, and yet he uses the word niger and justifies it by saying there is a difference between a self respecting black man and a niger.

I think Holder was partially right, we as a nation tend to socially self sgregate ourselves. But this is only partially cowardice, there is also a myopic component where we allow a certain ignorance about each other, a vacuum of reality where my friend can make the distinction between good and bad black people and use the worst racial epithet and not understand why it is wrong, or the NY Post can use the monkey metaphor and kid themselves that they are not exhibiting racism.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: pedonbio on February 20, 2009, 12:04:34 AM
Americans are probably no worse than others who live in a continent-sized country, but I am always disappointed when someone asks in all seriousness, "Why do they hate us?" The recently departed attorney general talked in an interview how he was shocked at all the "threats" to our security when he was first briefed.

We are hated from the outside because it is damnned hard to see any behavioral difference between us and every other oversized, myopic conqueror. And I've given up expecting my fellow white Americans to even understand the idea of white privilege.

On the other hand, I have to admit that the most racist, homophobic person I know is a Ukrainian immigrant.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on February 20, 2009, 09:35:28 AM
Quote:

ROUNDandHEAVY: I laugh at my fellow white folks when they act confused at the anger of blacks...

I think Holder was partially right, we as a nation tend to socially self sgregate ourselves. But this is only partially cowardice, there is also a myopic component where we allow a certain ignorance about each other, a vacuum of reality where my friend can make the distinction between good and bad black people and use the worst racial epithet and not understand why it is wrong, or the NY Post can use the monkey metaphor and kid themselves that they are not exhibiting racism.


I first saw this story on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360, where he had a 3-man panel, David Gergen, Roland Martin and some cross-eyed black guy. Gergen, a white southerner who worked in Republican and Democratic White Houses, condemned the Post cartoon as out-and-out racist, as did Martin, a black commentator for CNN and ESSENCE Magazine columnist. But the cross-eyed black dude in the middle was like, "Why do people always try and cry racism? This was clearly a parody..." When a WHITE GUY says something is racist and is rolling his eyes at a BLACK GUY who claims that something isn't racist, well, you know that is something new. I was wondering what was wrong with Mr. Cross-Eye, until I read the caption: he was a big shot in the G.W. Bush administration.

Granted, there is a faint possibility that the cartoon was trying to make the point that the stimulus package was so ineptly written that it must have been done by a monkey, but, realistically, even Stevie Wonder could see what Mr. Cross-Eye deliberately was not seeing: that cartoon was as racist as racist could be. But then, the owner of the Post is the same dude who owns Fox News Channel, so why should I be surprised?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: midsize on February 20, 2009, 03:48:15 PM
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
Granted, there is a faint possibility that the cartoon was trying to make the point that the stimulus package was so ineptly written that it must have been done by a monkey




Unless Delonas is a shill for the KKK and has been paid enough to no longer need his job as a cartoonist, I'd venture to say that is exactly the point of the cartoon. Hence Mr. Cross-eye's comment.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on February 20, 2009, 06:42:43 PM
Quote:


me: Granted, there is a faint possibility that the cartoon was trying to make the point that the stimulus package was so ineptly written that it must have been done by a monkey...

midsize: Unless Delonas is a shill for the KKK and has been paid enough to no longer need his job as a cartoonist, I'd venture to say that is exactly the point of the cartoon. Hence Mr. Cross-eye's comment.




Mr. Delonas has in the past been referred to as "a Picasso of bigotry". And his and his employer's obvious defiance in the face of the protests against this cartoon prove the point. There are other ways he could have illustrated that concept without going to such a racially-charged one. I mean, come on, everyone who has an even glancing acquaintance with America's racial history knows that one of the favorite epithets flung at black people is "Alabama porch monkey", so it's glaringly obvious that Delonas was alluding to that here.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: midsize on February 20, 2009, 08:16:46 PM
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:



Mr. Delonas has in the past been referred to as "a Picasso of bigotry". --By whom?

 And his and his employer's obvious defiance in the face of the protests against this cartoon prove the point. --As does the defiance of western newspapers in the face of riots over cartoons depicting Mohammed.

 There are other ways he could have illustrated that concept... --There were other ways Obama could have illustrated his 'lipstick on a pig' concept, but he chose that one.




Zookie, I'm not trying to apologize for this cartoon or for racism, but this is a storm of outrage over something that's 'obviously racist' only to someone who wants it to be. If you want to see what it looks like when the President is compared to a chimpanzee, remember BushChimp.org?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Q_BE on February 20, 2009, 09:44:28 PM
Quote:

midsize said:
Zookie, I'm not trying to apologize for this cartoon or for racism, but this is a storm of outrage over something that's 'obviously racist' only to someone who wants it to be. If you want to see what it looks like when the President is compared to a chimpanzee, remember BushChimp.org?



Thank goodness somebody is here to talk sense. I find it highly hypocritical that liberals could purposely misconstrue a comic as being racist, when in fact President Bush's comparisons to monkeys were much more vitriolic and vociferous than anything this comic "portrays" to those who chose to see that "portrayal".

Realize this: it's time to let bygones be bygones. No sensible person on this planet continues to compare blacks to monkeys, and certainly not newspaper editorial boards. By the way, aren't newspapers guilty of a heavy liberal bias? I don't see the Post being held up as a bastion of conservatism as a newspaper.

Beyond that, I would think that the greatest outrage wouldn't be over the fact that "supposedly" the President is compared to a "monkey", but that the police shot and killed the monkey, which, continuing ad absurdum, could be construed as somebody wishing the President were assassinated, and more than that, by the police, a faux "reference" to the race riots of the 1960s.

If the above paragraph describes your point of view, I commit you to irrelevancy and insanity, because it takes quite a twisted mind to derive all that from the cartoon in question.

What I mean by that is how can people be outraged that the current President is compared to a monkey, when he didn't even write the bill--Pelosi and the Congressional Democrats did, and not be outraged that leftists made no secret of their desire to see President Bush killed--Death of a President.

To me, there is no comparison. The comic simply combines two recent news stories to show that people without sense in Congress are making legislation that is ultimately harmful to the country--but because of the loud moaning and catcalls by a leftist few, the message that we need to do what is best for the country is drowned out.

Anybody who is offended by this comic should be equally or more offended by those who chose to "fake-murder" the 43rd President of the United States, George W. Bush...but I suppose that would be a bridge too far...

Q-"I'll show you a monkey"-BE
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Real on February 21, 2009, 01:54:14 AM
people who need to act like there is some sort of parallel in comparing a black versus a white person to a chimp make me laugh.

sorry, but if you earn a living a satirist and you draw that cartoon and look at it and say to yourself "now that's not going to have al sharpton picketing my lawn tomorrow..."  then you are beyond a blithering idiot.  

i think its obvious that there was no racist intent.  

just as its obvious that a klan member could hand that to his buddy and legitimately have a laugh through an entirely different yet valid interpretation based on the art....
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on February 21, 2009, 05:55:21 AM
"44 Presidents"
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on February 21, 2009, 06:03:35 AM
The more things change, the more they stay the same...

Nas protests Fox News, July 23, 2008

CBS News: "NY Post Obama Cartoon Slammed by Protestors", February 19, 2009
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on February 21, 2009, 07:35:23 AM
Wow, Q_BE, talk about a near word-for-word rehash of the Republican talking points on this topic. Incredible.

And for those who earlier might have thought that I was insulting the third panelist of the Anderson Cooper 360 discussion by calling him Mr. Cross-Eye, here is the video.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on March 04, 2009, 04:20:27 AM
Could this be the reason why Obama won the election? Or was it because of this?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Q_BE on March 05, 2009, 04:44:33 PM
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
Wow, Q_BE, talk about a near word-for-word rehash of the Republican talking points on this topic. Incredible.



Wow, Zookie. Talk about a complete avoidance of the substance of the post, just like a liberal Democrat. Incredible.

You sound like someone who knows I'm right and is afraid to engage me in the discussion.

Q-"Try me"-BE
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on March 05, 2009, 05:03:07 PM
An evangelical Christian vs. a liberal know-it-all. This ought to be entertaining. Proceed, gentlemen!  
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: 3deroticer on March 05, 2009, 05:13:59 PM
I have seen that show on morning Joe and Pat Buchannon discussing with 2 other white guys about the same talking point that the republican use, even the word "vitrolic" was thrown about.

almost word for word about the NY post of the dead monkey shot by policeman.

I would like to see you try to call a Afro-American a monkey in public, and see how far that will get you. But I will give you that Bush has been called a Chimp.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Real on March 05, 2009, 06:18:20 PM
again, the thing about the cartoon is that you dont even have to misinterpret it to see something racist.

nothing in the world is offensive if you dont feel like being offended by it.  fact is a cop shoots a monkey then insinuates obama's bill needs re-writing.  intentions aside, as a piece of art "racist" is a completely valid interpretation.

you know like no one forced all these christians to think a lady in a veil on the cover of playboy had to be the virgin mary, it was just something that should have been/was seen for what it was before being published.  you know, common sense.

and again speaking of common sense, i think pretending like you think calling george bush and ape and calling barack obama and ape carries the same intonations is just plain wierd and frankly very often in my experience latently racist.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: 3deroticer on March 05, 2009, 08:33:59 PM
Rupert Murdock has issue an apology for his heavy handed liberal bias newspaper he own for the comic racist intent drawing of the shot monkey.

 I hate to see what a conservative paper would look like if someone who own it was a conservative from Murdock liberal point of views?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on March 05, 2009, 11:03:35 PM
Quote:

me: Wow, Q_BE, talk about a near word-for-word rehash of the Republican talking points on this topic. Incredible.

Q_BE: Wow, Zookie. Talk about a complete avoidance of the substance of the post, just like a liberal Democrat. Incredible.

You sound like someone who knows I'm right and is afraid to engage me in the discussion.


And you make a fatal assumption: that I am a liberal Democrat.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on March 05, 2009, 11:13:36 PM
Quote:

Real: again, the thing about the cartoon is that you dont even have to misinterpret it to see something racist...

and again speaking of common sense, i think pretending like you think calling george bush and ape and calling barack obama and ape carries the same intonations is just plain wierd and frankly very often in my experience latently racist.


Thank you for making this point.

Speaking of people saying stuff: the chairman of the Republican National Convention called Rush Limbaugh an entertainer, and then retracted those statements and instead claimed that Limbaugh was a leader of the Republican Party. So did Gov. Bobby Jindal. Incredible. That just plain killed any sort of credibility that Michael Steele ever thought he had right there: "I'm just a figurehead, that radio talk show host guy is the real boss around the RNC". Two interesting comments:

Quote:

bracken: I think the only response to Rush Limbaugh should be, "Rush Limbaugh? Rush Limbaugh? You listen to Rush Limbaugh? Rush LIMBAUGH? What office does Rush Limbaugh hold? What resume does Rush Limbaugh have in government? You listen to, let me get this straight--Rush Limbaugh? The drug-addicted mattress and vitamin seller from the radio?"

Disbelief and scorn are the only things with which to address anyone who quotes Rush, talks about Rush, refers to Rush. Let anyone know who thinks Rush is a player that you hold that thought in greatest contempt. Listening to Rush Limbaugh should be on a par with believing that WWF Raw is real.



and
Quote:

womponnim: Rush made an interesting analogy in his CPAC speech I would like to point out. He explained his wishing for Obama to fail in a classic sports analogy. He spoke of being a fan of the Pittsburgh Steelers and that at the end of the Super Bowl when Kurt Warner, quarterback for the opposing Arizona Cardinals, had the ball with 15 seconds left Rush hoped Warner would fail.

I think this important to note for two points. First we already played the proverbial big game - the election - and Obama won. Therefore Rush calling for Obama's failure is like wanting Warner to get hurt in the off-season just because he beat your team. Second, in this game the winning quarterback becomes your quarterback, which makes Rush's hoping for Obama to fail more egregious because now its no longer about the good of the team but more about Rush's preferences.

For Rush (and most of the Republicans) winning is the most important thing. Winning is the be-all end-all. The greater good of America be damned. His views highlight the divide, and the danger, of those who follow Rush - winning at any cost often costs more than a team can afford.



Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: gOOber on March 05, 2009, 11:46:31 PM
Rush Limbaugh is a dangerous, scary clown.

 
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on March 06, 2009, 02:05:30 AM
I think people far overestimate Limbaugh's influence. There's a reason Obama et al. named him the leader of the Republican party. I'll give you a hint: it wasn't because he's the leader of the Republican Party.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: 3deroticer on March 06, 2009, 05:12:04 AM
Do you think the Democrat want the people to link Rush Limbaugh the leader of the Republican party because he would be an easy target to pick apart of whats wrong with the party values?
Drugs addiction, [censored] girls in the Caribbeans, making fun of people who are disable are all Rush's character flaws.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Real on March 06, 2009, 07:00:50 PM
rush limbaugh is irrelevant.  that's why democrats are cheering him on as much as possible.  the far right 30% who will vote republican no matter what, who regardless of what they say now backed bush his entire presidency, simply do not understand how irrelevant they are.

i mean thankfully for the us and the rest of the world they made sure john mccain capped off an abysmal campaign by spending the last few weeks coddling their loud and angry insecurities instead of speaking to the centrists that could have put him in the white house.

we saw it in canada with the unelectable reformers splitting from the conservative party and it worked beautifully while it lasted.  seriously, a major characteristic of people that far to the right is an inability to see that a majority wont agree with them.  let them drag republicans to the far right fringe and be unelectable for 8-12 years until they find someone who's political astuteness trumps his ego.  that is not going to be a wuss ass like micheal "im sorry" steele.

democrat stragtegy is solid. by all means all power to limbaugh making republicans an unelectable fringe party...
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: 3deroticer on March 06, 2009, 07:47:28 PM
Karl Rove, George Bush, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity are one of the numerous low education or poor performer in the pursuit of their education. So I ask why so many underachieving leaders representing the Republican party?

Is it because the educated Republican don't get a voice because the RNC doesn't want to hear anything other than the failed dogma that they been carrying for the last 20 years?

I'm kind of rooting for the Republican party to reform and at least be the healthy contributor from the other side. But they need to stop appealing to the third grader, and grow up within their own party and let some with higher qualification speak.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: mofoapoo on March 06, 2009, 09:46:38 PM
Quote:

3deroticer said:
Karl Rove, George Bush, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity are one of the numerous low education or poor performer in the pursuit of their education. So I ask why so many underachieving leaders representing the Republican party?

Is it because the educated Republican don't get a voice because the RNC doesn't want to hear anything other than the failed dogma that they been carrying for the last 20 years?

I'm kind of rooting for the Republican party to reform and at least be the healthy contributor from the other side. But they need to stop appealing to the third grader, and grow up within their own party and let some with higher qualification speak.




I can't agree with your more.  The republican party represents the conservative view as much...some metaphor that I can't think of in which one thing does not even relate to something else, like a cat and an orange.

That's a good one!  yeah, yeah.  THe republican party represents the conservative view as much as a cat represents an orange.  I'm so clever.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: 3deroticer on March 07, 2009, 06:17:42 AM
Stem cell research have been overturn with an executive order by Barack Obama!!

He decided not to wait for the congress to pass this bill. I think this is great news.
 Cell Stem research
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on March 07, 2009, 11:22:40 PM
It's about bloody time. Federal science policy should not be determined by religious fanatics of any stripe.

ABC News: "'Obama' the Musical Opens in London"

Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: JJ on March 08, 2009, 05:35:49 AM
This is just too good.  

G.W.Bush cracks a joke - "So I said to Barak, I know Abe

Lincoln and you ain't him!"  





- see attachment
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on March 08, 2009, 09:25:08 PM
That's a good painting

MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show interviews Prof. Melissa Harris-Lacewell: "Republicans Going Hip Hop!"
Quote:

"The Republicans electing him [Steele] chairman showed 'they're thinking that Barack Obama is Superman so what they needed to do is get Kryptonite. Kryptonite comes from Superman's own planet, so they went to Planet Black Guy.'"


Classic!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on March 09, 2009, 03:44:22 PM
Republicans See Their Party as Leaderless

Quote:

Who's in charge here?

Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Republican voters say their party has no clear leader, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Another 17% are undecided.

Just five percent (5%) view either John McCain, the GOP's unsuccessful 2008 presidential candidate, or new party chairman Michael Steele as the party's leader.

Two percent (2%) see conservative radio commentator Rush Limbaugh in that role, and one percent (1%) name McCain's running mate, Alaska Govenror Sarah Palin. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Minority Leader John Boehner are each seen as GOP leader by less than one-half of one percent.

Democrats have no question who's in charge. Two-thirds of the party's voters (66%) see President Barack Obama as their leader. Nobody else reaches even the five percent (5%) level.

Only 10% of Democrats say the party has no clear leader. Four percent (4%) say House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is in charge, while two percent (2%) list longtime Massachusetts Senator Edward M. "Ted" Kennedy and one percent name political comedian Jon Stewart. Sixteen percent (16%) of Democratic voters are not sure.

Democrats and unaffiliated voters agree on the leaderless GOP. Eighty-six percent (86%) of Democrats say the Republicans have no clear leader or that they're not sure who's in charge. Eighty-eight percent (88%) of unaffiliated voters agree.

Democrats are more likely to see Rush Limbaugh as the GOP leader: Seven percent (7%) of those in Obama's party hold that view.

Republicans and unaffiliated voters are not as sure that Obama is the Democratic Party leader. Just 41% of unaffiliated voters see Obama as party chief, along with 35% of Republicans.

Among unaffiliated voters, 24% say there is no clear leader of the Democratic Party, 21% are not sure, and 10% see Pelosi as the real leader of the party.

Among Republicans, a plurality (37%) say there is no clear Democratic Party leader. Sixteen percent (16%) of the GOP faithful are not sure who leads the Democrats, and nine percent (9%) say Pelosi is the boss.

Last week, Rasmussen Reports found that just 11% of Republicans agreed with the statement "Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican Party. He says jump, and they say how high." This was a comment made by Brad Woodhouse, president of an advocacy group running national television ads linking Limbaugh to the Republican Party. His comment came at the same time that top White House officials were saying Limbaugh is the leader of the GOP.

Some pundits, however, wondered if the harsh nature of the quote might have diminished the apparent support for Limbaugh as party leader. In the current survey, we simply asked if Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican Party. The different wording had virtually no impact on the GOP responses: Only 10% said yes.

However, the different wording had a significant impact on Democrats who were evenly divided over the question when it included the second sentence, "He says jump, and they say how high." When asked straight out if Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican Party, only 21% said yes and 60% said no. Among unaffiliated voters, just nine percent (9%) see Limbaugh as the GOP leader and 77% do not.

This telephone survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports March 6-7, 2009. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/-3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence (see methodology).

Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information.


Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: 3deroticer on March 09, 2009, 04:19:53 PM
  This is from the Chris Matthews Show! And apparently Barack Obama doesn't have a spokesperson like Rush Limbaugh for the Republican party. And according to Chris this is a problem? Isn't Barack on his weekly tv address?

Quote:

     MATTHEWS: You know who can talk? You know who can talk? Limbaugh. You don’t have to like the big guy, but you know what he does? He defends capitalism. What he says is, “You, Mr. President, are out there raising taxes and getting rid of deductability and itemization and putting more injury on those of us who are already injured. You’re hurting the people who are driving the truck.”

    PAGE: Right, and nobody believes that but dittoheads. The fact is, Bush has already done the same darn thing. That argument isn’t working right now. People know that government is in a spend mode, and by the way, you know we’ve been in….

    MATTHEWS: Limbaugh’s numbers are doubled. Barack Obama’s numbers are not doubled.

    PAGE: That’s his job, though, look at the numbers. About 18% of the public agrees with Limbaugh. You don’t win elections that way, you get radio ratings. But ever since Reagan, we’ve been on a trend of taxing lower income people and giving breaks to the upper income. Obama has slightly reversed that now, and I don’t see a revolution in the streets.


Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Real on March 09, 2009, 04:21:47 PM
Quote:

JJ said:
This is just too good.  

G.W.Bush cracks a joke - "So I said to Barak, I know Abe

Lincoln and you ain't him!"  





- see attachment  




ah, would there really be anything more endearing than to be laughed at by lying crooked pigs like w bush and nixon?  

love the irony of one of the few subsequent republicans perhaps even more stupid than dan quayle dropping the punchline too.

like being clowned by chris brown for being a coward wife beater.  phenomenal illustration (in both senses) of right wing denial...
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: pedonbio on March 09, 2009, 07:23:03 PM
Quote:

notty said:

 and one percent name political comedian Jon Stewart.  




"I don't belong to an organized political party. I'm a Democrat."---Will Rogers
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: pedonbio on March 09, 2009, 07:32:40 PM
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
That's a good painting

MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show interviews Prof. Melissa Harris-Lacewell: "Republicans Going Hip Hop!"
Quote:

"The Republicans electing him [Steele] chairman showed 'they're thinking that Barack Obama is Superman so what they needed to do is get Kryptonite. Kryptonite comes from Superman's own planet, so they went to Planet Black Guy.'"


Classic!




When I read that Steele was elected, I had the thought that the RNC had done the same thing the Illinois Republicans did when the nominee the had running against Obama for senate imploded-- They picked Alan Keyes who had none of the characteristics of a successful politician, but he was Black.

They Obama-Keyes race actually established the "fruitcake minimum" for American political scientists, proving conclusively that 26% of the voters will vote for any major-party nominee, no matter how stupid, socially inept, or dishonest.

That's actually an improvement, because it was long believed that the number was 40%.

Ironically, I think Steele is actually a competent politician and could probably reorganize the Republican Party in a few years if the party would follow him. Fortunately, they won't.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: JJ on March 09, 2009, 07:59:06 PM
Quote:

Real said:
Quote:

JJ said:
This is just too good.  

G.W.Bush cracks a joke - "So I said to Barak, I know Abe

Lincoln and you ain't him!"  





- see attachment  




ah, would there really be anything more endearing than to be laughed at by lying crooked pigs like w bush and nixon?  

love the irony of one of the few subsequent republicans perhaps even more stupid than dan quayle dropping the punchline too.

like being clowned by chris brown for being a coward wife beater.  phenomenal illustration (in both senses) of right wing denial...



=========================================

My oh my but aren't we bitter and nasty?   Thought that was the land of the terrible Right Wing hordes?

Might be good idea to lighten up a bit and learn how to laugh at both sides when there's something truly funny going on?  And there's plenty of funny in the White House and Congress to laugh at these days!  
----------------------------------------------------------
Jest becuz yuh didn't see it on Jon Stewart or Letterman don't mean it can't be funny!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on March 09, 2009, 08:02:20 PM
Real has no sense of humor. Only an abnormal interest in another country's politics.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: 3deroticer on March 09, 2009, 08:10:33 PM
Given that we spend more on military than any other country combine, that taking interest in our political system is warranted, and not so absurd.

Canadians is on our border, we could easily nuke them and loot their ATI video card factory, and steal their maple syrup for your pancakes!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on March 09, 2009, 08:57:42 PM
We can't nuke them. That will irradiate everything. If we send a massive shipment of tainted pork and beans, that should wipe out the entire country.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: PET on March 09, 2009, 09:25:50 PM
Hurray! Today he made strain cells research allowed in US, it could have saved superman, you know.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Real on March 10, 2009, 02:11:02 AM
Quote:

JJ said:
Quote:

Real said:
Quote:

JJ said:
This is just too good.  

G.W.Bush cracks a joke - "So I said to Barak, I know Abe

Lincoln and you ain't him!"  





- see attachment  




ah, would there really be anything more endearing than to be laughed at by lying crooked pigs like w bush and nixon?  

love the irony of one of the few subsequent republicans perhaps even more stupid than dan quayle dropping the punchline too.

like being clowned by chris brown for being a coward wife beater.  phenomenal illustration (in both senses) of right wing denial...



=========================================

My oh my but aren't we bitter and nasty?   Thought that was the land of the terrible Right Wing hordes?

Might be good idea to lighten up a bit and learn how to laugh at both sides when there's something truly funny going on?  And there's plenty of funny in the White House and Congress to laugh at these days!  
----------------------------------------------------------
Jest becuz yuh didn't see it on Jon Stewart or Letterman don't mean it can't be funny!




bitter?  well the whole world wasnt too pleased seeing the worst president ever get an 8 year term.  but now, no actually im stoked having seen the far better candidate win the 08 election.

im sorry, but it simply is great irony that the worst president of our times, who's never been regarded as sharp as a tack is delivering a line that was originally used to skewered the poster boy for republican himbos....you know, what w actually now is lol.

no i think bitter and nasty is propping up the worst president of our time, seeing that people are stoked on his replacement, then mockingly calling that person "the messiah" as if its ridiculous to be excited about an alternative to wars based on lies and rich first policies that crash the economy.

seriously how is having george w launch inadequacy disses at you not totally funny?  

especially with the better part of the republican party now claiming they had nothing to do with him lol.

i mean really, biases aside, in the context of political satire its like having bill clinton call someone a morally bankrupt manwhore...
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Real on March 10, 2009, 02:13:36 AM
Quote:

notty said:
Real has no sense of humor. Only an abnormal interest in another country's politics.




lol, that's my favorite talking point for mindless patriotism, american or otherwise.

but i mean...sorry do i know you? lol.  i remember telling you racists are racists and not voting is a fool's protest.  sorry again about discussing stuff on a discussion board.  you were and are welcome to answer back, or just pidgeon hole me because you cant.

in actuality my father and half my family is american.  my sisters are dual citizens, i am not just in case there happens to be a draft.  

but when one country declares itself world police we all have a vested interest. if the united states denounced trying to physically and economically conquer the world id probably have much less to say.

as long as far right nutcases are launching wars on lies for the sake of cockamamie conservative academics, or fascists seek to impose their religious beliefs on supposedly free peoples ill be there to say something.

sorry hoes..
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on March 10, 2009, 03:10:23 AM
Quote:

Real said:
lol, that's my favorite talking point for mindless patriotism, american or otherwise.




Is this in response to my post, or just the tail end of the conversation in your head?

Quote:

but i mean...sorry do i know you? lol.  i remember telling you racists are racists and not voting is a fool's protest.




That's very deep. I should write that down.

Quote:

sorry again about discussing stuff on a discussion board.  you were and are welcome to answer back, or just pidgeon hole me because you cant.




Apology accepted. Don't let it happen again.

Quote:

in actuality my father and half my family is american.  my sisters are dual citizens, i am not just in case there happens to be a draft.




But you're already in Canada. You wouldn't even have to sneak over the border.  

Quote:

but when one country declares itself world police we all have a vested interest. if the united states denounced trying to physically and economically conquer the world id probably have much less to say.




America! Fuck yeah!

Quote:

as long as far right nutcases are launching wars on lies for the sake of cockamamie conservative academics, or fascists seek to impose their religious beliefs on supposedly free peoples ill be there to say something.

sorry hoes..




That's comforting. Some Canadian guy on some forum on the internet will be there to say something. I feel better knowing that.



P.S. It is ridiculous to be excited about any politician at any time for any reason.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: JJ on March 10, 2009, 04:05:49 AM
Quote:

Real said:
Quote:

JJ said:
Quote:

Real said:
Quote:

JJ said:
This is just too good.  

G.W.Bush cracks a joke - "So I said to Barak, I know Abe

Lincoln and you ain't him!"  





- see attachment  




ah, would there really be anything more endearing than to be laughed at by lying crooked pigs like w bush and nixon?  

love the irony of one of the few subsequent republicans perhaps even more stupid than dan quayle dropping the punchline too.

like being clowned by chris brown for being a coward wife beater.  phenomenal illustration (in both senses) of right wing denial...



=========================================

My oh my but aren't we bitter and nasty?   Thought that was the land of the terrible Right Wing hordes?

Might be good idea to lighten up a bit and learn how to laugh at both sides when there's something truly funny going on?  And there's plenty of funny in the White House and Congress to laugh at these days!  
----------------------------------------------------------
Jest becuz yuh didn't see it on Jon Stewart or Letterman don't mean it can't be funny!




bitter?  well the whole world wasnt too pleased seeing the worst president ever get an 8 year term.  but now, no actually im stoked having seen the far better candidate win the 08 election.

im sorry, but it simply is great irony that the worst president of our times, who's never been regarded as sharp as a tack is delivering a line that was originally used to skewered the poster boy for republican himbos....you know, what w actually now is lol.

no i think bitter and nasty is propping up the worst president of our time, seeing that people are stoked on his replacement, then mockingly calling that person "the messiah" as if its ridiculous to be excited about an alternative to wars based on lies and rich first policies that crash the economy.

seriously how is having george w launch inadequacy disses at you not totally funny?  

especially with the better part of the republican party now claiming they had nothing to do with him lol.

i mean really, biases aside, in the context of political satire its like having bill clinton call someone a morally bankrupt manwhore...



=====================================================
Worst President of our time?  

I hear that all the time.

What does it mean?   What "time" are we talking about?

Probably just the last eight years?    Lessee, that leaves just one candidate.

Better to take a longer look.........................

Worst President of all time?   Whew, that's a loaded one. But let me give it a shot.

1. Jimmy Carter - overmatched during one 4 yr.term of miSTEAKS and out the door!
2. Lyndon Johnson - Vietnam warmonger whose Great Society put the country in a hole we've never recovered from - and we still have poverty?
3. U.S. Grant - great Civil War General, **93** bum of a Republican president
4. and the worst of all - James Buchanan - he tried to balance South and North on slavery and other issues just before the Civil War - failed miserably and actually made things worse - totally overwhelmed by the office

To say that Bill Clinton or George W. Bush were the worst of all time, as contemporary critics like to harp, leaves gaping holes in historical facts.

And, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush both got elected a second time!  Something was working there!

Were they a little bit lucky too?

Yes.

Bill Clinton had Ross Perot water down President George Herbert Walker Bush  Republican base just enough to let Clinton win with 49%.

Then Clinton got lucky again - he ran against old worn out warhorse Bob Dole the second time.

George W. Bush got lucky both times, running against two imbeciles posing as actual politicans - Al Gore Jr. and John Kerry.    
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Real on March 10, 2009, 04:17:57 AM
oh i think bill clinton was a great president.  see i was giving examples of appropriate or logical satire, not political bias.

as for re-electing a person who for starters started a trillion dollar war on at best utter incompetence;  the results have spoken for themselves.  now the polls speak for themselves...
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: 3deroticer on March 10, 2009, 06:41:53 AM
Quote:

JJ said:
Worst President of our time?  

I hear that all the time.

What does it mean?   What "time" are we talking about?

Probably just the last eight years?    Lessee, that leaves just one candidate.

Better to take a longer look.........................

Worst President of all time?   Whew, that's a loaded one. But let me give it a shot.

1. Jimmy Carter - overmatched during one 4 yr.term of miSTEAKS and out the door!
2. Lyndon Johnson - Vietnam warmonger whose Great Society put the country in a hole we've never recovered from - and we still have poverty?
3. U.S. Grant - great Civil War General, **93** bum of a Republican president
4. and the worst of all - James Buchanan - he tried to balance South and North on slavery and other issues just before the Civil War - failed miserably and actually made things worse - totally overwhelmed by the office

To say that Bill Clinton or George W. Bush were the worst of all time, as contemporary critics like to harp, leaves gaping holes in historical facts.

And, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush both got elected a second time!  Something was working there!

Were they a little bit lucky too?

Yes.

Bill Clinton had Ross Perot water down President George Herbert Walker Bush  Republican base just enough to let Clinton win with 49%.

Then Clinton got lucky again - he ran against old worn out warhorse Bob Dole the second time.

George W. Bush got lucky both times, running against two imbeciles posing as actual politicans - Al Gore Jr. and John Kerry.    




well according to historical scholars with the CNN 2009 poll results

George Bush scored lower than Millard Fillmore and Herbert hoover, and they are already calling the tent city of the new middle class homeless the Bushville city.

So I would have to accurately state that Bush was the worst president in my time.

Incidently Carter and Clinton scored higher than either Bush, and in my lifetime JFK scored higher than any other president.

Now scores like this change over in a period of time, and with the trickle down theory imploding, I suspect people will rewrite the scores for Reagonomics principle.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on March 10, 2009, 07:16:33 AM
It wasn't necessarily that Jimmy Carter was "overmatched"; he largely lost the 1980 election because of the "October surprise" engineered by George H. W. Bush on behalf of Ronald Reagan. The luck that George W. Bush had in the 2000 election was that his brother was governor of the state where the ballot was disputed, a strong campaigner on his behalf was secretary of state of that same state...oh, and Al Gore wasn't able to pick up enough electoral college votes from his home state. And yes, Richard M. Nixon was a crook, but he got us out of Vietnam (eventually), was around when men walked on the moon for the first time, and helped improve diplomatic relations between the US and Russia, and the US and China quite a bit...so from a foreign policy perspective, largely, he did a good job. Ironically, because of his downfall, we had Ford, who had Rumsfeld & Cheney working for him, who started the wheels a-turnin' to put Dubya in power and subsequently fuck us up, and fuck over the Constitution.

But I digress...

Gingrich Takes On Rush: Hoping For Prez's Failure Is "Irrational" (VIDEO)

Limbaugh Hits Back At Gingrich: He "Wishes They Were Running TV Ads Against Him"

Quote:

HuffPo: Frank Schaeffer: "Open Letter to the Republican Traitors (From a Former Republican)"

Dear Republican Leaders: The Republican Party has become the party dedicated to sabotaging the American future. Check out the sermon I just delivered about the Republican Party on CNN when being interviewed by D.L. Hughley -- and/or read on.

You Republicans are the arsonists who burned down our national home. You combined the failed ideologies of the Religious Right, so-called free market deregulation and the Neoconservative love of war to light a fire that has consumed America. Now you have the nerve to criticize the "architect" America just hired -- President Obama -- to rebuild from the ashes. You do nothing constructive, just try to hinder the one person willing and able to fix the mess you created.

...President Obama has been in office barely 45 days and the Republican Party has the nerve to blame him for the economic and military cataclysm he inherited. I say economic and military cataclysm because without the needless war in Iraq you all backed we would not be in the economic mess we're in today. If that money had been spent here at home on renovating our infrastructure, taking us toward a green economy, putting our health-care system in order we'd be a very different situation....

When your new leader Rush Limbaugh calls for President Obama to fail he's calling for more flag-draped coffins. Limbaugh is the new "Hanoi Jane."

For the party that created our crises of misbegotten war, mismanaged economy, the lack of regulation of our banking industry, handing our country to rich crooks... to obstruct the one person who is trying to repair the damage is obscene....

After Obama was elected, you Republican leaders had a unique last chance to send a patriotic message of unity to the world -- and to all Americans. You could have backed our president's economic recovery plan. Since we all know that half of our problem is one of lost confidence and perception, nothing would have done more to calm the markets and project resolve and confidence than if you had been big enough to take Obama's offered hand and had work with him -- even if you disagreed ideologically. You had the chance to put our country first. You utterly failed to rise to the occasion.

The worsening economic situation is your fault and your fault alone. The Republicans created this mess through 8 years of backing the worst president in our history and now, because you put partisan ideology ahead of the good of our country, you have blown your last chance to redeem yourselves. You deserve the banishment to the political wilderness that awaits all traitors.


Ouch! Talk about fighting words!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Dearc on March 10, 2009, 10:26:46 AM
I'm not here to debate, but I just wanted to share this pic.  It isn't Obama that bothers me, but AG Eric Holder and his stance on gun control.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: ROUNDandHEAVY on March 10, 2009, 12:23:07 PM
I love the pundits. Now they are saying Obama is trying to do too much, that he shouldn't be out stumping in front of citizens.

I love that the media shows its obtuse vision by not realizing that Obama's connection with the voter's is his strength. That the panic the press fans with its doom and gloom can only be addressed by Obama touring the country and speaking substantively to the public.

Perhaps after 8 years of a small minded ideologue in the whitehouse, the press is unused to someone who can walk and chew gum.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Real on March 10, 2009, 04:37:26 PM
Quote:

notty said:

That's comforting. Some Canadian guy on some forum on the internet will be there to say something. I feel better knowing that.





oh sorry, i totally dont know how i missed that.

lol your contrived haughty cynicism is pretty effective as a crytpic shield to things youre ignorant about eh?  people on this board seem to eat it up at least  kudos.  almost makes your "what business do you have speaking" attitude seem not on some moron redneck shit.

really what i say on here has nothing to do with you. you felt it necessary to address my post so i explained myself.  not really fishing for your approval tho but thanks.  if you want some deeper history on me and why im allowed to have an opinion on the world mabye hit me with a pm so we dont have to go off topic.

sorry if some issues you disagreed with me on but were too meek to debate at the time left you with a bad impression of me.  i often get that from people who dont really have much to say about anything....
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: 3deroticer on March 10, 2009, 07:27:32 PM
Historically speaking, it was the outside country that end up liberating the people from tyranny of their own leaders. If Bushvilles start popping up all over the country and food and water become scarce, The next door neighbors will be force to deal with it, and it'll be more than just chatting on the internet.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on March 10, 2009, 09:03:28 PM
Quote:

Real said:
Quote:

notty said:

That's comforting. Some Canadian guy on some forum on the internet will be there to say something. I feel better knowing that.





oh sorry, i totally dont know how i missed that.

lol your contrived haughty cynicism is pretty effective as a crytpic shield to things youre ignorant about eh?  people on this board seem to eat it up at least  kudos.  almost makes your "what business do you have speaking" attitude seem not on some moron redneck shit.

really what i say on here has nothing to do with you. you felt it necessary to address my post so i explained myself.  not really fishing for your approval tho but thanks.  if you want some deeper history on me and why im allowed to have an opinion on the world mabye hit me with a pm so we dont have to go off topic.

sorry if some issues you disagreed with me on but were too meek to debate at the time left you with a bad impression of me.  i often get that from people who dont really have much to say about anything....




WW, if there were a discipline called "Putting Words in Another Person's Mouth," you'd have a PhD.

Why on Earth would I debate with you about anything, Dr. Ass...umption? There is no incentive do so. I'm not going to change your mind on any topic, and you certainly won't change mine.

Actually, come to think of it, I did make a thoughtful reply to one of your posts (which, I can't help noticing, are just various riffs on the same old shit), but you failed to respond to any of the questions I asked. Here, allow me to refresh your memory:

Quote:


Real said:
my point is you have to be either a right wing republican or the ultimate cynic to feign not being able to logically connect with the palpable excitement surrounding the prospect of a leader who for starters believes in science and not fairy tale magic. someone who's concerned about the middle as well as the upper class. someone who is going to end the illegal occupation of a country that was invaded on a lie. someonw who might not look to charactyer assasinate anyone who disagrees with him. someone who claims he will and just might govern in the interest of common sense instead of academic political theory. someone who understands that ecological preservation is an important infrastructure that will keep our [censored] from being flat broke. someone who didnt wipe their ass with your constitution. and on and on. i mean you can hold your president to whatever standard you want, but you really think its so snicker worthy that folks might be excited?

    the outcome of this contest was never in doubt was it? i dont know, it took two george w terms, a horrid mccain campaign and a vp candidate who actually seemed retarded and got a pass because she was a woman for obama to get his 3 point "landslide". george bush got a second term. anyone with a pulse who believes in jesus has a chance.

    what is it youre looking for in a leader that would have been so much less scoff-worthy?...





Quote:


Notty replied:
Hmm, what do I do with this mess? I know, let's open it up to the forumites! Time for Question Game:

Am I a right-wing Republican? If I am, what makes me a right-wing Republican?

Am I the ultimate cynic? If I am, what makes me the ultimate cynic?

Do I fail to understand "the palpable excitement surrounding the prospect of a leader who for starters believes in science and not fairy tale magic?" Or is it that I understand, but find this behavior irresponsible? If it is the former, why do I fail to understand? If it is the later, why do I find it irresponsible?

Why am I not excited about some who cares about the middle class? Is it that I care more about the upper class? Or is that I care more about the invisible class, being those people near, at, or below the poverty level? Or none of the above? If so, why?

Do I fail to understand the excitement about potentially ending the occupation of Iraq? Or do I not care about Iraq? If so, why? Or did I realize a couple years ago that whichever Democratic candidate made it into office would withdraw the troops, making Iraq a bit of a non-factor?

Will Obama attack someone's character at any point during his term(s)? If not, why not?

Will Obama govern from common sense instead of theory? If so, why? How does that fit with his reputation as an intellectual? And what have you to say about his professorship at a university long known for its concentration on the theory of law rather than its practice?

Is Obama a champion of the environment? If he is, why does he support construction of additional coal and nuclear plants? Why does he support offshore drilling?

Did George W. Bush in fact wipe his ass with the Constitution? If so, how did he get it out of the display case? Do you think he watched National Treasure for some tips and tricks? Or, do you think the techniques used in National Treasure are not applicable to the theft the Constitution? Or do you think the techniques used in National Treasure are not applicable to anything? If so, why?

Do you think I think it's snicker-worthy that people would be excited about Obama? If so, why? Or do you think I think that people sometimes sacrifice their rationality to their enthusiasm? If so, do you think I might not want this to happen to my good friends in the forum? Or, am I just the party pooper? If so, why?

In the United States, are presidential candidates elected by popular vote? (hint: no) According to the polling data, did John McCain reach 270 electoral votes at any point during the campaign? What was Obama's margin of victory in the electoral college? Was it greater than 3%? If so, how much greater? Was McCain's campaign badly run? If so, why? If so, could it have been improved? If so, how could it have been improved? Could McCain have won the election with a better campaign? Was John McCain's choice of vice presidential candidate detrimental to his campaign? If so, why? Would he have received a larger portion of the electoral vote with a different vice presidential candidate? If so, why?

Weeeeeeeee!! I like Question Game!



Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Janus on March 10, 2009, 09:25:15 PM
 Great...high school essay questions. They were fun.

J- Moves out of the way of the sun notty actually wanted.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: 3deroticer on March 10, 2009, 10:33:53 PM
If he got a PHd, then what did I get?

DeJa Vue Notty?

I feel the weight lift off my shoulder from the Canuck guy!
carry on dude! I'm rooting for you!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on March 10, 2009, 10:44:47 PM
Quote:

3deroticer said:
If he got a PHd, then what did I get?

DeJa Vue Notty?

I feel the weight lift off my shoulder from the Canuck guy!
carry on dude! I'm rooting for you!




I was thinking that! I was thinking, "This reminds me of the endless bickering between 3d and myself."

We've located your successor. Where is mine?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: 3deroticer on March 10, 2009, 11:15:08 PM
Isn't Shara yours?

Are we going to tag team fight this out?

First one to resort to Meercats and pancakes loses!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: gOOber on March 10, 2009, 11:30:18 PM
???

 
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: 3deroticer on March 10, 2009, 11:36:25 PM
 
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Real on March 11, 2009, 02:10:40 AM
im not here to be barack obama's press secretary or an apologist for mindless political wonks of any brand.  i might go a bit deeper into the pigeon holing of anyone who is stoked to see bush gone as "trading in reason for enthusiasm" or whatever but im not in the mood to write an essay just to get some pankakes/meerkats response when the well of smarmy runs dry.

my only point is ill speak on mine, yours, china's, russia's, sudan's, zimbabwe's, dollywood's or sweden's administrations whenever i please.  you can be comforted, disturbed or indifferent. whichever you please.

funny how much of a fuss is stirred up when i rightly point out the punchline to a bad political satire illustration is essentially equivalent to barry bonds telling a-rod "you sir are no hank aaron" lol....
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on March 11, 2009, 02:30:07 AM
Holy crap...3d, tell me that isn't you with a second account.

Eerie.

As for Shara, she could do the job, but I don't think she gives a damn about politics. And she definitely wouldn't waste her time on some turd in off-topic forum. Silly, silly me!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Dearc on March 11, 2009, 03:05:15 AM
Quote:

3deroticer said:
Given that we spend more on military than any other country combine,




Defending the free world is a highly expensive and potentially dangerous duty that no other country in world history has ever done, for as long as we have.

Is it possible that if we scale back our Department of Defense (DOD) budget, other things may seem easier to fix?  Sure.  
(I truly hate that bumper sticker "It'd be a great day when the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber.")

Is it also possible that if we spent more money on building things and feeding people rather than bombing them, they may stop fighting us?  Maybe.

Let us not forget, however, there are plenty of bad guys that still want to wipe us off the map, no matter whom our esteemed president is.  Some of them don't want our money, they just want us dead.  Let's not pick-n-choose who's who on the shit-list...

Although, I thought I heard on the radio this morning that if N. Korea launches it's "peaceful" satellite with it's missile capable of hitting the U.S. West Coast, the White House said it'll shoot it down.  That'll be the day!     I'm on the fence to think if Pres. Obama was serious, or just take Kim Jong Il out to lunch.

Despite the overwhelming anit-war stance the average European took against the U.S. regarding Iraq, I don't recall anyone seriously proposing the U.S. pull out of it's European bases, which the U.S. pays a hefty rent for.  This is less money European countries have to pay for their own defense, and allows them to spend it on things that most Americans may consider socialist.  Just a thought...

While hoping not to go too far off topic, what is people's experience with the military here?  I don't think I warrant the stature of starting a new thread with the hopes of getting any serious responses, but on the flip side I don't think a sob story of someone you met in college from a country with a name most people can't pronounce qualifies.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: solvegas on March 11, 2009, 03:51:21 AM
I'm retired Navy, submarines to be precise. Why such a large, expensive military ? Because it's like insurance. Nobody likes to pay for it but you are glad you have it. Too many americans take it for granted the nation can't be invaded or destroyed. The reason the White House is white is because the british burned it down and, after reconstruction,the only paint in sufficient amount at the time was white. Military weakness always attracts attack. In December 7,1941, the japanese attacked because they saw the USA as militarily and culturally weak. European nations hate us but they are dependent on us because they are militarily weak. Ask the Poles, Checkz or Hungarians who they rather depend on more to protect them from revanchist Russia, the USA or France ? Real diplomacy is about getting the other guy to do what you want him to do. If you can talk about it and do a mutually satisfying agreement, that is indeed best. But sometimes only force will do. The japanese attacked because they did not want interference in their Greater East Asia Cooperation Empire and since they could not get us to agree to acquiesce, they attacked. If they had known about what would happen they would have not attacked.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on March 11, 2009, 08:49:01 PM
Quote:

Dearc: It isn't Obama that bothers me, but AG Eric Holder and his stance on gun control.


What is it about his stance on gun control that has got you bothered, Dearc? I'm curious.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on March 11, 2009, 08:59:36 PM
Quote:

ROUNDandHEAVY: I love the pundits. Now they are saying Obama is trying to do too much, that he shouldn't be out stumping in front of citizens.


Well, maybe he's trying to do so much because there's a helluva lot to do! Why hasn't the pundit class considered that, I wonder? He's taking over from a guy who spent more time on vacation than any other two-term president in history, including Ronald Reagan. He left a lot of shit to clean up, and Obama has to get busy with the fumigation, otherwise it'll stink up the country (more than it already is, I mean).

I would rather have a president talk to us than talk down to us. I would rather have a president willing to engage the people who gave him his job in the first place, instead of hiding in a bubble of yes-men and sycophants. But I'm just crazy that way, I guess.

Quote:

BBC: Washington Diary: "Doing too much?"

...The rumbling this week has been that after a mere 50 days in the job, Barack Obama is doing more than most presidents cram into one term, while riding roughshod over the nation's sensibilities.

As David Brooks put it in the New York Times: "Republicans could argue that it is Nero-esque for Democrats to be planning extensive renovations when the house is still on fire."

He may have a point, but you could also argue that if the Democrats are Nero, the Republicans are behaving like Caligula with a barrel of petrol, dousing the flames with fuel rather than coming up with any genuine alternatives.

The Obama administration has always seen this crisis as an opportunity to hasten its realisation of the American make-over. On that score the president is living up to his election promises.

Whether it is healthcare, education or immigration reform, the White House insists that these fundamental issues have languished for decades, gathering mould, because the impetus for change was too weak to survive the dead hand of Congress.

Inertia maintains the status quo, delighting the special interest groups, the administration argues. So the new president's team is determined to seize the day: "Carpe diem" might as well be emblazoned on the North Facade of the White House.

They have a point. The president's political capital is still high.

The last Democratic president wasted precious time doing too little, too late. The Republicans are floundering on a rudderless, listing ship weighed down by an elephant called Rush.

Healthcare, education, the moribund infrastructure, to name but a few, all need urgent attention.

If they are not addressed now, the moment may have passed.

And "carpe diem" has always been Mr Obama's mantra.

During the campaign, he gave the impression of being measured and sober-minded. But the 47-year-old president has also always combined thoughtfulness with the urgency of now. He is an impatient man...


Well, better carpe diem than "Mission Accomplished".
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Dearc on March 11, 2009, 11:49:50 PM
AG Holder is pushing the idea that if the U.S. reinstitutes the assault rifle ban, the Mexican drug cartel's access to firearms will be cut off, and their terrorization of Mexican citizens will cease.

It's the worst excuse for gun control on record.

First of all, you can only (legally) buy semi-automatic (single shot) rifles here in the U.S.  The cartel can get its weapons from the black market, or the corrupt Mexican military personnel, and almost always they'll be fully automatic (burst fire).

Criminals will always have access to whatever guns they want.  Laws like that only hurt law abiding citizens.  Crime did NOT decrease when D.C. had it's anit-gun law in place.  It's a proven fact: armed citizens make better communities.  I for one have a .40 cal pistol, .12 ga pump action shotgun, and will be picking up an 5.56m M4 or AR15 in a couple weeks.

I posted a related pic.  Sorry, I can't make it a JPEG.  
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: ROUNDandHEAVY on March 12, 2009, 01:08:46 AM
Quote:

Dearc said:
AG Holder is pushing the idea that if the U.S. reinstitutes the assault rifle ban, the Mexican drug cartel's access to firearms will be cut off, and their terrorization of Mexican citizens will cease.

It's the worst excuse for gun control on record.

First of all, you can only (legally) buy semi-automatic (single shot) rifles here in the U.S.  The cartel can get its weapons from the black market, or the corrupt Mexican military personnel, and almost always they'll be fully automatic (burst fire).

Criminals will always have access to whatever guns they want.  Laws like that only hurt law abiding citizens.  Crime did NOT decrease when D.C. had it's anit-gun law in place.  It's a proven fact: armed citizens make better communities.  I for one have a .40 cal pistol, .12 ga pump action shotgun, and will be picking up an 5.56m M4 or AR15 in a couple weeks.

I posted a related pic.  Sorry, I can't make it a JPEG.  




Seriously, you think passing out AK47's to every citizen will protect us from government oppression? How gullible. You have me at responsible gun ownership for home protection and hunting, but insisting that the average citizen deserves the right for automatic weapons...where do you draw the line? A home nuclear weapon would make a fine deterrent to crime too.

Read your damn constitution, a citizen with an assault rifle doesn't constitute a well regulated militia. When the founding fathers wrote that amendment, the most deadly hand weapon was a musket. Do you think Jefferson would have advocated unliscensed cannons being mounted in every home?

This selective read of the constitution is noithing more than a macho attempt to cling to some cowboy, John Wayne vision of virile American manhood.

You want to protect yourself from government oppression, do your fkn homework and vote to prevent crooks and ideologues from being elected.  

You want some sympathy fore gun rights? Try showing a scintilla of common sense.

Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Dearc on March 12, 2009, 03:02:24 AM
Quote:

ROUNDandHEAVY said:
Seriously, you think passing out AK47's to every citizen will protect us from government oppression? How gullible. You have me at responsible gun ownership for home protection and hunting, but insisting that the average citizen deserves the right for automatic weapons...where do you draw the line? A home nuclear weapon would make a fine deterrent to crime too.

Read your damn constitution, a citizen with an assault rifle doesn't constitute a well regulated militia. When the founding fathers wrote that amendment, the most deadly hand weapon was a musket. Do you think Jefferson would have advocated unliscensed cannons being mounted in every home?

This selective read of the constitution is noithing more than a macho attempt to cling to some cowboy, John Wayne vision of virile American manhood.

You want to protect yourself from government oppression, do your fkn homework and vote to prevent crooks and ideologues from being elected.  

You want some sympathy fore gun rights? Try showing a scintilla of common sense.




Not a bad start from muskets to nukes, but I didn't say that.  Even the most militant gun owner wouldn't allow it...too much competition.  lol  Some people shouldn't be allowed firearms, that's why we have background checks.

I'd consider a "militia" to be average gun owners whom show up to report to their local sheriff, mayor, governor, etc. in time of emergencies and offer their services.  We obviously cannot rely on the gov't to take care of us all the time.  We can all agree L.A. riots, Midwest floods of the early 90's, and Katrina are good points.

Some guys practice metro-sexual behaviors, like wear pink t-shirts with peace signs and go out on man-dates, others go target practice, and teach something to their ch!ldren that has been taught since the founding of this country.  Either way, men love to discharge...  lmao

If Obama and Holder have their way, they can have my guns from my cold dead hands.

Typical liberal pacifist:  if you don't like it, insult the intelligence of the opposing side.  Get your panties out of a bind.  I bet you were tortured with water pistols, then upgraded to slingshots, weren't you?  
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Hugeboobfan on March 12, 2009, 03:48:28 AM
Quote:

Dearc said:
Not a bad start from muskets to nukes, but I didn't say that.  Even the most militant gun owner wouldn't allow it...too much competition.  lol  Some people shouldn't be allowed firearms, that's why we have background checks.



Why have background checks?  The 2nd Amendment says nothing about background checks.  It states that the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  Background checks allow the government to arbitrarily decide which citizens should be allowed to keep and bear arms.  Doesn't that sound like an infringement on our constitutional rights?

Quote:

I'd consider a "militia" to be average gun owners whom show up to report to their local sheriff, mayor, governor, etc. in time of emergencies and offer their services.  We obviously cannot rely on the gov't to take care of us all the time.  We can all agree L.A. riots, Midwest floods of the early 90's, and Katrina are good points.



If you are ok with background checks, then you are ok with restrictions on gun ownership.  Why do you need an assault rifle, be it semi-automatic or not?  Why do you need a  handgun?  Wouldn't a hunting rifle suffice?  If your argument is that you need more firepower to combat criminals then perhaps you do need automatic weapons, no?

I find it strange that when you think of offering your services to the community you think of guns.  If that's the way you think of a militia, why not have the sheriff hand you a gun when you show up?  But I guess that's a typical right-wing conservative: the only freedom you're really concerned about is the right to own guns.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: 3deroticer on March 12, 2009, 04:07:21 AM
I just saw a clip of Chuck Norris celebrating his 69 birthday, talking about how he have the right to bear arm and he doesn't hunt. This same man once proclaim that cocaine was a communist conspiracy and failing to note that Oliver North had a smuggling drugs for arm deal for the Contra war. This man also claims he is running for President of Texas when they succeed from the union.

Now I see another interview of Victoria Jackson a former SNL cast proclaiming that Barack Obama wants to be Castro.

I have heard the cold dead hand rhetoric before by the NRA, and Glenn Beck fear mongering scenario of chaos that will never happen.  

In the local paper a Republican made a case to split the Republican party and let the 30% Bush loyalist go on their own way. I honestly agree that they have a better ticket for the next election if they can do that. I do think the majority of people are conservatives but without the religious dogma getting in the way of science and want a do something congress at this juncture of our failing economy.

I think that's about right as there are everywhere the 30% unhinge that are on the verge of breakdown.

Now in this Interview with Chuck Norris and Glen Beck he says that Beck show has extremely high rating because he is the one leader that people like Chuck is looking for the answer. Bill O'Rielly says the same of his own show.

I think it's good that they show themselves like that, because you see in each and everyone of them hold grudges for many years and vehemently denounce another as mortal enemies base on idealology. Whatever the idealology is going to fall in the hands of the majority, and should trust in that.

Star Trek a very popular show and yet it is highly a socialistic govt. There isn't a need to have money, as it is uncommon to have currency. I would want my health care to run like the US post office, so call me a commie if you want.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Dearc on March 12, 2009, 10:37:41 AM
Quote:

Hugeboobfan said:
Why have background checks?  The 2nd Amendment says nothing about background checks.  It states that the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  Background checks allow the government to arbitrarily decide which citizens should be allowed to keep and bear arms.  Doesn't that sound like an infringement on our constitutional rights?

If you are ok with background checks, then you are ok with restrictions on gun ownership.  Why do you need an assault rifle, be it semi-automatic or not?  Why do you need a  handgun?  Wouldn't a hunting rifle suffice?  If your argument is that you need more firepower to combat criminals then perhaps you do need automatic weapons, no?

I find it strange that when you think of offering your services to the community you think of guns.  If that's the way you think of a militia, why not have the sheriff hand you a gun when you show up?  But I guess that's a typical right-wing conservative: the only freedom you're really concerned about is the right to own guns.




Hi Hugeboobfan.  Thanks for replying to my post in a polite, concise manner.  I was expecting a lambasting and scathing post bordering on rage.

Background checks?  Well, I personally don't care for them, but it's a concession I'm willing to make to make legal gun ownership easier for law abiding citizens, while at the same time preventing firearms from being in the hands of a convicted felon (let's not debate what's a threatening crime; I'm talking about violent offenders, not white-collar crimes).

And you're right.  Citizens don't need guns to help the community in times of normal life.  I was hoping to refer to times of distress.  Of course, standing around with guns all day, and not filling sandbags, or handing out food, water & blankets isn't the idea, either.  I hope the idea is catching on.

I'm not a conservative, either.  In 2003-2005, I was actually concerned for my well being because I'm an atheist.  I feel like I'm caught in the middle of this widening gap between neo-conservatives marching to "Onward Christian Soldier!" and beating down my door with prostelyzers and faith-based initiatives VS. neo-leftist fascists and their goose-stepping march toward Utopia.  THAT is why I'm arming myself.  I'm no gun-crazy nut-job, but if we can't own guns, what else can they take away?


Quote:

3deroticer said:
I just saw a clip of Chuck Norris celebrating his 69 birthday, talking about how he have the right to bear arm and he doesn't hunt. This same man once proclaim that cocaine was a communist conspiracy and failing to note that Oliver North had a smuggling drugs for arm deal for the Contra war. This man also claims he is running for President of Texas when they succeed from the union.

I have heard the cold dead hand rhetoric before by the NRA, and Glenn Beck fear mongering scenario of chaos that will never happen.  

Now in this Interview with Chuck Norris and Glen Beck he says that Beck show has extremely high rating because he is the one leader that people like Chuck is looking for the answer. Bill O'Rielly says the same of his own show.

Star Trek a very popular show and yet it is highly a socialistic govt. There isn't a need to have money, as it is uncommon to have currency. I would want my health care to run like the US post office, so call me a commie if you want.




I think Chuck Norris & Glenn Beck have good intentions, but I'm nowhere near in the same camp as they are.

Star Trek? lol   I would love to have free or near-free medical care like they do, but paying for it enmasse via taxes is what I'm worried about.  Let the politicians figure that one out...    It could be worse: the conservatives health care plan was to pray not to get sick.  If you did, it was like Star Trek's Klingons, just let the patient die, in battle hopefully!  

For the record, I'm appalled at the stories of some guy who lost it in Alabama, killing 10 innocent people, then himself.  A similar story in Stuttgart, Germany, ending in 15 dead.  This is what gun ownership is NOT about!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: ROUNDandHEAVY on March 12, 2009, 10:51:31 AM
I'm not a pacifist, I just get scared when I hear some of the morons in this country talk and then I think of them owning military firepower.

If you think the government is coming to get you, then whats to stop other people who think like you but maybe aren't as smart from appointing themselves guardians of democracy and shhoting people they consider to be traitors? After all, they might be Arabs like Obama....

Not so far fetched you know, mobs form and get ugly fast. If something bad happens and the good [censored] in our national guard need to come in and seperate a mob, it would be nice to know that they don't have to walk into one armed with assault rifles.

Bottom line: citizens don't need military weapons, only the military does, and if your governmet has become so corrupted as to round up innocent civilians, which is what you really fear, then you bought this situation by your inaction and or your support of corrupt leaders, both of which have let this country go to hell.

Stop watching Red Dawn, it was just a movie. You are not a closet commando. If the shit hits the fan your assault rifle will simply be pried out of your cold dead hands and added to the enemy arsenal or melted down for bullets by the government.

In the meantime its only function will be to strafe your neighborhood.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Hugeboobfan on March 12, 2009, 01:07:39 PM
Quote:

Dearc said:
Background checks?  Well, I personally don't care for them, but it's a concession I'm willing to make to make legal gun ownership easier for law abiding citizens, while at the same time preventing firearms from being in the hands of a convicted felon (let's not debate what's a threatening crime; I'm talking about violent offenders, not white-collar crimes).



What if the "violent offender" was just trying to fight against the oppressive "liberal" government?  If I understand the reasons behind your support of citizen gun ownership, then that seems like exactly the situation you would want to avoid.  After all, it's the government who determines who is and who isn't a law-abiding citizen.

Quote:

And you're right.  Citizens don't need guns to help the community in times of normal life.  I was hoping to refer to times of distress.  Of course, standing around with guns all day, and not filling sandbags, or handing out food, water & blankets isn't the idea, either.  I hope the idea is catching on.



That's great, although I still don't understand why everyone having a gun in a time of distress is a plus.  Or why the volunteer "militia" could not just be armed in a time of distress by the local authorities.

Quote:

I'm not a conservative, either.  In 2003-2005, I was actually concerned for my well being because I'm an atheist.  I feel like I'm caught in the middle of this widening gap between neo-conservatives marching to "Onward Christian Soldier!" and beating down my door with prostelyzers and faith-based initiatives VS. neo-leftist fascists and their goose-stepping march toward Utopia.  THAT is why I'm arming myself.  I'm no gun-crazy nut-job, but if we can't own guns, what else can they take away?



How does owning guns prevent the government from taking away anything?  The government can strip away each and every one of your other constitutional rights even while you have a huge stockpile of arms in your house.  This was aptly demonstrated during the last administration, when the government intentionally tried to limit your rights with respect to the first, fourth, and sixth amendments (free speech zones, warrantless wiretapping, detention of unlawful combatants).  How does owning guns help stop government encroachment on your rights or possessions?

Or to put it another way, can you think of a scenario where owning a gun would help in any way to prevent the government from taking something from you?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Dearc on March 13, 2009, 01:59:24 AM
It's not about wether or not we should, or why/why not, etc. I truly believe it's because I can.

And no, I don't need a semi-automatic assault rifle to guard my home or neighborhood. I want one because I can have one.  I can afford it, responsible to own & maintain, secure it from misuse or theft, etc.  Why would anyone want a luxury car over a compact?  (insert own reason here)

The gov't can certainly take away all the freedoms and rewrite laws to make someone a citizen one day a criminal the next. It's not like millions of people will wake up one day and scream "REVOLUTION!" and fight off their gov't for some inane reason.

In all truth & honesty, I no longer believe the government can protect us anymore. Special interests, corrupt politicians on every level, economic downturns, foreign posturing, less-than reputable status amongst nations, and most certainly, terrorism, etc. have most certainly put this country in a bind. I'm not as optimistic about this country's future as many here are. So I apologize if I appear overwhelmingly cynical, but I can't apologize as to why I feel so.

And no, I wouldn't think "Red Dawn" was the template of how I'd react. I was thinking more of "The Road Warrior."  
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: ROUNDandHEAVY on March 13, 2009, 02:24:13 AM
Raod Warrior!?!?

Clearly I mistook this for a lucid conversation.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Hugeboobfan on March 13, 2009, 03:39:48 AM
Quote:

Dearc said:
It's not about wether or not we should, or why/why not, etc. I truly believe it's because I can.



Well then I should be able to own a fully automatic machine gun.  Or a grenade launcher.  Because I can.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Dearc on March 13, 2009, 11:00:15 AM
Good start!  I'm glad we can finally agree on something.

Of course, grenades are illegal for civilians.  Sorry to dash your hopes.  If by some chance you get some, let me give you some advice:

1.  NEVER pull the pin with your teeth.  It takes over 11 foot lbs. to pull it out of the saftey release.

2.  NEVER let it cook; fuses were made by the cheapest bidder.  Average fuse is 3-5 sec long, but that 2 secs. isn't worth your life.

3.  If you must toss the grenade in a room, throw it at the opposing wall of your intended target.  It'll bounce around the room and make your target(s) either run out, or chase it to retrieve and toss it back.

Ahh, the memories of fresh cordite...

HAPPY HUNTING!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Hugeboobfan on March 13, 2009, 01:11:22 PM
Quote:

Dearc said:
Good start!  I'm glad we can finally agree on something.

Of course, grenades are illegal for civilians.  Sorry to dash your hopes.  



Do you think I care about silly laws when any day now we're going to be driving around in a nuclear wasteland wearing leather and killing each other for gasoline?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: MunchWolf on March 13, 2009, 03:23:17 PM
Remember people, once you pull the pin Mr. Grenade is nobody's friend



-Munch "google images to the rescue" Wolf
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: BigChestCherisher on March 13, 2009, 09:13:29 PM
The reality is that Obama isn't mush different than Bush, isn't much different than Clinton, isn't much different than Reagan... or any other President we've had in recent history.  They've all become very homogeneous.  There are very few politicians who speak of truly limited government, property rights, sound money, responsible foreign policy, personal freedom, liberty - the very foundation that once held up our society.  The few who do touch on these issues, don't seem to practice what they preach.  

Republicans don't win elections.  Democrats don't win elections.  Politicians win elections.  Meanwhile, people in the real world need real solutions, not a donkey or an elephant "team mascot" or a clever little red or blue bumper sticker for their car.

On the lighter side of things, here's someone who seems to be swelling with pride in support of her candidate.  He's got a lot of support, even though she has none.  



It's no surprise that a shirt like that could cause a major clench..um..clinching of an ere..um.. election!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Dearc on March 13, 2009, 11:39:39 PM
Quote:

Hugeboobfan said:
Do you think I care about silly laws when any day now we're going to be driving around in a nuclear wasteland wearing leather and killing each other for gasoline?




LOL!  Good one, that made me laugh...with you, of course!  

I, for one, still have my Army BDU's (battle dress uniforms), both woodland and desert patterns.  I'm not sexy enough to wear leather bottoms in any enviroment, especially in a possible wasteland.  A leather jacket is as far as I'm willing to go.  
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on March 15, 2009, 08:37:54 AM
Newsarama: "5 Lessons We Hope Obama Learned from Spider-Man"
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Hugeboobfan on March 15, 2009, 01:59:38 PM
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
Newsarama: "5 Lessons We Hope Obama Learned from Spider-Man"




I hope he doesn't follow #5 too closely: "5. In Order to Get Things Done, Sometimes You Have to Reach Across the (Super Hero) Aisle."

The best way to deal with the current crop of religious right-wing crazies in the government is to try and ignore them.  Capitulating to them will only end in producing watered down useless initiatives.

Part of the reason that G.W. and his congress were so successful at ramming through all sorts of horrendous legislation and policy initiatives was that they never compromised.  That, and the democrats were (are) spineless wimps who backed down at every opportunity.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on March 15, 2009, 09:12:50 PM
Yes, and the sad thing about right-wing crazies (actually ANY crazies) is that they fight your arguments by fighting you as a person. Case in point: Meghan McCain vs. Laura Ingraham. I don't agree with everything that comes out of Ms. McCain's mouth, but she has a slamming body; L.I. couldn't argue against what MMc said so she attacks her as being "plus-sized". I'll take a pretty plus-sized girl over a whippet thin snarky bitch any day, that's for sure.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on March 16, 2009, 04:35:23 AM
I have some questions:

What's all this about grenades and machine guns? And what's the relevance?

Hugeboobfan, do you equate reaching across the isle with reaching out to "religious right-wing crazies?" If so, shake your head, it's empty.

Zookie, how do you find all of these inane news articles?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Hugeboobfan on March 16, 2009, 05:13:29 AM
Quote:

notty said:
What's all this about grenades and machine guns? And what's the relevance?



Dearc was afraid that Obama was going to take his heavy weaponry away.

Quote:

Hugeboobfan, do you equate reaching across the isle with reaching out to "religious right-wing crazies?" If so, shake your head, it's empty.



Yep.  I think most of the republicans in congress are religious right-wing crazies.  Some of the democrats too, for that matter.  

Empty like a fox!  
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on March 16, 2009, 06:09:18 AM
Quote:

notty: Zookie, how do you find all of these inane news articles?


I don't know about them being "inane" but I find the news the same we all do: from teh internets.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: mofoapoo on March 16, 2009, 07:06:02 AM
Quote:


Yep.  I think most of the republicans in congress are religious right-wing crazies.  Some of the democrats too, for that matter.  




I have to politely disagree.

I don't think that the most of the republicans are crazies.  hell, i doubt most of them are religious, and only use religion to rally people behind them.

Republicans just seem to all stick together, and go against anything the democrats do, all the time, even if it is something that a conservative would endorse.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Hugeboobfan on March 16, 2009, 12:39:18 PM
Quote:

mofoapoo said:
I have to politely disagree.

I don't think that the most of the republicans are crazies.  hell, i doubt most of them are religious, and only use religion to rally people behind them.

Republicans just seem to all stick together, and go against anything the democrats do, all the time, even if it is something that a conservative would endorse.



I don't give a lot of them that much credit, but I'll concede that a number of politicians who appear to religious right-wing crazies could just be hypocritical manipulative bastards.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on March 16, 2009, 01:03:38 PM
Quote:

Hugeboobfan said:
Quote:

notty said:
What's all this about grenades and machine guns? And what's the relevance?



Dearc was afraid that Obama was going to take his heavy weaponry away.




I'm sure we all weep for Dearc. Unless civilization crumbles and/or the U.S. turns into a war zone, such items are more of a hazard than a benefit.

Quote:

Hugeboobfan, do you equate reaching across the isle with reaching out to "religious right-wing crazies?" If so, shake your head, it's empty.



Yep.  I think most of the republicans in congress are religious right-wing crazies.  Some of the democrats too, for that matter.  

Empty like a fox!  




I disagree. That would be like me saying that most of the liberals who post in the Obama thread are morons, when clearly only a few of them are moronic. However, to the casual observer (ie, you), it might seem a higher ratio because the morons have greater visibility.  
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Hugeboobfan on March 16, 2009, 02:53:22 PM
Quote:

notty said:
I disagree. That would be like me saying that most of the liberals who post in the Obama thread are morons, when clearly only a few of them are moronic. However, to the casual observer (ie, you), it might seem a higher ratio because the morons have greater visibility.  



I guess I haven't seen very much evidence that the less visible republicans aren't religious crazies/manipulative bastards.  Given their voting record, it seems better to go with the asumption that the majority of them are bible-thumping extreme right-wing nutjobs.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Real on March 16, 2009, 04:35:06 PM
gasp!  you mean a country where, among a laundry list, half the "progressive" party fights against gay rights for the sake of some fairy tale book is skewed to the religious right???

lol, seriously its interesting to watch; as self absorbed as a super power is bound to and can be i guess you can re-invent the definition of terms like "centrist" (or socialist or wmd)to be applied strictly within your borders, and not have to care what such words actually mean.

meanwhile south africa has lapped you on social progression...
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on March 16, 2009, 06:50:44 PM
Hey, Real, did you know there are two shift keys on your keyboard?

As for the Republicans, there are some backward fuckers in the party. Regressive, you could say. As long as national platform rails against LBGTQ rights and abortions and evolution, etc, etc, I can never grow sympatico with this iteration of the GOP.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on March 16, 2009, 06:53:22 PM
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
Quote:

notty: Zookie, how do you find all of these inane news articles?


I don't know about them being "inane" but I find the news the same we all do: from teh internets.




You're right. Only half of them are inane. Cindy McCain vs. Laura Ingraham?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Dearc on March 16, 2009, 10:51:30 PM
Quote:

notty said:
Quote:

Hugeboobfan said:
Dearc was afraid that Obama was going to take his heavy weaponry away.




I'm sure we all weep for Dearc. Unless civilization crumbles and/or the U.S. turns into a war zone, such items are more of a hazard than a benefit.




Afraid?  No.  Concerned.  Sure.  Either way, I don't need empathy or sympathy, and in this place, sarcasm is the only emotion worth having.  Besides, I'm sure Pres. Obama has more important things to worry about right now.  Attorney General Eric Holder says things that concern me.  Their voting records prove their anti-gun stance.  The idea that criminals won't commit the crime without the weapons is beyond idiotic.

I'm sure we can all agree that we ABSOLUTELY DO NOT NEED assault rifles, including myself.  I just WANT one.  I'm not going to make my last residence in a bell tower or a grassy knoll.

To add to the facts, I collect weapons.  Every other year or so I go to the Renaissance Festival, or order online, and pick up something.  Currently, I own a sword, battle axe, battle flail (spiked ball on chain), Sioux tomahawk, and a war hammer.  This year, I'm looking for a halberd.  At my desk, I have a combat knife, and a Buck knife in my work bag.  I'm all about personal security.  Relying on the gov't to actually protect your person and/or property is the ultimate in utter stupidity and gullibility.  If you can wait for the groundbreaking of Utopia's Government and Cultural Center, fine.  I can't.

Civilization crumbling?  It's very likely; it's happened before.  At it's peak, Rome had over a million people living within it's very walls.  At it's fall, less than 10,000, and most in poverty.  It would be centuries before another city would make such a claim.  But a post-apocalyptical world isn't my concern, either.  I really don't think it'll get that bad.

What I can't figure out is why there's so much negative response to this.  I'd have figured that by now many people would just shake their heads, sigh and move on.  Having to explain it further would be futile, but this is something I'm willing to put behind me.  After reading many of the posts here, it just solidified my resolve to do what I need to.  Believe it or not, I'm more afraid of you people than you are of me.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on March 16, 2009, 11:44:00 PM
Quote:

Dearc: After reading many of the posts here, it just solidified my resolve to do what I need to.  Believe it or not, I'm more afraid of you people than you are of me.

What I can't figure out is why there's so much negative response to this.


Hearing about a determined paranoid with a large cache of weapons will do that sometimes

Anyhoo, let's have a moment of levity (or inanity, in notty's words):

YouTube: "Obama Wins The Hearts & Minds of the KKK"
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Real on March 17, 2009, 01:27:12 AM
Quote:

notty said:
Hey, Real, did you know there are two shift keys on your keyboard?




ah grammar police.  the last tried and true bastion of message board snarks with no on-topic rebuttals to make.  good one, you got me.  when do i get pancakes?...
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: gOOber on March 17, 2009, 01:45:42 AM
 
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheRover on March 17, 2009, 02:37:43 AM
Sometimes I think I'm the only one on here who can't particularly stand either party.  They both interfere way too much in the lives of the average citizen, just over different things.  Big-government conservatism and big-government liberalism are equally repulsive, in my view.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on March 17, 2009, 03:17:40 AM
Quote:

Real said:
Quote:

notty said:
Hey, Real, did you know there are two shift keys on your keyboard?




ah grammar police.  the last tried and true bastion of message board snarks with no on-topic rebuttals to make.  good one, you got me.  when do i get pancakes?...




When you use the fucking shift key, you lazy piece of shit.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Dearc on March 17, 2009, 10:18:28 AM
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
Hearing about a determined paranoid with a large cache of weapons will do that sometimes




I'm not even going to presume your alternatives, since I haven't the clue what they are.  We agree to disagree, but the first level of security comes from a sense of understanding a potential threat.  Call that paranoia if you like; I call it personal security, a part of personal responsibility.  Please feel free to jump, hop and skip your way into Hippieville.  

Quote:

TheRover said:
Sometimes I think I'm the only one on here who can't particularly stand either party.  They both interfere way too much in the lives of the average citizen, just over different things.  Big-government conservatism and big-government liberalism are equally repulsive, in my view.




I've been trying to say that for months.  I despise BOTH parties, but apparently that's fallen on deaf ears (or blinders) here.  It seems that if you're not for Pres. Obama, you're against him.  Reminiscent of Pres. G.W. Bush's "with us or against us" regarding terrorism.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on March 17, 2009, 11:16:29 AM
Quote:

Dearc: Please feel free to jump, hop and skip your way into Hippieville.  


Sigh...I ain't a hippie. I don't even own a single tie-dye shirt!

Quote:

I've been trying to say that for months.  I despise BOTH parties, but apparently that's fallen on deaf ears (or blinders) here.  It seems that if you're not for Pres. Obama, you're against him.  Reminiscent of Pres. G.W. Bush's "with us or against us" regarding terrorism.


Oh, please. I've said it before, and I will say it again: I'm not a Obama fanatic, **86** to see when he fucks up, because as a fallible human being he can and will do so (and in fact has done so quite a bit since he showed up).
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Hugeboobfan on March 17, 2009, 12:43:27 PM
Quote:

Dearc said:
We agree to disagree, but the first level of security comes from a sense of understanding a potential threat.  Call that paranoia if you like; I call it personal security, a part of personal responsibility.  



I'll agree that the first level of security comes from a sense of understanding a potential threat, but if you believe that your (realistic) potential threats involve you needing an assault rifle, you either (1) live in a pretty damn dangerous neighborhood and should think about moving, or (2) you're having red dawn/mad max fantasies of mowing down waves of bad guys as they rush at your house.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Dearc on March 18, 2009, 01:33:33 AM
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
Sigh...I ain't a hippie. I don't even own a single tie-dye shirt!

Oh, please. I've said it before, and I will say it again: I'm not a Obama fanatic, **86** to see when he fucks up, because as a fallible human being he can and will do so (and in fact has done so quite a bit since he showed up).




I give Pres. Obama plenty of credit for getting (or trying to) as much done as he has.  I also say that any given president's first year may resemble the previous presiden't term simply because the bureacracy is a slow idiotic machine.  Pres. Obama IS a human being, and he WILL screw up something, somewhere.

Ok, I'll retract my "hippie" comment from earlier.  I try to get in a jab or two for humor's sake, but I also try not to personally insult or attack the intelligence of other or their arguments.  I wish others here at the Forum would make such measures.  Zookie, you do disagree politely.    I will never presume that I'm infallible, either.  I'm willing to admit when I'm proven wrong, but that doesn't mean I can't believe in an idea, not matter how odd.

Quote:

Hugeboobfan said:
I'll agree that the first level of security comes from a sense of understanding a potential threat, but if you believe that your (realistic) potential threats involve you needing an assault rifle, you either (1) live in a pretty damn dangerous neighborhood and should think about moving, or (2) you're having red dawn/mad max fantasies of mowing down waves of bad guys as they rush at your house.




Once again, I'll admit it: I DON'T NEED an assault rifle.  That doesn't mean I can't have one.  Just because the gov't changes, and says what's legal one day, illegal the next, is that right?  Of course not.

I do live in a not-so-great neighborhood, but seriously, who can afford to move???  You might make gobs of money, but I live from paycheck to paycheck.  I have to juggle which bills to pay first, and how much to spend on groceries.  Just yesterday, I had to change car insurance because I could barely afford what I was paying.  Obviously, spending money on a rifle is NOT the smartest financial move, but it's about oppurtunity and availability, not sensibility.  I'm sure we've all said "Fuck it!" and whipped out that credit card at least once in our adult lives.  

I'm not worried about some post-apocalyptical world (I made the "Mad Max" statement as a joke), or some leftist-commie invasion, or even super bad-ass Nazi zombies.  I collect weapons, both medieval and modern, as long as I can get them legally.  Right now, assault rifles are legal.  I don't believe they should be outlawed.  Why?  It won't do anything to prevent crime.  I also collect shot glasses, but that doesn't make me an alcoholic.

I really wish people would get over this, because I am....
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on March 20, 2009, 04:53:12 PM
Changing gears a little...did anyone catch the Prez on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno last night?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: gOOber on March 20, 2009, 05:32:09 PM
Missed it but I listen to BBC and some announcers call him O'bomber.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on March 20, 2009, 06:30:51 PM
That's the British accent for you
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: BigChestCherisher on March 20, 2009, 06:47:41 PM
Part of the trouble with politics is that people usually tend to let their "party leader" decide for them how to feel about the issues.  If we had more independent, open minded thinkers in this country, we'd all begin to understand that we have much more in common than we realize.  The two-party system, by design, seperates people, rather than bringing them together.  It's certainly a form of segregation, in spite of the fact that no one ever refers to it in that manner.  There's actually an aisle that seperates the two parties during congressional meetings, very reminiscent of those lines/ropes that seperated the races in dance halls and on buses 50 years ago.  When you intentionally seperate people, over time they will alienate themselves from one another (or in many cases demonize one another.)  After a while, even if the ropes/lines/aisles are removed, the animosity, ignorance and bigotry remain.  

It's perfectly healthy to be critical of the actions of a politician. It's not healthy, however, to condemn an entire group of people who voted for that particular politician.  Nor is it constructive.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: pedonbio on March 20, 2009, 07:50:50 PM
I want to say something about the disdainful use of the word "hippie", or its misspelling, "hippy".

The hippie movement was an effort to apply the very old anti-materialist philosophy and values to daily life. The succeeding years were the first time that a major group of Americans repudiated that philosophy, which had originated with Jefferson and Madison, had moved through Thoreau and Emerson, and had last manifested itself in the scattering of "colonies" that existed up into the middle of the 20th Century, and morphed into the "beat" movement of the 1950s.

The contrasting value system is materialism, expressed most graphically by an odd pair, Karl Marx and Ayn Rand. By making a joke of hippie values, you are embracing the "Greed is good" values of the last thirty years. So how's that working for you? Found a job yet?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on March 20, 2009, 08:13:00 PM
Pedonbio was totally a hippie!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on March 20, 2009, 08:23:08 PM
Yano...I kinda like Obama now that people aren't lining up to kiss his ass.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on March 20, 2009, 09:22:31 PM
Quote:

pedonbio: The contrasting value system is materialism, expressed most graphically by an odd pair, Karl Marx and Ayn Rand. By making a joke of hippie values, you are embracing the "Greed is good" values of the last thirty years. So how's that working for you? Found a job yet?


But greed IS good!

-- TheZookie "Gordon Gekko is my homeboy" 007
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Dearc on March 20, 2009, 09:25:34 PM
Quote:

pedonbio said:
By making a joke of hippie values, you are embracing the "Greed is good" values of the last thirty years. So how's that working for you? Found a job yet?




So, are you saying that people must choose a side?  One or the other?

I did like the "hometown meeting" he had in Costa Mesa, CA. earlier this week.  I liked enough to hope it wasn't lip service.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on March 20, 2009, 11:52:43 PM
 It's on like Donkey Kong.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: PregNut on March 21, 2009, 12:30:47 AM
Quote:

notty said:
Yano...I kinda like Obama now that people aren't lining up to kiss his ass.


Sure they are, just not as many.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Real on March 21, 2009, 02:27:43 AM
lol totally.  what are ideas and actions next to the way the media hype happens to rub you.  we should probably all choose our politicians the way cool k!ds choose their music...
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on March 21, 2009, 04:47:34 AM
Where in my post did I say anything about the media? Here's an idea for you: just read what I write and stop making inferences, because you suck at it.

However, since I know you won't stop, allow me to make an inference of my own: you are one of those people who aren't quite smart enough to realize how stupid they are.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Real on March 21, 2009, 06:14:30 AM
yeah, that's obvious cuz.....youre annoyed by me.

that is the litmus for stuff right?  lol sorry if im smart enough to realize that's fucking stupid.

anyways so what do you do when he gets popular again?...
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on March 21, 2009, 06:43:39 AM
You just did what I told you not to do. I guess I was wrong. You're too stupid to realize how stupid you are.

As for Obama, for a while I thought he was a con artist, which didn't appeal to me, but now that I realize he's a dick, I'm okay with the guy. And I'll probably continue to be okay with him.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on March 21, 2009, 06:53:43 AM
Hey Real, since you like to read between the lines, give me your interpretation of the following quote:

"Intelligence is a wonderful tool. It allows us to rationalize the actions we were going to take anyway."
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Real on March 21, 2009, 01:56:18 PM
how do you guess you were wrong when that was your original inference?   i mean i dont mind, the things you write on message boards leave people to make inferences about what youve said.  no matter how much you want to cry about it, or have snap about things that are completely irrelevant because behind some laughable platitudes about cetain people's merit in even addressing you; in truth youre vapid.

so mabye the stupid indictments might be saved until you can keep track of your own words.  or mabye youre just far too stupid to realize how stupid you are...
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Real on March 21, 2009, 02:45:32 PM
Quote:

notty said:
Hey Real, since you like to read between the lines, give me your interpretation of the following quote:

"Intelligence is a wonderful tool. It allows us to rationalize the actions we were going to take anyway."




sorry i didnt see that, i was brought to the end of the last page.

i dunno, mabye that both you and i have opinions. one of us states them while the other whines about having their empty talk opposed, hence your original impetus to be a cow toward me in this thread.

now that obama's not so popular so you like him, i dont even see what we disagree on so much.  except once again that i annoy you.  reading this board i will infer with the utmost confidence that that is your ultimate limtus. so really, feel free to start with the grammar police and meerkats at any time.  im not so special really...
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: titmouse on March 21, 2009, 03:53:53 PM
Sorry Notty.
I live in a war zone.  Baltimore City IS a war zone. Its a 3rd frelling world city. Right in my own back yard. In 2007 289 people were killed. We have some of the strictest gun permit laws in the country (Only illinois and DC are stricter) and we are Numero Uno for cities under 750k for violent crime.  

So Yes I treasure my guns. They 3x have been the only thing that has kept me and my family safe.

Once in my appartment when I was single. 2x in the house in which I now live.  Cost to me for my weapons of choice less than 500 bucks. Cost to me to remove a criminal from society $104.59 $100 of which was removing the bloodstain from a wall in my foyer. (ammo costs money and the meth head didn't stay down when I shot him in the chest.) The other times well I didn't have to shoot them only make them see the error of their ways in entering my house.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: titmouse on March 21, 2009, 04:02:17 PM
Greed is good Pedon, Its what causes people to want to go out and achieve. Its what gets people working. What you are mistaking is the LEVEL of greed.

Note how the ecconomic growth  of the US was virtually stagnant from the mid 60s to the late 70s. That is in a war economy AND a technological race to the stars with the Soviet Union. Without Defense and Space Spending the US was in a almost dead flat economic growth pattern. (remember Stagflation)

The Greed that erupted in 80s Wall Street is what Finally pulled out  The economic slump that was the period.

What you are seeing now is the consequence of shedding all the manufacturing and industrial capability of the US that has been occurring for the last 40 years. All these services and nobody can afford the services because we aren't producing anything. This is where the Excessive greed comes in Moving manufacturing over seas to increase the short term profitability of a company kills the company by removing chunks of its user base. Henry Ford was a smart man Pay the people that work for him a decent wage so they could buy some of the cars that they are making. Create Product loyalty in house.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on March 21, 2009, 04:49:35 PM
Quote:

Real said:
how do you guess you were wrong when that was your original inference?




This is my point. Inferences are usually wrong. I probably shouldn't make them and you definitely should not.

Quote:

i mean i dont mind, the things you write on message boards leave people to make inferences about what youve said.




I don't think that's necessary. They'd certainly be better off if they didn't. Applying one frame of reference to another is a recipe for failure.

Quote:

no matter how much you want to cry about it, or have snap about things that are completely irrelevant because behind some laughable platitudes about cetain people's merit in even addressing you; in truth youre vapid.




Who's crying? Who's snapping? I'm telling you how it is, and you're not listening.

Quote:

so mabye the stupid indictments might be saved until you can keep track of your own words.  or mabye youre just far too stupid to realize how stupid you are...




Gosh, you sure told me!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on March 21, 2009, 05:00:35 PM
Quote:

Real said:
i dunno, mabye that both you and i have opinions. one of us states them while the other whines about having their empty talk opposed, hence your original impetus to be a cow toward me in this thread.




Oh, snap! He called me a cow.

Quote:

now that obama's not so popular so you like him, i dont even see what we disagree on so much.  except once again that i annoy you.  reading this board i will infer with the utmost confidence that that is your ultimate limtus. so really, feel free to start with the grammar police and meerkats at any time.  im not so special really...




Yes, you annoy me. Probably more than any other person on the forum at the moment. I should not allow you to annoy me, because you are a waste of my time, but as anyone who knows me will attest, I'm always spoiling for a fight.

You annoyed me from the start. When you wrote that voting 3rd party was a waste of a vote, I thought it was one of the most asinine things I'd ever read. Unfortunately, nothing that you've said in the meantime has changed my opinion of you.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: pedonbio on March 21, 2009, 06:38:21 PM
Quote:

notty said:
Pedonbio was totally a hippie!




It's that obvious, is it, notty? Staying poor in my profession is hard, but I manage.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: pedonbio on March 21, 2009, 06:44:04 PM
Quote:

titmouse said:
Greed is good Pedon, Its what causes people to want to go out and achieve. Its what gets people working. What you are mistaking is the LEVEL of greed.






I don't think I'm mistaking anything. I don't remember Michael Douglas (or Michael Milkin, who really said it) adding a clause about greed in moderation being good. Cafeteria philosophy is as bad as cafeteria religion.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Real on March 21, 2009, 10:09:23 PM
wow 2 seperate posts and 6 broken down quotes, we really are riled up arent we?  fact is this whole back and forth came from your ignorant inference that i had no sense of humor. and just like a good message board battle-tard that's the first thing you want to cry about when someone argues with you lol.

some of us are here for on topic discussion, and some of us are here to be the resident stereotypical sour cow that every board needs.  and i dont begrudge you even, keeps things moving lol.

but now that we've been through the broad stroke inferences begun by you, the grammar police, the quoting of each phrase to branch out on a seperate tangent for argument's sake, before we hit the requisite rock bottom pancakes layer of your vapid facade, i grow weary.  

ill be back when i have something relevant to say to the topic, feel free to quote and fire back your self satisfied irrelevance for each sentence once more tho...


....and to that; americans do need to start batting an eye at the fact there's almost 10 000 gun murders a year, but its deeper than gun control.  we have about a gun a person in canada and nowhere near the same situation....
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on March 21, 2009, 10:53:03 PM
The United States has 203 metropolitan areas of 200,000 or more persons. Canada has 17 such areas. In the U.S., there are approximately 31 people per square kilometer. In Canada, there are approximately 3 people per square kilometer.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on March 22, 2009, 01:07:13 AM
...in other words, Canadians are worse shots than Americans.

-- TheZookie "America! FUCK YEAH!" 007
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on March 22, 2009, 02:17:10 AM
In the U.S., 90% of gun crimes occur in metropolitan areas, with a population distribution of 75% to those areas.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Real on March 22, 2009, 03:38:09 AM
well look at canada, or any other industrialized nation in the world you feel like.  no matter how you break it down, its alarming.  

in 2005 80 people were murdered in metro toronto (just under 6 million people) in what was dubbed "the year of the gun."  with about the same urban/rural distribution as the states, gun crime rates arent anywhere even near close. many urban areas 1/6 the size in the united states would call that "the year of peace"  simple fact.

but why would some people even acknowledge that when you could just be a nationalist philistine i guess?  just figured the fact there are places where guns are a plenty and people dont shoot each other at such a crazy pace is relevant.

again if you dont want to take canada, take basically anywhere but columbia lol...
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on March 22, 2009, 04:37:21 AM
Canada has 1/6th the firearm homicide rate of the U.S. at 1/10th the population density. Six percent of Canadians legally own firearms compared to 25% of U.S. citizens. There are 0.00010 homicides per firearm per year in Canada. There are 0.00012 homicides per firearm per year in the U.S.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Real on March 22, 2009, 06:05:18 AM
well canada has 1/6th the gun homicide rate of the us period.  rate means population disparity has been accounted for. as far as physical area canada is a good 50(imo 80-90)% uninhabitable arctic, not really relevant.  three quarters of all canadians are along the saint lawrence, in s. ontario, the calgary-edmonton corridor and lower mainland bc.  very americanized urban centers.

but point taken when youre talking about per firearm, i suppose i undervalued exactly how many guns there are in america...
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Hugeboobfan on March 22, 2009, 06:15:03 AM
Quote:

Real said:
but point taken when youre talking about per firearm, i suppose i undervalued exactly how many guns there are in america...



The obvious solution here is that america needs more guns.  Right patriots?

I suggest leaving huge piles of handguns in city parks for anyone to pick up and protect themselves with.  Think how safe we'd be then.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on March 22, 2009, 06:37:40 AM
The homicide rate is density-dependent. As humans come into close contact with one another, their propensity for violence increases. Even if the "uninhabitable" portions of Canada are removed from the analysis, the population density is still very much less than that of the United States, with far fewer population centers.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on March 22, 2009, 06:43:57 AM
Quote:

Hugeboobfan said:
Quote:

Real said:
but point taken when youre talking about per firearm, i suppose i undervalued exactly how many guns there are in america...



The obvious solution here is that america needs more guns.  Right patriots?

I suggest leaving huge piles of handguns in city parks for anyone to pick up and protect themselves with.  Think how safe we'd be then.




No one uses the parks anymore. We're all a bunch of fatties. You'll have to go door to door, delivering them.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Hugeboobfan on March 22, 2009, 07:09:20 AM
Quote:

notty said:
No one uses the parks anymore. We're all a bunch of fatties. You'll have to go door to door, delivering them.



Like a modern day equivalent of Johnny Appleseed?  Spreading death, err... I mean freedom and protection wherever he goes?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on March 22, 2009, 08:54:08 AM
Quote:

Real: three quarters of all canadians are along the saint lawrence, in s. ontario, the calgary-edmonton corridor and lower mainland bc.  very americanized urban centers.


The figure I heard is that 90% of the Canadian population lives within 100 miles of the US/Canada border.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Real on March 22, 2009, 02:41:38 PM
Quote:

notty said:
The homicide rate is density-dependent. As humans come into close contact with one another, their propensity for violence increases. Even if the "uninhabitable" portions of Canada are removed from the analysis, the population density is still very much less than that of the United States, with far fewer population centers.




nah, that is misleading.  ill repeat 75% of canadains are located in a grand total of 4 regions.  it would still be less desnse than america, but if canada is what youre clammoring to compare density to id check the relevance.

if the us were to conquer canada tomorrow its population density would drop from about 29 to 16 people per km.  not because people spread out and things got safer, but because you added the second largest land mass in the world, the majority of which is simply uninhabited.  i mean national numbers tweaked by the people spread out across montana, idaho and the dakotas doesnt mean its safer in urban centers and vice versa.

plus nevermind comparaisons to canada, least densely populated country on earth, the 29 ppk is not high at all on a global scale and does not really explain abberant high gun murder rates.

again, just ask 6 million people in dense urban toronto about the "year of the gun."  50 murders.  check the popluation density of urban montreal, vancouver, calgary, the capital region and edmonton (which should be the highest) youll still find the same relative story...
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on March 22, 2009, 05:16:55 PM
So, cities are islands unto themselves, and have no bearing on each other? Toronto is surrounded by...not much. New York is surrounded by...?

But, hey, you're the one who first compared the U.S. to Canada. I'm merely pointing out that it's a bad comparison, and shouldn't be made. If you want to match up the Great White North with another country, try Australia. They are very similar in many ways. But, wait, uhoh, Australia's firearm homicide rate is almost half that of Canada.

 
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on March 22, 2009, 06:50:04 PM
Quote:

notty: The homicide rate is density-dependent. As humans come into close contact with one another, their propensity for violence increases. Even if the "uninhabitable" portions of Canada are removed from the analysis, the population density is still very much less than that of the United States, with far fewer population centers.


But I don't think population density entirely explains the high US homicide rate. There are parts of the world which have far higher population densities and don't have nearly as much gun violence/homicides as the United States is burdened with, even when you take into account how easy or how hard it is to acquire a firearm in those countries.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on March 22, 2009, 08:55:09 PM
I would agree that cultural and political influences are vast. But, if I may borrow a page from the SAT test booklet, which of these is not like the others:

A. United States
B. Canada
C. Australia
D. India

That aside, if you look at the firearm homicide rate vs the overall homicide rate for most any country, you find one of two trends: high firearm homicide rate, slightly higher overall homicide rate, or low firearm homicide rate with a huge increase in the overall homicide rate. Granted, homicide rates vary, and I do attribute that to cultural and political measures, but the fact is that, in the absence of guns, people simply find other ways to kill each other.

Having said that, I hate guns. I can't stand rifle hunting, sport shooting, or any other gun-toting activities the rednecks so enjoy. I find the whole concept of gun ownership repugnant. I also find the concept of a technology that functions solely to kill other organisms repugnant. But,  that's just me, and unfortunately, the gun laws aren't going to change any time soon.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: TheZookie007 on March 22, 2009, 09:59:12 PM
Quote:

notty: Having said that, I hate guns. I can't stand rifle hunting, sport shooting, or any other gun-toting activities the rednecks so enjoy.


I agree. Make love, not rednecks!
Quote:

I find the whole concept of gun ownership repugnant. I also find the concept of a technology that functions solely to kill other organisms repugnant.


You really have to wonder what the psyche of a person who can even find beauty in the appearance of such a technology to the extent that they would want to amass a huge cache of them "just because they can" is like. Guns are not pretty; maybe as a physical object they have some inherent aesthetic value, but in terms of its ultimate utility, they are quite ugly. They help propagate a negative culture, a culture of death, destruction and despair...or as the great Fela Kuti once sang, they bring "sorrow, tears and blood".
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Real on March 23, 2009, 12:22:53 AM
Quote:

notty said:
So, cities are islands unto themselves, and have no bearing on each other? Toronto is surrounded by...not much. New York is surrounded by...?

But, hey, you're the one who first compared the U.S. to Canada. I'm merely pointing out that it's a bad comparison, and shouldn't be made. If you want to match up the Great White North with another country, try Australia. They are very similar in many ways. But, wait, uhoh, Australia's firearm homicide rate is almost half that of Canada.

   




oh that's all good, im not a mindless reactionary nationalist that gets insulted when people talk about my country.  if its true its true if it isnt it isnt.  imo nationalism is a close cousin of racism but that's a whole other topic.  

but like i said from the start, pick any country but columbia basically if canada doesnt tickle your fancy.  id love if canada had the murder rate of australia (check the higher population density than canada) or any country with less violence. youd think americans would be too, except many are too busy being emotionally defensive about their out of control gun murders.

fact is canada has 1/6 the murder rate with not nearly 1/6 the population density when youre talking about where people actually live, and i never claimed anything more.  one of the 6 million people in toronto doesnt imagine theyre going to not commit a murder because there's an empty forest to the north, just like one of the 1 million people who commits a murder every day in baltimore arent doing the inverse. i mean what is jackson, miss. with far more murders and 1/3 the people surrounded by?  dont mistake, canada is just a small country but a north american city of 6 million is a north american city of 6 million or 4 or 3 or 1 million.  simple to all but the willfully ignorant.  you know you could talk in circles for years on some meaningless anecdotal examples.  its so far from as simplistic as that, as your very own australia example illustrates.

really i try not to argue for the sake of arguing, that's other people(who support then contradict their very own argument in the same post for the sake of being contrarian)'s job...
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Real on March 23, 2009, 12:31:41 AM
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
The figure I heard is that 90% of the Canadian population lives within 100 miles of the US/Canada border.




yes, and there are about 100 000 of 33 million who live above the 53rd parallel....
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: gOOber on March 23, 2009, 12:44:51 AM
 
Quote:

I agree. Make love, not rednecks!  


What is there not to love about rednecks?

 
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: SwitcherX on March 23, 2009, 01:07:04 AM
Quote:

gOOber said:
What is there not to love about rednecks?





To be honest, that truck isn't thrilling me.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on March 23, 2009, 01:53:59 AM
Quote:

Real said:
 one of the 6 million people in toronto doesnt imagine theyre going to not commit a murder because there's an empty forest to the north, just like one of the 1 million people who commits a murder every day in baltimore arent doing the inverse.




Please characterize the flow of illicit items and human refuse between Toronto and the forest to the north. Then characterize the flow of illicit items and human refuse between New York and Baltimore...and Boston and Philly and Jersey and D.C. and...well, I think that's sufficient.

Quote:

i mean what is jackson, miss. with far more murders and 1/3 the people surrounded by?




Jackson, Mississippi and Canada. Great comparison! Again! You're on a roll!

Quote:

dont mistake, canada is just a small country but a north american city of 6 million is a north american city of 6 million or 4 or 3 or 1 million.




O rly? Yah, I was in Mexico City once, and I thought to myself, "Holy fuck! This reminds me of Toronto!"

Quote:

simple to all but the willfully ignorant.  you know you could talk in circles for years on some meaningless anecdotal examples.  its so far from as simplistic as that, as your very own australia example illustrates.




Simple? Simple is when someone says, "Gosh, we have a lot of guns in Canada, but we don't kill each other with them as frequently as the Americans, so...we're, like, a good example n'shit?" Since you were unable or **86** to dig any deeper, to advance the argument any further, I did it for you. You are most welcome!

Quote:

really i try not to argue for the sake of arguing, that's other people(who support then contradict their very own argument in the same post for the sake of being contrarian)'s job...




Contradiction? I only set out to prove two points:

1) Comparing gun crime in the U.S. to gun crime in Canada serves no purpose. Check.

2) Canada's gun violence statistics aren't all that peachy upon closer examination. Check.

So, I ask again: contradiction?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on March 23, 2009, 02:08:06 AM
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
I agree. Make love, not rednecks!




The only thing rednecks make is more rednecks.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Dearc on March 23, 2009, 02:21:26 AM
Quote:

TheZookie007 said:
Quote:

notty: Having said that, I hate guns. I can't stand rifle hunting, sport shooting, or any other gun-toting activities the rednecks so enjoy.


I agree. Make love, not rednecks!
Quote:

I find the whole concept of gun ownership repugnant. I also find the concept of a technology that functions solely to kill other organisms repugnant.


You really have to wonder what the psyche of a person who can even find beauty in the appearance of such a technology to the extent that they would want to amass a huge cache of them "just because they can" is like. Guns are not pretty; maybe as a physical object they have some inherent aesthetic value, but in terms of its ultimate utility, they are quite ugly. They help propagate a negative culture, a culture of death, destruction and despair...




I managed to stay away from this as long as I could, since I chimed in a few pages back, and felt the issue was over with.  I guess others have decided to take up the mantle.

It seems a few of you have come to the conclusion that "guns kill people" so let's get rid of the guns and we'll all be better off.  Yippee-skippee!  Has everyone already forgotten that before there were guns, people were just as easily slaughtered with swords?  Oh yeah, I got one of those, too!  

Now as much as I disagree with such ideas, I won't insult the people making them.  My personal experience?  PROPER gun classes teach you discipline, respect and traditions, no matter what country you're from...unless you're from France!  haha, just kiddin'.

Actually, I don't hunt; don't feel the need nor interest.  I don't own guns because I want to kill people with impunity.  I own them because...well, what difference or business is it of anyone else?  As long as I maintain my permits and attend annual firing ranges-both required by law and my job-there's no problem.  It also helps when I'm legally able to conceal carry in public.  Sometimes, I take it with me when I'm out-n-about.  You can't turn on the TV anymore and not hear about some asshole who suffers a breakdown or just don't give a fuck, and starts plugging people.  I'm always hoping that an armed citizen was on scene, and put the rabid dog down.  But it doesn't happen; too many people are afraid to act, so they wait, and hope or pray, that they live and the cops will take care of it.  This is weakness at it's worst.

For now, handguns, shotguns and semi-automatic rifles are legal.  It's possible the current administration may place bans which will make it harder to buy, own and sell firearms.  I don't agree with this, but if politicians do it, well, it's we the people that voted them in.

Here are a few of my fav' gun lines:

"If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have them."
"In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber, stance or tactics. They'll only remember who lived. "
"A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone."
"911: gov't sponsored dial-a-prayer."
"If you have a proper firing stance, you're not properly using cover & concealment."

Since some of the previous posts seemed to get a little heated, may I remind you we're all adults (we had to be, to get a login here, right?), so let's remember to respect other people's opinions.  Accusing another of lacking intelligence simply because you disagree with them, may in fact, show your own ignorance.  That's why I didn't befuddle my opinions with useless facts and numbers; there's a level of truth beyond facts, when you believe in something so strongly.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: gOOber on March 23, 2009, 02:35:55 AM
 
Quote:

 Jackson, Mississippi and Canada. Great comparison! Again! You're on a roll!


I hate Canadians as much as anyone but there's no reason to get personal.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Real on March 23, 2009, 02:39:36 AM
i was characterizing your misrepresentation of population density as an overriding factor in gun murders.  then contradicted by your pointing out the the even lower gun crime rate of australia.

its a very thin argument to attribute shootings at such an alarming rate in a place that's not densely populated, except compared to canada.  

of course its ridiculous to really compare all these places, because popluation density is well down the list of contributing factors to high gun crime.  i was going on population density, you know in the context at hand, not just quoting a phrase and changing that context to what cities remind me of when im there or whatever.

as far as crime statistics and gun crime rates, they arent me bragging about being better, theyre actually just facts.  its you who and your constant flawed inferences that just feels like being appalled that a canadian dare say such things lol.  sorry if youre that insecure.  but you can point at me as not as much better than you think i think i am if its so important to putting your mind at ease.  next time ill bring up another country as an example so you dont have to be a spaz lol...
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on March 23, 2009, 03:29:36 AM
Quote:

Real said:
i was characterizing your misrepresentation of population density as an overriding factor in gun murders.  then contradicted by your pointing out the the even lower gun crime rate of australia.




Wrong, wrong, wrong. You failed to grasp my argument, or read what I wrote, or both. Cultural and political factors are the overriding factors. However, when cultural and political factors are similar, you must look deeper. The first place you look is population distribution. The second place you look is socioeconomic distribution (don't even want to go there, already wasted enough time on this). And so on. My argument isn't thin, but your head certainly is thick! You're the one attempting to squeeze simplicity from complexity. And, BTW, you stupid fuck, the population density in Australia is less than the population density in Canada.

I have to put you on ignore now. I truly can't afford to spend any more time on this, and I can't not call you out when you say something moronic (which is often). So, yah, I think this is the best option. Buhbye, hoser!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: notty on March 23, 2009, 03:56:59 AM
Quote:

Dearc said:
 there's a level of truth beyond facts, when you believe in something so strongly.




If everyone felt that way, we'd still be living in the Dark Ages. Then again, you'd probably be right at home in such a world. You could use your swords and axes all day. You'd be happy as a pig in shit!
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Dearc on March 23, 2009, 04:30:19 AM
Quote:

notty said:
Quote:

Dearc said:
there's a level of truth beyond facts, when you believe in something so strongly.




If everyone felt that way, we'd still be living in the Dark Ages. Then again, you'd probably be right at home in such a world. You could use your swords and axes all day. You'd be happy as a pig in shit!




Dark Ages?  I doubt it.  Haven't you ever believed in something so fiercely that it contradicts logical thinking.  Religious people call it faith.  Being an atheist, well, the word is just as effective for me.  Try believing in something greater THAN yourself, you'd be suprised what you can learn ABOUT yourself.

I'd also consider myself an amateur historian, for my own personal benefits.  The Dark Ages were so violent, full of superstition and distrust, religious dogmatism and demonization of others, the social & economic gaps wider than any ocean, expression of ideas suppresed so hard, they'd make Mao cry.  For me, knowing what I know, it'd be Hell on Earth.

Seriously, what have all your useless facts and brazen attitudes gotten you here?  You're getting all riled up over words, written by people you'll never meet or personally deal with.  Please, what is this intolerable hatred toward firearms, and those who own them?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Hugeboobfan on March 23, 2009, 04:51:23 AM
Quote:

Dearc said:
Haven't you ever believed in something so fiercely that it contradicts logical thinking.  Religious people call it faith.  Being an atheist, well, the word is just as effective for me.  Try believing in something greater THAN yourself, you'd be suprised what you can learn ABOUT yourself.



Call me crazy, but I try to avoid believing in things fiercely enough that it contradicts logical thinking.  I would think as an atheist you would be weary of that sort of nonsense.

I have no idea what the last sentence there is supposed to mean.  What is greater than yourself?  Guns?  Have you elevated gun ownership to the level of religious idolatry?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: solvegas on March 23, 2009, 04:54:37 AM
I'm going to jump in here knowing full well that my stance will be taken wrong or incorrectly. The reason why the founding fathers inserted the 2nd amendment wasn't just so that people could go hunting or shoot for entertainment or anything like that. Thomas Jefferson himself said it was to ensure neither the federal, state or local goverment would have a monopoly of force. The experience they gained from the revolutionary war made them appreciate the fact that a well armed populace was able to get rid of the oppresive yoke of colonial rule. The british did not leave just because we asked them. And the founding fathers did not want a future American goverment to be able to tyranize the citizenry on a future date. Also, they had a tremendous distrust of a standing profesional army and so they also wanted able  bodied citizens to come to the common defense.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Hugeboobfan on March 23, 2009, 05:02:15 AM
Quote:

solvegas said:
I'm going to jump in here knowing full well that my stance will be taken wrong or incorrectly. The reason why the founding fathers inserted the 2nd amendment wasn't just so that people could go hunting or shoot for entertainment or anything like that. Thomas Jefferson himself said it was to ensure neither the federal, state or local goverment would have a monopoly of force. The experience they gained from the revolutionary war made them appreciate the fact that a well armed populace was able to get rid of the oppresive yoke of colonial rule. The british did not leave just because we asked them. And the founding fathers did not want a future American goverment to be able to tyranize the citizenry on a future date. Also, they had a tremendous distrust of a standing profesional army and so they also wanted able  bodied citizens to come to the common defense.



I agree.  We should eliminate the armed forces.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: solvegas on March 23, 2009, 05:09:03 AM
I type too slow so I had to do this before I ran out of time. Anyways, perhaps some of you have heard of Israel or Switzerland. In those countries, all able bodied males are required to keep in their homes firearms which make Dirty Harry's .44 magnum look like a toy. In Switzerland it's a H&K 3 with 300 rounds. Yet there is no mayhem like in Mexico which severely restricts weapons to its citizens. A firearm is a tool and it can be misused but no weapon has ever kill anybody on its own cognisance. It requires a person to do it. A firearm needs 4 things to useful. One is ammunition - no bullets, no fun. Two, the action must work - when you squeeze the trigger will it fire ? Three is capability- will the weapon be effective at the range ? and four is intent - does the other guy want to kill you ? If any of these things are missing then it's just a lump of useless metal.
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: solvegas on March 23, 2009, 05:30:06 AM
Now some of you may wish to put all your trust in the police to protect you but I won't. First of all, the police are a reactive force and very often it takes way too long for them to respond to your emergency. When I first moved here to Vegas in 1995, I moved into a apartment complex about two blocks north of the Rio casino on Valley View blvd. About two weeks after settling down, I heard a door being kicked in. My front door. Since I **82** with a loaded 12 gauge shotgun under my bed, I got up and cocked it. There were two young hispanic males treasure hunting and, when they saw that Mossburg pointed at them, they skeedadled real fast. I called the police and the landlord. For the next two months, other apartments were robbed but mine was left alone. Guess the word got out a fat, short man with a bad attitude to unwanted guests was not to be fucked with and to leave his property alone. I moved away a few months later. I simply believe that personal safety begins with the individual and to leave it to others is to invite disaster. As to hugeboobsfan who believes we should get rid of the armed forces, who is going to keep invading foreigners out ? You ?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Hugeboobfan on March 23, 2009, 05:58:25 AM
Quote:

solvegas said:
As to hugeboobsfan who believes we should get rid of the armed forces, who is going to keep invading foreigners out ? You ?



No silly, you are.  A fat, short man with a bad attitude and a 12 gauge shotgun.  

Besides, you yourself made the point that the founding fathers wanted us to own guns in part because of their distrust of a standing army and the threat presented by a tyrannical government.  Are you saying you disagree with the founding fathers?
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Clarence on March 23, 2009, 11:55:27 AM
Hey Wal-Mart just got a huge shipment of ammo, meet ya there.



Clar- pro*gun -ence
Title: Re: Barack Obama
Post by: Dearc on March 23, 2009, 11:56:10 AM
Quote:

Hugeboobfan said:

I have no idea what the last sentence there is supposed to mean.  What is greater than yourself?  Guns?  Have you elevated gun ownership to the level of religious idolatry?

Hugeboobfan said:
I agree.  We should eliminate the armed forces.

Hugeboobfan said:
No silly, you are.  A fat, short man with a bad attitude and a 12 gauge shotgun.  

Besides, you yourself made the point that the founding fathers wanted us to own guns in part because of their distrust of a standing army and the threat presented by a tyrannical government.  Are you saying you disagree with the founding fathers?




I believe in what this country stands for, 'free to be' ideology; not as much as I used to, but I will always believe that this is the greatest country the world has ever seen.  Now I'm going to watch all the huffy-puffy naysayers bust in and whine.