This clip was just one part of a brilliant episode. Friday night's The Daily Show should be broadcast in it's entirety every day until the election. I winced as much as I laughed.
It's sad that in order to get this kind of honest news I have to change to Comedy Central...god I hate what this country has become. I'm going to watch Blade Runner to cheer me up about the future.
Bigjohn: Um... Obama is now supporting policies that differ from those that have sent the US into a nosedive over the last eight years. That's a good change of mind. John Bush (moment of zen!) has changed to support the policies that have destroyed your economy and international standing.
The McCain supporters in this thread seem to be using a standard creationist tactic.
Reasonable person: I'm sorry. I'm simply not convinced. Here's why: (Insert paragraph after paragraph exposing brazen intellectual dishonesty here.) See? Your 'theory' is fundamentally flawed. Creationist: Oh yea?! YOUR theory is flawed!
What I don't get is how McCain's group can call Obama an elitist.
Obama doesn't have any elitist policies, and McCain does. Also the 8 houses thing. I put about it on my blog "Elitism our misunderstood ism". Sorry for the shameless plug.
ha! I watched this 'documentary' on the Daily Show last night. It was one awesome show all together. I laughed my ass off the whole time.
My favourite part: "He was ready to take his place among America's maverick presidents: Jackson, Roosevelt, Dave..." hahaha. John Stewart really is a genius.
I might have voted for McCain
Except... I have a working brain.
... which produced my hardest, loudest LOL at anything at this site, ever. And it so succinctly and eloquently (and with impeccable timing) summarizes a number of my own fulsome, snarly posts. :-) Once again, I bow humbly.
By being true of McCain. Most of the claims of Obama flip-flopping are fabrications or distortions. The one clear exception I know of is that he promised to filibuster immunity for telecoms and then didn't -- but that's not a flip-flop, as he continued to oppose immunity and voted to remove it from the bill, even though when that (predictably) failed he voted for the bill anyway -- which people often do when they think that a bill is a net plus (that's rational behavior). I strongly disagree with Obama that it was a net plus or that it was -- per his claim -- necessary, but it's hard to construe his vote or his reneging on his promise as opportunism -- it didn't win over anyone, quite the opposite ... whereas McCain's flip-flops have all been directed at obtaining votes from the right wing base.
Can you name any position that John McCain has held consistently for, say, the last ten years?
McCain's been among the 10 most conservative Senators throughout his career, so there are plenty ... opposition to gay marriage or civil unions is the first to come to mind ... gays serving (openly) in the miliary is a quick follow up ... opposition to single payer health coverage, or anything that might be construed as "socialism" ... against drug decriminalization ... against minimum wage ... for school vouchers ... strong supporter of Israel ...
Just about everything on this show was pure gold. I especially liked one of the delegates saying that "gays can have all the same rights as straights as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. ... I don't think anyone should have special rights based on who they have sex with". Do these people even listen to what they are saying?
What I don't get is how McCain's group can call Obama an elitist.
Why, is there some law of physics you think they violate? Do you think that lack of factuality might prevent them? What a quaint concept. They just do it -- with great help from their partners, the corporate media -- because it's in their interests to do so.
one of the delegates saying that "gays can have all the same rights as straights as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. ... I don't think anyone should have special rights based on who they have sex with".
One who registered 11 on a gaydar meter that only goes to 10.
I don't think anyone should have special rights based on who they have sex with
This ignoring the glaring fact the special right to marry is exactly what straight people enjoy as opposed to homosexuals, for nothing other than who they have sex with. The fact that he giggles through Jason Jones' offer of a kiss only makes his position more insightful and if closeted self loathers like this didn't actually support legislation to refuse rights to other human beings, I'd find it laughable as well.
What I don't get is how McCain's group can call Obama an elitist.
Because, if they keep calling him an islamic communist elitist over and over enough, there are a substantial number of people out there who will believe it. Our founding fathers did not trust the general public--hence the electoral college. I think our founding fathers were brilliant. But, as many have--and many continue to do--, they underestimated the depths of stupidity to which humans can descend.
Is it just me, but war heroes are usually those who have done something heroic, isn't it?
Like the heroes in Telemark, the resistance fighters, the Russian pilot Aleksei Maresyev who was shot down over enemy territory and spent 19 days crawling back to own lines with both legs wounded, had them amputated, and flew again, and all the others?
Being a prisoner of war ain't all that heroic, any idiot can become that, which seems to be very much McSame's case. That also fits in well with the flip-flopping.
To re-phrase Julius Caesar to fit John McCain:
I just passed
I crashed
I crashed
I crashed
I crashed
I crashed
I was caged
I am hero - NOT!
Old Julius was a bit terser (Veni Vidi Vici), but that be as it may.
Yowza! McCain just scares the hell out of me. He's such a groveling, pandering, little suck-up that it's impossible to tell what the sleazy son of a bitch truly stands for or against. The only thing worse than McCain is Lieberman who's perpetually shoulders-deep in someone's asshole.
Personally, I think Conservatives should be pissed-off about voting for this waste of skin that is McCain. Would it kill them to field a candidate with some convictions other than the criminal kind?
Fuck it. McCain is just too damn weak and gutless to run a country. A dairy Queen franchise?
Maybe.
A country? No fucking way.
McCain would be no different from the current window licker we've got drooling on the furniture in the Oval Office.
Oppurtunstic Flip-flop, what does that mean ? Changing opinion to suit electoral needs ? Well, all politicians do it.
But, here's THE MEGA flip-flop of John McCain, and the most relevant one for this election :
McCain always claimed to be a true moderate republican who could reach accross party lines and get the interest of independent voters and some democrats. That he wasn't a neo-conservative, wouldn't court the evangelical vote specifcally, and that he wasn't a Bush fan (despite the fact that his voting record ahows that he voted lke Bush more than 90% of the times). And also, of course that he would always put the country's interest before his, notably that he would "rather win a war than lose an election", putting the country's national security first.
That's how he got nominated in the primary.
Didn't he ? Any McCain supporter here wants to say that it wasn't the case ?
So that was McCain I
Now we have McCain II (also known as McPalin), who is suddenly advocating hawkish foreign policy, irresponsible tax-cuts, more talk about religion and abortion and pandering to the evangelicals, and let's not forget, nominates Palin, an ultra-conservative who has absolutely no foreign policy knowledge (I won't even say experience, she just got her passport, just imagine how well she understands the global interdependencies and foreign cultures) and clearly is so unfit to be "commander in chef" on day one that the McCampaign refuses that she answers any intervews for the moment. Just imagine her negotiating a critical issue with Hu Jintao or Medvedev !
So not only is McCain II :
- evidently putting the country's national security in jeopardy for his own political interest, (just imagne if he would die suddenly in the first week after taking office), contrary to hs claim that he would always put the country first
- looks very much like the usual neo-conservatve and obviously like Bush III, the label that he was always trying to defend himself from in the primary
So if that's not a MEGA OPPORTUNISTIC FLIP-FLOP, I wonder what is.
May I ask some pro-republican commentators who might be readng this :
Who is the "real" McCain ? McCain I the moderate or McCain II the neo-conservative ?
Isn't that relevant ?
So of course Obama has had his flip flops, but if you can find me one of such gigantic proportions and that really puts in question the identity of the candidate, I'd be interested to see it described in detail...
Stop bombarding me with American politics, I don't really care and as far as I know this is probably all made up. I saw a clip claiming Obama is friends with a terrorists, what about that lol?
"So of course Obama has had his flip flops, but if you can find me one of such gigantic proportions and that really puts in question the identity of the candidate, I'd be interested to see it described in detail..." - negentropyeater
Well, I'm not a McCain supporter, so I'll leave the first part to someone else. Obama is more of a hypocrite than a flip-flopper though. Flip-flopping requires one actually take a position in the first place, so, he's fairly inoculated against that charge.
Mind you, didn't Biden vote for Iraq AND oppose a time-table for withdrawal? I seem to remember Obama being vehemently opposed to such things. At least Biden isn't part of the old Washington. I wouldn't want him interfering with the big "change".
Stop bombarding me with American politics, I don't really care and as far as I know this is probably all made up. I saw a clip claiming Obama is friends with a terrorists, what about that lol?
I'm an optimist.
...someday I'll be telling my grandchildren about how we used to have to wonder if comments like that were jokes or serious.
I detest the fact that John McCain ran around saying "Barack Obama is willing to lose a war to win an election", when he himself is willing to sell his poor maverick soul to the republicans, as well as pick an unqualified lunatic to be in the position of replacing him if something were to happen to him. And to say he supported the war when it was unpopular to do so makes him no more of an envelope pusher than Barack Obama who dared to oppose it when it first began, who dares to use a good vocabulary at the consequence of being called elitist, and prove that we need an intelligent candidate for this position in office rather than someone we'd like to have a beer with and chat about war stories with.
I detest the fact that John McCain ran around saying "Barack Obama is willing to lose a war to win an election", when he himself is willing to sell his poor maverick soul to the republicans, as well as pick an unqualified lunatic to be in the position of replacing him if something were to happen to him. And to say he supported the war when it was unpopular to do so makes him no more of an envelope pusher than Barack Obama who dared to oppose it when it first began, who dares to use a good vocabulary at the consequence of being called elitist, and prove that we need an intelligent candidate for this position in office rather than someone we'd like to have a beer with and chat about war stories with.
Stop bombarding me with American politics, I don't really care
Where do you live ? In the deep forests of New Guinea ?
Saying that one doesn't care about American politics right now, wherever one lives, is like saying one didn't care about German politics in the 1930s.
I think the anti-intellectual/anti-'elite' of the US public is probably the most frustrating aspect for me. Australia has a anti-intellectual bent (we call it Tall Poppy Syndrome), but it isn't nearly as bad - while ex-PM Bob Hawke was a roughie who held beer-drinking records, he was also a Rhodes Scholar, which takes a bit more than Daddy's influence with some fellow Skull & Boners.
Why don't these people want someone better/smarter/more educated than them in charge? Heck, I'm pretty bright, but I'm damned sure I still want the person who's determining the future of my country to be able to mop the freaking floor with me, intellectually. While I'm sure GWB can't possibly be as stupid as he comes across, he was still voted in because that's what the people have been convinced that's what they want.
That in a country as powerful and otherwise advanced as the USA a person's intelligence, education and achievements count against, rather than for, their electability, is fucking ludicrous.
Why all this focusing on McCain? He's an old man, & could snuff it the day after he became President. Now then, the thought of President Palin really gives me the creeps. Heck, Sarah Palin gives me the creeps. How can anyone have their head so far up their own arse?
This silly cow screws big oil for taxes in Alaska, then asks her followers to pray to their feckin' god for the State's oil reserves to be exploited. This is multi-level idiocy. Why isn't she laughed out of politics? This puts the USA in disrepute.
[McCain now] looks very much like the usual neo-conservatve and obviously like Bush III, the label that he was always trying to defend himself from in the primary - #42
I suppose it is only coincidence that his full name is John Sidney McCain III, then, is it?
But seriously, what we see with Palin is the same thing that happened with Mac-in-a-box: he did not get vetted publicly. They have yet to bring up Keating 5 even after the "nation of whiners" comment and the only mention of how he abandoned his family possibly due to PTSD was by John Bush III himself at the Warren interview. No, he rode through the primary under the radar until Florida when he racked up enough points to push out Mitt Romney for good.
There are some really big monetary interests driving the media; they can't possibly want a president who will raise their taxes while 'unfairly' dropping taxes on 95% of all Americans, which is why we have bloggers like our hero, PZ, and which is why the only places where true vetting is allowed are comedy shows where truth comes only in kernels.
The whole "flip-flop" thing is a bit confused. Voters like a decisive leader in charge of the Executive, but they want their leaders to listen to them and change their opinions accordingly. A leader who is seen to indulge both sides of an argument at different times may be seen as weak or opportunistic, a vote-grabber or a reed in the wind.
So really the bulk of the electorate is in search of a decisive leader who will agree with them at all tinmes and act accordingly. Being human they'll forget that they themselves have changed their opinion over time so even when they see a politician's record that reflects their own opinion shifts exactly, it's likely that they'll see the changes as weak.
On the other hand, most politicians are experts at both the skills of political sleight-of-hand necessary to convince others and that necessary to quietly capitulate when advisable. As media and campaign managers get wiser to this and start to raid the media archives more, this creates a minefield for all politicians.
Is it just me, but war heroes are usually those who have done something heroic, isn't it? ... Being a prisoner of war ain't all that heroic, any idiot can become that, which seems to be very much McSame's case.
I have to disagree with this. Especially after the swiftboating of Kerry, I am not going to debate whether or not a combat veteran is a hero.
The point I think is noteworthy in McCain's naval career is what happened after he was promoted to Captain. One important step to making admiral is for a Captain to have a "major sea command." For an aviator, that means being captain of an aircraft carrier. The Navy decided not to give McCain a major sea command. He was deemed unsuitable for promotion to flag rank.
Stop bombarding me with American politics, I don't really care and as far as I know this is probably all made up. I saw a clip claiming Obama is friends with a terrorists, what about that lol?
McCain has definitely pandered to the right. He HAS to in order to win but when in office he will do absolutely nothing to overturn roe vs wade and all the other issues we saw at the end of the clip.
It is fair to report on McCain but not to report the 50 flip flops by Obama is the problem!
The unfair coverage of is the bias!
Why not put a youtibe clip about his flip flops on
FISA, public finance, welfare reform, NAFTA, seating MI and FL degates after he was against it, offshore oil drilling, Iraq, Iran, Israel, Expanding Bush faith based initiatives etc etc
Obama has flip flopped and pandered more in one year than McCain has in his whole career!
I'm no McCain supporter, but why is flip-flopping in general seen as such a bad thing? Don't we WANT our politicians to be able to change their minds when presented with new evidence?
Or is "flip-flopping" specifically defined as changing your mind solely to please a certain faction of your voters, not because you've had an epiphany?
I have always thought it quite a bad sign that the American electorate prefers a candidate with strong unchanging principles, no matter what they are, over a candidate who actually makes up his mind every time a problem comes up, and is therefore able to adapt to circumstances. Thinking is a dangerous thing, apparently.
Or is "flip-flopping" specifically defined as changing your mind solely to please a certain faction of your voters, not because you've had an epiphany?
That is the kind that I believe was originally intended by the flip-flop term. But because of the success of said term during the Bush vs. Kerry election it has been used to describe any change from a position that you once held, be that for legitimate reasons or just to serve you politically.
Why don't these people want someone better/smarter/more educated than them in charge?
It's what you left off that comes with the better/smarter/more educated candidate. Arrogance. And because, smarter/more educated, really does not mean better
Another fallacy is to cite a senator's vote on some bill as proof of his position on some portion of the bill. It is standard legislative practice to lard distasteful bills with provisions that you do want, in order to force your vote. Plus the lie that Obama voted to cut off funding of the troops "on the ground" in Iraq. If a bill cuts funding, the DoD decides where and when to cut back military spending.
When Democrats withdraw troops, it's cowardly abandonment; when Republicans withdraw troops, it's victory with honor.
I go with the bumper sticker: SUPPORT YOUR TROOPS - BRING THEM HOME.
Two of the big 'flip-flops' that segment accuses McCain of:
The Bush tax cuts - McCain originally opposed the Bush tax cuts because they were not coupled with equivalent spending cuts. Since then, it has been argued that the tax cuts were successful at encouraging investment that improved job growth. Perhaps McCain wants to make them permanent now in order to maintain that kind of investment?
The war would be 'easy' - The clip in the video lacks any context, so we cannot be sure what McCain meant. I would guess that he was referring to defeating Saddam's army and overthrowing his regime, which was relatively easy. Getting to a point where the troops could be withdrawn without leaving chaos behind was never going to be 'easy'.
The Daily Show is not journalism, nor does it attempt to be. Despite the enthusiasm many here are displaying in support of it, it lacks the necessary depth to really look at issues and inform the public, rather than entertain. It isn't even trying to inform; it is trying to be funny. Comedy can be very insightful and have some real 'truth' to it. But for serious thought and debate on serious issues, being funny isn't good enough. If The Daily Show seems 'better' than real news it is because the public isn't rewarding the 'real' news outlets for doing a good job. Does anyone here really think that TDS is better at informing the public than the Jim Lehrer News Hour?
People need to look harder for better news, because it is out there.
Being a prisoner of war ain't all that heroic, any idiot can become that, which seems to be very much McSame's case.
JoJo (@58) has dealt with this admirably, but let me just add: Stipulating that McCain's behavior as a POW was heroic, it's not at all clear to me that the virtues displayed by an individual's behavior under torture and imprisonment have much, if any, overlap with the virtues and skills we look for in a POTUS. Many athletes (and this is not snark; I greatly admire athletes) probably have the physical courage and stamina to do what McCain did in Vietnam; that doesn't mean they're prepared to lead what is still (for good or ill) the most powerful and influential nation on the planet. Not all heroes are the same.
Why don't these people want someone better/smarter/more educated than them in charge? Heck, I'm pretty bright, but I'm damned sure I still want the person who's determining the future of my country to be able to mop the freaking floor with me, intellectually.
This anti-intellectual streak is the thing that makes me saddest about my country, because so many of the other things that make me sad about my country flow from it. The combination of the Myth of the Rugged Individualist and the culture of American exceptionalism leads many of us to find the very notion that somebody else might be smarter shocking and offensive, I'm afraid.
My daughter (about whom I've bragged here often enough) is very clearly smarter than I am. That's supposed to create some sort of existential crisis for parents, but it does nothing but fill me with joy. My own father, OTOH, reacted with anger and bitterness when he began to suspect I might be smarter than he, and never missed a chance to belittle me. At the risk of sounding arrogant, I wish the electorate were more like me and less like my father.
You can't beat the truth of quotes taken out of context. :)
Never forget that, despite all the comments (on half-joking) about The Daily Show being the best news on TV, they themselves never claim to be anything but comedy.
That said, I personally think this piece depicts McCain's "straight talk" pretty damn truthfully.
FISA, public finance, welfare reform, NAFTA, seating MI and FL degates after he was against it, offshore oil drilling, Iraq, Iran, Israel, Expanding Bush faith based initiatives etc etc
Obama has flip flopped and pandered more in one year than McCain has in his whole career!
Some of your examples are sufficiently cryptic that I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but I'll respond to a few. First, though, it's important to note that there's a difference between changing tactics over time and reversing oneself on matters of principle. Of your list, the thing Obama's done that comes closest to the latter is the FISA business, so I'll take that first:
FISA — Obama always said he opposed telecom immunity, and he continued to do so right to the end. The thing he reversed himself on was the promise to filibuster, so let's examine that: The filibuster is a parliamentary tactic, and whether it's appropriate to use it depends on things that are constantly changing... whip count, details of the bill in question, amendments to the bill in question, what the White House is saying about a veto... in short, since all the things trigger one are constantly in flux, promises to filibuster should always be seen as conditional. This, BTW, is part of a larger "problem" that explains why we don't very often elect long-term senators (e.g., Kerry) to the presidency: What happens in legislative action is all about parliamentary maneuvering and details that are invisible to the public. Fairly often, two bills (or two versions of the same bill) that that ostensibly do the same thing are vastly different in effect, due to the minutiae... so it's easy to tag pretty much anyone in the Senate with the "for it before I was against it" deal.
In this case, folks (including many around here) seem to think Obama's tactics around FISA mean he's suddenly automagically become an enemy of the Fourth Amendment, or perhaps of the whole damn document. Given his history, and his consistency in enunciating the underlying principles, I frankly find it impossible to believe that this one vote, even if you think he got it wrong, "means what you think it means."
Iraq — I presume you're talking about his comment that the 16-month withdrawal promise would be subject to "facts on the ground"? This is a Feature, Not a Bug™!! You should run screaming from any candidate who tells you s/he won't change his/her mind even in the event that "new shit has come to light." A foolish consistency is, after all, the hobgoblin of little minds.
FL and MI Delegates — The principle was always that the nomination shouldn't be determined by contests that were manifestly unfair and unrepresentative. Once the nomination was sewn up, that principle had been honored, and a different (but not contradictory) principle came to the fore: that Democrats in FL and MI should have have a voice at their convention (because, after all, delegates vote on a bunch of other stuff besides the nominee). I fail to see any intellectual dishonesty here, nor, in fact, any victims; what's your beef?
Faith-Based Initiatives — This one is just a lie: Obama's comments on faith-based initiatives did not expand Bush's policy; rather, they rolled back the rules to something very similar to what was in place before Bush. And it's not a flip-flop in any case: While he's always been strong on separation of church and state, Obama has also always been upfront about his own faith, and he's always identified faith-based service organizations as one part of the country's response to social problems. You may not like that position, but it's not something Obama has ever changed his mind about (note: by "ever" I mean during his public life).
I'm sure some of McCain's flip-flops could similarly be explained or debunked... but note that the Daily Show piece focused on pretty unambiguous policy declarations that were pretty unambiguously contradictory, and all out of the candidate's own mouth... not on some nitipicking of Senate votes or partisan misinterpretation of plans.
Personally, I don't care if people change their minds about things — it seems to me that mature, intelligent people often do so for good reasons — but I do care about intellectual honesty. I have no doubt about Obama's; I have grave doubts about McCain's.
Why don't these people want someone better/smarter/more educated than them in charge? Heck, I'm pretty bright, but I'm damned sure I still want the person who's determining the future of my country to be able to mop the freaking floor with me, intellectually.
The only president to have a PhD was Woodrow Wilson. He had a doctorate in political science from Johns Hopkins. He was a professor at Bryn Mawr College, Wesleyan University, New York Law School and Princeton. He was president of Princeton for several years before entering politics.
Opinion is divided on whether or not Wilson was a good president. Personally, I'm not impressed by Wilson. He was a man convinced of his own rectitude. He believed that his opinions were not only right but moral. Therefore, if someone disagreed with Wilson, that person was not only wrong but evil. Wilson's refusal to compromise with the Republican controlled Senate on even minor points meant that the U.S. did not enter the League of Nations.
I might have voted for McCain
Except... I have a working brain.
Man Cephalopod, this is up there with "In your guts you know he's nuts" and "It's the economy, stupid!". I'm deeply impressed! I am so in awe I didn't even laugh.
---------------------------
I can't wait to watch the video tomorrow. I'll have to do it in the university (no worries, there's nobody in the room except me, so I won't destroy any experiments by laughing too loud) because here at home I get the "sorry, no longer available" error message...
I especially liked one of the delegates saying that "gays can have all the same rights as straights as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. ... I don't think anyone should have special rights based on who they have sex with". Do these people even listen to what they are saying?
Now this made me laugh.
Our founding fathers did not trust the general public--hence the electoral college. I think our founding fathers were brilliant.
No. What's going on is that a democracy can only work if the citizens understand what they're voting for and against. This requires them to have a lot of education -- more than a lot of Americans seem to have even today, no wonder with all those underfunded schools with cretinist teachers and so on.
The electoral college should be abolished already. It has outlived even its mere feasibility.
Is it just me, but war heroes are usually those who have done something heroic, isn't it?
Language changes, my friend. For the last 5 years "hero" has meant something similar to "dead American", and now it seems to mean "American who has been in a war".
McCain would be no different from the current window licker we've got drooling on the furniture in the Oval Office.
While I'm sure GWB can't possibly be as stupid as he comes across,
Well, when he's sober, perhaps he isn't.
he was still voted in
By the Supreme Court the first time, and apparently by Kenneth "Katherine" Blackwell the second time... jail to the thief.
I suppose it is only coincidence that his full name is John Sidney McCain III, then, is it?
Seriously? Not just John but John Sidney for three generations straight? I mean, I think I've seen cases like that before among Americans, but this is a good opportunity to ask.
Since then, it has been argued that the tax cuts were successful at encouraging investment that improved job growth.
That I want to see, because it didn't work when Raygun tried it.
The war would be 'easy' - The clip in the video lacks any context, so we cannot be sure what McCain meant.
I think it's pretty obvious that the context is "cakewalk" and that McSame simply parroted this -- it was after all the party line.
You're placing your faith in a professional politician who has attained a cult following. Bad idea.
And what does the "cult following" have to do with purported evidence of Obama's intellectual dishonesty ?
The "cult following" is evidence that people on the left are really fed up with 8 years of neo-conservative policy and that they found that Obama is really connecting with some voters - obviously not all. Is that a bad sign about the way Obama will govern ?
Language changes, my friend. For the last 5 years "hero" has meant something similar to "dead American", and now it seems to mean "American who has been in a war".
Which is such a diluted meaning that it's really only useful for propaganda at this point.
You're placing your faith in a professional politician who has attained a cult following. Bad idea.
As compared to following a party with history of telling deliberate lies to the public on policy issues, and lying even further when they get caught? No contest here.
Speaking of 'cult following', I don't really Republican's have a leg to stand on with that anymore :P The dogged defense of her, and the thunderous reception she got despite having very little in the way of qualifications suggests a cult following of her own, eh?
And with McCain at 72, and with prior melanoma, Palin's got a disquietingly large chance to become President. The hypocrisy. It kills me. Though I shouldn't be surprised.
This is America. Every candidate for president gets a cult following.
I should make clear that I think this is because of (1) the fact that, among 300 million people, you can always find a few (million) people who like being in a cult, and (2) the lack of separation between president and goverment, so that the president has a lot of influence on where the country goes. These two conditions happen to exist in the US of A. I don't think it's a mentality thing or suchlike.
Why not put a youtibe clip about his flip flops on
FISA, public finance, welfare reform, NAFTA, seating MI and FL degates after he was against it, offshore oil drilling, Iraq, Iran, Israel, Expanding Bush faith based initiatives etc etc
Sometimes I really wonder if some people understand what a rational debate means.
And what for are the comment threads ?
If you have a different opinion than PZ, and you know of such youtube videos that show indisputable evidence of such flip flops (not right-wing talking heads blattering as usual, but Obama's declarations, such as here with McCain), why not post examples of the youtube links here in order to support your opinion ?
Or is it that you can't even bother to support your accusation ?
And what does the "cult following" have to do with purported evidence of Obama's intellectual dishonesty ?
Everything. How can you expect an honest evaluation of Obama when he's making everyone feel all tingly inside and going out of their way patting themselves on the back for supporting him?
It's not going to happen.
And no, every candidate for President in America does not attain a cult following. This is insane.
One thing is for sure, Sarah Palin knows how to lie to conservatives, she's such an angel. How could a hockey mum possibly lie ?
They won't even bother to check.
I really advise people to look up the specific details of the FISA compromise bill before making judgments. Obama did make a bad choice though. But I can see the logic behind it
The only really bad part was retroactive immunity for telecoms. While the whole crime and punishment thing must come full circle. I remember 2002-2003 and it was considered so taboo to go against the president. a telecom official saying "no" to the president about something even slightly relating to terrorism would have been tarred and feathered professionally. I remember that time where George W Bush was looked up to like a god by democrats, the press and republicans alike. Or at least they faked this appreciation.
Few foresaw how badly this would turn out.
Bush might even honestly think this was in the national interest but was deluded because he is surrounded by political sycophants that all told bush how wonderful he was. I think its clear that he's in a bubble
Just about everyone in the Bush administration was a political operative on some level.
I think that seeing the press push even one story that is untrue or partially true about Bush drove a wedge between him and the American public.
Imagine for a moment if you were bush and the press ran with a story that you KNEW wasn't true. You would discount everything they said from then on. You would believe in a press conspiracy and so you would only speak to your political base that worships the ground you walk on.
If you call somebody "intelligent" long enough and with a suitable sneer, it will become a bad thing, like elitist, liberal, democrat, etc. What I don't get is how you can claim to bring democracy to the world then insist, and convince half of the population, that being a democrat is the worse thing possible.
And no, every candidate for President in America does not attain a cult following. This is insane.
Where did I suggest this ?
How can you expect an honest evaluation of Obama when he's making everyone feel all tingly inside and going out of their way patting themselves on the back for supporting him?
And how do you know that t's not possible to make a honest evaluation of Obama. And why does this make HIM intellectually dishonest ?
"The Bush tax cuts - McCain originally opposed the Bush tax cuts because they were not coupled with equivalent spending cuts."
This is misleading, McCain opposed the tax cuts because of concerns about budget deficits and unanticipated costs due to the Iraq war. I'm unaware of any place where he actually endorsed or fought for spending cuts, rather than implicitly doing so by merely acknowledging the fiscal irresponsibility of the plan. His early concerns, btw, ultimately proved to be prescient.
Joel, McCain had a chance for me to give him a hard look. All he had to do was to nominate a VP who was an old-fashioned republican. A fiscal conservative who thought the best place for troops were at home, and government should not be backing religions, and when in doubt, let people make the choice on social issues. He nominated a fundamentalist neocon, and at that point there went all possible respect I could muster for McCain.
Your people probably also call milkshakes "frappes" (pronounced "fraps")
I don't think I've ever heard that before. We call 'em milkshakes. Except at Friendly's, where they're Fribbles. (Speaking of which, while flipping through the dictionary the other day, as I like to do, I came upon "fribble" with the following definitions: v. 1. to waste (time, for example); n. 1. a frivolity, a trifle; 2. a frivolous person.)
And no, every candidate for President in America does not attain a cult following. This is insane.
Of course they do. However, it's only a problem when the cult following is the only following (Constitution Party, Ron Paul, arguably Nader, and dozens more who never get more than 1 % of the vote). That is not the case with Obama, and it's not even the case with McCain, so calm down.
Today I heard a republican talking head on fox new
And no, every candidate for President in America does not attain a cult following. This is insane.
Well maybe not every candidate>/em>, but which (US) president got elected without a cult following. Dubya and Clinton had them; Reagan REALLY did; Carter, Nixon, Kennedy. The only possible exception I can think of is Pappy Bush, and he at least had the reflected glory of Reagan.
Candidates without cult followers are generally called "losers"
SC #95, frappes is regional dialect (New England area) word for milkshake. However, it may be going out of style due to the homogenization of American English toward the Midwest dialect.
And how do you know that t's not possible to make a honest evaluation of Obama. And why does this make HIM intellectually dishonest?
As a reporter said after hearing Obama speak, "It's impossible to be objective."
Obama's entire change mantra is intellectually dishonest. It allows us to conveniently forget that the policies George W. Bush has pursued over the last eight years had the overwhelming support of Americans.
That may make people feel better, who wants to admit to a collasal failure? But the fact remains is we are all responsible for where we are now and we are all responsible for solving the problems we created.
#27 quotes some moron: "Gays can have all the same rights as straights as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. ... I don't think anyone should have special rights based on who they have sex with."
"Hate the sin, love the sinner!" Reminds me of people who say stuff like "I adore black people but I just hate niggers". The implication is of course that I only tolerate the Mark of Cain/Curse of Ham so long as you act as stereotypically white as possible. The second you act stereotypically black, you're just a nigger. I love you, but I hate that you commit the sin of blackness.
(Then again, if "acting white" causes you to become more successful than I am willing to tolerate, I will call you uppity and tell you to stop pretending that you are white: "The Cosby Show was one thing, but now one of them uppity Negros wants to be President!")
Here I get via satellite MSNBC, CNN International version, and Fox News. I watch all 3. It gives me a good idea of the amount of lies in American political propaganda.
SC #95, frappes is regional dialect (New England area) word for milkshake.
Huh. I was born and raised in New England, and my people have been here since the 1600s. I also live in Boston now. And I don't believe I've ever seen or heard of a frappe. How is this possible? You know I'll see them everywhere now. :)
Obama's entire change mantra is intellectually dishonest. It allows us to conveniently forget that the policies George W. Bush has pursued over the last eight years had the overwhelming support of Americans.
"Change mantra" intellectually dishonest ? You mean that the truth is that Obama doesn't want to change anything from the Bush policies ?
And Obama was against the war from the begining, unlike a majority of Americans, so why do you accuse him of being dishonest ?
That's quite formidable, you're blaming Obama for the gulibility of a majority of Americans !
So now that more than 2/3rds of the population agree with Obama on the war and their disaproval of Bush, you're suggesting that he should align hmself with Bush policies, so that he doesn't appear to be professing a "change mantra" ?
#70-Jason TD,
Personally lacking the current ability to articulate matters as well as you have in the above, I can only simply say-ditto.
Although I am a Christian, please do not assume that I am a McCain/Palin devotee. Far from it, and far from a conservative or conventional. The mere fact that they have brought their distorted view of Christianity and one-minded religious beliefs (sorry, HER beliefs) into the political sector is sleezy to say the least.
I respect McCain's time in the military as a POW, but that does not mean we have to elect him president. The hardships he endured were indeed horrific, but what about the victims of the Holocaust? You don't hear the survivors retelling their stories for personal gain, but rather as a reminder to not let atrosities like that happen again. He suffers from physical limitations as a result of his incarceration, but having a disability does not make him any less of an A-hole.
Palin is governor of the largest state in the Union...only in geographical size. You can fit the entire population of Alaska into state of Rhode Island...so tell me exactly what does she govern?
Our current administration has degraded our country's reputation with the rest of the world and our next president will have to face a lot of "back-pedalling" if we are ever to regain the respect of our former allied nations. Inserting religious blurb here, I for one am not ready for an administration that, although claims to believe in the Divine, it does not believe our Creator is capable of taking care of things on His/Her own and therefore is "hell-bent" on hastening the "end of days" to further its own agenda.
What does the future hold in a possible McCain-Palin term? A term that's on shaky ground. How exactly can we be a strong "United States" if we choose to build without a solid foundation?
Obama's entire change mantra is intellectually dishonest.
Wrong. You love baseless assertions, don't you?
It allows us to conveniently forget that the policies George W. Bush has pursued over the last eight years had the overwhelming support of Americans.
Well, there's a broad sweeping statement. In fact, Bush had the support of most of the American people (though not me, or many others here) on ONE issue, and that was invading Iraq because they purportedly had WMD's and were behind 9-11. For everything else he had only the support of his party and the allegedly liberal media - but that was all he needed as long as he had at least reluctant assent from the fearful. And after a while most people figured out that he had lied about Iraq and were loudly upset, prompting Bush to famously declare, "I'm the DECIDER!"
But the fact remains is we are all responsible for where we are now and we are all responsible for solving the problems we created.
Not all of us are responsible for this. But Obama has indicated that he'll take the responsibility for fixing the mess, whereas McCain has denied any responsibility at all for the disastrous policies that he continues to support and promises to extend.
"And Obama was against the war from the begining, unlike a majority of Americans, so why do you accuse him of being dishonest ?"
Obama showed his go along get along character when he continued to vote for war funding. The purpose of the balance of powers is so the powers are balanced.
Stating he was against the war when it did not matter to him politically and then voting to support the war when "getting along" mattered shows me what kind of poicical animal he is.
Contrast this to someone like Ron Paul, who stood firmly against the war when it mattered, and who continued to buck the status quo by voting against the war, and you'll see the real difference between political aspiration and political honesty.
I like Barack. I think it is way cool that we might have a bi-racial dude as president.
I just think he's more snake-oil than substance and his substance is "more of the same" disquised as "change".
We've aleady had a Jimmy Carter in the White House.
Nothing about McCain that anyone who'd been paying attention wouldn't already know. And the clips showing his flip-flopping can be done with GW Bush and Dick Cheney as well.
But what does it say about me that I immediately recognized the bus crash (@ :54) as the end scene from the last episode of "The Young Ones"?
Stating [Obama] was against the war when it did not matter to him politically
He was against the war when being so would get one branded as "unpatriotic", "unAmerican" or even "treasonous". He took more personal risk in opposing the war than the war cheerleaders took in agitating for other people's offspring to go to war, and as such showed more courage.
Scott, we get that you don't like the feds and will sit out the election. What are you really trying to do here other than disrupt the normal give and take of these threads? Are you trying to change our minds? Forget that, you are too repetitive and non-responsive, and many people are either ignoring you or just baiting you. Personally, if you aren't going to vote in November for somebody for president, you have no business talking politics. The act of voting gives you the moral right to complain about things. Take your message somewhere else.
"He was against the war when being so would get one branded as "unpatriotic", "unAmerican" or even "treasonous". He took more personal risk in opposing the war than the war cheerleaders took in agitating for other people's offspring to go to war, and as such showed more courage."
Nahh. He was against the war when no one was listening, and then used it to his advantage when American sentiment swung in his favor. One could argue those who stuck by the president and their original decision showed more political courage,even though their courage was in the form of hard-headed stubborness.
Barack tries to play the politically safe position by claiming he is "for war", just not Bush's war.
Again, I give Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich their due, for having the courage to stand up against the political tide in the face of being called "treasonous", and showing great courage and insight and foresight and hindsight while Washington, and Barack too, simply went along to get along.
"Personally, if you aren't going to vote in November for somebody for president, you have no business talking politics."
Are you suggesting that politics and presidential politics aren't going to affect me personally? Or are you just saying you want to form a band, where everybody blows the flute?
Having a country full of two party sycophants IS THE MAIN problem in this country.
Y'all would all rather hate on each other than realize you are one and the same.
Trying to chase away those who disagree with your sycophantic vision just compounds the problem.
(#106) Posted by: Lydia | September 7, 2008 3:04 PM
... I am a Christian, ... they have brought their distorted view of Christianity and ...
I don't intend to be rude, but ...
What is an undistorted view of Christianity? -- Your view? -- Is there such a thing? -- The Bible? -- interpreted by who?
Just something for you to think about ...
Scott, if the election effects you, why aren't you voting? Either shit or get off the pot. If you don't vote, you have no moral authority to tell us anything about the election. So either get ready to vote, or STFU. Otherwise, you have nothing to add to the argument.
To quote a line from the West Wing, "decisions are made by those who show up".
Obama showed his go along get along character when he continued to vote for war funding. The purpose of the balance of powers is so the powers are balanced.
You were asked why you accused him of being dishonest, but like the DISHONEST sack of shit you are you changed the subject.
Stating he was against the war when it did not matter to him politically
What a moron. It could only not matter to him politically if he had no political ambitions at the time.
Obama showed his go along get along character when he continued to vote for war funding. The purpose of the balance of powers is so the powers are balanced.
Strange that you don't understand this, I would have done exactly the same as Obama ;
I would have vehemently opposed the authorization for the war. But if I had been asked to vote, after the war had already been started I would have voted to fund it, as not doing so could only have hurt the troops who were already in action.
The mistake was to start this war. Obama was prescient. Now that that mistake has been made, it makes no sense to pull out abruptly and leave Iraq in a worse situation than it was in when Sadam Hussein was in power.
One thing I'm quite certain of, if Obama had been president in 2000-2004, he wouldn't have forced the CIA to fabricate fake evidence for WMDs and the USA wouldn't have gone to war with Iraq. And this wouldn't have cost all these lost American and Iraqi lives and more than 1.5 trillon $ to the American economy, and "no end in sight".
"Scott, if the election effects you, why aren't you voting?"
There is nothing wrong in principle with being an ineffectual whiner. Most political gibbering, including from those who vote, amounts to little more than such an activity.
when in office he will do absolutely nothing to overturn roe vs wade and all the other issues we saw at the end of the clip
What an idiotic claim. It is almost certain that McCain would replace Justice Stevens with someone opposed to Roe v. Wade.
Why not put a youtibe clip about his flip flops on
FISA, public finance, welfare reform, NAFTA, seating MI and FL degates after he was against it, offshore oil drilling, Iraq, Iran, Israel, Expanding Bush faith based initiatives etc etc
Because there is no such clip, jackass. If there were, you could post it. But you can't even manage to quote Obama on a single one of these issues to demonstrate your claims -- and I mean quote Obama, not refer to someone referring to someone who characterized what Obama said. And that's the form in which these charges exist -- innuendo, misrepresentation, and flat-out lies.
Obama has flip flopped and pandered more in one year than McCain has in his whole career!
Whether one would or not, the position is arguable, and there's nothing dishonest per se in taking it. And that was the question put to Shit from Oregon.
He was against the war when no one was listening . . . .
Hey, buddy. I was listening. Where the hell where you?
(Honestly: the first time I heard of (then State) Sen. Obama was on an anti-war march in 2003. A friend of mine said: "Hey, there's a state senator in Chicago who's marching today!" and I said, sadly, "Well, there goes his re-election bid." Shows what I know ;)
But you're right. Kucinich is awesome (a friend of mine worked on his campaign in 2004, and was the guy who came up with the "Kooch Puts The Smackdown On Tha Man!" slogan. Good times).
Also:
I immediately recognized the bus crash (@ :54) as the end scene from the last episode of "The Young Ones"?
Ditto. Mr. Stewart and co. certainly know their audience!
Azkeroth comments on perhaps the most truly stupid comment ever posted here:
Stop bombarding me with American politics, I don't really care and as far as I know this is probably all made up. I saw a clip claiming Obama is friends with a terrorists, what about that lol?
I'm an optimist.
...someday I'll be telling my grandchildren about how we used to have to wonder if comments like that were jokes or serious.
What, you think parody will be banned? Because surely you can't think that such levels of stupidity will disappear.
He can be against the war and yet agree to fund it once it has already started because that's the only pragmatic thing to do.
There's another, major, pragmatic issue at work here: Obama's one vote against funding wouldn't end funding. When voting as a member of a political deliberative body, there are all sorts of factors that go into a decision to vote one way or another that have little to do with the one's actual position.
"Scott, if the election effects you, why aren't you voting? Either shit or get off the pot".
Politics has become a two legged stool in America and I am voting for that elusive third leg.
You asked me why I am here?
Well, I am shitting...
On all of the sycophants who think they are superior because they can turn the name "Scott" into "scoot" and "shit" while making excuses for a Democratic party that really really sucks eggs and is aiding in the deleterious direction Washington has headed.
Obama KNEW why the founders gave the power of the purse to the Congress over war funding, and exercised that power in EXACT opposition to his stated stance on the war.
That's not pragmatism, that's pussying out.
Obama-- "Change we can spend at the local 7-11"...
"There's another, major, pragmatic issue at work here: Obama's one vote against funding wouldn't end funding. When voting as a member of a political deliberative body, there are all sorts of factors that go into a decision to vote one way or another that have little to do with the one's actual position."
THIS KIND OF POLITICAL NONSENSE is exactly why we have a 9.65 TRILLION dollar debt.
Oh, he was just trying to be politically sauvy...
Bullshit.
We don't need suave and screw ya politicians in Washington. We need ideologues who believe in a "war as a last resort" foreign policy and a "no moral dictation from Washington" national policy.
Oh, and who follow their own oath and actually obey the Constitution.
@SFO Nahh. He was against the war when no one was listening, and then used it to his advantage when American sentiment swung in his favor.
"When no one was listening"?. Were you even on this planet at the time??? EVERYONE was listening for positions like that and everyone who spoke up was thoroughly castigated for not sig heil-ing to Bush and his pet war.
One could argue those who stuck by the president and their original decision showed more political courage
And one would be obscenely wrong. Those who have "stuck by" Bush have been consistently rewarded for their loyalty by Bush personally as well as by the Republican party at large. And that includes McCain.
"I don't intend to be rude, but ...
What is an undistorted view of Christianity? -- Your view? -- Is there such a thing? -- The Bible? -- interpreted by who?
Just something for you to think about ... "
Exactly! No offense taken. This is exactly why we should have separation between church and state.
Do reports of Sarah Palin's professed Christian faith cause you to be more likely to vote for the GOP presidential ticket?
Y 92.85%
N 7.15%
24635 responses
Oh, how could they not, when her old church espouses such democratic values?:
However, as a church, it is not appropriate for us to endorse any one candidate over another. As believers, we are reminded in 2 Peter 2.13 that we are to submit to those in authority. 1 Timothy 2.1-2 tells us pray for those in authority. This we will do no matter who is elected. We wish the best to Governor Palin, and Senator McCain, as well as to Senator Obama and Senator Biden.
[from Phoenix Woman's "being scrubbed" link above]
Bakunin was right in 1876: "A jealous lover of human liberty, and deeming it the absolute condition of all that we admire and respect in humanity, I reverse the phrase of Voltaire, and say that, if God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish him."
@121 "It is almost certain that McCain would replace Justice Stevens with someone opposed to Roe v. Wade."
Not to mention the nightmares President Palin would try to put on the bench.
That one issue (judicial appointments), by itself, makes the case for Obama.
We need ideologues who believe in a "war as a last resort" foreign policy and a "no moral dictation from Washington" national policy.
Yet, you systematically fail to understand that not all decisions should to be based uniquely on one's ideology.
So if you had been asked about that specific decision you would have had no problem with cutting funds for the war in 2005, long after it was started and right at the moment of the worst insurgency and leaving Iraq in a complete mess, because your ideology says that "war should only be a last resort".
Do you understand the nuance between a decision to start a war (where an ideology such as "war should only be a last resort" plays the key role) and a decision whether to fund a campaign after the war has already been started (where such ideology only plays a secondary role, but solving the mess we're in plays the key role).
It's the same with your refusal to vote in this election...
I was born and raised in New England, and my people have been here since the 1600s. I also live in Boston now. And I don't believe I've ever seen or heard of a frappe. How is this possible? You know I'll see them everywhere now.
I've lived in eastern Connecticut for years. Like SC I've never heard of a milkshake called anything other than a milkshake.
Frappe is either a cocktail served over shaved ice or, as frappé, the past participle of the French verb frapper, to hit.
This photo sequence deserves more attention, at least if it can be substantiated. I couldn't find anything about it at snopes.com and only one pic at urbanlegends.com (which described Bush as "cheerleading"), and couldn't - it seems - get a query through to the snopesters.
Does anyone here have any more about this episode (preferably with videotape and reports from independent witnesses)?
"Do you understand the nuance between a decision to start a war (where an ideology such as "war should only be a last resort" plays the key role) and a decision whether to fund a campaign after the war has already been started (where such ideology only plays a secondary role, but solving the mess we're in plays the key role)."
Cut the condescension. Having grown up in the military as a UN charter brat living in the ME, I know a bit about the "insurgency".
And the war.
And the "mess" in Iraq.
If Obama is/was opposed to the war he should have stood tall and voted tall.
He waffled and hemmed and made no noise. He was cowardly and people should at least realize that he is a political "player" who is more interested in winning in the game of politics than insuring Americans have good government.
Where was Obama when the fed cut the rates (and kept them cut) and sent housing out of control? I notice Ron Paul standing up in Congress in '02 and predicting '08. Where was a nuanced "smart" Obama? McCain? Where were any of the Democrats? I saw this mess coming in '04. Where was Joe Biden?
There is no reason to give sycophantic allegiance to any of these numbskulls.
9.6 TRILLION in the hole. More looming wars with Iran...
A big bubble of inflation coming this spring with either party in the White House...
It's not condescension when it's directed at someone as boneheaded and uncomprehending as you; in fact, it's quite generous to suggest that you even might understand something.
THIS KIND OF POLITICAL NONSENSE is exactly why we have a 9.65 TRILLION dollar debt.
Oh, he was just trying to be politically sauvy...
Fuck but you are a cretin. I simply referred to the facts regarding being a member of a deliberative body, facts that all its members are subject to, whether it's Congress or a tenant's association or anything.
Another site about diners in New Hampshire notes of one place: "You're well north of the frappe line here: if you want a milkshake you have to ask for a frappe." So it's not that surprising that we southern New Englanders aren't familiar with the term, though it would appear from Sven's link that it's used in at least some places in Boston. I'll be on the lookout.
Where was Obama when the fed cut the rates (and kept them cut) and sent housing out of control? I notice Ron Paul standing up in Congress in '02 and predicting '08. Where was a nuanced "smart" Obama? McCain? Where were any of the Democrats? I saw this mess coming in '04. Where was Joe Biden?
You don't even seem to be aware that members of congress are not even part of the decision making process of the FOMC !
If Obama is/was opposed to the war he should have stood tall and voted tall.
Sorry, I don't know what that means.
As I said, I don't think he should have voted to cut funds for the war when he was asked for the first time as a US senator in 2005, in view of the situation in Iraq at that time. And yet, I also opposed this unnecessary war, and I also believe firmly that "war should only be a last resort".
He waffled and hemmed and made no noise. He was cowardly and people should at least realize that he is a political "player" who is more interested in winning in the game of politics than insuring Americans have good government.
He was one of the few American politicians to oppose the start of this war, and he made quite some noise and even manifested, when it was necessary. Frankly after the invasion and Sadam's regime had been defeated, it didn't make much sense anymore. Yet you say he was a coward, and just a political "player" ! I think you just have a problem, like all ideologues, of apprecating reality.
That's why ideologues are so dangerous when they are in a position of authority. After 8 years of Bush, we should all know this lesson.
"You don't even seem to be aware that members of congress are not even part of the decision making process of the FOMC !"
I don't? Hmmm.... That is news to me.
I am aware that Congress created the federal reserve by mandate and is required to keep updated on the decisions made.
I also know that Congress has just now legislated your tax dollars to bail out the bad monetary policy ignited by the federal reserve and ignored by almost all of Congress except for one man...
I take issue with this policy since I am in the consruction business, and since I have family who will lose houses to the whole real estate mess (I did warn them!) because they live in the Bay Area.
You have just gotten the bill for about a half a trillion dollars as a tax payer, bailing out speculators and dishonest folks who would say anything to get into a house and make a chunk of easy money. You are also bailing out two government-backed Fannie's by socializing them, (did you notice that it was the government-backed mortgage companies that went belly up?)
Where was Obama? Where was Joe Biden, when all of this was coming down the pipeline?
These are your heroes? Your politically suave and deboners?
Scott, its time for you to explain, with a simple declarative sentence or two, why you continue to act like a jerk here. You have had your say, and we heard you, but what you have said has been refuted time and time again. So you either need to go, or come up with a new line of thought. I sense you thought we would be easy picking to the libertarian view, and are extremely frustrated that nobody is biting. BTW, I am nobody's sycophant. I have voted for third party candidates in the past. But this year I plan on voting for Obama, since the alternative, letting McCain win by default, is just too horrific to contemplate. If you have a viable alternative to Obama who can beat McCain in the fall, bring him out. Otherwise, go home.
On the frappe debate, from Wikipedia: "Frappe, the New England name for a thick ice cream milkshake often made with cream instead of milk, and sometimes sweetened with malt." (Somebody need to tell me how to a url link. I'm used to BBS, but not hyperlinks.)
Our founding fathers did not trust the general public--hence the electoral college. I think our founding fathers were brilliant.
No. What's going on is that a democracy can only work if the citizens understand what they're voting for and against. This requires them to have a lot of education -- more than a lot of Americans seem to have even today, no wonder with all those underfunded schools with cretinist teachers and so on.
I did not think I would ever be disagreeing with you David, but the electoral college is only partially to compensate for the "ignorance" of the populace. It was really much more about protecting small states from domination by the larger states. At the time of the founding, the US was much more like the EU today, a set of autonomous states banding together for mutual protection, but not wanting to lose their sovereignty. Thus the bicameral legislature, one dominated by population, the other with the states given equal voice regardless of population. This compromise was carried forward in the election of the president in the form of the electoral college.
The only president to have a PhD was Woodrow Wilson.
Not for nothin', but Bill Clinton had a JD from Yale, which AFAIK is a doctoral-level degree equivalent to a PhD, and he was a Rhodes Scholar.
It's not true that we never elect smart people; it's just that we don't like to admit it. If Clinton hadn't looked and talked like an Ozark redneck, he couldn't have gotten 3 electoral votes.
"Scott, its time for you to explain, with a simple declarative sentence or two, why you continue to act like a jerk here. You have had your say, and we heard you, but what you have said has been refuted time and time again."
Refuted?
You are joking right?
My answer--I lose either way. Obama or McCain. I have to scramble to find places for my savings because the US is about to implode economically and there is a huge inflationary balloon wafting in just over the hill. People I know and care about will get hurt by this,as well as a lot of lower middle class folks I can only hope to know.
How many people do y'all know teetering at the edge financially right now? How many do you know who you pretty much know will go under in the next year?
Think hard about that.
How much money comes due next year for the US government with all of the short term loans they took out to fight a tribal war in Iraq?
Think hard about that.
What will be their options for paying off those loans?
Why is Barack Obama surrounded by former players in the Clinton and Carter administrations, when he claims to be the "new politics?"
Why are all of Barack's programs basic rehashes of Jimmy Carter's?
Which of these politicians had the sense to predict and DO SOMETHING ABOUT the current housing and credit crises BEFORE they became so problematic?
Joe Biden has been in Washington 30 years and he disregarded warnings and kept trundling along...
McCain is simply a joke not worth addressing.
Obama speaks hopeful, but he wants to throw oil on the fire and for that he gets chastized as just another Washington politician... Promise people money that isn't his to get elected. Take money from people by threat of jail to keep the charade going...
There will be another mid-term coming in two years, plus there are lots of House seats being contended as we speak.
Figure out what is really going on. Stop buying the platitudes of the two parties who have managed a lock on the system.
The potus is a done deal. But there is the House and Senate to fight for, and in spite of the name calling, I will fight for the well being of people I care about.
Over here, the very word "hero" was basically retired 60 years ago.
Really? That's interesting.
Another thread just reminded me of Robin Hood: Men in Tights. The German translation has "heroes" instead of "men". Why? Because it's a comedy. "Hero" is automatically an exaggeration and therefore funny.
the electoral college is only partially to compensate for the "ignorance" of the populace.
I know. I wrote the stuff in the outer blockquote, not the inner one. What I wrote is slightly screwed up because I edited a remark out saying that the electoral college was a stupid idea -- at that time, it wasn't, because the states were supposed to elect the president. Today it has outlived its mere feasibility and has therefore become a stupid idea.
You have just gotten the bill for about a half a trillion dollars as a tax payer, bailing out speculators and dishonest folks who would say anything to get into a house and make a chunk of easy money. You are also bailing out two government-backed Fannie's by socializing them, (did you notice that it was the government-backed mortgage companies that went belly up?)
Where was Obama? Where was Joe Biden, when all of this was coming down the pipeline
After failing to provide any reason to blame Obama for the war and the disastous monetary policy, you're switching subject again, and it's quite formidable that you are so intent in blaming Obama and Biden for the credit and mortgage crisis and forget the main culprit Bush and his administration.
And once again you fail to understand the reality of the situation. For the government to bail out the two Fannies is the only thing that can be done at this stage. What's the alternative if you are so clever ? Did you thnk about that ?
And Yes, this wll cost the American people dearly. But what do you expect ? When an administration makes so many stupid mistakes for 8 years it does have consequences.
At least Obama understands this, so he wants to transfer most of the bill to the rich and the owners of capital, unlke McCain who just doesn't care and wants to spread it as always.
One who expresses his ire unpredictably with physical displays of anger (just to show everyone they are miffed, and to get their way done thereby) is one who is congenitally irrational.
That's all we need - an elderly bullet-head who may throw a tantrum if anybody doesn't agree with him.
What "change" can there possibly be in substituting one emperor for another?
Scott, you sound just like the creationists who come here. You are never refuted in your own mind because you religiously adhere to your concept of facts. But the rest of us, who do not share your religious zeal, see the gaping holes in your logic and facts. If you have a candidate for president you wish us to vote for, and who has a reasonable chance of beating McSame, trot him out. Otherwise, you have nothing to add to the debate.
For a libertarian, I find it somewhat ironic that you simply can't let us make up our own minds about who we will vote for in the fall. To me, this shows you are really an authoritarian. Again, what are you trying to do in one, and only one, declarative sentence?
if there's such an economc crisis, it's first and foremost because Americans made the mistake to elect twice in a row an incompetent president who completely failed to understand how hurtful his policies could be to the poor and the middle classes.
Well bad news, when the people make such mistake, they pay for it later !
And McCain also doesn't understand this, he's never had any financial difficulties. He doesn't even realise the USA is entering into its worst economic recesson since 1929. What should care, he's never had any financial difficulties. He even managed to get elected the first time as representatve of Arizona by gettng his millonaire wife Cindy to entirely fund his campaign. That's how he dealt with the issue.
The only question you should ask yourself right now is if you trust such a man to appreciate the difficulties of the majority of the American people more than Obama.
"After failing to provide any reason to blame Obama for the war and the disastous monetary policy, you're switching subject again, and it's quite formidable that you are so intent in blaming Obama and Biden for the credit and mortgage crisis and forget the main culprit Bush and his administration."
I never blamed Obama FOR THE WAR. There is no need and there is no justification for it. I merely pointed out that Obama is JUST ANOTHER politician, and now that he made the show, wants to play with all of its toys.
If he was against the war, he should have manned up and voted against funding it, forcing the potus to withdraw due to lack of funds.
It takes courage to do what you say you want to do. He showed none.
I don't blame Biden and Obama for the credit crises. I blame ALL OF THEM. It wasn't GW Bush's policies that created the mess, it was his policies and an obsequious Congress combined. That means Biden too. That means all of them. Obama gets some pass because he is so new, but his short record is apalling.
I had hopes that Obama would have some clues and crack open the nut that is Washington, but all he is doing is playing the game the same way that led us to where we are now. He's just playing the foil to the republican side, and many of y'all are eating it up.
Sometime early next summer, I hope many of y'all will remember how I irritated you, and think "damn, that sunbitch was right!"
Then you might "get it" and start looking directly at how problematic Washington has become, with the pentagon holding lectures by Ken Hovind, with your civil liberties a memory, and with inflation taxing you so hard you wished you'd listened to the warnings long before you did...
Scott, you sound just like the creationists who come here.
I've found so many libertarians to be like that. The absolute nature of their convictions, the zeal in which they attack any opposing idea, it's quite frightening...
...so much so that even though libertarianism is the closest political ideology to my own, I try my best to distance myself from the movement. Once you turn the argument to "taxes are stealing", it becomes a moral issue rather than a socio-political one and there is no way to go any futher. Rather it should be more pertinent to discuss the nature of the social contract and the individual's role in maintaining society as a whole, and the consequences of the various political ideologies taking into regard the population and environment that resides in it. Instead it's just an exercise in argumentative futility.
It's like talking to a pro-lifer. No matter what arguments you give, you just can't counter the "abortion is infanticide" stance. By making it a moral issue, you kill any attempt to have a constructive converstation.
if there's such an economc crisis, it's first and foremost because Americans made the mistake to elect twice in a row an incompetent president who completely failed to understand how hurtful his policies could be to the poor and the middle classes. ""
Those are WASHINGTON'S POLICIES!!! That's Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden and all the Dems AND the Republican machine which we should all loathe because of what it has become.
Stop buying into the BS that Bush and Cheney run the country.
The power is in the house and senate and the majority has been almost indecipherable...
You have two parties who are in the process of fucting you good and you want one of them to like you.
Sometime early next summer, I hope many of y'all will remember how I irritated you, and think "damn, that sunbitch was right!"
A cretin with delusions of grandeur. Right about what? That the world won't be perfect, that Obama will disappoint in many ways, that many things we wish would change won't? All of that is entirely predictable and completely irrelevant, because a rational person must weigh the consequences of Obama/Biden in the White House against McCain/Palin in the White House ... which won't be determinable solely by the state of affairs next summer, since we will only have one of the two sets of data. To weigh those consequences requires analysis of their differences, not blathering on and on about their similarities in the most broad and stupid manner possible. And one must do that weighing now and act accordingly, not wait until next summer to see whose ego gets stroked.
Washington has become, with the pentagon holding lectures by Ken Hovind, with your civil liberties a memory, and with inflation taxing you so hard you wished you'd listened to the warnings long before you did...
"because a rational person must weigh the consequences of Obama/Biden in the White House against McCain/Palin in the White House ... "
Ummm, a rational person will take the larger view and see that the Dems and the Repubs cut out any other party's chances of competing in the competition and understand that the only way to fix the system is to get new and energized House and Senate members seated.
It won't hardly matter between an Obama Democratic nightmare or a MCain Republican nightmare. McCain will have a democratic congress to fight with so you'll get much of the same from either guy, only Obama will spend the bottom out from under us faster and MCain will just make the world madder at America, probably provoking the Iranians into war.
Either scenario deserves opposition, and people need to see what is coming down the freeway like a giant inflated boob.
Scott, if you spent any time at all here, you would know that many people here have problems with Obama. Foremost is Obama's pandering to evangelists. Damn but it gets tiring when a know nothing crashes the board with guns a blazing and knows not who they are attacking.
While there are people here who like Obama, this site is not Obama Central.
Stop buying into the BS that Bush and Cheney run the country.
Sure, let's all believe in Scott's notion that anybody in Congress including those in the opposing party is responsible for the decisions made by the President and his administration.
If all rational people would believe in this, it would make things easy. Then they wouldn't vote, like you, and because a signifcant majority of irrational people will anyway always vote Republican, then this will guarantee that we have a republican administration forever.
Great idea Scott, especally that it would generate a certainty of a result in direct contradiction with your claimed ideology.
"Sure, let's all believe in Scott's notion that anybody in Congress including those in the opposing party is responsible for the decisions made by the President and his administration".
How about we check the role call on the Patriot Act?
Fisa?
The creation of the Dept. Of Homland Security?
Wanna go look and see who is on the budget commitee?
Was it Bush who wrote and sponsored the Mortgage Bailout?
Why is it that you refuse to name four or five of these "new and energized" candidates that you will/would vote for? If you believe that the only way to fix the system is to get them elected, one would think you would be happy to sing their praises. Why not?
and people need to see what is coming down the freeway like a giant inflated boob.
That...well, that's about the dumbest analogy I've ever heard.
@SheepFuckingOrangutan Those are WASHINGTON'S POLICIES!!! That's Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden and all the Dems AND the Republican machine which we should all loathe because of what it has become.
Stop buying into the BS that Bush and Cheney run the country.
The power is in the house and senate and the majority has been almost indecipherable...
Wrong, wrong, and wrong again. Have you spent the last eight years sealed in a cave? Or off-planet somewhere? When Bush and Cheney and their Republican cohorts seized power in Washington, they did two things right away - they dismantled a lot of Clinton programs pertaining to national security, and they brought in CEO's to re-write whatever laws they found inconvenient. They did so quietly but swiftly.
After 9-11 they did something else unprecedented: They shut the Democrats almost entirely out of the legislative process. Committees that Democrats were on met without their Democratic members and then presented laws. When Democrats tried to meet on their own their meetings were interrupted and shut down by Republican lawmakers, including at least one incident that was infamously captured on C-SPAN. They did this consistently and relentlessly; all the Democrats were allowed to do was show up for the votes. They did complain, but the complaints were seldom aired unless they were to be ridiculed by the Pravda Trolls on talk radio and Faux Noise. This happened over and over and over again for years. And when things started falling apart, guess what happened? Yep; the complementary narratives that emerged were "It's all the Democrats fault!" coupled with "The Democrats are just as much at fault!" The name of that approach is "Fair and Balanced." You've probably heard it somewhere.
If were lived anywhere on this planet during that time, there's NO WAY you could have failed to know about all this. So you are either being deliberately ignorant or deliberately lying. Either way, you've got no excuses to fall back on.
It won't hardly matter between an Obama Democratic nightmare or a MCain Republican nightmare.
Sure, as it wouldn't have made any difference if Gore had been elected instead of Bush. It's all the same, that's why we shouldn't vote, like this "Washington" will understand, give up its powers and change everything...
After focussing your message on a liberal blog, if you were consistent, you should now do the same on a republican blog. Otherwise there's going to be more republicans who vote than democrats and that won't work.
Or is that actually your real hope ? That less democrats turnout the day of the election ?
I think Scott has finally lost it. He just can't seem to grasp that at a science blog, eventually you are going to have to put up some information. He is well beyond the point of no return, and he either needs to put up the right information, such as name some candidates for us to vote for, or acknowledge to himself that we will think that everything he say is a lie and/or bullshit if he doesn't.
I agree with Negentropyeater that Scott is probably trying to keep liberals home on election day. No way for me. I have voted in every election since 1972, and nothing will change that. If you don't vote, you can't morally complain about the outcome. And I love complaining about the outcome.
Indeed your insistance on tryng to convince people on a blog with a majority of liberals that Obama will be the same as McCain and that they will be better off not voting, is quite consistent with the republican strategy.
If you don't vote, you can't morally complain about the outcome. And I love complaining about the outcome.
Damn. You may have summed up my life strategy.
I intended to vote for Obama because I always vote and I want the greatest chance of defeating the republican party.
Scott may say the two parties are the same, and to some extent I agree, but not enough to negate my vote. The republicans have had the white house and have demonstrated that they have a process that chooses someone who may win the coveted "Worst President Evah" award.
If you don't vote, you can't morally complain about the outcome.
Intersting way to look at it.
Again, I want to ask about minor parties in the US. In Australia, we get preferences. So I can vote for a minor party to make a stand, then direct my preferences to the "lesser of two evils" as I see it. How would that moral stand work in the US by voting for the Greens or Libertarian party. Are people morally responsible to vote for a major party in order to complain about the outcome? Surely by voting for the Greens or Libertarians, it's the moral equivalent of not voting in the two-party system.
So would someone who wants Obama to win have any say if McCain wins and they voted greens. Likewise the same with voting for the Libertarians as opposed to the republicans. The two-party system seems polarising and forces people to make a choice between two unfavourable candidate because if they don't, it's the equivalent of not voting.
"It won't hardly matter between an Obama Democratic nightmare or a MCain Republican nightmare."
Well, we DO already know that a Dem incumbent presided over a very fine record surplus over 8 years, and we DO know a Rep incumbent promptly flushed it down into a record deficit in less than half that time...and the govbucks are still falling.
This was brilliantly performed via interesting ideas of what constitutes money well spent, such as mounting a war against a country for its oil and to obtain a "strategic foothold" in the Middle East while blatantly mischaracterizing that country as a chief sponsor of the attacks on 9-11, as well as larding on the LIE that that country had WMD's imminently aimed at more mayhem like that which the US suffered that day.
That was pure genius.
We also know that McCain is a REPUBLICAN and Obama is a DEMOCRAT.
I'll take a Dem "nightmare" any time over the horror of a Rep administration. Those latter LIE MORE THAN THE OTHER GUYS. CAN'T YOU TELL???
Kel, I would love to see preference voting occur here in the US, but I'm not holding my breath. It would really help out third parties to get bigger. And Gore might be president now.
I feel that just voting for anyone, even writing in yourself, is all that is needed to be able to morally complain about the outcome. Too many people complain about things, but then when pressed, didn't do anything to change the outcome. I find that very hypocritical.
"and he either needs to put up the right information, such as name some candidates for us to vote for",
Here in Oregon and in California, Obama will take home the gold. Those are givens and I don't need to vote to make sure that happens. It will happen.
I can't tell you who to vote for because the only difference people can make is in the voting of House seats or Senate seats.
Voting in people who claim to be "Democrats" will only make the problem worse. They will aid Obama in his big program promises fulfillment program and we'll see inflation go right through the roof.
Voting in the only other party of choice, the Republicans, is full of problems because the Republican party has gone off the deep end and is bordering on fascist. But there are some paleoconservatives who are following along the Ron Paul minimal government platform that I would look into.
The trouble there, is so damn many of them go to church and are as crazy as the rest.
I keep looking for small government social liberals to pop up, but the breed is still in early gestation apparently.
More of the Ronnie Reagan, Jessie Ventura, Arnold Muscle-later type of conservatives who have squeezed a few unwed titties and want to see big government go away...
If you're one of those, may I suggest you run for office?
McCain's sure a flip flopper alright. He flip flopped right into a 10% lead among likely voters. 54% to 44%.
It doesn't surprise me that DaveScott choses to reference the only poll that is actually not relevant.
Gallup's polls are based on two models "registered voters" and "Likely voters"-
Gallup writes :
registered voters are the relevant group to trend to establish basic patterns of change in voter support for presidential candidates.
The vote intentions of the pool of likely voters months before an election shows the potential that voter turnout can have on the popular vote outcome, but is not a predictor of what that turnout will look like on Election Day.
The Gallup "Likely voters" polling model becomes relevant in the last couple of weeks before the election.
Moreover it was done during the RNC and over the weekend, and most pollsters agree that there is a methodological problem with polling on weekends, and whilst the conventions are taking place.
Some of y'all might enjoy a bit of refreshing news...
"""On Friday, the FDIC sent a task force to close down yet another small bank in Nevada, making it the 11th bank failure of 2008. Silver State Bank had $1.7 billion in deposits of which $20 million in 500 accounts was uninsured. Most likely these individuals will think twice before voting Republican as John McCain's adopted son from his first marriage, Andrew McCain, aged 46, was a director of the bank and resigned in July due to "personal reasons" as the Wall Street Journal reports here. McCain was part of a three-person audit team and was responsible for the financial health of the bank. If McCain had resigned four days later, he would have been required to sign off on the company's quarterly financial statement.
Andrew McCain had been involved with the bank since 2006 when he became director of Choice Bank, a small Arizona-based lender owned by Silver State where the McCain family was an early investor. He is currently employed by his adopted father's second wife, Cindy McCain, as the Chief Financial Officer of Hensley & Co., the family's main business which distributes beer. I want to add that there is no evidence that Andrew McCain has committed any crime besides ineptness.
It appears the FDIC tried to close the bank in August but was refused by the Nevada Division of Financial Institution until September. By June 30, the bank's borrowers had fallen behind on about $252 million worth of loans, compared to about $11.5 million from six months earlier. I speculate that the announcement was delayed until after the Republican Convention to help John McCain out.
John McCain, of course, is no stranger to prior banking scandals, the most infamous of which was the Savings and Loan scandal where he was one of the "Keating Five" Senators whom allegedly helped banker Charles Keating resist regulators. Keating was convicted and sent to jail, and McCain received a figurative slap on the wrist. Keating was a major contributor and supporter at the very start of McCain's political career. The S&L scandal resulted in a taxpayer-funded bailout of $125 billion."""
Ummm, a rational person will take the larger view and see that the Dems and the Repubs cut out any other party's chances of competing in the competition and understand that the only way to fix the system is to get new and energized House and Senate members seated.
Ummm, a rational person can see that you change the subject every time your bullshit is challenged. That the systems needs fixing has nothing to do with what you responded to, which related to your idiocy about being right "next summer". Once again, next summer we will all be right that things won't be as we wish they were. But they will be much worse if one of the tickets is elected than if the other is. But "worse" is a concept that you seem utterly incapable comprehending, or at least acknowledging.
It doesn't surprise me that DaveScott choses to reference the only poll that is actually not relevant.
Even more consistent with DaveScot's mindset is his change of subject from "John McCain is a disgusting slug who will do anything to win" to "Yahoo! He's gonna win!"
you change the subject every time your bullshit is challenged
I should have added "or just ignore it", as when I noted that he lied (or is just too fucking stupid to comprehend the English language) when he said that I supported Obama's vote on the FISA bill as a necessity, when I did the opposite. Of course, that very claim of his was a change of subject that not only got my position wrong but the whole thrust of my comments. It's remarkable that someone like Scott who never ever admits to an error makes so many -- but hey, we'll all remember next summer that the "sunbitch" was right ... about "sunthing", I suppose.
"I should have added "or just ignore it", as when I noted that he lied (or is just too fucking stupid to comprehend the English language) when he said that I supported Obama's vote on the FISA bill as a necessity, when I did the opposite."
Oddly, I tend to sort of ignore those who think "too fucking stupid" is an adequate argument. I am amused, though. Being a rather big fella, people don't usually get so rude anywhere near me. I kinda like it. Makes me feel what a weasel feels...
I said you support Obama, who voted for FISA, failing to acknowledge that he is an undesciplined crowd pleaser who has no moral courage or insight into what is coming down the chute.
He voted away some of your 4th Amendment rights. He supported funding for a war he claimed to be against. Now he claims he wants to shift the war. Shift the war? Are you fuckin shitting me?
If your mantra is "better than McCain" I agree with you. But not much better. And that is a hard thing to do.
The only thing Obama has in his favor is he hasn't been in Washington long enough to have a record of screwing up America. Give him time, though, and American toys to play with...
Why he chose a Washington screw up like Biden I have no idea. Just goes to show he is trying to "fit in".
All that "new Washington"/"change" rhetoric out the window.
Oh, btw, these banks failing? Just the beginning...
Skipping to comment as one comment seemed to be going unaddressed for the most part:
John McCain's heroism lay in refusing to be released while his fellow prisoners would have been kept-- an offer made to him because of his family. It doesn't make him fit to be president (nor does it show him to be a competent pilot), but it did take enough courage and loyalty that "hero" seems justified. It's certainly more than many other people who have been described that way have done.
He's just a dishonest, philandering, gold-digging, power-hungry, flip-flopping, ass-kissing, hot-tempered, possibly senile war hero.
Oddly, I tend to sort of ignore those who think "too fucking stupid" is an adequate argument.
you also tend to "ignore", or conveniently forget, more detailed explanations to your oft repeated inanities.
for example, that you bring up FISA again suggests you have entirely forgotten how TM detailed EXACTLY how and why Obama voted the way he did on it. At least once that I recall very specifically (and likely several times), when you first tried to bring up the issue in a different thread.
Instead, you focus on the end result after people have watched you "ignore" many detailed explanations, which of course is aptly and concisely noted by yourself as you being "too fucking stupid". It's good that you recognize your own stupidity, however you really are a dishonest little shit, and I for one will be happy when you finally tire of playing the inane troll.
I can't tell you who to vote for because the only difference people can make is in the voting of House seats or Senate seats.
He bobs, he weaves. That's what I've been asking about, moron. Name candidates that you will or would vote for for the House or Senate.
I keep looking for small government social liberals to pop up, but the breed is still in early gestation apparently.
More of the Ronnie Reagan, Jessie Ventura, Arnold Muscle-later type of conservatives who have squeezed a few unwed titties [?!] and want to see big government go away...
Are you saying that, while voting in "new and energized" candidates is our only hope, there are none that are acceptable at present? Or that you are supporting conservatives? If the former, admit it. If the latter, admit it and name them.
You didn't need to link me to realclearpolitics. I've had it bookmarked at least since 2004 and possibly since 2000.
You'll note at RCP that the USAT/Gallup poll I referenced is the most recent one comprising the RCP average. It's also the only poll in their average that was taken entirely after the RNC ended.
Yes, we'll have to wait another couple of days for the pre-RNC polls to leave the average but it doesn't look like Obama is going to emerge in the lead.
You might also note that Intrade is now showing a virtual tie after months of having Obama a 60/40 favorite.
@MartinM
Actually he something to say, just not of substance. See his comment #210; he offers as an empty rejoinder the same thing he's been flinging since he showed up - bullshit. Appropriate, that...
Palin and McCain's speech were on Wesd. and Thursday, the poll was done on Friday to Sunday, the WORST moment to get a fair idea of the real situation and poll.
Plus you referred to Gallup's likely voters poll, which is not relevant to evaluate the current trend. You could have at least, if you were so intent to refering to the most recent poll, refered to their registered voters evaluation which shows McCain with 48% and Obama with 45%, a very predictable small advantage to McCain in view of the timing of that poll.
If you really want to know if McCain has taken the lead or not, you'll need to wait at least for polls that are carried out entirely after the week end. And certanly not based on Gallup's likely voters model with still two months to go until the election.
But I'm not sure if you are really interested in knowing if McCain has taken the lead or not, but only convince yourself that he has.
Samantha Vimes @ # 204: ... McCain's heroism lay in refusing to be released while his fellow prisoners would have been kept ...
I don't have time to dig up the sources for this, but I've read that he was just following orders (from the top officer among Hanoi Hilton POWs) in this case. Had he accepted the offer of release, he would have been court-martialed, disgraced, and probably imprisoned - and he knew it.
This photo sequence deserves more attention, at least if it can be substantiated.
It is, at least, not a sequence. You'll notice that Captain Unelected wears a shirt with long sleeves in some of the photos and one with short sleeves in the others. Also, the woman to his left (I suppose Jenna or Barbara Jr.) wears a violet dress in two and a black one in two others, and the people in the background aren't the same. This suggests all of the photos could be photoshopped or something.
And while I am at it, voltaire.net is heavily into 9/11 troofing. "115 lies about 9/11"... "presents the characteristics of a controlled demolition"... yadda, yadda, yadda.
Oh well. We'll need to rely on the TV footage of his birthday two years ago, when he almost fell over trying to shake someone's hand (and later fell off a bicycle).
Sometime early next summer, I hope many of y'all will remember how I irritated you, and think "damn, that sunbitch was right!"
You know what we'll think? We'll start thinking about how much more hideous McPain would have been. And then we'll stop because the thought will just be unbearable.
and with inflation taxing you so hard you wished you'd listened to the warnings long before you did...
Obama not being a messiah, the US$ can only continue dropping anyway.
only Obama will spend the bottom out from under us faster
How, when he doesn't have Iraq to sink the money in?
Get some sense of the orders of magnitude you're talking about.
and MCain will just make the world madder at America, probably provoking the Iranians into war.
ROTFL! The Iranians aren't that silly. If anyone starts such a war, it will be McInsane, or some Israeli ultra-hawk with McInsane's explicit (though mildly secret) permission.
I'm still laughing. Really, the 1980s are over. The Iranians have lost the burning desire to die as martyrs.
Voting in people who claim to be "Democrats" will only make the problem worse. They will aid Obama in his big program promises fulfillment program and we'll see inflation go right through the roof.
You act as if Europe had high inflation.
------------------------------------------------
DaveScot just wants to believe that McShame leads, the same way as he wants to believe in his non-omnipotent non-omniscient non-omnibenevolent boy god.
It's funny to hear about how Democrats spend the US into debt more quickly when the three Presidents most responsible for the national debt would be W, Reagan, and Bush - during their administrations they have run up $6.6 trillion of the debt in twenty years. (I know Congress spends the money, but the Presidents have this pesky little veto thing, and since the Republican Party has asserted its fiscal sense repeatedly, one might have thought they might actually use it. Oh, and at least during the Reagan/Bush Sr. years, the budgets submitted to Congress were larger than the one the congresses suggested - the output was probably a combination, but you can't blame Congress for the spending if you would have spent more than them and weren't willing to stop them when you could.)
The difference betwen Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats tax in order to spend. Republicans spend (while claiming that they don't) and pretend the money they spent will come from somewhere other than their children and grandchildren. If McCain claims that Obama is going to raise your taxes, he ought to explain where the money he helped to spend was supposed to come from in the first place. That should be amusing.
Oh, and why do I even both trusting what the Republicans say on anything? It would be a plus if they actually told the truth, but I don't actually remember hearing it from them (or their mouthpieces). I thought honesty was supposed to be one of those values that determined one's value as a human being, Did W issue a signing statement sometime that I missed?
I'd vote for that guy.
No, not McCain... the one at the beginning of the clip.
Oh, come on. He's a young man, his views have just suddenly changed as he has gotten wiser...
Why aren't the democrats showing these clips all the time? I don't get it.
"John McCain is a flip-flopping opportunist."
And, how does that differ from Obama?
This clip was just one part of a brilliant episode. Friday night's The Daily Show should be broadcast in it's entirety every day until the election. I winced as much as I laughed.
Adam,
He contradicted everything he said in 2006. Watch The Daily Show repeats this week.
It's sad that in order to get this kind of honest news I have to change to Comedy Central...god I hate what this country has become. I'm going to watch Blade Runner to cheer me up about the future.
It really is a shame that a "mock news" show gets it right more often than the established sources.
Bigjohn: Um... Obama is now supporting policies that differ from those that have sent the US into a nosedive over the last eight years. That's a good change of mind. John Bush (moment of zen!) has changed to support the policies that have destroyed your economy and international standing.
Why, oh why, is this not an Obama ad? Why? Why??
____________________________________________
BigJohn, perhaps you can answer the question I saw posed on a political blog a while ago:
Can you name any position that John McCain has held consistently for, say, the last ten years?
Just one will do.
"No, not McCain... the one at the beginning of the clip."
Marlon Brando?
I didn't need a YouTube clip to tell me that McCain is an opportunist. He is a politician, ya know?
Well thank the good Lord that Obama isn't an opportunist.
The McCain supporters in this thread seem to be using a standard creationist tactic.
Reasonable person: I'm sorry. I'm simply not convinced. Here's why: (Insert paragraph after paragraph exposing brazen intellectual dishonesty here.) See? Your 'theory' is fundamentally flawed.
Creationist: Oh yea?! YOUR theory is flawed!
Just substitute "theory" with candidate.
I might have voted for McCain
Except... I have a working brain.
Can you name any position that John McCain has held consistently for, say, the last ten years?
Sure. What's best for John McCain's political career is best for America!
I think that is the shortest cuttlefish ever.
And damn was it good.
And damn was it good.
And catchy. I'm singing it in my head now.
I liked Arianna Huffington's book on McCain's devolution from 2000 to now: "Right Is Wrong". Good reading; recommended.
ISBN-13: 978-0307269669
(you do know how to use The Google, right?)
What I don't get is how McCain's group can call Obama an elitist.
Obama doesn't have any elitist policies, and McCain does. Also the 8 houses thing. I put about it on my blog "Elitism our misunderstood ism". Sorry for the shameless plug.
ha! I watched this 'documentary' on the Daily Show last night. It was one awesome show all together. I laughed my ass off the whole time.
My favourite part: "He was ready to take his place among America's maverick presidents: Jackson, Roosevelt, Dave..." hahaha. John Stewart really is a genius.
McCain calls Obama an elitist because Obama went to one of them uppity schools, like Har-vawd and the University of Chi-cahgo!
Also, because for 5 and a half years, John McCain simply couldn't DO community organizing!
Reading backwards, first I saw
then
so I was perfectly primed for ...
... which produced my hardest, loudest LOL at anything at this site, ever. And it so succinctly and eloquently (and with impeccable timing) summarizes a number of my own fulsome, snarly posts. :-) Once again, I bow humbly.
Going to Harvard might make Obama elite, but that's not the same thing as elitist.
Bush on the other hand went to Harvard and Yale, and give his elite friends lots of benefits.
"Its pronounced nuke-ular dummy, the "S" is silent"
And, how does that differ from Obama?
By being true of McCain. Most of the claims of Obama flip-flopping are fabrications or distortions. The one clear exception I know of is that he promised to filibuster immunity for telecoms and then didn't -- but that's not a flip-flop, as he continued to oppose immunity and voted to remove it from the bill, even though when that (predictably) failed he voted for the bill anyway -- which people often do when they think that a bill is a net plus (that's rational behavior). I strongly disagree with Obama that it was a net plus or that it was -- per his claim -- necessary, but it's hard to construe his vote or his reneging on his promise as opportunism -- it didn't win over anyone, quite the opposite ... whereas McCain's flip-flops have all been directed at obtaining votes from the right wing base.
Can you name any position that John McCain has held consistently for, say, the last ten years?
McCain's been among the 10 most conservative Senators throughout his career, so there are plenty ... opposition to gay marriage or civil unions is the first to come to mind ... gays serving (openly) in the miliary is a quick follow up ... opposition to single payer health coverage, or anything that might be construed as "socialism" ... against drug decriminalization ... against minimum wage ... for school vouchers ... strong supporter of Israel ...
Just about everything on this show was pure gold. I especially liked one of the delegates saying that "gays can have all the same rights as straights as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. ... I don't think anyone should have special rights based on who they have sex with". Do these people even listen to what they are saying?
McCain is a piece of shit, and there lies his remaining chance, since the Bu--sh-- base either IS shit or enjoys - indeed glories - in eating it.
What I don't get is how McCain's group can call Obama an elitist.
Why, is there some law of physics you think they violate? Do you think that lack of factuality might prevent them? What a quaint concept. They just do it -- with great help from their partners, the corporate media -- because it's in their interests to do so.
one of the delegates saying that "gays can have all the same rights as straights as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. ... I don't think anyone should have special rights based on who they have sex with".
One who registered 11 on a gaydar meter that only goes to 10.
Cuttlefish, will you marry me?
I personally love that this was narrated by Ian McShane. To picture Al Swearengen sarcastically ripping into John McCain is fantastic.
This ignoring the glaring fact the special right to marry is exactly what straight people enjoy as opposed to homosexuals, for nothing other than who they have sex with. The fact that he giggles through Jason Jones' offer of a kiss only makes his position more insightful and if closeted self loathers like this didn't actually support legislation to refuse rights to other human beings, I'd find it laughable as well.
Thank you for putting the youtube link instead of the comedycentral link.
What I don't get is how McCain's group can call Obama an elitist.
Because, if they keep calling him an islamic communist elitist over and over enough, there are a substantial number of people out there who will believe it. Our founding fathers did not trust the general public--hence the electoral college. I think our founding fathers were brilliant. But, as many have--and many continue to do--, they underestimated the depths of stupidity to which humans can descend.
Is it just me, but war heroes are usually those who have done something heroic, isn't it?
Like the heroes in Telemark, the resistance fighters, the Russian pilot Aleksei Maresyev who was shot down over enemy territory and spent 19 days crawling back to own lines with both legs wounded, had them amputated, and flew again, and all the others?
Being a prisoner of war ain't all that heroic, any idiot can become that, which seems to be very much McSame's case. That also fits in well with the flip-flopping.
To re-phrase Julius Caesar to fit John McCain:
I just passed
I crashed
I crashed
I crashed
I crashed
I crashed
I was caged
I am hero - NOT!
Old Julius was a bit terser (Veni Vidi Vici), but that be as it may.
Yowza! McCain just scares the hell out of me. He's such a groveling, pandering, little suck-up that it's impossible to tell what the sleazy son of a bitch truly stands for or against. The only thing worse than McCain is Lieberman who's perpetually shoulders-deep in someone's asshole.
Personally, I think Conservatives should be pissed-off about voting for this waste of skin that is McCain. Would it kill them to field a candidate with some convictions other than the criminal kind?
Fuck it. McCain is just too damn weak and gutless to run a country. A dairy Queen franchise?
Maybe.
A country? No fucking way.
McCain would be no different from the current window licker we've got drooling on the furniture in the Oval Office.
Going to Harvard might make Obama elite, but that's not the same thing as elitist.
Reminiscent of this exchange from "This is Spinal Tap":
Nigel Tufnel: Well, so what? What's wrong with being sexy?
David St. Hubbins: Sexist, Nigel.
Not being American I hadn't heard about Jon Stewart. Holy sh*t the guy is brilliant!
(disclaimer: the disrespectul usage of "Holy" is fully intended ;-) )
MeatballEucharist@61 said:
I'm going to watch Blade Runner to cheer me up about the future.
Funny you should evoke Philip Dick. His news clown (from What shall we do with Ragland Park) seems more and more apt these days.
OT-
I don't know if people have seen this (http://www.lionsgate.com/religulous/) yet, but it looks like it might be fun!
Oppurtunstic Flip-flop, what does that mean ? Changing opinion to suit electoral needs ? Well, all politicians do it.
But, here's THE MEGA flip-flop of John McCain, and the most relevant one for this election :
McCain always claimed to be a true moderate republican who could reach accross party lines and get the interest of independent voters and some democrats. That he wasn't a neo-conservative, wouldn't court the evangelical vote specifcally, and that he wasn't a Bush fan (despite the fact that his voting record ahows that he voted lke Bush more than 90% of the times). And also, of course that he would always put the country's interest before his, notably that he would "rather win a war than lose an election", putting the country's national security first.
That's how he got nominated in the primary.
Didn't he ? Any McCain supporter here wants to say that it wasn't the case ?
So that was McCain I
Now we have McCain II (also known as McPalin), who is suddenly advocating hawkish foreign policy, irresponsible tax-cuts, more talk about religion and abortion and pandering to the evangelicals, and let's not forget, nominates Palin, an ultra-conservative who has absolutely no foreign policy knowledge (I won't even say experience, she just got her passport, just imagine how well she understands the global interdependencies and foreign cultures) and clearly is so unfit to be "commander in chef" on day one that the McCampaign refuses that she answers any intervews for the moment. Just imagine her negotiating a critical issue with Hu Jintao or Medvedev !
So not only is McCain II :
- evidently putting the country's national security in jeopardy for his own political interest, (just imagne if he would die suddenly in the first week after taking office), contrary to hs claim that he would always put the country first
- looks very much like the usual neo-conservatve and obviously like Bush III, the label that he was always trying to defend himself from in the primary
So if that's not a MEGA OPPORTUNISTIC FLIP-FLOP, I wonder what is.
May I ask some pro-republican commentators who might be readng this :
Who is the "real" McCain ? McCain I the moderate or McCain II the neo-conservative ?
Isn't that relevant ?
So of course Obama has had his flip flops, but if you can find me one of such gigantic proportions and that really puts in question the identity of the candidate, I'd be interested to see it described in detail...
He'd rather have his arm around a younger woman than an older woman.
Stop bombarding me with American politics, I don't really care and as far as I know this is probably all made up. I saw a clip claiming Obama is friends with a terrorists, what about that lol?
"So of course Obama has had his flip flops, but if you can find me one of such gigantic proportions and that really puts in question the identity of the candidate, I'd be interested to see it described in detail..." - negentropyeater
Well, I'm not a McCain supporter, so I'll leave the first part to someone else. Obama is more of a hypocrite than a flip-flopper though. Flip-flopping requires one actually take a position in the first place, so, he's fairly inoculated against that charge.
Mind you, didn't Biden vote for Iraq AND oppose a time-table for withdrawal? I seem to remember Obama being vehemently opposed to such things. At least Biden isn't part of the old Washington. I wouldn't want him interfering with the big "change".
I'm an optimist.
...someday I'll be telling my grandchildren about how we used to have to wonder if comments like that were jokes or serious.
I detest the fact that John McCain ran around saying "Barack Obama is willing to lose a war to win an election", when he himself is willing to sell his poor maverick soul to the republicans, as well as pick an unqualified lunatic to be in the position of replacing him if something were to happen to him. And to say he supported the war when it was unpopular to do so makes him no more of an envelope pusher than Barack Obama who dared to oppose it when it first began, who dares to use a good vocabulary at the consequence of being called elitist, and prove that we need an intelligent candidate for this position in office rather than someone we'd like to have a beer with and chat about war stories with.
I detest the fact that John McCain ran around saying "Barack Obama is willing to lose a war to win an election", when he himself is willing to sell his poor maverick soul to the republicans, as well as pick an unqualified lunatic to be in the position of replacing him if something were to happen to him. And to say he supported the war when it was unpopular to do so makes him no more of an envelope pusher than Barack Obama who dared to oppose it when it first began, who dares to use a good vocabulary at the consequence of being called elitist, and prove that we need an intelligent candidate for this position in office rather than someone we'd like to have a beer with and chat about war stories with.
WHATEVER
I was thinking the same thing.
Where do you live ? In the deep forests of New Guinea ?
Saying that one doesn't care about American politics right now, wherever one lives, is like saying one didn't care about German politics in the 1930s.
I think the anti-intellectual/anti-'elite' of the US public is probably the most frustrating aspect for me. Australia has a anti-intellectual bent (we call it Tall Poppy Syndrome), but it isn't nearly as bad - while ex-PM Bob Hawke was a roughie who held beer-drinking records, he was also a Rhodes Scholar, which takes a bit more than Daddy's influence with some fellow Skull & Boners.
Why don't these people want someone better/smarter/more educated than them in charge? Heck, I'm pretty bright, but I'm damned sure I still want the person who's determining the future of my country to be able to mop the freaking floor with me, intellectually. While I'm sure GWB can't possibly be as stupid as he comes across, he was still voted in because that's what the people have been convinced that's what they want.
That in a country as powerful and otherwise advanced as the USA a person's intelligence, education and achievements count against, rather than for, their electability, is fucking ludicrous.
Why all this focusing on McCain? He's an old man, & could snuff it the day after he became President. Now then, the thought of President Palin really gives me the creeps. Heck, Sarah Palin gives me the creeps. How can anyone have their head so far up their own arse?
This silly cow screws big oil for taxes in Alaska, then asks her followers to pray to their feckin' god for the State's oil reserves to be exploited. This is multi-level idiocy. Why isn't she laughed out of politics? This puts the USA in disrepute.
Oh yes, & I forgot to add, she's an anti-feminist too! Which means she's anti-humanist.
Pit-bull with lipstick, eh? Now there's a bitch.
I suppose it is only coincidence that his full name is John Sidney McCain III, then, is it?
But seriously, what we see with Palin is the same thing that happened with Mac-in-a-box: he did not get vetted publicly. They have yet to bring up Keating 5 even after the "nation of whiners" comment and the only mention of how he abandoned his family possibly due to PTSD was by John Bush III himself at the Warren interview. No, he rode through the primary under the radar until Florida when he racked up enough points to push out Mitt Romney for good.
There are some really big monetary interests driving the media; they can't possibly want a president who will raise their taxes while 'unfairly' dropping taxes on 95% of all Americans, which is why we have bloggers like our hero, PZ, and which is why the only places where true vetting is allowed are comedy shows where truth comes only in kernels.
#32: It's also pretty funny if you imagine roguish Kentish antiques dealer Lovejoy snarking at McSame.
The whole "flip-flop" thing is a bit confused. Voters like a decisive leader in charge of the Executive, but they want their leaders to listen to them and change their opinions accordingly. A leader who is seen to indulge both sides of an argument at different times may be seen as weak or opportunistic, a vote-grabber or a reed in the wind.
So really the bulk of the electorate is in search of a decisive leader who will agree with them at all tinmes and act accordingly. Being human they'll forget that they themselves have changed their opinion over time so even when they see a politician's record that reflects their own opinion shifts exactly, it's likely that they'll see the changes as weak.
On the other hand, most politicians are experts at both the skills of political sleight-of-hand necessary to convince others and that necessary to quietly capitulate when advisable. As media and campaign managers get wiser to this and start to raid the media archives more, this creates a minefield for all politicians.
You can't beat the truth of quotes taken out of context. :)
shonny #36
I have to disagree with this. Especially after the swiftboating of Kerry, I am not going to debate whether or not a combat veteran is a hero.
The point I think is noteworthy in McCain's naval career is what happened after he was promoted to Captain. One important step to making admiral is for a Captain to have a "major sea command." For an aviator, that means being captain of an aircraft carrier. The Navy decided not to give McCain a major sea command. He was deemed unsuitable for promotion to flag rank.
I think your video games are calling you.
McCain has definitely pandered to the right. He HAS to in order to win but when in office he will do absolutely nothing to overturn roe vs wade and all the other issues we saw at the end of the clip.
It is fair to report on McCain but not to report the 50 flip flops by Obama is the problem!
The unfair coverage of is the bias!
Why not put a youtibe clip about his flip flops on
FISA, public finance, welfare reform, NAFTA, seating MI and FL degates after he was against it, offshore oil drilling, Iraq, Iran, Israel, Expanding Bush faith based initiatives etc etc
Obama has flip flopped and pandered more in one year than McCain has in his whole career!
Cuttlefish was short, but very sweet. And says it all.
I'm no McCain supporter, but why is flip-flopping in general seen as such a bad thing? Don't we WANT our politicians to be able to change their minds when presented with new evidence?
Or is "flip-flopping" specifically defined as changing your mind solely to please a certain faction of your voters, not because you've had an epiphany?
Tony Sidaway #56: spot on.
I have always thought it quite a bad sign that the American electorate prefers a candidate with strong unchanging principles, no matter what they are, over a candidate who actually makes up his mind every time a problem comes up, and is therefore able to adapt to circumstances. Thinking is a dangerous thing, apparently.
Also completely agree with Wowbagger, #51.
That is the kind that I believe was originally intended by the flip-flop term. But because of the success of said term during the Bush vs. Kerry election it has been used to describe any change from a position that you once held, be that for legitimate reasons or just to serve you politically.
Why don't these people want someone better/smarter/more educated than them in charge?
It's what you left off that comes with the better/smarter/more educated candidate. Arrogance. And because, smarter/more educated, really does not mean better
Another fallacy is to cite a senator's vote on some bill as proof of his position on some portion of the bill. It is standard legislative practice to lard distasteful bills with provisions that you do want, in order to force your vote. Plus the lie that Obama voted to cut off funding of the troops "on the ground" in Iraq. If a bill cuts funding, the DoD decides where and when to cut back military spending.
When Democrats withdraw troops, it's cowardly abandonment; when Republicans withdraw troops, it's victory with honor.
I go with the bumper sticker: SUPPORT YOUR TROOPS - BRING THEM HOME.
To see more of this show:
http://www.jedreport.com/2008/09/the-best-daily-show-episode-ev.html
That John McCain should be president of the U.S.
Two of the big 'flip-flops' that segment accuses McCain of:
The Bush tax cuts - McCain originally opposed the Bush tax cuts because they were not coupled with equivalent spending cuts. Since then, it has been argued that the tax cuts were successful at encouraging investment that improved job growth. Perhaps McCain wants to make them permanent now in order to maintain that kind of investment?
The war would be 'easy' - The clip in the video lacks any context, so we cannot be sure what McCain meant. I would guess that he was referring to defeating Saddam's army and overthrowing his regime, which was relatively easy. Getting to a point where the troops could be withdrawn without leaving chaos behind was never going to be 'easy'.
The Daily Show is not journalism, nor does it attempt to be. Despite the enthusiasm many here are displaying in support of it, it lacks the necessary depth to really look at issues and inform the public, rather than entertain. It isn't even trying to inform; it is trying to be funny. Comedy can be very insightful and have some real 'truth' to it. But for serious thought and debate on serious issues, being funny isn't good enough. If The Daily Show seems 'better' than real news it is because the public isn't rewarding the 'real' news outlets for doing a good job. Does anyone here really think that TDS is better at informing the public than the Jim Lehrer News Hour?
People need to look harder for better news, because it is out there.
JoJo (@58) has dealt with this admirably, but let me just add: Stipulating that McCain's behavior as a POW was heroic, it's not at all clear to me that the virtues displayed by an individual's behavior under torture and imprisonment have much, if any, overlap with the virtues and skills we look for in a POTUS. Many athletes (and this is not snark; I greatly admire athletes) probably have the physical courage and stamina to do what McCain did in Vietnam; that doesn't mean they're prepared to lead what is still (for good or ill) the most powerful and influential nation on the planet. Not all heroes are the same.
This anti-intellectual streak is the thing that makes me saddest about my country, because so many of the other things that make me sad about my country flow from it. The combination of the Myth of the Rugged Individualist and the culture of American exceptionalism leads many of us to find the very notion that somebody else might be smarter shocking and offensive, I'm afraid.
My daughter (about whom I've bragged here often enough) is very clearly smarter than I am. That's supposed to create some sort of existential crisis for parents, but it does nothing but fill me with joy. My own father, OTOH, reacted with anger and bitterness when he began to suspect I might be smarter than he, and never missed a chance to belittle me. At the risk of sounding arrogant, I wish the electorate were more like me and less like my father.
Never forget that, despite all the comments (on half-joking) about The Daily Show being the best news on TV, they themselves never claim to be anything but comedy.
That said, I personally think this piece depicts McCain's "straight talk" pretty damn truthfully.
Some of your examples are sufficiently cryptic that I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but I'll respond to a few. First, though, it's important to note that there's a difference between changing tactics over time and reversing oneself on matters of principle. Of your list, the thing Obama's done that comes closest to the latter is the FISA business, so I'll take that first:
FISA — Obama always said he opposed telecom immunity, and he continued to do so right to the end. The thing he reversed himself on was the promise to filibuster, so let's examine that: The filibuster is a parliamentary tactic, and whether it's appropriate to use it depends on things that are constantly changing... whip count, details of the bill in question, amendments to the bill in question, what the White House is saying about a veto... in short, since all the things trigger one are constantly in flux, promises to filibuster should always be seen as conditional. This, BTW, is part of a larger "problem" that explains why we don't very often elect long-term senators (e.g., Kerry) to the presidency: What happens in legislative action is all about parliamentary maneuvering and details that are invisible to the public. Fairly often, two bills (or two versions of the same bill) that that ostensibly do the same thing are vastly different in effect, due to the minutiae... so it's easy to tag pretty much anyone in the Senate with the "for it before I was against it" deal.
In this case, folks (including many around here) seem to think Obama's tactics around FISA mean he's suddenly automagically become an enemy of the Fourth Amendment, or perhaps of the whole damn document. Given his history, and his consistency in enunciating the underlying principles, I frankly find it impossible to believe that this one vote, even if you think he got it wrong, "means what you think it means."
Iraq — I presume you're talking about his comment that the 16-month withdrawal promise would be subject to "facts on the ground"? This is a Feature, Not a Bug™!! You should run screaming from any candidate who tells you s/he won't change his/her mind even in the event that "new shit has come to light." A foolish consistency is, after all, the hobgoblin of little minds.
FL and MI Delegates — The principle was always that the nomination shouldn't be determined by contests that were manifestly unfair and unrepresentative. Once the nomination was sewn up, that principle had been honored, and a different (but not contradictory) principle came to the fore: that Democrats in FL and MI should have have a voice at their convention (because, after all, delegates vote on a bunch of other stuff besides the nominee). I fail to see any intellectual dishonesty here, nor, in fact, any victims; what's your beef?
Faith-Based Initiatives — This one is just a lie: Obama's comments on faith-based initiatives did not expand Bush's policy; rather, they rolled back the rules to something very similar to what was in place before Bush. And it's not a flip-flop in any case: While he's always been strong on separation of church and state, Obama has also always been upfront about his own faith, and he's always identified faith-based service organizations as one part of the country's response to social problems. You may not like that position, but it's not something Obama has ever changed his mind about (note: by "ever" I mean during his public life).
I'm sure some of McCain's flip-flops could similarly be explained or debunked... but note that the Daily Show piece focused on pretty unambiguous policy declarations that were pretty unambiguously contradictory, and all out of the candidate's own mouth... not on some nitipicking of Senate votes or partisan misinterpretation of plans.
Personally, I don't care if people change their minds about things — it seems to me that mature, intelligent people often do so for good reasons — but I do care about intellectual honesty. I have no doubt about Obama's; I have grave doubts about McCain's.
McCain: The candidate who the Repuglicans eight years ago decided was *less* qualified than Dumbya to be president.
Well, well. There's something rarer than chicken lips. #23 - humble Truth Machine. Give Cuttlefish a golden Molly for that! ;)
but I do care about intellectual honesty. I have no doubt about Obama's
You're placing your faith in a professional politician who has attained a cult following. Bad idea.
The only president to have a PhD was Woodrow Wilson. He had a doctorate in political science from Johns Hopkins. He was a professor at Bryn Mawr College, Wesleyan University, New York Law School and Princeton. He was president of Princeton for several years before entering politics.
Opinion is divided on whether or not Wilson was a good president. Personally, I'm not impressed by Wilson. He was a man convinced of his own rectitude. He believed that his opinions were not only right but moral. Therefore, if someone disagreed with Wilson, that person was not only wrong but evil. Wilson's refusal to compromise with the Republican controlled Senate on even minor points meant that the U.S. did not enter the League of Nations.
First things first.
Man Cephalopod, this is up there with "In your guts you know he's nuts" and "It's the economy, stupid!". I'm deeply impressed! I am so in awe I didn't even laugh.
---------------------------
I can't wait to watch the video tomorrow. I'll have to do it in the university (no worries, there's nobody in the room except me, so I won't destroy any experiments by laughing too loud) because here at home I get the "sorry, no longer available" error message...
Now this made me laugh.
No. What's going on is that a democracy can only work if the citizens understand what they're voting for and against. This requires them to have a lot of education -- more than a lot of Americans seem to have even today, no wonder with all those underfunded schools with cretinist teachers and so on.
The electoral college should be abolished already. It has outlived even its mere feasibility.
Language changes, my friend. For the last 5 years "hero" has meant something similar to "dead American", and now it seems to mean "American who has been in a war".
Speaking of whom: Photos of Fearless Flightsuit being drunk at the Olympics -- in the stadium.
Well, when he's sober, perhaps he isn't.
By the Supreme Court the first time, and apparently by Kenneth "Katherine" Blackwell the second time... jail to the thief.
Seriously? Not just John but John Sidney for three generations straight? I mean, I think I've seen cases like that before among Americans, but this is a good opportunity to ask.
That I want to see, because it didn't work when Raygun tried it.
I think it's pretty obvious that the context is "cakewalk" and that McSame simply parroted this -- it was after all the party line.
And what does the "cult following" have to do with purported evidence of Obama's intellectual dishonesty ?
The "cult following" is evidence that people on the left are really fed up with 8 years of neo-conservative policy and that they found that Obama is really connecting with some voters - obviously not all. Is that a bad sign about the way Obama will govern ?
Which is such a diluted meaning that it's really only useful for propaganda at this point.
That does make one pause.
This is America. Every candidate for president gets a cult following.
"Alright, I am the messiah..."
It is propaganda.
Over here, the very word "hero" was basically retired 60 years ago.
As compared to following a party with history of telling deliberate lies to the public on policy issues, and lying even further when they get caught? No contest here.
Speaking of 'cult following', I don't really Republican's have a leg to stand on with that anymore :P The dogged defense of her, and the thunderous reception she got despite having very little in the way of qualifications suggests a cult following of her own, eh?
And with McCain at 72, and with prior melanoma, Palin's got a disquietingly large chance to become President. The hypocrisy. It kills me. Though I shouldn't be surprised.
I should make clear that I think this is because of (1) the fact that, among 300 million people, you can always find a few (million) people who like being in a cult, and (2) the lack of separation between president and goverment, so that the president has a lot of influence on where the country goes. These two conditions happen to exist in the US of A. I don't think it's a mentality thing or suchlike.
Dave,
Sometimes I really wonder if some people understand what a rational debate means.
And what for are the comment threads ?
If you have a different opinion than PZ, and you know of such youtube videos that show indisputable evidence of such flip flops (not right-wing talking heads blattering as usual, but Obama's declarations, such as here with McCain), why not post examples of the youtube links here in order to support your opinion ?
Or is it that you can't even bother to support your accusation ?
Please forgive the horrible parsing. Typing with a toddler on my lap tends to produce many typos and words left out :P
David (#75) wow--thanks for posting that link to pix of our Fratboy In Chief. What a surprise--I'm shocked!--that I had not seen them before!
And what does the "cult following" have to do with purported evidence of Obama's intellectual dishonesty ?
Everything. How can you expect an honest evaluation of Obama when he's making everyone feel all tingly inside and going out of their way patting themselves on the back for supporting him?
It's not going to happen.
And no, every candidate for President in America does not attain a cult following. This is insane.
Today I heard a republican talking head on fox new saying that Palin connects with republican voters because she speaks the truth !
here's a fact check by CNN of Palin's speech at the RNC:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Tc7BF_Fd7I
One thing is for sure, Sarah Palin knows how to lie to conservatives, she's such an angel. How could a hockey mum possibly lie ?
They won't even bother to check.
I really advise people to look up the specific details of the FISA compromise bill before making judgments. Obama did make a bad choice though. But I can see the logic behind it
The only really bad part was retroactive immunity for telecoms. While the whole crime and punishment thing must come full circle. I remember 2002-2003 and it was considered so taboo to go against the president. a telecom official saying "no" to the president about something even slightly relating to terrorism would have been tarred and feathered professionally. I remember that time where George W Bush was looked up to like a god by democrats, the press and republicans alike. Or at least they faked this appreciation.
Few foresaw how badly this would turn out.
Bush might even honestly think this was in the national interest but was deluded because he is surrounded by political sycophants that all told bush how wonderful he was. I think its clear that he's in a bubble
Just about everyone in the Bush administration was a political operative on some level.
I think that seeing the press push even one story that is untrue or partially true about Bush drove a wedge between him and the American public.
Imagine for a moment if you were bush and the press ran with a story that you KNEW wasn't true. You would discount everything they said from then on. You would believe in a press conspiracy and so you would only speak to your political base that worships the ground you walk on.
It's only natural.
If you call somebody "intelligent" long enough and with a suitable sneer, it will become a bad thing, like elitist, liberal, democrat, etc. What I don't get is how you can claim to bring democracy to the world then insist, and convince half of the population, that being a democrat is the worse thing possible.
Really? That's interesting.
Some here still need it for this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero_sandwich
(My people call them grinders.)
By the way, MAJeff sent me this link the other night:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDx80bnFrVs
Someone's probably already posted it, but just in case. Shameless, they are.
Where did I suggest this ?
And how do you know that t's not possible to make a honest evaluation of Obama. And why does this make HIM intellectually dishonest ?
You mean hoagies?
Your people probably also call milkshakes "frappes" (pronounced "fraps")
"The Bush tax cuts - McCain originally opposed the Bush tax cuts because they were not coupled with equivalent spending cuts."
This is misleading, McCain opposed the tax cuts because of concerns about budget deficits and unanticipated costs due to the Iraq war. I'm unaware of any place where he actually endorsed or fought for spending cuts, rather than implicitly doing so by merely acknowledging the fiscal irresponsibility of the plan. His early concerns, btw, ultimately proved to be prescient.
Joel, McCain had a chance for me to give him a hard look. All he had to do was to nominate a VP who was an old-fashioned republican. A fiscal conservative who thought the best place for troops were at home, and government should not be backing religions, and when in doubt, let people make the choice on social issues. He nominated a fundamentalist neocon, and at that point there went all possible respect I could muster for McCain.
Your people probably also call milkshakes "frappes" (pronounced "fraps")
I don't think I've ever heard that before. We call 'em milkshakes. Except at Friendly's, where they're Fribbles. (Speaking of which, while flipping through the dictionary the other day, as I like to do, I came upon "fribble" with the following definitions: v. 1. to waste (time, for example); n. 1. a frivolity, a trifle; 2. a frivolous person.)
(Sorry for fribblejacking the thread.)
Of course they do. However, it's only a problem when the cult following is the only following (Constitution Party, Ron Paul, arguably Nader, and dozens more who never get more than 1 % of the vote). That is not the case with Obama, and it's not even the case with McCain, so calm down.
Why do you watch Faux News?
re milkshakes and frappes:
http://www.boston-online.com/glossary/frappe.html
Well maybe not every candidate>/em>, but which (US) president got elected without a cult following. Dubya and Clinton had them; Reagan REALLY did; Carter, Nixon, Kennedy. The only possible exception I can think of is Pappy Bush, and he at least had the reflected glory of Reagan.
Candidates without cult followers are generally called "losers"
SC #95, frappes is regional dialect (New England area) word for milkshake. However, it may be going out of style due to the homogenization of American English toward the Midwest dialect.
Or the above without the broken markup
And how do you know that t's not possible to make a honest evaluation of Obama. And why does this make HIM intellectually dishonest?
As a reporter said after hearing Obama speak, "It's impossible to be objective."
Obama's entire change mantra is intellectually dishonest. It allows us to conveniently forget that the policies George W. Bush has pursued over the last eight years had the overwhelming support of Americans.
That may make people feel better, who wants to admit to a collasal failure? But the fact remains is we are all responsible for where we are now and we are all responsible for solving the problems we created.
#27 quotes some moron: "Gays can have all the same rights as straights as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. ... I don't think anyone should have special rights based on who they have sex with."
"Hate the sin, love the sinner!" Reminds me of people who say stuff like "I adore black people but I just hate niggers". The implication is of course that I only tolerate the Mark of Cain/Curse of Ham so long as you act as stereotypically white as possible. The second you act stereotypically black, you're just a nigger. I love you, but I hate that you commit the sin of blackness.
(Then again, if "acting white" causes you to become more successful than I am willing to tolerate, I will call you uppity and tell you to stop pretending that you are white: "The Cosby Show was one thing, but now one of them uppity Negros wants to be President!")
It's my masochist side ;-)
Here I get via satellite MSNBC, CNN International version, and Fox News. I watch all 3. It gives me a good idea of the amount of lies in American political propaganda.
SC #95, frappes is regional dialect (New England area) word for milkshake.
Huh. I was born and raised in New England, and my people have been here since the 1600s. I also live in Boston now. And I don't believe I've ever seen or heard of a frappe. How is this possible? You know I'll see them everywhere now. :)
"Change mantra" intellectually dishonest ? You mean that the truth is that Obama doesn't want to change anything from the Bush policies ?
And Obama was against the war from the begining, unlike a majority of Americans, so why do you accuse him of being dishonest ?
That's quite formidable, you're blaming Obama for the gulibility of a majority of Americans !
So now that more than 2/3rds of the population agree with Obama on the war and their disaproval of Bush, you're suggesting that he should align hmself with Bush policies, so that he doesn't appear to be professing a "change mantra" ?
What's the logic here ?
#70-Jason TD,
Personally lacking the current ability to articulate matters as well as you have in the above, I can only simply say-ditto.
Although I am a Christian, please do not assume that I am a McCain/Palin devotee. Far from it, and far from a conservative or conventional. The mere fact that they have brought their distorted view of Christianity and one-minded religious beliefs (sorry, HER beliefs) into the political sector is sleezy to say the least.
I respect McCain's time in the military as a POW, but that does not mean we have to elect him president. The hardships he endured were indeed horrific, but what about the victims of the Holocaust? You don't hear the survivors retelling their stories for personal gain, but rather as a reminder to not let atrosities like that happen again. He suffers from physical limitations as a result of his incarceration, but having a disability does not make him any less of an A-hole.
Palin is governor of the largest state in the Union...only in geographical size. You can fit the entire population of Alaska into state of Rhode Island...so tell me exactly what does she govern?
Our current administration has degraded our country's reputation with the rest of the world and our next president will have to face a lot of "back-pedalling" if we are ever to regain the respect of our former allied nations. Inserting religious blurb here, I for one am not ready for an administration that, although claims to believe in the Divine, it does not believe our Creator is capable of taking care of things on His/Her own and therefore is "hell-bent" on hastening the "end of days" to further its own agenda.
What does the future hold in a possible McCain-Palin term? A term that's on shaky ground. How exactly can we be a strong "United States" if we choose to build without a solid foundation?
Obama's entire change mantra is intellectually dishonest.
Wrong. You love baseless assertions, don't you?
It allows us to conveniently forget that the policies George W. Bush has pursued over the last eight years had the overwhelming support of Americans.
Well, there's a broad sweeping statement. In fact, Bush had the support of most of the American people (though not me, or many others here) on ONE issue, and that was invading Iraq because they purportedly had WMD's and were behind 9-11. For everything else he had only the support of his party and the allegedly liberal media - but that was all he needed as long as he had at least reluctant assent from the fearful. And after a while most people figured out that he had lied about Iraq and were loudly upset, prompting Bush to famously declare, "I'm the DECIDER!"
But the fact remains is we are all responsible for where we are now and we are all responsible for solving the problems we created.
Not all of us are responsible for this. But Obama has indicated that he'll take the responsibility for fixing the mess, whereas McCain has denied any responsibility at all for the disastrous policies that he continues to support and promises to extend.
"And Obama was against the war from the begining, unlike a majority of Americans, so why do you accuse him of being dishonest ?"
Obama showed his go along get along character when he continued to vote for war funding. The purpose of the balance of powers is so the powers are balanced.
Stating he was against the war when it did not matter to him politically and then voting to support the war when "getting along" mattered shows me what kind of poicical animal he is.
Contrast this to someone like Ron Paul, who stood firmly against the war when it mattered, and who continued to buck the status quo by voting against the war, and you'll see the real difference between political aspiration and political honesty.
I like Barack. I think it is way cool that we might have a bi-racial dude as president.
I just think he's more snake-oil than substance and his substance is "more of the same" disquised as "change".
We've aleady had a Jimmy Carter in the White House.
And we've had a Bush.
And Washington just gets worser and worser...
See "fribble" @ #95.
Nothing about McCain that anyone who'd been paying attention wouldn't already know. And the clips showing his flip-flopping can be done with GW Bush and Dick Cheney as well.
But what does it say about me that I immediately recognized the bus crash (@ :54) as the end scene from the last episode of "The Young Ones"?
He was against the war when being so would get one branded as "unpatriotic", "unAmerican" or even "treasonous". He took more personal risk in opposing the war than the war cheerleaders took in agitating for other people's offspring to go to war, and as such showed more courage.
Scott, we get that you don't like the feds and will sit out the election. What are you really trying to do here other than disrupt the normal give and take of these threads? Are you trying to change our minds? Forget that, you are too repetitive and non-responsive, and many people are either ignoring you or just baiting you. Personally, if you aren't going to vote in November for somebody for president, you have no business talking politics. The act of voting gives you the moral right to complain about things. Take your message somewhere else.
"He was against the war when being so would get one branded as "unpatriotic", "unAmerican" or even "treasonous". He took more personal risk in opposing the war than the war cheerleaders took in agitating for other people's offspring to go to war, and as such showed more courage."
Nahh. He was against the war when no one was listening, and then used it to his advantage when American sentiment swung in his favor. One could argue those who stuck by the president and their original decision showed more political courage,even though their courage was in the form of hard-headed stubborness.
Barack tries to play the politically safe position by claiming he is "for war", just not Bush's war.
Again, I give Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich their due, for having the courage to stand up against the political tide in the face of being called "treasonous", and showing great courage and insight and foresight and hindsight while Washington, and Barack too, simply went along to get along.
That goes for FISA too.
Really? That's interesting.
Some here still need it for this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero_sandwich
(My people call them grinders.)
Must be from New England. Yummo!
"Personally, if you aren't going to vote in November for somebody for president, you have no business talking politics."
Are you suggesting that politics and presidential politics aren't going to affect me personally? Or are you just saying you want to form a band, where everybody blows the flute?
Having a country full of two party sycophants IS THE MAIN problem in this country.
Y'all would all rather hate on each other than realize you are one and the same.
Trying to chase away those who disagree with your sycophantic vision just compounds the problem.
I don't intend to be rude, but ...
What is an undistorted view of Christianity? -- Your view? -- Is there such a thing? -- The Bible? -- interpreted by who?
Just something for you to think about ...
Scott, if the election effects you, why aren't you voting? Either shit or get off the pot. If you don't vote, you have no moral authority to tell us anything about the election. So either get ready to vote, or STFU. Otherwise, you have nothing to add to the argument.
To quote a line from the West Wing, "decisions are made by those who show up".
Obama showed his go along get along character when he continued to vote for war funding. The purpose of the balance of powers is so the powers are balanced.
You were asked why you accused him of being dishonest, but like the DISHONEST sack of shit you are you changed the subject.
Stating he was against the war when it did not matter to him politically
What a moron. It could only not matter to him politically if he had no political ambitions at the time.
SfO,
Strange that you don't understand this, I would have done exactly the same as Obama ;
I would have vehemently opposed the authorization for the war. But if I had been asked to vote, after the war had already been started I would have voted to fund it, as not doing so could only have hurt the troops who were already in action.
The mistake was to start this war. Obama was prescient. Now that that mistake has been made, it makes no sense to pull out abruptly and leave Iraq in a worse situation than it was in when Sadam Hussein was in power.
One thing I'm quite certain of, if Obama had been president in 2000-2004, he wouldn't have forced the CIA to fabricate fake evidence for WMDs and the USA wouldn't have gone to war with Iraq. And this wouldn't have cost all these lost American and Iraqi lives and more than 1.5 trillon $ to the American economy, and "no end in sight".
The same can certanly not be said of McPalin !
"Scott, if the election effects you, why aren't you voting?"
There is nothing wrong in principle with being an ineffectual whiner. Most political gibbering, including from those who vote, amounts to little more than such an activity.
when in office he will do absolutely nothing to overturn roe vs wade and all the other issues we saw at the end of the clip
What an idiotic claim. It is almost certain that McCain would replace Justice Stevens with someone opposed to Roe v. Wade.
Why not put a youtibe clip about his flip flops on
FISA, public finance, welfare reform, NAFTA, seating MI and FL degates after he was against it, offshore oil drilling, Iraq, Iran, Israel, Expanding Bush faith based initiatives etc etc
Because there is no such clip, jackass. If there were, you could post it. But you can't even manage to quote Obama on a single one of these issues to demonstrate your claims -- and I mean quote Obama, not refer to someone referring to someone who characterized what Obama said. And that's the form in which these charges exist -- innuendo, misrepresentation, and flat-out lies.
Obama has flip flopped and pandered more in one year than McCain has in his whole career!
Prove it, fuckhead.
I would have done exactly the same as Obama
Whether one would or not, the position is arguable, and there's nothing dishonest per se in taking it. And that was the question put to Shit from Oregon.
I give ... Dennis Kucinich [his] due
Then fucking WAKE UP:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVp9cWOcZ7g
A vote for Palin-McBush is a vote for Joel's Army.
Now that the dogwhistle's been heard by all the Fundies and neopentes, efforts to hide Palin's church's connections to Joel's Army (a sect so wacko and so intent on purging America of non-Christian beliefs or people that even other conservative Christians condemn them) proceed apace as various religious and other websites are being scrubbed in order to make her look "normal" to the general public.
But it also shows something that I consider very important about Obama : he's a pragmatist and not an ideologue.
He can be against the war and yet agree to fund it once it has already started because that's the only pragmatic thing to do.
Hey, buddy. I was listening. Where the hell where you?
(Honestly: the first time I heard of (then State) Sen. Obama was on an anti-war march in 2003. A friend of mine said: "Hey, there's a state senator in Chicago who's marching today!" and I said, sadly, "Well, there goes his re-election bid." Shows what I know ;)
But you're right. Kucinich is awesome (a friend of mine worked on his campaign in 2004, and was the guy who came up with the "Kooch Puts The Smackdown On Tha Man!" slogan. Good times).
Also:
Ditto. Mr. Stewart and co. certainly know their audience!
... Is there such a thing (an undistorted view of Christianity)? is what I meant
Azkeroth comments on perhaps the most truly stupid comment ever posted here:
What, you think parody will be banned? Because surely you can't think that such levels of stupidity will disappear.
I'm assuming the ignorant bigot never watched Jesus Camp? Or has seen the Republicans ignorant have a circle-jerk at a picture of Palin?
Or has met my republican-for-no-reason-regardless-of-anything voting grandfather.
He can be against the war and yet agree to fund it once it has already started because that's the only pragmatic thing to do.
There's another, major, pragmatic issue at work here: Obama's one vote against funding wouldn't end funding. When voting as a member of a political deliberative body, there are all sorts of factors that go into a decision to vote one way or another that have little to do with the one's actual position.
"Scott, if the election effects you, why aren't you voting? Either shit or get off the pot".
Politics has become a two legged stool in America and I am voting for that elusive third leg.
You asked me why I am here?
Well, I am shitting...
On all of the sycophants who think they are superior because they can turn the name "Scott" into "scoot" and "shit" while making excuses for a Democratic party that really really sucks eggs and is aiding in the deleterious direction Washington has headed.
Obama KNEW why the founders gave the power of the purse to the Congress over war funding, and exercised that power in EXACT opposition to his stated stance on the war.
That's not pragmatism, that's pussying out.
Obama-- "Change we can spend at the local 7-11"...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-wilson/sarah-palins-churches-and_b_…
Here is a poll we need to fix. Nice and easy
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Poll.aspx?ekfrm=239870
Do reports of Sarah Palin's professed Christian faith cause you to be more likely to vote for the GOP presidential ticket?
Yes or no.
Can we please have a special place for the current polls?
thank you kindly
"There's another, major, pragmatic issue at work here: Obama's one vote against funding wouldn't end funding. When voting as a member of a political deliberative body, there are all sorts of factors that go into a decision to vote one way or another that have little to do with the one's actual position."
THIS KIND OF POLITICAL NONSENSE is exactly why we have a 9.65 TRILLION dollar debt.
Oh, he was just trying to be politically sauvy...
Bullshit.
We don't need suave and screw ya politicians in Washington. We need ideologues who believe in a "war as a last resort" foreign policy and a "no moral dictation from Washington" national policy.
Oh, and who follow their own oath and actually obey the Constitution.
@SFO
Nahh. He was against the war when no one was listening, and then used it to his advantage when American sentiment swung in his favor.
"When no one was listening"?. Were you even on this planet at the time??? EVERYONE was listening for positions like that and everyone who spoke up was thoroughly castigated for not sig heil-ing to Bush and his pet war.
One could argue those who stuck by the president and their original decision showed more political courage
And one would be obscenely wrong. Those who have "stuck by" Bush have been consistently rewarded for their loyalty by Bush personally as well as by the Republican party at large. And that includes McCain.
Joel, McCain had a chance for me to give him a hard look. All he had to do was to nominate a VP who was an old-fashioned republican
I have to agree with this. Palin was a huge mistake.
Posted by: secularguy | September 7, 2008 3:59 PM
"I don't intend to be rude, but ...
What is an undistorted view of Christianity? -- Your view? -- Is there such a thing? -- The Bible? -- interpreted by who?
Just something for you to think about ... "
Exactly! No offense taken. This is exactly why we should have separation between church and state.
Do reports of Sarah Palin's professed Christian faith cause you to be more likely to vote for the GOP presidential ticket?
Y 92.85%
N 7.15%
24635 responses
Oh, how could they not, when her old church espouses such democratic values?:
[from Phoenix Woman's "being scrubbed" link above]
Bakunin was right in 1876: "A jealous lover of human liberty, and deeming it the absolute condition of all that we admire and respect in humanity, I reverse the phrase of Voltaire, and say that, if God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish him."
@121 "It is almost certain that McCain would replace Justice Stevens with someone opposed to Roe v. Wade."
Not to mention the nightmares President Palin would try to put on the bench.
That one issue (judicial appointments), by itself, makes the case for Obama.
SfO,
Yet, you systematically fail to understand that not all decisions should to be based uniquely on one's ideology.
So if you had been asked about that specific decision you would have had no problem with cutting funds for the war in 2005, long after it was started and right at the moment of the worst insurgency and leaving Iraq in a complete mess, because your ideology says that "war should only be a last resort".
Do you understand the nuance between a decision to start a war (where an ideology such as "war should only be a last resort" plays the key role) and a decision whether to fund a campaign after the war has already been started (where such ideology only plays a secondary role, but solving the mess we're in plays the key role).
It's the same with your refusal to vote in this election...
The Daily Show was so good this week.
I've lived in eastern Connecticut for years. Like SC I've never heard of a milkshake called anything other than a milkshake.
Frappe is either a cocktail served over shaved ice or, as frappé, the past participle of the French verb frapper, to hit.
David Marjanović, OM @ # 75: Photos of Fearless Flightsuit being drunk at the Olympics -- in the stadium.
This photo sequence deserves more attention, at least if it can be substantiated. I couldn't find anything about it at snopes.com and only one pic at urbanlegends.com (which described Bush as "cheerleading"), and couldn't - it seems - get a query through to the snopesters.
Does anyone here have any more about this episode (preferably with videotape and reports from independent witnesses)?
"Do you understand the nuance between a decision to start a war (where an ideology such as "war should only be a last resort" plays the key role) and a decision whether to fund a campaign after the war has already been started (where such ideology only plays a secondary role, but solving the mess we're in plays the key role)."
Cut the condescension. Having grown up in the military as a UN charter brat living in the ME, I know a bit about the "insurgency".
And the war.
And the "mess" in Iraq.
If Obama is/was opposed to the war he should have stood tall and voted tall.
He waffled and hemmed and made no noise. He was cowardly and people should at least realize that he is a political "player" who is more interested in winning in the game of politics than insuring Americans have good government.
Where was Obama when the fed cut the rates (and kept them cut) and sent housing out of control? I notice Ron Paul standing up in Congress in '02 and predicting '08. Where was a nuanced "smart" Obama? McCain? Where were any of the Democrats? I saw this mess coming in '04. Where was Joe Biden?
There is no reason to give sycophantic allegiance to any of these numbskulls.
9.6 TRILLION in the hole. More looming wars with Iran...
A big bubble of inflation coming this spring with either party in the White House...
Wee...
We also use the term "milkshake" in France. I wonder if "frappé" is not used by Quebeckers.
Cut the condescension.
It's not condescension when it's directed at someone as boneheaded and uncomprehending as you; in fact, it's quite generous to suggest that you even might understand something.
THIS KIND OF POLITICAL NONSENSE is exactly why we have a 9.65 TRILLION dollar debt.
Oh, he was just trying to be politically sauvy...
Fuck but you are a cretin. I simply referred to the facts regarding being a member of a deliberative body, facts that all its members are subject to, whether it's Congress or a tenant's association or anything.
There is no reason to give sycophantic allegiance to any of these numbskulls.
Appaulase
"Fuck but you are a cretin. I simply referred to the facts regarding being a member of a deliberative body,"
You were trying to give Obama your support by supporting his act of political cowardice and claiming it as "necessary".
It was calculating. Political. Subservient to the Washington establishment. And cowardly.
Consider true opponents of the war. Dennis Kucinich, for example. Or that dreaded other fella, Ron Paul.
Both "little men" stood up when it counted and DID NOT WAFFLE.
And so it goes with FISA too.
We also use the term "milkshake" in France. I wonder if "frappé" is not used by Quebeckers.
Of course - that's it! I found a couple of sites that say that it's lait frappé in Québec:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/milk-shake
Another site about diners in New Hampshire notes of one place: "You're well north of the frappe line here: if you want a milkshake you have to ask for a frappe." So it's not that surprising that we southern New Englanders aren't familiar with the term, though it would appear from Sven's link that it's used in at least some places in Boston. I'll be on the lookout.
You don't even seem to be aware that members of congress are not even part of the decision making process of the FOMC !
Sorry, I don't know what that means.
As I said, I don't think he should have voted to cut funds for the war when he was asked for the first time as a US senator in 2005, in view of the situation in Iraq at that time. And yet, I also opposed this unnecessary war, and I also believe firmly that "war should only be a last resort".
He was one of the few American politicians to oppose the start of this war, and he made quite some noise and even manifested, when it was necessary. Frankly after the invasion and Sadam's regime had been defeated, it didn't make much sense anymore. Yet you say he was a coward, and just a political "player" ! I think you just have a problem, like all ideologues, of apprecating reality.
That's why ideologues are so dangerous when they are in a position of authority. After 8 years of Bush, we should all know this lesson.
"You don't even seem to be aware that members of congress are not even part of the decision making process of the FOMC !"
I don't? Hmmm.... That is news to me.
I am aware that Congress created the federal reserve by mandate and is required to keep updated on the decisions made.
I also know that Congress has just now legislated your tax dollars to bail out the bad monetary policy ignited by the federal reserve and ignored by almost all of Congress except for one man...
I take issue with this policy since I am in the consruction business, and since I have family who will lose houses to the whole real estate mess (I did warn them!) because they live in the Bay Area.
You have just gotten the bill for about a half a trillion dollars as a tax payer, bailing out speculators and dishonest folks who would say anything to get into a house and make a chunk of easy money. You are also bailing out two government-backed Fannie's by socializing them, (did you notice that it was the government-backed mortgage companies that went belly up?)
Where was Obama? Where was Joe Biden, when all of this was coming down the pipeline?
These are your heroes? Your politically suave and deboners?
Scott, its time for you to explain, with a simple declarative sentence or two, why you continue to act like a jerk here. You have had your say, and we heard you, but what you have said has been refuted time and time again. So you either need to go, or come up with a new line of thought. I sense you thought we would be easy picking to the libertarian view, and are extremely frustrated that nobody is biting. BTW, I am nobody's sycophant. I have voted for third party candidates in the past. But this year I plan on voting for Obama, since the alternative, letting McCain win by default, is just too horrific to contemplate. If you have a viable alternative to Obama who can beat McCain in the fall, bring him out. Otherwise, go home.
You were trying to give Obama your support by supporting his act of political cowardice and claiming it as "necessary".
I wrote "I strongly disagree with Obama that it was a net plus or that it was -- per his claim -- necessary"
Do you know what "disagree means, YOU STUPID STUPID STUPID FUCKING MORON?
So, what ever happened to malted milk?
On the frappe debate, from Wikipedia: "Frappe, the New England name for a thick ice cream milkshake often made with cream instead of milk, and sometimes sweetened with malt." (Somebody need to tell me how to a url link. I'm used to BBS, but not hyperlinks.)
Thanks, NoR. That's far more enlightening and interesting than the total sum of Scott's output.
For a url link, you can just type the link, with http:// included, e.g., http://scienceblogs/pharyngula, or it you want to provide text for the link use something like <a href="http://scienceblogs/pharyngula">PZ's blog</a>
I did not think I would ever be disagreeing with you David, but the electoral college is only partially to compensate for the "ignorance" of the populace. It was really much more about protecting small states from domination by the larger states. At the time of the founding, the US was much more like the EU today, a set of autonomous states banding together for mutual protection, but not wanting to lose their sovereignty. Thus the bicameral legislature, one dominated by population, the other with the states given equal voice regardless of population. This compromise was carried forward in the election of the president in the form of the electoral college.
Thanks TM, OM. I'll have to try it out in day or two.
Not for nothin', but Bill Clinton had a JD from Yale, which AFAIK is a doctoral-level degree equivalent to a PhD, and he was a Rhodes Scholar.
It's not true that we never elect smart people; it's just that we don't like to admit it. If Clinton hadn't looked and talked like an Ozark redneck, he couldn't have gotten 3 electoral votes.
"Scott, its time for you to explain, with a simple declarative sentence or two, why you continue to act like a jerk here. You have had your say, and we heard you, but what you have said has been refuted time and time again."
Refuted?
You are joking right?
My answer--I lose either way. Obama or McCain. I have to scramble to find places for my savings because the US is about to implode economically and there is a huge inflationary balloon wafting in just over the hill. People I know and care about will get hurt by this,as well as a lot of lower middle class folks I can only hope to know.
How many people do y'all know teetering at the edge financially right now? How many do you know who you pretty much know will go under in the next year?
Think hard about that.
How much money comes due next year for the US government with all of the short term loans they took out to fight a tribal war in Iraq?
Think hard about that.
What will be their options for paying off those loans?
Why is Barack Obama surrounded by former players in the Clinton and Carter administrations, when he claims to be the "new politics?"
Why are all of Barack's programs basic rehashes of Jimmy Carter's?
Which of these politicians had the sense to predict and DO SOMETHING ABOUT the current housing and credit crises BEFORE they became so problematic?
Joe Biden has been in Washington 30 years and he disregarded warnings and kept trundling along...
McCain is simply a joke not worth addressing.
Obama speaks hopeful, but he wants to throw oil on the fire and for that he gets chastized as just another Washington politician... Promise people money that isn't his to get elected. Take money from people by threat of jail to keep the charade going...
There will be another mid-term coming in two years, plus there are lots of House seats being contended as we speak.
Figure out what is really going on. Stop buying the platitudes of the two parties who have managed a lock on the system.
The potus is a done deal. But there is the House and Senate to fight for, and in spite of the name calling, I will fight for the well being of people I care about.
Another thread just reminded me of Robin Hood: Men in Tights. The German translation has "heroes" instead of "men". Why? Because it's a comedy. "Hero" is automatically an exaggeration and therefore funny.
I know. I wrote the stuff in the outer blockquote, not the inner one. What I wrote is slightly screwed up because I edited a remark out saying that the electoral college was a stupid idea -- at that time, it wasn't, because the states were supposed to elect the president. Today it has outlived its mere feasibility and has therefore become a stupid idea.
After failing to provide any reason to blame Obama for the war and the disastous monetary policy, you're switching subject again, and it's quite formidable that you are so intent in blaming Obama and Biden for the credit and mortgage crisis and forget the main culprit Bush and his administration.
And once again you fail to understand the reality of the situation. For the government to bail out the two Fannies is the only thing that can be done at this stage. What's the alternative if you are so clever ? Did you thnk about that ?
And Yes, this wll cost the American people dearly. But what do you expect ? When an administration makes so many stupid mistakes for 8 years it does have consequences.
At least Obama understands this, so he wants to transfer most of the bill to the rich and the owners of capital, unlke McCain who just doesn't care and wants to spread it as always.
Title of post: "John McCain is a flip-flopping opportunist"
He also seems to have quite a temper:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080907/pl_mcclatchy/3035300;_ylt=Ar…
One who expresses his ire unpredictably with physical displays of anger (just to show everyone they are miffed, and to get their way done thereby) is one who is congenitally irrational.
That's all we need - an elderly bullet-head who may throw a tantrum if anybody doesn't agree with him.
What "change" can there possibly be in substituting one emperor for another?
Scott, you sound just like the creationists who come here. You are never refuted in your own mind because you religiously adhere to your concept of facts. But the rest of us, who do not share your religious zeal, see the gaping holes in your logic and facts. If you have a candidate for president you wish us to vote for, and who has a reasonable chance of beating McSame, trot him out. Otherwise, you have nothing to add to the debate.
For a libertarian, I find it somewhat ironic that you simply can't let us make up our own minds about who we will vote for in the fall. To me, this shows you are really an authoritarian. Again, what are you trying to do in one, and only one, declarative sentence?
Scott,
if there's such an economc crisis, it's first and foremost because Americans made the mistake to elect twice in a row an incompetent president who completely failed to understand how hurtful his policies could be to the poor and the middle classes.
Well bad news, when the people make such mistake, they pay for it later !
And McCain also doesn't understand this, he's never had any financial difficulties. He doesn't even realise the USA is entering into its worst economic recesson since 1929. What should care, he's never had any financial difficulties. He even managed to get elected the first time as representatve of Arizona by gettng his millonaire wife Cindy to entirely fund his campaign. That's how he dealt with the issue.
The only question you should ask yourself right now is if you trust such a man to appreciate the difficulties of the majority of the American people more than Obama.
"After failing to provide any reason to blame Obama for the war and the disastous monetary policy, you're switching subject again, and it's quite formidable that you are so intent in blaming Obama and Biden for the credit and mortgage crisis and forget the main culprit Bush and his administration."
I never blamed Obama FOR THE WAR. There is no need and there is no justification for it. I merely pointed out that Obama is JUST ANOTHER politician, and now that he made the show, wants to play with all of its toys.
If he was against the war, he should have manned up and voted against funding it, forcing the potus to withdraw due to lack of funds.
It takes courage to do what you say you want to do. He showed none.
I don't blame Biden and Obama for the credit crises. I blame ALL OF THEM. It wasn't GW Bush's policies that created the mess, it was his policies and an obsequious Congress combined. That means Biden too. That means all of them. Obama gets some pass because he is so new, but his short record is apalling.
I had hopes that Obama would have some clues and crack open the nut that is Washington, but all he is doing is playing the game the same way that led us to where we are now. He's just playing the foil to the republican side, and many of y'all are eating it up.
Sometime early next summer, I hope many of y'all will remember how I irritated you, and think "damn, that sunbitch was right!"
Then you might "get it" and start looking directly at how problematic Washington has become, with the pentagon holding lectures by Ken Hovind, with your civil liberties a memory, and with inflation taxing you so hard you wished you'd listened to the warnings long before you did...
I've found so many libertarians to be like that. The absolute nature of their convictions, the zeal in which they attack any opposing idea, it's quite frightening...
...so much so that even though libertarianism is the closest political ideology to my own, I try my best to distance myself from the movement. Once you turn the argument to "taxes are stealing", it becomes a moral issue rather than a socio-political one and there is no way to go any futher. Rather it should be more pertinent to discuss the nature of the social contract and the individual's role in maintaining society as a whole, and the consequences of the various political ideologies taking into regard the population and environment that resides in it. Instead it's just an exercise in argumentative futility.
It's like talking to a pro-lifer. No matter what arguments you give, you just can't counter the "abortion is infanticide" stance. By making it a moral issue, you kill any attempt to have a constructive converstation.
""Scott,
if there's such an economc crisis, it's first and foremost because Americans made the mistake to elect twice in a row an incompetent president who completely failed to understand how hurtful his policies could be to the poor and the middle classes. ""
Those are WASHINGTON'S POLICIES!!! That's Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden and all the Dems AND the Republican machine which we should all loathe because of what it has become.
Stop buying into the BS that Bush and Cheney run the country.
The power is in the house and senate and the majority has been almost indecipherable...
You have two parties who are in the process of fucting you good and you want one of them to like you.
The mind boggles.
PS-- I am not a libertarian.
I merely pointed out that Obama is JUST ANOTHER politician
Not to mention just another drinker of milk shakes, all of whom are exactly alike by virtue of that and that alone. Damn them all.
Incidentally, anyone who thinks Jon Stewart only picks up Republicans should see Friday, August 29th's episode.
Sometime early next summer, I hope many of y'all will remember how I irritated you, and think "damn, that sunbitch was right!"
A cretin with delusions of grandeur. Right about what? That the world won't be perfect, that Obama will disappoint in many ways, that many things we wish would change won't? All of that is entirely predictable and completely irrelevant, because a rational person must weigh the consequences of Obama/Biden in the White House against McCain/Palin in the White House ... which won't be determinable solely by the state of affairs next summer, since we will only have one of the two sets of data. To weigh those consequences requires analysis of their differences, not blathering on and on about their similarities in the most broad and stupid manner possible. And one must do that weighing now and act accordingly, not wait until next summer to see whose ego gets stroked.
Oops...my comment #173 should read "...only picks ON republicans."
Greetings Etha! Nice to see that you are back!
It's Kent Hovind
but it was Ken Ham
"because a rational person must weigh the consequences of Obama/Biden in the White House against McCain/Palin in the White House ... "
Ummm, a rational person will take the larger view and see that the Dems and the Repubs cut out any other party's chances of competing in the competition and understand that the only way to fix the system is to get new and energized House and Senate members seated.
It won't hardly matter between an Obama Democratic nightmare or a MCain Republican nightmare. McCain will have a democratic congress to fight with so you'll get much of the same from either guy, only Obama will spend the bottom out from under us faster and MCain will just make the world madder at America, probably provoking the Iranians into war.
Either scenario deserves opposition, and people need to see what is coming down the freeway like a giant inflated boob.
Scott, if you spent any time at all here, you would know that many people here have problems with Obama. Foremost is Obama's pandering to evangelists. Damn but it gets tiring when a know nothing crashes the board with guns a blazing and knows not who they are attacking.
While there are people here who like Obama, this site is not Obama Central.
Sure, let's all believe in Scott's notion that anybody in Congress including those in the opposing party is responsible for the decisions made by the President and his administration.
If all rational people would believe in this, it would make things easy. Then they wouldn't vote, like you, and because a signifcant majority of irrational people will anyway always vote Republican, then this will guarantee that we have a republican administration forever.
Great idea Scott, especally that it would generate a certainty of a result in direct contradiction with your claimed ideology.
"Sure, let's all believe in Scott's notion that anybody in Congress including those in the opposing party is responsible for the decisions made by the President and his administration".
How about we check the role call on the Patriot Act?
Fisa?
The creation of the Dept. Of Homland Security?
Wanna go look and see who is on the budget commitee?
Was it Bush who wrote and sponsored the Mortgage Bailout?
The mind indeed, boggles.
Scott,
Why is it that you refuse to name four or five of these "new and energized" candidates that you will/would vote for? If you believe that the only way to fix the system is to get them elected, one would think you would be happy to sing their praises. Why not?
That...well, that's about the dumbest analogy I've ever heard.
@SheepFuckingOrangutan
Those are WASHINGTON'S POLICIES!!! That's Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden and all the Dems AND the Republican machine which we should all loathe because of what it has become.
Stop buying into the BS that Bush and Cheney run the country.
The power is in the house and senate and the majority has been almost indecipherable...
Wrong, wrong, and wrong again. Have you spent the last eight years sealed in a cave? Or off-planet somewhere? When Bush and Cheney and their Republican cohorts seized power in Washington, they did two things right away - they dismantled a lot of Clinton programs pertaining to national security, and they brought in CEO's to re-write whatever laws they found inconvenient. They did so quietly but swiftly.
After 9-11 they did something else unprecedented: They shut the Democrats almost entirely out of the legislative process. Committees that Democrats were on met without their Democratic members and then presented laws. When Democrats tried to meet on their own their meetings were interrupted and shut down by Republican lawmakers, including at least one incident that was infamously captured on C-SPAN. They did this consistently and relentlessly; all the Democrats were allowed to do was show up for the votes. They did complain, but the complaints were seldom aired unless they were to be ridiculed by the Pravda Trolls on talk radio and Faux Noise. This happened over and over and over again for years. And when things started falling apart, guess what happened? Yep; the complementary narratives that emerged were "It's all the Democrats fault!" coupled with "The Democrats are just as much at fault!" The name of that approach is "Fair and Balanced." You've probably heard it somewhere.
If were lived anywhere on this planet during that time, there's NO WAY you could have failed to know about all this. So you are either being deliberately ignorant or deliberately lying. Either way, you've got no excuses to fall back on.
Sure, as it wouldn't have made any difference if Gore had been elected instead of Bush. It's all the same, that's why we shouldn't vote, like this "Washington" will understand, give up its powers and change everything...
After focussing your message on a liberal blog, if you were consistent, you should now do the same on a republican blog. Otherwise there's going to be more republicans who vote than democrats and that won't work.
Or is that actually your real hope ? That less democrats turnout the day of the election ?
PS-- I am not a libertarian.
But you keep vomiting forth libertarian noise. If it looks like a duck, walks like duck, and quacks like a duck...
You're repeating this again. I already asked you in comment 165, to tell me what you consider is a better alternative to solve the problem ?
Oh you probably don't even understand the issue.
I think Scott has finally lost it. He just can't seem to grasp that at a science blog, eventually you are going to have to put up some information. He is well beyond the point of no return, and he either needs to put up the right information, such as name some candidates for us to vote for, or acknowledge to himself that we will think that everything he say is a lie and/or bullshit if he doesn't.
I agree with Negentropyeater that Scott is probably trying to keep liberals home on election day. No way for me. I have voted in every election since 1972, and nothing will change that. If you don't vote, you can't morally complain about the outcome. And I love complaining about the outcome.
Indeed your insistance on tryng to convince people on a blog with a majority of liberals that Obama will be the same as McCain and that they will be better off not voting, is quite consistent with the republican strategy.
Damn. You may have summed up my life strategy.
I intended to vote for Obama because I always vote and I want the greatest chance of defeating the republican party.
Scott may say the two parties are the same, and to some extent I agree, but not enough to negate my vote. The republicans have had the white house and have demonstrated that they have a process that chooses someone who may win the coveted "Worst President Evah" award.
Hi Paul.
McCain's sure a flip flopper alright. He flip flopped right into a 10% lead among likely voters. 54% to 44%.
54% I might add is the highest number any candidate has garnered in this election cycle.
Thanks for all the help in the battleground states, by the way. Much appreciated.
Intersting way to look at it.
Again, I want to ask about minor parties in the US. In Australia, we get preferences. So I can vote for a minor party to make a stand, then direct my preferences to the "lesser of two evils" as I see it. How would that moral stand work in the US by voting for the Greens or Libertarian party. Are people morally responsible to vote for a major party in order to complain about the outcome? Surely by voting for the Greens or Libertarians, it's the moral equivalent of not voting in the two-party system.
So would someone who wants Obama to win have any say if McCain wins and they voted greens. Likewise the same with voting for the Libertarians as opposed to the republicans. The two-party system seems polarising and forces people to make a choice between two unfavourable candidate because if they don't, it's the equivalent of not voting.
Scott #178:
"It won't hardly matter between an Obama Democratic nightmare or a MCain Republican nightmare."
Well, we DO already know that a Dem incumbent presided over a very fine record surplus over 8 years, and we DO know a Rep incumbent promptly flushed it down into a record deficit in less than half that time...and the govbucks are still falling.
This was brilliantly performed via interesting ideas of what constitutes money well spent, such as mounting a war against a country for its oil and to obtain a "strategic foothold" in the Middle East while blatantly mischaracterizing that country as a chief sponsor of the attacks on 9-11, as well as larding on the LIE that that country had WMD's imminently aimed at more mayhem like that which the US suffered that day.
That was pure genius.
We also know that McCain is a REPUBLICAN and Obama is a DEMOCRAT.
I'll take a Dem "nightmare" any time over the horror of a Rep administration. Those latter LIE MORE THAN THE OTHER GUYS. CAN'T YOU TELL???
Hi Paul.
McCain's sure a flip flopper alright. He flip flopped right into a 10% lead among likely voters. 54% to 44%.
54% I might add is the highest number any candidate has garnered in this election cycle.
Thanks for all the help in the battleground states, by the way. Much appreciated.
Kel, I would love to see preference voting occur here in the US, but I'm not holding my breath. It would really help out third parties to get bigger. And Gore might be president now.
I feel that just voting for anyone, even writing in yourself, is all that is needed to be able to morally complain about the outcome. Too many people complain about things, but then when pressed, didn't do anything to change the outcome. I find that very hypocritical.
It was probably all those marines praying for him.
"and he either needs to put up the right information, such as name some candidates for us to vote for",
Here in Oregon and in California, Obama will take home the gold. Those are givens and I don't need to vote to make sure that happens. It will happen.
I can't tell you who to vote for because the only difference people can make is in the voting of House seats or Senate seats.
Voting in people who claim to be "Democrats" will only make the problem worse. They will aid Obama in his big program promises fulfillment program and we'll see inflation go right through the roof.
Voting in the only other party of choice, the Republicans, is full of problems because the Republican party has gone off the deep end and is bordering on fascist. But there are some paleoconservatives who are following along the Ron Paul minimal government platform that I would look into.
The trouble there, is so damn many of them go to church and are as crazy as the rest.
I keep looking for small government social liberals to pop up, but the breed is still in early gestation apparently.
More of the Ronnie Reagan, Jessie Ventura, Arnold Muscle-later type of conservatives who have squeezed a few unwed titties and want to see big government go away...
If you're one of those, may I suggest you run for office?
The Rev shoots (#195), the Rev SCORES!
In a kind of esoteric way.
Hey, DaveScot, you gettin any from JanieBelle yet?
Davescott,
It doesn't surprise me that DaveScott choses to reference the only poll that is actually not relevant.
Gallup's polls are based on two models "registered voters" and "Likely voters"-
Gallup writes :
The Gallup "Likely voters" polling model becomes relevant in the last couple of weeks before the election.
Moreover it was done during the RNC and over the weekend, and most pollsters agree that there is a methodological problem with polling on weekends, and whilst the conventions are taking place.
And btw all other pollsters including Gallup "Registered Voters" show a much more tied result.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html
So what, an IDist who picks the only irrelevant data to suit his need. That's not surprising.
We'll have to wait for middle next week to get relevant data.
Some of y'all might enjoy a bit of refreshing news...
"""On Friday, the FDIC sent a task force to close down yet another small bank in Nevada, making it the 11th bank failure of 2008. Silver State Bank had $1.7 billion in deposits of which $20 million in 500 accounts was uninsured. Most likely these individuals will think twice before voting Republican as John McCain's adopted son from his first marriage, Andrew McCain, aged 46, was a director of the bank and resigned in July due to "personal reasons" as the Wall Street Journal reports here. McCain was part of a three-person audit team and was responsible for the financial health of the bank. If McCain had resigned four days later, he would have been required to sign off on the company's quarterly financial statement.
Andrew McCain had been involved with the bank since 2006 when he became director of Choice Bank, a small Arizona-based lender owned by Silver State where the McCain family was an early investor. He is currently employed by his adopted father's second wife, Cindy McCain, as the Chief Financial Officer of Hensley & Co., the family's main business which distributes beer. I want to add that there is no evidence that Andrew McCain has committed any crime besides ineptness.
It appears the FDIC tried to close the bank in August but was refused by the Nevada Division of Financial Institution until September. By June 30, the bank's borrowers had fallen behind on about $252 million worth of loans, compared to about $11.5 million from six months earlier. I speculate that the announcement was delayed until after the Republican Convention to help John McCain out.
John McCain, of course, is no stranger to prior banking scandals, the most infamous of which was the Savings and Loan scandal where he was one of the "Keating Five" Senators whom allegedly helped banker Charles Keating resist regulators. Keating was convicted and sent to jail, and McCain received a figurative slap on the wrist. Keating was a major contributor and supporter at the very start of McCain's political career. The S&L scandal resulted in a taxpayer-funded bailout of $125 billion."""
Ummm, a rational person will take the larger view and see that the Dems and the Repubs cut out any other party's chances of competing in the competition and understand that the only way to fix the system is to get new and energized House and Senate members seated.
Ummm, a rational person can see that you change the subject every time your bullshit is challenged. That the systems needs fixing has nothing to do with what you responded to, which related to your idiocy about being right "next summer". Once again, next summer we will all be right that things won't be as we wish they were. But they will be much worse if one of the tickets is elected than if the other is. But "worse" is a concept that you seem utterly incapable comprehending, or at least acknowledging.
It doesn't surprise me that DaveScott choses to reference the only poll that is actually not relevant.
Even more consistent with DaveScot's mindset is his change of subject from "John McCain is a disgusting slug who will do anything to win" to "Yahoo! He's gonna win!"
you change the subject every time your bullshit is challenged
I should have added "or just ignore it", as when I noted that he lied (or is just too fucking stupid to comprehend the English language) when he said that I supported Obama's vote on the FISA bill as a necessity, when I did the opposite. Of course, that very claim of his was a change of subject that not only got my position wrong but the whole thrust of my comments. It's remarkable that someone like Scott who never ever admits to an error makes so many -- but hey, we'll all remember next summer that the "sunbitch" was right ... about "sunthing", I suppose.
"I should have added "or just ignore it", as when I noted that he lied (or is just too fucking stupid to comprehend the English language) when he said that I supported Obama's vote on the FISA bill as a necessity, when I did the opposite."
Oddly, I tend to sort of ignore those who think "too fucking stupid" is an adequate argument. I am amused, though. Being a rather big fella, people don't usually get so rude anywhere near me. I kinda like it. Makes me feel what a weasel feels...
I said you support Obama, who voted for FISA, failing to acknowledge that he is an undesciplined crowd pleaser who has no moral courage or insight into what is coming down the chute.
He voted away some of your 4th Amendment rights. He supported funding for a war he claimed to be against. Now he claims he wants to shift the war. Shift the war? Are you fuckin shitting me?
If your mantra is "better than McCain" I agree with you. But not much better. And that is a hard thing to do.
The only thing Obama has in his favor is he hasn't been in Washington long enough to have a record of screwing up America. Give him time, though, and American toys to play with...
Why he chose a Washington screw up like Biden I have no idea. Just goes to show he is trying to "fit in".
All that "new Washington"/"change" rhetoric out the window.
Oh, btw, these banks failing? Just the beginning...
Skipping to comment as one comment seemed to be going unaddressed for the most part:
John McCain's heroism lay in refusing to be released while his fellow prisoners would have been kept-- an offer made to him because of his family. It doesn't make him fit to be president (nor does it show him to be a competent pilot), but it did take enough courage and loyalty that "hero" seems justified. It's certainly more than many other people who have been described that way have done.
He's just a dishonest, philandering, gold-digging, power-hungry, flip-flopping, ass-kissing, hot-tempered, possibly senile war hero.
-Scott from Oregon
...how would you know?
Oddly, I tend to sort of ignore those who think "too fucking stupid" is an adequate argument.
you also tend to "ignore", or conveniently forget, more detailed explanations to your oft repeated inanities.
for example, that you bring up FISA again suggests you have entirely forgotten how TM detailed EXACTLY how and why Obama voted the way he did on it. At least once that I recall very specifically (and likely several times), when you first tried to bring up the issue in a different thread.
Instead, you focus on the end result after people have watched you "ignore" many detailed explanations, which of course is aptly and concisely noted by yourself as you being "too fucking stupid". It's good that you recognize your own stupidity, however you really are a dishonest little shit, and I for one will be happy when you finally tire of playing the inane troll.
now to turn my killfile back on.
He bobs, he weaves. That's what I've been asking about, moron. Name candidates that you will or would vote for for the House or Senate.
Are you saying that, while voting in "new and energized" candidates is our only hope, there are none that are acceptable at present? Or that you are supporting conservatives? If the former, admit it. If the latter, admit it and name them.
Put up or shut up, Scott.
that you bring up FISA again suggests you have entirely forgotten how TM detailed EXACTLY how and why Obama voted the way he did on it.
I would think it would get tiring having to make up excuses for Obama all the time.
I would think it would get tiring having to make up excuses for Obama all the time.
Explaining matters of fact to people who either misunderstand or deliberately lie about them is not "making up excuses".
Explaining matters of fact to people who either misunderstand or deliberately lie about them is not "making up excuses".
Bullshit.
negentropyeater
You didn't need to link me to realclearpolitics. I've had it bookmarked at least since 2004 and possibly since 2000.
You'll note at RCP that the USAT/Gallup poll I referenced is the most recent one comprising the RCP average. It's also the only poll in their average that was taken entirely after the RNC ended.
Yes, we'll have to wait another couple of days for the pre-RNC polls to leave the average but it doesn't look like Obama is going to emerge in the lead.
You might also note that Intrade is now showing a virtual tie after months of having Obama a 60/40 favorite.
Stick a fork in Obama, he's done.
Nothing of substance to say, then? Oh, well.
@MartinM
Actually he something to say, just not of substance. See his comment #210; he offers as an empty rejoinder the same thing he's been flinging since he showed up - bullshit. Appropriate, that...
Davescott,
Palin and McCain's speech were on Wesd. and Thursday, the poll was done on Friday to Sunday, the WORST moment to get a fair idea of the real situation and poll.
Plus you referred to Gallup's likely voters poll, which is not relevant to evaluate the current trend. You could have at least, if you were so intent to refering to the most recent poll, refered to their registered voters evaluation which shows McCain with 48% and Obama with 45%, a very predictable small advantage to McCain in view of the timing of that poll.
If you really want to know if McCain has taken the lead or not, you'll need to wait at least for polls that are carried out entirely after the week end. And certanly not based on Gallup's likely voters model with still two months to go until the election.
But I'm not sure if you are really interested in knowing if McCain has taken the lead or not, but only convince yourself that he has.
Davescott,
Yet you seem to have no issue with your affirmation that Obama is a dead horse based on an irrelevant poll that shows McCain with a 10 point lead !
Samantha Vimes @ # 204: ... McCain's heroism lay in refusing to be released while his fellow prisoners would have been kept ...
I don't have time to dig up the sources for this, but I've read that he was just following orders (from the top officer among Hanoi Hilton POWs) in this case. Had he accepted the offer of release, he would have been court-martialed, disgraced, and probably imprisoned - and he knew it.
I WAS A POW FOR FIVE YEARS!!!11!
RESPECT MAH AUTHORITY!
Ugh, I was wondering what that stink was...DaveTard polluting the thread.
I held off for a while, but...
Sorry!
It is, at least, not a sequence. You'll notice that Captain Unelected wears a shirt with long sleeves in some of the photos and one with short sleeves in the others. Also, the woman to his left (I suppose Jenna or Barbara Jr.) wears a violet dress in two and a black one in two others, and the people in the background aren't the same. This suggests all of the photos could be photoshopped or something.
And while I am at it, voltaire.net is heavily into 9/11 troofing. "115 lies about 9/11"... "presents the characteristics of a controlled demolition"... yadda, yadda, yadda.
Oh well. We'll need to rely on the TV footage of his birthday two years ago, when he almost fell over trying to shake someone's hand (and later fell off a bicycle).
You know what we'll think? We'll start thinking about how much more hideous McPain would have been. And then we'll stop because the thought will just be unbearable.
Obama not being a messiah, the US$ can only continue dropping anyway.
How, when he doesn't have Iraq to sink the money in?
Get some sense of the orders of magnitude you're talking about.
ROTFL! The Iranians aren't that silly. If anyone starts such a war, it will be McInsane, or some Israeli ultra-hawk with McInsane's explicit (though mildly secret) permission.
I'm still laughing. Really, the 1980s are over. The Iranians have lost the burning desire to die as martyrs.
You act as if Europe had high inflation.
------------------------------------------------
DaveScot just wants to believe that McShame leads, the same way as he wants to believe in his non-omnipotent non-omniscient non-omnibenevolent boy god.
It's funny to hear about how Democrats spend the US into debt more quickly when the three Presidents most responsible for the national debt would be W, Reagan, and Bush - during their administrations they have run up $6.6 trillion of the debt in twenty years. (I know Congress spends the money, but the Presidents have this pesky little veto thing, and since the Republican Party has asserted its fiscal sense repeatedly, one might have thought they might actually use it. Oh, and at least during the Reagan/Bush Sr. years, the budgets submitted to Congress were larger than the one the congresses suggested - the output was probably a combination, but you can't blame Congress for the spending if you would have spent more than them and weren't willing to stop them when you could.)
The difference betwen Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats tax in order to spend. Republicans spend (while claiming that they don't) and pretend the money they spent will come from somewhere other than their children and grandchildren. If McCain claims that Obama is going to raise your taxes, he ought to explain where the money he helped to spend was supposed to come from in the first place. That should be amusing.
Oh, and why do I even both trusting what the Republicans say on anything? It would be a plus if they actually told the truth, but I don't actually remember hearing it from them (or their mouthpieces). I thought honesty was supposed to be one of those values that determined one's value as a human being, Did W issue a signing statement sometime that I missed?