mccain's connections to terrorism

[x togepi x]

though i'm not really an obama supporter at all since he's too right wing, i do think it's hilarious that people keep bringing up that obama supposedly has this terrorist connection because he took a donation from one of the members of the weather underground (who's name escapes me at this early hour).

why are you all ignoring that mccain's top financial broker directly funded columbian terrorist groups? (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/02/mccain-fundraiser-oversaw_n_110354.html)

i tried asking this question in the mccain v. obama thread and got no response, so i'm going to go ahead and do it here.

[open mind]

though i'm not really an obama supporter at all since he's too right wing, i do think it's hilarious that people keep bringing up that obama supposedly has this terrorist connection because he took a donation from one of the members of the weather underground (who's name escapes me at this early hour).

why are you all ignoring that mccain's top financial broker directly funded columbian terrorist groups? (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/02/mccain-fundraiser-oversaw_n_110354.html)

i tried asking this question in the mccain v. obama thread and got no response, so i'm going to go ahead and do it here.

they aren't terrorists if they're on our side of course.

[thespearkid]

they aren't terrorists if they're on our side of course.
Terrorists are terrorists.

[open mind]

Terrorists are terrorists.

..........i was being sarcastic.

[thespearkid]

Ha, my bad.

[Sham 179]

Terrorism is violence for political goals, ergo Bush is a supporter of terrorism. McCain says let's bomb Iran - openly supporting terrorism. Obama says let's bomb Pakistan. Likewise. There ain't no hope in these guys, as Bill Hicks would say.

[loveisdead]

Terrorism is violence for political goals, ergo Bush is a supporter of terrorism. McCain says let's bomb Iran - openly supporting terrorism. Obama says let's bomb Pakistan. Likewise. There ain't no hope in these guys, as Bill Hicks would say.

Wrong.
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/02/20/the-quot-obama-wants-to-bomb-pakistan-quot-lie.aspx

[GiggsOho]

though i'm not really an obama supporter at all since he's too right wing, i do think it's hilarious that people keep bringing up that obama supposedly has this terrorist connection because he took a donation from one of the members of the weather underground (who's name escapes me at this early hour).

why are you all ignoring that mccain's top financial broker directly funded columbian terrorist groups? (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/02/mccain-fundraiser-oversaw_n_110354.html)

i tried asking this question in the mccain v. obama thread and got no response, so i'm going to go ahead and do it here.



Where are you even getting the basis for what I put in bold? Please enlighten me, because one minute the man is called "the most liberal senator in gov't" and now someone is saying he's too RIGHT WING??!?!?!? That statement is so dumb it's almost comical.

[x togepi x]

Where are you even getting the basis for what I put in bold? Please enlighten me, because one minute the man is called "the most liberal senator in gov't" and now someone is saying he's too RIGHT WING??!?!?!? That statement is so dumb it's almost comical.

do you, like, pay attention to the news? obama's been shifting to the right. he's a centrist politician, at best, and that's too conservative for me.

[WCC335]

do you, like, pay attention to the news? obama's been shifting to the right. he's a centrist politician, at best, and that's too conservative for me.

he's going to shift further right as the election proceeds. It's less about ideals now and more about votes.

[Nevuk]

he's going to shift further right as the election proceeds. It's less about ideals now and more about votes.
He was never about ideals.

[x togepi x]

he's going to shift further right as the election proceeds. It's less about ideals now and more about votes.

which makes him too conservative.

[WCC335]

He was never about ideals.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. You could be condemning or defending Obama. Either way, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt that he started off perfectly sincere (i.e. doing what he believed was right), however, he unavoidably is going to have to make some compromises to ensure a victory. you could view this as a good or bad thing.

[x togepi x]

if he was perfectly sincere, he wouldn't be hiring conservative economic advisors. there's one thing to be playing to the center, but these people are going to be shaping his platform/policies.

[loveisdead]

if he was perfectly sincere, he wouldn't be hiring conservative economic advisors. there's one thing to be playing to the center, but these people are going to be shaping his platform/policies..
You can't be perfectly sincere and win the presidency. I am curious to see how liberal his policies will be if he is elected though.

[WCC335]

if he was perfectly sincere, he wouldn't be hiring conservative economic advisors. there's one thing to be playing to the center, but these people are going to be shaping his platform/policies.

I'm not trying to argue that he is or was sincere. I'm just saying I am giving him the benefit of the doubt. However, he is moving more toward the right (center if you prefer). I think we agree, though.
.

You can't be perfectly sincere and win the presidency. I am curious to see how liberal his policies will be if he is elected though.

Ditto.

[GiggsOho]

do you, like, pay attention to the news? obama's been shifting to the right. he's a centrist politician, at best, and that's too conservative for me.


Um, I like, work for the news, thanks. And you still have given me no examples.

[x togepi x]

Um, I like, work for the news, thanks. And you still have given me no examples.

Keep reading. I talked about how he hired conservative economic advisors.

[GiggsOho]

Keep reading. I talked about how he hired conservative economic advisors.

"One advantage to the tax credit is that there's no moral hazard involved," one of Obama's economic advisers explains. "There's no sense in which you're rewarding someone for taking too big a risk. If you lied about your income in order to get a bigger mortgage, then you're not qualified. Do you really want to give a subsidy to the guy who wasn't prudent?" Obama has used similar language on the campaign trail. "Innocent homeowners," he has promised, those "responsible" borrowers "facing foreclosure through no fault of their own," would get help restructuring their loans. But no such luck for those "claiming income they didn't have" or "lying to get mortgages."


What about this, regardless of where it stands on the political spectrum, isn't correct? This could be a fanatical, right-wing, approach to it, I agree with it.

[x togepi x]

What about this, regardless of where it stands on the political spectrum, isn't correct? This could be a fanatical, right-wing, approach to it, I agree with it.

one of obama's new economic advisors is a defender of walmart. sorry, that's a little too right wing for me to consider liberal.

[GiggsOho]

one of obama's new economic advisors is a defender of walmart. sorry, that's a little too right wing for me to consider liberal.

How that makes Obama right wing, or even a centerist, is still beyond me. The man has called for bi-partisan help to bring the country together. Furthermore, he plans to offer tax relief and small business and start up companies, as well as create public-private business incubators. Plus a minimum wage increase. Whatever advice he's getting seems to be headed in the left.

[x togepi x]

How that makes Obama right wing, or even a centerist, is still beyond me. The man has called for bi-partisan help to bring the country together. Furthermore, he plans to offer tax relief and small business and start up companies, as well as create public-private business incubators. Plus a minimum wage increase. Whatever advice he's getting seems to be headed in the left.

This plus his support for FISA plus his support for the PATRIOT ACT plus his backing off of his anti-war stance = too conservative.

[GiggsOho]

This plus his support for FISA plus his support for the PATRIOT ACT plus his backing off of his anti-war stance = too conservative.


Without doing what he did with FISA he wouldn't have the funds to even compete in the election. While he has raised money for his own campaign, the DNC chests are meager at best. Furthermore, the RNC is bubbling over, (shock-o-shocks) ready to try and crush the Obama campaign. Him not accepting FISA is like the Yankees going "Okay, we want to win the World series, but we are going to give Alex Rodruiguez to the Red Sox for nothing." He can't fix FISA unless he is in office. He has said this, and it has been talked about in the news. Repeatedly.

News flash -- 95% of Washington has no idea what is in the Patriot Act, it was a piece of legislation pushed through Congress out of fear. No one, I repeat, NO ONE, actually had time to cut through the B.S. of that piece of law to see if it was constitutional/ethical. That's not Obama's fault.

[x togepi x]

Without doing what he did with FISA he wouldn't have the funds to even compete in the election. While he has raised money for his own campaign, the DNC chests are meager at best. Furthermore, the RNC is bubbling over, (shock-o-shocks) ready to try and crush the Obama campaign. Him not accepting FISA is like the Yankees going "Okay, we want to win the World series, but we are going to give Alex Rodruiguez to the Red Sox for nothing." He can't fix FISA unless he is in office. He has said this, and it has been talked about in the news. Repeatedly.

and this is why i'm not going to trust him at all. why won't more of his decisions end up being based on the bottom line? Instead of actually fighting for these issues, he capitulates just like the rest of the democrats.

News flash -- 95% of Washington has no idea what is in the Patriot Act, it was a piece of legislation pushed through Congress out of fear. No one, I repeat, NO ONE, actually had time to cut through the B.S. of that piece of law to see if it was constitutional/ethical. That's not Obama's fault.

while this might be an excuse when the legislation originally passed in 2001, Obama voted to renew it, years after people have had plenty of time to read through it. Hell, i'd read it before Obama was even in a national office and i lack the constitutional scholar background that he does.

[GiggsOho]

and this is why i'm not going to trust him at all. why won't more of his decisions end up being based on the bottom line? Instead of actually fighting for these issues, he capitulates just like the rest of the democrats.


While this might be an excuse when the legislation originally passed in 2001, Obama voted to renew it, years after people have had plenty of time to read through it. Hell, i'd read it before Obama was even in a national office and i lack the constitutional scholar background that he does.

Yet, if he doesn't take that, then loses the election when the GOP $$$ crushes him, you cry for the next 4 years when McCain would be in office. Which then allows the Patriot Act to be signed into law for the next half-century, and McCain continues to grease the war machine that is our country, and your civil liberties continue to circle the toliet bowl, while the price of everything having to do with anything continues to skyrocket.

Yeah, that sounds awesome. Obama turning on his FISA stance sounds SOOO much worse.

[saysmydoctor]

I'm still following how if his adviser (aka, not him) is a supporter of Wal Mart, how that makes Obama a conservative? You know, Clinton had a republican SecDef, that conservative.

[x togepi x]

Yet, if he doesn't take that, then loses the election when the GOP $$$ crushes him, you cry for the next 4 years when McCain would be in office.

if obama's policies are not that much different from mccain's then it doesn't really matter who's in office.

but even then, this is some weak ass analysis as americans as a whole are tired of bush, so this shift to the center/right isn't even that necessary. he was outpolling or running fairly close to McCain before he did it, he doesn't need it to win.

Which then allows the Patriot Act to be signed into law for the next half-century, and McCain continues to grease the war machine that is our country, and your civil liberties continue to circle the toliet bowl, while the price of everything having to do with anything continues to skyrocket.

both of these things will happen under president obama. he voted for the patriot act when he could have voted against it. it wasn't like he was running for president back then. he voted for the new bankruptcy bill (that was one of the first things he did).

nothing i've seen in obama's platform really addresses civil liberties or high prices beyond some cheap rhetoric. sure, he wants to help small businesses out, but it takes a lot more than just tax credits to do that, and this is from someone who's parents own a small business.

Yeah, that sounds awesome. Obama turning on his FISA stance sounds SOOO much worse.

well since FISA is about civil liberties, it is just proof that he really doesn't care about civil liberties as much as he cares about being in power.

[x togepi x]

I'm still following how if his adviser (aka, not him) is a supporter of Wal Mart, how that makes Obama a conservative? You know, Clinton had a republican SecDef, that conservative.

Clinton was pretty conservative: pro-Nafta, signed the defense of marriage act, wanted to attack iraq, etc. just because he was a democrat or not as conservative as bush doesn't mean he was a liberal.

[saysmydoctor]

Wanted to attack Iraq? He fulfilled the UN demands for Operation North and South Watch but he did not want to attack Iraq, not after the PR disaster of Mogadishu.

[x togepi x]

Wanted to attack Iraq? He fulfilled the UN demands for Operation North and South Watch but he did not want to attack Iraq, not after the PR disaster of Mogadishu.

Clinton Defends his Successor's Choice to go to War (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/)
Clinton:Iraq has Abused its last chance (http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/)


Nevermind the fact that he signed the Iraq Liberation Act which made it the US's official policy towards Iraq to be regime change, "regime change" being the neo-con's code words for going to war. This piece of legislation was even used by the Bush Administration as their precedent to go to war with Iraq during their push for Congress to allow military action to occur.

but way to ignore Clinton's homophobia and pro-free trade stances, which prove his conservatism.

[GiggsOho]

if obama's policies are not that much different from mccain's then it doesn't really matter who's in office

If you only read each candidates website, then, yeah, it is really easy to say that. For instance, Both Obama and McCain want end foreign oil dependency. So by that and that alone, sure you can say there isn't much of a difference.

But if you open your eyes and ears and actually read/listen, you know that their ways to go out combating the problem are night and day.

but even then, this is some weak ass analysis as americans as a whole are tired of bush, so this shift to the center/right isn't even that necessary. he was outpolling or running fairly close to McCain before he did it, he doesn't need it to win.
Wrong. What was a fundamental reason Obama beat Hillary? He kept generating cash. I'm going to say this again, maybe this time you will get it. The GOP over the next couple of months is going to whirl out the spin machine and do everything in their power to get a Republican to stay in the White House. Not McCain's campaign alone, the actual GOP party. Just like Obama will be getting DNC backing, along with contributions from his own campaign.



both of these things will happen under president obama. he voted for the patriot act when he could have voted against it. it wasn't like he was running for president back then. he voted for the new bankruptcy bill (that was one of the first things he did).

nothing i've seen in obama's platform really addresses civil liberties or high prices beyond some cheap rhetoric. sure, he wants to help small businesses out, but it takes a lot more than just tax credits to do that, and this is from someone who's parents own a small business.

well since FISA is about civil liberties, it is just proof that he really doesn't care about civil liberties as much as he cares about being in power.


I'm not going to copy and paste it all, but Obama takes care of all of that on his website. It's there if you look and quit spitting your own stupid rhetoric without actually stating fact. You are just another fish in the large pond that is the "ill-informed electorate."

[x togepi x]

If you only read each candidates website, then, yeah, it is really easy to say that. For instance, Both Obama and McCain want end foreign oil dependency. So by that and that alone, sure you can say there isn't much of a difference.

But if you open your eyes and ears and actually read/listen, you know that their ways to go out combating the problem are night and day.

if by "night and day" you mean "differ on minor details" then yes, they are "night and day".


Wrong. What was a fundamental reason Obama beat Hillary? He kept generating cash. I'm going to say this again, maybe this time you will get it. The GOP over the next couple of months is going to whirl out the spin machine and do everything in their power to get a Republican to stay in the White House. Not McCain's campaign alone, the actual GOP party. Just like Obama will be getting DNC backing, along with contributions from his own campaign.

First off, your committing a fallacy of equivalency: the general election =/= the primaries, so you can't assume that the reasons Obama won in the primary will carry him to success in the general election because it's a whole new ballgame.

Secondly, McCain is already having fundraising problems as many conservatives aren't too pleased with him because he doesn't outwardly hate gay people enough or something, while Obama's still doing great. The republicans might be great at raising money but they're facing problems in the house/senate races because of this backlash against bush's policies that I was talking about earlier. Even internal republican memos are saying that basically every republican seat is up for grabs, which means less money going to McCain and more going to various races. This isn't like 2000-2004 where the republicans seemed to resonate witha lot of people.


I'm not going to copy and paste it all, but Obama takes care of all of that on his website. It's there if you look and quit spitting your own stupid rhetoric without actually stating fact. You are just another fish in the large pond that is the "ill-informed electorate."

I'm sorry, I guess these emails I've been getting from the Obama campaign, MoveOn.org, etc are just sitting in my inbox unread. I'm quite familair with his website. I realize his policy is that the bill is poorly written and he's supposedly going to go after the telecom companies after he's president with criminal investigation..but I don't buy this talking point because he voted for the PATRIOT act.

but it's kind of funny that you accuse me of being "ill informed" and "spewing rehtoric" when all you've done is say "Obama will be a good president. no really he will be" without any analysis or explanation at all.

[Nevuk]

I'm not going to copy and paste it all, but Obama takes care of all of that on his website. It's there if you look and quit spitting your own stupid rhetoric without actually stating fact. You are just another fish in the large pond that is the "ill-informed electorate."
Thank you for this bit of superiority complex. Until politicians accept the fact that they themselves are no more "informed" than the electorate they enjoy sneering at, this issue won't end. What most americans want will not happen, because most of the people in power think that what the average american thinks is wrong, because they are inferior as they haven't been elected to office. Yes, laugh me down as "ill-informed", and of course I'm ill-informed. I have no idea who the built the great wall of china. I have no idea who our current secretary of education is. I don't even know the currency of china. However, none of this is relevant to the discussion at hand. I don't have the 50th page of the PATRIOT Act memorized. Do the candidates? No? THEY'RE FUCKING ILL INFORMED. This is a poor example of grammar regardless, as you are attempting to use a qualitative statement about a quantitative value.

Even if they wanted to be well-informed, they don't have the time - and thus every single piece of information passed onto them is vetted by dozens of underlings whose job is to pass on only what is important and of course this is an opinioniated question. Example : I knew someone whose job was to pass on every terrorist threat to a president, and at the end of the day all they were allowed to pass on was one page of information. Is that well-informed? 1 page every day, some of which could've required far more, some far less, due to our bizarre desire for standards.

America's political system is horrible if you are judging it on an "informed" basis, and by pretty much every standard. Obama betrayed Wright to win. Obama changed his mind on Nafta to win. By this point, it is clear the man has no principle he won't betray to become elected in office. Unfortunately, the same is true of his opponent. I'm not voting, I don't want our fucking terrible excuse for elected officials to stay, I really wouldn't care if the federal government was toppled by pretty much any means. Actually, I would care. I'd be happy. It deserved it a long time ago, for so many reasons.

[lauren<3s music]

Really, I wish you would READ A GOD DAMN LEGITIMATE NEWS SOURCE FOR ONCE IN YOUR LIFE BEFORE MAKING A THREAD. at the risk of sounding all jim crow-esque it scares me that you can vote.

and yeah obama's VERY right wing. go play in traffic

[GiggsOho]

if by "night and day" you mean "differ on minor details" then yes, they are "night and day".

McCain is for drilling off shore, Obama isn't. Wow, what a minor detail.


First off, your committing a fallacy of equivalency: the general election =/= the primaries, so you can't assume that the reasons Obama won in the primary will carry him to success in the general election because it's a whole new ballgame.
This right here proves my point about FISA, idiot, you just contradicted your own beliefs. :appl:

Secondly, McCain is already having fundraising problems as many conservatives aren't too pleased with him because he doesn't outwardly hate gay people enough or something, while Obama's still doing great.
Wow, great, factual language to support your claim there. What's the source? CNN? MSNBC? Miley Cyrus?

But if Obama is good with gays, how can he be conservative? Another contradiction.



but it's kind of funny that you accuse me of being "ill informed" and "spewing rehtoric" when all you've done is say "Obama will be a good president. no really he will be" without any analysis or explanation at all.

Actually, all I did was show you how your opinion of "Obama is a conservative" is as ludicrous as someone saying "The Iraq War was justified."

[lauren<3s music]

you know if half of you who bitch so god damn much actually got out and did something political to change the system maybe you wouldn't be such miserable fucks.

[GiggsOho]

Thank you for this bit of superiority complex. Until politicians accept the fact that they themselves are no more "informed" than the electorate they enjoy sneering at, this issue won't end. What most americans want will not happen, because most of the people in power think that what the average american thinks is wrong, because they are inferior as they haven't been elected to office. Yes, laugh me down as "ill-informed", and of course I'm ill-informed. I have no idea who the built the great wall of china. I have no idea who our current secretary of education is. I don't even know the currency of china. However, none of this is relevant to the discussion at hand. I don't have the 50th page of the PATRIOT Act memorized. Do the candidates? No? THEY'RE FUCKING ILL INFORMED. This is a poor example of grammar regardless, as you are attempting to use a qualitative statement about a quantitative value.

Even if they wanted to be well-informed, they don't have the time - and thus every single piece of information passed onto them is vetted by dozens of underlings whose job is to pass on only what is important and of course this is an opinioniated question. Example : I knew someone whose job was to pass on every terrorist threat to a president, and at the end of the day all they were allowed to pass on was one page of information. Is that well-informed? 1 page every day, some of which could've required far more, some far less, due to our bizarre desire for standards.

America's political system is horrible if you are judging it on an "informed" basis, and by pretty much every standard. Obama betrayed Wright to win. Obama changed his mind on Nafta to win. By this point, it is clear the man has no principle he won't betray to become elected in office. Unfortunately, the same is true of his opponent. I'm not voting, I don't want our fucking terrible excuse for elected officials to stay, I really wouldn't care if the federal government was toppled by pretty much any means. Actually, I would care. I'd be happy. It deserved it a long time ago, for so many reasons.


You said some things I agree with (they are ill-informed), somethings i disagree with (it's their job to know, if they don't want to know, or can't figure out how to know, get out of office), and some things that just pissed me off (wow, not voting, people die for us to have that right, nice way to slap your armed forces in the face.)

[lauren<3s music]

You said some things I agree with (they are ill-informed), somethings i disagree with (it's their job to know, if they don't want to know, or can't figure out how to know, get out of office), and some things that just pissed me off (wow, not voting, people die for us to have that right, nice way to slap your armed forces in the face.)

:appl:

[Nevuk]

Really, I wish you would READ A GOD DAMN LEGITIMATE NEWS SOURCE FOR ONCE IN YOUR LIFE BEFORE MAKING A THREAD. at the risk of sounding all jim crow-esque it scares me that you can vote.

and yeah obama's VERY right wing. go play in traffic
I haven't registered to vote and I believe it is well past the deadline, if that was to me. I can't vote.
Oh wait, that was to togepi. Haha.
You said some things I agree with (they are ill-informed), somethings i disagree with (it's their job to know, if they don't want to know, or can't figure out how to know, get out of office), and some things that just pissed me off (wow, not voting, people die for us to have that right, nice way to slap your armed forces in the face.)
Yeah, thanks for the rest of it. I dunno, I was kind of pissed off more from what people who say a remark similar to you have said and going off on a rant, that part really had nothing to do with the rest of it. I honestly don't think it is possible for a politician to know in that manner - it is their job to be well-informed enough about every field to be capable of making laws that affect all of them. However, to often they merely attempt to be capable of passing laws, and after a certain length of time in which the problem has not rectified itself, the blame must fall upon the system. It doesn't make sense to me, I'd rather have a biologist making biology laws (which the government has nodded towards with the FDA, but still) than a politician doing so.

The part about not voting is rooted in this, I don't like the idea that if 51% of the country wants something, the other 49% is totally fucked, but only every 4 years (Or two for house, and less for local elections, but there is still significant time passed without the say of everyone). That is as close to a summation as I can approach.

[lauren<3s music]

I haven't registered to vote and I believe it is well past the deadline, if that was to me. I can't vote.
Oh wait, that was to togepi. Haha.

Yeah, thanks for the rest of it. I dunno, I was kind of pissed off more from what people who say a remark similar to you have said and going off on a rant, that part really had nothing to do with the rest of it. I honestly don't think it is possible for a politician to know in that manner - it is their job to be well-informed enough about every field to be capable of making laws that affect all of them. However, to often they merely attempt to be capable of passing laws, and after a certain length of time in which the problem has not rectified itself, the blame must fall upon the system. It doesn't make sense to me, I'd rather have a biologist making biology laws (which the government has nodded towards with the FDA, but still) than a politician doing so.

The part about not voting is rooted in this, I don't like the idea that if 51% of the country wants something, the other 49% is totally fucked, but only every 4 years (Or two for house, and less for local elections, but there is still significant time passed without the say of everyone). That is as close to a summation as I can approach.

i'm of the firm mindset if you don't vote you can't bitch. but yeah that wasn't aimed at you. it was aimed at the fucking moron who wastes everyone's time by citing the huffington post and going ooooooooh both of our future presidents have terrorist connections. guess what mother fucker i probably have more terrorist connections than they do. i mean really jesus christ.

[Nevuk]

i'm of the firm mindset if you don't vote you can't bitch. but yeah that wasn't aimed at you. it was aimed at the fucking moron who wastes everyone's time by citing the huffington post and going ooooooooh both of our future presidents have terrorist connections. guess what mother fucker i probably have more terrorist connections than they do. i mean really jesus christ.
What if I did a write-in vote for mickey mouse? Could I whine then? (just joking, if I did vote it'd probably be a write-in for Gravel)
But not voting speaks as well, even if it is usually mis-interpreted. By not voting I am trying to say that I do not agree with representative democracy and refuse to participate in such an act on principle. What pollsters usually take from this is "Oh you just don't care". I'll admit to not being the most involved person in politics I know, but at the same time I'm far more interested in theory and the news than many that do vote. I do care, however I disagree.

And I'm fairly sure this is a sarcastic thread concerning all the Obama terrorist allegations. Obama moving to the right isn't a joke, however, and as much as political analysts have expected it, many are feeling betrayed by it (I never supported Obama, but that is besides the point. Many supported him, and what they thought they were supporting changed).

[GiggsOho]

The part about not voting is rooted in this, I don't like the idea that if 51% of the country wants something, the other 49% is totally fucked, but only every 4 years (Or two for house, and less for local elections, but there is still significant time passed without the say of everyone). That is as close to a summation as I can approach.

This isn't a utopia, man. No one is going to universally agree on everything, it would be foolish to think otherwise. Not all of us are given the chance to actually influence a great amount of lives in our own life, and a vote is actually the only basic way to voice an opinion. There are people around the world who would kill for the chance to vote instead of having a gun pointed in their face, with someone saying "follow the law or we'll shoot you." You just seem to toss aside a fundamental part of your liberty because you have a philosophical difference with the way things are run, when (I'm taking a shot in the dark here, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) you haven't been in any government better/worse to know a philosophical difference.

I understand you hate the system, and I'll agree with you, the system is flawed. But at the very core, the ideals of liberties given to us in this democracy is better than anything else I've ever seen or would want to experience. If we all lived in China, I would have probably been dead for all the shit I've talked on the gov't.

[lauren<3s music]

What if I did a write-in vote for mickey mouse? Could I whine then? (just joking, if I did vote it'd probably be a write-in for Gravel)
But not voting speaks as well, even if it is usually mis-interpreted. By not voting I am trying to say that I do not agree with representative democracy and refuse to participate in such an act on principle. What pollsters usually take from this is "Oh you just don't care". I'll admit to not being the most involved person in politics I know, but at the same time I'm far more interested in theory and the news than many that do vote. I do care, however I disagree.

And I'm fairly sure this is a sarcastic thread concerning all the Obama terrorist allegations. Obama moving to the right isn't a joke, however, and as much as political analysts have expected it, many are feeling betrayed by it (I never supported Obama, but that is besides the point. Many supported him, and what they thought they were supporting changed).

you could vot for mickey mouse and i'd have a lot more respect for you then if you sat on your ass if you dont like the system fix it, protest it, DO SOMETHING that's my point the people who sit and bitch and do nothing to affect change drive me nuts

even if you don't agree with the system its what we have so you might as well work with iin its current structures to affect change. be realistic, the US isn't going to overnight go ohh heyyy a majority rule may not work effectively and by not expressing your voice youre not "disagreeing" you're just not counted which is worse.

if people feel betrayed by obama they should grow up i mean really. face it politics is a game as much as it blows and until the middle of bumfuck america gets their act together and stop voting for morons they yes the liberals will have to shift right. there simply aren't enough of us to get the job done. and quite frankly i'm not pleased with his "right wing" economic principals but he's the better guy for the job so i can deal. i mean look at the other choice. and yes of course he's tan/brown/not a 70 year old white man so OF course he must be a terrorist (not saying you believe this just the mass idiots). my god no wonder i got such dirty looks on the plane after i got back from the beach

[Nevuk]

This isn't a utopia, man. No one is going to universally agree on everything, it would be foolish to think otherwise. Not all of us are given the chance to actually influence a great amount of lives in our own life, and a vote is actually the only basic way to voice an opinion. There are people around the world who would kill for the chance to vote instead of having a gun pointed in their face, with someone saying "follow the law or we'll shoot you." You just seem to toss aside a fundamental part of your liberty because you have a philosophical difference with the way things are run, when (I'm taking a shot in the dark here, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) you haven't been in any government better/worse to know a philosophical difference.

I understand you hate the system, and I'll agree with you, the system is flawed. But at the very core, the ideals of liberties given to us in this democracy is better than anything else I've ever seen or would want to experience. If we all lived in China, I would have probably been dead for all the shit I've talked on the gov't.
Part of my liberty is the right to not exercise it. I know a utopia is impossible - at the same time I still believe it should be worked towards. China being insanely worse than the US is probably greatly influenced by propaganda. I'm sure the average chinese citizen probably calls us idiotic morons, and might even be happier (total guess). Third world countries are a different story, but that is often the US' fault. The logic of the state is that if it must trade 1000 lives of other people for 1 live, hell, even the comfort of 1 person's life, it should do it. And it does, and it covers up the fact it is doing it to prevent us from even suffering the guilt. (Ever see Manufacturing Consent where they compare two genocides, one in darfur and one in indonesia, and the indonesian one was US backed and had about 1% of the news coverage, despite being of equal or greater scale?).

Putting a gun to my head and saying "follow the law or we'll shoot you" actually is what this country does. Break the law in front of a cop. Any law that would get his attention. First thing he does? Pulls his gun, starts yelling at you. Just because it is not verbally announced does not mean it isn't implicit. Granted, I'm aware of what you meant, but I find this comparable. (I think you were looking for "Vote like this or I shoot you!").

[Nevuk]

you could vot for mickey mouse and i'd have a lot more respect for you then if you sat on your ass if you dont like the system fix it, protest it, DO SOMETHING that's my point the people who sit and bitch and do nothing to affect change drive me nuts


I'm openly a societal anarchist who is willing to discuss with anyone my reasons for it. Part of my logic for being open about it is to be a demonstration that doing so is not impossible and to try and counteract the stereotype of anarchy. I go to a college where I've debated this on numerous occasions publicly and with total strangers, professors, written papers(and stories and poems) about it, participated in philosophical debates with frequency. I'm not putting the most effort into it, I'll admit (I'm an english major, not a poli-sci), but I am doing as much as I personally find possible. If you can suggest a more effective course of action, I'm open to it, you probably do have some decent advice in the area.

even if you don't agree with the system its what we have so you might as well work with iin its current structures to affect change. be realistic, the US isn't going to overnight go ohh heyyy a majority rule may not work effectively and by not expressing your voice youre not "disagreeing" you're just not counted which is worse. I disagree with working within the system, as this traps you to working within its confines. By this I mean attempting to become a politician in order to pursue my own vision of a utopia. I can't do that. Voting is just a symbol - we both know my vote isn't going to mean anything, especially not in KY (i'm a KY resident). We can disagree about this all day, though - it is a huge disagreement in any group, even the anti-government ones.

if people feel betrayed by obama they should grow up i mean really. face it politics is a game as much as it blows and until the middle of bumfuck america gets their act together and stop voting for morons they yes the liberals will have to shift right. there simply aren't enough of us to get the job done. and quite frankly i'm not pleased with his "right wing" economic principals but he's the better guy for the job so i can deal. i mean look at the other choice. and yes of course he's tan/brown/not a 70 year old white man so OF course he must be a terrorist (not saying you believe this just the mass idiots). my god no wonder i got such dirty looks on the plane after i got back from the beach
Politics is indeed a game. It is too important to be one - I'm great at games, especially mental ones. I refuse to do so with relationships, for much the same reason, I personally put that type of thing on a level above something I'd do to a random stranger or person I didn't like - who are typically the only ones I'll do that with. Weird analogy, but I hope you see what I'm saying there. I'll agree he is better than McCain, but by that logic, Bush is greater than Pol Pot. Continuing down this "well he is better than x" route is only going to damage the country. And yes, they should've seen it coming.

[x togepi x]

Really, I wish you would READ A GOD DAMN LEGITIMATE NEWS SOURCE FOR ONCE IN YOUR LIFE BEFORE MAKING A THREAD. at the risk of sounding all jim crow-esque it scares me that you can vote.

and yeah obama's VERY right wing. go play in traffic

you're funny.

i am simultaneously super informed and a philistine depending on when i agree or disagree with you. but seriously, define "legitimate news source" please. i generally stick to foreign ones, though i read the times/washington post.

drop your ethnocentric standard of what's liberal and conservative. on the scale in an objective sense, all american politicians would be considered conservative except for maybe kuicnich and barney frank.

[x togepi x]

McCain is for drilling off shore, Obama isn't. Wow, what a minor detail.

oh wow, you cherry picked one policy issue that they differ on.

MCCain is for privatized healthcare. Obama's position on healthcare involves negotiating with the healthcare companies, which will probably mean its essentially the same.

McCain is pro-free trade, NAFTA, Isreal. Obama is pro-free trade, NAFTA (flip-flopping on this issue), Israel.
This right here proves my point about FISA, idiot, you just contradicted your own beliefs. :appl:

This is awesome since you, uh, explained how this contradicts my beliefs, because it didn't really. My position was that shifting the right was why I don't like Obama and that it won't do any good in the general election. Your position was that he has to. Nowhere in this point did I actually contradict anything that I said.

but hey, even if i concede that more money=more election power, you completely ignored my second point except to question it's source, which is cute because you yourself have provided no sources other than a vague reference to obama's website (which would be quite objective!).

Wow, great, factual language to support your claim there. What's the source? CNN? MSNBC? Miley Cyrus?

President Bush has headlined a fund-raising event to help John McCain finance his campaign to succeed him, but most of the big-money backers who helped reelect Bush in 2004 haven't pulled out their checkbooks for McCain - or asked their friends to chip in either.

Of the 548 leaders of Bush's vaunted money-raising machine, about 43 percent have contributed to McCain, a Globe review of finance reports covering the period through May 31 shows. Even fewer of them solicited and bundled donations from others for McCain, as they did for Bush four years ago.


About 25 percent of the elite Bush money team gave to another Republican or, in several cases, to a Democrat, but not to McCain. Nearly a third remained on the sidelines, not contributing to any presidential candidate.
McCain's struggle to mobilize the Bush fund-raisers is in part a sign of the disaffection among some GOP stalwarts for McCain, who positions himself as a party rebel on some issues. But it's also a sign of the obstacles that any Republican nominee would face in exciting elite GOP donors at a time of discouraging poll numbers driven by economic turm
...

Analysts, however, ascribe McCain's fund-raising struggles to a combination of factors, primarily the challenging political environment in which Republicans find themselves, with polls showing that voters overwhelmingly think the country is heading in the wrong direction under Bush.

hmm...that republican machine is really working out so well for mccain (boston globe) (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/07/01/bush_base_yet_to_rush_to_donate_to_ mccain/)

Now, for my assertion that seats in the Senate are up for grabs. I was wrong in saying that no seat in congress was safe for republicans, I misread. My source actually says that no seats in the House are safe, which coupled withthe factors the article I'm going to cite, will lead to competitive races in the Senate as well

House Republicans lost three recent elections when customary campaign themes failed to sway voters and their candidates could not overcome the “negative perception of the national party,” according to an internal review that underscores the potential for widespread losses this fall.

The disclosure seemed designed to inflict a psychological blow on Republicans, since the Democratic organization has yet to spend any of the money. But the move also serves as a reminder of the Democrats' enormous financial advantage over Republicans little more than four months before elections with all 435 House seats on the ballot. The National Republican Congressional Committee had $6.7 million in its bank account at the end of May, while the Democrats reported $47.2 million.
While defeats in special elections in Illinois and Louisiana troubled Republicans, the loss of a Mississippi House seat on May 13 led to appointment of a six-member group to review the NRCC's performance. Key lawmakers met Thursday to review the findings, some of which were obtained by The Associated Press.
While the review said the national political environment was largely to blame for the losses, it also said Republican candidates themselves were less than optimal and their campaigns were flawed.
The NRCC also came in for its share of criticism. As is customary, the Republican campaign committee paid for television and other campaign activities in each race through independent organizations that allow unlimited expenditures. The report cited as one of the shortcomings an apparent lack of communication among outside campaign specialists hired to provide television advertising and direct mail.
....

Republicans controlled the House for 12 years until the midterm elections in 2006.
Democrats currently hold a majority of 235-199, with one vacancy. Speaking privately, numerous Republicans have long conceded they are well on their way to additional, possibly significant losses in November, given President Bush's low approval ratings, opposition to the war in Iraq and polls that show a large majority of Americans wanting change.
Karen Hanretty, communications director for the NRCC, reacted to the private report by acknowledging the difficulties confronting her party.
“This is a challenging environment,” she said. “Any Republican running for office has to run basically on an independent platform, localize the race and not take anything for granted. There are no safe Republican seats in this election.”



...
It added that traditional Republican messages “essentially did not work,” and that framing the elections as a choice between a traditional Republican and a traditional Democrat failed.


So it seems that my analysis, that Bush's policies are so unpopular with the public that republicans are going to have to focus on keeping control of the house, which is something they didn't have to worry about as much in recent elections still rings true. This extra focus is going to syphon money away from McCain, as the RNC will have to split it's money on keeping two branches of government.



Secondly, another factor in this money making machine is the coat tails effect, mainly having a popular politician running for one office campaign in another area causes spillover support for candidates of the same party. This was key in 2000/2004 when Bush was still fairly popular, but in 2008, McCain isn't going to have the same effect, meaning that party organizers in each state are going to have to budget their money, which means McCain isn't going to have the funds that a republican candidate would historically have.



But if Obama is good with gays, how can he be conservative? Another contradiction.

This is debatable as Obama pushes an assimationist agenda, which may or may not be good for the homosexual community, however, there are many conservatives who are pro-gay rights. Andrew Sullivan is a conservative columnist who is homosexual (and is actually an Obama supporter which kind of proves my point). It's not really a contradiction since not all conservatives hate homosexuals, just the crazy christian ones, which are the ones really hating on McCain.


Actually, all I did was show you how your opinion of "Obama is a conservative" is as ludicrous as someone saying "The Iraq War was justified."

No, you just said that my opinion was wrong. You didn't actually show how it was, you just spouted talking points and empty rhetoric.


it's kind of funny that you guys are acting so whiney since this is a pro-obama thread topic. too bad you have to act like fascists since I'm not toe-ing the party line and drinking the obama kool aid.

[x togepi x]

i'm of the firm mindset if you don't vote you can't bitch. but yeah that wasn't aimed at you. it was aimed at the fucking moron who wastes everyone's time by citing the huffington post and going ooooooooh both of our future presidents have terrorist connections. guess what mother fucker i probably have more terrorist connections than they do. i mean really jesus christ.

"bitching" is something guaranteed by the first amendment. but hey, if you'd like to pay for a nice tropical island so i could remove myself from the social contract, i'd be more than willing to get out of your hair.

You, being a partisan hack, missed the entire point of this topic, which was to say that it's asinine for people to whine that Obama supposedly has links to terrorism because one of the Weathermen (who could be considered a terrorist fucking decades ago) gave him $200, when McCain's biggest contributor works with an organization that's still committing acts of terrorism. I don't think a college professor with a shady past who donated to Obama back in the day counts as "links to terrorism", I think McCain's biggest financial backer helping right wing terrorists in Columbia does.

so, uh, way to go off on the deep end on someone who's making a pretty good response to a McCain attack that conservative posters here keep repeating ad nausem and nobody seems to be responding to.

pull your head out of the DNC's ass and learn to fucking read.

[asmolitor]

spatial theory of elections. obama moves right so he can capture as much space as possible while still being closer to the extreme left than mccain. i can almost guarantee mccain will start moving to the left, as his conservative credentials are challenged regardless. it happens in virtually every major election - two candidates who should be polarizing end up debating esoteric tangents of arguments when they may actually both share the same end goal. i don't know why anyone would be surprised either candidate would move toward the center, since swing voters essentially decide elections.

and as for either candidate's links to terrorism, any politician could be linked to any donor. there's going to be "extremists" from both poles of the spectrum that do their part to support a candidate. i'm sure if there were background checks on anonymous donors, pardon the paradox, every candidate would have undesirable supporters to answer to - whether they solicit the support or not.

[x togepi x]

i don't think this spatial theory elections is beneficial, obama needs not to move to the right to gain support. he merely has to show the similarities between bush and mccain, which is quite easy to do, and let mccain flounder. he's the one with a strong base, and before these shifts, was resonating better with independent voters. this is why i don't think he's actually liberal, but was merely playing to the base in the primary and now he's showing his true colors (so basically the opposite of what you said)

[captainhampton]

this thread is awesome.

[Love As Arson]

What should progressives do about Obama's move to the center?

I was on a panel at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado this week when Newsweek's Jonathan Alter asked me, "Is Obama a sellout?" The question isn't whether he is a sellout or not -- it's about what demands are made by grass-roots social movements of those who would represent them. The question is, who are these candidates responding to, answering to?

Richard Nixon's campaign strategy was to run in the primaries to the right, then move to the center in the general election. Bill Clinton's strategy was called "triangulation," navigating to a political "Third Way" to please moderates and undecided voters. This past week, Barack Obama has made some signal policy changes that suggest he might be doing something similar. Will it work for him?

Take the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, for example. A Dec. 17, 2007, press release from Obama's Senate office read: "Senator Obama unequivocally opposes giving retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies and has cosponsored Senator Dodd's efforts to remove that provision from the FISA bill. Granting such immunity undermines the constitutional protections Americans trust the Congress to protect. Senator Obama supports a filibuster of this bill, and strongly urges others to do the same." Six months later, he supports immunity for the companies that spied on Americans.

I asked Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., about Obama's position on the FISA bill. He told me: "Wrong vote. Regrettable. Many Democrats will do this. We should be standing up for the Constitution. When Sen. Obama is president, he will, I'm sure, work to fix some of this, but it's going to be a lot easier to prevent it now than to try to fix it later."

Feingold and Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., are planning on filibustering the bill. It will take 60 senators to overcome their filibuster. It looks like Obama will be one of them. Disappointment with Obama's FISA position is not limited to his senatorial colleagues. On Obama's own campaign Web site, bloggers are voicing strident opposition to his FISA position. At the time of this writing, an online group on Obama's site had more than 10,000 members and was growing fast. The group's profile reads: "Senator Obama -- we are a proud group of your supporters who believe in your call for hope and a new kind of politics. Please reject the politics of fear on national security, vote against this bill and lead other Democrats to do the same!"

Then there were the recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions on gun control and the death penalty. Obama supported the court in overturning the 32-year-old ban on handguns in the nation's violence-ridden capital. It's the court's most significant ruling on the Second Amendment in nearly 70 years. And in a blow to death-penalty opponents, Obama disagreed with the high court's prohibiting execution of those who were found guilty of raping children.

In a Jan. 21, 2008, primary debate, Obama called the North American Free Trade Agreement "a mistake" and "an enormous problem." He recently told Fortune magazine, "Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified ... my core position has never changed ... I've always been a proponent of free trade." This, after the primary-campaign scandal of the alleged meeting between Obama economic adviser Austan Goolsbee and a member of the Canadian consulate. A Canadian memo describing the meeting suggested Obama was generally satisfied with NAFTA. Goolsbee described the accounts as inaccurate. Now people are beginning to question Obama's genuine opposition to NAFTA and "free trade."

Then there is the floating of potential vice presidential candidates. Jonathan Capehart of The Washington Post was on the Aspen panel and noted that he has been receiving e-mails from gay men who angrily oppose former Sen. Sam Nunn as an Obama running mate. They can't forget Nunn's key role in shaping "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," which prohibited gay men and lesbians from serving openly in the military. The e-mails trickled up, prompting the writing of an influential Capehart column, "Don't Ask Nunn."

It may be the strategy of the Obama campaign to run to the middle, to attract the independents, the undecided. But he should look carefully at the lessons of the 2004 Kerry campaign. John Kerry made similar calculations, not wanting to appear weak on the war in Iraq. Uninspired, people stayed home. There are millions who care about the issues from which Obama is distancing himself, from FISA to gun control to gay rights to free trade to the death penalty. Rather than staying home, they should recall the words of Frederick Douglass: "Power concedes nothing without a demand."

http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/90416/

[oldwirehands]

Well neither McCain nor Obama have to be our future presidents. Vote for an independent. I know Bob Barr is going to do well this year. At least better than past Libertarians who've ran.

[saysmydoctor]

The only independent I will ever vote for is Michael Bloomberg.

[open mind]

i'm of the firm mindset if you don't vote you can't bitch. but yeah that wasn't aimed at you. it was aimed at the fucking moron who wastes everyone's time by citing the huffington post and going ooooooooh both of our future presidents have terrorist connections. guess what mother fucker i probably have more terrorist connections than they do. i mean really jesus christ.

that makes no sense.......the people who vote are directly responsible for the people we have in office........the people who don't vote.....
what do you tell the people who would vote but can't? that they can't bitch about not being able to vote?

[open mind]

you could vot for mickey mouse and i'd have a lot more respect for you then if you sat on your ass if you dont like the system fix it, protest it, DO SOMETHING that's my point the people who sit and bitch and do nothing to affect change drive me nuts

even if you don't agree with the system its what we have so you might as well work with iin its current structures to affect change. be realistic, the US isn't going to overnight go ohh heyyy a majority rule may not work effectively and by not expressing your voice youre not "disagreeing" you're just not counted which is worse.

if people feel betrayed by obama they should grow up i mean really. face it politics is a game as much as it blows and until the middle of bumfuck america gets their act together and stop voting for morons they yes the liberals will have to shift right. there simply aren't enough of us to get the job done. and quite frankly i'm not pleased with his "right wing" economic principals but he's the better guy for the job so i can deal. i mean look at the other choice. and yes of course he's tan/brown/not a 70 year old white man so OF course he must be a terrorist (not saying you believe this just the mass idiots). my god no wonder i got such dirty looks on the plane after i got back from the beach

working within a bad system inevitably leads to corruption of ones ideals and goals.......just look at the baby boomer generation.
the reason why people don't vote is because in the grand scheme of things there's no really big difference in choice. we have the illusion of democracy, and buying into an illusion is borderline retarded.
obama is just another full of shit politician who'll do anything to win votes.........and don't blame that on middle america.

[Nevuk]

I can add another analogy to the whole not voting thing. The most influential thing I could do is give money to a politician. This would be more influential than me actually voting. (Granted, I don't have much, but I could probably scrape up a 1000$ by the end of the month if I really tried. I won't though). I'm fairly sure 1000$ counts for more than one vote.

[x togepi x]

dude if you can scrape up 1k, i know a certain band that would use it to put out a 7inch. haha

[Nevuk]

dude if you can scrape up 1k, i know a certain band that would use it to put out a 7inch. haha
Hahaha. I'd love to do that, but by 1k I meant seriously not spending any money, walking to work and maing wise investment choices, and probably skip the first week of classes. You know. What old people do. I'd definitely be willing to contribute some if you are serious, though. Unfortunately I seriously have to spend most of the money on insurance and college expenses as I can't work the rest of the year (I love where my college is, but there is nowhere to fucking work).

[x togepi x]

Hahaha. I'd love to do that, but by 1k I meant seriously not spending any money, walking to work and maing wise investment choices, and probably skip the first week of classes. You know. What old people do. I'd definitely be willing to contribute some if you are serious, though. Unfortunately I seriously have to spend most of the money on insurance and college expenses as I can't work the rest of the year (I love where my college is, but there is nowhere to fucking work).

oh shit don't do that then. wise investment choices are for hookers and fat people.

[Justin_stacy]

Ironic that Huffington would forget to point out that the lead lawyer in this case for Chiquita is none other then a member of Obama's Vp search committee.

[saysmydoctor]

The US doesn't know who a terrorist is, we said Nelson Mandela was one. Who gives a shit?

[x togepi x]

people who are easily scared by buzzwords.

[se1046]

if he was perfectly sincere, he wouldn't be hiring conservative economic advisors. there's one thing to be playing to the center, but these people are going to be shaping his platform/policies.

I watched a youtube video where obama actually is basically word for word saying what president bush says in regards to terrorism.

[lauren<3s music]

"bitching" is something guaranteed by the first amendment. but hey, if you'd like to pay for a nice tropical island so i could remove myself from the social contract, i'd be more than willing to get out of your hair.

You, being a partisan hack, missed the entire point of this topic, which was to say that it's asinine for people to whine that Obama supposedly has links to terrorism because one of the Weathermen (who could be considered a terrorist fucking decades ago) gave him $200, when McCain's biggest contributor works with an organization that's still committing acts of terrorism. I don't think a college professor with a shady past who donated to Obama back in the day counts as "links to terrorism", I think McCain's biggest financial backer helping right wing terrorists in Columbia does.

so, uh, way to go off on the deep end on someone who's making a pretty good response to a McCain attack that conservative posters here keep repeating ad nausem and nobody seems to be responding to.

pull your head out of the DNC's ass and learn to fucking read.


actually i didn't miss the point i just chose to point out how fucking stupid you are.

[lauren<3s music]

that makes no sense.......the people who vote are directly responsible for the people we have in office........the people who don't vote.....
what do you tell the people who would vote but can't? that they can't bitch about not being able to vote?

explain that group to me....

working within a bad system inevitably leads to corruption of ones ideals and goals.......just look at the baby boomer generation.
the reason why people don't vote is because in the grand scheme of things there's no really big difference in choice. we have the illusion of democracy, and buying into an illusion is borderline retarded.
obama is just another full of shit politician who'll do anything to win votes.........and don't blame that on middle america.

it is not realistic to say we will just scrap the entire system. It isn't going to happen. Hate to be the realist but that's how it is.

[x togepi x]

actually i didn't miss the point i just chose to point out how fucking stupid you are.

wow. this is such an amazing and well thought out response.


are all obama supporters this idiotic?

[x togepi x]

another article about why moving to the center is stupid for obama (http://www.alternet.org/election08/90465/?page=entire)

feel free to whine about the source and who wrote it and ignore its merits.

[open mind]

explain that group to me.....

millions of convicted felons immediately spring to mind.

it is not realistic to say we will just scrap the entire system. It isn't going to happen. Hate to be the realist but that's how it is.

oh i know, i'm just pointing out that it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation......so it makes as little sense to get high and mighty about the fact that you believe in and actively support a unquestionably flawed system as it does to take pride in non-participation.

[saysmydoctor]

Obama is moving to the center, I see it and it is annoying. But voting for him still saves us from McCain.

[x togepi x]

moving to the center doesn't save us from mccain just like moving to the center by kerry and gore didn't save us from bush.

[saysmydoctor]

I agree.

[Nevuk]

Also consider that the mccain of 8 years ago was entirely different from the McCain we have today.

[GiggsOho]

Part of my liberty is the right to not exercise it. I know a utopia is impossible - at the same time I still believe it should be worked towards. China being insanely worse than the US is probably greatly influenced by propaganda. I'm sure the average chinese citizen probably calls us idiotic morons, and might even be happier (total guess). Third world countries are a different story, but that is often the US' fault. The logic of the state is that if it must trade 1000 lives of other people for 1 live, hell, even the comfort of 1 person's life, it should do it. And it does, and it covers up the fact it is doing it to prevent us from even suffering the guilt. (Ever see Manufacturing Consent where they compare two genocides, one in darfur and one in indonesia, and the indonesian one was US backed and had about 1% of the news coverage, despite being of equal or greater scale?).

Putting a gun to my head and saying "follow the law or we'll shoot you" actually is what this country does. Break the law in front of a cop. Any law that would get his attention. First thing he does? Pulls his gun, starts yelling at you. Just because it is not verbally announced does not mean it isn't implicit. Granted, I'm aware of what you meant, but I find this comparable. (I think you were looking for "Vote like this or I shoot you!").

I, by no means, will call the U.S. perfect, but you say that one of the flaws in the American system is what i have put in bold?!? Are you kidding me? IF YOU BREAK THE LAW IN FRONT OF A COP, YOU ARE GOING TO GET ARRESTED, AS YOU SHOULD. Plenty of cops stop laws from being broken without pulling a gun, you are generalizing. Don't break the laws, which would get you shot, (robbery, murder, assault, arson, examples off the top of my head), and you don't have a problem.

oh wow, you cherry picked one policy issue that they differ on.

MCCain is for privatized healthcare. Obama's position on healthcare involves negotiating with the healthcare companies, which will probably mean its essentially the same.

McCain is pro-free trade, NAFTA, Isreal. Obama is pro-free trade, NAFTA (flip-flopping on this issue), Israel.


This is awesome since you, uh, explained how this contradicts my beliefs, because it didn't really. My position was that shifting the right was why I don't like Obama and that it won't do any good in the general election. Your position was that he has to. Nowhere in this point did I actually contradict anything that I said.

but hey, even if i concede that more money=more election power, you completely ignored my second point except to question it's source, which is cute because you yourself have provided no sources other than a vague reference to obama's website (which would be quite objective!).





hmm...that republican machine is really working out so well for mccain (boston globe) (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/07/01/bush_base_yet_to_rush_to_donate_to_ mccain/)

Now, for my assertion that seats in the Senate are up for grabs. I was wrong in saying that no seat in congress was safe for republicans, I misread. My source actually says that no seats in the House are safe, which coupled withthe factors the article I'm going to cite, will lead to competitive races in the Senate as well




So it seems that my analysis, that Bush's policies are so unpopular with the public that republicans are going to have to focus on keeping control of the house, which is something they didn't have to worry about as much in recent elections still rings true. This extra focus is going to syphon money away from McCain, as the RNC will have to split it's money on keeping two branches of government.



Secondly, another factor in this money making machine is the coat tails effect, mainly having a popular politician running for one office campaign in another area causes spillover support for candidates of the same party. This was key in 2000/2004 when Bush was still fairly popular, but in 2008, McCain isn't going to have the same effect, meaning that party organizers in each state are going to have to budget their money, which means McCain isn't going to have the funds that a republican candidate would historically have.





This is debatable as Obama pushes an assimationist agenda, which may or may not be good for the homosexual community, however, there are many conservatives who are pro-gay rights. Andrew Sullivan is a conservative columnist who is homosexual (and is actually an Obama supporter which kind of proves my point). It's not really a contradiction since not all conservatives hate homosexuals, just the crazy christian ones, which are the ones really hating on McCain.




No, you just said that my opinion was wrong. You didn't actually show how it was, you just spouted talking points and empty rhetoric.


it's kind of funny that you guys are acting so whiney since this is a pro-obama thread topic. too bad you have to act like fascists since I'm not toe-ing the party line and drinking the obama kool aid.

Jesus, you quoted all of that when I was joking about the language you used, not the fact that you were lying.

I watched a youtube video where obama actually is basically word for word saying what president bush says in regards to terrorism.

Final Cut/Photoshop is a very handy tool. If I got a video of you, I could blame you for 9/11 in 6 hours. Means nothing.

millions of convicted felons immediately spring to mind.


This is the states consent, and about half give it to you after time served. Furthermore, if you break laws, you sacrifice rights. Don't contribute to the detriment of society, then maybe you will be able to participate in it. Someone talked about striving toward utopia should be the goal of any nation, this is a move in the opposite direction.

moving to the center doesn't save us from mccain just like moving to the center by kerry and gore didn't save us from bush.

8 years of George W. Bush is a good enough cause to let somebody, even someone from the center, run the nation.

[x togepi x]

Jesus, you quoted all of that when I was joking about the language you used, not the fact that you were lying.

unlike you, i backed up my claims with some sort of source other than "i work in the news", all of which, you couldn't really answer.

8 years of George W. Bush is a good enough cause to let somebody, even someone from the center, run the nation.

if you worked on your reading comprehension you'd realize that I've also stated that moving to the center isn't going to save us from McCain. It just creates the idea that Obama is a career politician who will say whatever he wants to get elected, which doesn't play well to independents. This is much like moving to the center didn't work for Kerry or Gore. What's going to get people excited about Obama was what he was doing in the beginning of the primaries. Cloud his message with "centrism" and you're going to see problems in getting the independent vote.

which is kind of sad because before these shifts, McCain was already having problems getting the independent vote, but now he'll have the "flip flopper" meme to beat Obama over the head with. this coupled with the fact that the move to the center can disenfranchise certain voters (not because they're super liberal but because they'll claim he doesn't stand for anything) will make the election much closer than it needs to be, or even give McCain the win if McCain picks a good VP.

[Nevuk]

I, by no means, will call the U.S. perfect, but you say that one of the flaws in the American system is what i have put in bold?!? Are you kidding me? IF YOU BREAK THE LAW IN FRONT OF A COP, YOU ARE GOING TO GET ARRESTED, AS YOU SHOULD. Plenty of cops stop laws from being broken without pulling a gun, you are generalizing. Don't break the laws, which would get you shot, (robbery, murder, assault, arson, examples off the top of my head), and you don't have a problem.

Nono, I was saying, what is the first thing he is going to do if you don't immediately comply with a request, no matter what law it is you broke?(indeed, it is true even if you don't break a law) You could've been jaywalking, the cop is going to draw a gun the second you disobey his command to "Hold up there sonny". Doing anything rapid from this point onwards is grounds for him to fucking kill you, without being accused of cold-blooded murder or anything more than following a sense of duty. How is every single one of our laws not backed up with this implicit threat?

[lauren<3s music]

millions of convicted felons immediately spring to mind.



oh i know, i'm just pointing out that it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation......so it makes as little sense to get high and mighty about the fact that you believe in and actively support a unquestionably flawed system as it does to take pride in non-participation.

really i mean not such a worthy population. its the price you pay for acting like a moron and breaking the law.

i'm not high and might nor do i 100% believe in or actively support what we have, but i'm smart enough to realize that doing nothing isn't going to accomplish anything.

[x togepi x]

who here is advocating doing nothing?

[lauren<3s music]

moving to the center doesn't save us from mccain just like moving to the center by kerry and gore didn't save us from bush.

So Mr. Holier than Thou Political God, please enlighten the peons about the type of politician who would "save" us

:rolleyes:

[x togepi x]

So Mr. Holier than Thou Political God, please enlighten the peons about the type of politician who would "save" us

:rolleyes:

you could, actually argue the warrants of my position instead of insulting me.

[x togepi x]

i mean, the position that moving to the center saves us from McCain has only been empirically denied in the past two elections.

[Nevuk]

So Mr. Holier than Thou Political God, please enlighten the peons about the type of politician who would "save" us

:rolleyes:
No politician would be capable of such an act, the political situation in this country has reached a point where it is beyond reason to think that any single politician would alter the landscape in a manner with any significance.

[sammyboy516]

though i'm not really an obama supporter at all since he's too right wing, i do think it's hilarious that people keep bringing up that obama supposedly has this terrorist connection because he took a donation from one of the members of the weather underground (who's name escapes me at this early hour).

why are you all ignoring that mccain's top financial broker directly funded columbian terrorist groups? (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/02/mccain-fundraiser-oversaw_n_110354.html)

i tried asking this question in the mccain v. obama thread and got no response, so i'm going to go ahead and do it here.

uhm...what?

[x togepi x]

No politician would be capable of such an act, the political situation in this country has reached a point where it is beyond reason to think that any single politician would alter the landscape in a manner with any significance.

i'll save her the weak response and just go ahead and call you an idiot.

[Nevuk]

i mean, the position that moving to the center saves us from McCain has only been empirically denied in the past two elections.
The best parallel in history for this would be the election of Jefferson, as he had a public with similar sentiments (Alien and Sedition acts, etc.), even if it was only white land owners voting at the time.

[x togepi x]

uhm...what?

you don't know what liberals actually are.

[Nevuk]

i'll save her the weak response and just go ahead and call you an idiot.
lol. I don't there is a solution, I'm just here to watch the walls crumble.

[lauren<3s music]

you could, actually argue the warrants of my position instead of insulting me.

i could, but then you would have to pay someone to translate intelligent conversation for you...

No politician would be capable of such an act, the political situation in this country has reached a point where it is beyond reason to think that any single politician would alter the landscape in a manner with any significance.

Well no shit, but really I'd LOVE to know since everyone we seem to have is absolutely "awful" and running this country into the ground.

And I hate to be "that" girl, but as someone who has the luck to meet many members and work with them and their staff on a daily basis, the vast majority of our leaders want to IMPROVE our country as shocking as that sounds. They aren't these diabolical morons you all paint them to be. Perhaps you should get your ass to the hill and meet some of these people, voice your concerns, do SOMETHING.

[x togepi x]

The best parallel in history for this would be the election of Jefferson, as he had a public with similar sentiments (Alien and Sedition acts, etc.), even if it was only white land owners voting at the time.

i wouldn't draw such a parallel because times are so different. my analysis comes from the fact that move to the center is basically ripped straight out of the DLC handbook, and the DLC loses elections.

[x togepi x]

i could, but then you would have to pay someone to translate intelligent conversation for you...
.

You haven't actually responded to anything i've posted, or any of the articles i've linked other to say that 1) the source sucks or 2) i'm an idiot.

now, who exactly is the one engaging in intelligent discussion and who is the one acting like a moronic teenager?

[GiggsOho]

unlike you, i backed up my claims with some sort of source other than "i work in the news", all of which, you couldn't really answer.

Why would I source my answers when they are general knowledge! If I told you that red is the color usually meant to signal "STOP" while operating a motor vehicle, would you need sources for that, too?! My god, you are so incredibly short-sighted it's almost humorous.



if you worked on your reading comprehension you'd realize that I've also stated that moving to the center isn't going to save us from McCain. It just creates the idea that Obama is a career politician who will say whatever he wants to get elected, which doesn't play well to independents. This is much like moving to the center didn't work for Kerry or Gore. What's going to get people excited about Obama was what he was doing in the beginning of the primaries. Cloud his message with "centrism" and you're going to see problems in getting the independent vote.

which is kind of sad because before these shifts, McCain was already having problems getting the independent vote, but now he'll have the "flip flopper" meme to beat Obama over the head with. this coupled with the fact that the move to the center can disenfranchise certain voters (not because they're super liberal but because they'll claim he doesn't stand for anything) will make the election much closer than it needs to be, or even give McCain the win if McCain picks a good VP.

If you worked on your "life" comprehension, you would understand that 8 SHITTY YEARS UNDER GEORGE BUSH IS NOT GOING TO UNDO OBAMA MOVING A BIT TOWARDS THE CENTER TO GAIN VOTES. DO YOU NEED PICTURES DRAWN?!

Nono, I was saying, what is the first thing he is going to do if you don't immediately comply with a request, no matter what law it is you broke?(indeed, it is true even if you don't break a law) You could've been jaywalking, the cop is going to draw a gun the second you disobey his command to "Hold up there sonny". Doing anything rapid from this point onwards is grounds for him to fucking kill you, without being accused of cold-blooded murder or anything more than following a sense of duty. How is every single one of our laws not backed up with this implicit threat?

I would love to a see story over the past 5, 10, 20, 100 years where a cop killed someone because a citizen didn't comply with a jaywalking charge.

I understand that there have been ugly examples of cops abusing power and not following procedure which has lead to wrongful deaths (Diallo, Sean Bell), and there is a reason to be skeptical of cops.


The most I could ever see coming from a jaywalk charge is maybe a cop getting physical with someone who was outwardly (and disorderly) upset with the charge, so much so that they (wrongfully) decided to run/get ugly/physical with the cop. Even in that scenario, the person got what was coming to them, why act out over a stupid jaywalking charge?

If a cop in that scenario shot someone for a jaywalking charged, they would be sentenced to murder, and ostracized by the media/general public/his peers, and probably beat to a pulp in jail.

[lauren<3s music]

you don't know what liberals actually are.

Oh and one more thing you pompous ass, presumably we would be talking about liberal in terms of the AMERICAN political landscape seeing as that is the election we are discussing. Obviously on the spectrum across the world, Obama is "too right wing"

[lauren<3s music]

You haven't actually responded to anything i've posted, or any of the articles i've linked other to say that 1) the source sucks or 2) i'm an idiot.

now, who exactly is the one engaging in intelligent discussion and who is the one acting like a moronic teenager?

i've responded to others, but honestly i have no respect for you at this point. every single time i've ever encountered your posts, you singlehandedly astound me because you have such disdain for our system but have yet to do anything other than bitch on an internet message board.

Why would I source my answers when they are general knowledge! If I told you that red is the color usually meant to signal "STOP" while operating a motor vehicle, would you need sources for that, too?! My god, you are so incredibly short-sighted it's almost humorous.





If you worked on your "life" comprehension, you would understand that 8 SHITTY YEARS UNDER GEORGE BUSH IS NOT GOING TO UNDO OBAMA MOVING A BIT TOWARDS THE CENTER TO GAIN VOTES. DO YOU NEED PICTURES DRAWN?!



I would love to a see story over the past 5, 10, 20, 100 years where a cop killed someone because a citizen didn't comply with a jaywalking charge.

I understand that there have been ugly examples of cops abusing power and not following procedure which has lead to wrongful deaths (Diallo, Sean Bell), and there is a reason to be skeptical of cops.


The most I could ever see coming from a jaywalk charge is maybe a cop getting physical with someone who was outwardly (and disorderly) upset with the charge, so much so that they (wrongfully) decided to run/get ugly/physical with the cop. Even in that scenario, the person got what was coming to them, why act out over a stupid jaywalking charge?

If a cop in that scenario shot someone for a jaywalking charged, they would be sentenced to murder, and ostracized by the media/general public/his peers, and probably beat to a pulp in jail.

:appl:

[Nevuk]

i could, but then you would have to pay someone to translate intelligent conversation for you...



Well no shit, but really I'd LOVE to know since everyone we seem to have is absolutely "awful" and running this country into the ground.

And I hate to be "that" girl, but as someone who has the luck to meet many members and work with them and their staff on a daily basis, the vast majority of our leaders want to IMPROVE our country as shocking as that sounds. They aren't these diabolical morons you all paint them to be. Perhaps you should get your ass to the hill and meet some of these people, voice your concerns, do SOMETHING.
I've been to the hill. I've met a few. My state's representative is kind of creepy (Chandler ... he has this deal with taking pictures of him touching every person who visits him), but at the same time I didn't get any sense of "evil" from him, although a friend of mine who was the page to McConnell claimed that he does indeed exude it. I fully believe that probably close to half actually believe what they are doing is the correct thing, and are working to improve our country. I don't think they awful, which is part of my point - no matter how good they are, this mess has just gone too far. Expecting every one of them to be more stupid or intelligent than is usual is unrealistic. I didn't particulary voice my concerns to Chandler as um... I felt weird enough being groped by a guy I've known for three seconds.
Essentially, I am claiming this : even run by perfect people, this would still have too many flaws to be fixed by them.
i wouldn't draw such a parallel because times are so different. my analysis comes from the fact that move to the center is basically ripped straight out of the DLC handbook, and the DLC loses elections.
Yeah, it is a loose parallel, as the climates are so very, very different, but the dem-repubs of the time did pretty much the exact opposite the current one did, fighting on the important issues, establishing state's rights, etc, however under the cloak of anonymity. It just has a great many parallels (lots of mudslinging in a similar direction).

[x togepi x]

Oh and one more thing you pompous ass, presumably we would be talking about liberal in terms of the AMERICAN political landscape seeing as that is the election we are discussing. Obviously on the spectrum across the world, Obama is "too right wing"

don't be so ethnocentric. that's not a very liberal value, now isn't it?

Why would I source my answers when they are general knowledge! If I told you that red is the color usually meant to signal "STOP" while operating a motor vehicle, would you need sources for that, too?! My god, you are so incredibly short-sighted it's almost humorous.

Nothing you've said is "general knowledge." You've just been repeating conventional wisdom. The difference being that conventional wisdom can be completely wrong (like when it said Iraq had WMDs). This analogy you use is beyond weak, so i'm not even going to respond.

If you worked on your "life" comprehension, you would understand that 8 SHITTY YEARS UNDER GEORGE BUSH IS NOT GOING TO UNDO OBAMA MOVING A BIT TOWARDS THE CENTER TO GAIN VOTES. DO YOU NEED PICTURES DRAWN?!

i'm going to bold, italicize, and underline this since you keep forgetting it These moves to the center hurt obama's chances at getting elected, which means they don't save us from McCain. He can't save us from McCain if he's not elected president. If you want to see why, read the part you just quoted and misunderstood because i gave you my reasoning.

[lauren<3s music]

Can i just point out how utterly ridiculous all of this is? I mean for the love of God, technically probably everyone in this thread has alleged terrorist ties. I mean if you say "bomb" enough you will end up on a watch list.

[x togepi x]

i've responded to others, but honestly i have no respect for you at this point. every single time i've ever encountered your posts, you singlehandedly astound me because you have such disdain for our system but have yet to do anything other than bitch on an internet message board.


You're just saying that because I disagree with you on this one point. The other times you post here have been you agreeing with me that gay rights are good or lobbyists don't equal evil. You're just acting pissed off because I don't think Obama is a good politican, even though I've never even said I wouldn't vote for him, because I will. I'm just going to hold my nose and realize he isn't going to do as great as you people say.

Stop being a troll and actually respond to the meat of my objections. Besides, you don't even know what i do politically. it has very little to do with being online. fuck, i have less posts per day than most people here. less posts than you even have.

[lauren<3s music]

I've been to the hill. I've met a few. My state's representative is kind of creepy (Chandler ... he has this deal with taking pictures of him touching every person who visits him), but at the same time I didn't get any sense of "evil" from him, although a friend of mine who was the page to McConnell claimed that he does indeed exude it. I fully believe that probably close to half actually believe what they are doing is the correct thing, and are working to improve our country. I don't think they awful, which is part of my point - no matter how good they are, this mess has just gone too far. Expecting every one of them to be more stupid or intelligent than is usual is unrealistic. I didn't particulary voice my concerns to Chandler as um... I felt weird enough being groped by a guy I've known for three seconds.
Essentially, I am claiming this : even run by perfect people, this would still have too many flaws to be fixed by them.

Yeah, it is a loose parallel, as the climates are so very, very different, but the dem-repubs of the time did pretty much the exact opposite the current one did, fighting on the important issues, establishing state's rights, etc, however under the cloak of anonymity. It just has a great many parallels (lots of mudslinging in a similar direction).


I guess I fail to see what is these horrific flaws are. Enlighten me

don't be so ethnocentric. that's not a very liberal value, now isn't it?



Nothing you've said is "general knowledge." You've just been repeating conventional wisdom. The difference being that conventional wisdom can be completely wrong (like when it said Iraq had WMDs). This analogy you use is beyond weak, so i'm not even going to respond.



i'm going to bold, italicize, and underline this since you keep forgetting it These moves to the center hurt obama's chances at getting elected, which means they don't save us from McCain. He can't save us from McCain if he's not elected president. If you want to see why, read the part you just quoted and misunderstood because i gave you my reasoning.

GASP!!!!!

NEWSFLASH - I'M MOVING TO THE CENTER!!!!! I'M TOO RIGHT WING!!! OH NO!!!!

[x togepi x]

Can i just point out how utterly ridiculous all of this is? I mean for the love of God, technically probably everyone in this thread has alleged terrorist ties. I mean if you say "bomb" enough you will end up on a watch list.

Since the point of this thread was "hey conservatives, stop claiming Obama has terrorist ties because he took money from a dude from the Weather Underground years ago when we can easily tie McCain to terrorism", i think you seriously missed the point. this was originally a pro obama thread until you guys decided to blow up at one fucking line i wrote.

[x togepi x]

GASP!!!!!

NEWSFLASH - I'M MOVING TO THE CENTER!!!!! I'M TOO RIGHT WING!!! OH NO!!!!

Since you're looking like an idiot, you're not going to be elected. This is your Dean Scream.

[lauren<3s music]

You're just saying that because I disagree with you on this one point. The other times you post here have been you agreeing with me that gay rights are good or lobbyists don't equal evil. You're just acting pissed off because I don't think Obama is a good politican, even though I've never even said I wouldn't vote for him, because I will. I'm just going to hold my nose and realize he isn't going to do as great as you people say.

Stop being a troll and actually respond to the meat of my objections. Besides, you don't even know what i do politically. it has very little to do with being online. fuck, i have less posts per day than most people here. less posts than you even have.

Just because we agree on a few issues occasionally, does not mean I still don't think you're a raving idiot. I mean hell I get into plenty of heated debates with a lot of people (saysmydoctor comes to mind) but for the most part it is interesting and key word here - intelligent.

Honestly I could care less who you vote for. You should vote for whoever best represents your beliefs even if that means writing in the Anti-Christ I could careless. What I take issue with is your TACTICS. This is what you do....

-Post something asinine.
-Take a position to which someone reponds
-You then deflect, wiggle, shift the conversation.

I.E. Article is on McCain - you move to bash Obama- people defend obama - oh he's too conservative - people defend his record - you backpedal away AGAIN.

according to your perceptions of what politicians do, looks like you'd make a great one

[lauren<3s music]

Since you're looking like an idiot, you're not going to be elected. This is your Dean Scream.

Ladies and Gentlemen I give you a broken sarcasm detector

[Nevuk]

I would love to a see story over the past 5, 10, 20, 100 years where a cop killed someone because a citizen didn't comply with a jaywalking charge.

I understand that there have been ugly examples of cops abusing power and not following procedure which has lead to wrongful deaths (Diallo, Sean Bell), and there is a reason to be skeptical of cops.


The most I could ever see coming from a jaywalk charge is maybe a cop getting physical with someone who was outwardly (and disorderly) upset with the charge, so much so that they (wrongfully) decided to run/get ugly/physical with the cop. Even in that scenario, the person got what was coming to them, why act out over a stupid jaywalking charge?

If a cop in that scenario shot someone for a jaywalking charged, they would be sentenced to murder, and ostracized by the media/general public/his peers, and probably beat to a pulp in jail.
I will admit that was just a thought experiment, but there have been similar incidents, especially race related that question the impossibility. The reason I came up with that is that if a person commits jaywalking in front of a cop was the most minor aggrevance I could come up with. Plus I've never ever met someone even charged with jaywalking. The scenario from the officers side, is that you see someone acting in a suspicious manner, and you attempt to ascertain their purpose in the area and they attempt to flee, and it appears they reached for a weapon... bam. I don't think a cop would actually get off scot-free in that scenario, as it is probably a nightmare for most of them, but it is what they are trained to do, especially in a high risk area. This is kind of ridiculous, all I was attempting to do was point out that even american laws are backed by force.

[GiggsOho]

Nothing you've said is "general knowledge." You've just been repeating conventional wisdom. The difference being that conventional wisdom can be completely wrong (like when it said Iraq had WMDs). This analogy you use is beyond weak, so i'm not even going to respond.



i'm going to bold, italicize, and underline this since you keep forgetting it These moves to the center hurt obama's chances at getting elected, which means they don't save us from McCain. He can't save us from McCain if he's not elected president. If you want to see why, read the part you just quoted and misunderstood because i gave you my reasoning.

1) It's "conventional wisdom" when you read more than internet rags like the Huffington Post. As in it's "conventional wisdom" that no credible news outlet ON THE PLANET is calling Obama "right-wing" like you did.

2) You complete failed to read the last part of what I said, so i will keep saying it in every reply: MOVING TO THE CENTER WILL NOT HURT OBAMA'S CHANCES AT GETTING RE-ELECTED.

You obviously can't even comprehend that because for some reason, you keep sticking a "I" in my username quote. Is that supposed to insult me or something?

You're just acting pissed off because I don't think Obama is a good politican, even though I've never even said I wouldn't vote for him, because I will. I'm just going to hold my nose and realize he isn't going to do as great as you people say.


I never said that Obama was the saving grace, I jumped on you because you said Obama was right-wing. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

[x togepi x]

Just because we agree on a few issues occasionally, does not mean I still don't think you're a raving idiot. I mean hell I get into plenty of heated debates with a lot of people (saysmydoctor comes to mind) but for the most part it is interesting and key word here - intelligent.

i've cited sources, i've explained my logic. you just make assertions and then go OMG YOU'RE AN IDIOT.

Honestly I could care less who you vote for. You should vote for whoever best represents your beliefs even if that means writing in the Anti-Christ I could careless. What I take issue with is your TACTICS. This is what you do....

-Post something asinine.
-Take a position to which someone reponds
-You then deflect, wiggle, shift the conversation.

The ones deflecting conversation would be you all as we're not even talking about the idiocy of democrats being painted as terrorist sympathizers, we end up talking about your flawed strategy for obama to win, only for it to be deflected again because you want to call me an idiot, which i mean is cool, because you're the one who ends up looking crazy.

I.E. Article is on McCain - you move to bash Obama- people defend obama - oh he's too conservative - people defend his record - you backpedal away AGAIN.

I haven't backpedaled at all. I know Obama's record. He's still too conservative for me to support, support meaning donate money, canvas, campaign etc. In fact, you haven't even responded to my charges that he's too conservative. You both just compared him to McCain (who obviously would be too conservative too).

You can't tie "support" to how one votes since every election sees people voting for someone they don't like just because they think the other person is worse. I mean this logic would mean all the people Rush got to vote for Hillary actually support Hillary as the next president.

[GiggsOho]

I will admit that was just a thought experiment, but there have been similar incidents, especially race related that question the impossibility. The reason I came up with that is that if a person commits jaywalking in front of a cop was the most minor aggrevance I could come up with. Plus I've never ever met someone even charged with jaywalking. The scenario from the officers side, is that you see someone acting in a suspicious manner, and you attempt to ascertain their purpose in the area and they attempt to flee, and it appears they reached for a weapon... bam. I don't think a cop would actually get off scot-free in that scenario, as it is probably a nightmare for most of them, but it is what they are trained to do, especially in a high risk area. This is kind of ridiculous, all I was attempting to do was point out that even american laws are backed by force.

But what you are talking about is a race problem, which is a whole other can of worms, which from the looks of it, you and I would probably agree with.

I am all about questioning authority, but hate the feeling that I get from most people who seem to feel "cops suck except when I need to be protected." That's the vibe I kind of got from you, if I was wrong, I apologize.

[lauren<3s music]

Really honestly I can't take this anymore. The level of stupidity is just too much. Vote for whoever the hell you want and if you have SUCH a problem with the country and the system and its beyond repair then move. Really just do yourself a favor and quit being a miserable waste of space.

[GiggsOho]

i've cited sources, i've explained my logic. you just make assertions and then go OMG YOU'RE AN IDIOT.

Another general consensus of knowledge, if you have a horseshit opinion, and you cite sources that share the horseshit opinion, it still makes your opinion, 1) just that, an opinion, not facts, and 2) wrong.

I don't care if you are arguing about slavery, abortion, gun rights, campaign finance, etc...if your opinion is so fucking stupid that it is wrong, IT IS STILL WRONG.

"This is my opinion, so there," doesn't hold any merit whatsoever if the opinion is flat out wrong, which yours of, "obama is too right-wing", really really is.



You can't tie "support" to how one votes since every election sees people voting for someone they don't like just because they think the other person is worse. I mean this logic would mean all the people Rush got to vote for Hillary actually support Hillary as the next president.

If you are voting based on "like/dislike," please don't vote. You are supposed to vote on issues. If Hillary won the Democratic nomination, I would vote for her 70 times if I could.

And i DESPISE her personally. But she would get the job done, more so than any "right-wing" candidate in office.

[x togepi x]

1) It's "conventional wisdom" when you read more than internet rags like the Huffington Post. As in it's "conventional wisdom" that no credible news outlet ON THE PLANET is calling Obama "right-wing" like you did.

You haven't actually shown anything wrong with the logic in the source. Sure, it might not be "CNN" (which has never screwed anything up) or MSNBC (which is also perfect), but it's still a source with its own internal logic that you haven't responded to. Hell, most of my post was backed up by sources like The Associate Press, and The Boston Globe. I guess those are 'internet rags" too.

The second time I posted an article from Huffington Post, I admitted you guys would whine about the source, but said it had good logic behind it, which it does, since it analyzed the voting patterns in the past two elections where the democrats lost. For you to look at the source and go "well i dont' like it so i'm going to ignore it" is insanely intellectually dishonest.

2) You complete failed to read the last part of what I said, so i will keep saying it in every reply: MOVING TO THE CENTER WILL NOT HURT OBAMA'S CHANCES AT GETTING RE-ELECTED.

Yes, you "say it" but you don't provide any analysis as to why it is true, while I have shown you many reasons why it will. Here's a brief list:
1. Recent History: Kerry and Gore moved to the center and both lost to bush
2. Why people originally liked Obama: he positioned himself as being a new type of politician, but these moves to the center are straight out of the old politicians playbook
3. the flip flop meme: these shifts to the center on things like FISA or NAFTA give McCain the ability to claim Obama will say anything to get elected. as many independents have already accused Obama's speeches of being full of empty rhetoric that means nothing like "hope" or "change", this percieved lack of standing for something could hurt him in the general election
4. it's a bad strategic decision since he was already winning in the polls before he had chosen a running mate, meaning that a good VP candidate seals the election
5. it's playing defense when he should be going on the offense. instead of making democrats look more like republicans to woo more conservative voters, obama should be going on the offense and showing independents and liberal republicans what a real democrat would do in office.

there's five reasons, you've given none other than it's "general knowledge" which is about as vague and bullshit of a reason as any.

You obviously can't even comprehend that because for some reason, you keep sticking a "I" in my username quote. Is that supposed to insult me or something?

Oho looks like Ohio when you're typing. obviously this negates everything I have ever said. I concede. You are right.

I never said that Obama was the saving grace, I jumped on you because you said Obama was right-wing. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

He is too right wing. Just because he's more liberal than McCain doesn't mean he's too right wing. I think a lot of our problems are endemic in our system. Obama isn't going to fix that.

[Nevuk]

Can i just point out how utterly ridiculous all of this is? I mean for the love of God, technically probably everyone in this thread has alleged terrorist ties. I mean if you say "bomb" enough you will end up on a watch list.
Hahaha, I wouldn't be surprised if I wasn't. I'm too... I dunno, its never those minor little flags that they would tend to catch up on you, rather I type out lengthy theory craft about the rationality of convention. However, this has been one of the long held criticisms of the left, that it constantly falls down to infighting. The right fails to recognize that there is going to be a further difference between the far left and the american left than there is between the right and the far right. Yeah, I probably have more in common with you than them. I'd rather think this than think that every member of the "left" is just constantly bitter and picking fights with anyone.

[Nevuk]

I guess I fail to see what is these horrific flaws are. Enlighten me



GASP!!!!!

NEWSFLASH - I'M MOVING TO THE CENTER!!!!! I'M TOO RIGHT WING!!! OH NO!!!!
My perceived biggest flaw with the US system is that it is too few people making the laws for too large a population. Obviously, I'd desire something aside from a republic in the ideal state of living, but I'm a anarchist in this sense - not because I actually think it is possible to reach this system here.

Onto the flaws, it is that money has too much say in the system, it is more of a meritocracy based upon money(possession of which is rarely due to merits), 1% of the population has more say than the other 50%. I posed that question earlier, it is a difficult one to answer, but who has more say, 1000 dollars or one vote? One of the ways to reduce this would be to put a limit on the amount a campaign could spend, but while Obama made some noise in this direction I haven't heard much about it recently (Did his disclosure act ever go through?). Plus, I think the US is just too big. The highly centralized nature of DC is kind of... illogical, considering the rapidity of communication at the moment. I'm for decentralization, from any logical standpoint it makes sense aside from the consideration of that 1% up there. In addition, the majority of those senators (who are worse in this respect than representatives, I think because there are fewer although it could be the time length) are just ... not very diverse, typicall all from the same socio-economic standing, very few non WASP members. And religion's influence is ridiculously overbearing - why is there only one atheist in the congress? Subsidizing farmers for food they don't grow (I understand the logic... it just seems... self-defeating?), willingly tossing citizen's well-being aside for the profit of corn farmers (HFC), and as we discussed earlier simply the misinformed nature of people

Simply put, there are too many flaws in too many areas.

You must understand, I am more of a theorist than anything else - I'll be horrified by the flaws of the theory and be less observant of its practice. So I'll grant I'm not as about particulars and examples as most are (I'll take an example and cull from it what it says about the flaws, and how it affects the theory as a whole). The examples I list I view as parts of a larger, overall flaw with the very theory the country was founded upon. For one, the theory we were founded with had an entirely different direction the federalists would have slit their throats before social security, for instance.

[x togepi x]

Another general consensus of knowledge, if you have a horseshit opinion, and you cite sources that share the horseshit opinion, it still makes your opinion, 1) just that, an opinion, not facts, and 2) wrong.

I don't care if you are arguing about slavery, abortion, gun rights, campaign finance, etc...if your opinion is so fucking stupid that it is wrong, IT IS STILL WRONG.

What makes my opinion "horseshit' other than the fact that you disagree with it?

"This is my opinion, so there," doesn't hold any merit whatsoever if the opinion is flat out wrong, which yours of, "obama is too right-wing", really really is.

Except, it's not. When things are "flat out wrong" you can easily prove them. For example: the sky is purple. If we look out the window I can see that it's not. Obama being too right wing is a subjective claim. I think he's too right wing for many reasons: one i haven't mentioned being that he's going to basically nothing to solve for all the problems we're going to be having with the environment because of globalization/developing third world countries or lack of resources. Sure he has an energy platform but what is he going to do about peak metal? (something that no politican is really talking about).

If you are voting based on "like/dislike," please don't vote. You are supposed to vote on issues. If Hillary won the Democratic nomination, I would vote for her 70 times if I could.

Voting on the issues is why I dislike a candidate A more than candidate B, so it makes sense to vote for candidate B if i'm going to vote at all. but, with your "OMG WE NEED TO BE SAVED FROM MCCAIN" posts, you are basically advocating I vote for Obama because he's not McCain.

[Nevuk]

But what you are talking about is a race problem, which is a whole other can of worms, which from the looks of it, you and I would probably agree with.

I am all about questioning authority, but hate the feeling that I get from most people who seem to feel "cops suck except when I need to be protected." That's the vibe I kind of got from you, if I was wrong, I apologize.
Hmm, it is slightly on that race problem, except I feel the race problem is an indication of a deeper flaw, that in which if you hand one group a gun and tell them they are the enforcers of the law, they are likely to abuse it. In fact, according the stanford prison experiments and others, our cops are far better than we have any right to expect. I've never actually run into a cop whom I hated on the spot or even particularly disliked, it is the position I dislike. I prefer to just avoid them, because why call attention to myself needlessly? That isn't due to any ridiculous phobia, I'm just private and dislike being around people I don't know.

[GiggsOho]

Yes, you "say it" but you don't provide any analysis as to why it is true, while I have shown you many reasons why it will. Here's a brief list:
1. Recent History: Kerry and Gore moved to the center and both lost to bush
2. Why people originally liked Obama: he positioned himself as being a new type of politician, but these moves to the center are straight out of the old politicians playbook
3. the flip flop meme: these shifts to the center on things like FISA or NAFTA give McCain the ability to claim Obama will say anything to get elected. as many independents have already accused Obama's speeches of being full of empty rhetoric that means nothing like "hope" or "change", this percieved lack of standing for something could hurt him in the general election
4. it's a bad strategic decision since he was already winning in the polls before he had chosen a running mate, meaning that a good VP candidate seals the election
5. it's playing defense when he should be going on the offense. instead of making democrats look more like republicans to woo more conservative voters, obama should be going on the offense and showing independents and liberal republicans what a real democrat would do in office.

there's five reasons, you've given none other than it's "general knowledge" which is about as vague and bullshit of a reason as any.



Do you need any other analysis as to look at the track record of the president and the party in office? You throw out all these specifics based on past elections, when this election has factors that 2000 and 2004 did not have. Gas wasn't $4/gallon in 00 or 04. On the verge of war with Iran wasn't the military focus in 00 and 04. The economy wasn't nearly as dreadful as it now back then. Again, I will say it, SLIGHT SHIFTS IN WHERE OBAMA FALLS ON THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM DOES NOT MAGICALLY MAKE THE PUBLIC FORGET 8 SHITTY YEARS OF GEORGE BUSH.

He is still beating McCain in polls, so I really don't know why you are bringing that up right now.

And he is not going on the offensive because it is JULY. You want to know what happens in August in D.C.? NOTHING. Everyone takes their vacations. The election isn't won or lost in August, barring some terrible scandal that breaks. When Obama starts talking right-wing rhetoric 6 weeks before Election Day, then maybe I will listen to your rants.

Otherwise, they are complete asinine and off-base.

[x togepi x]

Do you need any other analysis as to look at the track record of the president and the party in office? You throw out all these specifics based on past elections, when this election has factors that 2000 and 2004 did not have. Gas wasn't $4/gallon in 00 or 04. On the verge of war with Iran wasn't the military focus in 00 and 04. The economy wasn't nearly as dreadful as it now back then. Again, I will say it, SLIGHT SHIFTS IN WHERE OBAMA FALLS ON THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM DOES NOT MAGICALLY MAKE THE PUBLIC FORGET 8 SHITTY YEARS OF GEORGE BUSH.

these factors only matter if people think Obama is actually going to do anything about them. The perception that Obama is just a politican and not the new type of politican he claims to be is key. If McCain picks a good Vice President, someone popular with independents, he could be in position to distance himself from the Bush presidency (which is kind of easy considering the media's repeated insistence that he's a maverick). This distance gives him the opportunity to claim he'll solve these problems. You can't just assume that people are going to get pissed off Bush and immediately vote for Obama in retailation. The Reagan presidency was a disaster in many ways, and yet people still voted for Bush Sr.

most importantly, opinion polls on the democratic congress rank it lower than bush. people aren't necessarily infatuated with democrats. they want someone to get something done. if McCain's men can paint Obama as a just another DC insider who won't do anything, McCain has a shot to win. This might seem crazy, but remember that in '04 the republicans painted a war hero as a sissy who may have been a traitor.

maybe if the polls were a landslide Obama win, i'd give more credence to your view, but it's still fairly close. this is why these shifts in policy aren't going to do any good. he might as well just pick a more conservative vice president if he's worried about the right wing moderate voters not picking him up. You're acting like he has it already in the bag, and if he does, then why bother shifting in the first place unless he's actually not all that liberal to begin with?

besides, it was your original contention that Obama needs to move to the center to get fundraising. If people are going to vote for democrats like automatons because bush was a such a shitty president, then why would he need to fear McCain's abysmal fundraising skills? You can't have it both ways, either he's going to win regardless (so the shifts aren't needed) or it's not a lock (which means all of my reasons why shifting to the right is a bad strategy still come into play).

but like i said, these shifts are bad because they're purely defensive. You tell me "well it's only july, everyone goes on vacation in august so nothing will get done", but if he's already arguing from a more conservative angle in September, he's already at a disadvantage. Without these shifts, he's further away from the Bush presidency, which in your eyes is an advantage, and it gives him an opportunity to show what democrats will do for the country.

[asmolitor]

a) i agree to some extent with togepi about obama's shift hurting his electability, being that it starts to negate the premise of his initial buzz about being a new kind of candidate, so to speak. however, even with the possibility of more shifting, i doubt he'd ever cross over or even toe the line, in a linear spectrum sort of way.

b) when togepi says that obama is too right-wing for him, it's subjective based on his personal views - such as if someone were to say mccain is too liberal for them. american definitions of liberal/conservative are just a microcosm of the world political spectrum.

c) even though it may seem to contradict my "a)" - moving to the center isn't a great variable to place electability concerns on, since both candidates generally move to the center in an attempt to reach a broader audience of potential voters (excluding incumbents who have fairly well defined policy platforms). in fact, moving to the center is just plain smart, spatially grabbing as much area of the voting block as possible while still being closer to those at the polar ends of the spectrum than the other candidate.

d) i don't think obama's shift would alienate near at the polar left of the spectrum. mainly because i highly doubt that voters would choose apathy over someone who they may only agree with 51% of the time. and if they did, i'd argue that they were fairly indifferent about the process to begin with.

e) the pissing match about what everyone does politically other than debate on AP is ridiculous. i'd like to think that by staying informed, being part of the process by voting, and being able to form substantive, persuasive arguments about current events... one would still be fairly ahead of the curve. and as far as i know, no one here holds an administrative or legislative position.

f) the endless source argument is fairly moot - not every point can be made with a scholarly article or snazzy graph. believe me, even with google and the web in general, not everything can be sourced. i've tried and failed to find many a source that would've sealed countless arguments (there just aren't enough gas-related graphs in the world, apparently, when i could've used them 2 weeks ago). and there's the problem of sources being opinion-based rather than fact, and even then, not accounting for any inherent bias from the source. and from what i see in the political sense, "internet rags" seem to fuel/create stories in the "legitimate" mass media.

g) if president bush's two terms were enough for the electorate to automatically press for a democrat, obama wouldn't need to campaign post-primary. unfortunately, a horrible president doesn't guarantee a massive shift to the other party. a ~5% margin between mccain/obama in polls doesn't exactly start the coronation.

h) the last 3 pages of this thread. i mean, i'm a fan of personal attacks when coupled with actual logical reasoning, as i generally mix the two myself, but come on. ad hominems don't win arguments regardless of the other person's point. there's numerous instances of simple disagreements being denigrated as baseless claims.

i) i realize there isn't a consensus on mccain/obama issues, or solely obama issues, or even solely mccain issues - but i'm starting to see an incredible parallel between people not 100% obama, and people who (as of a few months ago) were heavy ron paul supporters. so now we're taking like 50% obama supporters and burning them at the stake? obama's not perfect, i realize this. neither is mccain. but to villify those who don't gloss over every negative attribute is a ridiculous standard to keep up in reality, much less this forum.

[x togepi x]

c) even though it may seem to contradict my "a)" - moving to the center isn't a great variable to place electability concerns on, since both candidates generally move to the center in an attempt to reach a broader audience of potential voters (excluding incumbents who have fairly well defined policy platforms). in fact, moving to the center is just plain smart, spatially grabbing as much area of the voting block as possible while still being closer to those at the polar ends of the spectrum than the other candidate.

i'm not sure i think this strategy is a good idea only because liberals/progressives/whatever have a once in a lifetime opportunity to finally show what they would do for the country if given the shot. i say once in a lifetime because we're at a point where you can look at the issues and see tangible problems that "conservatism" has brought us. i think a lot of this middle block really doesn't care about what party or what ideological label fits a person as much as results. progressives/democrats/liberals like to talk a big game about how bad conservatism is for this country, why spoil a shot to show how good liberalism can be?

it just seems like the country could be at a turning point to get rid of all this BS Nixon/Reagan brought with their shift to the right, and i don't see why people would actually advocate running for the middle instead of standing up for their principals. i mean as much as obama claims to be post-partisan, what he should realize is that it's really the independents that fit this label.

i'd agree with your c) if i thought people really wanted a moderate, but i don't see many people really wanting a moderate for moderate's sake. i think they just think that's how things get done, but honestly i think people would vote for just about any ideology that would fix whatever they feel is a problem with the world. i think what you're saying makes sense in a numbers sense, but i'm not sure it makes sense for the historical context that we find ourselves in.

though this is coming from someone who thinks politicians should be campaigning more on what they can do or what their party will do for you instead of how bad the other party is.

[asmolitor]

i'm not sure i think this strategy is a good idea only because liberals/progressives/whatever have a once in a lifetime opportunity to finally show what they would do for the country if given the shot. i say once in a lifetime because we're at a point where you can look at the issues and see tangible problems that "conservatism" has brought us. i think a lot of this middle block really doesn't care about what party or what ideological label fits a person as much as results. progressives/democrats/liberals like to talk a big game about how bad conservatism is for this country, why spoil a shot to show how good liberalism can be?

it just seems like the country could be at a turning point to get rid of all this BS Nixon/Reagan brought with their shift to the right, and i don't see why people would actually advocate running for the middle instead of standing up for their principals. i mean as much as obama claims to be post-partisan, what he should realize is that it's really the independents that fit this label.

i'd agree with your c) if i thought people really wanted a moderate, but i don't see many people really wanting a moderate for moderate's sake. i think they just think that's how things get done, but honestly i think people would vote for just about any ideology that would fix whatever they feel is a problem with the world. i think what you're saying makes sense in a numbers sense, but i'm not sure it makes sense for the historical context that we find ourselves in.

though this is coming from someone who thinks politicians should be campaigning more on what they can do or what their party will do for you instead of how bad the other party is.

i essentially agree, but my argument is solely on the basis of electability. i wouldn't want him to carry his slight right-leaning tangents during his potential term(s), i'm just saying that in a pre-november sense, it's a great strategy. the polls don't show a clear runaway, so moving to the center should allow him to gain more votes and the presidency.

if doesn't gain the presidency, it's a moot point. but i think that by moving somewhat to the right, he can end up implementing the policies that lay to his left. my hope is that the center-shift is a ploy solely to be elected, from which he can enact his platform that should be left-of-center.

at the same time, i think it'd be great if he campaigned as he'd lead, without having to play political games. but if political games and moving to the center ultimately land him the oval office, it's a gamble i'd be willing to take, if the end result is the policy promised from the start.

oh, and to be clear: when i say "move to the right" i don't mean crossing the center line, so to speak. just moving along, in a right-ward direction, towards the center (and still left of center, just not as left of center as before). but by no means am i endorsed coming close to toeing-the-line, or forbid, crossing over.

[x togepi x]

i essentially agree, but my argument is solely on the basis of electability. i wouldn't want him to carry his slight right-leaning tangents during his potential term(s), i'm just saying that in a pre-november sense, it's a great strategy. the polls don't show a clear runaway, so moving to the center should allow him to gain more votes and the presidency.

if doesn't gain the presidency, it's a moot point. but i think that by moving somewhat to the right, he can end up implementing the policies that lay to his left. my hope is that the center-shift is a ploy solely to be elected, from which he can enact his platform that should be left-of-center.

at the same time, i think it'd be great if he campaigned as he'd lead, without having to play political games. but if political games and moving to the center ultimately land him the oval office, it's a gamble i'd be willing to take, if the end result is the policy promised from the start.

oh, and to be clear: when i say "move to the right" i don't mean crossing the center line, so to speak. just moving along, in a right-ward direction, towards the center (and still left of center, just not as left of center as before). but by no means am i endorsed coming close to toeing-the-line, or forbid, crossing over.

i'm still going to contend that from an electability standpoint, moving to the center isn't going to help Obama. These shifts are already getting public attention, which means it gives the McCain a lot of "Obama was for X before he was against it" moments, which I think really sunk John Kerry, who also tried to move to the center. It's not that I think moving to the center will alienate the left wing of the party, but that it will alienate the middle.

It gives McCain the option of sitting there with Lieberman to claim that he's truly the centrist candidate because that damned liberal Obama had to change all his policies to be more moderate because he's really radical left. McCain already has this sort of strategy going on by playing up his "maverick" image. I'd say the proper response for Obama would be to say "look at how great the centrists have done for us, they've given us the Bush administration!" so if people really do care about moderates, he's going to be so easily hamstrung in this case. Or, if they don't care about moderates, these pushes make McCain look like someone who's more open with his positions while Obama looks like someone who will say and do whatever to get elected.

I mean like I've said before, I'm not sure people are really worried about having too conservative or too liberal politicians if problems are getting solved, because in reality liberal/conservative are just labels, if things are getting better, then it really doesn't matter to them. I mean a lot of undecided voters are probably under the impression that both parties are junk anyway, so I'd think that it'd be more beneficial to just come out and say "here's what I'm going to do for you" instead of playing electiblity games.

Back in '04, a lot of my undecided friends/family didn't vote for Kerry because they really had no idea what he stood for. Shifts to the right muddled his campaign's message. He got killed in the coverage of the debates because his positions were so nuanced that you couldn't condense them into soundbytes, which also made it easy to manipulate his statements. That's what I can see happening to the Obama campaign. I mean he already has to explain to voter why he's renegging on his stance on FISA and NAFTA. Sure, "centrism" might be a portion of electability, but I think percieved credibility of a candidate is more key. I mean, I think Bush shows you that an extremist candidate who's at least percieved to be credible is going to beat a moderate candidate with credibility issues. If the Republicans could convince us that Bush was the one with the credibility in '04, think about what they could do with Obama in '08.

I also think that these shifts could play into the "Obama lacks experience" meme because it'd be so easy to say "look, he just makes decisions and then flip flops to our side of the issue. if he had more experience, he'd be a republican".

I just feel like with as nasty as this campaign season will probably end up being that Obama should be going into the stretch with the cleanest, most credible perception he can be so he can handle Republican smears without already looking like a shady, flip flopper. I mean, he hasn't changed many positions yet, but Kerry didn't really flip flop on many things either and look what it did to him.

[Love As Arson]

THE END of the Democratic presidential primaries presents U.S. voters with an historic choice. For the first time ever, an African American will head the ticket of one of the two major parties in American politics. Senator Barack Obama’s achievement is even more historic when you consider that he will lead the Democratic Party—originally the party of slavery and the Confederacy—into the November election.
That an African American stands on the verge of being elected president is surely an indication of how far the U.S. has come in only a few decades since the civil rights movement knocked down the last vestiges of Jim Crow. The Obama campaign has already given millions of people the hope that change in the American political landscape is finally at hand.
To get to the nomination, Obama had to fend off a strong challenge from Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, who embodied much of the thinking and strategy of the Democratic establishment in the last two decades. Clinton’s campaign could have been remembered for its own historic quality as the most successful campaign for president by a woman. Instead, it may be remembered as one of the last attempts to use “white backlash” politics, pioneered in the 1960s and 1970s, in a major national campaign. Clinton’s lowest point came in early May, when she invoked the classic racist stereotype of “lazy” African Americans, telling USA Today that Obama’s appeal was weak among “hard-working Americans, white Americans.”
Although early June national opinion polls show a close race between Obama and Republican nominee Senator John McCain, this should be cold comfort to the Republicans. As an enthusiastic advocate of the Iraq War, McCain is tying himself to the central policy of the most unpopular president in polling history. And even though he admits that economic policy doesn’t much interest him, McCain also promises more of the same Bush policies that numbers approaching a super-majority of Americans say they oppose.
Even conservative columnist George F. Will, writing in Newsweek, cautions that McCain supporters shouldn’t read too much into the current polls:
Because of [McCain’s] cultivated persona as a “maverick” Republican, many—perhaps most—voters do not know he is pro-life. When the fact that he is becomes well publicized, and Democrats will make sure it is, Clinton’s female supporters will stop sulking in their tents and will rally round Obama.
Something that millions of Americans think they know about Obama—that he is a Muslim—is injurious. When they are disabused of this idea, he will rise. McCain might think Obama cannot rise high enough to win because he, McCain, can get the support of white, blue-collar, culturally conservative Democrats who decisively preferred Clinton to Obama in the primaries.
But there are fewer of these “Reagan Democrats” than there were when that category was identified 28 years ago. That label might not yet be as antiquated as, say, “Wendell Willkie Republicans,” but its significance diminishes as the economy and the educational and social profile of the electorate change. War-weary Americans are preoccupied with domestic discontents, but McCain sounds at best perfunctory when talking about things other than those that really interest him, things that fly or explode—the sinews of national security.
The amount of corporate money that has flowed to the Democratic side this election season shows that a large segment of Corporate America has already decided that the Democrats will win. According to left-wing journalist John Pilger,
Despite claiming that his campaign wealth comes from small individual donors, Obama is backed by the biggest Wall Street firms: Goldman Sachs, UBS AG, Lehman Brothers, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and Credit Suisse, as well as the huge hedge fund Citadel Investment Group. “Seven of the Obama campaign’s top 14 donors,” wrote the investigator Pam Martens, “consisted of officers and employees of the same Wall Street firms charged time and again with looting the public and newly implicated in originating and/or bundling fraudulently made mortgages.”
Even conservative media magnate Rupert Murdoch has thrown his support to Obama. The reason? They know that the political system has taken a severe beating under Bush and they believe Obama can revive its credibility and blunt opposition. “Politicians are at an all-time low and are despised by 80 percent of the public,” Murdoch commented, “and then you’ve got a candidate trying to put himself out above it all. He’s become a rock star. It’s fantastic.”
This means that not only will the Democrats have a vast money advantage that they can use to fight McCain even in so-called red states, but it means that an important part of Corporate America, the media, will give Obama the benefit of the doubt.
Aggressive political campaigning is still available to the Republicans. Their operatives are gearing up for a season of attacking Obama for his choice of church, his lack of military service, his sometimes neglect to wear a flag lapel, and a host of other trivialities. Will it work? With a campaign that will feature subterranean appeals to racism, it would be foolish to dismiss the possibility.
But in an environment where a failed administration leads a failed war, where all but the richest Americans face economic distress, and where opinion polls show what appears to be a long-term evolution away from the type of politics and agenda that the GOP has championed for three decades, a Republican win in November is less likely than a Democratic sweep.
So given that, what can we expect from an Obama administration? Obama has made “change” the mantra of his campaign, so it is only fair to ask what kind of change we might see. The atmospherics of an Obama administration—coming to power in what may be the biggest Democratic landslide in four decades—should be a breath of fresh air after decades of mainstream political domination by the Right.
On the other hand, it’s clear that Obama is already shifting away from the inspirational “yes we can” message of his primary campaign—which was always more rhetoric than substance—into a more cautious and “responsible” posture for the general election. He already shifted to the right in response to Clinton’s attacks on him. With the nomination in hand, Obama appeared before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and pledged his commitment to Israel and to doing whatever is necessary to subdue Iran. “I have been proud to be a part of a strong, bi-partisan consensus that has stood by Israel in the face of all threats,” he assured the crowd. He made no mention at all of Israel’s brutal strangulation of Gaza, saying that, “We must isolate Hamas unless and until they renounce terrorism [and] recognize Israel’s right to exist.”
He repeated the Bush administration’s phony claim that Iran poses a nuclear threat to Israel,
The Iranian regime supports violent extremists and challenges us across the region. It pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race, and raise the prospect of a transfer of nuclear know-how to terrorists. Its President denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.
Obama has also shifted his position on withdrawal on Iraq. Writes journalist John Pilger, “Obama has now ‘reserved the right’ to change his pledge to get troops out next year. ‘I will listen to our commanders on the ground,’ he now says, echoing Bush.” His criticism of McCain on foreign policy will revolve around the fact that current policy is failing to secure U.S. interests in the Middle East, not call those interests into question.
Obama is tapping into a deep reservoir of sentiment for real change, but there is a tremendous gap between that sentiment and what he actually offers. The things that ordinary Americans want—decent jobs, housing, access to health care, and an end to the Iraq War, are not really on offer by either candidate.
Journalist John Pilger recently compared Obama’s campaign to that of Robert F. Kennedy in 1968, and it is an apt description:
Kennedy’s campaign is a model for Barack Obama. Like Obama, he was a senator with no achievements to his name. Like Obama, he raised the expectations of young people and minorities. Like Obama, he promised to end an unpopular war, not because he opposed the war’s conquest of other people’s land and resources, but because it was “unwinnable”…
The vacuities are familiar. Obama is his echo. Like Kennedy, Obama may well “chart a new direction for America” in specious, media-honed language, but in reality, he will secure, like every president, the best damned democracy money can buy.

http://www.isreview.org/issues/60/rep-obama.shtml

[open mind]

really i mean not such a worthy population. its the price you pay for acting like a moron and breaking the law.

i'm not high and might nor do i 100% believe in or actively support what we have, but i'm smart enough to realize that doing nothing isn't going to accomplish anything.

so you have to be worthy to vote? what exactly makes you worthy? intelligence? exhibition of a responsible disposition? common sense?...........please explain the nature of this worthiness.
i didn't mean high in the sense of intoxicated.......and i think you're smart enough to know that.
you can choose not to, or be elimanated from accepted participation, and still do something........for instance i can't vote, but i do my part in voicing my opinions in public forums........there are all sorts of things you can do to add to the social and political atmosphere.........and voting is just about the laziest way to participate.