Nightwing

McCain was doing well, but I feel he was always playing from behind because of W. and Obama would've won anyway, just by constantly linking W. to McCain. If you're someone who strongly disapproves of W's presidency (which is a lot of people), why would you vote for another Republican? Simple: "McCain is a moderate and can work with the other party." McCain is hardly the standard Republican candidate, though he has definitely tried to portray himself as such. I'm not sure how much that happened in other states. Certainly it was possible in Michigan, but Romney got the nod here and we're noted for having an "open primary". And I don't think that tying McCain to Bush has worked that well; he was close enough even before he chose a running mate. I think that his reputation, even if it is a bit of a show, and his public splits with the Bush Administration kept that from truly gaining ground. If it wasn't for the economy, this race would be a lot closer than it is.

Republicans always seem to lose when the issue is the economy anyway, but it's well known to be McCain's weakness. He was really gaining momentum after the Palin pick and the convention, but once the shit went down, Obama immediately regained his lead in the polls. Point, though I think Palin hasn't helped him much. Her honeymoon was short, and her quick string of gaffes afterwards killed anything she brought in. I think, after she was exposed, she lost most of her drawing power by alienating independents to bring in the base. I'm sure he does. Anyone else remember the "Special hell" quote regarding Bush operatives? And yeah, it was his bad luck... but eventually, Republican luck had to run out sooner or later. They were hanging by a thread since 2006. You'd think they would have folded as soon as he'd conceded... or at least reasonably close to then. But I suppose Colbert got it right on "The Word": Rome wasn't burnt in a day.

I disagree. 2004/2006, yeah. But I don't think this election was a referendum on W; McCain was doing well enough until the economy tanked. I think it's a referendum on Republican Party more than anything. It feels like this frustration goes beyond just the President.

You know what? Fuck this. I quit. The problem with trying to play the Ayers and culture war stuff is that people just don't care. Maybe this would've worked in 1996 and 2000 when there were no big issues at hand, but right now, all anyone cares about is the economy and how the 44th president is going to fix it. And sadly for McCain, he sucks at economy. I'm not sure it's just McCain... I think it's just about any Republican candidate. They've all basically harped the same party-line plan for the economy, and I don't see anyone being charismatic enough to get people to avoid that. People want Big Business reined in, and that's not the MO for the Republican Party.

post went here.. So, you going to make up any more bullshit? source An affiliate of ACORN, AHC (Acorn Housing Association) is federally chartered and recieves 40% of its budget from the government. In 1994, AHC recieved grant money from Americorps and in the application for the grants that they were a seperate entity from ACORN itself. However a year later, the Americorps Inspector General concluded that "Not only did we find references to ACORN having 'created' AHC to serve purposes common to both organizations, we noted numerous transactions and activities involving 'fraternal' ACORN-related corporations." and demanded the money back. Earlier this year the Consumer Rights League did an investigation into ACORN. Is that bullshit enough? Yeah, still smells like bullshit. You're re-reading a press release from the Consumer Right's League. And yes, I know that's SourceWatch (Watch me disclose my sources' biases beforehand!), but reading their website it's not hard to see that they're not a very "unbiased" opinion. Tell me when "Allegations" turn into something real. Because right now, you're still an idiot.

Yeah, seriously. I don't like Marvin and I still think he's starting to get a raw deal here. The way I see it, Marvin and NoCalMike are mirror images: they try to inform themselves, but their fundamental problem is that they're both stupid. They both repost long rambling articles that nobody reads, they scatter punctuation and spelling errors like birdshot, and they both maintain tinfoil headwear. They try hard and mean well, but they aren't very bright. Then there's bps21, who is a human blown fuse box. Let's share our special brand of love a little better here. I would say this argument might be valid if they were doing nothing other than exchanging partisan shots back and forth, but Marvin's "the economy is in a crisis because Mitt Romney didn't win the nomination" ranting transcends simple partisan bickering into a new level of political douchebaggery. It's not something that you will find offensive because you support Obama or McCain, it's something you will find offensive as a member of the human race who chooses to think in a rational manner. One of them has admitted they were wrong when bringing up a fairly ridiculous claim. The other comes in with even more ridiculous claims. I just don't see that as being the same.

It's Bagpipe Night in Canada!

I have to ask again: If the Republican Party does lose this election, is there going to be a reorganization, or a shift one way or another? It feels like this is a year where things are going to shift, particularly inside the GOP.

I do agree that it should be closed as soon as someone is actually elected in favor of a "Wrap-up" thread. And I think the progression of things going on deserves a classic shot. But that's just me.

Reading through some of the earlier pages in this thread, it honestly deserves to be archived. It's like a fucking time capsule. There was a time in which we thought this was going to be a Warner/Richardson vs. Frist/Jeb Bush race. It's amazing to look back and see how far off it all was.

So not only are you a liar, you actually wonder why they register more Obama supporters than McCain supporters? Perhaps it's because they register voters in cities? So, you going to make up any more bullshit?

Im leaning towards at least decades because who is to say that at some point in the future something wont happen to cause the Government to want to divest itself from the banks? But I have a hard time seeing the "this is only short term" viewpoint considering I dont even see the economic problems as being short term, and even then it doesn't mean that as soon as the economy shows signs of recovering that the Government will sell back what it bought. That doesn't make sense to me. Unless you believe that we're going to be in a decades-long depression (Which doesn't makes sense if you believe that Romney could somehow avert it), I don't see this lasting much more than a decade. I don't understand why they'd keep shares that are essentially there for "consumer confidence" in an economic recovery. False comparisons. Those are organizations, these are essentially loans that will eventually be paid back by getting bought out. These in no way resemble any of those.

Yeah. It's been stated by multiple officials that it's mostly people just trying to get paychecks, not a grand conspiracy. Republicans are trying to "smear" the organization because they work in low-income areas and fight for those sorts of causes (Which is why they are endorsing Obama).

True and false, really. They have turned in a great deal of false registrations, which is what people are complaining about. The thing is, they know they are doing this, they know that some of them are false, and are flagging them before they send them off. Electoral law says they have to send all registrations in, no matter what, so they can't legally take away any of the ones they know are bullshit. It's a lose-lose situation for them; the electoral law is certainly correct, since if you had organizations throwing out what they deemed were "bad" registration, you could have massive amounts of voter suppression by parties going out, registering people in a place which is a stronghold for the opposition party, and simply throwing the applications away when they are done. People think they registered, but they aren't. The problem with the other way is that they know people are turning in bad registration forms (Mostly to get paid, because they have a required amount of registrations to do per hour), they flag them, but they'll still get blamed for them because the county and state officials are still going to have to search through the bullshit.

Okay, I'll try and explain it to you. There is a difference between having the power to do something, and ethically being able to use that power. What they are saying is that she abused the power she had; she had the power to fire the Public Safety Commissioner. The problem is that there was a conflict-of-interest in her reasoning; they said that his lack of movement on the "Fire the State Trooper" front influenced her decision, which stems from her personal life. Also consider the fact that she basically used her office as a vehicle for her husband to get that state trooper fired. It's not whether or not she had the power; the problem is that when using the power, her reasoning must be in the best interests of the public and not herself. In this case, the Alaskan legislature thinks that part of the reasoning for the firing was her own interests. That's why it's an abuse of power; it's improperly using the power you have. So she's broken the law not by using power she didn't have, but using power she had to her own benefit. Get it? A few pages back (277 or 278).

And just as we were actually having an intelligent discussion, stupidity broke down the door with this random interjection. While she may have been able to fire him, the possible conflict-of-interest involved was deemed a part of the firing, which made it unethical. Also, the fact that she allowed her husband to use her power to attempt to get that State Trooper fired, as shitty as he was, is a ridiculous abuse of power and (Due to their relationship) a huge conflict of interest (Again). But I think those sorts of concepts fly over your head, since you can't put them into a simple one-sentence statement.

Agree to disagree, then.

And I don't think that this is going to chase private investment out of the market, either; I think this will stabilize things enough to give people confidence in investing private capital again. Do you think people are busting down the doors to invest money in the market right now? This measure is to give people confidence to put their money back in the market, since the government is going to have more stake and more control over the current economic crisis. By your scenario, we'll be seeing private capital evaporate into nothing with this plan, which is the opposite of what I think is intended and what is going to happen. I got a little upset during my last post, so I'll apologize before I get to this. I don't think private capital will evaporate after this, but I've got a big, giant problem with the government taking control in this situation. We've tried everything to give investors confidence thus far. Nothing has worked. In addition, the government is going to be taking control with taxpayer money, I don't want any part of that. This whole situation isn't the American people's fault. We're taking it from behind. We've gotta pay for this too. Higher taxes for everyone! Regardless of who's in office. I also have a problem with an unchecked Capitol Hill after the election. I know it'll be Democrats in the majority, but we need government to be checked right now. It's already getting way out of hand. The Democrats have bent over for the Bush Administration, I'm really worried about what they'll do for Barack Obama, or rather, what bills they'll introduce for him to sign. This world would be a better place if the Democratic Congress showed some balls and stepped up to Bush. I understand the concern, as it does set a bad precedent: "You fail, we bail!" is not a message anyone wants to promote. What needs to happen is regulation to make sure the corporate practices that helped lead to this are not allowed anymore. Doing this once is bad enough, our concerns shouldn't be about how this wasn't our fault but rather getting out of it and then thinking up ways of making sure such shoddy business practices don't get us into this hole again. I don't disagree with a lot of what you're saying. I simply feel that, at this point, it doesn't behoove anyone to consider what we should have done, but rather what we need to do to get out of this mess and make sure it doesn't happen again.

And as for this part of your comment, uh, hello out there? The public was against the bailout, against money being given to AIG after their retreat soon after getting 85 billion, is against the Fed's move to pour upwards of 1.5 trillion into the market (by pour, I mean run the printing press)...what's going to stop the government from doing this too? Everything the government has done thus far, the public's been against it. The vaunted emergency factor has been the reason all along. What they think is best for the market is best for us too, and we should just give them opportunities to do as they please. Are you saying that, due to this economic crisis, the American Government is going to go from "Market" to "Socialist" in a heartbeat? Again, I point to the New Deal, and the fact that we aren't socialists after that. Explain to me how this is any different. I don't see the fear of a new "socialist" government. We've been through this before, and we didn't become the USSA. Are you suggesting they just let the market fail? Don't you think that could have worse results?

Mike, your opinions on this matter are wrong. You have no idea what a fascist government looks like. The United States is FAR from a fascist government, no matter how you look at it. That is all that needs to be said on this matter, and no more. I always felt the easiest way of debunking whole "fascism" thing was to point to the fact that MoveOn.org still exists and is (arguably) stronger than ever. There is no way such an entity can exist in a fascist government. But regardless, I think Mike's realized his mistake. No need to harp on it; at least he admitted it, unlike some people... I won't deny the socialist bent in such policies. But I don't think it's anything more than an emergency tactic, and I don't think it will lead to socialism. We survived the New Deal without becoming socialists, I don't see any reason to think this will suddenly put us over the edge. Hell, there were a fair amount of people still calling for FDR's head during his administration, and there are arguably even more today. Values-wise, America won't become socialist because classical liberalism is so ingrained with our views on government power and such. And I don't think that this is going to chase private investment out of the market, either; I think this will stabilize things enough to give people confidence in investing private capital again. Do you think people are busting down the doors to invest money in the market right now? This measure is to give people confidence to put their money back in the market, since the government is going to have more stake and more control over the current economic crisis. By your scenario, we'll be seeing private capital evaporate into nothing with this plan, which is the opposite of what I think is intended and what is going to happen.

I think you are off-base with the comparison, especially the idea of "Corporate Control of Government", which is not even close to what Fascism is. The Government is the supreme ruler in Fascism, not Corporations. Not even hardly. Corporations only exist at the whims of the government, and will likely be serving some good for the government. "National Socialism" is perhaps the best way to term it, since it is a very socialist system with very xenophobic habits. Thusly it is divorced from socialism and communism in that fascism is much more focused on an individual ethnicity, while the latter two are all-inclusive. But in practice, they have very similar policies regarding the side of the populace they like. I think you are confusing corporations with corporatism. I'd argue we are going back towards a more laissez-faire economic system (something that Corporatism is against) along with a more nationalistic bent. Perhaps you could call it a "mini-Gilded Age". But Fascism? I think you need to read the whole entry on that page, NoCal.

OMG SOCIALIST DOOMSDAY APPROACHING~! ROMNEY, WHY HAST THOU FORSAKEN US?! To defend Marvin here for one second, I've actually heard multiple people claim that the government buying into banks would lead this country to socialism. These are people I work with and I (normally) think very highly of their opinions. This is a scary proposition for a lot of people. Nothing is leading this country into socialism. It's either a hilarious scare tactic used by idiots like Marvin, or people who simply don't recognize that this country, for better or for worse, is never going to be socialist. The public is almost completely against such ideas. The only reason this was proposed and actually being used is because of the emergency factor here. Believing that this is going to be the rule rather than the exception isn't looking at the ideological realities of America. We are far more classically liberal than any other country in the world, and I don't see that stopping any time soon.

Indeed. We need people who won't just be sending huge tax rebate checks out as a way of solving the economy, like the Republican P- Oh.

I can't remember his name, but one of the CNN analysts was on Colbert talking about how McCain needs to rein Palin in. He talked about how, at Palin rallies, Obama has been called a terrorist, people have shouted to kill him, and a black cameraman had "racial epithets" hurled at him. I wonder if Marvin was one of them... OMG SOCIALIST DOOMSDAY APPROACHING~! ROMNEY, WHY HAST THOU FORSAKEN US?!

Oh come on, you are looking at it the wrong way: This will build up hope in Maple Leafs fans before they inevitably miss the playoffs... and their chance at Tavares and Hedberg by winning too many games. Big picture, man. Big picture.