Campaign 2008

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

when da fuck did glenn beck blow up??

 

it's all about my niggah dobbs, fuck it should be him up there not cockgobbling beck

 

Don't worry, he should be canceled soon, given this:

 

[SuperJerk 0]

John McCain's new enemy. Because the world needs actor's telling them who to vote for.

 

I agree.

 

 

 

In other news, it appears the SECRET OBAMA TAPE mentioned earlier doesn't really exist...

 

Campaign: Michelle Obama never used word 'Whitey' By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer

Thu Jun 12, 11:16 PM ET

 

Democrat Barack Obama's campaign said Thursday that Michelle Obama never used the word "whitey" in a speech from the church pulpit as it launched a Web site to debunk rumors about him and his wife.

 

The rumor that Michelle Obama railed against "whitey" in a diatribe at Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ has circulated on conservative Republican blogs for weeks and was repeated by radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh. The rumor included claims of a videotape of the speech that would be used to bring down Obama's candidacy this fall.

 

"No such tape exists," the campaign responds on the site, http://www.fightthesmears.com. "Michelle Obama has not spoken from the pulpit at Trinity and has not used that word."

 

The site is a response to the realities of a brave new world, where information travels 24 hours a day on blogs and voters are increasingly turning to the Internet for information. It's a particular problem for Obama, a relative newcomer to national politics who is still unknown to many voters and has been the target of persistent misinformation campaigns online.

 

In another sign of the campaign moving into the general election race, the Democratic National Committee's spokeswoman said Thursday its political and field operations are relocating to Chicago, where Obama's campaign is based. While other departments will remain in Washington, it's an effort to streamline the campaign and party efforts in one strategy instead of the overlapping efforts of past presidential elections.

 

E-mails about Obama rank No. 2 on the list of "Hottest Urban Legends" on snopes.com, an Internet rumor-debunking site, behind e-mail greeting cards that could expose computers to viruses.

 

Michelle Obama has often been the target of conservative attacks, prompting Obama to demand his rivals "lay off my wife." Much of the criticism came from her comment that her husband's campaign has made her proud of her country "for the first time," a remark that inspired a Tennessee Republican Party Web video questioning her patriotism.

 

There also have been more insulting attacks, and not limited to the Internet.

 

Fox News Channel referred to Michelle Obama as "Obama's baby mama" in a graphic on Wednesday, using the slang description of a woman who has a baby outside of a romantic relationship or marriage. Fox anchor E.D. Hill also referred to it as a "terrorist fist jab" when the Obamas bumped knuckles on the night he clinched the nomination. Hill has apologized.

 

The Obamas recently resigned from Trinity, where the Rev. Jeremiah Wright was the longtime pastor. Wright came under fire for sermons in which he cursed America and accused the government of conspiring against blacks. Video of the sermons spread quickly on the Internet and threatened great damage to Obama's campaign.

 

Other false claims about the Illinois senator — that he's secretly a Muslim who refuses to say the Pledge of Allegiance and is intent on destroying America — spread widely during the primary campaign, and Obama made it a habit of telling audiences to respond to e-mail rumors to set the record straight.

 

Barack Obama bristled when he was asked about the "whitey" rumor on his campaign plane last week, saying it was nonsense that shouldn't be repeated in questioning by a mainstream reporter.

 

"It is a destructive aspect of our politics right now," Obama told his traveling press corps. "And simply because something appears in an e-mail, that should lend it no more credence than if you heard it on the corner. And you know, presumably the job of the press is to not go around and spread scurrilous rumors like this until there's actually anything, one iota of substance or evidence that would substantiate it."

 

At the same time, his campaign was preparing the debunking Web site in a recognition that refusing to address rumors only perpetuates them.

 

The site explains that Obama is "a committed Christian" who never attended a radical madrassa during his childhood in Indonesia. With chain e-mails falsely claiming Obama was sworn into the Senate on the Quran, the holy book of Islam, the Web site includes a photo of him taking his oath of office on the family bible.

 

It shows C-SPAN video of Obama leading the Pledge of Allegiance with his hand over his heart as he presided over the Senate on June 21, 2007. It encourages people to send e-mail to friends and "spread the truth."

 

"The Obama campaign isn't going to let dishonest smears spread across the Internet unanswered," said spokesman Tommy Vietor. "It's not enough to just know the truth, we have to be proactive and fight back."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080613/ap_on_...ieNi7qpdDhh24cA

 

 

 

[BruteSquad_BRODY 0]

http://news.aol.com/elections/story/_a/ron...612180109990001

 

RON PAUL out

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

http://news.aol.com/elections/story/_a/ron...612180109990001

 

RON PAUL out

I should TOTALLY be freaking out right now.

[Gary Floyd 0]

John McCain's new enemy. Because the world needs actor's telling them who to vote for.

 

I agree.

 

He's actually a politician now. John Cusack is not. Bit of a difference there.

[Atticus Chaos 0]

In the face of vicious accusations, smear campaigns and baseless rumours, Barack gets some much needed support from his own party:

 

Fred Hobbs, a state Democratic Party Executive Committee member representing part of Davis’ district, said he understands why Davis is not endorsing Obama and is “skeptical” of the Illinois senator himself.

 

“Maybe the same reason I don’t want to — I don’t exactly approve of a lot of the things he stands for and I’m not sure we know enough about him,” Hobbs said when asked why he thought Davis wasn’t endorsing Obama. “He’s got some bad connections, and he may be terrorist connected for all I can tell. It sounds kind of like he may be.”

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/1...7183/717/535260

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Are they retarded? I hope Howard Dean is reaming these idiots.

[SuperJerk 0]

John McCain's new enemy. Because the world needs actor's telling them who to vote for.

 

I agree.

 

He's actually a politician now. John Cusack is not. Bit of a difference there.

 

Please explain: How did Arnold run for governor if he wasn't out there telling people who to vote for?

 

But you're saying it is okay for actors to run for office, but not voice their political views? That's absurd! And Arnold was involved in politics before he ran for governor. He campaigned for Republicans for almost the last two decades, and was only floated as a possible candidate because of that campaigning. Arnold got elected because his movies are popular and he's well-liked by the public. Somehow that makes him qualified to be governor, but it makes John Cusack unqualified to voice political views.

[Guest Epic Narcissism]

John Cusack is a dickhole. Who cares what he thinks.

[SamoaRowe 0]

John Cusack is a dickhole. Who cares what he thinks.

 

Is that really the best rebuttal you've got?

[Gary Floyd 0]

John Cusack is a dickhole. Who cares what he thinks.

 

Is that really the best rebuttal you've got?

 

It's good because it's true.

 

There's a reason the average American cringes whenever an actor opens their trap about politics: because 95% of the time, it comes off like something a spoiled trust fund kid would say. Even if it's correct, it's still obnoxious. Nobody takes that kid seriously. Therefore, nobody wants to hear a movie star like Cusack or Sean Penn has to say.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

when da fuck did glenn beck blow up??

 

it's all about my niggah dobbs, fuck it should be him up there not cockgobbling beck

 

Don't worry, he should be canceled soon, given this:

 

Thats not fair..he hasnt hosted the show at all this week since he's been on tour. Better reflection of ratings:

 

May 2008 - Glenn Beck up 53% at 7pm over May 2007

 

Plus his weekly opinion columns on CNN.com are some of the most read on the whole site.

[Ginger Snaps 0]

So. Looks like it's McCain 08 for me.

 

Why is that?

Maybe because of McCain's record of voting with the Bush Administration 95% of the time in 2007?

 

Maybe because of McCain's history of voting against the Katrina investigation, then lying about it?

 

Maybe because of McCain's open endorsement of the overturning of Roe v. Wade?

 

Maybe because of McCain's ridiculous economic proposals?

 

Maybe because of McCain's continued support for the Iraq War?

 

Maybe because of McCain's apparent complete misunderstanding of Iran's government?

 

Just a few hypotheses I have on why someone would support John McCain.

 

Because you had several months to convince me that Barack Obama would be a better choice than Hillary, and you didn't. Not at all.

 

So now that she's gone, I'm supporting the candidate I think is at least competent. Which, IMO, isn't Obama.

[The Niggardly King 0]

But Obama and Hillary are like the same on most of the issues...

[SuperJerk 0]

Because you had several months to convince me that Barack Obama would be a better choice than Hillary, and you didn't. Not at all.

 

So now that she's gone, I'm supporting the candidate I think is at least competent. Which, IMO, isn't Obama.

You are confusing longevity with competence.

 

I'm waiting for someone to convince me that McCain is the most competent person running for president. While it is true he is a legitimate American hero for his courage during the Vietnam War, I am not convinced he has good judgement in the world of public policy.

 

The ONLY evidence of McCain's political competence is his length of service, and given the number of really bad ideas he's supported in that quarter century, that's hardly a convincing argument. For example, Obama, even without McCain decades of experience, was able to correctly assess the need for and judge the outcome of the Iraq War. The law that McCain is best known for, McCain-Feingold, is a mess that has only created new problems instead of solving old ones.

 

If you actually look at McCain's stands on the issues and choices he's made, McCain's judgement is very suspect. Obama's demonstrated better judgement in his 12 years in politics (8 at the state level, 3 at the federal level) than McCain has in his 25.

 

McCain's voted with the Bush Administration 95% of the time in 2007.

 

McCain votedagainst the Katrina investigation, then lied about it.

 

McCain economic proposals are ridicules.

 

McCain continues to support the Iraq War.

 

McCain has a misunderstanding of Iran's government, and seems eager to go war with them.

 

Please explain to me how any of this shows McCain would make a better president than Barack Obama.

 

 

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

I think our presidential choices get worse each and every year. I'm not thrilled about either guy because I hate McCain's stand on immigration and I do not like Obama's big government/raise taxes through the ceiling approach to governing.

 

I guess this election just comes down to whether I think George W. Bush or Jimmy Carter is/was a better president because that's what both campaigns keep telling me I'm voting for. Very pathetic.

 

I don't see this election being decided based on policy issues at all, which is very dangerous at a time like this in our history. It's like "where are the real leaders who can make a rationale decision?"

 

 

[SuperJerk 0]

I think our presidential choices get worse each and every year. I'm not thrilled about either guy because I hate McCain's stand on immigration and I do not like Obama's big government/raise taxes through the ceiling approach to governing.

 

I guess this election just comes down to whether I think George W. Bush or Jimmy Carter is/was a better president because that's what both campaigns keep telling me I'm voting for. Very pathetic.

 

I don't see this election being decided based on policy issues at all, which is very dangerous at a time like this in our history. It's like "where are the real leaders who can make a rationale decision?"

You don't think slapping labels on the candidates, the way you are doing, is really a good way to assess them, either? All someone has to do is slap the "big government tax and spend" label on someone and you fall in line opposing them just like you're told.

 

And John McCain actually had a rational, pragmatic approach to immigration, but because of this irrational "deport 'em all" mentality, it had no chance of being enacted. Many jobs that native-born Americans won't take are done by immigrants, and blindly kicking all the illegal aliens out of the country would hurt the U.S. economy. It is important to document who is in the country. Since we need them to be here, and we also need to keep track of them, the amnesty idea makes perfect sense. However, because laws were broken, these people are looked at as the moral equivalent to thieves and drug dealers that must be eradicated from our society.

 

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

I think our presidential choices get worse each and every year. I'm not thrilled about either guy because I hate McCain's stand on immigration and I do not like Obama's big government/raise taxes through the ceiling approach to governing.

 

I guess this election just comes down to whether I think George W. Bush or Jimmy Carter is/was a better president because that's what both campaigns keep telling me I'm voting for. Very pathetic.

 

I don't see this election being decided based on policy issues at all, which is very dangerous at a time like this in our history. It's like "where are the real leaders who can make a rationale decision?"

You don't think slapping labels on the candidates, the way you are doing, is really a good way to assess them, either? All someone has to do is slap the "big government tax and spend" label on someone and you fall in line opposing them just like you're told.

 

And John McCain actually had a rational, pragmatic approach to immigration, but because of this irrational "deport 'em all" mentality, it had no chance of being enacted. Many jobs that native-born Americans won't take are done by immigrants, and blindly kicking all the illegal aliens out of the country would hurt the U.S. economy. It is important to document who is in the country. Since we need them to be here, and we also need to keep track of them, the amnesty idea makes perfect sense. However, because laws were broken, these people are looked at as the moral equivalent to thieves and drug dealers that must be eradicated from our society.

 

 

I dont see how the "deport em all" mentality is irrational. The iillegal imigrants are breaking the law and we're allowing them to continue to come in undocumented, while letting companies get away with modern day slavery justifying it by basically saying Americans are too good for certain jobs. Then we use the same excuse the south used "We cant afford to let slavery end!" prior to the civil war as another justification for continuing to allow it instead of putting our foot down once and for all: Build a fence, fine companies that hire illegals and take away licenses for repeat violations, and let the illegal immigrants find their way back to Mexico the best way they know how. If there are no jobs here for them, they wont stay much longer on their own. If they want to come back here and make an honest living, they can come in legally and we have no problem with it. As far as the flow of jobs suddenly abandoned, Im sure there are some pimple faced teenagers/early 20's who cant get a job now thanks to the minimum wage hikes (major factor in the .5% rise in unemployment) that could use a job picking fruit or whatever.

[AndrewTS 0]

"What's important is the casualties in Iraq, Americans are in South Korea, Americans are in Japan, American troops are in Germany. That's all fine.

 

I never understood this argument by McCain. Why is it "fine" that we find it necessary to have troops stationed in these(and a hell of a lot more) countries. I am not saying it isn't necessary for various reasons, but WHY is it a GOOD thing? Is it really "fine" that Americans are stationed in South Korea and Germany? Necessary, maybe, Fine...ummmm?

 

Plus, McCain and the Republicans trying to claim they want to dial down the number of troops seems to be an utter crock.

[SuperJerk 0]

I dont see how the "deport em all" mentality is irrational. The iillegal imigrants are breaking the law and we're allowing them to continue to come in undocumented, while letting companies get away with modern day slavery justifying it by basically saying Americans are too good for certain jobs. Then we use the same excuse the south used "We cant afford to let slavery end!" prior to the civil war as another justification for continuing to allow it instead of putting our foot down once and for all: Build a fence, fine companies that hire illegals and take away licenses for repeat violations, and let the illegal immigrants find their way back to Mexico the best way they know how. If there are no jobs here for them, they wont stay much longer on their own. If they want to come back here and make an honest living, they can come in legally and we have no problem with it. As far as the flow of jobs suddenly abandoned, Im sure there are some pimple faced teenagers/early 20's who cant get a job now thanks to the minimum wage hikes (major factor in the .5% rise in unemployment) that could use a job picking fruit or whatever.

No, you're confusing the issue. Amnesty for those who are already here and allowing more to come in illegally aren't the same thing.

 

Also, slavery isn't the same as hiring illegal immigrants because they are free to leave. It's apples and oranges.

 

We are already building a fence and fining those who break the law, but that's not really working, is it? We need to document the ones that are here, but the only way to effectively do that is to acknowlege the contribution they make to the economy and allow them to have a way to stay. The current system isn't okay, and neither McCain, Bush, or Obama support it.

 

And I don't think a minimum wage hike, the last of which was over a decade ago at the federal level, has anything to do with the current unemployment rate.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Thought this chart about the 2 candidates' tax plans was cool:

 

 

from Washington Post

[SuperJerk 0]

Wait...you're saying the Republican's tax plan would favor the wealthy and the Democrat's would favor the middle class? WTF?

 

 

 

John Cusack is a dickhole. Who cares what he thinks.

 

Is that really the best rebuttal you've got?

 

It's good because it's true.

 

There's a reason the average American cringes whenever an actor opens their trap about politics: because 95% of the time, it comes off like something a spoiled trust fund kid would say. Even if it's correct, it's still obnoxious. Nobody takes that kid seriously. Therefore, nobody wants to hear a movie star like Cusack or Sean Penn has to say.

Arnold's views sound like the second coming of Thomas Jefferson, however.

 

Or maybe you only have a problem with hearing views they don't like. The last time I checked, there was no clause in the First Amendment excluding liberal actors from the right to free speech.

[Atticus Chaos 0]

It depends who's saying it,too. Natalie Portman is Ivy league educated, so she probably does know a thing or two. I'd wouldn't mind listening to what she had to say rather than Lindsay Lohan or Tara Reid who obviously have no clue.

 

It works both ways, though: Britney Spears said something along the lines of 'trusting the president in every decision he makes and support that' and she sounded so braindead. I think they might have made fun of it on family guy.

[SamoaRowe 0]

I think it's better to argue with what they actually say then just to try and suggest they don't know what they're talking about because they're some liberal with an opinion. When you simply try to discredit the person and not the message, it sounds like you really don't have any sort of counter-argument at all.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

And I don't think a minimum wage hike, the last of which was over a decade ago at the federal level, has anything to do with the current unemployment rate.

Does Superjerk not know that the Congress passed the Fair Minimum Wage Act last year which hiked min. wage last July and will go up again next month and the July after that to $7.25 an hour.

 

Does Superjerk know that teenage unemployment went up 3% to 18% in May which was a huge factor in the .5% jump in overall unemployment? Could that 3% rise possibly be because companies eliminated low skill/min wage jobs now before they would have to pay them more next month? How much do you want to bet unemployement goes up again this month?

 

Just a few things to think about.

[At Home 0]

Thought this chart about the 2 candidates' tax plans was cool:

 

 

from Washington Post

 

Wow, that fucking sucks for my parents. Wonder how they're going to take having to pay the government an extra $115,000.

[Jorge Gorgeous 0]

Why, they can eat a big-dick-sandwich! They can afford nice mustard for it.

[godthedog 0]

And I don't think a minimum wage hike, the last of which was over a decade ago at the federal level, has anything to do with the current unemployment rate.

Does Superjerk not know that the Congress passed the Fair Minimum Wage Act last year which hiked min. wage last July and will go up again next month and the July after that to $7.25 an hour.

 

Does Superjerk know that teenage unemployment went up 3% to 18% in May which was a huge factor in the .5% jump in overall unemployment? Could that 3% rise possibly be because companies eliminated low skill/min wage jobs now before they would have to pay them more next month? How much do you want to bet unemployement goes up again this month?

 

Just a few things to think about.

 

that seems like a reasonable explanation to me, but it leaves open the question of when exactly is the right time to raise the minimum wage? you can't just let it sit there at $5.65 or whatever it was forever. should we have waited another 2 years to raise it? another 5, 10 years? the larger problem isn't that it was raised, the problem was that it stagnated for ten years. when you have to catch up for ten years of cost-of-living increases all at once, there's going to be some severe growing pains. the "but it'll hurt the economy" argument can be made at absolutely any time the minimum wage needs to be increased.

[At Home 0]

Well, typically, in a recession, one would tighten up the money supply to apply a little bit of grease to the wheels to let prices and wages equal out.

[PUT THAT DICK IN MY MOUTH! 0]

Oh wow pbone is a child of privilege I never would have guessed.