Campaign 2008

[PUT THAT DICK IN MY MOUTH! 0]

Where do you expect these people to find the money to move into a city? When the cities become impossibly huge, will each block have a train station? Will the fed. Govt force people who've lived in their smaller communities for generations to move to a new big city? Will the magic trains be built first so people can afford to move the truckloads of belongings to their new homes? Do the factories and farms in smaller communities get torn down or are they left to erode? How much pollution and congestion are we looking at with everybody living side by side? As an environmentalist, how can you condone destroying all of the outlying land that will have to go to make room for these exponentially expanding cities? Do the people living in the cities already have to move to the the expanding outreaches thereof to make room for all of the trains that will be needed? Will there be any concern for all of the historic and scenic buildings, parks, and such that will have to be overrun for the city expansion? Are family vacations going to be prohibited? Will roads be maintained despite the lack of usage thus wasting more taxpayer money? If they are not maintained, does that eliminate anybody's freedom to wander elsewhere by any means other than the magic train? When a train, as the only allowable means of conveyance, experiences technical/mechanical problems will it be a day off at every concecting office, factory, school, etc? Will all food be grown in factory settings within the cities?

 

Hahaha there's so many strawmen and reductio ad absurdums in this post that it's making my head spin. People in favor of urbanization want to abolish cars and vacations! X 10,000.

[At Home 0]

Yes, it is unreasonable to tell people to move or get a new job.

[Perfxion 0]

two points:

 

1: Eric, I was wondering because then you might have noticed that it is next to impossible to have everyone move back within the city limits of Houston or other big cities. In Houston and its outlining areas that spread 360° and it would take forever to get to the point where it could be usable. It would cost billions to trillions of dollars to build a metro that would work. Unless they remove the HOV lane and replace it with a rail line, plus redoing all HOV on/off ramps with stations, I just don't see how this could work. But it still seems like a challenge. I wouldn't mind a better public transportation system, but when ICS of Greater Houston Area is twice the size of Connecticut. It comes a pretty massive task. Nevermind that the only true rural areas are farm lands(the limited areas of that as it is). The toy train in downtown only helps and serves the purpose of parking at Minute Maid Park taking a trolley down to the Astrodome. It is only built to get an Olympics in Houston, which the people don't want.

 

2: I still can't believe that people still are making an issue on whether or not Obama is a Muslim. It is as if its still January and the Rev. Wright scandal has not happened yet. People down here still believe that his trip to the middle east was a Muslim trying to get support from his fellow Muslims. Another odd thing is people thinking that Obama only running because he is black. And all blacks will vote for him because he is black. Nothing to do with people wanting the opposite of Bush in terms on domestic and foreign policies. But race and religion are the big issues.

[EricMM 0]

I never said "force"

 

Also, people don't *have* to live so centrally...I said commuting fifty miles for EVERYTHING was dumb. Stuff can be made more local.

[Guest Tzar Lysergic]

How about we just get some cheaper or more efficient energy instead of shifting the entire national transportation paradigm to some kind of bullet train fantasyland?

 

Efficient light trucks would be an immense market in this country. Why the hell doesn't an American company focus on that?

 

Build a full size pickup that gets 30-40 to the gallon at a reasonable price and I'd buy one in a flash.

 

This all boils down to not wanting to get ripped off. That's my only beef with the whole fuel situation. If that 4 bucks a gallon was stretched to the limit to produce gasoline or diesel, well, that's just what the shit costs. BUT IT DOESN'T. WE'RE GETTING RIPPED THE FUCK OFF AND IT'S HORSESHIT. The people in charge of the major oil companies should be publicly flogged.

 

[SuperJerk 0]

I still can't believe that people still are making an issue on whether or not Obama is a Muslim. It is as if its still January and the Rev. Wright scandal has not happened yet. People down here still believe that his trip to the middle east was a Muslim trying to get support from his fellow Muslims. Another odd thing is people thinking that Obama only running because he is black. And all blacks will vote for him because he is black. Nothing to do with people wanting the opposite of Bush in terms on domestic and foreign policies. But race and religion are the big issues.

 

Polls have pretty much shown Obama consistently leading since Hillary Clinton dropped out of the race, so I'm not thinking we're see a Michael Dukakis phantom-lead, here.

 

My point?

 

Well, while I know there are lots of ignorant people out that are willing to beleive whatever bad things they hear about someone, and especially about a black candidate, must be true, I think the majority of Americans will see past the racist stereotypes that are pushed about Obama and vote for him based on the belief he is right on the issues.

[snuffbox 0]

I wish I shared your optimism about the American Voter.

[Guest Cal Moriarty]

Snuff hit it on the head. America is built for the car/methods of personal transportation. A massive public transit system really won't work in the U.S. and if it was attempted it would cost trillions upon trillions of dollars.

Guess what, just because thats the way things are layed out now doesn't mean thats the way things have to or CAN BE layed out in the future.

 

Things have to change.

Okay, Eric, redesign rural America.

 

There's so much miscommunication here over the rural development thing, it's like the Confusion of Tongues all over again.

 

There are thousands of towns, populated in the dozens and hundreds, and farm regions, that connect to towns with populations in the few-to-tens-of thousands that house the factory(rarely -ies anymore), the shops, and a Walmart. Can we connect all of these small rural environs with trains? Nope. Can they walk the several miles? Nope. Do they need to drive? Yep.

The suburbs can be fixed, to varying extents. Small rural towns feeding to not-as-small rural towns isn't a function of white flight or sprawl, that's just the way a lot of the country has been for a long time. Snuffy is up around Tomah, if I'm not mistaken, which is around 10,000, and it's in a county of only 41,000. The necessity of driving up there has nothing to do with everyone moving farther than they need to from an anchor city, that's just the way it has to be. Public transportation isn't viable for such a low-density area. You just drive where you need to go, which won't often be all that far.

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

I think this is a good week for the McCain campaign overall. For the first time in the campaign they seem to be dictating the pace and for all the press slamming the Paris Hilton ad, it got a ton of free play, which McCain desperately needs at this point. The one thing McCain can hold up his head about is that he is keeping the race close nationally, when Obama really should have a stronger lead. However, McCain still falls behind in polls in key states like PA, VA, MI, OH, and FL, which is why I really believe Romney is his only VP choice.

 

That said, I don't really put any stock into poll numbers, at least until after the conventions are finished. By this time the issues and the VPs will have been picked and voters perceptions of things they consider important (the war on terrorism and the economy) will be locked in [which played against Bush Sr. in 1992]. I think that the first debate is going to be VERY interesting and has the potential to shape this race, much like in 2000 where Gore's coughs and temperament during the first debate with Bush lost him critical support among swing voters. I think going into the first debate Obama will have a lot of pressure on him because he will be seen as the more convincing speaker and I have to admit that I was not heavily impressed by Obama's debating skills in the Democratic primaries. It seems that when he is not on a prepared speech script that he can babble or stumble like anyone else who has trouble speaking extemporaneously and that might play into McCain's hands (if he doesn't have a Reagan 1984 type performance where he is forgetting names, facts, etc.).

[Guest Cal Moriarty]

All that "free play" consisted of unilaterally (and correctly) writing it off as total horseshit, though, so I'm not sure he had a great week. "Any publicity is good publicity" isn't really a great axiom for politics.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

I think this is a good week for the McCain campaign overall. For the first time in the campaign they seem to be dictating the pace and for all the press slamming the Paris Hilton ad, it got a ton of free play, which McCain desperately needs at this point. The one thing McCain can hold up his head about is that he is keeping the race close nationally, when Obama really should have a stronger lead. However, McCain still falls behind in polls in key states like PA, VA, MI, OH, and FL, which is why I really believe Romney is his only VP choice.

 

That said, I don't really put any stock into poll numbers, at least until after the conventions are finished. By this time the issues and the VPs will have been picked and voters perceptions of things they consider important (the war on terrorism and the economy) will be locked in [which played against Bush Sr. in 1992]. I think that the first debate is going to be VERY interesting and has the potential to shape this race, much like in 2000 where Gore's coughs and temperament during the first debate with Bush lost him critical support among swing voters. I think going into the first debate Obama will have a lot of pressure on him because he will be seen as the more convincing speaker and I have to admit that I was not heavily impressed by Obama's debating skills in the Democratic primaries. It seems that when he is not on a prepared speech script that he can babble or stumble like anyone else who has trouble speaking extemporaneously and that might play into McCain's hands (if he doesn't have a Reagan 1984 type performance where he is forgetting names, facts, etc.).

 

the debates are going to be awful. Obama will stammer and stutter if he gets a question he wasnt prepared for and Mccain will no doubt forget names or whatever.

Obama even has a lot of trouble with prepared speeches..his speech in Germany was filled with errors and mistakes that deviated from the prepared copy that was given out.

[snuffbox 0]

Glen Beck told you that Obama is a bad speaker now?

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Glen Beck told you that Obama is a bad speaker now?

 

I have my own judgment based on listening to him stammer and stutter in the previous debates and media appearances and Im obviously not the only one to notice it.

 

 

 

 

This speech Obama gave yesterday in Aman, Jordan. Speech last 41 minute, this is montage of osama (sp) stutter for 7 of those 41 minute. No repeats of "uh" used in the 7 minutes. That almost 20% of speech content. Akmar upload entire 7 minutes for you viewing pleasure.

 

7 minutes of a 41 minute speech spent uh-ing.

 

I failed my public speaking class' first 5 minute prepared speech in college for saying Uh once (I got about 2 minutes in, went "Uh" out of habit and was stopped and told to sit down because I just failed).

 

 

 

 

[snuffbox 0]

Wow.

[cabbageboy 0]

Danville, why exactly would Romney help McCain in any of those swing states aside from maybe Michigan? I don't recall Romney having any sort of showing in most of those states, aside from maybe FL. I'm not even sure why PA is even considered any sort of swing state....McCain is wasting his time if he thinks he can get it. And even with Michigan I think all Romney does is make it closer than it would be otherwise. As in instead of Obama winning MI by 8% or so, he'd win by 4%.

 

 

[Guest Cal Moriarty]

montage of osama (sp) stutter

Really now?

[SuperJerk 0]

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Friday he would be willing to support limited additional offshore oil drilling if that's what it takes to enact a comprehensive policy to foster fuel-efficient autos and develop alternate energy sources.

Shifting from his previous opposition to expanded offshore drilling, the Illinois senator told a Florida newspaper he could get behind a compromise with Republicans and oil companies to prevent gridlock over energy.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080802/ap_on_el_pr/obama

 

Bad side 1: Offshore drilling is a bad idea because we'll be depleting our own reserves and unbalancing the ecosystem just to lower prices a few dollars per fill-up at some point down the road.

 

Bad side 2: Obama knows this and has offered a wishy-washy reveral of a positions he should have been changing the publics mind on and not the other way around. This hurts his credibility and gives ammo to his critics on the left.

 

Good side 1: By acknowledging it as part of some future compromise with Republicans, he has helped innoculate himself against charges he's not willing to work with Republicans on important issues.

 

Good side 2: He cannot be attacked for switching position when McCain did the exact same thing.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

montage of osama (sp) stutter

Really now?

 

I added the (SP) part, but thats the description of the video from the person that uploaded it.

 

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Friday he would be willing to support limited additional offshore oil drilling if that's what it takes to enact a comprehensive policy to foster fuel-efficient autos and develop alternate energy sources.

Shifting from his previous opposition to expanded offshore drilling, the Illinois senator told a Florida newspaper he could get behind a compromise with Republicans and oil companies to prevent gridlock over energy.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080802/ap_on_el_pr/obama

 

Bad side 1: Offshore drilling is a bad idea because we'll be depleting our own reserves and unbalancing the ecosystem just to lower prices a few dollars per fill-up at some point down the road.

 

Bad side 2: Obama knows this and has offered a wishy-washy reveral of a positions he should have been changing the publics mind on and not the other way around. This hurts his credibility and gives ammo to his critics on the left.

 

Good side 1: By acknowledging it as part of some future compromise with Republicans, he has helped innoculate himself against charges he's not willing to work with Republicans on important issues.

 

Good side 2: He cannot be attacked for switching position when McCain did the exact same thing.

 

Bad Side: Well for starters, just the notion that we're at least trying to drill for our own oil now has sent oil prices down about 20 cents a gallon which translates into a couple of dollars a fillup NOW, not at some point down the road. The whole notion that we have to move directly to these magical alternative sources of energy that don't currently exist in forms that are viable from both an economic and technological standpoint is flat out rediculous. We have all this oil sitting right below us that is worth something now, why not use it now while it can help us save money instead of waiting for it to be rendered worthless when we get off oil at some point down the road while continuing to spend tons of money to import foreign oil.

 

Good Side: He can say whatever now, it doesn't matter. When he gets in office, it will be just another flip flop. He was for offshore drilling now but once he's elected he'll be against it and he'll probably re-enact the presidential ban shutting it all down again. I know that, you know that, everyone knows it.

[Gary Floyd 0]

Glen Beck told you that Obama is a bad speaker now?

 

I have my own judgment based on listening to him stammer and stutter in the previous debates and media appearances and Im obviously not the only one to notice it.

 

 

 

 

This speech Obama gave yesterday in Aman, Jordan. Speech last 41 minute, this is montage of osama (sp) stutter for 7 of those 41 minute. No repeats of "uh" used in the 7 minutes. That almost 20% of speech content. Akmar upload entire 7 minutes for you viewing pleasure.

 

7 minutes of a 41 minute speech spent uh-ing.

 

I failed my public speaking class' first 5 minute prepared speech in college for saying Uh once (I got about 2 minutes in, went "Uh" out of habit and was stopped and told to sit down because I just failed).

Marvin, that post was retarded, even for you. Actually, I take that back: only you could make a big deal out of something stupid like this.

 

[SuperJerk 0]

"Obama is a bad speaker" will work about as well as "Obama is an elitist." You can't make a label stick when you have a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

 

 

Bad Side: Well for starters, just the notion that we're at least trying to drill for our own oil now has sent oil prices down about 20 cents a gallon which translates into a couple of dollars a fillup NOW, not at some point down the road. The whole notion that we have to move directly to these magical alternative sources of energy that don't currently exist in forms that are viable from both an economic and technological standpoint is flat out rediculous. We have all this oil sitting right below us that is worth something now, why not use it now while it can help us save money instead of waiting for it to be rendered worthless when we get off oil at some point down the road while continuing to spend tons of money to import foreign oil.

 

Good Side: He can say whatever now, it doesn't matter. When he gets in office, it will be just another flip flop. He was for offshore drilling now but once he's elected he'll be against it and he'll probably re-enact the presidential ban shutting it all down again. I know that, you know that, everyone knows

 

What is the more likely scenario:

 

Just THINKING ABOUT offshore drilling has lowered gas prices, even though there's no indication that its actually going to happen.

 

OR

 

Prices peaked and are coming down on their own due to the ups and downs caused by market forces.

 

 

YOU DECIDE.

 

 

Also, can we have a moratorium on the term "flip flop"? Like "race card," its used so often and in so many different ways its lost any value it might have had. No matter what position he takes on any issue, he'll get attacked by Republicans for it anyways, and likewise for McCain and Democratic attackers. It doesn't matter if he switched positions, what matters is WHY he switched positions and if the position is the right one. Pointing out someone switched positions and yelling "flip flop flip flop" over and over is about as dumb as any other name calling, especially when the act of the switch is given more attention than the reason behind the switch.

[Mike wanna be 0]

I'm more inclined to believe "a threat to increase supply lowered prices" than "a bunch of people setting profit records randomly and completely coincidentally decided to significantly lower prices for the first time in a while at the same time of the threat", personally.

[At Home 0]

If you're talking about oil speculators, then it's both.

[SuperJerk 0]

Fair point, Oldskool, but it should be noted that oil companies can increase production from sources already available at any time. And market forces can explain how parts of an oligopoly arrive at similar prices independently through attempts to match a price with what the market will bear.

 

Also, I just read it again and Marvin's "let's use it all now while it is still worth something" argument is pretty damn hillarious.

[SuperJerk 0]

Obama: Slavery reparations not the answer

 

 

Sen. Barack Obama on the campaign trail.

SPRINGFIELD, Illinois (AP) — Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama opposes offering reparations to the descendants of slaves, putting him at odds with some black groups and leaders.

 

The man with a serious chance to become the nation's first black president argues that government should instead combat the legacy of slavery by improving schools, health care and the economy for

all.

 

"I have said in the past — and I'll repeat again — that the best reparations we can provide are good schools in the inner city and jobs for people who are unemployed," the Illinois Democrat said recently.

 

Some two dozen members of Congress are co-sponsors of legislation to create a commission that would study reparations — that is, payments and programs to make up for the damage done by

slavery.

 

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People supports the legislation, too. Cities around the country, including Obama's home of Chicago, have endorsed the idea, and so has a major

union, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

 

Obama has worked to be seen as someone who will bring people together, not divide them into various interest groups with checklists of demands. Supporting reparations could undermine that

image and make him appear to be pandering to black voters.

 

"Let's not be naive. Sen. Obama is running for president of the United States, and so he is in a constant battle to save his political life," said Kibibi Tyehimba, co-chair of the National

Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America. "In light of the demographics of this country, I don't think it's realistic to expect him to do anything other than what he's done."

 

But this is not a position Obama adopted just for the presidential campaign. He voiced the same concerns about reparations during his successful run for the Senate in 2004.

 

 

There's enough flexibility in the term "reparations" that Obama can oppose them and still have plenty of common ground with supporters.

 

The NAACP says reparations could take the form of government programs to help struggling people of all races. Efforts to improve schools in the inner city could also aid students in the mountains

of West Virginia, said Hilary Shelton, director of the NAACP's Washington bureau.

 

"The solution could be broad and sweeping," Shelton said.

 

The National Urban League — a group Obama addressed Saturday without mentioning the issue in his speech — avoids the word "reparations" as too vague and highly charged. But the group advocates government action to close the gaps between white America and black America.

 

Urban League President Marc Morial said he expects his members to press Obama on how he intends to close those gaps and what action he would take in the first 100 days of his presidency.

 

"What steps should we take as a nation to alleviate the effects of racial exclusion and racial discrimination?" Morial asked.

 

The House voted this week to apologize for slavery. The resolution, which was approved on a voice vote, does not mention reparations, but past opponents have argued that an apology would

increase pressure for concrete action.

 

Obama says an apology would be appropriate but not particularly helpful in improving the lives of black Americans. Reparations could also be a distraction, he said.

 

In a 2004 questionnaire, he told the NAACP, "I fear that reparations would be an excuse for some to say, 'We've paid our debt,' and to avoid the much harder work."

 

Taking questions Sunday at a conference of minority journalists, Obama said he would be willing to talk to American Indian leaders about an apology for the nation's treatment of their people.

 

Pressed for his position on apologizing to blacks or offering reparations, Obama said he was more interested in taking action to help people struggling to get by. Because many of them are

minorities, he said, that would help the same people who would stand to benefit from reparations.

 

"If we have a program, for example, of universal health care, that will disproportionately affect people of color, because they're disproportionately uninsured," Obama said. "If we've got

an agenda that says every child in America should get — should be able to go to college, regardless of income, that will disproportionately affect people of color, because it's oftentimes our children who can't afford to go to college."

 

One reparations advocate, Vernellia Randall, a law professor at the University of Dayton, bluntly responded: "I think he's dead wrong."

 

She said aid to the poor in general won't close the gaps — poor blacks would still trail poor whites, and middle-class blacks would still lag behind middle-class whites. Instead, assistance must be

aimed directly at the people facing the after-effects of slavery and Jim Crow laws, she said.

 

"People say he can't run and get elected if he says those kinds of things," Randall said. "I'm like, well does that mean we're really not ready for a black president?"

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/...ons-not-enough/

 

The government already made an attempt at repairing the damage caused by slavery during the Reconstruction. Unfortunately, most of those measures were undone during the Jim Crow/segregation era. That era only ended within the last 50 years. People who suffered through that period are still alive today, and the long term consequences of that era are what feel are still feeling today.

 

Reparations for slavery? No. Reparations for segregation and Jim Crow? That's a good idea.

[At Home 0]

How about we just go back to the 40 acres and a mule shit?

 

 

"Let's not be naive. Sen. Obama is running for president of the United States, and so he is in a constant battle to save his political life," said Kibibi Tyehimba, co-chair of the National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America. "In light of the demographics of this country, I don't think it's realistic to expect him to do anything other than what he's done."

 

"And they're still complaining!"

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Fair point, Oldskool, but it should be noted that oil companies can increase production from sources already available at any time. And market forces can explain how parts of an oligopoly arrive at similar prices independently through attempts to match a price with what the market will bear.

 

Also, I just read it again and Marvin's "let's use it all now while it is still worth something" argument is pretty damn hillarious.

 

How is it hillarious when its true? What good will the billions of barrels of oil that we're sitting on top of be for us in the 20-30 year future time frame when we no longer use it for anything? Meanwhile we're still buying other country's oil today because they're tapping it now and selling like it was going out of style, making them rich when we could be buying our own oil and contributing to our own economy.

 

I think I figured it out..when we go completely off oil and the rest of the world uses up all their oil but are still using oil cause they didn't worry about getting off oil like we did, we can sell our oil and the price will be even higher and we'll be the new Saudi Arabia! That has to be the plan, its the only way this makes any sense.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Glen Beck told you that Obama is a bad speaker now?

 

I have my own judgment based on listening to him stammer and stutter in the previous debates and media appearances and Im obviously not the only one to notice it.

 

 

 

 

This speech Obama gave yesterday in Aman, Jordan. Speech last 41 minute, this is montage of osama (sp) stutter for 7 of those 41 minute. No repeats of "uh" used in the 7 minutes. That almost 20% of speech content. Akmar upload entire 7 minutes for you viewing pleasure.

 

7 minutes of a 41 minute speech spent uh-ing.

 

I failed my public speaking class' first 5 minute prepared speech in college for saying Uh once (I got about 2 minutes in, went "Uh" out of habit and was stopped and told to sit down because I just failed).

Marvin, that post was retarded, even for you. Actually, I take that back: only you could make a big deal out of something stupid like this.

 

the last 7 years have been nothing but "Lets make fun of George Bush every time he opens his mouth for a speech" and yet Obama gives a speech that makes Bush sound like one of the greatest orators in the history of the world and it's not a big deal anymore. I see..

[At Home 0]

Not the same thing at all, Marvin.

 

We make fun of George Bush's speeches because they're usually marked with terrible policy or a lack of understanding of the world around us. Not because he says "uh" a lot.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

You dont watch Letterman much.

 

 

[PUT THAT DICK IN MY MOUTH! 0]

Not the same thing at all, Marvin.

 

We make fun of George Bush's speeches because they're usually marked with terrible policy or a lack of understanding of the world around us. Not because he says "uh" a lot.

 

Also George Bush's crimes against rhetoric are far far graver than just saying "uh" between sentences.