Campaign 2008

[panthermatt7 0]

Could you take a step back, and look at it NOT from the left? Barack Obama is a guy whose time in the Senate featured two books about himself, and not a single authored bill. In the IL state senate, he voted 'present' more times than 'yes' or 'no.' I ask you as a former Obama supporter, who moved back to "undecided" as soon as his incapability to actually DO ANYTHING except talk became apparent: how in the HELL should this be a runaway election?

Obama has a PDF and just the other week published an entire book of policy ideas. What are you talking about?

 

So you're saying that Obama is running on an extensive and specific platform of what he wants to accomplish as president?

 

How is that "change," exactly? Every candidate does (and has done) that. I remember covering Bush/Kerry in 2004 for my college's newspaper, and that's where I went to quote platform specifics -- their campaign website. It was great fodder for 'comparison tables' that ate up page space.

 

My concern isn't Obama's future plans. They look like what any not-so-moderate Democrat would do if given the Oval Office. I was taking issue with what he's already accomplished. From what I've seen, 'Change' and 'Hope' are just empty campaign slogans, with no depth of underlying belief.

[SuperJerk 0]

Could you take a step back, and look at it NOT from the left? Barack Obama is a guy whose time in the Senate featured two books about himself, and not a single authored bill. In the IL state senate, he voted 'present' more times than 'yes' or 'no.' I ask you as a former Obama supporter, who moved back to "undecided" as soon as his incapability to actually DO ANYTHING except talk became apparent: how in the HELL should this be a runaway election?

Obama has a PDF and just the other week published an entire book of policy ideas. What are you talking about?

 

So you're saying that Obama is running on an extensive and specific platform of what he wants to accomplish as president?

 

How is that "change," exactly? Every candidate does (and has done) that. I remember covering Bush/Kerry in 2004 for my college's newspaper, and that's where I went to quote platform specifics -- their campaign website. It was great fodder for 'comparison tables' that ate up page space.

 

My concern isn't Obama's future plans. They look like what any not-so-moderate Democrat would do if given the Oval Office. I was taking issue with what he's already accomplished. From what I've seen, 'Change' and 'Hope' are just empty campaign slogans, with no depth of underlying belief.

Please read.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States...of_Barack_Obama

or

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Fundi...ncy_Act_of_2006

or

http://obama.senate.gov/press/070111-lugar-obama_non/

or

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bills...d_States_Senate

[SuperJerk 0]

Sarah Palin seems very misinformed about Iran:

http://www.nysun.com/opinion/palin-on-ahma...-stopped/86311/

 

Governor Palin, the Republican nominee for vice president, was scheduled to speak today at a rally in Dag Hammarskjold Plaza to protest the appearance here of President Ahmadinejad of Iran. Her appearance was canceled by rally organizers who sought a nonpolitical event. Following are the remarks Mrs. Palin would have given.

 

 

Ahmadinejad may choose his words carefully, but underneath all of the rhetoric is an agenda that threatens all who seek a safer and freer world. We gather here today to highlight the Iranian dictator's intentions and to call for action to thwart him.

 

He must be stopped.

 

So, what should we do about this growing threat? First, we must succeed in Iraq. If we fail there, it will jeopardize the democracy the Iraqis have worked so hard to build, and empower the extremists in neighboring Iran.

 

It is said that the measure of a country is the treatment of its most vulnerable citizens. By that standard, the Iranian government is both oppressive and barbaric. Under Ahmadinejad's rule, Iranian women are some of the most vulnerable citizens.

 

Someone forgot to tell Palin the leader of Iran is really Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, not President Ahmadinejad.

[2GOLD 0]

Obama has a Grammy?!?!?

Holy crap, he's got two!

[At Home 0]

What a fucking piece of shit scumbag. She's a pretty mouthpiece. How far up her asshole does the GOP have their hands?

 

And yes, Obama has a grammy for the audiobook version of Audacity of Hope.

 

Equally frightening ideas on foreign policy:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080929/ames

 

[2GOLD 0]

Uggh, no matter what the ending after this election is going to be a nightmare. Either we get cries of sexism or we get cries of racism.

 

Although it should really be the "she was a VP bad candidate because her policies are horrible, not because of her gender" but that won't work in the least. It's a damn shame cause this could be a positive landmark election but already it's getting turned into a "blacks vs whites" (which is silly because a lot of white men and women are voting for Obama) and "men vs women" (equally dumb) war I was hoping it could avoid.

 

I sorta thought McCain was the person running for President but apparently I was wrong cause I rarely hear about him anymore.

[Gary Floyd 0]

Jesus Czech, first "Home Improvement", now this?

[SuperJerk 0]

CNN finally picked up on the rape exams story.

 

Palin's town charged women for rape exams.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

We got bigger things to worry about right now:

 

Poll: Racial views steer some away from Obama

One-third of polled white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks...

 

Statistical models derived from the poll suggest that Obama's support would be as much as 6 percentage points higher if there were no white racial prejudice.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26803840/

 

And hey, maybe McCain would have 20% more votes if it weren't for party prejudice. Do you know there are some people who will not vote for another party's candidate no matter what?

[snuffbox 0]

Only people in the Democrat Party do that. I blame the Liberal Media.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

 

I got a chuckle out of the "naughty librarian" line.

 

 

[SuperJerk 0]

We got bigger things to worry about right now:

 

Poll: Racial views steer some away from Obama

One-third of polled white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks...

 

Statistical models derived from the poll suggest that Obama's support would be as much as 6 percentage points higher if there were no white racial prejudice.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26803840/

 

And hey, maybe McCain would have 20% more votes if it weren't for party prejudice. Do you know there are some people who will not vote for another party's candidate no matter what?

 

Holy shit, you're a moron.

 

People CHOOSE their party, can switch parties, and there are difference between them. People who'd vote for someone or not vote for someone just because of their party are basing that decision on a choice the candidate made about who they want to be associated with. People cannot CHOOSE their race, switch races, and there are no fundamental differences between them except superficial differences in outward appearance. What race you are says nothing about your fundamental values, who you will associate with politically, or your values.

 

For you to equate the two is an acknowledgment of some pretty fundamental ignorance on your part.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

We got bigger things to worry about right now:

 

Poll: Racial views steer some away from Obama

One-third of polled white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks...

 

Statistical models derived from the poll suggest that Obama's support would be as much as 6 percentage points higher if there were no white racial prejudice.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26803840/

 

And hey, maybe McCain would have 20% more votes if it weren't for party prejudice. Do you know there are some people who will not vote for another party's candidate no matter what?

 

Holy shit, you're a moron.

 

People CHOOSE their party, can switch parties, and there are difference between them. People who'd vote for someone or not vote for someone just because of their party are basing that decision on a choice the candidate made about who they want to be associated with. People cannot CHOOSE their race, switch races, and there are no fundamental differences between them except superficial differences in outward appearance. What race you are says nothing about your fundamental values, who you will associate with politically, or your values.

 

For you to equate the two is an acknowledgment of some pretty fundamental ignorance on your part.

You missed my point. How many people will vote for their party's candidate running for any office just because they represent the party that they are affiliated with, completely ignoring everything everything else about the candidates except for the fact that they share the same political party. Just because a person is a member of your political party is a pathetic reason to vote for someone, just like basing your vote on race is. "Im not gonna vote for Obama because he's black (and Im white)" is essentially the same as "Im not gonna vote for Z because hes X party (and Im Y Party)".

 

Now if people of a party go out and vote for a member of their party after doing research about both candidates, thats fine with me. But I have a feeling that a small to decent sized percentage of voters only go and "pull the lever" for people who are of their party taking nothing else into consideration.

 

 

[Guest]

Whoever wins this election is a one-term President anyway. This economy is so fucked that the incumbent will take a shitload of the blame (and/or will get blasted by the other party for the country's situation) and won't be re-elected.

[SuperJerk 0]

Someone else want to try explaining the difference between racial bigotry and party loyalty to Captain Hardheaded up there?

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Someone else want to try explaining the difference between racial bigotry and party loyalty to Captain Hardheaded up there?

Party loyalty is a spiffy word for brainwashing, and it tends to be learned through your family that you are brought up in, which explains why certain areas of the country have stayed with one party for rediculously long periods of time.

 

They seem at least a little similar to me.

 

Whoever wins this election is a one-term President anyway. This economy is so fucked that the incumbent will take a shitload of the blame (and/or will get blasted by the other party for the country's situation) and won't be re-elected.

Should Obama win, I have no idea who the Republicans could run in 2012 that could defeat Obama. McCain wins and I have a good feeling its President Hilary Clinton in 2013.

 

 

[Guest]

It doesn't matter who wins. This election is just going to be something for either Democrats and Republicans to laugh at the other party for a year, if that. Afterwards, everyone will notice the country is fucked (if they haven't already), the new President won't have done anything to fix it (speaking in supposed terms, I mean, nobody can fix the economy right now)...down into the shitter the winning party goes. The losing party will get control for a while, as economic upturn starts to set in.

 

Really though, nobody can fix the economy, so naturally, whoever enters office and can't fix it is going to be out of office four years later. It's quite simple. We can talk about the war all we want, but as people's paychecks decrease more and more, well, the guy on top is going to feel the heat. Regardless of what party he belongs to.

 

Someone on another board I go to has been posting this for a while, and I'm beginning to come around on the idea.

[snuffbox 0]

Yeah. Like when FDR was elected to fix the Depression and didn't. He got his ass handed to him by Alf Landon for that.

[Guest]

Because we totally have room to add to our National Debt.

 

We need more government too, I forgot about that.

[Guest]

Or maybe, just maybe, FDR wasn't in office at the start of the Depression. Yeah, that too.

[snuffbox 0]

Nor would McCain or Obama be president at the beginning of this current problem.

 

Also, if you want the governemnt to shrink you've hitched yourself to the wrong bandwagon.

[NoCalMike 0]

We got bigger things to worry about right now:

 

Poll: Racial views steer some away from Obama

One-third of polled white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks...

 

Statistical models derived from the poll suggest that Obama's support would be as much as 6 percentage points higher if there were no white racial prejudice.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26803840/

 

And hey, maybe McCain would have 20% more votes if it weren't for party prejudice. Do you know there are some people who will not vote for another party's candidate no matter what?

 

Holy shit, you're a moron.

 

People CHOOSE their party, can switch parties, and there are difference between them. People who'd vote for someone or not vote for someone just because of their party are basing that decision on a choice the candidate made about who they want to be associated with. People cannot CHOOSE their race, switch races, and there are no fundamental differences between them except superficial differences in outward appearance. What race you are says nothing about your fundamental values, who you will associate with politically, or your values.

 

For you to equate the two is an acknowledgment of some pretty fundamental ignorance on your part.

You missed my point. How many people will vote for their party's candidate running for any office just because they represent the party that they are affiliated with, completely ignoring everything everything else about the candidates except for the fact that they share the same political party. Just because a person is a member of your political party is a pathetic reason to vote for someone, just like basing your vote on race is. "Im not gonna vote for Obama because he's black (and Im white)" is essentially the same as "Im not gonna vote for Z because hes X party (and Im Y Party)".

 

Now if people of a party go out and vote for a member of their party after doing research about both candidates, thats fine with me. But I have a feeling that a small to decent sized percentage of voters only go and "pull the lever" for people who are of their party taking nothing else into consideration.

 

Well then what does that say about the power of true racism when lifetime democratic voters aren't going to vote for Obama because of his race?

[Guest]

Nor would McCain or Obama be president at the beginning of this current problem.

Not at the beginning of this crisis, but at the moment we're in a mere recession. By the time next June comes it'll be a full blown depression, and with Bush on his way out, someone's going to take the blame when shit really hits the fan and they can't do something about it.

 

Also, if you want the governemnt to shrink you've hitched yourself to the wrong bandwagon.

I'm currently re-thinking my vote, actually. Both candidates want to increase the size of government even more (how much more is not relevant to me, they're still going to do it, and at comparable levels), so I might just vote Barr. I haven't made up my mind yet, I kinda want to see these two talk about the gigantic bailout that's been proposed first. I'm not in favor of it. The last thing we need to do is stick bandaid after bandaid on this problem. None of them have worked so far, taxpayer money is just getting pissed down the drain. Just a big fucking waste.

[snuffbox 0]

Bob Barr had his chance to decrease govt when he held real power. Instread, he chose to expand the drug war, tried as hard as he could to impeach a president for adultery, and voted for the Patriot Act.

 

Try Chuck Baldwin.

[CubbyBr 0]

Should Obama win, I have no idea who the Republicans could run in 2012 that could defeat Obama. McCain wins and I have a good feeling its President Hilary Clinton in 2013.

 

I'm actually gonna go ahead and predict Mike Huckabee for that one.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Should Obama win, I have no idea who the Republicans could run in 2012 that could defeat Obama. McCain wins and I have a good feeling its President Hilary Clinton in 2013.

 

I'm actually gonna go ahead and predict Mike Huckabee for that one.

 

Huckabee? I think youd have a better shot convincing me the Republicans would go with Ron Paul in 2012.

 

As far as Barr goes, I thought very highly of him earlier and Glenn Beck did 2 or 3 interviews with him but its fairly clear that he's hitched his wagon to the Liberarian party but is clearly only libertarian in the name of the party beside his name.

 

As far as the Wall Street bailout goes, I cant say that I support it, but its a necessary evil in order to prevent further chaos.

[snuffbox 0]

I agree, Marvin. The GOP would much rather go with a guy barred from the RNC than a candidate who fits their big-govt ideals and got a prime-time slot in St Paul. You sure do know stuff!

[Guest]

Try Chuck Baldwin.

Looks at wiki page...

 

no way

 

I like some stuff he says though! I bet Lou Dobbs loves him. It doesn't really matter who I vote for. Knowing where I live and all. John McCain is in line with more of what I want than the rest, I think. His actions over years previous to this speak loudly to me...while I don't like his campaign, it's just a campaign, and those are always piles of bullshit.

[snuffbox 0]

You could write in "Ron Paul"

[SuperJerk 0]

Should Obama win, I have no idea who the Republicans could run in 2012 that could defeat Obama. McCain wins and I have a good feeling its President Hilary Clinton in 2013.

 

I'm actually gonna go ahead and predict Mike Huckabee for that one.

Are we REALLY talking about 2012? That's just dumb speculation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

**cough**Bobby Jindal**cough**