Campaign 2008

[EricMM 0]

Most of your allegations are completely baseless.

 

I don't care to take the time to research Obama's gun rights votes in the past, all I can say is that he's said the 2nd amendment is important in the past. But more important, it takes a congress to change things like that.

 

And if you've got the president and the congress against your viewpoint, maybe you've got the American people against your viewpoint.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Matthew Yglesias brings the sweet hot analytical graphic goodness:

 

[BruiserKC 0]

Most of your allegations are completely baseless.

 

I don't care to take the time to research Obama's gun rights votes in the past, all I can say is that he's said the 2nd amendment is important in the past. But more important, it takes a congress to change things like that.

 

And if you've got the president and the congress against your viewpoint, maybe you've got the American people against your viewpoint.

 

And a Congress extremely shifting to the left will be the ones that could try to change it. And they don't necessarily have the American people behind them to do it. For example...more and more Congresspeople and Senators are coming out in favor gay marriage. Yet, at least 75% of the country is against it. Congress pushed for amnesty for illegal immigrants repeatedly, in spite of the fact the majority of the country was against it and showed it by blowing up phones and e-mails. The majority of people in the US believes we have a right to carry guns.

 

I'll let everyone know right now that I am a conservative, but a true conservative. I think Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh are not true conservatives, they're phony Republican cheerleaders who are always hanging off Bush's and Cheney's nutsacks. Dubya and Cheney are not true conservatives either. We need smaller government, then we're not spending as much money we don't have. Plus, we need to let the market correct itself and not be bailing out these companies that deliberately misled the American people and their stockholders.

 

I'd be more than willing to step back from policing the rest of the world to take care of ourselves. After all, we have starving people in America also. I'd start giving civil rights back to us that have been taken away with the Patriot Act among other things. I'd throw out all the illegal immigrants in this country, we could if we truly wanted to.

 

I'd be more than happy to end all relations with any nation that hates us, including the end of any business or diplomatic relations with said nations. I'd even pull out of the United Nations, they are anti-American and have no interest in our well-being. Most importantly, I'd leave the Islamists alone if they left us alone. And let them know the next time an American is killed, my response would make Hiroshima look like a food fight at summer camp.

 

I'm not a total bastard, though. I'm sure right now there are people that are going to say the day after, "Obama is not my president, I didn't vote for him." I'll give him a chance, but I'm going to expect him to change things. If he is as serious about change, I expect it to be done. He won't get a free pass because of the color of his skin, plus I will look in the eye anyone who calls us racists because we won't support Obama on everything and I will call them the true racists. The first time Islamofascists attack us, I will expect him to stand up and defend us and let the rest of the world see just because we have someone else running the show that we won't run from a fight. If he works with the rest of the world to find these solutions, I will expect him to keep in mind America comes first. We should always come first.

 

If that's what you're wanting to hear, then there ya go. I'll give Obama a chance, he just better not fuck it up or we will be in worse shape in 4 years.

 

 

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

The interview that came out from a Chicago public radio station from 2001 had him saying that he is sorry that during the civil rights movement that the issue of income redistribution was not discussed or brought to the courts.

 

 

...On closer inspection, the "bombshell audio" turns out to be a rather wonkish, somewhat impenetrable, discussion of the Supreme Court under Earl Warren. Obama, then a University of Chicago law professor and Illinois state senator, argued that the courts have traditionally been reluctant to get involved in income distribution questions. He suggested that the civil rights movement had made a mistake in expecting too much from the courts -- and that such issues were better decided by the legislative branch of government.

 

You can read the entire transcript of the interview here, courtesy of Fox News, but here is the passage in which Obama explains that courts are "not very good" at redistributing wealth:

 

"Maybe I am showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but you know I am not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know the institution just isn't structured that way.... Any of the three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts. I think that, as a practical matter, that our institutions are just poorly equipped to do it."

 

In other words, Obama says pretty much the opposite of what the McCain camp says he said. Contrary to the spin put on his remarks by McCain economics adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin, he does not express "regret" that the Supreme Court has not been more "radical." Nor does he describe the Court's refusal to take up economic redistribution questions as a "tragedy."

 

...

 

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-chec...n_bombshel.html

 

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

For example...more and more Congresspeople and Senators are coming out in favor gay marriage. Yet, at least 75% of the country is against it.

 

http://pollingreport.com/civil.htm

 

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Also, in that interview from when Obama was a law professor, I'm pretty sure the "redistributive change" he's talking about means redistribution of power, not money. But either way, he didn't say what the right-wing talking heads are saying he said.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Congress pushed for amnesty for illegal immigrants repeatedly, in spite of the fact the majority of the country was against it and showed it by blowing up phones and e-mails.

 

Most recent poll I could find on issue:

 

ABC News/Facebook poll. Dec. 16-19, 2007. N=1,142 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. Fieldwork by TNS.

 

"Would you support or oppose a program giving illegal immigrants now living in the United States the right to live here legally if they pay a fine and meet other requirements?"

 

Support 49

Oppose 46

Unsure 5

 

http://pollingreport.com/immigration.htm

 

We're gonna have to hire a whole team of factcheckers just to deal with BruiserKC's opuses here. Whew, I can only do so much.

 

[At Home 0]

And a Congress extremely shifting to the left will be the ones that could try to change it. And they don't necessarily have the American people behind them to do it. For example...more and more Congresspeople and Senators are coming out in favor gay marriage. Yet, at least 75% of the country is against it.

 

So wrong.

 

Congress pushed for amnesty for illegal immigrants repeatedly, in spite of the fact the majority of the country was against it and showed it by blowing up phones and e-mails.

 

Wrong again. A NYT poll found that many people are for legislative reform on immigration. "Taking a pragmatic view on a divisive issue, a large majority of Americans want to change the immigration laws to allow illegal immigrants to gain legal status and to create a new guest worker program to meet future labor demand, the poll found."

 

Plus, we need to let the market correct itself and not be bailing out these companies that deliberately misled the American people and their stockholders.

 

As Alan Greenspan said, much to his chagrin, the holes in a free market system are pretty much what caused the collapse in the first place. And I know that One Nobel Peace Prize-winning economist thinks that the bailout was necessary:

"On "was [the bailout] really necessary?", the answer is yes. It’s true that some parts of the real economy are doing OK even in the face of financial disruption; big companies can still sell bonds (and have lots of cash on hand), qualifying home buyers can still get Fannie-Freddie mortgages, and so on. But commercial paper, which is important to a lot of businesses, is in trouble, and I’m hearing anecdotes about reduced credit lines causing smaller businesses to pull back. Plus there’s a serious chance of a run on the hedge funds, which could make things a lot worse. With the economy already looking like it’s headed into a serious recession by any definition, the risks of doing nothing look too high."

 

 

I'd throw out all the illegal immigrants in this country, we could if we truly wanted to.

 

Not only is this idea xenophobic, it also completely ignores the fact that illegal immigrants fill up the low-end jobs in the country. Throwing them all out would cause the country to all but collapse.

 

I'd be more than happy to end all relations with any nation that hates us, including the end of any business or diplomatic relations with said nations.

 

Why? This is a more extreme version of the Bush foreign policy, a largely failed and idealistic policy that has gotten us nowhere.

 

I'd even pull out of the United Nations, they are anti-American and have no interest in our well-being.

 

Despite the US having a permanent seat on the security council?

 

Most importantly, I'd leave the Islamists alone if they left us alone.

 

In the prolific words of David Cross, "those people have fucked with us never. Go read a fuckin' history book." Just go do a google search for "CIA Mossadegh," that should start off your search.

 

And let them know the next time an American is killed, my response would make Hiroshima look like a food fight at summer camp.

 

I don't even know if I should respond to this kind of bullshit.

 

He won't get a free pass because of the color of his skin,

 

How is ANYONE giving Obama a "free pass" because he's black?

 

We should always come first.

 

Ah, selfishness, the root of so many self-proclaimed libertarian minds.

 

 

 

Next time, do a goddamned google search before you post.

 

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I think many of us are ignoring what is, I think, truly the most important issue of this campaign:

 

 

[The Ghost of bps21 0]

I'm just...so happy that this is all going to be over soon.

[cbacon 0]

I'd even pull out of the United Nations, they are anti-American and have no interest in our well-being. Most importantly, I'd leave the Islamists alone if they left us alone.

 

In the prolific words of David Cross, "those people have fucked with us never. Go read a fuckin' history book." Just go do a google search for "CIA Mossadegh," that should start off your search.

 

^dis

 

[Guest Tzar Lysergic]

I'm just...so happy that this is all going to be over soon.

 

Me too. I've decided I'm going to vote for Obama based on two things:

 

1. Sarah Palin

2. I realized I'm going to have a bunch of guns no matter who is in charge.

 

Sub-factors:

 

I don't give a fuck about abortion or homos one way or the other.

 

This will make the second election in a row where I'll vote democrat and run to the nearest toilet.

[The Ghost of bps21 0]

I actually voted for Nader the last two elections. 8 years ago I did it because it was the first time I ever voted and I guess I thought it was funny. 4 years ago because between Bush and Kerry...well...I guess I thought it was sad.

 

I've toyed with the idea of voting Nader again just to say I voted for the same guy 3 times...and since I'm in New York it doesn't matter...

 

But I'm voting for a major party candidate for the first time. I am fully in the tank for Obama.

[Guest C*Z*E*C*H]

the next time an American is killed, my response would make Hiroshima look like a food fight at summer camp.

You don't get to be a libertarian when you blow up the planet!

 

For example...more and more Congresspeople and Senators are coming out in favor gay marriage. Yet, at least 75% of the country is against it.

Why do people still care about this? I'll give you 2004 when we weren't flying headlong into Depression II and nationalizing the banks, but can't evangelical Christians stop hurting well-meaning people already?

 

That's enough out of me.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

That's enough out of me.

 

 

No, your public demands more!

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I actually voted for Nader the last two elections. 8 years ago I did it because it was the first time I ever voted and I guess I thought it was funny. 4 years ago because between Bush and Kerry...well...I guess I thought it was sad.

 

I've toyed with the idea of voting Nader again just to say I voted for the same guy 3 times...and since I'm in New York it doesn't matter...

 

But I'm voting for a major party candidate for the first time. I am fully in the tank for Obama.

 

If I lived in NY, I think I would vote for Obama on the WFP or Liberal party ticket.

[At Home 0]

UK townsfolk blow up Palin effigy

[SamoaRowe 0]

Wow, At Home is on a roll today. Good job smacking down the conservative BS.

[Guest]

Congress pushed for amnesty for illegal immigrants repeatedly, in spite of the fact the majority of the country was against it and showed it by blowing up phones and e-mails.

 

Wrong again. A NYT poll found that many people are for legislative reform on immigration. "Taking a pragmatic view on a divisive issue, a large majority of Americans want to change the immigration laws to allow illegal immigrants to gain legal status and to create a new guest worker program to meet future labor demand, the poll found."

Well, he said amnesty, not immigration reform. There's a difference. I think most people are in favor of some sort of reform on immigration, especially those who live in states who actually have a fair number of illegal immigrants living there.

[At Home 0]

"Taking a pragmatic view on a divisive issue, a large majority of Americans want to change the immigration laws to allow illegal immigrants to gain legal status and to create a new guest worker program to meet future labor demand, the poll found."

 

What's the difference between amnesty and gaining legal citizen status?

[Guest]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...0070525poll.pdf

 

Start at 41, specifically look at 64, 72, and 74, then tell me how one could possibly believe people are in favor of amnesty. Immigration reform, yeah. Amnesty, nope.

 

We need to reform the system, not hand them American citizenship. But through those reforms, it should become easier for people to come and gain citizenship.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Um, look at 61.

[Guest]

I did, and I agree with it. But that isn't amnesty.

 

My attitude is that we shouldn't come out and tell people "COME 'N GET IT," but rather that we should encourage illegal immigrants to apply and introduce a guest worker program.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I did, and I agree with it. But that isn't amnesty.

 

This is, from my understanding, what the McCain-Kennedy bill proposed in '06 would have done. The one for which McCain was lambasted by the right as "Captain Amnesty" and "Juan McCain".

[Guest]

Well, I'm a righty, but I don't agree with them. Maybe because I live in a state with numerous illegal immigrants, and they do not. I know that the talking points are "they hurt the economy, Jose crowdin' all our hospitals!!!" but I believe they have a positive impact on our economy which outweighs the negative. Speaking strictly in terms of those who work for a living.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Well, then, what you consider "immigration reform," most members of your political party would call "amnesty." So your taking issue with pbone above was kind of silly.

[Guest]

I think we differ on what amnesty actually is. And by what I take amnesty to mean, I do believe most Americans are opposed to it.

[Jingus 0]

It's been repeatedly argued that the first thing that needs to be addressed is the legal immigration process, which is insanely long and complicated. I think it says a lot that Mexicans are willing to hop a fence, swim a river, live like fugitives, and work for criminally low wages, instead of just going about it in the officially approved manner. Fix that first. Go after companies which employ and profit off illegal labor second. Worry about the rest of the stuff only after that.

 

I'd even pull out of the United Nations, they are anti-American and have no interest in our well-being. Most importantly, I'd leave the Islamists alone if they left us alone.

In the prolific words of David Cross, "those people have fucked with us never. Go read a fuckin' history book." Just go do a google search for "CIA Mossadegh," that should start off your search.

^dis

Wait a damn minute. How has this gone unremarked? Islamic terrorists "have fucked with us never"?

[cbacon 0]

Islamic nations, no.

 

Islamic terrorism is the result of US intervention in the Middle East, so to say "I'd leave the Islamists alone if they left us alone" is pretty ridiculous.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Eh...the Ayatollah used the US as a straw man enemy after taking power in Iran in the late 70s. While the US had interfered in Iran (supporting the shah and such), we weren't responsible for all their problems. That was the start of a lot of the problems Islamsists have with the US. Also, as long as we support Israel (which we should as a fellow democracy), the radical Muslims will always hate us anyway.