Election Thread 2008 MAKE SURE YOU VOTE

Quote:

---

Clinton was not going quietly. Not yet.

The New York senator implored West Virginians in four stops Monday to send her forward with a convincing win.

"This may be the most important vote you've ever cast," she told a crowd in Fairmont. "Let's have a huge vote in West Virginia."

And she invoked history to counter the inexorable math of the delegate count that's falling into place for her opponent.

"I keep telling people, no Democrat has won the White House since 1916 without winning West Virginia," she said at Tudor's Biscuit World in Charleston.

---

Is Clinton scraping the bottom of the barrel or is there just no place of worth in West Virginia?

LOL @ Hilary, she needs to learn to lose with grace. What is with these fucking dems always either A) Not knowing when to quit or B) Calling for 50 recounts.

Just move on cunt.

Gore didn't ask for ENOUGH recounts IMO. Gave up too quick.

But yeah, GTFO Hillary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frogacuda

It's immaterial to this election anyway. All parties support it. However McCain supposedly for minimal federal spending of anything that doesn't blow up bad mans, so take that as you will.

---

McCain, besides the war, has a pretty decent track record against weapons systems spending. But then there's that war again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frostwolf ex

actually, no. FDR tried to overthrow the supreme court and appoint six new judges to get his new deal policies passed in 1936. Of course he also signed on for first and second generation japanese americans to be forced into internement camps to prevent espionage in 1942 with executive order 9066. im not saying that bush is better than FDR, but as far as trying to expand the powers of the president well beyond their limits, and invalidate and entire branch of the government, there were worse.

---

FDR failed, though, did he not? (I'm asking, I'm not a huge American history buff. I just read casually) Bush has snuck bills in that have passed declaring misdemeanors acts of terrorism. The Patriot Act in itself is probably the biggest desolator of American freedom's I can think of at the moment.

Even though I'm Canadian I've always admired the concept of the American Republic. It's sad to see it slowly being corrupted by a small group of rich people to push some kind of corporate agenda rather than the betterment of the American people (and the world at large).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by squall_vb

He's in the lower tier, no doubt. But he's not quite the special kind of fuck-up that Jimmy Carter was.

This is the wrong answer.

Recovery efforts are to be handled at the state levels. The President's only job is to authorize federal relief funds, which he did in advance of the storm. Using all available resources to assist the people as quickly as possible falls to the state level. And the inept Louisiana leadership is where the ball was dropped.

Note that while Biloxi and Gulfport were hit much worse than New Orleans, they bounced back quicker. Mississippi state leadership handled the crisis properly, relief assets were streamlined in a most efficient manner, and all was (relatively) well.

Now pan over to New Orleans. We all know what a piss-poor job Ray Nagin did before the storm, because his chocolaty delicious comments made for good punchlines. But the real clusterfuck could be found in Governor Kathleen Blanco's impotent leadership. Money was squandered, relief supplies misdirected, and her use of Louisiana National Guard resources were horribly mismanaged; all this culminated in the perfect shitstorm of ineffective aid.

Bush did his part, and then did more in sending active duty troops into New Orleans to help when it became terribly clear that Blanco had no clue what the fuck she was doing. I was here, and I know what I'm talking about on this.

There are many, many things you could say that Bush fucked up royally, and I could not dispute you. But his handling of Katrina certainly wasn't one of them.

---

What, I can't hear you, your voice is being muffled by all that sand around your head.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drewbacca

Even though I'm Canadian I've always admired the concept of the American Republic. It's sad to see it slowly being corrupted by a small group of rich people to push some kind of corporate agenda rather than the betterment of the American people (and the world at large).

---

I in turn respect Canada's more liberal social policies.

However, the "rich people" have always run america, starting with the plantation farmer presidents (Washington being the exception and actually being rather poor until married to Martha) and now the big business guys... have always made the rules.

I'm not anti-wealth. I'm pro-accountability. People holding secret think tanks and selling these idea's to the government at exhuberant rates is such a ridiculous thing to have happen, but it's going on in Washington as we speak. If you have any kind of sway in American policy, in any branch, you should have to have all of your talks (or general points) made public for scrutiny. That's becoming less and less the norm. The populous in general is more apathetic to political misdemeanors as well, so that has something to do with it. If nobody complains about something nobody will do anything about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frogacuda

It's immaterial to this election anyway. All parties support it. However McCain supposedly for minimal federal spending of anything that doesn't blow up bad mans, so take that as you will.

---

You see, this is why i felt responding in the first place was a waste. You asked for differences , i gave them, you clamp your ears shut and parrot the batshit insane nonsense that mccain is a third term for bush. you dont really care, you are going to vote for obama, you were going to before it was obama, and long before it was mccain to vote against. Bottom line is some of us havent decided, but one can appreciate that mccain has a more realistic view of environmental responsability, has worked repetedly with democrats to get things done, Has actually experienced war, so while he is forced to chime along with the current war, he would, himself be more prudent with the use of the military.

Frankly if you think there is no difference between someone who blindly rushed into dramatic decisisons unilaterily and a guy who built a 40 year reputation for reaching across the aisles and getting people from both parties to work together, than i feel kind of sad for you.

oh and sorry about the diabetic thing, i was positive you had said you were, ah well, turning 33 next week, alzheimers must be on the way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drewbacca

FDR failed, though, did he not? (I'm asking, I'm not a huge American history buff. I just read casually) Bush has snuck bills in that have passed declaring misdemeanors acts of terrorism. The Patriot Act in itself is probably the biggest desolator of American freedom's I can think of at the moment.

---

he failed at the supreme court packing, he succeeded at interning tens of thousands of japanese americans, some as far off as third generation americans. not sure if you would considering that a desolator of freedom or not.

IBTN, Frog is a liberal spinster of the 10th power. Everything you said about him is absolute truth.

:tu: he should not be allowed back in my thread until he actually LISTENS to other's viewpoints.

i woudlnt go on a personal shot like that. my post probably sounds like that, sorry. i dont think frog is a liberal spinster, but i think he has a hopelessly myopic view of republicans. I see it a lot, particularly in boards with an international following, but it really betrays a failure to look at the reality of the situations and just brand republicans as "bad" without really thinking who they are or what they really stand for. I havent decided if im going obama or mccain, but mc is the absolute best possible thing for the republican party right now, any other that was connected to the current admin, particularly anyone with stronger ties to cheney, and id be on obama's side so fast that id bump more hardcore democrats out of the way getting there.

I still think it's "cool" to hate republicans. In fact I have fun challenging these diaper democrats to name me 5 republicans in congress, which they can NEVER do on the spot.

What's the point of knowing anyone outside of who represents you? If you change representation or if someone new is running for something important to you then research them, why should anyone have to know extraneous bullshit like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thief Silver

What's the point of knowing anyone outside of who represents you? If you change representation or if someone new is running for something important to you then research them, why should anyone have to know extraneous bullshit like that.

---

See this, ladies and gentlemen is exactly whats wrong with America. Apathy to the extreme.

Thief, go google "how congress works" then come back and post about how you were wrong and that Barbara Cubin does indeed have some effect on your life.

I know those people have an effect on my life, but I don't have an effect on THEIR decisions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thief Silver

What's the point of knowing anyone outside of who represents you? If you change representation or if someone new is running for something important to you then research them, why should anyone have to know extraneous bullshit like that.

---

you can pick up poli sci majors, they tend to wear those hot looking lisa loeb glasses.;)

lol this is true! Thanks Frostwolf.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frostwolf ex

you can pick up poli sci majors, they tend to wear those hot looking lisa loeb glasses.;)

---

SCORE!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frostwolf ex

Has actually experienced war, so while he is forced to chime along with the current war, he would, himself be more prudent with the use of the military.

---

Honestly, his military experience doesn't really help all that much. No president for the first half of the 20th century had military experience (neither did Abe Lincoln), so it's not really a must-have when it comes to making a great president.

Quote:

---

oh and sorry about the diabetic thing, i was positive you had said you were, ah well, turning 33 next week, alzheimers must be on the way.
he failed at the supreme court packing, he succeeded at interning tens of thousands of japanese americans, some as far off as third generation americans. not sure if you would considering that a desolator of freedom or not.

---

Well, he ended the Great Depression and beat the Nazis, so I'm willing to weigh that in the balance. What has Bush done again?

I also love how those who dig up Japanese interment to counter shit like Guantanamo always conveniently leave out its historical context and completely omit the national acceptance of that policy at the time. The country was quite accepting of it then, which seems unthinkable now, but America once embraced segregation too. Hell, the Supreme Court even upheld the decision, and the only politician at the time who apologized for interment (Colorado gov. Ralph Lawrence Carr) lost his seat because of it. The America of the early 1940s didn't see it for the horrible policy that it was, so you have to remember to include the country's attitude at the time for full context. No one feels that way about waterboarding and such now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melf

No president for the first half of the 20th century had military experience (neither did Abe Lincoln)

---

Teddy Roosevelt did. Harry Truman did. and if you want to stretch just a tiny bit, Eisenhower certainly did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frostwolf ex

i woudlnt go on a personal shot like that. my post probably sounds like that, sorry. i dont think frog is a liberal spinster, but i think he has a hopelessly myopic view of republicans. I see it a lot, particularly in boards with an international following, but it really betrays a failure to look at the reality of the situations and just brand republicans as "bad" without really thinking who they are or what they really stand for. I havent decided if im going obama or mccain, but mc is the absolute best possible thing for the republican party right now, any other that was connected to the current admin, particularly anyone with stronger ties to cheney, and id be on obama's side so fast that id bump more hardcore democrats out of the way getting there.

---

Well lemme give it a shot. It is a shit thing to do, to generalize and all, I agree with you.

But really thats all the media on the right or left does, is generalize. I want to give as unbiased a look at what I see on both sides of the aisle.

The modern Republican, models himself after the Regan Republican, only much much crazier. This isn't so much an insult, as its a fact.

Because the reason they are much crazier is very simple. Its because the modern Republican, doesn't understand what accountablity is. This stems from 6 years of practically unopposed rule of the government (Congress and the Presidency), where no one in any position to do any more than slander them in a newspaper, or make a funny joke on The Daily Show, bothered to call them on their tactics, and their decisions. They have had a free pass.

This free pass has enabled them to go further and further off the deep end, making completely ridiculous proclamations about things, and having at least 1/3 of their base believe them without question (The terriosts want to take our NASCAR AWAY, thats it NUKE THE FUCKERS). If it sounds harsh let me clarify that it is simply the state of the average American's thought process.

Let me remind you here, that there are people in this country who believe Iraq attacked us on 9/11. There are people in this country, who do not know that George Bush has personal and business contacts deep within Saudi Arabia that he will indeed bend over backwards for at their first request. There are people do not know that the Republicans nearly sold six of our seaports security to Dubai at one of the most crucial turning points of "the war on terror." There are people who do not know that what Dick Cheney has done for Haliburton is illegal on a level approaching treason.

None of these things will ever dawn on, or resonate with that percentage of Americans, because the Republican party is the party that believes in God, and bombing the shit out of anyone who talks smack about us. They are the tough party. The party that kicks the door down and gets shit done. The party that takes responsiblity for their actions...

Only, they aren't. They are in all honesty, the complete opposite of the party described above (minus the Religious nutbag thing, they certainly have the monopoly on that). Anyone who thinks them tough, need only look at their Abysmal voting record during the 6 year period where they had control of both houses. 6 years to further the Republican agenda, completely wasted because they very slowly realized there wasn't anyone left to blame if they had absolute power. They couldn't blame this new shit on Clinton (though they certainly haven't stopped trying to), so they polarized, and did nothing to further their agenda.

Rabbit in the headlights.

The most important flaw in their thinking though, and its a big one, is that they don't know what their party stands for anymore. Mind you not in the Democrats way of not standing for anything at all, its a totally different situation. Its more like they don't know their party stands for big government now. They are the Big Brother party. They are the Corporations over small business party. They look around at eachother and honestly think this is the Republican party of 40 years ago that is fighting for the small business man against big government. They don't know their party has been hijacked, twisted, and shit on.

They will though.

At least, I hope they will.


Democrats - Pussies. Every single one of them, except Dean and Webb.
They are excluded. They let the Republicans rape them over and over and over on just about everything. What the Bush administration has gotten away with over the last 7 years is despicable, and the Democrats are just as bad for enabling them.

They are the party of no hope. The party of no ideas. Let me say something the Democrats here and now, I can (and do constantly) point out whats fucking wrong with this country as well as you can, that doesn't mean I have any answers. Because I don't. You however, are supposed to.

But you have no balls Democrats. None. You didn't do what I voted you in there to do. I wanted to watch Dick Cheney squirm under the hot white light of a hearing. You let him walk all over you. I wanted to watch Rice implode on her own illogical bullshit nonsense. But you let her walk all over you instead. I wanted to watch Bush defiantley defend his decisions by mispronouncing words, and blaming circumstance for his problems. But instead you let him walk all over you.

Shame on you. Your pussies. You don't stand for anything anymore. You just pretend to.


The best advice I can give any of you who give a shit about politics anymore is really simple, good old hearted advice.

None of these people, give a shit about YOU. None of em do. Don't treat em as people, treat them as ideas. If you share an idea with Barack Obama, then you share an idea with him, and if that means you want to vote for him to get that idea in, then vote for him. But he's not a person. Because he doesn't think your a person.

Neither does Hilary, and neither does Mccain. Stop supporting these people as if they are gonna support you. They don't care about you. They never have, and they never will. The person behind the idea, needs to not matter anymore. If there is anything this current mongrel idiot of a president has shown me, its truly that justice and internal politics are so out of the hands of the American people the only thing we have a chance at ever doing is maybe getting an idea that benefits us elected.

Thats the best I can hope for from now on.

Because to me, both fucking parties are dead.

You're condensing every type of republican into one bucket, unbelievable, you're better than this.

Certainly McCain and Romney are not the same nor have the same values. Nor do the fucking Zealots down south (Roberts, etc), throw in the Reaganites, and for spice throw in some Nixonites.

Across the boards the republicans ONLY agree on one thing, and that's the fact that the democrats are useless at current. They have no life in this party, they have a primadonna screaming "CHANGE" at the top of his lungs yet has NEVER, EVER changed one fucking thing in this country. We have a woman who says "Snipers tried to kill me!" despite a well know video proving this to be untrue. Now if she would lie about this, what else would she lie about? Seriously.

Your party's best bet was voted out in the first few weeks by a bunch of hipster morons who have no conception of how to really bring about the change they so covet but don't understand. Not that many will vote anyway.

He's expressing a certain point of view on the thing, and he's 100% spot-on to that vantage point.

Are there more ways to look at it? No shit, Sherlock! You're bringing a lot to this thread, Biffy-wiffs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Error

Teddy Roosevelt did.

---

If you count his volunteer stint with the Rough Riders during the Spanish-American war. He didn't officially serve though.

Quote:

---

Harry Truman did. and if you want to stretch just a tiny bit, Eisenhower certainly did.

---

That's right, Truman did in WWI. It certainly helped him with Korea! :p

Eisenhower was president in 1952, so that's the second half of the century.

When I meet young poor republicans I always ask them why they are republican. They always spout the civil liberties, small government, less taxes points that haven't applied to that party in decades. I totally agree with YAWA's assessment of the situation.

As far as military experience helping the President, I would vastly prefer a non-military man in the office. Of course I would always try to separate out an individual's merits to fairly judge them, but I don't think the mind-set of military people is right for the office of president.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melf

If you count his volunteer stint with the Rough Riders during the Spanish-American war. He didn't officially serve though.

---

Now you're splitting hairs. He trained, he led, he was under fire in some capacity or another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melf

That's right, Truman did in WWI. It certainly helped him with Korea! :p

---

Truman finished WW2, and was saddled with a General who didn't know his place in Korea. The US Army had the North Koreans routed, but MacArthur wanted to keep going and wipe out the Chinese. Once the Chinese got involved the war became a potential spark plug for WW3, and so Truman had to exercise his better judgment and not allow an all out war that the US was clearly capable of winning because it might draw the USSR into an all out war the US was just as capable of losing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Error

Now you're splitting hairs. He trained, he led, he was under fire in some capacity or another.

---

He fought for about a year, so I don't know how much experience that would have brought to his presidency.

Quote:

---

Truman finished WW2, and was saddled with a General who didn't know his place in Korea. The US Army had the North Koreans routed, but MacArthur wanted to keep going and wipe out the Chinese. Once the Chinese got involved the war became a potential spark plug for WW3, and so Truman had to exercise his better judgment and not allow an all out war that the US was clearly capable of winning because it might draw the USSR into an all out war the US was just as capable of losing.

---

I wasn't talking militarily, but politically. Truman finished his presidency with one of the lowest approval ratings in history because America didn't support his wartime decisions. His experience didn't do squat for him.

Oh. Well, ok.

He's off the point Error, Truman came into the presidency after the depression AND the 2nd world war. Pretty hard to please people after those two blows to the nation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frostwolf ex

oh and sorry about the diabetic thing, i was positive you had said you were, ah well, turning 33 next week, alzheimers must be on the way.
he failed at the supreme court packing, he succeeded at interning tens of thousands of japanese americans, some as far off as third generation americans. not sure if you would considering that a desolator of freedom or not.

---

I consider it a mistake. But in the grander scheme of things set a precedent of how people shouldn't be treated during wartimes. They were eventually set free after their horrible ordeal. The degradation of American freedoms that Bush has enacted don't seem to be causing an outrage or any movement to reverse them outside some grassroot bitching. So while that was horrible, at least things were made straight (or as straight as they can get, once bent).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biff

He's off the point Error, Truman came into the presidency after the depression AND the 2nd world war. Pretty hard to please people after those two blows to the nation.

---

Possibly, but it doesn't negate the point that military experience isn't necessarily a requirement to be an effective president.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melf

Possibly, but it doesn't negate the point that military experience isn't necessarily a requirement to be an effective president.

---

I agree, not in this day and age. It did carry more weight back in the Revolutionary times. However, I don't like to think about Obama making a decision on Iran and not knowing what it's like to actually, you know, be shot at. See Bush, George W for and example of why this is scary.

See, to me the President doesn't need to have military experience at all. He just has to hire the right people and trust their guidance when it comes to somethings, and be prepared to over rule them when its needed.

I don't blame Bush for hiring Rumsfeld for example, but I do blame him for defending Rumsfeld for as long as he did when it was clear that Rummy was a mad scientist. Bush has got to be by far the most stubborn President in recent history. Every time his decisions have been called into question, he just digs his bunker a little deeper.

Bush ain't no dad-gummed FLIP-FLOPPER!!

When he make a mistake he fuckin' STICK WITH IT!!

CUZ' HE GOT THE RIGHT STUFF BABY, UH-HUH!

AND HE'S SPREADING THE FREEDOMS AND DEMOCRACIES TO THE ARABS

Show that dat-damn mussum race who's da boss!

DEY TOOK ARRR JAHBS! /etc etc

So, slow news week.

I can look up where Jenna's Honey Moonin'?

Secret Service'll have a boot on the left side of your head about five seconds after typing it into Google.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biff

You're condensing every type of republican into one bucket, unbelievable, you're better than this.

Certainly McCain and Romney are not the same nor have the same values. Nor do the fucking Zealots down south (Roberts, etc), throw in the Reaganites, and for spice throw in some Nixonites.

Across the boards the republicans ONLY agree on one thing, and that's the fact that the democrats are useless at current. They have no life in this party, they have a primadonna screaming "CHANGE" at the top of his lungs yet has NEVER, EVER changed one fucking thing in this country. We have a woman who says "Snipers tried to kill me!" despite a well know video proving this to be untrue. Now if she would lie about this, what else would she lie about? Seriously.

Your party's best bet was voted out in the first few weeks by a bunch of hipster morons who have no conception of how to really bring about the change they so covet but don't understand. Not that many will vote anyway.

---

This post is rife with the exact thing that's wrong with American politics, and it has nothing to do with anything you've actually said, but the way you're ridiculously only backing up one side of the government. He lambasted Democrats in that post and generalized the same way, yet where is your outcry of distain for that? They are your fellow countrymen and deserve that same level of defense from you as theirs. Of course that's easier, so people flock to it.

There shouldn't be citizen voters who have already made up their mind with a party before an election is up. That would work if the world around people never changed. But sometimes Republicans will be better to vote in based on that point in time, and Democrats likewise will be better to vote in based on the world around them and key issues at the time. This politics by colour is absolutely lazy, and unquestionably a very distinctly ignorant mindset for anybody to take.

It took people so long to get the kind of freedoms and voice they enjoy now. And if nobody cares to stay on top of this kind of behaviour eventually someone will come in and usurp it from you. Democracy and freedom is not invincible. It's very, very vulnerable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biff

You're condensing every type of republican into one bucket, unbelievable, you're better than this.

Certainly McCain and Romney are not the same nor have the same values. Nor do the fucking Zealots down south (Roberts, etc), throw in the Reaganites, and for spice throw in some Nixonites.

Across the boards the republicans ONLY agree on one thing, and that's the fact that the democrats are useless at current. They have no life in this party, they have a primadonna screaming "CHANGE" at the top of his lungs yet has NEVER, EVER changed one fucking thing in this country. We have a woman who says "Snipers tried to kill me!" despite a well know video proving this to be untrue. Now if she would lie about this, what else would she lie about? Seriously.

Your party's best bet was voted out in the first few weeks by a bunch of hipster morons who have no conception of how to really bring about the change they so covet but don't understand. Not that many will vote anyway.

---

I would respond to this Biff, only Drew said everything I wanted to say.

Well except this, read what I posted before rebuttling please. Because your response is both the very thing I commented about and proving the very thing I spoke about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stormy

When I meet young poor republicans I always ask them why they are republican. They always spout the civil liberties, small government, less taxes points that haven't applied to that party in decades. I totally agree with YAWA's assessment of the situation.

As far as military experience helping the President, I would vastly prefer a non-military man in the office. Of course I would always try to separate out an individual's merits to fairly judge them, but I don't think the mind-set of military people is right for the office of president.

---

"Mind-set of military people?" Please elaborate, if you would.

The problem in a national election is you cannot say anything of substance in one region without alienating another. We're too big. We've got shit most people can agree on (education, healthcare, corporate whoring) but anything else risks people's votes b/c the other guy won't say something substantive on it.

An excellent example is biofuels. You're not going to hear any candidate speak out against them because the farm states LOVE this, it increases the prices of their crops while providing us an alternative to mideast oil. The downside is it puts pressure on the food supply chain, is very inefficient on its returns and so on. This puts the farm belt against the urban centers and poor regions where food prices are highest already. Taking a side would risk two voting blocs while saying nothing would let them decide on less important matters. No one is being the grownup and saying, Biofuels are a stopgap only, we need more basic research done and a switch to more abundant resources (next gen nuclear) and migration towards renewable sources of energy in the long term like Solar, wind, passive biomass and geo power. Basic research in the transition time would allow us to get the prices down in the long term so we can go back to the cheap energy days that made this nation an untouchable economic super power.

looks like Clinton won WV.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drewbacca

This post is rife with the exact thing that's wrong with American politics, and it has nothing to do with anything you've actually said, but the way you're ridiculously only backing up one side of the government. He lambasted Democrats in that post and generalized the same way, yet where is your outcry of distain for that? They are your fellow countrymen and deserve that same level of defense from you as theirs. Of course that's easier, so people flock to it.

There shouldn't be citizen voters who have already made up their mind with a party before an election is up. That would work if the world around people never changed. But sometimes Republicans will be better to vote in based on that point in time, and Democrats likewise will be better to vote in based on the world around them and key issues at the time. This politics by colour is absolutely lazy, and unquestionably a very distinctly ignorant mindset for anybody to take.

It took people so long to get the kind of freedoms and voice they enjoy now. And if nobody cares to stay on top of this kind of behaviour eventually someone will come in and usurp it from you. Democracy and freedom is not invincible. It's very, very vulnerable.

---

I just want to say this is quite possibly the finest post that Drew has ever made.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cowutopia

looks like Clinton won WV.

---

That was pretty much set. Shouldn't matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frostwolf ex

You see, this is why i felt responding in the first place was a waste. You asked for differences , i gave them, you clamp your ears shut and parrot the batshit insane nonsense that mccain is a third term for bush.

---

I said in the most important ways he is. And I stand by that. McCain is offering no solutions as far as the war or the economy goes, and THAT is why we hate Bush.

Bush is NOT unpopular because of his stem cell research policy. You can't tell me honestly that he is. The fuck ups for which Bush is hated are fuck ups that McCain is proudly embracing. We can haggle about about other issues, but they are not deciding this election and you know it.

Bush is unpopular for a variety of things.

1) Iraq
2) Gas Prices
3) He's pretty much an idiot
4) Cheney
5) Rumsfield
6) Alienation of Powell from the party

I agree with Frog, stem cell research isn't on the list.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frogacuda

I said in the most important ways he is. And I stand by that. McCain is offering no solutions as far as the war or the economy goes, and THAT is why we hate Bush.

Bush is NOT unpopular because of his stem cell research policy. You can't tell me honestly that he is.

---

Well one of many little reasons to hate bush is because of his general anti-science policies. Stem cell and basic research grant policies are but some of the flagship issues.

Same with gay rights, yes its a small issue but it ties into a larger respect to human rights. Instance -> Pattern.

I don't even think Obama would push gay rights, unfortunately it alienates to many idiots with money.

Why should gays get special rights and laws? /libertarian

I think they should be allowed to be married, divorced, and miserable just like the rest of us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarsKitten

Same with gay rights, yes its a small issue but it ties into a larger respect to human rights. Instance -> Pattern.

---

Other than some bad PR, Bush hasn't succeeded in changing the rights of gays one bit, though. It's a con to get bible thumpers, and it doesn't actually go anywhere.

He was behind the squashing of gay marriage at the state level, wtf you talking about willis?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biff

I think they should be allowed to be married, divorced, and miserable just like the rest of us.

---

Holy shit, you are just a fucking cliche-slinging bucket of jizz, Biff.

WHATS UP WITH THE PROFESSOR. HE CAN MAKE A RADIO OUT OF A COCONUT BUT HE CANT FIX A BOAT HAHA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frogacuda

Holy shit, you are just a fucking cliche-slinging bucket of jizz, Biff.

WHATS UP WITH THE PROFESSOR. HE CAN MAKE A RADIO OUT OF A COCONUT BUT HE CANT FIX A BOAT HAHA

---

So you're bashing me for actually supporting gay rights? Hmmm

Frog you're a one track record of liberal spinning, please create a thread called "Republicans hate you" and stay in it.

Stop being stupid, Biff. You're ruining your own points.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biff

So you're bashing me for actually supporting gay rights? Hmmm

---

YAH GOD MADE ADAM AND EVE NOT ADAM AND STEVE

I've always stood by my points Yeller. And actually have an open mind towards liberal theories. Read again. It's mr Cuda who feels to need to come into every conversation involving him or not and stick in his retarded 2 cents worth of "see that's why republicans are stupid"

He's the B-Ri of this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frogacuda

YAH GOD MADE ADAM AND EVE NOT ADAM AND STEVE

---

Jesus, you suck more by the day. You ruined every thread about politics this board has ever had.

No, I'm busting your balls for being a hack, stupid.

Indeed

He's come out against DOMA publicly. DOMA cancels the full faith and credit clause from the constitutional argument about gay marriage. DOMA says no state has to honor gay marriage if it doesn't want to. This effectively takes the SC and judicial system out of the picture (unless they want to overrule the DOMA themselves, but thats unlikely), which given lawrence v. texas, might have found same sex marriage constitutional in someway. This is a stretch though.

That being said is the best pro-gay position of McCain, Clinton, and Obama. Clinton approves of DOMA (as her husband did) and McCain voted for it in 96.

Obama wants to keep his crossover appeal so he's not made alot of noise about his positions on DOMA (and the implications of tossing it, his SC appointment ideas...), abortion and such. But he's also smart enough to know that making such a blanket wedge issue statement would piss everyone around him off. I think having a nuanced approach is a good thing. Slogans don't make good policy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarsKitten

He's come out against DOMA publicly. DOMA cancels the full faith and credit clause from the constitutional argument about gay marriage. DOMA says no state has to honor gay marriage if it doesn't want to. This effectively takes the SC and judicial system out of the picture (unless they want to overrule the DOMA themselves, but thats unlikely), which given lawrence v. texas, might have found same sex marriage constitutional in someway. This is a stretch though.

That being said is the best pro-gay position of McCain, Clinton, and Obama. Clinton approves of DOMA (as her husband did) and McCain voted for it in 96.

Obama wants to keep his crossover appeal so he's not made alot of noise about his positions on DOMA (and the implications of tossing it, his SC appointment ideas...), abortion and such. But he's also smart enough to know that making such a blanket wedge issue statement would piss everyone around him off.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frog

Bullshit Mars, Obama is going to do whatever it takes to get your vote! I know because I went gay for a week and know more than you do. BTW, Bush it going to outlaw any type of lesbian sex toys because he's republican. By the way PS3 is way better than the 360, oops, wrong thread

---

But DOMA doesn't really change anything. It potentially could if the federal govenment were going to somehow recognize gay marriage and federally mandate that, but as it is, it really just reinforces a certain ambiguity of policy that wasn't likely to become relevant in the foreseeable future. Hence it's a showpiece token to the "moral" voters.

If we were ever getting anywhere close to the federal government recognizing gay marriage, DOMA would be overturned long before that. I don't really get why it matters, and I'm not sure it would even hold up in the SC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YellerDog

That was pretty much set. Shouldn't matter.

---

yeah, I was just being Brick for a second.

Mark my words, Obama will sweep this issue right under the rug if he gets elected. He's not touching it until AT LEAST the second term if ever.

Indeedy.

Which is slightly better than everyone else.
Will EVER do something positive for gay rights?
Obama - Slight maybe (1%-5%)
Clinton - within the vast realm of possibility (not zero)
McCain - No. (zero)

I think like 20-30 states will have to do it before the fed gets involved, honestly.

Eh depends, thats usually the point the SC gets involved too. They don't like going out on limbs often, they're STILL getting shit about that Roe v. Wade thing. Having a president that may not veto the effort, actively legislate against it or stir the anti-gay crowd up would help things along.

Well the most the SC could do is ALLOW the legislature to pass a law recognizing same sex marriages/unions, but they certainly can't step beyond that.

I expect to see more of a push on the state level and I think that's a really good way to make progress. It's once again, not a deciding factor for me in a presidential candidate, simply because I don't think any of them can/will get any actual results on this right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frogacuda

Well the most the SC could do is ALLOW the legislature to pass a law recognizing same sex marriages/unions, but they certainly can't step beyond that.

---

They can and have in the past. They could simply overturn any man/woman class restrictions on existing marriage acts. Same sex marriage for all in full compliance with the law. The other reason why Obama is so important is he's the most likely to choose justices in the vein of Stevens and Breyer, which if you want activist judges, there ya go.

McCain would likely appoint more like Rehnquist (best case, he was a fair judge if nothing else) or in the style of Roberts, Scalia and Alito.

BUT JUDGE ALITO LET O.J. FREE!!!

Well the Supreme Court CAN do whatever they want as long as we listen to them, but I don't think you can reasonably interpret the constitution to say it sanctions gay marriage. It would be overstepping the way in which judicial review is generally understood. If the SC pulled that kind of coup it would really come off as an abuse of power and would certainly lend a lot of strength to the growing movement to neuter the Supreme Court in response, and that's a really dangerous path to go down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frogacuda

I said in the most important ways he is. And I stand by that. McCain is offering no solutions as far as the war or the economy goes, and THAT is why we hate Bush.

---

Come on man, you know McCain is not the same as Bush on Iraq other than that they both support the fundamental mission. Bush completely botched the war (which is why he's hated) and McCain was calling him out on it the whole time. As for the economy, McCain has called Bush out repeatedly for his reckless and bloated budgets and has pledged to cut the fat and bring about a return to fiscal conservatism. He also wants to implement Romney's health care reforms (a huge improvement over Bush's "do nothing" approach). The "third Bush term" argument is cheap rhetoric and you're better than that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpoDaddy

Come on man, you know McCain is not the same as Bush on Iraq other than that they both support the fundamental mission.

---

What exactly is this fundamental mission? I never quite got that.

The problem is the so called "bloat" is all the pork projects. Good luck cutting those. At this point the only fiscally responsible thing to do is raise taxes to the point we can afford our debts and pay them down, get everyone some kinda of basic healthcare so we can raise the public general health to reduce (in the long term) the money spent of higher level measures and bring our military commitments down as low as we can tolerate it.

But hey, Obama with give you CHANGE and interracial LOVE !!!

Are we debating gay marriage? Non-issue of the century.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grey's Anatomy

Are we debating gay marriage?

---

No, we're debating what, if anything, can be done to change the status quo. I think we're all on the same side as far as supporting it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by youandwhosearmy

But you have no balls Democrats. None. You didn't do what I voted you in there to do. I wanted to watch Dick Cheney squirm under the hot white light of a hearing. You let him walk all over you. I wanted to watch Rice implode on her own illogical bullshit nonsense. But you let her walk all over you instead. I wanted to watch Bush defiantley defend his decisions by mispronouncing words, and blaming circumstance for his problems. But instead you let him walk all over you.

---

The dems may have a majority, but it's not substantial enough of one to actually push anything through that the repubs find disagreeable.

Really, losing the majority is probably the best thing that could have happened to the repubs. The general populace thinks the dems are just sitting around on their duffs and staunchly refusing to enact the change they voted for, thereby betraying their votes, but the reality is that they can't do a damn thing without being shot down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bbobb

What exactly is this fundamental mission? I never quite got that.

---

Revenge for daddy and no-bid contracts for Bush's friends, duh!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bacon McShig

The general populace thinks the dems are just sitting around on their duffs and staunchly refusing to enact the change they voted for, thereby betraying their votes, but the reality is that they can't do a damn thing without being shot down.

---

Getting things done in politics requires civil discourse and compromise. Pelosi and Reid don't understand that; they try to force their agendas with open hostility. When that fails they whine about how the evil Republicans hate babies and old people, throw in a boilerplate anti-Bush statement, and call it a day. As the majority it's their job to reach across the aisle to get things done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpoDaddy

As for the economy, McCain has called Bush out repeatedly for his reckless and bloated budgets and has pledged to cut the fat and bring about a return to fiscal conservatism.

---

Bullshit, McCain has flip-flopped on every economic issue he previous railed on Bush for; spending, excessive tax cuts for the ultra-rich, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpoDaddy

He also wants to implement Romney's health care reforms (a huge improvement over Bush's "do nothing" approach).

---

Slight better than nothing is still hovering in the range of nothing. Sorry, you've lost this argument, just pray you get Hillary Care or Obama Care because if it's a Dem majority in the Congress and a Dem President, then crazy ideas that work around world like 'single-payer' will be spoken of. Hey, it's only fair, the Republican supermajority used their clout to benefit the rich and oppressive, it's about time the tables were turned, even for just an election cycle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpoDaddy

The "third Bush term" argument is cheap rhetoric and you're better than that.

---

The maverick McCain is dead. All that's left is a Bush-loving appeaser to the most vile parts of the GOP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpoDaddy

Getting things done in politics requires civil discourse and compromise. Pelosi and Reid don't understand that; they try to force their agendas with open hostility. When that fails they whine about how the evil Republicans hate babies and old people, throw in a boilerplate anti-Bush statement, and call it a day. As the majority it's their job to reach across the aisle to get things done.

---

The Republicans spent the last DECADE using underhanded garbage tactics to push their rotten agenda and exploit their majority, never once attempting real bi-partisanship unless their arms were twisted nearly out of their sockets by the Gang of 14. Then when the Dems swept their corrupt asses out of office they whined and cried, and walked out of the House whenever they don't get their way. If anything, Pelosi and Reid have tried to be too compromising, when they should be playing total hardball.

Far-left talking points, yay.

lefties don't even agree with each other. We don't have talking points.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frogacuda

lefties don't even agree with each other. We don't have talking points.

---

You sure have a lot of talking points, I can't wait to confirm at the meetup that you won't let anybody get a point in before interrupting them.

The White House actually puts out conservative talking points and sends them to the media to be parrotted ad nauseum. The Daily Show does montages of the shit all the time, and some of the conservative radio guys actually talk about them. The liberals don't do that.

I don't think you really understand liberals. We're contrary people. We don't have talking points, and we don't listen to liberal shows or whatever. Why do you think no one listens to Air America? We're all listening to stupid Rush Limbaugh and yelling at our radios.

Also, how do you interrupt someone on a message board?

How can anybody NOT listen to Rush Limbaugh? he's addictive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rush

I hate DRUGGIES, let's burn the bastards. Except me of course, but I'm perfect so fuck off.

---

Look at me and g0zen for example. We're two of the biggest lefties on the board and we bitch at each other as much as people on the other side. Liberals are all fighting over Clinton or Obama, we're just not a united front the way conservatives are, which is why, despite being a majority in America, we haven't been able to pull behind a good candidate in the last couple elections.

If we were organized enough to have talking points, and had enough solidarity to get behind them, we'd be a more effective machine, but that's not what it means to be a liberal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frogacuda

Look at me and g0zen for example. We're two of the biggest lefties on the board and we bitch at each other as much as people on the other side. Liberals are all fighting over Clinton or Obama, we're just not a united front the way conservatives are, which is why, despite being a majority in America, we haven't been able to pull behind a good candidate in the last couple elections.

---

You DO have good candidates, it's just their not "hip" enough for the crowd. Dean would have been okay in my book, same with Lieberman.

If you guys stopped chasing the Clintons and Obamas and focused on the right people, you'd be dangerous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biff

You DO have good candidates, it's just their not "hip" enough for the crowd. Dean would have been okay in my book, same with Lieberman.

---

I didn't say we didn't have them, I said we couldn't get behind them, because liberalism isn't an ideology any more than "skepticism" is. It's a desire for change, but there's not the same kind of solidarity there is with conservatives, and that's what holds us back.

Lieberman is pretty damned conservative, though, so fuck that dude, but I did like Dean A LOT more than Kerry. I like Obama a lot, though. I liked Richardson even more, but I'm not complaining about Obama.

A valid point, I still think Bill Clinton was the start of the divide of the party between "Issue Guy" and "Hipster" and the damage has just multiplied over time.

I like Edwards.

I think a lot of people like Edwards, but no one loves him. I think he's a good VP sort of guy, but he doesn't really get people fired up. You can't have someone too polarizing, either, but I think that a good candidate has to have at least some people on both extremes. That's why he just wasn't able to get any traction in the primary.

You know my stances Frog. I think he grabbed some people. Just not the superdelegates and the party who wanted Clinton and/or Obama. Edwards would have made a stronger candidate imo.

A lot of people are saying that Edwards got out way to early.

Party definitely didn't want Obama, man. They've come around, but he was at a major handicap as far as party support goes at the start of primary season.

Edwards and Giuliani both kind of had some similar problems. A year ago they seemed like really strong contenders, but they weren't able to get out there and get people fired up, they're TERRIBLE in the debates, and they're not really good at speaking in sound bites the way you need to to get media attention.

They both seem like great candidates on paper, but they were put out there with a lot of backing and they couldn't close the deal, so I doubt they could have in November, either.