Politics!! BEWARE!!

ever gone to walmart to buy underwear?

You have Hanes and Fruit of the Loom, a couple other brands, but theyre pretty much the same thing.


Now you can watch Michael pitching Hanes, or you can watch singing fruit pitch Fruit of the Loom, but when you go to WalMart and hit the underwear aisle, you grab what you've been wearing for the past 20 years, because well, while theyre pretty close to the same product, you just like the waistband in one better than the other


Welcome to American politics 2008


McCain and Obama are both trying to sell change. Neither are far enough reaching change like Paul's (because he's just way too erudite to rule on the vote of the lowest common denominator) but both are really hardselling that on November 5th, the United States will be set on a course of change.

But a change to what? I mean in the foreign sector, so we get great political capital from Obama as Pres, what does that mean in a global economy? Venezuela is going to sell us oil cheaper or ask Putin to quit leaving his bombers in their parking lot overnight? With McCain, the Maverick of 2 years ago has succumbed to the party man trying to steer the GOP away from the legacy of GWB. His version of change is a reversion to the GOP of when? If you trace the path of the GOP backwards to where it diverted from Goldwater conservatism, you have to go back to the election of Reagan maybe...how was the economy then? Not so hot guys...


I'm voting for Obama specifically on the change platform. Not that I expect the United States to be any better on the 5th of this November or the next year. I am worried about Pelosi being more powerful than Obama. I don't like Pelosi much and don't like the changes (or lack thereof) that have occurred since the Dems took control of Congress in the last elections. Some of today's mess needs to be handed to Dem control of Congress. But I'll take that risk. Like a football team predicted to win the SEC West and who won't even go to a bowl, you have to get rid of the coach

Obama's affiliation with Ayers to me is my only concern for him personally. Don't care about the politics of his pastor. Don't care about his religion. Don't care where he was born (and for that matter I don't care if McCain was born in Panama before the soil was deemed US or whatever...this is supposed to be the best man for the job at some point not a confluence of events of birth but I digress) I'm Christian and am a firm believer that the religious right needs to GTFO of politics before we walk any further down the path of implied theocracy.

And the thing about the RR is they play to the same people that the Dem/Rep marketers target. If McCain's current slip can be traced to the stance of the RR, do we really think that it's not smart enough to see which way the winds are blowing and start lobbying/backing Dem candidates who are pro-life? There are quite a few of them out there you know...Rep =/ pro life anymore than Dem = Pro choice with a 100% Venn diagram


What scares me most about all of this is the vehemence from both sides' surrogates (from paid strategist to unpaid mom in pajamas at 2am on the internet) completely (read: irrationally) hating the other side, to the point of brainwash paranoia. If this was the 30s, I'd be reading about the Yellow Peril and the Fiendish Huns. We skirt political correctness in our ads of course, but Obama bucks and discussions of Palin's eyeglasses to bolster why the other side will make a better President is just stupid. And we eat it up on the TV and radio, so it's only going to get worse...

I've said it before, give this about 3 more elections if we continue on our course of "I'm for X because he's GOP" and get less and less of an idea about our candidates' positions, we're just gonna go to the polls and have a touch screen ballot with one screen

It will have a Red Elephant on the left hemisphere, and a Blue Donkey on the right. You can touch anywhere on either panel and pick your candidate.

I mean seriously, we're almost there. We have an old guy and a political neophyte running against a political neophyte and an old guy. We're just buying Michael's underwear over a singing Apple. It's the same damn product with slightly different waistbands:)

My only issue with the above post is that by the very law of the land being president does indeed require that the accident of your birth make you a natural born citizen. It may not be fair but that's how it works until an Amendment to the Constitution occurs.

but as said that's a digression


If it's proven without a doubt that he's adopted by an Indonesian guy and actively hiding his natural status, yeah Constitutionally he's done

but I read that line as an attack done after he's pretty close to winning the thing, not something that one group or another did as due diligence when he was an up and comer

I mentioned the McCain thing up there too...remember the back and forth about whether or not he was covered by some statue which grandfathered in people born on military bases in other sovereign countries before the land had been deemed US soil? Did it get dismissed as an attack or was it pursued as a valid Presidential topic?


Regardless, we're not talking Ahnold for Pres here...I think Obama's birth status will come up fine (granted if the IOC verifies it he could also be a 16 yr old gymnast from China:P)

Ah the IOC a prime example of a bureaucracy at its finest.

Also in either of their cases I do not believe being born on native soil is part of the Natural Born Citizen requirement as long as the parents are Americans and fill out the proper paper work to prove citizenship but I could be wrong. The question I believe with Obama is while his mom was busy being uber anti-establishment did she fill out said paper work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lonskils

He said horseshit....who cares? Do you really think a president sits in a vacuum and does nothing but think of the United States and is Jesus reincarnate so he would never say a curse word or think a bad thought if he saw a big ole pair of tittys and a ass in tight jeans?

---

Well I do hold the president of the United fuckin States to high standards. I myself can call horseshit and curse like a cunt if I so desire. Calling out horse shit in a presidential debate seems a little childish.

Just be glad you didn't live in the 1700-1800s then Oct. Back then full out fist fights on the floors of Congress were not exactly rare. Also Lincoln allowed his mentally unstable wife to continually unbury their dead child and change his clothes on a regular basis. Trust me if the worst a president does before or during his time in office is say horse shit publicly you should count yourself lucky.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Octavus

Well I do hold the president of the United fuckin States to high standards. I myself can call horseshit and curse like a cunt if I so desire. Calling out horse shit in a presidential debate seems a little childish.

---

Exactly what I tried to say before... I don't need to hear "SOCIALIST BASTARD!", "FUCKIN' COMMIE!", or questioning on his religion or citizenship (which is absolutely ridiculous to question, as he has been MORE than crystal clear on his religion, and you'd think him not being a citizen would have, you know, MAYBE COME UP WHEN HE FIRST PUT IN HIS BID!).

I need to hear legitimate reasons, both factual and relevant. Unfortunately, I'm just not getting that, nor did I expect it. This thread is only divisive, which is why I'm done with it. That's all from me, see you in the fun threads.

But Inso - I miss you so :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Insouciance

absolutely ridiculous to question, as he has been MORE than crystal clear on his religion

---

Where have you been hiding? He has...on MULTIPLE OCCASSIONS on TV said...My Muslin faith...OR...MY Muslin religion..

You are acting like this has been an attack against you personally. If you are a democrat for this election fine...No one is saying to vote for either candidate, but for someone that has not voted at all in over 300 chances while being a senator (feel free to check out the statistics at http://projects.washingtonpost.com/c...mbers/o000167/ )
...you feel he can lead a counrty?



Missed Votes...Barack Obama has missed 303 votes (46.3%) during the current Congress

Voting with his party....Barack Obama has voted with a majority of his Democratic colleagues 96.0% of the time during the current Congress. This percentage does not include votes in which Obama did not vote.

Both of those are directly from the Washington Post.

If you feel the need to get pissy against people for voicing their opinions on someone, maybe you should post facts yourself on why you think he should be our president.

Ask yourself why he refuses to submit his college transcript records as well... GWB did, and even though he was a "c" student he still showed them to the masses for viewing. Obama has yet to do so, and refuses...why?

I will note also that I don't believe McCain has posted his but by his own admission he admits to being in the lowest tier grade wise of his class.

IIRC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wresh

Missed Votes...Barack Obama has missed 303 votes (46.3%) during the current Congress

---

John McCain missed 420 votes (64.1%) during the current Congress and has, as of May 2007, missed 10 of 14 votes on Iraq.
From your same source....http://projects.washingtonpost.com/c...mbers/m000303/

I LOL'd

Why does it matter whether Obama is Christian or Muslim? One brand of superstition is about as silly as the next.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Forty

John McCain missed 420 votes (64.1%) during the current Congress and has, as of May 2007, missed 10 of 14 votes on Iraq.
From your same source....http://projects.washingtonpost.com/c...mbers/m000303/

---

Ok and Forty??

I am not claiming McCain is good either....someone asked for proof for people's posts against Obama....so I gave them some.

Let's face it...BOTH candidates are not good....and to think either of them are...is mad mojo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wresh

Ok and Forty??

I am not claiming McCain is good either....someone asked for proof for people's posts against Obama....so I gave them some.

Let's face it...BOTH candidates are not good....and to think either of them are...is mad mojo.

---

I understand what you're saying...Was for comparison purposes mostly, but also for you since you added the comment below without the McCain side of it.

"but for someone that has not voted at all in over 300 chances while being a senator...you feel he can lead a counrty?"

Sounds biased when you leave out the outside.

I vote Republican because I can. No need to elaborate on why because it could cause chaos and I will have to slap you with my 2 inch lumpia.

Renshin

Being from Illinois I am biased. I get to hear alot more on Obama than most of the country gets to. I do not feel he is ready to lead this country yet. I would prefer he prove himself capable of being ready for it.

Is McCain the better choice?? No.

This election would have been a perfect time for an independant to come out of the woodwork and probably would have had a great chance at winning. But even then..look who we have there...

Ralph Nader?
Robert Barr?
Cynthia McKinney?
Charles Baldwin?

Are you serious?? What great choices!!

Nader would probably have the best chance as an independant of winning if he could have gotten any type of steam going to debate these two, but even then would he (or anyone else) get anything done with congress when he is not part of either side?

you proved a voting attendance record for both candidates, yet I never saw that as a reason to vote for either of them in the first place, nor did the OP even hint at it as a reason to be voted


look, as a product of what we have amassed into our own collective public knowledge field, what are the things we can glean from this thread?

someone uses the Hussein middle name as a lowbrow conservative effort to create a perception of the man
someone talks about their joint abysmal voting attendance
we discuss the birth qualifications of both senators
we discuss distinctions of change
we discuss disclosure of grades or lack thereof
we discuss presidential ettiquette (horseshit)
we discuss faith
we discuss implied racism (vote for a black man when you agree with the white)
we discuss explicit racism (the white supremacist planned assassination)
we saw the socialism talking point


anyone see some important things missing? One poster remarks about world goodwill for Obama and another believes that the economy can't get any worse for either of them

do we have an opinion on Presidential issues or just on Presidential perceptions?

It shouldn't matter if he IS a muslim or not, even though he's made it quite clear he's Christian but the pundits have nothing else to pound on.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I'm atheist. I don't give a shit what you believe in, just don't push your beliefs on me and don't tell me I'm going to hell because of it. My parents are Buddhist, sent me to a Jewish pre-K, best friend growing up was devout Christian and I went to her services the morning after sleepovers. My roommate is Hindu and I have a number of friends who are Muslim and Mormon. My boyfriend's grandfather is Catholic priest and he went to a private Catholic high school. They are all good people.

I find it sickening how big a part religion plays in politics. This forum bickering is exactly why Colin Powel threw his cards behind Obama.

Quote:

---

I'm also troubled by, not what Sen. McCain says, but what members of the party say. And it is permitted to be said, such things as, "Well, you that know Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he's a Christian. He's always been a Christian. But the really right answer is: What if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some 7-year-old Muslim American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, "He's a Muslim and he might be associated with terrorists." This is not the way we should be doing it in America.
-Powell

---

And he refered to this image:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/cityofbras...ton16_p465.jpg
________
I-OLITE VAPORIZER REVIEW

The reason his religion matters taken from a non-religious angle is that his religion will influence like aligned people to his side. By constantly saying he is from both he is trying to maximize his voting pool. While this isn't bad per se it is when it is done through dishonest means.

From an Illinois bias viewpoint:
Also note that Obama is part of the Illinois leadership. Some quick facts on Illinois with a concentration on Cook County (aka Chicagoland)

The murder rate in Chicago exceeds the death count in Iraq by over 50.

STATE PENSION FUND
$44 BILLION IN DEBT, WORST IN THE NATION.

COOK COUNTY (CHICAGO) SALES TAX 10.25%, HIGHEST IN THE NATION.
CHICAGO SCHOOL SYSTEM ONE OF THE WORST IN THE NATION.

Now then that being said I rarely vote for president as I am living in Cook County and on the rare occasion that a Rep may win Cook County and generally with it all of IL the dead come out and give a couple of votes too.

Also note neither candidate has said anything of substance this whole campaign to lead me to believe they would make a good choice.

Edit: Also a good thing to note is that if you support Obama's economic plan you are supporting Socialist if not Communist concepts. I have heard Obama on numerous occasions use the phrase "spread the wealth out." That is a concept straight out of the Communist Manifesto. While I sincerely doubt that Obama endorses the concept of a violent upheaval by the working man it would be best for you to make sure you realize the middle class is not the primary beneficiary under the system he is proposing.

I don't have a dog in this fight, the way I see it:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gheltire

We have an old guy and Elly May Clampett running against George Jefferson and an old guy.

---

Ensuring there is money to be spent from all sides is also the basis of Capitalism, otherwise the whole system fails.

I've said this in a previous post but could not find the post to quote it. Basically we have two sides doing a dance to attract the most votes. During this dance it is imperative to be extremely vague in order to not piss off too many people. What does this mean for the voters trying to figure out which puppet to vote for? Well since there is very little substance to go on we are left with the appearance and presentability of the candidate. Does he/she speak well and intelligently? Would you want this person representing your country? Do you believe any of the horse shit that spews forth from their mouth? Do they share similar beliefs, whatever they may be? It's sad I know, but it seems the reality of the situation. I've heard the lesser of two evils (weevils) thrown around, perhaps its true.

I apologize for using explicit verancular in my last post, but it was reiterating the fact that such language is unacceptable for a president. Just my opinion. We all have our opinions. Hopefully the populace makes the right decision, because the country and the world could really use a strong/intelligent leader atm. Docta out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Domathoine

Ensuring there is money to be spent from all sides is also the basis of Capitalism, otherwise the whole system fails.

---

Doma could you clarify your post? There is no subject in your sentence.

Also Oct, I understand your opinion but as I used to be a History major I have seen and heard so many goofy stories about presidents that it takes more then vulgar language on a national/global scale to make me blink now a days. But you are absolutely right about it all being a dance to offend less people.

Taken from Wikipedia, which admittedly isn't the greatest source of information, we have this definition.

Quote:

---

Capitalism

---

Quote:

---

is the economic system in which the means of production are distributed to openly competing profit-seeking<sup id="cite_ref-0" class="reference">[1]</sup> private persons and where investments, distribution, income, production and pricing of goods and services are predominantly determined through the operation of a free market<sup id="cite_ref-Bacher_1-0" class="reference">[2]</sup> in which anyone can participate in supply and demand and form contracts with each other, rather than by central economic planning.

---

For one to be able to seek a profit, a profit must be able to be made in the first place. If the free market has no means to pay for the goods or services provided, then you get into a situation of high demand and supply, but little exchange of these same goods//services.

Now lets take a look at Socialism and then communism, with the definitions taken from the same admittedly questionable source.

Quote:

---

Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society.

---

While this hits closer to home than communism, it is *NOT* what Obama is proposing. Obama is *NOT* advocating collective ownership but rather a slightly weighted balance of wealth through the society.

Quote:

---

Communism is a socioeconomic structure that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless society based on common ownership of the means of production and property in general.

---

Again, we see no *common* ownership based on the means of production to the general public, only the ability for any individual, or set of individuals, to take part in the free-market economy.

So lets take a look at America *on paper*. *On paper*, we are a classless, egalitarian society, which puts us closer on paper to Communism than Obama's idea of a change in the way wealth is distributed in our society.



*Footnote*
Egalitarianism defined, for those unclear.

Quote:

---

Egalitarianism (derived from the French word égal, meaning equal) is a political doctrine that holds that all people should be treated as equals and have the same political, economic, social, and civil rights.

---

Doma you did little to clarify the post I quoted. What is the purpose of your sentence.

Also communism in practice has never been done per the dictionary definition, except in rare instances such as the kalbuks(sp?) (Jewish communal farm, and even these aren't true communisms.)

What Obama is saying is that a rich person whether inherited or earned deservces to lose more money so that people who don't feel like working (granted this doesn't take into account people just down on their luck who are trying) get govt money to spend. I will grant that this is in fact a poor comparison and it was made overly simplistic by design.

Quote:

---

What Obama is saying is that a rich person whether inherited or earned deservces to lose more money so that people who don't feel like working (granted this doesn't take into account people just down on their luck who are trying) get govt money to spend.

---

Raising income taxes on high-income individuals and lowering income taxes on others is not actually giving government money away to anyone. It is redistributing the tax burden. I believe that Obama's argument is that it shifts the burden off of those less able to bear it and on to those more able to bear it.

Who says I was only talking about the income tax changes?

I'd just like to say that this is the most brilliant PL post topic ever.

Palin scares me, but then again anyone who takes the bible literally does.

One more thing:

Has anyone here ever read "Harrison Bergeron" by Vonnegut? OR seen the TV short with Sean Astin made from the short story?

I feel like actually live in that distopian society only the elites are not there to "make things run" they are simply taking as much money as they can and saying "FU!" to the rest of the U.S.


For those that DARE to read and think for themselves: http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by renshin

I vote Republican because I can. No need to elaborate on why because it could cause chaos and I will have to slap you with my 2 inch lumpia.

Renshin

---

I know why!

Renshin is a David Letterman fan and loves all the material Sarah Palin is creating for him.


I honestly didn't think the Republican Party could find someone that came across as dumb as Bush does in front of a camera. But they did. Palin is the improved Bush 2.0 when it comes to stupid comments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Forty

... Palin is the improved Bush 2.0 when it comes to stupid comments.

---

Yes, but we all smile and fawn over the Pretty Women; no matter what they say (or for that matter whether they make sense at all).

We just want our pretty people to look at!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aundine

Why does it matter whether Obama is Christian or Muslim? One brand of superstition is about as silly as the next.

---

The day science can create a tree from various molecules is the day I'll say maybe your correct. Until that day something had to create it! I call that something God.

Ain

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aindayen

The day science can create a tree from various molecules is the day I'll say maybe your correct. Until that day something had to create it! I call that something God.

Ain

---

Trees are too easy. Let's try something more challenging: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4871540.stm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aindayen

The day science can create a tree from various molecules is the day I'll say maybe your correct. Until that day something had to create it! I call that something God.

Ain

---

Can't they cross splice/Genetically modify trees like they do plants, creating trees that don't occur in nature?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parak

Trees are too easy. Let's try something more challenging: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4871540.stm

---

Also http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7694663.stm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aindayen

The day science can create a tree from various molecules is the day I'll say maybe your correct. Until that day something had to create it! I call that something God.

Ain

---

Who created God then? That's the one I'm worried about.

mmm religious discussion, that is the obvious next step in this thread.

my god owns your god!

discuss.

I don't have a god, so how can it be owned?

Thread fails.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Domathoine

I don't have a god, so how can it be owned?

Thread fails.

---

If you dont have a god you cant play obviously!