U.S. Election '08: Race to the Conventions [Archive] - Page 5

Sasaki Kojiro

05-21-2008, 09:06

Yet Obama is claiming victory as we speak. As I'm watching his speech, its slightly scary how many people are attracted to such an empty candidate. Who are these people who are such suckers for rhetorical skills? Are we in 1930s Germany?

His victory has been inevitable for ages. It is weird how much commotion people make about his speeches but it's inaccurate to say he's an empty candidate.

Harkening back a bit, CNN had an interesting side by side on Obama's latest flip flop. Within 2 days, he states that both Iran is a tiny threat, if at all, and the next he states that Iran is an grave threat. Hopefully it will end up on Youtube by tomorrow.

Right, he said:

"They don’t pose a serious threat to us"

And then:

"Iran is a grave threat. It has an illicit nuclear program. It supports terrorism across the region and militias in Iraq. It threatens Israel’s existence. It denies the Holocaust."

Oh wait, he actually said:

"I mean think about it. Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us"

:smash:

He's also backed way off his earlier claim that he would meet with Iran's leader unconditionally. Now there will be mid-level meetings and more.

Asked whether his idea of meeting with hostile nations consisted of "from the get-go of the President of the United States" or lower level aides, Obama said, "The latter. Understand what the question was. The question was a very specific question. Would you meet without preconditions? Preconditions as it applies to a country like Iran for example was a term of art. Because this administration has been very clear that it will not have direct negotiations with Iran until Iran has meet preconditions that are essentially negotiations with Iran until Iran has met preconditions that are essentially what Iran used and many other observers would view as the subject of the negotiations. For example, their nuclear program. The point is that I would not refuse to meet until they agree to every position that we want. But that doesn't mean that we would not have preparation, and the preparation would involve starting with low level-lower level diplomatic contacts, having our diplomatic corps work through with Iranian counterparts, an agenda. But what I have said is that at some point I would be willing to meet.

Interestingly enough, McCain has also been having trouble with iran issues:

KLEIN: I've done some research, and um -

MCCAIN: I have too.

KLEIN: Also checked, also checked with the Obama campaign and he never, he's never sai -- mentioned Ahmadinejad directly by name. He did say he would negotiate with the leaders, but as you know - Ayatollah,

MCCAIN: (Laughing) Ahmadinejad is, was the leader.

KLEIN: But if -

MCCAIN: Maybe I'm mistaken.

KLEIN: Maybe you are, because -

MCCAIN: Maybe. I don't think so though.

KLEIN: The Supreme, you know, according to most diplomatic experts, the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is the guy who's in charge of Iranian foreign policy and also in charge of the nuclear program, but you never mention him. Do you, you know, um, why do you always keep talking about Ahmadinejad since he doesn't have power in that, in that realm?

MCCAIN: Oh I thin-Again, I respectfully disagree. When he's the person that comes to the United Nations and declares his country's policy is the extermination of the state of Israel, quote, in his words, wipe them off of the map, then I know that he is speaking for the Iranian government and articulating their policy and he was elected and is running for reelection as the leader of that country. Yes sir, go ahead.

NEW REPORTER: One more quest-

MCCAIN: I mean, the fact is he's the acknowledged leader of that country and you may disagree, but that's a uh, that's your right to do so, but I think if you asked any average American who the leader of Iran is, I think they'd know. Go ahead. Or anyone who's well-versed in the issue.

Adrian II

05-21-2008, 09:26

I was afraid this thread was going nowhere. Now that we have established that Obama = Hitler because he is a Marxist, and we have an avowed fascist, Panzerjaeger, complaining that America looks like Germany in the 1930's, I guess that clinches it.

https://img238.imageshack.us/img238/4400/guitarmanev0.gif (https://imageshack.us)
Lala.
Lalala.
Tweet tweet.
https://img238.imageshack.us/img238/7365/musicpu8.gif (https://imageshack.us)
Let me take you by the hand
We're off to loony Fruitcakeland.
:applause: :couch:

Tribesman

05-21-2008, 12:37

Sasaki thats a fine post , showing some typical misquotes atributed to Obama .
But thats an interesting thing with McCain , it woud be so simple to attack his .....
quote, in his words, wipe them off of the map,.as not a quote of the words he used and the actual statement was dinnerjacket quoting someone else .
However McCain has set a challenge .....
but I think if you asked any average American who the leader of Iran is, I think they'd know. Go ahead. Or anyone who's well-versed in the issue. .....
So for any average Americans , or anyone well versed in the issue , who is Irans leader ?
Is it
a the president
b the supreme leader

And some people are trying to sell McCain on the basis that he understands foriegn politics :dizzy2:

CountArach

05-21-2008, 13:09

Lemur

05-21-2008, 13:31

How much debt would you be willing to take on for a 1% shot at the Presidency? Does $31 million (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/05/clintondebt.html) sound about right?

Clinton's campaign debt has now soared to nearly $31 million, according to numbers crunched early this morning by The Times' campaign finance guru, Dan Morain.

She added another $9.5 million in unpaid bills to vendors this past month alone, pushing her total debt to vendors and herself to the new astronomical figure, about a 50% debt increase in one month.

What I want to know is which vendors are willing to perform services without seeing cash up front, especially when there have been articles about unpaid Clinton debts for months. Who's dumb enough to set up bleachers for the campaign without getting cash in hand? Who are the numbskulls extending credit to this train wreck?

Adrian II

05-21-2008, 14:17

So for any average Americans , or anyone well versed in the issue , who is Irans leader ?
Is it
a the president
b the supreme leader Yeah yeah. He's not only formally in charge, he is also de facto in charge of government as shown in for instance in this recent article in The Economist (http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=10872565&fsrc=RSS). But voter turnout for the 2008 parliamentary was incredibly low, as Michael Ledeen emphasises in this piece (http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen200402231057.asp). Of course these numbers can always be disputed, but I have read similar accounts from other correspondents. Since Khatemi was ousted the regime has been getting more conservative every day, and the populace is getting more weary of them every day.

P.S. And yes, we know that none of the three candidates left is very knowledgeable in foreign policy. Gauging these candidates is an exercise in comparative idiocy, not absolute idiocy.

PanzerJaeger

05-21-2008, 14:35

:laugh4:

I was, of course, speaking of his rhetorical skills - not making any comparison of his policies to those of Hitler. A better example would be that of the ancient Romans, who flocked to politicians that excelled at public speaking and told them exactly what they wanted to hear.

Disgusting populist tripe, he has no intention of carrying out. His speech was nothing but handouts. I can't wait until I get my free healthcare and college tuition!

The point still stands Sasaki. Obama represents nothing new or different from the last 2 democratic candidates. The ironic thing is, if people were more interested in his policies rather than his persona, they'd be voting for Clinton, who is far more coherent during actual policy discussions.

Of course you can't expect the same dolts that would faint during a canned political speech to actually have the attention span necessary to parse policy nuances.

I'm just wondering what he's going to say at the end of his 4 years when we don't have socialized healthcare, social security payments continue to drop, America has retreated from the mideast, and our taxes have gone up! He won't be able to blame it on the Republicans...

Tribesman

05-21-2008, 14:37

Gauging these candidates is an exercise in comparative idiocy, not absolute idiocy.

Isn't that what all elections are ?
But anyway another wander into a sort of American election/foriegn policy thing .
Israel .
A rather strange statement from Olmerts negotiator comncerning the current peace talks with Syria . Apparently no direct talks will take place until America has a new President.
Does that mean that all candidates are in favour of direct talks or does it just mean that Bush is blocking them for now?

Lemur

05-21-2008, 15:24

A particularly articulate Obama supporter (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuKqWEYzhEA). I'm the Lemur, and I approve this message.

Adrian II

05-21-2008, 15:53

Isn't that what all elections are?Well alright, in a sense they always have been. But the vacuousness and superficiality we observe these days in western political circles is breath-taking. The opinion poll reigns supreme, its power threatened only occasionally by upsurges in marketing or instances of wardrobe malfunction. I can hardly begin to describe the sad lack of political talent in The Netherlands, principally because it would bore the pants off any non-Dutchman (and quite a few Dutchmen as well).

Let me give you one example. Let me show you some Youtube footage of two-time Dutch Prime Minister Wim Kok (1994-2002) dating from 7 February, 1998, just before a general election round. Kok briefly participated in a tv show in which he and a little girl had to figure out how to send an email on a personal computer. The girl knew all about it, Kok didn't have a clue and about 15 seconds into the clip he points the mouse at the screen, thinking it was some sort of penlight.

Youtube video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpUHsnUPVb8)

Have we finished laughing? Half of The Netherlands still hasn't. I know I laughed at the time, just like everyone else. This clip has been used or referred to over and over again, as supposed proof what an idiot Kok was. He wasn't, we were. The episode shows how far we had sunk, believing that a Prime Minister should be plugged in, logged on and hyped up like every screaming exchange commissioner, empty-headed salesman or B-grade schoolpupil with too much time on his hands.

Never mind that he had been the best post-war Minister of Finance we had, never mind that he was a more than half-decent Prime Minister, never mind that he had the courage to take unpopular measures and confront his own party and rank and file over them. We don't want character. No-o-o-o, we want politicians who walk around with plugs in their arses all day and know how to use smileys. That's who we are!

*withdraws in a cloud of grumpiness*

Devastatin Dave

05-21-2008, 17:19

Adrian II

05-21-2008, 22:06

After a recount (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/05/corrected-item.html) it appears to be $21 million, not $31 million. Still a lot of debt.

Indeed, who is providing these loans, except for the lady herself? Does anyone have a pointer?

Devastatin Dave

05-21-2008, 22:19

KukriKhan

05-22-2008, 02:53

As an aside, can I request that the mods change the title of this thread? Back at it's inception, we figured the primaries would be a formality, and actual cross-party campaigning would be in full swing. "Race to the Conventions" is not descriptive, can we switch it to the Daily Show's "The Long, Flat, Seemingly Endless Bataan Death March To The White House"? :bow:

ROFL. That's an idea.

On the discouragement voiced recently in the past 3-4 pages: yeah, it's a bit disheartening to realize that our best and brightest don't want the scrutiny or expense required nowadays to perform public service, and our subsequent resort to b-list, c-list, and even D-list job applicants/candidates.

But at least we get to "choose" between the "lefties" (who wanna take all our money and give it to undeserving layabouts), and "righties" (who wanna take all our money and give it to undeserving rich guys),

versus

some guys who wanna take all our money (and our women and kids and land) and keep it themselves, at swordpoint, with no option to protest, but death.

We should, I think, be (quietly) glad that our expanded middle-classes, to which we all belong, have seized - not been 'given'; that's important - the opportunity to cuss and dis-cuss and finally select, our leadership without the cold-blooded murder we humans used as "politics" for millennia.

Breathe in. Breathe out. All else is entertainment - thanks to the struggles of our ancestors, to get to a place like we are now.

Our task now, IMO, is to figure out a better way for our best-and-brightest to rise to positions of political leadership. This "perpetual campaign" thing obviously hasn't worked out as well as we'd (collectively) hoped. Marketing and selling works OK for soap flakes, cars and burgers, but apparently comes up short for selecting human leaders.

Sorry for the length of this. Just wanted to buck up our spirits a bit, since the world's not gonna end tomorrow, and we'll have more work to do.

:twocents:

LittleGrizzly

05-22-2008, 03:38

I think one of the keys to changing politics is change the medias coverage of it and improve understanding and the way candidiates are shown... the media isn't completely to blame but they are a big part of the problem in my opinion (but a help in a way and part of the solution)

ICantSpellDawg

05-22-2008, 17:53

seireikhaan

05-22-2008, 18:03

Well, assuming that Hillary doesn't somehow rip victory from the jaws of defeat, I'd like to see either Richardson or Biden as VP for Obama- Preferably Biden, but Richardson would be pretty solid too, imo. Both would help account for Obama's lack of experience in fopo.

As for McCain... I can't believe I'm saying it, but Romney might actually be a pretty good VP candidate. I honestly think if Romney had run purely on what his record said he was, he would've won this nomination in a landslide. I dunno who was telling him to run as the 'true conservative'(like there is such a thing in the Republican party anymore anyways), but it was an absolutely idiotic thing to do, it ran completely counter to his record as a moderate Republican. Plus, his 'younger' persona would contrast nicely with 'old fogey' McCain. Pawlenty, I believe, would be a solid choice as well, and would help snag Minnesota from the Dems as well. As for others, I honestly don't know enough about the lesser Republican names who I'd approve of.

Lemur

05-22-2008, 18:19

Jim Webb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Webb) would be far and away the best VP choice for the Dems. And I'd love to see Jindal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Jindal) as the Repub.

drone

05-22-2008, 18:32

Jim Webb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Webb) would be far and away the best VP choice for the Dems. And I'd love to see Jindal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Jindal) as the Repub.
Sorry, you can't have Webb. We just elected the guy Senator, we're not through with him yet! ~D And we can't be losing both of our Senators in 2009...

ICantSpellDawg

05-22-2008, 19:14

Speaking of Paul Ryan, here is a new budget plan that he has come up with. I had heard him talking about it this morning on CSPAN. The G.O.P. is at a loss for idea men. Guys like Ryan, Romney, Jindal, etc SHOULD be the future

Can anyone find things horribly wrong with it? I can't; but of course I couldn't - I'm a stupid conservative.

How to Tackle the Entitlement Crisis
By PAUL D. RYAN
May 21, 2008; Page A19 (http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB121132850555608905.html)

While Congress will have a partisan debate over the federal budget this week, there is a growing, bipartisan consensus about the greatest threat to our nation's long-term economic prosperity: the explosion of entitlement spending. Unfortunately, Washington is not planning to address that problem this week, or any time soon. By doing nothing, we are shackling our future with unsustainable debt and taxes.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the rest of government will consume nearly 40% of the economy by the time my three young children reach my age (38). This will require more than doubling the average tax burden of the past 40 years just to keep the government afloat. Continuing down this path will eventually strangle our economy.

To meet this challenge and secure our fiscal future, I'm introducing a comprehensive legislative plan called "A Roadmap for America's Future." Here are its components:

- Health Insurance. The bill provides universal access to affordable health insurance, by shifting the ownership of health coverage from the government and employers to individuals. It provides a refundable tax credit – $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families – to purchase coverage. Individuals will be able to buy insurance offered by any provider in any state – not just the one where they live – and carry it with them if they move or change jobs.

This will encourage, and enable, people to shop for the coverage best suited to their needs and financial circumstances. Insurance companies will also have an incentive to diversify coverage at competitive prices. The active participation of individuals and families in a national, competitive market will restrain health-care costs.

The plan also establishes transparency in health-care price and quality data, so this critical information is readily available before someone needs health services. It also encourages the adoption of health information technology.

- Medicaid and Medicare. The bill modernizes Medicaid by giving states maximum flexibility to tailor their Medicaid programs to the specific needs of their populations. It also allows Medicaid recipients to avail themselves of the health-coverage options open to everyone else through the tax-credit option.

The bill secures the existing Medicare program for those over 55 – so Americans can receive the benefits they planned for throughout most of their working lives. Those 55 and younger will, when they retire, receive an annual payment of up to $9,500 to purchase health coverage – either from a list of Medicare-certified plans, or any plan in the individual market, in any state.

The payment is adjusted for inflation and based on income, with low-income individuals receiving greater support and a funded medical savings account.

- Social Security. Workers under 55 will have the option of investing over one-third of their current Social Security taxes into personal retirement accounts. These personal accounts are likely to grow faster than the traditional benefit. They are also the property of the individual, and are thus fully inheritable. The bill includes a guarantee that no one's total Social Security benefits from the personal accounts will be less than if he had chosen to say in the current system.

Combined with a more realistic plan for growth in Social Security benefits, and an eventual increase in the retirement age, the Social Security program can thus become sustainable for the long term.

- Tax Reform. The current federal tax code is complex, burdensome and discourages economic growth. It cannot be fixed with incremental changes; it needs a complete overhaul.

To accomplish this goal, the bill first of all offers individuals a choice of how to pay their taxes – either through the existing law, or through a simplified code with a tax return that fits on a postcard, just two rates and virtually no special tax deductions, credits or exclusions (except the health-care tax credit). Taxpayers themselves choose which code serves them better.

The rates in the simplified code are 10% on income up to $100,000 for joint filers ($50,000 for single filers); and 25% on taxable income above these amounts. There is also a generous standard deduction and personal exemption totaling $39,000 for a family of four. The alternative minimum tax is eliminated. And to promote long-term investment in economic growth, taxes on capital gains, dividends and estates are also eliminated.

On the business side, the bill gets rid of our uncompetitive corporate tax – currently the second highest in the industrialized world – and replaces it with a business consumption tax of 8.5%, which is half the average industrialized world rate.

The roadmap I'm offering is a real plan, with real proposals, real numbers to back them, and real legislation to implement it. Based on the analysis of government actuaries, it is projected to make Social Security and Medicare permanently solvent, lift the growing debt burden on future generations, and hold Federal taxes to 18.5% of GDP.

Many will disagree with this approach. But it is my sincere hope that it will spur Congress to move beyond simply rehashing the problem – to the politically difficult, but critical task of debating, and implementing actual solutions.

Mr. Ryan, a Republican congressman from Wisconsin, is a member of the Budget Committee and the Ways and Means Committee.

Sasaki Kojiro

05-22-2008, 20:00

https://youtube.com/watch?v=dUe7IZ-RsFA

Chris mathews calling a clinton aid out on some bulldaisy her campaign has been repeating for a while. Fun clip.

Spino

05-22-2008, 20:15

I would like to see Mitt Romney as VP, but as a second choice i'd like to see Paul Ryan, third Sarah Pahlin. Jindal I like too. Crist is pretty goodas well, but two white haired dudes would be creepy - purely media reasons for keeping him out.

"McCain/Crist '08 for the Pres and VP of Iceland"

Pawlenty - eh. Condi... pro abortion and too close to the Bushes.

Anybody have any picks for GOP or Dems?

Crist is a great choice and certainly makes a helluva lot of sense given Florida's importance. But I agree that his white head of hair won't win over those superficial voters concerned about McCain's age. However the allegations that Charlie is deep 'in the closet' could prove to be disastrous in the general election. Crist had one failed marriage that lasted a single year and never remarried, let alone sported a visible track record of heterosexual dating throughout most of his political life. On a funny note my mother, having little knowledge of Crist, was thrilled to hear that another person of Greek ancestry (partial) had a shot at the VP slot until she saw him give an interview on TV. Charlie must have set off the red lights and klaxons on her Gaydar because she declared, "Wow! If they (the Republicans) pick him they'll get creamed! Talk about a closet case!" :laugh4:

Crist's importance in Florida cannot be underestimated, especially if Hillary manages to somehow defy the odds and gets the nomination. However I think Romney or Jindal are far more bullet proof than Crist. Jindal is a virtual unknown on the national stage but Romney's impressive showing in the primaries proved his bankability, not to mention he has excellent brand name recognition and handles himself beautifully (for the most part) when speaking off the cuff for interviews and during debates. Being good looking and 'presidential' in appearance doesn't hurt either.

Sorry, you can't have Webb. We just elected the guy Senator, we're not through with him yet! And we can't be losing both of our Senators in 2009...

Why not? An abbreviated term in the Senate worked wonders for Obama! Respect for the office and constituency be damned... when the White House beckons the ego must obey!

Spino

05-22-2008, 20:57

https://youtube.com/watch?v=dUe7IZ-RsFA

Chris mathews calling a clinton aid out on some bulldaisy her campaign has been repeating for a while. Fun clip.

I'm a little sick of people harping on the fact that white blue collar workers are much more likely to vote for Hillary instead of Obama because she's white and he's black. Sure, it's probably true (poop on me and my jaded views of race in this country). However I have yet to see someone offer a reasonable explanation why 85-90%+ of African American Democrats are voting for Obama in the primaries, especially when Hillary Clinton, wife to and partner-in-crime with the man considered by prominent black politicos to be the first 'African-American president' in our nation's history, is running for the same office! To add insult to injury this discrepancy is even more pronounced when you consider how similar Obama and Hillary are on the big issues. I must assume people believe that 1) with all things nearly equal, blacks will always put one of their own ahead of anyone not their own and don't even think twice about asking why; 2) people (mainly white liberals) are so conditioned by the popular culture to indulge in self-criticism and self-loathing on matters of race that they cannot see the forest for the trees; and 3) people honestly believe that black voters are overwhelmingly choosing Obama over Hillary because they believe he's the better candidate (rather amusing given their virtually identical platforms and the fact that Hillary's done more for blacks throughout her long political career than Obama has in his relatively brief one).

Why is it acceptable for blacks to rally the flag and circle the wagons around one of their own but when other 'racial' groups (whites & to a lesser extent hispanics) do the same the red flag gets raised and the media gets worked into a frenzy?

Xiahou

05-22-2008, 21:16

I'm a little sick of people harping on the fact that white blue collar workers are much more likely to vote for Hillary instead of Obama because she's white and he's black. Sure, it's probably true (poop on me and my jaded views of race in this country). However I have yet to see someone offer a reasonable explanation why 85-90%+ of African American Democrats are voting for Obama in the primaries, especially when Hillary Clinton, wife to and partner-in-crime with the man considered by prominent black politicos to be the first 'African-American president' in our nation's history, is running for the same office! To add insult to injury this discrepancy is even more pronounced when you consider how similar Obama and Hillary are on the big issues. I must assume people believe that 1) with all things nearly equal, blacks will always put one of their own ahead of anyone not their own and don't even think twice about asking why; 2) people (mainly white liberals) are so conditioned by the popular culture to indulge in self-criticism and self-loathing on matters of race that they cannot see the forest for the trees; and 3) people honestly believe that black voters are overwhelmingly choosing Obama over Hillary because they believe he's the better candidate (rather amusing given their virtually identical platforms and the fact that Hillary's done more for blacks throughout her long political career than Obama has in his relatively brief one).

Why is it acceptable for blacks to rally the flag and circle the wagons around one of their own but when other 'racial' groups (whites & to a lesser extent hispanics) do the same the red flag gets raised and the media gets worked into a frenzy?
The only thing I have to add to that is that Matthews is a blight on journalism. :beam:

ICantSpellDawg

05-22-2008, 21:59

Crist is a great choice and certainly makes a helluva lot of sense given Florida's importance. But I agree that his white head of hair won't win over those superficial voters concerned about McCain's age. However the allegations that Charlie is deep 'in the closet' could prove to be disastrous in the general election. Crist had one failed marriage that lasted a single year and never remarried, let alone sported a visible track record of heterosexual dating throughout most of his political life. On a funny note my mother, having little knowledge of Crist, was thrilled to hear that another person of Greek ancestry (partial) had a shot at the VP slot until she saw him give an interview on TV. Charlie must have set off the red lights and klaxons on her Gaydar because she declared, "Wow! If they (the Republicans) pick him they'll get creamed! Talk about a closet case!" :laugh4:

You really think he's gay? I looked it up and there are like 10 google pages about it. Damn it all, that is a serious rumor.

It's also not about age. It would be ridiculous. It would look like old tom and young tom. Creepy

Agianst the black guy McCain is already going to be "the white guy". Adding Crist would make it into a living parody.

Sasaki Kojiro

05-23-2008, 00:38

I'm a little sick of people harping on the fact that white blue collar workers are much more likely to vote for Hillary instead of Obama because she's white and he's black. Sure, it's probably true (poop on me and my jaded views of race in this country). However I have yet to see someone offer a reasonable explanation why 85-90%+ of African American Democrats are voting for Obama in the primaries, especially when Hillary Clinton, wife to and partner-in-crime with the man considered by prominent black politicos to be the first 'African-American president' in our nation's history, is running for the same office! To add insult to injury this discrepancy is even more pronounced when you consider how similar Obama and Hillary are on the big issues. I must assume people believe that 1) with all things nearly equal, blacks will always put one of their own ahead of anyone not their own and don't even think twice about asking why; 2) people (mainly white liberals) are so conditioned by the popular culture to indulge in self-criticism and self-loathing on matters of race that they cannot see the forest for the trees; and 3) people honestly believe that black voters are overwhelmingly choosing Obama over Hillary because they believe he's the better candidate (rather amusing given their virtually identical platforms and the fact that Hillary's done more for blacks throughout her long political career than Obama has in his relatively brief one).

Why is it acceptable for blacks to rally the flag and circle the wagons around one of their own but when other 'racial' groups (whites & to a lesser extent hispanics) do the same the red flag gets raised and the media gets worked into a frenzy?

First off, it's not true that there isn't any difference between obama and hillary. But, Obama gets as many african american votes as he does because they want to see the first black president. There's a pretty obvious difference between black people voting for a black man and white people voting against a black man. The number of people who voted for hillary who said they wouldn't vote for obama was way too high.

CountArach

05-23-2008, 02:15

Can anyone find things horribly wrong with it? I can't; but of course I couldn't - I'm a stupid conservative.
Plenty of things wrong with it. But of course I'm saying that - I'm a stupid Socialist.

ICantSpellDawg

05-23-2008, 02:38

Plenty of things wrong with it. But of course I'm saying that - I'm a stupid Socialist.

hehe. I would like to hear your objections. It's always good to know how to respond to the interminable left. I like the plan, but If I only know what's good about it, that doesn't work in the long run.

Crazed Rabbit

05-23-2008, 04:07

I'd like Jindal for GOP VP. A shot of conservatism and non-old-white-man-ness.

CR

CountArach

05-23-2008, 04:24

hehe. I would like to hear your objections. It's always good to know how to respond to the interminable left. I like the plan, but If I only know what's good about it, that doesn't work in the long run.
My objections (From an Australian point of view of course, I'm not sure about the situation over your way in all these cases):

"Health Insurance. The bill provides universal access to affordable health insurance, by shifting the ownership of health coverage from the government and employers to individuals. It provides a refundable tax credit – $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families – to purchase coverage. Individuals will be able to buy insurance offered by any provider in any state – not just the one where they live – and carry it with them if they move or change jobs."
Medicare is very efficient and more money would make it more efficient (It is far more efficient than private insurance). This way we are just paying welfare to the upper class, when they are not the ones who can't afford the healthcare in the first place. If the free market has to be the answer to this, it needs incentive to cater to those who can't already afford. I don't see this as an incentive.

"Medicaid and Medicare. The bill modernizes Medicaid by giving states maximum flexibility to tailor their Medicaid programs to the specific needs of their populations. It also allows Medicaid recipients to avail themselves of the health-coverage options open to everyone else through the tax-credit option.

The bill secures the existing Medicare program for those over 55 – so Americans can receive the benefits they planned for throughout most of their working lives. Those 55 and younger will, when they retire, receive an annual payment of up to $9,500 to purchase health coverage – either from a list of Medicare-certified plans, or any plan in the individual market, in any state."
Pretty much the same problem here, there is no incentive and we are helping those who have already got enough money saved for their retirement and who can afford health insurance. I don't understand why this $9500 can't just be put into government programs, like Medicaid, to ensure that everyone can be covered by it.

"The payment is adjusted for inflation and based on income, with low-income individuals receiving greater support and a funded medical savings account."
I have no problem with this, just so you know I don't dislike the entire thing.

"Social Security. Workers under 55 will have the option of investing over one-third of their current Social Security taxes into personal retirement accounts. These personal accounts are likely to grow faster than the traditional benefit. They are also the property of the individual, and are thus fully inheritable. The bill includes a guarantee that no one's total Social Security benefits from the personal accounts will be less than if he had chosen to say in the current system.

Combined with a more realistic plan for growth in Social Security benefits, and an eventual increase in the retirement age, the Social Security program can thus become sustainable for the long term."
This private investment will again only help those who already have enough money. Their one third is worth far more, and is likely to grow far faster, than the one third that the below-average wage earner will be able to manage. This would just increase the rich-poor divide.

"To accomplish this goal, the bill first of all offers individuals a choice of how to pay their taxes – either through the existing law, or through a simplified code with a tax return that fits on a postcard, just two rates and virtually no special tax deductions, credits or exclusions (except the health-care tax credit). Taxpayers themselves choose which code serves them better."
This is a bad idea - the only people who can afford financial advisors to help them through the more complex form are the wealthy people. An average person can't afford the financial advice that they need to ensure they get all of the deductions they are entitled to, and they may not be able to understand the more complex system. This in turn encourages them to use the more simplified version.

"The rates in the simplified code are 10% on income up to $100,000 for joint filers ($50,000 for single filers); and 25% on taxable income above these amounts. There is also a generous standard deduction and personal exemption totaling $39,000 for a family of four. The alternative minimum tax is eliminated. And to promote long-term investment in economic growth, taxes on capital gains, dividends and estates are also eliminated."
Too many tax cuts. Combine this with the increased spending that will be needed to fund the proposed healthcare tax refund and you are spelling economic disaster... more so than already exists that is.

"On the business side, the bill gets rid of our uncompetitive corporate tax – currently the second highest in the industrialized world – and replaces it with a business consumption tax of 8.5%, which is half the average industrialized world rate."
Business' benefit from many public building projects, such as roads, electricity,phone lines, etc. They should be expected to pay a lot of the costs for this in my mind.

So there you go - those are the problems I have with it. I think it is just a way to help those who can already help themselves, while throwing some bones at the lower class.

Crazed Rabbit

05-23-2008, 05:59

This private investment will again only help those who already have enough money. Their one third is worth far more, and is likely to grow far faster, than the one third that the below-average wage earner will be able to manage. This would just increase the rich-poor divide.

Um- so what? The value of the poorer person's social security (which should be phased out, ponzi scheme that it is) will go up more than it would otherwise as well. What use is it to hamper the rich if the poor are no better off? And why is it bad if the poor become better off if the rich do as well? The 'rich-poor divide' seems like a meaningless class warfare slogan.

CR

CountArach

05-23-2008, 07:10

Um- so what? The value of the poorer person's social security (which should be phased out, ponzi scheme that it is) will go up more than it would otherwise as well. What use is it to hamper the rich if the poor are no better off? And why is it bad if the poor become better off if the rich do as well? The 'rich-poor divide' seems like a meaningless class warfare slogan.

CR
Social security being phased out is a horrible idea - in fact I could think of few worse things to suggest...

Class warfare? Yes. Meaningless? That is a matter of opinion.

Xiahou

05-23-2008, 19:29

There's a pretty obvious difference between black people voting for a black man and white people voting against a black man.
Not obvious to me. Both are allegedly voting for someone based on the candidate's race. It's pathetic no matter who that leads them to vote for. :no:

CountArach

05-23-2008, 22:13

Not obvious to me. Both are allegedly voting for someone based on the candidate's race. It's pathetic no matter who that leads them to vote for. :no:
A Black candidate will speak about issues affecting black people and is likely to be more empathetic with their needs. This does not mean that he speaks against white people.

FactionHeir

05-23-2008, 22:21

A Black candidate will speak about issues affecting black people and is likely to be more empathetic with their needs. This does not mean that he speaks against white people.

Except that this also works the other way around. Change black and white around and see what you get :tongue2:

CountArach

05-23-2008, 22:23

Except that this also works the other way around. Change black and white around and see what you get :tongue2:
I knew someone would say that. I call that oppression by a ruling class (In this case majority rights vs minority rights), but this probably isn't the best time to discuss that...

woad&fangs

05-23-2008, 22:27

Sasaki Kojiro

05-23-2008, 23:37

Not obvious to me. Both are allegedly voting for someone based on the candidate's race. It's pathetic no matter who that leads them to vote for. :no:

Really?

Black man: "I feel we have been discriminated against for hundreds of years and have had to fight for every piece of equality. There's never been a black president and I want to see one. Vote:Obama"

White man: "I'm going to Vote:Clinton because she's white. Even though I'm voting in the democratic primary I'm probably going to vote for McCain instead of Obama if those are my options, because McCain is white"

That's a pretty damn obvious difference :2thumbsup:

rory_20_uk

05-24-2008, 00:46

A Black candidate will speak about issues affecting black people and is likely to be more empathetic with their needs. This does not mean that he speaks against white people.

Obama is half white. He was raised by white grandparents. He probable knows far more about black issues than I do, but he's hardly a reformed crack dealer from the hood coming to get the Oval Office

~:smoking:

Crazed Rabbit

05-24-2008, 01:00

Wait, Jindal believes that abortions should never be allowed under any circumstances?(according to Lemur's Wiki link).... Good luck winning with that belief.

Also according to Lemur's wiki link, McCain is meeting with Romney, Jindal, and Crist at his home in Arizona today.

I hope he chooses Romney. If he loses the fakeness and just acts like himself, I think a lot of people would like him.

He won in Louisiana.

That's a pretty damn obvious difference

Eh, how many people have declared they won't vote for Obama because he's black? Somehow I think it's less than the number voting or Obama because he's black.

CR

FactionHeir

05-24-2008, 01:28

What CR said.
In this election reverse racism may be a lot stronger than racism. Of course one might not call it racism proper but rather favoring one's own color to put it in a nice political way :tongue2:

Sasaki Kojiro

05-24-2008, 03:22

Eh, how many people have declared they won't vote for Obama because he's black? Somehow I think it's less than the number voting or Obama because he's black.

CR

66% percent of those polled said they would vote for clinton but not obama vs mccain. Some of that can be attributed to ignorance of the candidates certainly, but 20% were willing to admit to a pollster that race was an important factor.

But your question misses the basic point again. There's a distinct difference between voting for someone and voting against them. You should know this because I saw you post it about a dozen times during the 2004 election: "they aren't voting for john kerry they're voting against bush".

Imagine I'm selecting you for a job, and it's you and a black guy. Now look at these two scenarios:

1) CR, I'm selecting the other guy because I like him.

2) CR, I'm picking the other guy because I don't like you.

What CR said.
In this election reverse racism may be a lot stronger than racism. Of course one might not call it racism proper but rather favoring one's own color to put it in a nice political way

Most would call it a minority group supporting one of their own. You can't make an argument that the two groups are in the same position. I'll try and make a comparison. Is a husband slapping his wife the equivalent of a wife slapping her husband?

PanzerJaeger

05-24-2008, 03:28

Black man: "I feel we have been discriminated against for hundreds of years and have had to fight for every piece of equality. There's never been a black president and I want to see one. Vote:Obama"

Yep, thats your typical Obama supporter - black, white, or whatever.

Who cares about issues when you can be a part of history.

I just wonder what these people are going to think when the novelty wears off, and we're stuck with a one-term senator as our commander and chief who's management experience doesn't qualify him to run a McDonalds.

But hey, how cool is it that hes black? Like omg...

Crazed Rabbit

05-24-2008, 03:46

Either way Sasaki, it's voting based on race. :shrug:

CR

Sasaki Kojiro

05-24-2008, 04:44

Either way Sasaki, it's voting based on race. :shrug:

CR

Haha CR, this is the biggest cop-out I've seen in ages.

Xiahou

05-24-2008, 05:31

Haha CR, this is the biggest cop-out I've seen in ages.
Better than saying race-based voting is ok as long as it's for a minority. :dizzy2: Selecting a candidate based on their race is wrong any way you slice it. I don't understand how you can try to spin this into being a good thing.

Sasaki Kojiro

05-24-2008, 06:35

Better than saying race-based voting is ok as long as it's for a minority. :dizzy2: Selecting a candidate based on their race is wrong any way you slice it. I don't understand how you can try to spin this into being a good thing.

There are tangible benefits to having the first black president. That's a plain and simple fact. Hillary and obama are close on policy as was noted.

Really, the line of reasoning you guys are using reminds me most of all those "How come black comedians can say ****** but white comedians can't?", "why are gay pride marches ok but heterosexual pride marches are not? ", "how come there's a black history month but no white history month?" type arguments. You're ignoring the current state of society and taking a position completely lacking in nuance. I mean seriously, "Change black and white around and see what you get"?

Marshal Murat

05-24-2008, 06:47

I just realized a key point to the discussion of Obama's vp.

Since Obama is half-Kenyan, does that mean he really need a running mate?

Alexander the Pretty Good

05-24-2008, 07:48

There are tangible benefits to having the first black president.

:inquisitive:

CountArach

05-24-2008, 08:15

:inquisitive:
The rest of the world respects you for one.

ICantSpellDawg

05-24-2008, 12:05

The rest of the world respects you for one.

Global popularity contest. The U.S. really needs to jump on that bus.

U.S. - "Hey, come see my new black friend everybody!"

Europe - "Man, You guys are so cool. Mom, I want a gay, atheist/muslim, african friend. The U.S. always gets new toys to show off! You never buy me anything!"

China - "If i get a communist dictator with slightly less jet black hair is that enough change in friends? I want your money"

Europe - "Mom China always gets such cool stuff too! Why did the universe make me a superficial homosexual satan worshipper? I'm going to go eat a pile of poo over there. Wah"

Africa - "where am i?

I wanted to make a play about that exchange, but I ran out of story after the first line.

The day that the rest of the world is happy with the direction that the U.S. is going in, we are doomed. Black president because he is a better option? yes. Black president to win global kudos? Absolutely freaking not.

CountArach

05-24-2008, 12:19

The day that the rest of the world is happy with the direction that the U.S. is going in, we are doomed. Black president because he is a better option? yes. Black president to win global kudos? Absolutely freaking not.
I'd hate to tell you, but a lot of the rest of us out here have the view of America = Racist. This would go some way towards mending that. Note that I do not hold this belief myself. Unless of course you live in Mississippi.

Banquo's Ghost

05-24-2008, 12:25

Global popularity contest. The U.S. really needs to jump on that bus.

Well, if your presidents aspire to lead the free world, free peoples tend to listen most to those they trust and respect. :shrug:

Black president because he is a better option? yes. Black president to win global kudos? Absolutely freaking not.

There, however, we agree.

In more satisfyingly karmic news however, Senator McCain is having to back up so fast (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/mccain-forced-to-ditch-pastor-who-claimed-god-sent-hitler-833591.html) you can hear him beep.

At least now the perils of seeking endorsements from the cloth should be clear to the candidates of both parties. "This is a perfect example of when politicians and religious leaders try to use each other and end up getting hurt," said Rev Welton Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance.

Indeed. :yes:

Proletariat

05-24-2008, 14:30

nvm

Adrian II

05-24-2008, 14:34

Well, if your presidents aspire to lead the free world, free peoples tend to listen most to those they trust and respect. :shrug:American Presidents aren't leading the world, at least not by example or inspiration, since John F. Kennedy. Nowadays they lead by intimidation (Iraq) or obstruction (Kyoto), a sign that the city on the hill has lost its capacity to inspire, organise and lead coalitions borne by the free will and conviction of the nations concerned.

The entire world still loves and respects Hollywood, American music, literature, food -- all kind of things American really. But not Presidents.

Banquo's Ghost

05-24-2008, 15:49

American Presidents aren't leading the world, at least not by example or inspiration, since John F. Kennedy. Nowadays they lead by intimidation (Iraq) or obstruction (Kyoto), a sign that the city on the hill has lost its capacity to inspire, organise and lead coalitions borne by the free will and conviction of the nations concerned.

The entire world still loves and respects Hollywood, American music, literature, food -- all kind of things American really. But not Presidents.

Indeed, but the key verb in my post was "aspire".

Most post-war presidents have seen it as the nation's (and by extension their) mission to lead the free world. The sad truth, as you note, is that most of them have committed the same mistake as Tuff - there's no need to be popular/inspirational, merely the biggest and baddest - seen at its apogee in the "with us or agin us" rhetoric.

This impresses the feeble, but rarely the free.

Adrian II

05-24-2008, 18:10

Indeed, but the key verb in my post was "aspire".True. My post was meant to elaborate on the lack of same. :bow:

Not too long ago the U.S. used to be the military leader of the free world instead of the lead gorilla. It used to be the linchpin of a stable trade and financial system enabling a level of technological growth, employment and affluence that was the envy of previous generations, as opposed to the protectionist, debt-ridden and self-absorbed moloch it is today. It used to lead in the field of press and media as well as in the superb technologies that underpinned them, which were the envy of the entire world. It even used to lead in the field of civil rights in that it dealt frankly and constructively with its own past, not without disruptions and excesses that always accompany such major shifts in society, but without the massive violence and closed mentalities that characterised social conflict in so many other nations.

As for other sources of American inspiration, let me just say that my parents believed for a long time that the U.S. would indeed incorporate the best of the Old World (and other continents) yet leave its rotten ways behind. They would never forget that it had been the U.S. that essentially liberated them in 1945, despite all the post-war chest-pounding by other nations. My Dad was a great admirer of Roosevelt because he felt - probably still not a bad judgment today - that his New Deal had helped to energize American mentality, rekindle the old can-do spirit and whip U.S. society into shape for a world conflict from which it emerged unchallenged.

My parents vividly remembered - or lived, rather - the days of Marshall Aid which brought us (ideas for) new technologies, econometric instruments and programs for neighborhood and community organisation that stemmed directly from Roosevelt's New Deal, as well as good old fresh white bread, educational and agricultural reform, supermarkets, mass transport, movies, music, fun, student exchanges and of course peanut butter. But I watched their illusions crumble because of the Kennedys' and King's murders, the Vietnam war, the dirty coups and putsches under U.S. auspices in Latin America, Nixon's cancelling of Bretton Woods in 1971 (which caused my Dad to switch off the tv whilst pointing at his forehead in disgust), the Church hearings about political murder and intrigue at the highest level of American politics, the improbable stupidity of U.S. policies in the Middle East. My dad wasn't obsessed with the U.D. or anything, he had other things on his mind for most of his life and we hardly spoke about politics anyway. From about 1980, the year of Ronald Reagan's triumph, it wasn't even an issue for him anymore. Shortly before his death, when America happened to come up in a conversation, he shrugged and said "So they're idiots after all, just like the rest of us," or something to that effect.

PanzerJaeger

05-24-2008, 19:36

Oh please. You're far smarter than me Adrian, but remember not to become too invested in a particular narrative.. :beam:

America "led the free world" solely due to the immediate threat of communist expansion.

Europe had to work with America because she could not defend herself alone, and America had to work with Europe because she needed allies - and more importantly - military bases outside of North America. The same applies to Japan and other democratic Asian nations.

With the collapse of our mutual enemy, of course Europe and other free nations began to act in their own self interest where they may have once fell in line with American interests for the greater good. American politics, naturally, have become more introverted with less interest in foreign policy. Examine George W Bush's comments on foreign policy in the 2000 election, or lack there of. He had a domestic agenda almost to the complete exclusion of a foreign policy. Did anyone really expect him to be a great coalition builder, respond to 9/11 like a pro, etc?

Now that our dealings abroad are far more prescient in the minds of American voters, we have nominated two candidates who will undoubtedly deal with our allies and enemies much differently. Although McCain and Obama are different, theres no doubt they are prepared for dealing with the world in a mature way. Neither GWB nor Clinton were.

Tribesman

05-24-2008, 19:40

The same applies to Japan and other democratic Asian nations.
Sorry Panzer you lost me there , what were these democratic nations you had as allies ?

PanzerJaeger

05-24-2008, 19:54

Sorry Panzer you lost me there , what were these democratic nations you had as allies ?

Replace that with "Western leaning". South Korea did turn in to a genuine democracy though..

In any event, GWB's foreign policy seems very thrown together. All of a sudden on 9/12/o1 he had to wake up and deal with the world. One would hope both current nominees have a coherent plan.

Adrian II

05-24-2008, 19:57

Oh please. You're far smarter than me Adrian, but remember not to become too invested in a particular narrative.. :beam:

America "led the free world" solely due to the immediate threat of communist expansion.Read again, friend. The narrative of "downfall" I described ends around 1980, well before the fall of communism.

Tribesman

05-24-2008, 20:14

Replace that with "Western leaning".
How about replace it with "crazy murdering dictatorships" :yes: Which of course would be a long way from "democracies" or the "free world" you mentioned .

Boyar Son

05-25-2008, 08:02

If McCain wins its because people think the problems with the Republican credit could be solved with a different Republican president that doesnt have much of a bad record.

CountArach

05-25-2008, 08:28

If McCain wins its because people think the problems with the Republican credit could be solved with a different Republican president that doesnt have much of a bad record.
If McCain wins it will be because the Democrats lost the election.

CrossLOPER

05-25-2008, 14:45

If McCain wins it will be because the Democrats lost the election.
:dizzy2: :dizzy2: :dizzy2: :dizzy2: :dizzy2: :dizzy2: :dizzy2: PIME TARADOX???????:dizzy2: :dizzy2: :dizzy2: :dizzy2: :dizzy2: :dizzy2: :dizzy2:

Crazed Rabbit

05-25-2008, 17:03

If McCain wins it will be because the Democrats lost the election.

Well, they've proven to be darn good at that. :beam:

that his New Deal had helped to energize American mentality, rekindle the old can-do spirit and whip U.S. society into shape for a world conflict from which it emerged unchallenged.

Bah. Sorry, but it started the process of encouraging people to defend on the government, to stop being self reliant. It was the beginning of the end for the can-do spirit, and burdened us with huge government programs.

CR

Crazed Rabbit

05-25-2008, 17:21

Obama: Changing History to Attack Bush (http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/gGCMCY);

Since the Bush Administration launched a misguided war in Iraq, its policy in the Americas has been negligent toward our friends, ineffective with our adversaries, disinterested in the challenges that matter in peoples’ lives, and incapable of advancing our interests in the region.

No wonder, then, that demagogues like Hugo Chavez have stepped into this vacuum. His predictable yet perilous mix of anti-American rhetoric, authoritarian government, and checkbook diplomacy offers the same false promise as the tried and failed ideologies of the past. But the United States is so alienated from the rest of the Americas that this stale vision has gone unchallenged, and has even made inroads from Bolivia to Nicaragua. And Chavez and his allies are not the only ones filling the vacuum. While the United States fails to address the changing realities in the Americas, others from Europe and Asia – notably China – have stepped up their own engagement. Iran has drawn closer to Venezuela, and just the other day Tehran and Caracas launched a joint bank with their windfall oil profits.

Hey Obama, when, exactly, did Chavez come to power?

CR

Tribesman

05-25-2008, 17:37

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Hey Obama, when, exactly, did Chavez come to power?

Reading problems again rabbit :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

seireikhaan

05-25-2008, 17:56

Obama: Changing History to Attack Bush (http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/gGCMCY);
:rolleyes:

So when exactly did Obama state that he wouldn't go after bad policies?:inquisitive: Way to totally mischaracterize the statement. Did you get that from Rush?

Hey Obama, when, exactly, did Chavez come to power?

CR
Hey, CR, when, exactly, did Chavez become influential?

Tribesman

05-25-2008, 18:08

Hey, CR, when, exactly, did Chavez become influential?

Would it be about the time when oil prices went through the roof , American policy shifted focus elsewhere and Bush showed the whole world how much of an idiot he really is ?:yes:
Sorta like ...Since the Bush Administration launched a misguided war in Iraq:2thumbsup:

The Black Ship

05-25-2008, 18:21

I'd hate to tell you, but a lot of the rest of us out here have the view of America = Racist. This would go some way towards mending that. Note that I do not hold this belief myself. Unless of course you live in Mississippi.
I find this amusing given the racism I've been reading about world-wide. I can't even imagine American fans throwing bananas at an NBA game, or making monkey noises during a NFL play. It'd be hard to imagine blacks being forced off their lands by white soldiers, or laws proclaiming that anglos have to own 51% of any corporation. Imagine the stink if a new law stated that you cannot leave the christian faith.

There's plenty of racism to go around, it just isn't thrown up everyday.

Should I feel encouraged if the next French PM is of Algerian descent, or inspired if the next German chancellor's an ethnic Turk? How many Aborigines serve in the current Australian regime? Is it greater in proportion than their demographics?

The US electing a black President should be irrelevant to the rest of the world. I'd hope they they'd want the US to have the best person possible in charge.

Geoffrey S

05-25-2008, 18:39

Heck, how many times have European countries even had a candidate for prime minister or president who is a member of an ethnic minority? And no, Blair and Brown don't count.

Crazed Rabbit

05-25-2008, 18:49

Hey, CR, when, exactly, did Chavez become influential?

Maybe in 1999 when he got the people to vote yes on a constitutional overhaul, or 2000 when he was reelected or in that same year when he got to rule by decree for a year, or the referendum to have unions have state monitored elections.

Chavez stepped into the void when he was elected in 1998.

Oh wait, I forgot, everything is Bush's fault!

CR

woad&fangs

05-25-2008, 18:56

Um, Influential in world politics...

But nice try CR:yes:

Tribesman

05-25-2008, 19:31

But nice try CR
you are feeling very generous Woad , personally I would have gone more along the lines of ..."thats so lame if it was a horse you would shoot it":2thumbsup:

Adrian II

05-25-2008, 21:01

Well, they've proven to be darn good at that. :beam:

Bah. Sorry, but it started the process of encouraging people to defend on the government, to stop being self reliant. It was the beginning of the end for the can-do spirit, and burdened us with huge government programs.

CRI loath the bogus revisionism that is becoming increasingly popular among Americans who get their knowledge from the Internet and from sound-bites on tv. I fear that this nasty little beast born of rancor, short-term political gain and indifference to facts will not die before your Presidents from Georg Bush all the way back to George Washington are vilified, their lives and ideas torn out of context and their contributions to their country and to the rest of the world belittled to the point of ridicule.

And yes, I am grumpy.

Boyar Son

05-25-2008, 22:03

If McCain wins it will be because the Democrats lost the election.

Thats impossible and improbable.

Sasaki Kojiro

05-25-2008, 22:06

Thats impossible and improbable.

That can't possibly be true.

Boyar Son

05-25-2008, 22:12

That can't possibly be true.

Hillary losing to Barack?

CountArach

05-25-2008, 22:38

How many Aborigines serve in the current Australian regime? Is it greater in proportion than their demographics?
None and I am damn disappointed in that.

Xiahou

05-26-2008, 02:23

There's plenty of racism to go around, it just isn't thrown up everyday.Absolutely. The biggest difference is how sensitive the US is to it. When it comes to race in the US everyone is so thin-skinned that it gives other countries the untrue impression that we all must be a bunch of racists. Much worse goes on in other "civilized" countries, it just doesn't get the headlines like it does in the US.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

05-26-2008, 03:29

Heck, how many times have European countries even had a candidate for prime minister or president who is a member of an ethnic minority? And no, Blair and Brown don't count.

Merkel is East German.

Snap. ~;)

Lemur

05-26-2008, 03:55

Fox News piles on (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjYpkvcmog0) to the Hillary assassination gaffe and, believe it or not, amplifies. Un-freakin'-believable.

Crazed Rabbit

05-26-2008, 07:09

Wow, that is horrible, Lemur.

Chavez stepped into a void when he was elected. That void's been there a mighty long time, and to act like it's all Bush's fault because he's the first guy to not pay enough attention to Latin America is purely partisan. The reason Chavez has money to spend, and influence, is mainly oil. And that's supply and demand. Increased by 'unrest' in the middle east, but also by increased demand from China and the like.

Adrian - my grandfather, who was actually alive during the New Deal, did not like how Roosevelt started all those programs, though he was a democrat.

None and I am damn disappointed in that.

Well, I guess you're all just a bunch of racists, then, eh? Who deserve no respect, what with turnabout being fair play and all that. ~;p

CR

CountArach

05-26-2008, 07:20

Well, I guess you're all just a bunch of racists, then, eh? Who deserve no respect, what with turnabout being fair play and all that. ~;p

CR
Haha, there are a tonne of racist bigots down here, especially where I live...

Crazed Rabbit

05-26-2008, 07:34

A metric or imperial ton? Details are important you know. ~;p

I recall some riots on beaches a couple years back. :idea2:

CR

CountArach

05-26-2008, 07:51

A metric or imperial ton? Details are important you know. ~;p
We don't use your Imperialistic tons down here!

I recall some riots on beaches a couple years back. :idea2:

CR
Yep, I live about 15 minutes drive from where it happened and in fact walked down there a few days after it happened. It was safe for me because I'm a white guy :tongue:

LittleGrizzly

05-26-2008, 08:09

I think the main advantadge to having a black leader is its going to be alot harder for america's enemys to make him out to be a racist, we shouldn't hire him for just that reason i see it as a nice bonus to electing obama.

Tribesman

05-26-2008, 08:42

Chavez stepped into a void when he was elected. That void's been there a mighty long time, and to act like it's all Bush's fault because he's the first guy to not pay enough attention to Latin America is purely partisan. The reason Chavez has money to spend, and influence, is mainly oil. And that's supply and demand. Increased by 'unrest' in the middle east, but also by increased demand from China and the like.

And the horse hobbles on convinced that if he moves the fence and pretends to jump no one will notice his lameness .:thumbsdown:

Adrian II

05-26-2008, 11:23

Adrian - my grandfather, who was actually alive during the New Deal, did not like how Roosevelt started all those programs, though he was a democrat.That may well be, but most voters sure did because they felt that Roosevelt restored the sense that their nation was more than a compact of barren contracts between individual citizens, allowing some to prosper and forcing many to scrape together their daily meal. People were starving in the streets of 'Hoovervilles', so named after the clueless gentleman in the White House who had presided over the first desastrous years of the Great depression.

Along came this charismatic Bostonian who cut unemployment by two-thirds in his first term! Because of his programs many Americans spent their family life or old age in dignified circumstances; it wasn't affluence, but at least it wasn't raw misery. The last in the series was the brilliant GI Bill of 1944; just think of the effect that has had on public morale, on social mobility and on the way capitalism could actually be made to work instead of remaining bogged down in family dynasties and frozen caste relations. By 1960, social standing in the U.S. was no longer mainly determined by family background and financial inheritance, but by intelligence and educational level.

I don't think I can elaborate much more on this due to lack of time, but I believe MSN has it about right in its 'Presidents of the United States' pages, including the opening quote:

“Better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity,” Roosevelt said in 1936, “than the constant omission of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference.” Most Americans loved Roosevelt, voting him to an unprecedented four terms as president. Much of his success rested on his charismatic leadership—his ability to give people hope and renewed confidence in the American system of government. Roosevelt spoke directly to the public through frequent radio addresses. These “fireside chats” brought his warm, reassuring personality into millions of homes and made him an anchor in national life through the Depression and World War II. After he died in 1945, someone told his wife, “I miss the way your husband used to talk to me about my government.”People who think that the relative size, circumstance or execution of his welfare programs were similar to today's should look again - not just at a few numbers and laws of the time, but at the period as a whole, the wider culture, the demoralizing effect of the Great Depression. True, some prominent New Dealers were Socialists, but only some of the programs were democratic socialist staple, most were the outcome of liberal Keynesian principles. People who think that it had anything to do with Big Bad Socialism taking over society and introducing state control over the economy or population need not even bother, they will never get it.

P.S. Okay, so I've elaborated on it anyway. ~D

Marshal Murat

05-26-2008, 11:30

Listening to NPR about the VP search, and I think this year it really means alot more to the American people than before. Quite honestly, the vice-president faces the possibility of serving after a year in office. McCain could die on a jog or something, and Barack Obama is, unfortunately, going to be compared to Kennedy over, and over, and over, and over again.

Lemur

05-26-2008, 13:58

The most frightening thing I'll read today. (http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/americandebate/Equal_time_for_the_willfully_ignorant.html) Probably.

It seems to be OK in this country to malign educated people, to dismiss them as "eggheads" and "latte-sippers," probably because there is a sizeable anti-intellectual strain in our culture. But I would suggest that stupid people should also be ripe for open discussion - if only because millions of willfully clueless voters may well function as the swing decision-makers in a close '08 presidential election.

And since we're finally talking about ignorance, I offer Exhibit A - the report of a focus group, featuring 12 independent voters, that was conducted earlier this week in swing-state Virginia by the noted Democratic pollster, Peter Hart. [...]

For instance, here's Dorita, opining about Obama: "I'm a little concerned. I don't know enough about his Muslim background and their beliefs and how he views everything. I'm a little concerned. I need to check his background."

You do that, Dorita.

Here's Josh on Obama: "He's representing a minority in more than one case. He is African American and he is Muslim. And in light of that...it does feel like we're being judged or pounded down on because we want to carry a gun or we want to wear the American flag pin."

Here's Melinda, clearly the GOP's dream voter: "I just really feel like he's...not a people pleaser as in the Americans, but the other people who don't necessarily need to be pleased, the other, the enemies if you will, I don't know. I'm just not real positive on that."

Hart reports that whenever somebody volunteered that Obama is a Muslim (which he isn't), nobody in the room protested or sought to correct the inaccuracy.

Adrian II

05-26-2008, 14:10

The most frightening thing I'll read today. (http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/americandebate/Equal_time_for_the_willfully_ignorant.html) Probably.Well, these people must be suckers for the sort of bogus revisionism I mentioned above. Why Lemur, didn't you know that all the FF was like devout Christjuns whereas now the nation is run by homersekshule Jewish baby-killers and tenured feminists with all them towel-heads over there wanting to take away our oil and freedoms?

KukriKhan

05-26-2008, 15:06

...But I would suggest that stupid people should also be ripe for open discussion

That's as far as I got on first read. This was gonna be a hit-piece on stupid americans - not interested,

But Lemur thought it important, so I try again...

OK. Got it. Dick Polman decries the fact that 3 of the 12 people in a Virginia focus group have had some of the misinformation/disinformation about candidates stick. Polman extrapolates that into a trend, and says the Hart Poll organization predicts 20% of voters will be that way.

Seems like huge leaps there, to me. And why does the average independent (non-partisan) voter need to know anything about any potential partisan candidate yet? They'll get their ballots in October, and vote in November, 6 months from now. Aside from the breathless polit-jouno's hyping up the campaigns, what huge, crucial, important issue is before the American citizenry to decide immediately?

Banquo's Ghost

05-26-2008, 15:45

And why does the average independent (non-partisan) voter need to know anything about any potential partisan candidate yet? They'll get their ballots in October, and vote in November, 6 months from now. Aside from the breathless polit-jouno's hyping up the campaigns, what huge, crucial, important issue is before the American citizenry to decide immediately?

C'mon Kukri - the democratic franchise is one of the most precious things in the world. Millions have died to achieve and protect it. Yet countless thousands treat it with the utter contempt of disengagement - not through disillusion, but sheer dumbness.

The crucial issue is the future of the country. That should not be decided "immediately" as a person enters the voting booth, but with consideration. Seven of the twelve think Obama is muslim? :shocked2: Why? Is it because he has a funny name (does that mean McCain is de facto a leprechaun?) or something more insidious - such as the influence of right-wing media? As the writer notes, it's not exactly hard to get information these days. Of course, I'll bet these people are in fact, constantly involved in politics - by whining about the government/president/price of etc.

Yes, this is a small group, albeit chosen to be representative. As with the Lemur, it sends a shiver of terror down my spine. And this plague of idiocy is not an American phenomenon, but a fungus veined deep in western democracies. The celebration of the uninvolved clueless and the deprecation of the active informed are the death throes of representative democracy.

The universal franchise was always going to lead to this. The vote should be earned - military or community service and a proven ability to engage the brain.

[I]*and breathe*

KukriKhan

05-26-2008, 16:11

...One person mentions that she has heard something about him and the Pledge of Allegiance" - this would be the lie that he doesn't place his hand over his heart while reciting it - "and another believes that he was sworn in to the Senate with his hand on the Koran," whereas, in factual-reality world, this Christian was sworn in on a Bible...

In factual-reality world, they all are sworn-in on none
https://jimcee.homestead.com/108th-congress-being-sworn-in.jpg

some later do a re-enactment with one hand placed on a book of their choice; a foto-op for the folks back home.

the democratic franchise is one of the most precious things in the world. Millions have died to achieve and protect it.

Exactly. We celebrate the sacrifice of those millions today, here in the US. They fought and died so their fellow citizens could be as informed, uninformed, participatory, or willfully ignorant as they choose to be, without some tyrant telling them what to do or think.

To my knowledge, there's only one guy in the entire country, so far, whose name will appear on everyone's ballot: Barr, the Libertarian; because they alone have had their convention and picked a candidate. The Dems and Repubs and Peace & Freedoms, and Am Indy's are all lagging on that.

Average Joe Sixpack has to stifle a yawn when some talking head tells him to pay attention (again!) to an argument about whether one potential candidate is telling lies about another potential candidate, months before anybody knows who the final candidate will be. Joe has other things to occupy his attention, like tornadoes, and 5-buck-a-gallon fuel, and his son in Iraq, and his out-sourced job...

Yes, the candidates, once picked by their parties, will have to start almost from scratch in September, re-introducing themselves to the broader american voting public. But it has always been thus.

-edit-

The vote should be earned - military or community service...

I support any well-crafted legislation that prescribes such a requirement for voting citizenship. Those citizens who choose not to so serve get the protection of the gov't of their rights to life, liberty & the pursuit... but they shouldn't vote until they have 'skin in the game'.

Crazed Rabbit

05-26-2008, 17:44

People who think that it had anything to do with Big Bad Socialism taking over society and introducing state control over the economy or population need not even bother, they will never get it.

Hmm, maybe I'm confused because of how the SCOTUS struck down several of FDR's new deal laws on the basis on being unconstitutional interference in private business. Then DR tried to pack the court with his supporters.

It wasn't the temporary make work agencies that were so bad*, but the permanent programs he enacted, and enacted in such a way to make sure they would be very hard to undo. Social security checks didn't come regularly all the times; they'd often come in bunches before elections. FDR's protectionism, along with that of other nations, prolonged the worldwide depression.

*And there's more evidence that Roosevelt's new deal prolonged the depression (http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/powell200311200852.asp). Not that surprising, considering a huge increase in taxes and rules making it harder to hire people.

CR

Banquo's Ghost

05-26-2008, 18:11

Exactly. We celebrate the sacrifice of those millions today, here in the US. They fought and died so their fellow citizens could be as informed, uninformed, participatory, or willfully ignorant as they choose to be, without some tyrant telling them what to do or think.

Not just their fellow citizens, but those of us blessed by their sacrifice in many countries. :bow:

But I have to wonder if any of us who do not take the franchise seriously - for example, through wilful ignorance - are not, by that act, dishonouring the sacrifice. I think it is as wrong, if not more so, than those who abuse the freedoms won by actively undermining them. In a sense, the former enable the latter to flourish.

Average Joe Sixpack has to stifle a yawn when some talking head tells him to pay attention (again!) to an argument about whether one potential candidate is telling lies about another potential candidate, months before anybody knows who the final candidate will be. Joe has other things to occupy his attention, like tornadoes, and 5-buck-a-gallon fuel, and his son in Iraq, and his out-sourced job...

Indeed, and the exercise of his franchise is the single biggest influence he can have on those day-to-day issues. Within your system, he even gets a chance to influence the final candidates for the presidency - and send messages to prospective members of Congress and the parties. To shirk that responsibility throughout the political cycle save for one moment in November, is to allow the politicians to continue their manipulations. There is naught so pleasing to the incompetent and powerful than a disinterested voter. Governments throughout the world have pursued this nirvana with some relish, and a great deal of success.

I support any well-crafted legislation that prescribes such a requirement for voting citizenship. Those citizens who choose not to so serve get the protection of the gov't of their rights to life, liberty & the pursuit... but they shouldn't vote until they have 'skin in the game'.

There, we are in complete agreement. :bow:

Anyway, I am derailing the thread enough. As you will note, this is a soap-box trigger for me. :embarassed:

Adrian II

05-26-2008, 18:42

Of course, I'll bet these people are in fact, constantly involved in politics - by whining about the government/president/price of [insert whine] etc.That was my impression, too. They seem to have their minds made up based on non-facts, call it misinformation, of the sort I frequently encouter on populist American websites, and nearly always right-wing ones. Of course I say this as a foreigner with no hands-on experience of American society; usually I get to see only the smartest and dumbest extremes of American society through the prism of the (American and other) media I consume. I do know there is lots in between. But the people quoted seemed to be the type I described earlier.

As for the rest of the discussion - good points all round on the uses and abuses of democracy, and the need to honour it through thick and thin. :bow:

I seem to remember though that modern democracies used a particular system to vet voters before they were entitled to vote. It was I believe called general education. I wonder what happened to it.

Tribesman

05-26-2008, 19:06

Heck, how many times have European countries even had a candidate for prime minister or president who is a member of an ethnic minority?
Well we had a Turkey as candidate , or more correctly a turkey vulture , so does that count as an ethnic minority or does the large number of politicians who are a bit of a turkey mean that he was actually a majority candidate rather than a minority ?
Then again we have had yanks and brits and prods as president , are they minorities ?

KukriKhan

05-26-2008, 21:13

To be clear:

I do not support willfull ignorance on the part of voters.

Citizens have not only a right to vote, they have a duty to vote. And they have a duty to insure that their's is an informed vote.

What I take issue with in the Polman article is his use of the word "stupid" in reference to voters, and the assertion (not his, but allegedly that of the focus-group organizer) that 20% of the voting public are and will remain uninformed/misinformed all the way up to November 4th. The article balances on those two axes, both of which I believe are false.

PanzerJaeger

05-26-2008, 22:08

Fox News piles on (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjYpkvcmog0) to the Hillary assassination gaffe and, believe it or not, amplifies. Un-freakin'-believable.

As hilarious as that is, its hard to say that the commentators gaffe represents the views of Fox News.

Lemur

05-27-2008, 00:33

So true, we cannot hold a media group responsible for the people they employ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liz_Trotta). Where would that end?

PanzerJaeger

05-27-2008, 03:48

Odd. You feel that everything contributors say is representative of the views of the network that hires them? I'm not sure you understand how the whole "contributor" thing works.

You would be surprised to learn that networks often seek out people of wide ranging and even oddball views to contribute.

But its so much more fun to expose Faux News for plotting the assassination of BARACK OBAMA!

Lemur

05-27-2008, 04:16

PJ, do you want some help stuffing straw into that man you're propping up? Or are you content to attribute words and nutty conspiracy theories to me that I never said?

Liz Trotta is a paid contributor to Fox News, so yeah, I don't think she's just an oddball opinion solicited for flamboyance. This ain't a blogger whom they're quoting, it's an employee.

What you choose to make of that information is up to you, my lovely little man.

PanzerJaeger

05-27-2008, 04:34

Hmm.. ok. CNN just blew my mind.

They just hired Tony Snow as a contributor - an outspoken conservative and supporter of the Bush Administration.

Somehow, inexplicably, CNN also has James Carville on their payroll. I think everyone knows his political affiliations.

If the views of a contributor represent those of the network that hires him/her, does this mean that CNN is both somehow in the tank for the Bush administration and an outspoken critic of it?

Wild, crazy stuff. :jawdrop:

Lemur

05-27-2008, 04:41

Sasaki Kojiro

05-27-2008, 04:55

Fox News piles on to the Hillary assassination gaffe and, believe it or not, amplifies. Un-freakin'-believable.

As hilarious as that is, its hard to say that the commentators gaffe represents the views of Fox News.

So true, we cannot hold a media group responsible for the people they employ. Where would that end?

Lemur I think you missed what PJ was saying. He's right, it's not accurate to say that Fox News made the comment. An employee of Fox News made the comment. Holding them responsible doesn't require saying the media group did it.

ICantSpellDawg

05-27-2008, 04:57

Mascot Politics
By Thomas Sowell (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/mascot_politics.html)

Years ago, when Jack Greenberg left the NAACP Legal Defense Fund to become a professor at Columbia University, he announced that he was going to make it a point to hire a black secretary at Columbia.

This would of course make whomever he hired be seen as a token black, rather than as someone selected on the basis of competence.

This reminded me of the first time I went to Milton Friedman's office when I was a graduate student at the University of Chicago back in 1960, and I noticed that he had a black secretary. This was four years before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and there was no such thing as affirmative action.

It so happened that Milton Friedman had another black secretary decades later, at the Hoover Institution-- and she was respected as one of the best secretaries around.

When I mentioned to someone at the Hoover Institution that I was having a hard time finding a secretary who could handle a tough job in my absence, I was told that I needed someone like Milton Friedman's secretary-- and that there were not many like her.

At no time in all these years did I hear Milton Friedman say, either publicly or privately, that he had a black secretary.

William F. Buckley's wife once mentioned in passing, at dinner in her home, that she had been involved for years in working with a school in Harlem. But I never heard her or Bill Buckley ever say that publicly.

Nor do conservatives who were in the civil rights marches in the South, back when that was dangerous, make that a big deal.

For people on the left, however, blacks are trophies or mascots, and must therefore be put on display. Nowhere is that more true than in politics.

The problem with being a mascot is that you are a symbol of someone else's significance or virtue. The actual well-being of a mascot is not the point.

Liberals all across the country have not hesitated to destroy black neighborhoods in the name of "urban renewal," often replacing working-class neighborhoods with upscale homes and pricey businesses-- neither of which the former residents can afford.

In academia, lower admissions standards for black students is about having them as a visible presence, even if mismatching them with the particular college or university produces high dropout rates.

The black students who don't make it are replaced by others, and when many of them don't make it, there are still more others.

The point is to have black faces on campus, as mascots symbolizing what great people there are running the college or university.

Many, if not most, of the black students who do not make it at big-name, high-pressure institutions are perfectly qualified to succeed at the normal range of colleges and universities.

Most white students would also punch out if admitted to schools for which they don't have the same qualifications as the other students. But nobody needs white mascots.

Various empirical studies have indicated that blacks succeed best at institutions where there is little or no difference between their qualifications and the qualifications of the other students around them.

This is not rocket science but it is amazing how much effort and cleverness have gone into denying the obvious.

A study by Professor Richard Sander of the UCLA law school suggests that there may be fewer black lawyers as a result of "affirmative action" admissions to law schools that are a mismatch for the individuals admitted.

Leaping to the defense of black criminals is another common practice among liberals who need black mascots. Most of the crimes committed by black criminals are committed against other blacks. But, again, the actual well-being of mascots is not the point.

Politicians who use blacks as mascots do not hesitate to throw blacks to the wolves for the benefit of the teachers' unions, the green zealots whose restrictions make housing unaffordable, or people who keep low-price stores like Wal-Mart out of their cities.

Using human beings as mascots is not idealism. It is self-aggrandizement that is ugly in both its concept and its consequences.

Lemur

05-27-2008, 05:00

Fair point, SK, although I find it all a bit ugly, and I expect that any other news channel would be forced to apologize for an incident of this sort. For what it's worth, the dried-up biddy has apologized (http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0508/Fox_analyst_apologizes_for_Obama_assassination_joke.html) for her joke.

-edit-

And TuffStuff, what does your article have to do with the Primaries? Beyond the obvious Liberals=Teh Bad and Tokenism=Teh Bad? If you're going to argue that Obama is an affirmative-action hire, go ahead and make the argument.

PanzerJaeger

05-27-2008, 05:01

PJ, are you in fact making any attempt at a coherent argument? A person advocates killing a political candidate on-air, and you're somehow equating this to the hiring of Tony Snow?

This is absurdly simple, friend. The comment made on Fox News was way, way beyond the pale. Advocating the death of a politician -- even one with whom you disagree -- is uncool, unwise and un-American. It's also skirting the edge of legality.

Now I rather suspect that you don;'t much care for Obama. You also probably don't much like McCain. This does not mean that it's okay to advocate the assassination of either man on live television.

I would say that you are missing the point, but you seemed to get it just a post above this one. Maybe you don't like the point so you're moving to a much more easily arguable one?

This has nothing to do with my political views, but your linking Liz Trotta's comments to Fox News in general. Paid contributors are not network representatives or hosts.

Lemur

05-27-2008, 05:06

This has nothing to do with my political views, but your linking Liz Trotta's comments to Fox News in general. Paid contributors are not network representatives or hosts.
PJ, Trotta made her call for assassination on Fox News. Does that suggest any responsibility on the part of the network to you? Does a cable news network, by your reasoning, have absolutely no stake in what its contributors say?

-edit-

As for whether or not this has anything to do with your political filter, all I can say is that I seriously doubt you'd be so lawyerly and forgiving if a liberal on CNN called for the assassination of President Bush.

PanzerJaeger

05-27-2008, 05:16

I'm not sure what is so difficult to understand.

Cable news networks have a lot of time to fill. They hire people of wide ranging views to appear and give their opinions. Those opinions do not necessarily represent the views of the network.

You would have more of a case to claim "Fox News piles on" if this was a host, anchor, or network representative, but contributors do not represent the views network in any capacity.

edit..

As for whether or not this has anything to do with your political filter, all I can say is that I seriously doubt you'd be so lawyerly and forgiving if a liberal on CNN called for the assassination of President Bush.

Now you're just being petty. I've seen some CNN contributors say some pretty outrageous things. Its all part of the game. Usually they like to get two people with wildly opposing views and let them yell at each other. You're such a news junky, I'm surprised you haven't noticed this.

Or are you just too stubborn to admit that maybe you made a small error in your attribution? I certainly didn't mean for this to be a multipost back and forth.

Lemur

05-27-2008, 05:22

So let me get this straight:

A paid contributor to Fox News jokingly calls for the assassination of a Presidential candidate. I link to a YouTube of the event, using the words "Fox news piles on."

That's what's got your lederhosen in a bunch? The fact that I referred to the network rather than the individual contributor? That's what's been keeping you going for eight or nine posts?

So in your rush to defend the integrity of the Fox News Network, you're willing to stake out a position that a network has no responsibility for the utterances of their paid employees, correct? And that even if a paid contributor advocates something that is immoral or illegal, this can in no way reflect on the network that gives them their rent money. That is your position, correct?

Those opinions do not necessarily represent the views of the network.
So by attributing the gaffe to Fox News, you believe I was saying, in essence, "Fox News has announced a policy that advocates the assassination of a Presidential candidate?" Ye gods, to think that I could have gone to bed so much earlier had I merely typed "A paid Fox News contributor piled on ..." To think that such a simple edit would have averted your steely editorial gaze ...

PanzerJaeger

05-27-2008, 05:33

So let me get this straight:

Ye gods, to think that I could have gone to bed so much earlier had I merely typed "A paid Fox News contributor piled on ..." To think that such a simple edit would have averted your steely editorial gaze ...

Yes. That is what I said in my first post and that is what you tried to defend.

Interesting turnaround. though. You seemed to get what I was saying in your first response, decided you're position was untenable, and are now arguing points I didn't even make.

Needless to say, you've been keeping this going for 9 posts. I simply corrected a slight issue that many bloggers have a problem with.

If I want to paint Fox as rabidly right wing or CNN as the opposite, its very easy to find those views from contributors on both networks. This kind of thing is rampant on youtube, Out-Foxed, and that crappy conservative comeback "documentary" against the MSM.

Crazed Rabbit

05-27-2008, 05:43

PJ, are you in fact making any attempt at a coherent argument? A person advocates killing a political candidate on-air, and you're somehow equating this to the hiring of Tony Snow?

This is absurdly simple, friend. The comment made on Fox News was way, way beyond the pale. Advocating the death of a politician -- even one with whom you disagree -- is uncool, unwise and un-American. It's also skirting the edge of legality.

Now I rather suspect that you don;'t much care for Obama. You also probably don't much like McCain. This does not mean that it's okay to advocate the assassination of either man on live television.

That's pushing it a bit far, Lemur. A 'call for assasination'? It was likely just a really horrible, repellent attempt at humor. Hardly indicative of some Fox News master plan.

CR

CrossLOPER

05-27-2008, 13:31

That's pushing it a bit far, Lemur. A 'call for assasination'? It was likely just a really horrible, repellent attempt at humor. Hardly indicative of some Fox News master plan.

CR
Still, it's hardly flattering to be put in the same grouping as Osama so casually.

Lemur

05-27-2008, 13:41

PJ, if I misunderstood you this entire string of posts, I'm very sorry. However ...

I simply corrected a slight issue that many bloggers have a problem with.

If I want to paint Fox as rabidly right wing or CNN as the opposite, its very easy to find those views from contributors on both networks.
This is where I bristled, I think understandably. You took the position that I was going after Fox News with my one-line post, which I thought was silly. And rather than seek clarification, you put words in my mouth and assumed I was accusing Fox News. Example: "But its so much more fun to expose Faux News for plotting the assassination of BARACK OBAMA!" Besides which, what's Fox to you anyway?

That's pushing it a bit far, Lemur. A 'call for assasination'? It was likely just a really horrible, repellent attempt at humor. Hardly indicative of some Fox News master plan.
Well, if you look at what the nasty biddy said, it was precisely a call for assassination. "Kill them both ... if only we could ... hehe ..."

Where oh where did I talk about a Fox News master plan?

I'm still somewhat astonished that neither of you think Fox bears any responsibility for the words of its paid contributors.

drone

05-27-2008, 17:17

The most frightening thing I'll read today. (http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/americandebate/Equal_time_for_the_willfully_ignorant.html)
My biggest problem with this article is right here:

And since we're finally talking about ignorance, I offer Exhibit A - the report of a focus group, featuring 12 independent voters, that was conducted earlier this week in swing-state Virginia by the noted Democratic pollster, Peter Hart.
I'm usually pretty oblivious, but since when is Virginia a swing-state in a presidential election? :inquisitive: Sure, we elect Democrats as senators, governors, and congressmen, but if I'm not mistaken, LBJ is the last Dem to win Virginia in a presidential election. Ignorant voters, or ignorant bloggers? I'm sure there are some uninformed here in the Commonwealth, but this article lost me before it even got going.

Lemur

05-27-2008, 17:37

A very thoughtful roundup of the Dem VP possibilities. (http://mightygodking.com/index.php/2008/05/19/vice-presidential-prognosticatin/) I'm torn between Obama/Optimus Prime and Obama/A Kitty.

LittleGrizzly

05-27-2008, 18:33

Monsieur Ting!, Mime Extraordinare

He seems the perfect running mate for obama, although i could see the 'invisible' box being an issue if it starts to affect campaigning.

PanzerJaeger

05-27-2008, 18:44

PJ, if I misunderstood you this entire string of posts, I'm very sorry. However ...

This is where I bristled, I think understandably. You took the position that I was going after Fox News with my one-line post, which I thought was silly. And rather than seek clarification, you put words in my mouth and assumed I was accusing Fox News. Example: "But its so much more fun to expose Faux News for plotting the assassination of BARACK OBAMA!" Besides which, what's Fox to you anyway?

It really wasn't a big deal. You chose to spar over it. :duel:

I'm still somewhat astonished that neither of you think Fox bears any responsibility for the words of its paid contributors.

Now who is putting words in people's mouths? I simply stated that it is not accurate to attribute her words to Fox News in general. Thats a rather large logical leap to make to then say I don't think a network bears any responsibility for the words of its paid contributors.

IMO, Fox would be negligent had they willfully hired someone who's intentions were to call for the assassination of Obama. However, from the Wiki you posted, Liz Trotta seems like a pretty mainstream journalist who made a distasteful off the cuff remark and apologized for it the next day. :shrug:

edit.

This is almost a whole page of crap over a stupid misunderstanding. Lets just move on as I'm sure people would rather be reading your latest finds. :shakehands:

Adrian II

05-27-2008, 19:55

A very thoughtful roundup of the Dem VP possibilities. (http://mightygodking.com/index.php/2008/05/19/vice-presidential-prognosticatin/) I'm torn between Obama/Optimus Prime and Obama/A Kitty.I'll wait for the action dolls. Bloopers sold separately, kids!

Tribesman

05-27-2008, 20:02

I'm still somewhat astonished that neither of you think Fox bears any responsibility for the words of its paid contributors.

Lemur take another angle , someone says that someone should be assasinated , most parties involved say frigging fruitbat who the **** is they talking for shouldn't they be strung up for treason .
Most of those who someone was supposed to be talking for distance themselves and say what a fruitbat , they in no way espouse our views and giving them a platform does in no way lend any support to the fruitbat excrement they espouse .
So has Fox said that its employee is a fruitbat and in no way speaks for the people that pay it to speak .

Mow I wonder who can spot the curent paralell(yeah thats spelt wrong but bollox to it)in international events ?

This is almost a whole page of crap over a stupid misunderstanding.
Sorry panzer but hasn't most of this topic been about stupid misunderstandings( or quite often misrepresenations)

PanzerJaeger

05-27-2008, 20:31

Lemur take another angle , someone says that someone should be assasinated , most parties involved say frigging fruitbat who the **** is they talking for shouldn't they be strung up for treason

Treason? Seriously? Did you watch the clip?

Sorry panzer but hasn't most of this topic been about stupid misunderstandings( or quite often misrepresenations)

...and things are just starting to get interesting. Six more months of mischaracterization, taking each other's words out of context, and vicious personal attacks - in the election that is. :beam:

Tribesman

05-27-2008, 20:41

Treason? Seriously? Did you watch the clip?

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Mow I wonder who can spot the curent paralell(yeah thats spelt wrong but bollox to it)in international events ?
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

take another angle
I wonder which fruitbats I might be taking an angle on eh ?

Xiahou

05-27-2008, 22:36

I'll wait for the action dolls. Bloopers sold separately, kids!
I'm pulling for Kcarab Amabo. :yes:

Crazed Rabbit

05-28-2008, 05:24

Lemur, PJ's right to say the contributors don't represent Fox News' opinion. Yes, they have some fault, but they can't control everything people say. Unless the woman had a history of such things, I wouldn't put to much blame on Fox News.

Still, it's hardly flattering to be put in the same grouping as Osama so casually.

Guess what Ted Kennedy, one of Obama's biggest supporters, said?

And I"m pulling for Obama/ Dr. Perry Cox

CR

Sasaki Kojiro

05-28-2008, 05:32

The RNC is pretty desperate:

“I had a uncle who was one of the, who was part of the first American troops to go into Auschwitz and liberate the concentration camps, and the story in our family was is that when he came home, he just went up into the attic and he didn’t leave the house for six months, right. Now obviously something had really affected him deeply but at that time there just weren’t the kinds of facilities to help somebody work through that kind of pain. That’s why you know the, this idea of making sure that every single veteran when they are discharged are screened for post traumatic stress disorder and given the mental health services that they need, that’s why its so important.”

“Barack Obama’s dubious claim is inconsistent with world history and demands an explanation. It was Soviet troops that liberated Auschwitz, so unless his uncle was serving in the Red Army, there’s no way Obama’s statement yesterday can be true. Obama’s frequent exaggerations and outright distortions raise questions about his judgment and his readiness to lead as commander in chief.”

“Senator Obama’s family is proud of the service of his grandfather and uncles in World War II -- especially the fact that his great uncle was a part of liberating one of the concentration camps at Buchenwald,” Obama spokesman Bill Burton said. “Yesterday he mistakenly referred to Auschwitz instead of Buchenwald in telling of his personal experience of a soldier in his family who served heroically.”

Xiahou

05-28-2008, 06:42

Well, technically, it was Buchenwald, not Auschwitz and it was his great uncle, not his uncle. He really should take the time to have his old family stories fact-checked before telling them on the campaign trail. There are no doubt people on his payroll for just such purposes. Not near as big a whopper as his "I was born because of Selma" line though. :shrug:

CountArach

05-28-2008, 07:13

rory_20_uk

05-28-2008, 07:18

And let's face it almost an irrelevent one. Yes, he personally has no / little experience of the military. As long as he's aware of this and listens to others it's not a problem; problems arise when amateurs don't realise what a mess they are making - and potentially veterans who are vastly out of date

~:smoking:

Sasaki Kojiro

05-28-2008, 07:23

ICantSpellDawg

05-28-2008, 13:36

If Mccain chooses Crist, they might as well change "The Straight Talk Express" to "The Polar Express: Whitest Bus In America".

Mr. Freeze and Iceman are top picks for their cabinet.

http://towleroad.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/01/29/mccain_crist.jpg

Marshal Murat

05-28-2008, 15:54

Actually, the biggest joke about Crist in Florida is that, by going to get a tan so much, he keeps them in buisness.

Xiahou

05-28-2008, 17:40

Obama acknowledges fallen heroes in the audience (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WR8YaR3JEkE)
On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes -- and I see many of them in the audience here today -- our sense of patriotism is particularly strong.
Not a particularly bad policy gaffe, but funny nonetheless. :laugh4:

Incidentally, Jake Tapper at ABC is keeping a running tally on the one-man gaffe machine (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/what-the-farc-w.html). Good thing Obama's name isn't Dan Quayle, or he'd be getting a lot of heat over these slip-ups. :beam:

Lemur

05-28-2008, 23:00

... and didja know that Hillary Clinton leads in every poll ever taken (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/05/28/politics/fromtheroad/entry4130842.shtml)? It's true, she said so.

-edit-

Also, seems there's a video of young Hillary ... (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HG1LLTYkn4I)

GeneralHankerchief

06-01-2008, 00:44

At last (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/31/dems.delegates/index.html), a Florida/Michigan resolution. Seems like they're splitting things up.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Members of a Democratic rules committee voted on Saturday to seat all of Florida's and Michigan's delegation to the party's national convention and give their delegates a half vote each.

A first vote, which would have seated all of Florida's delegation with full voting privileges, failed.

After the results were announced, spectators started to boo and his and some started chanting, "Denver! Denver!" the site of the party's convention in August.

Democrats fear that a protracted battle over the issue all the way to the convention could split the party and weaken it's chances of winning the White House in November.

The panel must now vote on how to address Michigan's disputed delegates.

The Democratic National Committee's Rules and Bylaws Committee is hearing the two states' appeals on its decision to strip all of their delegates because they moved their primary contests earlier on the calendar.

Lawyers for the committee advised in a memo CNN obtained this week that the committee's rules call for 50 percent of the delegations to be seated.

Seating all of the states' delegates is not on the table, the committee Co-chairwoman Alexis Herman said in her opening remarks.

"We had many states that wanted to violate the timing. We needed to send a very strong signal in order to prevent additional states from moving forward," Herman said.

After meeting for about five hours, the hearing broke for lunch. The audience of 500 people and those out in hallways appeared to grow more boisterous as the hearing went on, cheering and booing speakers.

Supporters of Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had disagreed over how best to handle the situation.

Both Democratic presidential hopefuls have said they want the Florida and Michigan delegates to attend the convention. CNN.com/Live is carrying the meeting in its entirety.

Clinton's campaign is calling for the results of the states' primaries to be honored and the delegates awarded based on the results. That approach would help her chip away at Obama's lead in pledged delegates because she handily won both states and would be awarded a greater share of the delegates.

Obama's campaign disagrees, saying he followed the rules, took his name off of the Michigan ballot and did not campaign in either state. See what the fuss is all about »

The chairman of Michigan's Democratic Party called on the committee to seat Michigan's delegation in full, with full voting rights, and divide the pledged delegates between Clinton and Obama, 69-59.

In Michigan, Clinton got 55 percent of the vote, and 40 percent of Democrats voted for an uncommitted slate.

Mark Brewer admitted under questioning from the panel that the party had not followed any set guidelines in determining the split but had reached this compromise because "we have to do something in this situation; we can't do nothing. I wish there were more, I wish it were better, but it's all we have."

Michigan Sen. Carl Levin, meanwhile, used his time before the committee to attack New Hampshire's "privileged position" as the traditional first-in-the-nation presidential primary -- and the Rules and Bylaws Committee itself for ultimately granting that state a waiver that allowed it to maintain that status, despite a party plan designed to address complaints from other areas of the country.

Levin argued that Michigan had accepted the ruling that it would not be one of the four states allowed to hold its primary in January -- objecting only when New Hampshire, which was not included in that group, was granted a waiver.

The dispute over the seating of Michigan's delegates is a thornier dispute than the dilemma over Florida's delegation. Clinton was the only major candidate who did not remove her name from Michigan's primary ballot after the committee's decision last summer.

Florida Democrats conceded in their opening remarks that a party penalty for holding their primary was unavoidable but pleaded with Democratic leaders to seat half their state's delegates at the summer convention.

"We recognize, in fact, that Florida has violated that timing rule," said Florida Democratic National Committee member Jon Ausman, who had challenged the original penalty, and he said a punishment of some kind was "appropriate."

But he said Florida's superdelegates did not need to face a similar reduction under party rules.

Dozens of sign-toting, chanting protesters gathered outside the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel, the site of Saturday's events, to have their say on what the decision should be.

Some of the signs read "Count our Florida votes" and "Rules, what rules?"

With no Michigan or Florida delegates included, Obama leads Clinton by 202 delegates. He needs 42 more to clinch the nomination.

"Right now, what we have to do is to figure our way through all of this, and I believe we will," said Allan Katz, a rules member from Florida who supports Obama. "And I believe we will come up with something [Saturday]. There will probably be a little sort of tussling, but we are Democrats." Follow a timeline of the dispute »

The rules committee will address two main issues at the hearing: how many delegates each state is allowed and how those delegates will be allocated between the two candidates. Watch who will really decide the nomination »

"How do you recognize the people who didn't vote, and how do you recognize the people that did vote, and how do we at the same time maintain the integrity of the process?" asked Martha Fuller Clark, a Rules Committee member from New Hampshire and an Obama supporter. "And there are no easy answers."

In a letter to the co-chairs of the rules committee, Clinton lawyer Lyn Utrecht said Friday that the panel is compelled to seat both delegations from Florida and Michigan fully and not award Obama any delegates from Michigan.

"It is a bedrock principle of our party that every vote must be counted, and thereby every elected delegate should be seated," Utrecht wrote.

The letter said party rules do not allow "arbitrary reallocation of uncommitted delegates to a candidate or arbitrary reallocation of delegates from one candidate to another." Read the full letter (pdf)

Obama campaign manager David Plouffe told The Associated Press that receiving no pledged delegates from Michigan is not acceptable and said, "I don't think is a position that people find terribly reasonable."

PanzerJaeger

06-01-2008, 01:20

Barack, the consummate politician, has resigned his membership in Trinity United after another racist rant, from yet another racist pastor.

Now that he has disavowed his preacher and his church, when is he going to quit the black community? :beam:

20 years in the pews, but he never heard a word.. i used to sleep during services too.. :laugh4:

FactionHeir

06-01-2008, 01:24

Its funny actually because he initially said he didn't hear them, then he said he did and now he's back to denying it again. A small lapse of memory perhaps?

Regarding the RBC meeting, I think the outcome probably pleases both sides. I imagine there will be some suit or complaint about Michigan still (DNC rules and all, according to Utrecht's letter), but Florida seems settled.

Ice

06-02-2008, 17:15

..

Also, seems there's a video of young Hillary ... (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HG1LLTYkn4I)

This is a private video. If you have been sent this video, please make sure you accept the sender's friend request.

Lemur

06-02-2008, 21:09

Wow, somebody went and locked that video. Here's a dupe, young Hillary Clinton. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAu39I5QOUc)

Louis VI the Fat

06-02-2008, 21:18

http://towleroad.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/01/29/mccain_crist.jpgOMG. That chap on the right sooo toe-taps in public restrooms.

young Hillary Clinton.Dang it. I can't help but find that video hilarious. ~:mecry:

Lemur

06-02-2008, 21:29

Dang it. I can't help but find that video hilarious. ~:mecry:
"I'm sorry, I'm just exhausted from this race. Can I get a juice box?"

If you like that, you're gonna love this: (http://www.ocregister.com/articles/boy-boys-girls-2056513-women-obama)

Geraldine Ferraro is among many prominent Democrat ladies putting up their own money for a study from the Shorenstein Center at Harvard to determine whether Sen. Clinton's presidential hopes fell victim to party and media sexism.

How else to explain why their gal got clobbered by a pretty boy with a resume you could print on the back of his driver's license, a Rolodex apparently limited to neosegregationist race-baiters, campus Marxist terrorists and indicted fraudsters, and a rhetorical surefootedness that makes Dan Quayle look like Socrates.

Actually giving this guy's op-ed a full read, I think it's safe to say he's completely nuts.

Don Corleone

06-02-2008, 21:34

OMG. That chap on the right sooo toe-taps in public restrooms.

I know it's only 4:30PM Eastern Time, but I'm ready to call it. Ladies and gentlemen, the wittiest one-liner of the day. :laugh4: :laugh4:

Marshal Murat

06-02-2008, 21:37

OMG. That chap on the right sooo toe-taps in public restrooms.

That's my governor you're talking about!

GeneralHankerchief

06-03-2008, 00:52

If you like that, you're gonna love this: (http://www.ocregister.com/articles/boy-boys-girls-2056513-women-obama)

Geraldine Ferraro is among many prominent Democrat ladies putting up their own money for a study from the Shorenstein Center at Harvard to determine whether Sen. Clinton's presidential hopes fell victim to party and media sexism.

How else to explain why their gal got clobbered by a pretty boy with a resume you could print on the back of his driver's license, a Rolodex apparently limited to neosegregationist race-baiters, campus Marxist terrorists and indicted fraudsters, and a rhetorical surefootedness that makes Dan Quayle look like Socrates.

Actually giving this guy's op-ed a full read, I think it's safe to say he's completely nuts.

Oh... my... God...

As I wrote in my book "America Alone," unless China's planning on becoming the first gay superpower since Sparta, what's going to happen to all those excess men? As a general rule, large numbers of excitable lads who can't get any action are not a recipe for societal stability. Unless the Japanese have invented amazingly lifelike sex robots by then (think Austin Powers' "fembots"), we're likely to be in a planetwide rape epidemic and a world of globalized, industrial-scale sex slavery.

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

The thread has gotten this much better in the past two days.

KukriKhan

06-03-2008, 01:14

The first comment below the article cracks me up:

Let me make sure I understand. There's a crazy old couple from India who went to the UK, and they represent the underlying sentiment of the voters of Iowa, who, in confluence with a muslim student at NYU, want to make sure that women, who are becoming profoundly desirable because rare in China, lose the right to vote -- and we're being kicked down this slippery slope by Obama, who's a bad public speaker? Makes perfect sense.

Perfect :laugh4:

Louis VI the Fat

06-03-2008, 01:51

Actually giving this guy's op-ed a full read, I think it's safe to say he's completely nuts.Sorry, but I think Steyn wrote a perfectly sensible column that touches on some pressing social matters.

The first part mentions Democratic women who feel sexism played a part in this election. Which, of course, it did. Just as well as racism played it's part. As always, sexism trumps racism. It's hipper to vote for a black person than a woman. Similarly, blacks were usually granted suffrage before women. In Europe, fear of racism is bigger than fear of sexism: non-European immigrants are hence welcome to treat their women in whatever way they please. Etc.

The second half of the article is perfectly sensible and well-informed too. India, China and other countries are using modern medicine, abortion and old-fashioned means for a gynocide on an unprecedented scale. It is one of the greatest social problems on the planet, and the worst is yet to come. :shame:

Crazed Rabbit

06-03-2008, 03:46

I'm pretty sure Steyn is being at least partly sarcastic.

I've read some of his articles and none of them are near as nuts as this is if he's being serious.

Anyways, in an update to the exciting Republican nomination race, Ron Paul got 33% more delegates in Washington state than Huckabee! Huzzah!

CR

Lemur

06-03-2008, 03:47

Sorry, but I think Steyn wrote a perfectly sensible column that touches on some pressing social matters.
Are you prepared for the "planet-wide rape epidemic"? Don't think that being a Frenchman will be any sort of protection when the rape mobs descend ...

Alexander the Pretty Good

06-03-2008, 04:22

In a rape or be raped world, one man...

*ahem*

Sorry, I really can't complete the voice-over for the trailer to that movie...

Young Hillary Clinton was a great find, Lemur (though she must be careful in our perilous future!)

CountArach

06-03-2008, 13:08

Any bets on whether Clinton will suspend her run in her concession speech for South Dakota and Montana or will she wait until the day after?

KukriKhan

06-03-2008, 13:42

Any bets on whether Clinton will suspend her run in her concession speech for South Dakota and Montana or will she wait until the day after?

Five bucks sez she waits until the very last moment possible, that being her appeal to the credentials committee of the convention - her final, slim hope of getting the pop-votes from Mich & Fla counted, sometime mid-June.

Unless Bill decides to quit funding her drive anymore.

The trick for her, is being able to paint her candidacy (once it's crystal-clear that hope is out the window) in such as way as to plant the seeds now for 2012.

Don Corleone

06-03-2008, 19:33

The first part mentions Democratic women who feel sexism played a part in this election. Which, of course, it did. Just as well as racism played it's part. As always, sexism trumps racism. It's hipper to vote for a black person than a woman. Similarly, blacks were usually granted suffrage before women. In Europe, fear of racism is bigger than fear of sexism: non-European immigrants are hence welcome to treat their women in whatever way they please. Etc.

Louis, please forgive me in advance for using your post as a talking point, because it is just one example of a widespread phenomenon.

This above, is the exact problem with the United States Democratic Party these days. This is why they're unable to get crossover voters in large numbers anymore. An assumption that one is always guilty, that one is always wrong, it's only a matter of how wrong, how guilty...

If you support Obama, you must be a sexist. If you vote for Hillary, you must be a racist. This is rather limited thinking, and frankly, it really hurts in general elections. Because it's indicative of a 'blame the voters first' mentality that they don't respond well to.

You'd think after Al "humans are a a virus and a pox on the planet" Gore and John "we should grovel at the world's feet for Iraq" Kerry, Democratic leadership would learn that angst and hand-wringing just aren't playing outside the base. But apparently no.

As I said, I'm just highlighting Louis' post as exemplarly of a rather broad phenomenon that I think Democrats need to address. I'm certainly never going to be attracted to a party that tells me no matter what I do, I'm guilty of some heinous crimes against the world, it's just a matter of which ones. No offense intended to you, old friend, and you're certainly not alone in this viewpoint. ABC/CBS/NBC & CNN's news analysts seem to share your views, in spades.