The Final US Election Thread

I'm 18 and there's been a Clinton or Bush in the White House for my ENTIRE life. :wiseguy:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seireikhaan

I'm 18 and there's been a Clinton or Bush in the White House for my ENTIRE life. :wiseguy:

---

I can't help but feel that this sort of thing is what has made the youth of today so apathetic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

The Clintons are like some kind of unstoppable robot of doom. You know, the kind that you shoot with rockets and set on fire and dip in molten magma and it just keeps coming.

They're like the Terminator. But political.

---

Sigged

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seireikhaan

I'm 18 and there's been a Clinton or Bush in the White House for my ENTIRE life. :wiseguy:

---

same here, but im only 16, almost 17 (2 more months!)

anyhow, hillary? as SecState?
im scrared. very scared. (kind of)

New revelations!

The British used enhanced interrogation techniques in a war on terror against.... Hussein Obama.



And what does this all mean for Guantanamo, US foreign policy, and British / American relations?

Quote:

---

Barack Obama is no admirer of British colonialism, to judge from his writings, but the discovery that the British authorities tortured his grandfather may well deepen any animosity.

In his bestselling memoir, Dreams from My Father, Mr Obama does not conceal his disdain for British imperialism and his anger at what he sees as the brutality of colonial rule in Kenya. Almost every reference to Britain or the British is negative.

He briefly describes Hussein Onyango Obama’s detention by the British, but in a way that suggests he either did not know, or did not wish to reveal, the extent of his grandfather’s suffering at British hands.

---

Tale of family torture may strengthen Barack Obama’s animosity

I wouldn't imagine this would effect any relationship he would have with the british leader, though it might be nice to distance ourselves a bit anyway, fed up of britian being americas lackey...

Palin - helping the GOP?! :dizzy2:

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Palin - helping the GOP?! :dizzy2:

CR

---

Republicans in Georgia responding to a folksy conservative woman former VP candidate? I never would have guessed. :grin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Palin - helping the GOP?! :dizzy2:

CR

---

Quote:

---

“When she walks in a room, folks just explode,” he added.

---

I had heard she had that effect in republican males.....I hope that at least they went to the bathroom afterwards to clean up :wiseguy:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

I had heard she had that effect in republican males.....I hope that at least they went to the bathroom afterwards to clean up :wiseguy:

---

I am going to gouge out my eyes now, and stick a red hot iron poker directly into my brain and swish it around for several minutes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Palin - helping the GOP?! :dizzy2:

CR

---

Palin is a good thing for the GOP. We need token draws for traditionally democratic voters - not as a fake ploy, but just to show people that the GOP isn't old, is looking towards the future and has a place for females and minorities in highest office.

I've been critical of her at the VP nominee level, but I think that given a few more maturing years she will be an amazing national level figure.

I sincerely hope the GOP isn't pinning its hopes on token minorities and women.

Frankly I think that Palin was a frightful VP candidate. She's the primary reason I began to abandon McCain. Then the gutter-worthy campaign tactics which followed sealed the deal for me. But let's not drag that up again.

Palin could not begin to articulate why she should be in line for the highest office in the land. Ignoring the damaging scandals for a moment, she couldn't answer basic questions about the bailout, and intentionally and blatantly avoided any questions besides ones about energy and the Iraq war, and her position on energy is to simply drill away which doesn't solve any immediate or long term problems. Given how many years it would take to drill, pump, refine, and sell the oil involved, it has no short term benefit, and long term we will need an alternative to oil anyway. Given that Obama supported offshore drilling as part of a comprehensive energy plan which aimed to move away from oil in the long term, she offered no superior strategy on energy, which was her supposed area of expertise.

She did not understand the Bush doctrine, and supported a policy of endless engagement in Iraq, while Bush, Obama, and the Iraqi government all agreed on the idea of a timetable. We now have that timetable. Wrong on energy, wrong on Iraq. She couldn't articulate a position on any other issue, and made some really dumb decisions while out on campaign and afterward. Her "strong" point for the Republicans was to energize their crazy base with blame speeches and fear tactics.

Let us assume for the moment that Obama is full of hot air, will do nothing he promised, and waged a campaign based purely on optimism and false hope. That's a big assumption that is unwarranted, but let's assume a worst-case scenario for Obama purely for comparison purposes. Which is better for the country?

1. An empty windbag politician who makes promises he cannot keep and talks about uniting this country based on bipartisanship, hope, and a better future; or

2. An empty windbag politician who makes no promises and admits that s/he cannot win on the issues, so therefore attacks the credibility of his/her opponent, undermining confidence in our eventual potential leader, and spreading fear, partisanship and division purely for political gain.

Personally I prefer the classier choice, because people are happier, more cooperative, more confident, and productive when they live in a country where the tone is optimistic and inclusive. People engage in pointless bickering, stonewalling progress, and fear and hate one another under a leadership which encourages hatred and distrust in their political rivals, and when the focus is on personal character rather than the issues, the issues aren't being discussed, and therefore the issues aren't being resolved.

If someone fails on understanding the issues, fails on articulating the issues, fails on coming up with better solutions to the issues, avoids the issues, and attacks with unfounded smear tactics while openly defying anyone who questions him or her on the issues, that person is objectively a bad candidate for any office. That's not a political conclusion or a partisan conclusion; that's a fact.

Palin may be effective at energizing a desperate, hateful, and partisan Republican base, but on every other measure as a politician she is a miserable failure and an embarrassment to the nation as a whole. I am personally thankful that I live a good distance away from Alaska, and that she isn't coming to visit Florida anytime soon.

The GOP (or any party) would do better with an honest candidate with integrity who actually discusses the issues and proposes solutions. Mindless partisan hacks belong on Fox News and MSNBC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

I am going to gouge out my eyes now, and stick a red hot iron poker directly into my brain and swish it around for several minutes.

---

and with this gentleman....my work here is done!

*exits, stage left*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

I sincerely hope the GOP isn't pinning its hopes on token minorities and women.

Frankly I think that Palin was a frightful VP candidate. She's the primary reason I began to abandon McCain. Then the gutter-worthy campaign tactics which followed sealed the deal for me. But let's not drag that up again.

Palin could not begin to articulate why she should be in line for the highest office in the land. Ignoring the damaging scandals for a moment, she couldn't answer basic questions about the bailout, and intentionally and blatantly avoided any questions besides ones about energy and the Iraq war, and her position on energy is to simply drill away which doesn't solve any immediate or long term problems. Given how many years it would take to drill, pump, refine, and sell the oil involved, it has no short term benefit, and long term we will need an alternative to oil anyway. Given that Obama supported offshore drilling as part of a comprehensive energy plan which aimed to move away from oil in the long term, she offered no superior strategy on energy, which was her supposed area of expertise.

She did not understand the Bush doctrine, and supported a policy of endless engagement in Iraq, while Bush, Obama, and the Iraqi government all agreed on the idea of a timetable. We now have that timetable. Wrong on energy, wrong on Iraq. She couldn't articulate a position on any other issue, and made some really dumb decisions while out on campaign and afterward. Her "strong" point for the Republicans was to energize their crazy base with blame speeches and fear tactics.

Let us assume for the moment that Obama is full of hot air, will do nothing he promised, and waged a campaign based purely on optimism and false hope. That's a big assumption that is unwarranted, but let's assume a worst-case scenario for Obama purely for comparison purposes. Which is better for the country?

1. An empty windbag politician who makes promises he cannot keep and talks about uniting this country based on bipartisanship, hope, and a better future; or

2. An empty windbag politician who makes no promises and admits that s/he cannot win on the issues, so therefore attacks the credibility of his/her opponent, undermining confidence in our eventual potential leader, and spreading fear, partisanship and division purely for political gain.

Personally I prefer the classier choice, because people are happier, more cooperative, more confident, and productive when they live in a country where the tone is optimistic and inclusive. People engage in pointless bickering, stonewalling progress, and fear and hate one another under a leadership which encourages hatred and distrust in their political rivals, and when the focus is on personal character rather than the issues, the issues aren't being discussed, and therefore the issues aren't being resolved.

If someone fails on understanding the issues, fails on articulating the issues, fails on coming up with better solutions to the issues, avoids the issues, and attacks with unfounded smear tactics while openly defying anyone who questions him or her on the issues, that person is objectively a bad candidate for any office. That's not a political conclusion or a partisan conclusion; that's a fact.

Palin may be effective at energizing a desperate, hateful, and partisan Republican base, but on every other measure as a politician she is a miserable failure and an embarrassment to the nation as a whole. I am personally thankful that I live a good distance away from Alaska, and that she isn't coming to visit Florida anytime soon.

The GOP (or any party) would do better with an honest candidate with integrity who actually discusses the issues and proposes solutions. Mindless partisan hacks belong on Fox News and MSNBC.

---

The GOP can't be a party for white males only. Palin is a good administrator and a popular governor. I don't see her as some hateful xenophobic moron like you do.

I don't think that she should have been propelled that quickly onto the national stage, but I don't see why her not being ready to be in the White House this year means she will not be ready to be in the White House at some point.

I like her, but I didn't like that McCain didn't seem to do the background. That goes more toward me not liking McCain than Palin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

The GOP can't be a party for white males only.

---

True, but Palin won't be able to fix that. She suffered from far lower approval ratings amongst women than you would think.

Congresswoman hangs up on obama. twice.

The SCOTUS has dismissed a stupid lawsuit claiming Obama isn't a 'natural born citizen'.

Good for them. We don't need a bunch of wing nuts (not necessarily right wing, but most are) to go on for years about how the election was stolen.

EDIT: In other news, "The World Famous Lawn Rangers from Amazing Arcola" will perform in the inaugural parade in January.

Here's a picture of Obama with the performance group back in 2003.

CR

:laugh4: @ The Lawn Mowers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit's article

The Lawn Rangers are an unorthodox performance group, pushing elaborately decorated lawn mowers and twirling brooms in a coordinated routine. This "precision lawn mower drill team" has performed in dozens of parades, including parades for the Holiday Bowl in San Diego, the Fiesta Bowl in Tempe, Ariz., and the Indianapolis 500 parade.

---

Sah-weeeeeet!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

:laugh4: @ The Lawn Mowers

---

YouTube provides!

Andrew Sullivan, after continuing to insist (Into December!) Palin wasn't really pregnant and Trig was really her daughter's child, gets smacked down on his own blog.

How appropriate for a spiteful man (What's that phrase Tuffstuff used?) who can't let go.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Andrew Sullivan, after continuing to insist (Into December!) Palin wasn't really pregnant and Trig was really her daughter's child, gets smacked down on his own blog.

---

By the same author, a few posts later:

I often select Dissents Of The Day for Andrew to keep him honest, and I make sure he links to bloggers who challenge him. LGF and Michelle Malkin are gleeful because I called Andrew out over the Palin baby rumors, but I can't imagine that either blog would ever allow this type of open debate.

Obama's Senate seat is up for sale!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich is in federal custody on corruption charges, a law enforcement official said Tuesday.

Blagojevich and his chief of staff, John Harris, are charged with conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and solicitation of bribery, according to a statement from the U.S. Attorney's office for the Northern District of Illinois.

Both men are expected in U.S. District Court in Chicago later Tuesday.

A news conference is expected at noon ET.

Federal prosecutors say Blagojevich, Harris and others conspired to gain financial benefits in appointing President-elect Barack Obama's Senate replacement, according to the statement.

"The breadth of corruption laid out in these charges is staggering," U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said in a statement. "They allege that Blagojevich put a 'for sale' sign on the naming of a United States Senator; involved himself personally in pay-to-play schemes with the urgency of a salesman meeting his annual sales target; and corruptly used his office in an effort to trample editorial voices of criticism."

According to the statement, Blagojevich is alleged to have discussed obtaining:

# a substantial salary for himself at either a non-profit foundation or an organization affiliated with labor unions;

# a spot for his wife on paid corporate boards, where he speculated she might garner as much as $150,000 a year;

# promises of campaign funds -- including cash up front;

# a Cabinet post or ambassadorship for himself.

Gotta love the Chicago machine. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

Obama's Senate seat is up for sale!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich is in federal custody on corruption charges, a law enforcement official said Tuesday.

Blagojevich and his chief of staff, John Harris, are charged with conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and solicitation of bribery, according to a statement from the U.S. Attorney's office for the Northern District of Illinois.

Both men are expected in U.S. District Court in Chicago later Tuesday.

A news conference is expected at noon ET.

Federal prosecutors say Blagojevich, Harris and others conspired to gain financial benefits in appointing President-elect Barack Obama's Senate replacement, according to the statement.

"The breadth of corruption laid out in these charges is staggering," U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said in a statement. "They allege that Blagojevich put a 'for sale' sign on the naming of a United States Senator; involved himself personally in pay-to-play schemes with the urgency of a salesman meeting his annual sales target; and corruptly used his office in an effort to trample editorial voices of criticism."

According to the statement, Blagojevich is alleged to have discussed obtaining:

# a substantial salary for himself at either a non-profit foundation or an organization affiliated with labor unions;

# a spot for his wife on paid corporate boards, where he speculated she might garner as much as $150,000 a year;

# promises of campaign funds -- including cash up front;

# a Cabinet post or ambassadorship for himself.

Gotta love the Chicago machine. :2thumbsup:

---

makes me wonder if obama got in the senate through the same process...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hooahguy

makes me wonder if obama got in the senate through the same process...

---

He beat a lightweight, fair and square.

then all the conspiracy theories are wrong, then..... :sad:
lol

then all the conspiracy theories are wrong, then.....

yes its the unfortunate thing about CT's they are glamorous and entertaining but when it comes to facts they seem to fail...

Besides considering the sucess of Obama i find it hard to believe he would need to cheat to win...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

By the same author, a few posts later:

I often select Dissents Of The Day for Andrew to keep him honest, and I make sure he links to bloggers who challenge him. LGF and Michelle Malkin are gleeful because I called Andrew out over the Palin baby rumors, but I can't imagine that either blog would ever allow this type of open debate.

---

Uh, yeah, so what? I'm not talking about either of those sites. Your post has nothing to do with the fact that Mr. Sullivan has continued this relentless smear far beyond the time when there was actually any question about it. That's a red herring.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Uh, yeah, so what? I'm not talking about either of those sites. Your post has nothing to do with the fact that Mr. Sullivan has continued this relentless smear far beyond the time when there was actually any question about it. That's a red herring.

CR

---

You can't say something bad about a democrat without saying something bad about republican's as well, sorry CR those are the rules :smash:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

You can't say something bad about a democrat without saying something bad about republican's as well, sorry CR those are the rules :smash:

---

reminds me of the Fairness Doctrine....