U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary

[CountArach]

Interesting idea Kukri, but I'm afraid it would lead to a very inexperienced House and Senate, not to mention the President. If the Rep fits the District perfectly then I don't see why they shouldn't be constantly re-elected.

EDIT: Something to keep in mind next time you see the latest Tracking poll result. The second graph shows the average bias of each poll (Compared to the average of all tracking polls). Conclusion:
DailyKos/R2K - Obama +4
Gallup - Obama +1
Diageo/Hotline - Obama +1
Rasmussen - The most balanced. Very little bias.
Battleground - McCain +3
Zogby - McCain +4

[KukriKhan]

Interesting idea Kukri, but I'm afraid it would lead to a very inexperienced House and Senate, not to mention the President.

True. But "time-in-service" in fed elected office over here, doesn't fare well, generally. Ref: my own string of CongressCritters starting with Duke Cunningham, and extending back 60 years.

After a second term, they tend to start thinking they're powerful, and rarely do much for the folks back home, except send pork, to appease. They get in trouble in that cesspool called D.C. after about 4-6 years. If they didn't have to spend 60% of their time in office getting ready for the next election, they might actually start doing "the people's business".

[CountArach]

After a second term, they tend to start thinking they're powerful, and rarely do much for the folks back home, except send pork, to appease. They get in trouble in that cesspool called D.C. after about 4-6 years. If they didn't have to spend 60% of their time in office getting ready for the next election, they might actually start doing "the people's business".

I think there may be a deeper problem regarding political apathy and the fact that there is no third party in politics, ie - it is one group of corrupt pollies vs the other group of corrupt pollies.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I think there may be a deeper problem regarding political apathy and the fact that there is no third party in politics, ie - it is one group of corrupt pollies vs the other group of corrupt pollies.

Those problems exist, but I'm with Kukri. The lack of experience you reference is, in my opinion, only experience vis-a-vis political chicanery. With term limits, many more people would bring "real-life" experience to the legislature - much more valuable than being able to cut a deal. The legislature would be refreshed by constant new ideas.

The president would also have to work with a new Congress to understand the new intake rather than take seventy per cent of it for granted.

The strength of this would be enhanced by the way administrations are constructed. A president chooses the brightest and best (in principle) and these are not required to hold elected office. Thus, the administration would comprise an "experienced" body, overseen and regulated by Congress with much less of an eye on how to gain favours.

The Supreme Court, as the most experienced of all branches, continues to interpret and protect the Constitution.

Of course, if you could ban Representatives to Congress from having a party political affiliation as well (at least overtly) and stand on their merits, this would be ideal - and return to the State appointment of Senators so you had a state-oriented house to counterbalance the popular house, then I think you might have a system.

[Mailman653]

I just hope that no one has the foolish idea that because we will have a new president soon, he will magically fix the economy. Things like that take time to fix and impelment. I might go so far as to say the country won't see real change untill the next election and then people can decide if President M or President O did something positive for the economy while in office.

[Koga No Goshi]

I agree in general theory with the idea of term limits, although I think just limiting consecutive term limits would be better. My reasoning is that I think if Congress was primarily made up of one-termers, there is more incentive, not less, to simply try to get personal gain and connections out of it. I mean, who cares right? You're out in 2 or 4 years and probably for good. So what do you care about your political voting record or long-term reputation?

[Lemur]

Christopher Hitchens endorses Obama. Glad to see the drunk saw the light.

A candidate may well change his or her position on, say, universal health care or Bosnia. But he or she cannot change the fact—if it happens to be a fact—that he or she is a pathological liar, or a dimwit, or a proud ignoramus. And even in the short run, this must and will tell.

On "the issues" in these closing weeks, there really isn't a very sharp or highly noticeable distinction to be made between the two nominees, and their "debates" have been cramped and boring affairs as a result. But the difference in character and temperament has become plainer by the day, and there is no decent way of avoiding the fact. Last week's so-called town-hall event showed Sen. John McCain to be someone suffering from an increasingly obvious and embarrassing deficit, both cognitive and physical. And the only public events that have so far featured his absurd choice of running mate have shown her to be a deceiving and unscrupulous woman utterly unversed in any of the needful political discourses but easily trained to utter preposterous lies and to appeal to the basest element of her audience. [...]

Obama is greatly overrated in my opinion, but the Obama-Biden ticket is not a capitulationist one, even if it does accept the support of the surrender faction, and it does show some signs of being able and willing to profit from experience. With McCain, the "experience" is subject to sharply diminishing returns, as is the rest of him, and with Palin the very word itself is a sick joke. One only wishes that the election could be over now and a proper and dignified verdict rendered, so as to spare democracy and civility the degradation to which they look like being subjected in the remaining days of a low, dishonest campaign.

[CountArach]

I hate Hitchens...

Of course, if you could ban Representatives to Congress from having a party political affiliation as well (at least overtly) and stand on their merits, this would be ideal - and return to the State appointment of Senators so you had a state-oriented house to counterbalance the popular house, then I think you might have a system.

I've thought about this before, but I think what has worked here and in other Westminster countries is that a strong party means the governemtn is willing and able to make tough choices. The individual congressman/representative becomes less important and instead they will willingly vote for unpopular legislation because they know they have the backing of the entire party establishment to keep themselves in power.

[Crazed Rabbit]

You want me to agree people of any stripe can be crazy? Okay, I'll meet you there. But Dems closing shop doors or bullying votes from the pulpit and in various other questionably legal ways trying to get petty vindictive payback on Reps each election cycle isn't such a normal part of the headlines as Reps doing it to Dems. That's fact.

You're right; the democrats usually just do outright illegal stuff.

The presidential campaign got a little too hot for two Portland men who were arrested early Saturday morning, Oct. 11, and charged with burning a large John McCain campaign sign outside a Southeast Portland home.

Portland Fire and Rescue investigators said the two men made a Molotov cocktail and threw it at the sign in the 7900 block of Southeast 17th Avenue.

That's not being a jerk and not letting people park somewhere, that's dangerous and criminal activity. The thinking of a person who would throw a gas bomb at a political sign they disagree with is incomprehensible.

You're right, CNN doesn't have bits on people throwing bombs over politics, they're too busy with GOP jerks doing some trivial crap. The only reason the headlines show the republicans as more crazy is because that's what the 90% democrat national media publishes.

Do you remember the democrats who slashed tires on 20 vans and cars being used by the GOP party in Wisconsin in 2004? No, you don't, because the media didn't make a big deal of it.

Did you see the story on the vandals who sprayed ignorant graffiti on a GOP office in South Carolina, and stealing property?

Then there's the democrat who tried to run over a GOP congresswoman with his car, the democrat who got a case of road rage against a mother and her young children and tried to run them off the road.

And then there's the crowd shouting how they wanted to kill Palin.

At times, Republicans attending the event and protesters confronted one another.

"They are hooligans," said Bucks County restaurateur and McCain supporter Andrew Abruzzese, after he flashed a peace sign at protesters, who responded with raised middle fingers. Another Republican complained of being jostled.

Of Palin's rise from PTA activist to City Council to mayor to governor to vice presidential candidate, Abruzzese said: "You couldn't get a more natural progression than that."

Several Republican attendees complained of the protesters' vulgarity, especially in light of recent criticism of the behavior of people at McCain-Palin rallies.

Outside on Broad Street, waiting for Palin to leave, one man was heard saying: "Let's stone her, old school."

Another protester shouted at someone entering the hotel, "Wait till your daughter wants an abortion, you hypocrite."

But does that make the news? No, because it doesn't fit the narrative the media wants to sell and you accept as truth.

You see the pattern here? All those links are to local papers, because the national media mostly ignores such incidents so they can create a narrative that McCain supporters are crazy, by magnifying a few incidents over and over, then doing stories on all the criticism from prominent democrats.

They certainly didn't make a big deal out of allegations Obama was trying to deal behind the back of the current Administration.

You notice another thing about my links? All the actions taken by the democrats were flat out illegal. They were attempts to subvert the democratic process, which is much worse than some jerk not letting people park for a day or something before he relented.

So, please, cut this 'democrats are more holier than republicans' ******** out.

CR

[KukriKhan]

Crazed Rabbit, is your complaint that the Dem party somehow owns all the TV and major print media, except Fox? Or that they've (the media) decided who their favorite candidate is, and it's not the same as yours?

[Koga No Goshi]

So, please, cut this 'democrats are more holier than republicans' ******** out.

CR

You know CR, for as much as a big fence post you have lodged inside you most of the time over this issue, you are the one always turning things around and trying to repaint the political environment as "it's really the democrats doing everything nasty, and their lapdog media making it look like it's us." And if you want to discuss illegal... let's return to what Katherine Harris did to the voter rolls in Florida, a state that SWUNG THE ELECTION for the entire country, with voter purges. Oh yes you whined it up really good about 5,000 voters who are felons but that's nothing compared to the tens of thousands of legitimate voters who got purged off just because they were likely Democratic voters who could be tossed off on some technicality like sharing a name (but not an address or SS# or anything else) with a felon. Or some of the lovely tactics your party has done this time around like send out registration verification letters to people known to be in foreclosure, and when response is not received, bumping them off the voter lists.

If you want the "partisan battle" to stop, stop all your incessant whining about how the Republicans are such oppressed victims in every topic. It is YOU constantly asserting that it's the Dems always up to something nefarious, the Dems much worse in every respect than the Reps, the Dems who are more power hungry and bent and corrupt, the Dems who rely more on propaganda and biased media to win and shape public opinion. And when anyone responds you revert to reactive kneejerk victim complex about how the whole media is out to get you and a bunch of evil partisans who have absolutely no brain in their heads thinks maybe, just maybe, some of the bad rap your party has is self-deserved and self-created. I'm sure if we all knew Palin a little better, we'd all switch our vote to McCain right? It's just that evil media covering unpleasant things about her record that is swaying everyone over to Obama, and it's on purpose. Please.

You want to be CONSTANTLY mired in tit for tat partisan battles, then keep up your whining about how anything bad the Reps do, the Dems were there first and five times more to the point where the Reps are completely innocent by comparison.

[PanzerJaeger]

The Coming Liberal Thugocracy..

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

COMMENTARY:

"I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors," Barack Obama told a crowd in Elko, Nev. "I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face." Actually, Obama supporters are doing a lot more than getting into people's faces. They seem determined to shut people up.

That's what Obama supporters, alerted by campaign e-mails, did when conservative Stanley Kurtz appeared on Milt Rosenberg's WGN radio program in Chicago. Mr. Kurtz had been researching Mr. Obama's relationship with unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers in Chicago Annenberg Challenge papers in the Richard J. Daley Library in Chicago - papers that were closed off to him for some days, apparently at the behest of Obama supporters.

Obama fans jammed WGN's phone lines and sent in hundreds of protest e-mails. The message was clear to anyone who would follow Mr. Rosenberg's example. We will make trouble for you if you let anyone make the case against The One.

Other Obama supporters have threatened critics with criminal prosecution. In September, St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch and St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce warned citizens that they would bring criminal libel prosecutions against anyone who made statements against Mr. Obama that were "false." I had been under the impression that the Alien and Sedition Acts had gone out of existence in 1801-'02. Not so, apparently, in metropolitan St. Louis. Similarly, the Obama campaign called for a criminal investigation of the American Issues Project when it ran ads highlighting Mr. Obama's ties to Mr. Ayers.

These attempts to shut down political speech have become routine for liberals. Congressional Democrats sought to reimpose the "fairness doctrine" on broadcasters, which until it was repealed in the 1980s required equal time for different points of view. The motive was plain: to shut down the one conservative-leaning communications medium, talk radio. Liberal talk-show hosts have mostly failed to draw audiences, and many liberals can't abide having citizens hear contrary views.

To their credit, some liberal old-timers - like House Appropriations Chairman David Obey - voted against the "fairness doctrine," in line with their longstanding support of free speech. But you can expect the "fairness doctrine" to get another vote if Barack Obama wins and Democrats increase their congressional majorities.

Corporate liberals have done their share in shutting down anti-liberal speech, too. "Saturday Night Live" ran a spoof of the financial crisis that skewered Democrats like House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank and liberal contributors Herbert and Marion Sandler, who sold toxic-waste-filled Golden West to Wachovia Bank for $24 billion. Kind of surprising, but not for long. The tape of the broadcast disappeared from NBC's Web site and was replaced with another that omitted the references to Mr. Frank and the Sandlers. Evidently NBC and its parent, General Electric, don't want people to hear speech that attacks liberals.

Then there's the Democrats' "card check" legislation that would abolish secret ballot elections in determining whether employees are represented by unions. The unions' strategy is obvious: Send a few thugs over to employees' homes - we know where you live - and get them to sign cards that will trigger a union victory without giving employers a chance to be heard.

Once upon a time, liberals prided themselves, with considerable reason, as the staunchest defenders of free speech. Union organizers in the 1930s and 1940s made the case that they should have access to employees to speak freely to them, and union leaders like George Meany and Walter Reuther were ardent defenders of the First Amendment.

Today's liberals seem to be taking their marching orders from other quarters. Specifically, from the college and university campuses where administrators, armed with speech codes, have for years been disciplining and subjecting to sensitivity training any students who dare to utter thoughts that liberals find offensive. The campuses that once prided themselves as zones of free expression are now the least free part of our society.

Obama supporters who found the campuses congenial and Mr. Obama himself, who has chosen to live all his adult life in university communities, seem to find it entirely natural to suppress speech they don't like and seem utterly oblivious to claims this violates the letter and spirit of the First Amendment. In this campaign, we have seen the coming of the Obama thugocracy, suppressing free speech, and we may see its flourishing in the four or eight years ahead.

• Michael Barone is a nationally syndicated columnist.

[Strike For The South]

I've said it before and I will say it again. Sheeple are no good for the republic. Soon America will be an oligarchy with plenty of bread and circuses to keep us complacent. Then as the Chinese and Russians rise we will be to impotent and fat to do much of anything. I blame the demasculaztion of the American male but that is another thread for another time.

[Koga No Goshi]

I've said it before and I will say it again. Sheeple are no good for the republic. Soon America will be an oligarchy with plenty of bread and circuses to keep us complacent.

This is dangerously close to already being the case. What people who just vote on one issue or from a couple headlines or "the way my family always voted" seem not to care about, is that the framers were pretty clear this little experiment wouldn't work without suspicious watchdogging from an informed electorate. But these days questioning authority is returned with accusations of being unpatriotic, not supporting the troops and sympathizing with terrorists. Or hating America. ;)

Then as the Chinese and Russians rise we will be to impotent and fat to do much of anything. I blame the demasculaztion of the American male but that is another thread for another time.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Crazed Rabbit, is your complaint that the Dem party somehow owns all the TV and major print media, except Fox? Or that they've (the media) decided who their favorite candidate is, and it's not the same as yours?

I believe a poll of journalists showed that 90% of them are democrats. It's hard to remain objective on an issue, especially when everyone is thinking the same way.

I don't think the dems own the media, but the journalists are happy to shape their reports to reflect the truth as they, and everyone they work with, sees it. It can be subtle, almost unconscious, or active decisions to covertly abandon objectivism, from individual reporters doing stories to editors deciding what stories the paper is going to run.

It's those journalists that have said they feel chills running down their legs when listening to Obama, or that it's hard to remain objective when covering him.

You know CR, for as much as a big fence post you have blah blah blah

I do, however, think you are way off on a shaky limb acting like Reps have reason to fear vandalism, exclusion, assasination or use of force brought to bear against them for their political beliefs as Dems do. Looking over the last couple decades there is simply no reason to believe that unless you're running around downtown Philadelphia with a KKK sign or something.

Okay, I'll meet you there. But Dems closing shop doors or bullying votes from the pulpit and in various other questionably legal ways trying to get petty vindictive payback on Reps each election cycle isn't such a normal part of the headlines as Reps doing it to Dems. That's fact.

Don't even start with that dodge. You said republicans were worse, and when confronted with evidence that you're wrong, you engage in straw man and ad hominem fallacies by distorting my positions.

I think you're engaging in projection. You make all these wild claims and seek to falsely betray me as some rabid partisan because I didn't agree with the democratic talking points on topics like Fannie and Freddie that you take for truth.

But you are the one who simply couldn't let my post about the absurd 'Os for Obama' group go. You pushed and insisted republicans use much more underhanded tactics.

And then, when all your arguments are exposed as bunk, you turn around and tell me I'm being overly partisan. You cease your attempts to say republicans are just immoral people and start attacking me personally.

CR

[Lemur]

It's those journalists that have said they feel chills running down their legs when listening to Obama ...

As opposed to those who see "little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living room" when they watch Governor Palin speak? I have to say, in my book "little starbursts" score much higher on the Pretty Pony Scale than leg thrills.

But you are the one who simply couldn't let my post about the absurd 'Os for Obama' group go.

Neither can I — that was brilliant stuff. Gave me some very heartfelt guffaws. Danke!

You think if you can prove one Dem took a bribe, the Dems are irredeemably corrupt, even if 20 Republicans took bribes during the same year.

I'm not sure how easy it would be to objectively measure the corruption of one group over another. Sounds like a bit of a slog. Can't we go by gut instinct and nonsensical feelings instead?

[Koga No Goshi]

LoL. I'd be happy if Koga could just admit democrats are as bad as republicans, but he just can't and then calls me the partisan troll.

CR

They aren't. You found a couple small paper cases of smalltime vandalism. Big whup. I could give you more personal accounts of people being accosted or having property or signs vandalized or their cars keyed for displaying Dem paraphanelia without having to scour small papers all over the country to find the stories. (Though there are plenty of those, too.) And churches telling people how to vote... Palin getting up in her church and mixing faith, oil pipelines and politics, the guy shot for wearing an Obama t-shirt. Democrats pretty much know, especially outside of big cities, you have to be careful about your politics. Republicans like Tuff I'm sure have plenty of stories of being ganged up on or verbally engaged over politics.... I would bet he has few stories about blue-voting New York rednecks shooting at his vehicle.

Your party's problem is that you have a victim complex. You feel attacked and oppressed. So members of your party lash out in every way they can against what they perceive to be a big bully Daddy Democrat all around them, even in their living rooms on any channel but Fox. And of course this mindset has been cultivated and encouraged by your pundits and radio talkshow hosts. Look at what the McCain camp has had to ... "correct" in recent news. Should it be any shock to them that their campaign style led to a lot of hate rhetoric and their crowds getting riled up and yelling epithets and vague threats? Let's just, for the sake of fun, blame all the hate rhetoric on Clinton. Well, who went and courted those supporters after the primary and fed them the same crap about Obama being a Muslim, Obama being an Arab, etc. etc.? Where did all that stuff come from? Liberal media making it up just to make McCain look bad?

It's hard to quantify something like an under-broil of hate right under the surface of a political ideology. But if there isn't such an undercurrent with the Rep party, one would wonder why it's always so easy to tease up hate and anger rhetoric towards liberals and minorities and Mexicans and Muslims and San Francisco people that has become staple for Rep rallies and appearances.

[Lemur]

But if there isn't such an undercurrent with the Rep party, one would wonder why it's always so easy to tease up hate and anger rhetoric towards liberals and minorities and Mexicans and Muslims and San Francisco people that has become staple for Rep rallies and appearances.

As much as it pains me to agree with Crazed Rabbit in this thread, I have to point out that both parties have their loonie fringes. You could make an argument that McCain has irresponsibly encouraged his loonies this week, as many have, but you can't say that nutballs are an exclusive or predominant property of the Republicans.

Everybody's got their nuts. And screwballs always make time to go to political events, while the rest of us are, you know, working. So my understanding is that you are always going to see nuttier people at a political event than you would elsewhere.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I'm sure you've all seen this garbage. I'm sure many of you can rationalize it as an understanding dialogue between a cave-man conservative mob and an enlgihtened and stoic band of accepting liberals.

No wait. Scratch that - reverse it.

[Crazed Rabbit]

They aren't. You found a couple small paper cases of smalltime vandalism.

And attempted vehicular assault, and road rage attacks, and death threats, and molotov cocktails...

Big whup. I could give you more personal accounts of people being accosted or having property or signs vandalized or their cars keyed for displaying Dem paraphanelia without having to scour small papers all over the country to find the stories.

So what I said about the media basically went in one ear and out the other then?

blahblahblah

It's hard to quantify something like an under-broil of hate right under the surface of a political ideology. But if there isn't such an undercurrent with the Rep party, one would wonder why it's always so easy to tease up hate and anger rhetoric towards liberals and minorities and Mexicans and Muslims and San Francisco people that has become staple for Rep rallies and appearances.

You ever seen a big anti-war, anti-republican, anti-theme of the week protest/rally?

No one denied there are nuts on both sides. But I think it's very kind to the people who blew up abortion clinics, pharmacists who refused to do their jobs, people who firebomb black churches, and people who physically attack gay people with no provocation to say the nuts are same same tit tat on both sides of the aisle.

I specifically chose just incidents related to politics and elections. You sure you want to open the grab bag of left-wing-whackos and right-wing-whackos? Didn't turn our so well when we opened the democratic and republican crazies grab big, did it?

CR

[Koga No Goshi]

And attempted vehicular assault, and road rage attacks, and death threats, and molotov cocktails...



So what I said about the media basically went in one ear and out the other then?







You ever seen a big anti-war, anti-republican, anti-theme of the week protest/rally?

CR

Hate the war/policies, strong disgust with Bush =/= KILL THEM!!!

[Strike For The South]

I'm sure you've all seen this garbage. I'm sure many of you can rationalize it as an understanding dialogue between a cave-man conservative mob and an enlgihtened and stoic band of accepting liberals.

No wait. Scratch that - reverse it.

The cult of personality.

[CrossLOPER]

Everybody's got their nuts. And screwballs always make time to go to political events, while the rest of us are, you know, working. So my understanding is that you are always going to see nuttier people at a political event than you would elsewhere.

Three minutes later...

I'm sure you've all seen this garbage. I'm sure many of you can rationalize it as an understanding dialogue between a cave-man conservative mob and an enlgihtened and stoic band of accepting liberals.

No wait. Scratch that - reverse it.

Poor Lemur. At least you try.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Hate the war/policies, strong disgust with Bush =/= KILL THEM!!!

What about saying "Let's stone her, old school."?

Or, lynching Bush in effigy?

But I'm sure they aren't trying to convey the impression they want to kill Bush.

CR

[PanzerJaeger]

I'm sure you've all seen this garbage. I'm sure many of you can rationalize it as an understanding dialogue between a cave-man conservative mob and an enlgihtened and stoic band of accepting liberals.

No wait. Scratch that - reverse it.

Beat you to it, bud.

It demonstrates your rank and file lib is just as mindless as their portrayal of conservatives. I couldn't imagine getting so agitated over a political parade.

The scary thing is that the video doesn't portray some lone nut the media dredged up, its just a walk through a seemingly normal neighborhood.

[seireikhaan]

A man decided one day to climb the highest, tallest mountain in his area. The rest of the villagers gathered around and congratulated him for his efforts as he departed from the base of the mountain, promising he would do his best. Slowly but surely, he made his way higher and higher, gaining more and more momentum the higher he got. His lower body gave him a strong push and helped catapult him with its great force; his upper body guiding him carefully around jagged points and crevices with its keen senses of sight and feel.

Though he could see the summit ahead of him, he decided to take a short break, as he was quite tired, and felt that a bit of rest would ensure his success the next day. He had a great night's sleep, and woke the next morning with vigor. As he started out again, a viper snuck up on him, and bit both his legs; the toxin surged through his body, and he stumbled. In a striking example of coincidence, whilst stumbling around, he aggravated a spitting cobra, which reared its head, and spat its deadly venom into his eyes. The man collapsed to the ground, clutching in agony, his body on fire.

Inside, his brain began sending neural impulses out, desperately seeking aid. However, when the impulses reached the eyes and upper body, the eyes and upper body sent an immediate response for the calamity, blaming the lower body for not propelling the body away from the snakes. When impulses reached the lower body, the lower body sent back a response blaming the upper body for not sensing the snakes and evading them. The brain, unable to apparently infer that neither the upper or lower body would help it, continued sending the same neural impulses, over and over again, as the body lay collapsed upon the ground, slowly dying.

[drone]

I know it's not, but that video reminded me of a Klan march. People walking down the street with signs and flags, and everybody on the street yelling at them. Not a good visual.

[Strike For The South]

A man decided one day to climb the highest, tallest mountain in his area. The rest of the villagers gathered around and congratulated him for his efforts as he departed from the base of the mountain, promising he would do his best. Slowly but surely, he made his way higher and higher, gaining more and more momentum the higher he got. His lower body gave him a strong push and helped catapult him with its great force; his upper body guiding him carefully around jagged points and crevices with its keen senses of sight and feel.

Though he could see the summit ahead of him, he decided to take a short break, as he was quite tired, and felt that a bit of rest would ensure his success the next day. He had a great night's sleep, and woke the next morning with vigor. As he started out again, a viper snuck up on him, and bit both his legs; the toxin surged through his body, and he stumbled. In a striking example of coincidence, whilst stumbling around, he aggravated a spitting cobra, which reared its head, and spat its deadly venom into his eyes. The man collapsed to the ground, clutching in agony, his body on fire.

Inside, his brain began sending neural impulses out, desperately seeking aid. However, when the impulses reached the eyes and upper body, the eyes and upper body sent an immediate response for the calamity, blaming the lower body for not propelling the body away from the snakes. When impulses reached the lower body, the lower body sent back a response blaming the upper body for not sensing the snakes and evading them. The brain, unable to apparently infer that neither the upper or lower body would help it, continued sending the same neural impulses, over and over again, as the body lay collapsed upon the ground, slowly dying.

Together we stand Divided we fall.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Ok,

I'm not naming names, but I think the overtly partisan smearing of the character of both campaigns, conservatives and liberals in general, with the cherry-picking of news events and stories to support the assertion that conservatives are stupid or liberals or crazy, is counterproductive, hateful, disingenuous, immature, and dangerous for our country. I don't care what political views you have, but the latest back and forth right here on this forum, which is supposed to be filled with smart people who at least understand how to read a newspaper and use a computer... it's been shameful.

My "side" has been just as guilty as the other, and I'd call on my "side" to not respond in kind when an entire segment of the population, with a certain political view, gets smeared. A neutral observer with intelligence will note the tone, character, and maturity level of the debate, and understand that you could assemble enough "evidence" through news stories and youtube videos to convince anyone of anything. For example, that aliens caused 9/11.

If some members continue pointing fingers at "conservatives", "liberals", republicans or democrats in general, I'm probably going to bow out of this discussion. Over-generalizing like that is prejudiced, ignorant, inaccurate, extremely biased, and shameful to an intelligent debate.

When I've criticized either party, I've given reasons why I don't support their candidate, or their current plans, or why I feel someone is unqualified. Never have I characterized "red" or "blue"-state people as all being ignorant, crazy, psychotic, or dangerous. Never have I built a case based on partisan fearmongering, character attacks, smears, or any of this stuff.

I suppose it's a matter of free speech, but just because you can blindly assassinate the character of half of the population of the united states, that doesn't mean you should. Can we bring a little dignity back to this discussion, and focus on the issues and candidates of the election, rather than continue to smear individual voters and cherry pick the occasional partisan wacko (or group of wackos) and then claim the opposition is all exactly like that?

I can't pick on just one side here, because they are both guilty of this, since the last time I posted. Civility, gentlemen? Anyone?

[ICantSpellDawg]

If some members continue pointing fingers at "conservatives", "liberals", republicans or democrats in general, I'm probably going to bow out of this discussion. Over-generalizing like that is prejudiced, ignorant, inaccurate, extremely biased, and shameful to an intelligent debate.

Maybe you should. You have all this time to debate stupid politics, but not enough to do a 5 minute England turn in PBM??!!! Priorities, sir...