Mr. Average wrote:Regardless, he is unelectable to the Presidency. When people put their hand on the switch, this country is still too racially divided and the exit polls will mean nothing.
You wanna have a little wager on that? IMO the Repugs have screwed the pooch to such a degree that the potential "negatives" you cite will be far outweighed by a Democratic tidal wave and a desire for change. Obama will win, comfortably. He's been through a bruising primary and come out ahead, and is currently leading McCain in both popular vote and likely Electoral College scenarios, despite McCain having been given a free ride for months. The recent GOP losses in the congressional elections in supposedly safe Southern districts are very ominous signs for them. Moreover, I don't think McCain is the sort of candidate to fire up the Republican base. But we shall see I suppose.
As for the other stuff, I'm fine with having my kids exposed to a variety of influences, short of having someone push violence or ideas of hate and prejudice on them. If they become happy churchgoing Republicans some day then good for them if it makes them happy. My Dad is one and I manage to get along pretty well with him most of the time. If they turn out to be leftist vegans I'd be OK with that too, as long as they don't begrudge me my Memorial Day steak.
I'm still holding to the opinion stated much earlier in this thread. There is no way a republican candidate can win the general election. This is a replay of Carter/Ford. Good thing, too. Time for a change.
I HOPE your right Alex...but I had that same viewpoint during the last Presidential election, and I was wrong then. Maybe now that we have the economy and the Polar Bears in our corner, the scales will be tipped a little.
i suppose there is a chance of a refusal to break the cycle of backasswards dumbassness this country has been in and the closet bigotry that inspires it or murder that could stop it. yeesh, surely not. we need a quality leader who is smart, able to make decisions, and who will surroud himself with good people instead of virtually insane ones. Failsafe was a movie, no operating in a void in this age. you can't get any experience at this or for the bombs flying or the towers going down in today's world, like ike and grant were swell prez' or that lincoln or fdr had any experience coming in. guerilla warfare hasn't worked for 50 years; we need someone who understands the internets.
I watched a long biography on FDR a couple of weeks ago, and I think Senator Obama projects well to be a similar president...which is good in my opinion. FDR was a republican, but he got things done that NEEDED to be done, and I see Obama doing the same. I HOPE.
LessThanZero wrote:I watched a long biography on FDR a couple of weeks ago, and I think Senator Obama projects well to be a similar president...which is good in my opinion. FDR was a republican, but he got things done that NEEDED to be done, and I see Obama doing the same. I HOPE.
You might be thinking of Theodore Roosevelt - FDR was a big time Dem.
I'll gladly vote for Obama.
Everyone just needs to fuckin’ relax. Smoke more weed, the world is ending.
Why? Because he is different? Black? Represents Change? Represents something other than George? Why? Because he is the party NOT in power? Because he will end the war (oh My God, how dillusional!). Because he will legitimize achmadinejad and castro and that stupid ass in Venezeula by meeting with them whilst they turn him into a puppet...they, sadly, are far better elder statesman, albeit insane, then Obama.
Ladies and gentleman, there will be no courageous answer. There will be radio silence. Because no one can answer why unless they reference change. Even the brilliant Alexv, who should be ashamed to capitulate to the board. He is too smart, and yet, he has advocated a man who admits that he has no idea what to do. Amazing.
Reverend Wright? Secretary of State. Minister Farakhan? Secretary of defense. JOcelyn elders, secretary of education.
Why can't we think past our nose?
"The smarter mysteries are hidden in the light" - Jean Giono (1895-1970)
WOAH! Nice catch BWAP! I was drifting asleep when I typed that...who knows who I was thinking of...
I think I was thinking of the republicans who were bashing FDR for being a socialist, while he was pulling the country up by its bootstraps.
Mr. Average, if President Obama says CHANGE, and enough people act on that charge, there will be major change, just as there was after FDR took office. Ask and you shall receive. There are too many pessimists in this country, who can not let go of their entitlement, or are controlled by fear. We can make change! We CAN! Don't tell me we can't! Stop saying we won't! This country is getting so UGLY. God help us!
Mr. Average wrote:Why? Because he is different? Black? Represents Change? Represents something other than George? Why? Because he is the party NOT in power? Because he will end the war (oh My God, how dillusional!). Because he will legitimize achmadinejad and castro and that stupid ass in Venezeula by meeting with them whilst they turn him into a puppet...they, sadly, are far better elder statesman, albeit insane, then Obama.
Ladies and gentleman, there will be no courageous answer. There will be radio silence. Because no one can answer why unless they reference change. Even the brilliant Alexv, who should be ashamed to capitulate to the board. He is too smart, and yet, he has advocated a man who admits that he has no idea what to do. Amazing.
Reverend Wright? Secretary of State. Minister Farakhan? Secretary of defense. JOcelyn elders, secretary of education.
Why can't we think past our nose?
I too think that change is a powerful enough reason to cast a vote for a candidate. Why shouldn't it be?
Mr. Average, with all due respect, all you've done is try to discourage people from voting for Barack Obama (it's spelled B-A-R-A-C-K - spelling it wrong purposefully is childish, and you're too good for that game). I haven't seen you post anything about the candidate that you actually support and why you support that candidate.
And what is wrong with Jocelyn Elders, anyway? I just looked her up on Wikipedia and she seems pretty unobjectionable. I mean, I can see why she got politically crucified, I just don't think she was wrong.
"We've tried ignorance for a thousand years. It's time to try education."
I have no idea who I am voting for yet, but thought I'd share this from George Will:
Questions for Obama, by George Will
“Senator, concerning the criteria by which you will nominate judges, you said: "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old." Such sensitivities might serve an admirable legislator, but what have they to do with judging? Should a judge side with whichever party in a controversy stirs his or her empathy? Is such personalization of the judicial function inimical to the rule of law?
• Voting against the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts, you said: Deciding "truly difficult cases" should involve "one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy." Is that not essentially how Chief Justice Roger Taney decided the Dred Scott case? Should other factors—say, the language of the constitutional or statutory provision at issue—matter?
• You say, "The insurance companies, the drug companies, they're not going to give up their profits easily when it comes to health care." Why should they? Who will profit from making those industries unprofitable? When pharmaceutical companies have given up their profits, who will fund pharmaceutical innovations, without which there will be much preventable suffering and death? What other industries should "give up their profits"?
• ExxonMobil's 2007 profit of $40.6 billion annoys you. Do you know that its profit, relative to its revenue, was smaller than Microsoft's and many other corporations'? And that reducing ExxonMobil's profits will injure people who participate in mutual funds, index funds and pension funds that own 52 percent of the company?
• You say John McCain is content to "watch [Americans'] home prices decline." So, government should prop up housing prices generally? How? Why? Were prices ideal before the bubble popped? How does a senator know ideal prices? Have you explained to young couples straining to buy their first house that declining prices are a misfortune?
• Telling young people "don't go into corporate America ," your wife, Michelle, urged them to become social workers or others in "the helping industry," not "the moneymaking industry." Given that the moneymakers pay for 100 percent of American jobs, in both public and private sectors, is it not helpful?
• Michelle, who was born in 1964, says that most Americans' lives have "gotten progressively worse since I was a little girl." Since 1960, real per capita income has increased 143 percent, life expectancy has increased by seven years, infant mortality has declined 74 percent, deaths from heart disease have been halved, childhood leukemia has stopped being a death sentence, depression has become a treatable disease, air and water pollution have been drastically reduced, the number of women earning a bachelor's degree has more than doubled, the rate of homeownership has increased 10.2 percent, the size of the average American home has doubled, the percentage of homes with air conditioning has risen from 12 to 77, the portion of Americans who own shares of stock has quintupled. Has your wife perhaps missed some pertinent developments in this country that she calls "just downright mean"?
• You favor raising the capital gains tax rate to "20 percent or 25 percent." You say this will not "distort" economic decision making. Your tax returns on your 2007 income of $4.2 million show that you and Michelle own few stocks. Are you sure you understand how investors make decisions?
• During the ABC debate, you acknowledged that when the capital gains rate was dropped first to 20 percent, then to 15 percent, government revenues from the tax increased and they declined in the 1980s when it was increased to 28 percent. Nevertheless, you said you would consider raising the rate "for purposes of fairness." How does decreasing the government's financial resources and punishing investors promote fairness? Are you aware that 20 percent of taxpayers reporting capital gains in 2006 had incomes of less than $50,000?
• You favor eliminating the cap on earnings subject to the 12.4 percent Social Security tax, which now covers only the first $102,000. A Chicago police officer married to a Chicago public-school teacher, each with 20 years on the job, have a household income of $147,501, so you would take another $5,642 from them. Are they undertaxed? Are they too rich?
• This November, electorates in four states will vote on essentially this language: "The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting." Three states— California , Washington and Michigan —have enacted such language. You made a radio ad opposing the Michigan initiative. Why? Are those states' voters racists?
• You denounce President Bush for arrogance toward other nations. Yet you vow to use a metaphorical "hammer" to force revisions of trade agreements unless certain weaker nations adjust their labor, environmental and other domestic policies to suit you. Can you define cognitive dissonance?
• You want "to reduce money in politics." In February and March you raised $95 million. See prior question.
I find it hilarious that the only thing that you seem able to throw at Obama is the "inexperience" ball. I wonder where you go to get this Presidential experience? Is there a school? Do you go to Presidential nightschool? The truth is there is NOTHING you can do that will give you Presidential experience except being President. Its an idiotic criticism that smacks of desperation. What can we get him on? I know! Inexperience!
echos myron like a siren
with endurance like the liberty bell
and he tells you of the dreamers
but he's cracked up like the road
and he'd like to lift us up, but we're a very heavy load
[quote="miss buenos aires"]And what is wrong with Jocelyn Elders, anyway? quote]
Absolutely nothing.
Big proponent of masturbation and pretty soft on marijuana. Thinking I can get behind.
And Mr. Average - I don't think you can name three more frightening Americans to be aligned with than Karl Rove, Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. Give us your Wrights, your Farrakhans, your Elders, your Refrigerator Perrys or any other scary black folks that your little mind can can think of: They can be no worse than those three treasonous bastards that wiped their asses with the Constitution and flushed the America down the toilet.
I'll vote for Obama because he was right about Iraq from the beginning. And every speech he's given that I've heard makes sense and doesn't sound like total bullshit. And I couldn't agree more with talking with our enemies - this should always be your first instinct; whether it be on a large global scale between countries or with your next door neighbor. This shoot first, ask questions later - speak softly carry a big stick crap doesn't work. I absolutely agree with him on this and I hope he has the guts to stand by it.
Yes, it's immensly helpful that Obama is different and a "change" from the Al Gore, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton lifetime politician candidates. There's not much I don't like about the guy, which I can honestly say has never been the case in my voting lifetime. I certainly couldn't punch the ballot for Bill Clinton (nor Geroge I or Bob Dole) because of my problems with his fakery - just never trusted the guy. I'm sure Obama is flawed - you almost have to be to put yourself out there like this - and if elected he'll do all sorts of things I disagree with - he'll cave and compromise - they all do. But at least when I'm traveling abroad I won't have to apologize anymore.
Everyone just needs to fuckin’ relax. Smoke more weed, the world is ending.
Boy With A Problem wrote: But at least when I'm traveling abroad I won't have to apologize anymore.
Yeah, I know the times Doc and I have been to Munich with the kids while he was on business, those kinds of comments would come up. Doc has friends/business associates that take very good care of us while we're there, but they do have to occasionally tell us when some Germans give us a harsh look or a terse service transaction, "it's not that they don't like Americans, they just don't like your politics."
... and when the Germans are looking at you sideways about YOUR politics, you know you've gone down the wrong path.
echos myron like a siren
with endurance like the liberty bell
and he tells you of the dreamers
but he's cracked up like the road
and he'd like to lift us up, but we're a very heavy load
Rachael Ray ad pulled as pundit sees terror link
Malkin claimed scarf similar to those worn by murderous Islamic extremists
MSNBC
updated 7:14 p.m. ET, Wed., May. 28, 2008
Dunkin' Donuts pulled a television spot featuring talk show host and Food Network personality Rachael Ray this weekend after a Fox news commentator associated it with terrorists.
In the ad, Ray is wearing a scarf that Michelle Malkin said in her nationally syndicated column resembled a kiffiyeh, Middle Eastern garb that is "popularized by Yasser Arafat and a regular adornment of Muslim terrorists appearing in beheading and hostage-taking videos."
Dunkin's Senior Vice President for Communications Margie Myers issued a statement saying the scarf "was selected by a stylist for the advertising shoot. Absolutely no symbolism was intended.
"However, as of this past weekend, we are no longer using the online ad because the possibility of misperception detracted from its original intention to promote our iced coffee."
In her column, Malkin also noted that it could appear at times that actor Colin Farrell, rapper Kanye West and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean have been photographed in similar scarves that were "distinctive hate couture."
This morning you've got time for a hot, home-cooked breakfast! Delicious and piping hot in only 3 microwave minutes.
Ridiculous. Anyone read Glenn Greenwald's column on Salon (just about the only thing worth reading on there anymore)? Some pretty damning indictments of the mainstream news media's coverage of Iraq coming out of this McClellan book...
Amazingly, I inadvertantly spelled Obama's first name wrong.
The reason I have not mentioned who I will vote for is that all candidates are omitted from contention. I can never vote for Barack because I don't trust him, doubt that he can serve a single term, and worry about his foreign policy plan. BYAP coul dno tbe further off base...when I super power leader sits with a despot and a dictator it is parlayed into a major marketing blitz that legitimizes the administration and positions our leaders as patronizing puppets. It strengthens the insanity, and Jimmy and Jesse are great examples of how they have failed at diplomacy, especially of late, using this tactic. It doesn't work. It strengthens the evil of a brutal dictator over his/her people.
"The smarter mysteries are hidden in the light" - Jean Giono (1895-1970)
Mr. Average wrote:...when I super power leader sits with a despot and a dictator it is parlayed into a major marketing blitz that legitimizes the administration and positions our leaders as patronizing puppets. It strengthens the insanity, and Jimmy and Jesse are great examples of how they have failed at diplomacy, especially of late, using this tactic. It doesn't work. It strengthens the evil of a brutal dictator over his/her people.
Yes, its a much better idea to skip this step and get straight to bombing the crap out of them , even though it tends to kill, maim his/her people.
echos myron like a siren
with endurance like the liberty bell
and he tells you of the dreamers
but he's cracked up like the road
and he'd like to lift us up, but we're a very heavy load
