Netrunner,

My problem with the moron's on the Obama side are that the assume all people voting for McCain are moron's who want to "lynch a n***er". These are the same people who assume because I'm grew up in Indiana I'm some sort of backwoods hick that needs to constantly be enlightened, and these were the same people that regurgitate "Bush is Stupid" ad nauseum expecting to get laughs as well can't name any politcal figures outside of McCain /Palin /Obama /Biden /Bush /Cheney.

But yes many McCain supporters are douchebags.

It's the morons on both sides that make me so apathetic towards voting. This is why I turned in a blank ballot last time. Maybe this time around I'll vote on idealism, but I have a hard time ignoring that it seems like I'm voting for either two varied sets of corporations and special interests groups.

>> ^Fjnbk:
Sounds silly. The media would be talking about how Obama flunked his first executive decision and his candidacy would be over. Biden seems fine.


^ It would be wrong of the media to do that though since one cannot base a candidates success or falure because someone became too ill. In fact it might have been part of the plan... Obama did meet with Hillary in secrecy to work out something with her after she dropped out of the race.

It would be ultimately a positive move for Obama given the fact that there are many diehard Hillary fans out there with their glazed over eyes as they profess that no other candidate could ever compare to her (in their mind). It's a cult following that I could forsee being tapped into in such a manner.

Think tanks don't exist for nothing in the politcal arena of CFR candidates. This is being played like a game of chess.

Would you trust her to be your VP if you were running for president after she implied to the media in the past that something fatal just might "happen" to you which would give her the eventual lead? He is either forced to take her or he is extremely forgiving and trusting of her despite what she said. Personally I wouldn't trust her as far as I could throw her but that's my opinion.

You know... I think the article is horrible personally... i despite the woman... and this she is a joke... but that article does nothing to help... in only makes her supporters more fervent...

The other thing is... You'd think with their priminister just disolving parliment for politcal motives... she'd have been a little more worried about that...

Pamela Anderson, the most respected name in politcal commentary.

Thanks for the downvote quantumrougy. I can always count on you to perform predictably and bring the insults. Using your logic, concepts of protecting human life seem to escape you libs. This is why it is still a debate. Is it really all about a woman's right to choose when there is a seperate life growing inside her? When do we start to recogize that there is a baby in there? The issue gets clouded even further when someone murders a pregnant woman and charges come up for double homicide. Is it homicide now because she didn't choose to do it herself? I do agree it isn't some flippant decision woman make, but that doesn't make it right. You see things just as black and white as those "fat-headed cons" you love to hate, only from another extreme. Also, the question Obama was asked wasn't if he is for abortion or not. It was at what point does a baby get human rights, which he took the safe politcal road and didn't answer.

NetRunner, my choice never included McCain. I've never supported him and he is not even a true conservative. The closest to that I suppose was Ron Paul. A lot of Republicans probably won't even vote for McCain this election helping Obama to the win. In regards to the surge, Obama removed his previous statements of objection from his website. Changed his statements to acknowledge that violence had decreased. Used that to ramp up calls for troops to be moved to Afghanistan. Then finally said he would still be against the surge if he had the choice again just on principle of opposing Bush. I suppose "professing success" was not the way to put it. More like taking credit for success of things he has opposed and thought would fail.

Civil rights candidates have historically had a good crop of Republicans. It just seems that Republicans today are just as much for big government as the Democrats. Both sides of our craptacular two party system are becoming more and more alike in many ways. They pander and lie until they probably can't even remember what they stand for anymore. I also think that for all the anti-war blustering from the Democrats, they have no intention of taking any serious action. Obama will probably draw down troops, but not bring about a complete withdrawl. Hell, a big withdrawl is already being discussed by the oh so hated Bush administration as violence has substantially decreased, the Iraqi Army is mostly trained, and almost all of the 16 goals set for their government have been met.

As far as universal health care is concerned, I've been through the VA. If the government makes civilian health care anything like that we're boned. This is the way I see if from both my experience with a government controlled health care system, and hearing from relatives that have lived in both Canada and England. If you have the government take over the health care industry, you will cause a string of problems over time. The overall quality of doctors and care will start to decrease as it no longer pays to spend all that time and money on medical school. You will have incredibly long wait times for care. Right now you've got people coming in from Canada just so they can get treatment for something they'd be waiting endlessly for under a national healthcare system. Free hospitals crowd with people looking for attention over meaningless problems like stubbed toes and colds delaying people with real troubles. In a government controlled system, I was given improper vaccinations, put on waiting lists that were many months long, and could hardly ever see a doctor. A friend of mine can no longer move his right hand up and down after a doctor in a national healthcare system finally saw him for a broken arm a whole day after it had happend, then set it improperly. The short version is in my opinion that nationalized healthcare = turning hospitals into the DMV. If the system was instituted in a way that offers the option for people with no other choice, but leaves the private system in tact that might be better.

Also, I'd like to see which economists are calling for more government regulation of the market. Especially since this has always proven to cause problems in the past. Like what happened when they decided to promote corn based Ethanol, set production quotas, and subsidies. Whoops, we broke the market. *shrug*

>> ^Aemaeth:
>> ^MarineGunrock:
Well written comment, dragon.

He definitely gave me info I wanted, but he didn't write it


Yes, sorry to disappoint but Kevin Drum from Politcal Animal deserves credit for writing the aricle. Now if you're complimenting me on finding it, posting it here as follow up, and adding some quick thoughts at the top including the ExxonMobile bit - then thank you very much Also, edited my intro to the article to make a little more sense.

I can only imagine that some of the responses would be different if he weren't on a beach. You're not quite setting yourself up for intelligent politcal discussion there. Of course though, they're only aiming for the dim it seems.

Why is this media group called The Young Turks? Is it some funny reference to the politcal party that encouraged and enforced the genocide of the Armenians in Turkey?

It is unfortunate that our country has gone down the road of a facist police state, to no fault of their citizens other than a lack of involvment in the politcal process.

>> ^MarineGunrock:
>> ^MaxWilder:
especially here where they have more people and more politcal clout.

I'm sorry, have you ever visited this site before?
The majority are atheists here.


You are ignoring context, the original post is RE:US not RE:VS.

We should have a poll to see if we really do have an atheist majority.

>> ^MarineGunrock:
>> ^MaxWilder:
especially here where they have more people and more politcal clout.

I'm sorry, have you ever visited this site before?
The majority are atheists here.


Once again outwitted by the supposedly dumb old jarhead. Like the Miller guy would say - pitiful.

>> ^MaxWilder:
especially here where they have more people and more politcal clout.


I'm sorry, have you ever visited this site before?

The majority are atheists here.

Calvados, I believe you are right with your guess about vocal atheists being a backlash against vocal evangelicals. If nobody talked about religion (specifically with the "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude), then I wouldn't speak out about it either.

With the world slowly becoming more and more secular every day, the evangelicals are pushing back, especially here where they have more people and more politcal clout. This brings up issues like prayer in schools and teaching evolution. And when they bring these issues up, those of us with strong opinions will rise up to slap them down.

In my opinion, the more educated you are, the more *likely* you are to be agnostic or atheist. (Not saying all educated people are, just more.) So with more education comes a greater propensity to use the internet, and you end up with more atheists on the net than anywhere else. Add to that the fact that atheists are still shunned in a number of areas, and the anonymity of the net is very attractive.

it's both, but the emphasis (unmentioned) is on the issues. as i said, there are no non-theists competing for president. all of them are christians and a mormon. Unfortunately I don't see the mormon as the lesser of two evils (unless his politcal views lined up with mine).

addmittedly I would have to re-evaluate my stance against a mormon presidential candidate if it was a candidate who championed the issues I was concerned about. I supposse many "christian" republicans are going through this as we speak(type).

so if my candidate was mormon, I would still think it ashame and a tragedy for the reasons I've given, but at that point I would have to decide whether it bothered me enough to not vote for him. And even whether I did or didn't vote for him and he won the outcome would be the same

if a Mormon wins that would give validation to the Mormon religion.

Baera,

I got vectored to this site a long time ago to watch a video and found many of the posts very interesting and funny. I also found a contingent of people who are obsessed with spreading their politcal rhetoric. But, that's what freedom is all about. Just don't take it personal.

I work with people like this. Their obsessions make them very unfriendly and irrational and I limit my exposure to them. Don't become infected by their disease.