http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13490.html

Awesome clip. Now add the facts that McCain will cost the middle class more in taxes and he lied about being a non-interventionist in the economic sector when he said he would fix wall street and air it 24 hours a day for three days before the election.

Seriously now... what exactly does a candidate have to do in this day and age to convince people with blinders on... why are they able to lie like this and still 50% of the country feels that they are the "better" choice? I again call for all politicians to be under oath whenever they speak publicly so we can bring them up on purgery charges when stuff like this happens...

LoL... i love that idea ponceleon!... of course it means we'll need to begin massive prision building programs...

Read that article MrFisk as well... and while I think its fair to say politicians are pretty low when it comes to campagning... I didn't see anything that was quite as bad McCain claiming a program to help prevent child abuse was 'comprehensive (read porn) sex education'. I mean thats pretty low...

>> ^ponceleon:
Seriously now... what exactly does a candidate have to do in this day and age to convince people with blinders on... why are they able to lie like this and still 50% of the country feels that they are the "better" choice? I again call for all politicians to be under oath whenever they speak publicly so we can bring them up on purgery charges when stuff like this happens...


The main problem is that most of the "issues" facing the country are too complex for most Americans to even begin to understand. How do you compress a thorough understanding of the problems facing the economy into a 30-second news clip when post-graduate degrees in that area can't even cover it completely? I would venture to say that most people who vote don't research politics beyond the adds they see on TV, so their belief as to which candidate is the true expert on any subject will be derived from the image they have of those candidates rather than a true understanding of the issue.

I don't see this changing, nor do I see a way of changing it. Even getting into the shallow end of some of these issues would require the equivalent of a full-time job just doing research, and most people (even intelligent, well-intentioned ones) don't have the time to devote to these things.

I can't stand the fact that the McCain campaign lies (and obviously at that) about things, but I really can't claim to be enough of an expert on the economy to say which candidate's plan will achieve the best results. Sure, you could argue about the watered-down phrases that are thrown around like "fundamentals of the economy", but that still doesn't help the matter.

Most people do not have the background (or in many cases, the intelligence) to interpret the vast amount of information for themselves so it really comes down to who they trust to interpret the information for them. If they don't trust the people who are saying that McCain is lying then they probably won't believe it.

Tucker Bounds? That's a name now? Really, doesn't the type of spokesman a campaign have show an awful lot about the campaign itself? LOOK AT HIM! LISTEN TO HIM! The man sits there with a look like he's had a partial lobotomy, and just spouts off party line bullshit. These people are picked by their ability to either spew forth crap they know to be false with a straight face, or be so ignorant that they actually believe it to be true.

Look, the majority of people cannot be expected to understand economics or international relations or the like to such a level that they can actually 100% understand who's policy is the best.

BUT

What they should be able to do is look at what each party is saying and see whether that stands up to basic reasoning and their own held beliefs in how a country should be run.

THEN they SHOULD be able to have the media call out politicians on every lie they spout, and do so in a simple way, like this. Then people should start to think 'hmmm, if a party is counting a refueling stop in a country as some sort of diplomatic excursion, perhaps they're not telling the truth on many other things?', 'Perhaps if the running person doesn't know the difference between 20% of energy creation and below 4%, maybe she knows squat', 'Perhaps if McCain is saying he's going to be this 'Maverick', and yet has a party largely composed of lobbyists, then maybe he's just lying through his rich as f*ck teeth'.

It's just a whole swag of AAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHH from me, as I watch this sort of utter tripe pour forth from their mouths and millions of people lapping it up as wholesome, good nourishment.

Wake up... wake the f*ck up.

Alaska provides 3.5% of the energy produced in the US, not 20%?

Numbers have a well-known liberal bias, so I'm not convinced.

What's amazing are the things that they count as experience... yeah she's was governor.. yeah she went to iraq.. yeah well George Bush did those things also.

It's about judgement, not experience.

The Dems are running a neo-marxist who decided after 153 days in the Senate he was Presidential material.

So McCain gets the vote.

“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” - H.L. Mencken

>> ^quantumushroom:
“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” - H.L. Mencken


So I guess that's why McCain is always preaching about fixing the economy!

I'm sure "Tucker Bounds" is just his first and middle names. His last name? Palin.

I love politics, but I hate politicians. Especially at a time like this.

>> ^spoco2:
Tucker Bounds? That's a name now? Really, doesn't the type of spokesman a campaign have show an awful lot about the campaign itself? LOOK AT HIM! LISTEN TO HIM! The man sits there with a look like he's had a partial lobotomy, and just spouts off party line bullshit. These people are picked by their ability to either spew forth crap they know to be false with a straight face, or be so ignorant that they actually believe it to be true.
Look, the majority of people cannot be expected to understand economics or international relations or the like to such a level that they can actually 100% understand who's policy is the best.
BUT
What they should be able to do is look at what each party is saying and see whether that stands up to basic reasoning and their own held beliefs in how a country should be run.
THEN they SHOULD be able to have the media call out politicians on every lie they spout, and do so in a simple way, like this. Then people should start to think 'hmmm, if a party is counting a refueling stop in a country as some sort of diplomatic excursion, perhaps they're not telling the truth on many other things?', 'Perhaps if the running person doesn't know the difference between 20% of energy creation and below 4%, maybe she knows squat', 'Perhaps if McCain is saying he's going to be this 'Maverick', and yet has a party largely composed of lobbyists, then maybe he's just lying through his rich as f ck teeth'.
It's just a whole swag of AAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHH from me, as I watch this sort of utter tripe pour forth from their mouths and millions of people lapping it up as wholesome, good nourishment.
Wake up... wake the f ck up.

Whats with this "ugly on both sides" shit? Its just not really true, is it? The one example they cite is McCains "100 years" quote, and its not a distortion!, He was asked "Bush said we'd might be in Iraq for 50 years.." and he interrupted with "Maybe a hundred.."

I'm sure the Obama camp has its faults and perhaps some dishonesty as well, but lets just face it: They are not even remotely CLOSE to being the kind of lying guilty fucks as the neocons. not even close to close. One side here is running a tasteless, dishonest, disgraceful campaign that is starting to make the Bush campaigns look decent in comparison.

This is whats wrong with the media's so-called "neutrality"; CNN seems to think it needs to stay "fair to everyone" so when they run a story on candidate X being a lying, dishonest asshole, they have to be "neutral" and say the other guy is just as bad, even if it isnt actually true.

>> ^quantumushroom:
The Dems are running a neo-marxist who decided after 153 days in the Senate he was Presidential material.

If that's the case it took him 153 days longer than it took me. After his one speech at the 2004 DNCC I knew he'd be president one day.

"This is whats wrong with the media's so-called "neutrality"; CNN seems to think it needs to stay "fair to everyone" so when they run a story on candidate X being a lying, dishonest asshole, they have to be "neutral" and say the other guy is just as bad, even if it isnt actually true."

Well said, and i agree... I have two brother presently serving... and believe me when i say, in my family that 100 year comment didn't go unnoticed... to have the media go back and then excuse that kind of absurd statment... Well it was troubling to say the least...

hey tucker bounds, you got something between yr teeth... no, it's still there... nope. still there... i gotta ask, tucker, why'd you eat so much shit in the first place?

>> ^Januari:
"This is whats wrong with the media's so-called "neutrality"

It's called the "symmetry of sin" or "false symmetry" and a lot of MSM reporters are waking up to the fact that that shit just doesn't work anymore. Even hardcore conservative ones such as Ruth Marcus:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/16/AR2008091602874_pf.html

While i agree with both of you... that was actually BicycleRepairMan's quote though...

Ri-effing-cockulous.

It's like Maher's definition of a cynic - believing that the public can be taken in by outright lies.

A new study out of Yale University confirms what argumentative liberals have long-known: Offering reality-based rebuttals to conservative lies only makes conservatives cling to those lies even harder. In essence, schooling conservatives makes them more stupid. From the Washington Post article on the study, which came out yesterday:

Political scientists Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler provided two groups of volunteers with the Bush administration's prewar claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. One group was given a refutation -- the comprehensive 2004 Duelfer report that concluded that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction before the United States invaded in 2003. Thirty-four percent of conservatives told only about the Bush administration's claims thought Iraq had hidden or destroyed its weapons before the U.S. invasion, but 64 percent of conservatives who heard both claim and refutation thought that Iraq really did have the weapons. The refutation, in other words, made the misinformation worse.

A similar "backfire effect" also influenced conservatives told about Bush administration assertions that tax cuts increase federal revenue. One group was offered a refutation by prominent economists that included current and former Bush administration officials. About 35 percent of conservatives told about the Bush claim believed it; 67 percent of those provided with both assertion and refutation believed that tax cuts increase revenue.

In a paper approaching publication, Nyhan, a PhD student at Duke University, and Reifler, at Georgia State University, suggest that Republicans might be especially prone to the backfire effect because conservatives may have more rigid views than liberals: Upon hearing a refutation, conservatives might "argue back" against the refutation in their minds, thereby strengthening their belief in the misinformation. Nyhan and Reifler did not see the same "backfire effect" when liberals were given misinformation and a refutation about the Bush administration's stance on stem cell research.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-sweeney/theres-no-arguing-with-co_b_126805.html

Great article!... I'm starting as a psych major in the spring so i absolutely eat that stuff up... defiantly have to hang on to that one... Thanks!!!

Pur´ger`y
n 1 The part of a sugarhouse where the molasses is drained off from the sugar.

Liberals were whom Lincoln was referring to when he said, "You can fool some of the people all of the time.

>> ^quantumushroom:
The Dems are running a neo-marxist who decided after 153 days in the Senate he was Presidential material.

Would you kindly explain how Obama is a Marxist? I've seen you label him as such many times but never with any explanation and I'm unable to connect the dots on my own.

I'd be very curious to hear that as well... I've seen it said a couple of times now but with absolutly nothing to substantiate it...

^ Don't hold your breath waiting for the answer. And besides, he's a "Neo" marxist, therefore QM has created a vague and open-ended mold that whatever other philosophies Obama actually prescribes to, fits in perfectly with QM's concept.

Like all Big Government liberals, Barry O is against citizens owning firearms. For many that alone is a key indicator of whether we're dealing with a potential tyrant.

Obama believes in an all-powerful centrist government. There's nothing government can't fix, if only they have the money...

He uses accusations of "racism" whenever he loses an argument (tho not exclusively a Marxist principle). I safely predict Orwellian hate crimes and hate speech laws will strengthen under his rule, the closest to outright banning free speech we'll have.

He uses class warfare. A question for Obama supporters: let's say he gets his way and increases taxes on only "the wealthy". Do the middle and lower classes really think they won't suffer any adverse effects by having their employers' earnings slammed?

Obama is nearly a lifelong member of a "church" that promotes Black Liberation Theology. Few things lie closer to believers' hearts than their faith, whatever it may be. How is it Barry has to disavow his church? Could it be because it's backwards and against not only basic Xtian principles but American principles?


Wiki: Stanley Kurtz of the National Review criticizes black liberation theology, saying, "A scarcely concealed, Marxist-inspired indictment of American capitalism pervades contemporary 'black-liberation theology'...The black intellectual's goal, says Cone, is to "aid in the destruction of America as he knows it." Such destruction requires both black anger and white guilt. The black-power theologian's goal is to tell the story of American oppression so powerfully and precisely that white men will "tremble, curse, and go mad, because they will be drenched with the filth of their evil."


And there's this:

"Barack Obama was a founding member of the board of Public Allies in 1992, resigning before his wife became executive director of the Chicago chapter of Public Allies in 1993. Obama plans to use the nonprofit group, which he features on his campaign Web site, as the model for a national service corps. He calls his Orwellian program, "Universal Voluntary Public Service." . . .

The pitch Public Allies makes on its Web site doesn't seem all that radical. It promises to place young adults (18-30) in paid one-year "community leadership" positions with nonprofit or government agencies. They'll also be required to attend weekly training workshops and three retreats. . .

But its real mission is to radicalize American youth and use them to bring about "social change" through threats, pressure, tension and confrontation — the tactics used by the father of community organizing, Saul "The Red" Alinsky. . .

Public Allies promotes "diversity and inclusion," a program paper says. More than 70% of its recruits are "people of color." . . .

The Obamas discourage work in the private sector. "Don't go into corporate America," Michelle has exhorted youth. "Work for the community. Be social workers." Shun the "money culture," Barack added. "Individual salvation depends on collective salvation." . . .

It's a lot of talk about race, a lot of talk about sexism, a lot of talk about homophobia, talk about -isms and phobias."

One of those -isms is "heterosexism," which a Public Allies training seminar in Chicago describes as a negative byproduct of "capitalism, white supremacy, patriarchy and male-dominated privilege."

The government now funds about half of Public Allies' expenses through Clinton's AmeriCorps. Obama wants to fully fund it and expand it into a national program that some see costing $500 billion."


What I'm addressing here has nothing to do with why people support Obama. Facts and logic are out the window, Obamites are electrified by these vague messages of "hope" and "change" or still part of the "Anybody but Bush" mindset. Still more sifters are from countries that are already socialist, so there's no conflict of interest there. And lastly, there are the deluded peaceniks who FEEL that the USA is morally no greater than Red China, and that despots can be 'reasoned with' if only we bring them a bouquet of their favorite flowers.

The 'Obamic equation' is symptomatic of a larger malaise gripping America that will likely culminate in a second civil war, which so far has remained only a cultural war of values. His election or defeat will merely hasten or delay the inevitable.

Should Obama win, I happily vow to be here to remind you all every day, as things worsen with his repetition of past economic and policy blunders, that they didn't have to be this way.

QM omfg

Wait.... ok... so QM... i just want to make sure i'm understanding you correctly....

Your saying...

Barrack Obama is.... black?

>> ^quantumushroom:
Like all Big Government liberals, Barry O is against citizens owning firearms.

No he isn't. He's very much like me, a gun totin' liberal. As he said in his DNC speech, we can make sure hunters keep their guns, but inner-city gangsters don't have uzi's. There's a balance there, somewhere, but there's a lot more of us hardcore libs who find the 2nd amendment untouchable. Apparently you haven't listened to his view on this issue.


Obama believes in an all-powerful centrist government. There's nothing government can't fix, if only they have the money...

No he doesn't. He doesn't believe in a broken and bloated gov't that does nothing for us. He believes in individual responsibilities, as well as gov't help for those who can't help themselves, and for infrastructure etc projects.


He uses accusations of "racism" whenever he loses an argument

Now that's just 100% bullshit. And when people like Sarah Palin call him "Sambo", to deny there's any racist attacks against him, is ridiculous.


He uses class warfare.

There IS class warfare in this country. What, are you fucking insane? What do you think just happened this week? The gov't colluded with the greediest fucks on this planet to take our money, trillions of dollars of it, to pay for their mistakes.


Obama is nearly a lifelong member of a "church" that promotes Black Liberation Theology.

I hate all religions. I don't see where his bullshit is any more "neo-marxist" than any other dumbass religious believer.


But its real mission is to radicalize American youth and use them to bring about "social change" through threats, pressure, tension and confrontation

You are absolutely nuts. Really, way way off the deep-end here, my friend.



Facts and logic are out the window, Obamites are electrified by these vague messages of "hope" and "change" or still part of the "Anybody but Bush" mindset.

Wow, you should try insulting more people's intelligence. Shoving everyone into this "Obamites" category shows just how little grasp you have on this election and these candidates.



Still more sifters are from countries that are already socialist, so there's no conflict of interest there.

I take it you've never been outside the US then. I've traveled 1/2 of my life, lived overseas for years on end, in these "socialist" countries you know nothing about. If you think Europe is what socialism looks like, you need to go back to school.



And lastly, there are the deluded peaceniks who FEEL that the USA is morally no greater than Red China, and that despots can be 'reasoned with' if only we bring them a bouquet of their favorite flowers.


Wow, that sure is a pretty straw-man you built yourself.

But tell me, oh wise one. When was the last time you saw one of these evil socialist European nations torture someone? When was the last time a European nation used a pack of lies to sell its citizens an illegal war, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people? When was the last time that Abu-Ghraib happened under France's watch? When was the last time any EU country called the Geneva Conventions "cute"? When was the last time any EU country thought that following international laws, and their own military code of conduct, just didn't count anymore?


Wow. You seem like a very, very scared person.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Like all Big Government liberals, Barry O is against citizens owning firearms. For many that alone is a key indicator of whether we're dealing with a potential tyrant.

"Barry" voted yea for "an amendment prohibiting the use of any funds appropriated in the FY2007 Department of Homeland Security Act from being used to confiscate legal firearms during states of emergency or major disasters." [ref]

>> ^quantumushroom:
Obama believes in an all-powerful centrist government. There's nothing government can't fix, if only they have the money...

This is an unfortunate feature of nearly every politician. Even the conservatives haven't been very conservative during the course of my lifetime. I don't agree with this approach either, but that's not to say that throwing money at a problem doesn't get results sometimes. Counting this against him is not unlike accusing him of only having two arms. When a three-armed candidate surfaces, then I'll care that the other candidates only have two.

>> ^quantumushroom:
He uses accusations of "racism" whenever he loses an argument (tho not exclusively a Marxist principle).

I've seen these accusations before but I've not seen the evidence. Perhaps you can show some? I'll continue to consider it partisan nonsense in the meantime.

>> ^quantumushroom:
I safely predict Orwellian hate crimes and hate speech laws will strengthen under his rule, the closest to outright banning free speech we'll have.

I don't see any basis for this statement except perhaps the idea that 'them Negroes is always conspirin' against us good white folk.' I did notice that Obama voted against a bill to amend the constitution to make "Flag Desecration" illegal. That's big free speech support right there if you ask me. [ref]

>> ^quantumushroom:
A question for Obama supporters: let's say he gets his way and increases taxes on only "the wealthy". Do the middle and lower classes really think they won't suffer any adverse effects by having their employers' earnings slammed?

That all depends on what is done with the money. Not waging a 100 year war with no goals would be a good start.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Obama is nearly a lifelong member of a "church" that promotes Black Liberation Theology. Few things lie closer to a believers' hearts than their faith, whatever it may be. How is it Barry has to disavow his church? Could it be because it's backwards and against not only basic Xtian principles but American principles?

Was a member of said church for less than half his life, actually. If you read up on Trinity United, you'll see they've promoted a number of different ideas about race interaction over the decades as the times and leadership have changed. So, too, has "Black Liberation Theology" changed its implications with time. I know you like to put -ism and -ist labels on everyone and everything, but sometimes it's not that simple and you need full sentences, paragraphs or even pages to explain something adequately.

>> ^quantumushroom:
And there's this:[snip]

Since you've not attributed this quote, I'm not going to address it. Without knowing if it's from a reliable source or just some conservapedia article, I've really got nothing to go on.

>> ^quantumushroom:
What I'm addressing here has nothing to do with why people support Obama. Facts and logic are out the window, Obamites are electrified by these vague messages of "hope" and "change" or still part of the "Anybody but Bush" mindset.

There is some validity to what you say here. Obama is a charismatic and exciting guy and many people have not looked beyond that. It's important to acknowledge that this is the failing of those people and not of Obama, just as it is your failing to make so many false assumptions about him based on his party, race and background rather than documented facts.

i challenged QM on the "Actually seeing europe" thing, he dodged the question, so in true republican style he just made it obvious that he has never been to "europe".

by the way, for the millionth time, "europe" is a bunch of very fucking different countries. i know that might make your brain hurt to think about it, but it's a fact.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Like all Big Government liberals, Barry O is against citizens owning firearms.

No he isn't. He's very much like me, a gun totin' liberal. As he said in his DNC speech, we can make sure hunters keep their guns, but inner-city gangsters don't have uzi's. There's a balance there, somewhere, but there's a lot more of us hardcore libs who find the 2nd amendment untouchable. Apparently you haven't listened to his view on this issue.

"Hunting only, eh?" Taking guns from "inner-city gang members". Absolute horseshit. No president can do it, and all the 50,000 gun laws we have now do is tie down the lawful citizen. Obama is lying about his "love" of guns. He was likely as upset as the rest of the left (minus you) about the latest Supreme Court ruling that the 2nd Amendment is indeed, an individual right to bear arms.

Obama believes in an all-powerful centrist government. There's nothing government can't fix, if only they have the money...

No he doesn't. He doesn't believe in a broken and bloated gov't that does nothing for us. He believes in individual responsibilities, as well as gov't help for those who can't help themselves, and for infrastructure etc projects.

Obama wants to add billions of dollars in new and expanded programs to fight "the bloat". Does that make sense? I believe most liberals are sincere, but if you'll notice, the pool of people "who can't help themselves" seems to be expanding every day. Now we're "helping" you quit smoking, and quit eating fatty foods, see? We're your new nanny!

Also, should Obama win, I won't fault only him on government growth, the reality is the scumbag bureaucrats run Washington and they can easily outlast any and all 8-year terms.

He uses accusations of "racism" whenever he loses an argument.

Now that's just 100% bullshit. And when people like Sarah Palin call him "Sambo", to deny there's any racist attacks against him, is ridiculous.

The "sambo" charge was false.

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/obama-supporters-are-behind-palin-sambo.html

My answer to Obama's racist poor-me victim act will occur on election day. If he loses, there will be plenty of recrimination from the drive-by media about what an evil racist country America is, as if that's the only reason he lost. If he wins, they won't shut up about how wonderful it is to have a Black president, blah blah blah.

He uses class warfare.

There IS class warfare in this country. What, are you fucking insane? What do you think just happened this week? The gov't colluded with the greediest fucks on this planet to take our money, trillions of dollars of it, to pay for their mistakes.

I agree, and I agree it was wrong for these pricks to subsidize failure. But that's government for ya. If government were smaller, with limited funds, it couldn't get away with this. But historically the Left has been pushing hardest for more and more Big Government. The beast slipped its leash long ago, I'm afraid. But all these bailout don't come close to the 3 trillion wasted on the "War on Poverty".

Obama is nearly a lifelong member of a "church" that promotes Black Liberation Theology.

I hate all religions. I don't see where his bullshit is any more "neo-marxist" than any other dumbass religious believer.

Fair enough. Either Obama is lying about his faith to upset religion-haters or he sees it as a valuable tool for activism.

But its real mission is to radicalize American youth and use them to bring about "social change" through threats, pressure, tension and confrontation

You are absolutely nuts. Really, way way off the deep-end here, my friend.

Well, time will tell if he funds this crap, or gets the chance. I see the way American government-schools have rewritten or eliminated the teaching of history. Nothing surprises me anymore. The Democrats have sold their souls to the kook-left fringe, more so than any religious "control" the right.

Facts and logic are out the window, Obamites are electrified by these vague messages of "hope" and "change" or still part of the "Anybody but Bush" mindset.

Wow, you should try insulting more people's intelligence. Shoving everyone into this "Obamites" category shows just how little grasp you have on this election and these candidates.

It's really a compliment. It takes intelligence to have your imagination captured. I freely admit Barry is an aspiring speaker, and say also, he has not been given a thorough background check nor his lacking credentials serious consideration. It really is a case of rockstar-itis.

Still more sifters are from countries that are already socialist, so there's no conflict of interest there.

I take it you've never been outside the US then. I've traveled 1/2 of my life, lived overseas for years on end, in these "socialist" countries you know nothing about. If you think Europe is what socialism looks like, you need to go back to school.

Well, as the pundits love pointing out, the USA isn't as "sophisticated" as Europe, and the "rest of the world", with all its tinpot dictators and sheiks and corrupt regimes and double-digit unemployment welfare states supposedly despises the USA. The wisest here don't want to be anything like Europeans or anyone else.


And lastly, there are the deluded peaceniks who FEEL that the USA is morally no greater than Red China, and that despots can be 'reasoned with' if only we bring them a bouquet of their favorite flowers.

Wow, that sure is a pretty straw-man you built yourself.

These peaceniks are real enough. They've always been with us and they've always been wrong. Only war stops tyrants.

But tell me, oh wise one. When was the last time you saw one of these evil socialist European nations torture someone? When was the last time a European nation used a pack of lies to sell its citizens an illegal war, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people? When was the last time that Abu-Ghraib happened under France's watch? When was the last time any EU country called the Geneva Conventions "cute"? When was the last time any EU country thought that following international laws, and their own military code of conduct, just didn't count anymore?

There's no point trying to reason with anyone who thinks a war can be "legal" or "illegal". Wars are about survival, nothing else. A saddam-free Iraq increases America's chance for survival. A taliban-free Afghanistan increases America's chance for survival. All the other good or evil to follow is secondary.


Where I differ from others on the matter of war is I believe America is the greatest country on earth, and its only moral force. We have the RIGHT and the duty to do whatever it takes. Without the USA, the world is fucked. Europe withers before the Crescent, China is a communist nightmare, Russia is sliding backwards towards the same, the Middle East is perhaps forever a hellish hail of traded bullets. And whether Ron fucking Paul likes it or not, America has been cast in the role of world's policeman.

Wow. You seem like a very, very scared person.

I am more than worried about electing a President that hates America, who has the defense doctrine of Bill Clinton and the economic knowledge of Jimmy Carter. Should he win, we will weather four years of his ridiculousness while Congress via the people, won't support him.

"Barry" voted yea for "an amendment prohibiting the use of any funds appropriated in the FY2007 Department of Homeland Security Act from being used to confiscate legal firearms during states of emergency or major disasters."

I'll give him some credit, but also: Big Deal. He never would've come up with it on his own, and anyway, it's crap from both sides of the aisle. The 2nd Amendment already covers 'states of emergency'.

This is an unfortunate feature of nearly every politician. Even the conservatives haven't been very conservative during the course of my lifetime. I don't agree with this approach either, but that's not to say that throwing money at a problem doesn't get results sometimes. Counting this against him is not unlike accusing him of only having two arms. When a three-armed candidate surfaces, then I'll care that the other candidates only have two.

I agree with you. But conservatives failing to be conservative and liberals being liberals are still two different animals.

>> ^quantumushroom:
He uses accusations of "racism" whenever he loses an argument (tho not exclusively a Marxist principle).

I've seen these accusations before but I've not seen the evidence. Perhaps you can show some? I'll continue to consider it partisan nonsense in the meantime.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/17/obama_invokes_rush_limbaugh_in.html

Here's the latest kerfuffle, Obama's campaign rearranging Rush Limbaugh's parodies to make him sound like a racist. Partisan? Yeah, the party that freed the slaves versus the party of Je$$e Jack$on.

And let's not forget this, Obama speaking: The choice is clear. Most of all we can choose between hope and fear. It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy. We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?

Poor-me racially-charged victimhood from a man who is an American success story by ANY standard.

>> ^quantumushroom:
I safely predict Orwellian hate crimes and hate speech laws will strengthen under his rule, the closest to outright banning free speech we'll have.

I don't see any basis for this statement except perhaps the idea that 'them Negroes is always conspirin' against us good white folk.' I did notice that Obama voted against a bill to amend the constitution to make "Flag Desecration" illegal. That's big free speech support right there if you ask me. [ref]

I have said nothing here that indicates Obama's race factors into whether or not he supports hate crime legislation. It's more a left-wing thing, not a race thing. Hate crime = thoughtcrime, and I don't see Barry or any other left-winger challenging the constitutionally-unsound hate crimes laws. The right, as usual, will just be accused of being racists by the left when they point out the emperor wears no clothes.


>> ^quantumushroom:
A question for Obama supporters: let's say he gets his way and increases taxes on only "the wealthy". Do the middle and lower classes really think they won't suffer any adverse effects by having their employers' earnings slammed?

That all depends on what is done with the money. Not waging a 100 year war with no goals would be a good start.

McCain wasn't referring to 100 years of war, it's a deliberate distortion. He meant something along the lines (I think) of North and South Korea, establishing a lasting military presence there. And yes, I like the idea of B-52s less than 10 minutes from Tehran.

"What is done" with the money, I think you already know, most of it will be pissed away by graft and corruption, bailouts, paying for ongoing failures like the Wars on Poverty, Drugs, and yes, even Terror. I don't see why the Fire Chief of Speckville, Indiana needs a million-dollar APC to defend against terrorists.

There is nothing magical that happens when you give your money to the government. You and I know the value of a dollar, and I trust a dollar in the hands of the average citizen will go much farther than it will in a politician's budget. That's the essence of libertarianism. BTW, it's YOUR dollar!


Obama is nearly a lifelong member of a "church" that promotes Black Liberation Theology. Few things lie closer to a believers' hearts than their faith, whatever it may be. How is it Barry has to disavow his church? Could it be because it's backwards and against not only basic Xtian principles but American principles?

Was a member of said church for less than half his life, actually. If you read up on Trinity United, you'll see they've promoted a number of different ideas about race interaction over the decades as the times and leadership have changed. So, too, has "Black Liberation Theology" changed its implications with time. I know you like to put -ism and -ist labels on everyone and everything, but sometimes it's not that simple and you need full sentences, paragraphs or even pages to explain something adequately.

You and others wish to blast Palin on the "Sambo' remark, which was a fabrication (aka a LIE). You've already decided she's a racist based on something that didn't even happen. Now you expect me and every other person who has a problem with Obama's radical, racist church to simply forget he was a member for over 2 decades and gave them 22K? I'm not saying Obama shares all of Wright's wacky beliefs, but then if McCain said "Bless You" when David Duke sneezed, we both know the level of liberal hysteria that would ensue.

Since you've not attributed this quote, I'm not going to address it. Without knowing if it's from a reliable source or just some conservapedia article, I've really got nothing to go on.

Fair enough. http://www.publicallies.org/site/c.liKUL3PNLvF/b.3960231/

Obama's relations to this organization.


>> ^quantumushroom:
What I'm addressing here has nothing to do with why people support Obama. Facts and logic are out the window, Obamites are electrified by these vague messages of "hope" and "change" or still part of the "Anybody but Bush" mindset.

There is some validity to what you say here. Obama is a charismatic and exciting guy and many people have not looked beyond that. It's important to acknowledge that this is the failing of those people and not of Obama, just as it is your failing to make so many false assumptions about him based on his party, race and background rather than documented facts.

You recognize that it is a failing of the people to not know their candidate. Yes, I will blame the American people if Obama is elected, just as you will blame the other half if McCain is elected.

Yes, I have some assumptions about Obama, but they're based on the many quotes he's made as well as the considerable information about his background, his (in)experience, the company he keeps and his voting record (to the left of Ted Kennedy). I personally don't give a damn about his racial background; if he supported conservative principles with the same thin resume, I'd have a serious choice to make whether he would be better than McCain.

Thanks to all who responded. Yes MINK, you're the Master of Europe and I am at your mercy. You and I have written enough to make a book.

So short form... No... without skewing, perverting, or otherwise altering his record or things he's said... you have no real reason to call him a Marxist other than you just don't like him.

Gotcha...

I think my favorite part was when you actually quoted him...

"They’re going to try to make you afraid. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?"

Way to prove him wrong by the way... since I see you are still trying to convince... I assume yourself?... that he is Muslim... and very rarely actually say his name correctly... Both are very shallow attempts to do... exactly what he said the Republican party would in fact do...

You are all deluded if you think either one of the candidates will do markedly better than bush.

Kucinich, Gravel, Paul, all far better choices, all suppressed by the media and laughed at by their own party.

Face it, your country is fucked.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Yeah, the party that freed the slaves versus the party of Je$$e Jack$on.

Freed the slaves? The party that freed the slaves doesn't exist anymore. The party that freed the slaves was a liberal, progressive party. They may have had the same name, but they're nothing like today's GOP. The Dems were the conservative party in those days.

And let's not forget this, Obama speaking: The choice is clear. Most of all we can choose between hope and fear. It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy. We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?
Poor-me racially-charged victimhood from a man who is an American success story by ANY standard.

I didn't see that statement as playing the victim, a behavior that I despise. He's just taking the wind out of the arguments by bringing them to the table first. Scare tactics are what we've come to expect from the NeoCons. If you don't do what they want, the terrorists have won. Which, now that I think about it, really makes them terrorists themselves.

Hate crime = thoughtcrime, and I don't see Barry or any other left-winger challenging the constitutionally-unsound hate crimes laws. The right, as usual, will just be accused of being racists by the left when they point out the emperor wears no clothes.

I agree that hate crime laws are nonsense and I've been thrashed by the sift for saying so. They are nothing more than legal discrimination. The right might be taken more seriously if they didn't have such a reputation for racism and discrimination. (Accurate or not, that's their reputation)

McCain wasn't referring to 100 years of war, it's a deliberate distortion. He meant something along the lines (I think) of North and South Korea, establishing a lasting military presence there.

He was referring to 100 years of occupation, which still qualifies as war in my opinion. Maybe not fighting, but still a war scenario. I don't think we need military stationed all over the globe, decade after decade. I want our military here, protecting our country when the need arises. We didn't invade Iraq to liberate it, we invaded to conquer it, and "in the 21st century, nations don't invade other nations."

You and others wish to blast Palin on the "Sambo' remark, which was a fabrication (aka a LIE). You've already decided she's a racist based on something that didn't even happen. Now you expect me and every other person who has a problem with Obama's radical, racist church to simply forget he was a member for over 2 decades and gave them 22K?

First off, I hadn't even heard the "Sambo" story before you mentioned it so don't accuse me of any reaction. I looked it up after your comment and the whole thing is ridiculous. A pair of nobodies post the story in their blog with no credible backing... It's not something I would have even taken the time to look at had I stumbled upon it. The Reps haven't missed the opportunity to turn the story into a lie of their own, though. They're claiming this story was fabricated by "Obama's campaign". It sounds more sinister than saying it came from two losers who run a pro-Obama blog.

Fair enough. http://www.publicallies.org/site/c.liKUL3PNLvF/b.3960231/
Obama's relations to this organization.

No, no. Obama's ties to PA were easy enough to find. What I want to know is where the description of PA sounding like Hitler's Youth came from. That was some loony conspiracy theory shit right there.

*dead

"removed due to terms of use violation"

Why the fuck does this happen to every interesting video I see?

This published video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by JAPR.