# Obama, McCain and the rest.



## Ed (Oct 4, 2008)

JonFairhurst @ Fri Oct 03 said:


> I take issue with the attitude that all politicians suck. Often it's the last resort of people who start realize that their preferred politicians suck. They haven't bought into the other guy. And if their top dog stinks, everybody else must stink as well.



Ron Paul to me is the only politician I'd really trust.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Oct 4, 2008)

JonFairhurst @ Sat Oct 04 said:


> I take issue with the attitude that all politicians suck. Often it's the last resort of people who start realize that their preferred politicians suck. They haven't bought into the other guy. And if their top dog stinks, everybody else must stink as well.
> 
> It's this kind of thinking that lowers voter turnout. ("They all suck anyway. It won't matter if I vote.")
> 
> ...



Sorry, it's not the case for me.
Do you think I was leaning towards MCCain/Palin?!! >8o 
Obama/Biden get my vote any day of the week, no contest.

But, when I listen to Obama during the debate (and the same was true of Gore, Kerry) I can't help feeling very frustrated by the fact that due to politics, these guys do not go for the jugular, when they have so many issues that would blow their opponents out of the water.
But they are afraid to loose undecided voters and play the little dance that politicians are so skilled at. Don't offend anyone, look like a friendly, simple folk, throw a few balls in your opponents camp...etc
Too many compromises.
And that's what is the downfall of politicians. By the time they get to leadership positions, they have been in bed with so many people that most of the time their hands are tied.
Yes, you can turn everything around once you finally get the ultimate price, like the Kennedys did (and died for) and I hope that Obama will be one of those (not the assassination part, which our US of A is very capable of setting up if the man pisses too many people off)
When things are too compromised, politics do not work.
I may sound a bit extremist here, but look at History and show me a case where a government that went totalitarian went back to democratic thanks to politicians.
It took revolutions or near-revolutions to do so.

As long as you play the game, you're still in the game...

And about the corruption bit, you probably don't live in the US 'cause here, there is about a new case per day of politicians pocketing dirty money, sex scandals, abuse of authority ...etc


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Oct 4, 2008)

Dave Connor @ Sat Oct 04 said:


> Patrick de Caumette @ Fri Oct 03 said:
> 
> 
> > Dave,
> ...



It's all good Dave.
I certainly wouldn't judge your level of intelligence based on that blunder...
Can you pronounce nu-clear for me please? :wink:


----------



## midphase (Oct 4, 2008)

While on the topic of pronunciation....can we all agree that anyone who still says "Ay-Ran" and "Ay-Raq" is a grade A moron?


----------



## hbuus (Oct 4, 2008)

Patrick de Caumette @ Sat Oct 04 said:


> By the time [politicians] get to leadership positions, they have been in bed with so many people that most of the time their hands are tied.



Even though I consider Palin to be a complete nutcase, I would still prefer going to bed with her, than with any of the other vicepresident or president candidates! :D 

Sorry, couldn't resist! :twisted: 

Best regards,
Henrik

PS. I wonder if she would actually want her hands tied - who knows!


----------



## Ed (Oct 4, 2008)

hbuus @ Sat Oct 04 said:


> Even though I consider Palin to be a complete nutcase, I would still prefer going to bed with her, than with any of the other vicepresident or president candidates! !



As long as she doesnt talk and burys her head in a pillow...


----------



## choc0thrax (Oct 4, 2008)

Actually I would find the talk kinky. I'd encourage her to call me snowmachine racer, I like how she says it.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Oct 4, 2008)

I'd fuck both Biden and Obama if it meant securing that Palin stays in Alaska, and never comes near the Whitehouse again. Hell I would do McCain as well if needed.


----------



## Abe (Oct 4, 2008)

See for yourself...

c-span footage...

who argued for regulating fannie may and freddie mac?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi ... e=e%20mail


----------



## JonFairhurst (Oct 4, 2008)

When Bush was first elected president, he wanted to celebrate with a great f#&k. Not just any f#&k, but the absolute greatest. He looked at magazines, movies, TV shows and the Internet to make his decision. Finally, he made the patriotic choice...

Country first.


----------



## JohnG (Oct 4, 2008)

Abe @ 4th October 2008 said:


> who argued for regulating fannie may and freddie mac?



McCain did not initiate or sponsor greater oversight of either mae (yes, it's "Mae" not "may") or mac until many months after the legislation was introduced and a damning report had been issued on them. So don't pretend with some video footage that McCain led the fight. He acquiesced after the GAO reported negatively on them.

McCain has repeatedly urged exactly what Palin repeated on Thursday, which was to get government out of the way. His tax policies favor the wealthy in sharp contrast with Obama's (which independent analysts report would cut taxes for 95% of Americans), he wants the "free market" to fix the health care problem and he has actively supported deregulation along with the rest of the Republicans for decades.

There is plenty of blame on democrats too -- but it is untrue, a falsehood, for McCain to claim he is a regulator's friend. He is not.

His connections to these organizations are very close to home. A company owned by McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis, was getting $15k a month from Fannie, not a long time ago, but until -- last month! August 2008. McCain flatly had said this wasn't true on 60 Minutes, but it has been confirmed by Fannie and many credible news sources. His campaign has also stated that Raines, head of Fannie Mae, was a consultant to Obama, which Raines, Obama, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal -- among others -- have flatly said was untrue.

If you like conservatives, fine -- have at it. If you think lower tax rates for the wealthy are good for incentives and make the US more attractive to entrepreneurs, that is a reasonable point to argue. But don't pretend that McCain is some kind of regulating crusader, because he never was until two weeks ago.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Oct 4, 2008)

Abe @ Sat Oct 04 said:


> See for yourself...
> 
> c-span footage...
> 
> ...



That footage is from 2004. Republicans held the White House and both houses of Congress for the next two years. They were stopped by the power of Barney Frank and the Democratic Black Caucus? Give me a break.

Clearly, the Democratic Black Caucus was worried that latent racism would keep their constituents from being able to get loans. Their position of support is not surprising. They were representing their districts' interests at the time.

The edited video did not show Republicans arguing against regulations. No doubt, this is very selective editing. Eliminating regulations is part of the Republican platform.

Also, note that the video claims that Franklin Raines is Obama's economic adviser. This lie has been de-bunked.

Let's look at McCain's connections:

_Aquiles Suarez, listed as an economic adviser to the McCain campaign in a July 2007 McCain press release, was formerly the director of government and industry relations for Fannie Mae. The Senate Lobbying Database says Suarez oversaw the lending giant's $47,510,000 lobbying campaign from 2003 to 2006.

And other current McCain campaign staffers were the lobbyists receiving shares of that money. According to the Senate Lobbying Database, the lobbying firm of Charlie Black, one of McCain's top aides, made at least $820,000 working for Freddie Mac from 1999 to 2004. The McCain campaign's vice-chair Wayne Berman and its congressional liaison John Green made $1.14 million working on behalf of Fannie Mae for lobbying firm Ogilvy Government Relations. Green made an additional $180,000 from Freddie Mac. Arther B. Culvahouse Jr., the VP vetter who helped John McCain select Sarah Palin, earned $80,000 from Fannie Mae in 2003 and 2004, while working for lobbying and law firm O'Melveny & Myers LLP. In addition, Politico reports that at least 20 McCain fundraisers have lobbied for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, pocketing at least $12.3 million over the last nine years.

For years McCain campaign manager Rick Davis was head of the Homeownership Alliance, a lobbying association that included Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, real estate agents, homebuilders, and non-profits. According to Politico, the organization opposed congressional attempts at regulation of Fannie and Freddie, along the lines of what John McCain is currently proposing. In his capacity of president of the group, Davis went on record in 2003 and insisted that no further reform of the lenders was necessary, in contradiction to his current boss's sentiments. "[Fannie and Freddie] are subject to an innovative and stringent risk-based capital stress test," Davis wrote. "The toughest in the financial services industry."_

It's one thing for a representative to advocate for the interests of one's own district. 

It's another thing entirely to represent an industry and staff your campaign with lobbyists for that industry.

We can expect the McCain campaign to go very negative for the next month. They will take things out of context, distort the truth and tell blatant lies.

Anything to take our eyes off the real issues and to avoid a policy debate with Obama.


----------



## José Herring (Oct 4, 2008)

The Reps are on the ropes. They're like a trapped animal about to lose its life. They do unpredictable things. They're desperate. They're gonna lash out.

Hope the Obama campaign isn't resting on it's laurels. Cause the next two weeks it's gonna get ugly.

But, Sarah Palin has to now release her finances. My prediction is still that on Oct. 15th three weeks before the election historians will remember that day as the death of fascism forever. The death of the republican party ending in formal charges being brought against the VP and for this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/02/AR2008100203812.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03812.html)


----------



## JonFairhurst (Oct 4, 2008)

BTW, my first home loan was a Fannie Mae loan. I was able to get financing to buy the $95,000 home with a lower down payment and easier qualifying than I would for a standard loan.

That was back in 1983 or so, 20 miles east of LA. It was a fixed rate mortgage. I had a steady job and made all the payments, though with 1980's interest rates, it wasn't easy.

I still support the overall idea of making it relatively easy for first time home buyers to buy a home. The concept is sound. 

What is not sound are interest-only loans, where the buyer never gains equity, and adjustable rate loans with high limits. 

The problem with adjustable rates is clear: the house-poor buyer will default if monthly payments go up too quickly. The problem with interest-only loans is that the buyer won't be able to buy that next house. Each time I've moved, I needed the equity in the previous home just to have a down payment and pay closing costs. 

Fanny Mae used to help first time home buyers. More recently, it - and other lenders - harmed them.


----------



## artsoundz (Oct 4, 2008)

This just out from Sarah-refering to Ayers who did his "thing" when Obama was 8 years old.


Palin told a group of donors at a private airport, "Our opponent ... is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough, that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country." She also said, "This is not a man who sees America as you see America and as I see America."

What a low,disgusting human being. Guilt by association is unbelievably desperate and ignorant.

This is American? no- it's republican.


----------



## Dave Connor (Oct 4, 2008)

Fannie Mae's two largest recipients are Chris Dodd at around $130,000 in a twenty year period and Barrack Obama $120,000 in a three year period. The former chairmen of Fannie Mae is a major player on Obama's team. McCain has received $20,000 over the years and also has a Mae heavy weight on his team.

But look, the system is corrupt. As I said these guys are all playing this particular game and that's how it's played. As to all politicians sucking there's enough of them that suck to put this country in the tank: from both parties. I would not argue the issue of the greed etc., in the private sector. It's an unholy alliance. This is what politicians are supposed stop but instead they helped create it - both parties fingerprints everywhere.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Oct 4, 2008)

Dave Connor @ Sat Oct 04 said:


> The former chairmen of Fannie Mae is a major player on Obama's team.


How many times is the Raines lie going to be repeated? The Washington Post gave McCain's Raines ad a score of "Two Pinocchios."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/09/obamas_fannie_mae_connection.html (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-c ... ction.html)

Regarding the "donations from Fannie Mae", wouldn't that be illegal? Individual contributions are limited to $2,300 per person per cycle. Aren't these actually the total donations from _employees_ of Fannie Mae?

When one gives donations, we are required to give personal information, including the name of our employer. I've contributed to Obama's campaign. To say that my employer has contributed to Obama's campaign would be a lie. But somebody could dig up that information and make that bogus claim.

Obama gets more small contributions from regular folk than does McCain. It's not surprising that he would get more contributions from their mid- and low-level employees.

BTW, I figured out why many people think that Obama supporters see the candidate as a savior. It's because Bush has been so unbelievably terrible. Obama is the light compared to Bush's darkness. It's hope vs. hopelessness.

If this were the end of Gore's eight years and Obama were running, we wouldn't be looking for a savior - though the Republicans might their 2008 candidate as a savior in that scenario.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 4, 2008)

Dave, politics is the art of the possible and not the ideal. No politician can just come in and do everything that's right. There are Republicans to prevent that.

"Ron Paul to me is the only politician I'd really trust."

Maybe, but in addition to the things he says that I agree with, he has a lot of ideas that are way off.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 4, 2008)

And Abe, one more fucking YouTube link from you without anything that advances the discussion and you're out of here.

I'm really tired of you.


----------



## José Herring (Oct 4, 2008)

Mrs. "Joe Six-pack" is a millionaire. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/us/po ... in.html?em

Also, fails to document $17000 in per diem as income. Also, husband Todd claimed loss on snowmobile company after failing to count $17000 in prize money. Also, shady charitable donations.

Also, way too many offshore holdings imo.

Still just the tip of the iceberg. There will be more.

Stay tuned.

Jose


----------



## Thonex (Oct 5, 2008)

josejherring @ Sat Oct 04 said:


> Mrs. "J
> 
> Also, fails to document $17000 in per diem as income. Also, husband Todd claimed loss on snowmobile company after failing to count $17000 in prize money. Also, shady charitable donations.



I'm no Palin supporter.... you know that... But if this is the best they can find on Palin.... then I think there's nothing much.

However, those off-shore accounts.... that's where she'd be hiding stuff..... but that wasn't mentioned in the article. Where did you hear about off-shore accounts?

T


----------



## Dave Connor (Oct 5, 2008)

Jon, I've heard of the Mae exec's involvement on both campaigns from every major news outlet I can think of and had not seen the McCain ad. So if that's not valid then I don't know what to say. Even so Hillary attacked Obama for sweet deals involving Tony Rezco etc. The point I'm making (which Nick addressed) is that if you dig into most politicians doings you will find these kind of things.

Nick, sure I agree that unflawed people are never going to show up in politics or anywhere else. I think the American voter should take the view of candidates and politicians that corporate America takes: these people can be bought. That's why they contribute to both parties. They see them as different sides of the same coin.


----------



## José Herring (Oct 5, 2008)

Thonex @ Sun Oct 05 said:


> josejherring @ Sat Oct 04 said:
> 
> 
> > Mrs. "J
> ...



I was referring to her stock and mutual fund holdings in mostly foreign markets. Now is that putting country first?

Maybe I hate her so much that I'm reading more into this. But, this is the girl that claims to be "Joe six-pack". But, I don't know many Joe Six packs that have stashed away hundreds of thousands. 

Phony six pack that's who she is... :twisted:


----------



## dcoscina (Oct 5, 2008)

Palin went on record saying that dinosaurs and humans existed together back around 6000 years ago. 

If this is not the proverbial nail in the coffin of the Republicans I do not know what is. Boy is she dumb. She probably believes the earth is still flat too. 

Just in case there is any debate, anatomically modern humans have existed for 130,000 years according to fossil records. 

Dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago. There's a little time between the two.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Oct 5, 2008)

dcoscina @ Sun Oct 05 said:


> Palin went on record saying that dinosaurs and humans existed together back around 6000 years ago.
> 
> If this is not the proverbial nail in the coffin of the Republicans I do not know what is. Boy is she dumb. She probably believes the earth is still flat too.
> 
> ...



As I said elseware. The core beliefs she has is shared by many, many americans. So while it seems extremely stupid to some of us (40% of the US, and most of europe) it sounds rather reasonble to her potential voters. 

>8o


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Oct 5, 2008)

And that's what's so scarry about a lot of voters.
They would rather vote for someone that they feel is at their level of intelligence, rather than choose someone with a higher intellect that they'll judge as being pretentious, superior...etc
Therefore, the vote for Bush and Palin.

A pathetic trend for sure.
When you put idiots at the helm, you can be sure that someone else is running the show in the background...someone that nobody voted for (yes Dick, I mean you :twisted: )


----------



## Brian Ralston (Oct 5, 2008)

dcoscina @ Sun Oct 05 said:


> Palin went on record saying that dinosaurs and humans existed together back around 6000 years ago.
> 
> If this is not the proverbial nail in the coffin of the Republicans I do not know what is. Boy is she dumb. She probably believes the earth is still flat too.
> 
> ...



Please... :roll: ...you guys are making yourselves look incredibly foolish with all these things. Seriously.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/newsquotes.asp


----------



## synergy543 (Oct 5, 2008)

Brian Ralston @ Sun Oct 05 said:


> Please... :roll: ...you guys are making yourselves look incredibly foolish with all these things. Seriously.
> 
> http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/newsquotes.asp



Brain is right guys. She speaks eloquently enough herself in the Couric interviews and in the headlines today with her gutter-smearing accusations against Obama. Not to mention her visions of Cheney as a role-model and her desire to further expand the powers of the executive office. Considering what is at stake for both our country and the world, its mind-boggling that anyone would even remotely consider the possibility she might someday be in the presidential office.... a truly terrifying thought.

Charming and folksy as she is, we're not electing VP of the PTA.

Wake up America!


----------



## artsoundz (Oct 5, 2008)

Maybe it's a loose interpretation of what a dinosaur is. Current scientific thought is that birds are direct descendants of dino's. Okay- I'll buy that.

But somehow. after seeing her getting the "witch" cast out of her. her comments w/regard to the Iraq war being God's will, I think she may very well believe Fred Flintstone was an accurate depiction of life.

Thankfully- this current republican tactic will backfire and McCain will lose. It's no wonder there is such a positive fervor for Obama.


----------



## Ed (Oct 5, 2008)

artsoundz @ Sun Oct 05 said:


> Maybe it's a loose interpretation of what a dinosaur is. Current scientific thought is that birds are direct descendants of dino's. Okay- I'll buy that



hehehe, they are, but thats very kind. The only people that refer to birds as dinosaurs are Paleontologists, if a religious fundamentalist like Palin does it you know she means an actual Dinosaur :wink:


----------



## JonFairhurst (Oct 5, 2008)

artsoundz @ Sun Oct 05 said:


> ...But I'm amazed few here aren't incensed with her latest completely baseless lies about Obama and Ayers. If I had any basic human respect for McCain or Sarah Plain -it's gone. It's the kind of tactic that is so overboard as to approach hate speech. Just unbelievable but classic low blow republican tactic.



Here we are with two wars, a $10T debt and an economy on the brink - and the Republican ticket is playing some warped version of the Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon - and they lie while playing it!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Degrees_of_Kevin_Bacon

All the while, McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis - McCain's #1 guy - was collecting payments directly from Freddie Mac into his law firm, Davis Manafort until August 2008. Total payments were about $500,000. Also, Davis was the president of the Homeownership Alliance from 2000 to 2005, from which Davis earned $2M. The group lobbied to stop mortgage regulations.

I'm not saying that McCain or Davis are evil. However, McCain chose an anti-regulation lobbyist as his right-hand man. This reflects directly on McCain's judgment, values and policies. No six degrees involved.


----------



## artsoundz (Oct 5, 2008)

Ed @ Sun Oct 05 said:


> artsoundz @ Sun Oct 05 said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe it's a loose interpretation of what a dinosaur is. Current scientific thought is that birds are direct descendants of dino's. Okay- I'll buy that
> ...



yeah. But the good news is- there is talk that the genes for those dinos are there in birds but dormant. Scientists are thinking there will be a way to turn those on-sort of reverse engineer. 

I, for one, could use a raptor every now and then. I bet I could get a lot more work.


----------



## dcoscina (Oct 5, 2008)

I find it really scary that McCain and Palin are resorting to scare tactics to drum up votes. Their continual rhetoric about fighting the war on terrorism is now more antiquated than '70s disco. 

Question: If Bush's stance on the war against terrorism was so effective, why have more Americans died than the ones from the original 9-11 attacks, why has the economy gone into the shitter, and why is the general tenor of America that of despair?

If you ask me, Bin laden achieved exactly what he set out to with his war on the U.S. With the help of George W Bush, he dismantled everything good about the States. Bin laden was playing a game of chess with Bush who thought it was a game of checkers.

I am not a staunch Democrat by any means- their party has its own issues. But McCain and Palin are the worst figureheads for the Republicans. They did not get my vote (I already voted as an absentee).


----------



## Robobino (Oct 5, 2008)

The Republicans are the Talibans of the United States...


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Oct 5, 2008)

Robobino - perhaps stretching it a bit? 

Brain... you are the one looks foolish if you think we are referring to that email and the likes. We are referring to the fact that she is a creationist, beleives that God's supreme will guides America (and it's wars), and that getting protection against witches is something you ought to do from time to time :roll: 

Imagine the day where a US president, or candidate declares himself agnostic of even atheist. At that point you will have grown immensely as a country! I wonder if it will happen in my lifetime...


----------



## Ed (Oct 6, 2008)

dcoscina @ Sun Oct 05 said:


> , why has the economy gone into the shitter, .



Personally, while George Bush certianly didnt help the economy was destined to fail at some point. The monetary system is really absurd!

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ztjr3kh9-Uo


----------



## dcoscina (Oct 6, 2008)

Ed, you are right. Even in Clinton's admin, there were signs that the economy was going to falter a bit. 

I guess my big issue with the Republican course has not led to an America that is flourishing on any level. There must be some kind of change made and a new direction taken. It's not simple but the current course of the States is that of the Titanic. Personally, I think it already hit the ice berg an even Obama cannot helm a sinking ship. It's a tall order. I do like Biden and believe he will be of great value as a VP.

Edit- I have tried researching Palin and nothing I have found supports the idea that she is cognitively adept enough to hold a position of VP. Seriously. She is incredibly naive and having someone who is so incompetent when it comes to verbal discourse (she has 5 kids so I suppose she's pretty adept at intercourse- sorry, low blow) is terrifying. What the US needs is an elected official who is well spoken, thoughtful, SMART (meaning someone capable of addressing the actual topic- not sidestepping the point with pointless and vacuous rhetoric), and projects an image of open-mindedness. Bush and his cronies were great at throwing the States back into the dark ages with their "we need a bigger stick than our neighbors" credo. 

I am a US citizen who lives out of the country and America's image in the world is a joke. Personally, I know there are many GREAT Americans but they are overshadowed by the boobs who project this image of right-wing fundamentalist conservatism that is seen as backwoods inbreeding. I would like to say I'm a proud American because once upon a time I was. 

If Palin and McCain gain office, I will seriously think of renouncing my citizenship.


----------



## choc0thrax (Oct 6, 2008)

Palin doesn't seem that dumb...if you're watching her 2006 debates. The 2008 ones yeah she is kind of a tard.


----------



## Ed (Oct 6, 2008)

dcoscina @ Mon Oct 06 said:


> Personally, I think it already hit the ice berg an even Obama cannot helm a sinking ship.



I think as soon as they implimented fractional reserve banking it was destined to fail. Obama wont be able to fix it thats true, its built into the system. You cant fix a system that relies on more and more debt in order to make more money. Sooner or later the pyramid will peak and thats what we're seeing.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Oct 6, 2008)

What is really sad is that Obama can't do all the good stuff for you guys as he would like, due to the financial crisis. 

So the next four years he will try fix that... THEN when you elect him for four more years you can expect to see some of the nice stuff


----------



## José Herring (Oct 6, 2008)

Christian Marcussen @ Sun Oct 05 said:


> Imagine the day where a US president, or candidate declares himself agnostic of even atheist. At that point you will have grown immensely as a country! I wonder if it will happen in my lifetime...



Weak point. Some of the most zealous people I know call themselves atheist. They so devoutly believe that there's no God that they go into fits of rage and condemnation when anybody tries to suggest that there is.

While yet some of the biggest minds of the human race believed that there was a God. Starting with Descartes, Frances Bacon, Issac Newton, Einstein, Beethoven, Mozart, Debussy, ect.

So I wouldn't call Atheism any kind of growth. I call it dimwitted. The USSR was suppose to be a Godless country. Look at what happened to the people of that country. It failed on every level. 

The question isn't whether or not somebody believes in a higher being it's whether or not that person is a crazed zealot that won't reason.

On another note I find this despicable:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/10/01/planned_parenthood_hits_mccain.html (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-tr ... ccain.html)


----------



## blue (Oct 6, 2008)

josejherring @ Mon Oct 06 said:


> So I wouldn't call Atheism any kind of growth. I call it dimwitted.



So there should be an openness to the idea of "god" but not to the idea of "no god?" How does that make sense?



josejherring @ Mon Oct 06 said:


> The USSR was suppose to be a Godless country. Look at what happened to the people of that country. It failed on every level.



The USSR was never godless. The people just weren't allowed to practice their religion in public because religion was not compatible with the tenets of communism, or oppression for that matter. The failings of the USSR, however, had nothing to do with an absence of state recognized religious organization. The problems were rooted in economics, global politics and history.

Also, if you want to make the claim that a belief in a god is healthy when running a state or a country, you might want to also reference all the times in the history of man that war and conflict has been propelled by religious belief.

I don't believe in god, but I don't begrudge other people for believing unless they want to inject it into the public domain. That's where I have a problem. The rule of law in western democracies may be rooted in Judeo-Christian values, but its evolvement beyond religion is what makes it universally compatible and protects it from being undermined. The concept of the "free marketplace of ideas" -the philosophical underpinning of democracy- is wholly incompatible with faith-based law.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Oct 6, 2008)

One thing not discussed is McCain's health care proposal. In short, he wants to give us all a $5,000 credit toward buying health insurance. To pay for it, he will tax employers who provide health benefits.

I've heard that the average amount that employers pay for health insurance is #12,000 per employee. (I haven't yet verified it.)

Clearly, employers on the margin will drop or cut health care benefits, urging employees to buy their own.

The real winner is the insurance industry. Rather than dealing with employers, who can threaten to take their large contracts elsewhere, the insurance companies will deal with individuals, who have little power. 

In effect, our power as health care consumers will be disaggregated.

Just over a year ago, my daughter needed treatment. It was clearly covered by the insurance policy. The insurance refused to pay. They even called me, trying to trick me into saying something that would get them off the hook.

The thing is, my employer self insures. The employer uses a health insurance company to administer the plan, but it's really my employer who pays the cost.

After a few strong letters from my employer, the insurance company relented. They paid the bill.

Now, what do you think would have happened if I bought insurance as an individual? If I wanted to get the insurance company to honor their contract, I would need to get a lawyer, and put time and money against their team of retained corporate lawyers. Maybe I could win, but it might take years off my life.

Now imagine that I have no family, that I am the sick or injured party. How the hell can I organize a lawsuit from my hospital bed?

If you haven't seen the film yet, watch Sicko. It shows that insurance companies screw over their clients time and time again.

McCain's plan makes insurance companies more powerful than ever. It puts patients in powerless positions.

If you believe that Wall Street needed to be better regulated, the health insurance industry needs it twice as much. When the market goes down, the government reacts. When the insurance company leaves you bankrupt, nobody will do a thing.

Stay healthy, everybody.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Oct 6, 2008)

josejherring @ Mon Oct 06 said:


> Christian Marcussen @ Sun Oct 05 said:
> 
> 
> > Imagine the day where a US president, or candidate declares himself agnostic of even atheist. At that point you will have grown immensely as a country! I wonder if it will happen in my lifetime...
> ...



Well obviously I beg to differ. If you had a president, or even a candidate that did not invoke god it would be HUGE growth for your nation. It would imply that a wave of reason has washed across the land. To me REASON is king and not god. Dimwitted you say - how? How can rejecting superstition in favor of reason be dimwitted? Is a person who resorts to higher beings (like Thor) to explain natural phenomenon (like thunder) not more dimwitted than someone who goes for a more naturalistic explanation? Please explain...

I guess one of the most important characteristics of a president, to me, would be the ability to REASON. To look at the evidence and facts, and take it from there. But seeing as you believe it is scientifically proven that emotions to not reside in the brain, I guess facts are not as important to you as they are to me


----------



## choc0thrax (Oct 6, 2008)

josejherring @ Mon Oct 06 said:


> Christian Marcussen @ Sun Oct 05 said:
> 
> 
> > Imagine the day where a US president, or candidate declares himself agnostic of even atheist. At that point you will have grown immensely as a country! I wonder if it will happen in my lifetime...
> ...




I consider Atheism as bad as christianity, one is certain god exists and the other that he doesn't, both are dumb. Agnosticism is where it's at...although not as flashy as frozen aliens falling into volcanoes.


----------



## midphase (Oct 6, 2008)

Wow...the McCain campaign is now resorting to spam!

I just got this in the mail:

"http://www.youtube.com/NakedEmperorNews


Hello, been awhile, found this video on YouTube and I thought you might want to see it. Please forward it if you found it useful, if not just delete it, and sorry to have bugged you.

Be good"


And this morning they left a "push poll" message on my home phone!

What happened to McCain declaring that he would run an "honorable" campaign?


----------



## José Herring (Oct 6, 2008)

choc0thrax @ Mon Oct 06 said:


> ..although not as flashy as frozen aliens falling into volcanoes.



Wow! Do you really believe that?! You need to lay off the crack pipe.

Midphase,

John McCain is so out of touch that they've stooped to the lowest form of advertising imaginable.


----------



## Dave Connor (Oct 6, 2008)

Guys like Beethoven were not what we would call religious zealots. But it is the heighth of arrogance to say that their spirtual beliefs were only cultural. People don't talk effusively about God as LvB did with it being the only thing he ever said that was meaningless. This is a person of great depth, character and convictions. He didn't display all these things in his music then suddenly become mindless and shallow about God. Some of my favorite quotes about God are indeed from Beethoven and Bach.

Christian, would you really want someone 200 years from now stating that your current spiritual beliefs or lack thereof are only based upon the time you live in? That would nullify everything your saying here. In fact if the _time+cultural change_ formula you advocate is valid then nothing you are saying here is the real you. How could anyone discuss anything in that case?


----------



## Dave Connor (Oct 6, 2008)

Back to topic.

Both candidates will mud sling now with greater intensity to try and move the numbers. If anything seems to start working then that will be the mantra. It does reflect on the electorate rather poorly that it works. I wish they would concentrate on economic ideas and solutions which is really what we need but as this topic points out, politicians always play the same game: win, win, win, which usually translates to lose, lose, lose, for the people.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Oct 6, 2008)

I understand your point Choco, but I'm guessing you havn't thought it through properbly 



> I consider Atheism as bad as christianity, one is certain god exists and the other that he doesn't, both are dumb. Agnosticism is where it's at...



You must consider the reasons, and likelyhood of the posistions before listing them both as dumb. Are you also agnostic about Zeus and Thor? How about atoms, DNA and germs or whether or not the sun rises tommorow? I'm guessing you are NOT agnostic when it comes to these issues, even if you can't absolutely _know_ if they are true or not. So why be agnostic about the Christian god, but not Zeus? 

Truely being agnostic is almost an impossible feat. In most cases it simply means you haven't cared enough about a subject to research it in-depth. Very few subjects would lead you incapable to come down on one side of the argument (regardless of which side that is). 

Additionally when you say an atheists 'knows' there is no god keep in mind that it's a different kind of 'know'. It's one which is subject to change should the evidence change. Thus one of the prime characteristics associated with being agnostic (doubt), is an inheirent part of being atheist. 

It's like saying that I'm certain that the sun will shine tommorow. I truely am certain about it - yet in fact I could be mistaken. But should I be agnostic about it? No.


----------



## choc0thrax (Oct 6, 2008)

Who says i'm not agnostic about Zeus? Did I say that I was somewhere? I'm also agnostic about a flying spaghetti monster being god, add that to your list.


----------



## choc0thrax (Oct 6, 2008)

BTW your logic is flawed with the whole sun rising, DNA crap. Athiests would then have to absolutely believe that DNA doesn't exist etc. There is one thing though that i'm not agnostic about: your intelligence quotient, some could call me athiest on that one.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Oct 6, 2008)

choc0thrax @ Mon Oct 06 said:


> Who says i'm not agnostic about Zeus? Did I say that I was somewhere? I'm also agnostic about a flying spaghetti monster being god, add that to your list.



No you didn't. I said that... First of all, are we having a serious discussion here? If so, then tell me - are you honestly agnostic about Zeus? I mean, _really_? I'm sorry, but I can't beleive that. And if so, I don't think you should be talking about the intelligence quotient of others. 



> BTW your logic is flawed with the whole sun rising, DNA crap. Athiests would then have to absolutely believe that DNA doesn't exist etc. There is one thing though that i'm not agnostic about: your intelligence quotient, some could call me athiest on that one.



Why the personal attack? :? ´

If we are having a serious discussion and you aren't just pissing around, then please explain me why my logic is flawed. Also lets say some of my examples are flawed... Don't you get the point I was trying to make.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 6, 2008)

"Both candidates will mud sling now with greater intensity to try and move the numbers"

That's true, but that doesn't mean both candidates are equally suited to the job. And McCain proved he isn't suited beyond any shadow of a doubt by his VP selection. We just saw a debate between a statesmen and a hockey mom who'd memorized answers to questions that weren't asked, and everyone in the country is expected to keep a straight face.

It's comedy, only it's scary rather than funny.


----------



## choc0thrax (Oct 6, 2008)

What if I say I don't put much stock in Intelligence Quotient being a good indicator of intelligence, then it's not a personal attack...ok problem solved there. Hmmm next I don't think it's really a serious discussion as I don't take your DNA arguement seriously, I think you know when I said agnosticism I was referring mainly to the existence of a god, not reality itself. These sorts of discussions kinda suck anyways, everyone gets crabby and I get chained to my computer when I could be watching Entourage.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Oct 6, 2008)

choc0thrax @ Mon Oct 06 said:


> What if I say I don't put much stock in Intelligence Quotient being a good indicator of intelligence, then it's not a personal attack...ok problem solved there. Hmmm next I don't think it's really a serious discussion as I don't take your DNA arguement seriously, *I think you know when I said agnosticism I was referring mainly to the existence of a god, not reality itself.* These sorts of discussions kinda suck anyways, everyone gets crabby and I get chained to my computer when I could be watching Entourage.



Well again, that begs the question.. are you really agnostic about Zeus? (rethorical question - don't answer). Secondly, why differentiate between being agnostic about god, and everything else? How is a claim of god not a claim about reality? I mean, do you or do you not beleive that you live in a world where an omnipotent being hears prayers, bothers with our thoughts, reveals himself to prophets, and raises the dead? "I don't know"... Well if you don't know that, then where do you draw the line regarding what you know and what you dont. And you say atheism and christianity is dumb?

I guess I don't buy the notion that claims about god, aren't claims about the reality we live in. 

You may watch TV now.


----------



## Ed (Oct 6, 2008)

josejherring @ Mon Oct 06 said:


> choc0thrax @ Mon Oct 06 said:
> 
> 
> > ..although not as flashy as frozen aliens falling into volcanoes.
> ...



Ron L Hubbard might have been on crack, who knows what made him dream up this stuff! 8)  (money? social experiment?)

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=4bzcGK9xqEU


----------



## Ed (Oct 6, 2008)

choc0thrax @ Mon Oct 06 said:


> I consider Atheism as bad as christianity, one is certain god exists and the other that he doesn't, both are dumb. Agnosticism is where it's ats.



Atheism is a lack of belief in a god
Agnosticism is saying its impossible to know one way or the other. 

I dont have any belief in any gods, I see no reason to believe. I dont say gods certianly dont exist. You would say that is agnosticism, but actually thats atheism. Otherwise, it would make famous atheists Richard Dawkins or James Randi agnostics, rather than atheists.


----------



## Waywyn (Oct 6, 2008)

Ed @ Tue Oct 07 said:


> josejherring @ Mon Oct 06 said:
> 
> 
> > choc0thrax @ Mon Oct 06 said:
> ...



Man, if this wouldn't be so funny, I would cry.


----------



## Dave Connor (Oct 6, 2008)

Christian Marcussen @ Mon Oct 06 said:


> Sorry - but of course spiritual beliefs are product of time, culture (and biology). Do you think it is a coincidence that the most important determining factor for ones relegious beliefs is ones parents? Or that whether you believe in Allah, God, or Vishnu has likely something to do about where you were born?


The differences in the _representation_ of God (Allah, Vishnu etc. ) in _any_ culture have nothing to do with the self determination and maturity that brings one to his own convictions on things spiritual or otherwise. You're actually saying that Beethoven (one of the most original thinkers in recorded history) decided to go with what mommy believed about the universe? So the awe and wonder he spoke of as far as the creator's own brand of symphony he witnessed in his walks in the mountains stem from his culture - not him? Those mountains are still standing. A thousand years from now he looks at them and hears or sees no music? 

Beethoven is the type of spirtual being that to me is the most valid. He wasn't affiliated with a particular doctrine. He was a universalist and creative artist. I wouldn't edit his words about God any more than the notes or lyrics he chose in his music.

I think you are imposing _your_ cultural bias and leanings on a timeless artist which is futile and will not stand any test of time.


----------



## Dave Connor (Oct 6, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Oct 06 said:


> "Both candidates will mud sling now with greater intensity to try and move the numbers"
> 
> That's true, but that doesn't mean both candidates are equally suited to the job. And McCain proved he isn't suited beyond any shadow of a doubt by his VP selection. We just saw a debate between a statesmen and a hockey mom who'd memorized answers to questions that weren't asked, and everyone in the country is expected to keep a straight face.



McCain will have to come up with a dandy. Obama is moving up in the polls. The American people are now running from anything that's old guard since it's an utter failure. Obama will have to be as great as people think because things will be uphill for his administartion (if he wins.)


----------



## Abe (Oct 6, 2008)

Cnn is coming up with 
the dandy for McCain!

Today on Cnn..10/06/08

CNN’s John Roberts: “I just want to try to get to the heart 
of it so that people at home can understand. Our Jim Acosta
talked with your senior strategist David Axelrod about this.
In 1995, William Ayers held kind of a get-to-know you event 
at his place where he was introducing Barack Obama to the 
political culture there in Chicago when he was running for the
State Senate for the first time. David Axelrod said that at that meeting 
Senator Obama was not aware of Ayers’ radical background. Is that true?”

Obama Senior Strategist Robert Gibbs: “Look, if that’s what
David said, that is true. Look, again, this is a relationship, 
excuse me, that Barack Obama has condemned the actions 
of Bill Ayers. This is somebody that The New York Times
said Barack Obama’s not close to, and, again, John, this 
is a way of distracting the American people from what’s important.” 

Like Obama didn't know Rev.Wright after 20 years
dispite claiming him to be like an uncle,
a pastor unabashedly spewing venom from 
the pew, would all of a sudden become timid when
speaking to Obama one on one....

It's gonna come out... 

Kudos to Cnn today!

Character matters..

how many radical friends and associates?

would you feel ok if McCain associated with
KKK for 20 years?


----------



## Robobino (Oct 6, 2008)

Haha...

http://blogs.reuters.com/trail08/2008/10/05/in-slip-up-palin-calls-afghanistan-our-neighboring-country/


----------



## JonFairhurst (Oct 6, 2008)

Obviously, McCain didn't pick Palin for her foreign policy skills. And McCain has admitted that he doesn't know much about the economy.

That can only lead to one conclusion: McCain chose Palin for her deep understanding of the economy.

I can't wait to hear Palin's comprehensive economic recovery plan. I bet it will be mavericky.


----------



## artsoundz (Oct 6, 2008)

Mavericky! Thanks. I'm playing the "maverick" drinking game.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 6, 2008)

I've kicked Abe out of the topic again.

I feel bad about doing this, but in my opinion he's going to have to balance his bullshit with something other than spam saying Obama sits on the toilet (figuratively).

Other people post one-sided stuff, but they have a discussion in between. That's the difference.

If anyone disagrees with me I'm open to discussion. But I feel that all he's doing is pissing everybody off without contributing anything.


----------



## madbulk (Oct 6, 2008)

JonFairhurst @ Mon Oct 06 said:


> Obviously, McCain didn't pick Palin for her foreign policy skills. And McCain has admitted that he doesn't know much about the economy.
> 
> That can only lead to one conclusion: McCain chose Palin for her deep understanding of the economy.
> 
> I can't wait to hear Palin's comprehensive economic recovery plan. I bet it will be mavericky.



I can't wait to hear anybody's.

No, actually that's not true. I can wait forever. I'm not looking to presidents to fix economies nor markets.

But since it's probably going to be a focal point in the next two debates, I'll bet Obama's remarks will be vague, populist and primarily a vehicle for reminding us who's fault it is we're in such a pickle to begin with. A man not irrelevant, but not in the room.

And I'll vote for him twice tomorrow if anybody holds an election. But like Dave, I'm tired of the halo. Tired of the youtube pieces. Etc.

By the way, it's tricky work this not saying the damning thing when really it's been the damning thing that has decided elections for decades. This election could turn on one damning accident out of Obama's mouth. 
You memorize the few available phrases and you spout them, shoehorning as necessary. I'm guessing Biden lacking sleep memorized someone's notes about how "FDR handled the market crash like a leader oughta and got on TV and calmed the .... blah blah blah." You think Biden doesn't know Hoover was the president? Of course he does. He STILL managed to say it and with gusto. They're on autopilot. Some better at the game than others.

Not specifically squaring off Jon, though I quoted you. It's just a segway, dude.


----------



## artsoundz (Oct 6, 2008)

Nick-I wouldnt feel bad. I think abe had a good time.

I could tolerate him if it weren't for the Nazi and North Korea links and the KKK referances.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Oct 6, 2008)

madbulk @ Mon Oct 06 said:


> Not specifically squaring off Jon, though I quoted you. It's just a segway, dude.



No problem. I also want to hear the candidates plans and visions for the economy.

Regarding vision, it's okay to be somewhat vague. Plans, not so much. Of course, the most we will hear about any plan at any debate are a few quick (numbered) bullet points.

The catch I see for McCain is that people want action right now (but not necessarily big price tags) from the government. That means regulation. After years and years of anti-regulation talk from Reagan onward, it's not really credible from McCain.

The Dems are much more comfortable with regulating business, so they're much more credible when they propose it.

Expect both candidates to be a bit timid. Nobody has a crystal ball. The last thing they want is a proposal on which they stand exposed and ends up failing big. With both candidates supporting the "rescue" plan along with the president, his advisers and party leadership, the political exposure on this last effort was pretty darn low.

Personally, I feel more confident with Obama's style if this turns into a real food-on-the-table crisis. Obama comes across as steady, thoughtful and confident. He and his team seem to think ahead like chess players. 

McCain has been more reactionary and in-the-moment. That can lead to an unsteady position. He still acts confident, but it doesn't instill confidence in his audience. His getting hot under the collar doesn't help.

Giuliani actually gave a great example of how to act during a crisis after 9-11. He was calm. He was clear. He didn't get ruffled. He had his facts straight the first time, and gave a consistent message. His calm confidence helped us to be calm and confident.

From what I've seen from Obama during the past year, he has a similar style when challenged. The guy is just plain cool under pressure.

Hopefully that calm confidence will continue during tomorrow's debate. And hopefully, we'll get that N-point plan and more insight into the vision.

We will see...


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Oct 7, 2008)

Dave Connor @ Mon Oct 06 said:


> Christian Marcussen @ Mon Oct 06 said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry - but of course spiritual beliefs are product of time, culture (and biology). Do you think it is a coincidence that the most important determining factor for ones relegious beliefs is ones parents? Or that whether you believe in Allah, God, or Vishnu has likely something to do about where you were born?
> ...



I agree, and I don't think what I say implies otherwise 



> You're actually saying that Beethoven (one of the most original thinkers in recorded history) decided to go with what mommy believed about the universe? So the awe and wonder he spoke of as far as the creator's own brand of symphony he witnessed in his walks in the mountains stem from his culture - not him? Those mountains are still standing. A thousand years from now he looks at them and hears or sees no music?



The sense of wonder and amazement we humans can get from walking in the mountains is there whether we believe in god or not. God is a model we use to explain that wonder, and the concrete god is culturally determined. If our culture had no god, another god, or "the force" Beethoven would still write great music and still feel the exact same feelings - he just might describe them, or understand them differently. The feeling itself is very real... Just not the object of that feeling. 



> I think you are imposing _your_ culteral bias and leanings on a timeless artist which is futile and will not stand any test of time.



If you get the feeling that what I say in any way diminish the music of good ol' LvB then I don't think I'm being clear enough 

Actually I don't think we are that far apart. You just (I assume) regard the object of these feelings as true and real... o-[][]-o


----------



## Ed (Oct 7, 2008)

josejherring @ Mon Oct 06 said:


> They so devoutly believe that there's no God that they go into fits of rage and condemnation when anybody tries to suggest that there is.



Can you point out any actual figures? Intelligent atheists like James Randi, Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris seem to get frustrated when people continue to assert things with no evidence. All of them have said they dont rule out the possibility, they just have no reason to think one exists to believe in it. Me too..



> While yet some of the biggest minds of the human race believed that there was a God. Starting with Descartes, Frances Bacon, Issac Newton, Einstein, Beethoven, Mozart, Debussy, ect.



How many of those are scientists? How many of those were born in the last hundred years? 

And Einstein was about as much of a god believer as Richard Dawkins or myself are.



> So I wouldn't call Atheism any kind of growth. I call it dimwitted.



Really? If there isnt any compelling or objective reason for a god, then atheism is the most reasonable position to take. 



> The USSR was suppose to be a Godless country. Look at what happened to the people of that country. It failed on every level.



Except atheism doesnt mean communism. In that society imposed supression of religious practise was a political method of control



> The question isn't whether or not somebody believes in a higher being it's whether or not that person is a crazed zealot that won't reason.



I have known few atheists that fit that description.


----------



## Dave Connor (Oct 7, 2008)

Christian Marcussen @ Tue Oct 07 said:


> The sense of wonder and amazement we humans can get from walking in the mountains is there whether we believe in god or not. God is a model we use to explain that wonder, and the concrete god is culturally determined.



Making my original point Christian, the above statement is _your_ take on the matter and I wouldn't want to look back upon it at some point in the future and rob your of your thoughts. Yes, this is what you think and feel and you deserve accuracy and respect for all time that in spite of your culture, you were still able to form an objective view of spiritual matters. I afford this respect to the likes of Bach and Beethoven as well and would never want to assume they meant anything but exactly what they said.

No I didn't think your were knocking the great LvB or even commenting on his music in anyway. :wink:


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Oct 7, 2008)

Dave Connor @ Tue Oct 07 said:


> Christian Marcussen @ Tue Oct 07 said:
> 
> 
> > The sense of wonder and amazement we humans can get from walking in the mountains is there whether we believe in god or not. God is a model we use to explain that wonder, and the concrete god is culturally determined.
> ...



Sure they meant it. Human beings through all times have sincearly believed in a myriad of long dead gods, myths and philosophies. In no way am I questioning their sincearity - only the object of their beliefs and more importantly (in this debate) maintaining that their beliefs are inseperale from the culture and time they live in. 

If we go back to what sparked this whole debate... Jose listed a number of "great minds" who believed in god. I simply said that obviously they beleived in god, just like a vast majority everyone during these time - there was no viable alternative. So to to expect otherwise would be strange.

It's similar to listing great hellenic minds and somehow using it as an argument for polytheism, paedophilia, homosexuality, direct democracy, the soul, and slavery. These are all thoughts that prevailed back then... does this make these thoughts any more relevant, true , good or bad? It simply (and dare I say obviously) does not work that way...


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 7, 2008)

Regardless, I find it weird that a presidential candidate has to be Christian to get elected in this country.


----------



## jc5 (Oct 7, 2008)

artsoundz @ Fri Oct 03 said:


> Jc5- you're obligated to write that music now but I would suggest mixing in a little old school R&B : )



If I had more time on my hands to find the appropriate audio quotes.. I really would have, R&B and all! :lol:


----------



## Ed (Oct 7, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Oct 07 said:


> Regardless, I find it weird that a presidential candidate has to be Christian to get elected in this country.



I find it weird that half the country still wants to vote for McCain,.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Oct 7, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Oct 07 said:


> Regardless, I find it weird that a presidential candidate has to be Christian to get elected in this country.



Exactly... What is really wild is that a survey has shown that Atheists are regarded the most untrustworth and least electable behind jews, mormons, and I beleive even homosexual. 

I haven't seen the survey myself, but only read about it... so it may be false. But I wouln't be suprised. 

Christopher Hitchens (author of "God is not great") actually holds that it is not needed to be Christian. He just says no one has tried, and points out most of the founding fathers were did not believe in a personal god.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Oct 7, 2008)

[quote:177aedcb6b="Ed @ Tue Oct 07, 2008 10:26 am"][quote:177aedcb6b="Nick Batzdorf @ Tueò×   ‡´×   ‡µ×   ‡¶×   ‡·×   ‡¸×   ‡¹×   ‡º×   ‡»×   ‡¼×   ‡½×   ‡¾×   ‡¿×   ‡À×   ‡Á×   ‡Â×   ‡Ã×   ‡Ä×   ‡Å×   ‡Æ×   ‡Ç×   ‡È×   ‡É×   ‡Ê×   ‡Ë×   ‡Ì×   ‡Í×   ‡Î×   ‡Ï×   ‡Ð×   ‡Ñ×   ‡ÒØ   ‡


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Oct 7, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Oct 07 said:


> Do I hear black Muslim gay liberal Jewish atheist woman who doesn't like guns and used to have a penis before the operation?
> 
> (Not the 60s Black Muslim, by the way...  )



(S)he definetely doesn't like guns, it seems... /\~O


----------



## Fernando Warez (Oct 7, 2008)

> rgames @ Tue Oct 07 said:
> 
> 
> > Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Oct 06 said:
> ...



Well i disagree with that. What you call anti-Bush, anti-republican & and anti-Palin i call a normal reaction.


----------



## artsoundz (Oct 7, 2008)

rgames @ Tue Oct 07 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Oct 06 said:
> 
> 
> > I've kicked Abe out of the topic again.
> ...



bull. Complete blind b.s. Nobody has linked republicans to Nazis,KKK or North Korea. Absurd. Despite your ridiculous statements,you at least make a contribution. tiny abe made absolutley no contribution to any conversation in off topics. let alone any of the music sections.


----------



## CFDG (Oct 7, 2008)

Abe is quite an automated ass, but he shouldn't go. I miss Aeneas, too. o/~


----------



## artsoundz (Oct 7, 2008)

I dont think Aeneas was booted. He left on his own, I believe. I miss the unrelenting hardass as well. (not a lot- but he made some good points )


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 7, 2008)

Okay, I've unkicked Abe and we can all see more YouTube links of Obama sitting on the toilet. My suggestion is that everyone ignore him, because he only wants to wind people up; he will ignore any replies.

"I've said it before: this feels a lot like NS. Here as there, of course, the power goes to the mods..."

Bullshit piled on top of a steaming mound of goat shit. People like you and Brian R, for example, have totally absurd opinions, but you post because you want to have a discussion. Same with people like Fernando, who has rather far out opinions on the other side.

Abe posts because it gives him an erection when people get mad.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 7, 2008)

And Abe was kicked off two *topics* permanently and this one temporarily. His IP wasn't annihilated with a machine gun so he couldn't even get into the forum.

Furthermore, I asked for opinions about that and listened to them. This isn't totalitarianism.


----------



## Chrislight (Oct 7, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Oct 07 said:


> And Abe was kicked off two *topics* permanently and this one temporarily. His IP wasn't annihilated with a machine gun so he couldn't even get into the forum.
> 
> Furthermore, I asked for opinions about that and listened to them. This isn't totalitarianism.



Just for the record, Abe was not and has never been banned from the forum, as we take banning very seriously here. (Kicking a person out of a topic is another thing and that is usually left to the discretion of the moderators.) The problem with Abe is he has NEVER once posted anywhere but on a political thread!  This forum is NOT a political forum - it is a place for musicians and composers - apparently, Abe is not one as far as we know - so could be considered to not even be a legitimate member of VI. As far I can see, all the other members in this thread and the other political ones ARE contributing members of this forum. There are many who would prefer to have NO politics discussed here, as there are plenty of other forums where one can discuss politics to their heart's content. 

So Abe, please don't take Nick's unkicking you from this topic as a license to once again do what you were doing in the other threads you were kicked from.


----------



## artsoundz (Oct 7, 2008)

you guys are amazingly fair minded. Despite abe, I think that's huge.


----------



## Chrislight (Oct 7, 2008)

artsoundz @ Tue Oct 07 said:


> you guys are amazingly fair minded. Despite abe, I think that's huge.



Thanks! We try to be - although we do have our limits. In the case of Abe and his not being a contributing member, he knows he is treading on thin ice.

Off Topics is meant to be a place for our members to discuss matters that aren't related to music, but are important to them. It is NOT a place for those who are not contributing elsewhere on the forum to push their agendas.


----------



## Dave Connor (Oct 7, 2008)

abe hasn't really bothered me because I haven't really heard anything from him that isn't out there in the media a ton. Plus I don't really favor either candidate. As to internet protocol in advancing the topic I'm not savvy in such matters. I figured Nick knows a whole lot more about that kind of thing so I wasn't bugged by his discretion either. Erring on the side of speech is always good though no doubt.


----------



## Dave Connor (Oct 7, 2008)

Christian Marcussen @ Tue Oct 07 said:


> Sure they meant it. Human beings through all times have sincearly believed in a myriad of long dead gods, myths and philosophies. In no way am I questioning their sincearity - only the object of their beliefs and more importantly (in this debate) maintaining that their beliefs are inseperale from the culture and time they live in.



You might consider that the god of a very small tribe of people going back 6000 years (Israel) has been accepted by one third of the entire planet throughout countless cultures. These cultures have changed constantly throughout the millenia (including Israel.) The US culture alone has changed radically in the last 75 years.

No there is something else afoot here that defy's a cultural definition. It's more mystical and more personal. You may not have anything like that Christian but hundreds of millions of people do. You couldn't possibly possess some ultimate understanding of each and every one of these people or even why in spite of their cultures changing over thousands of years this phenomenon doesn't.

In Beethoven's case I don't claim to understand a single thing about the man outside of objective historical facts. As to his spiritual beliefs and what formed them or why, I wouldn't dare to apply some pat reason or explanation.


----------



## madbulk (Oct 7, 2008)

madbulk @ Tue Oct 07 said:


> By the way, it's tricky work this not saying the damning thing when really it's been the damning thing that has decided elections for decades. This election could turn on one damning accident out of Obama's mouth.



Or it could be cemented by referring to your opponent as "that one."


----------



## artsoundz (Oct 7, 2008)

yeah-that was crude. He blew it on that and the "telgraphingPakistan" thing. Obama slammed dunked the reply.


----------



## madbulk (Oct 7, 2008)

Well, I don't wanna go berserk over it either. It was, as you said, crude. But not much worse than that. I just believe the pundits who are saying it's gonna stick.


----------



## Chrislight (Oct 7, 2008)

Cool Vs. Crotchety: :lol: 

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plan ... obama.aspx

Everybody was worried that Obama wouldn't fare as well in a town hall meeting, but what they forgot is that for once, the two would be seen walking around instead of being behind a podium. Obama came across as looking much more presidential - and appearances can influence how people vote.

I also think the "that one" remark is going to hurt him and will be echoed over and over by many. Another tactical error is McCain didn't stay after the debate and talk to people very long, whereas Barack and Michelle did. All those people will be interviewed tomorrow and will probably have a positive response to that.


----------



## José Herring (Oct 7, 2008)

Obama was like budda' baby!

Swish...nothin' but net.

But in all fairness. McCain was good too. He's a good guy. Just not presidential enough imo.

Too bad. It'll probably be the last time he'll run.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Oct 7, 2008)

The most telling reaction to me was the CNN post debate question of likability. Obama won 65% to 28%.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... the-night/

That's huge. And I think it trumps race and "The Bradley Effect." Let's face it. Americans across the board like Will Smith, and we vote with our pocketbooks to see his films. Many say that we voted for Bush, because he was the guy we would rather have a beer with. Gore and Kerry were both stiff.

Sure, there's the economy, Iraq, 8 years of Bush, Energy, Health Care etc, etc. Those issues are a mix of logic, feelings, loyalty, saving face on previous positions.

Likability, however, is simple and purely emotional. Unless Obama really blows it, he'll stay likable. And it will be hard for McCain to win that back - especially if the campaign gets even more ugly and desperate. We still have 27 days to go.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Oct 8, 2008)

josejherring @ Tue Oct 07 said:


> Obama was like budda' baby!
> 
> Swish...nothin' but net.
> 
> ...



Yeah. He is 8 years too late. His time was 2000.


----------



## hbuus (Oct 8, 2008)

Just saw a video clip with McCain refusing to shake hands with Obama after the tv debate yesterday. It's a shame when something like that happens. Being fierce political competitors IMO does not rule out respecting one of the most basic groundrules of social behaviour. McCain could just have shook Obama's hand while (no doubt) thinking something like 'what a jerk'


----------



## artsoundz (Oct 8, 2008)

I think that was just an oversight and unintentional. McCain gestured Obama to his wife,Cindy when Obama put his hand out so it was one of those things. I think they did shake right after the debate-when they got in the way of Brokaws wrap up. 

I dont think McCain is that unsavvy as a politician. But yeah, He might have stuck around. 

Doesn't matter- I think it's over.


----------



## dcoscina (Oct 8, 2008)

My 93 year old grandmother has been a staunch Republican since she was of voting age. This year, she said she's voting for Obama and the Democrat party for the first time in her life. To me, this is a profound statement on how disillusioned right wingers are with the current incarnation of the Republican party.


----------



## Ed (Oct 8, 2008)

Dave, I hope you're right. I think Obama will have a hard time changing things a may just continue a lot of what is screwing the country up, but, the thought of McCain and Palin at the helm is a damn scary proposition.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 8, 2008)

> abe hasn't really bothered me because I haven't really heard anything from him that isn't out there in the media a ton. Plus I don't really favor either candidate.




Irrelevant, Your Honor. The charge is trolling, not having the wrong opinion.

But I hope you'll vote for Obama, if for no other reason than Sarah Palin. She's a total zero, and McCain looked pretty rickety on his feet to me last night. He seemed to be out of breath a couple of times.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 8, 2008)

What a boring debate. I actually drifted off to sleep for a second in the middle of it - my wife had to wake me up. All they did was stand up there and play the same tapes we've heard before.


----------



## Frederick Russ (Oct 8, 2008)

I thought I would chime in here for a sec so let me be clear: if Nick B hadn't stepped up to moderate the OT forum (plus a public outcry to keep it on VI) we would essentially cease having an OT forum. The political arguments and bad sentiments that come from it sometimes makes it not worth the effort - but that's just my personal opinion. Since I admit to harboring that opinion and realize that it may affect my objectivity, I've handed over the OT forum moderating duties to someone with a fresher approach in this arena. I try to avoid moderating here in OT if possible unless there is a serious problem so I usually try to stay out of it.

I have a different moderating style than Nick B - which isn't a knock on either his or my style. Sometimes this area almost runs like a chat room where moderators do have the option to kick spammers from topics. (Kicking from topics is very different from banning a member from the forum - that itself needs to be dealt with by the entire moderation team and not just one member of it.) To my knowledge the action of kicking or banning has rarely been taken in the four years we've been in operation. In the music areas of the VI, its business as usual as far as the moderating style you've been used to since the beginning. I neither agree or disagree with the actions taken. I just wanted to clarify that the parts of VI that concern me most are the areas that have to do with music, music production and the tools used for that. If OT begins to interfere with any of that then we'll need to discuss the future of this area as a community - but it seems for now that Nick is doing a good job so far - but again, that's just my opinion.


----------



## midphase (Oct 8, 2008)

I don't see any problem with the OT area, quite frankly if OT wasn't part of VI, I would probably be BYE.

Regarding Abe, I think that it would be an entirely different case if the guy had posted in other parts of VI, contributed his music, or musical ideas, and generally engaged in discussions other than slamming Obama. I did a search of his post history and found only a couple of posts in other parts of VI, and even in those cases the posts were not particularly informative or contributed much of anything. Adding to the overall "troll-ish" perception is the very anonymous nature of Abe (his real name?) with no home web site, no location information, or gender, or professional or personal interests given.

I think that all members of VI-Control should realize that while their anonymity is respected, it could lead to a sense of mistrust from other users.


----------



## Ed (Oct 8, 2008)

OT is fun! Even when we argue! I mean, even though Im short with Jose here I love him really


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Oct 8, 2008)

Ed @ Wed Oct 08 said:


> OT is fun! Even when we argue! I mean, even though Im short with Jose here I love him really



Yeah, like Fernando... Nut job... But lovable   o-[][]-o ... It's all good fun. Debating is healthy, and good for the brain. Surrounding yourself with people who agree with you is a mind killer 

What would this place be without the creationists, atheists, conspiracy theorists, liberals, conservatives, religious fundementalists, etc... OT is the soul of V.I control.


----------



## artsoundz (Oct 8, 2008)

what they said. I can't think of a single person here I wouldn't want to meet and be friends with. Anyone that can put up with my irritating sense of humor has great character
and deserves a medal or something inexpensive.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Oct 8, 2008)

McCain has decided to go 100% negative with his ads. I guess he REALLY doesn't want to talk about the issues - any issues!

http://www.tvweek.com/news/2008/10/election_ads_more_negative_tha.php (http://www.tvweek.com/news/2008/10/elec ... ve_tha.php)


----------



## Fernando Warez (Oct 8, 2008)

f%#%#???.......... 

duplicate!


----------



## Fernando Warez (Oct 8, 2008)

Regarding the last debate, the pandering to the Israeli lobby by both candidate is getting ridiculous. Obama is like: ''Israel is or best allies...the usual PR... '' And then McCain is like: ''I'll take it in the butt for Israel! ...and i don't mind if my wife is watching! ...you can take pictures and post them on YouTube if you want?'' ...Please!! I want to be president!!!PLEASE!!!!!!! :cry: 



> Anyone that can put up with my irritating sense of humor has great character
> and deserves a medal or something inexpensive.



Well that made me laugh. :lol:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 8, 2008)

I think anyone who's pro-Israel should be in favor of the U.S. mediating rather than taking sides, but the truth is that Israel *is* our only ally in the region. We have an ideological bond that we don't have with any other country there; it's a Western-style democracy.

So what Obama said doesn't bother me, but what Palin says about not second-guessing anything Israel does is another story. Never mind the morality, that kind of hyperbole isn't in our best interest at all. 

Put a cork in it, Beyotch!


----------



## JonFairhurst (Oct 8, 2008)

Nice link, synthetic.

Unfortunately, it shows that much of politics is a team sport. I don't have to know why I support my home team. I just know that I want them to win.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 8, 2008)

Whoa.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Oct 8, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Oct 08 said:


> Whoa.



+100


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Oct 8, 2008)

synthetic @ Wed Oct 08 said:


> This is too one-sided. Let's hear from the McCain supporters now:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjxzmaXAg9E



Whoever you support... That is hilariously scary :D


----------



## Ed (Oct 9, 2008)

Oh man, Obama is a terrorist because... of his name?? HAHAHA oh man... this is why people voted Bush back in and why McCain still has a good chance.


----------



## Thonex (Oct 9, 2008)

synthetic @ Wed Oct 08 said:


> This is too one-sided. Let's hear from the McCain supporters now:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjxzmaXAg9E



ugghhhhh..... that video almost made me physically ill. Talk about a lynch mob. What scares me is that any of those idiots could/would pull the trigger on Obama. I think in these last few weeks we're going to see some crazy desperation from crazy right-wing fanatics... very scary... and I don't get a good feeling about it.

T


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Oct 9, 2008)

Ed @ Thu Oct 09 said:


> Oh man, Obama is a terrorist because... of his name?? HAHAHA oh man... this is why people voted Bush back in and why McCain still has a good chance.



Don't forget his bloodline... 

Crazy indeed... Honestly. How large a percentage of republican voters are like that? 10%? I'm wondering how large a part of the electorate they are.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Oct 9, 2008)

There are also anti-Bush extremists and nut jobs. The difference is that they rail against his actions, not his name or "bloodline."

I have yet to see anybody as rabid against McCain. I guess he hasn't started his own war (yet).

I don't recall seeing that kind of mob reaction against Gore or Kerry. I guess this is what you get when you mix fear, desperation and racism.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Oct 9, 2008)

Christian Marcussen @ Thu Oct 09 said:


> ...Crazy indeed... Honestly. How large a percentage of republican voters are like that? 10%? I'm wondering how large a part of the electorate they are.



Just the other night I visited with my daughter's friend. She said that she had just met her dad's new fiance, and that the woman had broken her hand that day. The dad took her to the emergency ward. The TV was tuned to a Spanish language broadcast. The guy got so pissed and caused such a commotion - that he got kicked out of the emergency ward!

This is what you get when you mix unfocused anger and rage with alcohol and race...


----------



## Ed (Oct 9, 2008)

Christian Marcussen @ Thu Oct 09 said:


> Ed @ Thu Oct 09 said:
> 
> 
> > Oh man, Obama is a terrorist because... of his name?? HAHAHA oh man... this is why people voted Bush back in and why McCain still has a good chance.
> ...



Of course, he is black. And black people are probably terrorists especially with a name like Obama. I mean really, Obama, that just aint American is it!  *plays star spangled banner*



> Crazy indeed... Honestly. How large a percentage of republican voters are like that? 10%? I'm wondering how large a part of the electorate they are.



I dont think all are like that, but how they can look the other way to all the many reasons to dislike the McCain campaign I dont know.


----------



## Ed (Oct 9, 2008)

Btw people should look up the Obama O'Reilly interview. O'Reilly actually makes him look good because of his terrible arguments and how Obama remains cool throughout the entire thing. Funny thing is he jokes with him at the end. Great interview. I would provide a link but youtube seems to be down right now.


----------



## JB78 (Oct 9, 2008)

That video is just sad...:(


----------



## synthetic (Oct 9, 2008)

Ed @ Thu Oct 09 said:


> And black people are probably terrorists especially with a name like Obama. I mean really, Obama, that just aint American is it!  *plays star spangled banner*



Dixie. Preferably from a cellphone or car horn.


----------



## artsoundz (Oct 9, 2008)

haha. car horn works for me....


----------



## Ed (Oct 10, 2008)

Wow. Glenn Beck. Amazed he can say this on mainstream Tv! :D 
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TNHZPFr8KN8
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ztjr3kh9-Uo


----------



## choc0thrax (Oct 10, 2008)

Glenn Beck is a pile of $hit.


----------



## madbulk (Oct 10, 2008)

Ed @ Fri Oct 10 said:


> Wow. Glenn Beck. Amazed he can say this on mainstream Tv! :D
> http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TNHZPFr8KN8
> http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ztjr3kh9-Uo



I hate Glenn Beck personally, but what's the problem here? I only watched the first one. Do I need to watch both to get the point? The first one, I can't find fault with.


----------



## SvK (Oct 10, 2008)

The only thing more smug then Glenn Beck is Lou Dobbs........

...With his constant arrogant sighing.....before the onset of any sentence.......I really hate him the most......

Don't get me wrong ....there are Republican pundits that I respect.....

David Gergen comes to mind.

SvK


----------



## dcoscina (Oct 10, 2008)

I know some very articulate, nice people who prefer Republicans over Democrats. What I do not understand is how they can think that 4 or worse 8 years of McCain and Palin will undo all of the crap that the current administration has wrought on the US. I really do not have any confidence in someone who has had a very aggressive form of melanoma and another who thinks it's God's will that we are bombing the crap out of the Middle East...seriously.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 10, 2008)

Lou Dobbs isn't bad when he's talking about anything other than illegal immigration - which unfortunately is rare. When he is talking about it I want to throw darts at the TV.

David Gergen is conservative, but he was an advisor to Clinton too. He's not a rabid conservative, in other words.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 10, 2008)

"What I do not understand is how they can think that 4 or worse 8 years of McCain and Palin will undo all of the crap that the current administration has wrought on the US."

McCain becomes their strict uncle and Palin is the woman they meet at the supermarket complaining about the prices. They "have a connection" with the persona these people put on.

Or maybe they vote for them only because they don't like abortion, or because they like Palin's religion. Regardless, it can't have much to do with the serious issues facing the world today.


----------



## dcoscina (Oct 10, 2008)

Palin's stance on abortion is just scary. She's basically blinded by her religious beliefs to the point where she feels it's right to inflict it on the rest of women in the US in spite of those who are raped or molested by their fathers and are expected to bring those abominations into the world. Does Palin understand that inbreeding leads to severe genetic defects and that it would be cruel to bring a life like that into the world?


----------



## synthetic (Oct 10, 2008)

Did you see that Obama bought the 8-8:30 slot on CBS and NBC the Wednesday before the election? And it cost under $1 million?? 

So who's scoring that one? You'd better pop for a live orchestra. And if he loses, it's because your melody wasn't good enough. Now stop reading the internet and start writing! 

(Hopefully he ponyed up for Johnny.)


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 10, 2008)

I hope it's effective and that the margin goes way above that 10% Gallup poll in the actual election, but I do agree with the old McCain about one thing: our campaigns cost way too much money and we need campaign finance reform.

As soon as politicians get into power they're busy thinking about fundraising so they can get re-elected. That doesn't just open the door to corruption, it invites it in.


----------



## synergy543 (Oct 10, 2008)

Here's a good study on Palin..tology (using Sarah Palin communication in everyday life) for those of you who don't understand how it works.

http://www.236.com/video/2008/palining_9460.php


----------



## artsoundz (Oct 10, 2008)

synergy543 @ Fri Oct 10 said:


> Here's a good study on Palin..tology (using Sarah Palin communication in everyday life) for those of you who don't understand how it works.
> 
> http://www.236.com/video/2008/palining_9460.php




perfect. And now..this just in

"Alaska panel finds Palin abused power in firing" AP news 

I wont post a link but it can be found easily enough. No real surprise and there is no excuse. 

However- I gotta say- the trooper in question is without a doubt someone that should not be in law enforcement imo and I can understand the fervor but I'll say again, Palin screwed up and it's good to see this red flag.


----------



## rgames (Oct 11, 2008)

synthetic @ Fri Oct 10 said:


> Did you see that Obama bought the 8-8:30 slot on CBS and NBC the Wednesday before the election? And it cost under $1 million??



Yes - it's depressing. When Obama and McCain both stated their commitment to public financing I really thought this election would be something different. I thought that maybe we were on the verge of an election that wasn't going to be purchased. I thought that JUST MAYBE we were going to witness a true dialog, not one sold to the highest bidder.

Of course, Obama flip-flopped on that one, even while McCain continues to honor the commitment that both initially agreed to. It was at that point that I really began to view Obama as just another politician.

Money buys influence. Same old same-old. Bummer.

How is that change?

rgames


----------



## artsoundz (Oct 11, 2008)

I dont think the word "honor" belongs in the same sentence as McCain.


----------



## Ed (Oct 11, 2008)

madbulk @ Fri Oct 10 said:


> Ed @ Fri Oct 10 said:
> 
> 
> > Wow. Glenn Beck. Amazed he can say this on mainstream Tv! :D
> ...



Stuff like this I mean... 

_"*BECK*: The "Real Story" is that the elitist Fed bankers, who answer to virtually no one. They`re not actually part of the government..._

or...

_"*BECK*: Congressman, I have to tell you that I find myself increasingly in a place mentally that I just don`t want to be. I`ve never been a conspiracy theorist. I`ve never been any of these -- you know, I`ve never been a John Birch or anything. I always thought those people were crazy.

But the more you learn and the more you look at history -- this weekend I was reading about the crash of 1907, and how that thing was controlled and what came out of that and came to the Fed. I mean, we`re repeating the same mistake, and it was always to give these private individuals control, almost a fourth branch of government or a separate tree, of our economic system. How do we get -- how do we untangle ourselves from that?"

*PAUL*: There is no more ominous power than to give this authority to a secret bank to create money out of thin air. And it works as long as people trust the money.

But if the money has no backing to it and it is not convertible into anything, it eventually ends. And this is what we`re witnessing, the beginning of the end of the dollar hegemony. It is going to end, because the world is starting to reject it.

But no, we need a new monetary system, and it will come. All paper money self-destructs. Now we`re seeing what is happening. They`re able to patch it together now and then for decades, even Bernanke who is getting a lot of blame now, he didn`t create most of these bubbles. Yet he`s trying to keep this system that is unsalvageable together by just further inflating.

But eventually we will have to have monetary reform. It is coming, and it`s coming quickly._


----------



## Thonex (Oct 11, 2008)

Ed @ Sat Oct 11 said:


> But eventually we will have to have monetary reform. It is coming, and it`s coming quickly.



Ever since the US got ff the gold standard, it's been a slow US dollar death.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 11, 2008)

However that's not the main part of the underlying problem right now.

This is an interesting article by Nobel-winning economist Joseph Stieglitz - the same man who pegged the real cost of the Iraq war at $3 billion. He explains what happened and what to do about it.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/feat ... rentPage=1


----------



## midphase (Oct 11, 2008)

"Of course, Obama flip-flopped on that one, even while McCain continues to honor the commitment that both initially agreed to."

Richard,

Just to be absolutely clear on this, and so that we agree:

Obama did indeed change his mind on that, but McCain is simply exploiting a "loop-hole" in the system covertly. The RNC is now paying for McCain's campaign and they don't have any such limits, McCain himself is not allowed to raise money privately....but his party can and does.

Ultimately it's the same difference, McCain's decision (like his announcement that he was suspending the campaign) was purely symbolic and nothing more.


----------



## rgames (Oct 11, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Oct 11 said:


> However that's not the main part of the underlying problem right now.
> 
> This is an interesting article by Nobel-winning economist Joseph Stieglitz - the same man who pegged the real cost of the Iraq war at $3 billion. He explains what happened and what to do about it.
> 
> http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/feat ... rentPage=1



I'm reminded of Black-Scholes, also Nobel winners in economics. Their prize-winning economic theory on option pricing turned out to be bogus.

Regarding Stieglitz' commentary: how can an economist confuse debt (balance sheet item) with a surplus (cash flow statement item)? They're completely different - that's basic accounting and surely he picked that up somewhere... Perhaps he has an agenda behind his comments? It's consistent with the misleading info that Obama has been spreading. Could it be? Nah!

Yes - we had a surplus under Clinton. At that time, we also had the largest national debt as percentage of GDP since about world war 2. Just because you have a surplus doesn't mean you don't have debt. Why do people not understand this fact? Obama has used it to great effect in his campaign and, quite frankly, it's extremely shady behavior. Granted, Clinton did bring it down a bit, but *where we sit right now is around where it maxed out under Clinton*.

Here's an example: deficit/surplus has to do with cash flows. Debt has to do with what you owe. So, let's say you get a gig that pays $1,000,000 and you have $100,000 in debt. If you don't use the $1,000,000 to pay the debt, you still have debt! And you have a surplus of cash flows. Surplus/deficit and debt are two different things.

Of course, if you have a surplus of cash flows, it makes sense (usually) to pay off debt. So why didn't Clinton do that?!?!?! I find that extremely irresponsible.

Regarding the current economic problems, why does everyone overlook the fact that the deregulation that got us into this mess was signed into law under Clinton, and backed by the Democrats?

Remember the last half of the 90's? The news coverage of "record levels of home ownership" was all over the place, and Clinton loved it (the man loves attention, what can I say...). So he read that public sentiment and rode with it. Well, now we're paying the price for that lack of leadership.

What the country needed at that time was a *leader*, not a follower. A leader who would stop, think, and, at the risk of political suicide, recommend an action against the tide of public sentiment. But Clinton wouldn't do that - he's a follower.

Indications to date are that Obama is cut from the same grain.

rgames


----------



## José Herring (Oct 11, 2008)

rgames, it's not what you think people are but rather what actions that people take.

Your republicans have brought us closer to communism than any other party. The take over of Fannie and Freddie, the move to take over part of the banking industry.

Your party is looking more "red" everyday.

It disgust ò‘·   ˆ
r‘·   ˆ
s‘·   ˆ
t‘·   ˆ
u‘·   ˆ
v‘·   ˆ
w‘·   ˆ
x‘·   ˆ
y‘·   ˆ
z‘·   ˆ
{‘·   ˆ
|‘·   ˆ
}‘·   ˆ
~‘·   ˆ
‘·   ˆ
€‘·   ˆ
‘·   ˆ
‚‘·   ˆ
ƒ‘·   ˆ
„‘·   ˆ
…‘·   ˆ
†‘·   ˆ
‡‘·   ˆ
ˆ‘·   ˆ
‰‘·   ˆ
Š‘·   ˆ
‹‘·   ˆ
Œ‘·   ˆ
‘·   ˆ
Ž‘·   ˆ
‘·   ˆ
‘·   ˆ
‘‘·   ˆ
’‘·   ˆ
“‘·   ˆ
”‘·   ˆ
•‘·   ˆ
–‘·   ˆ
—‘·   ˆ
˜‘·   ˆ
™‘·   ˆ
š‘·   ˆ
›‘·   ˆ
œ‘·   ˆ
‘·   ˆ
ž‘·   ˆ
Ÿ‘·   ˆ
 ‘·   ˆ
¡‘·   ˆ
¢‘·   ˆ
£‘·   ˆ
¤‘·   ˆ
¥‘·   ˆ
¦‘·   ˆ
§‘·   ˆ
¨‘·   ˆ
©‘·   ˆ
ª‘¸   ˆ	û‘¸   ˆ	ü‘¸   ˆ	ý‘¸   ˆ	þ‘¸   ˆ	ÿ‘¸   ˆ
 ‘¸   ˆ
‘¸   ˆ
‘¸   ˆ
‘¸   ˆ
‘¸   ˆ
‘¸   ˆ
‘¸   ˆ
‘¸   ˆ
‘¸   ˆ
‘¸   ˆ

‘¸   ˆ
‘¸   ˆ
‘¸   ˆ
‘¸   ˆ
‘¸   ˆ
‘¸   ˆ
‘¸


----------



## Ed (Oct 11, 2008)

I dont think the Republicans are necessarily bad, Ron Paul is very - as I understand it - republican yet nothing like any of them running.


----------



## Jack Weaver (Oct 11, 2008)

Jose,

Yes, there is a move afoot to towards (if not communism) at least socialism and the lack of individual accountability.

The Republicans did not take over Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac. Please remember that the 'bailout bill' was largely opposed by the House Republicans - even though it could have been passed at any time by the majority party - the Democrats. However, the Democrats wanted 'cover' by having a few Republicans vote with them. 

Both Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac have been the darlings of the Democrats for many years. Democratic legislators Chris Dodd, Barney Franks and Maxine Waters have not only supported all actions of these organizations but have taken overt public action in order to both protect and promulgate these organizations and their leadership - against any attempt to rein them in. These companies hide under government protection when necessary and flount their independence when it is in their best interest. 

I do very much agree with you that this is a very disturbing trend. The US government should stay away from nationalizing any business. I don't want the same beauracracy that gave us Katrina owning our financial institutions, manufacturers, medical industry or sample developers. 

I don't care if the person is named Bush, Obama, McCain or Pelosi. Cut it out.


----------



## Ed (Oct 11, 2008)

I dont understand where Jose gets Communism from, if anything its a dictatorship.

In regards to nationalising banks, I think banking should be a public service. No interest should be applied at all, thats the cause of all the problems.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 11, 2008)

Richard, you're picking up one small point from the article, distorting it, and changing the subject to Bill Clinton.

I'm not an economist, but to me Stiegler's analysis makes an awful lot of sense - and remember, he's a Nobel prize winner, not some wanker who fell off the turnip truck.

And of course he's going to be for Obama. He's very intelligent.


----------



## synthetic (Oct 11, 2008)

Now Palin is calling Obama's views on Abortion "extreme." 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/11/ ... index.html



> "In times like these with wars and financial crisis, I know that it may be easy to forget even as deep and abiding a concern as the right to life, and it seems that our opponent kind of hopes you will forget that," Palin told a crowd in Johnstown. "He hopes that you won't notice how radical, absolutely radical his idea is on this and his record is until its too late."
> 
> "A vote for Barack Obama is a vote for activist courts that will continue to smother the open and democratic debate that we deserve and that we need on this issue of life," she said. "Obama is a politician who has long since left behind even the middle ground on the issue of life."
> 
> Obama opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade and disagreed with Supreme Court ruling to uphold the "Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act." He did not cast a vote on Prohibiting Funds for Groups that Perform Abortions amendment in 2007.



How did abortion get to be the biggest issue in America again? Oh right, misdirection.


----------



## rgames (Oct 11, 2008)

I'm not distorting anything, Nick. It's part of Obama's rhetoric and it doesn't make any sense. Stiglitz is repeating the same nonsense so that folks can pick up the soundbyte and say "see - it comes from a Nobel prize winner, it must be right". That's essentially your argument, right?

Well, it's not right. I don't care how many Nobel prizes he has, the lack of coherence in his arguments speaks more loudly than any title. And the fact that he clearly knows better (at least, he should) indicates to me that he's just trying to promote an agenda.

Stiglitz says "During the eight years of the Bush administration, the national debt has increased by more than 65 percent, to nearly $10 trillion". And that's 100% true. But so what? The national debt went up 55% during the Clinton presidency. Again, so what? Those facts are meaningless unless put into the context of some economic benchmark.

Here's why those numbers are meaningless: if you have an income of $10,000/year and $5,000 in debt, that's a problem. If you have an income of $1,000,000/year and the same debt, who cares? The amount of debt doesn't actually matter, it's the _amount of debt relative to some benchmark_. For macrò‘ë   ˆN‘ë   ˆO‘ë   ˆP‘ë   ˆQ‘ë   ˆR‘ë   ˆS‘ë   ˆT‘ë   ˆU‘ë   ˆV‘ë   ˆW‘ë   ˆX‘ë   ˆY‘ë   ˆZ‘ë   ˆ[‘ë   ˆ\‘ë   ˆ]‘ë   ˆ^‘ë   ˆ_‘ë   ˆ`‘ë   ˆa‘ë   ˆb‘ë   ˆc‘ë   ˆd‘ë   ˆe‘ë   ˆf‘ë   ˆg‘ë   ˆh‘ë   ˆi‘ë   ˆj‘ë   ˆk‘ë   ˆl‘ë   ˆm‘ë   ˆn‘ë   ˆo‘ë   ˆp‘ë   ˆq‘ë   ˆr‘ë   ˆs‘ë   ˆt‘ë   ˆu‘ë   ˆv‘ë   ˆw‘ë   ˆx‘ë   ˆy‘ë   ˆz‘ë   ˆ{‘ë   ˆ|‘ë   ˆ}‘ë   ˆ~‘ë   ˆ‘ë   ˆ€‘ë   ˆ‘ë   ˆ‚‘ë   ˆƒ‘ë   ˆ„‘ë   ˆ…‘ë   ˆ†‘ë   ˆ‡‘ë   ˆˆ‘ë   ˆ‰‘ë   ˆŠ‘ë   ˆ‹‘ë   ˆŒ‘ë   ˆ‘ë   ˆŽ‘ì   ˆ—‘ì   ˆ˜‘ì   ˆ™‘ì   ˆš‘ì   ˆ›‘ì   ˆœ‘ì   ˆ‘ì   ˆž‘ì   ˆŸ‘ì   ˆ ‘ì   ˆ¡‘ì   ˆ¢‘ì   ˆ£‘ì   ˆ¤‘ì   ˆ¥‘ì   ˆ¦‘ì   ˆ§‘ì   ˆ¨‘ì   ˆ©‘ì   ˆª‘ì   ˆ«‘ì   ˆ¬‘ì   ˆ­‘ì   ˆ®‘ì


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 11, 2008)

Richard, okay, let's shelve the questions of whether Obama is the better candidate or Bush is an imbecile and stick to Stiglitz' analysis of the problem and solutions.

Let's start here: do you really believe, as you've posted before, that the national debt (and trade imbalance, etc.) has nothing to do with what's going on right now? I understand that the amount of the debt is relative to the income, so there's no need for more pedantic explanations about that.


----------



## blue (Oct 11, 2008)

rgames @ Sat Oct 11 said:


> The amount of debt doesn't actually matter, it's the _amount of debt relative to some benchmark_. For macroeconomics, GDP is the best one because it captures the overall strength of the US macroeconomy.
> 
> Of course, when you do what makes sense and compare debt to GDP, our current situation looks about the same as it did during the Clinton era. And folks like Stiglitz and Obama ignore that because it doesn't promote their agenda.



OK, well then take a look at this chart.

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/National-Debt-GDP.gif

According to this chart, Clinton began to reverse a trend started by Reagan and Bush senior. W turned it right back and matched a 50 year record. I'm no economist, so I would be happy to know what I'm missing here.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 11, 2008)

And let me ask a another question, since you'll probably just go back to Clinton when you answer my other one: do you believe that what's going on right now has nothing to do with the laissez-faire economics that have been in place starting with Reagan?

That's his biggest point.

By the way:



> "see - it comes from a Nobel prize winner, it must be right". That's essentially your argument, right?"



My argument is that you're dismissing Stiglitz' insights in a totally blockheaded way because you're conservative - despite pretending that you have an open mind and are middle-of-the-road. And that makes total sense, because all conservatives have to adhere to a parallel reality in order to convince themselves that conservative thought is right.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 11, 2008)

If I were going to produce an ad for Obama right now it would have clips of McCain and Palin rallies (the ones where they embarrass themselves by associating him with terrorism, etc.) with a static headline superimposed:

"The sum total of McCain/Palin's vision for America."


----------



## JonFairhurst (Oct 11, 2008)

Conservative market fundamentalism is like Christian Science - the market will heal itself.

There's no doubt that the cells (individuals) in the body are amazing at taking care of themselves, and that the outcomes are usually good. I couldn't control my body's individual cells with my conscious brain if I tried (communism.) I need to give them autonomy to thrive.

However, the cells don't see the system. They need the brain to recognize when there is a rash and to choose and apply the right salve. The individual cells have no idea when to apply a tourniquet, or when to set a broken bone.

Sure, when the system is working fine, let the cells do their thing. But a market without a conscience is like an animal that craps it crib.

Look at the current situation. Individually, the banks know that cash is king, so they are unwilling to make loans. They're acting in their own best interest. However, this behavior is choking the system - and it may lead to their own demise.

Same thing with all those bad loans. Individually, the banks made profit, so they were happy making and selling crap loans. All the while, they were tying their own noose.

Surprise! Selfishness isn't the key to shared success. Duh!!!


----------



## Ed (Oct 11, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Oct 11 said:


> , because all conservatives have to adhere to a parallel reality in order to convince themselves that conservative thought is right.



Including Ron Paul? Just wondering, because he seems to see things very differently to most of these guys.


----------



## rgames (Oct 11, 2008)

blue @ Sat Oct 11 said:


> According to this chart, Clinton began to reverse a trend started by Reagan and Bush senior. W turned it right back and matched a 50 year record. I'm no economist, so I would be happy to know what I'm missing here.



That chart looks pretty close to what I've calculated. But Clinton didn't reverse anything - again, he *increased* the national debt by 55%. The data in this chart decrease during Clinton's latter years because GDP increased faster than his spending, so the ratio decreased. Again, the national debt went *up* every year Clinton was president, as it did for just about every US president since 1900.

In fact, I went back and looked through the treasury data on the entire history of debt in the US (yes - some of us actually go to the public record for information, not biased media outlets). The US has a history of relatively balanced debt increase and reduction up until about 1930 (though it did have an overall increasing trend). Since then, the national debt has increased every year except 1930, 1947, 1948, 1951, 1956, and 1957.



> Let's start here: do you really believe, as you've posted before, that the national debt (and trade imbalance, etc.) has nothing to do with what's going on right now? I understand that the amount of the debt is relative to the income, so there's no need for more pedantic explanations about that.



Well, somebody needs to give those pedantic explanations to Obama because he keeps repeating the "Clinton surplus" baloney. Again, people love soundbytes because they can regurgitate them without having to think (witness all the links in this forum...). Obama is smart enough to know better and the fact that he keeps repeating it is a testament to his willingness to dupe people into voting for him. Again, politics as usual... where's the change in that?

Of course national debt and trade imbalances have to do with the overall macroeconomic health of the country. However, most of the problems we face right now appear to be related to boneheaded decisions about home financing: people got too caught up in the "record levels of home ownership" fad of the late 90's and lenders made some really risky loans. Well, the market is facing the consequences of that fad right now. As near as I can tell, that's the major source of our problems, not the national debt or trade imbalance. And, of course, the Democrate are 100% complicit in those actions.

Obama's attempt to shift the blame to the Republicans has no relationship to what actually went on. But, people prefer the soundbytes, so if you can buy more advertising than your opponent, people will keep repeating them (and posting links) without actually looking at the facts...

rgames


----------



## blue (Oct 11, 2008)

rgames @ Sat Oct 11 said:


> That chart looks pretty close to what I've calculated. But Clinton didn't reverse anything - again, he *increased* the national debt by 55%. The data in this chart decrease during Clinton's latter years because GDP increased faster than his spending, so the ratio decreased.



Hold on a second. In your earlier post you said it was pointless to talk about debt numbers without an economic benchmark, like GDP. Now, when referencing Clinton, you want to discuss the debt out of the context you yourself said was crucial to understanding how this all worked. It's hard to know where to kick when you keep moving the goal-posts.

And, it's mathematically incorrect to say Clinton didn't reverse anything. Look at the chart. He reversed the debt as it relates to the GDP. According to you, that's all that matters.



rgames @ Sat Oct 11 said:


> In fact, I went back and looked through the treasury data on the entire history of debt in the US (yes - some of us actually go to the public record for information, not biased media outlets).



I hope you're not referring to me when you say you seek info outside "biased media outlets." Take a look at the source of the data I linked to. It's whitehouse.org. I found it in 10 seconds of googling.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Oct 11, 2008)

Regarding the debt...

Clinton and Gore's policy was to increase the efficiency of government. Gore's "Access America" project was to "reinvent government" by going digital and making information available online. Before this government was all paper and filing cabinets. Just as in business, this helped productivity and efficiency.

Compare this attitude with Bush's cronyism, secret government and no-bid contracts. They started a war and cut taxes. 

Bush's debt wasn't an accident. It was policy.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Oct 12, 2008)

Can someone please explain the ever-growing presence of those American flag pins on public figures? What's with that? Is this trend going the way of the North Korean leader pins, where if you're caught not wearing one (or both the father and the son dictator pins) you could lose your job?


----------



## synthetic (Oct 12, 2008)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Sun Oct 12 said:


> Can someone please explain the ever-growing presence of those American flag pins on public figures? What's with that? Is this trend going the way of the North Korean leader pins, where if you're caught not wearing one (or both the father and the son dictator pins) you could lose your job?



Yup. Obama didn't wear one during the primaries and it was a big deal, people thought he would lose the election because of it. He started wearing one after he was the Dem pick. Really dumb, but some idiots still think he's a terrorist too.


----------



## artsoundz (Oct 12, 2008)

I Know! Just because he's an Arab, people somehow make the leap to terrorist. 

Some people.....


----------



## Ed (Oct 12, 2008)

Its in the bloodlines Art, duh.


----------



## artsoundz (Oct 12, 2008)

is it possible to reply in tongues? What's the font for that?


----------



## Ed (Oct 12, 2008)

Wingdings!


----------



## rgames (Oct 12, 2008)

blue @ Sat Oct 11 said:


> And, it's mathematically incorrect to say Clinton didn't reverse anything. Look at the chart. He reversed the debt as it relates to the GDP. According to you, that's all that matters.



Debt to GDP is what matters. I'm not moving any goalposts.

However, Clinton didn't "create" the increase in GDP. Therefore, he didn't "reverse" anything. He got lucky because it happened around him. As such, he was able to increase the national debt every year without much consequence, mostly because he kept talking about the "surplus" and confusing people about what, exactly, that means. In fact, it's even more a mark against him that he HAD surpluses and the debt STILL continued to rise. What the heck did he do with all that extra money?

Saying that Clinton had anything to do with the economic successes of the late 90's is like saying we can credit George Bush for the Red Sox' recent resurgence. 

They happened at the same time; linking them in a cause-effect relationship is tenuous, at best. Perhaps McCain should start saying "Bush removed the curse of the Bambino!"

Obama is continuing that tradition of misleading rhetoric in his campaign. Again, it's irresponsible and indicitaive of a person who puts politics ahead of public service.

As ever, I wonder: where's the change?

rgames


----------



## JonFairhurst (Oct 12, 2008)

Clinton and Gore were cheerleaders for tech and invested in tech. And they got a tech bubble.

Bush never, ever talks about tech. (Okay, it might get a line or two in the SOU address.) Bush is an oil and bank man, and sure enough, we got the oil bubble and the housing bubble. We also have a military bubble.

Bush's clear policies were to go to war, stay in war and cut taxes. He has stated these policies over and over and over again.

These are policies of debt. Bush's massive debt was predictable. Bush took as much debt as we had accumulated in the history of this nation.

It's about time the Republicans took some freaking responsibility for their willful actions. When it comes to responsibility, Republicans are cowards.

Stop hiding behind Clinton's pant leg and take it like a man.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 12, 2008)

Richard, you're bypassing reality by focusing on a small piece of election rhetoric. Okay we get it: a budget surplus is not the same thing as being a creditor nation. Given that there's no shortage of facts that demonstrate the bankruptcy of conservative economic ideology, maybe Obama should find a better phrase (not that I've heard him imply that we were a creditor nation). Listen to what Jon his saying - his last few posts are really good.

So while you're going on and on with your total outrage that a politician would say something misleading in his stump speeches - taking your accusation at face value, when in fact I haven't actually heard Obama confuse this stat - the country is in Chapter 11 because of...yes, the failed conservative economic policies of George Bush that John McCain subscribes to.

That's the big picture, and it's only one of the reasons voting for McCain is a huge mistake.


----------



## rgames (Oct 12, 2008)

JonFairhurst @ Sun Oct 12 said:


> Bush is an oil and bank man,


Please see Public Law 106-102, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which essentially removed the banking regulations set forth in the Glass-Stiegel act of 1930. This law passed a vote in the house with opposition from the Republicans (131 against, 58 for) and support from the Democrats (1 against, 182 for). The bill was subsequently signed into law by President Bill Clinton.



> Bush's clear policies were to go to war


Please see Public Law 105-338, the Iraqi Liberation Act. That act made it US policy that Saddam Hussein should be removed from power and was signed into law by Bill Clinton.



> Bush took as much debt as we had accumulated in the history of this nation.


Please see data from the US treasury:


----------



## José Herring (Oct 12, 2008)

Given that the US treasury are Bush appointees it's just dumb to believe anything that comes from that agency.

I think this says it all:

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/


----------



## rgames (Oct 12, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Oct 12 said:


> the country is in Chapter 11 because of...yes, the failed conservative economic policies of George Bush that John McCain subscribes to.



I disagree - see my previous post. The problems we face right now are a result of the confluence of two events: the housing bubble and banking deregulation. The Democrats had EVERYTHING to do with both of these problems.

I'm not saying the Republicans don't share some of the blame - they do - but Obama's continued insistence that "you're worse off because of the Republicans" is not backed up by the facts.

Again, it's an example of his willingness to spread misleading information.

rgames


----------



## Fernando Warez (Oct 12, 2008)

rgames @ Sun Oct 12 said:


> Again, it's an example of his willingness to spread misleading information.



A republican complaining about misleading information? :roll: :roll: :roll:


----------



## blue (Oct 12, 2008)

rgames @ Sun Oct 12 said:


> However, Clinton didn't "create" the increase in GDP. Therefore, he didn't "reverse" anything.



If it will make you happier, I'll amend my previous statement to "the trend reversed _under_ Clinton."



rgames @ Sun Oct 12 said:


> He got lucky because it happened around him.



OK, so if it was luck that reversed the debt relative to the GDP under Clinton, it must have been bad luck for the opposite to occur under the 16 years of Republican administrations book-ending the Democratic one. I guess in that line of "reasoning" I'll take good luck over bad.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Oct 12, 2008)

According to http://treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

On January 21st, 2001, the public debt was...
5,727,776,738,304.64

Today the debt is...
10,266,382,646,543.62

I stand corrected. Bush didn't double the debt. But it's not for a lack of trying.

But do not forget... Bush started the Iraq War. Bush has refused to end the Iraq War. Bush reduced taxes for the wealthy, for investors and for those who inherit large sums.

There are only two choices here: 1) Bush chose a policy of increasing debt, or 2) Bush chose a policy of keeping his head up his rectum.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Oct 12, 2008)

Check out these not-so-funny videos. You can hear the raw musings of Republican supporters waiting in line for a campaign rally. Don't you think that voters should have to pass some kind of mental fitness test before being allowed to vote?!!

http://open.salon.com/content.php?cid=27963


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 12, 2008)

Richard, that nonsense about it being public policy to remove Saddam Hussein says nothing about the way it was done. You refuse to back away from the crazy idea that Clinton was going to start a unilateral war, and that's simply nuts. Remember, we had Arab allies in the first Gulf war. 

And the relevant point now is that we *must* find a way to end it now. The notion that we're going to get a totally stable government there any time soon seems a little ways out there...


----------



## artsoundz (Oct 12, 2008)

PLO? that's a new one.

Same sentiment is echoed in liberal Seattle but, thankfully on a smaller scale. 

This kind of ignorance happens all over the world so it's not just an American thing. But you'd think in this day and age.......


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Oct 12, 2008)

artsoundz @ 12/10/2008 said:


> This kind of ignorance happens all over the world so it's not just an American thing.



True. I mean, after all, Canada's about to re-elect Stephen Harper. :lol: :roll:


----------



## artsoundz (Oct 12, 2008)

Googled. 

I think there is something in the water which. of course, starts there and drains down into North America.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 12, 2008)

> Again, it's an example of his willingness to spread misleading information.



What are some of the other examples?

To me the idea that the Democrats want to "wave the white flag of surrender" when it's possible to "finish the job" is a totally fantastic piece of misinformation. So is the idea that Obama = more taxes, and that Obama cavorts with terrorists, and that offshore drilling is good, and that Palin isn't absurd at every level, and that Obama has bizarre ideas about abortion, and and and...


----------



## Ed (Oct 12, 2008)

I want to know if Richard would vote for McCain


----------



## rgames (Oct 12, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Oct 12 said:


> Richard, that nonsense about it being public policy to remove Saddam Hussein says nothing about the way it was done. You refuse to back away from the crazy idea that Clinton was going to start a unilateral war, and that's simply nuts. Remember, we had Arab allies in the first Gulf war.



It's not a crazy idea; it's a fact: Clinton launched the first attacks aimed at removing Hussein from power. It was not unilateral - we had support form the UK - but it was in direct opposition of our Arab allies. Look up Operation Desert Fox.



> What are some of the other examples?



The two that matter are the war in Iraq and our macroeceonomic health. Obama's entire campaign can be boiled down to four statements about these issues:

1. The state of the economy is bad for you.
2. The war in Iraq is bad for you.
3. The Republicans are to blame for these problems.
4. Therefore, vote for a Democrat and things will be better for you.

#3 and, by inference, #4 are complete baloney. They're absolutely unsubtantiated by any fact, anywhere. Period.

Even #1 is dubious - how many people can explain how macroeconomic factors like the credit markets affect their everyday lives? I've asked. I haven't found many.

Again, people prefer soundbytes over concerted thought. So the candidate who manages to buy the most advertising and produce the most soundbytes will probably win.

That's the American way!

rgames


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 12, 2008)

Richard. Now you're making absolutely no sense.

First, Clinton did not launch a war without the world behind us. Of course everyone wanted Saddam out of there. But we have alienated most of the world with our invasion - especially the entire Muslim world. Those people only just got rid of the Europeans a few decades ago, and they think we're more imperialists.

As a matter of fact, they're right, although our kind of imperialism is slightly different.

Now, I always have been totally opposed to invading Iraq for several reasons, both moral and practical. And it's true that both Houses rubber-stamped the war, which was really bad.

But to say that the worst foreign policy disaster in or 2-1/4 centuries was a Clinton undertaking is positively looney.

As to your numbers 1-4, just number 1 is crazy! Do you really think that nobody having any money is a good thing?! What about all those people who lost their jobs and houses or savings in the stock market?! We have money in mutual funds so we can send our daughter to college in four years, and we just lost a third of it - never mind our retirement.

That comment is totally detached from reality.

#2 is so ludicrous I'm not even going to bother answering. 

Okay, I will. Please look up the term "neo-con" and then read this famous website:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

It was about crazy ideology. We're spending trillions of dollars there. How can that not make a dent on our economy? Thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis are dead, and there are suicide bombings every day. The place is a shambles, whether or not the surge improved things. Terrorists have flocked to Iraq like flies to shit, and there weren't any there before. Iran is feeling its oats because Iraq is weak. Again, the entire Muslim world is united against us, along with a lot of the Western world. Oy.

#3 and 4 are what we're arguing about. But just saying anyone who doesn't recognize your pearls of wisdom is guilty of soundbite thinking is...crazy.


----------



## José Herring (Oct 12, 2008)

I love the way you Republicans always rail on about, "responsibility, accountability, ect..." yet when it comes time to face the music, you people are always pointing the finger, blaming democrats and the left wing media.

Unless you're watching different debates than I am, I have to say that McCain is a little bit more lacking in any real ideas than Obama. I'm actually hoping that he comes up with something in the next debate. But so far all I've heard is, "Obama is a big spending liberal". Ok.....now what is McCain planing on doing.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Oct 12, 2008)

artsoundz @ Sun Oct 12 said:


> at this moment on Fox,Huckabee is claiming there is a very plausible terrorist plot to destroy the world economy- claiming that on each day of the last 15 days- the last half hour of trading has been computer generated. Then he hands it over to Chuck Norris- asks him what he thinks- Chuck immediately mentions China and our debt to them and shady offshore drilling practices.
> 
> WOW



Chuck Norris the kun fu guy? :lol:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 12, 2008)

Chuck Norris was and I guess still is a big Huckabee supporter.

So Huckabee is saying that the stock market collapse is just computer generated? That's interesting, and of course it's not impossible. Where did he get that information?

***
By the way, Richard, I left out possibly the most important reason that the economic crisis is not a good thing: it isn't only affecting America, it's affecting the world. Imagine what happens to poor people who are barely surviving. Lots of people won't be able to afford food.


----------



## artsoundz (Oct 12, 2008)

yep, Fernando-the martial arts guy. I think this country needs to protect it's groin from guys like him.

Huckabee gave no reason other than anecdotal which I found annoying and typical of the last few weeks and Faux news

Huckabee has a friend who owns a trading biz.


----------



## midphase (Oct 12, 2008)

I was utterly confused about the current economic situation until I listened to this PodCast:

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_E ... sched=1263 

Just click on the Full Episode icon.

The show is This American Life, and I think Ira Glass illustrates quite brilliantly what exactly has been going on to create the current mess that we're now in...and guess what...subprime loaning ain't it!

Trust me...listen to it, and thank me later (this includes you too Richard), it's really good!


----------



## artsoundz (Oct 12, 2008)

kind of re-defines "paper cut"
Fascinating. Thanks.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Oct 13, 2008)

My day is almost perfect, and it's not even 9 am yet! Why is it so special you ask? Paul Krugman, who I love to read/watch has won the Nobel in economics. What's missing to make this day perfect? Chuck Norris replaces McCain on the Rep ticket! Finally, a man who can stand up to Putin! :lol:


----------



## artsoundz (Oct 13, 2008)

I know where you're going with this-

Norris then replaces Christie Brinkley With Sarah Palin.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Oct 13, 2008)

Nobel? Who is that, anyways? A foreigner? Sounds like a pal of Obama's to me.



Seriously, I was thrilled to hear the news this morning. I really respect/enjoy PK.


----------



## midphase (Oct 13, 2008)

"Oh yeah - I like Ira Glass, too. Not so certain I'd look to him or his show for insight about the economy, though..."

And that would be a shame since Ira is only "hosting" while the information is coming from top experts such as Alex Blumberg and Michael Greenberger.

Then again...you already seem to know everything so there's absolutely no need for you to listen to the show.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 13, 2008)

> Maybe you misunderstood my post - I agree that the state of the economy is a bad thing for most folks. My point was that Obama is blaming it on the Republicans when the Dems are mostly to blame. That's the misleading part and it's another example of his willingness to mislead the American people for the sake of gaining power.



The Democrats are mostly to blame?! That's ludicrous. This was a bipartisan effort.

The problem is that we have too much of what Chalmers Johnson calls "military Keynsianism" - meaning that we've shipped all our manufacturing overseas except for weapons building, and the ripple from that is what keeps our economy going. And military spending is a very inefficient way of priming an economy (because the money comes from other areas where it would have a much larger ripple).

That's an exaggeration, but there's a lot of truth in it.




> Let's be honest: neither man is more or less qualified than the other - should McCain really be looked down upon for his honesty?



He should be looked down upon for many things: his wanting to appoint more right-wing creeps to the Supreme Court, his "muscular" foreign policy ideas, and above all his choice of Sarah Palin.



> Their personal knowledge of economic theory doesn't matter; it's their ability as an administrator and motivations that matter. I think Obama could learn to be a good administrator, but motivation? Willingness to mislead says a lot about that one.



I wouldn't call it misleading, I'd call it exaggerating. He's not pulling his comments out of his ass, he's just playing up his advantage. That's how the game is played - not that I like it, of course.

But selecting Sarah Palin trumps everything. That's beyond misleading, it's pooping on the country.



> I'll take the guy with "less" knowledge but a motivation to put the American people before blind political ambition. It's easy to pick up knowledge but un-learning motivation is a much tougher process that normally fails.



Again, two words: Sarah Palin.




> But, hey, if misleading info promotes your agenda, then it's worth it, right?
> 
> Haven't we had enough of that over the last eight years?



Again again again, do you honestly believe that the current mess has nothing to do with military overreach? The Democrats rubber stamped it, but these are Republican Bush administration policies that McCain wants to continue.

It's not misleading, it's the truth.


----------



## Ed (Oct 13, 2008)

I cant believe Richard would vote for McCain. But then, I cant believe anyone would.


----------



## Thonex (Oct 13, 2008)

Gallup Daily: Obama Ahead, 51% to 41%

http://www.gallup.com/poll/111112/Gallu ... 51-41.aspx


----------



## rgames (Oct 13, 2008)

I'll agree with you on one point, Nick: Palin does suck. But I understand why McCain picked her - she's the yin to his yang with the Republican base.

There's a silver lining, though: Tina Fey's return to SNL!

rgames


----------



## midphase (Oct 13, 2008)

As much as I don't agree with Richard, I'm glad he's here and contributing in a much better way than Abe ever did.

If Abe would have ever initiated the type of discussion that we're now having with Richard, he'd still be allowed to post here!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 13, 2008)

Richard is nothing like Abe, Kays. Obviously anyone who doesn't see the world my way is categorically wrong, but we're having a discussion.

Richard, I like to say that Palin appeals to the base Republicans.


----------



## blue (Oct 13, 2008)

rgames @ Mon Oct 13 said:


> Willingness to mislead says a lot about that one.



Both campaigns have been misleading at times. Nothing new there, it's the way campaigns have been run forever. To pick up the votes of the uninformed (the majority?) you have to manufacture clear and simple contrasts to your opponent. A lot of nuance gets lost in the process. I wish it wasn't like this, but it is. Both candidates are playing the game, but does that automatically inform how they will lead the country once elected? Not necessarily. 

That said, I can't think of a single Obama claim that goes as low as "palls around with terrorists" or "wants to teach comprehensive sex-ed to kindergartners." Most of the attacks coming from the Obama campaign are about the issues, whereas most of those coming from McCain these days are personal and clear attempts at character assassination.

As for who would be better for the economy, a poll recently run by the Economist suggests Obama by a long-shot. 

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedst ... d=12342127


----------



## artsoundz (Oct 13, 2008)

midphase @ Mon Oct 13 said:


> As much as I don't agree with Richard, I'm glad he's here and contributing in a much better way than Abe ever did.
> 
> If Abe would have ever initiated the type of discussion that we're now having with Richard, he'd still be allowed to post here!



No kidding- This is another "go to' thread on economics. I've been thoroughly enjoying the education and googling like mad.


----------



## Ed (Oct 13, 2008)

Cindy McCain says Creationism should be taught alongside Evolution:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TE69ajama ... re=related


----------



## José Herring (Oct 13, 2008)

midphase @ Mon Oct 13 said:


> As much as I don't agree with Richard, I'm glad he's here and contributing in a much better way than Abe ever did.
> 
> If Abe would have ever initiated the type of discussion that we're now having with Richard, he'd still be allowed to post here!



I agree. As much as I want to mess up his perfectly parted hair, if it was just all us Obama fanatics this place would be boring.


----------



## rgames (Oct 13, 2008)

josejherring @ Mon Oct 13 said:


> I agree. As much as I want to mess up his perfectly parted hair, if it was just all us Obama fanatics this place would be boring.



Well - it's either that headshot or this one:


----------



## rgames (Oct 13, 2008)

josejherring @ Mon Oct 13 said:


> I agree. As much as I want to mess up his perfectly parted hair, if it was just all us Obama fanatics this place would be boring.



Well - it's either that headshot or this one:


----------



## artsoundz (Oct 13, 2008)

what does that mean?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 13, 2008)

Not this one? A little dab'll do ya?


----------



## rgames (Oct 13, 2008)

artsoundz @ Mon Oct 13 said:


> what does that mean?



Not up on the gangsta culture? It's ironic humor! It's a fo-shizzle white guy frontin as a gangsta.

Think I can pull that one off?

Nick - yeah, I like that one. I'd use it but people not in this thread would wonder wtf?


----------



## artsoundz (Oct 13, 2008)

Ok. I knew it was something funny but, you are correct, dont know the gangsta language.

They dont let us watch much tv here in maximum security. Geez..ya burn down ONE orphanage...


----------



## midphase (Oct 13, 2008)

"Not up on the gangsta culture? It's ironic humor! It's a fo-shizzle white guy frontin as a gangsta. "

It's funny but when I saw the picture I just assumed it was a white conservative guy doing the "W" sign!


----------



## SvK (Oct 13, 2008)

Posted without fanfare on Politico came my favorite (very telling) headline of the day !!!

RNC eyes $5M bailout for GOP senators
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14549.html

Here's the juicy bit 

"GOP sources emphasized they would not be diverting money from John McCain"


hehehehehehe

SvK


----------



## SvK (Oct 13, 2008)

Between the lines.......

RNC has decided to use their money to save GOP senate races in order to keep the DEMS from having 60 seats......In other words, they are deciding to spend their money on helping Senate races INSTEAD of helping McCain....since they believe he will lose.

SvK


----------



## JonFairhurst (Oct 14, 2008)

Christopher Hutchins and Christopher Buckley have jumped ship. 

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters/371832


----------



## Thonex (Oct 14, 2008)

SvK @ Mon Oct 13 said:


> Posted without fanfare on Politico came my favorite (very telling) headline of the day !!!
> 
> RNC eyes $5M bailout for GOP senators
> http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14549.html
> ...



Nice find SVK. I hope that article is right... but it did say that the RNC would neither confirm or deny those claims.

I really hope that this election is a massive landslide victory for Obama... and I hope the Dems get enough representatives elected to make Congress filibuster-proof.


Maybe the ONLY positive legacy from Bush will be that it resulted in a "house cleaning" like we've never seen before.

T


----------



## JonFairhurst (Oct 14, 2008)

Florida Governor Charlie Crist is distancing himself from McCain:

''When I have time to help, I'll try to do that,'' Crist said last week, after he flew around the state with McCain running mate Sarah Palin. Saturday, he skipped a McCain football rally and instead went to Disney World.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/campaign-2008/story/722731.html (http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politic ... 22731.html)

It seems that Palin's rousing of the rabble has alienated the real Republican base. I have a good friend who is a conservative, and he is very frustrated with the "all mud, no principles" approach of the McCain campaign. (My friend is a fiscal conservative, and more of a Romney guy.)

If McCain can't take Florida, it's time to wet the fire, call in the dogs and tell James Carville that he can go on vacation.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Oct 14, 2008)

Regarding Carville... The first 3-4 times I saw him I really disliked him, and found him an annoyance. But I must say he has grown on me... and I like his no nonense, and often very precise comments.


----------



## Ed (Oct 14, 2008)

Glenn Beck and the New... World Order?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=SKsiZdOD5 ... spill.com/


----------



## Thonex (Oct 14, 2008)

Who knows how reliable this article is, but I don't doubt it largely based on truth.


http://www.laprogressive.com/2008/09/05/alaskans-speak-in-a-frightened-whisper-palin-is-%E2%80%9Cracist-sexist-vindictive-and-mean%E2%80%9D/ (Palin Is “Racist, Sexist, Vindictive, And Mean”)


----------



## choc0thrax (Oct 16, 2008)

There I put a warning. Jesus.


----------



## artsoundz (Oct 16, 2008)

What,are you 12? So much for selective decorum.


----------



## Ed (Oct 16, 2008)

Its funny becuase of the comic timing. Her last expression is what makes it.


----------



## artsoundz (Oct 16, 2008)

maybe. I wasn't offended (i've given up on anyone understanding my point on the word "retard")

I just didnt think it was funny- just low brow grade school stuff. Like laughing at farts. That's sort of over for me. I think there are far more funnier links to Winken,Blinken and God.

JUst my arrogant opinion. : )


----------



## Fernando Warez (Oct 16, 2008)

It worked on me because it completely cough me off guard. And perhaps because it's so not politically correct.

And on behalf of retard associations, I'd like to say that, we retards, have a sense of humour too!


----------



## artsoundz (Oct 16, 2008)

lame


----------



## Robobino (Oct 16, 2008)

The funny thing with retarded evangelical kids, is that you can't tell the difference from their parents...


----------



## Abe (Oct 16, 2008)

:oops:


----------



## Abe (Oct 16, 2008)

Robobino @ Thu Oct 16 said:


> The funny thing with retarded evangelical kids, is that you can't tell the difference from their parents...



very mean spirited. I feel bad for your deep sense of hatred.
laughing at the most innocent among us?

This is good clean humor...

McCain and Obama together 
at a dinner party this evening. 

Enjoy! 

http://news.vodpod.com/watch/6800


----------



## artsoundz (Oct 16, 2008)

I'm with you, Abe. 


Yeah- saw that on Tv tonight. I need to get me a comedy writer. It works... : )


----------



## Fernando Warez (Oct 16, 2008)

artsoundz @ Thu Oct 16 said:


> lame



Yes it was i admit. I guess what i was trying to say is that it's just a joke. Not politically correct but still just a joke. I've worked with mentally challenge people for a while so it's not like i don't care.

But what i find really lame is how Sara Palin tried to use her retard new born to win votes. Now that is low!


----------



## Fernando Warez (Oct 16, 2008)

Abe @ Thu Oct 16 said:


> Robobino @ Thu Oct 16 said:
> 
> 
> > The funny thing with retarded evangelical kids, is that you can't tell the difference from their parents...
> ...



Well it is questionable humour but i think he was refereeing to Sara Palin not to all evangelicals. And she ain't very bright from what i can see. The women didn't even know about the Bush doctrine... Where was she these last 8 years?


----------



## Robobino (Oct 16, 2008)

They should invite Sara Palin to compete at Special Olympics... I'm sure she would lose... A Russian kid with no legs on a skateboard would go faster than her, running on her two legs... 

Of course, she could cheat... In her religion, you don't have to practice what you preach, as long as you don't get caught...


----------



## choc0thrax (Oct 16, 2008)

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2 ... m.php#more


----------



## JonFairhurst (Oct 16, 2008)

C'mon. Let's show some class.


----------



## dcoscina (Oct 16, 2008)

I agree with John. I do not want that woman stepping foot in the White House but I also don't feel the need to resort to this kind of debased mockery of her.


----------



## choc0thrax (Oct 16, 2008)

I'm not making the video, just reporting the news.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Oct 17, 2008)

choc0thrax @ 17/10/2008 said:


> I'm not making the video, just reporting the news.



Actually, choc, I think you're just pushing buttons. And it's turning some of your fellow members off. Please stop it now.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Oct 17, 2008)

Robobino @ 16/10/2008 said:


> The funny thing with retarded evangelical kids, is that you can't tell the difference from their parents...



This kind of insult is unacceptable here, IMO. :evil:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 17, 2008)

[gavel gavel gavel]

Decorum.

Yellow card, Choc. Don't make me behave like a moderator.


----------



## Robobino (Oct 17, 2008)

LOL 

0oD


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Oct 19, 2008)

Christian Marcussen @ Tue Oct 07 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Oct 07 said:
> 
> 
> > Regardless, I find it weird that a presidential candidate has to be Christian to get elected in this country.
> ...



Found it - interesting to say the least : http://www.gallup.com/poll/26611/Some-A ... dates.aspx

And the more detailed PDF: http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/Facts/Elections/pres08_polls/Gallup_6in10.pdf (http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/Facts/Elect ... _6in10.pdf)

The PDF reveals something _very interesting, and I admit - unexpected_. Democrats would be less likely to support an Atheist than republicans would (8% to 14%).

Regardless it is quite incredible how low Atheists rank in terms of trust. They are really despised!


----------



## hbuus (Oct 19, 2008)

As always, surveys should not be blindly accepted, but viewed with a good deal of common sense. Notice for example what it also says in this particular survey:

_"It is important to note that these results mainly give a sense of potential obstacles that candidates face in convincing voters to elect them president [...] Each candidate's chances will depend on how well he or she addresses voter concerns during the campaign. For example, when Ronald Reagan and Bob Dole each sought the presidency, roughly two in three Americans said that their advanced age was not a problem -- *suggesting a lower level of voter trepidation about candidates' ages in specific circumstances than the current poll might indicate is the case in the abstract.*"_


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Oct 19, 2008)

hbuus @ Sun Oct 19 said:


> As always, surveys should not be blindly accepted, but viewed with a good deal of common sense. Notice for example what it also says in this particular survey:
> 
> _"It is important to note that these results mainly give a sense of potential obstacles that candidates face in convincing voters to elect them president [...] Each candidate's chances will depend on how well he or she addresses voter concerns during the campaign. For example, when Ronald Reagan and Bob Dole each sought the presidency, roughly two in three Americans said that their advanced age was not a problem -- *suggesting a lower level of voter trepidation about candidates' ages in specific circumstances than the current poll might indicate is the case in the abstract.*"_



Yes, of course. 

However it does without question give a good snap shot of the current views a trends. 

Barack Obama is living proof that you can change the minds of people. I'm sure he will get lots of votes from people who 4 years ago would be very sceptical about voting for a (half) black man. 

I guess this is also Christopher Hitchens point when he says he thinks that an atheist could indeed succesfully run for president.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Oct 19, 2008)

It's official. Colin Powell backs Obama.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27265369/

And the reasons that he summarized ALL resonate with me.

Powell also categorically stated that Palin is not ready to be president. No minced words.

Powell will not campaign for Obama, but his endorsement will be huge in states with moderate Republicans and military people, including Virginia, North Carolina and Florida.

I wonder what will get more press... the Powell endorsement, or Palin on SNL?


----------



## José Herring (Oct 19, 2008)

JonFairhurst @ Sun Oct 19 said:


> It's official. Colin Powell backs Obama.
> 
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27265369/
> 
> ...



Check and Mate!!!


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Oct 19, 2008)

JonFairhurst @ Sun Oct 19 said:


> It's official. Colin Powell backs Obama.
> 
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27265369/
> 
> ...



It's fantastic. I really like him, and he is very articulate and thoughtful. I agree that he did indeed sum things up perfectly. Everything he said is exactly why Obama will win. 

Apart from his Iraq plunder (which was a monumental failure of intelligence worldwide) Powell is the greatest president the US never had. 

I remember hoping he would run. Funny that in theory it could have been Obama vs. Powell.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 19, 2008)

And it probably would have been, had Powell had adhered to what was right leading up to the Iraq war instead of supporting the dufus at the helm.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Oct 19, 2008)

And ironically he would likely have beat Obama


----------



## artsoundz (Oct 19, 2008)

yeah- that would have been something. This kind of thinking tells me there is a fundamental,possibly long lasting change in the wind. We are so fortunate to be living in this time.


----------



## choc0thrax (Oct 21, 2008)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSfDfagnFXg

Olbermann on the real and fake america.


----------

