2008 Presidential Election Discussion [Archive] - Page 11

PDA

View Full Version : 2008 Presidential Election Discussion

Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11]

Arctic_Slicer

11-01-2008, 08:29 AM

Fermented Yeast Paste

11-01-2008, 03:46 PM

stsparky

11-01-2008, 04:31 PM

In response to stsparky

First of all Nader's opposition to the failed "war on drugs" is not some crazy agenda supported by crack-addicts. Nader wants to end the war on drugs because our government currently spends $60 billion every year fighting it. He believes that drug addiction should be treated as a health problem and supports rehabilitation, not incarceration. The United States of America jails a larger percentage of their population than any other country in the world including China. Instead of jailing non-violent drug users we should instead fill our jails with corporate criminals and banksters who robbed trillions of dollars from pensions, savings, retirement accounts and now our tax dollars thanks to government hand-outs. ...

“Nader wraps himself in the mantle of "public interest" with a personally ascetic style and a focus on structural or "apple pie" issues -- consumer safety, corporate accountability, "citizen power" -- rather than traditional partisan issues. He opposes not conservatives, but arrogant corporate leaders who amass money through public tax breaks, deny any democratic input or inquiry, and viciously attack anyone who challenges them. It's a brilliant strategy.

Unfortunately, Nader has become exactly what he attacks. His organizations allow no public input, intimidate foes and journalists, bust unions, hide almost all details of their finances (to the point of breaking laws), and have amassed millions of dollars - all under Nader's direct and autocratic control. Meanwhile, Ralph has gotten rich off of investments in stock; in other words, by owning and profiting off the very corporations he is attacking.

Ralph's image is built on the idea that he is somehow pure, not motivated by power, fame or money like those nasty politicians. But he is in fact just another Washington lawyer and lifelong Beltway pol who has built a powerful organization, lobbies Congress, raises millions through direct mail and $1,000 a plate dinners, gets paid tens of thousands by interest groups for his speeches, manipulates the press and overworks a lot of earnest young staffers.

Even his presidential ambitions are old news. He claims to be running just to send a message, but Nader also ran for president in 1992 (running a write-in campaign in the New Hampshire primary, with little success). As far back as 1976, his media supporters (including Nicholas Van Hoffman and Mary McGrory) were plugging a draft Nader movement in their columns.

It's fine for him to want power, fame and even money -- everyone else in Washington does -- but he ought to cut the holier-than-thou crap and take responsibility for his ambitions.

No one doubts that Ross Perot -- who spent $60 million out of pocket on his last campaign -- has huge personal ambitions, whatever good he may accomplish as a candidate. Why should we think more of Ralph Nader, who has built a career flush with power, fame and money out of nothing else but his political actions in Washington?

Nader is no better and no different than Jerry Falwell or Ralph Reed -- nimble but unelected politicians who've made successful careers as self-appointed moralists.

Secret luxury house:

The Nader myth is built in large part of stories of his personal asceticism -- such as taking a minuscule salary, not owning a car (he bums lots of rides), and living (through the 1970s at least) in a boarding house with a bathroom down the hall. He claims to live on $5,000 a year and give nearly all the rest to his organizations.

Back in 1996, we noted that Nader had long earned hundreds of thousands of dollars per year in speaking fees -- over $250,000 annually even in the mid-1970s -- played the stock market and carefully avoided making details of his finances public, even as he demanded that various corporations and other politicans reveal their money dealings.

He has steadfastly refused to make his tax returns public (as Dole and Clinton have done). In 1996 he even says he spent less than $5,000 on his campaign so that he wasn't required to file even the minimal financial disclosure forms every other candidate is filing.

This time he had to admit spend more than $5,000, and his financial disclosure -- while sketchy -- revealed that he is a multimillionaire who makes hundreds of thousands on speeches each year and owns over $1 million in Cisco stock alone. (Nader still refused to release his tax returns, though all other major candidates have done so for the last many years.)

His lifestyle claims are bullpucky in other ways, too. His speaking gigs often include first class hotels and and meals, even limousines, and the many organizations he controls -- that's where his tax-deductible contributions go -- have many ways to cover his expenses as well. Plus, there is considerable evidence that he does own and stay in one or more houses. He acknowledges spending considerable time at a "family house" in Connecticut, and he appears to own a townhouse in Washington.

David Sanford of the New Republic documented that residents of a posh neighborhood in Washington -- on Bancroft Place NW -- often spotted him sneaking into an expensive house there. Some investigation showed that Nader's brother purchased the house -- worth $100,000 even back in 1972 -- though he was an underemployed educational "consultant" and had no education beyond high school. Nader issued a statement "that he does not live in his brother's Bancroft Place house", but when a now-former worker (Lowell Dodge) asked him privately, he wouldn't deny it.

When the Washington Post's then-society columnist Maxine Cheshire asked Nader about the reports, he knew every detail of the house's financing and couldn't resist rhapsodizing about what a great tax break buying a house was. "He talks about that real estate investment the way some men talk about sex. He's so excited about the whole idea of tax write-offs and all that. I mean, did I realize that that's the greatest investment you can make, the biggest tax advantage, bla bla bla bla bla bla."

Busted a union among his workers:

Ralph talks big about democracy and even unions. But when his own workers at one of his magazines, Multinational Monitor, got fed up with cruel working conditions and started agitating for a union of their own, Nader busted the union with all of the hardball techniques used by corporate owners across America. Workers at Public Citizen, another Nader group, also tried to form a union because of 60 to 80 hour work weeks, salaries that ranged from $13,000 down, and other difficult working conditions and were blocked by Nader, who remains unapologetic to this day.

Nader says "I don't think there is a role for unions in small nonprofit 'cause' organizations any more than ... within a monastery or within a union."

When ringleader Tim Shorrock filed the union recognition papers, Nader immediately transferred ownership in the Multinational Monitor to close friends who ran an organization ("Essential Information") that Nader had set up. When Shorrock showed up for work the next day, he had been fired, the locks were changed, and management called the police to charge him with theft (of his own work papers.) That charge was thrown out of court, but management fired the two supportive editors and sued the three of them for $1.2 million, agreeing to drop the intimidation suit only when they dropped their NLRB complaint. All of these action are straight from the hardball anti-union playbook, and Nader makes no apology.

According to Nader, "Public interest groups are like crusades…you can’t have work rules, or 9 to 5." Shorrock, with his "union ploy," became an "adversary" according to Nader. "Anything that is commercial, is unionizable," but small public interest organizations "would go broke in a month," Nader says, if they paid union wages, offered union benefits and operated according to standard work rules, such as the eight-hour day. Remember that Nader's well-funded organizations were amassing tons of extra money that Ralph has been playing the stock market with during all these events. ...”

I, among 15 others, was abused by Nader while a paid worker at CalPIRG. He treated us as if we were the volunteers he walks on. He remains an ass. We had to take him to the Labor Relations Board to get our wages. He's a greedy fake. And he's out and out stupid.

Fermented Yeast Paste

11-01-2008, 04:40 PM

Out of curiosity could I get a link or source on that.

stsparky

11-01-2008, 04:55 PM

Fermented Yeast Paste

11-01-2008, 08:03 PM

I'm in California.

Beowulf

11-01-2008, 08:11 PM

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then you become politically irrelevant due to your own incompetence/hubris.
Fixed.

Arctic_Slicer

11-01-2008, 08:20 PM

Sure. http://www.realchange.org/nader.htm#PIRG

Like I said earlier that web page is mostly bogus with an agenda of character assassination.

The very beginning of it starts with the following:

Ralph Nader has done a lot of good for consumers. He has also led attacks on such evils as Volkswagen cars, the American Automobile Association, whole milk, colored toilet paper, fluoridated water, and the Elvis stamp. Through it all he has manipulated the press brilliantly and built himself a comfortable and powerful niche without need for election, even within his own consumer groups.

4 years after he unquestionably tipped the 2000 Presidential election to George W. Bush, Nader refuses to admit that or take any kind of responsibility, and he's planning to run again. This time though even the Green party is getting sick of him.

For 30 years, Ralph Nader has proclaimed himself to be "Saint Ralph", the only honest man in Washington, and the only friend of the average citizen. If that doesn't make you puke already, then click on the allegation of your choice:

Those are the first 3 lines on that web page and are clearly showing a huge bias against Ralph Nader while also blatantly disregards facts. The phrase, "unquestionable tipped the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush", is an example of this. There were 19 independent factors not including Ralph Nader that "tipped" the election to George Bush in 2000. Ignorant people blame Nader but are quick to forget about Kathrine Harris, Jeb Bush, purging of Black voters, the USA supreme court, confusing butterfly ballots and tens of thousands of absentee ballots that were cast in Florida but to this day have never been counted. This so called "article never mentions any of this and repeats the line that "Nader gave us Bush". We haven't even got to the body of this page and it's already showing itself to be fundamentally flawed. Once you get to the body of his article it falls apart even more by citing op-ed pieces based on rumor and circumstantial evidence as sources.

If you can take that page seriously then I have a bridge to nowhere in Alaska to sell you.

Beowulf

11-01-2008, 09:25 PM

arctic_slicer can't see the forest for the trees itt

stsparky

11-01-2008, 10:19 PM

I'm in California.
Then your job is to vote on whomever you want for President. I recommend Obama because he is less of a dick as anyone in the race; but you can decide on your own. I have my ideas on the Propositions but there is a separate thread for them.
...Like I said earlier that web page is mostly bogus with an agenda of character assassination. ...
Hey Arctic? I doubt it is bogus and there is a valid reason for the bias. People hate Nader. Some hated him for years. Did you not read this man personally tried to fuck me and my co-workers over? I heard the cheap asshole tell a lackey that he had better lawyers than us. He was wrong. He still is an ass. In my book, he's one of those responsible for 8 years of "W" because he gave cover to the Voter Suppression in the Florida panhandle in 2000. Thank goodness, he's marginalized and going to lose again. I think he's hurting McCain this year. Why don't you vote for Cynthia Ann McKinney instead?

Jetsetlemming

11-02-2008, 04:16 AM

Then your job is to vote on whomever you want for President. I recommend Obama because he is less of a dick as anyone in the race; but you can decide on your own. I have my ideas on the Propositions but there is a separate thread for them.

That's a horrible reason to vote for a presidential candidate.

Roxie

11-02-2008, 04:36 AM

Election List X: Some of The Horrible Things That Will Happen To You If You Don’t Vote (http://whatever.scalzi.com/2008/10/31/election-list-x-some-of-the-horrible-things-that-will-happen-to-you-if-you-dont-vote/)

1. Your penis will fall off. If you are a woman, you will grow a penis, which will then fall off.

2. Your peers will point and laugh at you more than they already do.

3. You will have to listen to smug voters say “if you didn’t vote, you can’t complain” for at least two years.

4. You will be consumed by pillbugs whilst you sleep. They will leave behind nothing but your penis, which as you’ll recall, has already fallen off.

5. You will smell of sour buttermilk until the next New Hampshire primary.

6. Uncontrolled flatulence.

7. Cars will swerve to hit you, even when you are inside your own home.

8. Your World of Warcraft party will turn on you and smite you mightily.

9. Impotence. And not just because your penis has fallen off.

10. Stairs will rise to trip you.

11. Boils. In Biblical plague amounts.

12. Static cling that no amount of Bounce sheets will ever cure.

13. Your cat will take a dump somewhere in the house that you will never find, and the smell will be carried through the air vents for months, all the while the cat will stare at you with that “you’re a real asshole” look they sometimes have. If you do not have a cat, one will be provided for you for the length of time required for it to crap in said undisclosed location.

14. Your credit card will be canceled and your creditors will send someone to repossess your penis. Which has fallen off.

15. Your favorite TV show will be canceled and every time you try to buy the last season on DVD, retailers will be out of stock.

16. Your children will disown you. If you have no children, you will be summarily adopted by a family, and when you attend Thanksgiving at their home, you will be told how disappointed they are in you. For six hours straight. After which they will disown you.

17. Your cabbies will henceforth always take the long route to any destination to which you travel.

18. Zombies, and you without a shotgun.

19. Everyone on your street will win the lottery. You will get a rock.

20. I swear to God, I will learn your address, come to your house, and when you open the door, I will totally kick you in the nads. Which will hurt even more because they’re the only reproductive organs you have left. Because your penis has fallen off.

I trust now you will be sufficiently motivated to vote.

Arctic_Slicer

11-02-2008, 07:35 AM

For Obama to lose my vote (or my confidence, in case he were currently in power), he'd have to make consistently bad decisions instead of just a select few that I don't like. The PATRIOT Act renewal and the FISA bill are blights on his record but they're not enough for him to lose my vote when I still (enthusiastically) agree with a majority of his policies and views. I agree with Nader less on the issues and really, some of his views strike me as superficial reactionary stances (Saying nuclear reactors are huge targets for terrorists for example). In his defense though, his party is against Proposition 7 here in California so I assume he is too, which shows he isn't entirely reactionary.

Also, both Obama and Biden are against Proposition 8.

You're going to call me a sheep, aren't you?

I may disagree with you on a number of issues but I wouldn't call you a sheep. Unlike certain other people posting in this thread you aren't a partisan hack who thinks democrats can do no wrong and everybody else can do no right. You also don't resort to ad hominem arguments and attacks like those other guys do. You clearly state your feelings about issues and how you come to your conclusions and are willing to look beyond "your party" for solutions and ideas. For what it's worth I feel that you are a person of true integrity despite our disagreements.

On nuclear power I am opposed to nuclear power largely because of the problem of nuclear waste as are many people in my state and our neighboring state of Nevada. Both Utah and Nevada are the end location for much of the nation's nuclear waste and not surprisingly we don't really like having it "in our backyard". It gets worse, there is a company called Energy Solutions that has been lobbying congress to make it legal to import nuclear waste from foreign countries such as Italy and deposit that waste in Utah. My very own congressman, Republican Rob Bishop in Utah's district 1, has received over $28,000 in campaign contributions from Energy Solutions and is conveniently unopposed to making our state the final destination of the world's nuclear waste. Needless to say I will be voting for his democratic opponent, Morgan Bowen (http://www.bowenforcongress.com/Home.aspx), on Tuesday. If they could solve the problem of nuclear waste with a "real" solution instead of burying it somewhere to leave future generations to deal with it I wouldn't be as strongly opposed to nuclear power as I am.

Of course there are many causes that make one opposed to nuclear power. A few years ago Ralph Nader did a great interview with PBS (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/nader.html) that does a great job at highlighting the various issues of nuclear power as well as where he stands on the issue. A great read for anyone who would like to either learn more about Ralph Nader or nuclear power.

Stsparky, where do you get "8" years from? The 2004 election came down the state of Ohio where Nader was removed from the ballot thanks to tactics employed by the democratic party. On October 29th, 2008 in the case of Nader v Blackwell (http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0391p-06.pdf) the 6th district court of appeals struck down an Ohio law as unconstitutional. This law was used to invalidate Nader's ballot access petitions as invalid and prevented him from being on the Ohio presidential ballot in 2004. So Ralph Nader didn't get any votes in Ohio in 2004 and Ohio was the state that "decided" the election yet the democratic nominee still lost. So I ask again where does this number of "8" years come from? Maybe you should start considering facts before you go blaming everything on Ralph Nader.

The other things you said about Ralph Nader cheating you an your wages; if it's true then yes Ralph Nader is an asshole and deserves criticism, however I have no way to verify your claims as true and it's really your word against his. Also you seem to be talking about something that happened long ago so maybe he has "changed" in those years. I will tell you though, continuing to repeat blatant distortions of truth such as Nader giving us Bush is not doing much to help your credibility.

I certainly didn't get the impression that he was a jerk, elitist or self-centered when I met him and moreover he has a long record of consumer advocacy that has been instrumental in granting us many consumer and worker protections that many of us take for granted on a daily basis. His platform of the 2008 election is also about consumers and workers and by supporting this platform I will be helping to give more weight to the issues he is championing. If millions of people vote for Ralph Nader then it sends a message to the presidential elect that millions of people care about the issues he was campaigning about and will help to give him more of a mandate while serving the people.

stsparky

11-02-2008, 01:41 PM

Wait, you really want me to locate some LRB ruling from 1982? I have no reason to lie. Plus Nader killed the Chevy Corvair. For that alone, he deserves to be mocked.

haterllnation

11-02-2008, 05:17 PM

Okay, I don't mind if you support McCain, Obama, Nader, or whomever, but this is taking it a bit far. It really puts a bad light on his supporters that aren't complete loons. Also, they can't even vote, so I don't get her...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NGAYR7RHfQ

Jetsetlemming

11-02-2008, 07:15 PM

Arctic_Slicer

11-03-2008, 10:07 AM

Alright a real debate! (http://www.justin.tv/clip/2904523f769) All 6 vice presidential candidates who were on enough state ballots to win a majority in the electoral college were invited to this debate. Not surprisingly Sarah Palin and Joe Biden were a no show as was Green party nominee Rosa Clemente giving us a three-way debate between Darrel Castle of the Constitution Party, Independent candidate Matt Gonzalez, and Libertarian Wayne Allen Root. I was quite surprised by spirited this debate was; It was most certainly the best political debate I have ever watched and one I highly recommend you watch as well. Proof that political debates don't have to be boring snore festivals devoid of substance.

My opinion:

Both Matt Gonzalez and Darrel Castle proved to be intelligent men of integrity and principle however I felt that Matt Gonzalez did a better job at making his points resonate. Wayne Allen Root on the other hand only proved two things to me; that he was loud and seemingly ignorant. I already had a lot of respect for Matt Gonzalez and this debate didn't change that; the real surprise though was Darrel Castle and having seen him debate really improved my opinion of him.

Anyway it was great to hear some alternative voices on issues that matter and hope to see more events like these during future election seasons. Thank to Free and Equal (http://freeandequal.org/) and They Will Be Heard (http://theywillbeheard.com/) for sponsoring this debate as well as Restore the Republic (http://www.restoretherepublic.com/) and justin.tv (http://www.justin.tv/) for streaming this event.

Anyway you can see the debate here:

http://www.justin.tv/clip/2904523f769

Plekto

11-03-2008, 03:27 PM

I'll second the opinion that Nader is a self-serving ass.

Why? Because of the last few elections where he has self-proclaimed himself to the the Green Party candidate, despite nobody in the organization actually voting for him. In fact, his personality and tactics that he has used are counter to the Green Party's own plans and agenda, which makes it worse.

The Green Party never really made a big deal with running because their goal is to go after only local and state offices. As such, while they are an official political party, they don't actually bother to run a national campaign and don't plan to for at least a couple of decades. And sure as the sun will rise, here comes Nader... He declares himself the candidate and the media runs with it.

And in the past it's been a "whatever" sort of thing, so the leadership has allowed it(being caught between Nader and the press), but this time he tried it again and they already had a candidate. They basically had to waste the time and money to get a campaign running for a position they couldn't possibly win just to do an end-run around this egotist. Because his actual goals are nothing like what the Green Party stands for. In fact, Nader's latching onto them like some parasite has done a lot more harm over the years than good. So much so that they decided that it was worth it to spend the money campaigning just to try to get rid of this leech.

So he's running as a "independent" anyway.

The man has a self-image as large as anything that I've ever seen, doesn't care about rules, and loves to basically be a professional pain in the ass and rabble-rouser. That he even would waste the money to run and siphon off votes *again* in such a close race is idiocy. All he does is basically be a professional "candidate" from election to election, living off of the lectures, talks, and campaigning. You know how you have some universities where they have professional students - the guys who have half a million in student loans and have been taking classes for 20 years? That's Nader in a political sense.

Don't waste your vote on this guy. Seriously.

P.S. I am registered with the Green Party and helped with the effort to get them on the ballot as an official party in 1992 in California. So I really do know a lot about the ire and dislike within the party over the years about this man.

Jetsetlemming

11-03-2008, 05:33 PM

That he even would waste the money to run and siphon off votes *again* in such a close race is idiocy.
Anyone who accuses Nader of "siphoning off votes" is a giant shithead that deserves each and every bad thing the primarily two party system brings this country.

Plekto

11-03-2008, 06:48 PM

The thing is that he's not part of a specific party and is therefore not even a viable candidate. You are voting for the individual here, much like a write-in vote.

Nader's running as a spoiler just because he can.

Name: Ralph Nader
Occupation: Professional Candidate

No thanks. He's got something rotten in his soul and he needs to just get out of politics.

And in 2000, Nader DID siphon off enough votes for Bush to win. And he's never been the least bit apologetic about it, either.

japanat

11-03-2008, 10:35 PM

Nader does have a giant ego, and is reputed to be a real prick. I, personally, wouldn't invite him to any kaffee klatsches. But that ego has accomplished many things for this country, such as product liablility laws, car safety, etc.

But the siphoning votes deal: why should he be apologetic? As a candidate, of any party, even imaginary, he has the right to run. He will get some votes. Those votes may even have made the difference in giving Bush the election. But they may not have. People voted for him, after all, because they didn't like any other candidate better. Assuming that everyone who voted for Nader would have voted Democrat against Bush is naive and inaccurate.

What if "Bob" costs us the election this year? Should "Bob" apologize, because obviously anyone who voted for him would have voted for the losing candidate otherwise?

Samurai_Pooh

11-03-2008, 11:25 PM

although I respect Nader for trying to change a flawed two-party system, I do worry that he is only further dividing america and damaging the democratic party. Then again, Bob Barr is also damaging the republican party so it probably evens out somewhere.

Fermented Yeast Paste

11-03-2008, 11:43 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/03/obama.grandma/index.html

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v218/Ph4t3/Emot/emot-smith.gif

Swede

11-04-2008, 12:09 AM

Yeah, I saw that :(

Roxie

11-04-2008, 12:24 AM

Just a day and half! poo :sad:
I saw Obama on tv speaking this evening and wiped away some tears.

Samurai_Pooh

11-04-2008, 12:29 AM

I knew that it was coming, broken hips generally mean death but...

wow that is really awful timing...just one day away :bang:

Roxie

11-04-2008, 03:28 AM

Obama on his Grandmother (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ot4RYQqFq0Q)

Roxie

11-04-2008, 04:03 AM

People are camped out NOW to vote.

Roxie

11-04-2008, 04:05 AM

OH man, i can't believe I made this thread nearly a year ago!

riona

11-04-2008, 04:09 AM

Wow, that's a loooong thread-time.
Eh, I've said I want Obama to win, because I care about this country and stuff, but the truth is, whatever.
If Obama wins, awesome. The country won't wither up and die like McCain.
If McCain wins, he's gonna die, Palin's gonna get shot (if I have to do it myself -_-) and the speaker of the house will be president (not that I know who that is). Plus, I'll be moving out of the country on Wednesday.

So either way, whatevs.

Hikoku-Y

11-04-2008, 05:42 AM

^ It is exceedingly unwise to joke about that sort of thing. I suggest you revise your post.

The Speaker of the House, BTW, is Nancy Pelosi.

Kaji

11-04-2008, 06:02 AM

http://img223.imageshack.us/my.php?image=nancypelosidu9.jpg

Had to be said.

archdukezeb

11-04-2008, 06:04 AM

I'm confused on how the speaker of the house would become president. Wouldn't the vp Palin picks if she became president then be president?

Beowulf

11-04-2008, 06:19 AM

http://img223.imageshack.us/my.php?image=nancypelosidu9.jpg

Had to be said.
Naw it actually didn't hth

Plekto

11-04-2008, 06:26 AM

Ceirnian

11-04-2008, 06:46 AM

Riona, I highly suggest you revise that post immediately.

TygressVirgo

11-04-2008, 07:01 AM

Nope. Speaker of The House is only if both die at the same time or before the new President is sworn in and has a chance to pick a new VP. (25th Amendment fixed this loophole - it used to be that there was no VP at all - completely empty until the next election cycle)

So does this mean that we could get stuck with someone who agrees with Palin's views as a new VP (should the wrost happen, god forbid)?

Is there any sort of confirmation on such a VP pick?

Arctic_Slicer

11-04-2008, 07:03 AM

The thing is that he's not part of a specific party and is therefore not even a viable candidate. You are voting for the individual here, much like a write-in vote.

Ralph Nader is on 46 of 51 ballots this year more than any other "third party" candidate. More than Bob Barr, more than Cynthia McKinney, more than Chuck Baldwin. The word "party" is not in our constitution and running as an independent is viable and legitimate. Also what "green party" are you talking about? Did you not see the 1996 green party nomination convention (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y11hsopqmlU)? Everybody was chanting "Nader 96!" This whole thing of "nobody in the green party voted for him" is total bullshit. He didn't self proclaim himself the green party nominee, the green party nominated him. In our current election of 2008 he never sought the nomination of the Green Party but he is popular enough among many Green Party members to end up in second in their delegate count.

Facts to consider in the 2008 USA presidential election:

Ralph Nader is on 46 ballots.
Green Party nominee Cynthia McKinney is only on 32.

Ralph Nader has raised close to $4,000,000 for his campaign.
Cynthia McKinney has raised less than $200,000.

Ralph Nader has polled at 5% or higher in a number of national polls.
Cynthia McKinney has yet to register above 1%.

Looking at these facts makes it obvious that Ralph Nader is a far more viable candidate than Cynthia McKinney. It's unclear why Plekto made these remarks but it almost seems like he is jealous that Ralph Nader running as an independent has been able to accomplish more than Cynthia McKinney who has the backing of a supposed "national party". It's kind of like how Cynthia McKinney is always accusing Ralph Nader of "trying to destroy the Green Party" but the fact is Ralph Nader has done more to build up the Green Party than she has. Being envious of other people's achievements is not going to help the progressive movement. Sure I accept that Ralph Nader has a big ego but so does John McCain, Barack Obama, Bob Barr and probably anyone else who has run, is running and will run for president in the future. Have you ever met a presidential candidate who didn't have an "ego", honestly?

Also Ralph Nader didn't lose the election for Al Gore, not even Al Gore blames Ralph Nader. Al Gore lost in his home state of Tennessee, a State he carried both times as Bill Clinton's running mate, a state that Al Gore totally landslided in all of his congressional runs, a state he should have been able to win handily, a state that would have made the result in Florida irrelevant if he carried it.. Not only did he lose in Tennessee, he lost by a big enough margin that even if every vote that was cast for Ralph Nader, Pat Buchanan and other third candidates had went to Al Gore he still would have lost. Al Gore is the only major party candidate since George McGovern in 1972 to lose in home state. Even Walter Mondale carried his home state during his run in 1984, Ronald Reagan carried the other 49 but at least he was able to win in his home state. In the entire history of our country there have only been 3 times where a presidential candidate won the election despite losing in their state of residence. These men were James Polk in 1844, Woodrow Wilson in 1916, and Richard Nixon in 1968 and Nixon's case is debatable. What is Al Gore's excuse for losing in his home state of Tennessee? It was the democrats and Al Gore who ran a shitty campaign in 2000 that allowed George Bush to win; not Ralph Nader or any other candidate who exercised their constitutional right to run for public office.

Zensouken

11-04-2008, 08:51 AM

Ralph Nader is on 46 of 51 ballots this year...

When isn't Ralph Nader on any ballot...

Jetsetlemming

11-04-2008, 10:16 AM

When isn't Ralph Nader on any ballot...
We went over this earlier, there are some states that refuse to put independants, write ins, or even in the case of Oklahoma (It was oklahoma right I know it was a state around there) absolutely nobody but the two primary parties is available.

Jetsetlemming

11-04-2008, 12:12 PM

Some past reading:
THERE'S A DEMOCRAT BEHIND DOOR NO. 1, 2 AND 3
February 13, 2008

A few more primary wins and B. Hussein Obama will be able to light up a cigarette during a televised speech and still get the nomination. It looks like the only thing that can stop him now is an endorsement from Al Gore.

Gore is always lunging into a movement just as it has passed its prime -- the Internet, Howard Dean, global warming, trying to talk black when he campaigns at a black church. He probably bought a big house a few months ago. Gore is such a supremely unlikable human being, he even subverted the mainstream media's affection for liberalism during the 2000 election.

And my brave little Hillary needs a bold move after the Potomac primaries this week. If she can't trick Gore into endorsing Obama, she may have to divorce Bill.

Hillary is, shockingly enough, the most conservative candidate among the top three presidential candidates.

The Rev. Jerry Falwell once remarked that his people would rather vote for Beelzebub than Hillary Clinton.

He didn't mention John McCain.

Pat Buchanan says if McCain is the nominee, the Republican Party will lose its soul. I'm more worried about the Republican Party losing its mind.

Republicans are doing what the Democrats tried in 2004 with John Kerry. In a state of despair, Democrats dumped the legitimate leader of their party, Howard Dean, for a candidate they deemed "electable." Kerry served in Vietnam! Republicans: Conniving has never been our strong suit. Honor is our strong suit.

Sen. John McCain's claim to being a Republican comes down to two factors:

(1) He was a POW -- I know that because he mentions it more often than John Kerry told us that he served in Vietnam.
And (2) he has a relatively conservative voting record compared to, say, Maxine Waters.

I note that there were hundreds of POWS in Vietnam. We can't make them all president. If we're just going to pick one, how about one who doesn't want to shut down Guantanamo and give amnesty to 20 million illegal immigrants? Hey, didn't Duncan Hunter serve in Vietnam? Why, yes, I believe he did!

Moreover, it's crazy to imagine that military service makes one qualified to be president. Everyone knows the true test of presidential leadership is an ability to cry on cue. Another point for my Hillary.

To be sure, McCain has a relatively conservative voting record -- but only relative to Republicans who have to get elected in places like Vermont. Relative to Republicans from conservative Arizona, McCain's voting record is abominable.

We keep hearing about McCain's "lifetime" rating from the American Conservative Union being 82.3 percent. But McCain has been a member of Congress for approximately 400 years, so that includes his votes on the Spanish-American War. His more current ratings are not so hot.

In 2006 -- the most recent year for which ratings are available -- McCain's ACU rating was 65. That year, the ACU rating for the other senator from Arizona, Jon Kyl, was 97. Even Chuck Hagel's ACU rating was 75, and Lindsey Graham's was 83.

Since 1998, only four Republican senators have had worse ACU scores than John McCain -- and none were from Goldwater country: Lincoln Chafee, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter. The last time McCain ranked this far down in his class, he was at the Naval Academy.

In fact, McCain and Romney are mirror opposites: As Romney had to tailor his conservative views to the liberal voters of Massachusetts, McCain has had to tailor his liberal views to the conservative voters of Arizona. While Romney's record in a liberal bastion is as bad as it will ever be, McCain's record from a conservative bastion is as good as it will ever be. Which isn't very good.

In the immortal words of -- well, me, actually: Always choose a strong conservative from a blue state over a lukewarm conservative from a red state.

Bob Dole from Kansas had a pretty good voting record, too. But no one fully believed he believed it. Another feather in his cap was that he didn't burden voters with a "Straight Talk Express," a means of conveyance even more useless and idiotic than an electric car.

Even McCain's supporters on the Spaghetti-Spined Express know he can't be trusted on social issues like abortion. I notice how everyone seems to agree that of course Rudy Giuliani's voters would go to McCain.

Why would that be? On the two seminal issues of our time other than abortion -- taxes and the war on terrorism -- the two could not be more different.

Rudy cut taxes in New York City and, as a presidential candidate, proposed the biggest tax cut in U.S. history.

McCain voted against Bush's tax cuts twice.

Rudy supports torturing terrorists -- or using "enhanced interrogation techniques," as they say, announcing in one of the debates: "I would tell the people who had to do the interrogation to use every method they could think of."

McCain is hysterical about pouring water down terrorists' noses and campaigns to shut down Guantanamo.

He demands that no terrorist interrogation be "degrading" -- perhaps recalling how not degrading it was for people in the upper floors of the Twin Towers to have to leap to their deaths rather than be burned alive on Sept. 11.

So why is it obvious to everyone that Rudy would endorse McCain?

Because everyone knows he'll take the liberal position on social issues like abortion -- and everything else -- as soon as he doesn't need the voters of Arizona anymore.
MCCAIN: PUMP THIS!
July 2, 2008
By Ann Coulter

Well, I guess we're all pretty relieved we didn't drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge back in 2002. What a disaster that would have been.

The vote on ANWR was almost entirely along partisan lines, with all Republicans, except a handful of "moderates," voting for drilling, and all Democrats, except a handful of sane Democrats like Zell Miller, voting against drilling.

John McCain opposed drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge because he polled soccer moms and found out they were against drilling. They thought it sounded too much like going to the dentist. McCain wanted to ensure that he remained beloved by the two pillars of his base: "centrists" and New York Times reporters.

Even Sen. Chuck Hagel voted for drilling in ANWR. But John McCain, "our" candidate, voted against it.

I guess we're beginning to see the problem of basing a political platform on the passing fancies of "centrists." These are people who have no opinions because they know nothing about national issues. They're the ones who check the "not sure/no opinion" box on polls regarding the legalization of cannibalism.

You can't blame them: They're not being paid to know something about national issues. Those people we call "senators" and "representatives."

But now, astronomical gas prices have forced even soccer moms to spend 10 minutes looking at a problem that their leaders were supposed to be thinking about for years. And the soccer moms are saying: Drill! Drill! Drill! Bobby, come down off of there! Stop hitting your sister! Where was I? Oh, yeah ... Drill! Drill! Drill!

Consequently, McCain recently switched his position to go along with the centrists. See, that's the downside of having chosen all your political positions by polling centrists: The moment they acquire any knowledge, they'll realize you're an idiot.

It's always the same argument. Year after year, the "moderate Republicans" so respected at The New York Times harangue us to dump the Christians, the conservatives, the Swift Boat Veterans, the "right-wing extremists," the gun-and-God clingers and the fanatical pro-lifers from our party so we can repel every American who voted for Ronald Reagan in order to win the votes of people like Christine Todd Whitman.

Yes, by all means let's clear out all that deadwood and pave the way for a 49-state landslide! (For the Democrats.)

McCain followed the Times' strategy to a T. He called Jerry Falwell an "agent of intolerance." He called the Swift Boat Veterans "dishonest and dishonorable." He has denounced every Christian minister who tries to endorse him. Over the years, McCain has ostentatiously attacked every issue of importance to conservatives and embraced every crackpot liberal idea, including the left's latest plan to exterminate the human race, called "global warming."

Two weeks ago, McCain skipped the capitol prayer breakfast in California, instead appearing with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger at an environmental event in nearby Santa Barbara. Schwarzenegger's absence marked the first time a governor skipped what has come to be known as "the governor's prayer breakfast." I guess in the world of moderate Republicans an environmental event qualifies as a religious observance.

The keynote speaker at the breakfast, Hollywood producer Mark Joseph, quoted a recent cover article in Christianity Today by professors Daniel Taylor and Mark McCloskey that said:

"In premodern times, the courage of a leader often had to be physical. In the last 500 years it is more often moral. Moral courage is the ability to do what's right even when it is deeply unpopular, even dangerous. Courage is only found where there is the genuine possibility of loss -- loss of friends, reputation, status, power, possessions or, at the extremes, freedom or life."

No wonder McCain and Schwarzenegger skipped it.

Moderate Republicans like McCain have taken to heart liberals' admonition that Ronald Reagan's appeal had absolutely nothing to do with his conservative philosophy. Don't be like him! You'll lose the soccer moms! Liberals assure us that Reagan won landslide elections because Americans were mesmerized by his sunny disposition and corny jokes. If that's true, why isn't Al Roker president?

The irony is, the only people McCain can count on to vote for him are the very Republicans he despises -- at least those of us who can get drunk enough on Election Day to pull the lever for him. In fact, we should organize parties around the country where Republicans can get drunk so they can vote for McCain. We can pass out clothespins with his name as a reminder and slogan-festooned vomit bags. The East Coast parties can post the number of drinks necessary for the task to help the West Coast parties. For more information, go to getdrunkandvote4mccain.com.

Not being ignorant "centrists," we know what a world-class disaster B. Hussein Obama will be. Meanwhile, the centrists McCain spent years impressing with his outraged denunciations of conservatives, Swift Boat Veterans and Christians will be voting for Obama. They think he's cute.

How many times do we have to run this experiment?

Taking the advice of Democrats, Republicans ran "moderates" for president in 1944, 1948, 1976, 1992 and 1996. All lost. Republicans also ran a "moderate" for president in 1988, but that was unwittingly -- both to us and, fortunately, to the voters. In other words, in the language of the market, the best tip on "moderate Republicans" is: SELL!

But now, apparently, we have to run the experiment again. This year, moderate Republicans have hit the jackpot. John McCain is the Platonic ideal of a "moderate Republican."

To paraphrase Richard Nixon on George McGovern in 1972: Here we have a situation where moderate Republicans finally have a candidate who almost totally shares their views. Now we'll see what the country thinks.
BUT WILL THEY RESPECT HIM IN THE MORNING?
by Ann Coulter
July 23, 2008

Back before the Republican Party was saddled with John McCain as its nominee, The New York Times called him "the only Republican who promises to end the George Bush style of governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe." The paper praised him for "working across the aisle to develop sound bipartisan legislation" and predicted that he would appeal to "a broader range of Americans than the rest of the Republican field."

At the same time, the Times denounced "the real" Rudy Giuliani as "a narrow, obsessively secretive, vindictive man" and Mitt Romney as "shape-shifting," claiming it's "hard to find an issue on which he has not repositioned himself to the right since he was governor of Massachusetts."

Here are a few issues I found that Romney hadn't switched positions on, and it wasn't "hard": tax cuts, health care, same-sex marriage, illegal immigration and the surge in Iraq. The only issue on which Romney had changed his position was abortion, irritating people who would prefer for Republicans to refuse to run in places like Massachusetts and New York City in order to preserve their perfect pro-life credentials.

Times columnist Nicholas Kristof echoed the editorial page in early February with a column titled: "Who Is More Electable?" In the very first sentence, Kristof concluded that McCain is "the Republican most likely to win the November election." Kristof touted McCain's "unusual appeal among swing voters" and cited polls that showed McCain would do "stunningly well" in a general election.

Also in February, CNN produced polls showing McCain doing better than "generic Republican" in a general election, which Jeffrey Toobin said was a tribute to how "well respected" McCain is. Hey, is it too late for us to nominate "generic Republican"?

And on MSNBC's "Hardball," from the way Chris Matthews carried on about McCain, you'd think he had caught a glimpse of Obama's ankle. Matthews said that McCain was "the real straight talker ... a profile in courage ... more seasoned than the current president, a patriot, of course ... honest and respected in the media. He has all the pluses in the world of a sort of a, you know, an Audie Murphy, if you will, a real war hero."

I guess the party's over.

Now the Times won't even publish McCain's op-ed. I wouldn't have published it either -- I've read it twice and I still can't remember what it says -- but I also wouldn't have published McCain's seven op-eds in The New York Times since 1996.

Since McCain has gone from being a Republican "maverick" who attacks Republicans and promotes liberal causes to the Republican nominee for president, he's also gone from being one of the Times' most frequent op-ed guest columnists to being an unpublishable illiterate.

I looked up McCain's oeuvre for the Times, and if you want unpublishable, that's unpublishable. In one column, McCain assailed Republicans for their lack of commitment to the environment, noting that polls -- probably the same ones showing him to be the most "electable" Republican -- indicated that "the environment is the voters' number-one concern about continued Republican leadership of Congress."

McCain concluded with this ringing peroration: "(O)ur nation's continued prosperity hinges on our ability to solve environmental problems and sustain the natural resources on which we all depend." That's good writing -- I mean assuming you're writing hack press releases for an irrelevant environmentalist think tank.

The rest of McCain's op-eds in the Times bravely took on -- I quote -- "unnecessary regulation" and "pork-barrel spending." It's that sort of courage and clear-headedness that tells me we're going to be OK this fall.

In coming out four-square against "unnecessary regulation" and "pork-barrel spending," McCain threw down the gauntlet to those who favor "unnecessary regulation" and "pork-barrel spending." Actually, I think there's a rule that says you're not being brave if there is not a single person in the world who would publicly disagree with you.

While the media are busy telling McCain that "It's not you, it's us," Al Gore, a recent Democratic candidate for president, has become certifiably nuts. Gore's increasingly bizarre public statements are a reminder of the dangers of going off carbs cold turkey.

On "Meet the Press" last weekend, Gore called on America to be carbon dioxide-free within 10 years. In the same spirit of pointlessness and futility, I call on America to be 100 percent oxygen-free within 10 years.

Say, how do "hot lap dances" affect global warming? Last week, a Gore supporter, Louis Posner, enraged over the result of the 2000 presidential election and founder of the Democratic voter organization Voter March, was arrested in New York on charges of prostitution and money laundering.

According to the police, in addition to sponsoring events with Vincent Bugliosi about Bush stealing the 2000 election, Posner ran a prostitution ring out of his club, the Hot Lap Dance Club, where employees say they were required to have sex with Posner in order to work there. No wonder Posner was so testy about the 2000 election -- he wanted to preserve the glory of the Clinton years.

Imagine the important reporting we could have gotten on the Hot Lap Dance Club story if only the entire American media weren't with the Messiah on his "Ich Bin Ein Berlitzer" Tour!

But a two-week vacation in Europe is just what B. Hussein Obama needs to polish up his speech about how all our geopolitical challenges are due to American boorishness and stupidity. That ought to make for a boffo op-ed in The New York Times.

Jetsetlemming

11-04-2008, 01:17 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081103/ap_on_re_us/highway_gunman_6
Flag-waving gunman closes Calif. highway for hours
SANTA BARBARA, Calif. – A masked gunman waving an American flag and a handgun on a freeway overpass surrendered to police Monday after forcing a traffic shutdown for hours.

The man gave himself up at midmorning west of downtown Santa Barbara at Highway 101, a major route along the California coast. No shots were fired. Traffic was backed at least three miles in each direction.

The man agreed to give up after he was allowed to attach a Barack Obama campaign sign and the flag to the overpass railing, said police Sgt. Jim Pfleging.

Police were continuing to investigate a duffel bag and the man's car at the scene but "we have no credible threats or any threats of explosives," Pfleging said.

Police identified the man as 28-year-old Eddie Van Tassel. Pfleging said the man is believed to be a service veteran and will receive a mental health evaluation.

The man, wearing a ski mask and brown fatigues, had the flag in one hand and the gun in the other when officers arrived on the highway's La Cumbre Avenue overpass just after 7:10 a.m., said police Sgt. Lorenzo Duarte.

A police special weapons and tactics team and a crisis negotiation team used a bullhorn to communicate with him. After nearly three hours, he put the handgun on the ground and walked backward to police officers.

As for the man's motive, Duarte said, "The reason appears to be anti-war, but I don't know the specifics."

Santa Barbara is 90 miles northwest of Los Angeles.
:rofl: No better way to demonstrate against war than with a handgun and ski mask

riona

11-04-2008, 02:57 PM

...why? I have the right to free speech still, don't I? Or did I miss when they took that away from us?

Jetsetlemming

11-04-2008, 03:18 PM

...why? I have the right to free speech still, don't I? Or did I miss when they took that away from us?
Saying you'll kill a VP candidate is something that could, possibly, maybe, get you in trouble with the secret service. They tend to take that shit seriously.
It's a minor risk all things considered.
You absolutely have a right to say what you want. You don't have the right to have no consequences to what you say.
There's nothing stopping you from making the statement. The problem is that statement can technically be construed to mean you have the intent to kill someone, which itself is not ok.

Fermented Yeast Paste

11-04-2008, 03:20 PM

Even joking about assassinating a high profile candidate could get you in trouble and is considered out of the boundaries of free speech.

edit: beaten

riona

11-04-2008, 03:25 PM

Well, if the secret service is going to be looking into my OP9 posts, they can also look at this one.
I'm NOT the first person I've seen online to say that.
I'm also NOT the most viable threat out there.
AND I said IF McCain wins (he won't), when he dies (he might), and if someone else doesn't do it (and someone WILL).

But if I don't post for awhile, be worried! They've probably arrested and tortured me. You know, because this is a fascist state, and a vague threat from a college freshman in the midwest with no means or opportunity to follow through will definitely get me arrested, or at least looked at.
'Scuse me while I *eyeroll*

Jetsetlemming

11-04-2008, 03:31 PM

riona

11-04-2008, 03:46 PM

Only if someone reports you. :innocent:
And you won't get tortured, just investigated and interrogated! :innocent:

You really need to look at it reasonably, though. What if someone wrote "I'm going to kill Riona if someone else doesn't get to her first. I hate her so much. I am so going to kill her" and publicly said this? It's not like random nutjobs, including random college freshmen from the midwest, haven't said these things, honestly meant them, and attempted to carry them out. The Secret Service is obliged to carry out investigations and and do the best they can to prevent any assassinations.

Interrogated = tortured.

Also, I'm not a high profile person. I don't put myself in the spotlight and in danger willingly. Tell you what, when I run VP of the US with one of the most annoying conservative and hypocritical running platforms I've ever seen, you can go ahead and make threats against me too.

Zen Monkey

11-04-2008, 03:55 PM

The 'reason' for a threat isn't terribly important to the federal government, just the fact that the statement has been made. You wouldn't think it was very likely that someone would shoot Ronald Reagan in an attempt to impress Jodie Foster, but then...

Threats made, even in jest, tend to get added to your fbi file if anyone felt like forwarding an internet message or submitting an anonymous tip. Suddenly you're 'randomly' selected for addtional screening every time to try to get through an airport, 'randomly' picked for tax audits, or whatever else can be done to see if you're a harmless internet blowhard or the next potential threat that's about to come unhinged. And that's without making use of any of the measures provided for in the Patriot Act.

ruaidhri

11-04-2008, 03:56 PM

Riona,

If the Secret Service should become aware of your threat they will take action. What would they do? Well, back a number of years ago a woman where my wife worked verbally threatened Hillary who at the time was the first lady. The Secret Service came and removed her to Leavenworth for interrogation. Oh, they did let her go but I'm sure her experience wasn't fun.

Like others, my suggestion is to edit your post.

Urameshi YuSooKey

11-04-2008, 04:29 PM

Only if someone reports you. :innocent:
And you won't get tortured, just investigated and interrogated! :innocent:

You really need to look at it reasonably, though. What if someone wrote "I'm going to kill Riona if someone else doesn't get to her first. I hate her so much. I am so going to kill her" and publicly said this? It's not like random nutjobs, including random college freshmen from the midwest, haven't said these things, honestly meant them, and attempted to carry them out. The Secret Service is obliged to carry out investigations and and do the best they can to prevent any assassinations.
Protip: Jet is a narc.

Also, those big block quotes by Ann Coulter are quite annoying.

Zensouken

11-04-2008, 04:29 PM

We went over this earlier, there are some states that refuse to put independants, write ins, or even in the case of Oklahoma (It was oklahoma right I know it was a state around there) absolutely nobody but the two primary parties is available.

I was being sarcastic. I very well understand what's going on with the representation of other party candidates. What I'm saying is that Ralph Nader is ALWAYS running for something. It really cheapens the idea of it when you keep running. From an outside perspective if you look at Candidates A and B, and then there's C, but C is always there yet never garners enough votes to matter, this stigmatic mentality prevails amongst people like, "Oh this guy again, he's never gonna win." "Oh this guy again, why does he even try, lawl..."

I believe that's the general response of people when it comes to Nader. I mean, the guy's had his time. He's done a lot for the country already, you ARE wearing a seatbelt, aren't you? It's all timing in reality. Timing with the notions of the people. Dude's gotta rest a bit.

Beowulf

11-04-2008, 04:47 PM

Mann Coulter quotes
Please don't do this.

Jetsetlemming

11-04-2008, 05:11 PM

Please don't do this.
She's owning on John McCain I thought you'd like it

Beowulf

11-04-2008, 05:13 PM

She's owning on John McCain I thought you'd like it
I don't care if she is ragging on something we mutually hate, it's never okay to quote her. She is one of the worst people. Also, I hope this doesn't prove you read Ann Coulter.

Plekto

11-04-2008, 05:16 PM

When isn't Ralph Nader on any ballot...

Exactly. The man is an ass. And yes, the Green Party did nominate him in 96, but he basically used that nomination to hijack the process for the next two election cycles. Then they finally got rid of this guy because it was clear that he is a professional candidate. It doesn't matter - he'll latch onto any party that he can just to keep in the public eye.

In California, he's in the "peace and freedom" party. So much for being with the Greens.(note - Ron Paul also pissed me off by his switching from Libertarian to Republican)

Urameshi YuSooKey

11-04-2008, 05:17 PM

She's owning on John McCain I thought you'd like it
Are you also a member of the Michelle Malkin fanclub?

Edit:In more related news, it only took me 5 minutes to vote. Yay.

Beowulf

11-04-2008, 05:21 PM

Hey arctic_slicer, when you join the Cult Of Nader do you have to bring your own robe or do they fit you for one?

Jetsetlemming

11-04-2008, 05:35 PM

I don't care if she is ragging on something we mutually hate, it's never okay to quote her. She is one of the worst people. Also, I hope this doesn't prove you read Ann Coulter.
<- Rabid Ann Coulter fan.
Are you also a member of the Michelle Malkin fanclub?

The Asian chick on Fox News? Eh. I haven't seen much of her but what I saw didn't make me laugh.

RoxFontaine

11-04-2008, 06:05 PM

I just ordered my set of these. I can't wait for them to come in!

http://airbedandbreakfast.s3.amazonaws.com/obama_oj.jpg

http://airbedandbreakfast.s3.amazonaws.com/mccain_oj.jpg

Beowulf

11-04-2008, 06:56 PM

<- Rabid Ann Coulter fan.
Hate to be the one to tell you but Ann Coulter is pretty much everything that's wrong with america :/

Jetsetlemming

11-04-2008, 07:18 PM

What's your problems with comedians :/

Also http://crackle.com/c/Penn_Says/Election_Day/2403072
"If McCain wins, the number one place I'd want to be would be with Hillary Clinton... just so I can see her happy for once in her life. No matter what happens, tomorrow, Hillary Clinton starts campaigning again."

Beowulf

11-04-2008, 08:07 PM

What's your problems with comedians :/
We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war.
...It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In fact, in every presidential election since 1950—except Goldwater in '64—the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted.

We just want Jews to be perfected, as they say
Ha. Ha. Ha.

Moai

11-04-2008, 10:22 PM

Just out of curiosity, has it ever happened that a member of the Electoral College did not cast his vote for the candidate chosen by his State?

Plekto

11-04-2008, 10:31 PM

Several times, actually. There is a chance that McCain might have a block of votes thrown his way if it's close. It's happened before. this is why it should be by popular vote only.

Arctic_Slicer

11-04-2008, 10:35 PM

We went over this earlier, there are some states that refuse to put independants, write ins, or even in the case of Oklahoma (It was oklahoma right I know it was a state around there) absolutely nobody but the two primary parties is available.

Yep It's Oklahoma. They have the most restrictive ballot access in the country and do not allow write-ins giving people only two choices. Ralph Nader is on 46 ballots(45 states and DC) in addition to that he is a valid write-in candidate for Georgia, Texas, North Carolina and Indiana making Oklahoma the only place in the country where you can't vote for Ralph Nader. Sooner or later Oklahoma's ballot access are going to have to be challenged as unconstitutional as they are denying people their constitutionally protected right to run for elected office.

I just got back for the polling place in my state and I voted Ralph Nader for President and Matt Gonzalez for vice president. The only regret I have about this election is that I forgot I had to vote on retention of judges in my state. This is different than in 2006 where one judge in particular was all over in the newspapers about her recent controversial rulings and not surprisingly she was removed by the voters, I joined in the vote to not retain her. However going into this election I forgot about the judges because there wasn't any attention paid to any of them so they must be doing a decent enough job to not have any serious scrutiny are therefor probably worth keeping. As such I voted "yes" to retain all of them. Other than the judges though I did a reasonable amount of research on all of the other candidates in the other races including country mayor, attorney general, country clerk, etc.

Edit: Faithless Electors

If I remember correctly this has happened 158 times in the history of our country with the most recent example being in 2000 when one of the electors in the District of Columbia declined to place their vote for Al Gore giving him only 2 from DC instead of the usual 3. The most infamous case was in 1836 when all 23 electors in Virginia refused to cast their vote for Martin Van Buren's running mate, Richard Johnson, denying him a majority of the electoral vote to become Vice President and leaving it for the senate to eventually pick him as the winner of the vice presidential election. While faithless electors have yet to change the eventual outcome of an election there is always the possibility that they could making a valid argument in abolishing the elector college and instituting a direct election by popular vote.

Jetsetlemming

11-04-2008, 11:33 PM

I just voted. Only two people in line in front of my mom and I. There was a straight party line button at the top of the columns, nice an obvious, which pissed me off. I mentioned it to mom, and she said she used it. I tried to use the example of the difference of voting for Obama or possibly Hillary Clinton- both would be democratic candidates but the end result president would be night and day. The point was lost on her anyway because the entire ride she was bitching about Obama and how he had made it a "Black and white" issue and if he wins the blacks will rule our country for the next four years and they're gonna riot in Center City tomorrow no matter which way it goes, then she voted for him anyway because she refuses to think other than listening to racist hearsay and pressing the big DEMOCRAT button.

h2orowe

11-04-2008, 11:39 PM

Dude, totally. If we let blacks rule over us, tomorrow we'll all be forced to listen to Thelonious Monk. Just think of it. THINK OF IT.

h2orowe

11-04-2008, 11:39 PM

And for the record, that was a joke. It seems a lot of people misinterpret me saying something ridiculous as reality. Such as when I said Israel was predominately Mormon.

mawande

11-04-2008, 11:56 PM

I read about the woman who wouldn't give out candy to any child whose parents or self supported Obama. As if the lesson she's teaching is anything other than that she is a horrible person... well, she surely thinks it is.

Arctic_Slicer

11-05-2008, 12:05 AM

It's 7:00PM for the Eastern states and the results are starting to come in. For those of us who are really bored we can watch the election unfold online.

The map at Foxnews.com (http://elections.foxnews.com/states_map/index.html) is pretty cool as it automatically updates and lists the top 5 candidates and not just the top 2 like most other sites.

Jetsetlemming

11-05-2008, 12:10 AM

tomorrow we'll all be forced to listen to Thelonious Monk
I'd be cool with this.

For the longest time I thought his name was "Felonious monk", lol

riona

11-05-2008, 12:17 AM

Weeee, I proxy voted for Nader.

As in, a friend wanted to vote, but he's 17 till January.
I didn't want to vote, but am eligible.
I voted for him.

haterllnation

11-05-2008, 12:19 AM

Jetsetlemming

11-05-2008, 12:29 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCeD1RcJjAg

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

Two blank panthers, one with a night stick in his hand, were guarding the entrance to a polling place in Philly.

Roxie

11-05-2008, 12:56 AM

My Friends Like to Vote.
Lindsey
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b58/Roxie21/th_IMAG0028.jpg (http://s17.photobucket.com/albums/b58/Roxie21/?action=view&current=IMAG0028.jpg)

J. Ice
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b58/Roxie21/th_1225835039.jpg (http://s17.photobucket.com/albums/b58/Roxie21/?action=view&current=1225835039.jpg)

Mike
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b58/Roxie21/th_1225836583.jpg (http://s17.photobucket.com/albums/b58/Roxie21/?action=view&current=1225836583.jpg)

Jen
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b58/Roxie21/th_1225835019.jpg (http://s17.photobucket.com/albums/b58/Roxie21/?action=view&current=1225835019.jpg)

D & Miriam
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b58/Roxie21/th_1225835011.jpg (http://s17.photobucket.com/albums/b58/Roxie21/?action=view&current=1225835011.jpg)

And me too, of course :)
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b58/Roxie21/th_1225812248.jpg (http://s17.photobucket.com/albums/b58/Roxie21/?action=view&current=1225812248.jpg)

Jetsetlemming

11-05-2008, 01:12 AM

Fox News's vote map: high quality.

Plekto

11-05-2008, 01:17 AM

It looks like Obama has 75% of the minority vote in the U.S. and 65% of 18-29 year olds. Florida is the key. If Obama takes Florida by a large enough margin to not be contested, it's over. Just watch Florida - it's un-winnable if McCain doesn't take Florida.

Minorities and young voters are the key to winning now, so it seems. Too bad the RNC has moved so far to the right to where they are pissed off at anything Republican.

Jetsetlemming

11-05-2008, 01:21 AM

Arctic_Slicer

11-05-2008, 01:26 AM

BBC Worldwide is saying Pennsylvania and Florida was the two keys, and it's projected now that Obama won PA. It's very unlikely that McCain will win now.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/us_elections_2008/7700298.stm

Hasn't it been unlikely that McCain will win during the last several weeks? All of those maps at Realclearpolitics.com and other sites have showed Obama leading in a super majority of states that would make it virtually impossible for McCain to win short of a miracle and looking at the results so far it seems that "miracle" did not materialize.

Mittens

11-05-2008, 01:31 AM

Mastiker

11-05-2008, 01:33 AM

http://www.peteyandpetunia.com/VoteHere/VoteHere.swf

Times are... campaigning?

Jetsetlemming

11-05-2008, 01:35 AM

Mittens

11-05-2008, 01:36 AM

Obama is by far more publicly religious than McCain. :boggled: And Obama has far more going for him than "appealing solely to african americans". Did you think all the Obama supporters in this thread was black?

I'm not talkin bout people in this thread, its just.. Urgh, the thought that there are people out there voting on the basis of religion and race aggravates the living shit out of me.

h2orowe

11-05-2008, 01:43 AM

Welcome to America. Hell, I'm sure people do that the world wide. Idiots aren't specific only to the United States.

Jetsetlemming

11-05-2008, 01:44 AM

I believe the population of idiots are most heavily focused in whatever eastern europe shithole inurl is from.

Mastiker

11-05-2008, 01:47 AM

I'm not talkin bout people in this thread, its just.. Urgh, the thought that there are people out there voting on the basis of religion and race aggravates the living shit out of me.

If it's any consolation, my friend's mom voted for McCain because Obama is okay with gay marriage.

Oh wait...

h2orowe

11-05-2008, 01:47 AM

I believe the population of idiots are most heavily focused in whatever eastern europe shithole inurl is from.

Don't get me started on Eastern Europe. Seriously. Ever.

Kannon

11-05-2008, 02:34 AM

...who can hardly put his hands over his head...

Ok, I agree it's creepy, and we poke fun about his choice of hand and arm movements at work, but we wouldn't actually list it as a reason we don't like him, there is plenty other reasons to list for that, not for the fact that his arms were broke as a P.O.W. after refusing to leave before those POWs that were captured before him.

Roxie

11-05-2008, 03:11 AM

Whilst on the other, you have this dude, appealing solely to 'african-americans'. All I see from his side is this 'change' bullshit. Which I will give him credit for, it is one hell of a way to prey on the minds of people with no common sense, or people who can't let this 'oppression' shit go.

Excuse me?

You know that sounds like?

Firefly

11-05-2008, 03:12 AM

Personally, I think both candidates are fuckin' shite.
On one hand, you have a jesus loving freak who can hardly put his hands over his head, with one hell of a dysfunctional family.
Whilst on the other, you have this dude, appealing solely to 'african-americans'. All I see from his side is this 'change' bullshit. Which I will give him credit for, it is one hell of a way to prey on the minds of people with no common sense, or people who can't let this 'oppression' shit go.

I've been following this sham from the depths of my subterranean lair, and it just sickens me. I hope they both befall some incurable illness so that I can just ascend and show people how the fuck the world should be run.

ARGH

Whilst I have very strong opinions on the political system here in America and I have my own personal beliefs that I never trust a politician- I sincerely believe that you're either just letting out steam or you're getting your information from biased sources (4chan, perhaps?) As Kannon said, yeah, He can't raise his arms (and I don't like this man, at all) He was a POW- There's no way I'm touching that argument.

As for Obama appealing only to African-Americans? Maybe HE appeals to THEM because he is half black- but if you think he's only aiming for the black vote you're very mistaken.

You may be watching from the "depths of your subterranean lair" but I LIVE in this and I SEE what's going on in this Country with my own eyes. Are there people voting because of race and religion? Yeah. There are also people voting because they've been severely misinformed (We hear rumors all the time about how Malcom X is Obama's father, Obama is related to whatever the fuck terrorist you can think of, not to mention the extremists who posts signs telling people to vote on November 5th) and it's going to happen, regardless of the election. And it doesn't just happen in America, either.

Not to call you out or anything, I'm not trying to defend the American government or political system, but it is a little irritating the way you've worded your argument, especially since your points were not that valid :/

Fermented Yeast Paste

11-05-2008, 03:25 AM

Oh Goooooood I just came.

Arctic_Slicer

11-05-2008, 03:25 AM

The Real News Network (http://therealnews.com/t/index.php) has been giving great non-partisan coverage of the election as it unfolds. There have been some issues with the stream quality in that it cuts out once in a awhile but overall it's been really great. Much better than the coverage on CNN or Fox has been.

Samurai_Pooh

11-05-2008, 03:36 AM

i think its high time we all started collectively masturbating as Obama becomes the definite winner :hat:

Plekto

11-05-2008, 03:38 AM

Current votes plus California, Oregon, and Hawaii are enough. Doesn't even need Florida, though he'll likely get it. I predict a total of 357 for Obama.

Roxie

11-05-2008, 03:41 AM

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b58/Roxie21/n22619565_34932150_1132.jpg

Joe Rocket

11-05-2008, 03:41 AM

I'm about to book a room in DC for the inauguration:dj:

Roxie

11-05-2008, 03:44 AM

I'm about to book a room in DC for the inauguration:dj:
take me with you!

h2orowe

11-05-2008, 03:49 AM

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b58/Roxie21/n22619565_34932150_1132.jpg
Finally! Someone that doesn't have white hair.

Myrsilus

11-05-2008, 04:02 AM

Obama wins.

h2orowe

11-05-2008, 04:10 AM

Huzzah.

Kannon

11-05-2008, 04:13 AM

I'm shocked, and awed.

xtine

11-05-2008, 04:17 AM

I have to say, a lot of the country is pretty happy. I haven't noticed so many happy Americans in a long, long, time. :)

Joe Rocket

11-05-2008, 04:18 AM

HOLY SHIT

I'm seeing real fucking history

chgu

11-05-2008, 04:18 AM

...

Roxie

11-05-2008, 04:19 AM

AHHHAHHAHAhAHAHAHHAAAA!!!! HYPERVENTIlATING!!!!
AHAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!! I JUST WANNA KISS SOMEONE!!
I AM BEYOND :D

chgu

11-05-2008, 04:22 AM

What what!

Arctic_Slicer

11-05-2008, 04:24 AM

I'm currently watching McCain's concession speech. Probably the best speech he gave all campaign.

haterllnation

11-05-2008, 04:24 AM

Mr. Jackson is balling his eyes out. Holy smokes. I wonder if he's thinking, "That could have been me!"

Roxie

11-05-2008, 04:28 AM

My 73 year old grandma is crying, she is SO happy! She said she thought she'd never live to see the day!!

haterllnation

11-05-2008, 04:30 AM

japanat

11-05-2008, 04:32 AM

Mr. Jackson is balling his eyes out. Holy smokes. I wonder if he's thinking, "That could have been me!"You didn't consider that this is what he's been working toward for the last 45 years? I thought the film of Jackson crying was the most powerful image of the whole campaign.

I always thought this would occur during my lifetime, but really didn't expect it to happen for at least 25 more years.

Arctic_Slicer

11-05-2008, 04:33 AM

24 has come to life (and 5th Element). Indiana is blue by 1%. This is a first since 1964. There are still 10k votes to change it and a few votes not counted but still. This is a big feat since this state bleeds red.

Yeah I have been watching that. Both Indiana and North Carolina are coming down to the wire. This might be the biggest democratic victory since Johnson in 1964.

haterllnation

11-05-2008, 04:33 AM

You didn't consider that this is what he's been working toward for the last 45 years? I thought the film of Jackson crying was the most powerful image of the whole campaign.

Of course; I just took the lighter side of it. It was odd. I saw it on the Picture in Picture but anchors I watched didn't go to it and it went away. I was like, "How did they miss talking about that??"

Yeah I have been watching that. Both Indiana and North Carolina are coming down to the wire. This might be the biggest democratic victory since Johnson in 1964.

Indeed. It's down to 8k votes now. So, they are still counting and it's still 1% but it's still pretty crazy. It's been a long while.

Firefly

11-05-2008, 04:44 AM

I can't even express the amount of sheer joy that the people in my dorms are expressing right now. Crying, cheering, shouting...everything you can think of. Now we're all holding our breath on Prop 8....

RoxFontaine

11-05-2008, 04:46 AM

My 73 year old grandma is crying, she is SO happy! She said she thought she'd never live to see the day!!

I'm so overjoyed to hear that she got to see it.

Scarabomb

11-05-2008, 04:58 AM

This is quite shocking and frankly I'm proud right now. Proud that Barack is our new CINC. While many may disagree, this really marks America down in history and this is a moment that I wouldn't pass up for anything.

My 73 year old grandma is crying, she is SO happy! She said she thought she'd never live to see the day!!

Bless her that she got to see this day. My dad is 82 and he not only voted for Barack Obama but he also gets the opportunity to see this. As a black man who's gone through the ups and downs with racial issues, he also gets to witness history as.... just a half black man gets elected into office. Sadly, my gramma died about a month ago at the age of 95 so she couldn't witness this day today but I'm sure she too would be very proud.

Citizen

11-05-2008, 04:59 AM

183 more electoral college votes to represent a 4% popular vote margain is fun.

harper

11-05-2008, 05:17 AM

I can't even express the amount of sheer joy that the people in my dorms are expressing right now. Crying, cheering, shouting...everything you can think of..

I can only imagine what school is going to be like tomorrow. There will be a lot of happy people. Of course, I voted for Obama so I'm happy, too.

Swede

11-05-2008, 05:22 AM

24 has come to life (and 5th Element). Indiana is blue by 1%. This is a first since 1964. There are still 10k votes to change it and a few votes not counted but still. This is a big feat since this state bleeds red.

Hell yeah man!

I have to say, when they first announced that Obama would be the next president, it hit me harder than I thought. It was like every feeling of patriotism and why I'm proud to be an American overtook me. This election just really feels like the people finally took the country back, to a place where Joe six-pack isn't the international image of what it means to be an American. Very, very happy right now :')

Firefly

11-05-2008, 05:25 AM

Hell yeah man!

I have to say, when they first announced that Obama would be the next president, it hit me harder than I thought. It was like every feeling of patriotism and why I'm proud to be an American overtook me. This election just really feels like the people finally took the country back, to a place where Joe six-pack isn't the international image of what it means to be an American. Very, very happy right now :')

100% Agreed. I cannot believe how patriotic this has made myself and the people I live around so patriotic in a matter of minutes.

Arctic_Slicer

11-05-2008, 05:28 AM

Hell yeah man!

I have to say, when they first announced that Obama would be the next president, it hit me harder than I thought. It was like every feeling of patriotism and why I'm proud to be an American overtook me. This election just really feels like the people finally took the country back, to a place where Joe six-pack isn't the international image of what it means to be an American. Very, very happy right now :')

No, now the real work begins. We now have a democratic president with a significant majority in the congress. There will be no more excuses for getting out of Iraq and solving issues of the working class. In 4 years when we are still in Iraq and Afghanistan, still operate secret torture prisons, still spy on citizens, who will be responsible?

Duke Luke of Juke

11-05-2008, 05:28 AM

Old but time-appropriate:
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo129/rjm123_album/2mwe3no.gif

stsparky

11-05-2008, 05:31 AM

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3284/3004647276_4cd0903e8b_b.jpg
http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/6387/pollsclosedyd1.jpg
and my favorite --
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v481/lobotomysurvivor/obama-combo.jpg
I'm a happy progressive tonight.
http://gallery.me.com/stsparky/100305/Photo-20262/web.jpg
http://gallery.me.com/stsparky/100305/Photo-20263/web.jpg

Celebration brew has this image on the bottle:
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41jA28dImAL._SS500_.jpg
http://gallery.me.com/stsparky/100305/Photo-20264/web.jpg

Fermented Yeast Paste

11-05-2008, 05:34 AM

I'm so fucking proud of America right now.

Also I donated $70 to this guy so if he didn't win I'd want a refund.

Mastiker

11-05-2008, 05:35 AM

And because it's totally appropriate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65I0HNvTDH4

Arctic_Slicer

11-05-2008, 05:36 AM

I'm so fucking proud of America right now.

Also I donated $70 to this guy so if he didn't win I'd want a refund.

Yeah this was probably one of the most winnable elections for democrats in a long time. If they didn't win then they would need to go hide under a rock somewhere and disappear.

Roxie

11-05-2008, 05:40 AM

EXHALE

haterllnation

11-05-2008, 05:42 AM

EXHALE

I was waiting to as well. :innocent:

Fermented Yeast Paste

11-05-2008, 05:52 AM

Yeah this was probably one of the most winnable elections for democrats in a long time. If they didn't win then they would need to go hide under a rock somewhere and disappear.
Proposition 8 isn't looking too good for us. :(

Arctic_Slicer

11-05-2008, 05:57 AM

Proposition 8 isn't looking too good for us. :(

Damnit. Stupid intolerant bastards. I'm betting Pelosi wins reelection for the dozenth time as well. California may be the most "Progressive" state in the nation but not progressive enough it seems.

Joe Rocket

11-05-2008, 05:58 AM

http://i35.tinypic.com/25s0tic.gif

Matt W

11-05-2008, 06:04 AM

This is amazingly awesome. There is hope for this country yet.

jindojim

11-05-2008, 06:09 AM

I totally agree. I thought there was no hope for America; that we'd always be, overall, dominated by Republicans and anti-intellectuals. Tonight, I feel great and proud to be an American, and I'm especially proud of the American people. Obama didn't just win, but he won very decisively.

Major props to McCain on his concession speech too. Although I couldn't help but feel like his supporters were far less classy than he was.

Samurai_Pooh

11-05-2008, 06:12 AM

ohio, florida, thank you. And all those who voted.

faith in humanity has suddenly been restored over 9000 percent

Roxie

11-05-2008, 06:12 AM

http://projects.ajc.com/gallery/view/opinion/luckovichobamaelex/
My favorite
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b58/Roxie21/slideshow_816631_mike08292008.jpg

Swede

11-05-2008, 06:15 AM

Arctic_Slicer

11-05-2008, 06:37 AM

Indiana's going blue. Got off the phone with my sister working for the campaign, says they got a call from state and there's just a few votes coming in from monroe (Bloomington! Huzzah) that will head to Obama anyway. I feel proud as hell right now.

And Arctic, sorry if you got the impression from my post that now we're all done. Didn't mean to imply that- but this is the point we take off from.

So is North Carolina. This will put his electoral count at 364-367 depending on Montana. I'm pretty sure that qualifies as a landslide.

In regards to what we do now: I've been watching the Real News and they had Ralph Nader on earlier and he talked about what he is going to do now in regards to making the democrats work for us. His campaign just launched a new website called November5.org (http://november5.org/). The goal of this website is to use the momentum he built during this campaign and using that momentum to start organizing congressional watchdog groups in every congressional district. Unlike in previous election years, the internet has been instrumental in his campaign this year and will be the medium from which he launches his latest efforts.

Check it out at November5.org (http://november5.org/)

Roxie

11-05-2008, 06:40 AM

THIS IS WHAT A MANDATE LOOKS LIKE!

Plekto

11-05-2008, 06:52 AM

No, this is what a rejection looks like.

The RNC better get back to the center pretty darn quick.

Beowulf

11-05-2008, 06:56 AM

Hell yeah America.

oh and fuck you Palin.

Arctic_Slicer

11-05-2008, 06:59 AM

No, this is what a rejection looks like.

The RNC better get back to the center pretty darn quick.

You mean back to the right? The conservatives are pissed at the republicans after 8 years of a president who hasn't been the least bit conservative and a nominee who promised more of the same. Many conservatives consider the last 8 years as the leftest administration this country has ever had. The current republican party has abandoned all principles of constitutionalism and small government that are the core of conservatism.

Last night conservative columnist and radio talk show host, Jack Hunter, had a great commentary titled "Thank God McCain Lost (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PH2l_EIPI0)".

Fermented Yeast Paste

11-05-2008, 07:03 AM

Arctic_Slicer

11-05-2008, 07:05 AM

I'm worried that a lot of "true" conservatives have already abandoned the Republican Party and registered as independents, leaving only the most disconnected members behind, which will just cause them to get more extreme.

I mean, I'm not exactly a professional political analyst, but it's a thought.

One thing is for certain; conservative Republicans were silent while their party was hijacked. I actually think the conservative philosophy of limited government and constitutionalism to be worthy but like most people I find the modern republican party to represent anything but.

mikem

11-05-2008, 07:18 AM

Why hasn't no one mentioned that Obama has two and a half months until he becomes president. Don't you think there's one asshole in those 50 million that doesn't want that to happen?

Arctic_Slicer

11-05-2008, 07:23 AM

Why hasn't no one mentioned that Obama has two and a half months until he becomes president. Don't you think there's one asshole in those 50 million that doesn't want that to happen?

The establishment couldn't be happier with Obama, he hasn't challenged their power, he isn't Kennedy. If he was against bailing out wall street, if he was against the telecom industry, if he was against NAFTA, etc. then maybe he would have something to fear but he wasn't and he's safe.

Digital Masta

11-05-2008, 07:45 AM

Good day...good day.

mugen

11-05-2008, 09:28 AM

Well, I feel....relieved.

edit: Obama's speech made me feel like I was an American:blank:

Jetsetlemming

11-05-2008, 10:09 AM

Fuck yeah.

Anyone hear Ralph Nader's comments on some radio station yesterday? It was basically "The question now is whether Obama will become Uncle Sam to America, or Uncle Tom to Big Business". :blank: Yeah, holy shit.

Also McCain's speech really needed some editing. Make the "I'm not bitter! Honest!" part shorter, and in the middle, and the "Please don't try to murder the president" part at the end and more emphasized. Fuck every single person who booed in that crowd. :mad:

Also Ted fucking Stevens is winning his reelection despite having been convicted of felonies, and the race in Nebraska with Al Frankens in it is close. I'm going to be so disappointed in Nebraska if they elect that piece of shit.

Jetsetlemming

11-05-2008, 10:24 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkoB4r9FSzY

archdukezeb

11-05-2008, 10:47 AM

Man enough with the Nader. Less then 1 in 100 Americans gives a damn. Just like the interviewer said "reduced to irrelevant." There is a reason he has not and will not ever win an election.

Arctic_Slicer

11-05-2008, 10:53 AM

Anyone hear Ralph Nader's comments on some radio station yesterday? It was basically "The question now is whether Obama will become Uncle Sam to America, or Uncle Tom to Big Business". :blank: Yeah, holy shit.

We were talking about that in the other thread and this is once again the corporate media taking words out of context in an attempt at character assassination. It's kind of like the coverage they gave him back in June (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvJqxL4FvZk) when took the words "talk white" out context in an interview he did with the Rocky Mountain News. (http://www6.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/aug/21/transcript-me-sprengelmeyers-interview-ralph-nader/) This time like in June before the media only focuses on two words instead of his whole message; a message of substance describing the plight of the poor and how it disproportionally affects African-Americans and Latinos.

Last June, Mumia Abu-Jamal, made a radio essay (http://prisonradio.org/audio/mumia/2008MAJ/June08/6-27-08NadarObamaB.mp3), in response to the media's portrayal of Ralph Nader's criticisms.

Is speaking about the absolutely dire conditions facing poor black folks old-fashioned or somehow uncool? Apparently it is. There is such a profound distaste for the Bush regime and all they represent that Obama has gotten, is getting and probably will get a free ride that has more to do with his image than his substance.

The only time the corporate media covers alternative candidates is when they are going out of their way to assassinate that candidate's character; either by implicating them in a scandal or trying to stick them with a label such as "spoiler" or "racist". What they have done to Ralph Nader during this year is no different. This is why I don't watch the corporate media on tell-lie-vision their job is that of shepherd to keep the sheep in line.

Jetsetlemming

11-05-2008, 10:56 AM

Arctic Slicer: Still the biggest tool around.

Arctic_Slicer

11-05-2008, 11:01 AM

Man enough with the Nader. Less then 1 in 100 Americans gives a damn. Just like the interviewer said "reduced to irrelevant." There is a reason he has not and will not ever win an election.

Yes, and that "reason" is the media.

Arctic Slicer: Still the biggest tool around.

Nah, I could never compete to some ignorant partisans on these forums.

According to Wikipedia's article on "Uncle Tom's Cabin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncle_Tom%27s_Cabin)":

Uncle Tom, the title character, was initially seen as a noble long-suffering Christian slave. In more recent years, his name has become an epithet directed towards African-Americans who are accused of selling out to whites

Obama has "sold out" to the white corporate power structure and Ralph Nader is calling him on it. You are trying to read things into his comments that aren't there.

Jetsetlemming

11-05-2008, 11:15 AM

Arctic_Slicer

11-05-2008, 11:36 AM

What he meant is irrelevant, he called Obama a fucking Uncle Tom, and that is not cool. He's a goddamn politician, he can't say whatever he wants and expect it to fly.

None of those "ignorant partisans" use the phrase "Tell-lie vision".

They don't talk about the tell-lie-vision because they are brainwashed by it. People need to turn the damned thing off so that maybe we could get some real change around here.

What Ralph Nader said was hardly irrelevant. Obama voted bailout corporate crooks on Wall Street with an $850 corporate well fare package while at the same time millions of people are foreclosing on their homes, 83% of which are African-American and Latino. In his 21 month long campaign I don't think I have once heard Obama mention the word, "poverty", yet a disproportionate amount African-Americans and Latinos are poor. He is for the death penalty while most of those executed are African-Americans. If an "Uncle Tom" is a black man who "sold out to whites", then Obama most certainly is an "Uncle Tom". There is nothing futile or irrelevant about speaking on issues affecting the poor, African-Americans and Latinos yet these are issues Obama has avoided his entire campaign while he took hundreds of millions from white corporate elites to fund his campaign.

archdukezeb

11-05-2008, 01:23 PM

Yes, and that "reason" is the media.

When I saw that I did a complete face palm. I knew you were gonna say that and I figured I should elaborate but some part of me thought you wouldn't come with such a stupid comeback and I didn't. So allow me to now.

Artic Slicer just give it up. It's over. It's been over. NADER WILL NEVER WIN THE PRESIDENCY NO MATTER HOW MUCH PRESS COVERAGE HE GETS. In fact more press coverage might just hurt him actually. If Nader was actually serious about political change wouldn't he run for senate, or the house if he wasn't popular enough to win a senate seat. If any of these third parties were actually serious about getting a foothold in American politics I think they would focus on getting some house seats first moving up senate and then move on to the presidency. But instead a bunch of people who have never hold office decide they are qualified to lead the free world. Do you think a Republican or a Democrat could actually win the presidency if they have never held office? Did that ever occur to you why Nader will never win? Blind to logic.

Jetsetlemming

11-05-2008, 02:17 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWUrKAi_bBk
Philadelphians dancing in the streets in celebration last night. It's electric!

Fermented Yeast Paste

11-05-2008, 02:59 PM

Alaskans are seriously some of the dumbest motherfuckers on the planet. It looks like Ted Stevens will keep his Senate seat.

Karthak

11-05-2008, 03:15 PM

My sister's spontaneous comment upon hearing the results: "he's going to get shot within a week". And I thought I was the cynic in my family...

Jetsetlemming

11-05-2008, 03:20 PM

I made a topic on the ann coulter forums about Philadelphians dancing in the streets in celebration.
Op:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWUrKAi_bBk

Philadelphians dancing in the streets last night in celebration. Doing the electric slide down broad street in honor of Obama. Our city came down to 83% Obama 16% McCain. Pennsylvania went to Obama pretty much due to Philly (which has a vastly disproportionate population compared to the rest of the state, which is almost all very rural and empty- Pittsburgh helped too, of course), which cemented the predictions of Obama's victory very early in the night. Obama wins, right on the heels of us winning the World Series, too? You couldn't get a more celebratory mood if you tried, it's wonderful. :laugh:
Responses:
Hilarious, because Phili is one of the top 5 *expletive deleted* in America right now with rampant crime and unemployment. Oh, wait, the minorities think that's utopia!

Rich

Philly is the armpit of PA... the B.O. is horrendous.
Philly :laugh: . Once the obamabots realize they were duped they'll burn it down in revolt.
:innocent: In general the current activity there is hilarious, and also coincidentally wouldn't at all look out of place on stormfront or something.

RoxFontaine

11-05-2008, 04:30 PM

Did that ever occur to you why Nader will never win?

Yeah. It's all the fault of The Media. Ralph Nader is a victim! He's a perfect human being who's right about everything and undoubtedly better than any other presidential candidate in this race or any other. We're all completely stupid, blinded by media, political puppet douche bags for not voting for Ralph Nader and even more so if we don't know about him. He's done absolutely EVERYTHING right and we're all 100% in the wrong. Nader knows what he's talking about. Mumia Abu-Jamal even said so. Nader in 2012!

OliveButtercup

11-05-2008, 05:27 PM

My sister's spontaneous comment upon hearing the results: "he's going to get shot within a week". And I thought I was the cynic in my family...

I have now taken it as my duty to report whoever makes that comment in my presence :cop:

stsparky

11-05-2008, 05:30 PM

I love that I who was a paid employee of Nader in the early 80s am ignorant as to what an asshole he remains.

Trump

11-05-2008, 06:10 PM

THIS IS WHAT A MANDATE LOOKS LIKE!

Holy crap, kill me now....

In politics, a mandate is the authority granted by an electorate to act as its representative. Elections, especially ones with a large margin of victory, are often said to give the newly elected government or elected official a mandate to implement certain policies.

Let me see, 48% of this country voted AGAINST him... over 40 million people voted AGAINST him. How the hell is that a mandate? 60% for would be a mandate, not this 52% crap. I give Obama props because he played the game well and squeeked by in several states to give him a big edge in electoral votes. Good job. (Not saracstic, he really had a much better campaign). It is NOT a mandate and if you say it is you show yourself to be a mindless pawn of the media.

----

Now, I must say that I am truly afraid. Democrats control the executive and legislative branches of our country. There is now nothing to stop them from taxing the crap out of us, spending all that, and then spending so much more that we are all going to be even poorer in no time. If you listen to Obama speak it is like the government is made out of money. If you look at his votes, he thinks the country is made of of money. I don't care about making history. I don't care about party politics. I only care about the future of this country in economic, social, and military terms. As everyone here seems so excited, it only makes me truly afraid for our future.

Plekto

11-05-2008, 06:25 PM

So what happens if Obama doesn't tax and doesn't spend?

Will the Republicans' heads explode due to a massive "does not compute" error?

Remember, compared to Bush, he's going to lower spending and taxes by an enormous amount. Not *all* Democrats are "tax and spend" types. In fact, based upon the last 28 years, I'd say that the republicans have done by far the most spending and taxing. Shoot, Regan raised taxes eleven times while lying through his teeth that he wasn't actually doing it. Clinton - he lowered taxes and spending. Bush? Well, he spent like a drunken rich frat boy at Vegas.(which apparently he thought the last eight years were similar to in his own mind)

What happens if Obama actually does fix things and lowers taxes and spending?

riona

11-05-2008, 06:27 PM

I have now taken it as my duty to report whoever makes that comment in my presence :cop:

=(

Along the same line there, my comment no longer applies (obviously). No more worrying, people. And I don't even care if she wins the next election, I won't be here anymore.

We had a party in my dorm lobby last night. It was fun and we got free pizza :clap: Only about 10 people stuck around after the pizza was passed out, though. I wanted to see McCain's speech...he looked like he was about to cry. Poor guy (heh), but OH SO entertaining!

PS (not entirely relevant to this thread) Franken and Coleman are REALLY close in Minnesota. Last I saw, Coleman was winning by about 500 votes with 80% of the state reporting. Glad I actually gave in and voted (Franken!).

Plekto

11-05-2008, 07:11 PM

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/11/5/where_do_republicans_go_from_here

The picture that is at the top of the page is all that needs to be said. ;)

Good article/segment, though.(you'll have to wait about an hour or two for it to get transcribed - they are insanely busy today)

http://mschaut.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/deadrepublican-elephant.jpg

Jetsetlemming

11-05-2008, 07:23 PM

Holy crap, kill me now....

Let me see, 48% of this country voted AGAINST him... over 40 million people voted AGAINST him. How the hell is that a mandate? 60% for would be a mandate, not this 52% crap. I give Obama props because he played the game well and squeeked by in several states to give him a big edge in electoral votes. Good job. (Not saracstic, he really had a much better campaign). It is NOT a mandate and if you say it is you show yourself to be a mindless pawn of the media.

----

Now, I must say that I am truly afraid. Democrats control the executive and legislative branches of our country. There is now nothing to stop them from taxing the crap out of us, spending all that, and then spending so much more that we are all going to be even poorer in no time. If you listen to Obama speak it is like the government is made out of money. If you look at his votes, he thinks the country is made of of money. I don't care about making history. I don't care about party politics. I only care about the future of this country in economic, social, and military terms. As everyone here seems so excited, it only makes me truly afraid for our future.
More than double electoral votes. 349 to 147.
The cover of the Philadelphia Enquirer describes it as a HISTORIC WIN. The phrase that came to mind for me is EPIC WIN. :bwitch:

Kai

11-05-2008, 07:29 PM

What happens if Obama actually does fix things and lowers taxes and spending?

It would be quite a feat but with all that is going to be on his plate come January. I don't see any big fixes coming. I still see him as an empty suit but I hope I'm proven wrong.

Plekto

11-05-2008, 07:37 PM

Well, the "spend" part is easy - compared to Bush and given the lack of money due to the country nearly being bankrupt, I doubt if he could do much spending even if he wanted to.

And his rolling back taxes plan seems to be lowering taxes(I honestly don't care if he raises taxes on millionaires by whatever amount he desires). If we're talking percentage of the population and tax reduction, then it would be a first I think if his plan goes through. (the RNC uses gross figures despite the majority of the money in taxes coming from billionaires and mega-corps and so on) Exxon just made 14 billion this last quarter. Yeah, they can pay more, IMO. If it means sticking it to the fat guys at the top and the rest of us get lower taxes, well that's "lower taxes" in my book(and pocketbook as well)

Trump

11-05-2008, 09:17 PM

More than double electoral votes. 349 to 147.
The cover of the Philadelphia Enquirer describes it as a HISTORIC WIN. The phrase that came to mind for me is EPIC WIN. :bwitch:

Historic, yes. Mandate? No.

Again, he managed a percent or two in many close states. He gamed and played the system about as well as any campaign in recently history, and he has a lot of electoral votes to show for it. Since that is what actually wins the spot in the white house, that's great for him. Now, compare those numbers (70% to 30%) vs. the popular vote (52% to 46%) and there's a HUGE disparity. Obviously, anyone who leans towards Obama will choose the number that makes Obama looks better. Anyone who did not vote for Obama will say that the system is totally messed up to show such a big difference in the numbers.

So what happens if Obama doesn't tax and doesn't spend?

Will the Republicans' heads explode due to a massive "does not compute" error?

Remember, compared to Bush, he's going to lower spending and taxes by an enormous amount. Not *all* Democrats are "tax and spend" types. In fact, based upon the last 28 years, I'd say that the republicans have done by far the most spending and taxing. Shoot, Regan raised taxes eleven times while lying through his teeth that he wasn't actually doing it. Clinton - he lowered taxes and spending. Bush? Well, he spent like a drunken rich frat boy at Vegas.(which apparently he thought the last eight years were similar to in his own mind)

What happens if Obama actually does fix things and lowers taxes and spending?

Sorry Pletko, all I have to go on is Obama's campaign. All he talked about was spending money. Health care! Education! Space! Social Security! Bailouts! (He's already voted for that). And if you listen to the news in the defense industry, he's not supposed to cut defense spending much if at all. So what is he going to cut? His salary? I'll bet you a ton of money that'll never happen. The only way he can spend that kind of money is either to raise taxes or print some money. Either way we're screwed. Besides, it isn't just him I'm worried about. Now that congress and the president are the same party, it doesn't have to be the president who believes in tax and spend, you've got the entire congress. Granted, I'm also not going to believe a single one of Obama's campaign promises. He's already lied to us, so it is anyone's guess how screwed we'll actually be.

Please don't take my comments as pro-Mccain either. I really want smaller government, less special rules and regulations, and neither party stands for that any more.

japanat

11-05-2008, 10:32 PM

Historic, yes. Mandate? No.And how big was Bush's mandate? 51% of the popular vote?

Plekto

11-05-2008, 10:45 PM

Sorry Pletko, all I have to go on is Obama's campaign. All he talked about was spending money. Health care! Education! Space! Social Security! Bailouts! (He's already voted for that). And if you listen to the news in the defense industry, he's not supposed to cut defense spending much if at all. So what is he going to cut?

First off, he can blather all he wants. But without funding and Congress behind it(hello, filibuster?), it's all political B.S. His biggest savings comes from not being in Iraq. Sure, he'll increase Afghanistan's troop levels from a few percent of Iraq's to maybe 5%. But even that's an enormous savings.

- Education and Social Security and the rest. He wants it. Can't afford it. Won't survive Congress intact. $0 spent here, or maybe some small funding for student loans and such - essentially bringing things that back to Clinton's levels. That's his major goal, btw - just returning things to Clinton's levels would give us a net surplus every year.

- Defense. His proposal was to increase spending, but after Bush's nearly 500 billion funding for next year was passed a few weeks ago, Obama's plan actually lowers the defense budget. Bush really really is going to be an easy act to follow and appear to be spending less here.(still far too much IMO) His first act as President-elect today was to start his team going through every last item and change that Bush did in his 8 years in office with the explicit goal of reversing every one that they could find. His idea is to drop nearly everything back to Clinton's levels as quickly as possible and work from there. Not a terribly bad idea, really.

Net effect - decrease to about half current levels, though mostly by no more appropriation bills or vastly smaller ones than Bush did. Also, he's very likely to close hundreds of obsolete bases and modernize the entire system. More tech, less cold-war levels of hardware(don't really need thousands of tanks sitting in Texas for some imaginary Cold War with Russia).

Not likely, but that appears to be his plan - and it's better than McCain's was in any case. Bush really put him behind the eight-ball on this one, so don't expect miracles, though.

- Space. We want it, we need it. Won't happen. No extra money. Private industry will do it instead I bet. $0 actually spent here until a possible 2nd term.

- Energy. We import hundreds of billions of dollars of foreign energy per year. this will cost a lot, but it's necessary or else our infrastructure dies. I think he's figuring it will even out as all of the massive construction projects add local jobs to the economy much like FDR did when he spent money on roads and energy and so on. It sucks to be spending so much, but I consider this to be a necessary evil and more like a long-term payoff scenario(like better education) McCain also would have spent this money as well. So you can't fault him on this, really.

- Health care won't happen. No money, no way it gets through Congress intact. Nice speeches, though.

- Economy. Going to be bad. No, horrible. 28 years of idiots-in-chief running things leads to this. No idea how he's going to deal with it. His dislike of NAFTA as it currently is and moving labor offshore is a slightly promising sign, though. Of course, I'm buying gold and silver... I think it's going to get BAD very soon and nothing on this list will get done other than maybe the Energy part, because it has to at any cost.

Roxie

11-05-2008, 11:24 PM

How the hell is that a mandate?
Perspective. What I said was more in answer to Bush's "mandate" of 2004. This is more of a mandate than that, even if it is not a TRUE mandate.

Sock Full of Boiled Dimes

11-05-2008, 11:28 PM

Alaskans are seriously some of the dumbest motherfuckers on the planet. It looks like Ted Stevens will keep his Senate seat.

Truth is that Alaskans aren't really voting for Ted Stevens, but really voting for a Republican seat in the Senate.

It's not like they trust the guy and in fact I hear that they were running the campaign on that. So he'll end up going to jail and the Republicans will give the seat to another Republican.

They did the same thing with Mark Foley all though no Republican felt right voting for someone who propositioned sex with boys. Even if it was for a seat in Congress.

So, really, Alaskans aren't stupid, but just really really bipartisan.

Plekto

11-06-2008, 12:03 AM

Stevens will step down 99% likely and Palin will appoint a Republican replacement. The other three races look to be two recounts and one run-off. It looks like it will end up 56/42 with two independents. It's terribly easy to get two people to switch their votes, so expect pretty easy passage of most bills.

I also expect McCain to switch to Independent and go really rogue on his own party to save his seat in 2010. He has little to lose at this point and everything to gain by becoming the biggest PITA in the RNC's side. Kind of like Lieberman does with the Democrats.

darighaz

11-06-2008, 12:15 AM

Thats assuming all the demos agree with obama, which doesn't always happen either >_>

Jetsetlemming

11-06-2008, 12:23 AM

So, really, Alaskans aren't stupid, but just really really bipartisan.
:rofl:

Mastiker

11-06-2008, 02:35 AM

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/j/z/1/obama_superman_awesome.jpg

stsparky

11-06-2008, 05:46 AM

Palin Didn't Know Africa Is A Continent, Says Fox News Reporter (VIDEO) (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/05/palin-didnt-know-africa-i_n_141653.html)

Here's the video on Nader - He should be ashamed. To be called out by Fox News? Oh my. And the facial tics are too horrible to watch.

Ralph Nader Asks: Obama - Uncle Sam Or Uncle Tom? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkoB4r9FSzY)

He should know better. But he is too damn arrogant to get it.

TygressVirgo

11-06-2008, 06:47 AM

http://www.cagle.com/working/081104/bagley.jpg

Arctic_Slicer

11-06-2008, 07:02 AM

Here's the video on Nader - He should be ashamed. To be called out by Fox News? Oh my. And the facial tics are too horrible to watch.

Ralph Nader Asks: Obama - Uncle Sam Or Uncle Tom? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkoB4r9FSzY)

He should know better. But he is too damn arrogant to get it.

It seems to me you are the one who "is to damn arrogant to get it." Obama was just elected to the presidency with out a real mandate. In his 21 month long campaign Obama has ignored issues of the poverty, issues affecting Latinos, and issues affecting African-Americans. Ralph Nader was talking about some very substantive issues in that clip about poverty and how Obama has ignored those issues during his campaign yet this so campaign but this "reporter" wasn't listening to what he had to say and instead was doing his best to assassinate Ralph Nader's character.

To put it very simply, he may be our first African-American president; or he will be. And we wish him well. But his choice, basically, is whether he is going to be Uncle Sam for the for the people of this country, or Uncle Tom for the giant corporations.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with what Ralph Nader says here. He is right to criticize Obama who has taken hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign donations from these giant corporations. The question is where Obama's loyalties lie. Do they lie with people who voted for him or do they lie with giant corporations who bankrolled his campaign? What will Obama's legacy be? Will he remembered down as a hero who stood for the interests of the people or will he be another slave to corporate agenda and continue the failed policies of Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush that benefit the corporations? The choice is Obama's to make and it he who must now decide what he wants his legacy to be.

Fermented Yeast Paste

11-06-2008, 07:12 AM

I don't recall Obama's 2008 campaign being bankrolled by giant corporations.

Urameshi YuSooKey

11-06-2008, 07:16 AM

This message is hidden because Arctic_Slicer is on your ignore list.
:clap:

To all the election haters, get over it. Don't worry, be happy or at least happier. At least Bush is leaving. America made the best choice it could. A majority is a majority so whether you declare it a mandate or not is irrelevant, just like Ralph Nader. :innocent:

Arctic_Slicer

11-06-2008, 07:54 AM

I don't recall Obama's 2008 campaign being bankrolled by giant corporations.

I recommend you read about "Obama's Rainmakers" (http://www.buyingofthepresident.org/index.php/stories/obamas_rainmakers/) at the Buying of the President 2008 (http://www.buyingofthepresident.org/) that cites numbers obtained directly from the Obama O8 campaign and goes into detail about the practice of "bundling", where the money comes from and how it affect's political campaigns; as well as "Meet Obama's Corporate Backers" (http://theprolific.com/2008/08/meet-obamas-corporate-backers/) at Prolific Magazine (http://theprolific.com/) which talks about the millions of dollars Obama received from corporations such as Goldman Sachs; more specifically from their political action committees(PAC) and executives as taking money directly from corporations is against the law but this law has plenty of "loopholes" as discussed in "Free Money" (http://www.reason.com/news/show/27792.html) at Reason Magazine (http://www.reason.com/). You never hear about a lot of the corporate ties of the candidates because the mainstream media is largely owned by these very same corporate interests and have much to gain by keeping that information out of public scrutiny.

A list of Obama's largest contributors (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638) can be found at the Center for Responsive Politics. (http://www.opensecrets.org/)
To all the election haters, get over it. Don't worry, be happy or at least happier. At least Bush is leaving. America made the best choice it could. A majority is a majority so whether you declare it a mandate or not is irrelevant, just like Ralph Nader.

Fine ignore me if you want but this same close mindedness of shutting out opinions different than your own is the very same attitude that allowed California's proposition 8 to pass. Ignorance is bliss as they say.

Oh, by the way if it's about "majority" then maybe we should have no president at all because it seems that there were far more people who voted for nobody than who voted for Obama. Also Ralph Nader and the issues he raises are hardly irrelevant. If you striped away all of the corporate influence, money and media and had an election about issues only; Ralph Nader would win. (http://berkeleycarroll.org/news/detail.asp?pageaction=ViewSinglePublic&LinkID=3614&ModuleID=183)

OliveButtercup

11-06-2008, 08:11 AM

I recommend you read about "Obama's Rainmakers" (http://www.buyingofthepresident.org/index.php/stories/obamas_rainmakers/) at the Buying of the President 2008 (http://www.buyingofthepresident.org/) that cites numbers obtained directly from the Obama O8 campaign and goes into detail about the practice of "bundling", where the money comes from and how it affect's political campaigns; as well as "Meet Obama's Corporate Backers" (http://theprolific.com/2008/08/meet-obamas-corporate-backers/) at Prolific Magazine (http://theprolific.com/) which talks about the millions of dollars Obama received from corporations such as Goldman Sachs; more specifically from their political action committees(PAC) and executives as taking money directly from corporations is against the law but this law has plenty of "loopholes" as discussed in "Free Money" (http://www.reason.com/news/show/27792.html) at Reason Magazine (http://www.reason.com/). You never hear about a lot of the corporate ties of the candidates because the mainstream media is largely owned by these very same corporate interests and have much to gain by keeping that information out of public scrutiny.

A list of Obama's largest contributors (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638) can be found at the Center for Responsive Politics. (http://www.opensecrets.org/)

Fine ignore me if you want but this same close mindedness of shutting out opinions different than your own is the very same attitude that allowed California's proposition 8 to pass. Ignorance is bliss as they say.

Oh, by the way if it's about "majority" then maybe we should have no president at all because it seems that there were far more people who voted for nobody than who voted for Obama. Also Ralph Nader and the issues he raises are hardly irrelevant. If you striped away all of the corporate influence, money and media and had an election about issues only; Ralph Nader would win. (http://berkeleycarroll.org/news/detail.asp?pageaction=ViewSinglePublic&LinkID=3614&ModuleID=183)

What are you so afraid of losing?

Arctic_Slicer

11-06-2008, 08:19 AM

What are you so afraid of losing?

Afraid? I'm not afraid. I'm afraid to make demands of my elected "representatives". I'm not afraid to vote against candidates who don't stand for the issues I care about and I'm not afraid of this so called "greater evil" and allow my vote be taken for granted by the "lesser evil". I cast my vote for the candidates that I believed in the most. If I were "afraid of losing" I wouldn't vote against "the winning team".

There is nothing to fear but fear itself.

Plekto

11-06-2008, 09:03 AM

Blah Blah Blah.

Politicians are corrupt and self-serving. Get over it. McCain would have been just as much of a cheating lying ass as any of the others in the two major parties, most likely. That's why I voted for neither of them.

But yes, Obama will be better than McCain, because as the world economy goes to hell, given how heavily we are in debt and outsourced, it'll be our alliances with others that allows us to stay above water. Obama is a great statesman in the old-world sense of the term and those alliances and mutual aid agreements will be crucial. Otherwise the world stop trading in dollars and they all call in their loans to save themselves.(better have gold)

McCain just pisses everyone off. We would have mangled things badly.

The rest is truly nearly meaningless as they both are really Tweedledee Tweedledum. Republican and Republican Lite. Witness how similar their agendas were when it came to areas that they actually control as President.(campaign promises and support for social issues are crap that the courts and Congress decides anyways)

- Better statesman and diplomat.
- Same idiocy on defense, more or less.
- Same people mostly in positions of power.
- About the same for Supreme Court appointments(Centrist when it comes to the law vs McCain only being allowed to propose Centrists by Congress)

Slight edge to Obama.

Arctic_Slicer

11-06-2008, 09:09 AM

Blah Blah Blah.

Politicians are corrupt and self-serving. Get over it. McCain would have been just as much of a cheating lying ass as any of the others in the two major parties, most likely. That's why I voted for neither of them.

I never said McCain was any better, I never supported McCain and never voted for McCain. However Obama, not McCain, is now president elect and as such is the one we now scrutinize. Don't go making predictions about what Obama's presidency will be like, we don't know yet. All we have to go by is his record and his record is pretty disappointing. Hopefully he will be "better" than Bush; however Bush is an easy act to follow and we need to have much higher expectations than simply "better than Bush".

Digital Masta

11-06-2008, 09:25 AM

http://i33.tinypic.com/zx6yi8.jpg

darighaz

11-06-2008, 01:41 PM

Hey arctic guess who founded the group that did the research on obama.

Also, by the math presented there, 1% of his money came from lobbyists. 9% at worst donated a ton of money.

What EXACTLY is you're argument, other than that you need to say something stupid on a daily basis? Nader is a joke, and should never hold office. Ever.

Also, a corporation cant donate to a campaign. Most of those numbers basically mean, 600,000 dollars was donated by people who work at this company. What exactly is your conspiracy here? That the security guards who want obama to win are actually some evil corporate plot?

Trump

11-06-2008, 07:02 PM

If you don't believe Obama received lots of money from corporations, where else do you think the hundreds of millions of dollars came from? The poor people and college students who voted for him? Hah!

Talking about "mandates" and this election is like comparing things to a pile of crap and celebrating because it is better, when how much better is almost nothing.

Plekto, so you are basically saying Obama is just another policitian who will not really do anything different. I can believ that, and have been saying something not too far removed. But then I ask, why the hell is everyone so damn excited? I understand Bush is gone, but do you start going crazy when the volcano stops erupting but the lava is still headed your way? That's what it feels like is happening.

Fermented Yeast Paste

11-06-2008, 07:08 PM

If you don't believe Obama received lots of money from corporations, where else do you think the hundreds of millions of dollars came from? The poor people and college students who voted for him? Hah!

So then prove he received lots of money from corporations then. The link that A_S provided even said specifically that the organizations and corporations listed did not donate themselves, but rather only employees and members of the immediate families of those employees did. Also, poor people and college students are not the only people in the US capable of donating.

Plekto

11-06-2008, 07:22 PM

Even Palin would have been better than Bush.

You really have to try hard to scrape that low in the barrel. Bush couldn't even make up coherent sentences half of the time. Just look up "Bushism" in Google to pull up an enormous list of Forrest Gump IQ idiocy(I'd rate Forrest as having more common sense by far, though).

"I'll be long gone before some smart person ever figures out what happened inside this Oval Office."—Washington, D.C., May 12, 2008

"I'm honored to shake the hand of a brave Iraqi citizen who had his hand cut off by Saddam Hussein."—Washington, D.C., May 25, 2004

"Rarely is the questioned asked: Is our children learning?" —Florence, S.C., Jan. 11, 2000 (classic)

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." —Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004

"I heard somebody say, "Now, where's Mandela?" Well, Mandela's dead because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas."

"It's important for us to explain to our nation that life is important. It's not only life of babies, but it's life of children living in, you know, the dark dungeons of the Internet."

“I will have a foreign-handed foreign policy.”

“I don’t give a goddamn, I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way. Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

“And one of the things we’ve got to make sure that we do is anything.”

“I think — tide turning — see, as I remember — I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of — it’s easy to see a tide turn — did I say those words?”

“I should have clarified it by my statement. I just clarified it by my — not should have — I just.”

“And so, in my State of the — my State of the Union — or state — my speech to the nation, whatever you want to call it, speech to the nation — I asked Americans to give 4,000 years — 4,000 hours over the next — the rest of your life — of service to America.”

“Like generations before us, we have a calling from beyond the stars to stand for freedom.”

New words he made up:
“weapons of mass production” (love this one)
“tacular weapons”
“obscufate”

Awesome(and worrying). There are literally thousands of them.

Obama's going to look amazing compared to Bush.

OliveButtercup

11-06-2008, 08:20 PM

Afraid? I'm not afraid. I'm afraid to make demands of my elected "representatives". I'm not afraid to vote against candidates who don't stand for the issues I care about and I'm not afraid of this so called "greater evil" and allow my vote be taken for granted by the "lesser evil". I cast my vote for the candidates that I believed in the most. If I were "afraid of losing" I wouldn't vote against "the winning team".

Well, I'll be the first to step up and admit that I was afraid of waking up to the whole world giving up on America. Call me fleeced, call me a sheep, but instead of chaos, rioting and confusion, I got to see things like this:

http://hotimg26.fotki.com/a/69_232/215_198/kids1.jpg (http://hotimg26.fotki.com/p/a/69_232/215_198/kids1.jpg)
http://hotimg15.fotki.com/a/69_232/215_198/kids2.jpg (http://hotimg15.fotki.com/p/a/69_232/215_198/kids2.jpg)
http://hotimg15.fotki.com/a/69_232/215_198/kids3.jpg (http://hotimg15.fotki.com/p/a/69_232/215_198/kids3.jpg)
http://hotimg25.fotki.com/a/69_232/215_198/kids4.jpg (http://hotimg25.fotki.com/p/a/69_232/215_198/kids4.jpg)

Arctic, Obama may not fulfill one promise. He's our president-elect now and we have to give him a chance at least. The world was watching (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/us_elections_2008/7710949.stm) to see if we weren't going to be complete idiots. This was for them as much as it was for you, me or any other American.

Kai

11-06-2008, 08:41 PM

Obama's going to look amazing compared to Bush.

He's going to be quite a relief from Bush and the rest of the Neo Cons I agree but I don't see him as this great messiah that so many people are making him out to be. He's still a politician and how he handle's some of these serious issues going on now and those that arise are probably going to be what makes or breaks his presidency in his first year I think.

Plekto

11-06-2008, 08:58 PM

Absolutely true. Hence my statement that compared to the pit in Hell that we were in, getting back to business as usual in Purgatory is going to be a huge relief.

But it's still Purgatory. Heh. Heaven is a long, long, LONG way off.

h2orowe

11-06-2008, 11:27 PM

Was checking my e-mail, and for some reason this was in the spam box. Ever since I heard him recite, I can't remember which poem it was, but some poem on Def Poetry Jam (He was reading it off this really long paper, modeled after the ones that they signed the constitution and whatnot on.), I've always liked the way Saul Williams spoke and wrote. I never got too into him. The only CD I listened to from him was the one he put up for free on his website which he worked with Trent Reznor on, and I really don't like the sound of Industrial music (No offense to those who do) so it just kinda turned me off of it. Anyway, I got this e-mail from him (I'm on his list from when I downloaded the album.) and I thought it was a pretty good essay.

Dear History,
For too long have I pondered your meaning, memorized dates of battles, years of servitude, decades of injustice, named eras after movements, mourned the extinction of species, cursed founding fathers, worn vintage suits and cloaked myself with references of your hold on me.

I have walked through museums wondering how it is that greatness had lived and died all before my time. Parts of me feared becoming great because it seemed to include a price of death and a postmortem glory that my memory could never resurrect. I've stared at paintings dying to catch glimpses of the painter, closed my eyes to listen to songs that drunken ghosts dance to, and all the while I've fought to FREE the present to BECOME.

In 1995, I stood with poets in the middle of the Brooklyn Bridge, barking metaphors at the new moon of the summer solstice wedging words into it's craters, sewing seeds through nightly wind.

In 1996, I forced the ocean back with words, fathered planets, climbed pyramids, and began to decipher the sirens song to conjure the dream-filled Children of the Night.

In 1997, I stood with prisoners in our nations capitol bending bars with the power of thought as wordsmiths served sentences and Hip Hop diddy-dandified itself: stealing golden calves from the Old Testament to smuggle into the lavish crib of Pontius Pilate for it's birthday party

In 1998, I swallowed fear and sun-danced on film reels, projecting a me that had not been into a me that ever shall be.

And HERE I stand, ten years the difference and witness to changing hands.

Dear History,
I beat you. I stand a generator of generations bearing witness to a world that we are holding accountable for past actions. Me and my friends, we're changing our diets, re-inventing marriage, check-mating capitalism, re-defining ethics, replacing cruelty with compassion, and have sworn not to re-elect the sins of the father.

We are casting our votes for so much more than a lesser of evils, but for change, and greater insight, for wisdom out of the mouths of babes, for races that bleed into ONE.

Dear History,
You are behind us and we are no longer looking back. We are standing on the threshold of new times, new days, new worlds, and charging forward without battle cry or trumpet, while cynicism, apathy, and cowardice take their place beside you, behind us.

Dear History,
We no longer believe in you. We have invested our our thoughts and dreams into the present moment and opportunity to shift our reality into one that does not resemble your dog-eared books.

We stand on the shoulders of those who have dared to dream and on the necks of those who have wasted their time and ours proclaiming a past past its prime.

Dear History,
Blitz! It's my turn now. You can have your mounds of flesh, leather boots, cannons and sabers, nooses and guillotines, warships and fighter planes, trails of tears and blood, genocides, dungeons and dragons, ghost stories and fairy tales..........

Arctic_Slicer

11-07-2008, 12:23 AM

So then prove he received lots of money from corporations then. The link that A_S provided even said specifically that the organizations and corporations listed did not donate themselves, but rather only employees and members of the immediate families of those employees did. Also, poor people and college students are not the only people in the US capable of donating.

Corporations do not donate to candidates directly as doing so is against federal campaign finance laws. Like I said before there are many "loopholes" that these corporations use to get around these laws; this of course makes it harder to track where the money is truly coming from. Candidates may not take money from corporations "directly" but they may as well be as the influence from these corporations is most definitely there. Remember the FISA vote? About 2 weeks after the FISA vote granting retro-active immunity to the telecom companies it was learned that the AT&T logo was going to be proudly emblazoned on the side of the official DNC bag given to delegates at the convention. As it turns out AT&T donated over $1 million (http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/dnc/1117210,conventions082008.article)to the DNC "for their convention", in total both the DNC and RNC raised somewhere around $112 million from corporate "sponsors" (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/articles/2008/08/31/firms_donated_at_least_112m_to_conventions/) for their nominating conventions.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3193/2702209858_a2419fd902_m.jpg
Explains the FISA vote nicely doesn't it?

Corporate influence in so deeply entrenched in Washington that it will take more than changing the party to change Washington.

stsparky

11-07-2008, 05:04 AM

You know it explains why an old school Chicago politician with solid community roots is able to get elected while a flim flam snake oil con artist like Nader isn't.

And we will see if FISA gets addressed.

Trump

11-07-2008, 09:42 PM

Here's an example... Bob Stevens is CEO of Lockheed Martin, the largest defense contractor. He is a democrat. He is personally allowed to donate money to candidates. Is there really any way this money isn't coming due to the interests of the corporation? And really, what's $10k or $100k to this man who makes millions every year?

stsparky

11-08-2008, 12:16 AM

Nader didn't even get a full 1 percent of the vote this go round.

Fermented Yeast Paste

11-08-2008, 03:32 AM

Obama's official website for his transition to the presidency is up. It's essentially his campaign website with updated news and with updated information on his agenda.

http://change.gov/

OliveButtercup

11-08-2008, 09:36 PM

http://hotimg26.fotki.com/a/216_203/34_190/evenwevehadenough-500x375.jpg (http://hotimg26.fotki.com/p/a/216_203/34_190/evenwevehadenough-500x375.jpg)

Roxie

11-09-2008, 01:49 AM

Barack Obama's flickr photostream (http://flickr.com/photos/barackobamadotcom/)

Swede

11-09-2008, 07:25 PM

This is going back a couple weeks, but I'm going to post it anyway because it's still absolutely hilarious. I like what Keith has to say a lot of the time, but the sketch was spot on.

Olbermann on SNL (http://www.hulu.com/watch/42024/saturday-night-live-countdown-with-keith-olbermann)

So we have a president who is not only racist, but an imbecile.

riona

11-10-2008, 01:06 AM

Nader didn't even get a full 1 percent of the vote this go round.

He got my vote.
But as I've previously stated, not like it counts.
A vote is like a drop in a bucket. It'll only matter if it's a very, very small bucket.

Swede

11-10-2008, 02:13 AM

He got my vote.
But as I've previously stated, not like it counts.
A vote is like a drop in a bucket. It'll only matter if it's a very, very small bucket.

Or if, you know, your state comes down to a mere several hundred/thousand votes, or even less. Enough people decide that they're votes don't count, it makes a difference. That's always the reason, and I don't understand why people don't see that. One vote may not seem to amount to much, but when you get thousands of people deciding that their vote does make a difference, you can tell.

Samurai_Pooh

11-13-2008, 04:34 AM

okay this (http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/468592) basically had me in stitches, but I'm a nerd so....

puzzo

11-13-2008, 04:39 AM

"Palin uses cuteness: it had no effect"
lol

riona

11-13-2008, 06:25 PM

Or if, you know, your state comes down to a mere several hundred/thousand votes, or even less. Enough people decide that they're votes don't count, it makes a difference. That's always the reason, and I don't understand why people don't see that. One vote may not seem to amount to much, but when you get thousands of people deciding that their vote does make a difference, you can tell.

Like the race in Alaska right now! At 1am Central Time this morning when I was watching the news, the Democrat was winning by 3 votes. All the anchors were like WOW!! THREE VOTES!! They totally downplayed the fact that there were still FOURTY THOUSAND to be counted. Is he gonna win or lose by 3 votes? No!

Samurai_Pooh

11-13-2008, 09:18 PM

Like the race in Alaska right now! At 1am Central Time this morning when I was watching the news, the Democrat was winning by 3 votes. All the anchors were like WOW!! THREE VOTES!! They totally downplayed the fact that there were still FOURTY THOUSAND to be counted. Is he gonna win or lose by 3 votes? No!

Or like, Franken and Coleman in Minnesota seperated by less than 200 votes... :frypan:

riona

11-14-2008, 12:50 AM

Or like, Franken and Coleman in Minnesota seperated by less than 200 votes... :frypan:

Well, I already posted about that. I think repeating oneself should be avoided in all possible cases. And I DID vote in that election. So there =P

Roxie

12-28-2008, 02:03 AM

RNC chairman candidate defends 'Barack the Magic Negro' song (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/26/rnc.obama.satire/index.html)

By Rebecca Sinderbrand
CNN

(CNN) -- A candidate for the Republican National Committee chairmanship said Friday the CD he sent committee members for Christmas -- which included a song titled "Barack the Magic Negro" -- was clearly intended as a joke.

"I think most people recognize political satire when they see it," Tennessee Republican Chip Saltsman told CNN. "I think RNC members understand that."

The song, set to the tune of "Puff the Magic Dragon," was first played on conservative political commentator Rush Limbaugh's radio show in 2007.

Its title was drawn from a Los Angeles Times column that suggested President-elect Barack Obama appealed to those who feel guilty about the nation's history of mistreatment of African-Americans. Saltsman said the song, penned by his longtime friend Paul Shanklin, should be easily recognized as satire directed at the Times.

The CD sent to RNC members, first reported by The Hill on Friday, is titled "We Hate the USA" and also includes songs referencing former presidential candidate John Edwards and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, among other targets.

According to The Hill, other song titles, some of which were in bold font, were: "John Edwards' Poverty Tour," "Wright place, wrong pastor," "Love Client #9," "Ivory and Ebony" and "The Star Spanglish Banner."

Saltsman was national campaign manager for former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's presidential bid in 2007 and 2008. Before that, he held a variety of posts, including a number of positions under former Sen. Bill Frist of Tennessee.

Jetsetlemming

12-28-2008, 06:57 AM

Wanna hear the song before I pass judgment

SlickWilly440

12-28-2008, 07:21 AM

Wanna hear the song before I pass judgment

Here is that song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvXz2xaLNMQ).

MNJetter

12-28-2008, 07:34 AM

I want to hear the Star Spanglish Banner, but I have the feeling that it's less politically correct and more anti-immigrant than the image the title brought up in my head.

That Barack song was lame.

Charrington

12-28-2008, 12:10 PM

RNC chairman candidate defends 'Barack the Magic Negro' song (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/26/rnc.obama.satire/index.html)

Sounds to me like a parody of the people who said he wasn't black enough, etc. Anyway, who gives a fuck? It doesn't take a genius to see there are racists in the party (republicrats), and the first amendment applies to speech regardless of how offensive or unpopular it is. Better yet, stop letting stupid shit like this, how much a candidate spends on their appearance, etc distract you from actual issues.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn59kfp9r0o is the star spanglish banner

Plekto

12-28-2008, 06:14 PM

Let's get all worked up about useless crap when the damn house is sliding into a big sinkhole...

Look, yes, it's disturbing. But there's so much crap to deal with right now that we can't afford to get sidetracked. Put the fire out and THEN worry about cleaning the carpet and putting up curtains.

Roxie

12-29-2008, 03:50 AM

Oh, shit. You caught me! By giving attention to this one event, I am completely ignoring all others and simultaneously calling them unimportant. Cause no one can ever care nor think about two things at once.
I completely forgot.

Plekto

12-29-2008, 04:30 AM

It is basically an asshole guy who is trying to get his 15 minutes of fame. It's not real news. I honestly don't CARE about what he thinks. Like it's any surprise that the people in power in the U.S. are mostly a bunch of racists and egotistical bigots?

"RNC member does racist thing. News at 11..."
Where were you the last year during this campaign? Every damn thing that came out of the RNC was crap like this.