I get really annoyed living in an area where liberalism is seriously considered a disease. Oh well, I find comfort that even if I could vote it wouldn't change a thing so if I grow old with children and they ask "how the hell did your generation keep fucking up the country?" I can say "don't look at me! I couldn't vote in 2008, the oh so important election".
That isn't going to happen. Coleman might very well be out this year, and Lieberman might eventually be defeated, but Boxer and Feinstein are both quite popular and probably can serve as long as they want to.
I get really annoyed living in an area where liberalism is seriously considered a disease. Oh well, I find comfort that even if I could vote it wouldn't change a thing so if I grow old with children and they ask "how the hell did your generation keep fucking up the country?" I can say "don't look at me! I couldn't vote in 2008, the oh so important election".
I wish that every conservative could have a twilight zone experience wherein they're forced to live a day in an alternate reality where liberals throughout history did not accomplish the significant changes they're known for. You can't count on empathy from that side, you've got to show them in clear terms what's in it for them.
I so hope McCain picks Lieberman. I want to make damn sure that the Democratic voters hereabouts don't re-elect him next time, the power-grubbing meglomaniac quisling jerk.
I think it was earlier in this thread or the last where someone posted a youtube video of one of RATM's music videos, and it was of how Gore and Bush were the same candidate.
Curiously, that was the overarching sentiment of that election, that whomever got elected would inherit a healthy economy and basically be a caretaker president. Nobody except the deeply paranoid (and, as it turned out, correct) knew that Bush the Lesser had the ability to be an archvillain. Nobody except some ignored CIA and FBI guys knew that 9/11 was going to happen.
Further, Gore of 2000 was nowhere near as awsome as Gore of 2008 is. He was bland as fuck.
While I, myself, was one of the paranoid ones that had a sinking feeling that Bush was going to squander our good will, treasure, and military lives, I honestly can't fault Rage Against the Machine for their beliefs of the time. Both parties were relentlessly corporate and often corrupt. It took 12 years in the wilderness before the Democrats got their shit together and started rocking out as the people's party. They still fall astray on occasion, too (see: Hoyer, Fucking Steny).
There were also folks like me who paid attention to domestic social issues like abortion, the environment, gay rights, Supreme Court nominations, stem cells and so forth and thought that the folks claiming that a born-again Christian Republican oilman was fundamentally identical policy-wise to Al Gore were at best willfully ignoring those issues.
So no, it wasn't just the "deeply paranoid" who didn't fall for the whole "Bush=Gore" gibberish.
Not to toot my own horn or anything, but toot toot.
I'll toot ur horn anytime lolerskates.
No, you're right; people who paid attention to issues knew that there was a difference (I just give the deeply paranoid extra points for being right for a change). My point is, the average person was complacent about it. Rage Against the Machine, while an entertaining band with an anti-injustice shtick, wasn't (and isn't, really) much more informed on the issues than your average person; for christ's sake, they have a Che Guevara picture on their website.
The entertainment value of a band does not translate into political responsibility.
I'm just pointing out that after eight years of Republican control of the White House, I would prefer the dems winning a dirty campaign to them losing a clean one.
Not that I'm saying that winning a clean campaign is completely out of the question.
The moral high ground is nice, but the white house is so much nicer.
I'm just pointing out that after eight years of Republican control of the White House, I would prefer the dems winning a dirty campaign to them losing a clean one.
Not that I'm saying that winning a clean campaign is completely out of the question.
The moral high ground is nice, but the white house is so much nicer.
If we're willing to compromise our moral high ground that much, would there be much difference between the Democrats and Republicans?
Republicans these days are pretty much defined only by money and political expedience; the willingness to do or say anything to get into power. There's nothing magical about Democrats that makes them less prone to abuse of power.
Obama's point is that you can take on the smear machine without compromising much of your integrity. It worked in the primaries, and seems to be working in the general. I blame teh intarwebs; it's a series of tubes that allows large numbers of people to both spread completely accurate damning evidence and also to call canidates' bullshit what it is more easily now than in elections past.
I'm in favor of taking the moral high ground whenever possible as well, though I do have to wonder if the average voter actually cares if he or she is being lied too. I mean, one party's chief tactic is to distort the truth so that it is more favorable to them, and yet there's still been no backlash from that party's supporters.
I'm just pointing out that after eight years of Republican control of the White House, I would prefer the dems winning a dirty campaign to them losing a clean one.
Not that I'm saying that winning a clean campaign is completely out of the question.
The moral high ground is nice, but the white house is so much nicer.
If we're willing to compromise our moral high ground that much, would there be much difference between the Democrats and Republicans?
Republicans these days are pretty much defined only by money and political expedience; the willingness to do or say anything to get into power. There's nothing magical about Democrats that makes them less prone to abuse of power.
Obama's point is that you can take on the smear machine without compromising much of your integrity. It worked in the primaries, and seems to be working in the general. I blame teh intarwebs; it's a series of tubes that allows large numbers of people to both spread completely accurate damning evidence and also to call canidates' bullshit what it is more easily now than in elections past.
I hate to break it to you, but Obama isn't different than most other politicians in the sense of money and political expediance. He's raised a crapload more money than John McCain has and as a result has reversed his position on public finance. And as far as political expedience goes, there's a zillion examples including that very same reversal, changing positions on drilling, leaving his church for political reasons, and arguably belonging to it in the first place for political reasons (Chicago Politics). Not to mention giving an insincere claim to have always been a believer of the 2nd amendment granting an individual right to bear arms after the Supreme court decison. (His record on "gun control" is perhaps the most extreme and consistent in the entire U.S. Senate)
Now I'm not saying that McCain's campaign doesn't rely a great deal on money and political expedience, which major presidential campaigns haven't? My point is that Democrats and Obama's campaign in particular are no different in this regard.
Saint Justice on
Some people play tennis, I erode the human soul. ~ Tycho
0
Saint JusticeMercenaryMah-vel Baybee!!!Registered Userregular
I'm in favor of taking the moral high ground whenever possible as well, though I do have to wonder if the average voter actually cares if he or she is being lied too. I mean, one party's chief tactic is to distort the truth so that it is more favorable to them, and yet there's still been no backlash from that party's supporters.
Actually, that's just politics in a nutshell. I don't really think any one party is the only party that does this.
Saint Justice on
Some people play tennis, I erode the human soul. ~ Tycho
I'm in favor of taking the moral high ground whenever possible as well, though I do have to wonder if the average voter actually cares if he or she is being lied too. I mean, one party's chief tactic is to distort the truth so that it is more favorable to them, and yet there's still been no backlash from that party's supporters.
Actually, that's just politics in a nutshell. I don't really think any one party is the only party that does this.
One party does it a lot more often though, and to way worse extent.
I hate to break it to you, but Obama isn't different than most other politicians in the sense of money and political expediance. He's raised a crapload more money than John McCain has and as a result has reversed his position on public finance.
Ooh, dramatic revelation! I r foreva changed.
But no, Obama hasn't "reversed his position on public finance." He's still in favor of it. He'd still rather money raising not be a campaign issue at all. If he's elected, he will probably author some sort of initiative to make public financing mandatory. Read his pre-presidential bid commentaries on this subject; it's pretty clear that he very much considers the confluence of money and politics to be a serious problem, but that it's currently necessary.
Just because he sees his current fundraising strategy (which isn't exactly typical for Washington) as a method for winning this election in the light of the large amounts of soft money and 527s that he's goign to have to fight, doesn't mean that his overall beliefs have changed.
And as far as political expedience goes, there's a zillion examples including that very same reversal, changing positions on drilling, leaving his church for political reasons, and arguably belonging to it in the first place for political reasons (Chicago Politics). Not to mention giving an insincere claim to have always been a believer of the 2nd amendment granting an individual right to bear arms after the Supreme court decison. (His record on "gun control" is perhaps the most extreme and consistent in the entire U.S. Senate)
Your list of talking points is most impressive, sir.
Drilling: Willingness to compromise in order to achieve larger goals isn't a reversal.
Church: Don't be ridiculous; the media was harassing the parishoners regularly; he'd have to leave the church anyway if he became President and moved to D.C. Yes, the church was inconvenient, but if he were driven by politics, he would've left the church after the Wright fiasco blew up the first time, or even before.
Q: Is the D.C. law prohibiting ownership of handguns consistent with an individual's right to bear arms?
A: As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.
Q: But do you still favor the registration & licensing of guns?
A: I think we can provide common-sense approaches to the issue of illegal guns that are ending up on the streets. We can make sure that criminals don't have guns in their hands. We can make certain that those who are mentally deranged are not getting a hold of handguns. We can trace guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers that may be selling to straw purchasers and dumping them on the streets.
Q: You said recently, "I have no intention of taking away folks' guns." But you support the D.C. handgun ban, and you've said that it's constitutional. How do you reconcile those two positions?
A: Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it's important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people's traditions.
More on Obama's position. It appears pretty consistant to me in supporting local rights to ban guns.
Now I'm not saying that McCain's campaign doesn't rely a great deal on money and political expedience, which major presidential campaigns haven't? My point is that Democrats and Obama's campaign in particular are no different in this regard.
And I'm not saying that Obama hasn't been politically expedient; what I am saying is that he hasn't yet descended to the "say or do anything" level that people like Hillary Clinton or John McCain have considered necessary in presidential politics.
If you're saying that there's no daylight between the Republican and Democratic presidential campaigns in terms of ethics, you're very far off-base.
Dracomicron on
0
Saint JusticeMercenaryMah-vel Baybee!!!Registered Userregular
edited August 2008
I'm going to sleep soon, and might address the post later. But I'd just like to say right off the bat that my opinion is not "talking points". I don't appreciate that snide and condescending remark at all.
Saint Justice on
Some people play tennis, I erode the human soul. ~ Tycho
I'm going to sleep soon, and might address the post later. But I'd just like to say right off the bat that my opinion is not "talking points". I don't appreciate that snide and condescending remark at all.
Have a good rest.
Dracomicron on
0
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
edited August 2008
To be fair though, you did bring up a number of points that people regularly talk about. What else should they be called?
Just_Bri_Thanks on
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
I'm going to sleep soon, and might address the post later. But I'd just like to say right off the bat that my opinion is not "talking points". I don't appreciate that snide and condescending remark at all.
Making claims that are on its face untrue and unsupported by any conceivable evidence - in this case the 2nd Amendment views of Obama - that are intended to cast a political candidate (or group) in the worst possible light, when taken in combination with several other claims that are merely worst possible interpretations of his actions certainly make it seem like you are simply getting unofficial "McCain points."
I'm going to sleep soon, and might address the post later. But I'd just like to say right off the bat that my opinion is not "talking points". I don't appreciate that snide and condescending remark at all.
Making claims that are on its face untrue and unsupported by any conceivable evidence - in this case the 2nd Amendment views of Obama - that are intended to cast a political candidate (or group) in the worst possible light, when taken in combination with several other claims that are merely worst possible interpretations of his actions certainly make it seem like you are simply getting unofficial "McCain points."
Hey give the guy a break. In today's culture it is almost impossible to articulate or argue conservative talking points with intelligent people because those points are fundamentally and demonstratively incorrect. This is why the D&D politics thread gets accused of being "an echo chamber" because when people fling ill-supported and poorly thought out bullshit they get properly criticized for it and have no recourse other than to complain.
It's as Steven Colbert pointed out, "Reality has a well-known left-wing bias."
DoctorArch on
Switch Friend Code: SW-6732-9515-9697
0
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
I get really annoyed living in an area where liberalism is seriously considered a disease. Oh well, I find comfort that even if I could vote it wouldn't change a thing so if I grow old with children and they ask "how the hell did your generation keep fucking up the country?" I can say "don't look at me! I couldn't vote in 2008, the oh so important election".
You can still volunteer and donate. You aren't off the hook.
I'm going to sleep soon, and might address the post later. But I'd just like to say right off the bat that my opinion is not "talking points". I don't appreciate that snide and condescending remark at all.
you really wont find anything here beside snide condescending remarks and 100 people who have already made up their mind to vote for obama.
the title of the thread should be clue enough that this isnt really about the election.
I'm going to sleep soon, and might address the post later. But I'd just like to say right off the bat that my opinion is not "talking points". I don't appreciate that snide and condescending remark at all.
you really wont find anything here beside snide condescending remarks and 100 people who have already made up their mind to vote for obama.
the title of the thread should be clue enough that this isnt really about the election.
It isn't? That's news to me.
moniker on
0
CornerEagleA fashion yes-man is no good to me.Copenhagen, DenmarkRegistered Userregular
I'm going to sleep soon, and might address the post later. But I'd just like to say right off the bat that my opinion is not "talking points". I don't appreciate that snide and condescending remark at all.
you really wont find anything here beside snide condescending remarks and 100 people who have already made up their mind to vote for obama.
I'm going to sleep soon, and might address the post later. But I'd just like to say right off the bat that my opinion is not "talking points". I don't appreciate that snide and condescending remark at all.
you really wont find anything here beside snide condescending remarks and 100 people who have already made up their mind to vote for obama.
the title of the thread should be clue enough that this isnt really about the election.
The choices are:
A candidate who isn't perfect but is demonstrably willing to and capable of improving things.
A candidate who is demonstrably incompetent to do the job, and has surrounded himself with people behind some of the worst marks on the country's history.
Third-party candidates who base their platform on one or two issues and don't really have a plan beyond those issues.
I'm going to sleep soon, and might address the post later. But I'd just like to say right off the bat that my opinion is not "talking points". I don't appreciate that snide and condescending remark at all.
you really wont find anything here beside snide condescending remarks and 100 people who have already made up their mind to vote for obama.
the title of the thread should be clue enough that this isnt really about the election.
I do intend to vote for Obama. He's a Democrat which is the side I have more in common with and I've also taken the liberty to learn about both politicians just to make sure I'm not voting for some jackass or neglecting to vote for a pretty decent guy. Is there something I'm screwing up there?
I'm going to sleep soon, and might address the post later. But I'd just like to say right off the bat that my opinion is not "talking points". I don't appreciate that snide and condescending remark at all.
you really wont find anything here beside snide condescending remarks and 100 people who have already made up their mind to vote for obama.
That's not true.
Some of us can't vote in your elections.
Some of us come here in spite of the echo chamber quality.
I'm going to sleep soon, and might address the post later. But I'd just like to say right off the bat that my opinion is not "talking points". I don't appreciate that snide and condescending remark at all.
you really wont find anything here beside snide condescending remarks and 100 people who have already made up their mind to vote for obama.
the title of the thread should be clue enough that this isnt really about the election.
Here is why I think people who trot out "talking points" get shot down so quickly. A majority of these things have already been discussed. It is unfortunate that the end result of this is that when people here perceive someone is showing up to shit in the thread, often times that person is simply ignorant. This is no fault of the people who react negatively to them, as they have ample reason to be wary of thread-shitters. Nor is it really the fault of the purported thread-shitter, since people cannot be expected to read thousands of pages of internet threads, nor go back in time and be involved with the discussion here since an earlier date. Because this is the internet, it seems unlikely that neither of these things will stop any time soon.
In addition, Dunadan, meta-arguing will not score you any points. We are not the mainstream media or your mom. We do not give you a hug if you bitch about how we're mean and unfair.
Posts
That isn't going to happen. Coleman might very well be out this year, and Lieberman might eventually be defeated, but Boxer and Feinstein are both quite popular and probably can serve as long as they want to.
I wish that every conservative could have a twilight zone experience wherein they're forced to live a day in an alternate reality where liberals throughout history did not accomplish the significant changes they're known for. You can't count on empathy from that side, you've got to show them in clear terms what's in it for them.
What is wrong with Boxer?
I say we start up some "rumors" about exchanging homosexual favors for preferential treatment while as a POW in Vietnam.
Yeah, shut up. Please.
As a result of choosing Biden, you mean?
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
No, Alan Keyes IS Robot Hitler.
Yes, clearly Democrats have never lied in presidential campaigns, no sir. Boy Scouts all the way.
I'll toot ur horn anytime lolerskates.
No, you're right; people who paid attention to issues knew that there was a difference (I just give the deeply paranoid extra points for being right for a change). My point is, the average person was complacent about it. Rage Against the Machine, while an entertaining band with an anti-injustice shtick, wasn't (and isn't, really) much more informed on the issues than your average person; for christ's sake, they have a Che Guevara picture on their website.
The entertainment value of a band does not translate into political responsibility.
Not that I'm saying that winning a clean campaign is completely out of the question.
The moral high ground is nice, but the white house is so much nicer.
If we're willing to compromise our moral high ground that much, would there be much difference between the Democrats and Republicans?
Republicans these days are pretty much defined only by money and political expedience; the willingness to do or say anything to get into power. There's nothing magical about Democrats that makes them less prone to abuse of power.
Obama's point is that you can take on the smear machine without compromising much of your integrity. It worked in the primaries, and seems to be working in the general. I blame teh intarwebs; it's a series of tubes that allows large numbers of people to both spread completely accurate damning evidence and also to call canidates' bullshit what it is more easily now than in elections past.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
I hate to break it to you, but Obama isn't different than most other politicians in the sense of money and political expediance. He's raised a crapload more money than John McCain has and as a result has reversed his position on public finance. And as far as political expedience goes, there's a zillion examples including that very same reversal, changing positions on drilling, leaving his church for political reasons, and arguably belonging to it in the first place for political reasons (Chicago Politics). Not to mention giving an insincere claim to have always been a believer of the 2nd amendment granting an individual right to bear arms after the Supreme court decison. (His record on "gun control" is perhaps the most extreme and consistent in the entire U.S. Senate)
Now I'm not saying that McCain's campaign doesn't rely a great deal on money and political expedience, which major presidential campaigns haven't? My point is that Democrats and Obama's campaign in particular are no different in this regard.
Actually, that's just politics in a nutshell. I don't really think any one party is the only party that does this.
One party does it a lot more often though, and to way worse extent.
Ooh, dramatic revelation! I r foreva changed.
But no, Obama hasn't "reversed his position on public finance." He's still in favor of it. He'd still rather money raising not be a campaign issue at all. If he's elected, he will probably author some sort of initiative to make public financing mandatory. Read his pre-presidential bid commentaries on this subject; it's pretty clear that he very much considers the confluence of money and politics to be a serious problem, but that it's currently necessary.
Just because he sees his current fundraising strategy (which isn't exactly typical for Washington) as a method for winning this election in the light of the large amounts of soft money and 527s that he's goign to have to fight, doesn't mean that his overall beliefs have changed.
Your list of talking points is most impressive, sir.
Drilling: Willingness to compromise in order to achieve larger goals isn't a reversal.
Church: Don't be ridiculous; the media was harassing the parishoners regularly; he'd have to leave the church anyway if he became President and moved to D.C. Yes, the church was inconvenient, but if he were driven by politics, he would've left the church after the Wright fiasco blew up the first time, or even before.
2nd Amendment: well, let Obama talk about it:
More on Obama's position. It appears pretty consistant to me in supporting local rights to ban guns.
And I'm not saying that Obama hasn't been politically expedient; what I am saying is that he hasn't yet descended to the "say or do anything" level that people like Hillary Clinton or John McCain have considered necessary in presidential politics.
If you're saying that there's no daylight between the Republican and Democratic presidential campaigns in terms of ethics, you're very far off-base.
Have a good rest.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Making claims that are on its face untrue and unsupported by any conceivable evidence - in this case the 2nd Amendment views of Obama - that are intended to cast a political candidate (or group) in the worst possible light, when taken in combination with several other claims that are merely worst possible interpretations of his actions certainly make it seem like you are simply getting unofficial "McCain points."
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Hey give the guy a break. In today's culture it is almost impossible to articulate or argue conservative talking points with intelligent people because those points are fundamentally and demonstratively incorrect. This is why the D&D politics thread gets accused of being "an echo chamber" because when people fling ill-supported and poorly thought out bullshit they get properly criticized for it and have no recourse other than to complain.
It's as Steven Colbert pointed out, "Reality has a well-known left-wing bias."
So you want me to lie?
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Look, that's just the way politics is you naive little waif!
You can still volunteer and donate. You aren't off the hook.
you really wont find anything here beside snide condescending remarks and 100 people who have already made up their mind to vote for obama.
the title of the thread should be clue enough that this isnt really about the election.
It isn't? That's news to me.
Some of us can't vote in your elections.
The choices are:
A candidate who isn't perfect but is demonstrably willing to and capable of improving things.
A candidate who is demonstrably incompetent to do the job, and has surrounded himself with people behind some of the worst marks on the country's history.
Third-party candidates who base their platform on one or two issues and don't really have a plan beyond those issues.
What do you expect?
142 people have posted in this thread.
Some of us come here in spite of the echo chamber quality.
Here is why I think people who trot out "talking points" get shot down so quickly. A majority of these things have already been discussed. It is unfortunate that the end result of this is that when people here perceive someone is showing up to shit in the thread, often times that person is simply ignorant. This is no fault of the people who react negatively to them, as they have ample reason to be wary of thread-shitters. Nor is it really the fault of the purported thread-shitter, since people cannot be expected to read thousands of pages of internet threads, nor go back in time and be involved with the discussion here since an earlier date. Because this is the internet, it seems unlikely that neither of these things will stop any time soon.
In addition, Dunadan, meta-arguing will not score you any points. We are not the mainstream media or your mom. We do not give you a hug if you bitch about how we're mean and unfair.