"When Senator John McCain was asked here this afternoon how he plans to balance the budget, he said that he hoped to do so by stimulating economic growth - and approvingly cited the example of President Ronald Reagan," the New York Times reports.
"There was one thing he did not mention during his response: the deficit nearly tripled during the Reagan presidency, partly due to tax cuts and increases in military spending."
Are Republicans ever going to realize that Reagan was not the living incarnation of God?
I want to know where that idea came from, and beat the guy who came up with it.
"When Senator John McCain was asked here this afternoon how he plans to balance the budget, he said that he hoped to do so by stimulating economic growth - and approvingly cited the example of President Ronald Reagan," the New York Times reports.
"There was one thing he did not mention during his response: the deficit nearly tripled during the Reagan presidency, partly due to tax cuts and increases in military spending."
Are Republicans ever going to realize that Reagan was not the living incarnation of God?
I want to know where that idea came from, and beat the guy who came up with it.
Who else is going to be their figurehead? Bush? Nixon?
The "warmonger" thing has unexpected legs. McCain is obviously setting up for a dirty campaign, because he's smoked if they stay civil, and desperately trying to find his way to a place where it's Obama's fault that things went ugly.
I don't really blame him for trying. Well, yes, I do, but I can't say that I'm actually surprised. Is it so much to ask that we not get caught up in being so PC that my teeth fall out from fake sweetness?
The "warmonger" thing has unexpected legs. McCain is obviously setting up for a dirty campaign, because he's smoked if they stay civil, and desperately trying to find his way to a place where it's Obama's fault that things went ugly.
I don't really blame him for trying. Well, yes, I do, but I can't say that I'm actually surprised. Is it so much to ask that we not get caught up in being so PC that my teeth fall out from fake sweetness?
Obama should just say "Senator McCain has asked me to further apologize for the actions of someone who supports me. Well, I have one work for McCain: Hagee."
"When Senator John McCain was asked here this afternoon how he plans to balance the budget, he said that he hoped to do so by stimulating economic growth - and approvingly cited the example of President Ronald Reagan," the New York Times reports.
"There was one thing he did not mention during his response: the deficit nearly tripled during the Reagan presidency, partly due to tax cuts and increases in military spending."
Are Republicans ever going to realize that Reagan was not the living incarnation of God?
I want to know where that idea came from, and beat the guy who came up with it.
Who else is going to be their figurehead? Bush? Nixon?
Abraham Lincoln ?
Nah to ethical.
King Riptor on
I have a podcast now. It's about video games and anime!Find it here.
The "warmonger" thing has unexpected legs. McCain is obviously setting up for a dirty campaign, because he's smoked if they stay civil, and desperately trying to find his way to a place where it's Obama's fault that things went ugly.
I don't really blame him for trying. Well, yes, I do, but I can't say that I'm actually surprised. Is it so much to ask that we not get caught up in being so PC that my teeth fall out from fake sweetness?
Obama should just say "Senator McCain has asked me to further apologize for the actions of someone who supports me. Well, I have one work for McCain: Hagee."
That is a great idea. Obama should attack his pastor.
"When Senator John McCain was asked here this afternoon how he plans to balance the budget, he said that he hoped to do so by stimulating economic growth - and approvingly cited the example of President Ronald Reagan," the New York Times reports.
"There was one thing he did not mention during his response: the deficit nearly tripled during the Reagan presidency, partly due to tax cuts and increases in military spending."
Are Republicans ever going to realize that Reagan was not the living incarnation of God?
I want to know where that idea came from, and beat the guy who came up with it.
Who else is going to be their figurehead? Bush? Nixon?
Abraham Lincoln ?
Nah to ethical.
And too liberal. I mean, just look at some of the stuff he said about the know-nothings. Dobbs would despise him.
The "warmonger" thing has unexpected legs. McCain is obviously setting up for a dirty campaign, because he's smoked if they stay civil, and desperately trying to find his way to a place where it's Obama's fault that things went ugly.
I don't really blame him for trying. Well, yes, I do, but I can't say that I'm actually surprised. Is it so much to ask that we not get caught up in being so PC that my teeth fall out from fake sweetness?
Obama should just say "Senator McCain has asked me to further apologize for the actions of someone who supports me. Well, I have one work for McCain: Hagee."
That is a great idea. Obama should attack his pastor.
Not his pastor, his supporter, who McCain went to great lengths to get.
I don't think it's fair to say silence on gay issues. The gay press may feel like I'm not giving them enough love. But basically, all press feels that way at all times. Obviously, when you've got limited amount of time, you've got so many outlets. We tend not to do a whole bunch of specialized press. We try to do general press for a general readership.
But I haven't been silent on gay issues. What's happened is, I speak oftentimes to gay issues to a public general audience. When I spoke at Ebenezer Church for King Day, I talked about the need to get over the homophobia in the African-American community, when I deliver my stump speeches routinely I talk about the way that antigay sentiment is used to divide the country and distract us from issues that we need to be working on, and I include gay constituencies as people that should be treated with full honor and respect as part of the American family.
So I actually have been much more vocal on gay issues to general audiences than any other presidential candidate probably in history. What I probably haven't done as much as the press would like is to put out as many specialized interviews. But that has more to do with our focus on general press than it does on ... I promise you the African-American press says the same thing.
I guess my point would be that the fact that I'm raising issues accordant to the LGBT community in a general audience rather than just treating you like a special interest that is sort of off in its own little box -- that, I think, is more indicative of my commitment. Because ultimately what that shows is that I'm not afraid to advocate on your behalf outside of church, so to speak. It's easy to preach to the choir; what I think is harder is to speak to a broader audience about why these issues are important to all Americans.
So Obama is going to repeal DOMA and DADT and suddenly makes you realize that all the nice things that Hillary Clinton said about your community were at specialized rallies that straight people ignored and had almost no impact on whether your gender and sexual identity was accepted by the public at large.
Not his pastor, his supporter, who McCain went to great lengths to get.
The distinction is irrelevant. He's a religious figure.
Anyway, about McCain launching a negative campaign, he's the one who has everything to lose. The only reason he's holding on is because people like him, his likability rating being higher than Obama's. If that goes down, he is royally fucked. Trust me, he doesn't want this general election to turn negative.
Does no one remember when Obama talked at LOGO's forum last year where he equated gay rights to civil rights?
Yea... wait, what?
After reading Obama's interview, it sounds that he does not want to deal with LGBT issues. He wants to leave it up to the people to deal with them. He did not give clear answer to any issue. He is only interested African-American issues and not LGBT issues. I believe having Hillary in office would do the LGBT community more justice because a woman's best friend is a gay man and vice versa. Although, that isn't true with all gay men, as my best friends are straight men. I wouldn't give Obama a chance. I would vote republican if Obama was the only democrat on the ticket.
Hey, anyone from the Seattle-Tacoma-north-of-Portland area want to make the journey down there for the border state campaign for the weekends of the 18th and 25th?
You'll have to find your own places to stay, but I have room for three other people (with Hacksaw potentially claiming one of those slots) in my car, and I'm pretty sure I'll be headed down those Fridays, after work.
Also, if you live in that area, and are interested in working for the campaign, I'm gonna see if I can get us teamed up together, so let me know.
I'm up for it. I was thinking about taking a four-day weekend that week anyway, and volunteering. I'm only about 30 minutes south of Portland.
Why did you have to post that. It's like Youtube comments. I can feel my brain cells giving up on life in despair.
It's your own fault, in the end, for not caring enough about gay people. If you cared about gay people more, the comments wouldn't hurt as much.
Currently, the ONLY presidential candidate who fully supports equal rights for all, including gay marriage, is RALPH NADER! We need to stop voting for candidates on the "lesser of 2 evils" basis & "compromising" on our core issues... especially our ''inalienable rights as humans!'
"When Senator John McCain was asked here this afternoon how he plans to balance the budget, he said that he hoped to do so by stimulating economic growth - and approvingly cited the example of President Ronald Reagan," the New York Times reports.
"There was one thing he did not mention during his response: the deficit nearly tripled during the Reagan presidency, partly due to tax cuts and increases in military spending."
Are Republicans ever going to realize that Reagan was not the living incarnation of God?
I want to know where that idea came from, and beat the guy who came up with it.
Man, the days of electoral charts like that are over. The USA will never see anything like that ever again, thanks to the blogosphere and the 24 hour news cycle. It's too easy for ignorant people to confirm their ignorance with others.
Man, the days of electoral charts like that are over. The USA will never see anything like that ever again, thanks to the blogosphere and the 24 hour news cycle. It's too easy for ignorant people to confirm their ignorance with others.
Are you suggesting that Reagan getting a mandate like that was a good thing?
I wasn't alive back then to witness what Mondale did to fuck it up so bad, anybody care to enlighten me?
He didn't fuck up, Reagan was just outragiously popular. He made Americans feel good to be Americans, and that was enough for normal, everyday assholes to vote against their economic interests.
Thanks to your incredible support, we are airing ads across Pennsylvania. I wanted to share one very special ad you helped us get on the air. You'll see a new side of Hillary that you might not have known about before.
This ad and others like it are up thanks to you. The race is close, but I know we are going to win because of what you have done for Hillary. Your support makes the difference every single day, and I can't tell you how much I appreciate all you do.
Sincerely,
Terry McAuliffe
Terry McAuliffe
Chairman, Hillary Clinton for President
I watched it, I can't unwatch it, so you have to watch it too.
Goddamn it.
I kept waiting for the little girl running around to get sniped.
Man, the days of electoral charts like that are over. The USA will never see anything like that ever again, thanks to the blogosphere and the 24 hour news cycle. It's too easy for ignorant people to confirm their ignorance with others.
Are you suggesting that Reagan getting a mandate like that was a good thing?
No, I mean that partisanship has so paralyzed the nation that I think we're doomed to 50%+1 (elections|lawmaking) for the foreseeable future. People are so eager to toe the party line that no matter how good a candidate's policies are or how amazing s/he makes people feel, the days of people reaching across the aisle are over.
Delzhand on
0
Zen VulgarityWhat a lovely day for teaSecret British ThreadRegistered Userregular
Man, the days of electoral charts like that are over. The USA will never see anything like that ever again, thanks to the blogosphere and the 24 hour news cycle. It's too easy for ignorant people to confirm their ignorance with others.
Are you suggesting that Reagan getting a mandate like that was a good thing?
No, I mean that partisanship has so paralyzed the nation that I think we're doomed to 50%+1 (elections|lawmaking) for the foreseeable future. People are so eager to toe the party line that no matter how good a candidate's policies are or how amazing s/he makes people feel, the days of people reaching across the aisle are over.
...intense partisan differences between the two major American political parties are a good thing. They allow voters to make clear choices and decrease the power of lobbyists and deal-brokers.
What's so good about reaching across the aisle? Reagan "reached across the aisle" (or at least, convinced a bunch of dupes to cross over to his side), had a mandate, and did a pretty shit job.
Man, the days of electoral charts like that are over. The USA will never see anything like that ever again, thanks to the blogosphere and the 24 hour news cycle. It's too easy for ignorant people to confirm their ignorance with others.
Are you suggesting that Reagan getting a mandate like that was a good thing?
No, I mean that partisanship has so paralyzed the nation that I think we're doomed to 50%+1 (elections|lawmaking) for the foreseeable future. People are so eager to toe the party line that no matter how good a candidate's policies are or how amazing s/he makes people feel, the days of people reaching across the aisle are over.
...intense partisan differences between the two major American political parties are a good thing. They allow voters to make clear choices and decrease the power of lobbyists and deal-brokers.
What's so good about reaching across the aisle? Reagan "reached across the aisle" (or at least, convinced a bunch of dupes to cross over to his side), had a mandate, and did a pretty shit job.
I think that can be somewhat attributed to misusing power, rather than the power itself being a corrupting influence. Reaching across the aisle to get something done isn't something that lawmakers should carefully reserve lest they accidentally get a mandate. However, when you have a mandate the people should at least pay a bit of attention and remove that mandate when all you do is wank on it.
Posts
Who else is going to be their figurehead? Bush? Nixon?
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
I don't really blame him for trying. Well, yes, I do, but I can't say that I'm actually surprised. Is it so much to ask that we not get caught up in being so PC that my teeth fall out from fake sweetness?
At least Clinton did a good job.
Or at least an OK job. He didn't botch it.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Obama should just say "Senator McCain has asked me to further apologize for the actions of someone who supports me. Well, I have one work for McCain: Hagee."
Abraham Lincoln ?
Nah to ethical.
And too liberal. I mean, just look at some of the stuff he said about the know-nothings. Dobbs would despise him.
Not his pastor, his supporter, who McCain went to great lengths to get.
Obama takes The Advocate to task for expecting him to treat them differently than other Americans.
I bet they felt a little silly after this:
So Obama is going to repeal DOMA and DADT and suddenly makes you realize that all the nice things that Hillary Clinton said about your community were at specialized rallies that straight people ignored and had almost no impact on whether your gender and sexual identity was accepted by the public at large.
Gay vote get?
Anyway, about McCain launching a negative campaign, he's the one who has everything to lose. The only reason he's holding on is because people like him, his likability rating being higher than Obama's. If that goes down, he is royally fucked. Trust me, he doesn't want this general election to turn negative.
Because you hate yourself.
Yea... wait, what?
Oh.
I'm up for it. I was thinking about taking a four-day weekend that week anyway, and volunteering. I'm only about 30 minutes south of Portland.
It's your own fault, in the end, for not caring enough about gay people. If you cared about gay people more, the comments wouldn't hurt as much.
It's probably because of this:
Are you suggesting that Reagan getting a mandate like that was a good thing?
He didn't fuck up, Reagan was just outragiously popular. He made Americans feel good to be Americans, and that was enough for normal, everyday assholes to vote against their economic interests.
He didn't give handjobs to people's patriotism.
The part where he pledged to jack up taxes didn't help much, either.
Edit: Beat'd.
I kept waiting for the little girl running around to get sniped.
No, I mean that partisanship has so paralyzed the nation that I think we're doomed to 50%+1 (elections|lawmaking) for the foreseeable future. People are so eager to toe the party line that no matter how good a candidate's policies are or how amazing s/he makes people feel, the days of people reaching across the aisle are over.
Rasing taxes isn't always a bad thing.
I hate people.
RON PAUL REVOLUTION
I will kill you, Sith.
I'll kill you again and rape your corpse.
I get to have sex with a corpse!
...intense partisan differences between the two major American political parties are a good thing. They allow voters to make clear choices and decrease the power of lobbyists and deal-brokers.
What's so good about reaching across the aisle? Reagan "reached across the aisle" (or at least, convinced a bunch of dupes to cross over to his side), had a mandate, and did a pretty shit job.
I think that can be somewhat attributed to misusing power, rather than the power itself being a corrupting influence. Reaching across the aisle to get something done isn't something that lawmakers should carefully reserve lest they accidentally get a mandate. However, when you have a mandate the people should at least pay a bit of attention and remove that mandate when all you do is wank on it.
In the TIME magazine sense of the word and in the actual sense of the word.
Bunch of pipe smoking hippies.
Edit: Raised on peanuckle and the American Dream? Ahahahahaha.
Oh good fuck are all your political ads like this?