Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiObama the Adult Versus McCain's Economic Easter Bunny
HEMPSTEAD, New York - Debating on a night when global markets were tanking, Barack Obama and John McCain engaged in an edgy debate about "spreading the wealth," "class warfare" and creating an economy that benefits "Joe the Plumber" more than "Ivan the Investment Banker."
![[Most striking in the debate was the contrast of the two candidates side by side. US Republican presidential nominee Senator John McCain (R-AZ) reacts to almost heading the wrong way off the stage after shaking hands with Democratic presidential nominee Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) at the conclusion of the final presidential debate at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York, October 15, 2008. (REUTERS/Jim Bourg)]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/obamamccain1016.jpg "obamamccain1016.jpg")
But while McCain clung to the failed fantasies of the past, Obama
offered America a community rarely served up on the presidential debate
stages of recent campaigns: realism.
Though they differed, at times viscerally, both men were struggling to occupy a populist high ground that suddenly appears far more attractive than the valleys of Wall Street.
The Republican kicked things off by declaring, "Americans are hurting right now, and they're angry. They're hurting, and they're angry. They're innocent victims of greed and excess on Wall Street and as well as Washington, D.C. And they're angry, and they have every reason to be angry."
The Democrat echoed the theme. "I think everybody understands at this point that we are experiencing the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. And the financial rescue plan that Sen. McCain and I supported is an important first step. And I pushed for some core principles: making sure that taxpayer can get their money back if they're putting money up. Making sure that CEOs are not enriching themselves through this process," explained Obama. "And I think that it's going to take some time to work itself out. But what we haven't yet seen is a rescue package for the middle class. Because the fundamentals of the economy were weak even before this latest crisis."
Not since 1912, when Democrat Woodrow Wilson, Progressive Teddy Roosevelt and even Republican William Howard Taft all tried to steal some of the thunder of Socialist Eugene Victor Debs have major-party presidential candidates scrambled so furiously to sound populist themes on the cusp of a definitional election.
But behind, beneath and beside the rhetorical flourishes were the evidences of a fundamental difference in approach.
McCain clung to the fading vision of Reaganomics as seen through the lens of George Bush, defaulting again and again to a lexicon of tax cuts for the richest, empty promises of trickle-down prosperity, fantasies of spending freezes and the certainty of deeper deficits and greater dysfunction in a federal government.
For McCain, ultimately, it was all about those tax cuts -- for plumber Joe Wurzelbacher in Ohio who wants to start a small business and, though he did not mention it, for corporations that earn more in a quarter than the GDPs of more than a few sovereign nations.
"The whole premise behind Sen. Obama's plans are class warfare, let's spread the wealth around. I want small businesses -- and by the way, the small businesses that we're talking about would receive an increase in their taxes right now," growled McCain. "Who -- why would you want to increase anybody's taxes right now?"
Obama chose to respond as an adult.
"I want to cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans. Now, it is true that my friend and supporter, Warren Buffett, for example, could afford to pay a little more in taxes... in order to give additional tax cuts to Joe the plumber before he was at the point where he could make $250,000," the Democrat began.
"Then," he continued, "Exxon Mobil, which made $12 billion, record profits, over the last several quarters, they can afford to pay a little more so that ordinary families who are hurting out there -- they're trying to figure out how they're going to afford food, how they're going to save for their kids' college education, they need a break.
"So, look, nobody likes taxes. I would prefer that none of us had to pay taxes, including myself. But ultimately, we've got to pay for the core investments that make this economy strong and somebody's got to do it."
McCain sputtered back: "Nobody likes taxes. Let's not raise anybody's taxes. OK?"
"Well," Obama replied. "I don't mind paying a little more."
In less serious times, that might have been a risky statement.
But Obama was no Walter Mondale apologizing for addressing fiscal realities.
The Democrat did make a class distinction, and in so doing he made the connection that more apologetic Democrats had failed to find in past campaigns.
"I think tax policy is a major difference between Sen. McCain and myself. And we both want to cut taxes, the difference is who we want to cut taxes for," explained the senator from Illinois.
"Now, Sen. McCain, the centerpiece of his economic proposal is to provide $200 billion in additional tax breaks to some of the wealthiest corporations in America. Exxon Mobil, and other oil companies, for example, would get an additional $4 billion in tax breaks," Obama continued. "What I've said is I want to provide a tax cut for 95 percent of working Americans, 95 percent. If you make... less than a quarter million dollars a year, then you will not see your income tax go up, your capital gains tax go up, your payroll tax. Not one dime. And 95 percent of working families, 95 percent of you out there, will get a tax cut. In fact, independent studies have looked at our respective plans and have concluded that I provide three times the amount of tax relief to middle-class families than Sen. McCain does."
The candidates displayed differences on issues that really do matter -- and, of course, on issues that didn't matter.
Obama and McCain were steered, briefly, into an empty "tone-of-the-campaign" debate by moderator Bob Schieffer.
McCain initially eschewed Schieffer's invitation to mouth the William Ayers-ACORN-appeasement blather that has been such a staple of his campaign in recent weeks. Instead, McCain accused Obama of spending "unprecedented amounts of money on negative ads about me." Obama reminded McCain that "100 percent of your ads are negative."
Finally, after a torturous back-and-forth about "hurt feelings," McCain dropped the bomb but missed the target. So the candidates wasted a few minutes on a sixties-radical-turned-college-professor named Ayers and a community-organization named ACORN.
But it was such a deviation that even McCain veered out of a convoluted riff on Ayers -- "it's not the fact that Sen. Obama chooses to associate with a guy who in 2001 said that he wished he had have bombed more, and he had a long association with him. It's the fact that... all of the details need to be known about Sen. Obama's relationship with them and with ACORN and the American people will make a judgment" -- to essentially acknowledge the absurdity of the discussion.
"And my campaign is about getting this economy back on track, about creating jobs, about a brighter future for America," McCain suddenly declared, pulling the brakes on the associated-with-terrorists talk. "And that's what my campaign is about and I'm not going to raise taxes the way Sen. Obama wants to raise taxes in a tough economy. And that's really what this campaign is going to be about.
The debate was back on the economic track -- and headed in a direction that allowed Obama to be the adult.
As the candidates sparred over health care, education, funding for programs for children with special needs and a host of other essential issues, the Democrat kept steering the discussion toward reality.
Both candidates talked about what they wanted to do.
While McCain imagined a world of tax cuts and free money, Obama allowed as how the economic Easter Bunny that Reagan and Bush promised was just around the corner might not be coming.
When McCain hailed his vice president running-mate's commitment to helping children with special needs and promised to help them, Obama responded, "I think it's very commendable the work she's done on behalf of special needs. I agree with that, John."
But, he added, "I do want to just point out that (children with) autism, for example, or other special needs will require some additional funding, if we're going to get serious in terms of research. That is something that every family that advocates on behalf of disabled children talk about. And if we have an across-the-board spending freeze, we're not going to be able to do it. That's an example of, I think, the kind of use of the scalpel that we want to make sure that we're funding some of those programs."
McCain offered America an old fantasy now discredited.
Obama offered America the promise of realism and a warning that, "(The) biggest risk we could take right now is to adopt the same failed policies and the same failed politics that we've seen over the last eight years and somehow expect a different result."
That was not the happy talk of the past.
But these are not happy times.
For those who want to wait around for the Easter Bunny, McCain made the proper appeal.
For those who figure it's time to get real, Obama was the only serious candidate on the stage.
119 Comments so far
Show AllAll I can say is that the debate was well tailored to the sensibilities and ignorance of the American people.
Six Pack Plumber Joe
The terror nation is on the lam
from the son of sam to uncle sam
to hankster Hank and the broken bank
Give thanks to thinker tanks
who confuse cash with trash
and row and wade for bailing
Give class the war of six pack sharing
and....
for a really heady flash
give the x geriatric bomber
a grudge for his red button
so...
share your six packs Joe
for son of woe or plumber Joe
is just another six pack Joe
Carol
Let me put this way does anybody know what Obama's real first name is? Well it is not Barack I can tell you this much. Obama's real firt name is BARRY look it up yourself and you will see look it up on cuil.com and you will see.
He has made company with people I wouldn't want to be seen with and that is a fact. I guess everyone has forgotten about this priest or whatever you want to call him that he went to church and heard for twenty (20) years. I am really scared of him and his believes just everyone remember what kind of people that he his days that he hung out with.
McCain does have his faults but he is NOT Bush and he might have a firey personaliy but we do know that he is an American all the way and that is what I am looking at but nobody cares about that.
After all I guess Obama is "little god" but also when he was in high school he did drugs and hung out with drug dealers. In fact they had interviews with some of high school people and they were totally surprised that he was going for President and said so in so many words.
MAY GOD BLESS ALL IF OBAMA BECOMES PRESIDENT BECAUSE WE WILL LOSE EVERYTHING THAT WE HAVE FOUGHT AND DIED FOR NOW AND FOREVER AS I AM SURE HE WILL!!!
Hello, America, and welcome to the state of the American thought process. By the way, I just read where Obama financed the 9/11 terrorists using money from his community organizing days. Can you imagine?
Carol, I do not support either McCain or Obama so I think that makes me fairly objective. Carol, you are so brainwashed and closed minded that you fail to realize that Americans have just about lost everything my friends and relatives have fought and died for ( and my family tree goes back to at least the American Revolution). I think you need to take a unbiased look at third party candidates.
Carol,
Why do you think it's important what Obama's first name is? Are you familiar with the word "superficial?" Suppose his real name was "Abdul Ali Mohammed." What difference would that make, in your mind?
You think it's a big problem that Obama did drugs in high school. But you're a Republican. Do you realize that George W Bush was a cocaine user and a drunk? I'll bet you voted for him anyway.
You say that if Obama becomes president, we will "LOSE EVERYTHING THAT WE HAVE FOUGHT AND DIED FOR." Have you been alive for the last 8 years? Don't you realize that under Bush, the United States has been bankrupted, its world reputation destroyed, and the public Treasury looted to line the pockets of wealthy parasites on Wall Street?
Do you know what a "brownshirt" is? The Republican Party is a party of modern-day brownshirts. (If you know how to use Google, you can look up that word, to get an idea what I'm talking about.)
Obama is a terrible candidate, & I'd never vote for him. But you aren't even close to being able to understand what's wrong with him. It has nothing to do with him personally. It's strictly a matter of whose interests he defends. (Sorry, I don't have time to explain this to you. It's way above your head.)
Carol, you are one sad case reactionary. Look it up yourself in mymirror.com or at reactionarysadcase.org. I am really scared of you and your irrational view of the world. "WE WILL LOSE EVERYTHING," run for the hills, Carol. Run very fast. They're after you and they will catch you. P. s. take your little raincloud with you as you leave, please.
Gee, its so entertaining to watch the campaign devolve into two camps both throwing nasty smears and lies at each other. Yep, this is the Republican version of an attack on Obama. But, you can easily find comments of pretty much exactly the same crap thrown at McCain by the Democrats. All the stuff about his supposed temper and his first wife and the other crap that's floating around the internet.
Its funny watching the partisans on each side lap up the attacks on the candidate they don't like, and get outraged on the attacks on the candidate they like.
What they all seem to miss is that this is all just to distract everyone from noticing there is no talk at all about the problems facing the country and what to do about them. This of course is because both candidates have virtually the same positions. If anything, watching them BOTH fly back to DC to support and push for the 'theft\bailout' of $800 billion of OUR money to Wall Street should have shown everyone that.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
If elected, Obama will only respond to his white masters, the ones who finance his campaigns. No one else.
People who make a judgment based on his flowery rhetoric and not based on his voting record deserve no intellectual respect.
Obama's words have never matched his actions. Do you remember your grandmother saying that politicians will say anything to get elected? She was right. Obama was against the war but voted to fund it. He was against the FISA bill but voted for it. He was against drilling before he was for it, etc. Obama's a homophobe and his instance on abortion changes with the moon.
Like McCain, Obama's not to be trusted.
Don't vote for Jeffrey Dahmer just because Ted Bundy killed more.
Ahh, the measured, thoughtfully considered words of tetti.
So now Obama's a homophobe, too? You should send a memo to the Human Rights Campaign (http://www.hrc.org), one of the nations leading LGBT advocacy organizations. They've endorsed Mr. Obama.
And, oh, tetti. Think you've met your soulmate in the person of Carol, above. How I do wish I could put both of you on a rocket to the moon together. I think you'd find you have so much in common with her, personality-wise.
I'm fed up with things as they are and ask, why not?
Many are happy with things as they pretend to be and and ask, who's asking?
Sometimes people say to me, Hail Mary, full of greats! Horey morey smother of fog!
And I just say, what would fardels bear, and three quarks for Muster Mark!
Sure he hasn't got much of a bark
And sure any he has it's all beside the mark.
"illumineer October 16th, 2008 11:03 pm
All this debate about 3rd parties is ludicrous. Anyone who seriously thinks any of the third party candidates is worth a vote of any kind has officially and professionally lost it."
THAT'S A BS statement, view, and lie, especially with the obvious contradiction or hypocrisy in some or most of the rest of the post by illumineer. It's not to say that I believe any of the third-party candidates are God, absolutely flawless, etcetera, for I definitely have no such beliefs about any human beings, with the exception of Jesus of Nazareth. (I must grant him this, given I do wish to be disciple, but no one else gets this trust from me; [no one] does.)
So while I don't perceive anyone as absolutely flawless, everyone being flawed at least ocassionally, and regardless of how minorly it may be, still having flaws; well, there is at least one third-party candidate who is worthy of being supported with votes, although I think of there being hopefully two, or more, but only know about two of the four, or more.
illumineer continued:
"I don't personally know what it will take to get a truly viable third party candidate to inspire Americans to actually vote that way in droves, but given the stark divisions of the past, I would find it very difficult to believe there is anyone that could be properly vetted to the point a majority of Americans would be comfortable with him or her."
Definitely agree, but it has nothing to do with whether candidates are from msm parties, or third parties; to make sure that that is clear.
Etcetera, as for the rest of illumineer's post, solely commenting on the above portion and the closing paragraph.
illumineer closes with,
"Stop wasting time and just go with Obama, a true independent Democrat, one that will reshape the party for generations to come. You watch."
That concludes illumineer's post and with flame for fashion. After all, the paper it'd be written on would be worthy of a lit match, and what does that do? It produces a flame, and this one would be applied to the paper, causing it to burn and turn into unidentifiable carbon dust or ashes. Fitting picture, imo.
RE: Corbeil's post - it's easy to dismiss what I said in some blanket statement, but unfortunately that just proves my point. Do you really hear anyone talking seriously about any of the third party candidates besides here? Or for that matter, just blindly ending every post with "I'm voting third party!" without really explaining why except maybe as a protest vote against the current system. Does the current system stink? Heck, yeah! Should the system be made less restrictive when it comes to allowing a third party / candidate to get a foothold into the electorial process? Of course! But it's going to take a lot more than a Nader or a Barr to do that. Is that the best this country can do in terms of a viable personality with a different spin on this country? God, I hope not. Not sure where all the rest of the blathering came from, but bringing Jesus up is neither here nor there.
But there are times in the history of this country when a singular personality within the current system can step beyond the status quo and really change things. I believe this is that time.
And luckily for me, and others who feel like me but might not have the balls to admit it here, I didn't write my post on paper. Nevertheless, I suspect Mr. Corbeil is attempting to light up his computer even as we speak ...
All this debate about 3rd parties is ludicrous. Anyone who seriously thinks any of the third party candidates is worth a vote of any kind has officially and professionally lost it. I don't personally know what it will take to get a truly viable third party candidate to inspire Americans to actually vote that way in droves, but given the stark divisions of the past, I would find it very difficult to believe there is anyone that could be properly vetted to the point a majority of Americans would be comfortable with him or her. You'd almost need a beloved former President or a high profile Senator or Representive or even Governor or visible Citizen who would be truly willing to seperate his or herself from their former parties / affiliations for a higher cause. Teddy Roosevelt is about the only person that even remotely comes to mind from the past century (Perot, you say? Please!!!). And these third parties based on one common theme or collection of unalterable / uncompromising beliefs have no real future either.
So, what does that leave us with? I believe Barack Obama will transcend his party's strait-jacketed philosophies to change the country. Can he reveal every single thing he's going to do to upset the traditional apple cart of the Democratic Party? Of course not; otherwise he would never have become the nominee. Will he be open minded and not locked down by those philosophies? Yes. Will it help if the Democrats gain a filibuster-proof Senate and House? Absolutely. Will Pelosi and Reid get pushed aside in the avalanche towards a new Democratic philosophy? Yes, because they are the old guard. The new Democrats coming on board will no longer feel beholden to them and will eventually take over the leadership or at least neutralize the existing one. Congress has nowhere to go but up and they will be held to task in the afterglow of this election. There's nothing like a good ole fashion economic meltdown to get things rolling.
Third party in 2008? Absurd! Stop wasting time and just go with Obama, a true independent Democrat, one that will reshape the party for generations to come. You watch.
illumineer is a conventional, in-the-box, stay the course, Democrat supporter that believes Obama is a progressive in Republican clothes. This is utter nonsense, and I'll label it DPA red herring argument #8:
" OBAMA IS ONLY PRETENDING TO BE A CORPORATE WALL STREET WARMONGER. ONCE IN OFFICE HE WILL SHOW HIS TRUE COLORS."
-This "argument" flies in the face of what he has said he plans to do and his record. This is one of the most unprincipled arguments around. We are to believe Obama is deceiving the public into believing he's a right winger and then, once in office, he's going to screw all the centrists and Republicans that believed and voted for him.
The "argument" is absurd because if he did that he would ruin his chances for being re-elected which of course will be his primary concern once in office. After all, Obama is just a typical politician.
In fact illumineer will use the same "argument" four years from now. He'll claim Obama has to act like a Republican to get re-elected, but don't worry, once he is re-elected we'll see the "real" Obama, the true Messiah.
Trust me, Ric, I'm about as unconventional as they come. The last few times I've voted I've voted Libertarian and would have voted for McCain in 2000. Democrat? HAHAHA! But I don't believe Obama is your typical politician. Yes, that's a personal opinion, as is your, Ric. However, I've read enough of his stands on issues (and I don't agree with everything he's for by a long shot) and I believe he has enough good there to support and an open enough mind to change it if required by events.
You say Obama's acting like a Republican? You can't be serious! And if you are, you're even more deluded than your comments suggest.
"...I would find it very difficult to believe there is anyone that could be properly vetted to the point a majority of Americans would be comfortable with him or her..."
- As though any of the Democratic or Republican assholes are ever thusly "vetted"
"...Will Pelosi and Reid get pushed aside in the avalanche towards a new Democratic philosophy? Yes, because they are the old guard. The new Democrats coming on board will no longer feel beholden to them ..."
- Such empty cheerleaderish drivel. Pelosi isn't going to be "pushed aside." Elected Speaker only 2 years ago by her caucus, she's the perfect representive of her party. The "new Democrats" aren't going to be any different than the "old Democrats," because they represent the same class interests. There isn't going to be any "new Democratic philosophy." It's going to be the same servicing of major corporate interests, and nothing else.
"...Congress ...will be held to task in the afterglow of this election..."
- There is no such thing in the US anymore as "Congress being held to task."
Hey, RichM could be right and I'm just being overly optimistic. But I also believe the people are at a point where they will no longer tolerate "staying the course". Yes, Pelosi is the perfect representative for the OLD Democrats, which will go by the wayside shortly after this election when the NEW Congress takes over. And, yes, the current candidates have been vetted, vs. the current third party reps, who if they were taken seriously, would be ripped apart, and rightly so, for their single-issue focus.
I'm afraid I haven't had time to read through every comment in this thread, so if someone's already addressed this, please pardon me. But I'd like to briefly address the much earlier comments by someone who insisted that the Green Party only focused on Presidential elections every four years.
As a Green Party member, I can tell you that this is patently false. The Green Party has actually elected hundreds (yes, hundreds!) of people to local and "lower" office through the United States over the years, and there are over 200 Greens right now in office. I've personally campaigned for Green Party candidates for City Council, State Rep and Secretary of State as well as President.
I don't blame that earlier poster for not knowing this, but the very fact that he (and most other people) are unaware of it suggests why the Green Party also focuses on the "big ticket" contests like President. The local successes of Green Party candidates, while certainly consituting some measure of progress, do little to make the public aware of the Green Party and its platform. The big races, on the other hand, do advance this effort.
In other words, we're doing exactly as the earlier poster suggests, and have been doing so for years -- but not to the exclusion of ignoring the big picture.
A Vote For A 3rd Party Candidate Puts Us All At Risk
"Of what?"
"The totalitarian state."
"Based on?"
"John McCain gets elected and bomb, bomb, bombs Iran along with declaring martial law."
"Anything else?"
"He fills those Blackwater-built concentration camps with war resisters and other dissenters, amongst which undoubtedly there'll be some of the very people who now support 3rd party candidates."
"Shades of 1933 Germany where in response to the Nazi threat the left failed to unite."
"The answer being?"
"Our electing Barack Obama president."
"But what's to prevent him from getting us into a war with Iran?"
"Yes we can."
{smile}{chuckle}{snort}{laugh out loud}
well put!
vote mckinney!
"no gods, no masters" --m. sanger
********** A MODEST PROPOSAL **********
I plan on voting for Ralph Nader. ... However, if my only choice was either voting for Barack Obama or else voting for a *dead* John McCain ... frankly, I'd vote for the corpse.
I mean, let's face it, a dead John McCain will do far less harm than a live John McCain or a live Barack Obama.
Why wait for the inevitable? We all have to die, don't we? So here's my modest proposal. ...
Summon Dr. Kevorkian to the McCain campaign trail. Have the good doctor ease John McCain out of this travail of tears. ... Then prop up ole John-Boy, freshly-deceased, and by-gosh-by-golly, watch that sucker pull away in the polls!
In a heartbeat, the title of "lesser-of-the-two-evils" would switch from a live Barack Obama to a dead John McCain.
After all, how much harm can a dead guy do???
Madison Avenue, ha! You think you're so feency-schmancy with your schmarty-pantsy campaign slogans ... "CHANGE" ... "COUNTRY FIRST" ... Are you kidding? Forget about it. BOMB, BOMB, EMBALM, JOHN MCCAIN! ... Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket!
Then, once ole John-Boy is embalmed, get a good Republican taxidermist, stuff the mother f*****, and tour the corpse around the country.
Book that sucker on Oprah!
Wheel that stiff onto the Jerry Springer Show!
Nobody would lay a hand on him. ... How can you dislike a dead guy?
Listen, how many times have you dealt with a really difficult person where, out of sheer frustration, you felt like screaming: “GODDAMMIT, SHUT UP! JUST SIT THERE AND DON'T SAY A WORD!" ... Well, sir, there's your perfect candidate -- John "Just-Sit-There-and-Be-Dead" McCain.
I guarantee you -- a dead John McCain in the White House would all but guarantee world peace and environmental sanity.
The same applies to Barack Obama. Either candidate would win in a landslide if they would just be willing to "run dead."
So, come on, John McCain. Or else how about you, Barack Obama? Just do it. JUST DROP DEAD!
Once cremated, a grateful nation will *sweep* you into office.
Funny idea.... it just might work. Send it to the Onion, see if they'll take it up?
.
Senator John McCain is delusional. Most voters are not buying it.
This will be the worst defeat of the GOP since 1932.........All Republicans will be sent down to defeat.
McCain and Palin are being made the scapegoats, for the last 8 years. They are pitiful.
The GOP is already planning for 2010 and 2012.
,
You're correct that McCain and Palin are scapegoats, but it's hard to find sympathy for fools, especially arrogant fools. Their defeat will just urge the R's to a more perfect neocon stance, and they will shake McCain and Palin off like a doggy shakes water out of its coat. The problems W has created will be so difficult and burdensome to deal with that they'll be back full-force in 2012 -- when the Mayans predict the world will end.
Thidwick stopped walking.
What was all that talking?
These 'guests' had caught Thidwick the Moose unawares.
"Hey! he called out. "What goes on there upstairs?"
"Just building a nest, sir," the Paulson bird said,
And began yanking hairs out of poor Thidwick's head.
And he plucked out exactly seven hundred billion and four!
"Don't worry," he laughed. "We can always pluck more!"
.
.
.
Now what was it that every moose knows?
It happens each year before the deep snows.
Oh, yes! They get to VOTE at the start of each Winter
but never on their life will they vote for a moose hunter.
(Apologies to Dr. Seuss)
Frankly, I suspect all the loud noises by both candidates and their rabid followers about their promised new programs as well as their promised tax cuts is a lot of bull****. No matter who wins, thanks to the fiasco that has been building for the last 30 years with the economy, there cannot be any serious tax cuts any more than there can be serious spending increases. We have to pay for the trillion and a half in surprise off budget bailouts that have already been announced and I can't help but think that it could easily be double or triple that amount.
Not only do we have the bailouts for the idiots who played roulette with investors' money, the tax revenues to pay for things will be down dramatically. Sales taxes will drop as nervous shoppers start to save instead of spend. For example, they won't buy new cars as often nor as expensive ones as before. The dealers selling the cars will have less income to report. So, less income taxes will be paid too. Property tax revenues likely will drop as house values across the country start to come more in line with reality.
But, there are a lot of critical expenditures we cannot afford not to make with our presently dwindling tax funds. For instance, we have to pay to re-outfit our tired military and we probably won't be able to pull much of the used equipment out of Iraq. Plus, we have a lot of crumbling infrastructure that will cost us even more if we don't pay to maintain it properly. So, for that and similar non-negotiable core needs, expect taxes to go up even if McCain is President due to the fact that there won't be enough tax money without taxes going up. The foreign loans we have been living high on the hog with will likely dry up.
Of course, there are some occasional benefits from the financial meltdown. It might finally be realized we can no longer afford the indulgences of constant warring on people merely because we dislike them. And, if we can't afford gasoline (even with dollars per gallon going down), there might finally be an opportunity to rethink wasteful living.
Signed: Lawlessone [for more irreverence, see resistence-is-possible.blogspot.com]
So now we HAVE to re-build our military. Why not give it a rest? We need to re-build our diplomatic corps, our justice department, our Supreme court, our infrastructure, our decency and the military won't be necessary for any of those. In fact, the last time I checked, we had the safest nation in the world, in terms of threats from other nations. We have good friends north and south, and oceans on either side. What do we really need a standing military for? Aggression? Haven't we had enough of illegal wars against other nations. Both Afghanistan and Iraq are farcical attempts at military victory--and neither are wars we can "win," unless you count the countless lives we ruin with our military. It will take decades of reparations to undo the damage our recent wars, including Vietnam have wrought.
Your faithful servant, DavidG, watched the debate from the wilds of Australia, that Land Down Under.
He felt misgivings, yes he did. He reflected upon the debate, yes he did. He reached some conclusions, yes he did. They were not good conclusions, no they weren't. Do they belong on this thread? Probably not!
He wrote a post called: Reflections On A Final Debate. Are you game to read it?
www.dangerouscreation.com
John Nichols and The Nation have no decent arguments so they resort to throwing up a photo to emotionally manipulate you into choosing one of the elitist constructs over the other. In contrast, REAL progressives have a great argument: Everyone knows today that the progressive platform is the platform of the people. Vote your principles. Vote third party.
Run Ralph Run! Run back into the black hole you emerge from every four years to put your ego before us in vain once again. Run Ralph Run!
did it ever cross your mind that he's just trying to give us another choice? but then maybe your're satisfied with the 2 "mainstream" choices...
Frankly, I suspect all the loud noises by both candidates and their rabid followers about their promised new programs as well as their promised tax cuts is a lot of bull****. No matter who wins, thanks to the fiasco that has been building for the last 30 years with the economy, there cannot be any serious tax cuts any more than there can be serious spending increases. We have to pay for the trillion and a half in surprise off budget bailouts that have already been announced and I can't help but think that it could easily be double or triple that amount.
Not only do we have the bailouts for the idiots who played roulette with investors' money, the tax revenues to pay for things will be down dramatically. Sales taxes will drop as nervous shoppers start to save instead of spend. For example, they won't buy new cars as often nor as expensive ones as before. The dealers selling the cars will have less income to report. So, less income taxes will be paid too. Property tax revenues likely will drop as house values across the country start to come more in line with reality.
But, there are a lot of critical expenditures we cannot afford not to make with our presently dwindling tax funds. For instance, we have to pay to re-outfit our tired military and we probably won't be able to pull much of the used equipment out of Iraq. Plus, we have a lot of crumbling infrastructure that will cost us even more if we don't pay to maintain it properly. So, for that and similar non-negotiable core needs, expect taxes to go up even if McCain is President due to the fact that there won't be enough tax money without taxes going up. The foreign loans we have been living high on the hog with will likely dry up.
Of course, there are some occasional benefits from the financial meltdown, particularly if Obama wins. It might finally be realized we can no longer afford the indulgences of constant warring on people merely because we dislike them. And, if we can't afford gasoline (even with dollars per gallon going down), there might finally be an opportunity to rethink wasteful living.
Signed: Lawlessone [for more irreverence, see resistence-is-possible.blogspot.com]
McCain looks ridiculous in the picture above, Obama looks dignified.
I'm wondering WHY abortion is forever being discussed. If a woman is in such poor health that she has to have a partial-birth abortion, why wasn't she on birth control to prevent conception? If she's so sick, why was she having sex? These issues should be discussed by the doctor and the patient, not repeatedly belabored by politicians. It's boring. I have never known and never heard of any woman getting a partial, late-term abortion.
Wow. I am shocked at this comment. Did it cross your mind that women sometimes suffer serious health risks as a result of pregnancy? Any number of life-threatening things can happen when a woman is carrying a child which are a direct result of pregnancy itself. A late-term abortion is performed to SAVE the life of the mother. I have heard of MANY people in my personal life who have had late-term abortions, and had they not had them, these women would not have survived.
On another note- have you ever heard of birth control not being 100% effective? It is very common to get pregnant while practicing safe sex.
I simply had to respond to your comments because I could not stomach the reality of someone out there in the world not understanding this.
Most importantly, however, is that abortion and the morals surrounding it should not be something that our government tells us we can or cannot do. Why are republicans so concerned with "less government" while at the same time wanting government to govern these very personal and moral decisions? So hypocritical.
Obama went into more specifics about his plans than he has in the previous debates, and his plans make sense. Taxing those at the top, cutting taxes for the rest of us, investing in health, education, and rebuilding America’s industries starting with energy efficient transportation and sustainable energy. I’m for it! He is a politician, and there is always more to those folks than meets the eye, but Obama comes across as intelligent, thoughtful, and caring.
McCain repeated a lot of lines he’s used at the previous debates, many of which have been proven to be false. He appeared stiff and scripted. He told so many lies it is hard to keep them all straight. “The schools that get the most money often do the worst.” Lie. “Head start kids don’t necessarily do better than non-head start kids.” Lie. It goes on and on, those were the two that stuck.
And I loved his focus on not “spreading the wealth around.” That’s right, let’s keep the wealth controlled by a wealthy few, and keep us common folk poor and enslaved.
This election is not/should not be about ideology. This election is about survival, and it’s clear that McCain, a man at the end of his life, has nothing to lose by being vague and ideological, but the rest of us have a LOT to lose. Obama, imperfect, corporate, is at least coherent, intelligent even, and demonstrates some compassion.
Yes I know the binary system is a box, but the reality is that I live in a state where the election machinery is NOT rigged, I just moved here and am registered to vote here, and my vote for Obama can make a difference.
Alan MacDonald
Both of these two-party, 'Vichy' candidates for the 'corporatist Empire' ruling America are just spreading tales of fantasy and fairy tales --- it's just that Obama's are not as transparently lies, or old lies that we have learned to discredit by GOP slugs, but new lies that sound softer and comforting from the Dem slugs.
Both would sell working-class Americans down the river --- but Obama with more 'style'.
I feel your pain, but we just cannot do anything about it--not now.
Keep waiting. Maybe you should get saved.
I WANT to help I just cant. It is in my heart. I will do it as soon as____________(fil in the blank) I am with you, I just cant say it now. I will begin reforms as soon as you give me a promotion. And another. And another.
Thank you sir, may I have another.
Yes, indeed, another BIG issue in the campaign -- John McCain "almost" walking off the wrong side of the stage.
This one is right up there with Cynthia Palin's children, Barack Obama's lapel pin, and whether or not Joe Biden made enough eye contact during the debates.
I wonder if maybe, just maybe there's candidate out there who sees this election as being about:
-- the $850 billion bailout of the crooks and incompetents on Wall Street;
-- the war in Iraq;
-- the war in Afghanistan;
-- a possible war in Iran;
-- a just-beginning war in Pakistan;
-- whether Bush should be impeached;
-- whether the Pentagon budget should be increased;
-- whether FISA should have been rejected;
-- whether single-payer healthcare should or shouldn't become law.
Not only do Obama and McCain *agree* on all of the above issues, they have also, in their agreement, in effect, taken these issues "off the table." That is to say, they are not opposed to each other on *any* of the above issues! ... And lots more!
So how can one say that there is a "choice" between these two candidates.
Put another way: the Democratic Party isn't an oppositional party, vis-a-vis the Republican Party. Far from it. The Democratic/Republican duopoly doesn't represent the interests of the "democratic-many," rather, it represents the interests of the "oligarchic-few."
Do you recall back in 2002, right before the US invaded Iraq ... the Democratic leadership made it quite clear to the voting-public that those elections would *not* be about whether the US should or should not invade Iraq. That was already a done-deal -- a *bipartisan* decision.
Rather, we were told, those 2002 elections would be about "other issues." ... In other words, peace was officially "off the table." ... This despite millions of people around the world protesting an invasion of Iraq.
Also ... Do you recall in 2006, when the Democrats scored stunning victories in those Congressional elections, with millions of people voting Democratic in the hopes that the Democrats would end the war in Iraq.
How's that goin'?
Any end to the wars in the Middle East in sight?
Any word on whether the Democrats intend to impeach Bush?
How do McCain and Obama feel about impeachment???
And how about "Obama the Peace Candidate" during the primaries, suddenly turning into "Obama the Hawk" as soon as he won the nomination -- lurching, post-primaries, to the right on a number of international as well as domestic issues.
And let's not forget how the $850 billion bailout of the thieves and incompetents on Wall Street was also a *bipartisan* decision -- with not even a single Congressional hearing before the $850 billion was looted from the national treasury.
Both candidates, again, in full agreement on that bailout/theft.
Therefore, elections have to be not about issues on which the public can decide
-- one major party opposing another -- rather, with no such choice and no such basic disagreement presented to the public, corporate-dominated, corporate-controlled, corporate-sponsored elections have to be about "other issues" -- lapel pins, candidates' children, ministers, eye contact, stage directions.
Meanwhile, "cruise missile liberal" like the hacks over at The Nation magazine --DPAers (Democratic Party Apologists) to the core -- keep telling us to pin our hopes on Barack Obama. He may be over on the right now, they tell us, but you just wait, he'll come around to the left once he's elected.
Yeah, just like the Democrats came around to the left after the 2006 Congressional elections.
And just like Barack Obama came around to the left after he won the nomination.
Barack Obama and John McCain are now virtually indistinguishable on any number of crucial national and international issues.
I'm voting for Ralph Nader.
According to a 2004 cover story in Business Week magazine, 75% of all US voters live in "safe states." That is to say, given the Electoral College's "winner take all" system, in which certain states are bound to go either Republican or Democratic (e.g., Massachusetts, New York, South Carolina, Mississippi) -- and given Obama's commanding lead in the polls, progressives in these states can vote for a third party without Obama losing the election.
Note: the same scenario could have taken place in 2000 and 2004 had Gore and Kerry run any kind of decent, progressive-oriented campaigns. Had they done so they would have been and *should* have been way ahead in the polls before their elections, thus making it "safe" to vote for a third party candidate.
Personally, I urge people to vote for Nader or McKinney or anyone to their left even in so-called swing states. The Democratic/Republican duopoly will never represent the interests of the "democratic many." They are, instead, political mouthpieces for the "oligarchic-few."
All voting for the lesser of the two evils has done is to shift the US political consensus radically to the right over the past 40 years. So much so that a 2008 Democratic Barack Obama is considerably to the right of a 1968 Republican Nelson Rockefeller.
Put another way: Republican Richard Nixon signed more progressive legislation in the 1970s than Democratic Bill Clinton did in the 1990s. ... How did that happen if not for the democratically-corrosive effect of "voting for the lesser of the two evils."
Meanwhile, good luck, average US wage earners, when Barack Obama, if elected, starts taking down all those "CHANGE" signs and starts putting up "SORRY AUSTERITY" signs and "SORRY, US WORKERS, ALL YOU"RE GOING TO GET ARE CRUMBS FROM THE TABLES OF THE RICH" signs.
BRAVO! Well said! (: Thanks for making my day!
I largely agree.
The "tax cuts for 95% " is just stupid. He is NOT going to reverse the tax cuts for the rich, not in his first term, anyway, if at all. But, PDAs, etc do not really care. We need a candidate who wil stop bribing neo-"liberals" into their tax phobia.Where the fuck are we gonna get REVENUE , folks??
Anyone who thinks $250,000 a yr is " middle class" is crazy! If you make $150,000 a yr,. you are in the 95th Quintile, folks! Dont feel lucky? Well, you are!
Throw in a little FDR, Debbs, sell-out Ayers, and "realism" (??Realism wouldv been --no heatlh care, no truly progressive tax code, no jail for war criminals, no suing ATT, no money back unless youre on Wall St. AND---drum roll--here is a $1000 bribe to keep you stringing along!!) $1000 will not pull anyoe out of poverty. Social programs and works, could. Its a gimmick.
Shame on anyone bring up Debbs or FDR with Obama or McCain.
Ha ha ha--isnt McCain funny--no. And neither is Obama. He's "cool" as everyone keeps saying. He's just COLD. He is blindly ambitious and does not care. But, neither do most of the Democrats.
So now we all know that Joe the Plumber doesn't yet make 250,000/year, but that he might make that much one day. Well guess what -- he'll no longer be Joe the Plumber. He'll be "Joe the Owner of a Plumbing Company".
If folks insist on calling him Joe the Plumber, then I move that we start naming all other small business owners is a similar fashion.
Convenience store owners are now called "Joe the Check-Out Person".
Restaurateurs are now called "Joe the Cook".
Car Dealers can be called "Joe the Salesperson/Mechanic."
Let's call Ted Turner and Rupert Murdoch "Joe the Newsguy"
Populism by Newspeak!
What about "Barack the Slick Politician"
Find me one single person who thinks Nader (or any other third party candidate for that matter) will actually win this year.
That's not why you vote for them, you vote for them to build momentum, to build support and further spread their messages.
Of course none of them are going to win this year, but if they get a decent percentage of the vote then next time they'll get an even bigger percentage.
Unless of course they are completely scapegoated by the losing party for "electing" the worst president in history... that might set the cause back for a while: screw you Al Gore (go vegan already!).
But like someone said - voting for a dem or a rep is the definition of insanity (unless you are happy with the way the country is now).
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
That's why people vote 3rd party, not because they expect to win, but because they recognize this insanity, and no longer desire to be a part of it.
"Between the idea
And the reality
Between the motion
And the act
Falls the shadow"
There are 18 months, now, to build an organization to support third parties and to give them $$$$ until it hurts.
Two amazing choices, Obama the accomplished actor. Every move calculated, every word. What he says is pure fiction. McCain on the other hand is a sorry figure of hate. The voice itself is pure anger.
McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time. Obama voted with McCain 90% of the time. So there you have it, folks, a complete farcical election.
last nights debate was the same as all the others, it was full of false promises.
-you are not a person
In order to build from the ground up, we must first have ideas equal to the task. The first order of busines is to recognize that there is no such thing as profits; if they existed they would violate the second law of thermodynamics. Instead our society is founded upon the privilege (i.e., private law) of contracts. The signators of a contract are witnessed by the government which is then bound to protect the contract and the signators from the victims of the contract, all the non-signators. This is the central point of what is called, rightly or wrongly, the market which provides the means to build from the ground up – at the expense of the environment, the public, the consumer, and the worker. We must begin by recognizing the true cost of a transaction:
True cost = Market value + (Market Value / Throughput Efficiency)
The added value incorporating efficiency is recognized by business planners as “externality,” the costs of which may be realistically estimated as hundreds of times any value created by the market. The incurrence of such costs must be the moral prerogative of democratic decision making, not the decision of supply in the production market. Our version of democracy from both sides of the aisle prohibits the public from assuming the necessary moral burden for our economy, reframing the victimization of the public as individual “freedom” rather than individual privilege, protected by government.
This is excellent !!
To make it more powerful, however, you need to simplify your central theme for the "headline readers." I'm 100% with you.
Check out this essay about Big Oil's corruption of the "free market". The point it makes is that Big Oil is subsidized by "the commons" (i.e. the taxpayers and the environment) and that so called "free market" capitalism is a sham.
McCain essentially called for Obama's assassination with his absurd voter fraud allegations
When John McCain claimed that Barack Obama and ACORN were "perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy" he outed himself as a reprehensible demagogue. Voter fraud is a fiction.
In reality, not ACORN has perpetrated fraud, fraud was committed against ACORN in some instances by dishonest paid canvassers who turned in made up registrations.
While an occasional problem it is not a big deal because ACORN and the registrar use various cross-checks to weed out bad registrations. But most importantly, bad registrations are completely worthless because they simply do not translate into actual votes! Suppose the name "Hulk Hogan" somehow slipped through onto a voter list, that muscular guy would still have to show up in person with his drivers license before casting a ballot.
It's absurd!
John McCain knows full well that no voter fraud is even possible here. In addition, he knows full well that preventing people from exercising their right to vote is the real problem, and that his own party is employing such cynical abuses in Democratic precincts in swing states.
McCain's outrageously false claims have one transparent goal, however: to plant the myth that Obama is stealing this election. He knows exactly what the violent fanatics among his followers will make of this: That the right thing to do is to ASSASSINATE an illegitimate usurper: "Sic semper tyrrannis!"
Demand for sniper rifles just went up, thanks to John Sidney McCain III.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Let's elect Obama and support Progressive Democrats of America http://pdamerica.org to convince him that progressive policies make sense and resonate with people's ultimate desire for peace, sustainability, and responsible economics.
Now if Obama could just admit that it is the Pentagon killing Afghan civilians that is terrorism it would be really something, wouldn't it be, USAn?
I was impressed that Obama pointed out in the discussion about trade, the death-squad killing of trade unionists in Colombia. This is the first time I've heard from any politician or the mainstream media that right-wing death squads are a big problem in Colombia.
The paramilitary death squads have killed far more innocent people that FARC ever has. Yet, until Obama's remark, only obscure labor and social justice activist groups have pointed this out.
I have been pretty disappointed with Obama so far, but this is the first evidence that Obama may at least, sometimes, have the labor-activist community on his mind.
Come on, you guys who keep dreaming you're going to win with candidates who can NEVER poll more than 5% of the electorate! This has NOTHING to do with the corporate media......
Sure, Obama is far from perfect, but it's up to ALL OF US after the election to press without letup for the changes we want.
Saphne, the first commenter, had it RIGHT!!! It's worth repeating!!
"You guys are friggin insane if you think Nader is going to be President in two weeks, yes, WAKE THE HELL UP! It ain't gonna happen. I agree, they are both corporate whores (I disagree with calling Obama this, however), but do you really think you will have more of a chance of getting that message out when they can tap your phones and 'disappear' your ass after declaring you a domestic terrorist?"
Hey liberalbias if you agree they're both corporate whores and you are advocating we vote for one of them, does that make you a corporate PIMP?
I agree that his feet have to be held very close to the fire ... after all he has asked for that to happen, hasn't he?
You agree that they are both corporate whores, but you disagree with callign Obama that--afriad you'll be kicked of the CD, or just that conflicted inside? I would be, too.
Obama is so far ahead--you shoudl be thrilled. You wantbe on the side that wins right? So, why are you not thrilled?
Sore winners--why so unhappu? Could it possibly be that, deep inside, you know that what people say about corporate Obama is true?
Both promise not to raise taxes!
That tells me it's all BS!
Tell the truth!
Lay it on the line for MSM viewers, they don't know and it's time they do.
To get out of this mess they have to raise taxes!
Actually, I think they both understand that they have to go easy on the tax increase stuff until the economy gets some legs. Of course running more deficits will in the long run make things very difficult for us.
McCain won the first dead-bate (which no one now remembers), then lost the last two, losing very big on the third and final try last night simply because he didn't lay a glove on Obama after threatening for several days to kick his ass. However, if you intend to vote for Obama don't head for the celebration just yet. Lurking out there in the smog is the real United States, or at least a good part of it: the racism, the truculence, the childishness, the ignorance and stupidity, the Muscular Christianity, the Bradley Effect, the rigged voting machines, the fumes of the you-talkin'-to-me eight years of fatal crypto-fascist rule. Many many people who intend to vote for Obama, and have had that intention for weeks or months, are going to walk into the voting booth and choose McCain. Don't buy The Fat Lady any drinks just yet.
You guys are friggin insane if you think Nader is going to be President in two weeks, yes, WAKE THE HELL UP! It ain't gonna happen. I agree, they are both corporate whores, but do you really think you will have more of a chance of getting that message out when they can tap your phones and 'disappear' your ass after declaring you a domestic terrorist? We got dangerously close to that and I don't think we are out of the woods yet, (maybe never). You people confound me, I don't know where you live or who you have to deal with in your daily life that you can be so out of touch with reality.
Stop fear mongering...what are you so afraid of.
Never buy anything from a guy who is out of breath.
Calm yourself. Youre all up in arms over a few people here. What is really going on.
I dont know---but you have to figure out why, when your candidate is so far ahead, you are still freaking out over a few Third Party voters. What is your fucking problem.
I really think you need to check this one.
Nader is too good for America, this country deserves either Obama or MCain. And I hope it chokes on both.
I can't disagree with your statement about Ralph Nader. He should have been president years ago; the country would be in much better shape now.
MR. WEINGLASS: Will you please identify yourself for the record?
THE WITNESS: My name is Abbie. I am an orphan of America.
MR. SCHULTZ: Your Honor, may the record show it is the defendant Hoffman who has taken the stand?
THE COURT: Oh, yes. It may so indicate. . . .
MR. WEINGLASS: Where do you reside?
THE WITNESS: I live in Woodstock Nation.
MR. WEINGLASS: Will you tell the Court and jury where it is?
THE WITNESS: Yes. It is a nation of alienated young people. We carry it around with us as a state of mind in the same way as the Sioux Indians carried the Sioux nation around with them. It is a nation dedicated to cooperation versus competition, to the idea that people should have better means of exchange than property or money, that there should be some other basis for human interaction. It is a nation dedicated to--
THE COURT: Just where it is, that is all.
THE WITNESS: It is in my mind and in the minds of my brothers and sisters. It does not consist of property or material but, rather, of ideas and certain values. We believe in a society--
THE COURT: No, we want the place of residence, if he has one, place of doing business, if you have a business. Nothing about philosophy or India, sir. Just where you live, if you have a place to live. Now you said Woodstock. In what state is Woodstock?
THE WITNESS: It is in the state of mind, in the mind of myself and my brothers and sisters. It is a conspiracy. Presently, the nation is held captive, in the penitentiaries of the institutions of a decaying system.
The definition of political insanity: voting the same 2 corrupt,corporate, parties in year after year after year and expecting a different result. Hey Saphne, congradulations, YOU are starting to wake up. " I agree they are both corporate, whores". I rest my case!
"... I don't know where you live or who you have to deal with in your daily life that you can be so out of touch with reality."
__________________________________________
That makes two of us.
"...You guys are friggin insane if you think Nader is going to be President in two weeks...(blah blah blah)"
- This is a silly & needless remark. The people you are advising to "WAKE THE HELL UP!" understand the situation better than you do.
Supporting Nader (or any 3rd party progressive) has nothing to do with believing he will "win the election." On the contrary, it's a matter of recognizing that focusing ONLY on candidates who can "win" has led to disaster.
"The people you are advising to "WAKE THE HELL UP!" understand the situation better than you do."
No they don't - they only self-righteously insist that they do.
I caught the last 2/3 of the debate. I watched the c-span split-screen and at one point I worried that McCain's head might explode. His crooked smile/grimace with eyes blinking like a pair of warning lights had me leaning back from the screen.
Lol! That was my impression too. McCain does not do well under pressure. All his facial quirks, mock surprise, and denigrating expressions of disbelief, make him a lousy candidate for any sort of international diplomacy. The fact that every time he gets excited he stumbles over his own tongue, insures a dismal failure in any intense negotiation. I don't understand all this likeable stuff either. I find him repulsive and the sort of person I would scrupulously avoid being stuck in a room with - he only listens long enough to form his next retort!
What gets me most though, beyond his personal quirks and flailings, is the suggestion that having been shot down and held as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, he now "knows how to win a war" let alone how to lead a nation. With all the POWs from all the wars the US has fought, we must be knee deep in Presidential Potentials!
A man convinced against his will - is of the same opinion still.
Someone needs to let McCain know that no one is much interested in another unnecessary "war" that happened 40 years ago. He claims to know how to "win a war." Is that why he crashed 4 or 5 jets? Does he know how to "win a war" by dropping bombs on innocent civilians? The man has war on the brain. Both he and Palin are dangerous to the survival of planet earth and its inhabitants, humans and animals.
And these are important issues now....how.
They speak to the man's mental and physical state.
I think that you just think he is old and unattractive. I dont care--have at it. I just do not think its relevant. Fun. But silly.
Say some good things about Obama instead.
One thing about McCain's war days that doesn't get much play was his reaction to the terrible fire on his aircraft carrier. He jumped out of his plane and hid below decks when some pilots were helping to fight the fire which killed a lot of Navy men.
A fire which it is said he caused by wet-starting his Skyhawk. Certain accounts have him heroically pulling men out of the fire. I hadn't heard the hiding below decks story, but it seems that he was the only officer immediately transferred off the Forrestal in the aftermath of the fire, which killed about 150 sailors.
I've seen conflicting stories about how the fire started. It's my understanding that McCain simply skipped the ship after the fire for some R & R, then conferred with daddy, then went for a different ship.
We will apparently never know, military secret and all that. McCain never mentions how having collaborated with Radio Hanoi emotionally affected him anymore, either.
McCane was one of those small yapping dogs lunging at your ankles, continuous, same old crap, whining . . . pathetic. Put the photo on the tomb of his election bid.
McCain looked like he was on crack. He seemed like an angry ol' patriarchal WASP last night.
It did seem like he expected the questions, and was able to keep Obama on the defensive. Yet Obama did a nice job of defending his stances.
I thought Obama could have nailed McCain a few times and chose to let him off easy.
Tell me something you latte-sipping liberals, do you want your taxes raised? Do you secretly hope the empire falls and for our troops to loose the war? We should support our president in a time of war, otherwise the terrorists will win. These colors don't run! This is a Christian nation and you intillectuals want to kill all our babies. Why do you hate America? What's wrong with off-shore drilling anyway? And why not go with more nookliar power and clean coal? Global warming is caused by the sun just getting hotter. Those scientists don't know their ass from a hole in the ground. The bible says the world was created in 6 days. Not billions of years. And it was created 4000 years ago. Noah didn't put dinosores on the ark because they were sinners. And don't worry so much about pollution, Jesus is coming back to clean things up. Don't you ever go to church? What's Joe the plumber gonna do if that black man gets elected? I hear he hangs out with terrorists. And what about Joe six pack? Hows he gonna fill the tank on his four-by if he's paying taxes? Get yer own damn health inshurance! And quit reading that damn Commie Dreams, it's just the liberal media at it's worstest. Fox news is where it's at! And I'm with Sarah, you betcha: "drill baby, drill!" U S A ! U S A ! U S A ! And by the way, if you don't vote for John McCain you might miss the rapture. You don't wanna get Left Behind with all the rest of them damn latte-sipping greenies, do ya? You've been warned!
Naah, just kidding! Back to my latte...
"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model which makes the existing model obsolete"
-R. Buckminster Fuller
Sorry, we already have a Snow Wolf.
Great satire! It sounds like it was written in rural America. BTW, do you know what happens when you spin a country record backwards? You get your wife back, you get your truck back, and you stop drinking and gambling.
Bucky has it right. Build the new society from the ground up, and that means local, not Washington.
You had me going for a minute there. Nice sarcasm.
Thanks. It was fun and therapeutic. Scary that people actually think that way. That's why it seemed real. And they keep mentioning "clean coal". That's an oxymoron, like "military intelligence".
I don't know if he ever said or wrote this or maybe it is simply obvious, but Buckminster Fuller seemed to understand that the built environment and transportation infrastructure deeply influences people view of society (or lack of) and their role in it. Looking at past US election results, and Tuesday's Canada election results for the Toronto area - where Tories won big in the outer suburbs, it seem the auto-centered, highly privatized suburban environment itself practically acts as an assembly line for selfish, almost sociopathic conservative viewpoints, while the city environment fosters a perspective of community and solidarity.
True. My dad was a prof. and serious disciple of Bucky's.
Vern, Obama is in, but not because of the little people but because the Big Business ruling class has made the choice for you. At least the Northern sector of Big Business is fed up with the Sunbelt gangsters this time around. They decided that such rampant corruption and obvious brutality of the Bush-Cheney-McCain Klan is counterproductive at this time. You're getting their candidate and not your own.
You won't get an argument from me. It could be much much worse, though and expecting a Left utopia to rise from the ashes is the mirror image of Friedman's disaster capitalism. Considering what is pitted against us, despite their present vulnerability, success would be getting a toe in the door, much less a foot.
Is that photo for real? It says it all.
I will be the first to admit that Obama has been a disapointment, but I am more than willing to give him a chance. Considing the convergence of Corp-Gov-media consolidation he managed grace under fire from the most rabid dinosaurs now sinking in a tar pit of their own garbage.