2008 Presidential Election

[Sanguinius]

Should we take that as genuine insight or biting sarcasm? =)

In any case, I suppose we'll find out on election day if we're looking for the good shepherd, or if we're just sheep.

Well as the comment itself shows people can, and do interpret things however they like. But I think it's important to distinguish between generalties and universal truth's. When you say something like American people or the Iraq people or whoever people you make a general statement not a universal one, or at least
I do. If it's any consolation for wounded pride (If there is any) I wouldn't rate any other country as being particularly better than the US, in either a practical or moral sense, just different in their flaws.

Anyway, recent events sure make things more interesting, hard to say who benefits most electorally from the recent financial problems but it'll be interesting to see if either candidate says they're going to alter their plans for what they'd do in light of recent events. If not we'll know how detached from reality their platform positions are, Bush could well double the size of the National debt by the time he leaves office and it was considerable enough as it was several months ago.

P.S. Just to add that even within America people think similar things to what i wrote above, here's one source of the problem above.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx4pN-aiofw

 

[Griffith]

http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-obama-race

Excuse me while I throw up.

 

[Sanguinius]

http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-obama-race

Excuse me while I throw up.

Racism is never a nice thing to see but I wouldn't worry too much about these kinds of reports. They exist to serve two functions 1. Typical scare stories that most media outlets love and 2. To give a cover story to Obama supporters if he loses. No report that I'm aware of looks at the opposite, how many people support Obama mainly or solely or even in part, BECAUSE of his race. There's lots of talk about people not voting for Obama because of his race, but with most in the media talking about how defining and historic it would be for a Black man to be President on the 45th anniversary of martin Luther King's "I have a Dream speech" how many are voting for him because of that? Do you throw up at that racism? I can see the difference between an inherently hostile and belittling racism and a promotional racism but they're both racist. It doesn't matter whether you make a distinction based on race to the detriment or benefit of a person or people, distinction based on race is racism.

 

[Griffith]

Agreed, the people voting for Obama because he's black are just as bad the people voting against him for the same reason, the difference is they probably aren't going to swing this election (using, say, African Americans as an example group voting for him because he's black, a group likely far outnumbered by the whites voting against him because of it). It's the same as the women out there voting with their vaginas for Palin or against Obama because of some misplaced anger, it's just an awful way to vote. I honestly think very few people understand the importance of this concerning the supreme court, it's like the most important, yet completely undiscussed issue of this election.

 

[avidwriter]

It’s sad that most people with vote for McCain because he's white and or the fact that Palin is all over the news. It’s bad publicity but who doesn't know who she is. She'll be in the minds of the voters when they vote. Also too many in this country are racists or at least have enough mental short comings about black people that they'd be more then a little comprehensive about voting for Obama. You do have to realize this is the same generation/people who voted for Bush.... I saw we jump ship to Canada. That’s my plan....I hear McCain wants the draft back. If I'll be eligible for that I'm out. Peace.

 

[SaiyajinNoOuji]

That’s my plan....I hear McCain wants the draft back. If I'll be eligible for that I'm out. Peace.

One of the many reasons why I am glad I live in Japan...that and iv already completed my full military duty.

In any case I hate people because they are dumb. With that, how could people vote for Palin and her party when for the most part, coming from news agencies, she is the most incompetent nominee out of the lot.

Although I am sure she wasn't the first to nor will she be the last to use commercial email (yahoo, gmail, etc) to conduct government business, she is one that has been caught and had her account compromised since someone figured out what the answer to her secret question was.

This stuff has been all over the internet in the various news sites so how could people still want to vote for her? She has fucking Matt Damon dogging on her http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anxkrm9uEJk .

What the christ

 

[Sanguinius]

Agreed, the people voting for Obama because he's black are just as bad the people voting against him for the same reason, the difference is they probably aren't going to swing this election (using, say, African Americans as an example group voting for him because he's black, a group likely far outnumbered by the whites voting against him because of it). It's the same as the women out there voting with their vaginas for Palin or against Obama because of some misplaced anger, it's just an awful way to vote. I honestly think very few people understand the importance of this concerning the supreme court, it's like the most important, yet completely undiscussed issue of this election.

Well correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the President merely nominate people to the Supreme Court, and they require the approval of Congress to actually get onto the Supreme Court?

Plus I think you need to open your eyes to your own partisanship, you say about woman voting for Palin because of their vagina's, but how many did that for Clinton? You also act like the only people who will be swayed by Obama's race in a positive way are Black's, certainly they'll probably have the most positive sway but from what I've read a lot of white's are swayed TO Obama because of his race. Take the media for instance, a lot in the media make a big deal of of his race in a positive way, and they're mostly white. If anything from what I've seen the most negative racial grouping for Obama is from latino's, they generally support Democrats but because of a lot of conflict between their communities and black communities a lot have a problem voting for a Black candidate.

Now I don't know how many whites that're actually going to vote will be swayed by this issue, even the article you show says that even some of those it says have "racist" views are still going to vote Obama. I've not seen any studies try and measure what the NET affect of racial attitudes are and how big they're in swaying people from one candidate to the other in relation to all other considerations. If you know of such a study please point it out to me.

Also, again update me if I'm mistaken, but aren't both Obama and McCain being quiet and vague even for them about this financial problem at the moment?

 

[Guts intestines]

http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-obama-race

Excuse me while I throw up.

Its not surpising, but I agree with a lot of what Sanguinius is saying, although a little reverse racism wouldn't be bad in my eyes because a). it'd be about damn time for a black president and b.) it's not like it's helping an incompetent guy.

I hear McCain wants the draft back. If I'll be eligible for that I'm out. Peace.

I'm 18, so I just shat a brick (shitted?) why God, WHY!

 

[Sanguinius]

Its not surpising, but I agree with a lot of what Sanguinius is saying, although a little reverse racism wouldn't be bad in my eyes because a). it'd be about damn time for a black president and b.) it's not like it's helping an incompetent guy.


I'm 18, so I just shat a brick (shitted?) why God, WHY!

The opposite of racism is not being racist, discriminating in favour of someone because of their race, is racism, pure and simple. You can't promote someone because of their race without holding someone else back because of their race. There's no such thing as positive racism, all racism discriminates unfairly against some people while giving an undeserved advantage to others. Also your logic of "it's not helping an incompetent guy" is absurd, competent people don't require unfair advantages, if someone can only win in a rigged game it's hard to say they're competent.

Also, don't just believe what people post up on here, try and research some things for yourself, McCain isn't calling for the re-introduction of conscription. He has enough bad ideas of his own without making up new ones.

 

[Griffith]

Well correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the President merely nominate people to the Supreme Court, and they require the approval of Congress to actually get onto the Supreme Court?

That is true, but obviously the person nominating, or the party nominating, dictates the type of person up for the job in the first place, they dictate the tone. Nominees have to be approved, but only those nominated are even eligible for approval, giving the greatest amount of control to the nominators.

Plus I think you need to open your eyes to your own partisanship, you say about woman voting for Palin because of their vagina's, but how many did that for Clinton?

My point was that those voting for Clinton merely over gender would vote for Palin for the same reason because Obama is closest to Clinton politically. It makes no sense for a Clinton supporter to vote for anyone but Obama unless their ideals aren't worth as much as genitalia. As for my own partisanship, I'm a registered Republican and was fine with any of Clinton, McCain, or Obama. Remember, my only criteria is that they can talk, but regardless of the person being elected, I'd like to see them elected with purpose or a mandate, namely for the right reasons, and not the wrong ones, to put it idealistically.

You also act like the only people who will be swayed by Obama's race in a positive way are Black's

Actually, I went out of my way not to make that distinction.

Take the media for instance, a lot in the media make a big deal of of his race in a positive way, and they're mostly white. If anything from what I've seen the most negative racial grouping for Obama is from latino's, they generally support Democrats but because of a lot of conflict between their communities and black communities a lot have a problem voting for a Black candidate.

As for the rest, if that's what you choose to believe, so be it, I hope you're right. I do believe there is a legitimate argument to be made there about a symbolic need for change and progress, an expression of it if nothing else. Of Latinos there are a few groups, the older male voters will be swayed to McCain over his military record, women, especially Catholics will be swayed to McCain because of Palin, and legitly so because of their beliefs. The youth will be swayed to Obama, whether or not the youth gets out and votes enough to make a difference is yet to be seen. Everyone focuses on Florida, but the difference between victory and defeat for Gore in 2000 was in New Hampshire where enough young college age voters went for Nadir, swinging the election for Bush.

Now I don't know how many whites that are actually going to vote will be swayed by this issue, even the article you show says that even some of those it says have "racist" views are still going to vote Obama. I've not seen any studies try and measure what the NET affect of racial attitudes are and how big they're in swaying people from one candidate to the other in relation to all other considerations. If you know of such a study please point it out to me.

Well, I admit to being a white with "racist" views myself who is most likely going to vote Obama. I do believe it has a rather large effect though, mostly because I believe this issue for many trumps everything else. In many ways, people vote for the wrong reasons, where they should vote for self-interest, they instead vote for a more romantic notion whether that be race, relateability, or the height of the candidate. Arguably legit reasons in their own right, but still, not related to the issues where Obama is 20% ahead of McCain in polls yet basically tied still...

Also, again update me if I'm mistaken, but aren't both Obama and McCain being quiet and vague even for them about this financial problem at the moment?

They are, but to be even more honest, I think neither has any idea how to truly solve this problem, but both will pretend they do. They're not economists and McCain was simply being the most honest at the time when he stated so and that he doesn't truly understand economics. They don't give out Noble prizes in the field for nothing. I do believe either candidate will make great strides to improve America's standing and stability in the world if elected.

 

[Sanguinius]

That is true, but obviously the person nominating, or the party nominating, dictates the type of person up for the job in the first place, they dictate the tone. Nominees have to be approved, but only those nominated are even eligible for approval, giving the greatest amount of control to the nominators.

I do appreciate that but the President is not the be all and end all, the Congress can turn down as many nominees as they want so I wouldn't underestimate their power. Especially when considering as I've said before, that the Democrats look set to sweep both houses of Congress and maybe even get a filibustering majority.

My point was that those voting for Clinton merely over gender would vote for Palin for the same reason because Obama is closest to Clinton politically. It makes no sense for a Clinton supporter to vote for anyone but Obama unless their ideals aren't worth as much as genitalia. As for my own partisanship, I'm a registered Republican and was fine with any of Clinton, McCain, or Obama. Remember, my only criteria is that they can talk, but regardless of the person being elected, I'd like to see them elected with purpose or a mandate, namely for the right reasons, and not the wrong ones, to put it idealistically.

Calling it partisanship was too harsh of a phrasing, basically what I meant was I don't fundamentally see the Republicans doing anything with regards to playing the gender card or other card that democrats don't generally play themselves.

They are, but to be even more honest, I think neither has any idea how to truly solve this problem, but both will pretend they do. They're not economists and McCain was simply being the most honest at the time when he stated so and that he doesn't truly understand economics. They don't give out Noble prizes in the field for nothing. I do believe either candidate will make great strides to improve America's standing and stability in the world if elected.

I'd agree with that, both seem extremely ignorant about even the most basic ideas in economics. Although this worries me more than it did even a short while ago, with the current financial crises at the moment a lot of comparisons are being made to the 1929 Wall Street crash. In some ways this worries me not so much in the event itself but in what came after it. The Wall Street Crash didn't cause the Great Depression, it's how politicans reacted to it that caused that. One of the big ways they acted after that was by going protectionist, and maybe it's just rhetoric but the Democrats are sounding quite protectionist. This becomes even worse if the Democrats do get a filibustering majority in Congress because it effectively means the Republican opposition is powerless if the democrats remain united. If they have the Presidency too this means the divergence of opinion will be solely within the Democrat party and it'll be between "moderate" democrats and more extreme ones. If this happens I think there'll be a far greater risk that they could go far down the road of tariffs, quotas and subsidies in trade and unionisation in the labour markets and wholesale regulation and direction of the economy at large. Add onto this the possibility of large increases in government expenditure most likely paid for by 1. tax increase 2. more debt and possibly worst of all creating credit from the central bank (simply put printing money). I am worried about this, if the democrats sweep the board and are effectively unchecked at the federal level that scenario whilst not assured is definitely a possibility.

So now that you have some idea of what I worry about, sorry if the "change" of having someone with a different skin colour doesn't fill me with rapturous joy.

 

[Lithrael]

Palin is so horrible. So horrible. So very, very horrible. And I like Obama okay. So there's me.

San, it's true 'reverse racism' is just racism. But while most lower and middle class white folks are indeed on pretty equal footing with blacks, the upper class is pretty thoroughly dominated by whites, and that creates a de facto race advantage for them in that area. Sure there are some rich black people in America - but actual wealth? That's almost entirely a white thing. And it tends to keep power in the hands of its friends. Of course people outside of that system CAN rise through it anyway, but to deny the huge advantage of coming from wealth would be silly IMO.

Two wrongs don't make a right of course, but that status quo kind of blows IMO and I would like to see it change.

 

[newdoom3]

Palin is so horrible. So horrible. So very, very horrible. And I like Obama okay. So there's me.

San, it's true 'reverse racism' is just racism. But while most lower and middle class white folks are indeed on pretty equal footing with blacks, the upper class is pretty thoroughly dominated by whites, and that creates a de facto race advantage for them in that area. Sure there are some rich black people in America - but actual wealth? That's almost entirely a white thing. And it tends to keep power in the hands of its friends. Of course people outside of that system CAN rise through it anyway, but to deny the huge advantage of coming from wealth would be silly IMO.

Two wrongs don't make a right of course, but that status quo kind of blows IMO and I would like to see it change.

*bows*

 

[Griffith]

I do appreciate that but the President is not the be all and end all, the Congress can turn down as many nominees as they want so I wouldn't underestimate their power. Especially when considering as I've said before, that the Democrats look set to sweep both houses of Congress and maybe even get a filibustering majority.

I was just stating how it generally works, simply put, the President more or less defines the makeup of the supreme court. Even with an opposition congress, the burden of compromise is greater on them than the President. The court is already leaning "conservative" now, get McCain and Palin in there and who knows, but it's at a major fork in the road. All these dorks that are entertained by the novelty of Obama or Palin, or similar election nonsense, seem to be missing that major point.

Just nobody complain to me when Roe v. Wade is overturned, marriage is defined in the constitution, and the original Bill of Rights is changed to the 10 commandments. And yes, I'm being facetious. =)

I'd agree with that, both seem extremely ignorant about even the most basic ideas in economics. Although this worries me more than it did even a short while ago, with the current financial crises at the moment a lot of comparisons are being made to the 1929 Wall Street crash. In some ways this worries me not so much in the event itself but in what came after it. The Wall Street Crash didn't cause the Great Depression, it's how politicans reacted to it that caused that. One of the big ways they acted after that was by going protectionist, and maybe it's just rhetoric but the Democrats are sounding quite protectionist. This becomes even worse if the Democrats do get a filibustering majority in Congress because it effectively means the Republican opposition is powerless if the democrats remain united. If they have the Presidency too this means the divergence of opinion will be solely within the Democrat party and it'll be between "moderate" democrats and more extreme ones. If this happens I think there'll be a far greater risk that they could go far down the road of tariffs, quotas and subsidies in trade and unionisation in the labour markets and wholesale regulation and direction of the economy at large. Add onto this the possibility of large increases in government expenditure most likely paid for by 1. tax increase 2. more debt and possibly worst of all creating credit from the central bank (simply put printing money). I am worried about this, if the democrats sweep the board and are effectively unchecked at the federal level that scenario whilst not assured is definitely a possibility.

It's already begun, and I don't see why you think the Republican party, as it currently stands, is going to do any differently as the Dems, all they seem to agree on is that they don't know what they're doing on this issue but are going to move forward anyway with whatever sounds good in the short term. Just add it to the $55 trillion tab!

So now that you have some idea of what I worry about, sorry if the "change" of having someone with a different skin colour doesn't fill me with rapturous joy.

Oh, and here I thought you were just being some kind of jerk or something.

 

[Walter]

Our 2 favorite politicians have had a very busy past 2 weeks. There's plenty of items to alter their positions on as the wind keeps changes from one crises to another: Ike smashing the coast, the fuel distribution dilemma in the South (I live here, and I can honestly say it's pandemonium), the stock falling to its lowest point in 7 years, and these scary Fed buyouts. Poor Bushie didn't do anything but hang his head and let Bernanke deliver the goods.

Oh yeah, and I have a RADICAL idea when it comes to the recent stock and industry crisis: Let the market economy do its job and bulldoze anyone that fucks up.

[/soap box]

 

[Sanguinius]

I was just stating how it generally works, simply put, the President more or less defines the makeup of the supreme court. Even with an opposition congress, the burden of compromise is greater on them than the President. The court is already leaning "conservative" now, get McCain and Palin in there and who knows, but it's at a major fork in the road. All these dorks that are entertained by the novelty of Obama or Palin, or similar election nonsense, seem to be missing that major point.

Just nobody complain to me when Roe v. Wade is overturned, marriage is defined in the constitution, and the original Bill of Rights is changed to the 10 commandments. And yes, I'm being facetious. =)

It's already begun, and I don't see why you think the Republican party, as it currently stands, is going to do any differently as the Dems, all they seem to agree on is that they don't know what they're doing on this issue but are going to move forward anyway with whatever sounds good in the short term. Just add it to the $55 trillion tab!

Oh, and here I thought you were just being some kind of jerk or something.

You're missing my point, I don't think the Republicans in Congress or the McCain ticket would make a better job of it. My point is that neither should have free reign by holding BOTH houses of Congress AND the Presidency at the same time. Given that both are appalling, giving one virtually unchecked power of the Federal Government is a recipe for disaster. If the Republicans looked set to sweep Congress as the Democrats are looking set to sweep it now, I'd definitely be hoping Obama got the Presidency between him and McCain. The best outcome with the appalling lineup is divided government, it's that only thing that has a chance of mitigating the harm they both can cause. Ask yourself, what major new harm has Bush been able to do since the Democrats won Congress?

In my view it's even worse than you probably think Walter, they're bailing out the companies that screwed up whilst those that are doing okay or have already made harsh corrections to set themselves up again will gain no benefit. It helps those that screwed up most and that have done least to fix their problems since they emerged. Even worse than that, it's being presented as a case of utter market failure and being used as an example for massive and permanent government intervention. I posted earlier about how there was a risk that this could be added to the list of "wars" that all Western Developed countries seem to fighting, and that are being used to increase the security and economic power of government in our societies. I've actually just heard senior politicans speak on this very issue in this country (obviously they spoke of it as a positive thing) i.e. the big recent wars on "Terrorism" "Climate Change" and now "Financial Stability" in addition to the long standing wars on Poverty and Drugs etc. Francis Fukuyama must be punching himself harder everyday at how badly he misread things.

 

[Griffith]

You're missing my point, I don't think the Republicans in Congress or the McCain ticket would make a better job of it. My point is that neither should have free reign by holding BOTH houses of Congress AND the Presidency at the same time.

Well, that's not what you said just before, but yes you've presented this this theory before, which I happen to agree with most times; unfortunately, concerning this issue, it seems to be the only thing they're on the same page about and they're going forward with it anyway.

Given that both are appalling, giving one virtually unchecked power of the Federal Government is a recipe for disaster. If the Republicans looked set to sweep Congress as the Democrats are looking set to sweep it now, I'd definitely be hoping Obama got the Presidency between him and McCain. The best outcome with the appalling lineup is divided government, it's that only thing that has a chance of mitigating the harm they both can cause. Ask yourself, what major new harm has Bush been able to do since the Democrats won Congress?

Well, he could still double our already record debt before he leaves office! Anyway, I'm all for gridlock and treading water, but while were looking at it through that kind simplification, I feel the supreme court issue is bigger at the moment. Unlike Congress, you can't just vote them out if you don't like what they do. I'll also say personally I wouldn't let the makeup of Congress dictate who I want for President but the other way around, if you want to play the balance game. Though that might seem counterintuitive due to the importance/power of Congress, like I said, you can always vote them out. That's usually how it works out to, like what happened to Clinton in '94. As a matter of fact, it's only been since then that the houses have been Republican controlled, since the 1930's the Dems have more or less dominated Congress.

Also, it's not like they can do anything significantly good with divided power either if you're into that sort of romantic notion.

 

[Walter]

Uh oh, I don't like cross-posting during an active topic, but I already spent 5 minutes on the post. So netiquette BE DAMNED.

It helps those that screwed up most and that have done least to fix their problems since they emerged.

Well, I'm no expert, but I do know the government is taking majority ownership of AIG, to which they lended $85 M. The fed is also charging an 11% interest rate to pay this loan back. Meaning in the long-term, the company won't exist anymore, as we know it. It's just keeping its name now so the gov can repair and redistribute the "toxic" shares. The Fed has also instated their own CEO to help resell these toxic shares (hey guys, get em while theyre still greasy!)

Tell you what though, the CEOs that obliterated the market should get a name change, pronto.

 

[Sanguinius]

Well, that's not what you said just before, but yes you've presented this this theory before, which I happen to agree with most times; unfortunately, concerning this issue, it seems to be the only thing they're on the same page about and they're going forward with it anyway.

That's what I thought all along, if it seemed different you misread me, as you sometimes point out that I seem to misread what you write. It can't guarantee that nothing bad will happen of course, the underlying logic of the idea is that both are equally unworthy of office but just in different ways. Therefore, you try and limit what they can do, it's not an ideal system by any stretch of the imagination, it's a system of crises management. It's an undesirable response to an undesirable situation.

Well, he could still double our already record debt before he leaves office! Anyway, I'm all for gridlock and treading water, but while were looking at it through that kind simplification, I feel the supreme court issue is bigger at the moment. Unlike Congress, you can't just vote them out if you don't like what they do. I'll also say personally I wouldn't let the makeup of Congress dictate who I want for President but the other way around, if you want to play the balance game. Though that might seem counterintuitive due to the importance/power of Congress, like I said, you can always vote them out. That's usually how it works out to, like what happened to Clinton in '94. As a matter of fact, it's only been since then that the houses have been Republican controlled, since the 1930's the Dems have more or less dominated Congress.

Well personally I think Democrat Candidates do tend to be better for the office of President, but in this election the Congressional elections are not in doubt, the Democrats will win those, full stop. The Presidencial elections on the other hand are genuinely contestible, so whatever way you'd prefer to strike the balance the game this turn is largely pre-set.

Also, it's not like they can do anything significantly good with divided power either if you're into that sort of romantic notion.

Well my premise is that both parties and the individuals who dominate them are equally unworthy of holding power because they both have serious, though in part, different, flaws. So I'm saying they wouldn't do much good if they have unchecked power, and they would do a lot of harm, especially in the long term.

@ Walter
What I was mainly refering to was the new plan they have, this 700 Billion odd bail out package they're planning, not what they've already done.

 

[Griffith]

Well personally I think Democrat Candidates do tend to be better for the office of President, but in this election the Congressional elections are not in doubt, the Democrats will win those, full stop. The Presidencial elections on the other hand are genuinely contestible, so whatever way you'd prefer to strike the balance the game this turn is largely pre-set.

That's true, but if Obama and the Dems get in power and fuck things further, those seats'll turn Republican faster than we can imagine. McCain does have an advantage there in that he won't necessarily feel as much pressure not to do something unpopular if things have to get worse in order to get better, whereas the Democrats have something to lose. That's also a problem with the people, even if politicians wanted to do the "right" thing and did have good sensible plans, they get ripped if it isn't something simple and instantly gratifying. Then again, not many of them have the fortitude or leadership to be honest about such plans and get the people on their side.

Well my premise is that both parties and the individuals who dominate them are equally unworthy of holding power because they both have serious, though in part, different, flaws. So I'm saying they wouldn't do much good if they have unchecked power, and they would do a lot of harm, especially in the long term.

Well, the potential is certainly there now for them to fuck things up beyond repair, I'll give you that. It's like you said about it suddenly being more worrisome, whereas before I thought it was a net gain with either, now the situation is such that neither may be qualified to do any good with it.

 

[Sanguinius]

That's true, but if Obama and the Dems get in power and fuck things further, those seats'll turn Republican faster than we can imagine. McCain does have an advantage there in that he won't necessarily feel as much pressure not to do something unpopular if things have to get worse in order to get better, whereas the Democrats have something to lose. That's also a problem with the people, even if politicians wanted to do the "right" thing and did have good sensible plans, they get ripped if it isn't something simple and instantly gratifying. Then again, not many of them have the fortitude or leadership to be honest about such plans and get the people on their side.

Well, the potential is certainly there now for them to fuck things up beyond repair, I'll give you that. It's like you said about it suddenly being more worrisome, whereas before I thought it was a net gain with either, now the situation is such that neither may be qualified to do any good with it.

That's the original worry I've had with Bush, as I posted ages ago in the Ron Paul section, (I think he is precisely the kind of guy who you describe, and I now think he's even more right and knew of the problems better than I did before and I think you know I think he'd a pretty good idea of the problems then) that after Bush people would swing strongly to the Democrats, and then we'd get all the flaws and excesses of the Democrats, and then the people would turn on them. Then it'd be back to all the flaws and excesses of the Republicans and so on. I used the phrase pendulum politics, if you can remember me describing this scenario (it's a very bad scenario).

 

[Guts intestines]

The opposite of racism is not being racist, discriminating in favour of someone because of their race, is racism, pure and simple. You can't promote someone because of their race without holding someone else back because of their race. There's no such thing as positive racism, all racism discriminates unfairly against some people while giving an undeserved advantage to others. Also your logic of "it's not helping an incompetent guy" is absurd, competent people don't require unfair advantages, if someone can only win in a rigged game it's hard to say they're competent.

Also, don't just believe what people post up on here, try and research some things for yourself, McCain isn't calling for the re-introduction of conscription. He has enough bad ideas of his own without making up new ones.

Damn, I hate having to respond to things late. Anyway, I didn't say that this was the opposite of racist, I said it's "reverse racism" its still being racist but in this instance it is not the same as reverse racism when it comes to something such as affirmative action. What you should be raising as an issue is the fact that Americans don't actually research candidates stance on issues (or candidates in general) before they decide which one they'll vote for, most Americans will vote by party stance long before they vote by determining who's the better candidate. So for that very reason reverse racism will have very little effect on swaying any voters towards Obama due simply to the fact that partisanship is the number one deciding factor of votes in the country. If John Doe voted democrat in the last election it is almost guaranteed he'll be voting democrat again this election, the voter who changes parties is rare, many people have been voting for the same party for a long time and without a pretty major motivation to change, their children will more than likely vote the same way as did their parents. The funny thing about the Obama situation is that most of the people who would vote for him because he's black are as liberal as the guilt that they feel, so more often than not they were going to vote democrat anyway. Now I could see what you were suggesting being more of an issue had Obama been a republican because then you would have a conflict within the black community of: a). vote for Obama and by doing so vote republican, or b). vote democrat as have a majority of blacks in the past. I'm black and more than likely would vote democrat before I vote to try to put a black guy in office, but usually a black candidate is a democrat so it really doesn't change much. So for these reasons the whole imcompetent comment was merely a jest, I was trying to come off more sarcastic than I guess the comment let on.

The fear of the draft was a joke too, there has been talk of Bush trying to reinstate it in the past and I didn't jump out of any windows, there would atleast be a considerable amount of protest to even hint that there was a chance of it happening.

 

[Sanguinius]

Damn, I hate having to respond to things late. Anyway, I didn't say that this was the opposite of racist, I said it's "reverse racism" its still being racist but in this instance it is not the same as reverse racism when it comes to something such as affirmative action. What you should be raising as an issue is the fact that Americans don't actually research candidates stance on issues (or candidates in general) before they decide which one they'll vote for, most Americans will vote by party stance long before they vote by determining who's the better candidate. So for that very reason reverse racism will have very little effect on swaying any voters towards Obama due simply to the fact that partisanship is the number one deciding factor of votes in the country. If John Doe voted democrat in the last election it is almost guaranteed he'll be voting democrat again this election, the voter who changes parties is rare, many people have been voting for the same party for a long time and without a pretty major motivation to change, their children will more than likely vote the same way as did their parents. The funny thing about the Obama situation is that most of the people who would vote for him because he's black are as liberal as the guilt that they feel, so more often than not they were going to vote democrat anyway. Now I could see what you were suggesting being more of an issue had Obama been a republican because then you would have a conflict within the black community of: a). vote for Obama and by doing so vote republican, or b). vote democrat as have a majority of blacks in the past. I'm black and more than likely would vote democrat before I vote to try to put a black guy in office, but usually a black candidate is a democrat so it really doesn't change much. So for these reasons the whole imcompetent comment was merely a jest, I was trying to come off more sarcastic than I guess the comment let on.

The fear of the draft was a joke too, there has been talk of Bush trying to reinstate it in the past and I didn't jump out of any windows, there would atleast be a considerable amount of protest to even hint that there was a chance of it happening.

You still keep using this totally made up phrase of "reverse racism" the "reverse" or opposite of racism is not being racist, your reverse racism is racism, again, pure and simple. The only thing "reverse" about it, is that you're assuming racism is where white people are racist to non-white people and that if you're racist in favour of Blacks, that this is the opposite or "reverse" of their "white racism". That logic is in itself racist and the phrase "reverse racism" is still nonsensical. Also, whether some anti-bushites make up some scare stories about Bush bringing back conscription or do it for McCain I don't see how it matters, it's a made up story. I might as well make up a story about how Obama is going to nationalise all industry, and then say I don't worry about it too much as there're no riots about it yet so he can't have much chance of getting his way on this.

 

[Griffith]

http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/105825/Experts-See-a-Need-for-Punitive-Action-in-Bailout

The longer they talk about it and don't do anything rash, the better. Hopefully they get it right.

 

[Guts intestines]

You still keep using this totally made up phrase of "reverse racism" the "reverse" or opposite of racism is not being racist, your reverse racism is racism, again, pure and simple. The only thing "reverse" about it, is that you're assuming racism is where white people are racist to non-white people and that if you're racist in favour of Blacks, that this is the opposite or "reverse" of their "white racism". That logic is in itself racist and the phrase "reverse racism" is still nonsensical. Also, whether some anti-bushites make up some scare stories about Bush bringing back conscription or do it for McCain I don't see how it matters, it's a made up story. I might as well make up a story about how Obama is going to nationalise all industry, and then say I don't worry about it too much as there're no riots about it yet so he can't have much chance of getting his way on this.

Huh, did I ever say I coined the phrase "reverse racism"? No, that's why I used the quotation marks, it's actually been around for years, hell it was even Rob Schneiders the animal. It just means instead of being racist in a detrimental fashion in which you discriminate by race, you instead try to go out of your way to assist them because of their race, and I even said that it is racist: "I didn't say that this was the opposite of racist, I said it's 'reverse racism' its still being racist". Secondly, don't put words in my mouth, I never said racism is only from whites to everyone else, racism can be from black to white, hispanic to black, asian to white, etc. Again you misconstrue/misinterpret what I was saying, my point about the talk of the draft with Bush was that there was little proof, and if it was true he wasn't doing anything to make it happen. My exact words were "there has been talk of Bush trying to reinstate it in the past and I didn't jump out of any windows", by that statement alone you should have been able to tell I wasn't taking the talk seriously, I was merely saying that the talk existed, period.