Election 2008, United States

[SAN DIEGO SUPER CHARGERS!]

I hate the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live.

1 more,

Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?
Because her father is Janet Reno.

Both McCain quotes.

 

[obi]

(protip: the rich got more in tax cuts because they pay more, the top 1% of earners pay about 40% of the taxes, and the top 50% of earners pay 97.1% of taxes - we actually have VERY progressive taxation lol)

This is misleading. It's possible for such a tax scheme you laid out to actually be regressive, and that's because wealth is not evenly distributed. A flat tax would have the top 1% paying more than 1% of total taxation because they are making more than 1% of the income (that's why they are at the top).

In the U.S., the top 1% control about 40% of the nation's wealth, the top 10% control about 70% of the nation's wealth, and so on. It ends up following the amount they pay in taxes rather closely, leading to a far less progressive system than you are implying.

You know what really blows? I just found out yesterday that I've been using the word "myriad" wrong for 25 years. There's never an "a" preceding it, nor an "of" following it. It's a standalone word, whereas your sentence would properly read:

"...since there's myriad reasons for wanting to abort."

You can say "a myriad", "a myriad of", or "myriad". Myriad originally referred to a set number (10,000). Using "a myriad" nowadays is similar to saying "a zillion". Alternately, myriad can be used similar to "many". That being said, you would say "there are", not "there's", so the full sentence would be:

"...since there are myriad reasons for wanting to abort."

 

[Misty]

I am going to make something clear: THIS IS NOT FIREBOT. If you troll, you will get infracted. If you make funny comments, you will be deleted.

 

[akuchi]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7592636.stm

well, Bristol is up the spout [possibly for the second time].. I find it very disturbing that Palin has stated that Bristol WILL keep the child and marry the father - does the girl not get a say in this?
Not to mention that Palin's views on no-contraception and abstinence have obviously been shown not to work, seeing as her own 17 year old daughter is now pregnant outside wedlock. If Palin had been decent enough to sit her daughter down and teach her how to use a condom, this would not be the case.

Sigh.

 

[Deck Knight]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7592636.stm

well, Bristol is up the spout [possibly for the second time].. I find it very disturbing that Palin has stated that Bristol WILL keep the child and marry the father - does the girl not get a say in this?
Not to mention that Palin's views on no-contraception and abstinence have obviously been shown not to work, seeing as her own 17 year old daughter is now pregnant outside wedlock. If Palin had been decent enough to sit her daughter down and teach her how to use a condom, this would not be the case.

Sigh.

First: Bristol is still a minor and still lives under her parents roof, so her parents still decide for her on most issues.

However, that quote is the easiest to rip out of context. For all we know, this is Bristol's decision entirely.

I know the whole "parents have authority over their children" thing doesn't jive with you as a feminist, but that's the way most people think it should be. Feminists don't seem to get that just because they think killing children in utero is a legitimate moral choice doesn't mean other people do. Actually, most people find the suggestion they kill their children morally repugnant. I thought abortion was a hard choice, and yet it slips off the tongue so easily... whether it was Trig or this baby.

Further, reports say Bristol is five months pregnant. Trig is five months old. Pretty darn unlikely timeline, but I know as a feminist, it is alright to blatantly lie about anyone even tangentially related to a Republican politician for political gain. Bristol's mother left the Sisterhood of Unfettered Abortion, and her family must pay for her insolence. No lie is too vile, no attack too disgusting as long as the intended target suffers.

Btw, how do you propose her daughter use a condom? And how do you know Sarah didn't make her values clear to her children? And how do you know they didn't use protection, but it failed (like it so often does)? Once again a feminist wants to get into another woman's sex life because she can't help but offer her erudite opinion. Moreover, you don't even know whether this was a "mistake" or whether her boyfriend has been around for years. But, as in all things, when there is a political point to make, the feminists will always be there to cast judgment on others. Then they will do a 180 and call the religious right judgmental within the next three sentences.

Tolerance. Diversity. Compassion. (As long as you agree with us entirely.)

 

[akuchi]

When Palin advocates abstinence-only contraception and no sex outside wedlock then her daughter gets knocked up, it's pretty obvious that it's not a working policy.

To put it as clearly as possible for your simple brain: This has shown that however vociferously you are told not to have sex outside marriage, people will. Teenagers will. Therefore it is only responsible to teach them about contraception in order to minimize the risk of unintentional pregnancy.

Now, Deck Knight, you may not be familiar with the old in-out-in-out, but girls CAN put condoms on boys; I've done it before and God has yet to smite me down for touching a man's cock outside wedlock. OR for using contraception.
There's also female condoms. The Pill. The injection, the implant, the coil, the funny doughnut-thing-that-sits-in-your-vagina-and-uses-hormones (the ring? whatever it is), the cap, spermicide..

And why on earth are you praising Palin for having a spaz kid? Her rhetoric is 'child not choice' - so she didn't make a choice, she would have had the child anyway.

And no, if Bristol wants to keep the baby, absolutely good for her, she's doing it in a decent situation at least [she's got Mummy and Daddy to pay for it] and I wish her the absolute best of luck. I know what it's like to want a child, funnily enough..

And if your child is old enough to be fucking, I think they're old enough to decide what to do with the product of said fucking.

and whilst we're on the subject, this was quite funny.
http://img364.imageshack.us/img364/4628/sarahpalinla4.png

 

[Deck Knight]

When Palin advocates abstinence-only contraception and no sex outside wedlock then her daughter gets knocked up, it's pretty obvious that it's not a working policy.

Yeah, Condoms have been so effective at preventing girls from getting knocked up/diseased. 1 in 4 girls have an STD now. Your exhaustive list of rubbers, pills, and other inhibitors to natural bodily function and sex only seem to have spread disease in the long run. They've been promoted heavily over a morals/willpower based system of resisting sex until you are ready, and the result is a plague of VD.

People screw up, it happens. I just pray that your triple-bagged protection lock sex safety bubble never fails. I hope it was worth it to screw with your physiology and deny your partner maximum pleasure all for the purpose of getting a good lay before marriage. I kind of feel bad for you, you spend so much time protecting yourself that you lose sight of the true beauty of the relationship between fertility and sex. The two are intrinsically linked, and it is far more invigorating, I think, to enjoy it without any restraints. But then, I'm an old conservative fogey, I just don't get what is so sexy about putting a rain coat on before you fuck. Sex isn't bad, it is beautiful, but it has its time and place.

And I'm not "praising" Palin for having a "spaz" kid. It is more like I'm attacking morons who think being diagnosed with Down's Syndrome should fast-track you for abortion. I'll take 1,000 "spazzes" whose highest calling in life is probably bagging groceries over a single elitist bastard who thinks they are "wasting oxygen." The Down's Syndrome kids aren't responsible for their lot in life, but the elitist bastard is responsible for his disgusting outlook.

Human beings are human beings are human beings, whether their affliction is Down's Syndrome, Asthma, Autism, Cleft Palette, Paralysis, Multiple Sclerosis, Skeletal Deformity, or anything else. The disabled are not subhumans to be discarded at a whim. It used to be that this was common knowledge, but the societal devolution into progressivism has diluted that. The "Progressive" is aptly named, for their philosophy is a cancer on morality and basic decency.

In other news:

In bonehead move, Imperialist Bush relinquishes conquered territory to indigenous inhabitants.

Imperialists everywhere are shocked at Bush's continued failure at Empire. They thought his initial promise to Iraqis to return their country to them was an elaborate ruse, but that fell apart today as he made good on his promise in al-Anbar province. Pladin Vutinstal commented "When I ran my empire, I flooded neighboring countries with passports, bought off their politicians, and then made my invasion under the pretense of ethnic defense. Bush seems not to grasp what Empire is about. Truly, truly pathetic."

To date, Emperor George W. Bush has one of the worst imperialist records in history, refusing to fly his flag even after defeating the reigning power, and spending untold resources aiding the locals without increasing overt dominion.

 

[akuchi]

ah, so obviously when I'm having sex it should be for my partner's 'maximum pleasure'. I love him dearly, and he's got a choice - either he gets me pregnant or he uses a condom, until I bother to sort out some contraception for myself.

I don't spend much time protecting myself to be honest.. Taking oh, 5 seconds to put a condom on before I fuck isn't that time-consuming.

Nor [when I get round to it again, sometime tomorrow morning] does it take more than what, 5 seconds to get stabbed in the ass with a fat-off needle, which will protect me for the next three months, and no need for a 'rain coat'.

This is entirely off the original point - if Palin is going to promote abstinence she also needs to teach about contraception.

And since when was society into spastics of any nature? In ancient times, they were left on a hillside to die, in more recent times, they were stuck in asylums and never heard of again. Society has never given half a shit about the disabled, and still doesn't.

 

[Misty]

okay the ad hominem is bad. stop.

 

[Deck Knight]

If you think 1 in 4 is bad, North America and Europe have among the lowest STD infections per capita in the world. Even the middle east, where women are veiled and adultery is punishable by stoning, has a higher rate of infection. Sub Saharan Africa has a rate 7 times higher than the US, and an HIV infection rate of 30-50%. What do these other countries have in common? No condoms, birth control or sex education because they are either unavailable or sex is looked down upon. I'd say my numbers are a little more solid than your rhetoric. Condoms would go a long way to help the epidemic in Africa as well as curbing the overpopulation that is causing masses to starve, but condoms are evil and it's better they get maximum pleasure giving while giving eachother AIDS.

"Denying your partner maximum pleasure", a great quote from an armchair misogynist who is totally out of touch with the real world, or has yet to experience it. Sorry but I'd rather not end up like Palin's own daughter, getting a good lay in before marriage AND getting knocked up. College age boys are after one thing and it is NOT babies.

You know what else happens in Africa/The Middle East that doesn't happen in Europe and North America? Massive amounts of rape. Unless you think tribal rapists are going to bother with condoms, I don't think sending the magic rubber over is going to do much. In fact, Planned Parenthood is already over there in force denouncing children as burdens. Just face the facts: The US has gotten more, not less sexually transmitted diseases per capita since the sexual devolution occurred 30-40 years ago, the state of AIDS in Africa is irrelevant to this.

Did you think up "armchair misogynist" all by yourself, or did you get help? Please, don't waste my time. Calling me a misogynist isn't an argument, its a personal attack, and not a very good one considering I'm not the one who wants to perpetuate baseless lies about a certain female Vice Presidential candidate, among other values such as not believing femininity is synonymous with weakness, or that turning the womb into an execution chamber is a mark of an advanced society.

And a small correction, akuchi: It is not society, but Marxists that don't care about the disabled. Petty dictators and thugs (usu. Marxists [see: Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong-Il, Robert Mugabe], but sometimes theocrats like Armageddonjad) always go after the weak, the vulnerable, and the defenseless first. Modern societies (not Socialist hellholes) are measured by how they treat their most defenseless, not their most powerful, and socialism's track record in that regard is deplorable. There are no rich people waiting 5 days just for a diagnosis in Britain's hospitals. Their socialized medicine is a failure, and socialized medicine is a hallmark of Marxism. You've even mentioned it yourself with your "but that can only happen in a 100% socialistic society" references. A 100% socialistic society is an impossibility. Where governments have nationalized every major industry and most minor ones, only bloodshed followed. And yet still, no one seems to have learned from the lessons of Communism. Any government that has the power to give you everything has the power to take it away, and that is routinely what happens.

The primary problem with socialism is that it has no standards and no accountability and likes it that way. It entrusts all decision making to the hands of bureaucrats and figureheads and suppresses individual thought. That is the way it has always operated and will continue to operate, because that is its nature. It views the individual as a disposable cog in the party machine, and thus can justify any evil in the name of "The Greater Good," which invariably ends up being Empire. With neither God nor Man to oppose it, a socialistic Empire enslaves all to its soulless machinery and crushes them under boot and tank. Justice is defined in relative terms and mercy is nonexistent.

I'll leave you with a quote from Uncle Joe Stalin:

"Ideas are more powerful than guns. If I don't let them have guns, why would I let them have ideas?"

Socialism and Constitutional Republicanism are incompatible. America is based on Constitutional Republicanism.

 

[tea_and_blues]

Socialism and Constitutional Republicanism are incompatible. America is based on Constitutional Republicanism.

For goodness sake DK, stop dragging this off topic, Mugabe, Chavez and Kim Jong-Il are so remote from Marx it's not even funny. Even Chavez called himself a 'revolutionary', he wasn't even close to Marxism. For a start, Mugabe, Chavez, etc are all authoritarian. Marxism is democratic!

 

[Misty]

Marxist socialism is not democratic at all. Marxist communism is stateless, so "democratic" means nothing.

 

[tea_and_blues]

Democracy does not depend on having a state, it simply means 'Government by the people' (as you know), and Marx did not propose a stateless structure, that's simply Anarchism. Marx proposed a form of representative democracy, and there is no reason why we would not define a realised Marxism world (in the unlikely event that it happened) as a 'state'. It would simply be a single state world where our typical, centralised, oligarchical government was replaced by small cooperatives of workers who, via elected representatives, did many of the jobs that our current states do. Marx and Engels were too vague, but they did not necessarily propose a dream-world without hierarchy and structure (and somehow without disorder), they merely proposed a system where it was not quite so easy for those with money and power to exploit and destroy hard-working people. I don't have the faith in humankind to be a Marxist, (How do you work with stubbornly ignorant people like DK? How often do people recover from being crazy, theocratic fascists?), but I'm also not so short-sighted that I want to dismiss Marx as a Utopian dreamer or, like DK, a villain.

Anyway, I hope I'm not dragging this off topic, I meant mainly to point out that Obama is not in any way, shape or form a Marxist, but I have got a bit sidetracked by the details. Obama is an adamant Capitalist - moreover, he is barely supportive of American workers, and he's seeking to undermine the constitutionality of marriage by implementing civil unions and thereby implying that marriages are somehow a 'religious ceremony' conducted by the state.

And yes, I'm sick of all my bracketed asides mid-sentence too.

 

[Great Sage]

Obama has hit 51% in Rasmussen tracking and 50% in Gallup tracking, with a 6-point and 8-point lead, respectively.

 

[Caelum]

Obama has hit 51% in Rasmussen tracking and 50% in Gallup tracking, with a 6-point and 8-point lead, respectively.

Not too surprising I suppose. Just came off of his convention and they usually get a 5 point, give or take 2 points, lead out of it so it's expected. (Watch I'll probably be wrong and see McCain drop 5 points out of his convention)

 

[Misty]

Yeah, I think the Palin announcement stalled Obama's bounce, but now that that's in the past, Obama's bounce is recovering.

 

[Ancien Régime]

progressively[/i] inegalitarian.

The primary flaw in your argument (and most arguments for egalitarianism) is that it judges inequality on a relative scale, rather than on the scale of "how far are you from starving to death". Therefore, even though the average working-class family is ridiculously wealthy compared to the average 19th century aristocrat, the working-class family is still considered to be on the level of serfs/slaves because there are much richer people.

Capitalism is not great at distributing wealth, but it is so ridiculously good at creating wealth that the disadvantage that it has to state planning in distributing wealth evenly is utterly obliterated. State planning divides the pie, but capitalism increases the size of the pie.

The more money and power those prime movers have, the less control others have over their lives, the prime movers become a de facto Government, one that was never voted in.

Um...I hate to break it to you but capitalism doesn't work that way. What you fail to understand is that those "prime movers" are for the most part utterly dependent on the "lower classes" - if they make themselves rich at the expense of the vast majority of the population, they essentially kill the goose who is laying the golden eggs; they're literally closing their own markets. Furthermore, in order to stay in business, they have to hire people, and if they try to impose wages below what is needed for survival, they won't work. Over time, workers gain leverage, profits increase, and competitors influence the job market, causing wages to increase.

Btw, are you saying that a Marxist society wouldn't have a constitution, as you said that "constitutional republicanism" and "marxism" are incompatible.

Anyway, the Democratic base, especially the bloggers to lay off Palin. I believe that whatever happens, elections are decided by base turnout. The GOP got rocked in 2006 largely because a (rightly) pissed off base decided not to show up for the election. But now Palin has energized the base, the GOP establishment has rallied around the McCain ticket, guys like Dobson that said they "could not and would not vote for McCain" have decided to do just that, and all the Democratic base, by insinuating that Palin was covering for her daughter with her Down's syndrome baby, by trying to attack Palin's deciding to be the VP nominee with 5 kids, by trying to attack by talking about her pregnant daughter - stuff that should absolutely be off limits in a political campaign.

If I'm the Obama campaign or the Democratic National Committee, I'd send a VERY forceful message to the HP, DailyKos, etc to "shut the fuck up" because these attacks are only going to hurt the Democratic campaign.

 

[Expert Evan]

Lately I've been watching the GOP convention, and so far I've likened to the speeches that former mayor Rudy Guiliani & Sarah Palin had given last night. It will certainly be interesting to watch John McCain speech tonight. My son was asking me, what if there is a "What if" machine where we can see in the future if either were to be elected.

In looking back at past years Presidential elections:

2000: I voted for George W. Bush based on his experience as a Texas governor versus a Vice President whom appeared as "4 more years of the same". Sound familiar?

2004: At first I was going to vote against Bush because I was disturbed by the Abu Ghraib images from Iraq and that jobs were being exported overseas to places like China and India. John Kerry's war protest in the past did not sit so well with me.

Now it is 2008: So far I like Barack Obama, but the concern I have is once he becomes President, how will he handle international crisis? Sure he'll be a great inspiration among the younger generation, but there are just so many what if scenarios. While John McCain's age was quite a concern for me, I believe he's done a great job of distancing himself from a very unpopular President, and while choosing Sarah Palin for VP was quite a risk, after all, Sarah has executive experience and I believe she has helped revived what I thought was a dead ticket going into November.

Whom I will vote for will depend on how the candidates present themselves in the next few months. If the election were held a few months ago when oil prices got out of control, Obama would have gotten my vote, but now I am seriously thinking it over more and more.

 

[Ancien Régime]

That's not the only similarity between Bush and McCain in terms of the campaign.

Compare Bush's promises to Obama's promises.

Essentially, both wanted to fix education, provide prescription drug benefits to everyone, expand Medicare and Medicaid. Both campaigned as "change" candidates, (remember compassionate "conservatism" which was really liberalism mixed with Nixonism), and both made lofty, psuedo-inspiring speeches.

Look at their tax policies. Bush cut taxes and increased spending.

Obama promises to...cut taxes (granted cutting them for the people who bear the smallest tax burden while increasing them for the people who bear the largest) and increase spending.

(oh btw i just realized that "progressve taxation" was neutral at best and regressive at worst, because companies will lower wages and increase the price of goods in response to greater taxation, so the tax burden of progressive taxation is actually shifted to the middle/lower class)

 

[evan]

Honestly I am still baffled at the people who still see McCain as distanced from the President. Admittedly, I used to be one of you. I loved the idea of McCain as the nominee when he first won it. But as time has gone on he has gone more and more over to President Bush's policies and ideals. Hell, he even voted against legislation to ban waterboarding after denouncing it as cruel torture! I can understand if you think that McCain's new policies are better than his old. I can respect that you made that decision, but hanging on to the old image just reflects a resistance to changing your mind on someone. If he has changed, we should adjust our mental image of him accordingly.

And I didn't even mention McCain voting with Bush over 90% of the time. I just can't believe that anyone can actually see significant differences between the two right now.

 

[Great Sage]

Palin's speech is raising a lot of money...




for Obama, who's on track to raise 10 million bucks before McCain speaks tonight.

 

[aROARah VyePer]

The McCain/Palin ticket is, by far, the best ticket we've seen since Ronald Reagan.

Obama is going to lose!

 

[SAN DIEGO SUPER CHARGERS!]

I can't believe they played that 9/11 video.

 

[Expert Evan]

Between now and November, it's now up to the debates for these candidates to get their points across. I thought McCain & Palin did as admireable a job to present themselves as they did as my vote is now veering towards the McCain/Palin ticket. If you asked me 3 months ago when the oil prices were out of control, I would've have said Obama was my vote then. Things can change, and like my son had suggested, there should be a "what if" machine to see what would happen if either got elected.

What will of course be more important when/if either gets elected is whom they will choose to appoint in their cabinets as that can make or break their Presidency as it did to others in the past. McCain gets my vote for experience, but can Obama if he gets elected appoint some people to his cabinet to make up for his weaknesses? Only time will tell for sure.

 

[Ancien Régime]

That "90%" number is absolutely meaningless.

Bush has never had a vote in the Senate, and he has not proposed every piece of legislation in the Senate. He may have a "stated position" but that does not apply in every case.

And yes McCain has opposed the Republicans on key issues, but he's still a conservative Republican - he's going to tend to vote with his party, just as Obama will tend to vote with his.

However, Bush = / = Republicans (by that logic budget-cutting tax-lowering Fed-destroying Ron Paul would be closer to Bush than any Democrat), and the attempt to paint the issue as Bush = Republicans is a pathetic attempt to preclude any serious debate by just forcing it into people's minds that McCain will be "four more years of Bush".

Granted, McCain has flip-flopped on a good deal of key issues to go more to the GOP party line, though with somewhat arguably okay reasons:

waterboarding, which he said was torture and voted to keep it legal - that's the one I have a big problem with.

Bush tax cuts though granted he was for them in the beginning provided that spending was cut equal to the cuts, which didn't happen

McCain-Feingold - though I think everyone regardless of affiliation believes it is a fucking mess of a law to begin with and arguably made the problem worse - hindsight is 20/20 right?

(interestingly, one of the times Obama actually did vote with the GOP was on a tax break on oil companies - not that I oppose tax breaks to anyone on principle assuming we cut spending but Obama's campaign has emphasized "evil oil companies" so much that such a vote seems at odds with his message)

If anything, that number shows how non-partisan McCain is - over the past 8 years he has voted with his party about 88% of the time - Obama votes with his party (the majority party in the most unpopular congress in history btw!) 96% of the time.

Like I said, McCain is a punt from your own end zone. He won't fix the problems with the country; he might make incremental progress but probably not, but considering how far left both Obama/Biden (1st and 3rd most liberal members of the Senate) are, and how far left the Senate is with Pelosi and Reid, an Obama presidency would be a disaster, and a disaster that would be hard to fix (despite the grease fire that is European nationalized medicine they still won't get rid of it, and as Reagan found, once government programs get going, they're hard to stop.)

Obama's message, again, looks a LOT like George Bush's message. Their message was basically "we're going to bring hope and change to the masses, and use increased government spending to do it". And huge tax cuts to boot! (tax cuts are good but you HAVE to decrease spending). Compare "change we can believe in" with "compassionate conservatism" - pretty much the same basis - more govermnent plastered with a happy face.