# US Election - Pick Your Winner



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

I for one will be glad when this one is over. 18 months of constant coverage is enough. Pick your winner. Comment on the effects of that winner on the US and the rest of the world.


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

GuitarsCanada said:


> I for one will be glad when this one is over. 18 months of constant coverage is enough. Pick your winner. Comment on the effects of that winner on the US and the rest of the world.


I know it's a bit crazy, but it's a whole lot more interesting than ours and like it or not, it effects us too.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

:food-smiley-004: it is the best spectator sport the US exports for our viewing pleasure.

/me Oh and what it means? More of the same, after all, it is the US government...


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

The McCain campaign has felt like a horse running top speed from the inside to the outside of the track and back again. I don't know who he hired to organize his campaign, but it has been poorly done.

It was recently upgraded, but for a while you could see the difference between the Obama and McCain machines simply by looking at their respective web-sites. Obama's was simplu, focussed, and eased you into the links. I describe McCain's site to people as looking like the TV Guide channel and Business News Network on the same screen. From the moment you would hit the first page, it was going off in a hundred different directions. As noted, it is more focussed now, but so late in the game that it looks like it has followed Obama's lead and copied it, and obviously that carries a certain message with it.

Similarly, Sarah Palin was initially an ace in the hole, and she certainly spiced up the campaign, but her role has progressively been that of picturesque rabble rouser. You never get the sense of her as having/posing a challenge function to McCain the way that Biden was selected to provide to Obama. In that sense, I think more Americans will lean Obama's way because they feel they are electing a team. True, McCain/Palin are a team also, but there is a difference between a team where one person has all the ideas and the other says "You go get 'em, tiger!", and a team where the ideas are debated between team-members.

GWB was elected for a second term because he came at a time when Americans wanted absolute certainty in a leader following the 09/11 tragedy; the sort of guy who could stand under a "Mission Accomplished" banner. At this point in time, my gut tells me they don't necessarily want that absolute certainty right now, and would feel more comfortable with a leader whose modus operandi is to say "Let's stop a moment and reconsider our options". McCain has a bit of that, but the Obama ticket has more.

I don't think it will be a slam dunk, but would be very surprised if the bold predictions of John "forget the polls" McCain this past weekend came true on election day. I think it is very telling that the thing he is waving in front of the electorate these last few days is the warning that having a Democrat majority in the upper and lower house AND in the White House is risky. If anti-Republican sentiment is so high that it poses that sort of potential outcome, then I find that rather telling, don't you?

Just to add to this, here's an interesting item from the Brookings Institution that I receive this morning: http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2008/1024_voting_mcdonald.aspx?emc=lm&m=219384&l=43&v=4860

Worth reading.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

What about the pundits that are saying that an Obama administration, with some of the proposals and promises on the table are not only ludicrous, but dangerous.



> The perfect storm combining the vast expansion of government’s role in the American economy, a looming Obama triumph and likely huge Democratic gains in Congress augur the most serious threat of the onset of socialism the United States has faced since the New Deal. But while it became obvious that FDR’s goal was to save capitalism, not to replace it, it is by no means clear that Barack Obama is similarly inclined.
> 
> 
> As alarm bells ring incessantly, demanding government action to prevent the conflagration of our most important companies and markets, the Federal Reserve and Treasury rush to extinguish the flames with hoses filled with money. But this massive and needed public-sector intrusion into private enterprise begs the key question: After the fires are put out, will the government firefighters leave, or will they move into the companies they saved and evict their former corporate owners?
> ...



Source: Dick Morris (dickmorris.com)


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

I picked who cares, but I think Obama will win. The next day half of the US population will wake up and die from a heart attack from the news of Obama's win. The other half will die from a heart attack 2 days later when they find out nothing will change........


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

This is a pretty good site. It's pro Democrat, but has some good info. there's a pretty good article by Rosanne Cash about why she'd be a better choice for Veep than Palin that made me chuckle.

http://www.thenation.com/


----------



## dwagar (Mar 6, 2006)

I'm just glad Hillary isn't in there. She always seemed to have a hate on for Canada.
- the terrorists came from Canada
- the blackout was caused in Canada
(both of which were untrue, I never heard her recant though)

and she loved to toss out protectionist policies pointing her finger at us.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

That Dick Morris thing is just plain creepy.

What is rather unsavoury about it is that it:
a) equates Obama's attempt to achieve social fairness with "Socialism" (which, of course equals all that is bad in the world)
b) equates socialism or social fairness with lack of economic growth
c) equates unrestrained "economic growth", as indexed by the things that matter to wealthy people rather than the everyday folks governments are supposed to protect and benefit, with everything that is good

Is it just me or is the distaste of "socialism" an argument which is most appealing to those with the most money to make. I.E., Is what Dick Morris is saying essentially a "revolt of the wealthy" who would wish to have no limits imposed on their wealth?

Sheesh, I thought all of that was taken care of during the late 1700's and early 1800's. Or have the aristocracy come back in the form of investment whizzes to reclaim what they believe is rightfully theirs?


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

Obama in a landslide, I've been calling that one since he took out Hillary and my opinion was further strengthened when Palin was chosen for the McCain ticket.

I don't have a super strong preference, I would much rather see a stronger Republican ticket and go that way. Obviously not an option.

I do think the Dems will be better for putting oversight on the goons that caused the current economic downturn. Deregulation fits my views with respect to a free market economy HOWEVER in certain sectors (utilities, stock market/banking, food) I believe a certain amount of oversight and regulation is necessary to protect us all - if we expect to have the same standard of living that we currently enjoy.

Which leads to a whole other argument about the social net, I don't have time right now. It will be better for the lower classes under the Dems but it will also be a big drag on the economy to support those who can't be bothered to support themselves.


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

mhammer said:


> That Dick Morris thing is just plain creepy.
> 
> What is rather unsavoury about it is that it:
> a) equates Obama's attempt to achieve social fairness with "Socialism" (which, of course equals all that is bad in the world)
> ...


Here's how I teach my kids about socialism. 'Let's say you work your ass off and bring home a mark of 90% in a class. Sally goofed off, didn't do the reading or homework, blew off test studying, and brought home a 40%. Are you prepared to give up 25% so that you each get 65%?'

Socialism DISCOURAGES a strong work ethic. Period end of story. Why should I work hard to get ahead if the proceeds are going to be taken from me to support those who won't?

I'm not saying there should be no social net. But it should be stringently enforced and given sparingly.

Also, in what way is trying to 'achieve social fairness' NOT socialism?

Canada is, I believe, a 'social democracy'. I think it works well but it's not perfect. I'm glad to live here. Doesn't mean I have to be happy to support the.....underachievers.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Well here's the thing. A strong nation, and a good society, should always strive to provide incentives to its citizens to do their best, but also to be good to each other. In the absence of incentives, people don't do their best, and they have less to help each other with. Giving people a reason to try means not only allowing them to make personal gains, but in providing them with opportunities so that they CAN try. When *I* teach my kids about this sort of thing, I simply instruct them to be considerate of others, and to do the work required; end of story. There are no excuses for not trying, and no excuses for not being good to others.

While assisting unrestricted personal gain certainly provides incentives for the one (trying), it tends to suppress attention to the other (helping others). What gets labelled as "socialism" is too often those failed experiments that misunderstood the desired balance and simply aimed for squishing the income distribution to the narrowest range possible (....except for its leaders and bureaucrats). Labelling Canada as a "socialist" nation as some American pundits have done, so as to lump it in with those failed systems I note, is basically the rhetoric of the wealthy, and has no legitimate basis in either fact or philosophy.

As someone paid to follow trends in management and organizational issues, one of the things I tend to note is the American obsession with "poor performers". Their employee surveys almost always have questions in them about poor performers, and Canadian surveys tend not to. At the same time as they ask about poor performers, they never seem to be concerned with how organizations actually *acquired* them. It is as if the lack of merit in the underclass is never the responsibility of those in the overclass, and anyone who fails to live up to some standard is always to blame for it. Social Darwinism at its purest: "It's YOUR fault you're poor, and to MY credit that I am rich". You like to think people rise above the high school level in their reasoning, but apparently that can sometimes be too much to hope for.


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

Paul said:


> ........Achieving social fairness, when it applies to health care, education, public works and utililities, roads, policing, fire protection.....the list goes on, is NOT Socialism, by any classic definition. When you get into a world of nothing but state owned enterprised involved in the production and distribution of goods, then you are getting into socialism. *Those aren't the things Obama is talking about, in the main. Wealth redistribution through taxation and its use is and has always been a principal of the Democrats. That is not pure but elemental to socialism, just like you say below.*
> 
> What we commonly refer to in Canada as a social safety net is NOT pure socialism, although there are some elements to it. *Absolutely agreed*
> 
> ...


Re: mhammer, first paragraph - I very much agree with your last sentence, live my life that way and pass that message to the next generation here at home. We personally give to charity, and I have always worked for employers who are 'good corporate citizens' in that regard, giving and encouraging giving.


**EDIT** sorry, OT a ways. I'll carry on in the political thread if I have more to offer.


----------



## Guest (Oct 27, 2008)

keto said:


> Here's how I teach my kids about socialism. 'Let's say you work your ass off and bring home a mark of 90% in a class. Sally goofed off, didn't do the reading or homework, blew off test studying, and brought home a 40%. Are you prepared to give up 25% so that you each get 65%?'


Wow. That is truly scary. Not that your example plain sucks in that it fails miserably to capture what a socially minded society attempts to achieve (which is neither _solely_ equality of wealth or is it _perfect_ equality for every person in the society) but that you then say this:



> Socialism DISCOURAGES a strong work ethic. Period end of story. Why should I work hard to get ahead if the proceeds are going to be taken from me to support those who won't?


And don't provide any support for this claim. A critical-thinking adult knows well enough that when someone stamps their foot it doesn't make what they say a "fact". You have to provide some proof to a claim like "period, end of story" before I'm going to buy in to your party line. But a child? Few have learned the capacity for truly critical thought even at the age when they're exiting high school. And you're playing with them stating this opinion as fact.



> I'm not saying there should be no social net. But it should be stringently enforced and given sparingly.


So here's a problem: who gets to decided when it's enforced and to what extent it is given? To whom do you place the ultimate responsibility of deciding when a net should be used and when it should be not? Who chooses whom to save and whom to let die? Do you deal with these troubling questions in your socialism lessons?

"Social fairness" is a moral and ethical compass that helps guide the design and application of the rules.



> Also, in what way is trying to 'achieve social fairness' NOT socialism?


I like this quote from Wikipedia so I'm going to snag it for here: "Socialism is not a discrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program". There is no "magna carta of Socialist doctrine" to which you must subscribe in order to be a Socialist. Indeed "social fairness" can exist in a Capitalist environment, which doesn't preclude taxation BTW. "Social fairness" governs how you write the rules: you aim to be equitable to all classes in your manners and methods. And it extends beyond financial policy to legal policies.



> Canada is, I believe, a 'social democracy'. I think it works well but it's not perfect. I'm glad to live here. Doesn't mean I have to be happy to support the.....underachievers.


Here's a question for you: if you are not the person earning the most amount of money in our society are you not, by your own definition, an underachiever? Is anyone who earns more than you do entitled to look down upon you with disdain because they "support you" with their additional tax contributions? Where does underachiever start and stop in your model? You speak as if what ever you're doing in your life is the bar for "achievement" but arguably others are doing better, right?


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

One of the perennial challenges is that good ideas, once ported over to a bureacracy and a "delivery system", can go awry.

F'rinstance....social assistance (welfare) makes a helluva lot of sense, when compared to homelessness and debtors' prison. At the same time, the simple assumption that adequate help will *always* be there, come rain or shine, come catastrophe despite careful planning or come failure to plan, can undermine human motivation. Anyone who has ever been unemployed for a period longer than a couple of months will tell you that you start to lose your zeal for job-hunting after a little while, and the presence of pogey cheques doesn't help to restore that zeal. 

Social programs have to factor in context, and especially human nature. Much of what we point to disdainfully as "socialism" tends to be bad examples which have factored in neither. The negative impacts of such systems and social programs on motivation is often touted as a reason for skepticism about their validity, yet when they are absent, only misery follows, not success. The trick is to design, deliver, and monitor social programs in a way that sustains motivation, without effectively penalizing people. Ultimately, that is VERY hard to do, and requires the wisdom of Solomon and the pockets of the World Bank.

Sometimes it doesn't take much social suport to have a big impact on lives. Nobel Prizewinner Mohammad Yunus ( http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2006/yunus-lecture-en.html ) has illustrated this aptly with his Grameen Bank and micro-credit. Of course, I would be foolish to expect that a delivery system and service established in a context of poverty would work flawlessly if ported over intact to the North American context.

I would also point out that the same sorts of negative social outcomes can occur under both socialist and nonsocialist circumstances. Critics often point to the "Why should I bother?" attitude that pervaded many manufacturing facilities in the USSR in the 70's and 80's, but also skilled professions, after decades of assured employment and assured nonadvancement. Last week, I listened to a CBC report on the huge exodus of doctors in the Philipines, where a doctor earns, on average, about $7200/yr. For them, it simply makes more sense to retrain as a nurse and move to the U.S. And the Philipines could hardly be labelled a "socialist" nation. Basically, what you have in each context, is a government and bureaucracy which was inattentive to the context, and to human motivation, and created a situation that took away from what the nation needed, rather than improving matters.


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

iaresee said:


> Wow. That is truly scary. Not that your example plain sucks in that it fails miserably to capture what a socially minded society attempts to achieve (which is neither _solely_ equality of wealth or is it _perfect_ equality for every person in the society) but that you then say this:
> 
> 
> And don't provide any support for this claim. A critical-thinking adult knows well enough that when someone stamps their foot it doesn't make what they say a "fact". You have to provide some proof to a claim like "period, end of story" before I'm going to buy in to your party line. But a child? Few have learned the capacity for truly critical thought even at the age when they're exiting high school. And you're playing with them stating this opinion as fact.
> ...



OK I thought it was pretty clear. By 'underachievers', which was a word I more or less picked as a politically correct catchall, I'm referring to people who leach off the welfare state by not putting any effort into working for what they receive, BY CHOICE. So, take away the disabled and so forth who have a very real reason to not work. Yes, we can argue semantics here again for days about who and who isn't an underachiever _in this example_. But I sure don't mean the working person who puts in their 30-40 hours a week to support themselves, regardless where they place on the economic totem pole.

But, hey, I know you know that. Nothing new here, yer just poking me with a stick :zzz:


----------



## happydude (Oct 15, 2007)

I don't mean to interrupt, but Obama. I'm cheering for a McCain but he'll lose because of Bush. Had the economy not tanked like a mofo in the past few months then maybe he would have had a better shot but the Obama campaign is doing a better job than the Republicans and is stronger on the economy due to their support for the welfare state. The Republican ticket was weak to start with due to their choice of front man and weakened further by their mishandling of Palin, who could have been a great addition.


----------



## Guest (Oct 27, 2008)

keto said:


> And your an ass****. Can we be done with the name calling now?


I didn't call you any names.



> Anyways, pretty simple to point to the Soviet and Chinese states from what, 1917 in Russia and some time in the 1940's for China, up to the 1990's, as an example of the drastic inefficiencies of socialism. Both states' peoples have thrived under a more open economic model.


Unfortunately the former U.S.S.R.'s failures only point to the failure of a specific implementation of socialism by a government. As I said, there is no one "doctrine of Socialism" -- it's all in the details; how it's implemented and applied to a society. And not everyone is doing it the same way. Canada for example, has been far from disastrous. France, a markedly different approach to socialist living, and again: not disastrous. China, well that's an interesting case study in and of itself: they are both incredibly successful in that they've survived and flourished on a global scale as long as they have under their Communist system and incredibly disastrous in that they have a high level of poverty and a low standard of living. But so does India and they've been an independent democracy for about the same amount of time.

It's all in the application.



> OK I thought it was pretty clear. By 'underachievers', which was a word I more or less picked as a politically correct catchall, I'm referring to people who leach off the welfare state by not putting any effort into working for what they receive, BY CHOICE. So, take away the disabled and so forth who have a very real reason to not work. Yes, we can argue semantics here again for days about who and who isn't an underachiever _in this example_. But I sure don't mean the working person who puts in their 30-40 hours a week to support themselves, regardless where they place on the economic totem pole.


Certainly I didn't see this in your original statements so thanks for clearing that up. And I'll say mhammer dealt with this in his statement: human nature and negative outcomes exist in all known models. The problem of demotivation you describe is not unique to just socially minded societies.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

I think I'm on record as saying here, or elsewhere, that I personally would not have been disappointed to have either McCain, Obama, or Clinton win (this was prior to the Obama nomination), though my preference was for Obama. At the time, I felt that any of them was a damn sight better than what was fielded in 2004. At this point, though, it is hard for me to separate the ineptitude of the McCain campaign from his personal merits as president, and from the irritating non-stop jingoism of Sarah Palin. So, I will say that my affections for the guy have diminished somewhat since that earlier point. 

Prior to the post-convention campaign, I had a lot of respect for the guy (McCain). He seemed decent, like he could think on his feet, and seemed to take a pragmatic stance. I won't go on people's voting record because, quite frankly, people vote yea or nay for bills in the house for the most arcane and often unexplained of reasons, often supporting something they hold their nose for because of some small feature in it that has never previously found a way to see the light of day, or alternatively rejecting something that they agree with in principle, but that contains a clause that is an Achilles heel for something they feel is important and non-negotiable.

Of course, this thread is not about who you like/prefer/trust, but rather about who WILL get elected. And at this point my money would be on the guy with the big ears. He has run, or at least been part of, an excellent campaign. I'd like to see him appoint McCain to a Secretary position. I think that would be a good reply to the cautions the Republicans have been issuing about the dangers of a Democrat House, Senate, and White House. I think he could work with Obama, and I think Obama could work with him. The question is, which cabinet post? Can't be so powerful that it seems to disenfranchise the very Democrats who put Obama there, nor so innocuous that McCain starts to look like Morgan Tsvangarai.

In many ways, the past month has been like watching that last season of "The West Wing", where Jimmy Smits gets elected over Alan Alda. That show was remarkably prescient.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Im still hoping for Ron Paul. Even though he's older than the hills, his promise to remove all US soldiers from foreign soil and use resources to fix the problems in the US instead, is what the US really needs. Imagine all the Iraq war money being used to clean up Katrina's mess, and maybe building something at Ground Zero? The other 2 spell same shit, different day to me............


----------



## screamingdaisy (Oct 14, 2008)

keto said:


> Here's how I teach my kids about socialism. 'Let's say you work your ass off and bring home a mark of 90% in a class. Sally goofed off, didn't do the reading or homework, blew off test studying, and brought home a 40%. Are you prepared to give up 25% so that you each get 65%?'


What if you designed the system so that 25 people gave up 1% each....

Or better yet, have those 25 peole give up 0.4% each and only bring her marks up to 50%, which is all she really needs to get by.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

I guess I was trying see see who you would vote for (if you were voting in this election) vs who you thought was going to win. Maybe thats the same thing.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

Dear GuitarsCanada Forumites,


I wouldn't vote Republican if I was sitting on a nuke and Duhbya had his finger on the trigger. ... No. Make it with the fundamentalist psycho Palin's finger on the trigger.

And what's this labeling Obama a Socialist?!?!? Boy did that ever give me a good belly laugh. 

With me it goes beyond the economy. It has to do with core values and beliefs.


Yours with the utmost disdain for most all things conservative,... Robert


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

screamingdaisy said:


> What if you designed the system so that 25 people gave up 1% each....
> 
> Or better yet, have those 25 peole give up 0.4% each and only bring her marks up to 50%, which is all she really needs to get by.


She didn't do the work, why would anyone have to give her anything? Thank you for the most outstanding illustration of my point :food-smiley-004::banana:


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

keto said:


> She didn't do the work, why would anyone have to give her anything? Thank you for the most outstanding illustration of my point :food-smiley-004::banana:


Give her a chance maybe? We do it with governments all the time, and the US has just done it with a bunch of underachieving banks. They failed. By your logic they should have been left to rot. Instead they got $810Billion. Socialism is only wrong when it's not for the rich it seems...

Lots of people fall through the cracks in life. Not born lucky ... imagine where W would be if he hadn't been born rich and the son of ex CIA chief and PotUSA. He'd be lucky to be mopping up at Starbucks if he'd been born poor. Sure there are always leeches, and just as many up as down. 
Don't kids share at kindergarten any more? That's a shame. Mine does. 

And BTW, that namecalling at iaresee was out of order IMO.


----------



## Geek (Jun 5, 2007)

O-BAM-A!
O-BAM-A!
O-BAM-A!
O-BAM-A!



This has been your random post for the day, paid for by the "Canadian's Voting Democrat" society largetongue


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

I think this will answer the original question. If they insist on calling themselves the leaders of the free world, they really should let the free world vote in their elections no? (That was the biggest thing that struck me in 2004; both of those asshats kept harping on about leading the free world -- isn't that an oxymoron?) 
2008 US Election World Map









EDIT: I just found this: http://www.economist.com/vote2008/
Where the world is given fakie electoral college votes
Right now the swing is 9120 Obama/Biden to 270 McCain/Raving-fundie-anti-intellectual-anti-science-loony-toon


----------



## screamingdaisy (Oct 14, 2008)

keto said:


> She didn't do the work, why would anyone have to give her anything?


If you take your example and adultify it a little (marks at school is a bit of a silly example) it becomes a simple matter of crime and economics.... if she gets welfare, at the best you're giving her the chance to sort out her life, get back on her feet and possibly support herself. At the worst you're paying her to not steal your sh*t in order to survive.

Or, you could give her nothing and limit her options considerably.

In the end it doesn't really matter if the solution is socialist or not... a drain on society is still a drain on society. The idea is to give them the option of improving their lot in life rather than forcing them to maintain it.

To use your example; do you kick a kid out of school for failing? Or do you give them more education and another chance to pass and move on to the next grade?


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

keto said:


> She didn't do the work, why would anyone have to give her anything? Thank you for the most outstanding illustration of my point :food-smiley-004::banana:


I get the feeling if I were to meet you in person and we were to discuss this, we'd end up verbally ripping each other's faces off due to the incredible difference on the way each of us see people and the world. So I will not even attempt it here.

Your favourite anti-conservative, Robert1950.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Robert1950 said:


> I get the feeling if I were to meet you in person and we were to discuss this, we'd end up verbally ripping each other's faces off due to the incredible difference on the way each of us see people and the world. So I will not even attempt it here.
> 
> Your favourite anti-conservative, Robert1950.


Nah. You'd probably get along just fine. Seriously. The facelessness and namelessness of the net tends to make people more confrontational on-line than they are in "real life". I've had the pleasure of meeting plenty of folks in person that I only met through this forum and two others, and they've all been really nice folks.



> Yep, where a student lives is a fairly accurate* predictor of academic success.


True. Note that when any phenomenon is highly multi-determined (and school performance is one such case) it is difficult for any single variable to be predictive. I use to work in cognitive aging, and in that field, if something predicts 5% of the outcome, it's worth a ticker-tape parade.

That being said, postal code predicts outcomes like this for a number of reasons. Part of it is where similar sorts of folks congregate, often for reasons of rent/home costs. Part of it is the nature of the schools, and especially the classroom (anyone who has ever taught will tell you that the more homogenous the classroom the easier it is to do your job, because you always teach to the "middle"). Part of it is "distractions" away from school. Part of it is the way in which education is valued or devalued by people in various economic circumstances or "in transition".


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

Robert1950 said:


> And what's this labeling Obama a Socialist?!?!? Boy did that ever give me a good belly laugh.
> 
> With me it goes beyond the economy. It has to do with core values and beliefs.


Well of course you all know that the American election is subject to a tremendous media circus that only picks and chooses what to print and edits video to make the "other" guy look bad depending on their political slant. 

The Republicans paint Obama as a socialist cause he made the remarks "Share the Weath" or "spread it around a little bit" They also believe that it comes down pro choice and due to the fact that Obama believes in pro choice (in cases where the Mother is threatened) that makes him a baby killer. Unfortunately approx 60% of the American population Is staunchly Christian enough to believe it. 

The Democrates would of course have you believe McCain is McSame. What I don't question is the fact that they DO need change and need to stop the rampant cronieism and the Repulicans spreading the wealth amongst themselves. Haliburton anyone? They need to clean up the mess that is Iraq cause that is WAY out of control.. I won't go any further cause then I'll have to move to the political forum. :smilie_flagge17:


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Obama will win. Sad that it took 8 years of W for the American public (well some of them anyway) to figure it out.


Let's hope the right wingers don't decide to make a martyr out of him.


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

Milkman said:


> Let's hope the right wingers don't decide to make a martyr out of him.


You mean like these nutcases?

http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/ab...wsitemid=CTVNews/20081027/obama_threat_081027


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

It's weird how unexpected events can be summarily dumped in the laps of leaders and lead to unexpected outcomes. People had high expectatons for Bob Rae and the Ontario NDP, and then every government starting cutting back because of the zeitgeist. Rae followed suit, and got turned into this bad guy that nobody forgave because they expected so much from him. GW Bush was first elected on very different grounds, and then roughly a half year into his mandate the WTC tragedy occurred and defending America against terrorism became his theme. I don't wish to make light of it whatsoever, but 09/11 was the best thing that ever happened to him because conveying certainty is what he does well and certainty is what the US population wanted at that time. They've since learned it's not really enough, but the point is that he probably would not have been elected for a second term if not for 09/11.

In some respects, despite what I believe are his other fine qualities, Obama is likely to be elected primarily due to the collapse of the stock market and the foreclosure debacle. If we set the wayback machine to 1985, could he be elected? Most likely not.

Although Joe Biden was portrayed as a bit of a loose cannon for his "Obama will be tested" comments, and the near conspiratorial flavour they had, I think the point is well taken that events can be dumped on leaders; perhaps before they have had a chance to define their administration in their own image. Sometimes it works in their favour, like GWB and 09/11, and sometimes it works against them, like Bob Rae. Ironically, we vote in leaders on the basis of assumptions about the prevailing conditions continuing, and that leader's perceived ability to handle it. And then, something can happen that completely redefines their administration, for better or for worse.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Starbuck said:


> You mean like these nutcases?
> 
> http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/ab...wsitemid=CTVNews/20081027/obama_threat_081027


No, it's not the obvious skin head nut jobs we have to worry about. It's the highly organized and well funded nut jobs who wear suits by day and sheets by night.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

You know, nothing seems to polarize people like politics. Really though, the world is not going to end if McCain wins ...... or if Obama wins .... it probably won't really even change so much that we'll notice anything on a day-to-day basis.

Think about it .... check this list of U.S. presidents and their party affiliation. You know, there's been some pretty respected guys from both sides.

http://www.mapsofworld.com/us-presidents/us-president-data.html

just sayin ...........


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Now, now....

If we can wag our fingers at those who make a big deal of the Bill Ayres thing, then it behooves us not to commit the same errors for McCain.

allthumbs56 makes a fair point about "good" presidents coming from both sides of the political spectrum. If you look in the leadership literature, you come to see that the characteristcs which are seen as defining great leadership depend very much on the context. Essentially, what makes great leadership is whatever kind of leadership is needed right here, right now. A corollary of that is that someone who appears to fill the requirements for great leadership at time A may well be what you *don't* want (i.e., what will not work out) at time B, if circumstances change.

At the present time, so much of the U.S.'s resources and efforts are devoted to managing its impression or face to the world, or devoted to picking up the pieces of NOT having effectively managed its face, that it can only help to have a face which is fresh, friendlier, and more like the faces looking back at it. In many respects, the domestic front can be adddressed much more effectively if the foreign front simmers down a bit. I'm not saying that the Taliban will smack their foreheads and mutter "What was I thinking?" on inauguration day, but I think anything that facilitates more buy-in and decreased emnity from those countries that are currently hedging, or those segments of the populace that have had reason to be skeptical until now, will be good for America, and good for the world. I think about an Obama visit to Indonesia, or to Kenya, or Sudan, or even Saudi Arabia, and I see promise rather than protests.

He just better not screw up!


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

We shouldn't all be so smug about it, I'm sure our Politicians have just as much dirt hiding under their carpets, we just don't treat our Politicians like Rock Stars. 

I wonder if everyone knew then what we know about the Kennedy's now, would JFK have been elected?


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

Starbuck said:


> We shouldn't all be so smug about it, I'm sure our Politicians have just as much dirt hiding under their carpets, we just don't treat our Politicians like Rock Stars.
> 
> I wonder if everyone knew then what we know about the Kennedy's now, would JFK have been elected?


I dunno, Trudeau was close to a rock star - my mom would have thrown her panties at him.


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

allthumbs56 said:


> I dunno, Trudeau was close to a rock star - my mom would have thrown her panties at him.


Yes you're right, I remember being really young and reading in the magazines about his "exploits" and Maggies exploits with the Rolling Stones.. But that's about it for us. Why Him?


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

allthumbs56 said:


> I dunno, Trudeau was close to a rock star - my mom would have thrown her panties at him.


I can think of quite a few I'd throw my underwear at...I'd wait til Norwalk virus hits first though.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

devnulljp said:


> I can think of quite a few I'd throw my underwear at...I'd wait til Norwalk virus hits first though.


I wonder if Harper's expression would even change if a pair of ripe Stanfields landed square on his noggin.


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

allthumbs56 said:


> I wonder if Harper's expression would even change if a pair of ripe Stanfields landed square on his noggin.


Don't know but that image made my day 

Stephen Harper:


----------



## NB-SK (Jul 28, 2007)

keto said:


> Here's how I teach my kids about socialism. 'Let's say you work your ass off and bring home a mark of 90% in a class. Sally goofed off, didn't do the reading or homework, blew off test studying, and brought home a 40%. Are you prepared to give up 25% so that you each get 65%?'
> 
> Socialism DISCOURAGES a strong work ethic. Period end of story. Why should I work hard to get ahead if the proceeds are going to be taken from me to support those who won't?
> 
> ...



Yes, in a sense Canada is a social democracy. 

In any case, to quote the Socialist candidate for President when asked about the accusations that Obama is a socialist on the Daily Show, "They are misrepresenting what we stand for." Obama is very much a capitalist.


----------



## rhh7 (Mar 14, 2008)

I read yesterday that for the first time since FDR and the New Deal, Canada is growing more conservative, as the U.S. grows more liberal....anyway...I love it here in Canada...I hope Obama wins, but I have this nagging fear that McCain will snatch it away at the last moment.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

At one time, when the issues faced and the policies advocated by parties were more internally consistent, it was possible to identify a left and right, a conservative and liberal. These days, the kinds of things that parties attempt to grapple with, and especially the battles they take on to win this share of the vote or that share, tends to make them undifferentiated from each other. It's not just what the parties try to do, but what citizens grapple with too. If a person thinks that "the government should keep their hands off citizens' firearms" and let their children's school have Christmas pageants, but also feels that "the government" should have done more about listeriosis by having more on-site inspectors, or should have prevented Wall Street from making a mess with the whole sub-prime mortgage thing, are they *for* "big government" or *against* it? Are they left, or right? Hard to know.

Personality theorists have argued for generations about how consistent human personality is. On the one side, you have those who adhere to the "type" model, as in "Oh he's a <fill in type here>". Then you have those who adhere to the stable trait model, in which they propose that human personality is stable over the long haul, but personality is made up of a multitude of individual traits, some of which are linked and some of which seem completely contradictory to each other. Then you have the theorists who propose that human behaviour is largely inconsistent, and that even stable traits are a foolish suggestion; that people's behaviour depends on the circumstances, their background, and to a lesser extent their temperament.

I mention this because when attempting to depict the political tenor of a nation, we may often be assuming far more consistency among the poeple who make up that nation than is really there. Remember that the same nation which is likely to give us Obama as president, also gave us Bush...twice, and Clinton before that, an both Bush and Reagan before that, and Jimmy Carter before that. So, they're hard to peg down. I think they respond to the issues and concerns of the day, based on the circumstances they face, and that's about it.

Similarly with Canada, we are made up of folks who want a lot of mutually exclusive things. There are those who vote conservative because they are concerned about things "falling apart" and want order restored. But there are those who decline to vote liberal because they equate it with government interference. There are those who are fiscally liberal and socially conservative. Those who are socially conservative about some issues, but very liberal about others.

So, it is extremely difficult to make pronouncements about nation X drifting more in this direction or that.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

So..... according to our poll we have Obama by a landslide with McCain in 3rd place, trailing "I don't care". Even apathy get twice the votes of the Right this time around.


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

allthumbs56 said:


> So..... according to our poll we have Obama by a landslide with McCain in 3rd place, trailing "I don't care". Even apathy get twice the votes of the Right this time around.


Ha!! But as the State of Florida has already proved, He who gets the most votes doesn't always win!


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

Starbuck said:


> Ha!! But as the State of Florida has already proved, He who gets the most votes doesn't always win!


Some last minute jostling has McCain tied with "Who Cares" and that may be enough for the win! (with Florida factored in) :smile:


----------



## Geek (Jun 5, 2007)

allthumbs56 said:


> Some last minute jostling has McCain tied with "Who Cares" and that may be enough for the win! (with Florida factored in) :smile:


Is that gonna go along the lines of, "If ya can't weeen an elecshon, RIG IT!"


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

This piece from the Onion is the best analysis I've seen yet 

Why is it the best sources of news and analysis are John Stewart, Stephen Colbert and the Onion? 

_WASHINGTON—As election day nears, millions of the nation's poorest voters have reportedly yet to settle on the most profound and enduring way to completely **** themselves over when they head to the polls this year.

"On the one hand, I'm pretty sure Barack Obama will undermine my best interests by maintaining the same centrist, pro-corporate policies of previous Democratic administrations," said Jim Estey, 34, a recently laid-off assembly-line worker. "Conversely, I agree with McCain and Palin on abortion, which might just balance out the fact that they'll further marginalize people like me by supporting deregulation and slashing social programs. So it's pretty much a toss-up at this point."

Though such behavior appears to directly undermine their own well-being, lower-income voters have historically supported candidates determined to screw them six ways to Sunday, including Bill Clinton, who incarcerated them in record numbers and cut the welfare benefits many depended on for day-to-day sustenance, and George W. Bush, who widened the gap between them and the rich and sent thousands of them to die in Iraq._


----------



## noman (Jul 24, 2006)

If Obama doesn't win, there will be trouble in the streets of most major centers in the USA. Blacks and most democrats will feel again that they have been disenfranchised and another election stolen. What is always interesting to me is that the US hoists itself everywhere around the world as the harbringer of democracy when they have had two fraudulent elections in the past decade!! And how many democracies have two parties? Take one away and you have communism!!!


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

noman said:


> If Obama doesn't win, there will be trouble in the streets of most major centers in the USA. Blacks and most democrats will feel again that they have been disenfranchised and another election stolen. What is always interesting to me is that the US hoists itself everywhere around the world as the harbringer of democracy when they have had two fraudulent elections in the past decade!! And how many democracies have two parties? Take one away and you have communism!!!


I suspect that nomatter who wins there will be trouble. This whole election cycle has been pumped (from one side only I might add) with the whole fear and loathing thing. I suspect that Obama-Biden will win by a landslide, but also that the GOP dirty tricks machine will be working full tilt. If the dirty tricks don't pay off and they somehow manage to do a 2000/2004 and snatch the election again, I hope people would be upset. OTOH, if the tricks don't work and Obama wins I expect there will be trouble with the whole "we're pro-American they're anti-American" brigade. 
I'd be happy to be wrong though for everyone's sake. 

As for the two parties thing, the sad fact is Duverger's law favours a two-party system, especially unless you have runoff voting or some kind of prop representation.

Karl Rove needs a good kick in the nuts for what he's done to democratic principles. I'd like to see John McCain be the man to do it too. He's really suffered at the hands of that twisted malevolent little Iago.


----------



## faracaster (Mar 9, 2006)

keto said:


> Here's how I teach my kids about socialism.
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism DISCOURAGES a strong work ethic. Period end of story.


Are you saying you are a teacher? What school are you teaching at?

I want to know to make sure my kids are not in your class.

Holy SH*T.....!!!!! Out of all the crazy posts on this forum, none have scared me the way this one has. 
Right, left or in the middle, do you know the position you are in? 
Listen if you had said the same thing about capitalism I'd be just as appalled. Honestly, save the opinions for your supper table (or this forum) and leave those kids alone.

Pete


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

I think it is important to remember that, as much of a glamour factor is involved with the presidential race, the U.S.A. is not a monarchy or a dictatorship. Nor is it a Westminister system in which the political leader is the head of the party with the most seats elected. There is the Senate and Congress as well, and a great many Americans split their ballot to vote one way for more local representatives and the president. So, the net outcome of the presidential race depends to a large extent on whether the person in the White House has a Senate and Congress that will hamstring them or enable them.


----------



## dwagar (Mar 6, 2006)

and that could possibly shift the election to McCain.

From what I've seen, Americans don't trust one party to be in all 3. 

I agree with Noman, if Obama loses, I expect to see a huge amount of unrest down there.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

dwagar said:


> and that could possibly shift the election to McCain.
> 
> From what I've seen, Americans don't trust one party to be in all 3.
> 
> I agree with Noman, if Obama loses, I expect to see a huge amount of unrest down there.


Not this time.

There will be unrest no matter _who_ wins. Some folks are going to be very unhappy that a black man is their president and others will be unhappy because he's a democrat.

That's not enough to over come the ground roots desire for change. 

Better late than never.


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

Milkman said:


> Not this time.
> 
> There will be unrest no matter _who_ wins. Some folks are going to be very unhappy that a black man is their president ...Better late than never.


It's certainly about bloody time they get over that particular little piece of tribal stupidity...especially with all that "land of the free" stuff they've been spouting since 1775. 
Maybe in another few hundred years it will be possible for a presidential candidate to not have to wave a bible around in order to get elected either.

EDIT: Mind you, how many non-WASP PMs has Canada had? Funny though, I can't imagine it would be that much of an issue up here. Maybe I'm wrong, but I hope not.


----------



## Geek (Jun 5, 2007)

devnulljp said:


> It's certainly about bloody time they get over that particular little piece of tribal stupidity...especially with all that "land of the free" stuff they've been spouting since 1775.
> Maybe in another few hundred years it will be possible for a presidential candidate to not have to wave a bible around in order to get elected either.


Here, here!




> EDIT: Mind you, how many non-WASP PMs has Canada had? Funny though, I can't imagine it would be that much of an issue up here. Maybe I'm wrong, but I hope not.


We already topped that with Kim Campbell as PM 
(even if short lived)

Cheers!


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

I voted "who cares" frankly because I'm fed up with all the hype. Obama should get in easily, the real question might be how long he lives after he does.


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

Geek said:


> We already topped that with Kim Campbell as PM
> (even if short lived)


Cool ,thanks I'm supposed to be brushing up on this stuff for the citizenship tests so I'm embarrassed I'm doing such a poor job. But she was PM for a couple of months? Easy to miss. 
I found it interesting that her wiki page states: "Campbell was the first female Prime Minister of Canada, the first Baby Boomer Prime Minister and the first Prime Minister born in British Columbia. She was the second woman in history to sit at the table of the Group of Eight leaders, after British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, and the *third female to serve as a head of government in North America, after Eugenia Charles of Dominica and Violeta Chamorro of Nicaragua.*" Puts all the fuss about Nancy Pelosi in perspective. 



davetcan said:


> I voted "who cares" frankly because I'm fed up with all the hype. Obama should get in easily, the real question might be how long he lives after he does.


I think that's on a lot of peoples minds, and only Hillary voiced that concern. Not a nice thought. Kinda makes you wonder about the reasoning behind this a while ago.

"_DALLAS -- Security details at Barack Obama's rally Wednesday stopped screening people for weapons at the front gates more than an hour before the Democratic presidential candidate took the stage at Reunion Arena.

The order to put down the metal detectors and stop checking purses and laptop bags came as a surprise to several Dallas police officers who said they believed it was a lapse in security.

Dallas Deputy Police Chief T.W. Lawrence, head of the Police Department's homeland security and special operations divisions, said the order -- apparently made by the U.S. Secret Service -- was meant to speed up the long lines outside and fill the arena's vacant seats before Obama came on._"

You would think they'd be _more_ sensitive to this kind of thing in Dallas of all places. I seem to remember something unseemly about an assassination there a while ago...


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

Geek said:


> Here, here!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Kim Campbell was used as a scapegoat by the old Progressive Conservative party. They knew they were going to lose the election, so they decided to throw her to the wolves so to speak, and after the election have Jean Charest ride in to save the day. Only it didn't quite work out that way.

At least, that's my theory.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

devnulljp said:


> I think that's on a lot of peoples minds, and only Hillary voiced that concern. Not a nice thought. Kinda makes you wonder about the reasoning behind this a while ago.
> 
> "_DALLAS -- Security details at Barack Obama's rally Wednesday stopped screening people for weapons at the front gates more than an hour before the Democratic presidential candidate took the stage at Reunion Arena.
> 
> ...


Yep. I wish I had more faith in the "human" race but unfortunately I don't.


----------



## Geek (Jun 5, 2007)

zontar said:


> Kim Campbell was used as a scapegoat by the old Progressive Conservative party. They knew they were going to lose the election, so they decided to throw her to the wolves so to speak, and after the election have Jean Charest ride in to save the day. Only it didn't quite work out that way.
> 
> At least, that's my theory.


That I have no doubt. There is so much backstabbing going on in politics. Ours are just as bad as in the US, we just are a heckuva lot more secretive about it and even if we weren't, not that the voters would believe it or care.

FWIW, I think she could have rocked :smile:




> Cool ,thanks I'm supposed to be brushing up on this stuff for the citizenship tests so I'm embarrassed I'm doing such a poor job. But she was PM for a couple of months? Easy to miss.


I hope you do well!

They make you learn a lot of crap that by far the most people born here don't know and don't care 

Cheers!


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

davetcan said:


> Yep. I wish I had more faith in the "human" race but unfortunately I don't.


Give us time. The neocortex is still too small and the adrenal glands still too big. If we survive this, we'll be OK. But it's a big "if."

OTOH, I'm tempted to throw in a thing a friend told me years ago about boxing and apply it to this spectacle in the US on Tuesday: _Never, ever, ever bet on the white guy_. :sport-smiley-002:


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

I guess I'll have to bring up the big question for those who predict an assassination. When has a US president not been a target? Its nothing new. GWB is threatented every day, so was Clinton, Bush Sr, Ray Gun, and all those before them. Obama is no different. The thing that really is funny is reading the Sun today and they have all these people who think that the US is going to become Magical Land after Obama wins. Sorry, but it will be same shit, different day. The US is ****ed with Obama or McCain as president. They need to change more than just who their president is, they need to change who they are. Good thing someone brought up Land of the Free, because thats exactly what the Americans need to relearn, the priciples behind their independance. Its too bad they have forgotten such things. As for Kim Campbell, no one saw her as having a clue. She came accross as a female Joe Who. We all remember how his plan worked out..........


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

devnulljp said:


> OTOH, I'm tempted to throw in a thing a friend told me years ago about boxing and apply it to this spectacle in the US on Tuesday: _Never, ever, ever bet on the white guy_. :sport-smiley-002:


Hmmm, I think that quote needs to be changed to reflect the present. You should never, ever bet against the former USSR dude.:sport-smiley-002:.........


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Personally I find the morbid facination with the potential for Obama being assasinated a bit sick.

It's almost like some people _want_ it to happen.

I prefer to be hopeful that the US will emerge from this election ready to turn a corner and take steps to try and undo the terrible damage done to them and to other countries under the "leadership" of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld.


I'll be watching closely tomorrow evening.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

Presidential assassinations & attempts are nothing new .....

Assassinations 
Abraham Lincoln 
James A. Garfield 
William McKinley 
John F. Kennedy 

Attempted assassinations 
Andrew Jackson 
Theodore Roosevelt 
Franklin D. Roosevelt 
Harry S. Truman 
John F. Kennedy 
Richard Nixon x 2 
Gerald Ford x 2
Jimmy Carter 
Ronald Reagan 
George H. W. Bush 
Bill Clinton x 2
George W. Bush x 2 

Presidential deaths rumored to be assassinations 
Zachary Taylor 
Warren G. Harding 

Odds are pretty good that someone will certainly have a "go" at either Obama or McCain for no reason other than they're a significant political figure .....


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

mhammer said:


> That Dick Morris thing is just plain creepy.
> 
> What is rather unsavoury about it is that it:
> a) equates Obama's attempt to achieve social fairness with "Socialism" (which, of course equals all that is bad in the world)
> ...


Little bit more to it than that, Mike!:smile:

Wealthy people need an incentive to BECOME wealthy! Usually it provides jobs and wealth for the rest of society. The fear of socialism is that through taxation it can limit those incentives. A politician will never get elected crying "I'm gonna attract some rich guys who'll build some businesses so you'll be able to get a job!"

Rather, he will do far better promising "I'm gonna tax some of those rich guys with too much money and give it to you folks!".

Look at Zimbabwe! Things used to be a lot better there. Great success story for socialism, eh?

Didn't Winston Churchill say something like " Capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealth, but socialism is the equal distribution of misery!"?

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

Sweden and Norway both seem to be doing OK. Dont see a huge disincentive for them to go to work now do we? OTOH, they are consistently ranked among the top in the world for education, quality of life, freedom of the press (the US just slipped to #119, below Lativa and Tajikistan (!) among others!), health, and have among the lowest rates of child poverty in the world (2-4% in comparison to the US at up around 20%). So tell me again why this whole socialism thing is bad vs. US-style capitalism?


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

For some reason people always focus on the extremes. On the extreme right, you have a few people with all the wealth, and lots of poor people. On the extreme left, you have a few people with all the wealth and lots of poor people. The Socialist societies in the world that actually work are actually a mix of socialism and capitalism. I think too many Americans have been brainwashed by the whole Better Dead Than Red campaign...........


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

Accept2 said:


> I think too many Americans have been brainwashed by the whole Better Dead Than Red campaign...........


Well a large portion of the American population stands only in defense of the seconded ammendment of the constitition, Forgetting what the 1st one is. They are afraid. 

They had no problem Repealing 18 & 19, but they since have stalled. The times they are a Changin....


----------



## Guest (Nov 3, 2008)

Not to derail the thread but I thought I'd mention this as a side note:

I spoke to a woman freshly emmigrated from Russia a few months ago. She told me that we north americans misunderstand the whole concept of communism in and view it in a misplaced position. She said the right wing has always been about the elite few getting rich on the back of the working class and the left has always been about empowering the people instead of the elite. I agreed with that in principle with the caviet that things are usually a little more complicated than a simplistic viewpoint. Then she went on to tell me how under communism the whole poplulation of Russia was underpaid and overworked and had their freedoms trodden upon all except for a few elite people in power who had ultimate power and ultimate wealth and ultimate freedom to do whatever they wanted without consequence. She said we think of communism as extreme left but in reality it is extreme right and socialism is extreme left.


----------



## Geek (Jun 5, 2007)

Mmmmmmmm, wisdom great one makes!

*says Yoda as he uses the Force to make members float about the forum* 

That is what I don't understand why soooooo many people treat socialism with revulsion.

Though when speaking to those against socialism in person, none have yet to accept my challenge to destroy their medical cards and renounce CPP/UI :wink:

Cheers!


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

You know how there's the picture of the meal you *think* you're gonna get, based on the picture on the laminated menu...and then there's the meal you *actually* get when the server comes and unceremoniously dumps the plate in front of you?

I think it wise not to confuse what any of the "isms" is on the laminated menu, and what they are when the plate is finally served up. None of them really live up to the presentation in the menu. The error is in thinking that because A doesn't live up to its image, that somehow B and C necessarily *do*.

The facts are that any political system applied to a large group of people who do not live in a closed system or on a self-sufficient island will seldom work out as intended. There are always finite limits to human co-operation, and those will always interfere with any political economy you might want to invent, particularly when multiplied by millions.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

Milkman said:


> Personally I find the morbid facination with the potential for Obama being assasinated a bit sick.
> 
> It's almost like some people _want_ it to happen.


Not sure if that's aimed at me or not but if it is please don't equate my belief that there are enough right wing nut jobs in the States who would be willing to do it with my desire to see it happen. If he gets elected I hope like hell he does a great job. He's got a chance to change the way a large element of the U.S. populace thinks about itself, similar to MLK, I hope he's given the time to do it.


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

davetcan said:


> Not sure if that's aimed at me or not but if it is please don't equate my belief that there are enough right wing nut jobs in the States who would be willing to do it with my desire to see it happen. If he gets elected I hope like hell he does a great job. He's got a chance to change the way a large element of the U.S. populace thinks about itself, similar to MLK, I hope he's given the time to do it.


Well I get what your saying. It's that inevetible thing, You have this Seemingly Great man, the kind that dosen't come around so often.. But due to politics, there are those that take the opposing view.. Lots of radicals, religious nuts. They have 300 million people! Do the math, LOTS of freaks there.. I have this dread feeling.. can't shake it.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

Starbuck said:


> Well I get what your saying. It's that inevetible thing, You have this Seemingly Great man, the kind that dosen't come around so often.. But due to politics, there are those that take the opposing view.. Lots of radicals, religious nuts. They have 300 million people! Do the math, LOTS of freaks there.. I have this dread feeling.. can't shake it.


Thanks. I was beginning to think I was a sicko. :smile:


----------



## bobb (Jan 4, 2007)

http://www.iftheworldcouldvote.com/


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

Accept2 said:


> Hmmm, I think that quote needs to be changed to reflect the present. You should never, ever bet against the former USSR dude.:sport-smiley-002:.........


Huh?:confused-smiley-010


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

davetcan said:


> Not sure if that's aimed at me or not but if it is please don't equate my belief that there are enough right wing nut jobs in the States who would be willing to do it with my desire to see it happen. If he gets elected I hope like hell he does a great job. He's got a chance to change the way a large element of the U.S. populace thinks about itself, similar to MLK, I hope he's given the time to do it.


Nope, not aimed at anyone. As I'm sure you know this is something that has been talked about a fair bit all over the net. Certainnly more so than with other presidents.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Starbuck said:


> Well I get what your saying. It's that inevetible thing, You have this Seemingly Great man, the kind that dosen't come around so often.. But due to politics, there are those that take the opposing view.. Lots of radicals, religious nuts. They have 300 million people! Do the math, LOTS of freaks there.. I have this dread feeling.. can't shake it.


Why didn't this come up with Bush? If anyone needed to be cancelled...


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Holy shit, now youre comparing the guy to MLK?!?!?!?!?!? Wow, I now feel sorry for Obama, because obviously you guys will put a hell of alot of pressure on him to perform miracles, and then when he doesnt deliver, you'll feed him to the wolves................


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

Milkman said:


> Why didn't this come up with Bush? If anyone needed to be cancelled...


Hah! +1!!!!!


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

Accept2 said:


> Holy shit, now youre comparing the guy to MLK?!?!?!?!?!? Wow, I now feel sorry for Obama, because obviously you guys will put a hell of alot of pressure on him to perform miracles, and then when he doesnt deliver, you'll feed him to the wolves................


Hey come one now, to be fair he (Obama) Fosters that doesn't he? Didn't he paraphrase some of the "I have a Dream speech"? He certainly stirs up the public and IMHO is a very eloquent and moving speaker. Not unlike MLK


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Starbuck said:


> Hey come one now, to be fair he (Obama) Fosters that doesn't he? Didn't he paraphrase some of the "I have a Dream speech"? He certainly stirs up the public and IMHO is a very eloquent and moving speaker. Not unlike MLK


Can you guys get out of this cult like thought, and maybe go back and review history, because obviously MLK is being treated like a brand name here, and Obama has done nothing at all that makes him deserve the comparison. Didnt this kind of thing go on with David Koresh?:smile:................


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

Accept2 said:


> Can you guys get out of this cult like thought, and maybe go back and review history, because obviously MLK is being treated like a brand name here, and Obama has done nothing at all that makes him deserve the comparison. Didnt this kind of thing go on with David Koresh?:smile:................



No, don't get me wrong, I don't feel that he's the messiah or anything silly like that. I'm just watching both sides and that's what I see. And Yes MLK does get treated like a brand name, and there is only one reason for the comparison.. People are riled up and that's not a bad thing. At least they're standing up to vote. After out record lows, we could use a bit of passion about our "leader"

The Religious folk are freaking out about Obama and The Dems keep calling for more of the same. It's going to be an interesting day, I'll likely be up late.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

Starbuck said:


> Well I get what your saying. It's that inevetible thing, You have this Seemingly Great man, the kind that dosen't come around so often.. But due to politics, there are those that take the opposing view.. Lots of radicals, religious nuts. They have 300 million people! Do the math, LOTS of freaks there.. I have this dread feeling.. can't shake it.





Milkman said:


> Why didn't this come up with Bush? If anyone needed to be cancelled...


:rockon2: well... eating one of your own is cannibalism isn't it?

I'm sure the freaks of the USA were all in their "secret janitor room" bliss over Bush... the man that can wage a war, kill thousands, lie all the while, imprison and torcher and hold indefinetly, all without any legal over site. I mean common that's a dream come true for so many of them freaks out there :rockon2:


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

The comparisons to MLK need to be placed in context. MLK had no specific non-Biblical individual to compare himself to as precedent. BO *does* - MLK. So, right away, it makes no sense to compare the one to the other, because Obama has the precedent of MLK to inspire *him*.

When people make the comparisons to MLK, they do not mean "greatness", in the sense of already having *had* a positive impact on the world. What they mean is that a) the guy is a great speaker, and b) he is capable of using that gift to inspire people and give them hope. These are not small things, but neither do they make one instantly deserving of a place in the history books as if great things had already been accomplished.

Yesterday, through a variety of circumstances, I'm attending a work function and run into a guy I used to work with who now holds the position of Speaker of the Canadian Senate. Insolent dog that I am, and also because I knew him when he was *just* "Noel", looking for seconds on the brownies in the faculty lunch room like me, I call him by his first name and we connect. We caught up with news (the recent tragic loss of a well-loved mutual teaching colleague in Fredericton who was either murdered or otherwise killed in the midst of what appears to have been a domestic dispute by a violent son-in-law, who then took his own life), shmoozed a bit, and did "the business card thing". He's a decent guy; smart, principled, reasonably articulate, a good committee worker, but not the sort of guy that when you're finished chatting with him you leave with a glow about you. A huge chunk of government is like that; folks who do their job well but don't really fire you up. As a result, when people find someone who does fire them up, they miss that feeling and they get VERY excited about politics again. Which is as it should be. And if it reminds them of the very best image they have in their mind of what they believe government should be each and every day, that's great. Be realistic, certainly, and don't invest anyone with messianic powers, but don't let it sour you when people make those sorts of comparisons.


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

mhammer said:


> The comparisons to MLK need to be placed in context. MLK had no specific non-Biblical individual to compare himself to as precedent. BO *does* - MLK. So, right away, it makes no sense to compare the one to the other, because Obama has the precedent of MLK to inspire *him*.
> 
> When people make the comparisons to MLK, they do not mean "greatness", in the sense of already having *had* a positive impact on the world. What they mean is that a) the guy is a great speaker, and b) he is capable of using that gift to inspire people and give them hope. These are not small things, but neither do they make one instantly deserving of a place in the history books as if great things had already been accomplished.
> 
> Yesterday, through a variety of circumstances, I'm attending a work function and run into a guy I used to work with who now holds the position of Speaker of the Canadian Senate. Insolent dog that I am, and also because I knew him when he was *just* "Noel", looking for seconds on the brownies in the faculty lunch room like me, I call him by his first name and we connect. We caught up with news (the recent tragic loss of a well-loved mutual teaching colleague in Fredericton who was either murdered or otherwise killed in the midst of what appears to have been a domestic dispute by a violent son-in-law, who then took his own life), shmoozed a bit, and did "the business card thing". He's a decent guy; smart, principled, reasonably articulate, a good committee worker, but not the sort of guy that when you're finished chatting with him you leave with a glow about you. A huge chunk of government is like that; folks who do their job well but don't really fire you up. As a result, when people find someone who does fire them up, they miss that feeling and they get VERY excited about politics again. Which is as it should be. And if it reminds them of the very best image they have in their mind of what they believe government should be each and every day, that's great. Be realistic, certainly, and don't invest anyone with messianic powers, but don't let it sour you when people make those sorts of comparisons.


Nice, very well said.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Starbuck said:


> Nice, very well said.


Yup. Obama is a man, not a Mesiah, however it's a vital role for politicians to inspire and motivate and clearly he has those qualities.


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

Milkman said:


> Why didn't this come up with Bush? If anyone needed to be cancelled...


Because the cancellers are _always _in the same camp he is.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Accept2 said:


> Holy shit, now youre comparing the guy to MLK?!?!?!?!?!? Wow, I now feel sorry for Obama, because obviously you guys will put a hell of alot of pressure on him to perform miracles, and then when he doesn't deliver, you'll feed him to the wolves................


Personally, I think this is a very cogent point.

On the one hand, the last 8 years have been so disappointing for so many, with respect to the comportment and wisdom of the US government, that the bar is now set ridiculously and embarrassingly low. Almost any doofus could get in there and look good. On the other hand, while the bar is set low,the expectations, and yearnings of the electorate *have* been set quite high. Obama will (assuming the presumed inevitable happens today....and comes to a conclusion today) most certainly require a warming up period to hit cruising speed. That, in turn will require some serious image management for the first 100 days. It will also, of course, require loads of good luck so that nothing gets dropped in his lap that might blow up in his face.

T'wer I, in the role of senior advisor, I'd suggest that - circumstances permitting - he visit Indonesia and maybe Kenya on the flight back home. Huh? Yep, Indonesia. It is a VERY big place, and itself a hotbed of Islamic tension and fundamentalist fervour. It is also a place that he has family connections to, and has the potential to be a big player in tempering fundamentalist fervour by giving him a stage to say "Hey, we're in talking mode now. This is the new USA. The one that won't ignore you just because you don't have oil. Our humblest of apologies for forgetting about you until now." Sure, there'd be some security issues, but it'd be so out in rightfield (or leftfield) that it could set a new tempo/vibe.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

devnulljp said:


> Because the cancellers are _always _in the same camp he is.


Yes. That's sad but true.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Im still trying to picture Obama in the same league as MLK. I cant seem to remember MLK wearing expensive suits, driving a BMW, spending his campaign moneies on a half hour prime time spot. My history may be foggy, but I cant equate that to being a guy who in the middle of segregation and race riots, standing up for what he belived in, while even those he was standing up for rejected his ideals and embraced those of Malcolm Little. I equate MLK with JHC. I equate Obama with no one on the same level. Not even close. Not even a tiny bit.........


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Don't confuse what you see with what someone is able to accomplish. Rev. King had plenty of weak spots as a human being, that much has been written about. But big deal. He accomplished a lot, and became a symbol of what's worth working towards for a great many people, because of what he was able to accomplish. (I might point out that it was the much-maligned Lyndon Johnson who brought in Civil Rights legislation,and not King himself. That takes nothing away from King, but remember he didn't do it all himself. Those accomplishments were shared.)

Has Obama accomplished a lot so far? Some would say no, but then you'd have to explain the considerable millions of Americans, and many more millions in Africa, to whom he has given hope simply by being *where* he is right now. That's no small feat.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Those who dislike Obama will never change their minds. The rest of us are excited and optimistic about what is about to take place south of our borders.

The fact that he is being compared to MLK and JFK is interesting. It may turn out that both pale by comparison, depending of course on your preconceived notions about all of the above.

It will be difficult for even the most staunch supporters of right wing politics to suppress the positive and long awaited celebration I expect.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

I like the JFK comparison, and Paul, JFK was a guy who represented the space age. He was one of the most enlightened presidents ever, and looked to the future and technology as being the way to greener pastures. But, please, no more King comparisons. Please...........


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

Paul said:


> The big question is: Will Oprah accept a Cabinet position? (and I'm not being a smart ass here...I think she is a viable candidate for a minor cabinet position, either Secretary of Education , or Secretary of Health and Human Services.)


OMG!! I certainly HOPE not! Not being one of the Talks show crowd I'm not a fan. Yes she's smart etc etc, but man, she's a megolomaniac! She has a magazine with HER OWN picture on it every month! That would just be moronic IMHO.


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

Paul said:


> I don't understand the mythology of JFK. Aside from being on the receiving end of a very public murder, he really didn't accomplish that much in his short time in office. The two big foreign policy issues he dealt with were The Bay of Pigs, and The Cuban Missle Crisis. Based on results, JFK's record is 50-50.


Two words: Marilyn Monroe 


Paul said:


> On the plus side, Barack Obama is NOT being compared to Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton.


 I'm sure BillO must have made that remark though. remember that thing in the restaurant a while back where he was surprised_ they_ were just like _normal_ folks? 


Paul said:


> The big question is: Will Oprah accept a Cabinet position? (and I'm not being a smart ass here...I think she is a viable candidate for a minor cabinet position, either Secretary of Education , or Secretary of Health and Human Services.)


That's not even funny. <looks for the "runs screaming from the room" smiley>

But it looks like the election's all over and done with now, they might as well pack up and go home. Obama won Dixville Notch in New Hampshire marking the first election in 40 years that a Democratic candidate has won the presidential vote there. And he won by a landslide too: 15-6 votes for 71% of the vote.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

JFK is remembered partly because he was killed too soon to screw up. Same way James Dean is fondly remembered because he died well before getting caught with a needle in his arm or a transvestite hooker wrapped around his....

That's cynical, though. Kennedy's assassination made a lot of people sad because he initially gave them a lot of hope, and hope is a very valuable commodity. It is for that very reason that Obama gets compared to Kennedy; he makes them feel the same way.

Oprah Winfrey in the cabinet? Um, no thank you. Quite apart from how irritating she is as a human being, there is the small matter of how vast and diverse her empire is, and the sheer difficulty of installing her in any position that would manage to avoid conflict of interest charges. She'd simply never successfully clear any congressional committee.

I think it would be a magnanimous gesture, and a step in the right direction for either presidential candidate to offer a cabinet position to the other. The tricky part is identifying a position that strikes a balance between the awkwardness of too much influence, and the embarrassment of too little. Once the offer is made, I think the sensible thing to do is to then turn it down, so as to allow the elected president the opportunity to have their own identity, and not have folks continually second-guessing.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

mhammer said:


> The comparisons to MLK need to be placed in context. MLK had no specific non-Biblical individual to compare himself to as precedent. BO *does* - MLK. So, right away, it makes no sense to compare the one to the other, because Obama has the precedent of MLK to inspire *him*.
> 
> When people make the comparisons to MLK, they do not mean "greatness", in the sense of already having *had* a positive impact on the world. What they mean is that a) the guy is a great speaker, and b) he is capable of using that gift to inspire people and give them hope. These are not small things, but neither do they make one instantly deserving of a place in the history books as if great things had already been accomplished.


I personally don't put him in the same league (even though I made the comparison:smile. What I do believe is that a very large majority of the people voting for him DO put him in that league, and are probably expecting him to work miracles. If he doesn't win I'll feel sorry for the States. If he does win I'll feel sorry for him trying to live up to those expectations. It's gonna be tough.


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

davetcan said:


> I personally don't put him in the same league (even though I made the comparison:smile. What I do believe is that a very large majority of the people voting for him DO put him in that league, and are probably expecting him to work miracles. If he doesn't win I'll feel sorry for the States. If he does win I'll feel sorry for him trying to live up to those expectations. It's gonna be tough.


You're right but the other half paint him as the Antichrist and are spouting Revelation all over the place! Silly Fools!


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

Starbuck said:


> You're right but the other half paint him as the Antichrist and are spouting Revelation all over the place! Silly Fools!


Too true :smile:

(slightly less than half I think :smile


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

Starbuck said:


> You're right but the other half paint him as the Antichrist and are spouting Revelation all over the place! Silly Fools!


You're way politer about that segment than I find myself capable of being. They have to do that though, because otherwise they'd have to look in the mirror and realise (a) they're going to lose and (b) they're wrong. And they've got nothing factual to throw at him. He's a terrorist, a muslim (oh horror! and the irony meters explode), an elitist, a black panther, a not-the-right-kind-of-christian, unamerican, antiamerican, sexist, racist, socialist, inexperienced, washington insider,...it's like neocon bullshit buzzword bingo and nothing sticks. It's beautiful to watch. 
But it seems like for the first time in a long time the frontal lobe carrying segment of the population down there is feeling positive that they might finally get to climb out of that limbic system-driven reptilian cesspool they've been swimming around in for the last 8 years. That too is nice to see. 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/us_elections_2008/7700298.stm

I'm hoping we get to hear a little less from Michele Malkin, and Rush, and BillO, and Anne Coulter in the coming years, but I somehow doubt it.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

devnulljp said:


> You're way politer about that segment than I find myself capable of being. They have to do that though, because otherwise they'd have to look in the mirror and realise (a) they're going to lose and (b) they're wrong. And they've got nothing factual to throw at him. He's a terrorist, a muslim (oh horror! and the irony meters explode), an elitist, a black panther, a not-the-right-kind-of-christian, unamerican, antiamerican, sexist, racist, socialist, inexperienced, washington insider,...it's like neocon bullshit buzzword bingo and nothing sticks. It's beautiful to watch.
> But it seems like for the first time in a long time the frontal lobe carrying segment of the population down there is feeling positive that they might finally get to climb out of that limbic system-driven reptilian cesspool they've been swimming around in for the last 8 years. That too is nice to see.
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/us_elections_2008/7700298.stm
> 
> I'm hoping we get to hear a little less from Michele Malkin, and Rush, and BillO, and Anne Coulter in the coming years, but I somehow doubt it.


I'm a died in the wool conservative here at home but nothing about Obama scares me as much as Palin


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

devnulljp said:


> You're way politer about that segment than I find myself capable of being. They have to do that though, because otherwise they'd have to look in the mirror and realise (a) they're going to lose and (b) they're wrong. And they've got nothing factual to throw at him. He's a terrorist, a muslim (oh horror! and the irony meters explode), an elitist, a black panther, a not-the-right-kind-of-christian, unamerican, antiamerican, sexist, racist, socialist, inexperienced, washington insider,...it's like neocon bullshit buzzword bingo and nothing sticks. It's beautiful to watch.
> But it seems like for the first time in a long time the frontal lobe carrying segment of the population down there is feeling positive that they might finally get to climb out of that limbic system-driven reptilian cesspool they've been swimming around in for the last 8 years. That too is nice to see.
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/us_elections_2008/7700298.stm
> 
> I'm hoping we get to hear a little less from Michele Malkin, and Rush, and BillO, and Anne Coulter in the coming years, but I somehow doubt it.


LOL!! you're right but no sense getting all worked up over it. I lurk over at a conservative thread and cannot believe some of the crap these people say! Socialist, Antichrist, Neo Hitler, it's unbeliveable.. Can't wait to see what they're talking about tomorrow. The only thing that bothers me about Obama is when he says "we're going to change the world" Maybe so, but he's got to change his own country 1st! Don't even get me started about Rush and Bill Rielly, I'm not a violent person, but I could go after those two with a baseball bat!:smilie_flagge17: 

BUT unequivically (sp?) what bothers me the most is how the christian conservative talk about Obama being a baby killer and throwing clips into their AK 47's so they can be prepared to use them!! WTF? Hypocrit much? THey talk about freedom to bare arms, but forget the one about freedom of religion. It's made for very interesting reading.


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

davetcan said:


> I'm a died in the wool conservative here at home but nothing about Obama scares me as much as Palin


Did you see Jon Stewart's take on the Canadian election? He referred to the Conservatives as the equivalent of their Gay Atheist Communist Rainbows party (or something like that). Sarah Palin is not conservative, she's just stupid and as much of an insult to right-leaning voters as her characterisation of "regular people" as Joe Sixpack.

EDIT: Just found the clip: 
It was Gay Nader Fans for Peace.


----------



## mario (Feb 18, 2006)

davetcan said:


> I'm a died in the wool conservative here at home but nothing about Obama scares me as much as Palin



Yeah...she scares me. That whole thing about going to war with Russia over Georgia . LOL, but I must say....she is hot!


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

mario said:


> Yeah...she scares me. That whole thing about going to war with Russia over Georgia . LOL, but I must say....she is hot!


You need to get out more :wink:
C'mon people, an intervention is needed here


----------



## mario (Feb 18, 2006)

devnulljp said:


> You need to get out more :wink:
> C'mon people, an intervention is needed here


LOL Glasgow.... I do not even come close to her political beliefs.....but yes, she is hot! ....and LOL, I do get out!:wave:


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

mario said:


> LOL Glasgow.... I do not even come close to her political beliefs.....but yes, she is hot! ....and LOL, I do get out!:wave:


Dunno man, if its politicians you're going for there's really going to be slim pickins unless the fat old white guy thing does it for you...Now Rama Yade or Ségolène Royal...another matter altogether. 
But I digress...


----------



## mario (Feb 18, 2006)

devnulljp said:


> Dunno man, if its politicians you're going for there's really going to be slim pickins unless the fat old white guy thing does it for you...Now Rama Yade or Ségolène Royal...another matter altogether.
> But I digress...



Wow...don't quite get it, but if I offended you (or anyone else for that matter), sorry.:food-smiley-004:


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

mario said:


> Wow...don't quite get it, but if I offended you (or anyone else for that matter), sorry.:food-smiley-004:



I'm pretty sure it was just a comment on the fact that there aren't too many good looking women in politics :smile: 

Never thought much of Segolene myself but Rama is very attractive. :food-smiley-004:


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

It appears to be all but over. McCain does not stand a chance of winning. I thought it would be a bit closer.


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

mario said:


> Wow...don't quite get it, but if I offended you (or anyone else for that matter), sorry.:food-smiley-004:


No not at all -- just joking around. Didn't mean to sound snippy (which I obviously must have: Sorry). :food-smiley-004:

Are we all watching this coverage? It's looking like a rout. Well done America. 

EDIT: Well that was certainly more exciting than October 14, 2008, wasn't it? BBCs got 338 to 155. Welcome back America.


----------



## violation (Aug 20, 2006)

Way to go Obama! The "new puppy" part of his speech was worth watching alone lol.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

*One thing this election outcome does mean for sure...*


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

And here's a graphical representation of McCain's concession speech:


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> It appears to be all but over. McCain does not stand a chance of winning. I thought it would be a bit closer.


Frankly, I'm a little surprised it was as close as it was. Naturally opinions will vary, but I'm very happy with the outcome.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

GuitarsCanada said:


> It appears to be all but over. McCain does not stand a chance of winning. I thought it would be a bit closer.


Well it WAS close. The electoral college votes provide the decisive win, but the popular vote had a much narrower point-spread.

Actually, I thought McCain's concession speech was magnanimous. Confirmed my respect for the guy. I think he was the wrong guy for the job at this time, but he's a good man, and he showed it in spades last night. Good on him.

The lineups at the polling booths were what made my day. The lineups were a result of the understaffing of polling stations. That, in turn, resulted from using the historically declining turnouts as a basis for predicting how many people would be needed for the job of running polling stations. Suddenly, America remembered democracy, and it was beautiful to see. Every line that went down the block told me how much they remembered it.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

mhammer said:


> Well it WAS close. The electoral college votes provide the decisive win, but the popular vote had a much narrower point-spread.
> 
> Actually, I thought McCain's concession speech was magnanimous. Confirmed my respect for the guy. I think he was the wrong guy for the job at this time, but he's a good man, and he showed it in spades last night. Good on him.
> 
> The lineups at the polling booths were what made my day. The lineups were a result of the understaffing of polling stations. That, in turn, resulted from using the historically declining turnouts as a basis for predicting how many people would be needed for the job of running polling stations. Suddenly, America remembered democracy, and it was beautiful to see. Every line that went down the block told me how much they remembered it.



That was indeed encouraging. The USA so desperately needs something to rally around, a reason for hope. 

Congratulations to them for turning the corner.


----------



## al3d (Oct 3, 2007)

Paul said:


> According to news reports, McCain's event last night was at the same hotel where he got married. That means he gave his _concession speech in the same place where he got married._
> 
> Am I the only one that finds that funny?


Ahahah..so that's the second time he does it..


----------



## ElectricMahatma (Oct 26, 2008)

I wonder if Dubya's kids are gonna come back and haunt everyone with their own presidency bid 8 years down the line :rockon:


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

Starbuck said:


> BUT unequivically (sp?) what bothers me the most is how the christian conservative talk about Obama being a baby killer and throwing clips into their AK 47's so they can be prepared to use them!! WTF? Hypocrit much? THey talk about freedom to bare arms, but forget the one about freedom of religion. It's made for very interesting reading.


There is nothing Christian or Conservative about these people.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Religion and tolerance for diversity of opinion are two entirely different things; like hair colour and intelligence. Don't assume they always line up.

Some of the comments I heard from some voters that depicted Obama as a kind of Castro-in-waiting were truly bizarre. All of which goes to show that passionate opinions and deep thought are also similarly dissociable (what a statistician would call "orthogonal to each other").


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

ElectricMahatma said:


> I wonder if Dubya's kids are gonna come back and haunt everyone with their own presidency bid 8 years down the line :rockon:



;p the party girls that are part of the "don't restrict me because I'm young!" are a far less fearsome thought than:

http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/uspolls2008/Election_Story.aspx?ID=NEWEN20080070386&

or

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=bc8b6d78-7a2d-4c37-ae5a-f22fc6b51cab


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Personally, I don't look to see anything particularly noteworthy from her (Palin). She was a nice addition to the McCain campaign for a bit, but was selected because of what she could add to a campaign already in progress. Could she generate a platform and campaign of her own? I doubt it. Being able to whip off zingers about your opponent is not the same thing as having a firm handle on what the country needs and assembing a team based on that. Perhaps more critically, she will be a magnet for every bit of bad advice you can imagine; much of the same wrong advice that was attracted to the McCain campaign and resulted in its outcome.

Assuming Obama is in for the two-term maximum, Palin will find herself as forgotten as John Edwards 8 years from now, and the Republicans will have had plenty of opportunity to redefine themselves and develop more and fresher talent. Perhaps Governor "Ahhhh-nult" will be the front-runner, and he'll pack her along as running mate, but Palin as front-runner? I think I'd buy Lotto 6/49 tickets instead.


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

mhammer said:


> Personally, I don't look to see anything particularly noteworthy from her (Palin). She was a nice addition to the McCain campaign for a bit, but was selected because of what she could add to a campaign already in progress.


I think that she was added to the campaigne to appeal to the aforementioned guntoting pro life lunatics and it backfired. They likely were also hoping to garner the womens vote as well which didn't work either. While most of us would likely never opt for it, we still want to make choices for our own bodies.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

Paul said:


> Here's something I don't understand....if the Christian Conservatives are so in favour of the death penalty, why are they so upset about Jeebus getting nailed to a cross? (don't flame me, that's a Lenny Bruce line.)


See .... I tend to avoid the religious talks but I'll venture this much ..... I consider myself to be Christian and I consider myself to be Conservative ..... I, like millions of "christian conservatives" do not believe in the death penalty.

Consider this: 78% of the adult American population consider themselves to be christian. I expect that a good many would also call themselves conservative.

You're using a very big brush to paint an awful lot of people here .....


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

allthumbs56 said:


> There is nothing Christian or Conservative about these people.


I just wish the christians and conservatives would start to stand up and say that...and distance themselves from these unstable whackaloons.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

devnulljp said:


> I just wish the christians and conservatives would start to stand up and say that...and distance themselves from these unstable whackaloons.


Well, the same thing can be said about the extremes of the distribution in any of the major religions. Those Hindu nut jobs that have been attacking Christians in India recently should be clearly distinguished from mainstream Hinduism. Ultra-Orthodox Uzi-toting West bank settlers who think they can bully their way into what belongs to Palestine should be clearly denounced by mainstream rabbis. And of course, imams everywhere have the unenviable task of silencing the extremists who think jihad is equivalent to slicing heads off and blowing up children in the way.

While there is much about his often-smarmy discourse that makes me want to smack him upside the head, one of the things that Bill Maher IS accurate about is that the world's major religions DO tend to adopt some pretty weird beliefs. The result is that the line between the "whackaloons" and the "normals" can be very fuzzy and extremely hard for any religious leader to be able to stand up and say with complete confidence "Everyone on this side of the line, normal. Everyone on that side, hell-in-a-handbasket express."

As for death penalty, I don't think one can divide the world into for and against. There are plenty who describe themselves as being "for" capital punishment, or at least not against it, that would differ considerably in their beliefs about when and how it is acceptable. Some death penalty proponents are happy to mete it out for any act of child sexual abuse, any act of treason, and even manslaughter resulting from DUI. Others who say that they are "not against" the death penalty reserve it for the Paul Bernardos and Clifford Olsen's of the world. I.E., unambiguously demonstrable unrepentent repeat sadists whose incarceration creates problems for the productive incarceration of other inmates who *can* be rehabilitated. So, it's a very big spectrum of qualifications that gets lumped under that allegedly single belief.

And yeah, as many dumb things as Paul Martin did in his haste and impatience, he DID provide a good example of keeping one's faith/denomination and policies separate, so as to be in the best interests of the nation and plurality.

And while I do not wish to wade too deeply into this particular pool, a brief aside concerning abortion. Within Orthodox Jewish law, there is a distinction made between a life, a human life, and a human being. The distinction arises with respect to obligations, and whose rights supercede whose. Under Jewish law, one is obliged to mourn any of the "seven relatives" (mother, father, sister, brother, son, daughter, spouse) for a period of 11 months. If one is observant, that involves a number of social prohibitions that put a serious cramp in your life and the lives of those around you. Children, and the commandment to have them, should not take a back seat to that. Consequently, the requirement to mourn (and one certainly can if one wishes to) is extended only to "human beings". What is a "human being"? Someone who has lived for at least one month. In other words, if a couple gives birth to a stillborn or to a preemie that never makes it past one month of viability, the requirement to mourn is absolved. It's a human life, but not a human being. So they can still celebrate their other kids' birthdays, they can even go on to try and have another kid quickly if they so choose. And if the pain is so great to bear, that it impedes their ability to love their living children, they are permitted to minimize mourning and forget that pain until time gives hindsight and comfort. In other words, it is not a cold unfeeling distinction, but rather one made in sympathy with people and their emotional needs.

I mentioned about some rights superceding others. When it is a question of a human being against a human life, the rights of the human being supercede those of the human life. Not in a flippant or callous way, though. We're talking life and death. The mother is a human being, and the foetus is a human life. A step up from merely "a life", but not in the same league as the mother, so if the mother's welfare is in jeopardy, her rights supercede those of the foetus. The legal distinction permits that and makes it an easier, or less ambiguous call.

Of course, the recently-introduced bill to legislate greater penalties in those cases where a deliberate action (other than a therapeutic abortion) ends the life of a foetus, is reasonably compatible with that view. After all, this is a "human life", and taking a human life is viewed as a more serious crime than killing an animal or destroying property. What Jewish law provides here, that Christian "law" does not, is the legal distinction between human life and human being. That particular distinction makes it possible for therapeutic abortion to be legitimate and not in contravention of biblical decrees not to kill other human beings. It also makes it possible to have a stricter penalty for killing a foetus, without it necessarily having implications for access to abortion. Christian legal opinion blurs those two, while Jewish law permits a reasonable distinction and separation to be found.

So why do I bring it up? Because when some groups strive to put an end to abortion, or a bunch of other areas for that matter, they mistakenly assume that all theologies have/make the same legal distinctions as their own, when in fact that may not be the case. They may THINK that they are addressing the law in a secular and universal manner, but what they may be doing without being consciously aware of it is declaring that "My theology trumps yours". At that point, it stops being secular, and so does the law and the government that makes it.

Of course, with human migration being the way it is, it is becoming a more and more difficult challenge for governments everywhere to accommodate the diverse theologies that make up its populace, and draft laws that accommodate those perspectives without resulting in chaos.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

Paul said:


> I did identify the quip as sourced from Lenny Bruce. Sometimes comedy uses very broad strokes to provoke thought.


Very true. It's also true that some here often use quotes to convey what I assume are their own thoughts (ie. your signature) so I took it as your sentiment as well as Lenny's. I appologise if that's not what you meant.



Paul said:


> The most recent number I found shows that 60-odd% of Americans support the death penalty. 60% of the 78% Christians is still well over 100 million Christians in favour of the death penalty. You need a very big brush for that size crowd.


So that would also mean 60% of the non-christians favour the death penalty, as well as 60% of the democrats?

So it's actually no more "Most christian conservatives" than it is "Most Americans" and you're just being a bit manipulative perhaps?


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Actually I think most Canadians also favour capital punishment, but I think we dont support it enough to demand it. I think the best arguemnt against it for those who support it, is why would you entrust a government who cant even tie its own shoes the ability to kill a person? Its one of those strange things. Another strange thing for Americans is waking up today and having Obama for president. Its amazing how things change, although very slowly. At one time, the KKK was formed by the Democrats to terrorize those who supported the Republicans and the Replicans were the ones who outlawed it. I think theres alot of historical Democrats turning in their graves right now. So, even when the Americans has the ideals of Indpendence and Freedom fresh in their minds, they were ****ing it up..........


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

I'm not sure if this is shopped or not (it looks a bit fishy), but it purports to be from CNN:


----------



## nitehawk55 (Sep 19, 2007)

And I think it's time this moved over to the political thread . How's that for political correctness ? :banana:


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

Paul said:


> You chose to align the beliefs of millions of other Christian Conservatives with your own set of Christian Conservative beliefs. (I'm not sure if both or either Christian and Conservative should be capitalized here.) When you identify yourself as Christian and Conservative, you WILL become aligned, rightly or wrongly with the extremists who get the most media attention. And in the Excited States of American, with 150+ million adult Christians, it only takes a small percentage to speak with a few million voices. THEY are the folks painting with a wide brush, not me.


I suppose if being identified with 76% of the population also identifies me as an extremist....... well .... I guess I am?


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

The "eye for an eye" thing that tends to guide some strongly conservative views about capital punishment is frequently misinterpreted. While I suppose it CAN be interpreted to mean that the penalty MUST be equivalent to the infraction, the actual text is also not incompatible with the intepretation that the penalty cannot be greater than the infraction; i.e., theft is not punishable by death. In fact, the eye-for-an-eye text is embedded in much more extensive portions where very specific penalties for various infractions are spelled out. Some of these are a mite harsh for the infraction from a contemporary standpoint (we're a little softer on adultery than stoning these days), but for the most part they make it clear that punishments should be appropriately calibrated to the infraction and cannot be unreasonably punitive.

The manner in which we have extended this principle in the last few hundred years of law is that we incorporate intent into decisions about the infraction, and more recently things like victim impact, and calibrate punishment on that basis. If I was too damn lazy to change my snow tires or get a decent night's sleep before getting into my car and bombing down the 401, and someone gets killed as a result (e.g., a passenger in my vehicle), it is not just the fact that someone died that determines my punishment, but whether that outcome was a result of my intent. This is why we make a distinction between 1st and 2nd degree murder, between murder and manslaughter, and between regular folks and _non compos mentis_. It is the conscious intent that qualifies the infraction, and determines the punishment, not merely the outcome.

When it comes to the death penalty, I think there are a great many folks who have not thought the matter through thoroughly enough to have their views calibrated along with their views about other infractions and suitable punishment.


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

mhammer said:


> When it comes to the death penalty, I think there are a great many folks who have not thought the matter through thoroughly enough to have their views calibrated along with their views about other infractions and suitable punishment.


Good points. I'd go one further too, having been on both sides of that debate myself...
There's the frontal lobe bit and the limbic system bit, along with the intent of the punishment itself: (1) is it punitive, for some form of retribution? or (2) is it as is often claimed supposed to be a deterrent? 
We know the latter is just not a valid logical reason...crime rates are not lower in places with than in those without the death penalty, so that argument comes down to (a) having not really thought it through or (b) simple rationalisation due to an unwillingness to admit the real reason is (1)...retribution. We know the desire for retribution runs deep and that at least other apes show it. There are many deep psychological, social and biological reasons for wanting to distance oneself from a heinous criminal, and it's certainly hard to overcome the desire to just shoot a child molester and be done with it. I'm sure there are all sorts of religious arguments on both sides too, and despite the old biblical laws I'm initially surprised any religion that purports to the metaphysics of redemption would or could condone capital punishment. (But I also don't put much weight on arguments based purely on authority or revealed dogma, so it's really not that surprising to me that there is inconsistency there).

Another thing to think about, and this is what shifted me very quickly from the knee-jerk just shoot them camp to the other side: a very thoughtful older friend, active with amnesty, pointed out that the death penalty hands the power of life and death over to the state. And that made my blood run cold. Put it that way and I'm surprised the small government tax protester conservatives would condone that at all. 
That got me thinking and I came around to really feeling that the whole deal is just barbaric, and it taints everyone in a society that condones it. 

But I'm rambling.

This thread was supposed to be about the election, and I'm delighted it went the way it did. Disappointed in the whole prop 8 thing, and Michelle Bachmann, but they still did pretty well in my book.


----------



## NB-SK (Jul 28, 2007)

"Another thing to think about, and this is what shifted me very quickly from the knee-jerk just shoot them camp to the other side: a very thoughtful older friend, active with amnesty, pointed out that the death penalty hands the power of life and death over to the state."

Yes, and in many countries the state uses public executions to stifle opposition and dissent. An argument against this sort of gruesome spectacle/intimidation quickly finds itself on a slippery slope if one condones capital punishment in his or her own country.

PS. I gladly give you +1 for your comment.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)




----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Theres a man I would buy a used car from.


----------



## NB-SK (Jul 28, 2007)

Robert1950 said:


>


I think you were supposed to pick your winner before the election was done...

:smilie_flagge17:


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

I'm with Bill Maher, it's nice tosee adults involved in the discussion down there now. Full sentences, grammar, verbs. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SU8LTnzymlU


----------

